Recently the comparison to hammers has been made. Hammers could be used as a means of committing blunt trauma. Occasionally screwdrivers have been used to kill people. I researched that once; there were something like 3 to 5 in this century, worldwide.
Here is the Fake News Nation report - Fox Noose just loves to make stuff up that isn't true, and conservatives just wolf it down without critical thinking or any kind of fact checking or normal skepticism. As you look at this, think about how many people have been killed in the last 30 days that you know of just by AR-15s. Then ask yourself how many instances of someone being killed by a hammer you've read or seen or heard. While there certainly are more people killed and injured with handguns, there are still enough killings and suicides and accidents with long barrel weapons too.
FBI: More People Killed with Hammers, Clubs Each Year Than Rifles
By AWR HAWKINS, Breitbart.com
According to the FBI annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle.
This is an interesting fact, particularly amid the Democrats' feverish push to ban many different rifles, ostensibly to keep us safe of course.
However, it appears the zeal of Sens. like Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) is misdirected. For in looking at the FBI numbers from 2005 to 2011, the number of murders by hammers and clubs consistently exceeds the number of murders committed with a rifle.
Think about it: In 2005, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618.
And so the list goes, with the actual numbers changing somewhat from year to year, yet the fact that more people are killed with blunt objects each year remains constant.
For example, in 2011, there was 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs.
While the FBI makes is clear that some of the "murder by rifle" numbers could be adjusted up slightly, when you take into account murders with non-categorized types of guns, it does not change the fact that their annual reports consistently show more lives are taken each year with these blunt objects than are taken with Feinstein's dreaded rifle.
Another interesting fact: According to the FBI, nearly twice as many people are killed by hands and fists each year than are killed by murderers who use rifles.
So here is a handy dandy little factoid that blows away the straw argument that firearms are 'just' inanimate objects. They are inanimate objects, yes, but they are a category of inanimate objects designed to kill with ease and efficiency, making them a false equivalency to other forms or kinds of inanimate objects. When firearms deaths decline to only triple digits for the entire population of the United States, we can have a fair and reasonable discussion of them as just another kind of inanimate object. Until that happens, it is a false and specious argument, not a valid or serious one.
According to the CDC, in 2010 there were only 912 total deaths from blunt force trauma (all causes). In the same year, 31,672 Americans were killed with firearms.All causes would include hammers and fists, baseball bats, chairs, frying pans, sticks and stones, bricks, the ever popular fireplace poker, bookends, and the occasional shoe, iron, thimble, toy car, or a coffee mug (a charge of murder for using which there was a recent acquittal) ; clearly guns, including rifles, are very much more dangerous. This doesn't begin to address the injuries to others in addition to deaths.
Since the Sandy Hook massacre, we have had 18 people a day die from firearms, with an untold additional number of people seriously injured. It would also include deaths from falling television, and 'ping pongs', as claimed by a nutjob right wing Texas state legislator, who claimed there were more deaths from EITHER falling flat screen televisions and/OR 'ping pongs' each year. I have yet to be able to find a single death from playing either ping pong, or the vintage video game pong. While there might be a few DIY injured fingers from missing a nail and striking one's thumb, that is realistically NOTHING like deaths or injuries that cripple, maim, or severely wound.
Equally clearly, right wing media sources ranging from the blogosphere to fake news to frantic right wing extremist fanatics like Alex Smith are dishonest and foolish, and only appeal to people like themselves.
Breitbart News is living up to their late great namesake. He was an unscrupulous charlatan and they're continuing the good work.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what your point is. Their point is that so called "assault weapon" like the AR-15 kill fewer people per year than hammers. Rifles take up a very, very small portion of US homicides, smaller than hammers or fists. Keep in mind these are just rifles overall; not even rifles that would qualify as "assault weapons".
ReplyDeletehttp://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls
There's the FBI data if you want to read it. Though there is a category for "unknown firearm", it's important to note that a very minor portion of these are likely rifles. FBI data relies on reports from local law enforcement; unknown firearm would imply a local provider did not give the type or recover a bullet fragment for analysis rather than that the wound is indistinguishable. Rifles produce very different wound patterns than handguns, such as temporary cavitation; thus it's unlikely that the two are being confused in a large number of cases.
You can say that handguns are a huge problem; certainly so if we look at the statistics. But "assault weapons" comprise a very minor part of any problem this country has with gun violence.
Welcome to penigma, Jack.
ReplyDeleteI have seen stats from the FBI which appreciably differ from your representation.
More than that, how many hammers are used each year in mass killings in the U.S.? None.
How many times are AR-15 or other military assault style weapons and/or expanded capacity magazines used, or were purchased for use, in mass killings? Most of them.
How many first responders and members of law enforcement are attacked with these weapons? Many, more than the civilian population.
There is also a larger percentage of the drug-cartel/drug trafficking exchanges with law enforcement that involve assault style weapons, compared to other kinds of weapons.
So your point doesn't hold up; there are sufficient problems with attacks by these kinds of weapons - and we need to be including those individuals who are injured not just those who are killed in the numbers. Given that far fewer people are dying from gun shots these days, those numbers are significant.
Baseball bats and hammers are not designed as weapons. AR-15s and other assault style weapons are designed to be only that kind of weapon, nothing else. Your argument is specious. They are part of a weapons arms race that should be ended and de-escalated. As former General McChrystal notes, there is no legitimate reason for them to be in civilian hands, and they are far from a 'minor' problem.
