From Conservative David Frum's blog:
"The map above charts firearm deaths for the 50 states plus the District of Columbia. Note that these figures include accidental shootings, suicides, even acts of self-defense, as well as crimes. As of 2007, 10.2 out of every 100,000 people were killed by firearms across the United States, but that rate varies dramatically from state to state. In Hawaii, at the low end, it was 2.6 per 100,000; in New York and New Jersey it was 5.0 and 5.2 respectively. At the high end, 21.7 out of every 100,000 residents of the District of Columbia were killed by guns, 20.2 in Louisiana, 18.5 in Mississippi, and 17.8 in Alaska. Arizona ranked eighth nationally, with 15.1 deaths per 100,000.
With these data in hand, I decided to look at the factors associated with gun deaths at the state level. With the help of my colleague Charlotta Mellander, we charted the statistical correlations between firearm deaths and a variety of psychological, economic, social, and political characteristics of states. As usual, I point out that correlation does not imply causation, but simply points to associations between variables.
And what about gun control? Frum asks:
"As of July 29 of last year, Arizona became one of only three states that allows its citizens to carry concealed weapons without a permit. Might tighter gun control laws maa difference? Our analysis suggests that they do.
The map overlays the map of firearm deaths above with gun control restrictions by state. It highlights states which have one of three gun control restrictions in place - assault weapons' bans, trigger locks, or safe storage requirements.
Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48)."
Our hearts go out to the victims and families of the shootings in Aurora, Colorado.
But we Americans have become accustomed to these massacres. We're saddened and heartbroken over the lives lost and maimed, but understand that a country that hasn't the courage to do anything to lessen this carnage will see more shootings that will take more and more lives.
Count on it.
Americans love their guns and the rapacious NRA will continue to threaten any Congressman or woman who dares speak out in favor of any form of gun control. So Americans, tragically, will have to continue to live with the fact that those guns that are so easily acquired will continue to kill their children.
Commenter Silverfiddle came here and called me disgusting for talking about this country's insane obsession with guns at this time. He wants us all to keep quiet as we witness this recurring bloody nightmare that the NRA has delivered to this country; keep quiet as we see the bodies carried out of the theater; keep quiet while we hear the heartbreaking sorrow in the mothers' and fathers' voices as they ask why? Why my child? Silverfiddle believes we should not express our anger over seeing more people die at the hands of a crazed gun owner who was able to purchase deadly weapons as easily as buying a pack of gum. We shouldn't express our frustration and anger and humiliation? Why? When will it be the right time to finally say enough, enough of this slaughter? When?
"In a web-exclusive video essay, Bill Moyers says Friday’s deadly shooting in Colorado is yet another tragic indication that our society — and too many of our politicians — covet guns more than common sense or life itself. The National Rifle Association in particular, Bill says, “has turned the Second Amendment of the Constitution into a cruel and deadly hoax.”
EJ Dionne of the Washington Post destroys the idiot reasoning that it's not appropriate to talk about gun control after a madman slaughters dozens of people.
EJ Dionne of the Washington Post destroys the idiot reasoning that it's not appropriate to talk about gun control after a madman slaughters dozens of people.
56 comments:
President Obama and Mitt Romney on the same page. How truly tragic that events such as this seems to be the only time our leadership comes together.
May the souls that were lost in today's senseless enactment of pure evil find peace. The hearts of all decent people across the world surely go out to those lost in today's violence in Colorado.
May all, in their own time today observe a moment of silence for all the innocence victims and their families..
As the people of Chicago how that gun control thing is working out.
Downstate Illinois is spilling over with guns, and responsible gun owners, which balances out the overly aggregated data, which when disaggregated would show Obama-voting Chicago is where all the gun violence happens, and non-Obama voting downstate peaceful.
This is not a day for stupid statistical tricks.
What a disgusting post. Liberals never let a good tragedy go to waste, and you're no exception, Shaw.
The post was written by the conservative David Frum.
You seem not to be able to let a day go by without bashing a liberal.
... And like a good liberal, you never let at tragedy go to waste.
The President showed class today. You and Frummy boy should have followed his example.
Take a look at violent crime rates by state.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0308.pdf
I'm glad my family and I live in Colorado.
You know what, SF, you are the last person to lecture me or anyone about showing class, okay? With your scurrilous attacks on Mr. Obama.
This is my blog, and I feel passionate about what the pigs who run the NRA have done to this country. They are venal pigs.
I have every right to express my opinion of them after this tragedy, just as you enjoy your right to call President Obama every disgusting name you wish to on your blog whenever you wish.
This is a very appropriate time to talk about this country's insane obsession with guns.
And I will continue to do so.
Massachusetts is 49 out of 50 states with the lowest gun deaths. Hawaii is the 50th.
#49, Massachusetts
Gun deaths per 100,000: 3.6
Permissive gun laws: 48th out of 50
Here's Colorado's ranking:
#26, Colorado
Gun deaths per 100,000: 10.4
Permissive gun laws: 24rd out of 50
You're proud of that?
So go cock-a-doodle-do it on a mountain.
SOURCE
shaw...sf is the disgusting one...you don't have teo apologize for anything you write abut this horrible tragedy...you go girl...
We are not supposed to talk about gun control after an incident like this?
That doesn't make sense.
If we can't keep guns out of the hands of deranged people like this, then our laws have failed and are not good enough.
Steve, we're not supposed to talk about this according to Silverfiddle. People like him who believe any attempt to limit anyone's ability to buy any firearm cannot be reasoned with.
No amount of carnage will ever convince them of the stupidity of what this country has done to itself as a result of cowering before the venal pigs in the NRA.
Wow, Steve. EJ Dionne must be reading my blog:
By E.J. Dionne Jr., Friday, July 20, 2:36 PM
"For all the dysfunction in our political system, a healthy pattern usually takes hold when a terrible tragedy seizes the nation’s attention.
Normally, we engage in a searching conversation over what rational steps can be taken by individuals, communities and various levels of government to make the recurrence of a comparable tragedy less likely. Sometimes we act, sometimes we don’t, but at least we explore sensible solutions.
Unless the tragedy involves guns. Then our whole public reasoning process goes haywire. Anyone who dares to say that an event such as the massacre at a Colorado movie theater early Friday demands that we rethink our approach to the regulation of firearms is accused of 'exploiting' the deaths of innocent people.
This is part of the gun lobby’s rote response, and the rest of us allow it to work every time. Its goal is to block any conversation about how our nation’s gun laws, the most permissive in the industrialized world, increase the likelihood of mass killings of this sort.
First, the gun lobby goes straight to the exploitation argument — which is, of course, a big lie. You can see this because we never allow an assertion of this kind to stop conversation on other issues.
Nobody who points to the inadequacy of our flood-control policies or mistakes by the Army Corps of Engineers is accused of “exploiting” the victims of a deluge. Nobody who criticizes a botched response by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to a natural disaster is accused of “exploiting” the victims of a hurricane or a tornado. Nobody who lays part of the blame for an accident on insufficient regulation of, say, the airlines or coal mining is accused of “exploiting” the accident’s victims.
No, it’s only where a gun massacre is concerned that an absolute and total gag rule is imposed on any thinking beyond the immediate circumstances of the catastrophe. God forbid that we question even a single tenet of the theology of firearms.
The lobby then goes to its backup moves. The problem, it insists, lies in the failure to enforce existing laws — conveniently ignoring that the National Rifle Association’s whole purpose is to weaken the gun statutes we already have.
The worshipers of weapons also lay heavy stress on the psychological disabilities of the killer in a particular incident to create a sense of futility and resignation. Crazy people, they say, will do crazy things, and there is nothing we can do about this. Never mind that more rational laws would help keep guns out of the hands of people with a history of mental illness. Never mind that it’s harder to get a license to drive a car than it is to own a gun. Never mind that even a Supreme Court ruling that gave an expansive reading of the Second Amendment nonetheless acknowledged the right of the people through their legislatures and Congress to enact sensible gun regulations.
Oh, yes, and then there is the trump card: We’d all be safer, says the gun lobby, if every last one of us owned a gun.
Why is there so little pushback against assertions that are so transparently designed to prevent rather than promote dialogue? The answer lies in a profound timidity on the part of politicians in both parties. The Republicans are allied with the gun lobby, and the Democrats are intimidated.
Sure, there are some dissenters. Many of the nation’s mayors, led by Mike Bloomberg of New York and Tom Menino of Boston, have tried to organize a push for carefully tailored laws aimed at keeping guns out of the wrong hands. But they are the exceptions. President Obama has done little to challenge the NRA, and yet it attacks him anyway.
There are many reasons for this politics of timidity, not the least being a United States Senate that vastly overrepresents rural voters relative to suburban and urban voters. (The electoral college overrepresents rural voters, too.) Add to this a Republican Party that will bow low before any anti-government argument that comes along, and a Democratic Party petrified of losing more rural support — and without any confidence that advocates of tougher gun laws will cast ballots on the basis of this issue.
So let’s ask ourselves: Aren’t we all in danger of being complicit in throwing up our hands and allowing the gun lobby to write our gun laws? Awful things happen, we mourn them and then we shrug. And that’s why they keep happening.
It's ALWAYS a good time to talk about gun control, greedy politicians and the disgusting NRA that holds our Congress hostage. Money for politicians and gun laws that benefit the NRA, lovely isn't it?
SF is a gun loving Libertarian, a citizen of the state of Colorado, a defender of the NRA, and never passes up a chance to bash Chicago, home of our president. Very mature SF.
That shooter had an assault rifle and hundreds of rounds of ammunition he bought from the internet. It's sickening that even a ban on assault weapons can not pass our Congress. God bless the USA and the freedom it brings her citizens, may they live long lives without fear of being murdered by a weapon that should never be in the hands of a typical average run of the mill citizen for the purpose of WHAT??? Mass Murder what else...
A rational viewpoint rather than the hysteria of liberal land...:
http://rationalnationusa.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-face-of-pure-evil-and-approprate.html
Gee Shaw, you are the star in an RN post
Anon, Les calls what I write "hysteria" but this is what he wrote about punishment for the perpetrator of the massacre in Aurora:
"What the 24 year old sub human male of the species deserves for his evil today (upon conviction of course) is a drawing and quartering on public television while the nation watches him suffer a fate far more deserved than the fate he forced upon numerous innocent victims and their families. Following such execution an announcement could be made that evil of such nature would, in the future, be met with the same end. For those convicted of such evil."
But people who believe automatic weapons and magazine clips should be regulated or banned outright are hysterics?
The right-leaning mind is interesting isn't it?
The American people agree with what I wrote on automatic weapons and magazine clips.
You go check your facts, Shaw. Mass has more per capita violent crime than Colorado.
I guess getting killed with a knife is better than getting shot?
Cars also kill a lot of people. Should we ban those as well and all use nothing but public transportation piloted by government drivers?
People say a lot of hateful things. Should we ban free speech?
But anyway, keep making anti-liberty propaganda off of this tragedy, it's the Democrat way.
And Sue, It's a fact that Chicago has very restrictive gun laws. And it also a fact that it is a vortex of violence.
Here's a tip for you: Criminals don't follow gun laws.
@ Silver... "Here's a tip for you: Criminals don't follow gun laws."
Silver, is it possible they do in the liberal land of rainbows and unicorns?
SF and RN,
SF, you are changing the subject AGAIN possibly because I presented you with data on GUN DEATHS in Mass. vs. Col., so you come here and talk about ALL deaths.
But on GUN DEATHS:
#49, Massachusetts
Gun deaths per 100,000: 3.6
Permissive gun laws: 48th out of 50
Here's Colorado's ranking:
#26, Colorado
Gun deaths per 100,000: 10.4
Permissive gun laws: 24rd out of 50
RN, apparently all you have to add to the discussion is snark and foolish ideas for punishing the shooters.
The "misguided" person is one who denies we have a gun problem in America.
It should be no surprise that RN promotes the kind of barbaric punishment, that only Islamic terrorists are famous for.
It's laughable that SF would king himself Mr. Etiquette and decide there must be a ban on discussing gun control after this massacre. So how many hours/days do I have to wait SF before I can discuss the outrageous number of deaths by gun shots in America?
Love the way RN says a gun is an inanimate object no more responsible for deaths than another inanimate object.
Right RN, like an ice pick (very deadly weapon) was used to kill 30,000 people last year (that's how many people die from gun shots every year).
I wouldn't want to insult these two (SF and RN) troglodytes by calling them to stupid to realize we have a gun problem in America, so they must be liars.
"Criminals don't follow gun laws."
The suspect in this case, bought all his weapons and bullet proof gear, legally, in enough quantities to kill 100 times more people than he did.
The founding fathers (RN loves to quote them) would be shocked at how the gun lovers have abused and distorted their second amendment.
To be singled out by a blood thirsty barbarian like RN for being misguided.....wear it like a badge of courage.
An event like this with 60 victims being shot is the most proper time to discuss ways of preventing mass shootings. Anyone who says that liberals never let a tragedy go to waste is only trying to supress the proper discussion that should follow such a tragedy. And those people are perfect NRA parrots.
Honestly Shaw I don't understand why you don't ban that douche bag Silverfiddle from your blog. He rarely adds anything constructive to the discourse.
Tim, the only thing I discourage on my blog is ad hominem attacks on commenters.
Silverfiddle and RN can come here and comment as they wish so long as they respect that requirement.
I do think it is important to let the opposition's views be seen by everyone.
Tim: Spoken like a good little goosestepping statist. Can't have all that dangerous free speech, can we?
Notice I didn't say Shaw should be banned from saying what she is saying, I just think its in poor taste to exploit a tragedy to score ideological propaganda points, but that's liberalism.
Shaw: Where there are more guns, there will be more things happening with them. Big yawn.
you discount the violent crime rates I provided. I don't know about you, but assault and murder are assault and murder, regardless of the method. I would dislike being stabbed, bludgeoned or choked to death just as much as being shot to death.
And not that I care, but it's funny how the guy calls me a name and in the very next comment Shaw says she discourages ad hominem. And no I don't want an apology and I won't scream for him to be banned like the whiny liberals do. I just bring it up as a point of observation.
SF, I wrote that comment to Tim to remind him not to call my commenters names.
When I complained about that subject on your blog a while ago--y'know when your commenters called me names--you laughed it off and told me to grow a thicker skin.
SF wrote: "I just think its in poor taste to exploit a tragedy..."
Those are NRA talking points. There is absolutely nothing wrong with talking about the causes of gun massacres after a gun massacre. The subject obviously makes you uncomfortable.
If there were a nuclear power plant accident that caused countless injuries and deaths, would you actually expect people not to talk about what caused the injuries and deaths?
It appears only in gun massacres are we liberals and other thinking people supposed to shut up and show "respect" by not noticing that these avoidable slaughters are becoming routine.
You say calling attention to another national tragedy "disgusting?"
I say pretending it's not a national disgrace is disgusting--but that's NRA influenced conservatism.
Bill Moyers is not afraid to speak out after this unspeakable massacre, and neither should any of us:
"The gunman in Colorado waited only for his opportunity. So there you have it – the arsenal of democracy has been transformed into the arsenal of death. And the NRA? The NRA is the enabler of death -- paranoid, delusional and as venomous as a scorpion. With the weak-kneed acquiescence of our politicians, the National Rifle Association has turned the Second Amendment of the Constitution into a cruel and deadly hoax."
And everyone knows that is the truth, we're just too weak and cowed by the NRA leadership to face it.
It's telling that Mayor Bloomberg of NYC stood up to the idiocy that the NRA is. Why? He doesn't need their blood money. He's independently wealthy enough to buy his own elections.
Boston's Mayor Thomas Menino also stands for sanity in a country gone insane.
I do have thick skin. You get bent of shape about name-calling, but it's natural...
Before you get too chirpy, why don't you go check this out?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state#data
Maybe you can blog about how progressive, gun-control Massachusetts has a higher firearm murder rate than gun nut cowboy Colorado?
As usual, SF, you're ducking the subject by redirecting the conversation to gun deaths in Massachusetts vs. gun deaths in Colorado.
That little diversion, BTW, only reinforces the fact that the weak and increasingly weaker gun legislation being foisted on America by the NRA and its cheering section infects all states.
Thank you for proving my point.
From the Hartford Courant:
"The gun industry will say that this is not the right time to have a debate about guns in America.
When is the right time?
Colorado has weak gun laws and that matters. It has no ban on assault weapons; no ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines; no background checks for on line sales and other person-to-person transactions; no police discretion for permits to carry concealed weapons. According to the Violence Policy Center, Colorado is also one of only 10 states where gun deaths exceed motor vehicle deaths in the last year for which that data is available. Colorado is ranked by the Brady Campaign as 19th among the states in terms of effective gun violence prevention laws. The Centers for Disease Control data has Colorado ranked 39th among the states in highest gun deaths per 100,000 population.
Connecticut is ranked as having the fifth strongest gun laws among the states and we also have the fifth lowest rate of gun deaths per 100,000 population. Gun laws matter."
Last updated March 13, 2012
In the publication Gun Laws Matter: A Comparison of State Firearms Laws and Statistics, LCPGV ranked each state based on a review of state laws in 25 firearm-related policy areas.
Colorado ranked 27th out of 50 – having enacted a modest amount of gun violence prevention laws.
Among other things, Colorado:
•Regulates gun shows and requires that all firearms transfers at gun shows be processed by a licensed firearms dealer prior to the transfer of any firearm;
•Conducts its own background checks on firearm purchasers through licensed dealers and denies a firearm sale if the background check cannot be completed within the three-day default period; and
•Requires that mentally ill individuals who are ineligible to possess firearms be reported to the federal database used for firearm purchaser background checks.
Colorado does not, however:
•Require a background check prior to the transfer of a firearm between private parties, except at gun shows;
•Prohibit the transfer or possession of assault weapons, 50 caliber rifles, or large capacity ammunition magazines;
•Require firearm dealers to obtain a state license;
•Require firearm owners to obtain a license, register their firearms, or report lost or stolen firearms;
•Impose a waiting period on firearm purchases;
•Limit the number of firearms that may be purchased at one time;
•Regulate unsafe handguns;
•Significantly regulate ammunition sales; or
•Give law enforcement discretion to deny a concealed handgun permit.
(cont.)
Local governments in Colorado, with the exception of Denver, generally lack authority to regulate firearms or ammunition.
"In 2009, Colorado ranked 21st in the number of gun deaths per capita among the states. 583 people died from firearms injuries in Colorado in that year. Colorado is also a crime gun exporter. Based on data published by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, in 2009, Colorado exported crime guns at almost twice the rate at which it imported them – in other words, guns that had been originally purchased in Colorado were recovered after being used in crimes in other states at twice the rate at which crime guns originally purchased outside Colorado were then recovered inside Colorado."
SF,
It's laughable that you complain about being called names.
You write nothing but name calling, insults, and hate on your blog, including allowing Shaw to be attacked and called names on your blog, but you think that's just fine.
Shows your lack of character.
Shaw can delete me anytime, and has before. For good reason, because sometimes derogatory terms are the best description for the trash you write.
Didn't you call Shaw stupid in your first comment on this thread?
Shaws right, she should post your comments, to show just how sick you are.
Anon, SF didn't call me stupid, he called my "statistical tricks" stupid, and my post "disgusting."
So he's not guilty of calling me, personally, names, just the content of my post.
Silverfiddle: "This is not a day for stupid statistical tricks.
What a disgusting post. Liberals never let a good tragedy go to waste, and you're no exception, Shaw."
So, as you can plainly see, the gentleman in question is blameless.
Signed,
The Person Who Is No Exception
i'm very happy living in the land of gun control and can't imagine looking at people and wondering if they're carrying a gun.
i can probably out run someone with a knife but i'm not faster than a speeding bullet.
Anon: And I wasn't complaining, just pointing out the amusing juxtaposition.
I proved your point by pointing out that Mass has more gun deaths per capita than Colorado???
You still haven't explained why this is. With our lax gun laws, it should look like the OK Corral out here...
Silver, just give it up. Reason takes back seat to emotions sometimes. It is, after all understandable given the circumstances.
But yes, this is agenda driven and Free Thinker just weighed in over atRN USA with a VERY intereting thought.
SF, you're trying to draw me into a "your killings are worse than my killings" argument, and I won't take the bait.
You'll have to wait until tomorrow to see numbers that conflict with what you've posted.
RN,
Is there another voice, other than condescending, that you are able to communicate in?
billy,
And I'm happy to live in a state with some strict gun control regs.
Tomorrow I will show why.
BTW, Les,
I did check out what you describe as a VERY interesting thought deposited in your comments by Mr. Free Thinke.
Here it is:
"Hello, Les,
I've avoided this subject so far, but feel something ought to be said here.
Given the bizarre nature of this spectacular -- actually THEATRICAL -- exercise in apparently mindless violence, it strikes me as entirely possible that this individual (about whom, very little is known other than his having earned a degree in Neuroscience in 2010 with highest honors) could very well be like "Raymond" -- the "Manchurian Candidate" in the 1969 movie of that same name.
Just as Fast and Furious has been exposed as an agenda-drive GOVERNMENT PLOT to drum up anti-gun sentiment, so may the incredible performance of this young man. He may not BE a "lunatic." He might VERY WELL be a CIA operative -- or someone USED by the CIA to further promote the UN Internationalist One World Government Agenda to deprive ALL citizens of ALL weapons EVERYWHERE.
I'm not saying this IS the case, but I have no doubt it's a likely scenario. He acted like someone who had been drugged and systematically brainwashed -- a quasi-robotic figure chemically deprived of his soul -- chosen to carry out a carefully plotted, well-funded operation.
Over twenty-thousand dollars worth of weapons were found in his apartment, which he -- very oddly for a homicidal maniac -- voluntarily told the police to whom he surrendered peacefully without the slightest show of resistance, was booby trapped with enough explosives to destroy a full city block.
The authorities in Aurora are working feverishly right now to defuse the apartment. apparently the explosive devices rigged are so complex and sophisticated it may take DAYS to render them harmless."
The derangement is now complete.
I thought that I had read just about every looney conspiracy that a frenzied mind could imagine, but I was wrong.
Mr. FT is suggesting that the CIA, which is, even though an independent agency, indirectly connected to the Obama Administration--Mr. FT is suggesting somehow the government set this whole thing up in order to impose unwanted gun control laws on the US--as Mr. FT said was the purpose of "Fast and Furious."
Did Mr. FT think the same of the mass murder at Virginia Tech during George Bush's Administration?
And does Mr. FT think we should give his insane "theory" the same respect as people give to the "Truthers?" You know the conspiracy theorizers who believe 9/11 was perpetrated by George Bush's government in order to get the country angry enough to go to war with Iraq?
And is Mr. FT giving out free tin foil hats to every blog he deposits his squirrely theories on?
And YOU, RN, called that "VERY interesting?"
Well I guess it IS "VERY interesting" in the same way that it is interesting to listen to a crazy uncle tell us at the Thanksgiving table that the CIA has implanted listening devices in his molar fillings and has a plan to steal all of his bodily fluids.
Very "interesting."
I said VERY interesting Shaw. I do n not belive I, or Free Thinker said it was in fact true. I don't intend this to be condescending but theory is theory. A possibility however remote.
I certainly recall some conspiracy theories back in the JFK era expounded by liberals. Many still believe them.
My suggestion, lighten your load, it makes the going easier and more enjoyable. Besides Shaw one shouldn't discount the possibility of anything, even the remote possibility of the existence of God. Right?
"When people tell you that you shouldn't politicize a tragedy like the shooting in Aurora, Colorado they are unwittingly helping to spread NRA propaganda. After a tragedy like that, it is the most logical thing in the world to ask what went wrong and how we can fix it. When you ask that question, the obvious answer is our gun laws. It's awfully hard to stab 70 people and kill 12 of them in a short period of time like that. It's very easy to murder those same people if you have an AR-15 assault rifle, a shotgun and two glocks.
This is the obvious conclusion that the NRA desperately wants you to avoid. So, they do a brilliant trick where they tell you that you are not allowed to talk about the problem in the immediate aftermath of the violence and death their guns caused -- that would be politicizing the tragedy."
Looking forward to your blog post Shaw. It will be interesting, since FBI statistics clearly show Boston beats Denver in every category of violent crime except assaults with firearms, although Boston does have more assaults than Denver, and that is per capita.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s
So it should be amusing to see how you spin this.
Aurora cries: It's even easier with a home made bomb. Or a can of gasoline, matches and blocked exits.
Why? The person is unhinged.
I don't really take issue with the standard lefty propaganda that inevitably follows a tragedy, like elephant dung follows the elephant at the circus.
What I do take issue with is the twisting of statistics by people who quote somebody, quoting somebody quoting somebody.
And its all to score cheap ideological points in the wake of a tragedy.
Gun control works? Ask Chicago and DC.
Go to the census bureau and the FBI sites, and you will see how much safer Colorado is than Mass. Denver is safer than Chicago.
Get the facts.
Silver, looking forward to Shaw's post as well. It will indeed be interesting to see how she spins the data.
But remember, the liberal spin machine is in overdrive and has some of the best spinmiesters in the business working on the spin.
Remember also, figures (data) don't lie. But liars do figure.
I'm guessing the FBI figures are pretty damn accurate. I mean given accurate data is important in targeting the agencies effort at crime prevention and all.
RN: “I said VERY interesting Shaw. I do n not belive I, or Free Thinker said it was in fact true.”
SK: That’s irrelevant, since I didn’t claim you or FT said it was true either.
RN: “I don't intend this to be condescending but theory is theory. A possibility however remote.”
SK: "Do you also entertain the possibility that unicorns exist? Or that a tea pot is orbiting the sun? Afterall, a theory is theory, as you state, so one can posit any loopy idea, because any loopy idea can be a possibility?
