Gun-control debate could use more facts, less emotion

To let everyone know the gun news... I hope you jump on this wagon

[url]http://www.mlive.com/opinion/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2012/12/julie_mack_gun-control_debate.html#incart_river_default [/URL]

I found it kind of strange that the article focuses primarily on one source the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. It also centered on stats focusing on proving one side of a two sided argument. There are so many articles proving out the false logic of gun control. My main arguement would be where in constitution does the federal government get the power to by-pass the second ammendment? Day by day our federal govmt is turnover a blind eye to the constitution and socializing our way of life. At some point it has to stop otherwise we'll be no different then a two bit dictatorship. Just my two cents. The stats really aren't important if the constitution isn't. The govmt will do whatever it wants and we'll be forced to abide with a gun in our mouth while they exempt themseleves from the statist laws.

Mike

AAMitch said:

To let everyone know the gun news... I hope you jump on this wagon

[url]http://www.mlive.com/opinion/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2012/12/julie_mack_gun-control_debate.html#incart_river_default [/URL]

Click to expand...

Done! It is scary reading just how little regard some of my fellow citizens have for their rights. :uhoh:

Actually, this type of research can be used to show that certain gun laws are not mandatory in nature. I cited this same source's data as proof that a specific statue was not mandatory.

Of course the CDC has a Morbidity webpage that is also useful ... and there are other online (free and pay) sites.



I agree that laws cannot be passed that violate the 2nd amendment but one can also argue mandatory v. directory nature of laws too and this either allows one to side step the constitutional issue or have it as a secondary reason.

Unfortunately, little gun studies have been done that focuses on one specific aspect of gun related injuries and fatalities. Its good and bad.

I have spoken to the director of the Harvard group .. he's very nice and answer my queries and his answers were favorable toward gun rights because (not that he is pro-2nd .. I did not speak to him in depth about his views on this ... I was just asking for data) his data did not show any injuries or deaths related to a gun issue I was investigating.

BoiledFrogs said:

Like 425o, 234d, 227, 237, 231a?

Click to expand...

If it was a loophole, it was one spelled out clearly by the Michigan State Police.

I maintain, that it was in the power of the legislature to pass the laws the way they chose to, and that's what they did. Therefore, no loophole.

Click to expand...

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...True-and-Always-Will-Be&p=1865216#post1865216

Oh really?!

I thought you said the legislature can do what they want and that is within their power?

Here are some facts:
The Brady Campaign (aka Brady Bunch) ranks states based on their gun control laws. They give California the highest ranking of any state. The states of Alaska, Arizona, and Utah all received 0s from the Brady Campaign in regards to gun control laws. If you combine all the firearm murders in AK, AZ, UT they amount to 264. California alone has 1,220. California also leads the country in knife murder, "other weapons", and murders where a person is beat up with no weapon being used. People will kill other people if that is their goal.

Of the firearm homicides in this nation rifles (including so called "assault rifles") are responsible for about 3.7% of firearm homicides and about 2.5% of all murders. In fact more people are beaten to death by someone with no weapon at all than to killed by someone using a rifle.

People keep saying there needs to be a comprise made about so called assault weapons because we need to save lives. I don't see an assault weapons ban saving lives. Rifles are already rarely used in firearm homicides so even if we do ban them we will still hear about how we need much stricter gun control in this country. And it will continue to not work. This will only get the ball rolling for more useless gun control laws. If what we're trying to do is "save lives" we'd be far better off banning other things.

xmanhockey7 said:

Here are some facts:
The Brady Campaign (aka Brady Bunch) ranks states based on their gun control laws. They give California the highest ranking of any state. The states of Alaska, Arizona, and Utah all received 0s from the Brady Campaign in regards to gun control laws. If you combine all the firearm murders in AK, AZ, UT they amount to 264. California alone has 1,220. California also leads the country in knife murder, "other weapons", and murders where a person is beat up with no weapon being used. People will kill other people if that is their goal.

