Most, if not all, of the NRA supporter arguments I have read

Response to NashvilleLefty (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 06:45 PM

1. You say, "For protection, guns are pretty much useless as defense ..." Then, don't check out this:

http://www.learnaboutguns.com/tag/self-defense-example/

The web site is full of documented examples in which firearms were used for defensive purposes.

Only those who are willing to let the facts slow them down should look at the examples.

Also as noted by the owner of that web site:

"One of the recurring anti gun arguments that I hear centers on the mistaken belief that gun owners will end up shooting an innocent person (such as a child, bystander, etc.) when trying to defend themselves against a criminal. The fact is that armed citizens are about 5.5 times less likely than the police to accidentally shoot the wrong person.
lthough only 2 percent of those involved in civilian shootings are misidentified, 11 percent of individuals involved in police shootings were later found to be innocents misidentified as criminals.

There could be several reasons why this is the case. First, it could be that the police are more willing to use force, as police officers who use force tend to run less of a risk of facing criminal charges than ordinary citizens who use force. Secondly, it could be that police are called into a situation where they don’t know the people in the home and therefore are not as able to identify who is a “good guy” and who is a “bad guy.” Thirdly, it could be that police have less of a personal stake in the outcome of the shooting, while a person whose children could be in the home would seem to have a stronger interest in making sure they don’t unintentionally shoot their own child . Regardless of the underlying reason, the fact remains that when an ordinary citizen draws his or her gun, he or she is much less likely to shoot an innocent person than when a cop draws his or her gun.

Stories in the news abound with cases of cops shooting the wrong person, be it a woman who is cooperating, an innocent bystander who is not involved at all, a suspect who is face down, or just someone whose skin is the wrong color. The fact is that while police serve an important role in society, interactions with them can be dangerous, even for law abiding citizens. That is why while I hope to never have to fire a gun in self defense, I would much rather shoot in self defense than have armed police officers open fire in my vicinity, even if they are trying their best to stop a criminal.

http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2009/02/17/fact-police-are-much-more-likely-to-shoot-the-wrong-person-than-armed-citizens/