I'm not sure how the FBI statistics differ from my presentation. Certainly, the numbers are there. Hammers and other blunt objects numerically outnumber rifle deaths, there's not much of a way around it.
DeleteYet the question we're posing is how does this country address gun violence. Your blog has been keeping a running tally of gun deaths since Newtown, correct? Most of those are not "mass killings", such events are relatively rarely. Even the Brady Campaign's running list of mass shootings, which doesn't meet FBI definition of "mass murder" since it examines every incident in which three of more people were shot (some incidents have zero fatalities) rather than four or more killed, only has approximately 50 cases of rifles being used in mass shootings or were in the arsenal of "mass shooters" since February 25, 2005. The list ends at the date of December 14, 2012, seven years and ten months later; giving us approximately seven cases a year in which rifles were used in "mass shootings". Given that the list is somewhere around 140-150 such incidents (Brady Campaign estimates 20 mass shootings per year), assault weapons don't even seem to be getting used in the majority of cases, only maybe a third.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/major-shootings.pdf
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder/serial-murder-1#two
During that time period, countless thousands more were killed by hammers or baseball bats, or handguns for that matter. The former two may not have been intended as weapons in the modern era, but they can be used as such very easily. Besides, there was a time in human history where those were explicitly weapons (wooden club and hammer) and were carried by the soldiers of the era. Though military arms have shifted, the lethality of those objects hasn't changed. And certainly addressing the overall problem of gun violence in this country would be better served attacking handguns, since they're getting used in a majority of such cases. As for the problem of law-enforcement being attacked by rifles, it varies by year. There hasn't been a consistent trend on whether or not officers get disproportionately targeted. Officers were more likely to be killed with rifles (if killed at all) in 2002, 2003, 2004 when the AWB was in place than they were in 2011 (last year data is available), though this trend surged in 2009 and 2010.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/2011/tables/table-27
As for McChrystal, I take his account with a grain of salt. Though the stars have been used as evidence that he's an expert, there's plenty of people who have combat experience who would disagree with him, and plenty of people who've experience violence who would. It's important to note that as he has no combat experience (he has an EIB instead of a CIB or CAB, the latter two are given for experiencing combat), so his argument (based on wound ballistics and cartridge power) is about as academic as most people's. I'm guessing most people reading this have never actually shot anyone with an M4, neither have I; so we're all speculating based on second hand accounts, as is he. I'm also sure there's a litany of people out there who use .223 chambered weapons for practical purposes like pest control or hunting so their opinion is about as valid as McChrystal's on whether or not .223/5.56mm belongs in our society.
All blunt objects do not represent specifically hammers (much less hammers used by handyman as has been asserted) as greater than rifle deaths. My point is however that you need to look at injuries, not just deaths, which adds significantly to the numbers.
DeleteYes, I'm aware that mass shootings are relatively rare in comparison to more individual / small numbers of shootings; school shootings in particular are relatively rare in comparison to other shootings. Would you then agree that the premise of putting armed guards in schools is therefore stupid given that rarity?
Where the numbers get interesting is around the 3 to 4 person shootings, that are so common to murder / suicides. If you start to include those, especially with adding in - as we should - injuries from them, the numbers of mass shootings goes up.
Both of my co-bloggers are experienced military; one with 12 years in our army, the other a retired officer and combat vet; both of them have experience with these weapons, and both appear to support the general.
Also Jack I would refer you to the most recent post of mine about the hoax Brady campaign photos. Perhaps you are too willing to believe the worst about those who promote gun control?
AR 15 only dangerous in the hand of crazies..mine hasn't hurt anyone in over 25 years..BTW neither has my hammer..
DeleteKelly, welcome and thank you for your comment.
DeleteAR 15s are designed to spray fire, to function as a weapon which is similar to military weapons in design, not designed to be similar to other sporting weapons. I have no doubt that you have never harmed anyone; the problem is that they are designed for serious harm to people, that they provide the potential to do so, as do large capacity magazines in conjunction with them.
As the New York Times noted in October 2011 regarding the DC assault and large capacity weapons ban - please pay special attention to the second to the last sentence, which I highlighted in bold italics:
"The Supreme Court said in that case that the right is “not unlimited” and doesn’t protect guns “not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” And it specifically suggested that jurisdictions could ban the possession of the military’s M-16 rifle because it is “dangerous and unusual.”
The District’s firearms law defines “assault weapon” to include rifles like the AR-15, which the Supreme Court once called “the civilian version of the military’s M-16 rifle.” The appeals court suggested that the only place where assault weapons, which are designed to spray bullets at a rapid rate, are necessary for self-defense is on a battlefield or the equivalent for police. Anywhere else their presence is an invitation to mayhem and puts police officers and all around at high risk.
It also concluded that “the evidence demonstrates a ban on assault weapons is likely to promote the Government’s interest in crime control in the densely populated urban area that is the District of Columbia.” The court reached the same conclusion about banning magazines with more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Those magazines increase the dangers of semiautomatic guns: they result in more shots fired, people wounded and wounds per person. The appeals court’s ruling is careful and convincing on this heated topic.
