According to this article, the NRA teaches gun safety to kids. They also oppose laws that punish parents for accidents resulting from not safely storing firearms. In the U.S. there are about 2,500 accidental shooting deaths per year. Another 13,000 are injured.

Just wondering if it would help if increased?

Help what? Nikolas Cruz was considered a great shooter on his NRA sponsored shooting team. Maybe if he hadn’t been NRA trained he would have only killed ten or eleven kids.

@zenvelo I didn’t know that. Thanks for the info.

Nikolas Cruz was NOT trained by the NRA nor was he a member.

He was a JROTC member (his “shooting team”) and was wearing his JROTC shirt when arrested

The Junior ROTC is sponsored by the U.S. Army and is in thousands of schools across the U.S.A. It is not an NRA sponsored or funded program.

@Yellowdog @zenvelo Where are your sources? I don’t know either of those facts.

The news covered Cruz’ JROTC involvement quite thoroughly. He was wearing his shirt / part of his uniform when arrested.

JROTC is fully an army-sponsored program. To say it is sponsored by the NRA is like saying the Army is funded by United Way or the Boy Scouts, or receives grants from them, The NRA is a private organization. It is not affiliated with the government, the U.S, Army, or vice versa.

Of course, the Army is not funded by private grants or the NRA

The NRA has said they sponsored the JROTC at the school. So I don’t think that’s really in question. They give a lot of money to a lot of gun related programs.

Here’s a story with several of their responses included.

Here’s a more even story covering NRA donations in this area.

See? It’s questions like this that really torque me. I’m not an NRA member and really don’t care about them. But look at the facts. Roughly 42% of adults own a gun. There are approximately 247,000,000 adults in the country so that comes out to be 103,740,000 people that own guns. There are roughly 11,000 gun murders each year. Going on the assumption that they are all done by legal gun owners (Not even close to being true) and that all murders were done by separate shooters (again…not even close to being true), that means there are roughly 0.01% of gun owners that are irresponsible killing bastards. Now, add in reality that most of the 11,000 murders are gang related and not by legal gun owners and that number drops significantly. It actually comes out to be something closer to 0.002% of gun owners and that includes cops. But a question like this implies that gun owners are not responsible to start with and that it is the job of the NRA to teach them to be responsible. Here is a fact: Most gun owners recognize the danger of the guns. They recognize that kids can get killed or injured if the guns are not handled properly. Most gun owners will introduce their kids to guns and show them the dangers and the way to handle the guns safely. That’s what responsible people do.

@seawulf575 – I believe your stat might be that 42% of adults have a gun in their home. That means they live with someone who owns a gun.

About 29% of adults actually own a gun themselves. Which means they own an average of more than 4. That’s the average, meaning everyone who only owns one drags that down significantly. Not sure why people need so many guns, but I guess that’s not the discussion.
gallup polls

About 20 kids a day are killed or injured because of gunshots in the US. About a fifth of those are accidents. source

Maybe some education is in order after all. Especially young.

Some legislation might also be helpful, but the NRA opposes laws that would penalize a parent for injuries caused to children because the parent did not lock up their guns. Link

@funkdaddy Even claiming 29%, that changes it to only 0.015% of gun owners that are irresponsible killing bastards. And, as I said, most of the actual murders are gang related and are not lawful gun owners that would respond to a survey anyway. It really changes nothing of the message I was making. Everyone acts like owning a gun automatically makes you a killer or a likely killer. They act like more gun control laws are suddenly going to stop these murders. It isn’t the gun owners that follow the law that are the problem. Creating new gun laws isn’t the answer and I am absolutely fed up with this illogic that is being pushed.

I don’t think every gun owner is a killer or a likely killer.

I think every gun was designed to kill.

Every gun was made to kill or deter. And 99.985% of the gun owners treat them with respect. That doesn’t sound like gun control laws are the answer to stopping the violence. And as long as we are going to chase this rabbit down the rabbit hole, we will not address the actual causes of the violence.

