Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumGuns. Do they make us safer? The numbers. The facts.
Per Gallup poll, 60% of gun owners own them for personal safety purposes.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165605/personal-safety-top-reason-americans-own-guns-today.aspx
So how much safer are we when we have guns?
Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.
Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
• 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
• In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.
Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.
Fact-check: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
• In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
• A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.
Myth #7: Guns make women safer.
Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
• A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 5 times if he has access to a gun.
• One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check
If you own a gun, why do you own it?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
ileus
(15,396 posts)DonP
(6,185 posts)
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,579 posts)...make an analysis of your own situation and decide based on what you learn what to do. I can think of no greater exercise of freedom than that. Respect others enough to allow them the same analysis and decisions.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)might want to look at specific statistics for isolated areas.
But guns can be very hazardous in the home. People should consider the statistics before deciding whether a gun will make them, in their specific situation, safer or perhaps less safe.
It's a decision that each person has to make.
My dad always said: If someone wants to kill me, they will have to bring their own gun.
That's one view of it.
I am trying to present objective information that can help people make a decision. There is pressure from both the pro-gun and the anti-gun sides to persuade people to sort of "join up."
Whether you want a gun in your home or not can be a life or death decision.
And having the gun does not necessarily mean saving lives. It can mean quite the opposite.
It is a personal decision, but we need information to make the best decision for our situation.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)
deathrind
(1,786 posts)...of firearms shows that having one around is much more unhealthy then not having one around...but things like studies / statistics / proof are unable to penetrate the emotional bond of firearm adornment into the realm of logic.
Face it. If Sandyhook could not make change happen nothing will.
hack89
(39,179 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)Guns contain a substance known in the state of California to cause cancer...
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)http://ethicsalarms.com/2015/10/05/who-are-you-calling-a-nut-and-other-ethics-issues-in-the-community-college-shooting-aftermath-parts-i-vi/
http://ethicsalarms.com/2015/10/06/who-are-you-calling-a-nut-and-other-ethics-issues-in-the-community-college-shooting-aftermath-continued/
Statistically, according to the CDC, your bathtub and that bottle of Draino under your sink is a greater danger.
louis-t
(23,721 posts)my computer blocked content from? (truthaboutguns site triggered a warning). Yep, I'm convinced. 
louis-t
(23,721 posts)And I just heard that the ban has been extended.
DonP
(6,185 posts)In the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, President Obama issued a list of Executive Orders. Notably among them, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) was given $10 million to research gun violence.
Here are some key findings from the 2013 CDC report, “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” released in June 2013:
1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”
2. Defensive uses of guns are common:
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:
“The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”
4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results:
“Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”
5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:
“There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”
6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:
“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”
7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:
“Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”
But by all means keep that myth alive. Gun control fans need something to cling to.
louis-t
(23,721 posts)I question statistics from years the CDC, or anyone for that matter, were not allowed to collect information. Also, eliminated from the mix are any situation where less than 4 people were killed by one person. So, 3 victims is not a mass murder?
6. is quite interesting. The conclusion that "Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime" is a little confusing. Noting that "70% of guns used" coming from sources they name doesn't seem to take into account that any of those sources could provide stolen guns. "No, I didn't steal the gun I used in the crime" doesn't mean that the gun used wasn't stolen by "family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.” It seems to me the last 3 in the list would more than likely have stolen weapons to sell. How many guns are reported stolen every year?
I would question the 'survey' of people who have been asked "Have you ever used your gun to defend yourself?" "Yeah, I heard a noise outside and grabbed my gun. I went out and waved the gun around but didn't see anyone." If that is included as a "defensive gun use", the survey is useless. I'm sure that kind of thing does happen 3 million times a year. And I doubt every case of "some guy threatened me so I pulled out my gun" is as innocent as the storyteller claims.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,579 posts)http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx
Collecting data in the way of cause of death and associated information was not restricted. Promoting and/or advocating gun control was restricted.
louis-t
(23,721 posts)Also, the executive order did not "lift the ban", it merely authorized the CDC to do the study. Congress had to appropriate the money, and the NRA lobbyists made sure the amount was kept to a minimum. The 'ban' actually started with NRA lobbyists forcing Congress to cut funding to CDC for the exact amount that they used for gun research. From what I see, the CDC even has to be careful of using certain words and phrases about "gun deaths" or "gun research." It's kind of funny when you search for the actual report, the sites with headlines like "Study ordered by Obama contradicts White House Anti-Gun Narrative" are right-wing gun worship sites and Herman Cain's website. They also cherry-pick the parts of the report that favor their argument.
