Subscribe | Krugman, & The NRA (No Requirements @ All)
OBAMA, EXCHANGE RATES & CHINA
China isn’t a true ally of the US, but is dependent upon a strong US consumer base for its exports. Paul Krugman explains what Obama should tell the Chinese behind closed doors. The Fed’s commitment to keeping interest rates low is the right move. A stronger dollar would mean little if we go into a double dip recession and a weak dollar is good for our exports (not so much for an overseas vacation this summer, if that’s what you had in mind).
THE NRA: MORE MONEY FOR THEM, MORE PROBLEMS FOR THE REST OF US
One of the biggest facts that puts the lie to the NRA’s claim that it wants only law-abiding citizens to have guns is its opposition to closing the gun show loophole, the loophole in the law that allows people with a criminal record or serious psychiatric history to buy guns without a background check at gun shows. The NRA: No Requirements @ All…
Because people seem to be acting like living in America today means putting up with seeing innocents killed routinely in mass numbers, it’s time to remember what family members of Virginia Tech victims had to say:
Want more proof of the evil of the NRA: try to find a deer hunter who needs a Streetsweeper to take down a buck or a homeowner who expects to be taking on dozens of burglers tonight with his AK-47. If you find such folks (and they’re out there), refer them to a good psychiatrist (but wait until they’re not carrying in case they take offense)…
At the risk of piling on, there’s also the NRA’s opposition to banning cop killer bullets and cop-killer handguns like the one purchased at Guns Galore and used in the Ft. Hood killing spree. Police officers wear bullet proof vests, but the kind folks at the NRA (and their wholly owned subsidiary, the GOP) are more than happy to help struggling criminal enterprises with this vexing problem.
THE HOUSE WINS
An Economic Policy Institute analysis concludes that the House health reform bill has the best employer mandate.
KEY DISTINCTION: MODERATES vs. INDEPENDENTS
Zogby International makes a great point here! Remember this in assessing any future polling and/or political debates – it’s helpful no matter what your political persuasion. Moderates are politically in between liberals and conservatives. Independents are 2/3rds “moderate” on policy, but there are a significant number of liberals and conservatives among independents and they skew 2:1 conservative. Often, the terms are (wrongly) used interchangeably.
One of the biggest facts that puts the lie to the fact that gun banners are after anything other than to advance their agenda of control at any price is the fact that they feel the need to resort to bald-faced lies to make their points.
It is illegal for anyone to sell a firearm to a prohibited person and it is illegal for a prohibited person to as much as touch a firearm….whether at a gun show, in someone’s garage or out of the back of a car.
There is no loophole in the law that makes such acts legal at gun shows or anywhere else.
What relevance does the opinion of victims of Virginia Tech have to do with laws pertaining to the sale of firearms that had nothing to do with the tragedy that they endured? The loophole (and this actually WAS a loophole in the law) that allowed the perpetrator of Virginia Tech to pass the background checks that WERE conducted when he purchased his guns at ESTABLISHED storefronts, has already been closed.
The Virginia Tech victims are more than within their rights to be activists for any bill, resolution or proposal that they choose, but their status as victims grants them no special insight or authority into the “gun show” issue than anyone else. The fact that you imply that they have some sort of moral authority over this subject only demonstrates the anti-gun side’s willingness to callously exploit the misfortune of others to forward their political agenda. We call this “dancing in the blood of innocent victims”…a practice at which you are apparently well-versed.
There has never, to my knowledge, been a documented case of a police officer in the United States being killed by an FN Five-seveN. Officer Munley would have been the first and probably owes her life to the fact that the perpetrator at Fort Hood didn’t choose to use a more effective weapon…like the .357 magnum that he was also carrying.
Furthermore, there is no such thing as a “cop-killer handgun”. The gun is just a compartment to contain the expanding gases and direct the projectile down the tube that stabilizes it. It is the properties of the ammunition that determine penetration and energy. The ammunition for the FN Five-seveN that is capable of penetrating light body armor is not available for purchase by civilians. It is only available to police and military…which, by the way, in the US don’t use it because it is simply not sufficiently effective.
The fact that you have to mislead, misdirect, obfuscate and flat out lie to make your points demonstrates perfectly why the citizen-control lobby in this country is failing. The truth is simply not on your side.
Thanks for the comment Sailor Curt,
It’s good to have passion for an issue, but your anger isn’t over the anyone misleading anyone. It’s that you love guns and people on my side publicize facts and make arguments you don’t want people to hear. I have no problem with law enforcement, the military, and hunters having guns that are properly suited and confined to each of those roles. And I am definitely no pacifist. But guns are more than containers for expanding gases just like cars are more than containers for burning fuels. Who has them, how they are used and what features they have must be regulated or they will kill thousands of innocent people.
If family members of victims speak out, you (and the NRA) accuse people who give them a platform of “callously exploit(ing)” them. By your logic, anyone who advocates doing anything to prevent another 9/11 is exploiting those victims (especially if victims’ families are involved). So are rape victims who speak out for stricter sentencing or those who work to prevent child abuse. They have the motivation and courage to take on the issue. What is callous is to be indifferent to their suffering or to pretend that their stories can be dismissed. You speak of dancing in the blood of victims, but we’re not the ones making blood money off this issue – that’s the NRA (i.e., the gun manufacturers who are dancing all the way to the bank and for whom you carry water).
