56% believe gun related crime is higher today than 20 years ago. Only 12% believe it’s lower.
In truth, the rate is nearly 50% lower in 2010 than 1993. And firearm related violent crime was 75% lower in 2011 than 1993.
I am pretty sure we can thank the mainstream left media for that discrepancy.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/study-gun-homicide/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
First off, today I noticed CNN.com implemented some newfangled commenting system. I really dislike the layout.
But then I stumble across a mostly pro-gun article on raising children in the home with guns. I am shocked, instead of finding one mediocre quasi-pro-gun statement followed by an entire article lambasting gun owners as crazy. I found a surprisingly delightful article featuring testimonials and insights from parents with small children.
WoW
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/20/living/guns-children-home/index.html?hpt=hp_bn11
***
Apparently, some love for the NRA Annual Meeting over at Yahoo too.
http://news.yahoo.com/photos/kids-and-guns-at-the-nra-slideshow/
Must be “Revenge of the Sixth” day (you know, follows May the Fourth be with you, and Cinco de May).
15 years – 17 years = -2 years (why is a study that predates NICS background check system by 2 years being touted for background checks today)
“40% of guns sold are sold without a background check”
That is based on this…
“We conclude that approximately 60 percent of gun acquisitions involved an FFL”
From a report/study published in 1996, which itself was based on a phone survey of a mere 250 people. Note that the study wasn’t even addressing background checks. It simply asked the gun owners if the seller was a licensed FFL. (Versus family member, gun trade, unknown, etc).
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
Per wikipedia, the NICS background check system was implemented on November 30, 1998.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System
And where is pulitzer winning PolitFact.com on the matter? Do we see listings of President Obama, Vice-President Biden, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel and more….all with their flaming PANTS ON FIRE logo? Nope…
How does FactCheck.org (yes, that bastion of unbiased political fact checking) sound off on the issue?
“…the number is quite often stated as fact when no one can say for certain.”
No one can say for certain? Yes, a 3rd grader researching this issue could say for certain sir.
And while they do actually state that it’s fairly misleading. They handle it with gloves when
ACTUALLY, it’s a flat out lie. NICS background checks weren’t even implemented at the time of the survey. So that makes it false. Second, the conclusion was mis-applied. Third, the total was closer to 35%. And lastly, with only 250 acquisitians surveyed, the study is questionable from a scientific standpoint. Furthermore, it’s from 1996. That’s a bit long in the tooth.
http://factcheck.org/2013/03/guns-acquired-without-background-checks/
In truth, it was the gun issue that made me lose faith in these “non-biased” fact checking sites. As there is a continual strong bias against guns.
***
But every now and then they get it right. But then again, this is Rangel. It’s hard to wrangel any truth out of that guy.
http://factcheck.org/2013/03/rangels-assault-weapons-whopper/
Apparently police have seized an “arsenal” of guns from a home on Long Island. And well, this time they got it right…. 300+ guns (230 rifles, and 85 handguns).
Yes, we here at NUGUN are officially jealous…
So immediately when I saw that report, the very first thing that came to mind was. “I bet this guy used to be a licensed FFL.” And wouldn’t you know it, sure enough. The guy was a licensed dealer until 2004.
I wager the arsenal was his stock of firearms when the business ended. Now, granted, the article declares he had 85 illegal handguns. But by that, I believe they mean 85 unregistered handguns. That were probably legal when he was a licensed dealer. And ceased to be when that license expired.
That’s probably something licensed dealers don’t really think about much. IMHO, he should have rented a U-Haul, and brought them all to an licensed FFL in PA and jointly sold them at a gun show. I wager he bought many of those before 2004. So his wholesale cost was probably way below today’s prices.
That said, they mention he had business cards with his expired FFL#. So I wager they may nail him on “dealing without a license”.
Also known as the media advocacy policy…
***
For the next few months, expect any incident of gang violene, murder, etc that utilizes a firearm and involves more than two people to be “front paged”.
Just today there was an article on a police officer killing his family in Vegas, a second about what sounds like a gang related shooting in a Texas community college. The truth is if there are 8,000 non-self inflicted firearm deaths a year. I am concerned that the news media will begin covering every shooting they can, just to keep guns on the front page until they get what they want.
One does not see them taking similar action with automobile accidents, or even drunk driving. They are digging for headlines. And it affronts me that the media is our #1 enemy in this fight. The agency that should be most vocal and fighting for liberty. I’d be content if they even just took a balanced approach, allowing our supporters to provide our arguments. But that’s not the case, they are wholly and actively working for a cause. And that is frustrating – but nothing we didn’t already know.
The media has been pretty much mucky with this case since it’s inception. I remember the video from the police station talking about how no wounds or injuries were visible.
Seriously? Did ANYONE watch that video? Granted, I couldn’t see injuries at that resolution, but the way Zimmerman was walking looked akin to a quarterback who got sacked and is limping off the field.
So now it comes out that we have a photo of Zimmerman, his head dripping in blood from numerous places. Yes, folks….say it with me….that’s an “i-n-j-u-r-y”.
Now, I am still going to stand by my original stance, the mere fact that Zimmerman was injured does not necessitate his innocence or guilt. Numerous criminals are injured in the midst of committing a crime. What it does do, is lead credance to Zimmerman’s story that he feared for his well-being. And provides him with a justification for use of force in self-defense.
What now needs to happen, is a jury needs to decided, based on all the evidence WHO they think initiated physical confrontation. That is really the deciding factor in this case to me.
If Zimmerman initiated the use of force by attempting to detain Martin, than Martin was within his right to hit, and use physical force again Zimmerman. But if Martin initiated the physical confrontation, than based upon Zimmerman’s injuries, he has a clear motivation for the use of deadly force to protect his own life.
