Know The Enemy of Liberty: the National Rifle Association

European's don't waste time committing crimes and murder on small levels like here in the United States.

They just wait to do such things BIG as every 25 to 50 years or so some European Nation will seize control of it's neighbor....take their land and resources....steal the Gold from their Teeth and end up using their SKIN for Lamp Shades!!

They do it BIG AND GRAND!!!

AboveAlpha

 

A firearm in the hands of a sensible person, is an inanimate, completely safe object. I grew up amongst firearms also. As kids, we knew the rules, and there was never an incident. In fact, there has never been any mention of any firearm incident within our entire family history in this country, dating back to 1872. There have been horse related deaths & injuries, men have been killed digging wells, snake bite, car accidents, motor bike, etc. etc. but no one has ever had a firearm incident, outside of wars of course.

 

And the moon might turn into green cheese too - does not mean it will happen. So should there have been a law preventing doctors discussing smoking with patients? Should they be prevented from discussing pool safety, wearing helmets while riding bikes, chewing on gum while walking...

What makes guns so special they should NOT be discussed?

 

A U.S. Citizen who has not committed a Felony has a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to purchase Firearms and Ammo and I have no issue with Background Checks and Waiting Periods and any attempt by any group or individuals outside of State and Federal Government that depending upon certain types of firearms keeps track of and obtains certain Gun Registration Data.....NO OTHER GROUP EITHER PRIVATE OR CORPORATE HAS ANY RIGHT TO DEMAND OR FORCE SUCH DATA FROM CITIZENS.

The problem generated is not just specific to Firearms as certain special interest groups are paying off Judges and Politicians in order to create laws specific to force Citizens to provide a wide variety of Data from types and number of Firearms, Compound Bows, if they smoke, if they are Scuba Divers, if they skydive, if they are Gay or engage in supposedly High Risk Sexual Activity, whether a family is Atheist or Agnostic which denotes a low number of children and a high rate of alcohol and drug consumption and use compared to Highly Religious Families which would then be broken down into how IRISH AMERICAN'S will tend to have on average 3 to 6 kids in a certain time period early in a young couples marriage compared to a African American just married couple which data supports the highest probability among all young married couples of any ethnicity where the Father of at least one child will separate and leave the Family, not pay child support and alimony along with a higher probability that this father will have children out of wedlock.

Now I am simply demonstrating WHAT the Insurance Companies, Healthcare Industry, The American Bar Association, The American Medical Association...etc...etc...etc....does with DATA and if these groups, agencies, corporations and Doctors, Lawyers and DRUG COMPANIES could do it they would get a LAW created that forced EVERYONE to provide every single bit of data and an entire past, present, future and DAY TO DAY, HOUR TO HOUR....MOMENT TO MOMENT ACCOUNTING OF EVERYTHING WE DID, SAID, ATE, DRANK, SMOKE, SHOT, F@#%@&, LIKE.....ETC.....so they could control us and make money off us.

Large Mega-Corps see People as a COMMODITY.

Because of what I do....within less than 6 hours from now in fact....I KNOW THIS TO BE A FACT!!!

AboveAlpha

 

Since when does a casual chat in a medical office become "forcing information"? Surely the medical profession has a "constitutional right" to free speech? Are we going to gag medical officers and prevent them from inquiring about drinking habits? Driving habits? smoking habits?

And I would not have an issue if this were a law to prevent information that could be detrimental to a patient being leaked by the medical profession - it is not such a law. It and the other laws that were attempted to be passed were to prevent the medical profession from discussing guns and gun safety with patients

And I am not saying that is wrong. And yes you probably should be lobbying for increased privacy legislation. In fact I understand that there is a thing called HIPPA over there and if I were you I would be looking into whether or not that applied in your case and if the medical officer breached his duty of care under HIPPA. You have every right to demand privacy. But privacy was not the issue here. It was the gagging of the medical profession

 

If you could...please explain to me what possible reason would there be for Medical Professionals to ask every patient if they own a Firearm other than because they are being directed to do so by Insurance Companies or other parties or groups with an interest.

AboveAlpha

 

This is one of the areas where the average emotive anti gunner argument fails. Standard reactions are deflection, refusal to discuss the topic, even hysterical tantrums in some cases. In particularly desperate cases on this forums, some even resort to the mummy button, which solves nothing. This thread being titled, "know the enemy of liberty : the NRA" we should expect some substantial proof of that assertion by now, none has been forthcoming.

As you pointed out, the incidence of firearm ownership cannot be linked to excessive crime. The simple fact that criminals commit crimes obviously escapes some who aren`t prepared to face facts. As you pointed out, firearm ownership obviously requires responsibilities and discipline. The type of blind anti gun argument indicates a lack of cognitive discipline that indicates that those putting forth these "arguments" wouldn`t make the grade as firearm owners.

I sincerely wish there could be more focus on the real issues, not these shallow diversions.

 

There seems to be a logical fallacy here. If guns are not an increased danger in the home then insurance companies have no basis for increasing premiums. If they are a danger then surely it is imperative that danger minimisation be discussed.

