Gun control

[Judah14]

Yeah but here in the Philippines, most crime involving firearms involved illegally acquired guns, as there are so many requirements to get a license (one of those is a criminal record check) that criminals don't bother. No wonder why many criminals who commit crime with firearms also get charged with illegal possession of firearms as well.

[Pal]

That's interesting, you can write any sort of ******** on this forum but say it's ******** and you get censored.

[dillon]

I read this piece with great interest.

The first and most obvious alarm bell to the veracity of this web article, which any objective reader will quickly notice, is that the authors did not link the ACTUAL “study” ANYWHERE in the three pages of commentary. If one goes to the original so-called “study”, one finds that is was not a “study”, but instead an opinion piece that gleaned selected facts from other sources, which it, unlike the Beliefnet article, cited, thankfully. The authors, Kates and Mauser, never called their article a “study.”

Beliefnet goes on to state “The study came from the Harvard Journal of Law, that bastion of extreme, Ivy League liberalism.” To me, this seemed a clearly deceitful misstatement aimed at confusing those too blitheringly lazy to check facts. I think the misidentification of source was meant to suggest that this was the Harvard Law Review, of which a young Barak Obama was once an editor and later its president; the intent being to imply that Obama somehow conspired to have the article hidden away. Factually, however, in this day of the internet, anything published is out there to be read. In fact, both the source and the inference regarding it which Beliefnet gave is incorrect. The “study” (non-study) they cited came from the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, which is one of the country’s most notable CONSERVATIVE publications, and not an academic or refereed social-science journal, but a philosophical review of law and constitution. The two journals are not in any way connected. Beliefnet also left the impression that the authors were Harvard researchers; neither are Harvard faculty or even associated with the University.

The Kates/Mauser “study” itself, in fact, was somewhat more mild-tempered than the synopsis given in the Beliefnet article, despite its authors being well-known gun-rights advocates. In both articles, it seems, the authors “cherry-picked” data to support a position; that appearance, coupled with the fact that what Beliefnet calls a “study” was merely an editorial piece, is perhaps one reason that even the Beliefnet article noted the Kates/Mauser piece was a “virtually unpublicized research report”. The article, however, was published and widely available; the fact that even the mainstream gun lobbying organizations more-or-less ignored it suggests a lack of relevance and quality in the work. Beliefnet, however, in its effusive praise, went even beyond the conclusions of the authors of the (uncited) cited article. An objective reader, IMO, would ask himself exactly what the Beliefnet web-authors decided to conceal, and just how valid their conclusions might be.

While I’d like to take credit for debunking this "piece" (and I wont elaborate as to "piece" of what), that work was done long ago:

http://www.snopes.com/harvard-flaw-review/

But please allow me give just one of many examples of the Beliefnet article's disinformation:

Beliefnet states: “Where have the worst school shootings occurred?” writes John Lott. “Contrary to public perception, Western Europe. The very worst occurred in a school in Erfurt, Germany in 2002, where 18 were killed. The second worst took place in Dunblane, Scotland in 1996, where 16 kindergarteners and their teacher were shot. The third worst high school attack, with 15 murdered, happened in Winnenden, Germany.” The fourth worst? Columbine.

As a point of FACT, this statement is FALSE. 26 people were killed at the Newtown CT shooting; 20 of those were small children, some only kindergarteners. And it doesn’t mention the Virginia Tech killings; 32 were slain by a nut-case with semi-auto weapons purchased legally in a state with lax gun laws, though not as lax as some other states. Perhaps the so-called “Christian” authors of this drivel may not consider college kids as child-victims, but as the father of a 19 year old college student, I sure do.

You can read the Snopes review, linked above, for yourself, but I think their concise summation is worth reprinting here:

“In short, the purported 2007 Harvard "study" with "astonishing" findings was in fact a polemic paper penned by two well-known gun rights activists. Its findings were neither peer-reviewed nor subject to academic scrutiny of any sort prior to its appearance, and the publication that carried it was a self-identified ideology-based editorial outlet edited by Harvard students. The paper disingenuously misrepresented extant research to draw its conclusions, and researchers at Harvard (among which Kates and Mauser were not included) later objected to the paper's being framed as a "study" from Harvard (rather than a law review paper). The paper wasn't "virtually unpublicized research" (as BeliefNet claimed); rather, it was simply not deemed noteworthy at the time it was published due to the fact it was neither a study nor much more than a jointly-written editorial piece representing its authors' unsupported opinions.”

The Beliefnet piece contains far too many additional examples of political prevarication for me to squander more time critiquing in a thorough dissertation, but I would call your attention to the fifteen “Little Known Gun Facts” that conclude the article. Not a single one of these “facts” gives a source; the reader therefore is being fed only the information the authors wish him to believe. He is effectively denied the right to verify the statements as being indeed “facts”, but I suppose we have to presume that, being on a site of this sort, he isn’t really interested in facts, only in image. This is nothing more that the too-common strategy via emotional appeal of “reinforcing belief” for those minds are already made up; who never deign to question a held belief. Some types of people are intellectually dysfunctional without a trusted voice continually pounding into their flaccid brains exactly what they should believe.

And, in my opinion and by my observations, that strategy, sadly, is what makes “Christian Conservatism” in the US succeed. It begins with developmentally socialized religious belief and builds upon it for political purposes, in the same basic way Wahabi Isalm is employed in maintaining the theocratic dominion of “royalty” in Saudi Arabia. It embeds political ideas, arranging or obscuring “facts” to support that belief. Right-wing editorial media sites like Beliefnet flourish because they “preach to the choir.” It relies on willful oblivion to maintain a condition where “Belief Trumps Reality” (no pun intended).

I see this sort of media as being much like like the populist religious fundamentalism of the airwaves; this media makes itself omnipresent and unrelenting in keeping followers focused on the illusions it fosters. And like populist fundamentalism, such media appears to me equally adept at eisegeting from data to the same purposes that airwave fundamentalism eisegetes from the Scriptures. It also succeeds because wealthy benefactors, of which Texas seems to have more than its share, create and fund this sort of media.

It’s simply scary to watch how this sort of media plays with the emotions of otherwise decent, well-meaning, and usually-sensible people who simply seek a truth to which they comfortably relate. “Truth,” of course, is a vague and subjective term involving both factual information, its analysis and interpretation, and its deployment in the broader world. “Veracity,” however, is neither vague nor disputable. I hope that, somehow, someday, we, as sincere American citizens who wish the best for our nation, will choose the path of Veracity.

Personally, I am tolerant, in fact even enthusiastic of anyone’s given opinion; I encourage you to give opinion and defend it; doing so maintains our First Amendment rights, and, hopefully, makes us examine our beliefs as we express, explain, and defend them. I often give my own opinion, and defend it to my best ability, and do not object to having it examined and questioned. All I ask is that opinion be given as OPINION. The internet has “support groups” for anything and everything; after all, we are communicating our common interest via one such vehicle. I would not, however, take anyone’s fashion opinion from the Café and state it elsewhere as fact; this site, like so many websites, is mostly about opinion and somewhat about fact, with both usually being fairly innocuous. My personal tolerance runs out only at the point that someone takes OPINION and starts foisting it as FACT. Doing so has a name: PROPAGANDA. The correspondents here deserve better; America deserves better.

[Uncle Al]

OPINION
The article was written in 2007 - 9 years ago.
Some things have changed, good or bad.

I'm just tired of people, who do not live in the U.S., think that all
Americans are Gun Crazy. This is NOT the case. Not every family
in America owns a gun. I had my dad's pistol which he used when
he was in the U.S. Cavalry in 1924-1925. It hasn't been fired since
that time. It's a collectors item. I gave it to my brother-in-law, along
with my shot guns - several of those are collectors items too. My
brother-in-law is making a display case for the pistol, honoring my
dad's military service.

Now - if people want to "Ban" things, why not ban spoons. They help
make people fat. Or cars, because they are involved in traffic accidents
occasionally resulting in fatalities. How about soda-pop This beverage
leads to diabetes. Alcohol was banned in America in the 30's but was
brought back due the 'illegal speak-easy's' serving their brand of "Bathtub
Booze", and popular demand. The constabulary could not find or shut down
all the 'establishments'. Not enough man-power to work with.