Furthermore, there is an element I have been somewhat surprised hasn’t come out. To date, we have had a repeated claim of racism and needless shooting. But as more and more comes out regarding this case, how long until the Hispanic community begins to view Zimmerman as innocent and begin vocalizing on his behalf. No one wants to join on the side of a “baby killer”, as initially portrayed by the mainstream media. But a family man helping to keep his neighborhood safe from thugs who finds himself on the ground having his head smashed into the pavement. That is something one can sympathize with. And I think we may start to see a larger Hispanic voice start vocalizing on behalf of Zimmerman as more facts are released to the public.
H/T to ABC News
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/20/Zimmerman-bloody-head
While not firearm related, I know many gun enthusiests also have an interest in both technology and history. The link below is an article about very early ‘audio recordings’. It includes a recording of the very first recording by man that is known.
The recording pre-dates Thomas Edison’s and was done by a French man. However, his system only recorded the voice pattern; having no means of playback. But researches noted the pattern was very similar to modern digital audio wave recordings and reconstructed it.
Frankly, I just find it neat to listen too. Think of it as the very first “podcast” downloand.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/08/us/earliest-recordings-sound/index.html?hpt=hp_bn1
The newspaper of my former hometown of New Haven Connecticut has done a series on “Guns”.
Rather interesting page. It has a number of videos on different perspectives of guns. From a forensic detective to the history of Winchester in New Haven. There is even a piece on shooting clays. The one video segment that is on New Haven’s crime and violence problem even came across with points more focused on the criminal activities than on guns. Albeit, commenting about New Haven youth turning to guns.
Below the videos are several articles. Some are decent some are trash.
Tennessean Guest Editorialist throws facts and reason out the door.
“But there is no Second Amendment right to openly carry a weapon in public.”
Really, um, can you please explain to me what this means?
“…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Please note the references there:
a) people = public
b) keep = own
b) bear = carry
So let’s translate…
“…the right of the public to own and carry Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Seems your premise is rather weak. Unless you want to throw out our Constitution and bill of rights. But then you’d have to get rid of the freedom of speech, freedom of and from religion, right to a fair trial and much more.
***
Oh, btw, it turns out that the Pennsylvania gun-toting mother actually did have reason and justification to carry her firearm openly. Several months later she would be murdered by her husband, who worked as a parole officer. Perhaps her open-carrying that firearm and letting her husband know she was prepared not only kept her safe that day, but also kept the children safe.
***
“In Heller the Supreme Court decided only that Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns in a person’s home was unconstitutional”
Once again your supposition is wrong. The Supreme Court found that DC’s ban was unconstitutional. That does not mean that only DC’s ban in unconstitutional. Just that said decision only related to DC. And when that decision is incorporated, what will your argument be then sir?
***
Lastly, you make the assumption that what the government does is Constitutional. When in fact most of what our government does these days is in fact unconstitutional.
***
“Some 107 people were killed by permit holders since 2007, ”
Let’s address this statement a little more honestly. There are two points to be made.
1) 107 people killed by permit holders. What is the breakdown of that statistic. Does that 107 number represent rapists shot dead by women defending themselves? Or robbers shot dead by a father protecting his home and family? To quote such a statistic without an accurate descriptor is poor behavior.
2) 107 out of 4 million (that is the number of permit holders you stated in your own words). So what is the percentage breakdown of that number? 5%, 2%, 1%, maybe even a quarter of a percent (0.25%)
No, the actual number is .002675%
Can you tell me how many police officers we have in the United States? Can you tell me how many people were killed by police officers in 2007?
Do you want to bet $20 that our police have a higher percentage rate?
***
“The claim by the NRA and gun lobbyists that less-restrictive gun laws or more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens will make society safer or deter crime is false.”
So is that why a state ranked very low by the Brady Campaign and consider to have way too many firearm freedoms had ZERO murders via firearm in 2008. Find a state on the bottom of Brady’s list that has higher crime than the ones on top.
“Simply put, more guns equal safer states.”
Snowflakes In Hell pointed to this article of a man stopping what would likely have been a multi-person murdering spree. The citizen who stopped the event in Oklahoma City did so by means of pointing his firearm at the individual who retreated.
Sebastian commented on how little coverage this event received.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/05/the-forgotten-virtue-of-firearms/
Some accuse the media of being biased, others say it’s a matter of $$$ and sensationalism – and things don’t get printed unless they’re sensational – and can therefore make money.
I have grown toward the third category. I believe a fair amount of the media is malicious. Adhering to a set dogma they are deliberate in their focus, and even more deliberate in their silence. If the event does not fit their side of the coin, then silence is the only option.
We can see this on 2nd Amendment issues. When the event supports the people’s right to keep and bear arms, the media is silent – even if it is a sensational story ($$$).
We saw it regarding the coverage of the Tea Party on 9-12. Hundreds of thousands, if not more than a million, Americans gathered and received paltry coverage from the media. Were it a favored agenda with a mere 2,000 people it would be a week of headlines.
We saw it when two pro-life life protesters were murdered. The number of articles and coverage of the event was paltry, especially compared to how much coverage the murder of an abortion doctor received. There was plenty of $$$ to be made by covering such a sensational event. Why bury it?
These actions go far beyond “bias” or “ignorance” and are clear evidence of a far more malicious action upon the part of mainstream media. In fact, I don’t even think that is a good term anymore. Mainstream has some connotation to the people, the masses. It’s really the “Conglomerate Media”.
Contact N.U.G.U.N.
info@nugun.org
Skype: "N.U.G.U.N."
Twitter: NUGUNBlog
N.U.G.U.N. - New User of GUNs Blog 