Of the firearm homicides in this nation rifles (including so called "assault rifles") are responsible for about 3.7% of firearm homicides and about 2.5% of all murders. In fact more people are beaten to death by someone with no weapon at all than to killed by someone using a rifle.

People keep saying there needs to be a comprise made about so called assault weapons because we need to save lives. I don't see an assault weapons ban saving lives. Rifles are already rarely used in firearm homicides so even if we do ban them we will still hear about how we need much stricter gun control in this country. And it will continue to not work. This will only get the ball rolling for more useless gun control laws. If what we're trying to do is "save lives" we'd be far better off banning other things.

Click to expand...

What's the population of Alaska, Arizona, Utah compared to the population of California?

I bet if you add all those States up they don't equal the population of California…

TheQ said:

What's the population of Alaska, Arizona, Utah compared to the population of California?

I bet if you add all those States up they don't equal the population of California…

Click to expand...

Some interesting food for thought concerning population and it's effect upon a society and the individuals therein...

Although the work of Mr. Calhoun involved mice....

http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/42/wiles.php

-snip-
In 1962, Calhoun published a paper called “Population Density and Social Pathology” in Scientific American, laying out his conclusion: overpopulation meant social collapse followed by extinction. The more he repeated the experiment, the more the outcome came to seem inevitable, fixed with the rigor of a scientific equation. By the time he wrote about the decline and fall of Universe 25 in 1972, he even laid out its fate in equation form:
Mortality, bodily death = the second death
Drastic reduction of mortality
= death of the second death
= death squared
= (death)[SUP]2[/SUP]
(Death)[SUP]2[/SUP] leads to dissolution of social organization
= death of the establishment
Death of the establishment leads to spiritual death
= loss of capacity to engage in behaviors essential to species survival
= the first death
Therefore:
(Death)[SUP]2[/SUP] = the first death
This formula might apply to rats and mice—but could the same happen to humankind? For Calhoun, there was little question about it. No matter how sophisticated we considered ourselves to be, once the number of individuals capable of filling roles greatly exceeded the number of roles,
only violence and disruption of social organization can follow. ... Individuals born under these circumstances will be so out of touch with reality as to be incapable even of alienation. Their most complex behaviors will become fragmented. Acquisition, creation and utilization of ideas appropriate for life in a post-industrial cultural-conceptual-technological society will have been blocked.

Perhaps there is a hint in there about why urban centers seem to have entirely different perspectives than rural areas.... or maybe I just spend too much time reading oddball stuff................

TheQ said:

What's the population of Alaska, Arizona, Utah compared to the population of California?

I bet if you add all those States up they don't equal the population of California…

Click to expand...

Source US Census Est. through July1, 2012
http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/totals/2012/index.html

AZ = 6,553,255
UT = 2,855,287
AK = 0,731,449
_____________
Tot 10,139,991

VS

CA 38,041,430
____________
Dif 27,901,439

TheQ said:

What's the population of Alaska, Arizona, Utah compared to the population of California?

I bet if you add all those States up they don't equal the population of California…

Click to expand...

True but when you look at the percentage of firearms used in murders Alaska, Arizona, and Utah are all lower than California. Although from what I could tell having strict firearm laws and firearm murders in the U.S. have little correlation.

So CA has 4x the combined population. That helps bring the 5x firearm homicide number into perspective.

xmanhockey7 said:

Although from what I could tell having strict firearm laws and firearm murders in the U.S. have little correlation.

Click to expand...

I've heard this from Mark Edge of Free Talk live as well. John Lott tells a different story. Who to believe?

Truth, lies, and statistics.

TheQ said:

I've heard this from Mark Edge of Free Talk live as well. John Lott tells a different story. Who to believe?

Truth, lies, and statistics.

Click to expand...

I based mine off of FBI stats. From what I can tell a lot of John Lott's "facts" have been discredited, sadly.

[video=youtube;Ooa98FHuaU0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0[/video]

Here is a fact. There is no gun control argument without emotion. The Anti's have no facts that backup their weird point of view, they only twist facts and as in the California vs other states use zero actual facts other than they adore dictators, and gun confiscation, and anyone who furthers that goal of total control over the populace, by a Government that would make Stalin or Hitler jealous.

