2 Jan

Why don’t liberals want to address the real causes of gun violence?

                                       

Liberals have an unending capacity for doing the wrong things. When the economy is hurting, they suck the life out of productive citizens rather than stimulate the economy so all can have the opportunity to do well. Following a tragic shooting, they respond with meaningless gestures. They would punish those who abide by the law. The cry has gone out for stronger gun control laws and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is the head cheerleader. For starters, her proposed bill includes:

Stops the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of more than 100 specifically-named firearms as well as certain semiautomatic rifles, handguns and shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

Stops the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of large-capacity ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
exempting more than 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting and sporting purposes; and
exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.

Feinstein makes claims that are abusive of the literature she cites:

A Justice Department study found the Assault Weapons Ban was responsible for a 6.7 percent decline in total gun murders. However, since the 2004 expiration of the bill, assault weapons have been used in at least 459 incidents, resulting in 385 deaths and 455 injuries.

So let’s have a look:

“At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders. Our best estimate is that the ban contributed to a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995, beyond what would have been expected in view of ongoing crime, demographic, and economic trends. However, with only one year of post-ban data, we cannot rule out the possibility that this decrease reflects chance year-to-year variation rather than a true effect of the ban. Nor can we rule out effects of other features of the 1994 Crime Act or a host of state and local initiatives that took place simultaneously.”

Another Feinstein claim:

“A recent study by the Violence Policy Center finds that between 2005 and 2007, one in four law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon.”

The truth?

However that’s not what the study states. The data which she is referencing studies 64 incidents that already involve “assault weapons” of which also involved law enforcement. The study actually says that out of the 64 incidents that involve assault weapons, four ended in at least one law enforcement fatality, not that one in four officers are killed by assault weapons.

What is it Feinstein really wants?

“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up [every gun]… Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in.”

Would banning large capacity magazines stop mass shootings? No.

Nothing new here. The criminals response? Carry more magazines, as we’ve seen in Virginia Tech where the shooter brought nineteen loaded magazines for his two handguns and Columbine where they brought 13 extra magazines.

And Feinstein would demand more:

-Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:

-Background check of owner and any transferee;

-Type and serial number of the firearm;

-Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;

-Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and

-Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

As before, the focus is on law abiding citizens. Feinstein proposes a bevy of regulations which would do absolutely nothing to prevent any of the mass shootings which have occurred in this country.

Feinstein seems ignorant of many things. One of them: Connecticut HAS an assault weapons ban now.

Sec. 53-202. Machine guns
Sec. 53-202a. Assault weapons: Definition.
Sec. 53-202b. Sale or transfer of assault weapon prohibited. Class C felony.
Sec. 53-202c. Possession of assault weapon prohibited. Class D felony.
Sec. 53-202e. Relinquishment of assault weapon to law enforcement agency.
Sec. 53-202f. Transportation of assault weapon. Authorized actions of gun dealer.
Sec. 53-202g. Report of theft of assault weapon.
Sec. 53-202j. Commission of a class A, B or C felony with an assault weapon: Eight-year nonsuspendable sentence.
Sec. 53-202k. Commission of a class A, B or C felony with a firearm: Five-year nonsuspendable sentence.
Sec. 53-202o. Affirmative defense in prosecution for possession of specified assault weapon

The blithering idiots at the Journal News thought identifying law abiding gun owners would be a great idea.

Again, directing invective at those who abide by the law.

Now they find themselves alarmed at the backlash and have hired armed guards for their own protection. Despite using weapons for their own protection, the hypocrisy abounds:

The editors have said they believe knowing where guns are is in the public’s interest. The newspaper has also taken a strident editorial position in favor of strict gun control.

If they were serious about the public interest they would publish the names of those possessing weapons illegally. That would be truly useful.

Nothing the anti-gun loonies have proposed would have any effect. So what would help? A number of things.

Who are the people that kill? Primarily those with previous criminal records and the mentally ill. The NY Times reported that of more than 1600 murders committed between 2003 and 2005, 90 percent were committed by those with criminal records. About half of those killed had criminal records.

And there’s more:

Baltimore police records show similar statistics for its murder suspects in 2006. In Milwaukee, police reported that most murder suspects in 2007 had criminal records, while “a quarter of them [killed while] on probation or parole.” The great majority of Illinois murderers from the years 1991–2000 had prior felony records. Eighty percent of Atlanta murder arrestees had previously been arrested at least once for a drug offense; 70 percent had three or more prior drug arrests—in addition to their arrests for other crimes.

It is illegal for convicted felons to possess guns. So how do they obtain them? Gun shows? Nah:

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

In other words, an illegal firearms transfer is the problem. A big problem.

The 62-year-old convicted felon who gunned down two firefighters and wounded three first responders on Christmas Eve in Webster, New York used weapons his neighbor illegally purchased for him, according to state and federal authorities.

Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris obtained their weapons through a straw purchaser.

The penalties for those who illegally transfer a weapon ought to mirror the penalties for those who use the weapon in a crime. If the weapon is used to commit murder, the person transferring the weapon ought to be charged with murder as well. Simple.

“It is absolutely against federal law to provide any materially false information related to the acquisition of firearms. … It is sometimes referred to acting as a straw purchaser, and that is exactly what today’s complaint alleges.”

The purchaser ought to be informed of proposed penalty at time of attempted purchase. The purchaser should then sign an informed consent form and it should be filed with the same authorities who approved the permit for the purchaser.

Felons often find regaining gun rights a simple task:

While many states continue to make it very difficult for felons to get their gun rights back — and federal felons are out of luck without a presidential pardon — many other jurisdictions are far more lenient, The Times found. In some, restoration is automatic for nonviolent felons as soon as they complete their sentences. In others, the decision is left up to judges, but the standards are generally vague, the process often perfunctory. In some states, even violent felons face a relatively low bar, with no waiting period before they can apply.