I've dinged my thumb more than a few times with my hammer, btw.
dog gone, the AR-15 (or any other firearm) doesn't "spray fire". The projectiles go straight and fairly precisely where they are aimed. It appears as though you are using the metaphor "spray fire" to describe an automatic weapon which, of course, the AR-15 is not. Additionally, the AR-15 isn't "designed" to do serious damage to people. Rather, it is a gun and, as such, it will do serious damage to anything the projectiles hit. What the projectiles hit depends on who is aiming the gun. The mere presence of an AR-15 or M-16 doesn't "invite mayhem" and doesn't "put all around at high risk". A MENTALLY UNBALANCED person or criminal with an AR-15 or M-16(or any other gun, for that matter)"invites mayhem and puts all around at high risk". Don't get me wrong, I understand your purpose is to demonize and denigrate gun owners, but at least lay off the dramatics a bit. (I am not attempting to limit your first amendment right, but I am merely raising the point in the interest of keeping this discussion civil and rational.)
ReplyDeleteSo, anyway, where we really should be focusing our attention is on fixing our broken mental health system, securing our schools, and prosecuting violent criminals. No matter how many laws we pass banning guns of all types, recalling guns, buying back guns, burning guns, or whatever else you want to do to get rid of guns, criminals and the clinically mentally ill will still have guns and law-abiding citizens will not. So, as a nation, are we going to get serious about protecting our children from the criminally insane or are we going to criminalize the actions of otherwise law-abiding citizens and pat ourselves on the back for doing great works which will accomplish nothing toward protecting our loved ones? That's the question we're really addressing, isn't it?
BTW, sorry about your thumb. You need to get license for that hammer and then you'll be safe.
The problem with this is that you will argue with me no matter what number I provide for what the rate of fire would be: especially if the number is high.
DeleteYou would like the number to be a low one since you wish to portray weapons with a proven appeal to mass murderers to be benign and as being somehow innocuous.
But there is a reason that most mass shootings are committed with a semi-automatic weapon rather than bolt, pump, or lever action: and that is the rapidity for which semi-automatic weapons can fire. Most of these incidents are over in a matter of minutes.
This is because Semi-automatic weapons can have a high sustained or effective rate of fire. The rapid rate of fire is solely based upon how fast someone can pull the trigger between rounds, and I have heard people fire semi-automatic weapons quickly enough that they sounded as if they were firing a fully automatic weapon.
And if someone is at a high rate of fire--no one is going to stop and say: "Excuse me--what is your rate of fire?"
Additionally, the fact that a semi-automatic does not have the same extent of muzzle climb as a fully automatic weapon means that the fire is far more controlled and aimed.
If anything, I find your taking umbrage with the term "spray fire" as attempting to diminish the fact that these weapons can and do fire at a rapid rate: a much higher rate than bolt, pump, or lever action.
Are you saying that the videos of "bump-fire" are somehow faked?
Then, top top off your silly comment you quote yet another mantra of the "pro-gun" side which is: "we really should be focusing our attention is on fixing our broken mental health system, securing our schools, and prosecuting violent criminals."
The problem is that those actions take money--are you willing to pay the taxes to accomplish those tasks?
But, you make the most laughable comment in prosecuting violent criminals.
If only you realised how weak the firearms laws are that you support. How they are designed to make prosecution difficult, if not impossible. After all, it must be shown that someone "knew" what they were doing was illegal (18 USC 921 et seq).
To top that off, then you use the term "otherwise law abiding citizens" not realising that is only a euphemism for criminals.
After all, They wouldn't be criminals if it weren't for all those pesky laws. And as you lot like to point out, criminals don't really obey laws--but that is why the criminal justice system has the punishment that you say you want to see meted out to them.
Fortunately, Glide Rider, we do not need to demonise gun owners or in any way try to make them look stupid.
You already do a wonderful job of that on your own with each clichéd "rebuttal" of our position. In this case, you want to both enable criminals and punish them.
Please come back when you have made up your mind what it is you are trying to do here.
Glide Rider, perhaps you are making the assumption that I and my co-bloggers are in favor of gun control, and that we are not firearms proficient ourselves - or that we haven't also fire semi-automatic and full auto firearms. You provide no support for your assertions, which frankly sound like a third hand repetition from some of the least knowledgeable gun huggers. Please research your assertions more carefully.
DeleteWe are prosecuting too many people, not too few, which is why we have the highest rate of incarceration in the world - NOT something of which we should be proud. We also have THE highest rate of firearms deaths and injuries among comparable developed countries -- another thing of which we cannot be proud. CLEARLY relying on individuals to be responsible with firearms is a failure. Clearly putting more armed people in schools do NOT make our schools safer (although it does tend to put more kids into the criminal justice system).
And since most people who shoot other people, either fatally, wounding them, or shooting at but missing them are NOT mentally ill, from criminal justice analysis of such shootings, blaming the shootings we do have on mental health problems is inaccurate.
We have a GUN problem. Countries which more rigorously restrict firearms do NOT have the equivalent problems with firearms, not injuries, not fatalities, not suicides, not murder/ suicides, no accidents, not threats with firearms, not children harmed by guns, and NOT GUN CRIME. Limiting guns WORKS. It works in the states that do so, it works in the nations that do so.
And YES, semi auto firearms, both long and hand guns do bump fire / spray fire. It is established fact, not fiction. That is why the findings I quoted to you from the DC decision are considered findings of FACT. It is also fact that is backed up by military experts - perhaps you should acquaint yourself with their testimony as experts as well, including to Congress.
Sorry, but I find it impossible to accept your assertions given our personal experience, and the testimony of people who are clearly better qualified as experts, such as the top brass of our armed forces.
