Letter: NRA doesn't care about gun deaths

Albert Einstein once said “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Most people want to live in a society that has police protection from invaders and armed forces to protect the security of the nation. They want to live without fear in a civilized country. They don’t want to live in a country reminiscent of the old West, in which people wear guns into stores, churches, schools and bars, and citizens constantly have to be worried about their safety.

The NRA represents gun manufacturers who benefit financially from selling guns. More murder in America is good for their business. Why? The NRA is able to stir up fear that someone may murder you or may take away your gun, arguing more guns are the answer. The NRA and gun manufacturers profit from the death of children and adults by murder. This is apparent from the increased gun sales that occurred after the mass murder of children in Newtown, Conn., and other publicized mass murders.

The NRA is against banning assault weapons used in mass murders and on police officers. They are against mandatory background checks at gun shows to reduce the number of criminals and people with mental illness from getting guns.

The Business Insider reported data from the Center for Responsive Politics that the NRA Institute for Legislative Action spent $7.5 million in the 2012 general elections on 66 candidates and the NRA PAC spent $9.5 million. There are an estimated 300 million guns in the USA.

A UCLA study that compared gun deaths in children 0-14 years of age from 23 developed countries found that 87 percent of deaths from all countries occurred in the United States. If we did not allow access to guns by people who shouldn’t have them, then we wouldn’t have the number of murders we have.

We don’t allow certain people to have a driver’s license, e.g. we don’t give a 9-year-old the car keys. If a 9-year-old had an accident because his or her parent gave him the car keys, we would hold the parent responsible, not the 9-year-old. If we allow someone who has mental problems to have easy access to an assault weapon at a gun show and murder people, it’s the NRA and other legislators who have allowed this to occur and who are responsible.

The NRA’s major worry is not about hunting rifles and making sure that hunters have good places to hunt. Their major interest is in selling more guns. To the NRA, children and adults who are murdered are just a small price that they are very willing to pay.

Robert Kraemer

professor

Hammond

Comments

1) Comment by Whatnow - 06/01/2013

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yATeti5GmI8

2) Comment by Whatnow - 05/01/2013

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” ~ Patrick Henry

3) Comment by brlady61 - 05/01/2013

How are you so sure what the NRA thinks? There were some really uninformed comments in this letter.

4) Comment by DMJ - 05/01/2013

Jesus Christ. We can't talk about gun control without someone bringing up the hypothetical complete gun ban that no one is proposing. And agagent, I can cherry pick stats too.... Watch.... Louisiana is 4th in gun ownership and 1st in gun violence. That was easy. And Switzerland.... yes, they have high % of gun ownership, but that's because all males eligible for military service are issued a rifle for militia purposes (like the 2nd Amendment says, even though no one is actually in a militia in the U.S.). Also, they have an extensive government database that successfully tracks firearm sales. they have a strict permitting process; also, they have restrictions on what type of gun you can have, how many guns you can have and how much ammo you can buy. Believe me, I WISH we had Switzerland's gun laws. I would consider that a huge victory for the cause of gun control.

5) Comment by palefire - 05/01/2013

InPVille, what on earth are you talking about it? Do you have comprehension problems? Did you read my other posts? We were talking about whether the chicken or egg came first, and you bring up crayons. Can you get back on point?

6) Comment by InPVille - 04/01/2013

@palefire: Did you look up the SCOTUS ruling in the case of D.C vs Heller? " Assuming Heller is not otherwise disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District of Columbia must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home." -[**]- http://media.aclj.org/pdf/aclj_summarydcvheller_063008.pdf http://www.lawnix.com/cases/dc-heller.html -[**]- In case you have problems with the quoted sentence, "his handgun" refers to the handgun Heller "keeps" and "owns".

7) Comment by Scrooge - 04/01/2013

Sure hope The host shoots better than he writes

8) Comment by firefly225 - 04/01/2013

Your thoughts beg the question.... if guns are banned, why then would people want "police protection... and armed forces" anymore? Oh!! Maybe because criminals will be criminals and still have guns? Surely, according to your logic, this would be the only crime people wouldn't committ, right?

9) Comment by agagent - 04/01/2013

On the civilian side of firearms safety training NRA has 55,000 certified instructors who train 750,000 in firearms safety each year.

10) Comment by 8point6 - 04/01/2013

Hey, mr kraemer, great letter. Now, it's time for your meds.

11) Comment by agagent - 04/01/2013

What liberals hate worst about the NRA is that the NRA’s legal status allows them to lobby for gun owners’ rights. Judging from the venom of the anti-gun crowd the NRA is doing an effective job, so liberals and the media try to marginalize them.