 

NRA blocks gun research:
https://www.apa.org/science/about/ps...-violence.aspx
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html?_r=0
http://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-n...esearch-2013-1
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nra-cong...search-budget/

The NRA being primarily funded by gun manufacturers and dealers:
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/ne...f-freedom.aspx
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/n...oup-pledges-$1-million-to-ben.aspx?s=&st=&ps=
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/n...for-legislative-action.aspx?s="Lead"&st=&p s=
http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-i...nds-nra-2013-1

The NRA buying politicians:
http://www.businessinsider.com/nra-m...licans-2012-12
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.1254996
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv.../nra-congress/
http://www.followthemoney.org/databa...tml?u=1854&y=0

Let me anticipate your response... I assume it will be ""

 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/...by-taking-political-blackmail-to-a-new-level/

 

Sounds like a question the tobacco companies were asking a few years ago, for the same reason.

 

Irrelevant.

Its been known for well over 100 years that smoking was bad for you. Cigarettes were called "coffin nails" starting in the 1880's. Even the tobacco companies knew smoking was bad for your health, they hid the medical data from the public in order to protect their wealth, not because they thought tobacco was safe.

Tobacco use has been a risk factor for medical and life insurance for many decades. All kinds of risky activity is considered by insurance companies - hang gliding, martial arts, SCUBA diving, having a pilots license. Thats because there is a clear conclusion based on the data that certain activities involve significant risk. I have never hear dof an insurance company asking about firearms. Owning a gun or participating in shooting sports is not a risk factor because contrary to the propaganda, owning a gun does not increase a persons risk.

Driving, on the other hand, has a much higher risk than owning a firearm. Thats why most insurance companies (and all when a person applies for a high insurance level) ask how many miles an applicant drives.

 

If Murthy has called for an "assault weapons" ban then he is unqualified. So-called assault weapons are the least used weapon in crimes. The latest FBI data shows 320 people killed by all rifles, of which "assault weapons" are a subset. Thats a rate of 0.1 per 100,000 people. Considering "assault weapons" seem to be the most popular class of rifle in the US, it looks like Murthy is a political animal. He deserves to be run out of town.

And BTW 678 were killed by "hands & feet", over twice as many as by those oh so scary "assault weapons".

 

Still waiting for the part that isn't a perfect analogy for the firearms industry...

Nobody has ever claimed that the NRA has lacked effectiveness in blocking that exact type of study.

Really? How many hours do Americans spend driving on a daily basis in comparison to shooting? Are fatalities proportionately lower in firearms when frequency/duration of use is factored in?

 

Where are you getting your statistics and what are you classifying as an "assault weapon"

Mind you this little opinion piece was on the back of a giant straw man any way as I cannot find anything on Murthy and assault weapons

 

In 2012 (last year I could find), 380 murders were committed with all rifles (assault or otherwise). There were 12,765 murders total. That means of murders in the U.S. in 2012, less than 3% were done with "assault rifles." Using a round figure of 300 million in America, the per capita rate of rifle murder is 380/300,000,000 or less than .1 per 100,000. That figure INCLUDES the school shootings in Connecticut.


http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...able_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls

 

And each and every death was a tragedy.

Would you call for the ban of a cot that killed babies even if it only killed a couple per year? Then why is this different? Tell me please why it is sooooo important to have an assault rifle?

One of the things Australia restricted when we enacted the gun laws was the so called assault rifle - tell me how many mass shootings have occurred in Australia since 1996

 

Of course every death is a tragedy.

The only thing about the assault rifle is that there is no functional difference between them and other rifles, and if one can be banned, they can all be banned. Also, there really is no compelling reason to ban them. More people are killed with clubs and hammers than rifles (of which assault rifles are a small subset).

In terms of the cot, the industry does a pretty good job of taking harmful stuff off the market.

Mass shootings aren't a major problem, even in the U.S. Drug violence is much worse, and is the crime we should be worried about. We can solve mass shootings by just increasing mental health spending. I can't recall a single mass shooter who wasn't mentally ill.

 

I know that independence from the govt is hard for you to understand, but insurance companies have their own research and are not dependent upon the govt. When you get life & health insurance, you agree to provide them information and access to you lifestyle, and they evaluate the claims and conditions (cause of death/injury) related to the claim. They have all the details independent of the govt and politics, thats how the can assign risk and premiums based on things like SCUBA diving and miles driven.

And thats why they dont assign a higher premium based on gun ownership. Their data doesn't support the anti-gun propaganda.

*****

You have argued that car/gun comparison before and your metrics were totally discredited. Maybe you have a new approach now?

 

Really? Did someone prove that there are more vehicular deaths than firearm deaths in proportion to usage?

I think not. Nice try.

 

As I said in my post, I always use the FBI Uniform Crime Reports for US crime statistics. Thats the official US source for crime data. http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats.

"assault weapon" is a banner phrase. They imply it means the AR-15 and AK-47, but in all their legislation (proposed and otherwise) its very broadly defined to include almost all semiauto centerfire rifles and shotguns, many pump action shotguns, and some 22 cal rifles. Banners define it more broadly than AUS category D.

The FBI category of rifles is all long guns (including AR-15 & AK-47 types) which are not shotguns, so it includes all bolt action and single shot rifles (a large category).

Banners have until the past 2 years excluded bolt action hunting rifles, but lately some banners are calling those rifles "sniper rifles" and want them banned. Just more evidence banners want all firearms banned, and they lie when they deny it.

 

I shoot more times than I drive a car. I've never even nearly killed anybody with a gun. I've had dozens of near misses in a car. This is for accidents. I wouldn't include shooting someone in self defense, since that is the purpose of the gun. I don't buy cars for self defense.

 

Define "usage"? The last time you compared hours driving and bullets fired, and you were destroyed. Are you going to repeat the suicide mission?

 

this, of course is presented by a person who thought 00 buckshot was safe............roflmao