Reply With Quote
yes, hilarious. Darwinism at work taking care of creationist bubbas, a doomed species.
Really? That's funny, boutons? Go climb a wall of s.
yes, hilarious. Darwinism at work taking care of creationist bubbas, a doomed species.
Fox News Guest Receives Racist Rape And Death Threats After Arguing Guns Aren’t The Solution To Rape
In the wake of her appearance, Maxwell was bombarded with harassing messages calling for her to be raped or murdered, often in explicitly racist terms. She provided ThinkProgress with screenshots of three examples:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...ution-to-rape/
think the racist, right-wing FBI will be forcing the service to cough up the real names of the racist, gun fellating haters?
Share of Homes With Guns Shows 4-Decade Decline
The share of American households with guns has declined over the past four decdes, a national survey shows, with some of the most surprising drops in the South and the Western mountain states, where guns are deeply embedded in the culture.
The gun ownership rate has fallen across a broad cross section of households since the early 1970s, according to data from the General Social Survey, a public opinion survey conducted every two years that asks a sample of American adults if they have guns at home, among other questions.
The rate has dropped in cities large and small, in suburbs and rural areas and in all regions of the country. It has fallen among households with children, and among those without. It has declined for households that say they are very happy, and for those that say they are not. It is down among churchgoers and those who never sit in pews.
The household gun ownership rate has fallen from an average of 50 percent in the 1970s to 49 percent in the 1980s, 43 percent in the 1990s and 35 percent in the 2000s, according to the survey data, analyzed by The New York Times.
In 2012, the share of American households with guns was 34 percent, according to survey results released on Thursday. Researchers said the difference compared with 2010, when the rate was 32 percent, was not statistically significant.
The findings contrast with the impression left by a flurry of news reports about people rushing to buy guns and clearing shop shelves of assault rifles after the massacre last year at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.
"There are all these claims that gun ownership is going through the roof," said Daniel Webster, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. "But I suspect the increase in gun sales has been limited mostly to current gun owners. The most reputable surveys show a decline over time in the share of households with guns."
That decline, which has been studied by researchers for years but is relatively unknown among the general public, suggests that even as the conversation on guns remains contentious, a broad shift away from gun ownership is under way in a growing number of American homes. It also raises questions about the future politics of gun control. Will efforts to regulate guns eventually meet with less resistance if they are increasingly concentrated in fewer hands - or more resistance?
Detailed data on gun ownership is scarce. Though some states reported household gun ownership rates in the 1990s, it was not until the early 2000s that questions on the presence of guns at home were asked on a broad federal public health survey of several hundred thousand people, making it possible to see the rates in all states.
But by the mid-2000s, the federal government stopped asking the questions, leaving researchers to rely on much smaller surveys, like the General Social Survey, which is conducted by NORC, a research center at the University of Chicago.
Measuring the level of gun ownership can be a vexing problem, with various recent national polls reporting rates between 35 percent and 52 percent. Responses can vary because the survey designs and the wording of questions differ.
But researchers say the survey done by the center at the University of Chicago is crucial because it has consistently tracked gun ownership since 1973, asking if respondents "happen to have in your home (or garage) any guns or revolvers."
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/03/10...CE229A3B3?f=19
thats propaganda, gun ownership is at an all time high and growing
I think that has more to do with guys getting an extra gun locker than it does more households having guns.
says the NRA/gun industry press release. Do you have any facts to support your bias?
yes, gun sales are at an all time high. guns, magazines, etc are all on back order. you can't even get ammunition in certain calibers. they actually do polling on the subject too..you should check it out. millions of people who always thought about getting a gun someday but didn't yet own one actually made the leap and bought one thanks to your boy and all the bs that went down.
harvard disagrees with you liberals on gun control
http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_stud...terproductive/
Harvard Study: Gun Control Is CounterproductiveI've just learned that Washington, D.C.'s pe ion for a rehearing of the Parker case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was denied today. This is good news. Readers will recall in this case that the D.C. Circuit overturned the decades-long ban on gun ownership in the nation's capitol on Second Amendment grounds.