We need gun control, we need greater safety FROM those who have guns, not more guns. While lots of gun owners brag about how safe they are - statistics do not bear that out. And certainly the loud and stupid at the NRA convention this past weekend, especially the idiot Nugent and the new NRA president only reinforce that to be a fact.
Welcome to penigma, Glide Rider, and thank you for your comment.
ReplyDeleteThe AR 15 does spray fire, sometimes referred to as bump firing; it is a technical term used equally by both the pro-gun and gun control sides of the issue. It IS factual that semi-automatic rifles are capable of doing this, and it refers to an extremely rapid rate of fire. When fired from the hip, or otherwise rapid fired, it is not fired with the intention of accuracy, but rather of 'spraying' an area with bullets, as suppression fire rather than precision or sniper fire.
As to your contention the AR 15 is not 'designed' to kill people, courts have found otherwise, and it is marketed similarly to the court findings when sold for protection rather than sport (ie hunting etc.)
So, unless you can demonstrate to me that you have credentials superior to those recognized by our judicial system in testimony about how this weapon and others that are similar are designed, you are factually incorrect - and rather uninformed.
I would refer you to the decision in 2011, re the DC assault weapons and large capacity magazine ban which found (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/opinion/no-right-to-bear-assault-weapons.html?_r=0):
The Supreme Court said in that case that the right is “not unlimited” and doesn’t protect guns “not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” And it specifically suggested that jurisdictions could ban the possession of the military’s M-16 rifle because it is “dangerous and unusual.”
The District’s firearms law defines “assault weapon” to include rifles like the AR-15, which the Supreme Court once called “the civilian version of the military’s M-16 rifle.” The appeals court suggested that the only place where assault weapons, which are designed to spray bullets at a rapid rate, are necessary for self-defense is on a battlefield or the equivalent for police. Anywhere else their presence is an invitation to mayhem and puts police officers and all around at high risk.
It also concluded that “the evidence demonstrates a ban on assault weapons is likely to promote the Government’s interest in crime control in the densely populated urban area that is the District of Columbia.” The court reached the same conclusion about banning magazines with more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Those magazines increase the dangers of semiautomatic guns: they result in more shots fired, people wounded and wounds per person.
I look forward to your explaining how your credentials prove you to be a better expert than those that testified in the above case - and many other cases.
My thumb is fine; I now use a lovely little plastic gadget that keeps my fingers safe. I defer further technical expertise to my co-bloggers, both military men of some considerable experience.
Before I say my piece I would like to say that on both sides, pro-gun control and anti-gun control, need to stop attacking the other party, calling them stupid, saying that they are only trying to demonize the other party, for that only accomplishes two things--one, it makes you, yourself, look stupid, not the other person, and two, I believe it lessens the effect of your argument because, to me, it seems like you are making these decisions based on the people who support either side, rather than the issue itself. In my opinion, people stereotype too often. (Yes I do see the irony of this first paragraph, but I felt it needed to be said).
ReplyDeleteAs far as gun control goes, I am a supporter of guns. I love to hunt, I love to go to the range, I love to clean them. I do believe that there is a problem in the United States with gun violence, but the problem doesn't lie with assault weapons, but with handguns. There were more people killed with handguns in 2011--6,220--than with all other types of guns--2,363. In fact, if we add in knives or cutting instruments--1,694--blunt objects--496--and unarmed murder (hands, fists, feet, etc.)--726--we are still below the number of people murdered by handguns.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11
Andrew, welcome to Penigma, and thank you for your comment - although this is a relatively old post.
DeleteThere is a reason that the divide which involves name calling is so deep, and it has to do with the nature of the beliefs of people on one side. The majority of people WANT more stringent gun control, including a majority of gun owners, and even a majority of the NRA members. The anti-gun control extremists have thwarted the functioning of representative government - and that has, for the most part, been at the behest of the lobbying activities by the NRA on behalf of gun manufacturers.
The lies, notably most recently about the UN illegal arms trafficking treaty, fear mongers and engages in active efforts at propaganda and disinformation, and some of the most egregious efforts in fear mongering since the first half of the 20th century.
You are incorrect in some respects about long guns; for example the increase in assault style weapons used in mass shootings is huge. The significant problem with high capacity magazines for both hand guns and long guns is equally bad.
The reality is that if we banned the assault-style weapons - which are not essential to hunting -- we would all be safer. As my avid hunter maternal grandfather pointed out, if you needed something like that to hunt, you were not a very good hunter. If you needed as many bullets as carried in an expanded capacity magazine, you were not a very good hunter, and were probably a danger to others with your incompetence.
We are arming civilians so as to create an arms war for our law enforcement.
I'm familiar with the FBI data, as well as the court findings which clearly address that assault style weapons and expanded capacity magazines are entirely emulating battlefield weapons so as to maximize the number of bullets fired, into the maximum number of targets, in order to cause the maximum amount and severity of wounds.
That is not hunting.
The reality is that those with guns are responsible for 1. legal guns getting into the hands of criminals - we should require insurance, and we should require safe and secure storage, with stiff penalties for those who allow legally purchased guns to be used by criminals. and 2, as we do with any other dangerous item, like vehicles, or boats, or planes, we should require both stringent licensing and mandatory insurance.
As to the other complaints I have with the NRA, they are responsible for criminals who used guns in violent crimes getting their gun rights restored more easily, with sabotaging the NICS data base, and the gun checks generally, and they are responsible for making it easier for the dangerously mentally ill and illegal drug users to legally buy guns.
