Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/23/2012 5:11:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/5/2016 4:01:19 PM EDT by gumbii]
Ok guys. With the onslaught of liberals and uninformed sheep trying to ban everything short of a squirt gun, those of us who care should be pretty damn busy for the next few months, refuting MSM falsehoods, liberal propaganda and bold faced lies from the Brady foundation. What I would like to do is set up a semi-permanent posted thread where we can compile and vet gun facts for everyone to use on a regular basis. Basically a place for us to post good 2A articles, facts, statistics, graphics ect that will be readily accessible at the top of GD. The site as a whole can access them, correct or clarify points, or post stuff that they have used in the past

Mods please let me know if this isnt possible, and Ill delete the thread.

If not Ill kick it off with the following

The holy bible of gun facts
Gunfacts.com

Bureau of Justice and Statistics
BSJ

I havent vetted this one yet but at first glance it appears promising
just facts

Stolen from LuckyDuck in another thread and shamelessly reposted
Harvard Law

GOA facts
Gun Owners of America

Hope this helps guys. Keep them coming.

<Added blue highlighting 12/23/2012 - Z>
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 7:56:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/23/2012 8:30:14 AM EDT by safe1]
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 5:58:43 PM EDT
Awesome!!!! Thanks for the help. VA Shooter, Hiram Ranger, Shotar, and Safe1 I appreciate the hand off. Hopefully this can become something useful in pushing back against the antis.
Link Posted: 12/23/2012 7:14:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/17/2013 7:03:11 PM EDT by Prime]


Articles-

Gun facts 5.1
The Gun is Civilization
A World Without Guns
A Nation of Cowards
Of Holocausts and Gun Control
Human Rights and Gun Confiscation
In the Absence of Guns
Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?
NIJ Assessment of the Assault Weapons Ban
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2006/09/can-gun-control-reduce-violence.html?m=1
Larry Correia on Gun Control



Gun Control once again shows its racism-


I'm moving this particular argument to the head of the line, as it is by far the most effective. It puts liberals on the defensive, it rebuts the common "guns cause crime" narrative, and it demands a solution to an urgent problem that clearly will have nothing to do with guns.


First, here's a video posted by one of our new guys (who have REALLY stepped up, by the way) "Oobert". The video uses the FBI Crime Data and Home Office data to show the drastic decrease in violent crime in the US, and the higher violent crime rate in the UK.

He also goes back into the FBI data to show where our violent crime problem really lies, and THIS is the nuclear payload of this argument.

The bulk of our violent crime comes from the inner cities.

And we all know who lives in inner cities. Now, PLEASE don't just leave the argument there and let it sound like you're blaming black people. That is not the point. The point is that if the government and media really wanted to do something, they would be addressing the issue. They are not.

Chicago had a record year for violence, after 30 years of handgun bans and ten years of "assault weapons" ban. Black kids killing each other with guns that are already completely illegal? Crickets. Like one of our ex-pat Brits pointed out regarding the 2010 mass shooting in Cumbria, when there's nothing left to ban, the government just shrugs.

Rich white kids get killed by a lunatic with a gun? 24/7 news coverage for over a week.

That's the smoking gun, so to speak. They don't give a rat's ass about violence, about minorities, or about kids.
That is the absolute truth, and it is undeniable. I have posted this in multiple arguments, I'm thinking at least half a dozen hotly contested debates, as well as on two of Brady's Facebook pages and that of every chapter of the Million Moms.

No one has ever been able to come up with a counter-argument.

Now I have stress it again, because it's that important. You have to press the issue as a moral outrage that they're ignoring the plight of inner city minorities. Use their own language. One, because it's true. Not every black kid deserves to die because his only role models are gangsta rap thugs. But two, you're speaking their language and highlighting their own hypocrisy. IF YOU DON'T DO THIS, and instead blame black people this argument completely backfires.


U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Teenage Victims: A National Crime Survey Report,” NCJ128129 (May 1991)

Leland Ropp, Paul Visintainer, Jame Uman, & David Treloar, “Death in the City: An American Childhood Tragedy,” JAMA 267 (June 3, 1992): 2905-10.

Fox Butterfield, “Seeds of Murder Epidemic: Teen-Age Boys with Guns,” New York Times, Oct. 19, 1992, (Reporting study by James A Fox, dean of Northeastern University’s College of Criminal Justice, by National Crime Analysis Project at Northeastern).





Most of the violent crime in this country is criminal on criminal-



BE CAREFUL with this. Similar to above, show some compassion and don't say criminal on criminal homicides don't matter. You say, "All of this crime requires a solution, and Chicago with its 30 years of handgun ban and record crime rate proves that gun control is not it". Though any impartial observer would agree that mutual combat is better than a criminal beating an old lady to death, you run the risk of being written off as an uncaring bastard. Lecture them on ignoring the plight of the inner cities and you keep them confused.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-31-criminal-target_N.htm
By Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — A spike in murders in many cities is claiming a startling number of victims with criminal records, police say, suggesting that drug and gang wars are behind the escalating violence. Police increasingly explore criminal pasts of homicide victims as well as suspects as they search for sources of the violence, which has risen the past two years after a decade of decline, according to the FBI's annual measures of U.S. crime. Understanding victims' pasts is critical to driving crime back down, police and crime analysts say. "If you are trying to look at prevention, you need to look at the lives of the people involved," says Mallory O'Brien, director of the Homicide Review Commission in Milwaukee.

In Baltimore, about 91% of murder victims this year had criminal records, up from 74% a decade ago, police reported.
In many cases, says Frederick Bealefeld III, Baltimore's interim police commissioner, victims' rap sheets provide critical links to potential suspects in botched drug deals or violent territorial disputes.

MORE FROM BALTIMORE: Cities study victims' criminal past
Philadelphia police Capt. Ben Naish says the Baltimore numbers are "shocking." Philadelphia also has seen the number of victims with criminal pasts inch up — to 75% this year from 71% in 2005. In Milwaukee, local leaders created the homicide commission after a spike in violence led to a 39% increase in murders in 2005. The group compiled statistics on victims' criminal histories for the first time and found that 77% of homicide victims in the past two years had an average of nearly 12 arrests.
While it was common in the past for murder victims to have criminal records, the current levels are surprising even to analysts who study homicides.
"Anecdotally, the detectives on the street knew" victims with prior police contact were being killed, "but we wanted people to start to look at this" in the community, O'Brien says.

In Newark, where three young friends with no apparent links to crime were executed Aug. 4, roughly 85% of victims killed in the first six months of this year had criminal records, on par with the percentage in 2005 but up from 81% last year, police statistics show.
David Kennedy, a professor at New York's John Jay College of Criminal Justice, says the rise in criminals killing criminals has escaped policymakers' attention.
"The notion that these (murders) are random bolts of lightning, which is the commonly held image, is not the reality," says Kennedy, who has examined the backgrounds of murder suspects and victims in multiple U.S. cities. "It happens, but it doesn't happen often."

The slaying of truly innocent victims is so unusual in Baltimore that the chief prosecutor says the city has become dangerously numb to the carnage. "If we don't put human faces on the victims, we will become desensitized," State Attorney Patricia Jessamy says.


"Between 1990 and 1994, 75% of all homicide victims age 21 and younger in the city of Boston had a prior criminal record."
Kennedy, David M., Anne M. Piehl, Anthony A. Braga (1996). "Youth Violence in Boston: Gun Markets, Serious Youth Offenders, and a Use-Reduction Strategy"


"In Philadelphia, the percentage of those killed in gun homicides that had prior criminal records increased from 73% in 1985 to 93% in 1996."
McGonigal, Michael D., John Cole, C. William Schwab, Donald R. Kauder, Michael F. Rotondo, Peter B. Angood (1993). "Urban Firearm Deaths: A Five-Year Perspective". Journal of Trauma 35 (4): 532–536.


"In Richmond, Virginia, the risk of gunshot injury is 22 times higher for those males involved with crime."
McLaughlin, Colleen R., Jack Daniel, Scott M. Riener, Dennis E. Waite, et al.. "Factors Associated with Assault-Related Firearm Injuries in Male Adolescents". Working paper. Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice.




There is no evidence that gun control works-


http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

“In conclusion, the application of imperfect methods to imperfect data has commonly resulted in inconsistent and otherwise insufficient evidence with which to determine the effectiveness of firearms laws in modifying violent outcomes.”


Take note that in the study, seven out of the eight laws that they say can't be proven to work are gun control talking points, like registration, gun bans, etc. The eighth is concealed carry laws, which cannot be proven to LOWER crime, but we don't really need to. We have police chiefs all over the country being quoted as saying blood did not flow in the streets. It can be proven that crime did not go UP.




"Better to have one person dead than twenty dead"-



This is a variation of the logical fallacy called "false dilemma". The implication, because "guns cause crime", is that either murderers will use ARs to kill twenty people, or murderers will use a shotgun to kill one, two, or twelve people. The right answer is we don't want mass murderers to kill ANYONE. Pursuing solutions and defenses against the real problem of violent behavior will net real results. Gun control will not.

What happens if they get their wish and we live in a regime that abolishes the right of anyone to own a firearm? China provides the perfect example. China had ten mass killing incidents in a 7 month period in 2010, while the US was experiencing its lowest violent crime rate since 1972.

That "false dilemma" reasoning when applied with different examples paints a very different picture, as Sleepy1988 so eloquently shows below.

Originally Posted By Sleepy1988:
March 23rd, 2010, Nanping, Fujian province, China. Zhen Minsheng kills eight children and injures five more with a knife. A killed/injured ratio of 8/5, versus Patrick Purdy's of 5/30, with a Kalashnikov. That settles it, knives are more deadly than AKs or pump-action shotguns, better ban them.






The Second Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right, not a collective one-


This is very well explained by Judges Kozinski and Kleinfeld in their dissenting opinions regarding Silveira v. Lockyer.

http://notabug.com/kozinski/silveira_v_lockyer


Judges know very well how to read the Constitution broadly when they are sympathetic to the right being asserted. We have held, without much ado, that “speech, or . . . the press” also means the Internet, see Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), and that “persons, houses, papers, and effects” also means public telephone booths, see Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). When a particular right comports especially well with our notions of good social policy, we build magnificent legal edifices on elliptical constitutional phrases or even the white spaces between lines of constitutional text. See, e.g., Compassion in Dying v. Washington, 79 F.3d 790 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc), rev’d sub nom. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997). But, as the panel amply demonstrates, when we’re none too keen on a particular constitutional guarantee, we can be equally ingenious in burying language that is incontrovertibly there.


And the ass-kicking just gets better from there. Kozinski's opinion is relatively short, Kleinfeld's is a BOOK, but goes further into detail with historical evidence that the Founder's intent was not for the people to be disarmed until the government passed out guns, but that "well regulated" meant they checked you to MAKE SURE you had guns and other required equipment.

