Does NRA Exploit Violent Movies to Sell Guns?
A gun industry analyst says NRA spokesman Wayne LaPierre is hypocritical in his latest attack on violent movies
Washington, DC — A report issued Jan. 2 by author and gun industry expert Tom Diaz shoots down NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre’s recent attack on violence in films and games.
Bloody Reel: How The National Rifle Association And The Gun Industry Exploit Violent Movies To Sell Guns...And More Guns, documents in detail how the National Rifle Association and the gun industry it represents have promoted the use of guns in movies and exploited many of the very movies LaPierre recently attacked as the cause of gun violence in America.
Here's more on the gun debate:
NRA: Put Armed Security in Every School Now
Mom's Group Slams NRA Response to Sandy Hook Shooting
Assault Weapons Ban? Here's Where Lehigh Valley Lawmakers Stand
On Friday, December 21, 2012 LaPierre, the National Rifle Association’s chief executive, blasted the movie industry in a press conference, pointing to what he called “blood-soaked films out there” and exclaiming, “Isn’t fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography?”
“If violent movies are filthy pornography, Wayne LaPierre is the king of filthy porno,” said Diaz, author of two books on the gun industry. “For over 10 years, the NRA—through its National Firearms Museum, its websites, and its media outlets—has glorified the use of guns in some of the most brutally violent films ever made. The gun industry the NRA represents exploits violent movies for one reason: to sell guns.”
Do you agree? Tell us in the comments section below.
Bloody Reel describes two special exhibits on Hollywood guns that the NRA has mounted at its National Firearms Museum in Fairfax, VA. The report also recounts how former movie critic Stephen Hunter – who wrote the introduction to the NRA brochure for its current exhibit, “Hollywood Guns” – dismissed the effects of violence in movies in his own book, and suggested that violent movies head off violence.
“Wayne LaPierre obviously never visits his own porno-packed museum,” Diaz said. “He also seems not to have a clue that of one his favorite scriveners has in the past scoffed at the violent-movies-make-them-do-it excuse the NRA is peddling as the cause of gun violence in America.”
Diaz is the author of the forthcoming The Last Gun: How Changes in the Gun Industry Are Killing Americans and What It Will Take to Stop It (The New Press, Spring 2013) and Making a Killing: The Business of Guns in America (The New Press, 1999).
###
Tom Diaz is a lawyer, author, journalist, and was formerly Democratic Counsel to the Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice of the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. He worked for then-Rep. Charles E. Schumer. His principal brief covered issues related to terrorism and firearms.
Prior to his staff work for the Congress, Diaz studied and wrote about terrorism and transnational organized crime at the National Strategy Information Center in Washington, DC. Before joining NSIC, he was assistant managing editor for news for six years at The Washington Times newspaper, where his earlier beats as a reporter included the Supreme Court and national security matters.
Most recently Diaz was senior policy analyst at the Violence Policy Center, a non-profit, non-partisan public policy organization that studies the gun industry, its products, and their impact on crime, death, and injury in the United States.
Elsa
7:05 am on Friday, January 4, 2013
No they don't.
Rich Cranium
7:25 am on Friday, January 4, 2013
I am sorry but a museum with guns on display is no where near the same thing as a movie that shows people shooting up places and people for two hours. or a game that does that for hours. A gun that is a movie prop has special history, hence it's being on display.
That being said I do think that I disagree with the NRA's statements about movies and video games causing violence, but an interesting point was made to me about that idea. Why is a 30 second ad during the superbowl worth millions of dollars if what we see on tv has no effect on us?
Rosemary B
9:57 am on Saturday, January 5, 2013
The problem with the violent movies and video games is that it desensitizes kids to violence and they can commit violence in these games with absolutely no consequences. I personally have a problem with that. Hence we do not watch violent movies or play violent video games. I have no problem with actual gun ownership of any kind.
Anonymous
7:45 am on Friday, January 4, 2013
? I am confused how my comment can be immediately rejected 1 second after I type it?
Stu
9:29 pm on Sunday, January 6, 2013
I've had similar problem with various web sites, I think the moderators various from left to right in the issues and so if you have a really good thought they block it.