When you have one side trying that hard to do bad things, they deserve to be demonized - except it is not demonizing, it is calling a spade a spade.
Well if you read my comment I never said that I don't think we should not try to work on control for the assault rifles, I simply stated that handguns are used to kill more people in the USA than almost everything else, according to the FBI anyways. People focus on assault rifles when the major problem lies in handguns.
DeleteP.S. I happen to agree with your grandfather, I hunt with bolt action rifles, I don't think you need anything more.
Andrew, if people are using handguns to kill people, and we make handguns less accessible to people who want to harm others -- do you really think that they won't use a long gun instead?
DeleteThere are enough people being killed, and otherwise harmed - most of the gun violence is not fatal, btw - to justify some gun bans, large capacity magazine bans, and strict gun control on all firearms. The notion that we should not include long barrel firearms is foolish. I would point out that one of the most recent mass shootings, the navy yard, was a long rifle with the barrel sawed off, and that the shooter had attempted to purchase an assault-style weapon.
Andrew, I read your first comment and I would not have inferred you supported limiting the firepower of assault weapons. No, you didn't say you didn't support it but neither did you say that you do. You still haven't said one way or the other. So do you support limiting magazine capacity on gas fed recoil automatically reloading weapons or do you no
ReplyDeleteLET ME PUT IT TO YOU THIS WAY IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE RIGHTS OF THIS COUNTRY GO AWAY MOVE BUT NONE OF YOU WILL DO THAT I AM SO SICK OF PEOPLE HAVING THE ARGUEMENT ABOUT GUNS AND WANTING TO BAN CERTAIN ONES IF YOUR GOING TO ATTACK THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND AT THE END OF THE DAY THATS WHAT YOU ARE DOING THEN ALL OF OUR RIGHTS SHOULD GO AWAY AND I AM SURE YOU WILL ALL CRY ABOUT THAT IF YOU WANNA LIVE SOMEWHERE THAT HAS STRICT GUN LAWS GO TO CANADA THEN YOU CAN LIVE IN THE SOCIALIST UTOPIA YOU ALL SEEK LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE CRIMINALS COMMIT CRIME IF THEY DONT HAVE A GUN THEY WILL FIND A DIFFERENT WAY TO DO SO YOU BETTER BAN CARS TO CUZ YOU CAN AIM A CAR AT A CROWD AND KILL JUST AS MANY AS YOU WOULD WITH A AR-15. YOU PEOPLE ARE A JOKE MASS KILLINGS WITH NEVER STOP BECAUSE YOU CANNOT CONTROL BEHAVIOR YOU ARE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE OK WITH THE GOVERNMENT TELLING YOU HOW TO LIVE YOUR LIFE WHAT HEALTH CARE YOU NEED IT IS DISGUSTING GUN LAWS SOLVE NOTHING AND YOU WILL NEVER DISARM AMERICA NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU TRY IF YOU PEOPLE WOULD TRY MINDING YOUR OWN BUSINESS ONCE IN AWHILE THE WORLD WOULD BE A BETTER PLACE WORRY ABOUT YOURSELVES YOU MAKE ME SICK ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTLEY
ReplyDeleteI ALSO LIKE HOW YOU CAN CENSOR WHAT PEOPLE SAY YOU WONT POST MY COMMENT BECAUSE IN YOUR MIND I AM A "GUNHUGGER" YOU HAVE TO REVIEW MY POST BEFORE IT CAN BE SEEN YOU ARE ALL FOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT UNTILL IT SPECIFICLY GOES AGAINST YOUR BELIEFS THIS COUNTRY IS IN THE SHAPE IT IS IN BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU IF YOU WANT TO TACLE REAL PROBLEMS START WITH THE PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON WE SHOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR 50000000 PEOPLE ON WELFARE BUT YOU DONT CARE ABOUT THAT LEECHING OFF THE BACKS OF PEOPLE THAT WORK YOU WOULD RATHER WORRY ABOUT GUNS GUNS WILL NEVER BE THE DIMISE OF THIS COUNTRY LIBERAL POLITICS WILL BE FOOD FOR THOUGHT WORRY ABOUT REAL PROBLEMS NOT THE ACTIONS OF A FEW CRAZY PEOPLE
ReplyDeleteCory, we have moderation of comments to address a variety of issues, from spam to duplication glitches.
DeleteIf you don't like it, too bad.
Now lose the caps and resubmit your comments.
And run spell check.
A point you might want to check, is that the First Amendment ONLY applies to censorship by the government, not by private parties, including businesses or blogs.
Another point you might want to fact check that you have wrong is that the majority of those receiving assistance are either the working poor, or children, elderly, or those who are too incapacitated by illness or injury to work. Those on assistance include not only a large number of veterans, but also the families of those who are serving.
So, until YOU become more fact based, you ARE one of those 'crazy people'.
Really so the guy on dissability because he is fat and the numerous people i see put soda and junk food on a ebt card then get 20 dollars in lotttery tickets with cash arent leeches this stuff happens all of the time and there is not one child on welfare only the parents are on welfare because for the most part they are lazy children are the result of there parents just like i now have to pay for some persons birth control just because they cant be responsible for themselves. these are real facts not just numbers you morons pull off of websites i would be willing to bet 8 out of 10 people on welfare are able bodied enough to get a job the government promotes dependence on them the government produces nothing therefore they can provide nothing if you trust the government to do the right thing you are a "crazy one" the government wants complete control. People like you make it possible. if government would get the hell out of the way jobs would be better and people would prosper but our entitlement society will never let that happen because you people want everything for free and dont want to work hard to get it so dont tell me to fact check i see this crap on a daily basis. But you probably think food comes from a grocery store wake up you have absolutley no common sense. You sit there and preach to people from behind a computer screen and have no idea about real life and just so you know if i want to type any letter in all caps i will do so you liberals cannot control everybodys life or what they do
ReplyDeleteThank you for writing normally. Now that I've straightened you out on what the 1st Amendment does and does not cover...
DeleteYou are more than welcome to type in capital letters if you wish; however, as the executive editor of this blog, I will exercise my privilege of not publishing such comments as offensive. In internet etiquette, all caps equates to shouting, and is considered rude. The blog rules are along the left side, upper quadrant of this blog; posting a comment here is conditional on those rules, including courtesy.
You can't tell from looking at another human being WHY he or she is on disability, just like you can't always tell by looking at someone why they have a handicapped parking permit. You have no idea if they are 'fat' because, for example, of problems relating to their immune system (some medication causes the same effect). You can't tell for example, by just looking at someone, if they suffer from a disability like PTSD, or severe seizures, or some other non-visible problem.
To get disability is not easy; it requires passing a lot of medical checks and certifications that someone actually IS disabled.
Just because you see a few examples of an occasional anecdotal abuse of the system doesn't extrapolate to widespread abuse. Your observations are not broader facts, they are just anecdotal. Individual states administer the SNAP program for example, and are responsible for how the EBT cards work. In many locations -- MOST locations - they are inoperable for use on lottery tickets, etc., and users don't have spare cash to use for such things. Did it ever occur to you that what you are seeing might be someone spending a birthday gift of cash, rather than regular income that is consistent with the application for benefits.
Just because you WANT to believe that 8 out of 10 people on assistance are capable of working doesn't make it so. There have been plenty of studies and investigations done to document that. That is true as well of the assumptions by crazy right wing nuts that poor people are drug or alcohol abusers. Drug testing shows that while there is a very very small amount of use, people in that demographic use and abuse at a far far lower rate than more affluent and middle class people out in the suburbs -- it is well documented, including by the drug testing some states have mandated as a condition for assistance.
It is appropriate that we all share in the costs of contraception, because it means fewer unplanned children who might end up in poverty. Btw -- do you ALSO object to paying the many millions per year spent on erectile dysfunction meds, aka 'boner pills' for men? The reality is that providing family planning assistance pays off for government, for the economy, and for society.
No, there is no evidence the government wants 'complete control'. That is the kind of overly broad generalization and fear mongering without substance that people like you throw around without justification -- just an emotional response, not a substantive one.
And NO, I don't think food comes from a grocery store. I know very well where it comes from, probably better than you do. Ever done a mastitis check on a cow, or had YOUR arm up a cow's ass to your armpit, to grasp the cervix so you could do an AI with your other hand? Or done a semen collection followed by a semen analysis under a microscope on domestic animals? Or castrated any? How about single handed jugular sticks to draw blood, or vaccinate, or maybe tattoo or freeze brand animals? Know what a trochar is, or ever used one? Ever helped perform an emergency C-section on an animal? Can you identify the kind of hay in a bale, or identify crops in a field just by looking at them? I doubt it.
DeleteI grew up a suburban country club brat, but I've also had a first class education, including in the areas of economics and the financial sector. I'm a rural resident, familiar with the above by both training and choice.
You sound like an armchair whiner, and a singularly ill-informed one at that.
The notion that people are seeking things for free is ridiculous. What people are seeking is relief from the fact that compensation in the form of salary and wages has been flat, in spite of huge gains in productivity, while we have a growing Grand Canyon sized gap in wealth and income inequality. What people are seeking is more fairness in compensation, such that executives are not overpaid without merit, while most people are not paid anything in spite of merit.
In the past several decades, in the U.S. executive compensation has gone from an average of 11 times the average salary of a business's employees, to anywhere from 200 to more than 400 times that rate of compensation for executives. Know why? Because of how executive compensation works; no longer do stock holders have a say in setting compensation, in spite of being the owners of the company.
Given that this post dates back to January of this year, I doubt anyone much will be reading those comments anyway.
You can delude yourself any way you like, however there is no substance to your assumption that other people are unfamiliar with how the world operates, or that I and my co-bloggers are unfamiliar with hard work, BOTH manual and intellectual.
And FYI, in those years with a Democratic President and/or a Democratic majority in Congress, this nation has seen the largest economic growth as measured by multiple metrics, including (but not limited to) growth of jobs, growth of GDP, and stock market performance. This has been attributed by multiple analysts as reflective of the role of government, parallel to the other nations that have strong governmental regulation and support for their economies.
So you can think all you like that 'government getting out of the way' would work, but there is no objective evidence to support your assertion. I'm one of those liberals who operates strictly on fact, not emotion like you do.
Corey,
ReplyDeleteI understand you feel your observations reflect a larger truth, but let me ask you a question, if I saw one white person blow up a building, does that mean that ALL white people are terrorists? Timothy McVeigh killed the most people in US history by a terrorist act until 9/11.
The point is, observation isn't anything more than your observation, it is as likely an isolated incident as "the truth."