143 replies	Author	Time	Post
Most, if not all, of the NRA supporter arguments I have read (Original post)	NashvilleLefty	Jan 2013	OP
You say, "For protection, guns are pretty much useless as defense ..." Then, don't check out this:	AnotherMcIntosh	Jan 2013	#1
If someone was in the mood, he or she could probably use that information	ZombieHorde	Jan 2013	#5
From a site whose logo says:	NashvilleLefty	Jan 2013	#6
"911 did not stop an Indiana home invasion, three bullets did"	AnotherMcIntosh	Jan 2013	#2
THREE bullets, not 30.	NashvilleLefty	Jan 2013	#4
Yes, "three bullets."	AnotherMcIntosh	Jan 2013	#24
Because the victim	sylvi	Jan 2013	#99
So this "Home Invasion" should have been stopped before it happened	intaglio	Jan 2013	#106
Agreed.	AnotherMcIntosh	Jan 2013	#110
No matter what legislation you can come up with the	doc03	Jan 2013	#3
True, which is why we need to keep pointing out the holes	NashvilleLefty	Jan 2013	#7
Have you ever looked at the gun magazines on the market? Most of them have a	doc03	Jan 2013	#9
Who is	Berserker	Jan 2013	#10
Yep! and he talks to me. He also has a CCW. nt	NashvilleLefty	Jan 2013	#139
Your "trained professionals" argument is false	rl6214	Jan 2013	#8
I was only repeated the arguments used	NashvilleLefty	Jan 2013	#13
About 90% of the people that own guns	safeinOhio	Jan 2013	#23
Oh great, a gun toter that thinks they are better than police.	Hoyt	Jan 2013	#71
I am a better shot than some police	rl6214	Jan 2013	#79
That's what MANY people believe....	NashvilleLefty	Jan 2013	#140
I have trained cops to shoot	rl6214	Jan 2013	#142
You need to read more...	cbrer	Jan 2013	#11
I would LOVE to have a discussion based in reality.	NashvilleLefty	Jan 2013	#14
Correllation does not equal causation.	dairydog91	Jan 2013	#21
It's pretty simple.	krispos42	Jan 2013	#12
Ah yes, the NRA slippery slope	nadinbrzezinski	Jan 2013	#17
It's here.	krispos42	Jan 2013	#18
It s based on California's	nadinbrzezinski	Jan 2013	#20
"Incidentally", indeed.	dairydog91	Jan 2013	#22
It is funny, another NRA talking point	nadinbrzezinski	Jan 2013	#27
"Summary of 2013 Feinstein Assault Weapons Legislation"	krispos42	Jan 2013	#25
If I had my way, the 1934 legislation would apply	nadinbrzezinski	Jan 2013	#28
There's 108,000 words in California law.	krispos42	Jan 2013	#30
Well, I want at a minimum universal background checks	nadinbrzezinski	Jan 2013	#37
I agree with you.	krispos42	Jan 2013	#39
No, it has to be federal.	nadinbrzezinski	Jan 2013	#48
10th Amendment.	krispos42	Jan 2013	#50
Do guns cross state lines?	nadinbrzezinski	Jan 2013	#54
And when they are sold across state lines, it's through FFLs.	krispos42	Jan 2013	#62
This is why it has to be federal	nadinbrzezinski	Jan 2013	#63
But it won't be.	krispos42	Jan 2013	#64
How so?	nadinbrzezinski	Jan 2013	#65
Because it's an intrastate transfer.	krispos42	Jan 2013	#66
I am telling you the way it is	nadinbrzezinski	Jan 2013	#70
And we can't get federal	krispos42	Jan 2013	#73
Yup, you got ths figured out	nadinbrzezinski	Jan 2013	#85
For what record?	krispos42	Jan 2013	#93
Florida do this????	nadinbrzezinski	Jan 2013	#112
So because Texas won't do it, California shouldn't? n/t	krispos42	Jan 2013	#113
If it is going to work, truly, it needs to be federal	nadinbrzezinski	Jan 2013	#124
It needs to be as widespread as possible.	krispos42	Jan 2013	#125
It needs to be federal	nadinbrzezinski	Jan 2013	#126
If Washington can make that happen, then fine.	krispos42	Jan 2013	#127
The same argument was made for the 1934 legislation	nadinbrzezinski	Jan 2013	#128
For the $200 transfer tax.	krispos42	Jan 2013	#130
They are talking national databases and universal	nadinbrzezinski	Jan 2013	#131
I agree on consistent and universal checks	SQUEE	Jan 2013	#123
Isnt that the point? If the 1994 was ineffective, why not expand it?	jmg257	Jan 2013	#29
Ban more cosmetic features?	krispos42	Jan 2013	#35
Yep..what you said. If I was serious, I would, or close to it.	jmg257	Jan 2013	#43
Of course, if we really wanted to cut gun violence...	krispos42	Jan 2013	#45
Agreed...drugs, and gangs deserve much more scrutiny. nt	jmg257	Jan 2013	#51
Let's look at a California legal "assault weapon"	hack89	Jan 2013	#60
And this one is illegal in CA (gun image warning for those that are bothered by them)	Recursion	Jan 2013	#78
But shouldn't it be?	booley	Apr 19	#143
Sounds like a good start...	99Forever	Jan 2013	#19
If you want to use the same language and argument style as...	krispos42	Jan 2013	#26
If you want to use the same language and argument style as...	99Forever	Jan 2013	#33
Civil libertarians are terrorist-enablers. Remember that line?	krispos42	Jan 2013	#40
Oh goody!	99Forever	Jan 2013	#47
pats head	krispos42	Jan 2013	#53
I can't help that you are a living...	99Forever	Jan 2013	#55
Mirror, mirror... n/t	krispos42	Jan 2013	#59
Yep...	99Forever	Jan 2013	#67
..	pipoman	Jan 2013	#15
Perhaps I should have said "NRA TALKING PINT supporters"	NashvilleLefty	Jan 2013	#32
LOL	pipoman	Jan 2013	#49
WHY is it "silly"?	NashvilleLefty	Jan 2013	#83
