Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 28, 2015, 11:54:06 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
87207 Posts in 2280 Topics by 1069 Members
Latest Member: ctelerant
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  We the Well-armed People (Gun rights stuff )
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] Print
Author Topic: We the Well-armed People (Gun rights stuff )  (Read 345398 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33807


« Reply #1600 on: June 10, 2015, 10:52:10 AM »


By
Jason L. Riley
June 9, 2015 7:28 p.m. ET
107 COMMENTS

Last September the Obama administration produced an FBI report that said mass shooting attacks and deaths were up sharply—by an average annual rate of about 16% between 2000 and 2013. Moreover, the problem was worsening. “The findings establish an increasing frequency of incidents,” said the authors. “During the first 7 years included in the study, an average of 6.4 incidents occurred annually. In the last 7 years of the study, that average increased to 16.4 incidents annually.”

The White House could not possibly have been more pleased with the media reaction to these findings, which were prominently featured by the New York Times, USA Today, CNN, the Washington Post and other major outlets. The FBI report landed six weeks before the midterm elections, and the administration was hoping that the gun-control issue would help drive Democratic turnout.
Opinion Journal Video
Crime Prevention Research Center President John Lott says there is no evidence that crime is rising or that arrests are down nationwide. Photo credit: Getty Images.

But late last week, J. Pete Blair and M. Hunter Martaindale, two academics at Texas State University who co-authored the FBI report, acknowledged that “our data is imperfect.” They said that the news media “got it wrong” last year when they “mistakenly reported mass shootings were on the rise.”

Mind you, the authors did not issue this mea culpa in the major news outlets that supposedly misreported the original findings. Instead, the authors published it in ACJS Today, an academic journal published by the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. “Because official data did not contain the information we needed, we had to develop our own,” wrote Messrs. Blair and Martaindale. “This required choices between various options with various strengths and weaknesses.” You don’t say.

John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center—who has studied FBI crime data for three decades—told me in an interview that the FBI report is better understood as a political document than as a work of serious social science. For example, the authors chose the year 2000 as their starting point “even though anyone who has studied these trends knows that 2000 and 2001 were unusually quiet and had few mass shootings.” Data going back to the mid-1970s is readily available but was ignored. How come? Over the past 40 years, there has been no statistically significant increase in mass shootings in the U.S.

Another problem with the study: The data used seemed selectively chosen to achieve certain results. The researchers somehow “missed 20 mass-shooting cases,” Mr. Lott said. “There’s one case where nine people were murdered. You just don’t miss that.” Also, the omissions helped create an “upward trend, because they were primarily missed at the beginning of the period.” This, he said, “is disturbing.”

Mr. Lott told me that he had reached out repeatedly to the FBI and to the authors for an explanation after the original report came out, but none was forthcoming until last week. The Journal recently described Mr. Obama’s tenure as the “least transparent administration in history,” and the White House seems to have no interest in proving its critics wrong.

Following the high-profile mass shootings in 2012 at a cinema in Aurora, Colo., and an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., the White House pushed hard for more gun-control legislation. Congress, which at the time included a Democratic-controlled Senate, refused to act. This surprised no one, including an administration well aware that additional gun controls wouldn’t pass muster with enough members of the president’s own party, let alone Republicans.

But the administration also knew that the issue could potentially excite Democratic base voters in a year when the party was worried about turnout. Hence President Obama’s vow in his 2014 State of the Union address “to keep trying, with or without Congress, to help stop more tragedies from visiting innocent Americans in our movie theaters, shopping malls, or schools like Sandy Hook.”

Ironically, this scare-mongering likely inspired more gun purchases. The Washington Times reported last year that record checks for gun sales hit a new high in 2013: “More than 21 million applications were run through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System last year, marking nearly an 8% increase and the 11th straight year that the number has risen.”

Since liberals like to link violent crime to the proliferation of guns, it is worth noting that, according to the Justice Department, the violent-crime rate in 2013 fell by 4.4% from 2012 and was 14.5% below the 2004 level.

Mr. Riley is a Manhattan Institute senior fellow and Journal contributor.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33807


« Reply #1601 on: June 18, 2015, 12:43:16 PM »

Unfortunately the phrases he uses will resonate and are hard to debate:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/18/obama-calls-gun-control-wake-senseless-sc-church-m/

How do we effectively answer them?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12603


« Reply #1602 on: June 18, 2015, 05:03:39 PM »

Unfortunately the phrases he uses will resonate and are hard to debate:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/18/obama-calls-gun-control-wake-senseless-sc-church-m/

How do we effectively answer them?