Anonymous
7:47 am on Friday, January 4, 2013
I said that Rich was correct and that violence does greatly effect those who watch it. Some of course more than others. TV and movies have a strong influence over us. Try and go a month without them. You are SO much better off and you will start to see how watching effects you negatively. We need to help our youth. They have too much access to this violent garbage and it is hurting them.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
9:08 am on Saturday, January 5, 2013
And too easy access to guns...Don't we all go to places of worship to pray or listen to sermons which should balance the nastiness we see around us?..Are we really that weak-kneed to succomb to media blitzes?
Rosemary B
9:58 am on Saturday, January 5, 2013
As proven by the results of the last election, yes, we are weak kneed enough (or weak minded enough!) to succumb to media blitzes!
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
7:39 am on Sunday, January 6, 2013
Romney lost the election fair and square due to the voters resolve, not weak knees, by refusing this 47% hater of a candidate to take over so his rich buddies could go on and get rich some more while the rest of us beg for crumbs...The voters, likewise, rejected the right wing pundits' media blitz!..Very wise indeed...Yes, weak-kneed people'd rather pick up a gun (learned from violent movies and video games) than be charitable, as our churches would like us to do...Evil trumps good virtues, is that it?
Rosemary B
9:29 am on Sunday, January 6, 2013
It was not the weak knees that won the election it was the weak minded. Just my opinion. Romney was not my first choice, but Obama and anyone with such poor leadership style will always be my last. And Gun ownership does not mean people are not charitable! what a ridicules connection...
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
10:01 am on Monday, January 7, 2013
Just because Romney lost the election, those who voted for Obama are stupid...More condescending comment...Freedom of speech I suppose.
Rosemary B
2:59 pm on Wednesday, January 9, 2013
I did not say "stupid". You did. I said weak minded and by that I meant easily influenced by the media. Which answered your original question.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
3:23 pm on Wednesday, January 9, 2013
A rose by any other name smells as sweet...Weak-mind is stupidity anyway you look at it...And anyone who disagrees with you is weak-minded...Well, I say same to you who supports the ideology of Romney and your party...By the way, after Obama took over, the country is now inching progressively forward in spite of the scorched-earth obstructionism of the Republican Party...Now let's join Obama on his gun control program so there won't be anymore children dying from guns.
Ronnie DelBacco
7:58 am on Friday, January 4, 2013
Perhaps there should be a ban on "assault game controllers". This entire gun ban argument from the left is so ridiculously devoid of common sense that I have a hard time even believing they actually believe what they're saying themselves.
CT has a ban in place already! Yet Sandy Hook still happened. Columbine happened right in the middle of the last "assault" weapon ban. Criminals will not follow the laws no matter how strict they are!! The only way to defend against bad guys with guns is for there to be more good guys with guns. It really is that simple.
Amend Wun
11:42 am on Friday, January 4, 2013
It's perplexing to me how the two sides of this debate see only an all or nothing approach to issue. Obviously it would be a poor idea to ban all access to firearms, but it's equally as short sighted to assume that the only way to deal with the problem is to add more guns to the equation. Common sense would seem to state that it is currently too easy for irresponsible people to acquire firearms. I'm with Bud Miller. Where's the discussion about better training and better record keeping as to who has what guns? Why are responsible gun owners so fearful of measures that would limit gun ownership to responsible people? Why shouldn't you be required to demonstrate proficiency and skill before you're able to acquire any firearm? We wouldn't even give a person in PA the ability to drive legally if they can't show that they are able to parrallel park. There's no denying that there are too many guns in the hands of dangerous people. How we control that should be the debate. Not banning firearms altogether and not simply throwing our hands in the air and glibbly saying that everyone should just get a gun.
Rosemary B
10:03 am on Saturday, January 5, 2013
I think we should have firearm education in school along with sex education. We have the 2nd amendment, we should all be educated on the proper and safe way to use the firearms that we all have the right to bear.
bill burr
4:52 pm on Saturday, January 5, 2013
Theres a thing called the 2nd ammendment in something you might have heard of called the Bill of Rights. Ask the citizens of Communist Germany and Italy why they don't want their government knowing what guns they own.