Unlike the gun industry, people on my side of this issue don’t have the money to buy politicians. My side saves lives, they sell guns.
And while it is illegal to sell a firearm to a prohibited person (by definition), it is not federally required that gun show sellers conduct background checks. That’s the point of the bill. What good is a law if you don’t take the time to enforce it? If I’m a bar owner, I could be liable to a DUI/DWI victim under dram shop laws if I don’t check and refuse to serve a drunk (depending on the jurisdiction). If I’m a pharmacist, I can’t give you certain drugs without checking the prescription. But if I’m a seller at a gun show, I CAN sell a gun to violent felon without checking. The bill would take off the blinders – that’s all.
And a gun or a bullet that can penetrate body armor IS by definition, a cop killer. If you know the history of this issue, you know that two decades ago, there was a rift between the NRA and law enforcement organizations over cop killer bullets. In fact, President George H.W. Bush terminated his NRA membership around that time.
You imply you want truth. Here are 10 truths:
1. In 2008, the U. S. homicide rate was 5.4 per 100,000 population (Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports, Crime in the United States, 2008, Table 1). Sixty-seven percent of homicides were committed with guns (FBI, full report here).
By comparison, in 2007, the homicide rate in Canada was 1.8 (Statistics Canada, Homicide Offences). Canada has stronger gun laws than the U. S. In Canada, 32 percent of homicides were committed with guns (Statistics Canada, Homicides by Method).
2. And this is been the case for decades. A study reported in The New England Journal of Medicine in 1988 of Seattle, WA and Vancouver, Canada found similar overall rates of criminal activity and assault, but the relative risk of death from homicide was 63 percent higher in Seattle. All of the excess risk was explained by a 5-fold higher risk of being murdered with a handgun in Seattle (Sloan, p. 1256).
3. US gunmakers supply the majority of the guns Mexican drug cartels are using to outgun law enforcement. 87% of firearms seized and traced by Mexican authorities in the last 5 years originated in the US, according to the June 2009 report to Congress on firearms trafficking by the Government Accountability Office. Read it here.
4. The US Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is the agency charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of injury and death from consumer products is legally prohibited from regulating firearms or ammunition. See Pub L. 94-284, Section 3(e), May 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 504 (1976).
5. The firearm death rate among US children 14 years and younger is over 11 times higher than the combined rate in 25 other industrialized countries according to a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1997 46:101-105).
6. Laws making it easier to carry concealed weapons do not decrease homicide rates and may increase suicide rates, according to a peer-reviewed study published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 1992 (327: 467-472).
7. A 1988 law banning the sale of “Saturday night specials” in Maryland was associated with reduced access to criminals for such guns and a 9% lower firearm homicide rate in the state from 1990-1998 than what would have been expected had there been no law. The study was reported in Injury Prevention 2001:7:184-189 and The American Journal of Epidemiology 2002:155:406-412.
8. The rest of the world gets it. Gun crime is extremely rare in Britain and handguns are completely illegal. After the Virginia Tech shooting spree, The Times of London (a fairly conservative paper) wrote an editorial stating in part “Why, we ask, do Americans continue to tolerate gun laws and a culture that seems to condemn thousands of innocents to death every year when presumably, thought restrictions, such as those in force in European countries, could reduce the number?” The same paper reported that, the year before Virginia Tech, Britain’s 46 homicides involving firearms was the lowest total since the late 1980s while New York City, with 8 million people compared to 53 million in England and Wales, recorded at least 579 homicides. As the Swedish daily Gotesborgs-Posten commented at the time: “What exactly triggered the massacre in Virginia is unclear but the fundamental reason is often the perpetrator’s psychological problems in combination with access to weapons.” Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard pushed through tough laws on gun ownership after on killing spree and has commented (as reported by MSNBC in 2007) “We took action to limit the availability of guns and we showed a national resolve that the gun culture that is such a negative in the United States wold never become a negative in our country.” Among 36 high income and upper middle income countries, the US has the highest overall gun mortality rate. The rate of gun mortality in the US is 8 times higher than in other high income countries, as was reported in tThe International Journal of Epidemiology in 1998 (27:211-214).
9. 71,334 attempted illegal gun purchases in the US were prevented by background checks in the year 2000 alone. 2.6% of all applicants were rejected that year, as reported by Public Agenda Online in March 2003. In other words, background checks work.
10. A 1976 law in Washington, DC virtually banning new handgun sales or ownership was associated with an approximately 25% decline in both gun homicides and suicides in the first 10 years following the law’s passage. There was no similar reduction in non-firearm homicide or suicide during the same time period. This study was reported in The New England Journal of Medicine, 1991: 325:1615-1620.
The truth is, in fact, on my side.
Please don’t presume to assign emotions to me. You are right that I’m passionate about this issue, but that doesn’t automatically make me angry.
My problem isn’t facts, my problem is facts that simply are not true.
Like the fallacy of the “gun show loophole” or that the FN Five-seveN is an “armor piercing handgun” regardless of the type of ammunition used in it.
Those are not “facts” that I fear being publicized, they are falsehoods. Period.
