Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by U201491, Oct 3, 2013.
Keep this handy.
Data seems to be from the 1990's though
Yep, but they still try to use the same myths against us.
The data is 20 years out of date, which makes it weak as Hell compared to the more recently available data. In 1994 you could make a pretty solid circumstantial case against gun control. In 2013 you can make a rock-solid empirical case against it with reams of unimpeachable data.
True, but the same rhetoric is being used by the left.
If you have it handy, please post it. The gun controllers still
use the same mythical statements today as they did then.
It shows how their minds are still stuck in the same rut.
This had some good info along those lines: Gun Facts - Gun Control | Facts | Debunk | Myths. It was using newer FBI data among other things.
Thanks Good info.
I like this one as well. It was in one of the help links I put into the Sticky post.
NRA-ILA | Fables, Myths & Other Tall Tales
The left can't come up with anything valid, so they just repeat and belittle.
It never changes.
Nice thread for info. Even if the first post is 20-yrs old, still very useful.
i.e. you guys (pointing at gun-control) have been making the same arguments for years, and it's still not true!
Yeah, it drives the controllers nuts
It's been posted on every gun forum in the country. It's been posted ad infinitum. It's in the newspapers every year when the FBI releases its UCRs.
A few highlights though:
As of 2009 (the last year I got the solid numbers on) the average number of "accidental gun deaths" according to the CDC was an annual 800ish. That's down by orders of magnitude from the 1930s. It's about the same number as people dying from lightning strikes every year according to NOOA. Less than 50 on average are children under 14. -That's safer than what's under your kitchen sink by a long shot. That number is also very questionable unless you believe that police officers and others routinely FATALLY shoot themselves "while cleaning their guns." -As opposed to under-reported suicides.
Violent crime has been dropping precipitously since it's absolute height in 1989. (Some claim '92 or '93) At the same time, according to the gun industry, they've sold at least 40 MILLION new guns to private citizens. According to the UN, according to the NRA, according to NICS numbers, the lowest plausible number of firearms in American private hands is at an all-time high at the same time as violent crime (including murder) has gone down by 50%. -So much for guns cause crime. If they did, we'd be looking at a crime epidemic that made the 70s and 80s look like nothing.
In his peer-reviewed study, John Lott proved, beyond any doubt, that the number of guns did not increase crime. He further showed massive correlation between the numbers of permitted concealed carry holders and lower crime. This report and subsequent updates has consistently held up to criticism, the only possible area that's under any debate is the single category of aggravated assaults, notably only in dispute among gun-control advocates. do a wiki-search on "more guns less crime," it's all there.
According to the National Academy of Sciences, they were unable to find any instance where gun control laws directly lowered crime. (Can't remember when the study was, but some years back -google it).
Record numbers of people now have concealed carry permits. (8 million was the last estimate I heard and I think that's quite low). And yet, contrary to gun control arguments, we do NOT routinely see shootouts over parking spaces and the like. In fact, CCW permit holders (another Lott study appearing in a scientific peer-reviewed journal) showed CCW permit holders to be the least crime-committing group in the nation.
This kind of data is contrasted by the gun control people, who rely SOLELY upon thoroughly debunked "studies" that were SAVAGED even in their own publications for bad methodology, outright lies and misrepresentations of fact such as:
The "machine gun," Obama claimed was used at Newtown
The attempt made famously transparent by VPC's Josh Sugarman to equate semi-automatic rifles to machine guns to a public that didn't know the difference.
The weapons' (referring to semi-automatic rifles)menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weaponsanything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine guncan only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons"
The continuing lie that criminals get their guns at gun shows
(They actually get them in the following order of frequency: Borrow them from a friend, buy them from an illicit dealer, have a straw-purchaser buy them and personally steal them (12% or so on that last as I recall according to a justice department researcher. -again, google it).
And the big one, neglecting to mention that nearly 50% of the murders in the entire country happen in urban black neighborhoods when young black men kill each other -A rate that's nearly EIGHT TIMES that of all other groups.
And finally, lets not forget the biggest recent lie: That "assault weapons" are something to be concerned about when they are used in less than 1% of "gun" crimes, contrasted to handguns, used to commit 98%+. If they actually believed their own line, they'd be talking about handgun restrictions, not bans on ARs.
These last two, and the gun-prohibitionists' astonishing public silence on both fronts is as much proof as anyone should need that the antis are lying and don't give a rip about crime, or murder, nor do they believe their own propaganda. If they were honest, if they actually believed heir own BS, NO ONE would be talking about "assault weapons." It would all be about what's broken in the African American Communities and how to restrict handgun ownership and that would be their laser-like focus.