Weapons must be kept out of the hands of felons.

And then we come to the mentally ill.

We must attack the problem. One of the most neglected issues in this country is that of mental health. The Sandy Hook shooter reportedly had a “personality disorder.” Jared Loughner, the Tucson, Ariz., shooter, was described in the media as being “mentally deranged” and had to undergo treatment before his sentencing hearing.

James Holmes, the Colorado theater shooter, had seen a psychiatrist and had been referred to a threat-assessment team. Wade Michael Page, the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooter, was a loner with a history of “patterns of misconduct” while in the U.S. Army.

A recent report conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration revealed that almost 30 percent of adults ages 18 to 25 had some form of mental illness this past year. The report showed that just 60 percent of people with a serious mental illness received treatment.

Adam Lanza was clearly not well.

It’s estimated that 10% of homicides are committed by untreated mentally ill persons.

Any background check of a gun permit applicant must include the question

“Is there anyone in your household who might suffer from mental illness?”

It’s going to be controversial, but I strongly believe that children should undergo a routine psychological evaluation upon entering school, entering middle school and entering high school. There are relatively simple tests for identification of psychopathic tendencies. There are tests available for younger populations. If a screening suggests a problem, then the results can be referred to a higher level professional for further evaluation. Identifying Adam Lanza and Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris early might have saved many lives.

And sometimes people just have to pay attention. Klebold and Harris were all but screaming that they were going to kill people. They posted videos of their bomb making prowess online:

Harris and Klebold linked their personal computers on a network and both played many games over the Internet. Harris created a set of levels for the game Doom, which later became known as the Harris levels. Harris had a web presence under the handle “REB” (short for Rebel, a nod to the nickname of Columbine’s sports teams) and other cyber aliases, including “Rebldomakr”, “Rebdoomer”, and “Rebdomine”, while Klebold went by the names “VoDKa” and “VoDkA”. Harris had various websites that hosted Doom and Quake files, as well as team information for those he gamed with online. The sites openly espoused hatred for the people of their neighborhood and the world in general. When the pair began experimenting with pipe bombs, they posted results of the explosions on the websites. The website was shut down by America Online after the shootings and was preserved for the FBI.[11]

Klebold and Harris did not plan to shoot those at Columbine. They intended to blow them up.

On a Sunday morning news show I heard Dianne Feinstein make the statement that there were “armed guards” at Columbine and they could not prevent the shootings. There was one armed cop and without a doubt he kept a bad situation from being worse.

And Sen. Feinstein, your assault weapons ban did not prevent the shootings either.

We do need new measures to address gun violence, but what we need is effective action and not the usual and typical liberal kneejerk reaction.

Assault weapons are infrequently used in crimes

A Jackson police official said officers have encountered assault rifles on the streets, but they don’t contribute to the majority of crimes.

“We’ve confiscated quite a few of them from drug dealers. That’s really where we see them surface the most,” said Assistant Chief Lee Vance. “We don’t have a lot of crimes that have been committed with assault rifles.”

Liberals don’t care about facts. They also don’t really care that kids are killed. Scores of kids are killed in Chicago yearly.

In Chicago, more than 530 people under the age of 21 have been killed since 2008 and many more have been shot or have otherwise suffered violence—often at the hands of their peers and particularly in the city’s African-American and Latino communities. Nearly 80 percent of youth homicides occurred in 22 black or Latino communities on the city’s South, Southwest and West sides—even though just one-third of the city’s population resided in those communities. The rate of youth homicide in West Englewood on the city’s South Side, for instance, was nearly five times higher than the citywide mark.

They care when it happens all at once.

The NY Times continues to maintain its oblivious perspective that criminals will respect the law.

Over the years, states have made it increasingly possible for almost any adult to carry a concealed handgun in public, including on college campuses, in churches and in state parks — places where people tend to congregate in large numbers and where, in a rational world, guns should be strictly prohibited.

Adam Lanza could have shot his way into SHES with handguns. Klebold and Harris did not care about gun free zones or assault weapons bans. The NY Times finds optimal the world in which the assailant is safe from retribution and the potential victims are defenseless. In other words, a target rich environment.

So what does need to be done?

- Find and confiscate illegally possessed weapons. That means heading into the inner cities and barrios and cleaning them out.
- Publish the names and addresses of those who illegally possess weapons (That would mean real journalism)
- Weapons must be properly secured.
- Weapons probably should not be permitted in the households in which someone is mentally ill.
- End “relief from disability” for felons
- Properly identify and treat mental illness, especially psychopathy
- Severely punish the illegal transfer of weapons

Liberals duck the real issues in gun violence. They want the easy “fix”- the symbolic but meaningless actions. These proposals are more difficult but would be extremely effective.

So let’s do something. The right things.

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment, Dumb Laws, Law, Law Enforcement, Liberal Idiots, Politics, Uncategorized, WtF? and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Wednesday, January 2nd, 2013 at 6:23 am
| 988 views

53 Responses to Why don’t liberals want to address the real causes of gun violence?

  1. Hard Right says: 1

    Better yet, when someone lies on the fireram purchase form, prosecute them.
    A link I posted on another thread mentioned that 4000 cases had been referred for prosecution-200 prosecuted.

    ReplyReply
  2. Poppa_T says: 2

    Hi Doc, there is something about the way recent gun control discussions are being framed that causes me great concern. You also make this one of your main points. I am speaking of the mental illness issue.