DonP
(6,185 posts)Then you can explain to us why that CDC study on the effectiveness of gun control never really got much in the way of media pick up.
louis-t
(23,721 posts)The CDC has had funds cut by 96% since 1993 for any research that involves firearm injury prevention after NRA lobbyists got involved. The ban is on using any of the funds CDC gets to promote gun control or political action, but you can't do much research without funding. The NRA campaigned to eliminate the center that funded the 1993 study it didn't like, you know, the one that said having a gun in the home increases the risk of someone in that home being murdered, and the CDC has to pretty much get NRA approval of any research it does. Read the part again that quotes one of the former CDC directors where he says the scientific community has been "terrorized by the NRA." Again, you are cherry-picking the info you don't like.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)it was Kellerman took 11 million dollars and produced a "study" but refused to share his data for peer review. When he was finally pressured to, it failed. He adjusted his numbers several times, and still was invalid. The study not only failed peer review, it couldn't be replicated. That was the major problem with all of the CDC studies. It was a major topic of discussion at the American Society of Criminology 1994 annual meeting. The basic view was that these studies were as scientific as NRA propaganda.
http://www.guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html
Ask yourself this; they didn't oppose similar research funded by the DoJ's National Institute for Justice? Since the CDC studies, like Kellerman's, were basically criminology, why weren't the studies submitted to peer review with criminology journals instead of public health journals? Why didn't the NRA oppose the NIJ funded studies that were done by criminologists and were submitted to peer review criminology journals?
louis-t
(23,721 posts)complete control of any study that has anything to do with firearms? How is that working out? 
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)as I said, the DoJ still was and is allowed. The difference is the DoJ was funding valid studies, the CDC was funding shill studies to advocate. IOW, the CDC was giving money to ideologues to create propaganda dressed as science. I don't who else is opposed to it or what the cause is. My tax money should not be used to create junk science or propaganda. No exceptions.
The fact that the NRA does not attack the firearms studies funded by the DoJ and the prohibition lobby don't use their results tells a lot.
As pointed out before, the CDC studies were not valid studies and failed even basic peer review and didn't follow the scientific method. Outside of propaganda, what value are they?
louis-t
(23,721 posts)Like the NRA, if any part of a study disagrees with the notion that 'more guns equals safer' you disagree with it and don't want tax dollars spent on it. It is your 'opinion' that the CDC studies were propaganda. And the ban is not the problem. The problem is, the NRA won't allow any funding for research that doesn't support it's point of view.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)they all sucked. They took NIJ funded studies like Wright Rossi out of context. It isn't a matter of liking the results, they were all junk.
Have you read these studies? Have you read the peer review critiques? Oh wait, they weren't. Have your read the critiques by criminologists who read it later?
I don't want my tax money spend of propaganda.
The ban is on LOBBYING not research.
Face it, the science is on my side on this issue.
I'll support CDC funding IF:
all studies and the supporting data and methodology be publicly available to the public and all researchers
Studies must be submitted to peer review criminology or sociology journals
All counter studies, referee notes, and critiques also be publicly available at no cost
Having to pay some private company to download Kellerman's bullshit study was insult to injury.
louis-t
(23,721 posts)Then why is the NRA allowed to lobby for their position? I have read widely on a few of the studies and didn't see the kind of propaganda you described, nor did I see a one-sided study. Along with the cherry-picked parts you hated, other parts of the studies agreed with you. If the NRA wants to put out a study that disagrees, they have enough money. But to flat out hobble the CDC from doing any study is wrong. They have LOBBIED to take funding away from ANY research. And the 'science' is not on your side. What you have shown me is 'opinion' and wishful thinking.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)none of my tax money goes to pay the NRA to lobby or do anything else.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)the resulted in the CDC funding and research restrictions.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/12/why-the-centers-for-disease-control-should-not-receive-gun-research-funding/
Notably, the DOJ and its various departments, despite engaging in and sponsoring scholarship that is often used by gun control (and gun rights) advocates, has never had the problems of the CDC.
louis-t
(23,721 posts)Opinion pieces are not facts. And what "problems" are you saying the CDC has? The only problems I see are under-funding directed by the NRA, and complaints from the NRA every time the CDC makes a claim based on their research that the NRA doesn't like. So, who is the propagandist? If any research doesn't say "more guns means safer" the NRA claims it's biased. Who is the propagandist?
branford
(4,462 posts)but those that don't support you viewpoint are "propaganda."
You, and those like you, are the flip side of the NRA you despise so much. Blind ideology is not only a symptom of the right.
The primary difference is that the NRA, and gun rights advocacy overall, is generally far more organized, determined, and supported by more Americans (often located in important competitive states). As absolutists on each side talk past one another and complain about the other's "propaganda," gun rights continue to expand, support grows, lawsuits won, and all while crime rights are half what they were a few decades ago.
