The "Gun control" farce

[2aguy]

Sowell is wrong again, as usual.

This fails as a straw man fallacy.

No one has presented any gun control measure as a 'panacea' for addressing all gun crimes, all gun violence, and all mass shootings; measures proposed are designed to address a specific issue or aspect of the problem and comport with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

In fact, 'liberals' accept current Second Amendment jurisprudence as settled and acknowledged case law, there are no measures proposed or advocated that would in any way 'restrict' citizens' access to guns, restrict the number of guns a citizen might possess, or limit citizens' access to ammunition.

“Statistics on murder are among the most widely available statistics, and among the most accurate, since no one ignores a dead body. With so many facts available from so many places and times, why is gun control still a heated issue? The short answer is that most gun control zealots do not even discuss the issue in terms of hard facts.”

This is a lie, the straw man Sowell has contrived and then attacks 'liberals' with, thus misrepresenting their position on the issue.

To advocate for necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures is not 'zealotry,' where the facts are indeed discussed and factored into the debate; such as the fact that there is no objective, documented evidence whatsoever in support of the notion that citizens carrying concealed firearms 'reduces' violent gun crime, or that the myth of 'gun free zones,' are 'responsible' for mass shootings.

The reason why gun control remains a heated issue is due to the fact that many on the right continue to use their lies as a partisan weapon against democrats, by contriving and propagating lies about democrats' position on the issue for some perceived partisan gain.

Sowell's lies are yet another example of that.

No one has presented any gun control measure as a 'panacea' for addressing all gun crimes, all gun violence, and all mass shootings; measures proposed are designed to address a specific issue or aspect of the problem and comport with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Actually, this is the lie….they do not offer any measure to address any actual gun crime….each one of their measures targets law abiding gun owners with new regulatory hurdles to jump through to simply own a gun, or bans a new type of model of gun through the trick of magazine capacity limits…….

And they all admit that their new measures including licensing gun owners, registering guns, and universal background checks would not have stopped one mass murder….and in fact would not stop one criminal from getting a gun…..

So…..your post is the lie……

And there is evidence that many shooters select gun free zones…I have posted that evidence many times…from the actual notes and journals of the actual shooters who specifically state they picked gun free zones…so when you refuse to acknowledge that you are also lying……

And there are over 9 studies that point to concealed carry reducing violent crime rates and specific examples in various cities where the crime rate has been reduced as their citizens carry guns for self defense….

And the leaders in the democrat party and their media allies have all at one point or another supported bans, confiscation or the Australian confiscation plan for guns….another lie on your part…

Sell your crap somewhere else…..

 

[2aguy]

States wh tougher gun laws have less gun crime that their gun nut counterpart states.

That is not true…….I have posted he articles that show the anti gun statements about this are a lie…...

 

[martybegan]

Sowell is wrong again, as usual.

This fails as a straw man fallacy.

No one has presented any gun control measure as a 'panacea' for addressing all gun crimes, all gun violence, and all mass shootings; measures proposed are designed to address a specific issue or aspect of the problem and comport with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

In fact, 'liberals' accept current Second Amendment jurisprudence as settled and acknowledged case law, there are no measures proposed or advocated that would in any way 'restrict' citizens' access to guns, restrict the number of guns a citizen might possess, or limit citizens' access to ammunition.

“Statistics on murder are among the most widely available statistics, and among the most accurate, since no one ignores a dead body. With so many facts available from so many places and times, why is gun control still a heated issue? The short answer is that most gun control zealots do not even discuss the issue in terms of hard facts.”

This is a lie, the straw man Sowell has contrived and then attacks 'liberals' with, thus misrepresenting their position on the issue.

To advocate for necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures is not 'zealotry,' where the facts are indeed discussed and factored into the debate; such as the fact that there is no objective, documented evidence whatsoever in support of the notion that citizens carrying concealed firearms 'reduces' violent gun crime, or that the myth of 'gun free zones,' are 'responsible' for mass shootings.