12) Comment by agagent - 04/01/2013

"The Law Enforcement Division (LED) of the NRA was established in 1960 specifically to provide the law enforcement community with a means to certify law enforcement firearm instructors. Over the last 50 years, we have trained more than 55,000 law enforcement firearm instructors and currently have over 11,000 active certified instructors."--NRA. I feel sure that Kraemer did not know this before writing his letter.

13) Comment by agagent - 04/01/2013

NRA has one of the most extensive firearms safety training programs in the country. The NRA trains the private gun owner, including many youth, and they train law enforcement and military firearms safety instructors.

14) Comment by agagent - 04/01/2013

The anti-gun crowd wants to target rifles. Today a FBI report revealed that more murders are committed with hammers and clubs than with rifles.

15) Comment by The_Host - 04/01/2013

Scrooge you twit the intent of my previous post was not to silence this Academic pinhead it was to simply play devils advocate to the tactics the News now wants to take on gun owners posting their information online. You call my posts counterproductive well guess what dude me and YOU will never see eye to eye about much of anything so I wouldn't expect it to be any other way anytime soon. Yes it is the NRAs fault like it is Stanley Tools fault for making claw hammers and Louisville Slugger for making baseball bats. Interesting stat I read the other day about more people being murdered with those types of "assault weapons" than with actual rifles of ALL types. Anyway my guns are right here and not going anywhere you or Prof. Pinhead think they should go.

16) Comment by agagent - 04/01/2013

Connecticut has strict gun control laws. The murderer stole the firearms and did not have a legal right to have them. The owner should have locked up her firearms more securely. The murderer was mentally disturbed and should have been confined to protect the public. Connecticut lacks a law mandating preemptive treatment or confinement. The school security was not adequate. A friend suggested that the murderer was addicted to violent video games. Addiction to violent video games may have influenced other mass murders. The violence portrayed in movies, the internet, and violence glorified by music has an influence in the culture and on gun violence. Gun-friendly states like Virginia and gun-friendly countries like Switzerland have high gun ownership and low gun violence. Sections of cities with the strictest gun control laws are unsafe for the average citizen and generally have high gun violence.

17) Comment by DMJ - 04/01/2013

Agagent, you do realize that anyone can edit Wikipedia articles, don't you? You probably just unwittingly cited an article written by the NRA itself.

18) Comment by agagent - 04/01/2013

Seems that Kraemer is not informed about the NRA or the many issues involved in the recent tragedy. “The NRA sponsors a range of safety programs to educate and encourage the safe use of firearms. NRA hunting safety courses are offered all across the U.S. for both children and adults. In recent years gun safety classes oriented more towards firearm safety, particularly for women, have become popular. Intended for school-age children, the NRA's "Eddie Eagle" program encourages the viewer to "Stop! Don't touch! Leave the area! Tell an adult!" if the child ever sees a firearm lying around. The NRA has claimed that studies prove the "Eddie Eagle" program reduces the likelihood of firearms accidents in the home, and the program is used in many elementary schools nationwide. The NRA in its instructional guide The Basics of Personal Protection In The Home (published in 2000) has chapters on Basic Firearm Safety and Safe Firearm Storage.”--Wikipedia

19) Comment by DMJ - 04/01/2013

The NRA isn't the source of the problem; they're just a symptom which makes the problem worse. People are the problem, specifically, our gun-loving culture and the laws we create and interpret to enable it. If people cared about the human cost of the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (gun deaths) as much as they cared about their own unfettered gun ownership, we wouldn't be having this debate. It's ridiculous. You can't even get people to admit that the reason lots of people are getting shot is because it's too easy to get a gun. Until we agree on reality, we'll never find solutions or compromises.

20) Comment by Whatnow - 04/01/2013

My guns are registered. I follow the law. But, when they take every gun from every criminal, even the ones the government gave to the Mexican cartels, then we can talk.

21) Comment by Scrooge - 04/01/2013

"more than 4 million members" is still a distinct minority in the USA and maybe the NRA does not represent gun manufacturers (which tends to stretch belief) but their PAC's through the NRA sure do.See, gun manufacturers want you to think their guns kill people so they can sell them, otherwise there is little point in manufacturing guns. And has often been asserted, guns don't kill people, so why have a gun if its purpose is not to kill? A plastic gun would do just as well for not killing beyond target shooting, etc. . Telling the truth is most often helpful: a bullet will scatter blood guts, gristle, brains all over while the unfortunate victim will lose control of his bowels. There is no romanticism, death by firearms is ugly. and if one is to own a gun for protection, one must be prepared to kill. Period.

