Among the world’s 23 wealthiest countries, 80 percent of all gun deaths are American deaths and 87 percent of all kids killed by guns are American kids."
**********
One of my commenters, Silverfiddle, was hoping to draw me into a discussion on gun violence on a "his-state [Colorado] vs. my-state [Massachusetts]" basis, which would prove nothing, since gun violence is a national problem. We can talk about gun violence statistics state by state in a hundred posts, but that won't change the fact that America is the most gun violent nation on the planet.
A note of caution: Silverfiddle has said he got his statistics from the FBI on gun violence for his state and for Massachusetts. Before you look at what he's posted, read the FBI's OWN CAUTION about those stats that Silverfiddle has posted:
Note:
Caution against Ranking—Each year when Crime in the United States is published, some entities use the figures to compile rankings of cities and counties. These rough rankings provide no insight into the numerous variables that mold crime in a particular town, city, county, state, tribal area, or region. Consequently, they lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting communities and their residents. Valid assessments are possible only with careful study and analysis of the range of unique conditions affecting each local law enforcement jurisdiction. The data user is, therefore, cautioned against comparing statistical data of individual reporting units from cities, metropolitan areas, states, or colleges or universities solely on the basis of their population coverage or student enrollment.
**********
Here are the national stats on this national disgrace:
"The National Rifle Association is quick to associate more guns with less crime, saying that since the early ’90s, when many states relaxed their weapon laws, violent crime has dropped 70 percent.
Despite the rampages on campuses and military bases, as well as the hail of gang bullets in Chicago that has killed over 200 so far this year, the national murder rate is at a 47-year-low.
But on the other side of the argument, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a non-profit organization, points out that Americans still kill each other with guns at a level that is staggering compared to the rest of humanity.
A study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery found that the gun murder rate in the U.S. is almost 20 times higher than the next 22 richest and most populous nations combined.
Among the world’s 23 wealthiest countries, 80 percent of all gun deaths are American deaths and 87 percent of all kids killed by guns are American kids."
From Scientific American after the 2011 Arizona massacre:
"Here are some facts from the Brady Center: About 100,000 Americans are wounded or killed by firearms each year in the U.S.—which has the highest levels of gun ownership in the world—and more than a million Americans have been shot to death since 1968. Although gun supporters tout the benefits of self-defense, a gun is 22 times more likely to be used in a suicide attempt; criminal assault or homicide; or unintentional shooting death or injury than for self-defense. Higher household gun ownership correlates with higher rates of homicide, suicide and unintentional shootings."
Scientific American after the 2012 Aurora, Colorado, massacre:
"Every time a deranged American male goes on a rampage, shooting down dozens of people, gun lovers trot out the familiar excuses: Guns don’t kill people, people do. If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. If some of the victims had been packing heat, they could have shot the bad guy before he shot them.
[skip]
Although gun supporters tout the benefits of self-defense, a gun is 22 times more likely to be used in a suicide attempt; criminal assault or homicide; or unintentional shooting death or injury than for self-defense. Higher household gun ownership correlates with higher rates of homicide, suicide and unintentional shootings."
From the Boston Globe:
"In a nation of common sense, these tragedies would break the national silence over our insane acceptance of guns. But the 1999 Columbine school massacre in Colorado did not do it. The 2007 Virginia Tech massacre did not do it. The 2011 Tucson massacre that severely wounded Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords did not do it.
The near-death of a congressional colleague failed to wake up Capitol Hill. Since then, there have been more than 50 mass shootings across the United States, according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence."
States with Strong Gun Laws and Low Rates of Gun Ownership Have Lowest Firearm Death Rates
April 2012
"Washington, DC—States with low gun ownership rates and strong gun laws have the lowest rates of gun death according to a new analysis by the Violence Policy Center (VPC) of 2009 national data (the most recent available) from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.
The analysis reveals that the five states with the lowest per capita gun death rates were Massachusetts, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut. Each of these states had a per capita gun death rate far below the national per capita gun death rate of 10.19 per 100,000 for 2009.
Each state has strong gun laws and low gun ownership rates. By contrast, states with weak gun laws and higher rates of gun ownership had far higher rates of firearm-related death. Ranking first in the nation for gun death was Louisiana, followed by Wyoming, Alabama, Montana, and Mississippi.
(See rankings below for bottom and top five states. See http://www.vpc.org/fadeathchart12.htm for a ranking of all 50 states.)
VPC Legislative Director Kristen Rand states, “Massachusetts’ low gun death rate stands as proof of how long-term, comprehensive firearms regulation can increase public safety and protect communities and families.”
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.
The VPC defined states with "strong" gun laws as those that add significant state regulation in addition to federal law, such as restricting access to particularly hazardous types of firearms (for example, assault weapons), setting minimum safety standards for firearms and/or requiring a permit to purchase a firearm, and restrictive laws governing the open and concealed carrying of firearms in public.
