Know The Enemy of Liberty: the National Rifle Association

And yet earlier in this same thread the threat of increase in insurance company premiums was used as the rationale for the NRA banning paediatricians talking to parents about guns in the home

 

But not by me. If you mean this one

he has a good point. While insurance companies don't currently consider firearms in their risk calculation, other parties certainly have an interest in who owns a gun. Under obamacare, all medical records have to be digitally stored (the Electronic Medical Records mandate, referred to as EMR) and provided to a central data hub. The federal govt (including the Independent Payment Advisory Board, the notorious "death panel", even progs are calling it a death panel now) has access to the data, ostensibly to review treatment effectiveness which will in turn be used to determine what treatements are allowed for the various patients.

But it was clear the "progressives" had ideas to create an informal gun registry by including firearm data in the medical database via your doctor asking about guns in your home. Freedom loving Congressmen put a clause in obamacare that prevents firearm questions from being asked - if the progs had read the bill they would have caught that, but they didnt read it (score one for the good guys).

BTW, another clause in obamacare was also missed by the progs - doctors are supposed to ask everyone about their sex life, including frequency, number of partners, gender of partners, what type of sex, what protection they use, pregnancies, abortions. All of it going into the data base. I can't wait to hear how the progs - and women - handle this one.

 

they'll be ecstatic because they can stick their freaking noses even further into our business. I just told my doctor to go to hell and refused to answer those very personal questions.

 

more cartoons...................it matches most of the libs posts. All BS and nothing better

 

Ever heard of a psychologist's fallacy?
How many fatalities have you caused with a car?

 

Define "usage" the same way for both and the results are unchanged.

The fact that a few folks don't like the facts doesn't "destroy" them.

 

You know the old "Cars kill more people than guns" might just need a rethink

 

When it came to protecting American's inherent rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, the NRA was definitely "out to lunch" defending our inherent rights back in 1939 (United States v. Miller), and again in 1968 (Gun Control Act) and unbelievably, asleep on the job again in 1986 (Firearm Owners Protection Act).

Needless to say, as a life-long firearms owner and a staunch supporter of The Bill of Rights, I've never been too giddy about the NRA.

But I'll always send them my hard-earned dough every year as long I live and breathe.

Any group that is supported by five-million Americans that stands up, opposes and fights the Progressives, Socialists and Marxists currently entrenched, infecting and operating in Washington, District of Criminals is well worth the $35.00 per year that I send them.

However, I will admit that rights-defending organizations like The Second Amendment Foundation (McDonald v. Chicago victors), Gun Owners of America, The Second Amendment Sisters, et cetera...get the lion's share of my money.

The NRA isn't the only pro gun/civil rights organization in America, nor are they the best. The NRA is just the most persecuted and despised by media, leftists, socialists, progressives and Marxists because it swings the biggest stick.

 

Unfortunately you are currently bankrolling the advertising arm of the armaments industry - the NRA sold out years ago

 

Thats not what I asked. What is your definition of "usage"? What metrics are you claiming?

The last time you tried this, you used ridiculous metrics and made up your own numbers.

 

No.

Your chart for firearm deaths is suicide plus homicide. Suicide is not homicide, suicide has very different motivation and prevention than homicide. Suicide is killing yourself, homicide is killing someone else. Thats typical of banners, lump unrelated items togethor to inflate the numbers.

 

Does not matter - you would still see an overall reduction in deaths - especially since America has such a high rate to begin with



However I do concede there is a degree of substitution effect in relation to suicide - however it is not totally accounted for

 

Look at the chart of total suicide. The drop in firearm suicide was negated by increases in suicide by other methods.

And as you already know, homicide in AUS increased from 1995 to 2001 (in 2001 up 16% above the 1995 rate), then dropped and is now 33% below the pre-ban 1995 rate. During the gun buy back, fiream homicide decreased, but total homicide increased.

 

I seriously doubt that I and five million other American are bankrolling the armaments industry (which is a huge multi-billion dollar industry, by the way).

Here's what Wiki says:

Case in Point: My everyday sidearm that I legally carry is manufactured by Heckler & Koch. And I can tell you unequivocally that I've never once seen an H&K advertisement in any of their monthly membership magazines. The same can be said of my favorite Sporting Clays shotgun made in Italy: Silma. In fact, considering the myriad of firearm manufacturers in the U.S. and abroad, only a fraction of them advertise in the NRA publications and on their television programming.

Like I said, the NRA isn't perfect, but I will give them a small percentage of my hard-earned money annually. To me, it's totally worth it. The other gun/civil rights organizations get ten times or more compared to the pittance I give the NRA.

