brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Pebble, Brewster didn't mention the NRA once when I made that response to you.

Well that simply ain't true, see post #2 where I refer to "out of control gun lobby".

I think I'm done here, all you have to say about why you want guns even though crime is down and "good guys guns" aren't responsible for it is "I don't need to fuckin tell you, it's my constitutional right!" and to cite a leftist media conspiracy to quash stories about grandma shotgunning the rapist. The fact that we have so many more gun deaths than any industrialized country means nothing to you, it worth it to have your guns. You really have nothing more interesting to say.

JCMan8 wrote:
Pebble, Brewster didn't mention the NRA once when I made that response to you.

JCMan8 wrote:
Pebble, Brewster didn't mention the NRA once when I made that response to you. You did. If they tried to prevent gun research, that fact is completely irrelevant to the safety misperceptions we were discussing.

The rest of your post is filled with red herrings and tangential points. You clearly don't comprehend anything that's being written. Please go sit at the kiddie table, I'll give you something shiny to keep you occupied!

JCMan8 wrote:
Pebble, it's just remarkable how you just don't get it, no matter how many times its pointed out to you. The NRA's money spent on research is completely irrelevant to what we were discussing.

JCMan8 wrote:
It's cute that you tried to show you know what "perception" means, but I stated the point very clearly and you still don't understand. Maybe if you read what I wrote 10 times it will sink in.

JCMan8 wrote:
People are under the false perception that gun crime is rising when in fact it's plummeted. The NRA has nothing to do with it.

JCMan8 wrote:
And since you clearly don't understand any of my post, for anyone else reading, the "victory" comes in the form of continued (and rising) strong support for gun ownership in the face of factors discussed previously which ultimately seek to dismantle the Second Amendment. And for what it's worth, other than an outright ban, you can't get much more restrictive than NJ's gun laws. Gun control advocates should be happy.

The July survey also found that Americans strongly support a variety of specific gun control measures, including expanded background checks (85%), laws to prevent people with mental illness from purchasing guns (79%) and creation of a federal database to track all gun sales (70%). A smaller majority (57%) support a ban on assault-style weapons.

JCMan8 wrote:
Since you are fixated on wanting to ban all guns, I invite you to take this approach. Our Constitution very clearly makes gun ownership a fundamental American right, more clear than what it said about slavery. Change the Constitution so it no longer provides for this. Granted, it is extremely difficult to obtain a Constitutional amendment and for good reason. But it's happened before and if you feel so strongly about the subject, I suggest focusing your efforts there.

As for your graph, it demonstrates that these efforts to ban guns would have been far more appropriate in 1991 than today. I could post traffic death statistics and try to use that as an argument to ban cars, but that would be silly. Freedom to travel is a fundamental right just like the right to own a gun is. And for the record, you make the error of assuming that gun ownership = gun violence. Finland and Switzerland have some of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world, but have comparatively extremely low rates of gun violence.

Brewster wrote:

As for perceptions, we disagree. Most people I know aren't afraid of criminals with guns, but of gun owning citizens who lose their tempers or minds.

brewster wrote:
You want to harp on the fallen crime rate, but lets get back to the OP, to whom I responded that people don't know crime is down because the gun interests keep fanning the fires of fear to justify themselves.

"Why do people want to own personal defense firearms if not because they are afraid of being the victims of crime?"

Mouse wrote:
I am in favor of reasonable gun restrictions. However, I think it is useful to look at actual figures, including murders by type of gun.

I did this. I found what I perceive to be a credible source of information: the FBI Uniform Crime Reports.

FBI Uniform Crime

My first impression is that the numbers are lower than I expected. Although we often hear about gun violence, the absolute numbers are telling.

In Alabama, there was ONE gun murder in 2014. I went back and looked at 2013 and the number was ?two.? Surprising. On the other hand, there was no state with zero handgun murders, which is also distressing.

The majority of gun violence is clustered in certain states, with California leading the way in number of handgun murders (753 in 2014).

Although we often hear about the horrors of military style assault weapons, the numbers of deaths via these types of firearms is also relatively low. The biggest category of murder by gun (by far) is handguns.

