jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (55 posts)

N.R.A. Defender of Freedom or Big Business?

  1. Don W profile image82
    Don Wposted 4 years ago

    The N.R.A. is often characterised as defending the freedom of U.S. citizens, or defending the constitution. But the organisation happens to be funded by firearms manufactures, and its sponsors and board members are also owners of firearm suppliers, wholesalers and manufactures.

    Pete Brownell - Owns Brownells "the world's largest supplier of firearms accessories and gunsmithing tools".
    Corporate sponsor ($500,000 to $999,999)
    N.R.A. Board member.

    Larry Potterfield - Foudner of MidwayUSA (firearms wholesaler and retailer)
    Coorporate sponsor  ($500,000 to $999,999)
    Wife is vice president of the NRA Foundation's Board of Trustees.

    Beretta USA Corporation - Firearms Manufacturer
    Corporate sponsor ($1,000,000 to $4,999,999)

    Springfield Armory, Inc. - Firearms Manufacturer
    Corporate sponsor ($1,000,000 to $4,999,999)

    Benelli USA Corporation - Firearms Manufacturer
    Corporate sponsor ($1,000,000 to $4,999,999)

    The list goes on and on.

    Yet on their website they say the N.R.A. is "not affiliated with any firearm or ammunition manufacturers or with any businesses that deal in guns and ammunition." link

    First of all, that's clearly a lie. Secondly, how can the N.R.A. be considered to be defending "freedom" when it is clearly just defending the interests of people who want to sell guns? Thirdly, is it right that this one organisation be allowed to hold such influence over politicians, policy-makers and laws that affect the whole country?

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      In this country we have decided somehow that contributions and financial support do not affect the actions or attitudes of the recipient.  Were it not so we would not allow our politicians to accept gifts or campaign funds from lobbyists or special interest groups.

      That's plainly a load of BS.  Of course the NRA supports those companies and their goal of selling weapons.

      IMHO, though, many members of the NRA (and possibly the power elite at the top) also feel they are defending citizens rights and the constitution.  The two are not totally incompatible.

      *edit* I missed the "third".  You mean organizations like big oil, unions, WalMart or other giant companies, the banking industry and car manufacturers?  If we're going to let one special interest group in seems like we should let them all lobby.

      1. Don W profile image82
        Don Wposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Trying to prevent restrictions to high capacity clips has nothing to do with the constitution or "freedom", but everything to do with the N.R.A. protecting the profits of its corporate sponsors (and board members). It's claims are evidently false. This organisation is nothing but a corporate front for the gun industry. It's a money making machine that uses "freedom", and the constitution to keep the cash coming in.

        Do you think an organisation that opposes a ban on selling firearms to people on the terrorist watch list is looking out for the interests of U.S. citizens? And that opposition is despite the fact that many N.R.A. members agree with such a restriction. How dare they talk of "defending the country". B.S. they are defending their bottom line at the expense of the country.

        Many of its "corporate sponsors" are from outside the U.S. and don't give a crap about the interests of U.S. citizens. E.g. Beretta (Italian), Bellini (Italian), Arsenal (Bulgarian), Para (New Zealand), FNH (Belgium), Glock (Austria), SIG Sauer (German). These companies own the N.R.A. For them the U.S. is a market pure and simple, and the N.R.A. is the front they use to control that market. Sure some naive individuals within the organisation may think they are defending freedom and the constitution. Don't be fooled. What they are actually defending are the profits of a bunch of domestic and foreign corporations who look at a map of America and see only: $$$. Meanwhile it's American citizens and their families who pay the ultimate price.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You're losing your objectivity and turning your question into a rant about the NRA with patently false statements and insinuations that are probably false as well.

          The removal of any right is a reduction in freedom, whether it be the right to eat what you want, dress as you please or own a high capacity ammunition clip.  The NRA is thus fighting (if they do - we'll see) for the freedom to own that clip.

          The NRA may actually be nothing but a corporate gun front, but there is no indication of that that I'm aware of.  Does the top management own or work for gun companies?  Are the gun companies in collusion in owning the NRA?  Which companies, specifically, and how much stock do they own individually?  Does each one in your (unsubstantiated) list own 1% or 20%? 

          You don't think that removing the freedom of terrorist organizations to buy weapons is a removal of freedom?  Even as you know that simply owning too much food will put you on that watch?

          1. Don W profile image82
            Don Wposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            1. Which of my statements do you claim to be false?