As to your other points.

It isn’t the gun owners that follow the law that are the problem.

I know it isn’t. I know because that’s what numbers play out on a large scale. Registered gun owners are some of the least likely citizens to commit crimes in my state. report for 2016

And, as I said, most of the actual murders are gang related and are not lawful gun owners that would respond to a survey anyway.

There are statistics for gang related murders, you can find them pretty easily. There are about 2000 gang-related homicides per year, accounting for about one eighth of the total.

There are an estimated 800,000 gang members, so by your way of thinking we should say only 0.25% of gang members are murders and all this anti-gang legislation is just feeding the illogic that gang members are bad guys.

Or we could say the ease of arming everyone with weapons designed to kill has made it easier to murder and more difficult to defend.

If there were fewer guns, or someone was responsible for who they were selling those guns to, then perhaps we’d have more people in the first category, and less weapons available to those in the second.

I’m not against responsible gun ownership. I’m against the ridiculous notion of having more guns than people in this country and handing them out to practically anyone that wants one without any of the requirements we would normally place on deadly weapons. I honestly just want guns treated like everything else that will allow you to kill people quickly and easily.

“I honestly just want guns treated like everything else that will allow you to kill people quickly and easily.”
So you would be against licensing teenagers to drive? There are as many automobile deaths as there are gun deaths each year, and majority of those are due to teenaged drivers. Six teens, ages 16–19, die every day from motor vehicle accidents. You want to make it difficult for people to own guns, so why don’t we make it equally difficult for them to own cars? Yes, I know…guns have a purpose to kill and cars don’t. But we can agree that responsible ownership in both cases is safe…probably safer with guns. So if it is the deaths that are the problem, let’s apply the same logic to all forms that are causing needless deaths. OR…we can look a little deeper than those horrible “assault weapons” and get to some of the other data that pertains. When you start looking at gun deaths, you need to look at a few aspects. Gun death rates are misleading. They are dependent on population totals. But what you can look at is the number of gun owners, or percentage of population that are gun owners and the total gun deaths. I found this chart to be illuminating:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

There are a few things I see on here that scream out against gun control. Look at Alaska…61.7% of the population own guns. Yet there are only 39 gun murders in 2015. Now look at Delaware. Similar populations, yet only 5.2 percent of the population owns guns. And there are 52 gun deaths in the same period. 25% more gun deaths than a state that has similar population and has significantly more guns. How is that? What this chart tells you is that more gun ownership does not equal more gun murders. If you were to compare with states that had strict gun control laws, you would see that murders actually go up. Let’s compare Washington DC that has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation and compare it to Wyoming that has some of the most lax gun laws. Again…similar populations. 53.8% gun ownership in WY, 25.9% in DC. 10 gun deaths in WY, 121 in DC. It isn’t the guns that are the problem. It is the people holding the guns. It is the gun-free zones where nutjobs know they can get away with shooting unarmed people that can’t fight back. Look at Parkland vs Baltimore MD. Two school shootings that happened very close to each other. In Parkland, 14 killed and between 20–50 wounded. In Baltimore, 1 killed and 1 injured. The difference? There was a cop in MD that was willing to intercede. It was not a gun free zone. With nobody shooting back the deaths pile up.

You are cherry-picking the statistics. In the site that you point to, Alaska has a murder and non-negligent manslaughter rate of 8.0 per 100K compared to Delaware’s 6.7.

Having laws does not mean that they are rigorously enforced. Still, with the notable exception of D.C., the Northeast has generally low murder rates and most of the states have strong gun regulations. Delaware is one of the least regulated. The Southeast has both high murder rates and little gun regulation. Gun regulation link

As for cherry picking, I believe it is you that are doing it. You are taking population and I am taking gun owners. You are ignoring the percentage of the population that are gun owners. That is padding the stats and is inaccurate. I only use population as a point of reference between two points. When you have similar populations, you can take that out of the equation. You are then left with gun ownership v gun murders. And the indications are pretty significant. Not 100%, but close. Areas that have higher gun ownership have less gun murders. I’m not making it up, I have cited the reference and see no reason not to believe it. By taking gun death rate, you are assuming identical gun ownership which is faulty reasoning. You are assuming identical gun control laws, which is faulty. That is why I specifically pointed out initially that gun death rates are misleading. And I find it significant that liberals insist on using them.