States with "weak" gun laws were defined as those that add little or nothing to federal restrictions and have permissive laws governing the open or concealed carrying of firearms in public. State gun ownership rates were obtained from the September 2005 Pediatrics article “Prevalence of Household Firearms and Firearm-Storage Practices in the 50 States and the District of Columbia: Findings From the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2002,” which is the most recent comprehensive data available on state gun ownership."
CONCEALED CARRY KILLERS
Stand Your Ground Law -- Miami Herald, March 2012:
The controversial law which police have cited in their decision not to charge the man who shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin has been invoked at least 130 times statewide since 2005.
A Tampa Bay Times survey, compiled from 31 Florida newspapers and public records, shows that the number of cases in which "stand your ground" has been invoked has climbed dramatically in the past year and a half. The analysis shows that police and prosecutors continue to apply the law unevenly.
As pressure mounts to charge George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer who ignored police advice not to confront the unarmed teen on Feb. 26, Gov. Rick Scott announced he would convene a task force to study the law. No group keeps a tally of cases in which Florida Statute 776.013 (3) — commonly known as the "stand your ground" law — is invoked.
The law expands a citizen’s right to use deadly force anywhere that he has a right to be if he "reasonably believes" it is necessary to stop another person from killing or hurting him badly.
The Times analysis shows that more than 70 percent of the 130 cases involved a fatality. In the majority of the cases, the person who plunged the knife or swung the bat or pulled the trigger did not face a trial.
In 50 of the cases, the person who used force was never charged with a crime. Another nine defendants were granted immunity by a judge and nine cases were dismissed.
In 10 cases, the defendant pleaded guilty to lesser crimes.
Of the 28 cases that made it to trial, 19 people were found guilty of a crime.
Twenty-two cases are still pending. (The outcomes of two could not be learned by press time.)
The Times analysis also shows that 'stand your ground' is being invoked with greater frequency."
Why Is The Equivalent Of A 9/11 Every Six Weeks Something That Americans Can ‘Live’ With?
So what does this all mean? What does it mean that with 300,000,000 firearms in the country, that the NRA touts as keeping us safe, our country still has more staggering numbers of gun deaths than any other western democracy? What does it mean that we've now become inured to massacres at schools, churches, malls, and theaters, and that we accept that more of these massacres will continue to kill us?
Some who read this will mistakenly assume that I want to abolish the 2nd Amendment, but they'll be wrong. What I want is a rational discussion of how many guns, AK-47s, gun clips, are enough, and how many more lawmakers will cower before the NRA as it demands that firearms be allowed to be concealed and carried into every public sphere in this country: churches, schools, hospitals, airports, bars? What is the purpose? What madness allows Americans to accept the ever increasing arming of this country. What is the purpose? We've seen with our own eyes what the results of easily purchased firearms bring to a civilization: more and more and more carnage. And this carnage will continue, unabated, until citizens and lawmakers have the courage to stand up to the NRA and its devastating stranglehold on the spineless lawmakers who've allowed them to deliver us into evil.
CONCEALED CARRY KILLERS
'Pro-Gun' States Lead the Nation in Per Capita Firearm Death Rates
Stand Your Ground Law -- Miami Herald, March 2012:
The controversial law which police have cited in their decision not to charge the man who shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin has been invoked at least 130 times statewide since 2005.
A Tampa Bay Times survey, compiled from 31 Florida newspapers and public records, shows that the number of cases in which "stand your ground" has been invoked has climbed dramatically in the past year and a half. The analysis shows that police and prosecutors continue to apply the law unevenly.
As pressure mounts to charge George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer who ignored police advice not to confront the unarmed teen on Feb. 26, Gov. Rick Scott announced he would convene a task force to study the law. No group keeps a tally of cases in which Florida Statute 776.013 (3) — commonly known as the "stand your ground" law — is invoked.
The law expands a citizen’s right to use deadly force anywhere that he has a right to be if he "reasonably believes" it is necessary to stop another person from killing or hurting him badly.
The Times analysis shows that more than 70 percent of the 130 cases involved a fatality. In the majority of the cases, the person who plunged the knife or swung the bat or pulled the trigger did not face a trial.
In 50 of the cases, the person who used force was never charged with a crime. Another nine defendants were granted immunity by a judge and nine cases were dismissed.
In 10 cases, the defendant pleaded guilty to lesser crimes.
Of the 28 cases that made it to trial, 19 people were found guilty of a crime.
Twenty-two cases are still pending. (The outcomes of two could not be learned by press time.)
The Times analysis also shows that 'stand your ground' is being invoked with greater frequency."
Why Is The Equivalent Of A 9/11 Every Six Weeks Something That Americans Can ‘Live’ With?
So what does this all mean? What does it mean that with 300,000,000 firearms in the country, that the NRA touts as keeping us safe, our country still has more staggering numbers of gun deaths than any other western democracy? What does it mean that we've now become inured to massacres at schools, churches, malls, and theaters, and that we accept that more of these massacres will continue to kill us?