You can ask the staff at Charlie Hebdo how well French gun control laws work.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33807


« Reply #1603 on: June 18, 2015, 07:54:10 PM »

Looks like you are on the right track:

http://www.gunowners.org/news06182015b.htm
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12603


« Reply #1604 on: June 18, 2015, 08:22:19 PM »

9 black people murdered? That's a slow weekend in Chicago.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33807


« Reply #1605 on: June 18, 2015, 10:16:33 PM »

Now THAT is how to sound  bite an answer!!!
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 753


« Reply #1606 on: June 19, 2015, 11:18:14 AM »

A National Tragedy and a Partisan Response

Posted By Daniel Greenfield On June 19, 2015


Why do black lives only seem to matter when white people take them? Why does the president of the United States think it’s proper to take a horrible racial tragedy in Charleston South Carolina as an excuse to bash America as the violence capital of the “advanced” world, and a prop for Democrats’  lust for gun control legislation in a state that already has it?

Last year 82 people were shot over the Fourth of July weekend in Chicago. 16 of them died [2]. The victims and the shooters were black.

Now two 15-year-olds [3] have already been shot in a single Chicago neighborhood in two days.

These are tragedies every bit as terrible as what took place in a church in Charleston, but the mass shootings of black people doesn’t attract much national attention when white people aren’t involved.

Chicago’s bloody weekends show us that the politicians and reporters haven’t turned their attention to Charleston because they care about dead black people.

They are there for the psychotic killer, Dylann Storm Roof, not for his victims. They are there for a Southern state with a Republican governor who can be safely blamed the way that their Mayor of Chicago can’t. They are there to use the voiceless dead as convenient props in their campaign for gun control – in a state that already has [4] some of the toughest gun control laws in the South. They don’t care about black people. They care about their political agendas.

Obama made that clear when he blamed Republicans for the shootings in his statement. The formatting of the statement [5] on the White House website with its paragraphs about healing and the church in small print and the call for gun control and accusations of racism set out in giant bold type show with stark clarity what the president’s priorities are.

His priority is not, “Now is the time for mourning and for healing.” It is, “Someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun” and “this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries” to impose his burden of collective guilt on all Americans.

By complaining that “the politics in this town foreclose a lot of those avenues”, Obama blamed the Charleston shootings on Republicans even as he was hypocritically calling for “mourning and healing.” Six and a half years of divisive politics and disregard for representative government should show that the last thing Barack Obama wants is a national healing.

It is a shameless new frontier in the political exploitation of a human tragedy diminishing both the black victims and their black and white mourners alike. But for Obama, politics is the priority. The mourning is secondary. And forget about the healing.

Obama and Hillary insist that the country needs gun control, but what it really needs is a coming together of its ordinary citizens. It isn’t just Charleston that needs a new unity. It’s Democratic cities Chicago, Baltimore and Detroit – all centers of violence, all zones where strict gun laws rule that need it as well.

The world’s worst mass shootings have happened in other advanced societies – not America as Obama claims. They happen in countries like Norway, a social democracy, France, a country ruled by anti-gun socialists and South Korea. Making guns hard to get does not stop a determined killer. It prevents his victims from stopping the rampage. Dylaan Roof stopped to reload his gun 5 times in the Charleston AME Church. If only one of the bible study members had possessed a firearm, most of the victims would still be alive. The demonization of firearms takes place in societies that let go of personal responsibility. It leaves even law enforcement helpless down to the disarmed Paris police officer cringing before the heavily armed Charlie Hebdo Jihadists and the fumbling Norwegian police who let Breivik kill 69 people in one shooting before he was stopped.

Despite Obama’s slander of the country of which he is the putative president, the difference between America and the rest of the world is not that they have mass shootings and we don’t. Mass shootings have taken place in European countries with very tough gun laws. The difference is that when two terrorists with assault rifles dressed in body armor came for the Mohammed cartoonists in Texas, they were stopped by a middle-aged man with a handgun. Or when a jihadist beheaded a woman in Oklahoma and was slicing off the head of another, he was stopped by an individual who appeared with a rifle and took the law into his own hands.

America is a country where it is easier to buy a gun and where it is easier to stop an armed gunman. The victims in the church followed the law in South Carolina [6] and didn’t bring their guns into the church.

The gunman didn’t follow the law and killed them.

America is a nation with a boundless generosity of spirit as we have seen in Charleston and with leaders who are unworthy of their people as we have seen in Washington D.C.

Hillary Clinton decided to use the tragedy in her stump speech, insisting, “In the days ahead, we will again ask what led to this terrible tragedy and where we as a nation need to go. In order to make sense of it, we have to be honest. We have to face hard truths about race, violence, guns and division.”

The hard truth that Hillary does not want to face is that our division does not come from disturbed lone gunmen, but from politicians like her who turn every tragedy into a campaign speech. Hillary, who ran a divisive racial campaign against Obama, now wants to lecture the country on race and division.