Sociologists have studied poverty extensively. Primarily people drift into and out of poverty over a short period, with roughly half being below the poverty line for a year or less, another 38% being in a state of poverty for 3 years or less. Only 12% of Americans are "chronically poor." Thus, your meme' that it is because of handouts that people have no ambition and it is through this lack of ambition/action that "the government is taking over" really isn't supportable.
Another question, just who is this "government" which you fear so strongly. Not what, who, who is behind this? Faceless bureaocrats? People who answer to political appointees? The appointees themselves?
Here's a fact for you to consider, excluding the military, Social Security and Medicare, US Federal spending has fallen by about 50% since the time of Ronald Reagan. This is because we've pursued very conservative, very punative policies for the poor. Policies like making them prove they are drug free, policies like putting a 5 year life-time cap on any form of assistance. So, again, your meme' really isn't factual. People cannot sit on assistance for years, unless you consider Medicare, an annuity (insurance) program into which they paid their whole life, sitting on assitance. Mediare is paying for medical services (again using tax dollars the recipient contributed) - for those same (generally) elderly people paid into.
continued..
ReplyDeleteOutside of those groups, a fairly small number of disabled people get some assistance from Social Security. I don't know the figures off the top of my head, but I believe it's less than 1% of all SS recipients. I'll find it out and update this post.
Soooo, the point is, the amount being spent as a percentage of GDP is SMALLER today than under Ronald Reagan... there is no takeover by the government and moreover, there is zero evidence it's resulting in stagnation in the job market. If anything, more people sitting on the sidelines should equate to more demand for those who will work. The opposite is true in part because if anything, MOST people feel force to work. The meager existence you can eek out on assistance (assuming you can even qualify) is so paltry you'd be hard pressed to not have to live in a box and eat dog food. THAT's how far our Christian society has fallen.
Last, your taxes are at the level they are at due to many things, a small bit due to welfare (general assistance, SNAP and the like)... and you complain. Yet, where is your complaint about the fact that 40% of all income goes to the richest 10%, that the richest 5% own about 84% (iirc) of all tangilbe wealth? Where are you protesting your lack of economic gain duirng the last 30 years, where productivity increased by 50% yet average wages remained flat? Taxes on the wealthiest fell by 50% during that period - was that increase in affluence shared with you? No??
If that increase in productivity had translated into wages at a peer rate, or even close, you'd likely make many thousands MANY thousands of dollars per year more (obviously depending upon the job you now have) - than you do in our current system.
Yet, you blame the government/taxes etc.. because rather than being taxed at 15% all in (state local and federal average) you're taxed at 18%. What is 3% of your income? Is it even $1000/year? If we shelved all forms of public assistance and let people starve in the streets, you'd make only a scant few dollars more.. Where is your outrage at the vast economic injustice we call our current American econmic system? I know, it's a helluva lot easier to bitch about the government and faceless bureuocrats than stand up to your boss and demand a fair wage, but it's also gutless.
dog gone, actually hammers were designed as a tool and a weapon to break things like wood BONE and stone there were also War Hammers used for close combat, Hammers are used today as weapons as you can carry them on your side without a permit and are carried for the purpose of being a weapon on a daily basis by those known as 1% of the population, Baseball bats while invented to replace the paddles originally used in baseball have been used as weapons.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.eagletribune.com/boston/x2109941067/Bikers-charged-in-hammer-attack-on-disgraced-gang-member
http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/365737-former-biker-chiefs-bail-hearing-in-hammer-attack-delayed-again
Any object can be used as a weapon it is the person that makes the object kill.
No, Rick Schramm; your facts are deficient and your reasoning is faulty. Hammers in modern use are used for constructive purposes, i.e. construction. No one is running around using war hammers as a routine weapon. The design of the two significantly differs to better suit their specific purpose. I'm actually fairly expert in primitive and medieval weapons; the handle is not sufficiently long on modern construction hammers to make them good weapons for killing people.
DeleteThat is not to say that no one uses a hammer, or a kitchen spoon, or a butter knife, or a plastic dry cleaner's bag to kill others --- but it is not what they were designed to do, and those examples, in contrast to guns, are rare.
You can kill someone with a baseball or a golf ball, but few people would describe them as reliable weapons when attempting to kill someone. It would be very difficult to be sufficiently precise in throwing or hitting one so as to be able to intentionally kill someone. Likewise with a hammer, you have to be in close proximity and be sufficiently stronger than your victim to successfully kill someone with a hammer -- and not also be at substantial, even equal risk of being killed with it. The example of the current season of Fargo on cable not withstanding, hammers are not good as lethal weapons except possibly on tv (in other words, in fiction).
Guns are designed to be weapons, function with greater efficiency and safety for the user as weapons than do hammers, spoons, butter knives or dry cleaner plastic bags. One of the most fundamental ways in which firearms are most effective is they are ranged weapons, where hammers are not. But also the damage they do is much greater from projectiles.
It is the purpose and design of an object that makes it a weapon or not a weapon. The exceptions do not prove the rule, this is specious reasoning.
I know this is an old blog but 1. I want to shout out my support to a well informed, intelligent blogger and 2. I just have to give my appreciation to Rick for his shout out to a War Hammer, I love my medieval weapons.
ReplyDeleteBut that argument is very flawed since anything from a stone or brick to, well a hammer, can be considered as such. Medieval war hammers are hammers, but ones designed to kill or maim steel plated armored infantry. I see neither war hammers nor people in suits of steel plate nowadays.