Crestor Januvia
1:50 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
Gun free zones are the height of stupidity, since anybody will bad intent ignores them. This is the kind of thing only a liberal progressive can come up with. Something so utterly stupid, it actually INCREASES the likelihood of violence at a school. The democrats... the "Logic-Free Zone" for studid americans.
Stu
9:09 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
2nd amendment refers to 'arms' which means weapons, firearms are not give special rights. There is room to control guns as with any weapon.
rm
2:30 pm on Friday, January 4, 2013
Try requiring gun locks on all guns on all weapons not in use.
Remove the restrictions on suing gun makers and gun sellers.
Sue straw purchasers that sell guns which are used to commit a crime.
Rosemary B
10:05 am on Saturday, January 5, 2013
Suing gun makers and gun sellers is ridicules. Shall we sue the makers of knives used in murders as well? or the car manufacturers if a car is used to murder someone?
Rich Cranium
10:20 am on Saturday, January 5, 2013
Gun locks are usually provided with the sale of a firearm, at least with new guns.
Suing the manufacturer for what the end user does is non-sense, we don't sue Microsoft for hackers that use a Windows OS to create computer viruses, steal identities, and hack systems. We don't sue GM for a car that kills someone because of a reckless driver.
Straw purchases are already illegal, in fact repeat offenses for straw purchases now carries a 5 year prison sentence.
bill burr
4:34 pm on Saturday, January 5, 2013
@ rm Straw purchasing is illegal. Can we sue car manufactuers when a drunk driver gets behind the wheel and kills a family driving home from church??? How about the dealer who sells a turbo charged sports car to a young kid who then causes an accident because he was doing 150 mph??? As for gun locks that is common sense, you want a law that every gun not in use should have a gun lock on it feel free. All that will do is punish the gun owner after the fact and in the case of the Sandy Hooker massacre the gun owner was killed. How will police enforce this law??? Again you want to stop gun violence strengthen our legal system and make the punishment fit the crime. Reform our prison system so that criminals wish they weren't in jail. Punish the crminal for committing the crime not the law abidding citizen for following the laws.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
7:29 am on Saturday, January 5, 2013
There is no need for the NRA to depend on violent movies when the Prince of Piece is there to spread paranoia to all kingdom come....How can one resist "The good guy with a gun..." mantra.
Rosemary B
10:06 am on Saturday, January 5, 2013
If a bad guy with a gun is standing in front of me I would love to have a good guy with a BIGGER gun at my side.
Rosemary B
10:07 am on Saturday, January 5, 2013
And I think it is the gun control people spreading paranoia and exploiting this tragedy. All with the best of intentions...
Rosemary B
9:51 am on Saturday, January 5, 2013
Funny how it is never the public's fault for going to the violent movies. If I don't believe in something I don't support it with my dollars. As a family we think R rated movies are generally bad so we don't support them. If more people would take RESPONSIBILITY and do that those movies would no longer be made.
bill burr
10:15 am on Saturday, January 5, 2013
If you told Hollywood they can't make violent movies anymore they would become republicans and proud NRA members. By the way most Hollywood stars carry guns or have armed bodyguards see any irony in that???? Must be fun to be a rich elitist!!!!
bill burr
4:19 pm on Saturday, January 5, 2013
@John Comparing guns to cars is a valid comparison especially since cars kill more people than guns do each year and especially since there are more cars than guns. You are comparing guns vs cars by their intended uses but others are comparing them by how many lives they kill each year. Cars are weapons for drunk drivers and other criminals because they use them in a crime. Actually our government wants us to drive less just like they want us to own less guns. There are many comparisons that can be made between guns and cars. Why do cars need to go over 55 mph??? Anyone who drives can be a drunk driver at any given point and become a killer just like anyone who owns a gun can be. You want to talk about laws there are more laws concerning guns than there are cars. Again cars kill more people than guns do each year. Why shouldn't we bring them up when talking about guns. Why not mention knives, bats, chains, fertilizer, prescription pain meds, etc. All these things kill people some of these things kill more people than guns do. So whats your point why should we just be talking about guns???