The facts erase the Anti's points, arguments and emotional drivel. The more we focus on facts the more we win, and conversely the more we accidentally promote the Anti's argument by not bringing facts to the table, the more they win. It is easy to fight their lies, if we have enough attention as they are given. Let's face it the mainstream media is Marxist Communist in mentality and those old enough to remember back in the 1960's and 1970's how the media made it clear they only supported full blown Marxism and excused even the mass murders of their Communist dictators in history. All you have to do is take a look at the Time Magazine man of the year for all the years it ran and you see the worst scum of the Human race glorified by the media, including Stalin, Hitler, Stalin again, and Kruschev (Communist) and it reads like a Who's who of dictators, Fascists, mass murderers, and psychopaths with a few normal people thrown in to not make it look as bad as it really is. I provided a link so you can see for yourself. If you don't recognize
the names look them up and be prepared to be shocked.

Fighting gun control is fighting for the lives of future generations, to not fall prey to Genocidal psychopaths like the many Time Magazine and liberal media adores.

http://history1900s.about.com/od/people/a/Man-Of-The-Year.htm

want to know what Leading Democrats think? Read this insane Bas&^rds comments about killing NRA members.

Texas Democratic Party Official Calls For Murder of NRA Members
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...party-leader-calls-for-murder-of-nra-members/

John Carburruvius is a Democrat precinct committeeman in Bay Area Houston. He is a well-known Democrat in the state, worked on Noriega for US Senate campaign. He also SERVES ON THE TEXAS STATE DEMOCRAT COMMITTEE. On Friday he urged his twitter followers to murder NRA members and anyone who supports them.
The Examiner reported:

On Sunday, we reported that liberals on Twitter called for the murder of NRA members. One of those making the calls was identified Sunday as John Cobarruvias, a blogger, Democratic precinct chairman in the Houston area and a member of the Texas Democratic Executive Committee.

“Can we now shoot the NRA and everyone who defends them?” he tweeted.

After reading about the tweets on another site, Yvonne Larsen noticed a familiar name.

“Among the selection of tweets advocating for the murder of NRA President Keene and all NRA members was a name familiar to me; probably familiar to many readers of Houston’s Liberal blog sites,” she wrote at Big Jolly Politics.

more on the link provided................


This is a WAR against FREEDOM and anyone who supports the Constitution and the biggest problem is we are the only ones who fail to see they are at war with us. :banghead:

xmanhockey7 said:

Here are some facts:
The Brady Campaign (aka Brady Bunch) ranks states based on their gun control laws. They give California the highest ranking of any state. The states of Alaska, Arizona, and Utah all received 0s from the Brady Campaign in regards to gun control laws. If you combine all the firearm murders in AK, AZ, UT they amount to 264. California alone has 1,220. California also leads the country in knife murder, "other weapons", and murders where a person is beat up with no weapon being used. People will kill other people if that is their goal.

Of the firearm homicides in this nation rifles (including so called "assault rifles") are responsible for about 3.7% of firearm homicides and about 2.5% of all murders. In fact more people are beaten to death by someone with no weapon at all than to killed by someone using a rifle.

People keep saying there needs to be a comprise made about so called assault weapons because we need to save lives. I don't see an assault weapons ban saving lives. Rifles are already rarely used in firearm homicides so even if we do ban them we will still hear about how we need much stricter gun control in this country. And it will continue to not work. This will only get the ball rolling for more useless gun control laws. If what we're trying to do is "save lives" we'd be far better off banning other things.

Click to expand...

Our nation was founded by a few good men who essentially signed their own death warrants with the declaration of independence, a document which also has been passed down to us with instructions to overthrow our government to save our nation as needed, a fact further proven by the founder's other documents.

To say that we should be arguing crime stats, to me, is beyond moronic. Our nation was founded on the overthrowing of tyrants either through the democratic process (and the founders hated democracy, that's why we're a democratically represented republic), or violence as needed. If the founders were alive today, I'm sure they'd be encouraging us to own much heavier weapons than we do, so that we could keep up with modern military hardware as best as possible.

