The NRA’s Latest Bald-Faced Lie

The NRA is running a new ad on the Internet. The ad is on the home page of the Washington Post. The ad claims, “80% OF POLICE SAY BACKGROUND CHECKS WILL HAVE NO EFFECT ON VIOLENT CRIME.” There is also a video that goes along with the ad. The poll was conducted by Police One. The poll is not merely a real representation for what the real sample size would say. The poll wasn’t even random sampling, but rather promoted on the site for members who have views just like the NRA. The poll didn’t really give a true representation of the amount of people or in this case police that would agree that mental well being would have an effect on shooting incidents. Apparently the 80% representation is based on question which is posted below. When contacted by the author of this article which can be found below, the NRA and Police One gave no response.

This article is definitely an example of an opposing view. At the forefront of the gun control controversy is the NRA. They have been huge components in making sure that the laws don’t become more strict. They would prefer to have the laws where they are or even less lenient. The NRA has no real concern for violence caused by guns. There most important concern is preserving their 2nd amendment. The work of the NRA in no way really aids in helping to prevent violence. If anything they help create violence by protesting and requesting for less strict gun laws.

This is the ad that is currently on the Washington Post webpage.

guns2

This is an example of the question posted on the NRA survey that was questioning whether or not mental health would make a difference in the amount of shooting incidents.

guns3

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/04/_80_percent_of_police_oppose_background_checks_no_the_nra_is_lying.html

Advertisements

Gun Control is DOA in Congress

Guns

This image is an example of an opposing view. It is an image from the article Gun Control is DOA in Congress. The majority of the article centers around the fact that have control over the guns is a disturbance to the 2nd Amendment. The author of the article contends that rational individuals would be more suitable for guns and that gun control would not need to be needed. The author expounds on the fact that we cannot really determine the mental well-being of an individual because of the fact that at any moment minds can change. The author thinks that the laws that are in place are already strict enough. The author only supports making sure that we give guns to sane individuals. This is almost a contradiction to what he states first because he says who can actually measure the sanity of an individual being that it constantly changes.

This is an opposing view in that the author almost asks that gun control not exist and that free reign be given for the purpose of gun use. The author doesn’t support the notion that guns cause violence. He rather supports the idea that it is all in the person at that time.

Well, So Much for Serious Gun Control

The purpose of this article was to discuss the recent decision in the Senate to expand gun control. The article discussed how the Senate could not come to a bipartisan conclusion. This therefore led to the final vote of 54-46 in Senate that would not allow for stricter gun control laws. This relates to our topic just in the fact that it is dealing with gun control. This article is considered to be an opposing article. The author writes this article from the standpoint of the gun-control reform being “dead.” This article is not in favor of our topic. We are for gun control. The Senate’s vote works against our cause to prevent gun violence. One positive from this article is the fact that those individuals that are in the Senate that voted for stricter gun control laws will plan to reconvene and have a second vote.

guncontrol.banner.reuters

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/04/well-so-much-for-serious-gun-control/275081/

2nd Amendment Argument For Guns

2nd Amendment Argument For Guns

Image

The 2nd amendment is often the most over used arguments con gun control people believe.  The amendment does say that all citizens have the right to bear arms, but it is important to not forget the time frame of which this amendment was written.  During that time, there was no FBI or police aid, people had to protect themselves.  So to ensure that legally, the government gave everyone the right to do so by bearing arms. However, with the police force along with other institutions such as the CIAA and marine force, there is no need for that interpretation of the amendment.

Another reason why the 2nd amendment no longer works is because now we both are giving citizens along with criminals the same rights.  With it in place, it gives criminals the ability to always find weapons to injure and possibly kill.  The constitution has been used for centuries to protect and serve the citizens of America, not the criminals in it.  Regulation of guns should be measured, minimal and aimed at criminals, not law-abiding citizens.

The wordiness of the 2nd amendment also plays an important factor.  The grammar skills were not where they are today and so trying to apply it can be a big issue.  The main controversy falls over the wording of whether or not the control of guns falls to the state or district. The amendment implies that it was only granted to the state militia but today that would not apply.

Finally, we have to always remember that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.   While I support the rights of hunters, it is misleading for politicians to frame their Second Amendment arguments by voicing support for those who hunt game. The Second Amendment has a much broader purpose to it, and I would guess its original intent was to protect against tyranny and to ensure the rights of our citizens to safeguard their own lives and property.

NRA Tries To Use Stats In Their Favor

NRA Tries To Use Stats In Their Favor 

Last month, channel 8 news in Las Vegas released an article online detailing the statistical arguments that the National Rifle Association used against more gun control.  The NRA is arguing that legally owned firearms are not the cause of most of the gun related violence in our nation.  They reported in January that since 1991 violence crime has “decreased 49 percent and the murder rate dropped 52 percent” even with 120 million privately-owned firearms added to the streets. They also argued that there are 12 times more murders with fists, hands, blunt objects and knives than with rifles in order to refute the arguments made condemning guns. The article also noted that assault weapons were used in only 1 to 2 percent of violent crimes reported fueling their argument that assault weapons aren’t the problem.  The NRA believe more so that people kill people and guns don’t.  But even with the numbers that they released in this article they still haven’t refuted the fact that these guns that are sold legally ends up in the hands of criminals illegally.  According to the article, the “Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives stated in 1991 that 79 percent of armed career criminals obtained firearms from street sales, criminal acts, associates and relatives, rather than from legal channels.” The fact that so many career criminals are accessing these guns illegally is a problem. We have a problem with guns as a whole in our nation, wether it is sold illegally or legally, once it’s in the hands of the wrong person, bad things can happen.  Gun reform must happen in order for our nation to reduce gun related violence.  Numbers can be used to argue for or against guns but at the end of the day the lives lost due to gun violence is one too many.

You can find this article by clicking on the link below:

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/20962228/nra-says-numbers-support-their-pro-gun-arguments

But as you read this article keep in mind that the NRA are pro-gun regardless of what happens in this nation and Nevada is one of the few states that allows felons to still obtain guns legally, so they are also pro-gun.\

Image