Some who read this will mistakenly assume that I want to abolish the 2nd Amendment, but they'll be wrong. What I want is a rational discussion of how many guns, AK-47s, gun clips, are enough, and how many more lawmakers will cower before the NRA as it demands that firearms be allowed to be concealed and carried into every public sphere in this country: churches, schools, hospitals, airports, bars? What is the purpose? What madness allows Americans to accept the ever increasing arming of this country. What is the purpose? We've seen with our own eyes what the results of easily purchased firearms bring to a civilization: more and more and more carnage. And this carnage will continue, unabated, until citizens and lawmakers have the courage to stand up to the NRA and its devastating stranglehold on the spineless lawmakers who've allowed them to deliver us into evil.
76 comments:
Well, it stands to reason that where there are less guns, there will be less people killed by them, all other factors being equal.
If there were less cars, there would be less accidents. Less irresponsible or unprotected sex, less venereal diseases...
I also liked that you posted the FBI caveat. You should heed it. There are many factors besides guns that contribute to human violence.
We are a crass, violent nation. Is that the fault of guns? And how is it that a state like Colorado, which has very liberty-respecting gun laws, can have gun crime that is below the national average?
Also, there is little correlation between gun laws and gun violence. As Dan Casey notes:
Maryland, for example, which ranks 47th on the permissiveness scale, has more gun deaths than Virginia, which is ranked 35th (Something tells me Virginia’s permissiveness ranking should be much higher).
And Vermont, which is #3 on the gun permissiveness scale, has fewer gun deaths than both Maryland and Virginia. On the other hand, Vermont has the highest gun-death rate among all the states in New England, and all of those have more restrictive gun laws than Vermont.
So there is some correlation there, but there are also some wild outliers. As I've mentioned earlier, DC and Chicago have strict gun bans in place, and the gun violence in those cities is out of control.
So, it's the culture. And if you think everyone should have their guns confiscated because a minuscule percentage of the population can't behave themselves, then you're going to have to amend the constitution.
Why do statists insist on punishing everyone and taking away their liberties instead of arresting the criminals?
In a nation of over 300 million people, acts like the Aurora shooting are still blessedly, statistically infinitesimal.
You don't take everyone's rights away because of a statistical anomaly.
for further analysis, I recommend this Gun Crime Statistics article.
You can click on the headings and sort the list of states by different factors.
As you do, keep the FBI Caution in mind. It doesn't say the numbers are wrong. The Caution says...
These rough rankings provide no insight into the numerous variables that mold crime in a particular town, city, county, state, tribal area, or region.
So they are not warning you that the data is wrong, but that it lacks context. They later say that analysis is needed to understand the "unique conditions" of each locality, and I agree.
And just so Shaw doesn't accuse me of obfuscation, that link analyzed gun murders, robberies and assaults, not all gun deaths (a bigger category that includes suicides, accidents and righteous shoots of a perpetrator).
I couldn't find a good statistical pool for overall gun deaths, so this is the best I could find.
So go sort the list by "Firearm Murders..." and you'll see the shocking lack of correlation with strictness of gun laws.
This was a thought-provoking post, Shaw. I'll have my own say on it Monday.
Have a happy Sunday!
SF: "If there were less cars, there would be less accidents. Less irresponsible or unprotected sex, less venereal diseases..."
But cars are a necessity, especially in suburban and rural areas, and sex, well, without it, where would we be?
Guns? I have lived my life without one, as did my parents and every member of my family, and suffered no inconvenience from that. I'm afraid the comparison isn't valid.
Sf: "We are a crass, violent nation. Is that the fault of guns?"
Not the fault of guns, but guns have made it easier to increase the violence to the misery level.
SF: "And how is it that a state like Colorado, which has very liberty-respecting gun laws, can have gun crime that is below the national average?"
See the FBI caveat.
SF: "Also, there is little correlation between gun laws and gun violence. As Dan Casey notes."
Again, the FBI caveat: a contributing factor may be density of population, and many other factors.
SF: "So, it's the culture."
That is a contributing factor as the FBI caveat states. So if we are a violence-prone nation, why are we adding fuel to the fire and increasing that violence?
SF: "And if you think everyone should have their guns confiscated because a minuscule percentage of the population can't behave themselves, then you're going to have to amend the constitution."
You've already ignored my caution at the end of the post where I said I desire no such thing. That's a huge leap of logic not warranted.
SF: "Why do statists insist on punishing everyone and taking away their liberties instead of arresting the criminals?"
That's a fallacious assumption that was not in my post.
Why do libertarians and conservatives insist on arming more and more people in more and more public places with fewer and fewer restrictions on firearm ownership?
SF: "In a nation of over 300 million people, acts like the Aurora shooting are still blessedly, statistically infinitesimal."
That they exist at all is a national disgrace. Do you believe no more massacres will occur? Are you willing to accept more and more of them as part of our national culture.
I actually have lived long enough to remember NOTHING of this magnitude happening in my youth. This is correlated with the NRA's campaign to arm every man, woman and child in this country, with fewer and fewer restriction on what firearms they can own and how many. And look where it got us.
SF: "You don't take everyone's rights away because of a statistical anomaly."
Another fallacious assumption, since I never stated that nor implied it. This discussion is about the change in our gun culture over the last half century. And what that change has given us.
A side note to the discussion: I've read on several blogs that "now is not the time to discuss the tragedy in Aurora," or "maybe we ought to let the bodies at least cool a tad first. Just a thought."
The NRA has pushed this nonsense for years, and for good reason. It doesn't want Americans to discuss the horrors that result from a gun-saturated society, so it has piously promoted the idea that we Americans shouldn't talk about the massacres that are a result of that gun saturation.
Why do people repeat this nonsense?
Were we reluctant to discuss the tragedy of 9/11? Or any other national tragedy that shocks and terrifies us? Of course not.
It's only when some crazed murderer who was able to purchase guns as easily as a pack of gum are we scolded into silence by people who repeat what the NRA wants them to tell themselves and others.
SF,
If gun deaths are infinitesimal to the huge population, so we don't really have a problem, then how is it we have a voter fraud problem when those statistics are even more infinitesimal compared to a huge population?
Love the way your logic works for one issue, but not another.
Possibly it's because you prejudged Shaw's article before she wrote it (see yesterdays comments from you) so you need some kind of twisted logic to rebut what she says, no matter what she says.
The inanimate object theory fails. People don't choose an ice pick, or a car to kill, they choose guns.
And there is a big difference between having a gun to protect yourself, and owning a killing machine like an automatic weapon.
If that nut had been standing there with a single gun, a six shot revolver, the kill count would not be so high. That matters.
The NRA argument falls apart when they insist Americans have a right to a weapon that can kill 100 people in a minute. And polls show Americans agree (even gun owners) that those killing machines are not necessary to meet the self defense requirements.
The "if everyone was carrying a gun this would not happen" theory also fails.
This guy was wearing a bullet proof vest, a bullet proof throat collar, bullet resistant pants, and a ballistic helmet. the idea that you could take him down, even if you had a gun, is ridiculous.
The idea that the second amendment is the only amendment to not have limitations, is also ridiculous.
The founding fathers would be shocked to see how their second amendment has been distorted and abused.
It's true, Anon, that the Constitution is not a scerlotic document.
The nation readily changed it to disallow an elected president to serve more than two terms--apparently believing that the Founding Fathers never intended for unlimited Executive terms.
We could apply the same reasoning to the 2nd Amendment, that the FFs never intended the right to bear arms included AK-47s and repeating magazine clips that can mow down victims before anyone knows what is happening.
That should be "sclerotic."
Shaw. Your best ever. Shared on FB. A lot of research, time and work went into this. Sadly, as we're already hearing and seeing, gun-rights advocates simply are unable to move beyond NRA talking points in order to approach this logically and unemotionally. Such arguments as "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and "if there were less cars . . ." appeal to the simple minded but are simply moronic, if one would just stop and actually "think" about it.
The only gun we ever had in our house was a Civil War pistol my aunt had. One hundred years after the war ended, she used it on herself. It still worked.
Anon, another rebuttal to the argument that if everyone were armed, the gunman would have not killed so many.
I remember reading, after the Gabby Gifford massacre in Arizona, that there was a man who did have a gun on him but did not use it to shoot Loughner.
Why?
Because, he explained, during the confusion and mayhem that is part of the barrage of bullets, who could possibly tell if he, the person returning fire, isn't part of the assault?
There would be no way of knowing who the other shooters are.
It's madness to believe the idiocy the NRA promotes as a solution to armed massacres.
I had a single shot .22 rifle that I got when I was about 10 years old in my home for years and years until it was pointed at me one day. It was not loaded, but that was the last day I owned a gun.
Thank you, Leslie.
You and I are not afraid of inviting criticism from what we write.
I feel strongly about this issue, and gladly ignore the NRA's directive to its minions to dare not speak the name of the cause of these tragedies.
Cowardice in the face of a well-financed lobby is not a solution.
Gee Shaw, you and Silver are co-stars at RN today.
It is good to keep the debate going.
btw, wasn't it pretty common in our early history for nearly everyone to carry (pack heat)? If I'm not mistaken the W.W.W. was pretty unsafe. Just saying.
Good point Shaw!
Let me add that the Secret Service knows full well that having armed people around, will not stop assassinations and murder. Police and the military also understand that fact.
And the lesson from that RN?
We had to end the idea that everyone could carry a gun, they were causing to much death and lawlessness. So carrying guns was prohibited, and the deaths were cut dramatically. Again, we do not learn from History.
Anonymous: If you knew anything of logic, you would realize how absurd your statement is. Each situation has a logic of its own.
One case of voter fraud it too many, and it is unconscionable that we don't take reasonable steps to minimize it. That is protecting our rights as citizens.
You would advocate violating everyone's rights because of a few random acts? That's scary.
Are you for speech codes as well? Do we have too much speech?
And I'll tell ya what, figure out how to get the criminals to disarm first, then we'll talk.
And one senseless death, is not to many?
Is a vote the same as a killing?
Talk about twisted logic.
@ Shaw: Do you believe no more massacres will occur? Are you willing to accept more and more of them as part of our national culture.
Of course I do not believe that. We're sick, and there are sick people out there. And I am not willing to "accept" it, whatever that means.
I decry acts of violence and shit all over anyone who glorifies it, from tinfoil hat militia members to gangstas. It is liberals who celebrate criminals like that stupid dead rapper, cop killer Mumia Jamal and that guy they just electrocuted in Georgia.
Many on the left cry over violence, but are quick to scream at the cops and put shackles on them as these same lefties explain away underclass violence and gang killings.
If you took every last gun away, people bent on killing others would still have many methods at their disposal.
I won't go into details, but with stuff he could carry in his hands he could have incinerated the whole theater, killing almost everyone.
Driving a car into a crowd of people is more efficient that shooting at them.
Take away all guns, and twisted people will find other ways.
No Anon. We can't eliminate every case of voter fraud, and we can't eliminate every reprehensible human act.
Taking common sense measures to prevent voter fraud violates no one's rights--rather, it protects them.
Taking away every last gun would not prevent murder, even mass murder, as I discussed in the previous post.
Nice try though...
SF,
You said, "One case of voter fraud it too many, and it is unconscionable that we don't take reasonable steps to minimize it. That is protecting our rights as citizens.
You would advocate violating everyone's rights because of a few random acts? That's scary."
Therefore you must agree with:
One case of murder it too many, and it is unconscionable that we don't take reasonable steps to minimize it. That is protecting our rights as citizens.
You would advocate violating everyone's rights because of a few random acts? That's scary.
SF,
"Taking away every last gun"
I never said that.
Nice try though.
There is no common sense in your argument. When you find some, lets talk.
"You would advocate violating everyone's rights because of a few random acts? That's scary." --SF
But, in fact, legitimate voters have been thrown off of voting lists as a result of the purging.
Maureen Russo, a U.S. citizen and registered voter in Florida for the last 40 years, received a letter from the supervisor of elections office telling her it had information that she was not a citizen. In Broward County 259 people recieved letters just like the one addressed to Maureen above, according to the Broward County Supervisor of Elections. So far only 7 (including Maureen) have responded to the ominous and legalistic letter. Five of the responses included proof of citizenship.
If the other 252 people don’t respond within 30 of recieving the letter — a deadline that is rapidly approaching — they will be summarily removed from the voting roles>"
This post isn't about voter fraud, but I wanted to get that story out so that you see that people unfairly losing their voting rights is not an isolated problem.
Those who live in perpetual fear will be the first to acquiesce their rights in the misguided belief they will be kept safe by their governing authorities.
The answer is certainly NOT to take away firearms from the law abiding citizenry. The answer lies in finding effective ways to safeguard society and yet allow individuals to responsibly own firearms.
The never ending debate I suppose. Because each argument has merit, less the hyperbole and talking points.
And yes, I stand by by my earlier post on how sub humans such as the killer in Aurora ought to be dealt with. There are some crimes that simply deserve no mercy. Aurora is just such a crime.
I am not saying you guys are for eliminating all guns, I get it Shaw, you're for "sensible" gun control.
Anon brought up logic, so I am approaching this with logic.
We could theoretically end voter fraud with a few simple measures, and giving away State voter ID for free would eliminate any poll tax issue.
Eliminating murder is not so easy. Taking away guns is merely taking away one of the myriad ways people can kill other people.
So Jerry, that's where your false analogy breaks down.
Also, have any of you paused to consider how many strict gun laws get broken every day? Nonstop?
President Obama is here today at a memorial service, but his hometown is a nonstop holocaust of young people, 250 killed so far this year in Chicago. Where it the outcry?
America is the most gun violent nation on the planet.
Somebody hasn't been to Caracas...
Venezuela has one of the highest murder rates in the world and the world's highest death rate from guns, with 34 deaths in every 100,000 caused by firearms, according to the United Nations. Officials estimate there are some 6 million guns circulating among the 26 million Venezuelan citizens.
...that's 3X America's... if you do the math.
"It is liberals who celebrate criminals like that stupid dead rapper, cop killer Mumia Jamal and that guy they just electrocuted in Georgia."
Silverfiddle, this is not the time to turn the discussion into liberal bashing. The above statement is nuts.
"Many on the left cry over violence, but are quick to scream at the cops and put shackles on them as these same lefties explain away underclass violence and gang killings."
In fact, SF, cops, mayors, and other law inforcement personnel detest the Stand Your Ground law, the saturation of automatic weapons, and magazine clips. It makes their job far more dangerous than it already is.
