Search This Blog

Loading...

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

NRA afraid of gun violence statistics


 
Where do you go to find out what states have the highest proportion of gun ownership?  Or whether gun ownership correlates with homicide rates in a city?  How many guns used in homicides were bought legally?  Where juveniles involved in gun fatalities got their weapons?  What factors contribute to mass shootings like the Newtown, Conn., one that killed 26 people at a school?  You wouldn’t go anywhere because the data isn’t available thanks to Wayne LaPierre and the National Rifle Assn. (NRA).  They made sure in a 1996 law that stopped gun control research in its tracks.
 
The Associated Press reports that although almost as many Americans die from gun violence as car crashes each year, nothing is done to analyze the former, but the latter has been studied thoroughly, significantly bringing down the number of car crashes even when the number of cars on the road goes up.  Here’s an anomaly to illustrate the absurdity of this situation:
 
"If an airplane crashed today with 20 children and 6 adults there would be a full-scale investigation of the causes and it would be linked to previous research," said Dr. Stephen Hargarten, director of the Injury Research Center at the Medical College of Wisconsin.
 
This is all true because of a law that wacky Wayne LaPierre and his bunch of gun nuts pushed through Congress in 1996 following a study a few years earlier showing that “people who lived in homes with firearms were more likely to be homicide or suicide victims.”  Following this no government agency dared to do anything on the subject for fear of losing their grant money.  Sixteen years later, we have no real concept of exactly what is causing gun violence.  Except the one thing we know is that gun violence is caused by guns. 
 
What we need is a “black box” like airliners and newer model cars.
 
Let me give you an idea why the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) doesn’t want this research.  MSN did an article on state gun regulations with the following results:
 
  • Only six states require mandatory background checks on all purchases at gun shows.  They are Oregon, California, Colorado, Illinois, New York and Connecticut.
  • Only seven states require mandatory background checks on assault weapons.  They are California, Colorado, Minnesota, Illinois, New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.
  • Only seven states have restrictions on high-capacity magazines.  They are Hawaii, California, New Mexico, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey and Massachusetts.
 
When you combine all of the states included in the non-requirements, it adds up to humongous sales for gun manufacturers, and that is why the NRA is in business; to make sure these companies sell more and more guns, more and more ammunition, and more and more gun accessories like high-capacity magazines.  And for their efforts, the NRA receives millions in donations from these gun companies each year.  Since 2005, those donations have totaled just under $39 million. 
 
The NRA can’t survive without this money and gun companies cannot survive if we learn the morbid statistics on gun violence.
 
Private funding for gun control research has been a paltry amount when compared to potential federal grants.  When you Google “private research grants for gun control,” you get some general stuff but nothing specific to gun control.  One of the most topics that did show up is the question of whether or not Obama’s executive orders would get gun control research going.  Unfortunately, the money required to fund this research requires an act of Congress and we all know there are enough yellow bellied NRA butt-kissers to stop that.  Unless…???
 

8 comments:

  1. Ok "Nasty Jack":

    At what point is the Government doing too much?...as if they aren't already.But, "you know one thing and that is that guns are the problem"...? You mean, it cant be the unlawful owners/criminals who are operating the guns. If they took the time to obtain a permit, it would be obvious that the gun was for protection in non-nuisance situations. Although even in this situation it may be for protection, it is used for drug related protection from new drug suppliers or gang members where the gun is more likely to be used, which is dispicable.. especially for me since I have the privelege of being lobbed into this category of inner city thug now just for being lawful gun owner.

    You admitted it yourself as "not knowing the real statistics of gun violence"... So wouldn't you vouch for research before jumping to the conclusion of removing freedoms first. The person who believes disarming america is going to be beneficial or stop somebody from killing one another is a mindless liberal who only agrees with his own opinion. Why cant people REALLY put theirselves in someone else's shoes or be "for the people" as liberals claim to do or be?

    Wouldnt you agree that a california arsonist has the same capability to kill large amounts of people and porperty with the use of a lighter? Should we ban them? Aren't there other means of killing people? So now criminals and disturbed individuals can kill others with a 7 ound clip instead of a 20 round clip? Before you know it we are going to be getting tickets for not wearing our life jackets to drive to the store because the water comes within 5 feet of the road where you live.

    BTW: I like the voting map and gun violence correlations for the 2012 election. Have you seen that yet?


    Ryan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First of all, nothing is obvious when it comes to gun worshippers. Second, we don't have the statistics on gun violence like, ie., car crashes, because of your wacky Wayne LaPierre; can't you read? Third, yes there are other means of killing people but the ingredients necessary to start a fire aren't normally as deadly as a gun.

      Jack E. Dunning
      nasty Jack Blog

      Delete
  2. By the way "Nasty Jack":

    I think its cute that you get to "approve" which messages you respond to.


    RYAN

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All but anonymous messages are published. If you aren't man enough to put your name on it you're just another coward hiding behind anonymity, which many gun nuts are.

      Jack E. Dunning
      Nasty Jack Blog

      Delete
  3. A little loose with your terms there aren't you Sparky?

    They made sure in a 1996 law that stopped gun control research in its tracks.

    That isn't true at all. The NRA didn't do that, Congress banned the C.D.C from spending money on gun control research. Plenty of research has been done outside of that institution, hasn't there?

    So why do you feel it necessary to distort the truth?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can't you read? Who do you think sponsored and pushed the 1996 law through Congress? LaPierre and his ring of gun nuts.

      Jack E. Dunning
      Nasty Jack Blog

      Delete
    2. Jack,

      I can read but apparently you have problems -- are you saying the NRA - through Congress-- has blocked every individual, every charity, organization, university and group from doing research?

      That is what would have had to happen to make your statement true. But as you know they didn't. They stopped the CDC from research but the CDC isn't the only organization that can do research.

      Delete
    3. Apparently you aren't aware that the CDC has the most comprehensive set of data on gun violence which is compiled from hospitals. Any other source would be insufficient. And as you confirmed, the NRA conveniently cut this off.

      Jack E. Dunning
      Nasty Jack Blog

      Delete

Nasty Jack will accept NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS