A New Trajectory. Looks to be a project of CeaseFire Oregon. We can see it starts out with some interesting statistics. Not sure what value you can draw by correlating generic death with gun ownership. Is it reasonable to even assume someone who died of cancer, stroke, or heart disease had any reasonable relationship to gun laws? It’s starting with a nonsensical premise. The next graph is at least based on a reasonable premise, but it’s very similar to the analysis I did here, here, and here, which showed absolutely no correlation to crime rates and gun control laws, and a very mild inverse correlation between gun ownership rates and violent crime. The correlation seen by New Trajectory appears because “gun deaths” include suicide by gun, which I speculated probably does, unsurprisingly, correlate with gun ownership, much like tall buildings likely correlates to jumping suicides.
But I applaud our New Trajectory blogger for trying to speak to the issue with more than just emotions.
As I was looking at their statistical analysis, I concluded that they are actually looking at “gun deaths”–but I’m not entirely sure about that.
I made a comment about how their graphs aren’t as clear as they pretend it to be, and asked for their data. They posted my comment, but no links–at least, not yet.
I suspect that their study is rather fake…
They are speaking with more than emotion all right. I see the usual baseless lies right on their Open Invitation to Pro-Gun Folks for Solutions.
“(For instance, around 86% of NRA members want to close the gun show loophole by requiring background checks for private sellers at those shows, in all states. And I think we can all agree that too many criminals are able to get guns easily.)”
The author’s response to a comment on an post on the new Discovery Channel program, Sons Of Guns is filled with the expected spin and deflection.
“This is a strange assumption which is perpetuated by the NRA, that gun control is about gun banning.”
“(though there are less deadly hobbies to pursue than gun collection). ”
You are way more optimistic than I am. From where I see it, the place will be full of Peterson Syndrome in no time.
Over and over again we know that when gun control advocates ask “where can we find common ground”, what they really mean is “what kinds of increased infringements are you willing to bear.”
Finally, they’ve set up a straw man. The answer to their real question should be “none.”
The evidence strongly suggests that most gun control advocates don’t give a rat’s ass about reducing violence. They want to impose more gun restrictions.
Call me unreasonable.
You should just ignore these bugs. They get more hits because you link to them, then they ever would from people who honestly support them.
The real question is, how long to Reasoned Discourse?
People who live in high-rise apartments are far more likely to commit suicide by jumping to their deaths than are people who live in 1-story ranch-style houses; ergo, we should require psychological screening to live above the third floor.
Police departments generally oppose anything that makes it easier for anyone to carry firearms either concealed or open. They must have a reason, and we can clearly see it isn’t because there is a correlation between gun violence and gun laws. So why?
Police departments oppose open or concealed firearms makes their job more dangerous.
In my opinion, the only place for firearms is in the wilderness far away from regular police, locked in the gun closet at home, hunting (with rifles), and on the firing range. When transporting between these places a gun lock should be required.
@Trend You are appealing to emotion as a substitute for logical debate and your statement is demonstrably false.
limit size of magazines and they will just bring 2 guns
To the individual who just pasted 20 pages of material that my spam filter properly flagged:
If you want to make concise arguments, feel free to post. If you want to spam my blog with 20 pages of rambling nonsense, go away.
THERE IS NO 2ND AMENTMENT RIGHT TO OWN A GUN AND THERE NEVER WAS. GOOGLE THAT PHRASE BY MARC RUBIN. GOOGLE ” WHAT DID JEFFERSON SAY ABOUT THE 2ND AMENDMENT” THE NRA HAS BLOCK ANY PROGRESS ON CONTROLLING GUNS FOR OVER A HALF CENTERY BY MISREPRESENTING THE 2ND AMENDMENT. MILLIONS HAVE DIED BECAUSE OF THEIR LOBBYING. GUN CONTROL IS ONE THING , 1934 FIREARM ACT FOR EXP. AND THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS THE POWER AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT A GOVENOR HAS TO MAINTAIN A NATIONAL GUARD, STATE MILITIA
Or even with 8 lines of rambling nonsense …
OK… next can you try to make an argument without shouting? There is plenty of evidence the founding fathers saw the Second Amendment as an individual right. I’ll find just one:
“No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
Actual quote from Jefferson on the draft Virginia Constitution of 1776. Or how about Madison:
“The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
or Patrick Henry:
“The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun.”
Richard Henry Lee:
“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
St. George Tucker:
“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty …. The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorize the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.”
I could go on.