    Currently almost 40% of our returning vets are being diagnosed with some type of PTSD. One of my sons-in-law could be getting a crazy check if he wanted, two years after returning from Afghanistan he still wakes up with the night terrors, can’t stand crowds and flinches at every backfire but he refuses to seek treatment at the VA because he fears that once he is diagnosed with PTSD his concealed carry permit will be revoked and more importantly to him he will no longer be able to get a hunting license. I have no fear for my daughter or her family as her husband is a fine young man who realizes his limitations and takes the time he needs to keep himself on an even keel but he does have issues. I think just about everyone who has been exposed to violent bloody situations will have issues but it should not necessarily be grounds to strip away your right to defend yourself with a firearm.

    I fear that the mental health tangent of the gun control argument might be a stealth way of disarming those best able defend their families and communities during a time of crises. Do you feel my concerns are baseless?

    ReplyReply
  3. alanstorm says: 3

    “Why don’t liberals want to address the real causes of gun violence?”

    C’mon, ask a tough one. They don’t because their ideology prevents them from seeing facts in almost every facet of reality.

    How else do you reconcile the example that they think people are basically good, yet can’t be trusted with a firearm? Unless, of course, you imbue them with the aura of Government, after which they are completely trustworthy.

    ReplyReply
  4. drjohn says: 4

    @Poppa_T:

    Do you feel my concerns are baseless?

    Why is your question framed in this manner? Did I ever suggest such a thing?

    ReplyReply
  5. drjohn says: 5

    @Poppa_T:

    You really never think twice about someone experiencing night terrors having a loaded weapon around your daughter and your grandchildren?

    If you have a look at this link you’ll see that the risk from the mentally ill derives from those who are not being treated.

    ReplyReply
  6. Poppa_T says: 6

    @drjohn:

    Hi Doc, no I don’t worry about my son-in-law anymore than my great-granpaw worried about my granpaw when he got back from WWII or my granpaw worried about my Uncle after Vietnam, or my dad worried about me…like I said anyone who is exposed to violent situations will be affected somehow and will usually take a few years to get normalized. But I know that my granpaw still occasionally dreams about things that happened while they were island hopping towards Tokyo and he’s 91 years old.

    What I am concerned about is the way “mental illness” is being used to frame the “gun control” debate. During the last Presidential debate Obama was asked about gun control, he said “Enforce the laws we’ve already got. Make sure we are keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals…[and] those who are mentally ill” if you haven’t noticed we have many “new mental illnesses” .

    According to this article “Some estimates state 20-25% of the US population is suffering from a mental disorder” that is alot of people who could be prevented from defending themselves if need be. And at least one psychologist agrees he has a very interesting article “Keeping Guns Out of the Hands of the Mentally Ill” that is well worth the read.

    To me the term “mental illness” is comparable to the term “assault weapon” it can be used very deceptively and agreeing that someone who has been diagnosed as having a mentally illness should not have access to a firearm may not be the best course of action for those of us love our firearms.

    ReplyReply
  7. DrJohn says: 7

    @Poppa_T:

    My biggest concern are young sociopaths. They seem to be doing most of the mass killings. I strongly believe they need to be identified and treated early.

    ReplyReply
  8. Nan G says: 8

    Going along with comment #1 about strict prosecution, there was a proposal in CA a few years back that would have made a record of the lands and grooves of every single weapon sold in CA.
    It would have been expensive to implement and I guess it failed to pass.
    But that would have made tracing back any weapon used in a crime to the original LEGAL purchaser much simpler.
    Then it would be a matter of making them talk about how that weapon ceased to be in their control and their ”forgetting” to tell authorities.

    Gun owners have a responsibility to cooperate with authorities.
    When someone shot out a window in on of our neighbor’s condo the police knocked and asked if we other guns than the ones registered to us.
    The guns we own could not have fired that bullet.
    We didn’t but we did give them the background on the drug dealings at that condo and how a group might have attempted to rob them of their drug stash and cash just the week before.
    Cracked the case.

    ReplyReply
  9. Hard Right says: 9

    I got down dinged for suggesting we enforce an already existing law? LOL. Okaaaaay.

    ReplyReply
  10. Poppa_T says: 10

    @DrJohn: Hi Doc, all I really want to emphasize is that we must to be careful how we phrase our rhetoric. We can’t allow ourselves to fall into the traps the left out for us. Words like mental illness, assault weapons and democracy are words we need to avoid at all cost, unless we use them properly.

    After all if everyone who has been diagnosed with a mental illness were not allowed to be in possession of a firearm then my ex-wife wouldn’t be allowed to have that little Mossburg 500 I bought her prior to her being diagnosed as a sex addict. My parents just called her a tramp, but that’s another story.

    I am actually not very concerned about those people who have been diagnosed with depression or PTSD and is talking about their problems with a shrink, I am much more concerned about those who have been prescribed SSRIs to deal with their problems. The link between SSRIs and violence is scary.

    ReplyReply
  11. GW says: 11

    1. Superb post.

    2. The “liberals” who most vociferously call for gun control are virtually all protected by armed security and live in areas that are safe.

    3. The desire to disarm the populace is as old as tyranny itself. The modern left, who would like to run our lives according to their dictates, see gun ownership as something standing in the way of that – coupled of course with an utter distrust of anyone who is not part of their particular circle.

    4. Actually looking at the real causes of gun violence would of course mean admitting to many facts in support of legal gun ownership. That would cause dissonance with their goals and beliefs (see above) and thus is to be avoided at all cost. No one is so good at engaging in psychological defense mechanisms as are the left. When it comes to a choice between reality and their preferred view, the latter wins out every time.

    5. My sole point of agreement with the left is that the secondary market for weapons is a big problem and needs to be addressed more effectively.

    6. As to mental illness, I am out of my depth, though that said, I suspect the term is far too broad in terms of gun ownerhsip debate. I could imagine that there are many forms of mental illness that have little to no correlation with gun violence. And I would hesitate to take away a person’s right to own weapons merely because of the proximity of someone who is “mentally ill.”

