A May 2013 (yes, this month) US Justice Department special report on Firearms Violence, 1993-2011 shows... all the trends are positive. This won't go over well with gun control advocates so it'll be ignored, of course.
Violent crime with a gun and gun homicide have been reducing for 20 years, just like the NRA, author John Lott, and others have been saying.
That so-called "gun show loophole"? In a 2004 survey (cited in this report), only 0.8% of criminals got their firearm from a gun show. Another 0.6% got them from flea markets. Take a very close look at Table 14 of the report and see if you can find the whopping 40% number that the outspoken gun control advocates keep shouting. IT'S NOT THERE!
I've only scanned the report but the numbers are fascinating in how strongly they support the arguments of gun rights supporters. Senator Dianne Feinstein has recently said that 'they (the NRA, I believe) have their statistics and I have mine'. How's this going over with you Dianne - when the Obama Administration's report undercuts your statistics and arguments and demonstrates how you've been wasting millions of taxpayer dollars in pursuit of 2% of the problem in pursuit of your ideological agenda?
Read the 28-page US Justice Dept report for yourself: http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf
And here's an article on the subject that claims "Don't look for a new Justice Department report about American gun violence to receive any serious media coverage over the coming days, or ever. According to the report from the department's Bureau of Statistics, every argument the media and the left are currently making to push for new restrictions on our Second Amendment civil rights, are made up of anti-science nonsense. This report not only proves the media wrong, it proves the NRA right."
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/05/07/Justice-Dept-Report-Destroys-Medias-Gun-Control-Narrative
- JJ: Nice ME! stolen! and thanks!
- MH: From this data, seems like a steady 90% of all gun violence comes from handguns. So let's ban hand guns entirely and see the overall impact on numbers. Sportsmen can have their rifles and shotguns, but
- MH: ...I see no need for handguns to exist in the civilian population.
- JJ: honestly if you start to take away any rights from the second amendment, they all start getting chipped away. If hand guns were such a big deal back in the day, the government would have taken them away when Lincoln was assassinated. just saying.
- ME: About handguns we fundamentally disagree, MH, and perhaps always will. (I know I won't change my position on it.) But I can respectfully disagree with the opposition. I'm just glad you (and others, I hope) are looking at the actual reports and data instead of just buying into the claims of the gun control supporting media and politicians. Whether to ban all guns or all handguns or all semi-automatic guns is substantially different than what's being argued on our political stages today.
The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has upheld that the 2nd Amendment provides citizens their right to self defense and many courts have upheld that it's not just defense of the nation or defense from tyranny. It includes personal defense of self, family, property and others. Just as the handgun is used in the overwhelming majority of gun related crime, it's also used overwhelmingly for defensive purposes. I've never discharged or brandished a firearm in defense but I personally know some who have. I have personally been threatened with a knife, with bodily assault, and have been assaulted in my car by 4-6 attackers, causing hundreds of dollars in damage - all while unarmed myself. Both of my daughters at young ages and while alone have been followed or chased home by adult men who were never identified or found. Real threats exist in all our neighborhoods. My kids are still too young to carry pistols. Once they're old enough, and if they show responsibility and express a desire to carry one, I'll pay for it and the licensing and the training. I can provide some myself but recognize there is better expertise elsewhere that I would want them to have.
Welcome to the slippery slope. You're clear in your statement about handguns. There are some others who agree with you. Senator Dianne Feinstein made a famous statement back in ~1994 that I believe meant 'all firearms'. There's an Illinois politician who said on camera earlier this year that she supported the so-called "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazine bans but that she thought this was just the beginning and handguns might be possible to ban too. (She apparently isn't familiar with recent SCOTUS decisions.) There are many others though who I believe are willing to attack guns in a more incremental way - start with "assault weapons" then move on to semi-automatic weapons, then to handguns, etc. (in whatever order) As long as their is evil there will be violence. As long as their is violence there will be homicide. Take one tool from the toolbox and another will be used instead so as long as firearms exist there will always be a next target for the most aggressive gun control advocates. We can't stop murder. We can allow people the choices of becoming a victim or defending themselves and of how to defend themselves.
