To: TimF who wrote (142231 ) 1/30/2002 3:36:13 PM From: tejek Read Replies (1) | Respond to The NRA was supposed to meet in Denver about that time, but after Columbine, it was told to get over it. y the time the cops arrive a lot of people are allready dead. In another situation a school shooting was stopped by a vice principal who went to his car to get his gun and then stopped the killers. However he was not treated as a hero but rather as a criminal for having a gun in school. There is an indirect correlation between the NRA and every gun death and injury in this country.Bullshit. More deaths are prevented by the NRA through its safety programs, its campaigns to enforce laws against criminals using guns (unfortunately its hard to stop this but atleast the criminals can be locked up and kept off the streets a bit longer because of these laws) and by its supporting the right of people to have guns to defend themselves then are caused by people who would not have had guns if it wasn't for the NRA. The criminals would have guns if the NRA disappeared but less law abiding citizens would have guns and less of them would receive proper safety and accuracy training. There was an incident here a couple of years ago that shows the effect of guns... It would be like saying that some horrible car accident means we should have cars, or the fact that someone slipped in the shower and injured themselves means we should require permits and waiting periods before anyone can buy, install, or use a shower. Last year, they killed nearly 30 thousand people in the US alone......I dare say that's probably more than terrorists have killed in the last ten years throughout the world. I consider that pretty massive destruction. Mass destruction means one weapon causes mass destruction, not all of them throughout a large country that has a lot of them over the course of a whole year. Its also true that they where used at least hundreds of thousands of times to defend people from crime. Does that make them "weapons of mass protection".
