12
12
0
"FOR those of us who argue in favor of gun safety laws, there are a few inconvenient facts.
We liberals are sometimes glib about equating guns and danger. In fact, it’s complicated: The number of guns in America has increased by more than 50 percent since 1993, and in that same period the gun homicide rate in the United States has dropped by half.
Then there are the policies that liberals fought for, starting with the assault weapons ban. A 113-page study found no clear indication that it reduced shooting deaths for the 10 years it was in effect. That’s because the ban was poorly drafted, and because even before the ban, assault weapons accounted for only 2 percent of guns used in crimes."
We liberals are sometimes glib about equating guns and danger. In fact, it’s complicated: The number of guns in America has increased by more than 50 percent since 1993, and in that same period the gun homicide rate in the United States has dropped by half.
Then there are the policies that liberals fought for, starting with the assault weapons ban. A 113-page study found no clear indication that it reduced shooting deaths for the 10 years it was in effect. That’s because the ban was poorly drafted, and because even before the ban, assault weapons accounted for only 2 percent of guns used in crimes."
Some Inconvenient Gun Facts for Liberals
Posted from nytimes.comPosted in these groups: 
Gun Control
2nd Amendment
Gun Control 2nd Amendment
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 6
7
7
0
Unfortunately those who advocate "Gun Control" (et al) do not actually look at the MATH. The real math of the proposals. The math is amazingly simple when you start diving into it.
I'm going to make some very "broad" statements here, but please bear with me.
1) Approximately HALF of the Deaths which use firearms as a tool are SUICIDES. This is categorically a Mental Health issue.
2) There approximately 12,000 Non-Suicide Firearm Related Deaths in the US Per Year. To put this in perspective. Here's the CDC Mortality rate for "everything":
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
Firearm related deaths aren't even in the top 10. They aren't even a reasonable fraction of the top 10. It's not until we start inflating the numbers by including Suicides (which are already accounted for), that we start seeing something "might" be considered an issue.
3) Of the 12,000 Non-Suicide Firearm Deaths, almost all are HAND GUN based (estimated at 10,000-11,000). Therefore why are we looking at LONG GUNS (Rifles & Shotguns) for restriction? This just doesn't make sense, unless there is a strategic reasoning to disallow a "specific class of weapon" as a justification NOW, so that it can be used in the FUTURE to do the same.
4) Violence in the US has been decreasing for 40 years. All Violence. If you apply the caveat of "Gun" to it, it is still decreasing. There is neither a Violence nor a Gun Violence "epidemic" in the US. The US "As a Whole" is safe. There are "Hot Spots" in the US which are less safe however, and they directly correlate with High Population areas. The higher the Population, the more likely you are to experience Violence. However this also correlates directly with things like Socio-economic status & education, which are intrinsically linked. If you are in a densely populated area, are poor, and are uneducated, you are "statistically likely" to end up experiencing Violent Crime, to include Gun Violence. This is not a Gun issue however. This is multiple effects coming into play, which if you look at other nations with similar density, education, and wealth, you will see similar violence levels.
I can rant, and rave all day long about this. I can show the math all day long about this. I can show how Defensive Gun Usages act as a "Deterrent" (the Sheep-dog Philosophy) resulting in less crime compared to an Unarmed Society, but when we have people who "feel" things rather than "critically think" about things, we are going to continue run into this debate.
As it stands, the vast majority of math leans in favor of supporting the Protection, and the "no inch given" stance.
Personally, I am happy to LISTEN to any proposal. I will also point out any flaws it has. If someone can show me one that will actually work without assuming the guilt of the Citizen (in advance), make use jump through more hoops than are absolutely neccessary, and speak from a point of information vice ignorance, I'll be more than willing to work on this. But that has just not happened yet. It has been veiled agenda from the get go with the eventual goal of banning all firearm ownership in the US, and anyone who claims otherwise hasn't read the original mission statement of the Brady Campaign.
"The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal."
- Nelson Shields 1976
I'm going to make some very "broad" statements here, but please bear with me.
1) Approximately HALF of the Deaths which use firearms as a tool are SUICIDES. This is categorically a Mental Health issue.
2) There approximately 12,000 Non-Suicide Firearm Related Deaths in the US Per Year. To put this in perspective. Here's the CDC Mortality rate for "everything":
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
Firearm related deaths aren't even in the top 10. They aren't even a reasonable fraction of the top 10. It's not until we start inflating the numbers by including Suicides (which are already accounted for), that we start seeing something "might" be considered an issue.
3) Of the 12,000 Non-Suicide Firearm Deaths, almost all are HAND GUN based (estimated at 10,000-11,000). Therefore why are we looking at LONG GUNS (Rifles & Shotguns) for restriction? This just doesn't make sense, unless there is a strategic reasoning to disallow a "specific class of weapon" as a justification NOW, so that it can be used in the FUTURE to do the same.