It should be required reading, and thanks to Roland-G23 for the heads up.




The Second Amendment is about defense against tyranny-



Federalist No. 46

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.





We are ALL the militia-


Or at least all the males from 17-45, and it's pretty clear that the spirit of the thing was that anyone who could fight would do so. As every male between 17 and 45 is currently a member of the unorganized militia (this completely derails a lot of people by the way) those people would need to provide their own weapons, as they are unorganized.


USC › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 13 › § 311
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

Current through Pub. L. 112-123. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.





Weapons were common, and lethal in 1776


You will often hear people say that the Founders couldn't imagine a gun that fires hundreds of blah blah blah. This is more a reflection of their uninformed perception of the Founders rather than any realistic interpretation of fact. The Puckle Gun was pretty much a giant, mounted eleven round revolver invented in 1718, so obviously people desired and were developing faster and better weapons.

The Belton Flintlock was a design for a weapon that fired up to twenty rounds in as little as five seconds. The vagueness is because none appear to have ever been built. However, Congress ordered one hundred of them. This proves that not only did they know about a weapon that fired as fast or faster than my AR, they wanted them.

The Girandoni Air Rifle
The rifle was 4 ft (1.2 m) long and weighed 10 lbs (4.5 kg)...it fired a .46 caliber ball[2] at a velocity similar to that of a modern .45 ACP and it had a tubular, gravity-fed magazine with a capacity of 20 balls... Contemporary regulations of 1788 required that each rifleman, in addition to the rifle itself, be equipped with three compressed air reservoirs (two spare and one attached to the rifle), cleaning stick, hand pump, lead ladle, and 100 lead balls, 1 in the chamber, 21 in the magazine built into the rifle and the remaining 80 in four tin tubes...

The air reservoir was in the club-shaped butt. With a full air reservoir, the Girandoni air rifle had the capacity to shoot 30 shots at useful pressure. These balls were effective to approximately 150 yards on a full load.


Here is a page describing the many pistols in Washington's possession when he died. He also owned his own small cannon that he was well known for firing. I know these are stupid details, but I have found occasion to use them, as the amount of denial in some gun control advocates is truly astonishing.




Police Officers are not typically the master marksmen that the media makes them out to be, and people are difficult to kill with handguns-




There is a strong relationship between the volume of shots by police and the probability of killing the suspect. In 17 incidents in which police fired three times or less, only two persons died. In 12 incidents in which four or more shots were fired, nine persons died.

Most of the deaths resulted in “bunch shootings” involving two or more officers. There were seven of these, five of them ending in death.

Of 11 persons fatally shot by Portland police during the past four years, the average number of bullet strikes was 9.3.

- Portland police fired a total of 186 shots and scored 112 hits – missing 40 percent of their shots.

http://www.theppsc.org/Archives/DF_Articles/Files/Oregon/92-Oregonian_Study.htm




The police officer’s potential for hitting his adversary during armed confrontation has increased over the years and stands at slightly over 25% of the rounds fired. An assailant’s skill was 11% in 1979.

In 1990 the overall police hit potential was 19%. Where distances could be determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were:

Less than 3 yards ….. 38%
3 yards to 7 yards .. 11.5%
7 yards to 15 yards .. 9.4%

In 1992 the overall police hit potential was 17%. Where distances could be
determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were:

Less than 3 yards ….. 28%
3 yards to 7 yards …. 11%
7 yards to 15 yards . 4.2%

It has been assumed that if a man can hit a target at 50 yards he can certainly do the same at three feet. That assumption is not borne out by the reports.

http://www.virginiacops.org/articles/shooting/combat.htm






Guns save lives


Defensive Gun Uses are hotly contested by criminologists. Basically they do telephone surveys of people to find out if they've ever used a gun to defend themselves. It should be no surprise that results are all over the place, and that an argument about DGUs inevitably turns into "my research against your research". Here's what I have on the topic.

Kleck and Gertz were the two researchers who came up with the 2.5 million DGU estimate. Here is an interesting defense of that particular study.


Dr. Marvin Wolfgang made the following remarks at the Guns and Violence Symposium.
Let me read the first and last paragraphs of the commentary that I originally made, titled A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed.
The first paragraph reads:
I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of The Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe from the police. I hate guns--ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people...

The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well.


The following is a useful reference as it takes a "why can't we all get along" approach and summarizes the upper and lower limits of the research at the time. Hemenway is well known for being anti-gun, so use that. Even he said that there are 55,000 DGUs, and anyone trying to minimize the importance of 55,000 human beings should be called out for not valuing human life. With 55,000 lives saved, you can add up all the firearm homicides and suicides and guns still end up being worth it to the unbiased observer.


Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern) 87 (1997): 1462.

A CALL FOR A TRUCE IN THE DGU WAR
Tom W. Smith *

Copyright © 1997 Northwestern University School of Law & Tom W. Smith

"For almost a decade scholars have been debating about how many defensive gun uses (DGUs) occur annually. Gary Kleck and colleagues, [1] citing a series of polls culminating in the 1993 Kleck-Gertz survey, argue that at least 2.55 million people use a firearm for protection against criminals each year. Hemenway and others, [2] relying on the National Crime Victimization Surveys (NCVSs), contend that only about 55,000 to 80,000 victims use guns against offenders in a given year."

"Neither side seems to be willing to give ground or see their opponents' point of view. This is unfortunate since there is good reason to believe that both sides are off-the-mark."

"If we factor in some of the probable over- and underestimates affecting the NCVS and K-G 1993 survey, the widely divergent figures on DGUs draw much closer together. The latest figures from the NCVS indicate 108,000 DGUs per annum. [40] If this is adjusted for a 50% under-reporting due to not directly asking for DGUs, this increases the estimate to 216,000. Next, research by Cook and Ludwig suggests that perhaps 16-42% of DGUs involve crimes not covered by the NCVS. [41] Adding in these would raise DGUs to 256,500-373,000."

"Similarly, using the average of the K-G one-year lower (B) estimate and the NSPOF figure gives a starting estimate of 1,810,000. Assuming a net cognitive over-reporting (telescoping-forgetting) of 50%, [42] reduces the figure to 1,210,000. [43] These estimates should draw even closer together if other measurement errors could be factored in. [44] But even as they stand, the gulf has been narrowed from 30+:1 to 3.2-5.6:1."



Here is a CDC study which settled on half a million DGUs.

Estimating intruder-related firearm retrievals in U.S. households, 1994.
Ikeda RM, Dahlberg LL, Sacks JJ, Mercy JA, Powell KE.
Source
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Abstract
To estimate the frequency of firearm retrieval because of a known or presumed intruder, the authors analyzed data from a 1994 national random digit dialing telephone survey (n = 5,238 interviews). Three mutually exclusive definitions of firearm retrieval were constructed: (1) retrieved a firearm because there might be an intruder, (2) retrieved a firearm and saw an intruder, and (3) retrieved a firearm, saw an intruder, and believed the intruder was frightened away by the gun. Of 1,678 (34%) households with firearms, 105 (6%) retrieved a firearm in the previous 12 months because of an intruder. National projections based on these self-reports reveal an estimated 1,896,842 (95% CI [confidence interval] = 1,480,647-2,313,035) incidents in which a firearm was retrieved, but no intruder was seen; 503,481 (95% CI = 305,093-701,870) incidents occurred in which an intruder was seen, and 497,646 (95% CI = 266,060-729,231) incidents occurred in which the intruder was seen and reportedly scared away by the firearm. Estimates of the protective use of firearms are sensitive to the definitions used. Researchers should carefully consider both how these events are defined and the study methods used.


I should explain why I've chosen not to include the Kleck study. Since its result was the most "pro-gun" it has gotten the most attention. Harvard has spent an enormous amount of time criticizing it. As I am no statistician, I cannot say for certain whether that reflects the quality of Kleck's work or the degree of Harvard's impartiality. I have my suspicions though.

In any case, you'll find that usually people are ready with information to refute the Kleck study, so it's best to go with the above two. Saying "the Clinton CDC said half a million DGUs" stops that line of argument immediately, at least in my very recent experience.




Guns don't cause crime-


Anything you do to prove this shows the gun grabber argument to be either ignorant or an outright lie. Either one works. This can be approached a couple of ways.

-Guns in absence of crime
Gun Homicides and Gun Crime Worldwide
This argument works great on those talking about what a crime-free utopia Europe is, because you're using a UK source which is in turn using UN crime data. There are
four countries from this list that have civilian firearm ownership, and in the cited data they have no gun homicides whatsoever. Zero. Iceland is particularly impressive, with
90,000 guns which comes out to about one for every three people.


Then of course there's the crime rate among permit holders-


"One study found that in Florida CCW holders were 300 times less likely than the general population to commit a crime. The firearm crime rate among license holders, annually averaging only several crimes per 100,000 licensees, is a fraction of the rate for the state as a whole. Between the beginning of Florida’s permitting program and the end of 2005, the state issued 1,104,468 concealed weapons permits. During that time period; 3,643 permits were revoked—a rate of about .3 percent. Of those revocations; 2,941 involved a crime after licensure; 157 of those crimes involved the use of a firearm. "

"A Texas study found that CCW holders in that state were "5.7 times less likely to commit a violent crime, and 14 times less likely to commit a non-violent offense."

"North Carolina reports only 0.2% of their 263,102 holders had their license revoked in the 10 years since they have adopted the law."

Georgia: "studies by numerous independent researchers and state agencies have found that concealed handgun license holders are five times less likely than non-license holders to commit violent crimes"

in 2004, the state of Utah had a permit revocation rate of about .4 percent. The rate for revocations due to
firearm offenses was .02 percent..

between 1986 and 2003, only .8 percent of Kentucky's 71,770 licenses were revoked for any reason

in 2001, Indiana revoked about .2 percent of its outstanding concealed weapon permits

since the inception of its concealed weapons program in 1995, Virginia has seen a revocation rate of just .2
percent.

between October of 1994 and February of 1996, the state of Wyoming issued 2,273 permits and revoked
four, a revocation rate of just under .2 percent.

between 1996, when its shall-issue law passed, and September of 1999, the state of Oklahoma issued 30,406
permits and revoked only 62–a rate of .2 percent.





-Crime in the absence of guns

I don't know if there's any modern society on earth that doesn't have ANY firearms. The People's Republic of Stabbyland seems to be pretty close to zero private ownership. There are plenty of American cities that still have high crime despite strict gun control. I think the UK is probably capable of doing a better job of keeping guns from coming into their country than we ever could, but that's a guess based on size alone.

The inevitable protest will be that cities like Chicago have violence because guns are coming in from outside the city. The response to this is that the same thing would happen to the country if we outlawed guns, the exact same way drugs come in, and it would likely be the exact same suppliers, and in a deliciously twisted irony it would in some cases be the exact same guns that went down to Mexico as part of F&F. That together with some FBI data showing murder weapons used should end the discussion.