Anything, when not used for its intended purpose, can or will cause
a fatality. A tire iron, hammer, large wrench(spanner) etc.

Gun Control DOES NOT WORK
(Don't bring up France. Their policies are now in jeopardy with military
grade weapons found in the Mosques. The French police have confiscated
more weapons in this one raid than they had for the entire year of 2015.)

There are too many U.S. cities with strict gun laws, and the crime rate,
using guns, is higher than the national average. A 'criminal' will get a
weapon(gun) any way he/she can to perpetuate their activities. Any
person will think twice before attempting to commit a crime if/when
they seen an armed person near them.
THEY(the criminals) don't want to get themselves shot into bits.
That's human nature - self preservation.

So - may we BACK OFF gun control for/in America



Uncle Al

[dillon]

I think i have already stated that IMO prohibitions don't work, so don't include me in your blanket accusation. But the easy availability of guns to those who should NEVER get them, is clearly a serious problem in this country. The NRA is the only political force that opposes limitations on gun access, and as I have given my opinion, they represent the business end of the gun industry, and not normal, sane, gun owners. It requires the balls to admit a problem before it can be solved.

And, BTW, al...the Beliefnet article YOU CITED was published in October 2015. Do you not find it odd that this "Harvard study" was not brought to light until then?

And, NO, i don't intend to back off GUN CONTROL!

[Fred in Skirts]

Thank you Uncle Al!!

I own several guns and with the exception of one, none have ever killed anyone. The lone exception is an old Hong Kong Webley pistol from the old British Empire. It was a British army officers weapon used during the war. It is now a collectors item and it still works fine.

Fred

[dillon]

I want to recount something I think I have posted before. My father, who died in 2011 at the age of 96, was a police officer on the Mecklenburg County NC police force, prior to their consolidation with the City of Charlotte, for 37 years. When I hear of all these officers dying needlessly at the hands of men who had legally obtained weapons they should NEVER have had, and it brings memories and sensations rushing back to me. Around 1971, as a boy of maybe 12, I recall being awakened one morning at 5 am by some of Dad's fellow police officers bringing him home. He had been shot while serving a warrant in a situation where the extent of danger was unclear. I am, you see, the offspring of a policeman and a kindergarten teacher. My mother was a strong woman; I had hardly ever seen her cry until that morning. We both did, because it brought home to us the fact that every time he left the house, he might not return alive. His injuries were not serious, but for the grace of God and Dad's own experience and intelligence.

He had been called to a domestic situation. At that time, there was a program in effect that was essentially "foster seniors"; elderly people who were perhaps handicapped or suffering early dementia could be placed in private homes for care and the family that took them in was compensated for their services by the County, or maybe the State; I am not sure which. At any rate, a man in his late sixties, suffering some mental incapicitation, became morose and angry in such a home. He found the family's shotgun and, with it, drove them from their own home. Police were called. My Dad, being the senior patrol officer for that half of the County led men into the house to try and arrest the man. He ascertained that the man was armed with a single-barrel 12 gauge shotgun. As my Dad approached the bedroom of the old man, where they suspected he was, Dad flung the door open and called to him. Hearing no response, he advanced; he could not see the suspect in the semi-darkened room. Then he saw in a dresser mirror the reflection of a man pointing a shotgun at the door. Dad stepped back just as the man fired through the door. Shot penetrated the door and struck him in the hand, arm, shoulder and face. But realizing he was not brought down, my Dad rushed into the room and disarmed the man before he could reload. My Dad later received a commendation from the County for his actions.

My Dad carried a couple shotgun pellets in the back of his hand for the rest of his life. They were embedded deep in the bone, nerve and tendon, and the doctors had deemed that they would do more damage to his hand by surgically removing them than by leaving them where they lay. I can recall, even in Dad's nineties, watching him touch those bumps, feeling that shot between the bones of his hand, and knowing that he was remembering how that moment felt. When he retired, in 1979, I recall him saying that he was most grateful that he had never had to shoot anyone, and never taken a human life. He said he could count on his fingers the number of times he had drawn his pistol, and that the only times he had fired it had been as "warning shots" over the heads of fleeing suspects. And he had served in the county that contained a city with one of the nation's highest per-capita murder rates during that era.

At Dad's funeral, some 40+ years later, I discussed the incident with an old veteran of the MCPD, who had been Dad's friend. He had also been on the scene, but not inside the house, but outside, on the radio with the dispatcher. He recounted to me this, and I recount it here rather imprecisely, I fear, from memory obtained during a very sad time; I was with my Dad when he drew his last breath. The account was roughly this: "I was outside on the radio. Your Dad and I both had rookies riding with us. They were following him into the house; both had weapons drawn. Your father didn't ever take his .38 from the holster. He knew that it was better to withdraw and handle the situation from outside than to shoot someone. But, had he, even wounded, not managed the situation and disarmed that man, those rookies would have gone in firing, and the old man would have almost certainly have been killed. He saved his own life and the life of the old man."

So, if any of you think I don't understand or appreciate what police officers and their families feel, you better get your facts straight. What I am grateful for is that this all occurred before the US was overflowing with semi-auto weapons, and trigger-happy gangstas along with thoughtless paranoid hicks carrying them. If that family had had an AR15 or a Glock pistol instead of a traditional old shotgun, the outcome would have been very different. And the fact is that a law as simple as trigger locks, which the NRA also opposes, could have prevented a near tragedy in the case of my Dad.

[Uncle Al]

Dillon;

1st - Thanks go to your father for serving as a "Local Hero". His devotion
to his police department, and his community, deserve a multitude of thanks

2nd - I think you missed something in 'my opinion'.

I'm just tired of people, who do not live in the U.S., think that all Americans are Gun Crazy

You are an American - You were not included in 'my opinion'.

As for Gun Control in the U.S., may we keep our processes IN OUR OWN COUNTRY
The 'news media' has a great tenacity of blowing 'things' out of proportion, especially
when broadcast internationally. They(the media) want you believe only what they tell
the world. In some cases their story is not always 100% accurate or truthful.

With all of the recent police shootings, the 'media' is focusing on the weapon, not the
motive of the individual. Was the individual part of a larger group on a lone whacked
out person Only lengthy investigations will offer proof, either way. I just hope the
results are not 'colored' in favor of 'this way' or 'that way' when the 'media' makes their
report known to the public.

Uncle Al

[crfriend]

Thanks for the insight, Dillon. It adds depth and perception to what's altogether too-frequently and overblown and overhyped conflict.

The days, however, in which Dillon's dad lived and served in are long gone by. How does one suppose how that scenario would have played out today? Almost certainly, it would have involved heavy use of military-grade firepower, an obscene level of intimidation, and assuredly the death of the unstable individual with the shotgun. The police mantra now is that of suppression of anything deemed even remotely threatening, with the usual -- and entirely predictable -- result of at least one, and sometimes more deaths.

We need a police force -- peace officers -- not an army of occupation. And, no matter how much firepower the citizenry possess, it pales in comparison with the level of firepower, and unaccountability, that the State has. This is why "gun control" from the vaunted perspective of "protection from the State" is, and always has been, asinine.

What's entirely disturbing to me is the number of crimes which are now being committed by (or at least reported as so) individuals who are supposedly licensed to possess weapons. This is a new phenomenon, and highly probably points to deep structural problems in what passes now for our "society". Have things finally gotten so bad that otherwise rational individuals see no hope for anything good in the future? That they have so little say in how society is working that they feel the need -- or even desire -- to try and effect change through violence? Questions like this need asking, now more than ever.

Of course, the convenient way that things work now, where the "perp" is shot dead by the "police" ("Army"), means that nobody can ever ask those questions -- for the simple reason that the best person to ask, "What went wrong?" is now unavailable to provide an answer.

[dillon]

Dillon;

1st - Thanks go to your father for serving as a "Local Hero". His devotion
to his police department, and his community, deserve a multitude of thanks

2nd - I think you missed something in 'my opinion'.

I'm just tired of people, who do not live in the U.S., think that all Americans are Gun Crazy

You are an American - You were not included in 'my opinion'.

