DON'T BLAME THE NRA

   Every time a mass murder happens in this country there is an almost knee-jerk reaction in some quarters that the NRA is to blame.  While it is that there are too many automatic weapons in the hands of those who only use them to kill other people, the bottom line is that guns in the hands of those without the intent to harm others are of little danger.  What makes guns lethal in these events is the coming together of guns and hatred.  
   The tragedies of Columbine, Oklahoma City, 9/11 and now Virginia Tech do not share guns as the instrument of murder.  What they do share is the killers' hatred for and a willingness to kill those who disagree with them.  Beating up on the NRA and giving a pass to America's violence cottage industry that exists solely to foment hatred and glorify violence against others is an inappropriate and incomplete response to the Virginia Tech tragedy.

Tags: guns, NRA, virginia tech (all tags)

Comments

31 Comments

Bull

The NRA wants lots of guns in the hands of Americans.  This is what happens.  NRA must take it's share of the blame.

by RadioCity 2007-04-17 11:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Bull

What in anything I wrote contradicts this idea?

by Steve Love 2007-04-17 11:32AM | 0 recs
You're wrong in this case

In this case, this guy was able to discharge 60-90 rounds in a very short time because of one thing and one thing only: multi-round high capacity magazines.  The NRA ensured that he had access to those, by ensuring that the Assault Weapons Ban was defeated; these magazines had been banned under the AWB.  So, the NRA is DIRECTLY implicated in this massacre.  And high-capacity multi-round magazines are simply NOT covered by the 2nd Amendment.

I am sure that you will join me in calling for the elimination and total restriction of these murderous, totally abhorrent devices.

by dataguy 2007-04-17 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: DON'T BLAME THE NRA

I support the right to carry guns. But the NRA has been against waiting periods and there is that ridiculous loophole of anything goes at gun shows. It's amazing how in an age of terror, all our civil liberties are curtailed, yet anything with guns is off the table.

Why should it be easier for me to buy a gun than get a drivers license? COnsidering this kid's troubled background, he probably wouldn't have a psychological profile to make it suitable for him to carry a gun.

by Pravin 2007-04-17 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: DON'T BLAME THE NRA

Exactly. The vast majority of gun crimes are committed by people who are not legal carriers, because legal carries have to go through waiting periods and background checks. Eliminating those checks is a stupid idea.

The NRA has many insane stances that are often completely hypocritical (like vehemently opposing state/federal gun registries, but being perfectly okay with the gov. tapping your phone or knowing what books you check out at the library.)

by College Progressive 2007-04-17 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: DON'T BLAME THE NRA

Virginia doesn't have waiting periods or background checks required for gun show purchases.

by Obama08 2007-04-17 12:06PM | 0 recs
Re: DON'T BLAME THE NRA

"What makes guns lethal in these events is the coming together of guns and hatred."

Steve, I agree.  However there are an awful lot of violent crimes which share guns as a common link.  None of these would happen if guns and hate, or at least passion, weren't combined.  Which is easier to control guns or hate?

by Obama08 2007-04-17 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: DON'T BLAME THE NRA
Excellent point.  Obviously contolling guns would be easier but because something is easier does not mean is will be the solution.  Amputation is the easiest solution to a headache but hardly the preferred...right?  
   I am not suggesting the the discussion of the causes of violence is an easy debate only that without that debate we will avoid talking about the 400lb elephant in the room.  :-)
by Steve Love 2007-04-18 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Are you listening?

  How would the elimination of all guns from private ownership have prevented the Oklahoma City bombing or the 9/11 attack?  I, too, am concerned with the proliferation of guns but have no illusion that eliminating all guns would end acts of violence.  

by Steve Love 2007-04-17 11:45AM | 0 recs
In the last 30 years, there has

been 1 9/11 and one Oklahoma city.  There have been hundreds of gun murders in this year alone.  So, your ridiculous examples demonstrate nothing save your NRA wackiness.

by dataguy 2007-04-17 12:38PM | 0 recs
Re: In the last 30 years, there has

I think if you run the numbers DWI is the number-one killer in America, way ahead of anything else...and I am hardly a NRA sychophant. All I am suggesting is that ignoring the motivation of this man and focusing only on his means is incomplete. Part of the adjudication of a crime is not just determining the means but also the intent...the difference between first degree murder and negligent homocide.  

by Steve Love 2007-04-18 09:12AM | 0 recs
Elimination of Guns

No one has proposed "elimination of all guns from private ownership."  That kind of straw man argument is what makes this topic so difficult to discuss rationally.  

