DEAR AMERICA: Here's Why Everyone Thinks You Have A Problem With Guns

[Prodigal_Son1]

It’s called telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Seeing what the 1800s had is not the truth. The last 20 years is very telling, especially considering the big money ‘lobby’ preventing any real research.

ETA: After going back and checking, I saw relevance to the eras displayed. The Some graphs went back over 50 years.

 

[triumphguy]

Those other countries were monarchies, where everyone was trained from birth to kow-tow to the kings.

**I just spat coffee all over my keyboard! thanks!

I don’t think you’ll find many people kowtowing to the monarchy here It’s you guys that are more in love with the Queen than we are.

**
In those other countries, the people are subjects.

…

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Do you honestly think that that Weekly Reader style essay is enough to convince Americans to toss out our Constitution?

 

[Havard]

Isn’t most of their gun ownership attributed to their military, who are issued guns that they keep in their homes?

Every male is military, or former, so it does account for a lot. But there’s plenty of hunting in Switzerland, and handguns are legal for purchase in many states as well.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Do you honestly think that that Weekly Reader style essay is enough to convince Americans to toss out our Constitution?

If the bishops guidance doesn’t have any impact, I’m sure it’s easier to dismiss an article loaded with statistics.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I thought the graphs alone were telling. Anyways, I found it to be very informative myself.

Not really. The graphs aren’t designed to educate you, they’re designed to support the author’s argument. Quick example-

Country A- no gun laws, gun related deaths this year- 20/1000, historic avg gun deaths for last 100 years- 30/100
Country B-all guns outlawed, gun related deaths this year 3/1000, historic avg gun deaths for last 100 years- 2/100
Country C- went from no laws to all guns outlawed, gun related deaths this year 10/100-, historic avg with no laws- 4/1000, historic avg with laws- 12/100

So, if I want to prove guns need to be outlawed I just cite the gun related deaths for this year and claim that countries with no gun laws are more dangerous, countries that have recently outlawed guns are safer, and countries that have always outlawed guns are the safest. Sounds accurate, makes a nice graph, but it’s incorrect.

Remember that survey that was recently conducted that “proved” like 90%+ of Catholic women use ABCs? Remember how said survey was designed to create this conclusion? Yeah, “garbage in= garbage out” applies to more than what goes into or out of your trash can.

 

[triumphguy]

The best stats are probably the FBIs -

 

[St_Francis]

Point it out, and provide the sources to refute.

First of all, corelation does not equal causation.

Secondly, always be wary or weird looking visuals. Notice that graph for gun ownership is pretty steady through the 1960s and then goes slightly down?

Yet if you look at the graphs for the violent crime rate just below, and you see that violent crime rates were rising very quickly through 1975.

So, not even correlation.

Notice the next graph in green. The caption says Notice that after years on the ddecline, gun ownership is rising…

First, there were no “years of decline.” One year saw a precipitous decline in pistol/shotgun ownership of about 17 points, while showing a total gun ownership decline of only 2 points. Hmmm, sounds like 17% of the total population sold a pistol or shotgun and 15% bought a rifle. Notice that total gun ownership went up in 2001 and 02, while pistol/shotgun ownership went down by 1/2, 9 points. Again, 9% of the total population sold pistols, but over 12% of the population bought rifles.

The small deviations which did exist before 1991 were well within usual margins of error in polls, as are most of the deviations on the green poll itself. Notice that the last point on the graph is 2011, showing a rise. Business Insider’s article came out today, but left off the Gallup-reported decline to 43% from 2012, a decline of 4 points.

The map showing high gun death rates in certaIn states does not have a date attached and is not mentioned in the article as including all deaths by firearm: accidents and suicides as well as homicides. It seems to be related to a study in which it was found that “Eight of the states with the highest levels of gun violence were among the 25 with the weakest gun laws, said the report, citing a study last year by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.” The author of the article goes on to say: “‘This report - as others before it - demonstrates a strong link between state gun laws and gun violence,’ it said, adding that this link didn’t imply cause and effect.” Darn straight… after all, that means that 17 of the states with the highest levels of gun violence must be among the 25 states with the strongest gun laws, no?

Well, I think that i have shown that there are problems with the article; I really don’t have time to go through any more of it.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Robert_Sock:
johnrlott.blogspot.com/2013/04/soros-funded-florida-center-for.html

soros-funded-florida-center-for.html

**excerpt:

Even more interestingly, gun sales have soared in Florida since 2008 and all the rates, both with and with out guns, fell since then. The crime data is available here … fdle.state.fl.us/Content/FSAC/UCR/UCR-Home.aspx .

Given that crimes can be deterred with guns, it seems to me that one will want to look at primarily at total murders, robberies and aggravated assaults.**

So, what we have is that the reason why everyone thinks you have a problem with guns is that the claims are totally false.

It is politically incorrect to counter falsehoods by calling them what they deserve to be called. For now, therefore … we will just call them false.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

First of all, corelation does not equal causation.

Secondly, always be wary or weird looking visuals. Notice that graph for gun ownership is pretty steady through the 1960s and then goes slightly down?

Yet if you look at the graphs for the violent crime rate just below, and you see that violent crime rates were rising very quickly through 1975.

So, not even correlation.

Notice the next graph in green. The caption says Notice that after years on the ddecline, gun ownership is rising…

First, there were no “years of decline.” One year saw a precipitous decline in pistol/shotgun ownership of about 17 points, while showing a total gun ownership decline of only 2 points. Hmmm, sounds like 17% of the total population sold a pistol or shotgun and 15% bought a rifle. Notice that total gun ownership went up in 2001 and 02, while pistol/shotgun ownership went down by 1/2, 9 points. Again, 9% of the total population sold pistols, but over 12% of the population bought rifles.

The small deviations which did exist before 1991 were well within usual margins of error in polls, as are most of the deviations on the green poll itself. Notice that the last point on the graph is 2011, showing a rise. Business Insider’s article came out today, but left off the Gallup-reported decline to 43% from 2012, a decline of 4 points.

The map showing high gun death rates in certaIn states does not have a date attached and is not mentioned in the article as including all deaths by firearm: accidents and suicides as well as homicides. It seems to be related to a study in which it was found that “Eight of the states with the highest levels of gun violence were among the 25 with the weakest gun laws, said the report, citing a study last year by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.” The author of the article goes on to say: “‘This report - as others before it - demonstrates a strong link between state gun laws and gun violence,’ it said, adding that this link didn’t imply cause and effect.” Darn straight… after all, that means that 17 of the states with the highest levels of gun violence must be among the 25 states with the strongest gun laws, no?

Well, I think that i have shown that there are problems with the article; I really don’t have time to go through any more of it.

So, with no sources to refute the numbers of compiled information, because you disagree it’s not factual? Does this mean that absolutely every graph was wrong?

 

[pete_29]

Wasn’t Ms.Lanza a law abiding citizen before her son, Adam, went off the deep edge?

Am I a psychopathic murderer? Because I own guns you would seem to think so. I hope God doesn’t judge you the way that you judge all gun owners.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Am I a psychopathic murderer? Because I own guns you would seem to think so. I hope God doesn’t judge you the way that you judge all gun owners.

I haven’t said that, and have not implied that. I am a gun owner myself. My point was ‘law abiding’ applied to most mass shooters, until they broke the law, and in that breaking the law many died. We do not know what someone’s breaking point is, and what would set them off to do such a terrible thing. If any of us did, we’d probably not be having this discussion.

Looking at basic gun safety, we don’t know for certain who is ‘safe’ and who is not. Even among the people that own guns, that I personally know, I realize there is no automatic equality in simple gun safety, and everyone is different.

 

[Kal2012]

The fundamental problem is that the constitution was written by people who believed that a just and moral people would live and run the country.

So, there was the expectation that gun owners (and everyone) would have standards when it came to human life and things like, where and when to use their weapons.

Sadly, we live an amoral country. Living close to Detroit, I’ve heard and seen things that are just beyond the comprehension of most “normal” and “decent” people. There is no respect for human life in some quarters. And dysfunctional families have taken their toll on society. People think more of their themselves and less about the communities they live in. So - of course, there are going to be problems when extreme selfishness is the standard in most parts of society. (You can’t tell me…X, Y, Z. I should be allowed to wear, act, say, do whatever I want when ever I want, regardless of whether it’s good for me or the community).

In the end, I value my freedom more than government guarantees of security. I’d rather have more gun owners than government trolls restricting my freedom because they think they know what’s best for me. Guns aren’t inherently the problem.

Culturally and historically, there are specific reasons America and other countries handle the gun issue differently. After 1945, people were determined to see Japan demilitarized (for instance). So - of course, there are going to be strict penalties for gun ownership, given their history.

Our society has always been violent. Most of our problems w/guns wouldn’t exist if we stopped pretending that moral relativism is a great idea and taught people to value human life and themselves.

 

[Fairwinds]

which foreign opinions from which foreign utopias am I supposed to be wringing my hands over?

our Constitution works fine. its not for me to justify owing any assault rifles I own. I can shoot National Match or blow up pumpkins in the desert, and its none of anyone’s business, including the government’s as long as I obey laws consistent with constitutional limitations on gun usage. if the gun grabbers in the present administration don’t like it, they’ve got a hard row to hoe. and they will fail.

F/

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The fundamental problem is that the constitution was written by people who believed that a just and moral people would live and run the country.

So, there was the expectation that gun owners (and everyone) would have standards when it came to human life and things like, where and when to use their weapons.