The only way actual gun "safety" measures have any chance of passage is respectful dialogue and actual compromises (and settling for a little less gun control without offering anything the other side wants is not compromise, it's surrender). I don't see this happening any time in the near future, and the status quo no doubt favors your opponents (heck, support for gun rights and against restriction actually increased after Sandy Hook).
louis-t
(23,721 posts)
The NRA portrays ANY compromise as surrender. No background checks, no waiting periods, no limits on how many howitzers someone can have, no closing gun show loophole, no studies on firearms injury prevention, no registration. "Crime rights" might be half of what they were years ago, but mass shootings are certainly on the rise in the last 35 years. We went from 1 or 2 or none per year in the '80s to at least 1 and as many as 5 per year in the '90s. In the 2000s, only 2002 had no mass shootings and there are a lot more 3,4,5 or more mass killings in a single year. The trend is upward. The 1994 assault weapons ban was followed by a few years of reduced mass shootings. The ban expired in 2004 and was followed by 11 years of increased mass shootings. They're still arguing about cause and effect of that one. And I don't agree with your assessment that "support for gun rights and against restriction actually increased after Sandy Hook". You go that from an opinion piece or gun rights site. Nothing to back that up.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)Last edited Thu Oct 8, 2015, 01:10 AM - Edit history (1)
What people refuse to understand is that the NRA only has about 5 millions members. There are 80-100+ million gun owners in the USA. At best, the NRA represents about a mere 5-6% of the people who legally own a firearm, and a lot of them are only members because it's necessary for certain range and shooting clubs or they received life membership eons ago. Also, don't forget about people like myself who've never owned a firearm, don't support the NRA, yet still support the individual right to keep and bear arms. If you can reach the tens of millions of non-NRA members, the organization can easily be marginalized.
NRA lobbying wealth is also vastly overstated, and the records are mostly public. Besides, gun control proponents have ample money for their cause, including a pet billionaire, and numerous celebrities, politicians, photogenic family members of victims, sympathetic media, and organizations willing to advocate their cause. Notably, in the recent Colorado recall elections, Bloomberg and his allies actually outspent the opposition by 6 to 1 and still badly lost. Gun control simply isn't losing because of money, NRA or otherwise.
Focusing on mass shooting is self-defeating. They're still extraordinarily rare, and with the acknowledged steep decline in the crime rates, people are safer than they've been in generations. If all the proposed policies are designed to eliminate a statistically unlikely event (and most suggestions, such as UBC's, would have had no impact in the recent mass shootings), and in the process penalizes millions of American who are not real threat, the push-back is well deserved and unsurprising.
As for figures concerning support for gun rights and opposition to restrictions, particularly after the very small and extremely transitory bump in gun control support immediately after Sandy Hook, see below.
http://www.courant.com/politics/hc-pew-study-gun-rights-20141210-story.html
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-have-no-impact-on-support-for-gun-rights-in-the-us
http://www.gallup.com/poll/179213/six-americans-say-guns-homes-safer.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/179045/less-half-americans-support-stricter-gun-laws.aspx
http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/10/growing-public-support-for-gun-rights/
Lastly, your claims of the efficacy of the 1994 AWB, or AWB's generally, are certainly in dispute. The Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice under President Obama found the treasured AWB's to have no real measurable impact, and any support is largely based on faith. It's usually the same story, the law's ineffectiveness is used as proof of the need for more of the same type of laws.
Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf
Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies
https://archive.org/stream/NijGunPolicyMemo/nij-gun-policy-memo_djvu.txt
louis-t
(23,721 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)ever engage in any criminality, no less mass shootings?
The victims of mass shootings represent what percentage of the total number of victims of firearm (or any sort of) violence in the country?
Most importantly, what policies that can actually pass constitutional muster have been offered that would have stopped any of the recent mass shooting, no less most of them, no less without infringing on the rights of tens of millions of gun owners who pose no statistical threat?
EDIT: You also didn't address my points about the NRA, the myopic focus only on mass shootings, overall support for gun rights and opposition to restrictions, and the unmeasurable effects of AWB's.
louis-t
(23,721 posts)That wasn't the question. The question was whether mass shootings are increasing or decreasing. Are they increasing or decreasing? You and others keep saying they are going down. They are not going down. What 'percentage' is acceptable to you? How many mass shootings does it take for you to NOT say "oh well, stuff happens"? I have already addressed your points. I don't have time right now to go over it again for you.
branford
(4,462 posts)all while gun laws have liberalized and and many millions of more guns entered circulation. We are safer now than we've been in generations.
As I inquired before, what policies that can actually pass constitutional muster have been offered that would have stopped any of the recent mass shootings, no less most or all of them, particularly without infringing on the rights of tens of millions of gun owners who pose no statistical threat?
The President himself admitted that most of the legislation he's supported would not have stopped any of the recent mass shootings. You're demanding we give up or severely restrict our right to keep and bear arms purportedly because of the scourge of mass shootings, yet none of the proposed legislation addresses the problem. It's transparently opportunistic.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Austria come to mind -- is much lower than here.
Why do you think that is?
What could we do to reduce the number of gun deaths in our country?
Thanks for your comments.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Not only those two countries. Also Iceland, Norway, Canada. Really most countries. Why does New Zealand have more liberal gun laws and have lower crime rates than Australia?
While the US has more privately owned guns per capita, and probably just about every other consumer good as well, Finland has more households with guns. The top ones are Finland, US, Norway, Canada, and then Switzerland. The last not counting military issue weapons.
Other questions to ask, why did UK murder rates increase in spite of their stricter gun laws? Why do countries with even stricter laws, including complete bans, wish their murder rates were as low as ours? Here I'm talking about Brazil, Mexico, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Russia, Jamaica etc.
Each country and society has different issues that probably is not comparable to ours.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)It seems that the existing research is either contradictory or ideologically weighted or just not very good.
But the number of deaths from guns in this country is appalling compared to other countries that have strong hunting cultures.
I wonder whether our lack of social safety net contributes to the problems that cause people to use guns on other people?
Or is it something else?
Maybe we don't educate our kids about the dangers of guns well enough?
Maybe we have the myth of cowboys and cops and robbers that encourages people to believe they can be superheroes if they shoot their guns?
I don't think our research has begun to give us enough information to understand this tragic problem.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)if you look where the murders are in the US, it is the gangs. Last year 8100 gun murders and five hundred "accidents." Maybe another five hundred were self defense. The other 20K were suicides, and that is only a little over half of all suicides. There were 8500 heroin deaths.
Cowboy myth? Those murders aren't happening in North Dakota and Wyoming are they? Wyoming has a huge suicide problem.
Where were most of those murders? DC, Chicago, Camden, NOLA, Memphis. Major gang centers who go at war. Much is made of how Freddie Gray died. Let's look at how he lived and got him where he ended. West Baltimore is a food desert where there are few if any legitimate businesses. His mother was an illiterate heroin addict and his school experience probably wasn't much better.
Wouldn't it be great if the local pot seller could take his issues to court instead of "going Capone"? End the drug war and treat addiction as a health problem. That takes the money way. Take away the money, you take away the guns.
I have been around the world thanks to MIC and empire. Europe, Japan, and Korea don't have those problems, or at least not to the degree that we do.
Wealth inequality and lousy urban policy has a lot to do with it.
louis-t
(23,721 posts)nothing will ever get done.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)But actually, doing this research is in the interest of gun-owners who are responsible. Because if we could find out why we have these dramatic incidents, why so many children are killed, how to prevent guns from harming people in domestic arguments and divorce, etc., we could probably make gun ownership a lot safer for everyone.
I assume that the hunting companion that Dick Cheney shot was also carrying a gun.
So gun safety, and perhaps even requiring more safety or inventing better safety mechanisms for guns, would benefit gun owners and users.
We do need more research. And we need to sell that idea to gun owners. It's in their interest.
There won't be any gun accidents in the homes of those who don't own guns. Gun safety is very much in the interest of gun owners.
They need to bypass the NRA on that issue and demand the research be done.
Seems to me our military should take an interest in this too.
louis-t
(23,721 posts)NRA isn't interested in safety. They are not interested in studies. They are interested in selling guns. THEY will tell you what 'responsible' is. THEY will tell you what 'safety' is. 'Safety' is "buy more guns".
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)http://ethicsalarms.com/2015/10/06/who-are-you-calling-a-nut-and-other-ethics-issues-in-the-community-college-shooting-aftermath-continued/
The reason the prohibition lobby is using "safety" instead of "control" is because control doesn't do well with focus groups.
Did you know Michigan has had purchase permits since the 1920s? It was the result of this shooting
http://detroit1701.org/SweetHome.htm
Oh, and it wasn't the NAACP who lobbied for the law. Probably the same people who got them passed in North Carolina a few years earlier.
jimmy the one
(2,717 posts)gejohnston: to quote ethics blogger Josh Marshall "The hateful rhetoric focused on the NRA at times like these is unfair, and ignorant. Of course the organization is extreme, because organizations that exist to protect rights must by their nature be vigilant against incremental incursions on the rights they protect. They stake out the extreme defense against extreme opponents of those rights and the citizens they protect. In this the NRA is no different from the NARAL, or the Baseball Players Association, or the Sierra Club, NOW, or the ACLU, just as important to the public policy debate, and exactly as worthy of respect."
http://ethicsalarms.com/2015/10/06/who-are-you-calling-a-nut-and-other-ethics-issues-in-the-community-college-shooting-aftermath-continued/
Jeez, how low can you go Johnston, to post some rightwing blogger comparing nra tactics with the sierra club, aclu, now, & baseball?
And you post this again from this rightwing source which denies climate change:
(x-posted) : One of Johnston's other links comes from ethics alarms, which starts off with climate change denial: If you want a graphic example of why climate change skeptics distrust—and are right to distrust— the studies and computer models on the subject indicating that we are doomed unless we adopt Draconian measures, look no further than the Washington Posts’ embarrassing story on a study released this week in the American Journal of Public Health. It is deceptive, biased, misleading and incompetent from the headline: “Gun killings fell by 40% after Connecticut passed this law.” http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172170778
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)can you make an intelligent argument without resorting to personal attacks and logical fallacies? Obviously not. It is all you have and you bury it in irrelevant and incoherent verbiage.
No Jimmy, I'm defending free speech and the LIBERAL principles that the country was founded on. Do you grasp that concept or are you simply so wedded to your dogmatic bullshit to can't even grasp the concept of principle? I don't believe you do.
jimmy the one
(2,717 posts)gjohnston: truth bother you Jimmy?
You call a blogger defending a far rightwing gun organization, the truth?
You call what john marshall wrote the 'truth'?, speciously including 'hateful' to make it seem they're being picked on: 'The hateful rhetoric focused on the NRA at times like these is unfair, and ignorant.
What was it when nra lapierre-head said Bill Clinton enjoyed seeing kids & people shot since it jacked up support for gun control? the truth?
You call this the truth?, a fabricated expedient 'truth' by marshall to justify nra's extreme lunacy: Of course the organization is extreme, because organizations that exist to protect rights must by their nature be vigilant against incremental incursions on the rights they protect.
this is the truth to you Johnston? is Shannon watts an extreme opponent?: They {nra} stake out the extreme defense against extreme opponents of those rights and the citizens they protect.
You call this the truth??? In this the NRA is no different from the NARAL, or the Baseball Players Association, or the Sierra Club, NOW, or the ACLU,
Lunatic fringe it's better put for the nra bd of directors, the others not. Did marshall say anything about the nra fleecing people for donations the past 30 years? buying off republican politicians? misrepresenting those opposed to their points of view? including even politicos who they once supported? The nra is only rarely mainstream America, nra generally advocates asinine hard right positions, which most of us democrats could not support (excluding you dino Johnston). Marshall's specious manipulations put the nra in a good light.
Johnston: truth bother you Jimmy?
You want I should take a few hours & compile a medley of your posts where you were either lying or fabricating or half truthing? Your links, your sources tend to be a joke, since you rarely cite from them - you usually post 'links alone' (liar's links) as if they support you by default or something.
Here you were labeling brady campaign making 'one sided claims', when the links you posted to disprove brady, 3 of 4 were from 'one sided' rightwing sources!!!!
july 5, 2015: Johnston: Everything else is one sided claims from Brady Campaign, who can't even tell the truth about fundraising. Citing the Brady Campaign is like citing the NRA, and should be taken just as seriously.
jimmy the one: Yet 3 of the 4 links which Johnston cites, are from 'one sided' apparently right wing pro gun sources, a right wing author from 'ethics alarms', 'arms and the law', as well as right leaning democrat gary kleck's 'point blank' book via amazon.
post 8 and 18, then more: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172170778
Here's Johnston denying he said 'one sided claims':
Post 23: johnston: I didn't say anything about "one sided claims" Jimmy, I said accurate and unbiased.
post 8: Johnston: Everything else is one sided claims from Brady Campaign, who can't even tell the truth about fundraising.
This Josh Marshall from ethics alarm might have occasional unbiased views, but it doesn't justify his right wing coddling to some extreme groups, just to create some specious facade that he's trying to remain 'fair'. I think josh marshall might be pandering to all sides, in order to gain rapport with gosh golly everyone.