It probably won't though, so it's fortunate that you can smoothly transition to the very first argument- that Chicago shows how the gun control movement is more concerned about guns than they are about violence. This explains their insistence in putting the word "gun" before the word "violence" as if there's any difference between violence and "gun violence". You can close this argument by saying that we can perpetually chase our tails trying to outlaw things and destroying more and more of the constitution, OR we can actually work on what causes violence.

It ain't the guns.





Crime is not random-


Criminals preferentially victimize the weak.
The weak benefit the most from being armed.

VICTIM SELECTION AND KINEMATICS:
A POINT-LIGHT INVESTIGATION
OF VULNERABILITY TO ATTACK
Rebekah E. Gunns, Lucy Johnston, and Stephen M. Hudson
"Victims of physical attack, human and animal, are not chosen at random; assailants select their victims. Wolves isolate and attack the most vulnerable among a flock of sheep whilst convicted offenders report that they select victims who offer adequate reward for minimal effort (Farrell, Phillips, & Pease, 1995; Fattah, 1991; LeJeune, 1977)"


Predatory rapists and victim selection techniques
Dennis J. Stevens
"University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA
This article examines the self-reported target techniques of 61 sexual offenders incarcerated in a maximum custody prison. The data lend support to a rational choice perspective revealing predatory rapists as decision makers since they largely attack females whom they perceive as vulnerable."


Inside the mind of the serial murder
RM Holmes, J De Burger
"Posteal Laskey, the Cincinnati Strangler, illustrates the non-random pattern of victim selection. He killed elderly women after carefully appraising their vulnerability. It appears, therefore, serial killing may not be as random as once thought (Wilson and Seaman, 1985)"




European Disarmament is a Myth



http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/files/sas/publications/year_b_pdf/2003/2003SASCh2_full_en.pdf

Contrary to widely-accepted national myths, public gun ownership is commonplace in most European states. It may appear to some outside observers—especially Americans—that Europeans have blindly surrendered their gun rights (Heston, 2002). The reality is that the citizens of most European countries are better armed than they realize. ...

Regulations tightly control gun ownership in only a few European countries like the Netherlands, Poland, and the United Kingdom. In much of the rest of the continent, public officials readily admit that unlicensed owners and unregistered guns greatly outnumber legal ones. ...





http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,235388,00.html

In the Czech Republic, the number of guns held legally and in private ownership has soared from 123,300 in 1992 to 562,320 in 2001; the only requirements are an age of 21 or more, a clean criminal record and certificates of good health and gun expertise. (When Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross proposed a sharpening of the law last year, the parliament struck a clause that would have required psychological examinations.) Membership in German gun clubs, or Sch�tzenvereine, has risen steadily to a total of nearly 1.6 million, and another 340,000 hunters have legal access to guns. More than a million Italians are licensed to own guns, but Defense Minister Antonio Martino argues that current laws are too restrictive, having "disarmed the law abiders, but not the criminals."

Many continental European police officials are more worried about the guns flowing westward from ex-Yugoslavia and Albania, which are awash in weapons after a decade of war. NATO troops in Bosnia have made three major seizures of arms caches in the last month and have collected thousands of small arms and hand grenades since January. Domitilla Sagra-Moso, a researcher at the Centre for Defense Studies at King's College London, says the end of those conflicts has put "cheap but powerful weapons ... in the hands of local organized crime groups" who sell them on to buyers across Europe.

Of course, an AK-47 automatic rifle is less useful for street crime than a good pistol. But some people are able to adjust the crime to the means. Last autumn in the southern French city of B�ziers, Safir Bghioua opened fire on police with a rocket launcher, switched to a machine gun and was later found to have stuffed his trunk with a military arsenal of explosives, detonators and armor-piercing ammunition.

The German police union has estimated that as many as 20 million illegal firearms are at large in Germany, a number rejected as "much too high" by the Federal Criminal Office.





http://www.balkanalysis.com/greece/2011/05/15/organized-crime-in-greece-statistics-trends-and-police-countermeasures-in-2011-2/

Greek authorities estimate that some 1.5 million firearms exist in the country; however, the number of licensed owners of hunting rifles does not exceed 300,000 people, meaning that the rest of the weapons are illegally owned.

Over the past three years, police investigations accompanying the arrests of members of the so-called “neo-terrorist” groups Revolutionary Struggle and the Conspiracy Cells of Fire proved that terrorists were able to easily obtain weaponry on the black market. Weapons including pistols and ammunition are being imported by crime groups from Albania and the ex-Yugoslavia and ex-Soviet Union states, through a variety of illegal arms trafficking channels.

The Security Directory of Police in the Attica region (which includes Athens) has issued over the years around 5,000 licenses for weapons for personal protection to citizens such as politicians, businesspeople, journalists and others who have proved their susceptibility to armed attack. All in all, only 10,000 pistols and revolvers are licences and are accounted for.

On the other hand, in the Attica prefecture alone, it is calculated that 100,000 arms are being held by citizens. The people trafficking weapons in Athens are mostly also involved in the drugs trade, racketeering and armed robberies. The black market is a very good source of a secondary income on top of their primal illegal activities.






Gun Control and the Reduction of the Number of Arms

Non-compliance with harsher gun laws is a common event-
In Australia it is estimated that only avout 20% of all banned self-loading rifles have been given up to the authorities (James B. LAWSON,: "New National Gun Laws - are the cost effective?" in: Institute of Public Affairs "Review" December 1999). The remaining stock of illegally held banned firearms is estimated at between two and five millions (John TINGLE, NSW Shooters Party on Allan Jones AM radio, 2 UE NSW 30/09/97). The above mentioned figure of 640 000 rifles which were handed over to the authorities has to be seen in the context of the earlier legal import of about 2 million guns of only two particulat types of that kind. In Queensland alone the number of all types of banned rifles was estimated as 1,2 to 1,3 millions before the implementation of the legislation. Only 130,000 have been handed in and 520 000 have been licensed. This yields a compliance rate of about 50%. (GRIFFITH, supranote 8). Following the restriction in 1983 of certain "military-style" rifles in Canada, the compliance rate was estimated at between 3 and 20% for different models ( KOPEL, supranote 8, p. 144).

In Queensland, Australia, in the eighties only six rifles of a particular type have been handed in following a ban, even though a single dealer in Queensland had imported 2 000 of just one make of such guns (Kopel, supranote 8, p 218). In Austria in 1995 pump-action shotguns were prohibited. While new acquisition is next to impossible since then, already legally held guns could only be kept on a special permit. Out of an original stock estimated at 60 000 guns, only 10 557 have been either surrendered or registered (Paul KISS, member of the Austrian parliament, on TV 11/11/97, cited after: Franz SCHMIDT: "Waffenrechtsdebatte" 3rd Edition, p. 4). As the estimate on imports covers only the last ten years, total legal imports must certainly have been even higher.

...There is an universal and strongly developed tendency to resist gun confiscation if there is any possibility at all. A particular striking example is provided by Austria after the end of the second world war. In the provinces under Russian control possession of any kind of firearm could mean either being shot at the spot or at least vanishing into the remote parts of Siberia. Nevertheless a considerable stock of all kinds of guns has survived from those years interred or sunk in cesspits.





http://www.worldpress.org/cover6.htm

...the Odessa mafia shipped 13,000 tons of guns to Croatia and Bosnia seven years ago.

It has been established, however, that the organization traded a total of 13,000 tons of ammunition and guns, including 30,000 Kalashnikovs, 400 remote-controlled ground missiles, 50 launching stands, and 10,000 antitank missiles.






The UK


"Gun crimes soaring despite ban brought in following Dunblane"
The Telegraph, David Bamber, Home Affairs Correspondent. 2001/07/15
"An independent report, Illegal Firearms in the UK, to be published by the Centre for Defence Studies at King's College in London tomorrow, says that handguns were used in 3,685 offences last year compared with 2,648 in 1997, an increase of 40 per cent."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1334043/Gun-crimes-soaring-despite-ban-brought-in-following-Dunblane.html


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7400372/True-scale-of-violent-crime-rise-revealed.htmlViolent attacks are estimated to be 44 per cent higher than they were in 1998 after research on the way police record them allowed comparisons for the first time.
The study, by the independent House of Commons Library, shows violence against the person increased from 618,417 to 887,942 last year.
The devastating review comes despite repeated claims by the Government that violent crime has come down substantially since it took power


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Crime_SurveyProfessor Ken Pease, former acting head of the Home Office's police research group, and Professor Gary Farrell of Loughborough University, estimated in 2007 that the BCS was underreporting crime by about 3 million incidents per year due to its practice of arbitrarily capping the number of crimes one can be victimised by in a given year at five.[2] If true the error means that violent crime might actually stand at 4.4 million incidents per year, an 82% increase over the 2.4 million previously thought. Since the five crimes per person cap has been consistent since the BCS began this might not affect the long-term trends, however it takes little account of crimes such as domestic violence, figures for which would allegedly be 140% higher without the cap[3]. Police figures are also thought[who?] to seriously undercount repeat victimisation.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7400372/True-scale-of-violent-crime-rise-revealed.html

Violent attacks are estimated to be 44 per cent higher than they were in 1998 after research on the way police record them allowed comparisons for the first time.
The study, by the independent House of Commons Library, shows violence against the person increased from 618,417 to 887,942 last year.
The devastating review comes despite repeated claims by the Government that violent crime has come down substantially since it took power.

Police record 1/3rd of violent crimes as a "No Crime"
(source BBC News 22nd October 2009)

In the latest review of recorded police incidents it has been identified that many violent crimes are being recorded under the heading of "No Crime".

Although the findings are based on investigations in just a small sample of the UKs police forces, it is believed that as many as 33% of violent crimes nationwide are being misclassified.


Great discussion on UK v US crime statistics
Home Office Crime Statistics


And this outstanding post by one of our own-

Originally Posted By StealthyBlagga:
Arguing statistics is usually pointless - everyone knows you can cherry pick the data to "prove" whatever you want to. Instead, given the current focus on active shooter outrages, show them how ineffective selective gun control regulations are by sharing with them the chronology of the following incidents that happened in the UK despite already-strict gun control regulations:

1987 Hungerford shootings: 16 people killed in one day by a madman armed with two semi-auto rifles (AK47 and M1 carbine) and a pistol, all legally owned despite strict licensing regulations. Resulted in a complete ban on all semi-auto rifles in the UK.

1996 Dunblane shootings: 16 elementary school children and a teacher killed by a madman armed with two 6-shot revolvers and two Browning pistols, all legally owned despite even stricter licensing regulations implemented after Hungerford. Resulted in a complete ban on all handguns in the UK.

2010 Cumbria shootings: 12 people killed by a madman armed with a double-barrel shotgun and a .22 bolt action rifle, all legally owned despite even stricter licensing regulations implemented after Dunblane. Pretty much nothing left to ban so the UK Government just shrugged.


The above cases illustrate clearly the utter futility of gun bans as any way to prevent mass killings. All they do is erode civil liberties and give people a temporary, false sense of security. Unless your friends are willing to concede that a TOTAL ban on all dangerous weapons is acceptable in their Utopian world, then their arguments for more gun control will be shown for the folly they are.

By the way, I am also an ex-pat Brit. I moved here in 1998 after the handgun ban so I could continue to enjoy the shooting sports. Never regretted the move, and I feel strongly that where we live is a much safer place to raise my kids than anywhere in the UK. Welcome to the Land of the Free






The Swiss-
Due to the length of his post and the already unmanageable size of THIS post, I'm putting Austrian's excellent summary of Swiss firearms legislation, culture and history in its own post below. It is very well worth the read.



Self Defense is a Basic Human Right


If anyone ever says you don't have a right to self defense, show them the following.

Martin Luther King
"As we have seen, the first public expression of disenchantment with nonviolence arose around the question of "self-defense." In a sense this is a false issue, for the right to defend one's home and one's person when attacked has been guaranteed through the ages by common law." Martin Luther King, Jr., Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? Chapter II, Black Power, Page 55, Harper & Row Publishers Inc., First Edition, 1967.

Ghandi
http://www.mkgandhi.org/nonviolence/g_views.htm
These are short reads and are excellent. Thanks to the poster in GD whose name I've neglected to remember. Ghandi believed strongly that running away and not fighting was NOT nonviolence but cowardice, and that violent self-defense was better than cowardice. "The Doctrine of the Sword" and "Between Cowardice and Violence" are both excellent material as reference and to flat out enjoy.

Jesus
The money-changers in the temple has been done to death, and I don't know of any real evidence that Jesus kicked any well-deserved ass. Instead, the very best story in the Bible about violence is also one about NON-violence. As I am no bible scholar, and I know we have at least one "ARowner" who is a staggering authority on the subject, please feel free to correct a simple heathen.

In the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus told some disciples to go get swords and sell clothes if they had to in order to get them. Peter then uses one of these swords, and gets rebuked for it. My interpretation of this story echoes something Ghandi said- helplessness is NOT nonviolence. Jesus wanted his surrender to be meaningful, and only by having the power to "take" can you really "give", so they had their bags packed and their weapons out when they came to arrest him.

A felon breaks into a house, and confronts a kindly older woman of liberal politics. She offers him money, food, and a warm beverage in hopes that this will warm the recesses of his cold heart. From the criminal's point of view...OF COURSE she does. He knows she is helpless. He comes from a world where power is everything, and the physically weak use words to manipulate. Her generosity is nothing but a ruse to gain an advantage over him.

Now put a gun in her hand and a steely resolve in her eye. She says (however improbably and ill-advisedly) "the kitchen's that way, help yourself". THAT is real and effective non-violence, and communicates a generous choice rather than helplessness.


Not only is self defense a right, it is a moral imperative-

Catechism of the Catholic Church
2nd Ed.

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66

In other words, discouraging people from defending themselves is disrespectful of human life.




Don't You Trust Your Government? What Could Possibly Go Wrong?



Originally Posted By rebelceb:
http://www.mercyseat.net/gun_genocide.html

Ottoman Turkey 1915-1917Armenians1-1.5 million
Soviet Union* 1929-1953Anti-Communists / Anti-Stalinists20 million
Nazi Germany** & Occupied Europe1933-1945Jews, Gypsies, Anti-Nazis13 million
China* 1949-1952 1957-1960 1966-1976Anti- Communists Rural Populations Pro-Reform Groups20 million
Guatemala 1960-1981Maya Indians100,000
Uganda 1971-1979Christians Political Rivals300,000
Cambodia 1975-1979Educated Persons1 million



"The Yellow Peril"-
For a good, quick summary of the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII, see Headmonkey's post toward the bottom of this page.


Inmates using newspaper's gun owner map to threaten guards, sheriff says
Published January 04, 2013
FoxNews.com

Law enforcement officials from a New York region where a local paper published a map identifying gun owners say prisoners are using the information to intimidate guards.
Rockland County Sheriff Louis Falco, who spoke at a news conference flanked by other county officials, said the Journal News' decision to post an online map of names and addresses of handgun owners Dec. 23 has put law enforcement officers in danger.

"They have inmates coming up to them and telling them exactly where they live. That's not acceptable to me," Falco said, according to Newsday.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/04/law-enforcement-latest-critics-on-public-display-gun-owner-data-officers/#ixzz2H4AzWe8K





Documentation of the Gary Fadden and Harry Beckwith Incidents-


Fadden-
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1298&dat=19840918&id=eeJLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=x4sDAAAAI

If it does not take you directly to the article, it is on page 11, on the left side in between “Hospital adding more black doctors” and “Hospital Notes”.

Beckwith-
http://www.google.com/search?q=Alachua+County+Florida+1990+Beckwith&tbs=nws:1,ar:1&source=news





Quotes-
Thanks to Joe Brower, whoever you are.


"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state."
Michael Dukakis


"If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all."
U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman


"I do think the Second Amendment does provide for the right to bear arms. I'm one of the few civil libertarians I know who believes that. I hate guns. If I could press a button and make every gun disappear, I would do it. I hate guns with a passion. I would never have a gun in my home. I just hate guns."
M. Alan Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard University


"I'm a moderate on gun control. From a political point of view I'm a radical. I'd like to abolish guns, but from a balancing of constitutional perspective, I would favor the Brady Bill. I'm in favor of registration. I'm in favor of broad controls on guns."
M. Alan Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard University


"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea ... Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."
Charles Krauthammer, columnist, 4/5/96 Washington Post


"I know it's in the Constitution. But you know what? Enough! I would like to sayy, I think there should be a law--and I know this is extreme--that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns. It's ridiculous."
Rosie O'Donnell during interview with Carolyn McCarthy as quoted in the Ottawa
Sun, April 29, 1999, at 55


"Every good communist should know that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
Mao Tse Tung


"After the enemies with guns have been wiped out, it will be time to wipe out our other enemies
who do not have guns."
Mao Tse Tung


"Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms."
Vladimir Lenin


"The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force."
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, 1925


"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA: ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the state."
Heinrich Himmler


"Ban the damn things. Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog."
Molly Ivins, columnist, 7/19/94


"I don't believe anybody has a right to own any kind of a firearm. I believe in order to obtain a permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness . . . The Constitution doesn't count!"
John Silber, former chancellor of Boston University and candidate for Governor of
Massachusetts. Speech before the Quequechan Club of Fall River, MA. August 16,
1990


"I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about. Is that it will happen one very small step at a time so that by the time, um, people have woken up, quote, to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the banning of semiassault military weapons that are military weapons, not household weapons, is the first step."
Mayor Barbara Fass, Stockton, CA


"Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed."
Elliot Corbett, Secretary, National Council For A Responsible Firearms Policy
(interview appeared in the Washington Evening Star on September 19, 1969)


"My own view on gun control is simple: I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anybody would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."
Deborah Prothrow-Stith of the Office of Government and Community Programs and
the Community Violence Prevention Project at the Harvard School of Public Health


"The real point of audits is to instill fear, not to extract revenue; the IRS aims at winning through intimidation and (thereby) getting maximum voluntary compliance."
Paul Strassel, former IRS Agent, Wall St. Journal 1980


The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."
Norman Thomas, perennial Socialist Party presidential candidate and one of the
founders of the ACLU.


"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."
Senator Diane Feinstein, 1993


"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in," I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95


"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."
U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, 11/18/93, Associated Press interview


"Assault weapons... are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons --anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."
"Assault Weapons: Analysis, New Research and Legislation" Josh Sugarmann,
March 1989


"The thought that average citizens will somehow be better able to successfully defend themselves more effectively than our nation's trained professionals is absurd."
Official Statement of Handgun Control Incorporated (HCI)


"Yes, I'm for an outright ban (on handguns)."
Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., during a 60 Minutes interview.


"[NRA] claimed that they vigorously fought [the Brady bill] at every turn and every step...because it was the nose of the camel [under the tent]....Today we would like to tell you
what the rest of the camel looks like."
HCI President Richard Aborn, Dec. 8, 1993


"We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that. If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime."
Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson


"I am one who believes that as a first step, the United States should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols, and revolvers... No one should have the right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun."
Professor Dean Morris, Director of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, stated to the U.S. Congress


"...When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly....[However, now] there's a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there's too much freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it."
President Bill Clinton on MTV "Enough is Enough" 3/22/94


"The road to tyranny, we must never forget, begins with the destruction of the truth."
William J. Clinton, October 15, 1995. From his speech "Fifty Years After Nuremberg:
Human Rights and the Rule of Law"


"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to
govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees."
William J. Clinton, 8/12/93


"I feel very strongly about it [the Brady Bill]. I think - I also associate myself with the other remarks of the Attorney General. I think it's the beginning. It's not the end of the process by any means."
William J. Clinton, 8/11/93


"You know the one thing that's wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say."
William J. Clinton, speech in Philadelphia PA City Hall courtyard 5/28/93


"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans"
William J. Clinton at press conference in Piscataway NJ 3/1/93, Boston Globe 3/2/93 & USA Today 3/11/93


"The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people."
William J. Clinton on "MTV" 1993


"The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take...we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns, except in a few cases."
U.S. Representative William Clay, quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch on May 6, 1991.


"We have a long way to go before we see a truly effective gun-control law in this country (the U.S.A.). But more and more, the lawmakers are understanding that the American people want change. The only people who still don't get it are the people over at the Evil Empire... the gun lobby."
Jim Brady of Handgun Control, Inc., in The Ottawa Citizen, April 23, 1994


"I don't believe gun owners have rights."
Sarah Brady, Hearst Newspapers Special Report "Handguns in America", October
1997


"We must get rid of all the guns."
Sarah Brady, speaking on behalf of HCI with Sheriff Jay Printz & others on "The Phil
Donahue Show" September 1994


"The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I'm just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough."
Sarah Brady 7/1/88


"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns."
Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1994


"No, we are not looking at how to control criminals, we are talking about banning the AK47 and semi-automatic guns!"
Senator Metzenbaum (D-OH) during Constitution Subcommittee 2/10/89


"We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true..."
U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC, 11/30/93


"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat
guns into submission!"
U.S. Representative Charles Schumer (D-NY) on NBC, 12/8/93


"My bill ... establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of all handguns."
U.S. Representative Major Owens, Congressional Record, 11/10/93


"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily, given political realities, going to be very modest. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns in the United States, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered, and the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns, and all handgun ammunition illegal."
Nelson T. Shields of Hangun Control, Inc. as quoted in `New Yorker' magazine July 26, 1976. Page 53f


"Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation. Ultimately, that may mean it would require court approval to buy a handgun."
President of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Michael K. Beard, Washington Times 12/6/93 p.A1


"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."
U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993


"Gun registration is not enough."
U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno on "Good Norning America" 12/10/93


"There is no individual right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights."
USA Today - Richard Benedetto, "Gun Rights Are A Myth", December 28, 1994.


"Law-abiding Americans have no unconditional right to firearms access."
New York Post - "Time For Gun Control" - August 12, 1999


"The debate over gun control offers a revealing case study of the misuse of the Constitution...The idea that the Bill of Rights guarantees each individual a right to own a
gun...is a constitutional illusion."
The San Francisco Barrister - Dennis Henigan, "The Right To Be Armed: A Constitutional Illusion" - December, 1989


"The sale, manufacture, and possession of handguns ought to be banned...We do not believe
the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep them."The Washington Post - "Legal Guns Kill Too" - November 5, 1999


"There is no Constitutional guarantee for private ownership of firearms."
Austin American Statesman - "A History of the Second Amendment" - April 3, 2000


"There is no reason for anyone in the country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION." (emphasis added)
USA Today - Michael Gartner - Former president of NBC News - "Glut of Guns: What Can We Do About Them?" - January 16, 1992


"The Second Amendment...protects only the right to "bear arms" for the purpose of service in the "militia," and..not..firearm ownership unrelated to militia service."
United States v. Timothy Joe Emerson (5th Cir.1999)(No.99-10331) - Brief for an Ad Hoc Group of 52 Law Professors and Historians as Amici Curiae at 3


"The individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a 'well regulated militia.' Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected."
ACLU - Policy statement #47, 1996


Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Appeal to (Democratic) authorities. Let them argue with their own icons:

"I carried it (a revolver) religiously and during the summer I asked a friend, a man who had been one of Franklin's bodyguards in New York State, to give me some practice in target shooting so that if the need arose I would know how to use the gun."
~ Eleanore Roosevelt
, quoted from her autobiography.


"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."
~ John F. Kennedy
, March 20, 1961.


"By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia', the 'security' of the nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms', our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason, I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."
~ John F. Kennedy
, April 1960.


"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
~ Hubert Humphrey
, from "Know Your Lawmakers, Guns," Feb. 1960, p. 4


"We have no gun control in Vermont... We also have pretty close to the lowest homicide rate in America."
~ Howard Dean
, then-Governor of Vermont, May 12, 2003. Kansas City Star.


"Gun laws haven't been an effective solution to the underlying problem of violent crime."
~ Al Gore
, Washington Monthly magazine, 1986.


"Gun bans don't disarm criminals, gun bans attract them"
~ Walter Mondale
, April 20, 1994.




Link Posted: 12/23/2012 10:06:10 PM EDT
Article from UK paper comparing crime in England to crime in the other EU countries and the US.
Times Article UK

Crime stats for England and Wales 2010
British Home Office Report
Link Posted: 12/24/2012 9:32:00 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/24/2012 9:32:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/24/2012 10:33:39 PM EDT by gumbii]
Link Posted: 12/24/2012 10:40:01 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/25/2012 12:16:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By gumbii:
Ok guys. With the onslaught of liberals and uninformed sheep trying to ban everything short of a squirt gun, those of us who care should be pretty damn busy for the next few months, refuting MSM falsehoods, liberal propaganda and bold faced lies from the Brady foundation. What I would like to do is set up a semi-permanent posted thread where we can compile and vet gun facts for everyone to use on a regular basis. Basically a place for us to post good 2A articles, facts, statistics, graphics ect that will be readily accessible at the top of GD. The site as a whole can access them, correct or clarify points, or post stuff that they have used in the past

Mods please let me know if this isnt possible, and Ill delete the thread.

If not Ill kick it off with the following

The holy bible of gun facts
Gunfacts.com

Bureau of Justice and Statistics
BSJ

I havent vetted this one yet but at first glance it appears promising
just facts

Stolen from LuckyDuck in another thread and shamelessly reposted
Harvard Law

GOA facts
Gun Owners of America

Hope this helps guys. Keep them coming.

<Added blue highlighting 12/23/2012 - Z>


Wow! Great links. Thanks.

Dave W.
Link Posted: 12/26/2012 9:20:32 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/27/2012 10:12:10 PM EDT
This analysis tears apart the illogic of the so called "43 to 1" rule, which states that you are 43 times more likely to harm yourself or a friend with a gun than an attacker. Go to section 1.1 for the facts.


http://rkba.org/research/rkba.faq
Link Posted: 12/31/2012 5:32:18 AM EDT
Originally Posted By dunnmli1223:
This analysis tears apart the illogic of the so called "43 to 1" rule, which states that you are 43 times more likely to harm yourself or a friend with a gun than an attacker. Go to section 1.1 for the facts.


Hotlinked for those without Google Chrome


Link Posted: 1/1/2013 5:51:01 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/1/2013 6:05:51 PM EDT
Not as relevant to the current gun control debate, but good when confronted with the 2A=Militia arguement

Federalist 29 on the intent of milita.
Link Posted: 1/3/2013 3:23:05 AM EDT
Originally Posted By gumbii:
Not as relevant to the current gun control debate, but good when confronted with the 2A=Militia arguement

Federalist 29 on the intent of milita.


Outstanding.

I was just in a lengthy discussion with a gentleman who made the argument that an armed populace overthrowing tyranny is ridiculous, because citizens don't train as much as the military and can't become an effective fighting force.

While that point is arguable, it can nevertheless be quickly turned against him by pointing out that this is exactly why the Second Amendment is an individual right, as explained below. Turning the citizenry into professional soldiers is so impossible a task, that the best the Founders expected was to make sure they were armed, and to hold annual inspections to make certain of it.



"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.


And GOD they knew how to rant back then.

Link Posted: 1/3/2013 1:41:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Austrian:
I don't think I am remotely exaggerating when I say that just in the last two days I have literally corrected 250 citations on murder rates, gun death rates, suicide rates, and firearms law in Switzerland. And no wonder.

For almost two decades, Switzerland has been a common "go to" reference to support the notion that guns are not the primary source of gun violence. If you carefully examine the facts on the ground in Switzerland you find this is quite supportable. The Swiss experience suggests that guns are not the source of gun violence, rather violence is the source of gun violence. Who knew?

Be this as it may, a number of weak commentaries have cropped up since the awful events in Connecticut last week. Among them is an almost totally fact-free article in the Business Insider by Adam Taylor entitled Why Switzerland Is A Red-Herring In The Gun Control Debate and a bit of utter nonsense called Mythbusting: Israel and Switzerland are not gun-toting utopias scratched out in a hurry by Erza Klein (a frequent purveyor of poorly researched Oxen feces) of the Washington Post. Both of these have been making the rounds the last 48 hours as if they were the newest gospel of gun control).

The Klein piece cites his interview with "Janet Rosenbaum, an assistant professor of epidemiology at the School of Public Health at the State University of New York (SUNY) Downstate Medical Center School":

Ezra Klein: Israel and Switzerland are often mentioned as countries that prove that high rates of gun ownership don’t necessarily lead to high rates of gun crime. In fact, I wrote that on Friday. But you say your research shows that’s not true.

Janet Rosenbaum: First of all, because they don’t have high levels of gun ownership. The gun ownership in Israel and Switzerland has decreased.

For instance, in Israel, they’re very limited in who is able to own a gun. There are only a few tens of thousands of legal guns in Israel, and the only people allowed to own them legally live in the settlements, do business in the settlements, or are in professions at risk of violence.

Both countries require you to have a reason to have a gun. There isn’t this idea that you have a right to a gun. You need a reason. And then you need to go back to the permitting authority every six months or so to assure them the reason is still valid.

The second thing is that there’s this widespread misunderstanding that Israel and Switzerland promote gun ownership. They don’t. Ten years ago, when Israel had the outbreak of violence, there was an expansion of gun ownership, but only to people above a certain rank in the military. There was no sense that having ordinary citizens [carry guns] would make anything safer.

Switzerland has also been moving away from having widespread guns. The laws are done canton by canton, which is like a province. Everyone in Switzerland serves in the army, and the cantons used to let you have the guns at home. They’ve been moving to keeping the guns in depots. That means they’re not in the household, which makes sense because the literature shows us that if the gun is in the household, the risk goes up for everyone in the household.


At least with respect to Switzerland, Dr. Rosenbaum is so far off it is painful to read. In fact, for us locals, it is downright offensive. It is prose so blatantly wrong that it is hard to decide if it is simply gross negligence in scholarship or actual malfeasance. If we Swiss (or Swiss-Austrians, as the case may be) are going to be pulled by smug academics into your gun control fight over there in the United States you better damn well have your damn facts right. You, Dr. Rosenbaum, and yes, I am talking directly to you now, don't make the cut. In fact, so far as I am able to determine, you nothing more than a cheap hack characterized primarily by seriously weak moral fiber. (Hey Janet, I'm in Manhattan next month. Coffee?)

The charitable explanation is that Klein was careless with fact-checking and that the study Dr. Rosenbaum authored, Gun utopias? Firearm access and ownership in Israel and Switzerland, (and which, while it was published in the Journal of Public Health Policy in February of 2012 was actually first released in November of 2011) actually was based on data Dr. Rosenbaum stopped collecting in 2010 or early 2011. More on this in a moment.

In my considered opinion, it is very difficult to be this generous. In my considered opinion, the more realistic explanation is that Rosenbaum and Klein have an axe to grind and are more than willing to twist, fabricate and manipulate to do it while they contort themselves into limb-weaving knots to produce their secret, progressive policy love child.

Dr. Rosenbaum (whose primary claim to fame appears to be that her dissertation on "virginity pledges and adolescents' inconsistent reporting of their sexual histories" was covered by Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update) conducted her initial research in response to the shooting of Gabrielle Dee "Gabby" Giffords. She admits as much in her abstract:

The 2011 attempted assassination of a US representative renewed the national gun control debate. Gun advocates claim mass-casualty events are mitigated and deterred with three policies: (a) permissive gun laws, (b) widespread gun ownership, (c) and encouragement of armed civilians who can intercept shooters. They cite Switzerland and Israel as exemplars. We evaluate these claims with analysis of International Crime Victimization Survey (ICVS) data and translation of laws and original source material. Swiss and Israeli laws limit firearm ownership and require permit renewal one to four times annually. ICVS analysis finds the United States has more firearms per capita and per household than either country. Switzerland and Israel curtail off-duty soldiers' firearm access to prevent firearm deaths. Suicide among soldiers decreased by 40 per cent after the Israeli army's 2006 reforms. Compared with the United States, Switzerland and Israel have lower gun ownership and stricter gun laws, and their policies discourage personal gun ownership.