    ReplyReply
  12. Deserttrek says: 12

    the taking of firearms is about control. control of the populace. I saw a recent pravda article reminding Americans of what has happened in othert countries including russia. all about control of our lives and property. time for a new revolution

    ReplyReply
  13. TheLogician says: 13

    UK has like 75 gun deaths a year, versus USA’s 13,000+. It is absolutely due to the high availability of guns. But keep your heads in the sand if it makes you happy.

    ReplyReply
  14. Nan G says: 14

    IF the USA has 13,000 gun deaths a year, isn’t it amazing that Chicago, where gun ownership is almost totally banned has over 500 gun homicides a year?
    That’s 1/26th of our TOTAL!
    In ONE city!
    Rahm Emanuel’s ban, in place from 1994 to 2004, has had no measurable effect on crime.

    A chart using these data and published in the Journal Sentinel does show that while the Clinton/Emanuel assault weapons ban was in place, from 1994 to 2004, mass shootings actually rose slightly and that after its repeal there was no precipitous rise, as supporters had warned.

    Maybe Mayor Emanuel, instead of calling for a new assault weapons ban, should call on Illinois to become a concealed carry state.

    Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/010213-639108-500-murders-rahm-emanuel-chicago-gun-ban.htm#ixzz2Gs3od2xD

    An armed society is a polite society.
    Visit Utah where concealed weapons licenses are owned by 5% of the total population and see.
    Yes, every 20th person you meet might be carrying!

    ReplyReply
  15. The Old Coach says: 15

    @Nan G:

    Nan, the idea of “recording the lands and grooves” of a gun was and is a technical non-starter. For one thing, the imprint left on a bullet depends on the type and material of the bullet itself, so the database would have to include a sample of all possible bullets that could be fired in each gun. Second, the imprint is so easy to alter that it’s child’s play.

    I won’t flame you for being naive; you are not an engineer or a ballistician or you’d already know these things. But your comment exemplifies the way the dictator-wannabees manipulate public opinion by propagating technical nonsense as “fact”. Kinda like Global Warming.

    ReplyReply
  16. Nan G says: 16

    @The Old Coach:
    Thanks, I recall that part of the debate….now that you reminded me.
    I had totally forgotten it.
    And you’re correct that it was the liberals who wanted to do it.
    And who had no idea how easily thwarted it would be.
    CSI makes it all look so cut-&-dry, doesn’t it?

    ReplyReply
  17. FAITH7 says: 17

    Deserttrek @ #12 – You said the God’s honest truth… Funny how the Liberals don’t want to address the “Real” issues about GUNS…no, no, they have an ‘Agenda’ and need as usual, to make straw man arguments…and added hyperbole…

    When in reality, those among us with real knowledge, knows that without an armed populace the Government can and will have ‘total’ control over it’s citizens…this equals tyranny.

    ReplyReply
  18. Brother Bob says: 18

    Rhetorical question Dr. John – it goes back to the core belief no leftist will admit. They claim that gun control, like all of their other causes, is about helping people when they’re really about controlling people

    ReplyReply
  19. another vet says: 19

    @Nan G:

    isn’t it amazing that Chicago, where gun ownership is almost totally banned has over 500 gun homicides a year?

    Blue on blue violence.

    ReplyReply
  20. Logician's nemesis says: 20

    @TheLogician:

    If the “Logician” thinks numbers explain a great deal, perhaps he can explain that Chicago’s 500+ mudered per year are clustered in the lower class neighborhoods while in the upper class neighborhoods, the rate is astoundingly minimal. It seems far more logical to explain gun violence and murder rates by cultural grouping than by nationality. And yet such a discussion will be hampered by cries of racism or other methods to obfuscate. Between cultural issues and severe mental disturbances, we have the keys to understand gun violence, but the liberal’s favorite topics are the twin victimhoods of race and mental illness, and therefore they wipe these from the table in a dismissive manner, and blame objects for actions. By that logic the Logician should blame cars, knives, hands and feet for deaths, and some of these “causes” outnumber victims of gun violence.

    Liberals love violence when they lead it, as the continuing war in Afghanistan proves, as the assignment of US troops to 35 African nations as “advisors” (remember Vietnam’s advisors?), the cross border drone attacks in Pakistan, and much more. Liberals still loved Fast and Furious. Liberals love violence as their films are filled with guns and explosions and death. Liberals love violence measured as about a million aborted each year, all the while they complain about demographic decline. Liberals love violence as some talk show host opined on killing conservatives. Liberals love violence, but only when they are in charge.

    Liberals hated the Bush tax cuts, and when the opportunity came to rescind the whole thing, they balked against returning to the Clinton rates. Liberals love borrowing money without end, as the insolvencies in cities and some states looms. Liberals hated Bush’s deficit, but their deficits make his look small now. Liberals hated Bush’s rendition, but now practice it. Liberals hated Bush’s secrecy act but now employ it after continuing it by vote of the nice liberal Senate and nice liberal president.

    But then they like to called themselves logical, as the individual with the Logician did.

    ReplyReply
  21. Poppa_T says: 21

    @TheLogician:

    Hello there Mr. Logician, I am hoping that you could use your logic to explain this to me.

    According to Page 56 of the Home Office’s “Crime in England and Wales” report for 2010 there were 2,203,000 violent incidents against 54 million adults in England and Wales.

    The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report says there were a total of 1,266,248 violent crimes among 308,745,538 Americans of all ages in 2010, the last year for which complete numbers are available.

    That breaks down to a violent crime RATE in the The United States of 403.6 per 100,000 population in 2010.

    And a violent crime RATE in England and Wales’ of 4079.7 per 100,000 ADULTS in 2010.

    Why do you think the violent crime rate over there in civilized DISARMED England is 10 times the RATE it is here? Do you think it might just have something to do with the fact that you’re DISARMED?