However, as my colleague Peter Ferrara explained in his National Review Online article following the initial decision in March, it looks very likely that the United States Supreme Court will take the case on appeal. When it does so - beyond seriously considering the clear original intent of the Second Amendment to protect an individual's right to armed self-defense - the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court would be wise to take into account the findings of a recent study out of Harvard.
The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its le: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.
The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:
Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).
For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study's authors write in the report:
If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)Finally, and as if to prove the bumper sticker correct - that "gun don't kill people, people do" - the study also shows that Russia's murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns.
The important thing to keep in mind is not the rate of deaths by gun - a statistic that anti-gun advocates are quick to recite - but the overall murder rate, regardless of means. The criminologists explain:
[P]er capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gunmurder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 - emphases in original)It is important to note here that Profs. Kates and Mauser are not pro-gun zealots. In fact, they go out of their way to stress that their study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder rates nor that increased gun ownershipnecessarily leads to lower murder rates. (Though, in my view, Prof. John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime does indeed prove the latter.) But what is clear, and what they do say, is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently counterproductive.
Not only is the D.C. gun ban ill-conceived on cons utional grounds, it fails to live up to its purpose. If the astronomical murder rate in the nation's capitol, in comparison to cities where gun ownership is permitted, didn't already make that fact clear, this study out of Harvard should.
Bills in states, Congress seek to raise firearm taxes
Efforts are underway in Congress and at least half a dozen states, including California, to raise taxes on firearms or ammunition to pay for programs targeting gun violence.
In Congress, a group of Democrats, led by Rep. Linda T. Sanchez of Lakewood, is pushing for an additional 10% tax on handgun purchases that could generate tens of millions of dollars nationwide to fund gun buybacks, firearms safety campaigns and anti-violence programs.
Legislation that would impose taxes on guns or bullets has also been introduced in Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey and Washington state. In Sacramento, a bill by Democratic Assemblyman Roger inson would impose a nickel tax on every bullet sold in California to pay for screening and treating young children for mental illness.
The proposals are designed after similar taxes placed by federal, state and local governments on cigarettes to fund anti-smoking campaigns and healthcare programs.
"Anything that contributes to balancing out the costs that gun violence exacts on communities is a step in the right direction," said Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center. "Like cigarettes, guns should be taxed in a manner that takes into account the harm they inflict on society at large."
Massachusetts state Rep. David Linsky, who has proposed a 25% tax on the sale of guns and ammunition to fund mental health programs, police training and crime victims' programs, said that gun owners bore some responsibility for funding mental healthcare because of the effect of firearms on public health and safety.
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/60.../p2p-74745374/
unregulated, cheap guns cost USA $10Bs/year. Gun owners must pay through the nose. Gun industry, just like carbon industries, gets away with dumping externality costs on taxpayers.
spurstalk won't let me post articles very easily lately but here's a link to what the guardian has to say about whether or not the rates are falling
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ership-us-data
So how come there are still so many murders? I thought more guns meant substantially less (and perhaps virtually no) murders?
Making stuff up is fun! Actually calling reality as it is is better.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politi...ship-declining
Why is it that GOP types insist on living in a world that they wish existed instead of the one that actually does?A study published in the Injury Prevention Journal, based on a 2004 National Firearms Survey, found that 20% of the gun owners with the most firearms possessed about 65% of the nation's guns.
A 2007 survey by the U.N's Office on Drugs and Crime found that the United States, which has 5% of the world's population, owns 50% of the world's guns.
The number of households owning guns has declined from almost 50% in 1973 to just over 32% in 2010, according to a 2011 study produced by The University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center. The number of gun owners has gone down almost 10% over the same period, the report found.
Unfortunately Mr. Kundu, your study is from 2010 and does not apply to the recent run of gun purchases in 2012-13. Nice try though Mr. Kundu, maybe next time you'll provide us with relevant information.
I trust the guardian over lolcnn aka dinosaur media aka nobody listens anymore aka liberal propaganda network
It's a cited source from less than 2 years ago from the University of Chicago.