The hunting and sportsman argument doesn't really apply because that's not what the 2nd Amendment is about. Most people realize that the 2nd Amendment will not be repealed in our lifetime. The political mechanism exists for it but the demographics don't come anywhere close to supporting it today and that much change will take decades to achieve, if it's ever achieved. Short of repealing it, it's being attacked and attempts are being made to limit it in a wide variety of ways. And we now live in the 21st century - the time of the plastic gun printed on your personal 3D printer is here. The only way to prevent those guns from entering circulation, especially among criminals if legacy guns become harder to obtain, is to ban the creation, possession or flow of information in the form of CAD files and other instructions. After decades of terrorism we haven't even approached doing so for the Anarchist's Cookbook or the Al Qaeda manuals in the news today because of the Boston Marathon Bombing. We live in an open society and with that openness and freedom comes risk - and the freedoms that are distasteful to others. - DB: Remember in this free country we have the right to own weapons and the right not to own weapons. I would much rather have the discretion to do either rather then be told i must do one. Those who own weapons need to take the time to learn safety and handling of the weapons in their possession. Those who do not want the responsibility can go back to whatever their pursuit of happiness is.
- ME: That's an interesting argument, DB, and one I've heard before - that "Those who own weapons need to take the time to learn safety and handling of the weapons in their possession." While many of us promote responsibility, training and proficiency, they are not required today and it's difficult to make them requirements for a constitutional right. No other right we have is so governed. You can speak, demonstrate and practice religion irresponsibly - including inciting violence, riots and murder. You can be an uninformed and irresponsible voter. As it currently stands you don't even have to prove your identity and citizenship to vote because, it's argued, that would be too burdensome on exercising a constitutional right. If the training was free to citizens and easily obtained then maybe it could be considered. But once you start putting dollars between a citizen and his rights you're infringing upon them - as is being done with 2nd Amendment rights throughout America in different ways today. And besides dollars it's also availability. Certain cities like Chicago don't have shooting ranges. They're not the only one. Plus it complicates things like giving a firearm as a gift or inheriting one. It's all food for thought but unless we were willing to reform MANY other things about our free society it's somewhat hypocritical to restrict and 'tax' this one right differently than others. There are also questions of applicability and effectiveness. What specific problem(s) are we trying to solve?
- DB: ME, i would insert the word should instead of need.............as a Libertarian, i tell no man what he should and shouldn't do with his property, even if it involves shooting himself in the foot with his own firearm.
===
May 8, 2013
Another article about the report: http://news.yahoo.com/firearms-statistics-gun-control-advocates-don-t-want-194040384.html
===
May 9, 2013
You have to like this headline - "Gun Control Would Address Declining Crime Rates With Irrelevant Laws".
http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/07/gun-control-would-address-declining-crim
===
May 9, 2013
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/09/bullet-point-gun-crimes-dropping-despite-public-perception/
===
May 10, 2013
Yep. No mention from President Obama, Vice President Biden, Senator Feinstein or Mayor Bloomberg celebrating that crime has been drastically reduced over the past 2 decades. That "inconvenient truth" simply doesn't support their agenda therefore they'll ignore it and keep chanting otherwise.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/9/miller-bloomberg-obama-and-liberal-media-muzzled-a/
I just saw a video clip on Fox News in which House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi attributes the reduction in crime to the expired "assault weapons ban" of 1994-2004. Apparently she hasn't read the National Institute of Justice's January 4, 2013 report, "Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies" which states:
a) "the assault weapon ban did not have an effect on firearm homicides"
b) "a complete elimination of assault weapons would not have a large impact on gun homicides"
c) "Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective." In other words - it won't have an impact unless there's mandatory CONFISCATION of the millions of scary firearms in circulation.
Could Pelosi be intending to continue misinforming the public? The Pew report shows that the public has a drastically inaccurate perception of the truth. Where else could it be coming from but our outspoken politicians and gun-hating media? But, hey, this report shows they've been successful in their lies and misdirection, so why not continue what works? Except that it means you're a liar and have no integrity.
You can view all 3 reports through the blog links.
===
Related blogs:
Firearms Blog Collections
No comments:
Post a Comment