• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Gun violence by state...

openryan

State Researcher
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
1,602
Location
, Indiana, USA
imported post

Here is a link to the wikipedia page I found this on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Then I compared this to the Brady Report Cards, and here is what I found....

Louisiana has the 2nd highest amount of gun related homicides per 100,000 people, and they got an A- on their "Brady Report Card." http://www.stategunlaws.org/viewstate.php?st=MD

New Hampshire had the LOWEST amount of gun related homicides per 100,000 people, yet they receive a D- on their "Brady Report Card."
http://www.stategunlaws.org/viewstate.php?st=NH

Very contradictory... your thoughts?
 

openryan

State Researcher
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
1,602
Location
, Indiana, USA
imported post

Heartless_Conservative wrote:
Wait, when did we start expecting anything the Brady's say as remotely based in something vaguely resembling factual grounding? Most've missed the memo...
You are right - I put zero confidence in what they say or claim as fact.

However, their state by state report cards, versus the homicide by gun rates in each state flies around like a fart in the wind...I would expect more from such a large, funded orginization, even if I do not disagree with them. Obviously their supporters do not do their research, or at least turn a blind eye to the facts -- disgusting.
 

openryan

State Researcher
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
1,602
Location
, Indiana, USA
imported post

Mike wrote:
why are you using anti term of "gun violence"?
That is what the Brady report card uses, and ultimately if it is deemed a homicide, then it would "gun violence," so I thought the term appropriate whether or not it serves our cause.
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

openryan wrote:
Mike wrote:
why are you using anti term of "gun violence"?
That is what the Brady report card uses, and ultimately if it is deemed a homicide, then it would "gun violence," so I thought the term appropriate whether or not it serves our cause.
I understand that this is common termonology, but I think you missed the point.

Do we call it 'fist violence' when you get punched?
Do we call it 'knife violence' when someone gets stabbed?
Do we call it 'car violence' when someone runs you down with a car?

No.
No.
and No.

Guns (and other objects) are not violent. Sometimes people are, though. I would like to see us get away from termonology that demonizes the instrument instead of the actor.

ETA: I take what the Brady campaign says very seriously. Their report cards are a great tool and are highly reliable. You just have to remember they're wired backwards, so just believe the opposite and you'll be OK.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:
openryan wrote:
Mike wrote:
why are you using anti term of "gun violence"?
That is what the Brady report card uses, and ultimately if it is deemed a homicide, then it would "gun violence," so I thought the term appropriate whether or not it serves our cause.
I understand that this is common termonology, but I think you missed the point.

Do we call it 'fist violence' when you get punched?
Do we call it 'knife violence' when someone gets stabbed?
Do we call it 'car violence' when someone runs you down with a car?

No.
No.
and No.

Guns (and other objects) are not violent. Sometimes people are, though. I would like to see us get away from termonology that demonizes the instrument instead of the actor.

ETA: I take what the Brady campaign says very seriously. Their report cards are a great tool and are highly reliable. You just have to remember they're wired backwards, so just believe the opposite and you'll be OK.
I agree. Not because I have any ideas about controlling one's speech, but because I hate to see gun people fall into the trap of using terms invented or misused by the anti's in order to stir up visceral reactions.

Terms such as assault rifle/weapon when speaking about semi-auto military-styled weapons. Cop killer bullets when describing a host of different ammunition designs. Automatic weapons when they are really talking about semi-auto firearms. Referring to .223 and 7.62x39 ammunition as high-powered. Calling a rifle an AK47 when it is clearly an SKS. And on and on and on.

When WE use these same terms, we have bought into their vernacular and have lost the battle of correct terminology and language use.

Gun violence, as you correctly related, is a non-term since guns do not cause or do violence... people do.

Finally, how many have noticed that when a news anchor starts a report about a murder, it is common to see a handgun superimposed on a top corner of your TV screen.. even if the murder was commited with a knife?
 

N00blet45

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Messages
475
Location
Walton County, Georgia, ,
imported post

Does anyone know of a study on death by firearm that takes note of the victim's status of criminal vs non-criminal vs cop? I guess what I'm asking is do they count the gang members who off each other in the statistics? I'm curious to see how many non-criminals are shot by criminals and also how many non-criminals are shot by non-criminals. By non-criminal I mean those without a felony record.
 