As for Gun Control in the U.S., may we keep our processes IN OUR OWN COUNTRY
The 'news media' has a great tenacity of blowing 'things' out of proportion, especially
when broadcast internationally. They(the media) want you believe only what they tell
the world. In some cases their story is not always 100% accurate or truthful.

With all of the recent police shootings, the 'media' is focusing on the weapon, not the
motive of the individual. Was the individual part of a larger group on a lone whacked
out person Only lengthy investigations will offer proof, either way. I just hope the
results are not 'colored' in favor of 'this way' or 'that way' when the 'media' makes their
report known to the public.

Uncle Al

Thank you Al. Peace, Bro...

[Ray]

Uncle Al, if you want the rest of the world to demonstrate that not all US citizens are gun crazy, then perhaps some evidence would help them. Dillon has done this in a lucid reasonable fashion. I know from my travels in the US that a huge number of Americans are in favour of some form of gun control - particularly in areas around the seaboards and in the larger cities. It's the bit in the middle (Denver's not bad) that is more pro-gun. All very broad generalisations of course but I'd be happy to provide some stats if that helped.

Those from Europe largely like Americans, but there are two strains to the USA's culture that amuse or alarm us. They are:

1. An obsession with guns and a related paranoia about the government
2. An obsession with religion, specifically Christianity, with a resulting intolerance to other religions, particularly Islam.

Of course, Americans will be able to reel off a number of views on Europe. I don't mind these being aired. It's through discussion that understanding is gained. For that reason I will not stop commenting about gun control but I will do my absolute best to keep things civil and based on verifiable evidence.

[xman29]

Ray,

Gun violence in America would be barely worth tracking if you subtracted out a few neighborhoods in LA, Chicago, DC, Baltimore, NYC, etc. It is not like it is dangerous in the rest of the country.

And it really seems absurd that you pick now, with the recent European Muslim violence wave, as a time to mention that America has annoying but non-violent Christians.

[Ray]

Xman, I was pointing out what Europeans perceive the USA to be like.

When it comes to deaths from guns, it does make sense that the majority of deaths will be in built up areas. There are more people to kill. Yet the attitude to gun ownership seems to be concentrated in the more rural areas. Is probably fair to say that the whole of the USA is seen as gun obsessed by Europeans, and hat would be unfair, I am sure.

I will try to get some time to dig out some analysis of this.

We are surprised at the strength of Christian religion in the USA and its (perceived) impact on tolerance (race, sexual orientation, gender) and rational discourse. The fact that you really can't be president of the USA without clearly being religious is a good example of this. It's true that fundamental Christians aren't really killers, but how much hate and anger do they sow? What are the repercussions of that rigid thinking?

Last point. The recent wave of terrorist incidents in Europe is nothing compared to gun deaths in the USA.

[bobmoore]

It's true that fundamental Christians aren't really killers, but how much hate and anger do they sow? What are the repercussions of that rigid thinking? .

Ray, there is a 'fundamental' lack of understanding about what a Christian is. The social gospel so prevalent in our time bears scant resemblance to biblical Christianity. That said, I will agree that there are many, labeled fundamenatist, who speak and act in ways diametrically opposed to biblical Christianity. Westboro Baptist springs to mind as a textbook example of those who profess saving faith, but who do not in point of fact possess it. You know them, the text says, "by their fruit".

Christians don't sow hate and anger, though their message is frequently interpreted that way. The world does not want to hear that there are limits on its behavior. Consequently, to say that there are certain limits is tantamount to "sowing hate and anger".

The social, permissive, gospel that is so popular has deceived many into believing that, since "God is love", anything goes. Not so. Perfect love requires perfect justice. But the message of hell and judgment offends the hearer, so it is dismissed as contradictory to the rubric of love, which of course It isn't.

Read about the foolish ones in Matthew, chapter 7.

[john62]

Uncle Al, the problem in Australia with the US and guns is that the media paints a very one sided view of what is happening in the US, the result of this is that when I talk to my clients the comment is that they will not holiday in the US because it is too "violent" and countries like the US and Australia need tourists.

John