Does the NRA really believe that "a small amount of gun crime is a good thing" since it will encourage people to keep guns and carry them, whereas if there was no gun crime then people might not feel the need to carry guns anymore?
2007-12-18 14:34:47 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The reason I'm asking this is because I read it somewhere online and wanted to know if it was a widespread belief among the gun lobby or just one person.
2007-12-18 14:43:51 · update #1
OK
Regardless of how many laws one passes restricting guns, the criminals will always have them and get them if they were totally outlawed.
The law abiding citizen has a healthy respect for their firearm and may or may not use it in self defense....as well as hunting and even target shooting.
There will always be criminals.....and it is not about a healthy amount of crime.......Most every state you can carry, but alot of states make it very difficult to qualify for the carry permit that unless you are a police officer, armed guard or military, your chances of legally carrying are almost ZIP.
NJ is one of those states, but certain innercity areas have a major gun violence problem......but hey, there are laws in place to "prevent" this type of crime......yeah, right........the criminal doesn't follow the law!
2007-12-18 14:46:46 · answer #1 · answered by Jeffrey F 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No, the NRA does not like gun crimes, or crime in general.
The official position is a criminal who has a gun during the commission of a crime should be incarcerated on the first offense and for a long time with no chance of parole.
Any felon found in possession of a firearm is committing a crime whether he is committing another secondary crime or not.
Again, long incarceration on the first offense.
Even if all criminals with long rap sheets were removed from the streets, people would still need a method of self-defense.
For example; an estranged husband with no criminal record and legally able to procure a weapon could provide a threat to his wife either at home or her place of work, or as she is simply shopping at the mall.
People can snap and cause great harm to innocents.
However, in the 1990's during the Clinton Administration, prosecution of federal gun crimes dropped dramatically.
The NRA, through our Executive Vice President did take the position that the Clinton Justice Department was allowing gun criminals to roam free, hoping an up tick in violent crime and innocent's deaths would give them political advantage on gun control issues. "I’ve come to believe he needs a certain level of violence in this country. He’s willing to accept a certain level of killing to further his political agenda."
After being called on it Clinton attacked the NRA and its members, however prosecution stated to climb and after Columbine, when people got whipped up over the issue, they continued to climb. They are still climbing.
The following graph illustrates this point:
http://trac.syr.edu/tracatf/trends/v04/atfrefG.html
Here's the data:
http://trac.syr.edu/tracatf/trends/v04/atfref.html
Law abiding gun owners took umbrage at being called "murderers" by the administration due to our stance on gun ownership when it was the government policy under Clinton not to prosecute gun crimes under Federal laws.
If there was one issue that drove voters to the polls in 2000, it was gun rights.
It's the reason that democrats have moved the issue to the back burner, for now.
2007-12-19 00:31:01 · answer #2 · answered by crunch 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Where are you getting this dribble??
Not all gun ownership is about stopping criminals. There is hunting, sport and other types of criminal activity besides "gun crimes".
Why would you even ask a question like this...as if I didnt alreay know your political slant and opinion on guns.
2007-12-18 22:39:26 · answer #3 · answered by SNCK 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
No, I think it's just being realistic. There will always be gun crime, so having them for defense makes sense.
2007-12-18 22:38:55 · answer #4 · answered by Yo it's Me 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Guns must only be possessed by responsible people because these can be used in crimes and violence.
2007-12-18 22:40:55 · answer #5 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
A simple answer ...
No, the NRA does not believe this.
2007-12-18 22:40:42 · answer #6 · answered by TexasTrev38 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Maybe... If it reduces crimes against innocent people then I am for it as well.
2007-12-19 09:37:36 · answer #7 · answered by James C 1 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No.
2007-12-18 22:43:18 · answer #8 · answered by gunplumber_462 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