4) Violence in the US has been decreasing for 40 years. All Violence. If you apply the caveat of "Gun" to it, it is still decreasing. There is neither a Violence nor a Gun Violence "epidemic" in the US. The US "As a Whole" is safe. There are "Hot Spots" in the US which are less safe however, and they directly correlate with High Population areas. The higher the Population, the more likely you are to experience Violence. However this also correlates directly with things like Socio-economic status & education, which are intrinsically linked. If you are in a densely populated area, are poor, and are uneducated, you are "statistically likely" to end up experiencing Violent Crime, to include Gun Violence. This is not a Gun issue however. This is multiple effects coming into play, which if you look at other nations with similar density, education, and wealth, you will see similar violence levels.
I can rant, and rave all day long about this. I can show the math all day long about this. I can show how Defensive Gun Usages act as a "Deterrent" (the Sheep-dog Philosophy) resulting in less crime compared to an Unarmed Society, but when we have people who "feel" things rather than "critically think" about things, we are going to continue run into this debate.
As it stands, the vast majority of math leans in favor of supporting the Protection, and the "no inch given" stance.
Personally, I am happy to LISTEN to any proposal. I will also point out any flaws it has. If someone can show me one that will actually work without assuming the guilt of the Citizen (in advance), make use jump through more hoops than are absolutely neccessary, and speak from a point of information vice ignorance, I'll be more than willing to work on this. But that has just not happened yet. It has been veiled agenda from the get go with the eventual goal of banning all firearm ownership in the US, and anyone who claims otherwise hasn't read the original mission statement of the Brady Campaign.
"The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal."
- Nelson Shields 1976
FastStats is an official application from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) and puts access to topic-specific statistics at your fingertips.
(7)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - I didn't say you needed to have a reason to exercise the right. I said that it would reduce those "casual gun owners" through their own self-selection and laziness to not get the training that a "responsible gun owner" would have. If people want to get a gun for "no reason," they'd be perfectly capable of doing so - and they would be trained appropriately in case they actually wanted to use it responsibly.
That was a shady attempt at twisting my words to say something I didn't say.
That was a shady attempt at twisting my words to say something I didn't say.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
MAJ Bryan Zeski - Re-Read the last paragraph of my original post. provided below.
"The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal."
- Nelson Shields 1976
Reducing gun ownership is the GOAL of Anti-Gun organizations. Using Administrative & Bureaucratic hoops is the MEANS to do it. This is not a shady attempt of me to twist your words. This is me remembering previous in-dept conversations and connecting the dots.
The Constitution defines POSSESSION (including Ownership) as a Protected Civil Liberty. Any time we start adding "burdens" to the exercising of those Civil Liberties, we run into real problems. We are violating the intent of the Constitution. It's really that simple.
"The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal."
- Nelson Shields 1976
Reducing gun ownership is the GOAL of Anti-Gun organizations. Using Administrative & Bureaucratic hoops is the MEANS to do it. This is not a shady attempt of me to twist your words. This is me remembering previous in-dept conversations and connecting the dots.
The Constitution defines POSSESSION (including Ownership) as a Protected Civil Liberty. Any time we start adding "burdens" to the exercising of those Civil Liberties, we run into real problems. We are violating the intent of the Constitution. It's really that simple.
(2)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - The shady part was implying that I said people had to have a reason to exercise a right - I said no such thing. I said that if we make people demonstrate responsibility and capability with their firearms, that little bit of effort will dissuade people from just getting them for the sake of getting them. That's all. Casual gun ownership is useless at best and dangerous for no reason.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
MAJ Bryan Zeski The beauty of Rights is that there is zero segregation between "Casual" and any other type. It doesn't matter why someone wants to own, or possess. It's completely irrelevant.
The other Civil Liberties don't have the level of scrutiny you are suggesting for execution. If I asked you to "demonstrate responsibility and capability with your" Vote, Speech, Religion, Assembly, Refusal to be Searched/Seized, etc, you would look at me like I grew a second head. Why is this Protection any different?
When you start forcing the People to do things to exercise Rights like Voting, like prove they can Read, or pass a "test" you create massive issues. There's a reason we have the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (et al). The parallels to Firearms Protections are eerily similar.
The other Civil Liberties don't have the level of scrutiny you are suggesting for execution. If I asked you to "demonstrate responsibility and capability with your" Vote, Speech, Religion, Assembly, Refusal to be Searched/Seized, etc, you would look at me like I grew a second head. Why is this Protection any different?
When you start forcing the People to do things to exercise Rights like Voting, like prove they can Read, or pass a "test" you create massive issues. There's a reason we have the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (et al). The parallels to Firearms Protections are eerily similar.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
Facts: they don't see firearms as a right. If you replace the firearms with free speech, or free expression, they will become a super constitutionist in a blink of an eyes.