    ReplyReply
  22. Logician's nemesis says: 22

    Poppa T’s observation is factually true, while Logician’s limp assertion was without source references. Given that the tragic and well-publicized 22 deaths in Newtown have dominated the US media for a long time now, while Chicago’s 500 plus receive no such in depth coverage on a daily basis, we may conclude that the US media is essentially racist for mourning so loudly 22 middle class Connecticut deaths while mourning so softly 500 Chicagoans’ deaths, mostly in lower class neighborhoods. Obvious the focus of the liberal media is classist, racist and absent fairness and empathy to the underclass. But it does fulfill the Fabian socialist and Margearet Sanger and Planned Parenthood goals of ‘culling the herd.’ It would be most interesting to read a back-and-forth between further defense of Logician’s stance as citations of facts and relevant data could be further explored. Logician, where are you?

    ReplyReply
  23. liberal1(objectivity) says: 23

    I agree with some of the deterrents mentioned in the article. But many of them would mean a necessary expansion of the size of government—which arch-conservatives abhor.

    I personally feel that gun violence is created by the nature of the American society, and believe by ultimately changing that we will improve the violence situation.

    By the way it was not liberals who are against stimulating the economy, i.e., “…suck(ing) the life out of productive citizens rather than stimulat(ing) the economy.” It was conservatives who were against The Stimulus. Unless by stimulus, you mean some kind of ‘trickle-down’ economics—which George Herbert Walker Bush rightly referred to as ‘voodoo economics’.

    ReplyReply
  24. john says: 24

    Treat guns like motor vehicles Title, registration, license, to class, tax as property in states that wish, and insurance. As for our government turning on its citizens just a bit too paranoid for me. Sounds like Alex Jones and his black helicopters, the radical right is always looking for grand conspiracies.

    ReplyReply
  25. Nathan Blue says: 25

    @liberal1(objectivity): Logical Fallacy: Being against the “Stimulus Package” means being against stimulating the economy. An incorrect, and ignorant, way of applying the intellect.

    But while we’re on it, how did that Stimulus Package work out? It didn’t.

    Carry on.

    ReplyReply
  26. Logician's nemesis says: 26

    Mr. liberal1(objectivity) writes, “I personally feel that gun violence is created by the nature of the American society, and believe by ultimately changing that we will improve the violence situation.”

    Given that Chicago has so many murders while today we read that Aurora has has none this last year, we see a vast disconnect between “the nature of American society” and another “nature of American society.” what is in fact this generalized statement but old-fashioned manure. I would counter that the “nature of American society” is rooted in a quest for freedom, as founding documents show.

    As to murderousness, only certain areas of the US evidence this “nature.” The demographic and statiscal distribution is largely in lower class, urban enclaves of Democrat voters. But even this murderousness cannot compare to the Rwandan massacre of recent history, much less the enormous crimes of the National Socialists, the Soviet Socialists and the Sino-Socialists.

    What would a liberal1(objectivity) change, such that his “belief” — for that is what he says it is — may be created in contradistinction to the many great features of freedom’s land? He would likely propose such things as the above mentioned murderous political ideologies managed so easily.

    It is worth noting that liberal1(objectivity) wouuld change the comment stream from gun violence to stimulus politics, for he adds little to the factual content of the discussion. Anyone who believes “gun violence is created by the nature of the American society” sees a cause and effect relationship, while ignoring the demographics of who and where and why gun violence goes on. This is logical, for it points to those who share his “belief.” Such a religion….

    ReplyReply
  27. Tom says: 27

    @Nan G:

    You’re not going to win many arguments regarding the link, or lack thereof, between gun control and gun violence if Chicago is the only example you can muster. I think we all know that’s a specific issue (gang turf war) not indicative of a broader trend. I don’t see anyone on Flopping Aces bringing up New York City, for example, where gun control is relatively strict and homicides and shootings are at a fifty year low.

    Research shows that per capita gun death rates are higher in states with higher gun ownership (source CDC)

    States with the Five LOWEST Per Capita Gun Death Rates

    Massachusetts–Rank: 50; Household Gun Ownership: 12.8 percent; Gun Death Rate: 3.14 per 100,000.

    Hawaii–Rank: 49; Household Gun Ownership: 9.7 percent; Gun Death Rate: 3.63 per 100,000.

    New Jersey–Rank: 48; Household Gun Ownership: 11.3 percent; Gun Death Rate: 4.72 per 100,000.

    New York–Rank: 47; Household Gun Ownership: 18.1 percent; Gun Death Rate: 4.90 per 100,000.

    Connecticut–Rank: 46; Household Gun Ownership: 16.2 percent; Gun Death Rate: 4.92 per 100,000.

    States with the Five HIGHEST Per Capita Gun Death Rates

    Louisiana–Rank: 1; Household Gun Ownership: 45.6 percent; Gun Death Rate: 18.03 per 100,000.

    Wyoming–Rank: 2; Household Gun Ownership: 62.8 percent; Gun Death Rate: 17.64 per 100,000.

    Alabama–Rank: 3; Household Gun Ownership: 57.2 percent; Gun Death Rate: 17.63 per 100,000.

    Montana–Rank: 4; Household Gun Ownership: 61.4 percent; Gun Death Rate: 17.03 per 100,000.

    Mississippi–Rank: 5; Household Gun Ownership: 54.3 percent; Gun Death Rate: 16.50 per 100,000.

    Conservatives can continue to make their Constitutional argument that it’s their right to unfettered access to buy and sell firearms as they please. That, to me, is a dubious argument in some respects, but if someone truly believes fidelity to a Conservative interpretation of the Second Amendment trumps all other considerations, including public safety, at lease it’s an honest argument to make. What is not honest, or at least what is uninformed, is a parallel track argument stating that more guns actually contribute to public safety. There is no factual basis whatsoever for this argument to be made. It’s been continuously decimated by country to country and state to state comparisons which invariably show that the more guns there are, the more gun violence.