We need some common sense gun laws. No one needs assault weapons.  No one should object to waiting periods.  

Just because one law would not stop all mass-killings does not mean the law is not effective.

I remember when the NRA was a rational organization supporting hunting.  But, like the R party, it went nuts a couple of decades ago.    

by hilltopper 2007-04-17 03:31PM | 0 recs
And this is how the argument is phrased

any reasonable safety precaustions and measures that would have no effect on the 2nd ammendment but would reduce needless violence are transformed mysteriously into "elimination of all guns from private ownership"

by okamichan13 2007-04-17 05:51PM | 0 recs
Re: DON'T BLAME THE NRA

You're right it wouldn't have stopped Oklahoma City or 9/11.  It would end the 30,000 plus gun deaths which occur every year and 65,000 gun injuries.  Additionally, it could have saved 33 lives yesterday.

by Obama08 2007-04-17 12:11PM | 0 recs
The "Whack-a-mole" diary

There is a line of argument, favored by many on the right, which I call the "whack-a-mole" strategy.  In this approach, you engage in argumentation by coming up with an endless list of totally inane and absolutely incorrect arguments.  The idea is to get the opponent to spend all their time treating each argument like it was serious, and pretty soon the clock runs out, and no actual serious discussion has taken place.  

This diary is a prime example of that strategy.  So, I call "troll" here.  This is just another attempt to get people to waste time on another series of idiotic arguments that are totally irrelevant.

by dataguy 2007-04-17 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: The "Whack-a-mole" diary- forgot

"Whack-a-mole" is a carnival game in which you attempt to hit little moles which pop up.  Once you hit one, another one pops up, and you never actually finish off the mole, but just waste all your time hitting fake moles.

by dataguy 2007-04-17 12:51PM | 0 recs
In this case...

In this case, you are the mole.  Just say it, "I HATE guns and I am furious that the constitution allows them and I am going to do everything I can to make it impossible for anyone but the gov't to have guns!"  Own it you fascist...

by MaryGallan 2007-04-17 01:40PM | 0 recs
A the NRA whiner returns

Wittle baby, mean ol' Papa's not gonna take away your little toys.  Just gonna make you act like an adult, not a whining moron.

by dataguy 2007-04-17 01:43PM | 0 recs
The Constitution

It sounds like you have never read it.  If you read it, you would see that the Second Amendment is the only one of the bill of rights to have its own preamble.  It was intended to prohibit the federal government from banning state militias which were viewed as "necessary to the security of a free state."  Indeed, this is pretty much what the Supreme Court found in United States v. Miller (1939), where it found that Congress could ban the interstate shipment of sawed-off shotguns.  It never restricts the ability to regulate weapons of individuals.  

by hilltopper 2007-04-17 03:36PM | 0 recs
Re: The "Whack-a-mole" diary
Wow!  You need to cut back on your coffee.  :-)  
What you call a divergence is something that every criminal judge and jury deal with in every case...the motivation and extinuating factors.  Those might be trivial matters to you only because you have never been on trial.  All I am asking is for us to consider the possibility that this man did not just act alone but had accessories, perhaps unwitting one, but accessories nonetheless...assessories that were a justification in HIS mind for these murders.
by Steve Love 2007-04-18 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: DON'T BLAME THE NRA

i will blame the nra thank you very much...ultimately though one has to also look at the supreme court's failure to interpret the amendment on the right to bear arms with more realism about what the founding fathers intended and meant... also the american people just don't seem to care about the issue... bush knows this so he can say "this is a tragedy we mourn the loss.." blah blah without ever addressing the problem of gun ownership..

by serge in dc 2007-04-17 01:43PM | 0 recs
BLAME THE NRA

Thanks to the NRA, anyone can get a gun in America for any reason.

I know this because one of my friends was married to an ex-con, who was forbidden by law to own a gun, but thanks to the NRA and their "easy gun" policies he never had any trouble buying guns, and always had several around the house.

You can get them at gun shows, pawn shops, through the want ads.