Facts: they believe safety trump all rights, if something make they feel safe. They would even allow people to harass them, or sexually pat them down ... ohhh ... pardon me ... security search every part of their body.
Facts: they believe the authority is responsible for our safety, all we should do is either sit down and wait or run. Nothing else, because there is not enough responsible citizen out there, and 1% irresponsible citizen is good enough to take away all responsible citizen rights.
Facts: They usually never believe that the government will abuse the power or believe that they as individual citizen can actually control a massive government. A good portion of them actually believe if they know the network of people, they can actually save their back-end when government abused them.
Facts: Some of them actually own firearms too!!!
Facts: they believe safety trump all rights, if something make they feel safe. They would even allow people to harass them, or sexually pat them down ... ohhh ... pardon me ... security search every part of their body.
Facts: they believe the authority is responsible for our safety, all we should do is either sit down and wait or run. Nothing else, because there is not enough responsible citizen out there, and 1% irresponsible citizen is good enough to take away all responsible citizen rights.
Facts: They usually never believe that the government will abuse the power or believe that they as individual citizen can actually control a massive government. A good portion of them actually believe if they know the network of people, they can actually save their back-end when government abused them.
Facts: Some of them actually own firearms too!!!
(5)
(0)
Capt Lance Gallardo
Thanks for the encouragement. Maj. Weiss just informed me that the current AG of California is preparing legislation that will make all center-fire, semi-Auto, capable of accepting a detachable magazine, rifles illegal in California.
(0)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
Capt Lance Gallardo - ... that is bad ... Look into the state constitution! look for the part about sheriff! Sheriff is the law enforcer of the land, they are the most powerful elected official you can imagine. Start with Sheriff, they can protect your county from unwanted law, but that also mean you must have a very strong support for that sheriff too, for him to stand against the Governor. Stand and start with your county! and move on out, that how it get done at the past and so shall the future. You local election carry more weight than Federal election in many way.
In WV, that is how we pro-2nd slowly pushing back ... it takes years and a lot of election ... but it can be done.
In WV, that is how we pro-2nd slowly pushing back ... it takes years and a lot of election ... but it can be done.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
PO3 (Join to see) - 1. There are limitations on rights - including free speech and freedom of press. I think the big difference between the rights of free speech and free press lies in the idea that if someone gets into a drunken bar argument and goes off at the mouth (free speech) or writes a nasty letter to the editor (free press), no one is going to die because of it. Now, arm that man (right to bear arms) and someone ends up dead. Some rights have more limitations that others. Ones you kill people with in a moment of passion should be one of those.
2. I'm with you on this one. Tangentially, it always strikes me as funny when the Republican candidates talk about increasing the NSA reach for "security." I think of that same quote! Back on point. I don't want to stop people from getting guns. I just want them to be trained to use them responsibly. For the life of me, I just don't see why that's a bad thing.
3. I think we are just going in circles... which makes sense as we just aren't going to agree on the finer points. Do I think we should mandate that people be responsible with deadly weapons? Yes. I think that makes sense.
4. I like the concepts of libertarianism, but it just doesn't seem like it would work as a whole society.
5. I don't want to take people's guns. I don't want to stop people from having guns. In fact, I want MORE people to have guns and be trained on them! I want people to buy machine guns for days - with the proper training! If you want a MK-19, then you can have one - with the training. You want to hump an M-60 machine gun through Wal-Mart and use your kids as the AG and AB? Awesome. Just get trained to do it safely.
2. I'm with you on this one. Tangentially, it always strikes me as funny when the Republican candidates talk about increasing the NSA reach for "security." I think of that same quote! Back on point. I don't want to stop people from getting guns. I just want them to be trained to use them responsibly. For the life of me, I just don't see why that's a bad thing.
3. I think we are just going in circles... which makes sense as we just aren't going to agree on the finer points. Do I think we should mandate that people be responsible with deadly weapons? Yes. I think that makes sense.
4. I like the concepts of libertarianism, but it just doesn't seem like it would work as a whole society.
5. I don't want to take people's guns. I don't want to stop people from having guns. In fact, I want MORE people to have guns and be trained on them! I want people to buy machine guns for days - with the proper training! If you want a MK-19, then you can have one - with the training. You want to hump an M-60 machine gun through Wal-Mart and use your kids as the AG and AB? Awesome. Just get trained to do it safely.
(1)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
MAJ Bryan Zeski - First of all, I understand that your intention is good and noble. But we are actually talking about constitution. The constitution clearly stated, for FEDERAL what should stay out. If you want to change that, change the constitution, don't just change laws for it.