Here's a couple blogs, neither of which I endorse since new to me, tell me what you think of their views, j man:
Apr 2010 Ethics Alarms Go Off, "It's Jack Marshall! It's Jack Marshall!" I had never heard of Jack Marshall until he made clear he believed Eric Turkewitz to be the scourge of ethical lawyers everywhere by, um, playing an April Fool's Joke that snared the New York Times. Jack is the most ethical person in the universe, just ask him. Anyone who disagrees with him, is.... not-ethical. He's right, he's right, he's right, and everyone else is wrong.
http://mylawlicense.blogspot.com/2010/04/ethics-alarms-go-off-its-jack-marshall.html
One could say (and one did) that Chris Cuomo and Kate Bolduan got off the rough start on their CNN morning show.. Except that… their show hasn’t even debuted yet. That little factoid still didn’t stop the blog Ethics Alarms from slamming Cuomo and Bolduan he issued this hilarious pseudo-correction:
josh.. Update, correction, and a mystery: When I wrote this post, the designated Dunces were identified as Chris Cuomo and Kate Bolduan, the new kids on the CNN block.. a helpful reader tells me that Cuomo and Bolduan haven’t debuted yet.. If someone knows who the pair was I watched before Carol Costello made her always unwelcome entrance, I will identify the real dunces. For now, I’ll just apologize to Chris and Kate.
In an effort to assist Mr. Marshall, I present a new tool called the Google Machine. http://www.mediaite.com/online/bloggers-got-talent-in-egg-filled-irony-ethics-alarms-gets-cnn-hosts-wrong/
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)from the intellectually bankrupt.
jimmy the one
(2,717 posts)DonP: President Obama issued a list of Executive Orders. Notably among them, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) was given $10 million to research gun violence.
.. a committee tasked by the federal govt with creating a potential research agenda focusing on ways to minimize gun violence. The committee, formed by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council at the request of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in response to an executive order President Obama signed
DonP: Here are some key findings from the 2013 CDC report, “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” released in June 2013:
Before we proceed, here are some key findings by me: Controversial Pro-Gun Researcher {Gary Kleck} Helped Write Federal Research Plan On Minimizing Gun Violence .. A spokesperson for the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council would not comment on Kleck's controversial presence on the committee.. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/06/28/controversial-pro-gun-researcher-helped-write-f/194660
Gary Kleck is a rightwing pro gun democrat, perhaps best known for his scientifically flawed defensive gun use (DGU) study which found something like 2.4 million dgu's per year (to wit, 2 gun murders in entire study, ~dozen defensive woundings).
also recommended: researchers proposed gun safety technologies such as “external locking devices and biometric systems” {smart guns} to reduce firearm-related deaths
DonP: 1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
Only to a slight affect, perhaps 10% less likely to be injured due the sudden presence of a gun causeing attacker to flee. But when there is injury during resistance, the defender armed with a gun is more likely to be more seriously injured, than a complacent or non gun owning defender.
donP: 7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides (61% over 10 years).
61% of firearm deaths is not a 'vast majority'. A solid majority yes. You exaggerated for affect, the vast majority would normally mean something in excess of 75%. The phrase "vast majority" is most often used to exaggerate the size, relevance, or importance of some statistic.
DonP wrote: 2. Defensive uses of guns are common
What donP left out: Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry— may have a different net effect on the rate of injury.. if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use
and also left out: On the other hand, some scholars point to radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997)
Some more items of interest: A recent estimate suggested that firearm violence cost the US more than $174 billion in 2010 (Miller, 2010). However, it is essentially impossible to quantify the overall physiological, mental, emotional, social, and collateral economic effects of firearm violence, since these effects extend well beyond the victim to the surrounding community and society at large.
Despite gun owners’ increased perception of safety, research by Kellermann et al. (1992, 1993, 1995) describes higher rates of suicide, homicide, and the use of weapons involved in home invasion in the homes of gun owners. However, other studies conclude that gun ownership protects against serious injury when guns are used defensively..
two studies found “a small but significant fraction of gun suicides are committed within days to weeks after the purchase of a handgun, and both also indicate that gun purchasers have an elevated risk of suicide for many years after the purchase of the gun” (NRC, 2005,
SunSeeker
(53,698 posts)He does not control the power of the purse. The House GOP's ban on funding research into the cause of gun violence is still in place. All that 2013 report did was summarize old, existing research and recommend what new research should be done. That research was never done, due to the ban.
The report in no way made the "findings" you assert. The CDC did no research, so it had no findings. As the report explains, its purpose was to propose research:
The CDC and the CDC Foundation requested that the Institute of Medicine (IOM), in collaboration with the National Research Council (NRC), convene a committee of experts to develop a potential research agenda focusing on the public health aspects of firearm-related violence—its causes, approaches to interventions that could prevent it, and strategies to minimize its health burden.
http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/2#6
louis-t
(23,721 posts)Even when it is in black and white in front of them, some people only see what they want to see.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)If by "safer" one means "reduces the risk of bad events happening", then no guns do not do that. This would be the strawman argument often used, just like in the MJ article.