            2. You are confusing freedom of choice with rights. A restriction in someone's freedom of choice does not always equate to a reduction of their rights. There are laws, morals, social conventions that restrict your freedom of choice every day. Such restrictions allow a society to function in a manner we call 'civilised'. It is generally accepted in civil society that people cannot do anything they choose to. The fact you cannot take something from a shop without paying (without facing negative consequences) is not an infringement of your rights. It is a restriction in your freedom of choice that helps society function. Not being able to own a high capacity ammunition clip is not an infringement of your rights.   

            3. "Does the top management own or work for gun companies?" Did you read what I posted at all? Pete Brownell is a member of the N.R.A. board. He is also the owner of "Brownells", the firearms retailer. Larry Potterfield  is founder of MidwayUSA and a corporate sponsor. His wife Brenda is the Vice President of the NRA Foundation's Board of Trustees. A large portion of the N.R.A's funding comes from such "corporate sponsorship". Do you think those "sponsors" are likely to want the N.R.A. to do something that reduces their profits in the interests of U.S. citezens? If you do, then you are naive.

            All this information is publicly accessible, including information about forighn corporate backers. For example this N.R.A. news release announcing a $1,000,000 "donation" from Beretta USA. Its parent company is the Italian company Beretta Holding, which also owns Benelli. It's all there, you just have to look for it.

            4. And no too much food doesn't automatically get you on the terrorist watch list as you suggest. It's just one of a number of things the FBI suggested could be an indicator, in combination with things like making comments that "endorse the use of violence in support of a cause". Even if you did both these things, that doesn't mean you will automatically be placed on a watch list. Unless you have some further information from the FBI, in which case please feel to present it.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              "2. You are confusing freedom of choice with rights. A restriction in someone's freedom of choice does not always equate to a reduction of their rights. There are laws, morals, social conventions that restrict your freedom of choice every day"

              Absolutely true - it is not possible to live in conjunction with other people without infringing on their freedoms.  That doesn't make it any less of an infringement, though - just a necessary one if we wish society to survive. 

              Your claim that limiting specific freedoms as a necessity means it is not a loss of freedom is incorrect.  Loss of freedom is loss of freedom regardless of the reason.

              So far I haven't seen anything indicating that the infringement on the freedom to own high capacity magazines will benefit society.  Given that two magazines will carry the same total of rounds and that it takes only a second, 2 at the most, to swap magazines I don't see any advantage to society to limit that freedom.  That it will make people feel good to see others lose that freedom is insufficient reason.  That it will give a false sense of accomplishment that we're taking effective action in the wake of a tragedy isn't sufficient reason, either.  IMHO.

              1. Don W profile image82
                Don Wposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                That's a misrepresentation of what I said. I actually said: "A restriction in someone's freedom of choice does not always equate to a reduction of their rights", . . . "It is a restriction in your freedom of choice that helps society function." Where is the claim that it's not a restriction of freedom? The point is that certain restrictions of freedom are not an infringement of your rights. What right does not being allowed to own a high capacity ammunition clip impinge?

                Regardless, the N.R.A. seems more interested in defending the profits of its corporate backers than your rights. Many N.R.A. members favour certain gun control measures, yet the N.R.A. still lobbies against them. In a choice between what its members want and protecting it's sponsors profits, which do you think is its main priority?



                Then you haven't looked hard enough. In April 1996 after a mass shooting in Australia, the Prime Minister introduced legislation banning semi-automatic and automatic rifles, and shotguns. Of course the U.S. and Australia are different countries with different cultural backgrounds, but we should at least be able to get some idea as to whether such action has a generally positive effect, negative effect, or no effect.

                This study from the Australian National University, summarised by the Washington Post here, and Slate here,  tells us that since the legislation, the firearms homicide rate has fallen 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate has fallen 65 percent. And that there was no parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. Read that again, just so you are clear, there was no parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. This chart shows the change in firearm suicides per 100,000 population in Australia after the legislation was introduced.

                http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/australia-suicides-buyback-e1355850772517.jpg

                It's also important to note there were thirteen mass shootings in Australia during the period 1979–96. During the period since stronger controls 1996–2012 there has been 0. So there is evidence that indicates restricting access to certain types of weapons benefits society. Perhaps you need to look more closely at the issue than you have.

                1. innersmiff profile image78
                  innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  "What right does not being allowed to own a high capacity ammunition clip impinge?"