Dave Rex
2:55 am on Thursday, January 10, 2013
If there are more cars than guns, than we should expect more deaths from cars than guns. If we compared man-hours behind the wheel without death to man-hours behind the trigger without death, we'd find that cars are much safer than guns.
Any useful comparison should reflect the distinction between accidental and intentional deaths. Relatively few deaths from firearms are accidental while relatively few deaths from cars are intentional.
Cars aren't very efficient weapons; nor is it their primary function. It's tough to run the Buick over some guy on 34th floor. But the Beretta could get the job done pretty much anywhere. That's what they're built to do.
bill burr
8:33 pm on Saturday, January 5, 2013
We restrict guns much heavier than cars. There is a lot more laws for guns than autos. To be factual we let more people drive than we allow to own guns. Crazy people can drive, immigrants can drive in our country even though they didn't pass a US state exam, we allow 16 year olds to drive all the way up to whatever age even if a person is 100 years old. The fact that you have a greater chance of being killed by a car than a gun proves how dangerous cars are. Cars kill more people than guns each year in fact more than 3 times as many deaths come from cars. People like you would bitch about guns no matter what. There can be only a 1000 deaths by guns and you would still worry about guns even though cars kill over 32,000 people annually. Perscription drugs kill more people than guns and cars put togehter but you and the people like you could care less. Perscription drugs kills more kids in one month than guns do all year. The truth is people like you have a alterior motive, you don't own guns nor do you think people should just because you don't but the minute we talk about banning hard liquor, pain meds, or cigarettes you get your panties in a bunch. The truth is you just want to control people that aren't like you. You don't care about our youths safety because if you did you would focus on the real problems facing our society which are drunk driving, abusing pain meds, and lung cancer as well as STD's. Instead people like you worry about guns and fast food.
Rosemary B
9:54 am on Sunday, January 6, 2013
Amazing how some of the same people who want women to have choice when it comes to abortion want to restrict peoples choice when it comes to gun ownership, school choice or even how large a soft drink we can buy, along with many many other things!
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
7:07 am on Sunday, January 6, 2013
Government of the people, for the people, by the people...We are all in this senseless tragedy of gun violence together...The government is remiss in doing its job by not strictly imposing existing gun laws...No amount of laws work if the "government" is inept...People know this so they go through loopholes...And the beat goes on...Talk about agoraphobia...People are anxious to go into public places anymore because of uncertain security obtaining in these areas...Yeah, bring guns with you for protection in church, sports events, malls, movie theatres...MERCY!..Are we paranoided enough already?
Rosemary B
9:32 am on Sunday, January 6, 2013
Totally agree that the government is inept. That is why so many people are reluctant to give them any more power!
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
10:27 am on Sunday, January 6, 2013
Yeah, like Norquist would like to say, "Shrink the government so small it could be drowned in the bathtub"...When the cat is away, the mice will play...Not a good idea...Someone has to watch over these anarchists.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
9:58 am on Tuesday, January 8, 2013
The point of government being inept can be observed most obviously on the frequency of mass killings, not to mention what happened in 9/11...This entity is supposed to secure our safety but it is remiss in this regard...If there is a problem in the process, fix it...But closing the barn door after the animals have escaped is much too late...Like they say "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."...I am not seeking perfection but at least get close to it...I declare that the government can do a better job.
Rosemary B
3:08 pm on Wednesday, January 9, 2013
The government, as inept as it is, is not to blame for the mass shootings. Those crimes were committed by individuals.
Rosemary B
9:35 am on Sunday, January 6, 2013
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/my-wife-is-a-hero-georgia-mother-shoots-home-intruder-five-times-after-being-cornered/
Now, is her and her children s live, who were SAVED by a gun, any less precious then the lives of people LOST to gun violence?
And note, she shot him FIVE TIMES before running out of bullets and he was still able to flee and collapse outside of her house! I'm thinking she needed a gun with a bigger magazine, in this case for her protection!