But what is most interesting about Dr. Rosenbaum's study is how little, despite its provocative title, it actually says. Let's take the assertions Dr. Rosenbaum makes one by one, shall we?

First of all, because they don’t have high levels of gun ownership. The gun ownership in Israel and Switzerland has decreased.


Pretending for a moment that the phase "has decreased" without a time horizon is meaningful ("Now new and improved!"), with respect to Switzerland I literally have no idea where Dr. Rosenbaum gets this concept from. The two phrases "...they don't have high levels of gun ownership" and "...the gun ownership level in Israel and Switzerland has decreased" sound complimentary, but are really meaningless. "...don't have high levels of gun ownership" compared to what exactly? "Decreased" over what time period and by how much? We are left to wonder... unless, that is, we actually check some facts. (Just relax. I know that's shocking. The ushers have air-sickness bags if you need them).

The latest statistics from the Bundesamt für Statistik of the Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft (the Swiss Federal Statistical Office) for the year 2011 show the following:

Of approximately 2 million privately owned firearms (this is an estimate because not all firearms in Switzerland are registered [the horror... the horror...] another non-government source says 3 million):

Around 900,000 are former Sturmgewehr 90 (the military version of the SIG 550 that is issued to all militia) or prior versions that have been turned over to citizens after the end of their militia obligations.

Around 260,000 are current issue Sturmgewehr 90 held by current militia members (select fire, etc.)

The rest are privately held firearms, probably predominately handguns.

This means that only about 12% of firearms are related to active militia service. The rest are in private hands for private purposes. With a population of around 8,000,000 this implies a firearm per capita figure of 0.25. The common measure of firearms ownership per capita is usually "guns per 100 residents." On that basis you end up with between 25.0 and 37.5 per 100 residents. In 2011 that puts Switzerland in the top 20 or the top 4 depending, above Iraq, Egypt, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria on the high end and exceeded only by the United States, Yemen, and Serbia.

Somehow this translates to "...don't have high levels of gun ownership." Or something. Compared to where? The United States? Well, that's easy. No one has higher levels than the United States.

Compared with the United States, Switzerland and Israel have lower gun ownership....


Oh... sorry... I'll go home now. Well, maybe not just yet....

If you look at the percentage of Swiss households that possess a firearm the ratio gets much higher (married or co-habitating couples where the man has a firearm owing to mandatory service and the women did not volunteer for service would have one for two people plus the kids).

Plus, the Swiss army pulls in (and issues Sturmgewehr 90's to) 20,000-30,000 new militia members every year. At current numbers that's a STRUCTURAL 1% increase in weapons per year, only from the Army issued rifles and not counting private sales (which are likely higher since new issuances are ONLY for 18 year olds, though I have no specific stats there). I know of no other country in which this is so.

It is not clear where Rosenbaum gets her figures, but they defy logic.

Then again, it is possible that since Switzerland has increased the number of residents permits they grant and opened the borders to the EU via the Schengen Agreement (may it die screaming in pain), the denominator for that ratio (people) has increased faster than the numerator (firearms). If so then that should have been noted. It wasn't.

I might point out that, at least in her study, Dr. Rosenbaum seems comfortable conflating some subjective measure of "access to firearms" with "firearms ownership." By any real measure Switzerland has been among the top 5 countries in terms of firearms ownership per capita for decades, or more. That position has not and is not likely to slip.

Dr. Rosenbaum then asserts:

Both countries require you to have a reason to have a gun. There isn’t this idea that you have a right to a gun. You need a reason. And then you need to go back to the permitting authority every six months or so to assure them the reason is still valid.


With respect to Switzerland this is utter nonsense.

There is no effective "justification" requirement for the general permit to purchase firearms. There is a space to enter "purpose" on the form for statistical purposes, but unless you put in "murder and mayhem" this is ignored except for data collection (and it might not even be noticed if you do). Then again, perhaps Dr. Rosenbaum is referring to the "may issue" nature of many kantonal requirements for a CARRY permit.

The Federal Government in Switzerland provides the authorization for kantons to issue a "carry permit" which applies to both concealed and open carry of loaded firearms (as opposed to mere "transportation" which you see often as citizens or citizen militia jump on the train with their unloaded rifle strapped to their back). Some kantons treat "may issue" as a rubber stamp. Some have effective "won't issue" policies. Same as the United States.

As for the right to own firearms, this, along with the right to self defense, is enshrined rather indelibly in Swiss law- in particular the Federal law on permitting. The various kantons cannot ban private firearms ownership outright. Here Dr. Rosenbaum is just ignorant. I know, you are gripped with paralyzing surprise. It will be ok. We will show the BluRay cut of Heat with director's commentary in the main hall later.

The same is true of the claim that one must actively re-justify every year. That may be true in some of the tighter kantons with respect to CARRY permits, but it is absolutely not true for the permit to possess or purchase firearms and ammunition.

Then there is this:

The second thing is that there’s this widespread misunderstanding that Israel and Switzerland promote gun ownership. They don’t.


I have no basis to opine on Israel, but I'm not sure how a program dedicated to handing out 20,000-30,000 free select assault rifles per year which citizens can buy at discount rates after their service isn't an effort to "promote gun ownership". Not to mention the annual national shooting festival/competition in Switzerland (the "Feldschiessen") that draws between 150.000 and 250,000 participants annually. (Compare this to, say, Camp Perry). In addition, the Swiss version of the NRA ("ProTell") is highly active in promoting responsible firearms ownership. Practice ranges litter Switzerland (I pass five on the 30km trek to Zürich from my office).

Dr. Rosenbaum then says:

Switzerland has also been moving away from having widespread guns. The laws are done canton by canton, which is like a province. Everyone in Switzerland serves in the army, and the cantons used to let you have the guns at home. They’ve been moving to keeping the guns in depots. That means they’re not in the household, which makes sense because the literature shows us that if the gun is in the household, the risk goes up for everyone in the household.


Notice how little this ACTUALLY says. She says Switzerland is moving away from having widespread guns- she provides no authority for this. And what exactly does "moving away" mean? She then erroneously suggests that gun laws are fully kanton by kanton. Literally: "...[t]he laws are done canton by canton" (ignoring the Federal guarantee of right to possess and the right of self-defense). She then says "Everyone in Switzerland serves in the army..." which is false. Women are not subject to mandatory service (though they can volunteer-and I am exceptionally proud to note that some years ago a member of my own family was one of the earliest women to serve in one of the most elite Swiss volunteer units... I bet she racked up more jumps than you!) and men can opt out and serve in the civil corps instead (though the term is longer and it ends up being expensive). Oddly, these individuals can still buy firearms in Switzerland.

Then Dr. Rosenbaum drops this whopper:

"...the cantons used to let you have the guns at home. They’ve been moving to keeping the guns in depots."

Notice again this "moving to" language, which is both deceptive and meaningless. In this particular case it is also totally false.

I have to think that this is, in fact, an almost abusive perversion of the 2011 firearms referendum initiative in Switzerland "Für den Schutz vor Waffengewalt" ("For the protection of gun violence'). Among the provisions in this referendum was the requirement that military weapons be kept in the local depots instead of at home, to be retrieved when and if necessary in times of emergency, along with a full registration program, a requirement to "show necessity" and a host of other regulations that would make Switzerland look like the rest of gelded Europe. It's effect on private sales and ownership, however, wasn't totally clear (but was probably minimal).

Dr. Rosenbaum apparently never bothered to check because if she had she would know that this referendum was resoundingly defeated. And I don't mean MSNBC "resoundingly." I mean "resoundingly."

Specifically, it lost the popular vote by 12.5 points and 75% of the kantons rejected it. (Referendums must pass both the popular vote AND the majority of kantons). The defeat was so severe that the anti-gun lobby in Switzerland has effectively vanished in its wake. Smack.

"Moving away from having widespread guns?" Sure, Dr. Rosenbaum. "Tell us another one, Grandma!"

But any number of crazy stats haunt the amazing outline of the Swiss firearm experience. For example:

Many people like to cite this Wikipedia article to suggest:

1. Deaths by firearms in Switzerland are the highest in Europe.
2. Homicides by firearm in Switzerland are the highest in Europe.
3. Suicides by firearm in Switzerland are the highest in Europe.

I've noticed that even in the last 48 hours the article has been changed. It used to list figures from 1994 (while the remainder of countries were more modern). Even now it purports to evidence the following statistics:

Homicides by firearm: 0.52 per 100,000 residents
Suicides by firearm: 3.15 per 100,000 residents
Total firearm-related deaths: 3.50 per 100,000 residents.

While this is a big improvement it is entirely wrong. I suspect part of the problem is the poor German and French skills of Wikipedia editors.

Official statistics from the Bundesamt für Statistik are:

Firearm Related Deaths:

2006: 285
2007: 291
2008: 259
2009: 277
2010: 241

Homicides by Firearm:

2006: 26
2007: 27
2008: 20
2009: 24
2010: 19

Please note: Because most reporters and researchers are total mouth-breathers, the figure for ACTUAL fatalities in homicides in Switzerland is confused with attempted homicides or homicide "offenses." As an example, when three kids run into a Kwik-E-Mart and wax Apu (yes, highly HIGHLY unlikely in Switzerland) all three are charged with "homicide" (it is similar to the "felony murder" rule in the United States). One gun fatality. Three "gun-related homicide offenses." Of course, it serves many "scholars" to be careless about these statistics (plus they don't read German or French). The actual statistics are here: http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/19/03/02/dos/03.html.

Interesting to note: Suicide is not a "crime" in Switzerland, as it is technically legal. Many "scholars" will try to include the suicide rate (or omit the suicide rate from other countries when they make comparisons).

To be clear, with a population that is over 8,000,000 people (but we will round down to be conservative) the per capita figures for firearms related deaths and homicides by firearm (note these are NOT the same figure) per 100,000 people (the standard measure) are:

Firearm Related Deaths Per 100,000 people:

2006: 3.5750
2007: 3.6375
2008: 3.2375
2009: 3.4625
2010: 3.0125

Homicides by Firearm Per 100,000 people:

2006: 0.3250
2007: 0.3375
2008: 0.2500
2009: 0.3000
2010: 0.2375

To be clear, these figures are literally the best in the developed world for a country with any sort of firearms freedom for citizens (the UK has great stats at the expense of near total prohibition).

So to summarize:

- Switzerland is now in (and has for more than two decades been in) in the top 5 countries in the world when it comes to per capita firearms ownership.

- Mixing years a bit but with respect to homicides by firearm Switzerland is almost exactly equal to France (0.22 in 2009) and Denmark (0.22 in 2006), The Netherlands (0.20 in 2010), and is better than Finland (0.26 in 2010), Belgium (0.29 in 2006), Ireland (0.36 in 2010), Italy (0.36 in 2009), Portugal (0.48 in 2010), and Luxembourg (!!!) (0.60 in 2009).