If by "safer" one means "better prepared to deal with bad events if they happen", then yes guns do that just like other safety devices do.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I will ask you what I asked another DUer.
In countries like Switzerland and Austria, people have guns and hunt a lot (I personally love venison) but don't have the frequency of gun deaths we do.
Why do you think that is?
Why do we have so many gun deaths?
Is there anything that you think we could do to reduce gun deaths?
In my personal experience I am more aware of guns used in domestic violence either to intimidate or in extreme cases to kill a spouse. In maybe 1996-97, a man who I believe lived in Beverly Hills (if I remember correctly) for example, killed his wife in the Los Angeles Civil Courthouse. That is an example of a gun used in a domestic violence situation. By the way, their daughter who I believe was about five at the time was present at the shooting.
How do we prevent such events? They are rare, but not nearly rare enough.
Thanks for your comments.
branford
(4,462 posts)and I imagine the underlying causes quite complex, varied and even, at time, contradictory.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)character Tweet
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I can write succinctly, but very short tweets can be easily misinterpreted if they are not very carefully written, and they don't convey information in different language that different people understand.
We really don't all speak the same English, even if we speak only what we think is English.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)Both in the criminals and in the general population.
This would be a great topic as its own thread if you want to start it.
Why do you think that is?
uppityperson
(115,874 posts)Statistics are great
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)sometimes where we are the sleepiest.
Gun deaths are not as common as you might think.
CDC's list of leading causes of death:
Heart disease: 611,105
Cancer: 584,881
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 149,205
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 130,557
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,978
Alzheimer's disease: 84,767
Diabetes: 75,578
Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,979
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 47,112
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 41,149
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm
SunSeeker
(53,698 posts)Last edited Thu Oct 8, 2015, 01:27 PM - Edit history (1)
suicide by firearm is about 52 percent of all suicides in the US.
SunSeeker
(53,698 posts)Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)To your statement that "A lot of those 'Accidents' are gun deaths"
A reputable link of course, I'm sure you wouldn't resort to linking to some biased source.
SunSeeker
(53,698 posts)100 children were killed in the year following Newtown from unintentuonal shotings; that's like five Newtowns each year. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5527932
Federal and state statistics tend to under count gun deaths. In 2013, a New York Times review of child gun deaths in eight states found that more than half of unintentional deaths had been misclassified as intentional homicides rather than unintended shootings.
Michael Luo and Mike McIntire, “Children and Guns: The Hidden Toll,” New York Times, September 28, 2013, available at: http://nyti.ms/17dyeEw. The Times study compared federal accidental death reports with records from five states where death certificates were available as public records: GA, MN, NC, and OH (records from 1999-2012) and CA (records from 2007-11). In these states, the Times concluded that more than half of accidental incidents were misclassified.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)SunSeeker
(53,698 posts)Which is all the more reason not to have a gun. You're way more likely to kill yourself with it than an intruder.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)For how many years?
And the number of guns in civilian hands has gone down or up?
And the number of people in the U.S. has gone down or up?
SunSeeker
(53,698 posts)Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Chart 10 Under accidents
505 total accidental firearm deaths in 2013. Since the CDC data combines children and adults in the age range 15-24, we'll use ages 0-14 for discussion. In 2013 69 children in the 0-14 age group died of accidental firearm deaths. Those were certainly tragic, but hardly "a lot"
In comparison, with the same 0-14 age group: 625 drowned; 408 from the flu and pneumonia; 1345 in motor vehicle accidents; 106 drug induced deaths (It does not specify legal or illegal drugs).
And 516 justifiable homicides
Total deaths in the United States in 2013 were 2,596,993. So while all 505 accidental deaths are tragic, there are many, far more likely ways to die then by accidental death by firearm.
Your post, while not a lie, was certainly an exaggeration, .00019 percent of deaths in the U.S. is not "a lot".
SunSeeker
(53,698 posts)
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)There are a lot of needless deaths every day in the United States. Those 69 children, tragic as their deaths were, are a very, very small percentage of accidental deaths.
Typical gun control extremist. When provided facts from a U.S. government source that blows holes in their post, they resort to personal attacks.
SunSeeker
(53,698 posts)Your math is off. It is not ".0019%."
Either way, 69 kids and over 400 adults killed accidentally, plus over 11,000 gun homicides and over 21,000 gun suicides adds up to a lot of gun deaths. But the kid deaths are the most horrible. They had no say in whether to bring a gun in the house.
To say that dozens a little kids needlessly dying each year is not big deal is the extremist statement. We went to war for 10 years with 2 countries over the death of 3,000 people. Surely 32,888 gun deaths each year warrants at least some common sense gun control measures.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Work on your reading comprehension.