Furthermore, the NRA opposes any legislation which would keep guns out of the hands of people who don't need them, whether it's "fingerprinting" guns to identify them when they are used in crimes, and disrupt the "grey market" dealers. They support the gun show loophole, which allows felons to buy guns without background checks. They want gun makers and dealers to be protected from any and all liabilty for their products, which is a protection no other manufacturers or retailers enjoy.

America is getting a good hard look today at what the NRA and their "easy gun" policies really costs us.

by Sadie Baker 2007-04-17 01:59PM | 0 recs
BLAME THE NRA

The NRA is not interested in the 2nd Amendment, although they pretend to be.  They are really interested in selling guns.  The gun market for gunsel gunnuts is saturated.  What to do, what to do?  Sell guns to criminals, that's the ticket.  Gun shops must sell guns to criminals or they go out of business.  So, they sell guns to straw buyers, sell guns by the truckload, sell guns to anyone who will buy, including ex-cons.  It is so easy to get a straw buyer that anyone could do it.  No records are kept, so if you buy and run guns, it is totally unimportant and you will never get prosecuted.

The NRA is run by and for the gun sales industry.

by dataguy 2007-04-17 03:24PM | 0 recs
Not to mention

remember the guy who sold the DC sniper his guns?

He was on a police watchlist because he had "lost" hundreds of guns over the years -- no paperwork. But their hands were tied, they couldn't shut him down because the NRA-sponsored laws protect him.

So far as I know, he's still in business.

The NRA puts out all that bullshit rhetoric about "rights" and "freedom," and the gullible eat it up.

by Sadie Baker 2007-04-17 05:27PM | 0 recs
Bullseye Shooter Shop

In spokann, WA I believe, and yes, they are still in business.

That's because, to the NRA, all that matters is gun commerce and the economic health of the gun shops.  

Bullseye is one of the worst of the worst of the gun running gun shops.

by dataguy 2007-04-17 06:55PM | 0 recs
Re: DON'T BLAME THE NRA

I do blame the NRA.  They play off the wording of the 2nd amendment.  If you take it in the context of the time, what they are really talking about is maintaining militia's so they could fight off the British if they came back.  

If everyone had a gun, it'd be easier to fight off the British.  Last time we had militia's fighting in a war... Not recently.  We don't all need guns for **'s sake.  

If you want a gun for hunting, that should be fine.  The majority of deaths by hunting guns are accidents during hunting season.  

It's partly thanks to a level of carelessness people have.  They don't respect guns.  A woman left a semi-automatic pistol in her purse, then left her purse where her two year old child could get at it.  The baby shot his dad in the arm.  (The dad lived, but how dumb is that?)  

Pistols make up 50% of intentional murders.  Other guns = 13%.  Total = 63%.

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-04-17 02:07PM | 0 recs
You know what they say,

"when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will accidentally shoot their own children."

I guess you could amend that to "or be accidentally shot by their own children."

by Sadie Baker 2007-04-17 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: DON'T BLAME THE NRA

There's a dichotomy I find entertaining between "1st amendment liberals" and "2nd amendment leftists."

Does everyone here think trust the government enough that they think the right to bear arms isn't critical to maintaining liberty? Obviously this isn't an argument against childproof locks, waiting periods and similar regulations, but I do think that the 2nd amendment is as important to preventing government oppression as any of the others.

by CT student 2007-04-17 04:45PM | 0 recs
I think counting every vote

would go a lot further against preventing government oppression.

Right now we've got easy guns and dirty elections, you tell me, how well is that working out?

by Sadie Baker 2007-04-17 05:34PM | 0 recs
How does owning a gun

prevent government oppression?

does it give better healthcare? does it increase wages? does it stop wars? does it stop government spying on our phones and computers and bank accounts, etc?

We are long past the frontier days

the NRA has blocked every single attempt at any kind of measure to increase safety. This isnt a 2nd amendment argument, you want to hunt deer, thats fine. But this is about public safety.

by okamichan13 2007-04-17 05:40PM | 0 recs
For the gunsel gunwacks

all that stands between America and Tyranny is a few lone gunsels drooling over their Smith-n-Wessons, trying to keep from dropping their weapons due to the large amounts of spittle they have dripped out.

It's a vision of nobility fer sure, if it weren't so patently ridiculous.

I'll take a lawyer any day over some lunatic with 80 handguns.

by dataguy 2007-04-17 06:58PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads