If NRA headquarters had a shooting like the rest of the country would we have gun control then?

After one of the school shootings (I forget which one), the NRA had some sort of "responsible gun ownership day" event. In which 6 people accidentally shot themselves (no deaths).

So to answer your question, no.

Oh get real! the NRA is not going to have one of the shootings because it is NOT a gun free zone where all of these shooting take place. These mass shooters that do these shootings are just mentally ill, not stupid. They know that the very best they could do trying to shoot an NRA function would be one or two at most before they got shot to pieces.

Ask your self how many gun shows have you heard of having a mass shooting?

Ask your self how many gun ranges have you heard of having a mass shooting?

Ask your self how many police stations have you heard of having a mass shooting?

Ask your self how many NRA meeting have you heard of having a mass shooting?

I can answer that for you, NONE! Because these mass shooting only take place in the liberal gun control bigots gun free zones.

Why is it none of the disturbed and evil men, who steal guns, or buy them bent on evil, to kill movie-goers, children in school, and Military bases has ever been identified as a conservative, or an NRA member?

Not likely.

The more reasonable approach would be to stop the NRA from lobbying for gun manufacturers and set up a group that lobbies for gun owners. The NRA does not care about the individual user. They only support them when it benefits the manufacturers. Everytime those 2 groups are at odds, the NRA shows its true colors and backs the manufacturers.

As long as people are afraid and arming themselves, the NRA is happy, because more gun sales, means more money from the manufacturers.

if the NRA headquarters had a shooting then the odds are there would be a bunch of dead perps and no dead nra employees.

the problem with gun legislation is that it does not actually address any of the problems. its a bunch of cobbled together crap that will no more prevent a new school or public shooting than changing the color of a football in an nfl game to blue would prevent the opposing team from scoring a touchdown. but that is not what the public likes to hear.

most of this crap is drafted by incompetent legislators who are more interested in making their constituents feel like they are doing something rather than actually addressing and attempting to solve a problem.

The shooter would quickly be gunned down because the NRA building most definitely is not a Gun Free Zone.

1. Never happen

2. No. The NRA's position is pretty clear: it's better to rely on yourself in the moment than it is to trust in luck until somebody else can help you out. An armed response to a homicidal madman can take seconds from armed citizens, but averages over a half hour from police. That's a strong argument in the NRA's favor. The opposition think extreme gun control might decrease violence, but the largest massacre in the last twenty years might have been the genocide in Rwanda in '94, in which hundreds of thousands were hacked to death using machetes and such. Anti-gunners support their position by citing decreases in gun violence elsewhere, supposing that might translate to the US; the NRA support their position citing overall violent crime statistics, generally using home-grown numbers. The latter is a stronger argument.

The shooter(s) would never have time to pull the trigger. You seem to forget that these shootings have taken place in "gun free zones" where the shooter knows there is very little chance of someone stopping them. No one goes on a shooting spree at a police station, do they? But military installations, shopping malls, movie theaters, schools, colleges, and so on all ban guns on the premises.

Even before the world knew exactly how many victims Aaron Alexis had killed at the Washington Navy Yard on Monday -- first reports were "at least three," then six and finally 12 -- advocates for more gun control were using the tragedy to advance their cause.

United States Senator Diane Feinstein, a Democrat from California, asked "When will enough be enough?" She then called on Congress to reopen debate on tighter gun laws -- laws that failed to pass earlier this year in the wake of last December's elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn.

Several Hollywood celebrities and even U.S. President Barack Obama echoed Feinstein's plea for greater control over civilian gun ownership. But a fascinating study out of Harvard University last month proves what gun-rights defenders have been saying for decades: There is little or no correlation between gun ownership levels and gun violence. Some of the most violent countries in the world have strict gun control laws, while many countries with comparatively lax gun laws (Norway and Switzerland, for example) have low, low rates of violent crime.

What determines whether a country, province or even a city has a gun-crime problem is cultural or social, not legislative. For instance, many of the most violent cities in America -- Washington, D.C., Detroit and Chicago -- typically have very restrictive gun ordinances on their books. Meanwhile, states such as North Dakota and Wyoming, where guns are easy to come by, have few crimes.

The Harvard study, called "Would banning firearms reduce murder and suicide?" concluded there is little direct connection between the ease of civilian firearms acquisition and the incidence of gun violence. It points out, for instance, that Norway, where 32% of the adult population is armed (compared with 34% in the U.S.), has one of Western Europe's highest household gun ownership rates, "but also its lowest murder rate."

Russia, one of the most violent countries in Europe, has among the continent's strictest guns laws. Private handgun ownership is banned in Russia. Still, the murder rate there is nearly four times greater than it is in the United States. Annually, the murder rate in Russia is 30.6 per 100,000 residents. In the States it is 7.8 per 100,000.

Scandinavian countries have high rates of private gun ownership. Yet they also have among the lowest murder and suicide rates in the world. In Finland, for instance, gun ownership is 39,000 per 100,000, higher even than in America. That is also nearly 10 times the official rate in Russia. Yet Finland's murder rate is less than one-10th of Russia's -- 1.98 per 100,000 versus 30.6 per 100,000. (It's also only one-quarter of the American rate).

As has been pointed out many times in the past, in Switzerland every adult male is required to have a powerful long gun (usually an automatic or semi-automatic) in his home for defence of the country's neutrality against invasion. Yet Switzerland, like Norway, has a very low rate of murder and other gun violence.

The Harvard study also found that the U.S., which we are told ad nauseum is the most violent country in the world, isn't even close to being the most violent country in the relatively peaceful region of North America and Europe, together. In murders, America ranks seventh behind Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine. In suicides, it is 22nd.

That's a lot of statistics to absorb all at once. But all those numbers can be boiled down to once conclusion: Even if Sen. Feinstein and other gun-control activists got their way, their solution would have no impact.

No as when 911 would be called they would say "No need for a SWAT Team, just send the coroner and a meat wagon."

No

We don't need gun control we need to do more so we would not need guns to protect ourselves..

The bad guys prefer unarmed victims!!.

When seconds matter calling 911 and asking the bad guy to wait is not a viable option.

Better to have a gun and not need it than to need it and not have it!!!

**Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens.**

@

“We are told NOT to judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics."

BUT...

We are encouraged TO judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics”