Gun Violence Facts for 2012

http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



This is a pretty good summary about what is known and what is in dispute about gun control/violence.

I found this to be a rather mealy mouthed analysis. After reading it, I can only conclude that the intent of the author was to attempt to baffle readers with bs rather than to clarify.



I see this all the time from people that cannot make a strong case so they try to muddy the waters as much as they can to make it more difficult for apposing views.



The article is titled gun violence facts but it then pretends to be unable to establish many relevant facts at all. Then after not being able to establish facts, makes conclusions anyway. The few facts that it does possess are marginalized by the writer using opinions from unrelated and irrelevant sources.



My opinion is that for anyone interested in studying the facts, this article is a complete waste of time. It pretends to be an unbiased analysis of facts but it is clearly anything but.

On another note, this administration thinks that Americans with handguns are dangerous but nuclear Iran and North Korea are safe.

I hate the term "gun violence." There's violence and then there's not violence. I've never seen stats about blade violence or blunt object violence.

Schmoe wrote:
I hate the term "gun violence." There's violence and then there's not violence. I've never seen stats about blade violence or blunt object violence.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls



My favorite is this stat. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl15.xls Justifiable homicides by weapon--meaning killing someone during the commission of a felony in self-defense or defense of others. It appears that the baseball bat is not nearly as effective as the handgun. Even though the shot gun is probably most effective, it is not used nearly as much as a handgun--probably because people don't conceal carry shotguns. I'm also guessing most people are loading it with bird shot, which would not be nearly as effective as loading it with double aut buck or deer slugs.



It is also interesting to note, at least by my count, that more people were murdered in 2010 by hands, feet, pushing, etc. than by rifles (which would include assault rifles) to the tune of 745 deaths vs. 358 deaths. I guess we need to ban hands and feet and not worry so much about assault rifles.

Schmoe wrote:
I hate the term "gun violence." There's violence and then there's not violence. I've never seen stats about blade violence or blunt object violence.

Something like "hate crimes". At the time Mathew Shepard was tortured and killed in Wyoming there was a kid tortured and killed here. The Shepard incident got national air time and a lot of it. I don't even remember the kid killed here. I guess there was no hate involved, just your routine torture/murder.

tww wrote:
I see this all the time from people that cannot make a strong case so they try to muddy the waters as much as they can to make it more difficult for apposing views.



The article is titled gun violence facts but it then pretends to be unable to establish many relevant facts at all. Then after not being able to establish facts, makes conclusions anyway. The few facts that it does possess are marginalized by the writer using opinions from unrelated and irrelevant sources.

I hate to be the one defending factcheck.org because they usually skew liberal and make conclusions without establishing facts like you said. But I don't think an analysis that muddies the water is as useless as you seem to believe. I hope we can all agree that full military-grade grade weapons should be controlled/limited for civilians. And I hope we all agree here that taking away guns altogether is extremely problematic as well. In a perfect world either one of those options would be fine, but the spectrum of humanity we have to deal with makes both inviable. An imperfect world means that violence and tyranny are both related to and not related to access to weapons, and until we can address the underpinning forces, there has to be a debate to keep the two in check. Is there is an ideal balance that minimizes the problems? I believe there is, somewhere. But until we find that, I personally find something that acknowledges the conflicted nature of the issue refreshing.



By the way, if you like articles that present a strong case then this one is pretty awesome:

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

He doesn't address the underpinning forces I talked about but makes a pretty good argument for why MORE regulation than we already have is unnecessary and detrimental.

Sammich wrote:
I hope we can all agree that full military-grade grade weapons should be controlled/limited for civilians.

Well, I'm one who doesn't agree with this statement.

BroncoBot wrote:

I hope we can all agree that full military-grade grade weapons should be controlled/limited for civilians.

Well, I'm one who doesn't agree with this statement.

Ditto. The 2nd amendment is protecting military grade weapons.

tww wrote:

Sammich wrote:
I hope we can all agree that full military-grade grade weapons should be controlled/limited for civilians.

Well, I'm one who doesn't agree with this statement.

Ditto. The 2nd amendment is protecting military grade weapons.

I'm with Sammich and disagree with this statement. The second amendment does not grant my neighbor a right to have grenade launchers.

Not sure what you guys are thinking when you say military grade weapons, but there's no way you don't have a line somewhere in that allowance. Do you want your mentally disturbed neighbor down the street to have, as BoiseBYU says, grenade launchers? Access to nuclear weapons? Even if you support fully automatic weapons (which I don't, but that's fine if you do), you're just as crazy as the guys people want to keep these weapons away from if you're okay with absolutely everything being legally accessible. You're acting like there's no room for debate on where the line should be on this issue, but there unquestionably IS a line.