Dragging your non-evidence-based slurs against liberals does nothing but drag this discussion into the mud.
Do you think the families of the dead in Aurora give a flying donut about which political party is more protective of 2nd Amendment rights today?
SF,
But you did say I want to eliminate all guns, a lie.
I brought up the vote issue, to show it is your logic that is inconsistent.
There's more than one way to "stuff" a ballot box, with or without ID's.
If only nuts are responsible for the violence, why are you insinuation Obama is responsible for the violence in Chicago? Just because it is his home town? Now there's logic for you.
Thersites, do you really want to get into a discussion about which country is more violent?
That the USA is on the top of the list is a disgrace.
We're trying to have a discussion about why we have so many massacres, what are the causes, and why we Americans accept the violence, and you want to discuss how many guns we can put on the head of a pin?
Should have been
"insinuating"
Plata, o plomo?
The point, Shaw, is that it is illegal to buy firearms in Venezuela unless you a police officer...
...and their murder rate is 3x ours.
Help prevent forest fires... register matches!
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns...
Perhaps we should outlaw violent movies, like "The Dark Knight" so that OWS Black Bloc wannabe's want to fight against "Bane" capital, they'll have to get their ideas out of their OWN heads...
"Perhaps we should outlaw violent movies, like "The Dark Knight" so that OWS Black Bloc wannabe's want to fight against "Bane" capital, they'll have to get their ideas out of their OWN heads..." --Thersites
So you and Silverfiddle are insisting on turning this into a Blame the Liberals mudfling-a-thon.
How predictable--especially when uncomfortable facts emerge.
Thersites: "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns..."
Good for you! You know how to parrot NRA talking points. Got anything else besides trying to turn this thread into an IT'S ALL THE LIBERALS' FAULT!!!! cri de coeur?
Smarter commenters, please.
Better if there were smarter blogs. ;)
SF: "Taking away guns is merely taking away one of the myriad ways people can kill other people."
Let me repeat this very s l o w l y
No one here is talking about or suggesting "taking away guns."
We used to have a ban on AK47s, and even George W. Bush promised to keep the ban, he broke that promise, and Mr. Obama did not reinstate it for fear of the crapstorm the NRA would initiate over it. We don't need those magazine clips that allow for repeated firings of deadly weapons into a crowd. How does anyone defend that?
"President Obama is here today at a memorial service, but his hometown is a nonstop holocaust of young people, 250 killed so far this year in Chicago. Where it the outcry?"
That miserable situation is covered in my post.
Shall we give up then? And wait for the next massacre? Because everyone reading here knows another is coming, we just don't know where and how many more people will be slaughtered.
So we just accept that this country cannot do anything about it.
The commentators are fine...
Welcome to the Society of the Spectacle...
...anybody looking to stampede some voters this November like w/ the financial meltdown of 2008?
Thersites has nothing to contribute except the link @1:34 that suggests the FBI conspiratorily planned and carried out the Aurora killings, using Holmes as its agent.
Careful, Thersites, your friend Silverfiddle has said that tomorrow, he will be using stats from the FBI to back up his post on gun violence.
If you or anyone gives any credence to the FBI/Aurora conspiracy, you then destroy Silverfiddle's fact-finding resource.
SF says,
"Also, have any of you paused to consider how many strict gun laws get broken every day? Nonstop?"
There is SF's logic in a nutshell. Guess what. If we did not have any gun control laws, none would be broken. Problem solved...except people would still die, but we wouldn't be breaking any gun control laws.
Yeah Jerry, kinda like the drug laws.
OK, folks, One more time. I am not saying you want to take all guns away.
You Anon and Shaw keep invoking logic, which makes me assume you know how to use it in debating issues.
Saying "take away all guns" is the beginning of a thought experiment, not a charge that that is what you want to do.
The only point I am making is that taking away guns will not stop murders, even mass ones.
And Shaw, someone coming up with FBI theories destroys the basis of my argument not at all.
If someone could seriously indict the FBI numbers, then yes, but conspiracy theories have no standing in reasoned discourse. We'll stay grounded in the facts as Western Hero.
And Jerry, you're too smart to play such tricks:
SF says,
"Also, have any of you paused to consider how many strict gun laws get broken every day? Nonstop?"
There is SF's logic in a nutshell. Guess what. If we did not have any gun control laws, none would be broken. Problem solved...except people would still die, but we wouldn't be breaking any gun control laws.
Not my point. My point is that you can put all the laws in place that you want. Law-abiding citizens will follow them, criminals will not.
Silverfiddle,
The shooter was a highly thought of, successful student. A law abiding citizen, who bought all his gear legally and easily at local department stores. He was not a criminal.
Until after, of course, he killed 12 and wounded dozens.
" We'll stay grounded in the facts as Western Hero."
