Showing posts with label gun control. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gun control. Show all posts

Monday, December 23, 2013

Annual Awards for Year's Worst Reporting

The end of the calendar year the season for reflections of the past twelve months is upon us. Such musing varies widely. This one, The Twenty-Sixth Annual Awards for the Year's Worst Reporting from News Busters tickles me.

Lest anybody missed it, I am a big fan of the Constitution of the United States, Bill of Rights and especially fond of the 2nd Amendment.




During the first half of 2013, liberals hoped they could leverage the tragedy of last year’s horrible shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, to push through their long-sought wish list of new federal gun restrictions, and the media cheered them on. Here are the quotes our judges designated as the worst of the worst.



Winning the category was CNN primetime host Piers Morgan, who dropped all pretense of objectivity and became an outspoken advocate for gun restrictions. On December 18 of last year, he used his CNN soapbox to hurl personal insults at a supporter of the Second Amendment:


Gun Owners of America executive director Larry Pratt: “I honestly don’t understand why you would rather have people be victims of a crime than be able to defend themselves. It’s incomprehensible.”
CNN host Piers Morgan: “You’re an unbelievably stupid man, aren’t you?...You have absolutely no coherent argument whatsoever....You don’t give a damn, do you, about the gun murder rate in America?...I know why sales of these weapons have been soaring in the last few days. It’s down to idiots like you. Mr. Pratt.... You are a dangerous man espousing dangerous nonsense. And you shame your country.”




Top runner-up was longtime NBC Nightly News anchor Tom Brokaw who, during a January 17 appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, equated the push for more gun restrictions with those championing civil rights 50 years ago:




It is worth while to visit News Busters and sample other foolishness of the past year.

News Busters

Sunday, August 11, 2013

U.S. Gun Usage

This graphic is a clear illustration which demonstrates the dangers of dying by gun fire as opposed to other fatal dangers to life.

North American Hunter


Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Gun Debate Is Off Target

This is a long article, well written which I am not going to post whole here.

We get lip service from those who want to restrict our rights.

Point of this article is what do our rights really mean to us who exercise them, and how do we present our passon.



Why Our Gun Debate Is Off Target


America's gun owners have every right to object to sweeping controls, but until they take responsibility for their own role in accidents and violence, they're setting themselves up for more regulation.



author  w/Mauser
Believe it or not, what's missing from the current shout-fest over guns and gun control is the voice of gun owners.


Yes, the National Rifle Association has been screaming its head off since the tragedy at Sandy Hook, but the NRA doesn't speak for the country's 100 million gun owners. If it did, it wouldn't have just four million members. Some "gun guys" (as I like to call them) probably support the NRA without joining, but if only 4% are signing up, it's safe to say a large majority of them want nothing to do with the NRA's angry extremism.
As for those on the gun-control side, they often go beyond calling for policy changes, about which reasonable people can disagree, and issue broad-brush insults that aren't acceptable in other contexts. When sportscaster Bob Costas blames "gun culture" for the murder-suicide of an NFL linebacker, gun owners say, "Wait a minute. I'm gun culture. And my guns haven't hurt anybody."

A lot of assumptions are made about gun owners, by the NRA and gun-control proponents alike. What nobody ever seems to do, though, is listen to them.

I recently drove 15,000 miles around the country doing just that, talking to gun guys in their homes and garages, at gun shows and ranges, at gun stores and in the woods, trying to figure out why they are so deeply attracted to firearms and why guns inspire such passion on all sides. In part, it was a voyage of self-discovery. I'm a weirdo hybrid: a lifelong gun guy who is also a lifelong liberal Democrat. I often feel like the child of a bitter divorce who has allegiance to both parents.
It's worth the jump to WSJ

Missouri, Proposing Gun Control Illegal

With all the panic between the states to pass more anti gun bills, a silly Missouri state proposal does make a point.


Mo. House Bill Makes Proposing Gun Control Illegal


Rep. Mike Leara said Tuesday that he considers his bill a statement of principle. It would make lawmakers guilty of a felony punishable by up to four years in prison if they introduce legislation restricting gun rights.
“I have no illusions about the bill making it through the legislative process, but I want it to be clear that the Missouri House will stand in defense of the people’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms,” Leara, a Republican from suburban St. Louis, said in a written statement. He declined further comment.
Since last year’s deadly mass shootings in Colorado and Connecticut, state and federal lawmakers have grappled with gun legislation. President Barack Obama has proposed an assault weapons ban, background checks and restrictions on high-capacity ammunition magazines. But Missouri’s Republican-led Legislature has taken a different approach — more guns, not less.
State Rep. Stacey Newman, D-St. Louis, called Leara’s measure “unconstitutional” and said she would go directly to prison if the bill passes. Newman is the sponsor of a measure that would require guns to be sold by a licensed dealer and force that dealer to conduct a background check.
Even one of Leara’s fellow Republicans said he probably wouldn’t support the bill.
For those who are interested.the article goes on  and on about this or that.

Thursday, July 26, 2012

President Obama Promotes Gun Control

It is not so much about President Obama's view on limiting citizens right to arms  which I find interesting. That seems a given.

Obama calls for measures against gun violence


Faced with a clamor in his party for stricter gun control in the wake of the Colorado movie-theater massacre, President Obama said Wednesday night he would “leave no stone unturned” in seeking new measures to reduce violence nationwide, including more restrictive background checks on gun purchases.
 
More than the law already allows??


“A lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals,” Mr. Obama said at the annual National Urban League convention in New Orleans. “They belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.”

First of all, considering the killer in Aurora, CO did not possess an AK-47, what prompted the president to use that as an example?

Then I wonder just where President Obama gets his information as to what gun owners think?

Now, check this out.

The president blamed “politics and lobbying” for defeating gun-control measures when outcries arise after mass shootings in the U.S.

Here he is crying about is the resistance of the American people to his agenda.

Now get this.