Obama wouldn't have pushed for "expanded background checks," he would have been pushing for drastic limits on handgun ownership. If guns are the problem, surely he'd be on fire about the guns that are used in 98+% of gun crimes right? No. In a relatively few incidents (actual mass shootings, not the FBI's ridiculous anything over 4 people which includes domestics, gang shootings, etc) that claim less than 100 people in an average year, he's like a laser beam on that. Totally ignoring the 9000 or so murders committed with handguns.
And so is Bloomberg and Feinstein, and Schumer and McCarthy and Sarah Brady and the rest of the usual suspects.
When someone says they are interested in fixing a "problem," and proceeds to concentrate solely on something that ignores 98%+ of that problem it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that they are not serious about the professed problem. There's another agenda. That is a self-evident argument that one look at the UCRs can back-up.
CDC report on gun violence in America (released this year)
FBI Uniform Crime Reports
CDC statistics on accidental deaths
Just to name a few.
That's all relatively recent data. The reason why it's so important is that it's rock-solid. 20 years ago we did not KNOW this stuff. We suspected it. Today we can PROVE it to anyone who's actually willing to listen.
THIS is why 20-year-old data is less than really useful. they just didn't have the numbers then. (Among other things, federally mandated crime reporting since 1994 has improved dramatically, making the drop in crime rate very likely even MORE dramatic than it already is).
It can never be posted enough. Also it shows that the left is stuck in a rut because they have no
original data to backup anything they say. They live in wonderland of fiction and wannabe control, and we will never allow them to have it. Right up to and including a real war if necessary.
Post it well and post it often and maybe that can be avoided. Lord knows I don't want that for my children or grandchildren, but I want a Marxist society far less and will do what is necessary if it comes to that to insure they have freedom as we have had and more if possible..
Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda minister said , " If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself. "
Now, while you mull that over, I'm going to go clean my new full auto and operational M249 SAW that I bought online yesterday with no background check due to the loophole the left is always talking about. ( sarcasm)
+1 on the Gary Kleck suggestion. I'm making my way through his work. It's all very well researched and extremely difficult to argue against. Outside of the raw data from government organizations, his work would probably be my preferred source.
unfortunately the old saying holds true "if it ain't broke don't fix it" it was working then and is still kinda working now.
They get attention by being noisy and obnoxious. We must be louder than they are.
We as a body of pro gun folks have been on the defense, but they are always on the offense.
That needs to change.
Look. I know it feels like we're embattled now, but by and large we've been WINNING this fight for a long time.
20 years ago the number of states that allowed concealed carry with minimal haqssle skyrocketed. This trend has continued since, even to areas we thought it would NEVER happen (Wisconsin and Illinois for instance).
10 years ago (nearly) the AWB was sunseted with the most damning of all possible proponents: the United States Dept of Justice which concluded in it's report to congress:
6 (nearly) years ago the landmark DC vs. Heller settled the question of a right to private ownership of firearms once and for all.
States all across the country continue to liberalize their gun laws. Only in a few states, states which were mostly already lost causes on the issue (Mass, NY, NJ, MD, CA, CT) has this trend not been the case.
We've been winning because the data overwhelmingly supports our cause. People with the facts to hand win every debate. It's only when we get emotional and stupid and start name-calling or branching out to other non-gun issues (hint, this means you GOA) do we lose ground.
I have never seen a debate which I thought the anti had anything of substance to say. Sadly, we keep getting represented by people with other axes to grind or people who are more interested in their own celebrity than advancing the arguments (Hear me Uncle Ted?)
These arguments are going to be won overall on a retail, not a wholesale basis. Our neighbors, our co-workers, our relatives and friends. Anyone who wants to get off his arse can find the info with a little bit of effort. Having that info made cut-and-paste ready doesn't help anyone, because it won't be meaningful to the people who regurgitate things they don't understand and can be stymied by the first challenge to their data. They won't have the info because they didn't research it. They're repeating verbatim what they saw on a forum post.
This s one of the reasons I object to these kinds of things. They don't really avance the cause. They don't even really give a lot of help to people, because I promise you every point I've made on this thread will be challenged by the antis. If you don't know how the data was compiled, or where or when it was published, or whether or not it's been solid on peer review, your arguments get shouted down as "pro-gun propaganda. And you've got nothing with which to argue the point.
People need to get off their duffs and do the research. A few hours will suffice. Then you can DESTROY any anti stupid enough to debate the facts with you.
Sadly, its difficult to find anti-2A individuals that are willing to have a dialogue. Even if they agree, they tend to devolve into blubbering diatribe of name calling and spewing of baseless innuendo and media spinoff. Most liberals tend to sound like Piers Morgan on nitrous oxide after about 5 minutes of analytical, rather than emotional, factual discussion....