Are we looking at the same chart? I see most of the Northeastern states with gun ownership and slaughter rates in the first two quartiles and most Southeastern states in the last two quartiles for both statistics.

I’m not sure if you’re being serious in comparing Washington D.C. to Wyoming and Alaska to Delaware. A city compared to the lowest population state in the union, and the largest state by area to the second smallest? You’re completely ignoring so many factors, including population density, rural vs. urban settings, the different purposes for a gun in Wyoming and Alaska vs. DC or much of Delaware. Let’s just agree that there are more important factors than total population, perhaps?

So you would be against licensing teenagers to drive? There are as many automobile deaths as there are gun deaths each year, and majority of those are due to teenaged drivers.

A majority of automobile deaths are not attributed to teenage drivers, in 2016 there were 37,000 traffic fatalities and 2,820 were teenagers. About 8%.

But you seem to be advocating for treating guns like automobiles, which you’re quick to point out are just as deadly. Sounds like the most logical place to start, right? I agree!

After all, car deaths have dipped even while we’re driving more miles than ever. In fact, by mileage, cars are 5 times safer than they were just 40 years ago. That’s pretty amazing.

Since there’s more guns than cars, can you imagine if we could have similar results with gun deaths? We’d be true American heroes.

So using cars as a starting point, we should be looking at

- licensing everyone who wants to own a gun
– training everyone who wants to own a gun
– yearly inspection and registration of every gun
– mandatory insurance against liability for each gun and user
– regulations on manufacturing safety and environmental concerns

I don’t know that you’re going to get all that through, and I’m not sure we’d want to, but I’m sure we can come to an agreement on a few that would have the greatest impact.

I’m glad we’re working together.