Even though the stats when looked at honestly are almost always on our side, I say all the anti gunners out there can stick their stats and shove them straight up their asses. Crime control is overshadowed by control of government tyranny, and that is the only argument that needs to be made.

Liberty or death, that is the argument which the founders would have wanted us to make.

To be clear, I am in no way saying it's time to get violent, only saying that the ability to wage war is the purpose of the second amendment, and we need to protect the bill of rights now so that it doesn't come to that later.

BoiledFrogs said:

Like 425o, 234d, 227, 237, 231a?

Click to expand...

And every law that bars "keeping" and "bearing" at any point in time or place?

BoiledFrogs said:

Like 425o, 234d, 227, 237, 231a?

Click to expand...

What about people like those convicted of violent felonies? Do they get to legally own and carry guns too?

BoiledFrogs said:

What part of "Shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

BTW, what is it like to be that which you dislike?

Click to expand...

Oh so a person rapes and kills a woman with a gun, serves time, gets out, and gets another gun and does it again. Interesting theory but completely insane. And just FYI I have never been convicted of any crimes beyond a speeding ticket, can you say the same?

Ezerharden said:

Oh so a person rapes and kills a woman with a gun, serves time, gets out, and gets another gun and does it again. Interesting theory but completely insane.

Click to expand...

Yes, the situation you describe would be "insane." I would prefer the justice system be changed to the point that once you serve your time and pay your debt to society then you regain your full citizen status with all rights and privileges restored, even the right to own/possess/carry a firearm...with the caveat that if the person is deemed too dangerous or unstable to exercise those rights and privileges in a responsible manner then they shouldn't be released, ever.

Bronson

Des Moines Register publishes gun-ban column advocating deadly violence against NRA,

More facts, less emotion.. hmm tell that to the Des Moines Register and see what they published below.


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013...ath-threats-published-in-des-moines-register/


Des Moines Register publishes gun-ban column advocating deadly violence against NRA, GOP leaders

By Tim GrahamPublished January 02, 2013FoxNews.com

Donald Kaul retired earlier this year. Now he has decided to return to writing occasional opinion columns for OtherWords.org. The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Conn. brought out all his ugliness.
In a column that appeared after the shooting with the headline "Kaul: Nation needs a new agenda on guns," he proposed a new liberal agenda: repeal the Second Amendment, declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal, and well, make violent threats to Republican leaders and NRA members. The Des Moines Register published this junk on December 29.

"I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control," he wrote. Is that a threatening James Byrd reference? "And if that didn’t work, I’d adopt radical measures," he continued.
This was how he spelled out the other agenda items, which included killing NRA members who wouldn't surrender their arms:

"Here, then, is my “madder-than-hell-and-I’m-not-going-to-take-it-anymore” program for ending gun violence in America:

• Repeal the Second Amendment, the part about guns anyway. It’s badly written, confusing and more trouble than it’s worth. It offers an absolute right to gun ownership, but it puts it in the context of the need for a “well-regulated militia.” We don’t make our militia bring their own guns to battles. And surely the Founders couldn’t have envisioned weapons like those used in the Newtown shooting when they guaranteed gun rights. Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right.

• Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. Hey! We did it to the Communist Party, and the NRA has led to the deaths of more of us than American Commies ever did. (I would also raze the organization’s headquarters, clear the rubble and salt the earth, but that’s optional.) Make ownership of unlicensed assault rifles a felony. If some people refused to give up their guns, that “prying the guns from their cold, dead hands” thing works for me."
The so-called "news" media love to blame conservatives for the declining civility of our democratic discourse, but the hateful venom spewed by supposedly enlightened liberals like Kaul is as vicious as it gets.
Publishing death threats is bad enough, but doing so in the name of promoting a more peaceful, compassionate society is beyond sick. But this clown will probably never realize the absurdity of his argument.

Tim Graham is director of media analysis at the Media Research Center and senior editor of MRC’s blog NewsBusters