Sorry Silver, I was at you post today, and as I pointed out, you made conclusions based on untrue facts. You quoted a right wing radio host, who gave misleading facts, and made conclusions based on that radio host's report.
Your point would have made sense, if the facts were true.
It's my opinion that the Secretary of Homeland Security has the power to declare a state of emergency and to effect a temporary embargo on the sale of automatic assault weapons and the extended ammunition drums that were used in Aurora.
During this temporary embargo, we could measure its impact in reducing these mass shootings, understanding that without an automatic weapon and a massive ammunition drum, that Holmes could not have injured and killed as many people in a total of 2 minutes' time, as he did.
This would be a major stsep in eliminating mass shootings and not require the spineless lawmakers to take a courageous stand against the NRA.
This is another domestic terror attack against Americans. Over the years, the number of casualties in these domestic attacks have exceeded the number of casualties we sustained in 9/11.
After 9/11, we took decisive military action against two countries. These domestic terrorist attacks cry out for some similar decisive actions to curtail and prevent more American deaths.
And my suggestion of a declaration of emergency by the Dept. of Homland Security is a reasonable and minimal reaction to these terrorist acts.
@ Steve" Sorry Silver, I was at you post today, and as I pointed out, you made conclusions based on untrue facts. You quoted a right wing radio host, who gave misleading facts, and made conclusions based on that radio host's report.
Yeah, you are sorry, Steve.
Peter Boyles is not a right wing radio host. Go call him that to his face and see what happens.
Remember the Ted Haggerty scandal with the gay prostitute and the drugs? Peter Boyles broke that story and befriended the gay man who dropped dime on him.
You need to drop your preconceived notions, and the point of my post was not predicated upon his statement.
You think guns are the problem. Fine. Stop imputing motives to me.
Steve: And just what conclusion did I make, professor?
I recall saying I just don't know.
So I don't know who the lying radio talk show host was.
He was lying
You were lying
Now you deny it
Let the reader judge
Do you do anything but lie?
Someone proves you wrong, and you claim they lied.
You are a sorry sack
It's not for me to ID your lying sources
Why not use a credible source
Why not read the history and find out the truth before you claim I lied
I suggested that 3 times and just did again on your putrid blog
Come on, prove me wrong, worm
Thanks for the compliment, SF. you say, "My point is that you can put all the laws in place that you want. Law-abiding citizens will follow them, criminals will not."
So, does that mean you are in favor of gun control or not? Your statement really doesn't say anything meaningful. It like saying,, truthful people tell the truth, liars don't.
Shaw,
Try occupying reality for a change.
Guns don't kill people... just ask the authors of the <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism">Black Book of Communism</a>.
Vote Independent!
Steve: Why not just scream "Lying liars and their lying lies!" Stick out your tongue while doing it. It will give your rant more effect.
Governor Hickenlooper (a big Obama fanboy) said it best today: Gun laws would not have stopped this man.
Someone hellbent on killing people will find a way.
Jerry: I was rebutting your false characterization, nothing more.
No one here has yet told us what we do when people start blowing up other with common household chemicals...
I agree with Thersites. Vote Independent. Of course, what he really means is vote Libertarian. Given that libertarians are to the right of republicans, more republicans than Democrats will vote libertarian, thus insuring the reelection of Obama.
It is a win-win-win situation. Each party gets to continue to do what they do best. Democrats retain the White House, republicans get to continue to obstruct, and libertarians get to continue to bitch and moan about both of them.
Jerry: Many Ron Paulites are troofer leftists, so it's probably a wash...
And Shaw, I will excuse myself by agreeing with you.
The violence in this country is a national disgrace.
SF,
Only on international policy, and as we all,know, all politics are local. It is at best a very dirty wash.
3some of the people here seem to be saying there's nothing to be done about the regular mass killings and that if the killers didn't use guns they'd use bombs or grenades or some other means...iow, we can't do a damn thing about this.
wrong.
we're the only country that has this level of killings with guns...other democracies don't deal with the numbers of deaths we do...it's simple...as long as we have uncontrolled sales of deadly weapons we will see the killings continue on a regular basis. too many guns; too many killings...and we can do something about it...those who make excuses for this and say there's nothing can be done are playing into the nra playbook.
Steve, those are pretty inflammatory charges to make, and I'm deleting them because my blog is not the place to have a discussion about a commenter's background.
Please take this up with Silverfiddle himself, if you wish. His email is on his blog.
You're welcome to continue to post here, and I hope you will, because you contribute good comments.
I just can't allow this sort of thing because there is no good outcome for it.
Gun control has little to do with guns being used in a violent act, ask the people of Norway or Chicago.
Even though I am a gun owner and CCP I don't understand the need to own several AR's or AK's but I also don't believe banning them would have much effect on gun violence.
I don't have the statistics but how many murders are done with legally owned guns. I would guess more people are killed with legally owned knives and killed falling off legally owned ladders than legally owned guns.
skudrunner, you continue to parrot the NRA's talking points.