I actually am serious about comparing DC with Wyoming and Alaska with Delaware. I serious because it makes a significant point…it isn’t the guns. Just owning a gun doesn’t make your life or the lives of those around you less safe. And you started to make that argument for me. There are other factors other than guns that play into the issue of gun murders. Yet every discussion about a shooting begins and ends with the guns. Those evil “assault weapons” are the cause. That argument bothers me for so many reasons, it isn’t funny. People don’t own “assault weapons”. They own what some people consider to be scary looking guns. And the ones that are always highlighted are the AR-15…a rifle. Yet when you look at the statistics, rifles account for only a very small number of deaths annually. So the argument becomes nothing more than frantic screaming at something that really isn’t the problem.
As for cars being safer than they were 40 years ago, you are failing to look at gun deaths and gun murders specifically. They have been going down steadily for the past 20 years. Not a lot, but at a steady rate. So things are getting safer. Yet we continue to act like owning a gun is the one act that leads to the most deaths ever.
I look at your list of proposals and I see good and bad. I’m really not against some of those, though I am against others. I believe that everyone should be trained in the safe handling and operation. I never took an official course, but had many, many teachers in my time. By the time I got to the navy and had to “qualify” on the guns, I was already very familiar with both how to handle them safely and how to shoot.
Yearly inspections and registration of guns is foolishness. You have to have those for cars for different reasons. The yearly inspection is because a car is a moving object…a machine…that can wear out and become unsafe. A gun really isn’t. It is mainly a couple blocks of metal and a spring. And if it wears out, it becomes more safe, not less. So really this one sounds like nothing more than an extra hurdle towards gun ownership instead of something to make the world safer.
Mandatory insurance against liability for each gun and user and licensing I throw into the same pot. They are nothing but deterrents towards gun ownership. But also, they are an opportunity for the government to start taking away your rights to gun ownership. We saw with Obama that if a party gets into power that doesn’t believe the Constitution is required and that will use its power to harass those that don’t agree with its agenda, then suddenly your gun ownership is threatened.
As for manufacturing, I will guarantee you that there are already safety and environmental laws that apply to the making of guns. OSHA applies to all businesses and there are a ton of regulations from OSHA. 29CFR1910 if you are interested in digging into them. Not to mention if a business is releasing anything to the air or water or if they generate any kind of waste, there is an EPA rule that applies. So trying to add more is nothing but unfairly regulating an industry for no gain.
And do I find it almost comical that liberals frequently bring up things like mandatory training, insurance for guns. Because generally, those that do so also will fight tooth and nail against voter ID laws, claiming they are racist because they add an extra burden onto the poor people and that curtails their right to vote. The way I see it is that it is hypocritical to say that it is racist to add a charge that would limit one right while saying it is common sense when you want to do it to another right.
If we look at the list you provided and the one I really agree with, you will see that it is the only one that actually addresses the issue of safety. That is what is wrong with most of the gun control debate. It isn’t generally about safety, it is generally about taking guns away from people, or in other words…denying them their rights. See…this is where much of the anger resides. People have a right to keep and bear arms. This is the heart of the 2nd amendment. The District of Columbia v Heller decision confirmed this. It pointed out that not all weapons were covered, but that certainly handguns, rifles, and shotguns were. It pointed out that people have a right to defend themselves and their homes. And it pointed out that the Founding Fathers had a fear of oppressive government and that if people were not allowed to own guns, the federal government could and most likely would eventually set up its own sitting army or private militia to oppress the people and retain power. And when, today, we have the “gun control” debate, we can see that most of the arguments from those that are for gun control revolve around getting guns out of the hands of the populace, not about other options available to stop the senseless shootings. This will continue until we actually stop and listen to one another and have a civilized discussion, like the one we are having now.

The answers above seem more about the policy debate over gun control, not the question over the percentage of income the NRA spends on responsible use of a firearm. I reviewed the NRA tax filing on ProPublica and learned the following: $303,534,000 in income was reported on line 12 in 2016. Over 22% was spent on employee expenses, 21% was spent on advertising, 17% was spent on “legislative programs” and 25% was spent on marketing. That totals 85%.

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/530116130/201722619349300507/IRS990

The NRA has tax exempt status based on their mission to educate gun owners and advocate for responsible use of firearms. There is obviously a difference in interpretation of advocating for responsible use. The NRA filed suit against Florida for raising the minimum age to 21 for buying a gun. Is it responsible to let teens buy any gun?

The expenses reported on the tax filing are categories so it’s hard to know what those aggregate amounts mean in practice. For example, do“legislative programs” and marketing expenses include education for responsible use of firearms?. If we assume that, then the NRA spends 42% on its basic mission based on its form 990.

If question is “does the NRA offer gun safety courses” the answer is yes. How much they spend on them, I’m not sure. But here are some links:

https://firearmtraining.nra.org

http://www.nrainstructors.org/Search.aspx

https://explore.nra.org/interests/safety-and-education/

http://nrainstructors.org/CourseCatalog.aspx

https://basicpistol.nra.org

http://youth.nra.org

The list goes on and on with specific states and areas being offered as well. Where I think some of the disconnect comes is that the NRA becomes the scapegoat for irresponsible gun ownership or illegal use. Those things go entirely against their ideals. And as I have pointed out, most legal gun owners are extremely safe about their guns, so I believe the message (which is common sense) is getting through. That is why gun control laws and campaigns against the NRA are bogus red herrings. The people that get all the news are those that violate even the most basic of laws of humanity as well as the simplest of written laws. Most gun owners do not do these things, nor do they support them secretly. So putting more laws or restrictions on the legal gun owners is doing nothing other than confirming for the conservatives that it isn’t about gun safety or the safety of the kids…it’s about gun grabs and the denial of rights.

