5 Indefensible Tweets From The NRA Since The Oregon Gun Massacre

[SecularMotion]

After a mass shooting, the NRA traditionally goes silent for a period of time. In the case of the gun massacre in Oregon, the NRA stopped tweeting on Thursday, October 1 at 1:44 p.m., shortly after the news broke. The account resumed tweeting at 12:07 p.m. on Friday, October 2 with an innocuous tweet about gun safety.

By Monday, the NRA twitter account was aggressively tweeting out information intended to head off any efforts to increase gun control in the wake of the massacre at Umpqua Community College. Much of this information, however, was wildly misleading or just plain inaccurate.

Here are five of the NRA’s most egregious recent tweets:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/10/07/3709919/tweets-nra-oregon-shooting/

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

1. I have it on "good" authority that this really doesn't matter

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172177455

Pack a bag; take a trip.

Get a hobby.

Hit the gym.

See a movie.

You're just not that relevant here.

[DonP]

2. Workin' hard to whip up a broad moral frenzy?

But it doesn't seem to be getting anyone but the usual suspects excited.

Heck, the other forum is as dead as it usually is.

A post here and there, then back to "Keeping Up with the Kardashians".

[beevul]

3. Since when is the truth indefensible?

These unregulated “private sales” of guns also take place on the internet or other physical locations. The NRA disingenuously claims that these additional loopholes mean that there isn’t a specific gun show loophole.

I would like to see a cite to this claim about the nra. Another poster in this group calls uncited claims a "liars link": http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172176951#post19

In any case, congress never intended to legislate private sales with the original brady bill, therefore it can not be a loophole. What it amounts to, is anti-gunners are complaining because of private sales which were not intended by congress to be legislated in the first place.

The NRA isolates the category “rifles” to make guns seem relatively safe — there are around 250-350 homicides with rifles each year — but this just reflects the popularity of handguns over rifles.

Everyone knows why this argument is made, including think progress. Its not a matter of 'making rifles seem safe, as TP claims. Its done to show the lunacy of proposing to ban a subset of all rifles. And it succeeds quite thoroughly at doing so, which earns it the moniker 'indefensible'.

Overall, “3 out of 10 guns that criminals use in crimes changed hands at a gun show somewhere in their chain of custody.”

So what? "fear fear fear!"