Zanchief wrote:The NRA's basic stance is that they are protecting people by fighting for your right to bare arms. They think that if people have weapons people will be safer. I don't possibly see how that's true, and statistics tend to agree with me, but why don't they push non-lethal weapons?
If this is solely an issue of protection why don't we see taser-shows, where people from all over the country sit down and talk about how much they love pepper-spray? It's the destructive nature of firearms that's enticing to people.
Remove the emotional attachment and people can actually start doing an effective job of protecting themselves instead of worrying about the interpretation of a constitutional amendment.
i see you have never been to a gun show.
you also dont have your facts straight again
this is just from texas:
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba324/ba324.htmlLicensees were 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public - 127 per 100,000 population versus 730 per 100,000.
Licensees were 14 times less likely to be arrested for nonviolent offenses than the general public - 386 per 100,000 population versus 5,212 per 100,000.
Further, the general public is 1.4 times more likely to be arrested for murder than licensees [see Figure I], and no licensee had been arrested for negligent manslaughter.
and
Concealed handgun laws reduce murder by 8.5 percent, rape by 5 percent and severe assault by 7 percent. [See Figure II.]
Had right-to-carry prevailed throughout the country, there would have been 1,600 fewer murders, 4,200 fewer rapes and 60,000 fewer severe assaults.
"When criminals suspect that the costs of committing a crime will be too high, they are less likely to commit it."
read this