But here are the facts:
The US has 300 million firearms in circulation and gun murder rate in the U.S. is almost 20 times higher than the next 22 richest and most populous nations COMBINED.
Among the world’s 23 wealthiest countries, 80 percent of all gun deaths are American deaths and 87 percent of all kids killed by guns are American kids."
If you don't see cause and effect, you're willfully blind.
Shaw
You were good at providing an insult but not facts. It is a shame so many people die from gun violence. How many deaths in the US come from guns legally owned and purchased? The illustrious mayor of Chicago's solution after banning ownership was don't shoot near kids.
What solution do you have? Ban guns, no CCP. You can't legislate insanity.
"How many deaths in the US come from guns legally owned and purchased?"
That is exactly the problem! Thanks, skud. The current gun laws are insufficient to keep the guns out of the hands of the crazies. Stronger laws are needed.
JC
If guns are illegally purchased and owned what will tougher laws do? If it is illegal than laws have no relevance or if there are tougher laws does that mean criminals will abide by the law?
Skud
Your argument makes no sense. Taken to its logical conclusion, you are saying that laws are useless.
JC
To those who will disobey them, your conclusion is correct.
We don't need more laws, we need to enforce the laws we have. How many of the murders by gun were from illegals, how many from criminals released from prison before they serve their sentence.
Skud,
I agree. We need to enforce the laws we have.
Unfortunately, your examples are lacking. Illegals ( I assume you mean people who are in this country illegally) are not criminals. Being in this country illegally is not a criminal offense. It is a civil offense. Since Obama became president, illegal entry into this country is down and deportations are up more than any other recent president. You should be giving Obama credit for his efforts. I suspect murders by "illegals" are a small,percentage, and when caught, they are treated as the criminals that they are. They are sent to,prison.
The vast majority of criminals released from prison before their sentence is served are released legally. It is a case of the law being follow, not a case of the law not being followed. Want to stop prisoners from being released early, make the laws tougher. However, you seem to think that the laws are just fine the way the are.
"How many of the murders by gun were from illegals, how many from criminals released from prison before they serve their sentence."
Neither Holmes nor Loughner had criminal records--nor the Columbine killers. How many did they slaughter?
CRIME STATISTICS 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
83% of warrants for murder in Phoenix are for illegal aliens.
86% of warrants for murder in Albuquerque are for illegal aliens.
Sorry but your arguments are incorrect. I did not blame his highness for anything I just said the laws are not followed and two mass murders are from deranged individuals who would have obtained firearms from any source legal or illegal.
How about a reference for those statistics.
JC, I am sure you will not accept the statistics because they prove a point but here you go.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1738432/posts
It appears that you don't even trust these "statistics". The fact that some other blogger posts numbers does not make those numbers true. What is the original source of them? Looking through the comments on your source, several people tried to verify these numbers and no one could.
You are right. I do not accept your statistics, but not for the reason you give. I do not accept your statistics because they are unverified. At this point, they are at best just someone opinion. Give me the FBI link that supposedly has these statistics.
Jerry, go HERE to read where those stats come from. Dubious.
JC
No matter what source is used you will not believe it so there is no point in continuing.
I will totally believe a site called Green Jello, they have to be factual.
skud,
Actually I told you what source I would believe. Just give me a link to the FBI report that contains these statistics. Is that really asking too much?
Green Jello? Is that like FOX noise?
Is that the same place you get all your bogus facts you vomit here?
The FBI does not have an illegal immigrant category so far as I can tell.
Here are two conflicting sources:
This is from CATO, and it addresses Arizona, pointing out that despite popular opinion, crime has been going down, not up:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/new-crime-stats-contradict-anti-immigrant-hype/
Here is a Heather MacDonald article from 2004. I think that is where to quoted percentages come from:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html
It appears she determined these percentages herself from the data she gathered. Yes, she is a conservative, but she is no Orly Taits. She produces some solid, scholarly research.
Then there is this from WaPo:
About 55,000 immigrants in the U.S. both legally and illegally were in federal prison last year, a 7 percent increase from 2005, government auditors said Thursday.
But the percentage of immigrants charged with federal crimes has been stable over the same period, at about a quarter of the federal prison population, the Government Accountability Office found. The majority of jailed immigrants are Mexican citizens.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/immigrants-in-us-jails-steady-at-about-25-percent-of-inmates/2011/03/23/AFRFMHPE_blog.html
I do not like illegal immigration, but I also think immigrants are scapegoated.
I don't know what the facts are, but I just thought I would dig up some links and share them.
SF said,
"I don't know what the facts are"
And as RN would say,
BINGO
If you long press on those dots, you get a good idea fleshlight to
count on it. 12 scRnd 2: 2 sc in next sc, leaving
a sewing length, fasten off. The trick for my fleshlight is to not get too much lube.
Of course, the truth is that it offers longer cessation of hair growth and oftentimes, permanent
hair growth cessation.
Post a Comment