it’s about gun grabs and the denial of rights. your assumption @seawulf575 and the New Russian Agency (NRA)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/03/28/repealing-second-amendment-march-our-lives-students/463644002/

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/retired-justice-urges-repeal-amendment-54038316

https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/opinion/guest-column/2018/02/16/lets-repeal-second-amendment/345365002/

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-its-time-to-repeal-the-second-amendment-right-bear-arms-20160613

https://www.dailyherald.com/news/20180329/mcsweeney-proposes-gun-seizure-tougher-sentencing-legislation

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/01/us/california-gun-seizure-squads/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/06/states-look-to-gun-seizure-law-after-mass-killings.html

No, @Tropical_Willie it is the screaming of the left that gives me the statement…not the NRA and certainly not my assumption. And only liberal idiots try to deny it.

Not an idiot with a IQ of 140; maybe a liberal but… The New Russian Agency is in full swing. The revenue losses would be put them out of business and Putin would have lost an important control in the USA.

And you cannot address anything I actually pointed out which is, you were entirely wrong. So you want to try changing things. Let me help show everyone what an idiot you are further. The membership of the NRA has shot up since David Hogg started spewing his hate. So their revenue losses are actually looking like gains. Not to mention that as companies started pulling away from the NRA, people started pulling away from those companies. The NFL just saw that same effect by allowing the misguided protests on the field. Their losses were enormous and now the players are starting to feel that crunch as well. So please…feel free to bask in your ignorance. Oh, and my IQ is 144.

Sorry for you A @seawulf575 !

@seawulf575 , I don’t see any of your links talking about storing guns in locked cabinets. That would seem to be a very basic safety measure.

http://www.nragunsafe.com/products-liberty-nra-gun-safes-pt-1.html

https://www.nrafamily.org/articles/2018/1/16/how-to-choose-a-gun-safe/

https://www.mynrainsurance.com/blog/tips-for-choosing-a-gun-safe

https://www.nrafamily.org/articles/2016/4/14/6-ways-to-safely-store-your-firearms/

But really, why do I have to do everyone’s Google searches? Wait, I know that answer. No one actually wants to do the research for themselves because it might damage their hate for the NRA.

Why then do they oppose legislation requiring people to use them? Are they fearful that such laws will lead to restriction of gun sales? Seems a bit paranoid.
Link

Not everyone necessarily needs a gun safe nor do they choose to use them. What if we pushed for legislation that you had to keep your car in a garage? It would be safer there, and less likely to get stolen. But not everyone has a garage, nor does everyone live in a high crime area. Sort of the same with a gun. If I had children in the house, I would most certainly have a gun safe and my guns would be in it. As it is where my smallest children are in their mid-20’s and not living with me, the need is much less. And if I decided I wanted to keep my gun in the night stand drawer, I should be able to do that.
Let’s look at another, more applicable, analogy. Knives kill more people than rifles. So why don’t we make people lock up their knives in their kitchen?
But here is another thought about knives: There is a line of thinking that it is actually good for kids to play with knives. The thinking is that if you teach the children from a young age how to properly handle a knife, they grow up knowing it and there are fewer injuries later in life. Why don’t we do the same with guns? Start teaching the children at a young age how to properly handle them?

I am in favor of teaching children how to use knives properly and maybe even how to handle guns without firing them. Guns should still be required to be locked up when not in use.

The car analogy is invalid. The danger with guns is not theft. It is the potential accidental harm they can cause children and the possible use as a weapon by an intruder. Cars are not designed to be weapons. Guns are, and they do the job exceptionally well. You don’t even have to get close to what you are shooting at. The Las Vegas serial killer mowed down people from his hotel room several flights up.

The Las Vegas analogy isn’t valid either. It wasn’t an accidental shooting, no one accidentally got hold of guns to do it. A gun safe would have done nothing. A gun safe is really only designed to keep kids away from the guns and possibly from intruders breaking in when you aren’t home. That is why I stated that not everyone really needs a gun safe. I don’t live in a high crime area and have no children. A gun safe is just a useless expense in my mind.