What’s interesting is that when the Virginia Tech families spoke out about the actual loophole that allowed the perpetrator of the Virginia Tech tragedy use to obtain his guns, the NRA, as well as Virginia state level gun rights organizations, supported the Governor’s actions and the legislation that closed it.
I have no doubt that many of the Virginia Tech families are very active in the gun control community as a result of their grief, as is their right. When it crosses over into exploitation is when their understandable grief is leveraged to evoke an emotional response; when their story is used to assign them some sort of unassailable moral authority over issues that have nothing to do with the tragedy they endured.
Your response clearly illustrates the tactic. Anyone who disagrees is OBVIOUSLY callous and cold-hearted because we don’t immediately defer to the wishes of the victims.
The fact is that the agenda that they are being exploited to further had nothing to do with Virginia Tech and their status as victims has no bearing on them. The calculated tactic of exploiting their grief to further that agenda is frankly disgusting.
And you are confused about the role of the NRA. The NRA is a not for profit organization that is supported through the donations and membership dues of its 5 million+ members. It does not represent the firearms industry, it represents the concerns of its members.
My side saves lives, they [the gun industry] sell guns.
Tell that to the disarmed victims in places like Washington DC, LA, Chicago etc, as they’re being robbed, raped and murdered at rates that are several times that of the rest of the nation.
And I’d think your side would have to actually have accomplished anything in the past decade or so to have any viable claim to have saved lives. Seems to me like you’re on a pretty impressive losing streak at the moment.
The provision in the law that provides for private citizens to sell their personally owned property without asking permission from the government (you know…sort of like that thing called “freedom”) is not a loophole. It is an intentional provision enacted to protect the privacy and property rights of citizens….and it has nothing to do with gun shows.
Actually, I think a better definition of “cop killer” would be a firearm that has actually ever been used to kill a cop.
You’re telling me that someone can force a handgun through a bullet resistant vest? I’d like to see that.
And we already discussed the fact (which you studiously ignored) that the ammunition for the FN Five-seveN that is capable of penetrating soft body armor is not sold to the public.
Continuing to insist that something is true when it clearly is not does not make it so.
And the “rift” of which you speak was a direct result of misinformation and hype.
You are aware, of course, that the sale of armor piercing handgun ammunition is illegal right? That’s WHY the FN Five-seveN loading that is capable of penetrating soft body armor is not available for sale to the general public.
You are further aware that the NRA SUPPORTED that legislation right?
What the NRA opposed was legislation based on Hollywood fantasy and hype that would have outlawed virtually ALL ammunition.
I’m not going to go into the details here because a quick google search will turn up reams of information on the myth of the “cop killer bullets”.
Hmmm. Mexico shares a border with us. Mexico has very strong gun control laws. I wonder why you didn’t include it in your little comparison?
Perhaps because Mexico’s homicide rate is several times higher than that of the US?
Comparisons between countries are meaningless on their face because of differences in societal mores, reporting criteria and environment. Not to mention the fact that when you include ALL industrialized nations in the comparison rather than cherry-picking only the ones that support your pre-ordained conclusions, it quickly becomes obvious that there is no discernible pattern between the strength of gun control laws and homicide rates.
A better analysis would be to look at the US homicide rates over time, compared with the state of gun control laws in the US over time. Look into that one and get back with me will you?
Oh heck, I’ll just save you some time: Gun control really took off in the US in the late ’60′s. Homicide and violent crime rates began to climb at about that same time. Rates peaked in 1991 and have been fairly steadily falling ever since…even though during that time, gun control laws have been increasingly relaxed and gun ownership has been steadily climbing.
Hmmm.
US gunmakers supply the majority of the guns Mexican drug cartels are using to outgun law enforcement.
Another lie. Yes, a large percentage of the guns turned over to the ATF for tracing by the Mexican government have been traced to the US…but only a tiny percentage were turned over; conveniently, those guns that they already were fairly certain originated in the US. The trace statistics to not constitute a representative, random sample of crime guns recovered in Mexico and, therefore, drawing sweeping conclusions from the small number that were traced is patently fallacious.
In fact, the Mexican drug cartels prefer machine guns, grenade launchers and other military weaponry that cannot be purchased from civilian sources in the US. Most likely those military weapons were obtained from the tens of thousands of Mexican military members that defect to the cartels every year or are smuggled in from South America where they are readily and cheaply available.
As I previously stated, cross-country comparisons mean nothing as there are too many other factors at work, and reporting standards vary so wildly. For example, in Britain, a death is not reported as a homicide unless there was a conviction. In the US, a death is reported as a homicide as soon as it is determined that the victim died at the hand of another…even when the death was a result of self-defense or legal intervention.
Britain had a very low homicide rate BEFORE banning guns and it has been rising steadily ever since. They are no clamoring for knife control laws because violent knife crime has gotten so far out of hand. Britain has the ignominious honor of being named the most violent country in Europe and their violent crime rate is four times that of the US.
I could go on but I’m tired and I’ve had enough. Each and every one of your supporting arguments can be easily refuted or undermined and the fact that I pointed out at least three blatant falsehoods in your points demonstrates your lack of credibility from the outset.
The fact is that gun control cannot be demonstrated to reduce crime. No credible study to date has been able to link any gun control measure with reductions in crime. But that doesn’t matter to gun control proponents because it’s not about crime.