Sammich wrote:
Not sure what you guys are thinking when you say military grade weapons, but there's no way you don't have a line somewhere in that allowance. Do you want your mentally disturbed neighbor down the street to have, as BoiseBYU says, grenade launchers? Access to nuclear weapons? Even if you support fully automatic weapons (which I don't, but that's fine if you do), you're just as crazy as the guys people want to keep these weapons away from if you're okay with absolutely everything being legally accessible. You're acting like there's no room for debate on where the line should be on this issue, but there unquestionably IS a line.

Do i want my mentally disturbed neighbor to have access to grenade launchers... no. Do I think this justifies a federal ban on such weapons. No again. If he's competent enough to know how to use a grenade launcher, he can probably just throw together some chemicals and blow up my house fairly easily. If we can trust our government with stockpiles of nuclear weapons, I don't see why citizens can't handle a few as well. Do I support fully automatic weapons. Indeed.



Maybe I am that crazy neighbor down the street. :evil:

BroncoBot wrote:
Do i want my mentally disturbed neighbor to have access to grenade launchers... no. Do I think this justifies a federal ban on such weapons. No again. If he's competent enough to know how to use a grenade launcher, he can probably just throw together some chemicals and blow up my house fairly easily. If we can trust our government with stockpiles of nuclear weapons, I don't see why citizens can't handle a few as well. Do I support fully automatic weapons. Indeed.



Maybe I am that crazy neighbor down the street. :evil:

There are two major justifications for the second amendment:

1. So we can protect ourselves from attackers

2. So we can protect ourselves from government



Things like grenade launchers create a conflict between the first purpose and the second. Yes, more powerful weaponry would give us a greater chance if there was a civil war with the government. But that more powerful weaponry also diminishes the ability to accomplish the first goal. Splash damage from a single firefight could put as many people in danger as the hero is trying to protect, regardless as to who is wielding the weapon. This same thing is true of fully automatic weapons, but less so which is why I think it's a grey area. Remember we are talking about civilian armament, not armed militias. There might be an argument for organized militias to have access to such things, but that would require its own restrictions of use and control. And mixing chemicals to make explosives is not the same thing as going to a store and buying something that is ready-made for destruction at distance.

One more thing about the second goal: it's a good thing to defend on principle, but I would be careful not to take it too far and put disproportionate power into the hands of a minority as such weapons are made to do. History shows us that civilian uprisings do not always favor the just and righteous. Some limitations on weapons means a war would have to be a popular cause. I know people hate checks and balances but when it comes to governmental change (even at the hands of the people) they are a good thing.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Sammich wrote:
One more thing about the second goal: it's a good thing to defend on principle, but I would be careful not to take it too far and put disproportionate power into the hands of a minority as such weapons are made to do. History shows us that civilian uprisings do not always favor the just and righteous. Some limitations on weapons means a war would have to be a popular cause. I know people hate checks and balances but when it comes to governmental change (even at the hands of the people) they are a good thing.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Checks and balances were always (at least in the founders view) meant to limit government, not the people

BroncoBot wrote:
Checks and balances were always (at least in the founders view) meant to limit government, not the people

Not necessarily true in every case. The electoral college was designed to balance the power of popular vote against regional votes so that important economic interests weren't overbalanced by groups of hungry people in cities and the like.

The founders wanted to avoid tyranny, not just governmental power. And tyranny is tyranny, even if it's coming from the people.

The Electoral College is awful and should die.

I disagree. Besides, you guys are missing the point to address a sidenote.

Sammich wrote:
I disagree. Besides, you guys are missing the point to address a sidenote.

I know that my comment is completely tangential, but the fact that my vote counts far less than a person's in Florida or California is ridiculous.

Schmoe wrote:

I disagree. Besides, you guys are missing the point to address a sidenote.

I know that my comment is completely tangential, but the fact that my vote counts far less than a person's in Florida or California is ridiculous.

Well, here are some good articles on that tangent. I think the point of most of these is that your vote is always going to be overshadowed by people in Florida and California, and the Electoral college actually diminishes and balances that effect.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/11/the-electoral-college-enlightened-democracy


http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/keep-the-electoral-college/

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/why_the_electoral_college_matt.html

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/theres-no-good-reason-to-get-rid-of-the-electoral-college/

(No, I didn't look those up just now, I had them in an e-mail from my wife. We had an argument this year about the value of the EC; she was for, I was against. As you can see, she persuaded me.)