22) Comment by Mygulfbleedsforu - 04/01/2013

Now that this topic of discussion is winding down, can we talk about the insanity of repeating the misquote of Einstein's that is hardly a definition of insanity in the first place? Is it insane to practice a piece on the piano, over and over again? Might you, with repetition, begin to get different results? Does a child gain a thing at all from going to batting practice, trying over and over again to hit a pitched ball that he just. cannot. hit. in the beginning? Think Einstein might have understood that? Besides, insanity is way more, SO much more, than that trite description. /Off soapbox

23) Comment by Scrooge - 04/01/2013

thehost states" this moron is free to state any sppech he likes I won't try and stop him" but wasn't that the intent of your previous post? Or did you want people, especially the more deranged to wish him happy new year? How noble. The_Host's rants are counterproductive, read them carefully. nuff said.

24) Comment by coachblades - 04/01/2013

Mr Kraemer is a great example of what this country has come too. NOT ONCE does he ever mention the name "Adam Lanza". He never blames Lanza, Cho, or Holmes. These people did the shootings. Not Wayne Lapierre. Not the NRA. We as a country have began blaming everything and everyone except those who are undoubtedly responsible for the shootings.

25) Comment by palefire - 04/01/2013

Read this, pville: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=255 And if you actually disagree, try writing a well thought out opinion.

26) Comment by InPVille - 04/01/2013

@palefire: "InPVille, I take it you didn't look it up." This is quite possibly the most lame response I've ever seen here. . . and quite wrong.

27) Comment by Sandy - 04/01/2013

For a professor, the writer is amazingly uninformed. The central premise of his letter is absolutely wrong. The NRA does not represent gun manufacturers. The NRA represents the interests of its more than 4 million members who are regular people in this country like me. Furthermore, the so-called gun show loophole has nothing to do with allowing people with mental health issues from obtaining firearms. Mental health is not a component that the law requires to be checked prior to purchasing any firearm, even from a sporting goods store. And since mental health records are protected by law (HIPAA), there is no way of checking on the mental health of a person before selling them a firearm. The only conclusion I can draw from this letter is that the budget cuts to higher education must not be very serious if our universities employ teachers who are this ignorant of the laws in this country.

28) Comment by palefire - 04/01/2013

pwm, is right. The supreme court also ruled on the Second Amendment well before 2008. Are they correct in their interpretation? I don't think so. I don't think it really matters though. While, I think it is quite clear that the Second Amendment is all about militias, I don't think that stops people from owning guns. Even if the amendments was all about guns, I find it idiotic for people to use that as an end all to any discussion about gun ownership.

29) Comment by pwmayeux - 04/01/2013

@HRoark... To possess firearms is a right as long as it is in a law abiding manner. The emphasis should be to get them out of the hands of those who are criminally prone. Of course another may argue that infringes on their rights. Really? Taking a law abiding citizens right away is not?

30) Comment by HRoark - 04/01/2013

Did you people even read the letter? The author may or may not own a gun and his letter has no relevance to the abortion debate that 'old yat' tries to link to every single letter to the editor. He is entirely correct about the NRA and the effects they have had on living safely in America. Nothing is presented in his opinion that sounds paranoid, but a great deal of paranoia is expressed in the pro gun comments. The presence of guns in the hands of twitchy, paranoid gun owners is a compelling argument for increased regulation. Owning guns is not a right when it endangers the general welfare of the population. Its a civil liability.

31) Comment by pwmayeux - 04/01/2013

In 2008 the US Supreme Court ruled in DC v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individuals right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Dr. Kraemer, I took a class of yours while in college and while you have the right to exercise your right to the free speech I disagree with you. The NRA does care and realizes that guns are a right. You do not have to exercise your right to possess or bear arms but you do not have the right to trample on law abiding citizens who wish to exercise that right.

32) Comment by nimby? - 04/01/2013

"I went to a gun show years back" .....

33) Comment by The_Host - 04/01/2013

Oh this moron is free to state any sppech he likes I won't try and stop him. But his speech sure seems to imply he has no problem reducing my rights now does it? When it comes to his right to speak freely and my right to own guns I will not allow his right to take away mine. Besides isn't what I did just your typical liberal idea like posting gun owners names on a map in the newspaper? Once again the hypocrisy of the left shows itself. Good for the goose but not the gander. Those tactics are for you not for me etc etc etc. So Prof. Dipshat is free to say anything he wants so long as it doesn't infringe on my rights. Besides I am sure the criminals love knowing who is probably an unarmed lemming ala Dr. ***** with his PhD.

34) Comment by palefire - 04/01/2013

InPVille, I take it you didn't look it up.

35) Comment by DMJ - 04/01/2013

Old yat, I went to a gun show years back as part of an experiment for a research paper. Yes, it IS that easy to buy a gun. I could have gotten an assault rifle that day- no background check, no waiting period... Also, I could have gotten a 100-round magazine. Keep in mind that at the time, was on several medications for bi-polar disorder and mild schizophrenia (not true...but it could have been; the guy ready to sell it to me sure didn't ask). Everyone feel safer about the gun show loophole?

