Has the NRA shot it's own self in the foot?

What I find ironic is that during the NRA's press conference today, some nutjob went on another shooting spree (in an area where the locals love, love, LOVE their guns, I might add), and still had to be taken down by the cops... not by an armed citizen.

All impartial statistical evidence conclusively shows that more gun control will have no effect on violence. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban and other gun control attempts, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence."

The National Institute of Justice found should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.

The ban on weapons enacted by the UK has greatly curbed gun violence itself, but not violence in general. After the gun ban, violent crime rates became much higher, and in 2009 the UK's violent crime rate was even higher than South Africa's.

In a study done by the University of Chicago, it was found that 700,000 police killed 330 innocent individuals, while approximately 250,000,000 private citizens only killed 30 innocent people. You are 11 times more likely to be wrongfully shot by a police officer than an armed citizen.

Criminologists are the experts who study crime, criminals and their motivation. They make a career on the collection and analysis of statistics surrounding crime. All of the criminologists who have ever changed their opinion on gun control have moved from a position supporting gun control to the side sceptical of it's effectiveness. The longer a criminologist remains in their career, and the more statistical evidence they see, the more likely they are to move away from gun control as a solution. Notable criminologists such as Dr. Gary Kleck and James Wright, who were strong advocates for gun control at the beginning of their careers, are now on record stating that what they have learned in their years of study is that gun control is NOT the answer. If you are so steadfast in your belief that you know more about the subject of gun control and it's effect on crime than the people who have made a career of studying the statistics, and *changed their opinions* based on the evidence they found, then I would posit that you are the problem here. Focusing on something that will not work distracts attention from valuable organisations that fight for effective solutions.

The biggest problem in the gun control debate is misinformation. Gun control advocates seem to find any data they can, be it 28 years old, or just based on statically flawed data; and take it to heart because it confirms the way they feel without actually verifying the data. It's the curse of America today - we have all the information at our fingertips, but people just take whatever lies and misinformation they hear as gospel and refuse to take the time to verify it themselves.

It has been said that "The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common - they do not change their views to fit the facts, they change the facts to fit their views." It's hard to debate with people by citing impartial statistical data when the response you get is just emotional, in-verifiable drivel.

No due to they are very powerful. We do have a right to "bear arms." 2nd amendment.

I agree with the other person who said, "guns do not kill people." Psycho crazies do."

We need to better identify who they are. Parents if you have a child like this get him some help.

It is wrong to do nothing.

Nice pun. Guns don't kill people, irresponsible sociopathic people kill people. With guns.

Yeah, pretty much.

yes they have and it isnt the first time

I sure hope so. I've certainly had enough of their utter #$@#$@#.