Stu
9:35 pm on Sunday, January 6, 2013
I think she needed training! Should be required and IS NOT A VIOLATION OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT! Never a guarantee of anonymity. just a current interpretation.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
10:33 am on Sunday, January 6, 2013
Here's another good one...A law abiding 61-year-old gentleman went to see the movie Hobbit in Aurora, CO with gun in tow (where? God only knows) for self defense...AFRAID another loony could be coming and start shooting the place up...Consequently, the gun must have fallen out without him knowing because somebody found it on the floor...It's not fun having fun out anywhere anymore.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
6:35 am on Wednesday, January 9, 2013
BREAKING NEWS!..Well, not really...This has been around for quite a while...U.S. is tops in gun violence but near the bottom of the trash heap in education...Nope, failing grades don't go together with guns...Dangerous combination...Teachers have to do a better job and the government better get cracking on security.
Rosemary B
3:04 pm on Wednesday, January 9, 2013
But we are not tops in violent crime, so why concentrate on Guns? Banning Guns has not helped the crisis with violent crime in England. And dead is dead. whether it is at the hand of a gun or any other means. This is not a Gun control problem. It is a people control and a self control issue.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
4:23 pm on Wednesday, January 9, 2013
87 gun deaths a day in the US vs. 37 a year in England!!!
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
7:50 am on Thursday, January 10, 2013
We control both...Control one, control the other...What's wrong with that?
Rosemary B
9:57 am on Thursday, January 10, 2013
Even with the ban on guns they are the leaders in violent crime. Obviously banning guns has not solved anything. You are also taking away a great equalizer of the smaller weaker (or elderly or infirmed) person who is probably a victim by taking away a weapon to defend themselves with that just about anyone in any condition can use. You have now leveled the playing field in favor of the criminal! That is what is wrong with banning guns.
Stu
5:26 pm on Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Rich Cranium
The reference to "all males" is sexist, When the Supreme Court demonstrates a sexist viewpoint it is a time for a change. The reference to "physically capable" is equally questionable, how would that be interpreted? Even the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is out of step with equal rights.
An interpretation that does not work within equal rights is suspect.
Rich Cranium
10:42 pm on Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Then the dictionary is sexist and discriminatory against the physically capable too. Maybe we should abandon the English language because of how discriminatory it is:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia
Honestly that is the weakest argument for anything that I have ever heard in my life, is that the best you can muster?
Based on that weak argument I am going to assume that was an attempt to be anti-2nd Amendment. So you know what, I am going to apply the same twisting logic you applied. So now you are the one who is sexist and against the physically incapable, because you do not think that they should be able to defend themselves from a bigger stronger attacker. That you believe that we should go back to "might makes right." Nothing equalizes the playing field for those who are physically weaker then their attackers then a .357 Magnum
Because you are against equal rights (to defend yourself) anything you say is suspect.
Stu
11:20 pm on Wednesday, January 9, 2013
No I am neither, it is the Supreme court who used the questionable language in their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The US military uses both men and women, gay, straight, bi, etc. so why did the Supreme Court use "male" in this statement about the 2nd amendment as concerning the militia?
Please note that your reference to militia, the primary definition did not include gender.
While they may not have been seeking to exclude anyone by that reference, their pointing to an all male militia in the past is poor judgement. It would only serve to indicate a preferences.
Please don't think you can speak for me. You don't know me and so you don't know what I believe.
As for my weak argument, if it's weak don't reply.
Rich Cranium
10:45 pm on Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Not to mention you ignored the part of the ruling that said:
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm UNCONNECTED with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
Stu
12:23 am on Thursday, January 10, 2013
"The teen himself, through tears, said it was an accident. "I just want to say that everybody should turn in their guns," he says."
http://www.abc12.com/story/20497348/teen-says-he-accidently-shot-killed-his-friend?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Rosemary B
6:37 am on Thursday, January 10, 2013
Terrible tragedy. Boy was very brave to go public with this sad story and then turn himself in. He made a tragic mistake with horrible consequences. Just like a teenage drunk driver does when he crashes into something and kills his friends. Does not mean all law abiding citizens should turn in their cars.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
8:11 am on Thursday, January 10, 2013
News of interest...In Georgia, a gun lover was dead by homicide...This dead man told all that he always has gun with him wherever he went...Like I said, guns for protection is a myth...The gun should ALWAYS BE READY to be useful in this regard.