It’s not even about guns.
It’s about control.
Sure, you use “dancing in blood” and throw around labels like “distortions” , “lies” and “misleading”, but you’re not angry. When I see some loser turn into a monster take out his frustrations on soldiers at Ft. Hood, women at a Pennsylvania health club, high school kids in Colorado or anywhere else, I admit I get angry because I know we can do better to stop this…but our leaders do nothing and it keeps happening.
The studies I cite are in peer-reviewed journals and I’ve avoided studies funded by the Brady Campaign or industry groups for obvious reasons. The New England Journal of Medicine, the CDC, the FBI, the GAO and the journals of epidemiology are legitimate sources. You won’t find non-industry funded studies in peer reviewed journals that can match what I’ve produced.
“No credible study” — if all those sources aren’t credible, nothing is credible. Experts reasonably rely on them for information about medicine, epidemics and public health and I presume you have no objection to that. It’s only when they publish studies you don’t like that you make a blanket assertion that all these studies are flawed (and there are more). Take it up with the journals, prove them wrong. That’s how the scientific process works whether it’s social science or hard science (and both come into play here).
I’ve changed my views on a number of issues based on new information (death penalty, abortion, free trade, maybe Afghanistan) and if it turns out that being armed to the teeth with weapons that don’t have safety features like trigger locks or more modern features make us safer, I’ll be right there with you. But right now, the state of the research is what it is. As far as I know neither the epidemiological journals nor The New England Journal nor the government agencies have retracted their conclusions or published studies refuting what I’ve cited.
The NRA is a non-profit in the way the Chamber of Commerce is non-profit. That doesn’t make it a credible source of information or divorce it from the strong influence of the gun industry. And it isn’t about the number of members, it’s about the “big guns” so to speak – by that I mean the major supporters.
A politician may have hundreds of supporters, but it’s the major supporters who gain his or her attention. It works the same way with non-profit advocacy groups. That’s the reason the corporate influence is what drives the NRA, not the rank and file membership.
You throw in Mexico as if it supports your view, but it’s the flood from Texas that creates part of the problem as you fairly admit. This is a transnational problem.
And tell the law enforcement organizations who were appalled at the NRA stance on “cop-killer bullets” that such ammunition is a myth. The NRA infuriated a lot of them when they took that stance in the late 1980s.
If Britain were the only example you’d have a point and I certainly agree that gun control is not the only factor influencing violence in a society or crime rates in general. But the studies look at tens of high and middle-income countries as well as effects in specific states and locations.
Homicide rates have been in general decline, but they’re still way above international norms and the number of mass shootings is unparalleled in developed nations. Furthermore, one reason for that is the cultural rejection of gun ownership. Although there are more guns out there than before, the rate of gun ownership is lower than it was pre-1960. People who do own guns tend to have more than people who owned guns in the early 1900s, but a lower percentage of people own them.
Beyond that, we now have modern weaponry that is capable of inflicting far more death and injury on a mass scale than was the case pre-1960. We’re not talking about my grandfather’s .22 anymore.
You say it’s not about guns, but about control. Controlling what? And where do you draw the line on the continuum? Should passengers without criminal records be permitted to carry loaded guns onto airplanes? Does the right keep and bear arms include dirty bombs, surface to air missiles, grenades, streetsweepers or anthrax?
For me, it’s about keeping innocent people safe and secure.
You admit that you’re angry and project your feelings onto me. Hmmm.
I wonder what other personal feelings or traits you project onto others.
Peer reviewed does not equate to unbiased or even accurate. Both The New England Journal of Medicine and the CDC are notorious for their blatant anti-gun bias, and the inaccuracy of their “studies” as a result.
I pointed out problems in those studies, but you simply ignore my criticisms as if they didn’t exist. That seems to be your MO. If you can’t refute it, you appeal to authority and ignore it. If you want a more credible source than myself, try the writings of Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist at Florida State University, or Dave Kopel, Director of Research for the Independence Institute…among many others.
And you ignore the fact that the CDC itself conducted a study wherein it found “insufficient evidence” that any gun control measure had had any effect on crime whatsoever…of course, the conclusion of the study was that “more study is needed” because the anti-gun CDC couldn’t just concede that decades of failed gun control is sufficient evidence that gun control doesn’t work.
You throw in Mexico as if it supports your view, but it’s the flood from Texas that creates part of the problem as you fairly admit. This is a transnational problem.
The irony of that statement is almost palpable.
Tell me: why doesn’t Canada share in this “transnational problem?” Mexico’s gun control laws are even stronger than Canada’s. Canada shares a border with the US that is even less protected and more porous than the southern one. By all rights, if the problem in Mexico is caused by lax US gun laws, then Canada should have even more gun crime than Mexico.
Or, conversely, perhaps the low homicide rates in Canada are caused by the easy availability of guns in the US and the porous, virtually unprotected border between the countries?
Unless it really doesn’t have much to do with the laws of the US or the relative amount of gun control in those countries at all, and has more to do with other sociological factors.
Which PROVES MY POINT.