One problem with solving the gun issue is knowing which part of the problem to address. After looking at these numbers I would forget about trying to restrict assault weapons (for now) and keep the focus squarely on handguns.

Although the Supreme Court ruled on the second amendment, it doesn?t mean they were right (or righteous). The ruling was not unanimous, and there was reasoned dissent. The Constitution was written a long time ago, and we should not fear adjusting it to modern conditions (see: slavery).

Also, let?s dispel this myth that the NRA and the politicians who take their money ?represent? the will of voters. This is pure hogwash. The NRA was highjacked by radicals back in 1979.

Radicals convert NRA

What was previously a fairly sensible, bipartisan group that focused on safety and marksmanship was transformed into a political lobbying group that today wields big power due to money and their ability to scare people.

The only way forward is for all parties to be honest about the facts and what will be needed to reduce gun violence.
One idea I like is using gun taxes to pay for better mental health programs.

Another idea is to regulate the ownership of handguns like we now regulate truck driving licenses. Truck drivers are now required to get a ?physical? from a doctor certifying their fitness to drive. We are not stopping anyone from driving a truck, unless they present a danger (to themselves or others).

The only way forward is for all parties to be honest about the facts and what will be needed to reduce gun violence.

Another idea is to regulate the ownership of handguns like we now regulate truck driving licenses.

My assumption was based on the fact that you called out sensationalist media yet didn't recognize you were engaging in the exact same behavior. You aren't an idiot, so the assumption is you were misinformed. If you would be honest with me, I'd bet my suspicion was right and you had no idea about the facts I posted.

The reality is that, like most gun control advocates, you've yet to offer a single specific of what should be done to reduce the school shootings. Since you held up Australia as a great example, a country that banned all guns, my assumption is the only thing that would ultimately make you happy is a complete dismantling of our Second Amendment. After all, under your rejected interpretation, it only applies to militias.

I could go on and talk about how difficult it would be to create a fanciful law that would have actually stopped these shootings, and that criminals don't follow the law anyway so you're only making things more difficult for law abiding citizens, but I know you'll respond with more talking points and we'll continue to waste each other's time.

Just know that knee jerk reactions to "do something!" tend to be the worst type of laws.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
And Brewster, I don't like liars. I don't appreciate when you make the unsubstianiated claim that "small children being massacred" is a "regular occurrence" and then try to dance around what you said. Especially after you had just called out others for being "sensationalist."

If that doesn't make you a liar it makes you a hypocrite (at least for this issue, because I generally think you are one of the better posters here) and you should just own up to what I suspect: you are woefully uninformed based on the echo chambers you frequent so you thought you had solid grounds for your claim. You had no idea that gun violence was actually down 60% since 1993, and thought that massacres of small children were far more frequent than they actually are. But rather than man up and admit your mistake, you double down, as if you are fooling anyone. And to be clear, the issue was never whether I am "ok" with small children being killed. It's about whether your original claim shows you to be lying at worst, or extremely hypocritical at best, given your immediately preceding comments.

And regarding SCOTUS, it's funny how you trot out a demonstrably false/rejected interpretation of the Second Amendment, treat it as if it's fact, and only mention you disagree with them after I post the truth. Do you always completely ignore the facts you don't like and push what is, at best, a minority opinion, and pretend it is truth?

I find it curious your assumption that I frequent some "echo chamber". I read the Times and listen to NPR, no blogs but for occasionally Dan Carlin's. he's hardly a raging Liberal and most of his posters are very conservative. If that's an echo chamber so be it. Whatever.

You want to focus on the literal veracity of my statement and ignore the reality of a steady occurrence of mass shooting both in and out of schools and colleges. Again, whatever.

You want to hold up a SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution as "ultimate truth" rather than a political artifact. In that case I've got a long list of reprehensible decisions like Dred Scott for you. Even as recently as Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) it held that it was constitutional to criminalize homosexual sex. So my interpretation (and that of 4 Justices) may have been rejected, but it is not provably false, any more than the above rejected notions about human rights.

JCMan8 wrote:
And Brewster, I don't like liars. I don't appreciate when you make the unsubstianiated claim that "small children being massacred" is a "regular occurrence" and then try to dance around what you said. Especially after you had just called out others for being "sensationalist."

If that doesn't make you a liar it makes you a hypocrite (at least for this issue, because I generally think you are one of the better posters here) and you should just own up to what I suspect: you are woefully uninformed based on the echo chambers you frequent so you thought you had solid grounds for your claim. You had no idea that gun violence was actually down 60% since 1993, and thought that massacres of small children were far more frequent than they actually are. But rather than man up and admit your mistake, you double down, as if you are fooling anyone. And to be clear, the issue was never whether I am "ok" with small children being killed. It's about whether your original claim shows you to be lying at worst, or extremely hypocritical at best, given your immediately preceding comments.

And regarding SCOTUS, it's funny how you trot out a demonstrably false/rejected interpretation of the Second Amendment, treat it as if it's fact, and only mention you disagree with them after I post the truth. Do you always completely ignore the facts you don't like and push what is, at best, a minority opinion, and pretend it is truth?

JCMan8 wrote:
Pebble, you miss the point yet again. The point is that American adults feel gun crime is on the rise despite the fact that gun violence is down 60% in recent times. You immediately started talking about the NRA. As if the NRA promotes a disinformation campaign that gun violence is on the rise!

JCMan8 wrote:
And your only "proof" is your own perception that every generation thinks things used to be better. That's not proof of anything lol. Now I actually read the news and I can tell you that every time there's a shooting, the media makes a huge deal about it. And they are clearly one sided in that they choose to focus the spotlight on local residents who call out for more gun control. They do this to push their agenda.

JCMan8 wrote:
We know it's a blatant double standard because when a shooting happens and the media does not like what the residents have to say, all of a sudden the national media is not very interested. The Oregon college shooting is a great example. Many local residents were interviewed, and the clear consensus was that they DID NOT WANT any more gun control regulations as a result. Think there was any kind of spotlight on that? Sure, there was no choice but to publish the remarks, but they received the equivalent of being buried on page 22 of the paper.

JCMan8 wrote:
And it doesn't matter if you think many NRA members "don't always know where all the money goes." What kind of remark is that? What we care about are the facts. And the facts are that the "evil" NRA represents the will of over 5 million people. If you're not one for democracy, there are plenty of other countries you can move to.

JCMan8 wrote:
So like I've said, despite the best efforts of our media and the gun control lobby, the American people continue to reject their message. You make the mistake of assuming that because popular opinion trends one way, this means they simply aren't hearing an opposing message. To the contrary, we are bombarded with it, but reject it.

JCMan8 wrote:
Pebble, you didn't "disprove" a thing. Are you aware of what "perception" means? I suggest looking it up.

In fact I proved my point, which we all know anyway based on the OP, by linking to one of the Pew articles. Despite gun violence declining by 60% since 1993, American adults feel that gun crime is on the rise. People like Brewster directly contribute to this false perception.

And it's funny how you and the other gun grabbers seem to see the NRA as this evil, monolethical entity. Are you aware that they represent the will of over 5 million people? These millions of people all pay dues because the NRA represents their views. Otherwise they'd stop paying. That's where a lot of this money comes from. The rest comes from advertising and contributions. Barely anything comes from the firearms industry itself.

You know why Congress bends over for the NRA? Not because of some evil power they wield, but because these Congressmen are acutely aware that the NRA represents the view of their constituents, and the voters will vote them out of office if they try to trample on the Second Amendment. It is as close to democracy in action as we get in America.

Oh, and you are sadly mistaken if you actually believe "there is only one side truly spending a ton of money on this issue." Ever heard of Bloomberg or the Brady Campaign? Now the gun lobby does spend more than the gun grabbers. But as I explained, thus money comes from the pockets of millions of Americans who actually understand the meaning of our Second Amendment. Not the NRA's fault that people don't believe the deception and lies pushed by the other side, such as Brewster's shameless claim that "massacres of small children" are a "regular occurrence," and the graphs he posted which were riddled with lies.

Murder is at the lowest point it has been in this country and state since the 50s and most crime catagories the lowest since the 60s. So why aren't more people aware of this?

JCMan8 wrote:
Brewster, nice rhetorical trick of putting your responses in red, as if you are the teacher correcting a student. Doesn't work but nice try.

I'll again point out your massive hypocrisy in accusing the media of being "sensationalist" (which I don't disagree) yet turning around and doing the exact same thing yourself with your lie about "massacres of small children" being a "regular occurrence." I'm still waiting for you to back this up.

Rather than spew out links from clearly biased sources pushing a political agenda, I chose to post objective links. Pew research is quite objective. A shame you couldn't do the same.

Of the "153 school shootings" documented on the "Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund" which you linked, how many constitute "massacres of small children?" Go ahead, I'll wait. Show me that you aren't being a massive hypocrite and in fact these massacres are a regular occurrence.

And it's not surprising that you don't know how to read the Second Amendment. Hint, there is more to it than a "well regulated militia." Second hint, a couple of years ago, our United States Supreme Court read the same Second Amendment to strike down Washington DC's handgun ban. In fact, here is a quote from them:

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District ... lumbia_v._Heller#Decision

I'm sure the echo chambers you frequent didn't explain this to you, so you're welcome for the free constitutional lesson.

Oh, and given your penchant for regurgitating slop from your echo chambers, I feel obligated to point out that the graphics you post contain outright lies and cannot be trusted. That snazzy bar graph you posted which claimed that the United States had the highest rate of "deaths/100,000 population" by far, is simply lying. Look at the gigantic red bar for suicides in America, and compare it to the imperceptible red bar in Japan. This means that our suicide rate must be far higher than Japan's right?

Funny thing though, when you go to suicide.org (and not vox.com, Bradycampaign.org, or whichever source of misinformation you use to spread lies), you'll see that not only is our suicide rate per 100,000 people comparable to Japan's, Japan is actually far higher.

http://www.suicide.org/international-suicide-statistics.html

As in, more than double ours. And while your graph represents that the US has the highest suicide rate of every country listed, in reality, we are around #40-50 globally. Now that I see where you get your information, it's no wonder you spread the distortions and outright lies that I've called you out on.

JerseyCityNj wrote:
Murder is at the lowest point it has been in this country and state since the 50s and most crime catagories the lowest since the 60s. So why aren't more people aware of this?

JCMan8 wrote:
And for Pebble, my dimwitted friend, I never said that the gun control lobby is "somehow in charge and control of things." I said that it is because of their efforts, and that of most of our media, that people have the false perception that things are currently incredibly dangerous, when in reality we are the safest we've ever been. The fact you cited that only 26% of Americans want to ban handguns simply shows how the majority of people have rejected and continue to reject this deceptive propaganda.

JCMan8 wrote:
Brewster, if you are not disputing the fact that gun violence is WAY down, why did you claim that "massacres of small children" are a "regular occurrence" under the current gun laws? I notice you keep shifting the goalposts when your original posts (which all seemed to imply that gun violence had certainly not lowered) were utterly debunked.

Because they are a regular occurrence.
Since 2013, there have been at least 153 school shootings in America ? an average of nearly one a week.

Australia is an island. They were able to ban guns because it's practical to do so on an island, not here.

Stupid argument. Our guns do not come from outside the US, in fact we are a major exporter.

Further, the critical point you have not addressed once, is that neither Australia nor these other countries have established gun ownership as a fundamental right, enshrined at the very beginning of our constitution. So it's disingenuous to point to Australia as a fair comparison.

We read the 2nd amendment differently, I see words about a "well regulated militia"

It is because gun ownership is such a fundamental American right that I downplay suicude deaths. I don't advocate restricting fundamental constitutional rights unless there is rock solid reasoning. And being in the midst of a 60% decrease in gun violence certainly doesn't cut it. Nor would an average person consider a suicude to be "gun violence." If you don't believe me, go ahead and ask random people.

Remind me, which gun deaths are the ones you don't downplay?
So far suicides, and shootings by dogs and toddlers are just fine.

And quite frankly, given your political orientation on this issue, your wife's anecdotal evidence is not very persuasive to me. I suspect many of these individuals would simply have found another way of committing the act.

My wife doesn't guess what suicidal people would do in the absence of guns, she knows, she sees these people when they are court mandated to her clinic after failing to end themselves with pills, blades, gravity etc.

See teh graphic, you would think people in DC and NJ would have the most reason to want to kill themselves.