The reason why gun control remains a heated issue is due to the fact that many on the right continue to use their lies as a partisan weapon against democrats, by contriving and propagating lies about democrats' position on the issue for some perceived partisan gain.

Sowell's lies are yet another example of that.

So the 3-6 month wait and $1000 I would have to spend to get a pistol permit for home use is necessary, proper and constitutional regulations?

 

[martybegan]

States wh tougher gun laws have less gun crime that their gun nut counterpart states.

Only if you count suicides.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Sowell is wrong again, as usual.

This fails as a straw man fallacy.

No one has presented any gun control measure as a 'panacea' for addressing all gun crimes, all gun violence, and all mass shootings; measures proposed are designed to address a specific issue or aspect of the problem and comport with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

In fact, 'liberals' accept current Second Amendment jurisprudence as settled and acknowledged case law, there are no measures proposed or advocated that would in any way 'restrict' citizens' access to guns, restrict the number of guns a citizen might possess, or limit citizens' access to ammunition.

“Statistics on murder are among the most widely available statistics, and among the most accurate, since no one ignores a dead body. With so many facts available from so many places and times, why is gun control still a heated issue? The short answer is that most gun control zealots do not even discuss the issue in terms of hard facts.”

This is a lie, the straw man Sowell has contrived and then attacks 'liberals' with, thus misrepresenting their position on the issue.

To advocate for necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures is not 'zealotry,' where the facts are indeed discussed and factored into the debate; such as the fact that there is no objective, documented evidence whatsoever in support of the notion that citizens carrying concealed firearms 'reduces' violent gun crime, or that the myth of 'gun free zones,' are 'responsible' for mass shootings.

The reason why gun control remains a heated issue is due to the fact that many on the right continue to use their lies as a partisan weapon against democrats, by contriving and propagating lies about democrats' position on the issue for some perceived partisan gain.

Sowell's lies are yet another example of that.

So the 3-6 month wait and $1000 I would have to spend to get a pistol permit for home use is necessary, proper and constitutional regulations?

I'd like to see them try that for abortion procedures and watch all the libbies throw tantrums

 

[2aguy]

Sowell is wrong again, as usual.

This fails as a straw man fallacy.

No one has presented any gun control measure as a 'panacea' for addressing all gun crimes, all gun violence, and all mass shootings; measures proposed are designed to address a specific issue or aspect of the problem and comport with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

In fact, 'liberals' accept current Second Amendment jurisprudence as settled and acknowledged case law, there are no measures proposed or advocated that would in any way 'restrict' citizens' access to guns, restrict the number of guns a citizen might possess, or limit citizens' access to ammunition.

“Statistics on murder are among the most widely available statistics, and among the most accurate, since no one ignores a dead body. With so many facts available from so many places and times, why is gun control still a heated issue? The short answer is that most gun control zealots do not even discuss the issue in terms of hard facts.”

This is a lie, the straw man Sowell has contrived and then attacks 'liberals' with, thus misrepresenting their position on the issue.

To advocate for necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures is not 'zealotry,' where the facts are indeed discussed and factored into the debate; such as the fact that there is no objective, documented evidence whatsoever in support of the notion that citizens carrying concealed firearms 'reduces' violent gun crime, or that the myth of 'gun free zones,' are 'responsible' for mass shootings.

The reason why gun control remains a heated issue is due to the fact that many on the right continue to use their lies as a partisan weapon against democrats, by contriving and propagating lies about democrats' position on the issue for some perceived partisan gain.

Sowell's lies are yet another example of that.

So the 3-6 month wait and $1000 I would have to spend to get a pistol permit for home use is necessary, proper and constitutional regulations?

Don't worry….the politicians who passed those laws…are well protected by armed guards…and if they need a gun….they won't have to wait or pay that fee………that is for us and the other little people…..

 

[martybegan]

Sowell is wrong again, as usual.

This fails as a straw man fallacy.

No one has presented any gun control measure as a 'panacea' for addressing all gun crimes, all gun violence, and all mass shootings; measures proposed are designed to address a specific issue or aspect of the problem and comport with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

In fact, 'liberals' accept current Second Amendment jurisprudence as settled and acknowledged case law, there are no measures proposed or advocated that would in any way 'restrict' citizens' access to guns, restrict the number of guns a citizen might possess, or limit citizens' access to ammunition.

“Statistics on murder are among the most widely available statistics, and among the most accurate, since no one ignores a dead body. With so many facts available from so many places and times, why is gun control still a heated issue? The short answer is that most gun control zealots do not even discuss the issue in terms of hard facts.”

This is a lie, the straw man Sowell has contrived and then attacks 'liberals' with, thus misrepresenting their position on the issue.

To advocate for necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures is not 'zealotry,' where the facts are indeed discussed and factored into the debate; such as the fact that there is no objective, documented evidence whatsoever in support of the notion that citizens carrying concealed firearms 'reduces' violent gun crime, or that the myth of 'gun free zones,' are 'responsible' for mass shootings.

The reason why gun control remains a heated issue is due to the fact that many on the right continue to use their lies as a partisan weapon against democrats, by contriving and propagating lies about democrats' position on the issue for some perceived partisan gain.

Sowell's lies are yet another example of that.

So the 3-6 month wait and $1000 I would have to spend to get a pistol permit for home use is necessary, proper and constitutional regulations?

Don't worry….the politicians who passed those laws…are well protected by armed guards…and if they need a gun….they won't have to wait or pay that fee………that is for us and the other little people…..

Exactly, New York City is the king of the back door deal if you are connected.

 

[Rustic]

Sowell is wrong again, as usual.

This fails as a straw man fallacy.

No one has presented any gun control measure as a 'panacea' for addressing all gun crimes, all gun violence, and all mass shootings; measures proposed are designed to address a specific issue or aspect of the problem and comport with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

In fact, 'liberals' accept current Second Amendment jurisprudence as settled and acknowledged case law, there are no measures proposed or advocated that would in any way 'restrict' citizens' access to guns, restrict the number of guns a citizen might possess, or limit citizens' access to ammunition.

“Statistics on murder are among the most widely available statistics, and among the most accurate, since no one ignores a dead body. With so many facts available from so many places and times, why is gun control still a heated issue? The short answer is that most gun control zealots do not even discuss the issue in terms of hard facts.”

This is a lie, the straw man Sowell has contrived and then attacks 'liberals' with, thus misrepresenting their position on the issue.

To advocate for necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures is not 'zealotry,' where the facts are indeed discussed and factored into the debate; such as the fact that there is no objective, documented evidence whatsoever in support of the notion that citizens carrying concealed firearms 'reduces' violent gun crime, or that the myth of 'gun free zones,' are 'responsible' for mass shootings.

The reason why gun control remains a heated issue is due to the fact that many on the right continue to use their lies as a partisan weapon against democrats, by contriving and propagating lies about democrats' position on the issue for some perceived partisan gain.

Sowell's lies are yet another example of that.

Do You always speak in gibberish??
The more laws and regulations we have = the less freedom.

But I thought the right were big on taking away people's freedoms? How many people on the right have been calling for restrictions on rights and freedoms in the past month or so, so we can be more secure in the face of Muslims?

You're deflecting...

 

[Timmy]

States wh tougher gun laws have less gun crime that their gun nut counterpart states.

That is not true…….I have posted he articles that show the anti gun statements about this are a lie…...

No. What you post is stuff about Chicago . I talk about State statistics , and you come back wh Chicago . Which is not a state .

Or you will compare some empty rural state , with a super populated state wh big cities .

 

[Rustic]

States wh tougher gun laws have less gun crime that their gun nut counterpart states.

That is not true…….I have posted he articles that show the anti gun statements about this are a lie…...

No. What you post is stuff about Chicago . I talk about State statistics , and you come back wh Chicago . Which is not a state .

Or you will compare some empty rural state , with a super populated state wh big cities .

In any case more laws will never save even one life...

 

[Timmy]

States wh tougher gun laws have less gun crime that their gun nut counterpart states.

That is not true…….I have posted he articles that show the anti gun statements about this are a lie…...

No. What you post is stuff about Chicago . I talk about State statistics , and you come back wh Chicago . Which is not a state .

Or you will compare some empty rural state , with a super populated state wh big cities .

In any case more laws will never save even one life...

That's bullshit . Laws stop bag guys from getting guns all the time .

 

[Rustic]

States wh tougher gun laws have less gun crime that their gun nut counterpart states.

That is not true…….I have posted he articles that show the anti gun statements about this are a lie…...

No. What you post is stuff about Chicago . I talk about State statistics , and you come back wh Chicago . Which is not a state .

Or you will compare some empty rural state , with a super populated state wh big cities .

In any case more laws will never save even one life...

That's bullshit . Laws stop bag guys from getting guns all the time .

you have no reading comprehension, I said more laws will not help. Redundancy just will not help, anyone with any common sense knows this.

 

[the_human_being]

 

[the_human_being]

 

[the_human_being]

 

[the_human_being]

 

[the_human_being]

 

[2aguy]

States wh tougher gun laws have less gun crime that their gun nut counterpart states.

That is not true…….I have posted he articles that show the anti gun statements about this are a lie…...

No. What you post is stuff about Chicago . I talk about State statistics , and you come back wh Chicago . Which is not a state .

Or you will compare some empty rural state , with a super populated state wh big cities .

Nope, state stats too…..the way they do it is to throw in suicides….that gives them the numbers they need…..

 

[2aguy]

States wh tougher gun laws have less gun crime that their gun nut counterpart states.

That is not true…….I have posted he articles that show the anti gun statements about this are a lie…...

No. What you post is stuff about Chicago . I talk about State statistics , and you come back wh Chicago . Which is not a state .

Or you will compare some empty rural state , with a super populated state wh big cities .

Nope…

Obama’s claim that ‘states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths’

In any case, we were curious to see what would happen if suicides were removed from the totals. After all, rural areas (which may have less-restrictive gun laws) have a lot of suicides of older single men who become lonely. So we ran the numbers — and in some cases, it made a huge difference.

Alaska, ranked 50th on the National Journal list, moved up to 25th place. Utah, 31st on the list, jumped to 8th place. Hawaii remains in 1st place, but the top six now include Vermont, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Iowa and Maine.

Indeed, half of the 10 states with the lowest gun-death rates turn out to be states with less-restrictive gun laws.

Meanwhile, Maryland — a more urban state — fell from 15th place to 45th, even though it has very tough gun laws. Illinois dropped from 11th place to 38th, and New York fell from 3rd to 15th.


******************
Do Strict Firearm Laws Give States Lower Gun Death Rates?

Once you get past those six states, the hypothesis that low gun death rates go hand in hand with strict gun control starts to break down. New Hampshire, with a gun death rate just a little higher than New Jersey's, has permissive gun policies. Likewise Minnesota, Washington, Vermont, Wisconsin, and South Dakota, all of which have gun death rates of 10 or less per 100,000. New Hampshire and Minnesota have lower rates than California, Illinois, the District of Columbia, and Maryland, all of which have substantially stricter gun rules.

At the other end of the list, Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Wyoming have both permissive gun policies and high gun death rates, ranging from around 17 to nearly 20 per 100,000. But of these six states, only Louisiana has a very high gun murder rate (based on 2010 data). The rate in Mississippi is fairly high but still lower than in D.C. or Maryland, which have much stricter gun laws. Alaska, Wyoming, Alabama, and Arkansas have lower gun murder rates than California, which has more gun restrictions.

Although its overall analysis looks at all gun-related deaths, National Journal (after some prodding, judging from the note in italics) focuses on gun homicides in charts that compare states based on three policies: whether they impose a duty to retreat, whether they require background checks for all gun sales, and whether they issue carry permits to anyone who meets a short list of objective criteria. Excluding suicides makes sense for at least two of those comparisons, since you would not expect the rules for self-defense or for carrying guns in public to affect suicide rates. Background checks conceivably could, since among other things they are supposed to prevent gun purchases by people who were forcibly subjected to psychiatric treatment because they were deemed a threat to themselves.

According to the first chart, the average rate of gun-related homicides in states with "some form of 'stand your ground' law" in 2013 was 4.23 per 100,000, compared to 3.08 in the other states. (Oddly, Arkansas is included in the former category, although its "stand your ground" law was not enacted until this year.) States that did not require background checks for private sales also had a higher average gun homicide rate: 4.02 per 100,000, compared to 3.41 for the other states. But the average rates were the same (3.78 per 100,000) regardless of whether states had discretionary or "must issue" carry permit policies, which is consistent with the observation that permit holders rarely commit violent crimes.

Some states were excluded from these analyses, and the reason is revealing. The fine print at the bottom of the charts says "Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming had too few homicides in 2013 to calculate a reliable rate" (emphasis added). These are all states with permissive gun laws, and three of them are among the seven states with the highest overall gun death rates, which highlights the importance of distinguishing between suicides and homicides. Had National Journal's main analysis excluded suicides, some of the states with few gun controls, including Alaska and Wyoming, would have looked much safer.

"The states with the most gun laws see the fewest gun-related deaths," say the headline and subhead over the National Journal post, "but there's still little appetite to talk about more restrictions." The implication is that the data prove a cause-and-effect relationship. But the question of whether stricter gun control policies cause lower gun death rates cannot be addressed by this sort of static analysis. Gun laws obviously are not the only way in which Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Wyoming differ from Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Jersey. Furthermore, while the latter states have both low suicide and low homicide rates, the former states (with the notable exception of Louisiana) are distinguished mainly by high suicide rates.





****************



The Dishonest Gun-Control Debate, by Kevin D. Williamson, National Review[/QUOTE]


Take this, for example, from ThinkProgress’s Zack Beauchamp, with whom I had a discussion about the issue on Wednesday evening: “STUDY: States with loose gun laws have higher rates of gun violence.” The claim sounds like an entirely straightforward one. In English, it means that there is more gun violence in states with relatively liberal gun laws.
But that is of course not at all what it means.

In order to reach that conclusion, the authors of the study were obliged to insert a supplementary measure of “gun violence,” that being the “crime-gun export rate.” If a gun legally sold in Indiana ends up someday being used in a crime in Chicago, then that is counted as an incidence of gun violence in Indiana, even though it is no such thing.

This is a fairly nakedly political attempt to manipulate statistics in such a way as to attribute some portion of Chicago’s horrific crime epidemic to peaceable neighboring communities.
And even if we took the “gun-crime export rate” to be a meaningful metric, we would need to consider the fact that it accounts only for those guns sold legally. Of course states that do not have many legal gun sales do not generate a lot of records for “gun-crime exports.” It is probable that lots of guns sold in Illinois end up being used in crimes in Indiana; the difference is, those guns are sold on the black market, and so do not show up in the records. The choice of metrics is just another way to put a thumb on the scale.

 

[The Rabbi]

States wh tougher gun laws have less gun crime that their gun nut counterpart states.

That is not true…….I have posted he articles that show the anti gun statements about this are a lie…...

No. What you post is stuff about Chicago . I talk about State statistics , and you come back wh Chicago . Which is not a state .

Or you will compare some empty rural state , with a super populated state wh big cities .

In any case more laws will never save even one life...

That's bullshit . Laws stop bag guys from getting guns all the time .

Bullshit. Never. They never stop bad guys from getting guns.