Yes, homicide rates are in general decline, while gun ownership and use is on the increase, which patently demonstrates that there is no correlation between the two. I remember back when the “shall issue” concealed carry laws were being introduced and debated in state legislatures. The prognostications of “blood in the streets” and “shootouts over parking spaces” were loud and long. Access to guns by non-criminals does not make more criminals. Criminals can now, always have been able to, and always will be able to get guns. All allowing non-criminals easy access to guns does is allow them to defend themselves against those criminals and occasionally give pause to a criminal contemplating a crime. And so the homicide and violent crime rates continue to decrease…even in the face of a weakening economy.
one reason for that is the cultural rejection of gun ownership.
Which is, of course, supported by the polls that show some three quarters of the population support the individual right to keep and bear arms.
Or the Gallup gun control polls which show that support for a handgun ban has decreased from 60% in 1959 to 29% last year (bottom of the page).
And as far as lethality of guns…your grandfather must be much older than mine…because machine guns were invented in the late 1800′s, early 1900′s. The first “assault rifle” as it is defined today by the military (a light, medium powered, medium range rifle capable of fully automatic fire), was introduced by the Germans in World War II…well before the ’60′s.
The perennial boogey-man of the anti-gun crowd, the AK-47 was introduced in…wait for it…1947 (did you think the “47″ was just a model number?).
The AR-15 was introduced in 1959. Granted, they weren’t all that popular back then…even though many of the restrictions that exist on their sale today didn’t exist at that time. Shooters of the day preferred more powerful loadings like the venerable .30-06, 7mm Mauser, .303 British and .308 rather than the lower powered ammunition used by “assault rifles”.
But, of course, actual historical facts don’t fit the narrative of the gun control crowd so the myth of “high powered assault weapons” was born. What’s really ironic is that much of the demand for these weapons in the criminal world is driven by the hype of the anti-gunners and media (but I repeat myself) about them. Criminals, who typically don’t know much about guns, buy into the media hype about them being powerful and dangerous and, of course, they want powerful and dangerous, so the claim that these weapons are “preferred by criminals” becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The FN Five-seveN has ballistics very similar to the rimfire .22 WMR cartridge. It produces about half the muzzle energy of a .45acp and a bit less than half that of the other handgun he was carrying, the .357 magnum. For that reason the FN Five-seveN is not a very popular handgun in the US, as much more effective firearms are available at lower cost. It’s actually a good thing that the Fort Hood shooter bought into the hype or many of those wounded would very possibly be dead instead…including the brave police officer who put herself in harm’s way to protect the defenseless solders and was shot down as a result.
But I digress.
Controlling what? Controlling people of course.
That’s what authoritarians the world over always want to do. It’s not enough for you to simply not own guns if you don’t like them, but you must also foist your opinions off on everyone else…for our own good and all that.
“If one word rings out, and echoes around the world, when America is mentioned, that word is Freedom. But what does freedom mean?
It means that hundreds of millions of ordinary human beings live their lives as they see fit — regardless of what their betters think. That is fine, unless you see yourself as one of their betters…”
–Thomas Sowell
You’re about keeping innocent people safe and secure? What about the estimated 2.5 million people every year who defend themselves with guns? Their safety and security don’t count? Why not?
As Britain has found, attempting to remove guns from society not only doesn’t work (the criminals still have no problem getting them…even on a relatively small island), it dramatically increases the incidence of non-gun violent crime because the typical violent criminal…young, fit males…have no need to fear resistance from their potential victims…the elderly, the weak, the female, the infirm.
You assess the costs of gun ownership and access in the US, in the form of the rare instance of “mass murder” (that inevitably occurs in a “gun free zone” wherein the victims are unable to defend themselves, and which attack is inevitably ended either at the first sign of armed resistance, or by armed people taking down the perpetrator) and the high overall homicide rate (of which according to the FBI some 85% are criminals killing other criminals and, which, in the remainder, includes “justifiable homicide” aka self defense), while ignoring the benefits in the form of the millions of people every year who defend themselves with firearms and the further millions of crimes that don’t occur every year just as a result of the threat that the potential criminal may meet armed resistance.
Anything can be made to look detrimental to society when only the costs are included in the formula and the benefits are ignored. If you TRULY cared about the safety and security of innocent people, those benefits, in my humble opinion, would be of as much import as the costs. The fact that you ignore them tells me that safety and security is not your purpose, but your rationalization.
“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.”
— H.L. Mencken
POINTS
ANGER
It’s not projection when you use the accusatory, personal, and blood-drenched language you use. It’s a fair conclusion. If you violated the rules of this forum (I don’t publish heavy profanity, racist, sexist or pornographic material), or if I was seriously angry with you, I wouldn’t have published your critical and highly personal comments in the first place – unedited.
What I said was that I get angry when I see these evil gun-toting lunatics engage in mass killings. Because I hate that, I look for the best way to stop it regardless of where research and logic takes me. Debate does not anger me nor am I angry when searching for answers.
RESEARCH
The odds of successfully defending yourself with a gun are far outweighed by the odds of your gun being used by a criminal to commit a gun crime. Those odds are also outweighed by the odds of someone in the household (sometimes children) accidentally shooting themselves. I could cite you the sources on this, but I’d be wasting my time since you’re not swayed by the top research journals in the country and would prefer to rely on research you like from a libertarian think tank, a gun-industry funded piece of propaganda or the perennial “best party school” in the nation, FSU.