Obama and Hillary managed to pull off a divisive racial campaign within their own party and now they sound as if Dylann Storm Roof represents a racist nation that needs their hypocritical lecturing.

While people in Charleston, black and white, have generously come together, Obama and Hillary selfishly pursue a divisive attack on the Second Amendment and their usual divisive racial program.

Obama paints America as a terrible place of mass shootings that is, as usual in his skewed view of the country, substantively worse than the rest of the world. Unlike the mass shootings in Europe, our mass shootings are a burden of collective guilt that he uses to reinforce a negative image of America. And, unlike the mass shootings in Chicago or Detroit, they are also a burden of collective racial guilt.

The solution to gun violence won’t be found in waging war on the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment does not kill people. America is not a violent place because of the Constitution.

And the solution can’t be and won’t be found in the rejection of personal responsibility.

Personal responsibility means accepting that Dylann Storm Roof was responsible for his actions, as the gang members in Chicago are responsible for their actions and as we are all responsible for our actions.

And it also means believing that black lives and all lives matter everywhere; not just when they’re convenient for scoring political points.

The life of a black woman killed in a church by a white gunman should not matter any less than the life of a black woman taken by a black gang member in Chicago over another bloody weekend.

To send any other kind of message is divisive and only contributes to the problem.

No group of worshipers should ever be massacred in a church, but the best way to fight violent bigots is not by pursuing divisive political programs. It is by uniting law abiding citizens against violence and hate.

True leaders do not respond to tragedy by dividing the nation along the lines of race or into the camp of those who believe in the Bill of Rights and the camp of those who do not. These divisive instincts have only helped lead to a fractured society in which violent killers filled with anger and hate proliferate.

There was a time when Americans looked to Obama for unity. Unfortunately he chose the path of division. Hillary had the opportunity to urge unity among Americans after this horrible massacre, chose instead to put her own agenda first and subordinate the tragedy to the talking points of her political campaign.

Again.

If the politicians exploiting the Charleston shootings really care when black people are murdered, they will have the opportunity to show it this weekend in Chicago. And if they remain silent and unheeding, then they will have demonstrated that they don’t really care about the victims in Charleston. At least not that much.

Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6576


« Reply #1607 on: June 19, 2015, 03:02:02 PM »

Isn't a legal gun in the hand of a law abiding citizen, in the right place at the right time, the only way this shooting could have been stopped?

If the Glibster was in the room, he could have talked the delusional mass murderer down.

What is the point of calling this a hate crime?  Softer penalty if the shootings were not done with some kind of group hate, if they were same race, mixed race, etc.?  Really?  Isn't killing by definition a hate crime?  How do you get other than the maximum penalty for a premeditated andnintentional mass murder?  Rehabilitate and look for the good in someone like this? The politics of this are quite frustrating and ought to be unnecessary.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33807


« Reply #1608 on: June 19, 2015, 03:35:19 PM »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4257966.stm
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12603


« Reply #1609 on: June 19, 2015, 03:40:18 PM »

Black lives matter, when the left can use them to push their agenda for disarming the law abiding citizenry.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33807


« Reply #1610 on: June 20, 2015, 12:20:39 PM »

This seems to me a big deal.  Lott is one of the big guns on our side.


http://www.armedwithreason.com/shooting-down-the-gun-lobbys-favorite-academic-a-lott-of-lies/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12603


« Reply #1611 on: June 20, 2015, 12:46:11 PM »

This seems to me a big deal.  Lott is one of the big guns on our side.


http://www.armedwithreason.com/shooting-down-the-gun-lobbys-favorite-academic-a-lott-of-lies/

Well, that explains why places with lots of gun control are crime free and states with shall issue are filled with firefights.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33807


« Reply #1612 on: June 20, 2015, 02:09:23 PM »

Sorry, that's not an answer.  Lott is someone our side likes to quote a lot, but the question presented is whether he has been honest.

===========================

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/348197-obama-said-mass-shootings-dont-happen-in-advanced-countries-like-in-us-one-chart-proves-him-wrong/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=Partners&utm_term=PRM7&utm_campaign
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12603


« Reply #1613 on: June 20, 2015, 02:22:17 PM »

I really don't have the time or energy to try to dive into the research. I know enough to feel confident in my position based on crime stats and common sense.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12603


« Reply #1614 on: June 20, 2015, 02:53:32 PM »

As the left asserts that guns are useless for self defense, I await the various political and popular figures that advocate for gun control to publicly disarm their protective details.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6576


« Reply #1615 on: June 22, 2015, 10:58:10 AM »

Crafty's liberal friends have come across a summary of a "massive" 47 page missive claiming to "debunk" the work of economist John Lott who wrote books that include "More Guns, Less Crime".  From this, conservatives and gun rights advocates can learn to be careful not to make claims like that in all cases, more guns equals less crime.  More guns always means less crime however was not the title or the premise of Lott's work. 