But the White House has been saying since the shooting last week that Mr. Obama has no plans to seek new gun legislation.

~~~~

“We’ve been able to take some actions on our own, recognizing that it’s not always easy to get things through Congress these days,”

Mr. President, it's suppose to be difficult to get things through Congress as that was the idea of our Founding Fathers.


Washington Times

Saturday, June 12, 2010

Gun Control and Mass Murders

Where do mass murders happen?

In places where guns are readable to the common person, or in "GUN FREE ZONES?"



Gun Control and Mass Murders
By John R. Lott Jr.

It wasn’t supposed to happen in England, with its very strict gun-control laws. And yet last week, Derrick Bird shot twelve people to death and wounded eleven others in the northwestern county of Cumbria. A headline in the London Times read: “Toughest laws in the world could not stop Cumbria tragedy.”

But surely this was an aberration. Because America has the most guns, multiple-victim public shootings are an American thing, right? No, not at all. Contrary to public perception, Western Europe, most of whose countries have much tougher gun laws than the United States, has experienced many of the worst multiple-victim public shootings. Particularly telling, all the multiple-victim public shootings in Western Europe have occurred in places where civilians are not permitted to carry guns. The same is true in the United States: All the public shootings in which more than three people have been killed have occurred in places where civilians may not legally bring guns.

Look at recent history. Where have the worst K–12 school shootings occurred? Nearly all of them in Europe. The very worst one occurred in a high school in Erfurt, Germany, in 2002, where 18 were killed. The second-worst took place in Dunblane, Scotland, in 1996, where 16 kindergartners and their teacher were killed. The third-worst, with 15 dead, happened in Winnenden, Germany. The fourth-worst was in the U.S. — Columbine High School in 1999, leaving 13 dead. The fifth-worst, with eleven murdered, occurred in Emsdetten, Germany.

It may be a surprise to those who believe in gun control that Germany was home to three of the five worst attacks. Though not quite as tight as the U.K.’s regulations, Germany’s gun-control laws are some of the most restrictive in Europe. German gun licenses are valid for only three years, and to obtain one, the person must demonstrate such hard-to-define characteristics as trustworthiness, and must also convince authorities that he needs a gun. This is on top of prohibitions on gun ownership for those with mental disorders, drug or alcohol addictions, violent or aggressive tendencies, or felony convictions.

The phenomenon is not limited to school attacks. Multiple-victim public shootings in general appear to be at least as common in Western Europe as they are here. The following is a partial list of attacks since 2001. As mentioned, all of them occurred in gun-free zones — places where guns in the hands of civilians are outlawed.

Zug, Switzerland, Sept. 27, 2001: A man whose lawsuits had been denied murdered 14 members of a cantonal parliament.

Tours, France, Oct. 29, 2001: Four people were killed and ten wounded when a French railway worker started shooting at a busy intersection.

Nanterre, France, March 27, 2002: A man killed eight city-council members after a council meeting.

Erfurt, Germany, April 26, 2002: A former student killed 18 at a secondary school.

Freising, Germany, Feb. 19, 2002: Three people killed and one wounded.

Turin, Italy, Oct. 15, 2002: Seven people killed on a hillside overlooking the city.

Madrid, Spain, Oct. 1, 2006: A man killed two employees and wounded another at a company that had fired him.

Emsdetten, Germany, Nov. 20, 2006: A former student murdered eleven people at a high school.

Tuusula, Finland, Nov. 7, 2007: Seven students and the principal killed at a high school.

Naples, Italy, Sept. 18, 2008: Seven dead and two seriously wounded in a public meeting hall. (This incident is not included in the totals given below because it may have involved the Mafia.)

Kauhajoki, Finland, Sept. 23, 2008: Ten people shot to death at a college.

Winnenden, Germany, March 11, 2009: A 17-year-old former student killed 15 people, including nine students and three teachers.

Lyon, France, March 19, 2009: Ten people injured when a man opened fire on a nursery school.

Athens, Greece, April 10, 2009: Three people killed and two injured by a student at a vocational college.

Rotterdam, Netherlands, April 11, 2009: Three people killed and one injured at a crowded café.

Vienna, Austria, May 24, 2009: One dead and 15 wounded in an attack on a Sikh temple.

Espoo, Finland, Dec. 31, 2009: Four people shot to death at a mall.

Cumbria, England, June 2, 2010: Twelve killed by a British taxi driver.

So how does this compare with the United States? Bill Landes at the University of Chicago and I have collected data on all the multiple-victim public shootings in the United States from 1977 to 1999 (for a discussion of that information, see the just-released updated third edition of More Guns, Less Crime). If one looks at just those cases where four or more people have been killed in an attack, on average 10.6 people died in such attacks each year; the worst attack was the Luby’s Cafeteria shooting in Killeen, Texas, in 1991, in which 23 people died.

I don’t have exactly comparable data for Europe; however, the data I have been able to collect for the nine and a half years from 2001 through now indicate that on average some 12.5 people per year have died in such attacks. To be sure, Western Europe has a lower per capita rate, since its population over the last decade has been about 48 percent larger than the U.S. population over the earlier period (about 387 million to 262 million). Still, the fact that there are such attacks at all belies the conventional wisdom.

Large multiple-victim public shootings are exceedingly rare events, but they garner massive news attention, and the misperceptions they produce are hard to erase. When I have been interviewed by foreign journalists, even German ones, they usually start off by asking why multiple-victim public shootings are such an American problem. And of course, they are astonished when I remind them of the attacks in their own countries and point out that this is not an American problem, it is a universal problem, but with a common factor: The attacks occur in public places where civilians are banned from carrying guns.

http://article.nationalreview.com/435971/gun-control-and-mass-murders/john-r-lott-jr