Why cite the New England Journal of Medicine, the top epidemiological journals or the CDC? I’m sure there are some good researchers at FSU, but the state of expert knowledge is clearly on my side and I didn’t even take the time to publish all of the top studies — your dismissal of the sources experts most rely upon prove that it would have been a wasted effort anyway. You haven’t refuted the studies cited or shown how they were biased or flawed. I’ll leave it at that.
CLARIFICATION
That said, I haven’t said homeowners & hunters should be prohibited from owning guns and don’t support a blanket ban. My proposals on this site have been more modest, as were those in the videos posted, to which you initially objected.
HISTORY
If you want to ban all but machine guns from the 1800s, be my guest. You know that was a different era and today’s weaponry is dramatically different. And the guns our grandfathers owned were by and large hunting rifles and shotguns.
CONTROLLING WHAT?
It’s not about controlling people, it’s about controlling crime. People owned plenty of AK-47s and other firearms in Iraq, but that didn’t overthrow the Saddam’s authoritarian regime. Some of the nations with some of the strictest gun laws (Canada, many nations in Europe) are some of the least authoritarian regimes. There is no correlation.
An e-mailier made the same point saying that “if the gov’t went crazy” we’d need our guns. If the government went crazy (it did from 2001-January 19th 2009), do you think they’d obey the restriction on using the military domestically? And how many guns would you need to defeat the US military and US law enforcement on US soil? This is militia-man fantasy talk.
It’s a libertarian position that has the natural flaw of all libertarian arguments. In focusing on controlling government power, it ignores corporate power (NRA & gun manufacturers in this case) or the externalities of actions individuals take that harm other people (mass shootings in this case). Slavery was a private abuse that had to be abolished by government power for people to be free.
Zoning laws prevent someone from putting a toxic waste dump or fertilizer plant next to my house – glad they do – thanks to my local government.
And it’s not “the government”, it’s “self government” because we are a democratic republic.
MEXICO
Drug money fuels the cartels, which fight Mexican law enforcement in large part with firearms purchased in the US. Enforce the law, tighten the border, and defund the cartels and you fix the problem. But you can’t enforce the law when you’re outgunned by the cartels…so yes, the presence and availability of guns from outside sources (you also cited other non-US sources) is the problem. You can’t enforce gun laws if you don’t have the physical power to do so — that’s the problem in Mexico. Your own logic takes you there if you follow it.
DRAW THE LINE
And you never answered my question. Where do you draw the line? Do you have a line? Anything goes — dirty bombs, rocket launchers, mines in your laws? — All you need is no criminal record? What do you say?
QUOTE YOU BACK:
In one sense, you’re right about the CDC, NEJM, & other top peer reviewed journals…
“The facts have a known liberal bias.” — Stephen Colbert
MOVING ON SOON
I’ve enjoyed the debate – not much more to say. I’ll rely on the research, you rely on your technical knowledge of firearm mechanics (which I did find to be an enlightening perspective) and neither will convince the other… but if you doubt my intentions to the point where nothing I say makes a difference, I see little reason to continue the debate. I don’t only write on guns and have pressing work-related matters to address. I’ll check back here one more time to see if you’ve responded and then I’ll leave the thread.
We just keep drifting farther afield because every time I make a point you can’t refute you…oh look! A Pony!.
I did refute the studies you cited.
The data comparing nations isn’t viable because of difference in reporting criteria and they don’t control for sociological conditions, and they cherry pick which countries to compare in order to reach the conclusions they want to reach.
A prime example is your comparisons of US and Canada’s crime rates while ignoring Mexico.
You mention the drug trade and imply that it exempts Mexico from the same standards as Canada, as if the drug trade in and of itself is not one of the sociological conditions driving the violence there.
Again, THAT’S THE POINT. It’s not the availability of guns in the US that’s the problem. It is the sociological conditions in Mexico that are the problem…including the drug trade, corrupt, ineffective government, high unemployment, etc etc etc. You point out those differences in sociological conditions and insist that they somehow disprove MY point, unable to even grasp the concept that they are the very thing that completely gives lie to YOURS.
I mentioned that the “majority of crime guns in Mexico” canard is a fallacy and why.
You brought up Britain in comparison to the US, I mentioned that their crime rate, including gun homicide, has been increasing since their bans, not decreasing.
Etc.
I know exactly which study you’re relying on when you make the claim that “The odds of successfully defending yourself with a gun are far outweighed by the odds of your gun being used by a criminal to commit a gun crime.”
You’re relying on the Kellermann study which has been thoroughly debunked so many times that it’s amazing it still raises it’s ugly head from time to time.
The Kellermann study was the victim of selection bias. He studied people who had been killed by guns and “discovered” that many of them owned guns. He didn’t consider the possibility that the REASON they owned guns is because they were in fear for their lives for one reason or another. He assumed that the guns were the driver of the violence, and didn’t even entertain the possibility that the potential for violence was the driver of their gun ownership. Especially considering that the victims in most of the cases that he studied were criminals.
When looking at the defensive gun use side, he failed to consider any defensive use of firearms that did not result in a death. The millions of times per hear that people use firearms to defend themselves but no shots were fired, and no one was killed weren’t even considered in his study, because all he looked at were homicides.