For example, if you add one more gun to the otherwise gun free zone in a church in South Carolina, and the one gun happens to be in the hand of a deranged, mentally ill, racist nut with a premeditated plan to shoot up the place, the incidence of the crime mass murder goes up.  Add a second gun in the hands of a law abiding, well-trained, well-positioned parishioner that day and the incidence of crime that day would potentially go down.  So it isn't that simple, more guns, less crime.

The real question is upside down IMHO.  We already have an explicit constitutional right to own and bear arms.  The issue we are debating in the political world is not more guns, but the right to limit the right to bear arms.  In our state (and in 50 states now) that came up as a right to apply for and receive a permit for a concealed carry permit.  The issue also comes up as to whether or not making a specific location a "gun free zone" adds or takes away from public safety.

The anti-gun lobby in our state against "shall issue" concealed carry legislation argued that we would become the wild west.  They portrayed an environment where nearly everyone would carry and people would be settling their disputes with their guns.

Let's ask the questions forward instead of backward.  Did the issuing of more concealed carry permits make crime go up.  By all accounts, the answer is no.  Does the designation of gun free zones make crime go down?  Once again no.  Where in the debunk did they debunk THAT?   From my reading of it, they didn't.

Permit holders are roughly 10 time less likely to commit crimes than the general population.  In the rare incidence of a criminal taking the time to get a permit and then commit a crime, why do we think the safety class and the legal registration played any role in causing the crime?  It didn't.  There are 300 million guns already in America.  Criminals have access to guns and by definition, they don't limit their activities based on laws passed.

Gun free zones like Chicago have the worst violent crime in America.  Mass shootings including the latest one in SC keep happening in "gun free zone".  Also not debunked. 

The alleged debunker sheds more fog than light on the subject as he shows his own anti-gun cherry picking.  He claims guns don't significantly prevent crime because so few actually carry, while the argument against carry was that so many would carry.  He ignores the deterrent effect that people might be carrying - except in the gun free zones where these mass shootings keep occurring.  The shooter who chooses a church or a gun free theater for his mass murder does not seem to ignore that fact.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33807


« Reply #1616 on: June 23, 2015, 07:04:42 PM »



http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/33-dead-130-injured-china-knife-wielding-spree-n41966


33 Dead, 130 Injured in China Knife-Wielding Spree

A group of knife-wielding men attacked a train station in southwestern China on Saturday, killing at least 29 people and injuring more than 130 others in what Chinese officials called a terrorist strike, the official Xinhua News Agency said.

Four of the attackers were also shot dead and only one was captured alive after the mayhem, which broke out about 9 p.m. (8 a.m. ET) at the Kunming Railway Station in the capital of southwest China's Yunnan Province.

1:45

The Kunming government said the "serious violent terrorist attack was planned and organized by Xinjiang separatist forces," Xinhua reported.

Ethnic Turkish Uighur separatists have been sporadically fighting for an independent state in Xinjiang, in northwestern China, home to about 10 million Uighur, who are predominantly Muslim. More than 100 people have been killed in protests in Xinjiang in the past year.

Yang Haifei, a resident of Yunnan, told Xinhua that he was attacked and sustained injuries on his chest and back.  Yang said he was buying a ticket when he saw a group rush into the station, most of them dressed in black, and started stabbing people.

"I saw a person come straight at me with a long knife, and I ran away with everyone," he said, adding that people who were slower were severely injured.

"They just fell on the ground," he added.

Yunnan province Vice Gov. Gao Feng held an emergency meeting at No. 1 People's Hospital, where the injured are being rushed, and said hospitals have received 162 people.

State-run Yunnan News said that the men were wearing uniforms when they stormed the railway station and that gunshots were heard after police arrived.

Image: Police investigate after a group of armed men attacked people at Kunming railway station, Yunnan province
Police investigate after a group of armed men attacked people at Kunming railway station in China's Yunnan province on Saturday. Reuters

Photos circulating online showed scattered luggage and bodies lying on the floor in blood.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33807


« Reply #1617 on: June 26, 2015, 09:28:21 AM »

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/miss-police-open-carry-laws-kept-us-from-arresting-shotgun-toting-man-who-terrorized-walmart-shoppers/?utm_content=buffer62f47&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12603


« Reply #1618 on: June 26, 2015, 05:37:36 PM »


If someone is handling  weapons in public, feeding shells in and running the action, they will be in serious jeopardy.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6576


« Reply #1619 on: June 27, 2015, 11:02:55 AM »

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!