    ReplyReply
  28. johngalt says: 28

    @Tom:

    It’s been continuously decimated by country to country and state to state comparisons which invariably show that the more guns there are, the more gun violence.

    See my posting here:
    http://floppingaces.net/2012/12/29/what-america-would-look-like-with-strict-gun-laws/comment-page-2/#comment-399788

    The history of two countries that recently enacted strict firearms controls, England and Australia, show that although specific gun-related murders have dropped, the overall murder rates remained relatively constant. This is a fact not often brought up when discussing how “great” other countries with strict firearms controls are, and my guess is that a comparison of other countries that have enacted strict gun control measures would reveal the same.

    It’s like I talked about before, Tom, on the murder rates of the various countries. I highly doubt, and it is somewhat verified by my findings on England and Australia, that firearms themselves are what contribute to such high murder rates in the US, compared to other industrialized countries. I believe that it is something more, such as the society itself, maybe the degradation of the family unit(particularly in low income areas), or something else. Remember, correlation is not causation. There is something else underlying the US society that causes our murder rate to be twice that of England and Australia.

    And given those two examples of countries, I doubt that a strict ban on firearms here would lower that murder rate. Actually, I’d say that because of the other underlying problems the US has, that the murder rate would increase, overall, as less and less people would have the ability to protect themselves.

    Some of that is my opinion, of course, but much of that is derived from looking at the statistical information I’ve found. Looking at the “before” and “after” snapshots of murders in England and Australia just might open your eyes to the fact that it isn’t the guns that are the problem, but something else entirely. Maybe a bunch of something elses.

    ReplyReply
  29. Nan G says: 29

    @Tom:

    Tom, in another post, someone made the perfect point that ”gun deaths” include accidents and suicides.
    Think you could get the gun homicide rates for those states?
    I recall it being well over 50% of all ”gun deaths” were suicides with a few others being accidents, like that poor drunk girl who shot her brother while trying to pose for a Facebook photo.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2256161/Sister-19-accidentally-shoots-brother-head-posing-gun-Facebook-picture.html?ICO=most_read_module

    ReplyReply
  30. Tom says: 30

    @Nan G:

    That’s a fair point. I will try to track down the data using homicides only. I imagine if you used gun homicides in the comparison rather than gun deaths, it would skew all states down at roughly the same rate, so the disparity between states would not change materially.

    ReplyReply
  31. Logician's nemesis says: 31

    Tom writes, “…You’re not going to win many arguments regarding the link, or lack thereof, between gun control and gun violence if Chicago is the only example you can muster.”

    Detroit and 400 plus deaths a year. There are more. Blithely saying the deaths in Chicago are gang-related also suggests that illegal weapons are involved, something untouched by Chicago’s strict gun laws. Ergo, tossing aside the illegal gun question and lumping all guns into a single statistic or causal phenomenon is fallacious. Moreover, many gun deaths are deaths by those defending themselves and their property from criminals. And some gun deaths are the crazy shooters themselves, folded into the statistics. The devil is always in the details, and the details are that in well-armed Switzerland, the occasional shooting of three as just occured is seen as the aberation, not the “nature of society.”

    It is the liberal who wants the collective to act against the individual, and once individuals cannot defend themselves, it is historically accurate to say that such “liberals” then continue to act out against individuals.

    ReplyReply
  32. Logician's nemesis says: 32

    A peek around the world shows how fallacious the “collective” guilt assigned to the United States is. Collective guilt should probably be defined only to specific urban areas in cities, rather than smearing a state. But as to the US in the world, the nation is relatively peaceful when away from certain urban areas — oddly dominated by Democrat politics. For a comparison of this, see http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/10/homicide-rates

    ReplyReply
  33. johngalt says: 33

    @Logician’s nemesis:

    Collective guilt should probably be defined only to specific urban areas in cities, rather than smearing a state.

    Agreed. For example, in 2011 Texas, as a state, experienced 1,126 murders(all murders, not just firearm related).
    -Houston had 195 of them.
    -Dallas had 152 of them.
    -San Antonio had 88 of them.
    -Fort Worth had 48 of them.
    -Austin had 27 of them.

    Five of the biggest cities in Texas had 45% of all murders in Texas in 2011. Of those cities, only Fort Worth’s mayor is a Republican.

    I’m sure that those statistics would be similar in whichever state one looks at, where the larger urban areas experience the majority of all murders committed within the particular state, and that out of those large urban areas, the majority of them would be run by Democrats.

    ReplyReply
  34. retire05 says: 34

    @Tom:

    I read your entire link to the VPC and I found that they are pretty slim on where they obtained the stats you provided. So let’s take a look at the 2010 stats from the FBI, compared to the 2009 stats the VPC claims, shall we?

    Massachusetts – Gun death rate 3.14 per 100,000

    FBI – Massachusetts – rate 3.2 per 100,000 for all murder and nonnegligent manslaughter

    Hawaii – Gun Death Rate 3.63 per 100,000

    FBI – Hawaii – rate 1.8 per 100,000 for all murder and nonnegligent manslaughter

    New Jersey – Gun Death Rate 4.72 per 100,000

    FBI – New Jersey – rate 4.2 per 100,000 for all murder and nonnegligent manslaughter

    New York – Gun Death Rate 4.90 per 100,000

    FBI – New York – rate 4.5 per 100,000 for all murder and nonnegligent manslaughter

    Connecticut – Gun Death Rate 4.92 per 100,000

    FBI – Connecticut – rate 3.0 per 100,000 for all murder and nonnegligent manslaughter

    So there is some major discrepencies there, as you can see. If all murder and nonnegligent manslaugher cases in Connecticut equal 3.0 per 100,000 where did the VPC come up with a 4.92 per 100,000 rate for gun deaths alone? They must be including suicides, and accidental (non-intential) shootings.