36) Comment by Scrooge - 04/01/2013

The_Host, if this rabid obsession with guns isn't about defending freedom as in "free speech" where someone can state an opinion without fear, then what exactly is it about? Fascism? Sadly, you are revealing more than you realize by exposing the slimy underside of the real problem.

37) Comment by DMJ - 04/01/2013

Say what you will about whether it's a good idea to have hundreds of millions of guns floating around, but the good professor is absolutely right about one thing: the NRA does not care about gun deaths. Indeed, such tragedies are good for sales. Consider this: what was the NRA's idea in response to the Newtown shooting? Armed guards at every shool. Isn't interesting how the NRA's "solutions" to shootings always involved having more guns? Hmm... To protect yourself from those with guns, you should get a gun. When a solution is the same as the problem, it's no solution at all. That being said, I don't think the NRA is the problem; it's more of a symptom than a cause. The gun culture is the problem. We've made a deal with the devil: in order for guns to be easily and readily accessible by regular people, they must also be easily and readily accessible by psychotics, paranoids and criminals. Conversely, in order for guns to be difficult to obtain by murderers, we have to make them difficult to obtain by regular people, and for most Americans, this is a dealbreaker. Am I wrong? Anyone who denies this is living in a fantasy land, probably one in which having a gun around makes you safer, even though, as statistics continue to show over and over and over, it doesn't.

38) Comment by old yat - 04/01/2013

Mr.Kraemer: You make some interesting points in your letter and I understand that is your opinion,which by the way I respect.That being said would you also agree that the killing of babies with chemicals and scalpels is okay. Somehow I can not see the difference. Murder is killing,killing is murder,call it what you like.So please do not tell me you are for Gun Control and are also Pro Choice like most folks that are left of center when it comes to politics. As far as easy access to guns at gun shows goes,have you ever been to a gun show or tried to purchase a gun at a gun show? If you had then you would know it is not as easy as you think.These comments are my opinion,and you know the old saying about opinions.God Bless&Happy New Year!!!!!

39) Comment by The_Host - 04/01/2013

985-549-2132 E-mail:[e-mail] Professor of Exercise Physiology I won't post his address but I am betting it is safe to say this fool is totally unarmed.

40) Comment by [e-mail] - 04/01/2013

Robert Kraemer's letter is so full of misrepresentations, wild accusations, and illogical metaphors that I fear he might be allowing his anger to cloud good sense. Demonizing gun owners is so banal these days that one strains to find a thread of logic in the howls of hubris passing for discourse.

41) Comment by InPVille - 04/01/2013

@palefire: The only way to ensure you have the right to bear arms is to ensure that you can "keep" arms. To keep something rather indicates that it is yours and that it is something owned. Perhaps you should do some looking up yourself. . . like the entire Amendment you referenced.

42) Comment by postscript56 - 04/01/2013

Thank you Robert for a common sense letter. Unfortunately, too many people lack common sense. Which is why I don't feel safe when they're carrying one.

43) Comment by dday198 - 04/01/2013

get your end of the can goods and ammo while you can

44) Comment by palefire - 04/01/2013

First, I am not for abolishing guns. Second, the constitution gives people the right to bear arms, not to own guns. You should look up the phrase, "bear arms" within the historical context that it was written.

45) Comment by Bighug - 04/01/2013

What idiocy! I don't know what the writer's field is, but he certainly is deficient in history and logic. According to his argument, doctors like auto accidents and funeral directors like murder. He should brush up on history if he believes the Old West was dangerous. Only in the oaters! Our right to bear arms has nothing to do with hunting. Read the Constitution, professor, and you will see that the guns it allows us to keep and bear are for the militia. It wouldn't hurt to also read The Federalist Papers. "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

46) Comment by Whatnow - 03/01/2013

Wow, all those ATF officers who attacked all those innocent children at Waco must have been criminals or mentally insane.

47) Comment by tradewinns - 03/01/2013

"............................ citizens constantly have to be worried about their safety". oh yea we're all safe and content now. those of us with weapons at least have a chance. if you ban guns from the citizens, only the bad guys will have weapons. i hope it never happens, but if you are facing a home invader/rapist/deranged murderer, you are going to have little hope with you golf club and him with his pistol or rifle. your odds are lousy.

48) Comment by Attila - 03/01/2013

Mr. Kraemer you could not be more wrong. You have let your innate fear of firearms cloud your good sense. What would you do if someone was breaking into your home in the dead of night; call the police, hide in the closet, offer them milk and cookies, or beg for your life? Do you not understand that by the time the cops responded you would have been robbed or killed? Are you seriously willing to die because you have a fear of guns that would have saved your life? If so, I am thankful that none of my children had you for a professor. There are too many people of like mind indoctrinating our kids as it is.