You have to kick in suicides (which are technically not crimes given their legality) to get up to 3.01 per 100k. The United States, by contrast, was 2.98 with respect to homicides and 9.00 (!!!) for total deaths by firearm with mixed stats from 2008-2010.

It is perhaps possible for someone to try to claim that gun deaths are a problem in Switzerland, but only after drinking seventeen Hurricanes on a 4 day "Washington Post/New York Times Progressive" Florida-Bahamas Cruise (sponsored by Princess Cruises and featuring Paul Krugman!)

You will hear a number of other claims about Swiss gun laws/rights. For instance:

Claim: Firearms must now be stored in depots and cannot be kept in a private residence.

FALSE: This seems to be a carry over from what was proposed in the 2011 referendum. It isn't clear where else it could have come from. The Rosenbaum study / paper / article seems to suggest that it is only a matter of time before this policy is passed- all evidence to the contrary. At least, I hope this isn't true, because my SIG 551, 552 and 550 are all sitting about 5 meters from my chair right now, next to several boxes of ammo.

Claim: The possession of ammunition is now banned for citizens.

FALSE: This is often an inadvertent (or willful) misunderstanding of the recent change in policy by the Swiss Army. In the past an active militia member was issued their Sturmgewehr 90 along with their kit (helmet, body armor, camo, etc.) and a sealed container with ammunition (GP 90 in my day) free of charge. The Army has since stopped issuing the ammo. The original intent was for the ammo to be used by the citizen to fight their way to the rally point. Recently this policy has been rescinded (though more for cost than for anything else). Citizen soldiers are now expected to arrive at rally points in full kit with rifle in times of emergency and will be provided with ammunition there. Private sales of ammunition (including .223 and 5.56 NATO) are totally unaffected. I've got 5.56 ammo in my closet.

Claim: The Swiss figures for firearms per capita are so high because there are so many militia weapons.

FALSE: Sturmgewehr 90s that are issued to active militia members comprise only about 12% of all privately held weapons. Citizens can buy their weapon after their service term is over and many do (to the tune of nearly a million former militia weapons). A mere 260,000 are current-duty militia related weapons (and this doesn't count pistols issued to officers / support troops). Citizens (or residents, actually) can also buy anything from a SIG 550 to an AK in Switzerland. Private sales are not restricted.

Claim: Permits to buy firearms in Switzerland require the applicant to demonstrate need.

FALSE: Total nonsense. Unfortunately, many "scholars" look to some of the more restrictive kantons and pull their requirements for a CARRY permit and assume those requirements are universal for all firearms. In fact there is no "need based" requirement to purchase firearms and to the extent there is a "need based" requirement for a CCW/Open Carry permit it varies in application by kanton. (Effectively you have "shall issue unless stupid" "may issue" and "won't issue" in Switzerland, same as in the United States.

A complete refutation of the misunderstandings vis-a-vis Swiss firearms law would consume more space than the Ammo Oracle. Perhaps it will suffice to point out the following:

It is a routine experience to jump on a train in Switzerland and see teenaged/tween females with shouldered SIG 550s on or SIG 550s in the luggage rack headed to the range to practice for the annual competition. Clearly, they are not headed to militia exercises, clearly they are not Army, clearly they are not police. Certainly, there are progressive forces who will experience unbearable cranial pain before collapsing and expiring owing to a cerebral embolism if confronted with this basic fact. Clearly, there is a need by the "left" to twist and minimize the Swiss firearms experience to suit their own needs (or at least to avoid doing damage to same).

Don't give in.

Switzerland IS a "gun toting utopia." Come visit. We'll take you shooting.


Have questions? Need clarifications or (gasp) more statistics? Post your needs in comments. I will happily dig out whatever you need to batter back the forces of darkness and ignorance. (Well, within reason. The forces of darkness and ignorance have had a pretty good recruiting season the last half-decade).

Link Posted: 1/16/2013 4:59:20 PM EDT
Sorry for the delay in response. Just getting back from the field.

Refuting the "guns make houses more dangerous" argument
Link Posted: 1/17/2013 7:11:30 PM EDT
Great find. Also good information discrediting VPC and MMM.



The Million Mom March, with which Senators Feinstein (CA), Levin (MI), and Mikulski (MD); Hillary Clinton; Tipper Gore; and numerous members of Congress were closely associated, underscored the anti-gun movement's total lack of character and integrity as follows.

(1) Misuse of 501(c)(3) tax-exempt money to influence an election

(2) Solicitation of money, volunteer time, and corporate contributions under the fraudulent premise that firearm misuse kills 12 or 13 children a day. Dianne Feinstein, Jerrold Nadler, and many of their associates signed their names to this falsehood.

(3) A Form 990 tax return that told the IRS that the group had not tried to influence legislation even though its express purpose was to demand so-called commonsense gun laws

A group that tells its own donors and volunteers that its mission is to promote public safety, turns around and uses the donations for lobbying and electioneering, and then tells the IRS that it spent no money on the latter activities is simply not credible. The Violence Policy Center also is on record as planning openly to lie to the public.

"Assault weapons, just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms, are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

The VPC therefore seems to admit that that it is using money that is 501(c)(3) tax-exempt for educational purposes to confuse the public over the relationship between a semiautomatic rifle and a machine gun. "Plastic firearms" is yet another deliberately deceptive phrase. Many firearms have polymer frames, but their steel barrels cannot possibly get past an airport metal detector.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/why_does_the_anti-gun_camp_need_to_lie.html#ixzz2IHUc4FyU
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Link Posted: 1/17/2013 9:12:54 PM EDT
Old school tag!

BigDozer66
Link Posted: 1/18/2013 5:05:37 PM EDT
Thanks for the legwork OP
Link Posted: 3/8/2013 8:08:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By QuietRiot11:
Due to the sensitive nature of the topic, I spoke to several friends in law enforcement before putting this video together, and they all told me the facts need to be known. I thank those officers who have died in the line of duty for our safety. Their sacrifices should not be forgotten. However, a ban on civilian ownership of modern firearms technology affects 300 million Americans while having dubious impact on the safety of LEOs.

I am also thankful for the countless LEOs who stand with us in resisting the proposed federal and state bans.






Link Posted: 4/12/2013 8:42:37 PM EDT
Ok guys. Sorry for the delay in posting. I am in the middle of a 6 month long green cycle for training so I have spent more of the last 4 months in the field than I have at home.

Below is the infamous "90%" poll where respondents favoured UBCs. Important to note, is that in the same poll, 48% of Americans also believed that UBCs could easily lead to confiscation. I have not had enough time to tear this on apart yet. My guess is that when we look at how the questions are worded or who the poll was administered to, we will find some outlying reason as to how they reached the 90% conclusion. These are surprisingly easy to tweak. By posting it I am hoping you guys can find the reason, in case I dont.

Quinnipiac Poll

Ill keep posting for as long as you guys need. Please understand I am doing it on the rare day off so it may not be as frequent as I would like.
Link Posted: 4/12/2013 8:50:34 PM EDT
Below is the current version of the law that Sen. Pat Toomey is passing that will infringe on our freedoms. Important to note that both sides will be able to amend the bill, so its a fair assumption that most of the good things will be removed in the process.

Full Text of Toomeys UCB Bill
Link Posted: 4/12/2013 10:19:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/12/2013 10:20:44 PM EDT by gumbii]
Police One Survey asking current and former law enforcement if they believe gun control does anything to stop crime.

Police One

About the Survey
PoliceOne’s Gun Policy & Law Enforcement survey was conducted between March 4 and
March 13, 2013. More than 15,000 officers completed the survey, which was promoted
by PoliceOne exclusively to its 400,000 registered members, comprised of verified law
enforcement professionals. Only current, former or retired law enforcement personnel
were eligible to participate in the survey. The survey sample size was broadly distributed
by geography and rank in proportion to the U.S. law enforcement community at
large. Respondents comprised a variety of ranks from departments of all sizes, with the
majority representing departments of greater than 500 officers. Of those that took the
survey, 80 percent were current law enforcement officers and 20 percent were
former/retired law enforcement."

ETA- Its important to note that the responses were voluntary. This typically means that only those who feel strongly on one side or the other respond.
Link Posted: 4/19/2013 2:46:40 AM EDT

Dissecting the 'Reversal of Fortune'


Crime in Europe and the US: Dissecting the “Reversal of Misfortunes”
Paolo Buonanno, Francesco Drago, Roberto Galbiati, and Giulio Zanella*
February 3, 2011

Summary
Contrary to common perceptions, today both property and violent crimes (with the exception of homicides) are more widespread in Europe than in the US, while the opposite was true thirty years ago. We label this fact as the "reversal of misfortunes". We investigate what accounts for the reversal by studying the causal impact of demographic changes, incarceration, abortion, unemployment and immigration on crime. For this we use time series data (1970-2008) from seven European countries and the U.S. We find that the demographic structure of the population and the incarceration rate are important determinants of crime. Our results suggest that a tougher incarceration policy may be an effective way to contrast crime in Europe. Our analysis does not provide information on how incarceration policy should be made tougher nor does it provide an answer to the question whether a such a policy would also be efficient from a cost-benefit point of view.
We leave this to future research.


Link Posted: 4/28/2013 7:41:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/28/2013 7:42:18 PM EDT by gumbii]
AAAAAND IM BACK!!!!!!

Now to unfuck the reality behind that 90% support UCBs!!!

I had more time to look at the specifics of the poll.

Heres the link for the poll details and Ill copy and paste the specifics below
90% support UCB details


"Quinnipiac University polls conducted since the Newtown massacre are finding more than 90 percent of voters in three states surveyed so far, including voters in households where there is a gun, support background checks for people buying guns at gun shows.

Polls of voters in Virginia, New Jersey and Pennsylvania in January by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University show:
Virginia, January 10: 92 - 7 percent in favor of "requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows," including 91 - 7 percent among voters in gun households;
New Jersey, January 24: 96 - 3 percent on the same question, including 95 - 5 percent in gun households;
Pennsylvania, January 30: 95 - 5 percent support "requiring background checks for all gun buyers" (note change in question), including 95 - 4 percent in gun households."


Big surprise. You poll 3 heavily Blue or Purple states 6 weeks after a horrific incident near them, and you get these results. What do you think would happen if you polled let say Kansas, Georgia, and Texas?
Link Posted: 6/6/2014 2:40:58 PM EDT
Sorry guys, long deployment on staff. FML.