RN: “I certainly recall some conspiracy theories back in the JFK era expounded by liberals. Many still believe them.”
SK: So because liberals “expounded” some conspiracy theories back in the JFK era [I assume you’re speaking of his assassination--you weren’t specific about which theories] you take that as license to allow for the possibility of any crackpot idea comes along?
RN: “My suggestion, lighten your load…”
SK: "My load is quite light as it is, thank you. I never overeat, and I exercise regularly.
RN: “it makes the going easier and more enjoyable.”
SK: Ah, I see. The little lady shouldn’t get her thong in a twist just because some whacked-out idea about the “possibility” that the US government may have been behind the Aurora massacre gets sent out into the blogsphere for every unhinged lunatic to read and perhaps, even re-send in some fevered email that will eventually be a headline on Breitbart.com, and then the featured story on FAUX NOOZ. Those sort of baseless, incendiary ideas just make “the going easier and more enjoyable.” And just what this country needs right now, eh?
RN: “Besides Shaw one shouldn't discount the possibility of anything, even the remote possibility of the existence of God. Right?”
SK: Or the remote possibility of the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Right?
I didn't see RN's comments before I posted my answer to his conspiracy comment.
He hasn't seen what I'm going to post, but he knows it's a spin-job, without reading a word of it.
What further proof is there than his self-admitted bias. This, from the guy who likes to tell himself and others what a fair-minded, classical liberal he is.
"FBI statistics clearly show Boston beats Denver in every category of violent crime except assaults with firearms..."
SF,
My current post is about gun violence and death by firearms.
It is you who tried to change the subject to encompass ALL violent crimes to suit your vanity.
My post will be about firearms. I never, never proposed otherwise. You are the one who tried to move the discussion in another category.
And your little pal who finds it necessary to shore up your ego by agreeing with everything you write here, has already decided that what I write will be a spin job.
Both of you are classic little wingers, and quite amusing.
Who's the real looney?
Is it liberals who raise the question of gun control after a mass murder by guns, or the conservative who claims the CIA did it?
The real looney is the one who hasn't the judgment to tell the CIA conspiracy nut, to go fly.
If that conservative CIA conspiracy nut owns a gun, it should be taken away from them. They are not stable.
To be fair, Anonymous, the person who floated the idea that the CIA was behind the Aurora massacre didn't actually claim it was, he just planted the seed that it could have been--thereby implicitly tying the Obama administration to the slaughter as a way to impose restrictions on gun ownership.
The person who did that is admired by the conservatives who visit his, RN's, and SF's blog, and no one called him out on it for the rank idiocy of the idea. But SF called my post "disgusting" because I dared to talk about gun issues after a gun massacre.
They are strange little folk, aren't they?
"little Pal?"
I don't think Les is little, and he sure as hell doesn't exist to shore up my ego. We often disagree, but we respect one another because we stick to facts and can back up our opinions.
Now, back to the stats.
Go here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state#data
They use FBI data, and I've verified by downloading the data from the FBI site and correlating it on my own.
The only category where Colorado is worse is assaults with a gun, although Mass (by looking at other stats) has more total assaults than Colorado.
We have a lower percentage of death by firearms and a lower rate of robberies with firearms, so as I said, it'll be interesting to see how you spin it.
So for these gun death stats you're going to educate us on tomorrow, I'm sure you're going to disaggregate the numbers, breaking out suicides, accidental deaths and people killed in the commission of a crime.
Otherwise, the numbers are almost meaningless, other than to show that gun deaths correlate with gun possession, and we already know that.
But anyway, I hope you're bringing something new, and not this tired old stuff...
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/gun-deaths-exceed-motor-v_b_1536793.html
Shaw... Silver and I, and I now assume all who disagree with you and your liberal views are little wingers?
I have a news flash for ya. You're a little wingers too A little left wingers.
I'll not dignity your bloviating biased comment by further response.
But I do find the discussion interesting actually. Looking forward to your post with the stats.. Knowing you I'm sure you will have links to the data base for verification as well. Just as Silver does.
It's open season on data analysis very soon. Pick your horse in the race. Color is irrelevant Shaw, so take your pick. :)
"I'll not dignity your"
Wait til you are sober before you write your bigoted crap
This is really a great read for me. Thank you for publishing articles having a great insight stimulates me to check more often for new write ups. Keep posting!
Clover
www.n8fan.net
Post a Comment