How does the NRA deal with the ‘myth’ that people with access to guns are much more likely to commit massacres than those without access?

If it is ‘only’ the mentally ill who commit mass murders using guns, isn’t there a good possibility that the desire or need for a gun is a sign of mental instability?

Nope, go read his link number 3, even those who hate guns could find no real connection.

Too lazy or unsure of your ground?

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24054955

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1661390

Ah the typical left wing articles based on opinion rather than numbers (facts).

Suicide has nothing to with guns being dangerous, your last link also separates them, here is a article that debunks that fallacy you wish to be true.
I am not going to engage in my truth is better than your truth as facts speak for themselves regardless of those who like to make there opinion more important.

MYTH 3:”Since a gun in a home is many times more likely to kill a family member than to stop a criminal, armed citizens are not a deterrent to crime.”

This myth, stemming from a superficial “study” of firearm accidents in the Cleveland, Ohio, area, represents a comparison of 148 accidental deaths (including suicides) to the deaths of 23 intruders killed by home owners over a 16-year period. 2

Gross errors in this and similar “studies”–with even greater claimed ratios of harm to good–include: the assumption that a gun hasn’t been used for protection unless an assailant dies; no distinction is made between handgun and long gun deaths; all accidental firearm fatalities were counted whether the deceased was part of the “family” or not; all accidents were counted whether they occurred in the home or not, while self-defense outside the home was excluded; almost half the self-defense uses of guns in the home were excluded on the grounds that the criminal intruder killed may not have been a total stranger to the home defender; suicides were sometimes counted and some self-defense shootings misclassified. Cleveland’s experience with crime and accidents during the study period was atypical of the nation as a whole and of Cleveland since the mid-1970s. Moreover, in a later study, the same researchers noted that roughly 10% of killings by civilians are justifiable homicides. 3

The “guns in the home” myth has been repeated time and again by the media, and anti-gun academics continue to build on it. In 1993, Dr. Arthur Kellermann of Emory University and a number of colleagues presented a study that claimed to show that a home with a gun was much more likely to experience a homicide.4 However, Dr. Kellermann selected for his study only homes where homicides had taken place–ignoring the millions of homes with firearms where no harm is done–and a control group that was not representative of American households. By only looking at homes where homicides had occurred and failing to control for more pertinent variables, such as prior criminal record or histories of violence, Kellermann et al. skewed the results of this study. Prof. Kleck wrote that with the methodology used by Kellermann, one could prove that since diabetics are much more likely to possess insulin than non-diabetics, possession of insulin is a risk factor for diabetes. Even Dr. Kellermann admitted this in his study: “It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide.” Law Professor Daniel D. Polsby went further, “Indeed the point is stronger than that: ‘reverse causation’ may account for most of the association between gun ownership and homicide. Kellermann’s data simply do not allow one to draw any conclusion.”5

Research conducted by Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi,6 for a landmark study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, points to the armed citizen as possibly the most effective deterrent to crime in the nation. Wright and Rossi questioned over 1,800 felons serving time in prisons across the nation and found:

81% agreed the “smart criminal” will try to find out if a potential victim is armed.
74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot.
80% of “handgun predators” had encountered armed citizens.
40% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed.
34% of “handgun predators” were scared off or shot at by armed victims.
57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by police.

Professor Kleck estimates that annually 1,500-2,800 felons are legally killed in “excusable self-defense” or “justifiable” shootings by civilians, and 8,000-16,000 criminals are wounded. This compares to 300-600 justifiable homicides by police. Yet, in most instances, civilians used a firearm to threaten, apprehend, shoot at a criminal, or to fire a warning shot without injuring anyone.

Based on his extensive independent survey research, Kleck estimates that each year Americans use guns for protection from criminals more than 2.5 million times annually. 7 U.S. Department of Justice victimization surveys show that protective use of a gun lessens the chance that robberies, rapes, and assaults will be successfully completed while also reducing the likelihood of victim injury. Clearly, criminals fear armed citizens.

2 Rushforth, et al., “Accidental Firearm Fatalities in a Metropolitan County, ” 100 American Journal of Epidemiology 499 (1975).
3 Rushforth, et al., “Violent Death in a Metropolitan County,” 297 New England Journal of Medicine 531, 533 (1977).
4 Kellermann, et al., “Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home,” New England Journal of Medicine 467 (1993).
5 Polsby, “The False Promise of Gun Control,” The Atlantic Monthly, March 1994.
6 Wright and Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter, 1986).
7 Kleck, interview, Orange County Register,Sept. 19, 1993.

http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm

Doesn’t US experience indicate that in fact its family members who are more likely to die as a consequence of gun ownership, rather than any evil perps?

That is a question rather than a statement. I haven’t time at the moment to check the facts.

Moggy

No despite the fact the lefties here often try to trot out that fallacy, there is data that shows it is a fallacy and I am too lazy to look it up.

Shrinking level of Police intelligence more like in this case. BTW are the KKK still active in that area?

Never were up here, too many German and Scandinavian Lutherans and Catholics, the KKK broke from a different denomination.

Fair enough, if that really is your stance on guns…..but here…

…(as I said in my post) you did seem to be blaming the problem on a political viewpoint, no?

The problem is as seemingly serious as some politicians think strictly because of politics and laws they passed.

This goes beyond firearms and homicides to the point of the shrinking level of intelligence shown by youths in the U.S. in many matters.

I wish you advocates of a ‘well regulated militia’ would at least have the guts to just admit that you like guns, you want guns and you feel safer having them around…

Where did anyone say otherwise?

Yes, yes, yes, so you’ve said. Did you ignore the bit where I said about not a gun in every classroom, or is that your entire argument and answer to everything? Rather than re-educate Americans about guns you would rather surrender the initiative to the threat and even create opportunities within a place that should be a sanctuary from such things. (And you said moronic quip about my enquiry!)— OK, put up signs that say — guns are not allowed on these premises

Nice – blame the mentally ill for each massacre, but would taking them out of the equation actually have an effect? Why not ban the mentally ill from owning or having access to guns, or does that infringe on the rights of Americans to own guns?
Oh, but when was the last massacre actually caused by a truly mentally ill person – rather than by somebody with depression, or who felt the world owed them a life that they hadn’t had until now, or who wanted to get revenge on society for perceived injustices?
If you are in the mood for refusing a section of society their right to have a weapon (which, it seems, you are not) why not ban caucasian males? How many massacres have been carried out by African Americans, or females? —- The “experts” on the tele say they are mentally ill.
If you disagree write them a letter.

Ok, if your sister (or brother, if you have one) carried out a mass killing that was reviled throughout the country would you want those weapons used to be returned to you, as a member of her family?

Would not really bother me as the weapon is a chunk of metal, nothing more.

So, do tell us – so long as it is not a gun in every classroom which we already heard about, of course – what is your solution? How would you stop the disenchanted from making bombs, picking up their guns and planning a massacre?

Just a thought, but do the family of mass-killing gunman ever want the weaponry back?

Allow guns in every class room.

Perhaps putting the insane back into the asylums the liberal freed them from may help but then liberals control the press and Washington right now so that is not going to happen.

As for your last moronic quip, do not know, do not care.