It's nice to quote "they"	pipoman	Jan 2013	#96
If you want to go back through all the threads	NashvilleLefty	Jan 2013	#102
I'm not searching threads for that which I know isn't there..	pipoman	Jan 2013	#108
You claim you "know" they are not there, how do you "know"?	NashvilleLefty	Jan 2013	#133
Oh, because I've been around for 6 years or so and	pipoman	Jan 2013	#137
No, the arguments against the old AWB are pretty coherent.	dairydog91	Jan 2013	#16
As for your point #1,	NashvilleLefty	Jan 2013	#36
It's not reasonable to ban things by default.	Glaug-Eldare	Jan 2013	#134
1. They are unimportant only in their impact on crime.	PavePusher	Jan 2013	#141
Well that certainly brought out the	billh58	Jan 2013	#31
They certainly seem to be well-organized.	NashvilleLefty	Jan 2013	#42
I'm afraid that a "reality based"	billh58	Jan 2013	#44
No just pointing out the fiction of your OP	pipoman	Jan 2013	#68
What fiction? I have yet to see a reality-based argument.	NashvilleLefty	Jan 2013	#81
This is a "it stands to reason" statement	pipoman	Jan 2013	#97
Yeah	sylvi	Jan 2013	#100
And another Gungeoneer	billh58	Jan 2013	#119
I see less "discussion"	sylvi	Jan 2013	#135
"... most shooters are stopped while reloading." Any evidence? EDIT - I'm right.	OneTenthofOnePercent	Jan 2013	#34
Loughner was stopped by a retired	nadinbrzezinski	Jan 2013	#38
That was one incident; the OP said "most", which is total crap.	OneTenthofOnePercent	Jan 2013	#75
And I stand by my assertion	nadinbrzezinski	Jan 2013	#82
That "NRA Talking Point" card is getting raggedy.	OneTenthofOnePercent	Jan 2013	#92
I noticed	nadinbrzezinski	Jan 2013	#111
Loughner was reloading because his POS hi cap mag jammed	rl6214	Jan 2013	#94
Same thing with recent school shooter, gun jam. Then he killed himself with the handguns.	Sunlei	Jan 2013	#132
Big +1	rl6214	Jan 2013	#138
Actually, the "Department of Needs" is called Congress.	NashvilleLefty	Jan 2013	#41
The point he's making is that a person doesn't have to define a 'need' for an item;	X_Digger	Jan 2013	#46
Then how was the AWB not challenged on that basis?	NashvilleLefty	Jan 2013	#57
"Promote the Common Good" is not a blank check to write whatever law a body wishes.	X_Digger	Jan 2013	#58
It wasn't challeneged because it was pointless. It didn't actually keep people from buying guns	Recursion	Jan 2013	#80
If it was "pointless", then why argue against it?	NashvilleLefty	Jan 2013	#84
Why argue against a pointless law that gives Republicans control of the House?	Recursion	Jan 2013	#89
My first AR type weapon was made by Olympic arms and also	rl6214	Jan 2013	#95
I haven't seen too many posts that	Jenoch	Jan 2013	#52
Zimmerman. repeat Zimmerman. Repeat Zimmerman. The poster boy of the NRA.	graham4anything	Jan 2013	#56
Zimmerman?	sylvi	Jan 2013	#98
It takes decades for a redwood seed to grow into a majestic redwood	graham4anything	Jan 2013	#101
That's very poetic	sylvi	Jan 2013	#103
It took 100 years from Lincoln to LBJ. Patience is a virtue. Even God took 6 days before resting.	graham4anything	Jan 2013	#104
Platitudes	sylvi	Jan 2013	#105
Taking all LEGAL guns out of the street is the only way ANY meaningful advancement can happen	graham4anything	Jan 2013	#107
A "new law" can't be unconstitutional	pipoman	Jan 2013	#109
Why are you talking about the mafia?	graham4anything	Jan 2013	#115
Just more of the same..	pipoman	Jan 2013	#136
Too bad possessing a gun for self defense is a constitutional right. nt	hack89	Jan 2013	#61
The cosmetic feature that matters is the pistol grip, and it's what people actually want to ban	Recursion	Jan 2013	#69
What I want to ban is allowing those attracted to such crap having right to buy one.	Hoyt	Jan 2013	#72
Yes, I do get that	Recursion	Jan 2013	#74
Great, so we have another 100 million of the dang things, and will have another 100 M in decade, so	Hoyt	Jan 2013	#116
We have less than 50% the murder rate of 20 years ago	Recursion	Jan 2013	#118
And yet you keep buying guns. Of course 50% has nothing to do with NRA types and their guns.	Hoyt	Jan 2013	#121
I don't own any guns. I live in a city where it's difficult to, and I don't like them	Recursion	Jan 2013	#122
I'm a little confused about this - how does the pistol grip make the gun safer?	jmg257	Jan 2013	#76
It makes drops less likely, and firing from the hip nearly impossible	Recursion	Jan 2013	#77
So, then it is NOT "cosmetic".	NashvilleLefty	Jan 2013	#87
True, in that sense. It's functional in that it's a safety feature.	Recursion	Jan 2013	#90
No, but it doesn't do what I think you think it does..	sir pball	Jan 2013	#114
^ That	Recursion	Jan 2013	#117
This message was self-deleted by its author	logicnreason	Jan 2013	#86
Is that you Mr. Weiner?	nadinbrzezinski	Jan 2013	#88
Get the one for concealed carry: TTE, "If you make us open carry, we will be the first targets	patrice	Jan 2013	#91
not sure why you call all pro 2A posters NRA supporters	backwoodsbob	Jan 2013	#120
What do we need the NRA for anyway? They are today just a lobbyist for gun sellers & bribe politics.	Sunlei	Jan 2013	#129