                  The right to free association, and property rights.

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
                    Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I don't think there's a Constitutional right to manufacture,sell or own an assault weapon or a high capacity magazine. Congress could ban the manufacture, sale or possession of these weapons tomorrow.

                2. islandantoinette profile image60
                  islandantoinetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  VERY VERY IMPRESSIVE! AND ENLIGHTENING SO THERE IS A WAY TO STOP ALL THIS MADNESS IF PEOPLE REALLY WANTED TO!

                  Then you haven't looked hard enough. In April 1996 after a mass shooting in Australia, the Prime Minister introduced legislation banning semi-automatic and automatic rifles, and shotguns. Of course the U.S. and Australia are different countries with different cultural backgrounds, but we should at least be able to get some idea as to whether such action has a generally positive effect, negative effect, or no effect.

                  This study from the Australian National University, summarized by the Washington Post here, and Slate here,  tells us that since the legislation, the firearms homicide rate has fallen 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate has fallen 65 percent. And that there was no parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. Read that again, just so you are clear, there was no parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. This chart shows the change in firearm suicides per 100,000 population in Australia after the legislation was introduced.


                  http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/upl … 772517.jpg

                  It's also important to note there were thirteen mass shootings in Australia during the period 1979–96. During the period since stronger controls 1996–2012 there has been 0. So there is evidence that indicates restricting access to certain types of weapons benefits society.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    How very odd.  Check the graph at the top here:

                    http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

                    It shows a near constant homicide rate from 1993 to 2003, when it began to fall somewhat.

                    If, as you say, gun homicides decreased 59% while overall homicide did not fall at all, it would seem to give a lie to the idea that non-gun homicides did not increase. 

                    In addition, as the number of homicide victims decreased after 2004 slightly but the number of homicide incidents fell tremendously, it would seem to indicate there were more victims per incident; mass killings increased when guns were taken away.

                    At least I can see no other answer - can you (or anyone else)?

            2. innersmiff profile image78
              innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Don W.
              Other activities that might make you suspected of terrorism include 'paying with cash' and 'holding anti-government views'. It's not hard to build up a combination of activities that could place you on a watch-list. It seems to me more like an 'anti-government' watch list than a 'terrorist' one, and yes, it is a restriction of rights.

              You're massively confused on this issue. Laws against theft are not violations of rights because one does not have the right to steal. One does have the right to own whatever clip size you want. The act itself does not infringe on any other. If we're assuming that an individual has the right to one's self, we have to assume that they have the right to engage in any voluntary association with a willing individual, and trade with them with justly owned property. The only thing one does not have the right to do is commit an act of aggression against another, even if you're part of government. Prohibition is aggression, a violation of individual rights, and should be out of the question.

              1. Don W profile image82
                Don Wposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Sorry but the issue is to important to use as a way of disseminating Libertarian nonsense. Being entrenched in ideology so you only see things through the lens of that ideology is an idiotic approach to any issue. A pragmatic approach is what's needed on the issue, not a childish, regurgitation of ideological dogma.

                1. innersmiff profile image78
                  innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  So you're coming from the perspective of ideology-less bliss are you? Is there anything especially wrong with holding to an ideology if the ideas within it are sound? Or is it only okay to have an ideology when the issue is not important?

                  Is there anything in my post that you can refute using logic instead of name-calling?

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    No - the soundness of ideology is immaterial.  What matters is only that yours agrees with the posters.  So far that's what I've seen in all these discussions on gun control/ownership anyway.

                  2. Don W profile image82
                    Don Wposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    One of the main lessons we have learned about ideology, a lesson which draws on evidence from throughout history, is that 1) a single ideology is seldom ideal for every condition and state of affairs, and 2) when people act as though it is, ideology quickly descends into blind dogma.

                    I do not believe it is beneficial for groups or individuals within society to adhere to a single ideology, or to any ideology. Such adherence very quickly becomes entrenchment, which results in those same groups or individuals refusing to take action for the good of society, not on the grounds that those actions would not be beneficial, but on the grounds that they do not adhere to the principles of their ideology.

                    Within the process of making group decisions for the benefit of society, i.e. politics, the criteria for action must be the benefit that action brings to society. To determine what actions would be beneficial we must enlist the help of the brightest minds, the most exceptional innovators, the most gifted entrepreneurs, the most talented artists and all the other talent that exists in society. Not fall back on a formula for action, which is what ideologies are in their essence. Each action must have its own solution, not a formulaic one. At times the best solution will fit some ideology or other. At times it won't. At times the best solution will be clear. At times it wont. And that's when we must be prepared to compromise.

                    Entrenchment in ideology is the enemy of compromise. Not only does it blind our decision makers from seeing beneficial actions, it also reduces the political forum to a battle of ideologies that weakens our ability to make group decisions and actions for the benefit of society. The ability to make such decisions and actions is the reason d'etre of the political apparatus.

                    So I have nothing against ideology per se, only the blind loyalty it engenders. I care not if an idea is libertarian, or capitalist, or communist, or any other variety. I care only that it works to the good of society. But if you give me an ideology, as if its principles represent the best course of action in every situation, I will tell you that a single ideology is seldom ideal for every condition and state of affairs. You did, so I have. This issue needs ideas, not ideologies.

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image72
        Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The candidates supported by NRA, in addition to supporting candidates who toe the NRA line, also tend to be conbsertvative on a variety of other issues. They dovetail with Grover Norquist's objectives and those of the Koch brothers and the Tea Party.

    2. profile image59
      whoisitposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Wow, The NRA of which I am not a member is supported by gun manufacturers. I hope they support all business big and small.

    3. profile image61
      retief2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Is this apple a fruit or a desert?  These things are not mutually exclusive.

      1. Don W profile image82
        Don Wposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Oversimplification.

        (he said wondering if a one word answer is overly simplistic)

        1. profile image61
          retief2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hardly.

    4. profile image61
      retief2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      overcomplication

    5. islandantoinette profile image60
      islandantoinetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I AGREE 100% and these are enlightening facts to know and be aware of! Thank you!

      1. islandantoinette profile image60
        islandantoinetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I AGREE 100% and these are enlightening facts to know and be aware of! Thank you!

        I AM REFERRING TO THE TOP POST SINCE IT DID NOT PUT MY COMMENT IN THE PROPER PLACE.  THIS:::
        The N.R.A. is often characterised as defending the freedom of U.S. citizens, or defending the constitution. But the organisation happens to be funded by firearms manufactures, and its sponsors and board members are also owners of firearm suppliers, wholesalers and manufactures.

        Pete Brownell - Owns Brownells "the world's largest supplier of firearms accessories and gunsmithing tools".
        Corporate sponsor ($500,000 to $999,999)
        N.R.A. Board member.

        Larry Potterfield - Foudner of MidwayUSA (firearms wholesaler and retailer)
        Coorporate sponsor  ($500,000 to $999,999)
        Wife is vice president of the NRA Foundation's Board of Trustees.

        Beretta USA Corporation - Firearms Manufacturer
        Corporate sponsor ($1,000,000 to $4,999,999)

        Springfield Armory, Inc. - Firearms Manufacturer
        Corporate sponsor ($1,000,000 to $4,999,999)

        Benelli USA Corporation - Firearms Manufacturer
        Corporate sponsor ($1,000,000 to $4,999,999)

        The list goes on and on.

        Yet on their website they say the N.R.A. is "not affiliated with any firearm or ammunition manufacturers or with any businesses that deal in guns and ammunition." link

        First of all, that's clearly a lie. Secondly, how can the N.R.A. be considered to be defending "freedom" when it is clearly just defending the interests of people who want to sell guns? Thirdly, is it right that this one organisation be allowed to hold such influence over politicians, policy-makers and laws that affect the whole country?.

  2. ahorseback profile image43
    ahorsebackposted 4 years ago

    The N.R.A, has as little ,as much or more influence as ANY  other  P.A.C..,  If you were to trace the money back from any one of these lobbyists , you would find the same thing !  The N.E.A. , the AFL-unions , the NFL.  Any political action commitee !  They all influence by bullying politicians !  To demonize them over say , the national assoc. of municiple  workes ,or  of the organization of nuclear scientists is wrong !

    1. islandantoinette profile image60
      islandantoinetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      BUT "A HORSE BACK " THOSE ORGANIZATIONS ARE NOT KILLING POEPLE ARE THEY??????

      1. profile image61
        retief2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The NRA is not killing people.  No organization is necessary for that ancient human pursuit.  After all it wasn't the club that killed Able, it was Cain.

  3. ahorseback profile image43
    ahorsebackposted 4 years ago

    Uhh Hello ?

  4. Ralph Deeds profile image72
    Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago

    The NRA needs new leadership. Wayne LaPierre's rant proposing armed guards in every school indicates he's afflicted with what organizational behaviorialists call "trained incapacity" which is inability of a leader or executive, by virtue to his previous training or experience, to respond to changed circumstances. His rant this week wasn't what gun owners or manufacturers, no to mention the country needs, in my opinion.

    1. islandantoinette profile image60
      islandantoinetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      KUDDOS TO THAT RALPH! I BELIEVE THAT TOO!

    2. ahorseback profile image43
      ahorsebackposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      And Ralph , niether is the niavitee' of suggesting  eliminate the guns and it will elliminate the killing !  Oh and heres something to ponder , do you really thing the gun owners would just hand them over  without a civil war breaking out ?

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
        Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        As far as I know, there are no serious proposals that anyone be required to hand over their weapons. Senator Feinstein's proposal is prospective.

        1. ahorseback profile image43
          ahorsebackposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The NRA , which I belonged to for years and have since the nineties not been involved , is a PAC. thats all , and like all of them simply plays on the fears of gun owning constituants and reaps incredible profits to do this . Yes they do need a new leader ! One more effective in raising the awareness that guns arent the real issue here at all but that human nature and the complete lack of  the public involvement and awareness  in mental health problems ! AND to better inform the public that our legal system is in America is in a cronic failure mode !  Our court systems , penal systems and the revolving doors of justice  are broken ,warn out and useless !  Senator Fienstein ! is a freak of nature in a political uniform ! Ralph ! Where do we go from here though ,really ?......:-}

          1. Don W profile image82
            Don Wposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Indeed. The N.R.A. are doing incredible damage to the cause of sensible gun owners. The organisations seems to serve no useful purpose other than to increase the profits of its corporate sponsors. The fact that a relatively small organisation can exert such political influence is troubling.

            1. profile image59
              whoisitposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Doesn't trouble me in the least.

            2. islandantoinette profile image60
              islandantoinetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I  agree with your logic in this Don W.  Sadly however it is not such a "small" organisation.  It is huge way too big and powerful with lobbyists that have unending pockets and blank checks that they use to get what they want. Just another word for bribes (in other countries).

  5. ahorseback profile image43
    ahorsebackposted 4 years ago

    The simple fact alone that the elimination of guns [impossible] is the issue here shows the absolute inability of you all to act in a reasonable and real way to stop tis kind of idiot son  from doing  in a group of innocents ,at all !   Its also obvious that the anti gunners here have probably never even picked one up in thier hands .   I have been a hunter and recreational target shoooter my entire life . I have witnessed hundreds of people firsthand , maybe thousands of men ,women and yes -even younger teens handle , shoot and enjoy guns.  I have also spent thousands of hours shooting archery in tourniments  , in  3/D video hunting , and at fixed targets strategicaly place on coarses through woods and field coarses ,  Not once have I ever witnessed anyone  go off the wall and shoot anyone .  Let me ask you this ! .....Why do YOU allow the armed protection of your president , govenors , congress and even mayors , your soldiers ....but not your children ?

  6. islandantoinette profile image60
    islandantoinetteposted 4 years ago

    Personally I don't believe in guns period, after living in societies where there are no guns and no need for them. People will and do find a way to kill each other without guns. However guns = money and make that BIG MONEY and GREED in America as sadly with so many other "things". I know how to shoot, learned at a private all girls summer camp that Judy Garlands "other" daughter Lorna Luft and sister of Liza Minnelli attended with me. They got us all to sign that paper to join the NRA for life. We were too young to know what we were doing or the full ramifications of it. Now I do know, have formed opinions about gun violence and I choose NOT to have a gun. Not that I am a "hothead" but too many people and things in this society in America can push your buttons no matter what they be and I'd kill some people for sure!!! Yep sure would! And I am an RN with extensive education in mental health. But the truth IS the truth. Some people do not deserve to live! Ever looked into the eyes of the man who sexually molested your child? I have; there IS evil in this world and sadly the courts do not always dish out what is the deserved outcome. Then there is the other side where too many cops shoot and kill first. Oh you don't hear about all of them on the nightly news do you! If you think only 34 people a day die in America from guns you are gullible. So you can not say only these people "should" have guns and those people should not; as there are people of all races, creeds, colours, states, locations and beliefs that should NOT have guns and sadly there is no sure way to ensure that these people do not have them except for NO ONE TO! Since life can not go back sadly for the good of mankind, due to gun=money=lobbyists=greed=more money=power; it may just "go back" to the wild wild west days where everyone had a gun and shot anyone they wanted to "faster than the next man" could shoot and kill him. It certainly seems like the NRA folks want that. I see a woman with a gun on her hip in jeans not looking very ladylike, then there are the pink guns, and I see two 16 yr. olds who were able to buy legal guns from a gun shop who killed their friend with one. Then I see two hi-way patrol police in Texas doing body cavity searches ON THE HIGHWAY of two women using the same glove for throwing a suspected marijuana cigarette out the window. If these women had not agreed to the search they so easily could have been shot. I think I have experienced it from all sides and thus have decided I am AGAINST ALL GUNS.