Rosemary B
9:50 am on Thursday, January 10, 2013
"guns for protection is a myth.." You can try telling that to the mother in Georgia who saved herself and her two children with a gun, but I don't think she will believe you. You can tell it to the off duty security officer at the movies who shot dead a crazy man with a gun before he shot up the theater but I don't think she will believe you either. Or the guy in the mall who drew his weapon against another crazy shooter and saved God only knows how many lives, but I don't think he will believe you either. I could go on and on. Were these lives not worth saving? Are their lives any less precious? The shooters all have one thing in common. They broke the law. More gun laws won't make us any safer. We already have over 300 gun control laws on the books. The bad guys don't pay attention to them. It will just serve to disarm the good law abiding people.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
10:29 am on Thursday, January 10, 2013
It is a myth as proven by surveys from reputable institutions...That incident with the Georgia mother was a fluke because at the same time a lady in Kansas scared an intruder to her house just by an ear-splitting scream...No need for a stupid gun...That off duty security officer did her job as was suppose to do, not by a gun-toting movie goer...By the way, if we are reading the same article, the movie shooter did not die, just wounded, as was suppose to happen: save life if need be...Yes, we do have stories to tell, but these won't stop until the laws that are there and more to come are strictly applied...Meanwhile, keep your guns if you want...No one is taking them away from you.
I mentioned to Rich Cranium, above, about that gun enthusiast who died of homicide...Yes, he did not leave home without his piece, still died from a gunshot...Gun for protection?..I rest my case.
John Fox
9:40 am on Thursday, January 10, 2013
Rich Cranium I think you need to take your own advice: Stop playing chess with the pigeons.
Stu
12:04 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
Mentality of gun advocates, He doesn't seem to care that people we be injured and killed.
Ratliff was known as an outspoken gun advocate. In a message posted to Twitter on Aug 11, 2012, he wrote: "I went to the movies with my pistol in my pocket the whole time I was praying that somebody would try to pull a Batman!"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/09/keith-ratliff-fpsrussia-dead_n_2439284.html
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
10:58 am on Friday, January 11, 2013
Sales of guns rose after Columbine, VTech, Aurora, other massive killings...A hundred thousand more people joined the NRA after the Newtown debacle...Do we see a pattern here?..FEAR!..The MO of the NRA...And we wonder why it doesn't like gun control...It's not good for business...The more dead people from massacres the better for the Association's kitty, I think...I am hearing now that many members are getting on board with Biden to tighten security measures...Good for them.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr.
9:25 am on Saturday, January 12, 2013
Let me add this trivia...Since the NRA is so linked up with the gun industry, the corporations should bestow financial advantages to those who bought their products, sort of dividends akin to holding stocks and bonds of these companies...I know, many of you gun lovers are already stockholders of these killing machine companies, but a bit more token, a monthly stipend would be nice.
Before I forget to mention the arrogance of these gun sellers, I vividly remember the full-page ad placed by one of them astride the headline announcing the massacre of children and teachers in Sandy Hook...Yes, more gun deaths become commercials for gun sales...Sickening!
Crestor Januvia
2:08 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
The only pattern I see in your messages is stupidity.
Moe
1:05 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
As a law abiding gun owner and NRA member I can say I do not promote violence in any way, shape or form. I find violent "entertainment" as repulsive as the acts of criminals regardless of type of weapon used.
Maybe you should learn something about the NRA other than what the media and anti-gun crowd feeds you. http://www.nrahq.org/history.asp You will learn that the NRA has played a part in the freedoms of people around the world and have promoted safety and training for decades.
Stu
9:19 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Can you provide a rebuff for this reference?
http://www.meetthenra.org/board-list