    Now let’s look at the other states, shall we?

    Louisiana – Gun Death Rate 18.03 per 100,000

    FBI – Louisiana – rate 11.2 per 100,000 for all murder and nonnegligent manslaughter

    Wyoming – Gun Death Rate 17.64 per 100,000

    FBI – Wyoming – rate 1.4 per 100,000 for all murder and nonnegligent manslaughter

    Alabama – Gun Death Rate 17.63 per 100,000

    FBI – Alabama – rate 5.7 per 100,000 for all murder and nonnegligent manslaughter

    Montana – Gun Death Rate 17.03 per 100,000

    FBI – Montana rate 2.6 per 100,000 for all murder and nonnegligent manslaughter

    Mississippi – Gun Death Rate 16.50 per 100,000

    FBI – Mississippi – rate 7.0 per 100,000 for all murder and nonnegligent manslaughter

    Your stats don’t jive unless there has been tremendous reductions in gun homicide rates sine the FBI stats include those number of murder, and nonnegligent manslaughter, by ALL means, including guns, knives, other weapons, fists, hands and feet. The only reason those VPC numbers are so high is because they have included suicides, accidental shootings, etc, and even then, their numbers don’t jive.

    So let’s look two states with very different gun laws, shall we?

    California, with stringent gun laws (which did not prevent Dianne Feinstein from getting her own concealed carry permit) rate, according to the FBI, 5.3 per 100,000

    Texas, with what some think have very lax gun laws, rate, according to the FBI, 5.0 per 100,000

    Here are some other interesting stats, according to the FBI, 2 year estimaes show violent crime decreased in all four regions, with the largest decrease (7.9 percent) occurring in the South; followed by declines of 6.5 percent in the Midwest, 5.6 percent in the West and 0.6 percent in the Northeast.

    The number of murders increased by 8.8 percent in the Northeast, but declined in the other three regions; 7.6 percent in the West, 6.4 percent in the South and 4.9 percent in the Midwest.

    The South recorded the largest decrease in forcible rape, 6.4 percent.

    The estimated number of robbery offenses declined in all four regions; the largest decreast, 13.0 percent, was in the South.

    Estimated aggravated assault offenses rose 0.3 percent in the Northwest, the only region to see an increase. Aggravated assault offenses declined 5.8 percent in the South, 4.3 percent in the Midwest and 3.6 percent in the West.

    The estimated number of burglaries decreased in three regions. However, in the Northeast, the number of estimated offenses increased 4.0 percent. The largest decline, 4.0 percent occurred in the South.

    Perhaps, you, or someone else, can explain why the Northeastern states, which you include in your low gun owership list (Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Connecticut) all have seen a smaller reduction, 0.6 percent, in violent crimes and an actual increase in murders while its cousins have all seen major reductions in violent crimes all the way across the board, with the biggest reduction in the South which includes all your high gun ownership states; Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana?

    And perhaps someone here can explain why, with legal gun sales rocketing in the last four years, the violent crime rate is going down everywhere but the Northeast?

    What is not honest, or at least what is uninformed, is a parallel track argument stating that more guns actually contribute to public safety.

    Well, it seems the FBI stats would bear that argument out, Tom, considering that the recent (2009-2012) increase in gun sales have probably occurred in those regions (South, West and Midwest) where the majority of legal firearms are being sold.

    ReplyReply
  35. icecream says: 35

    DrJohn
    What do you think about this link?
    http://ssristories.com/index.php?sort=drug&p=

    Public schools ask you to let them administer drugs to your kids (it’s so prevalent)…drugs prescribed by the ‘school psycologist/psychiatrist’…because Jonny ‘acts up too much’ …’won’t sit still like the little girls do’.

    They took the swings out of the schools…liability…
    They took the merry-go-rounds out of the parks…liability
    Could it be that kids today don’t get some developmental opportunities that we enjoyed…and are ‘acting out’ because of it?

    Kids get more dx’s than even existed when I was a kid. Every dx needs another ‘drug’ to control the ‘problem’…and most were not even approved for use on children as young as the ‘patients’ are, I understand.

    Like they teach the kiddos…actions have consequences and, I think, the ‘time bomb’ of over-medicalization is now ‘going off’.

    ReplyReply
  36. Logician's nemesis says: 36

    @johngalt:

    It is interesting that as one goes to check the sources and statistics provded by liberals, their own arguments fade into generalizations and fallacious argument. As with retire05′s comment as well, the close examination shows that liberals evade argument with allegations which turn out to be specious at best.

    There is one purpose to disarming a public, and that is to keep them docile and incapable of fighting back when assaulted. As with the newspaper which published gun owners’ names and addresses hiring armed guards because they then felt threatened, arms are the answer to perceived threats — and especially when liberals are those feeling threatened. As with the humorous appeal to create a “gun-free zone” around politicians, one finds the Left running for proverbial cover — behind guns for their own protection.

    It has been a tenet of the Left to disarm a population, as one can read throughout the history of the 20th century, in which hundreds of millions were killed in large part for being unable to fight back. Thus it is the Left which consistently uses fallacious references and misread statistics to argue for their “caring” stance on gun control which also has tripped over into murderousness around the world in the 20th century. From National Socialism to Soviet Socialism to Sino-Socialism to the murderousness of Chavez’s socialist experiment to Zimbabwe’s horrid record and so many more examples as to boggle the mind, the Left holds a political philosophy of being the bully, enforcing it unto death when given the chance, and then pretending that any individual who might fight back is somehow immoral or brutal.