As an aside, the NRA for decades was comprised mainly of hunters (many less members, too). Hunters that neither cared or understood what the intentions were of the Founders and Framers of America who inserted the Second Amendment into the the Bill of Rights.

But things started changing within the NRA when America was saddled with a rights-infringing president, Bill Clinton, and backed by a Democratic controlled congress. That Progressive trio brought Americans the Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), which has been proven to have been a knee-jerking, rights-infringing legislation that appeased leftist extremists, Progressives, socialists and Marxists.

The AWB mislead the naive and apolitical telling them that "black, scary one-trigger-pull-per-shot rifles" were actually select fire/fully automatic weapons. The AWB accomplished absolutely nothing for ten years except harass and hinder lawful Americans; and the Democrats paid the price for it dearly at the voting polls, too.

NRA membership numbers started increasing after the passage of the AWB; and many hunters went back to school, so to speak, and re-learned early American history, I guess.

When America elected a lying Marxist to the Oval Office in 2008 who had a well documented record of being anti-Second Amendment, NRA numbers, once again, increased. But this time it was a significant increase - almost doubling.

I think the NRA figured out about 20 years ago or so that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with inherent civil rights.

 

Here is total suicide in Australia (AUS Bureau of Statistics, Suicide)



Showing only firearm related suicide makes it look like removing firearms had a significant impact on suicide. That is misleading but typical banner propaganda. Total suicide increased the first 3 years of the gun ban, then decreased to around 10% below the preban rate and leveled off.

 

And if he has the same software program that my opthalmologist uses, he can then note that you were uncooperative. (I looked over the medical assistant's shoulder when she was typing into it).

 

he sat right next to me and I saw how he filled it out and hit send. The question on firearms was answered by him. He's a hunter and a firearms owner.
Marital bliss, depression, etc all responses answer more or less.............less.
Every now and them some people catch a break. I did with my doctor.

 

Yes it took time - but it DID drop and stay dropped and it is not just Australia where there is a correlation between stricter gun laws and deaths



This is even more telling

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/a...in-certain-nations-is-due-to-gun-homicides-19

 

Hmmm - how reliable are the membership figures from the NRA??

http://socialjusticesisters.wordpre...lies-about-membership-numbers-to-push-agenda/

Even your own link from Wiki states that the NRA is receiving money from the armaments industry - a substantial amount of money.

 

But your original arguement was that the removal of guns resulted in reduced suicide, which was not true. There was reduced use of firearms in suicide, but not reduced suicide. The data doesn't support a relationship between suicide reduction and firearm availability.

Your chart is total death by firearm, which is suicide and homicide. As just demonstrated, firearm availability and suicide are not related. If you use the same OECD data as your chart (2012 murder rate, 2007 firearm ownership rate), but only for murder, you get this (USA is the red dot - #1 in gun ownership rate, #85 in murder rate):




The correlation between murder rate and gun ownership rate is weak but definitely in the direction of more guns, less murder.

Again, suicide and homicide are not the same and cannot honestly be treated equally, and only looking at firearm suicide and homicide is also incorrect.

Your second chart also mixes disparate nations. That ascending line of red squares is composed of Southern & Middle African nations and some Central American nations - 3rd world nations with governments which are disfunctional, corrupt, and/or engaged in a war with neighbors or insurgents, and the infrastructure is insufficient to the needs of the people.

And what is unknown is the contribution by the govt or govt proxies to the homicide rates. When the govt murders, then "gun control" laws are meaningless.

The green squares which are scattered under the line of red squares represent nations with broken societies, but without access to firearms. They do have knives, spears, machetes. The death rates are lower than the "red square" nations, but all that says is war/barbarism with guns kills more than war with knives (but maybe knives are more cruel and torturous).

Those nations cannot be compared to 1st world industrilaized nations, all of whom have working and efficient societies, and almost all lie in the bottom stretch of the chart in the lower left corner.

Your chart does not support the claim that gun control works.

 

Do you ever get the impression you are pissing in the wind?

 

Teaching kids how to handle guns does not result in out of control, gun-toting teenagers. Your link states: [I"]No single study has adequately explained the decline in firearm-related homicide rates."[/I] So...There has been a decline in fire-arm related homicide rates, no data to prove why one way or the other.....So the whole article is opinion.

 

LOL, yes.

 

Since the results are the same if you define "usage" the same way for both tools, your question has no relevance.
I clearly illustrated this last time you challenged the "metrics", and provided clear sources for all numbers that went completely unchallenged.

Making up your own reality doesn't change the facts.