Decoligny

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,865
Location
Rosamond, California, USA
imported post

N00blet45 wrote:
Does anyone know of a study on death by firearm that takes note of the victim's status of criminal vs non-criminal vs cop? I guess what I'm asking is do they count the gang members who off each other in the statistics? I'm curious to see how many non-criminals are shot by criminals and also how many non-criminals are shot by non-criminals. By non-criminal I mean those without a felony record.
I know that the anti-gun lobbyists have used ALL people under 21 years of age who died of gunshot wounds as the basis for thier "children" killed "by guns" numbers. This includes the majority of the gang against gangshootings, which are usually teenaged males. You can twist the numbers to show whatever you want if you just change the criteria and the definitions.
 

openryan

State Researcher
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
1,602
Location
, Indiana, USA
imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:
openryan wrote:
Mike wrote:
why are you using anti term of "gun violence"?
That is what the Brady report card uses, and ultimately if it is deemed a homicide, then it would "gun violence," so I thought the term appropriate whether or not it serves our cause.
I understand that this is common termonology, but I think you missed the point.

Do we call it 'fist violence' when you get punched?
Do we call it 'knife violence' when someone gets stabbed?
Do we call it 'car violence' when someone runs you down with a car?

No.
No.
and No.

Guns (and other objects) are not violent. Sometimes people are, though. I would like to see us get away from termonology that demonizes the instrument instead of the actor.

ETA: I take what the Brady campaign says very seriously. Their report cards are a great tool and are highly reliable. You just have to remember they're wired backwards, so just believe the opposite and you'll be OK.
Gun violence to me, would be a violent act that was committed using a firearm.

And I certainly don't call it "fist violence" when someone gets stabbed, although vehicular homicide is actually the term for your last question since you asked.

The term in the context I used it, was meant to describe a certain cross section of violent acts or homicides commited, since I was comparing them to the Brady report cards, had I just used the number of violent acts, well that wouldn't really make much sense...:?

Obviously I am pro-gun myself, I don't know how you think I missed a point here, and I would hope all of us can agree that a gun itself is a tool, and cannot commit crime by itself.

I don't think gun violence demonizes the instrument. Word it however you like, but if you didn't understand what I was saying, I believe it is you who is missing the point.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,276
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

I came across a good quote the other day that would apply here.

It is error alone which requires the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. --Thomas Jefferson



Small wonder Brady and Co. have to get the government to enforce their ideas.
 

Comp-tech

State Researcher
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
934
Location
, Alabama, USA
imported post

openryan wrote:
Gun violence to me, would be a violent act that was committed using a firearm.

And I certainly don't call it "fist violence" when someone gets stabbed, although vehicular homicide is actually the term for your last question since you asked.

The term in the context I used it, was meant to describe a certain cross section of violent acts or homicides commited, since I was comparing them to the Brady report cards, had I just used the number of violent acts, well that wouldn't really make much sense...:?

Obviously I am pro-gun myself, I don't know how you think I missed a point here, and I would hope all of us can agree that a gun itself is a tool, and cannot commit crime by itself.

I don't think gun violence demonizes the instrument. Word it however you like, but if you didn't understand what I was saying, I believe it is you who is missing the point.
Not to pick on you Ryan.....these are for everyone. They further explain the point that Mike was making......that we, as Rights advocates, shouldn't play into the anti's game by using an "anti designed metaphor"

From the second link below.....
"Certain words hurt you when you talk about your rights and liberties. People who would deny your rights have done a good job of manipulating the language so far. Without even realizing it, you're probably using terms that actually help the people who want to disarm you."

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/jaspar/myhomepage/index.html ...a long read, but well worth it.

http://www.gunlaws.com/politicallycorrect.htm ......PC terminology for the good guys
 

Superlite27

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
1,277
Location
God's Country, Missouri
imported post

You can twist the numbers to show whatever you want if you just change the criteria and the definitions.


It's what the anti-2A crack-pots are good at.



Have you ever heard the statistic about firearms in the home being 46 times more likely to be used on the homeowner? It's absolutely true. The anti's LOVE this statistic to show how dangerous the evil guns are.

Oh, did they mention that this statistic includes suicides? So if you intentionally use it on yourself, IT COUNTS! You get the same results if you hang yourself or drink some anti-freeze, but shooting yourself is included in the "used against the homeowner" statistic.

What this means is, these evil weapons are 46 times more likely to result in your death, IF YOU ALREADY PLAN ON KILLING YOURSELF WITH ONE. (Funny, they usually don't mention this last part)

If you're just not in the mood to off yourself, or you decide to take a nap in your Buick while it's running in the garage, A FIREARM IS NOW 5 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO PREVENT A CRIME!

Good ol' statistics. You can use 'em to prove anything. I wonder why they don't have a "Buicks are umpteen times more likely to be used against the homeowner" statistic? We could prove those evil Buicks are dangerous vehicles.
 
Top