NRA Logic. Distasteful!!

Once again, on the subject of Guns and killings

NRA's Hypocrisy at its best, but also stupidity.

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre says that the worst type of violence are video games, which is the new type of "porn". 

However, he forgot to mention the NRA's own violent video game. 

A total fail on his organisation's part.

Here it's the proof:

via :zwingliusredivivus

USA is top of the G8 for unwanted reasons

French cheese is illegal in the US, but not high caliber guns

Jim West is right, having more guns is not the answer

Do you know what the stupidest argument being made is in the wake of the tragedy in Connecticut?   That if someone at the school had a gun everyone would be alive except the shooter.

Idiocy.   Ronald Reagan was shot by a gunman and he was SURROUNDED by secret servicemen WITH GUNS.

Those making this moronic argument need to pick up a history book.  It's both false and profoundly stupid.

Jim West. Theologian at large!!!

Looks like guns were a great sell during Christmas in the USA

Americans bought record numbers of guns last month amid an apparent surge in popularity for weapons as Christmas presents.

Wow!!! To celebrate the love of Jesus and one another, what's best to show such love by giving a gun away to a loved one!

According to the FBI, over 1.5 million background checks on customers were requested by gun dealers to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System in December. Nearly 500,000 of those were in the six days before Christmas.It was the highest number ever in a single month, surpassing the previous record set in November.On Dec 23 alone there were 102,222 background checks, making it the second busiest single day for buying guns in history.The actual number of guns bought may have been even higher if individual customers took home more than one each.Explanations for America's surge in gun buying include that it is a response to the stalled economy with people fearing crime waves. Another theory is that buyers are rushing to gun shops because they believe tighter firearms laws will be introduced in the future. 

Fearing a crime wave? Well, haven't they thought that many, many of those would be "burglars" are also buying those guns?

And don't give me the mantra "people kill people, not guns", because guns don't sell themselves, people buy them.

Since the near-fatal shooting of congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords by a deranged gunman in Tucson, Arizona last January there have been increasing calls for tighter gun control. Miss Giffords survived being shot in the head with a semi-automatic handgun, and six other people were killed.

It doesn't matter how much people are killed, people love to kill other people, regardless of how others use guns.  In the beginning, it was Cain with a rock killing Abel, now, they use guns.

How can a gun-crazed society lead the world?

Posted By David Rothkopf Sunday, January 9, 2011 - 3:50 PM

According to a 2007 survey, the United States leads the world in gun ownership: 90 guns per 100 people. We are a country with five percent of the world's people and between 35 and 50 percent of its civilian-owned guns. That's something like 270 million weapons.

Repeated studies have shown that the United States is far and away the leader among the world's developed countries in gun violence and gun deaths. There is no other developed country that is even close. Over 30,000 Americans die every year from gun violence. Most of these are suicides but in excess of 12,000 a year are homicides. Another 200,000 Americans are estimated to be injured each year due to guns.

In 2009, Bob Herbert of the New York Times wrote a compelling column noting that since 9/11 over 120,000 people have died in the United States as a result of gun violence. By now, the number is in excess of 140,000.

For those in the world who are mystified by this, the legal explanation associated with it by gun rights defenders is that the right to own guns is protected by the U.S. Constitution. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

This statement has taken on quasi-theological importance for many in the United States even though it is clearly being misinterpreted by those who believe it provides every individual the right to own such guns -- including advanced, highly-destructive automatic weapons. The misinterpretation begins with the deliberate ignoring of the first half of the sentence associating the right with the need for a "well-regulated militia." This is a clear qualifier associated with the so-called right to bear arms and had it not been important to the sentence, one can only conclude it would not have been included in the famously sparely written document. If militias don't exist, one can therefore conclude this "right" should be reconsidered if not eliminated.

Further, of course, there have been many elements of the Constitution that have required amending because the views, values, and circumstances of the nation have evolved since the country's founding. Strangely, many of those who consider the Second Amendment sacrosanct would vigorously support those subsequent adjustments to the document.

Congresswoman Giffords, the targeted victim of this attack, was a supporter of "Second Amendment rights." This is a tragic irony, but it does not suggest this case should not reopen the discussion on this important issue. Consider the case of the shooter, a drug-using, clearly unhinged loser who responded to a requirement from his community college to seek a mental evaluation due to troubling behavior not by seeking help but by going out and buying a weapon … legally.

The attack also rightfully raises a question about the tenor of political discourse in the United States. This was not an attack by the venom-tongued and reckless political extremists and hate-mongers who have become so common in recent years. But it was certainly a consequence of the culture of disrespect and violence they have fomented. With some luck this attack my cause all parties to be more circumspect and embrace civility.

But in a global context we have to ask as dispassionately as we can: What do these events say about America's culture, and what are their impact on America's ability to lead? Many will reflexively note that other societies also have similar shortcomings. That is no doubt the case. But no society that holds itself up as an example to the world should, as the United States does, brazenly shrug off what are clearly deep national character flaws when it comes to our love of guns or our celebration of hate politics. Tragedies like that which unfolded in Arizona this weekend not only wound the victims, but also America's ability to lead and to advance our interests and values worldwide. Think, to take just one example, how the shadow of events like this and the patterns and history they reveal impact America's ability to advance its human rights agenda internationally -- as it will no doubt attempt to do during the upcoming visit of China's president next week.

The problem is that we are not talking about the aberrant behavior of a lone gunman here. Instead we should see that what we are discussing are grossly uncivilized aspects of American society, aspects of ourselves that we ought to change not because we fall below international norms, but because we fall so short of doing what is right, moral, or sensible.