I did find this interesting website. It has a lot of facts with citations. Generally going to government agencies for the data. Might be interesting.

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/crime-and-guns/#note-93-25

The Vegas shooting was not an analogy to anything. It was an example of how well guns can kill people. You use an argument for one point to show that it does not apply to another. Very faulty reasoning.

Some of the arguments in the link you point to are misleading.
It says that guns prevent 400,000 life-threatening crimes a year. How the heck do they know that? Might the crime preventers in fact be policemen?

It says that 0.7% of convicts bought firearms at gun shows. How many of those criminals even used firearms? Then it says that 39.2% of convicts obtained guns from illegal street dealers. And where do street dealers get their guns? Does not say. Seems like an obvious followup question. Might a lot of street dealers get their guns from gun shows?

It says 90% of violent crimes do not involve firearms. How many of those crimes resulted in homicide and how many of the crimes involving firearms resulted in homicide?

You can dig deeper if you like. What the link did say was that a large majority of guns that were used in commission of a crime were on average 11 years from the original retail purchase (from a store or a gun show). A gun could travel quite a ways in that time with the owner moving, selling the gun, pawning the gun, having the gun stolen, giving it as a gift, etc.
As for the 0.7% of convicts buying guns at shows, the implication is that they used the guns in the commission of their crime. However regardless, it shows that criminals aren’t haunting the gun shows to buy their guns.
The 90% of violent crimes is a bit misleading, but only when taken out of context. Violent crimes could be assault, rape, armed robbery, murder, etc. However, they were responding to the equally misleading myth that Private Guns are Used to Commit Violent Crimes. That talking point is bogus to start with. Yes, if even one person used a private gun to commit a violent crime…ever…it is true. But the implication is that all violent crimes are committed using private guns which is hugely false.

As for the question of how to know that guns prevent 400,000 life-threatening crimes a year, here is another link:

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-and-crime-prevention/

I question how some of those statistics were compiled. How can you determine the likelihood of surviving depending on whether or not you have a gun?

They give the citations for where the stats come from. You can dig into them if you like. I can guess that some of it is pretty clear cut such as the mother in GA that took her kids into the attic to avoid the home invader and ended up shooting him when he tried coming after her. Sort of a no-brainer there. Others might not be so clear cut. The previous list I cited had some stuff from interviews with convicts that stated they were less likely to attack someone if they were armed or if they thought they were armed.

Some other statistics
Gun ownership has been declining.
The states with the strictest gun laws have the lowest homicide rates.
Most gun used in mass shootings are obtained legally.
Higher rate of gun ownership correlates with higher homicide rate.

As to the last point, that mass shootings don’t affect public opinion, we may have reached a tipping point with the shooting in Parkland.

Suicides account for 60% of homicides. Places with lower gun ownership have lower suicide rates. Link

Sorry, I couldn’t look at your link without paying money so I didn’t. I will take your word for some of it, but let me point out a couple things. You are using homicide rate. That is a squirrelly comparison. For instance, each murder in Wyoming counts for 47 in CA. And most of the murders in CA happen in a relatively small area. So while living in Eureka CA might be perfectly safe, living in LA isn’t. So I know the left always wants to use murder rates, but it is a misleading statistic. In fact, if you look at the stats, you find that about 10% of all gun murders in the US happen in CA. But when you look at murder rate it looks much better. Ideally, each city would reflect the effect of gun laws on the murders in a state, but that isn’t the case.
I found this link:

https://ways-to-die.com/highest-murder-rate-us/

Which shows the cities with the highest murder rate. Again, I don’t like using murder rate, but if you want to compare these city murder rates with those of the states they are from, you will see what I am talking about. This link also shows what I am talking about:

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/la-chicago-rank-1-and-2-gun-murders-no-has-highest-rate