US News: How the NRA's Narrative Has Hijacked American Consensus on Gun Safety
<snip>
These tragic mass shootings serve as a grim but resounding bell tower chime in the nation's public square. But when the ringing fades, the clock ticks on, if quietly. The equivalent of several mass shootings happen every day: 30 homicides and 60 suicides by guns in individual incidents that I'll never be called to discuss and about which you'll likely never hear.
That's 2,700 lives every month – nearly the number lost on 9/11.
The conversations we do have about gun violence are often misleading. In the wake of tragedies like the one in Oregon, for instance, readers are given false choices and reminded that gun control is "a divisive issue" (it is not), even as gun owners who support new laws are rarely heard. The misguided debate pits the gun lobby's hardliners against advocates for stronger gun laws and allows proponents of weak gun laws to portray background-check requirements for all gun sales as equivalent to unconstitutional government disarming of its citizenry.
The NRA and its supporters want Americans to believe that the choice is between gun ownership and, in essence, gun confiscation. This is a far-fetched framing. We require background checks for all gun sales made by licensed gun dealers, and the system has not been used to create a gun registry or to prevent any person from lawful gun ownership. In fact, federal law expressly prohibits such a registry. Baseless claims of gun confiscation inflame culture wars and stymie the discussion of effective solutions.
The us-versus-them narrative, often told without nuance, titillates news consumers, but it works to the advantage of the gun lobby that is desperately defending the indefensible – a system designed to facilitate gun commerce and allow sales to criminals and traffickers with no accountability. This flawed system is a key reason why our homicide rate by guns is 19 times higher than the average for a high-income Western democracy. Our rates of other violent behavior are unremarkably average among such countries.
A more informed and fruitful discussion about what the United States needs to do to substantially reduce gun violence would abandon these tired frames and take into account the fact that we already have answers to these crucial questions:
*Do our gun laws allow people with histories of violence, substance abuse and criminality to own and carry guns in public?
*Do important gaps in our laws make it easy for prohibited persons to obtain guns?
*Do policies exist that would significantly reduce gun deaths while still allowing law-abiding individuals to have guns?
The answer to each of these questions is, of course, yes.
<snip>
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2015/10/30/how-the-nras-narrative-has-hijacked-american-consensus-on-gun-safety
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)and pollute our society.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gQAyLSEiS-g/U7m7rehxcMI/AAAAAAAAA1g/7Mnu_hkYAfk/s1600/open+carry.jpg
?w=400&h=225&crop=1
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)yes you have to allow legal citizens to "arm up", the Constitution allows for private ownership of firearms, there's nothing in the 2A limiting the number of firearms one may own.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)but it doesn't say we HAVE TO DO those things, or that people who do those things aren't sick and polluting society.
That's the real thing, GG, as you try to rationalize your 4 gun safes full of lethal weapons and ammo.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)personal biases.
Would you outlaw all those things?
And I'm not rationalizing anything, I'm exercising my right to keep and bear arms.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)bear arms and contribute to the pollution of society?
I did no such thing.
Reading comprehension is your friend.
I'll ask again, would you outlaw all those things in your post?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I choose to exercise my right to keep and bear arms responsibly.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Well, I guess my safes are full of fun items.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Human101948
(3,457 posts)and bloodthirsty drug crazed rapists smash down your door.
hack89
(39,171 posts)That protecting themselves from home invasions is not a consideration?
Human101948
(3,457 posts)After all, when SHTF and the looters come knocking, they aren’t going to wait patiently while you run to your safe and load up. No one ever wants to use his/her gun against a human target. But if your life is on the line the best gun for survival will always be the one you have on you that’s ready to fire.
http://www.survivopedia.com/keeping-guns-ready/
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I don't worry about such things.
And where did I say ALL my firearms were in my safes?
Does one citizens privately owned goods, responsibly stored, which have not, do not, and will not cause any harm to anyone ever, contribute to societal pollution?
The fact is, it doesn't. It simply does not contribute to YOUR IDEA of what you would LIKE this country to be. A baseless vision of Utopia, devoid of any practicality.
Nothing more.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)You have nothing more to add other than an attempt at an ad hominem attack?
you can't or won't answer the question.
Darb
(2,807 posts)If we allowed citizens to own and carry anthrax, I am sure a vast majority would choose not to, because those little buggers are dangerous. But, let's say we allow them anyway, you know, for self defense against............zombies or whatnot. I am sure some very, very careful scaredy-cats could and would choose to have anthrax stored in their house and it would probably never get out. Now, about the rest of the dumbass scaredy-cats, would you like for those idiots to be able, by law, to keep and bare anthrax in their houses? No, you wouldn't, unless you are a full-scale, RKHA asshat. Which you are not, right? Right?
So your point is mute. We are not talking about widgets, or anthrax, we are talking about guns. They are dangerous. Their ownership and use should be curbed greatly from our present condition.