Most, if not all, of the NRA supporter arguments I have read

1. You say, "For protection, guns are pretty much useless as defense ..." Then, don't check out this:

5. If someone was in the mood, he or she could probably use that information

6. From a site whose logo says:

2. "911 did not stop an Indiana home invasion, three bullets did"

4. THREE bullets, not 30.

24. Yes, "three bullets."

99. Because the victim

106. So this "Home Invasion" should have been stopped before it happened

110. Agreed.

3. No matter what legislation you can come up with the

7. True, which is why we need to keep pointing out the holes

9. Have you ever looked at the gun magazines on the market? Most of them have a

10. Who is

139. Yep! and he talks to me. He also has a CCW. nt

8. Your "trained professionals" argument is false

13. I was only repeated the arguments used

23. About 90% of the people that own guns

71. Oh great, a gun toter that thinks they are better than police.

79. I am a better shot than some police

140. That's what MANY people believe....

142. I have trained cops to shoot

11. You need to read more...

14. I would LOVE to have a discussion based in reality.

21. Correllation does not equal causation.

12. It's pretty simple.

17. Ah yes, the NRA slippery slope

18. It's here.

20. It s based on California's

22. "Incidentally", indeed.

27. It is funny, another NRA talking point

25. "Summary of 2013 Feinstein Assault Weapons Legislation"

28. If I had my way, the 1934 legislation would apply

30. There's 108,000 words in California law.

37. Well, I want at a minimum universal background checks

39. I agree with you.

48. No, it has to be federal.

50. 10th Amendment.

54. Do guns cross state lines?

62. And when they are sold across state lines, it's through FFLs.

63. This is why it has to be federal

64. But it won't be.

65. How so?

66. Because it's an intrastate transfer.

70. I am telling you the way it is

73. And we can't get federal

85. Yup, you got ths figured out

93. For what record?

112. Florida do this????

113. So because Texas won't do it, California shouldn't? n/t

124. If it is going to work, truly, it needs to be federal

125. It needs to be as widespread as possible.

126. It needs to be federal

127. If Washington can make that happen, then fine.

128. The same argument was made for the 1934 legislation

130. For the $200 transfer tax.

131. They are talking national databases and universal

123. I agree on consistent and universal checks

29. Isnt that the point? If the 1994 was ineffective, why not expand it?

35. Ban more cosmetic features?

43. Yep..what you said. If I was serious, I would, or close to it.

45. Of course, if we really wanted to cut gun violence...

51. Agreed...drugs, and gangs deserve much more scrutiny. nt

60. Let's look at a California legal "assault weapon"

78. And this one is illegal in CA (gun image warning for those that are bothered by them)

143. But shouldn't it be?

19. Sounds like a good start...

26. If you want to use the same language and argument style as...

33. If you want to use the same language and argument style as...

40. Civil libertarians are terrorist-enablers. Remember that line?

47. Oh goody!

53. *pats head*

55. I can't help that you are a living...

59. Mirror, mirror... n/t

67. Yep...

15. ..

32. Perhaps I should have said "NRA TALKING PINT supporters"

49. LOL

83. WHY is it "silly"?

96. It's nice to quote "they"

53. pats head