  7. ahorseback profile image43
    ahorsebackposted 4 years ago

    So eliminate guns !  Yea go and write up a law or bill that says "there will be no more guns " and watch the crime rate explode !   And the death rate won't drop either , because as you say "some people deserve to die "  ,what you gonna use your car , a bus , a tractor ?  Eaugggff ! You guys will NEVER get it . Its human nature to kill  another ! Not the guns nature !

    1. islandantoinette profile image60
      islandantoinetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Still does not make it right! I chose NOT to kill with my bare hands the man I caught who sexually molested my 8 yr. old daughter!  You don't need a gun to kill but the ONLY purpose of a gun is to KILL nothing else.  Case closed.

  8. ahorseback profile image43
    ahorsebackposted 4 years ago

    Oh and you are a nurse ?!

    1. islandantoinette profile image60
      islandantoinetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yes "ahorseback" I am an RN with a BSN. We nurses are entitled to opinions thoughts and beliefs too. We also have experiences in life that colour our thoughts and actions but  It does not mean we begin killing patients wily nilly that we don't think deserve to live or for what ever reasons the gun people kill on a daily basis with their guns however!  I was HONEST in what I said. Obviously you could not handle HONESTY coming from what you view nurses to be in your mind.  Real nurses do not live in Soap Operas.

  9. ahorseback profile image43
    ahorsebackposted 4 years ago

    Actually I love honesty -! More so than most people by far , thats really in fact, the only reason i get into some of these forums !   I dislike it when people pick on the underdog ! And YOU are doing that in this issue !  You say you're an RN , very nice !Seriously , you chose a life that is in sevice of people . thier health , well being  etc.    As a RN.  how many times have you seen or heard of or perhaps even been involved in filing false reports of death or accidental injuries from actual health care . I KNOW that happens , the nurses , doctors and entire health care system gets away with  ' accidental homicide -accidental death - neglectful  death every day in America,   Here's your question -Please answer honestly -    do you or have you ever "covered up '  for another  in your daily R.N.reports ? !   Dont give me this crap that it never happens either . IT does !  Does that then mean we should outlaw R.N.s......?  Hmmmm? Lets get real about the illusion that Guns are wiping out whole societies any more that R.Ns, are !    You like honesty  !? Here's honesty

    The year 2000 in The USA , deaths to children under 18 .......statistics = NCHS
    National Childrens Health Studies ------

    -174 accidental . firearm deaths
    - 2000 children died from abuse alone .
    -1236 from drowning
    -1946 from fires
    -1242 from gun homicides
    -6466 auto accidents
    -23,094 ----natural causes !!!!
    -238 accident electricutions , falls , etc
    -1,580  from sufficution
    -1,621 from TEEN SUICIDES
    -2, 523.......SIDS- alone

    Now !   You and many many others here like to attack law abiding gun owners like myself , sportsman , recreational target shooters , antique appreciating replica  owners, and even women who want to defend themselves!  ......And you dont care about stepping on any innocent toes to get your  internet forum cookies off . So answer this honestly ---how many of the above numbers of child deaths are you and your Health Care  System responsible for ?....Dishonesty ?  Theres plenty of that to go around too !  How about YOU ?  Are you disshonest in your daily reports ,  have you ever contributed to the numbers above , ........because apparently your accusing me of that !

  10. ahorseback profile image43
    ahorsebackposted 4 years ago

    Be nice to end  the blind immature RANTS by anti- gun nuts  ,  but then we'd have to put an end to blind immaturity  as well .....I just don't have that power ..........,sorry !  I notice though that  many many forum ranters don't like facts though !

 
working