It was total and complete bunk. You can choose to rely on “peer reviewed studies” regardless of their demonstrable veracity (or, more accurately, lack thereof) like a good little automaton, or you can evaluate the study critically on it’s merits.
Those odds are also outweighed by the odds of someone in the household (sometimes children) accidentally shooting themselves.
Really? Because according to the CDC that you place so much faith in, in the year 2006, the last year they have data in their WISQARS statistics system, there were 642 accidental firearms deaths in the United States. That includes hunting accidents so not all of them happened “in the home”. Of those 642 accidental firearms deaths, 102 of them were children aged under 18.
That hardly seems like it outweighs the “odds” of the up to 2.5 million times guns are used in self defense every year.
For reference purposes, in the same year, there were 20,823 accidental falling deaths, of which 130 were children. There were 3,579 accidental drownings, of which 934 were children and there were 27,531 accidental poisoning deaths, of which 326 were children.
It seems to me if you’re really concerned about safety, you’d be advocating for mandatory safe storage laws for household chemicals and bathtubs rather than worrying about guns.
I didn’t “initially object to” any proposals. I objected to the presentation of misleading information as factual and I objected to the invocation of victims of Virginia Tech as “moral authority” over a subject that had nothing to do with Virginia Tech.
Every comment since then has been directed at countering your attempts to cloud the subject, to avoid addressing my substantive points by appealing to authority and to…Oh Look!…A Pony!
You in fact did not “debunk” anything, you made an argument that collapses on itself for several reasons.
Your argument continues to collapse in on itself.
1. On the one hand, you complain that the international studies don’t control for “sociological conditions” and on the other that they “cherry pick” their countries. One of the studies covered 25 high income industrialized countries and another covered 36 middle and high income countries. The reason they didn’t compare the US to a nation like Somalia are the very sociological differences you mention. You can’t have it both ways.
2. Mexico — you totally miss the point. It doesn’t MATTER what laws (gun or otherwise) are on the books if they are not or cannot be enforced. You point this out yourself – “drug trade, corrupt, ineffective government, high unemployment”. And where do (as you admit) a significant number of the guns used in the “drug trade” and used to make government “ineffective” against it come from?
3. UK – One of your repeated points is that the UK’s homicide rate is rising, as if the overall rate compared with the US wasn’t a blip per hundred thousand. But even your premise is flawed as the rate isn’t “increasing.” The UK’s homicide rate is the lowest it has been in twenty years even in the face of a recession.
4. The “citizen control lobby” in your first e-mail – you opened the barn door so ride your pony cowboy! I don’t mind a wide-ranging debate.
5. 2.5 million is absolutely ridiculous. Consider the number of criminal incidents per year, the number of gun owners in the US population, and how many would have had to actually use their guns to thwart the crime (which if they’re using their guns is at least an assault or a home invasion and should be reported), and you’ll find that the math doesn’t add up. Just look at the FBI crime stats and it’s obvious this isn’t a serious number. You know that, which is why you use the word “up to” — might as well be “up to 3 gazillion.”
6. You’re assuming reasons that favor you. That doesn’t debunk the K study (or other research that comes to a similar conclusion). What if they had guns because they were more prone to violence, more reckless or physically violent people, more likely to be threatened by other people they knew also owned guns? The overall odds are what they are and no one can do a psych evaluation on them, but you think you’re somehow nullifying the odds with blind speculation and pop psych.
7. Pony boy rides again! I didn’t bring up bathtubs and cleaning products, did I? A lot of the drowning accidents involve swimming pools rather than bathtubs – but making life safer for kids should be something that all of us embrace. Trivialize it if you want, but I take it seriously. And cleaning products, falls, swimming pools and bathtubs involve products used and actions taken (like climbing, which is interestingly correlated with falling) a lot more frequently than guns. The per use death rate and the potential for mass destruction is what counts, which is the reason the access to guns is an issue.
8. Reporting practices vary somewhat in some cases, but you haven’t shown how the US was overvalued over dozens of countries (not just a couple) in the studies nor denied that the homicide rate and gun crime rates are radically higher here (in fact, you’ve tacitly confirmed that).
9. You also didn’t answer my question (again). You don’t want to draw a line or define what “citizen control” you support. You’re either not willing to take on the extremists on your own side or you can’t bear to have your ideology tainted by a hint of pragmatism. Again, I’m no pacifist, but the overall downward trend in homicide rates is not trending downward substantially enough compared to other nations with similar “sociological conditions” to give Americans anywhere near the level of personal security citizens in those nations enjoy. Therefore, I would ban assault rifles, ban cop-killer ammo & weapons as law enforcement organizations advocate, require registration, require background checks for any sale, allow the CPSC to regulate as we regulate everything from cars to food processors, and require trigger locks and other safety features that technology now allows us to employ to make sure that no “prohibited person” (your term, not mine) fires the gun.
10. You ignored half the data I gave you. You’ve had plenty of chances to respond to it or produce your own studies from sources comparable NEJM, the top epidemiological journals, the CDC or other sources and you haven’t done it. You came back with “The Best Party School” (not sure they won this year, but they’re always up there!). If you had comparable evidentiary support, you would have produced it. But you don’t and you didn’t.
I’ve spent way too much time on this. Moving on.