The phrase "common sense gun control measures" is the gun control extremist saying that they are going to propose lots of ideas that won't do a damn thing to prevent criminals getting guns, but will place even more restrictions on the people who have done nothing wrong. You expect gun owners to just accept your demands, while offering nothing in return.
If you want universal background checks, then what are you going to give to gun owners in return?
Bad news for you, gun control has been routinely losing in Congress, the state legislatures and in the courts for the past 20 years.
SunSeeker
(53,698 posts)The point is to keep people from dying prematurely from preventable deaths. Especially kids and young people.
Work on your logic.
Gun owners, like all Americans, will "get something" if a thorough, national uniform background check is instituted: a safer country with less people needlessly dying before their time.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)The point, which you so obviously missed, was that accidental gun deaths make up a small fraction of deaths in the United States.
Those children in the 0-14 age group that died of the following causes: 625 drowned; 408 from the flu and pneumonia; 1345 in motor vehicle accidents; 106 drug induced deaths (It does not specify legal or illegal drugs), those deaths are just as tragic and just as preventable as the 69 children that died in accidents involving firearms. So where is your outrage about those deaths?
Where is your outrage about the children and people dying on a daily basis in the cities of Chicago, Washington D.C. or Newark or numerous other cities that have major crime problems?
Oh wait, based on the lack of posts, the gun control extremists either don't care about the people dying in the cities or are afraid to recognize that the very strict gun control laws in those cities have done nothing at all to reduce crime.
Your hypocrisy would be less obvious if you cared about all the other people "needlessly dying before their time".
SunSeeker
(53,698 posts)They represent the majority of Americans.
I don't know where you get that I "don't care" about crime. Of course I care about people getting shot in Chicago, Newark and DC. That is why I want reasonable gun control.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Gun control extremists always think they represent the majority of Americans, yet that "majority" never seems to support the various gun control organizations with money or any other support that requires even the slightest bit of effort.
If you really cared about reducing crime, you would spend more time advocating for changing the social and economic pressures that cause crime as well pressuring the state and Federal prosecutors to go after straw purchasers and put violent criminals, especially the ones that use guns, in jail for a long time. No more plea bargains, no more light sentences for those who commit a crime with a gun.
Instead you use buzzwords like "reasonable" and common sense" when all your proposals only serve to impact the people actually obeying the law.
SunSeeker
(53,698 posts)There's poverty all over the world, but no other western country has the killing we do. So it can't just be the "social pressures."
We put plenty of people in jail. More than any other western country. There are not a whole lot of "light sentences," especially when it comes to people of color. You can't blame lack of incarceration on the killing.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)If politicians fear the NRA, it's because they believe the NRA can GOTV. After the 1994 AWB passed, Tom Foley (D-WA) lost his re-election bid, the first sitting Speaker of the House to lose re-election since 1862. It also cost Jack Brooks (D-TX) a senior Democrat his seat. And that is according Bill Clinton, not me. It was one of the things that cost the Democrats control of the House of Representatives, control the Democratic Party had had since 1955.
Support for gun control probably cost Ann Richards the governorship of TX in 1994, allowing George Bush to become governor and then President.
So pushing gun control has cost Democrats the House of Representatives and led to George Bush becoming President.
You might want to also take a long hard look at the 2014 Senate election and look at the states the Republicans picked up. All are states were gun ownership is common and popular.
SunSeeker
(53,698 posts)I think people are starting to realize how dirty the NRA is, to the point that the NRA secretly funnels money to GOP candidates, who then run negative ads against the Dem, raising all kinds of lies to damage the candidate. The ad may not even mention guns. In Texas, Richards was accused of being a "Socialist." It didn't help that she underestimated Bush and ran a lackluster campaign that sat on its hands and let Bush define her until it was too late.
The fact that our top three Dem candidates are all calling for gun control shows that the fear of the NRA is waning, at least on the national level. Barack Obama was able to withstand NRA money. Unfortunately, on the local and state level, NRA money still does swing elections. But that is slowly changing there too, granted nowhere near fast enough.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)The bottom line is that the gun control extremists have been steadily losing for the last 20 years and politicians in swing districts and swing states recognize that advocating for gun control is likely to cost them the election.
Just look at the gun threads here at DU, it's the same small group of people, on both sides, in every thread. Even most of DU isn't interested in the subject.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,579 posts)...they do nothing on their own.
>Guns are simply tools.
>They make the work of the person using them less arduous.
>As long as good folks outnumber the evil, we will be safer with such tools than without them.
It's a bit simpler than it looks.