To me the gun debate boils down to this. Guns are simply dangerous and they increase the risk of death to the owner and everyone around the owner at ALL times, increasing the most for the owner and his loved ones he claims to protect who live with him. While the issue of violence should deal with many things; mental health, education, gun control, the issue is someone can't kill so easily if they do not have a fire arm in hand.
Criminals are criminals no matter what laws are in play and NOTHING will change that. If we the people, meaning people that arn't criminals, don't have guns then criminals will be a Lot more apt to rob, rape, or harm others in any way because they won't even hade to think about what may happen to them. Most studies show that communities with a higher percentage of home owners that own guns have a LOT lower crime rate, because criminals know that they will end up having to fight for what they want, and criminals almost always go for the easier targets, aka people without guns. Criminals will ALWAYS find away to have or use a weapon no matter what laws or how many laws are in affect. I am a proud gun owner and I will NEVER live in any establishment that doesn't have a gun that I can use to at any time toat LEAST protect my family, myself, and my nation. And I plan on teaching my children these same principles. Cuz guns arn't bad AT ALL, it's the people who don't know how to use them or choose to use them wrongly that are bad.
DeleteNo credible studies show that guns lower crime. What credible studies DO show is that crime is going down regardless of gun ownership, and that those states that have the most guns have the most gun violence.
DeleteWhat experience has shown us is that stricter gun control works, and that it works in particular to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
What experience, research studies, including public health studies DO show us is that homes with guns are more dangerous, not more safe, and that the incidence of safety being achieved by defensive use of guns is too rare to justify that risk.
Anyone can choose badly to use guns; the notion that there are good guys with guns and bad guys with guns is false. All that we have are people who are fallible human beings, and who are sometimes good and sometimes bad -- very bad.
We also know that guns are more likely to kill children in the home and that women are more likely to be killed or threatened by someone they know who owns guns than strangers.
So, sorry David Geer, you are factually false on all points.
From earlier this month:
http://www.inquisitr.com/1806402/study-shows-more-guns-more-crime-states-with-lax-gun-laws-have-more-gun-violence
The Violence Policy Center reached its conclusions by analyzing data gathered from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. In addition to showing that those states with weaker gun laws and high rates of gun ownership result in greater gun deaths, the data collected also showed that the opposite is true — those “states with the lowest overall gun death rates have lower rates of gun ownership and some of the strongest gun violence prevention laws in the nation.”
The report adds, “However, even in these states the human toll of gun violence is far above the gun death rate in other industrialized nations.”
The state with the highest rate of gun fatalities in the country, according to the most recent data, is Alaska. In 2013, Alaska had 19.59 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people. This is significantly higher than the national average of 10.64 deaths per 100,000. Alaska has the country’s third-highest rate of gun ownership, with 60.6 percent of all households reporting that firearms are present within the home.
Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Wyoming are the states that followed Alaska in the highest rates on gun deaths. All states had some of the nation’s largest percentage of households with guns present, as well as having gun restrictions that fell within the study’s definition of “weak gun restrictions.”
On the other end of the spectrum, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and New York were thestates with the lowest gun death rates. A separate analysis done by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence lists these three states as those states with the strongest gun restrictions in place.
The newest report by the Violence Policy Center is not the first to challenge the “more guns, less crime” hypothesis with data that shows the very opposite is true. According to other studies, between 2011 and 2013, the five states with the highest percentages of gun ownership saw a disturbing and noticeable spike in gun-related deaths per 100,000 residents. Yet another report published by researchers from John Hopkins and Stanford University finds a link between a rise in violent crimes and right-to-carry laws.
----------------
You are not the solution, David Geer. YOU are part of the problem.
I repeat -- YOU, David Geer, and the pro-gunners like you ARE THE PROBLEM, NOT ONLY CRIMINALS. You are creating a gun culture founded on myth and false facts, and in which life is valued too cheaply in exchange for the primitive thrill you get from your guns. It promotes a vigilante approach to society which is destructive to that very society, and to life and limb. You and those who wrongly think and believe like you are as great a plague as any Biblical locusts or Darke ages Buboes.
Deletehttp://newsok.com/health-professionals-call-for-action-to-address-gun-violence/article/5396711
Leaders from the nation's top health professional organizations have issued a call to action on gun violence, co-signing an article published Monday in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
The groups declared their "collective backing for universal background checks, a ban on military-style assault weapons and large capacity magazines, more federal support for gun-injury research and an end to laws that would punish physicians who discuss the safety of gun ownership with their patients," the Los Angeles Times reported.
The thrust of the article was that gun-related deaths and injuries should no longer be seen only as a matter of criminal violence, but also as a public health crisis.
"Each year, more than 32,000 persons die as a result of firearm-related violence, suicides and accidents in the United States," the authors noted. "What's more, the number of nonfatal firearm injuries is more than double the number of deaths. Although much more attention has been given to the mass shootings that have occurred in the United States in recent years, the 88 deaths per day due to firearm-related homicides, suicides and unintentional deaths are equally concerning."
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteJake Roberts, thank you for your recent comment as of Jan. 15, 2016. I regret that after posting that comment I was subsequently required to delete it, as Penigma has a policy against publishing commercial links.
DeleteIf you would like to make a comment or otherwise summarize toy guns of all kinds, I would be delighted to publish it here.
Thank you in advance for your understanding of our publication policy.