1. Doesn’t even make sense. The claim of “cherry picking” and ignoring sociological factors go hand in hand. Why should Somalia be ignored? If the premise is that strict gun control reduces crime and lax control over guns causes it, then WHY are the countries that disprove the theory not included in the comparisons regardless of economic status and other factors?
Crime in countries that don’t support the “gun control = crime control” theory is caused by socioeconomic factors, but crime in the US is not? It is you who are trying to “have it both ways”.
2. Why are gun laws in Mexico less enforceable than anywhere else? That’s IS the point. Violent crime is not a symptom of lax gun laws…as Mexico demonstrates quite well. It is a symptom of a dysfunctional society. Again, you’re the one missing the point.
3. On paper, I’ll grant you that you have a point about Britain. There are plenty of accusations of them playing with the numbers to get the homicide rates down, but they can’t be substantiated, so I’ll just concede that point. Britain’s reported homicide rate has declined drastically in recent years. That does not address, however, the point that Britain’s homicide rate was a fraction of that of the US before they banned guns, and their violent crime rate has risen dramatically since doing so. The chances of being the victim of violent crime in Britain is several times higher than in the US.
The British don’t seem to have nearly as many gang bangers inclined to kill each other over turf as we do (which make up the majority of murders in the US by a huge margin), but their “everyday citizens” are at MUCH higher risk of being victimized by violent criminals on an every day basis.
4. Point taken.
5. I use the term “up to” because they are all, by necessity, estimates. the LOWEST estimate I’ve ever seen, from the National Crime Victimization Survey, is 106,000 per year. Still a significant number. The 2.5 Million number comes from a peer reviewed study by Dr. Gary Kleck.
Your convincing attempt to undermine Dr. Kleck’s credibility by slandering Florida State University notwithstanding (actually it was ranked #14 in the “Best Party Schools” Category by the Princeton Review…as well as being named one of the “Best Southeastern Colleges” and being included in the “Best 371 Colleges” in the nation by the same review)…the study wherein he reached the estimate of 2.5 million defensive gun uses has stood up to review and was even duplicated by the Department of Justice’s “National Institute of Justice” which verified Dr. Kleck’s results concluding a range of 1.5 to 3.1 million defensive gun uses per year.
Yes, I could just throw out some silly term like “3 gajillion”, but I prefer to use actual data rather than just pull out of my butt whatever I can make fit my narrative.
Even if you go with the low estimates of 106,000 per year, the benefits of gun ownership are still substantial and must be considered in any legitimate cost/benefit analysis.
6. I’m not assuming anything. Kellermann’s study has been debunked so many times by so many different people and so thoroughly that it’s laughable that anyone even continues to try to pretend that it’s credible.
7. I compared accidental firearms deaths with other mechanisms of accidental death to illustrate that your implication that firearms accidents somehow outweigh the benefits of defensive gun use is a fallacy. Accidental firearms deaths are actually relatively rare (and declining) in this country, especially considering the numbers of guns, the high rate of gun ownership and the large numbers of people from all walks of life who regularly participate in the shooting sports or carry firearms for defensive purposes on a daily basis.
8. And you tacitly confirm that the reporting criteria differs between countries. If the reporting criteria differs, the numbers don’t mean anything.
And even if the cross-country comparisons were reliable, they STILL don’t demonstrate anything conclusive about the efficacy of gun control laws, because gun control laws aren’t the only factor at work in homicide rates.
9. Your question was a false dichotomy. Your implication is that if I don’t agree with YOUR limits, then I’m advocating no limits at all.
Do you support a complete and total ban on guns? If not, why not? If some guns are bad, shouldn’t all of them be banned?
The fact is that the line is already well established. What I am opposed to is moving the line toward further, unnecessary restrictions that are bound to fail and will only set the stage for the next round of restrictions…especially when the rationalizations for those restrictions are based on misleading or false information.
When I start advocating laws to allow guns on commercial aircraft or legalize the private ownership of anthrax, then I’ll justify those positions. I’m not advocating those changes, so why should I even address it?
10. I didn’t ignore the data, I analyzed it and explained why it didn’t hold up to scrutiny. You have yet to rebut any of those points in any meaningful way…well, unless you consider maligning a respected University to be meaningful.
You keep threatening to “move on” and not respond further to this thread. If you actually follow up on that this time, I have one last thing I’d like to say:
I am passionate about these issues and sometimes my passion can come across as derision. Some of that arises from frustration over rebutting the same old arguments time and time and time again…as Mark Twain once said “The history of the race, and each individual’s experience, are thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.” Sometimes rebutting these fallacies and misleading “facts” in the various and sundry venues in which they pop up seems like playing “whack-a-mole”.
But through this entire thread you have been courteous and civil and have refrained from ad hominems and poo flinging. In fact, I’d have to admit that you’ve been more cordial than I have myself.
For that I extend my thanks.
I’ll give you the last substantive word in our debate (at least until Sen. Feinstein attempts to reinstate the assault weapons ban, at which point I’m sure we’ll go at it again). I really do refine my positions when I learn new information or face a worthy opponent – and that you are.
I know exactly where you’re coming from with your Twain paragraph. My attempts at a memorable line or the vigor of my criticism of politicians, corporations or big media can offend those who support the positions taken by those people or entities on given issues. None is intended.
I’ll check out your work, all the best, Carl