And you guys have........ m<s doing a WC impersonation.
Lol university of CHICAGO. Bahsha
Who the cares if deaths are higher or lower. My right to have them exists regardless.
Silly Liberals who believe "the people" referred to in the 2nd Amendment is somehow different than "the people" in all of the others just because of a qualifier of purpose "the militia being necessary."
ter McGee
Your right to have guns has been limited (read infringed upon) and these limitations have been upheld by the SCOTUS. The only thing that is up for discussion now is how severely we as a nation are going to infringe upon your individual right to bare arms for the collective good of society.
Bills in states, Congress seek to raise firearm taxes
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/60.../p2p-74745374/
Secrecy of gun tracking data gets scrutiny
In 2003, the National Rifle Association feared that the city of Chicago's bid to access ATF data on crime guns would spell doom for firearms manufacturers and retailers.
And so with the help of Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kansas, the NRA pushed language through Congress barring dissemination of ATF gun-trace information to cities and advocacy groups and severely restricting access by state and local law enforcement.
The Tiahrt amendment has been attached to successive Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives spending bills ever since, even after its author departed Congress in 2011.
Mostly, it has gone unnoticed. But it is coming under renewed scrutiny from pro-gun-control lawmakers and advocates pushing ahead on legislation in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shootings.
“Overturning the Tiahrt Amendment will help law enforcement track straw purchasers, require annual inventory checks to detect lost and stolen firearms and use trace data to ferret out unscrupulous gun dealers,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. “The only course of action is to remove this language from law.”
“Rolling back Tiahrt is something that's absolutely, incredibly important to do,” said Brian Malte, director of mobilization for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “In gun-violence-prevention advocacy circles, it's huge. We all get it.”
The NRA is equally dedicated to keeping Tiahrt on the books.
“Tiahrt is necessary because trace information was being abused by gun control groups and trial lawyers to sue gun makers and retailers, and push a political agenda,” said Andrew Arulanandam, NRA public affairs director. “Gun trace information was always meant to be used strictly for law enforcement purposes.”
At the core of the controversy is ATF's National Tracing Center, a sprawling facility in Martinsburg, W.Va., where workers process 340,000 inquires a year on firearms seized by police at crime scenes.
Because federal law prohibits creation of a fully automated national gun registry, employees use telephones and email to trace guns from manufacturer on down the chain to purchaser.
Additionally, they pore over microfilmed and scanned records of closed-down gun dealers.
http://mobile.mysa.com/mysa/db_283104/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=s9O9eTI0&full=true#d isplay
10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check
Gun owners most often cite protection as reason for having a firearm
Increasingly, gun owners cite protection, rather than hunting or other recreational activities, as the main reason they own a gun, according to a new survey by the Pew Research Center. Nearly half of gun owners cited “protection” as their main reason for owning a gun, according to the survey. That’s twice the number who cited protection in a similar survey 15 years ago. Hunting, which used to be the main reason cited, is now the first reason given by only about one-third of adults.
By contrast, among people whose households do not have guns, almost six-in-ten say that having one at home would make them feel “uncomfortable.” Asked why, most said they worried about accidents or that they considered guns dangerous or unsafe.
That gulf in how people view guns – a source of protection or a threat – helps explain a wide gap in at udes toward gun policy. Because the groups most likely to own guns – white men, particularly those older than 50 or living in rural areas – are also most likely to be Republicans, it’s no surprise that the division over gun policy has also become polarized by party.
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/60.../p2p-74777239/
Shall not be infringed. I seriously don't know how you can argue with this meaning. SCOTUS has made mistakes before.
Collective good? Goddamn commie.
Sincerely,
ter McGee
What about a background check? is that not infringement? Do you think a mentally ill person should be able to own a gun? What about a felon? What about fully automatic weapons? One for every boy and girl? The reality is state governments were infringing on the right to keep and bare arms when the framers wrote that the right shall not be infringed...we've been infringing on that right since day one.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