Sadly, we live an amoral country. Living close to Detroit, I’ve heard and seen things that are just beyond the comprehension of most “normal” and “decent” people. There is no respect for human life in some quarters. And dysfunctional families have taken their toll on society. People think more of their themselves and less about the communities they live in. So - of course, there are going to be problems when extreme selfishness is the standard in most parts of society. (You can’t tell me…X, Y, Z. I should be allowed to wear, act, say, do whatever I want when ever I want, regardless of whether it’s good for me or the community).

In the end, I value my freedom more than government guarantees of security. I’d rather have more gun owners than government trolls restricting my freedom because they think they know what’s best for me. Guns aren’t inherently the problem.

Culturally and historically, there are specific reasons America and other countries handle the gun issue differently. After 1945, people were determined to see Japan demilitarized (for instance). So - of course, there are going to be strict penalties for gun ownership, given their history.

Our society has always been violent. Most of our problems w/guns wouldn’t exist if we stopped pretending that moral relativism is a great idea and taught people to value human life and themselves.

Abortion has delegitimized and desensitized our society to accept extreme violence … even against the most innocent and most vulnerable members of our society.

And walking that thought back, we have accepted destroying future life with our acceptance of artificial birth control.

So, we cut our fertility rate down to way below the replacement level.

And our whole society is withering away.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I haven’t said that, and have not implied that. I am a gun owner myself. My point was ‘law abiding’ applied to most mass shooters, until they broke the law, and in that breaking the law many died. We do not know what someone’s breaking point is, and what would set them off to do such a terrible thing. If any of us did, we’d probably not be having this discussion.

Looking at basic gun safety, we don’t know for certain who is ‘safe’ and who is not. Even among the people that own guns, that I personally know, I realize there is no automatic equality in simple gun safety, and everyone is different.

There was no “breaking point” in those mass shootings.

The shooters were well known in their communities to be severely unstable. In some cases, even their families were unable to have them put into a residence program … because being institutionalized violates their rights.

But, even so, the simple preventive of removing those “Gun Free Zone” signs would have been enough to frustrate their years of planning those suicide attacks [with the additional intent of killing as many people as possible to beat the record set by that other nutjob in Norway.]

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Abortion has delegitimized and desensitized our society to accept extreme violence … even against the most innocent and most vulnerable members of our society.

And walking that thought back, we have accepted destroying future life with our acceptance of artificial birth control.

So, we cut our fertility rate down to way below the replacement level.

And our whole society is withering away.

Part of the desensitization can be attributed to the cheapening of life that comes through means of violence, and plans for violence; as Cardinal Dolan spoke of.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Part of the desensitization can be attributed to the cheapening of life that comes through means of violence, and plans for violence; as Cardinal Dolan spoke of.

I have absolutely NO IDEA of what you just wrote.

Please explain.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

**The fundamental problem is that the constitution was written by people who believed that a just and moral people would live and run the country.
**
So, there was the expectation that gun owners (and everyone) would have standards when it came to human life and things like, where and when to use their weapons.

Sadly, we live an amoral country. Living close to Detroit, I’ve heard and seen things that are just beyond the comprehension of most “normal” and “decent” people. There is no respect for human life in some quarters. And dysfunctional families have taken their toll on society. People think more of their themselves and less about the communities they live in. So - of course, there are going to be problems when extreme selfishness is the standard in most parts of society. (You can’t tell me…X, Y, Z. I should be allowed to wear, act, say, do whatever I want when ever I want, regardless of whether it’s good for me or the community).

In the end, I value my freedom more than government guarantees of security. I’d rather have more gun owners than government trolls restricting my freedom because they think they know what’s best for me. Guns aren’t inherently the problem.

Culturally and historically, there are specific reasons America and other countries handle the gun issue differently. After 1945, people were determined to see Japan demilitarized (for instance). So - of course, there are going to be strict penalties for gun ownership, given their history.

Our society has always been violent. Most of our problems w/guns wouldn’t exist if we stopped pretending that moral relativism is a great idea and taught people to value human life and themselves.

They understood that if we ever lost the guidance of God, we’d also lose the principles that Constitution was based upon.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There was no “breaking point” in those mass shootings.

The shooters were well known in their communities to be severely unstable. In some cases, even their families were unable to have them put into a residence program … because being institutionalized violates their rights.

But, even so, the simple preventive of removing those “Gun Free Zone” signs would have been enough to frustrate their years of planning those suicide attacks [with the additional intent of killing as many people as possible to beat the record set by that other nutjob in Norway.]

Do you personally know every gun rights advocates on these forums alone? We’re speaking for millions of people. It’s not generalized that all gun owners are safe and well meaning intentions. How are all problems identified, and at what point do they become a danger? Not all are identifiable until they act on a particular imbalance. Stepping away from any of that, if the system failed on ALL those occasions, whose to say it won’t be repeated? Do we place our gun rights above the rest of society? There are things than can be done, things that would not affect anyone’s right to defense, but many gun rights advocates say no to even universal background checks.