    As we watch the social welfare states of today slowly collapse economically uneder debt as did the USSR, I think what we are seeing from the Left is a panic that they need to ram through their agenda yet again, before simple economics topples their political philosophy in perpetuity. Collectives fail, and the greater the collective’s central power, the more catastrophic the failure over time. Freedom is the antithesis of this, and therefore the antithesis of collectivism in all its vocabularies.

    As we are seeing, those Leftists who call themselves liberal, objective and logical are not returning with greater insight into the statistics and data they so blithely posted, as it is dissected and proven wanting. Best wishes.

    ReplyReply
  37. Tom says: 37

    @Nan G:

    In regards to how the statistics would look if you used only firearm fatalities, that data can be pulled from the CDC database here: http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe.

    I can’t link to the finished report, but you can run it by selecting “homicide”, “firearms”, the year, and output by state. The trend remains basically the same, with a few exceptions like Montana (also some states don’t have enough of a sample to be statistically meaningful).

    ReplyReply
  38. Tom says: 38

    @Logician’s nemesis:

    It is interesting that as one goes to check the sources and statistics provded by liberals, their own arguments fade into generalizations and fallacious argument

    Oh, did you go and check the sources and statistics of the article I linked to? I don’t see any CDC data that you provided that proves my argument is “fallacious”. Perhaps I missed that post.

    ReplyReply
  39. Hard Right says: 39

    @Tom:

    Perhaps you should have read Retire’s post, tom.

    ReplyReply
  40. Hard Right says: 40

    As I posted elsewhere:

    Mass shootings in Europe
    http://www.expatica.com/be/news/local_news/mass-shootings-in-europe_195344.html

    Stricter gun laws won’t stop them.

    Japan has a higher suicide rate than the U.S. and guns are a rarity there.
    So, banning guns won’t stop violent crime, suicides, or even mass murders. So those arguing for strict gun control don’t care about the welfare of innocents and as has been stated before, simply want to infringe on the rights of others because it would make them feel better. Well, that and the fact it goes hand in hand with their desire to control others.

    ReplyReply
  41. Tom says: 41

    @Hard Right:

    Why would I waste my time with that gibberish when anyone with a computer and a rudimentary understanding of Google can find the CDC National Center for Injury Control and Prevention database in two minutes?

    ReplyReply
  42. Hard Right says: 42

    @Tom:

    So you are deliberatly avoiding information that shows your numbers are wrong. I see.

    ReplyReply
  43. retire05 says: 43

    @Tom:

    No need for you to actually prove the claims of the VPC, Tom. It is clear what they, being the anti-gun organization they are, did. They included ALL deaths from guns; unintentional, suicide and murder. That way they could make it sound much worse than it really is, and gullible people like you, and the rest of your anti-gun ilk, would take the bait, hook, line and sinker.

    Of course, you dismiss the findings of the FBI because it doesn’t comply with your agenda of trying to show how people are dying from guns like crazy. So I checked your CDC reference and I found:

    In 2009, 31,347 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States (Tables 18 and 19), accounting for 17.7% of all injury deaths that year. The two major component cause of all firearm injury deaths in 2009 were suicide (59.8%) and homicide (36.7%). Firearm injuries (all intents) decreased 1.9% from 2008 to 2009.

    Imagine that Tom; starting in 2009, record numbers of legal firearms were purchased by law abiding citizens and the firearm injuries rate went down.

    Care to explain how more guns in the hands of legal owners is resulting in the lowering of the gun death rates in the U.S.?

    ReplyReply
  44. Tom says: 44

    @Hard Right:

    My new years resolution: not getting sidetracked and pulled into the mud by trolls. So have a great year.

    ReplyReply
  45. retire05 says: 45

    @Tom:

    You are the only troll in this discussion. Getting bored over at HuffingtonPost/DailyKos because all you do is sing to the choir, you come over here. But facts, and actual stats, are not your friend, Tommy, the Troll. And when presented with them, you do what every other predictable left winger does, you try to slam the messenger, not the message.

    The gig is up, Tommy Troll; conservatives are no longer going to let you liberals get by with throwing out just parts of a report and claiming it supports your agenda. We are going to challenge you every step of the way, showing how you use incomplete data to support your agendas. So if you don’t like me exposing your claims using incomplete data, then perhaps you should toddle on back to whatever left wing site you prefer, since most of the posters at HP/DK are not really very bright and can be labeled “sheeple.”

    ReplyReply
  46. Hard Right says: 46

    Tom, you are a troll. More leftist projection.

    ReplyReply
  47. Hard Right says: 47

    @retire05:

    Amusing. He cites junk from VPC and wonders why no one listens to him.

    ReplyReply
  48. Logician's nemesis says: 48

    Gentlemen, “hard facts about guns” and “liberals” are not part of the same dictionary. Challenging someone to cite data, and then dismissing the data is evidence enough that to be liberal is to be both judge and jury, and as we know from Lewis Carroll, “judge and jury” sentence people to death.

    The current crop of liberals would sentence potential victims of criminals to death by being unable to lethally defend themselves. As noted, Chicago and Detroit are poster children for strict gun laws, illegal guns and murder rates clustered in Democrat blocs. The continuation of the list of deadly cities can be had, but the clustering remains the same, as does the enthusiasm for gun control coupled to illegal weapons and criminals ignoring these “compassionate” laws.

    ReplyReply
  49. Poppa_T says: 49

    I wonder just how many or what percentage of all deaths by firearms are from cases like these, or these, where some armed citizen uses a gun in self-defense. You know that when some woman shoots and kills some rapist or potential rapist it is still considered a “death from gun” in the statistics we have all been looking at.

    ReplyReply
  50. Poppa_T says: 50

    Wow! I just typed “woman shoots kills rapist” into my search engine and got 12 million results, so I tried Google just to see what it came up with…almost 20 million.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Switch to our mobile site