1. For you fail to understand the true price of freedom, is not what we service members sacrificed. It is to act free and live free. For example, free speech - therefore others bad words can hurt your feeling. free press - bad rumors can spread or at least make your image looks bad. freedom of expression - crazy art that offense you. freedom of religion - some religion that you disagree praying right in front of you. the right the bear arms - people will get killed (disclaimer: people will get killed either way just not by firearms).
because something can kill, people fear it more, it is the same mentality that some movement trying to silence free speech, because speech can kills too. how about religion can kill (lol that is a fun fact there), therefore a movement to make freedom from religion? All those example is real and people did try to "put limitation" of all those right too.
There are middle ground, but not in the FEDERAL level. That is why each STATE themselves can regulate things that federal government should not even touch. That is another topic about each state's constitution.
2. lol how about a little twist :) safety and security is very much interchangeable :). For the name of safety, we should give up our liberty. :) your thought?
3. Yes, we are going in circle. because the fundamental corner stone of my argument is the same one for all, FEDERAL got nothing to do with it. I had already offered solution for both of us, do it your way locally and your state. When it really work and absolutely not infringing rights? other states will follow without FEDERAL intervention. But I would suspect gun grabber will not want that or agree with that. For very simple reason, it don't work. (I am not talking about you, because you are not a gun grabber).
4. Libertarian-ism don't work? maybe you misunderstood. libertarian is not Anarchy, libertarian actually believe in government, but we have very little faith in FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, therefore we don't want any power in the federal government. Keep the power as close as possible to the people, that is the only antidote for corruption and abuse of power.
If libertarian-ism don't work? how did the United States existed. ALL our founding father ARE libertarian by nature. The constitution existed because of the anti-federalist (aka purist in Libertarian).
5. Yes, training is a responsibility, let just keep it as a responsibility, not a requirement. :) I agree that with training, many accidental shooting can be avoided, but we must do that through education and public information sharing, instead of thinking passing law will make people go and educate themselves.
1. For you fail to understand the true price of freedom, is not what we service members sacrificed. It is to act free and live free. For example, free speech - therefore others bad words can hurt your feeling. free press - bad rumors can spread or at least make your image looks bad. freedom of expression - crazy art that offense you. freedom of religion - some religion that you disagree praying right in front of you. the right the bear arms - people will get killed (disclaimer: people will get killed either way just not by firearms).
because something can kill, people fear it more, it is the same mentality that some movement trying to silence free speech, because speech can kills too. how about religion can kill (lol that is a fun fact there), therefore a movement to make freedom from religion? All those example is real and people did try to "put limitation" of all those right too.
There are middle ground, but not in the FEDERAL level. That is why each STATE themselves can regulate things that federal government should not even touch. That is another topic about each state's constitution.
2. lol how about a little twist :) safety and security is very much interchangeable :). For the name of safety, we should give up our liberty. :) your thought?
3. Yes, we are going in circle. because the fundamental corner stone of my argument is the same one for all, FEDERAL got nothing to do with it. I had already offered solution for both of us, do it your way locally and your state. When it really work and absolutely not infringing rights? other states will follow without FEDERAL intervention. But I would suspect gun grabber will not want that or agree with that. For very simple reason, it don't work. (I am not talking about you, because you are not a gun grabber).
4. Libertarian-ism don't work? maybe you misunderstood. libertarian is not Anarchy, libertarian actually believe in government, but we have very little faith in FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, therefore we don't want any power in the federal government. Keep the power as close as possible to the people, that is the only antidote for corruption and abuse of power.
If libertarian-ism don't work? how did the United States existed. ALL our founding father ARE libertarian by nature. The constitution existed because of the anti-federalist (aka purist in Libertarian).
5. Yes, training is a responsibility, let just keep it as a responsibility, not a requirement. :) I agree that with training, many accidental shooting can be avoided, but we must do that through education and public information sharing, instead of thinking passing law will make people go and educate themselves.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
LTC Yinon Weiss WOW a liberal I can like. Someone that accepts the facts. There are others most people don't like to admit. That most mass shooting occur in so called Gun free Zones. I believe that's because people are soft targets. A shooter knows he has between 5 and 10 minutes to do his bad things before the cops arrive. Others I would like to see studies on is how many gun show sales are to bad guys. I really don't think bad guys buy guns at gun shows. they are pricey there and there are a ton of cops around. Not a place I'd expect to find people wanted by the law at. The other thing people don't like to admit that none of the mass shootings would have been prevented by tighter background checks. Until its done in a way that a person being treated for mental disorders no longer has his/her privacy and can be placed on a list, it wont do much. Now for my personnel favorite these days. The "No Fly List" I cant believe anyone liberal or not are willing to give up there constitutional rights to Due Process. You see that is exactly what preventing a person from buying a gun is doing when that person hasn't been charged or convicted of ANY crimes. You can end up on that list just for flying to a country to board a cruise ship and take a cruise with your family because a one way ticket to some countries is a one way ticket to the no fly list.
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google