Below is the 2012 UCR from the FBI with enough stats to prove just about anyone saying gun crime or violent crime is increasing.
FBIs 2012 UCR Home Page

UCR section on violent crime, and trends

UCR Crime stats for the last 20 years

Link Posted: 6/6/2014 2:43:52 PM EDT
A great statistical analysis of how gun crime is down almost 50% since 1993, and yet that the general public is completely unaware, and under the impression that crime and shootings are increasing. It specifically covers media coverage of mass shootings in 2012, such as the fact that the Sandy Hook shooting was the second most publicized story by network news, with the exception of the election.
Pew Research Study
Link Posted: 6/6/2014 2:46:20 PM EDT
Great link from buzzfeed to shut up the geniuses who always seem to ask "where was the good guy with the gun?" I normally think Buzzfeed is pretty far left with their posts and causes, but they hit the nail on the head detailing 9 instances of personal firearm use to stop attempted mass shootings.
9 Potential Mass Shootings Stopped by Someone With A Personnaly Owned Firearm
Link Posted: 6/7/2014 11:32:40 AM EDT
Decent thread with the stats for accidental gun deaths
GD Thread

And the study it references.
CDC Study
Link Posted: 6/7/2014 12:43:28 PM EDT
The Wiki on the Assault Weapon ban. Of particular note is the section detailing effects on crime
Wiki Assault Weapons Ban

"Whether or not the ban or its expiration had any effect on crime is a subject of debate.

The Task Force on Community Preventive Services, an independent, non-federal task force, examined an assortment of firearms laws, including the AWB, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence."[25] A 2004 critical review of firearms research by a National Research Council committee said that an academic study of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes." The committee noted that the study's authors said the guns were used criminally with relative rarity before the ban and that its maximum potential effect on gun violence outcomes would be very small.[26]

In 2004, a research report submitted to the United States Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice found that should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.[27] That study by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania found no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders. However, they concluded that it was "premature to make definitive assessments of the ban's impact on gun crime," and argue that if the ban had been in effect for more than nine years, benefits might have begun to appear.[27]

Research by John Lott in the 2000 second edition of More Guns, Less Crime provided the first research on state bans, and the federal assault weapon ban.[28] The 2010 third edition provided the first empirical research on the 2004 sunset of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban.[29] Generally, the research found no impact of these bans on violent crime rates, though the third edition provided some evidence that assault weapon bans slightly increased murder rates. Lott's book The Bias Against Guns provided evidence that the bans reduced the number of gun shows by over 20 percent.[30] Koper, Woods, and Roth studies focus on gun murders, while Lott's looks at murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assaults. Unlike their work, Lott's research accounted for state assault weapon bans and 12 other different types of gun control laws"
Link Posted: 6/7/2014 12:48:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/7/2014 12:52:03 PM EDT by gumbii]
ABC investigation on gun control, following the Heller decision.

Myth, Lies and Downright Stupidity: Gun Control
Link Posted: 6/7/2014 1:54:39 PM EDT
Good link for those who like to compare the UKs crime rates to ours. Bottom line is that the UK only records a crime when there is a conviction, leading to a serious under reporting of the actual numbers.
Comparing the UK to US crime rates
Link Posted: 5/9/2015 12:29:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/9/2015 1:07:01 PM EDT by Got_Nukes]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By gumbii:
AAAAAND IM BACK!!!!!!

Now to unfuck the reality behind that 90% support UCBs!!!

I had more time to look at the specifics of the poll.

Heres the link for the poll details and Ill copy and paste the specifics below
90% support UCB details


"Quinnipiac University polls conducted since the Newtown massacre are finding more than 90 percent of voters in three states surveyed so far, including voters in households where there is a gun, support background checks for people buying guns at gun shows.

Polls of voters in Virginia, New Jersey and Pennsylvania in January by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University show:
Virginia, January 10: 92 - 7 percent in favor of "requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows," including 91 - 7 percent among voters in gun households;
New Jersey, January 24: 96 - 3 percent on the same question, including 95 - 5 percent in gun households;
Pennsylvania, January 30: 95 - 5 percent support "requiring background checks for all gun buyers" (note change in question), including 95 - 4 percent in gun households."


Big surprise. You poll 3 heavily Blue or Purple states 6 weeks after a horrific incident near them, and you get these results. What do you think would happen if you polled let say Kansas, Georgia, and Texas?
View Quote


I tried to refute the 90% agree with UBC with the above data and was shown the link below.

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Here's a link to a site that shows multiple nationwide polls from different groups showing 90% support UBC. There are no links to each individual poll, so each one must be individually researched.

I checked this one "Quinnipiac University. June 24-30 Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers? Support 92% " and the polling was conducted nationwide.

Not sure if polling 1400 people is a large enough sample.
Link Posted: 6/10/2015 11:56:09 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Got_Nukes:


I tried to refute the 90% agree with UBC with the above data and was shown the link below.

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Here's a link to a site that shows multiple nationwide polls from different groups showing 90% support UBC. There are no links to each individual poll, so each one must be individually researched.

I checked this one "Quinnipiac University. June 24-30 Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers? Support 92% " and the polling was conducted nationwide.

Not sure if polling 1400 people is a large enough sample.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Got_Nukes:
Originally Posted By gumbii:
AAAAAND IM BACK!!!!!!

Now to unfuck the reality behind that 90% support UCBs!!!

I had more time to look at the specifics of the poll.

Heres the link for the poll details and Ill copy and paste the specifics below
90% support UCB details


"Quinnipiac University polls conducted since the Newtown massacre are finding more than 90 percent of voters in three states surveyed so far, including voters in households where there is a gun, support background checks for people buying guns at gun shows.

Polls of voters in Virginia, New Jersey and Pennsylvania in January by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University show:
Virginia, January 10: 92 - 7 percent in favor of "requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows," including 91 - 7 percent among voters in gun households;
New Jersey, January 24: 96 - 3 percent on the same question, including 95 - 5 percent in gun households;
Pennsylvania, January 30: 95 - 5 percent support "requiring background checks for all gun buyers" (note change in question), including 95 - 4 percent in gun households."


Big surprise. You poll 3 heavily Blue or Purple states 6 weeks after a horrific incident near them, and you get these results. What do you think would happen if you polled let say Kansas, Georgia, and Texas?


I tried to refute the 90% agree with UBC with the above data and was shown the link below.

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Here's a link to a site that shows multiple nationwide polls from different groups showing 90% support UBC. There are no links to each individual poll, so each one must be individually researched.

I checked this one "Quinnipiac University. June 24-30 Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers? Support 92% " and the polling was conducted nationwide.

Not sure if polling 1400 people is a large enough sample.


Heres what I have on it so far

I do have to say the results from the other questions make me really wonder as to how "unbiased" the survey group was. Im trying to find out more on Quinnipiacs background and funding as it seems a little weird that they got so much press and yet I havent heard of them the way I have from other polling institutions.
Link Posted: 6/11/2015 11:34:39 PM EDT
Ok, heres another one, but its somewhat of a mixed bag of factual analysis. Its an NIJ survey on firearms ownership. Page 8 specifically covers defensive firearms use. Even their low numbers put it at about 108,000 times per year.

Guns in America: A national survey of firearms ownership
Link Posted: 6/11/2015 11:38:45 PM EDT
A BJS study on firearms used in crime. May not be as useful, but I came across it while looking for stats to argue with some antis on Reddit and thought it may be semi useful. Covers calibers, theft rate, age of recovered guns from crimes

Guns used in crime
Link Posted: 6/11/2015 11:48:01 PM EDT
Another mixed bag but some useful numbers

Firearm violence 1993-2011
Link Posted: 6/14/2015 3:01:25 PM EDT
CDC finding stating that its next to impossible to determine the actual effect that gun control has. Basically there are to many additional outside circumstances to attribute the rise or drop in crime to gun control laws

CDC study on the effectiveness of firearm laws
Link Posted: 6/15/2015 11:30:06 PM EDT
So the Crime Prevention Research Center has broken down the flaws in the recently released Connecticut Gun licensing study. Good argument (although I doubt the libs will buy anything from Prof Lott,) that explains why the study picked so many seemingly random "controls" such as time period analyzed and the "synthetic" Connecticut without licensing. Long story short, a fair amount of cherry picked data.

http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2015/06/daniel-websters-cherry-picked-claim-that-firearm-homicides-in-connecticut-fell-40-because-of-a-gun-licensing-law/
Link Posted: 6/21/2015 6:43:26 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/5/2015 6:00:18 PM EDT
Good article breaking down the percentage of guns used in crime that were possessed legally vs illegally
http://extranosalley.com/?p=30635
Link Posted: 10/5/2015 6:16:18 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By gumbii:
http://i.imgur.com/ZB6nIl4.jpg
View Quote


Is there a link to the data for this chart
Link Posted: 10/5/2015 7:53:51 PM EDT
tagged
Link Posted: 10/8/2015 6:01:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/8/2015 6:22:46 PM EDT by gumbii]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Got_Nukes:


Is there a link to the data for this chart
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Got_Nukes:
Originally Posted By gumbii:
http://i.imgur.com/ZB6nIl4.jpg


Is there a link to the data for this chart


Pulled it from a Reddit Sub here
r/Dataisbeautiful

Some decent discussion on the subject, but please keep in mind that Reddits user base tends to be a little more to the left end of the spectrum. Dataisbeautiful is pretty good however at ensuring that the discussion is based around statistical analysis and numbers based factual information.

ETA-The publishers facebook and his cited sources. Additionally he answered several of the questions in the comments section.
Facebook
GTD
CDC Fatal Injury Reports Calculator
Link Posted: 10/8/2015 9:22:25 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By gumbii:


Pulled it from a Reddit Sub here
r/Dataisbeautiful

Some decent discussion on the subject, but please keep in mind that Reddits user base tends to be a little more to the left end of the spectrum. Dataisbeautiful is pretty good however at ensuring that the discussion is based around statistical analysis and numbers based factual information.

ETA-The publishers facebook and his cited sources. Additionally he answered several of the questions in the comments section.
Facebook
GTD
CDC Fatal Injury Reports Calculator
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By gumbii:
Originally Posted By Got_Nukes:
Originally Posted By gumbii:
http://i.imgur.com/ZB6nIl4.jpg


Is there a link to the data for this chart


Pulled it from a Reddit Sub here
r/Dataisbeautiful

Some decent discussion on the subject, but please keep in mind that Reddits user base tends to be a little more to the left end of the spectrum. Dataisbeautiful is pretty good however at ensuring that the discussion is based around statistical analysis and numbers based factual information.

ETA-The publishers facebook and his cited sources. Additionally he answered several of the questions in the comments section.
Facebook
GTD
CDC Fatal Injury Reports Calculator



Thanks for the links.
Link Posted: 10/11/2015 2:25:57 PM EDT
Probably been posted before, and yes its old, but still a good video explaining the difference between semi and full auto weapons. Video actually takes a mini-14 and changes it from a nice friendly hunting rifle and transforms it into an "evil" assault weapon in about 90 seconds.
Link Posted: 10/13/2015 4:10:51 PM EDT
A fantastic article detailing how the most common nation comparisons for the US and gun control fail to account for a huge amount of factors. BLUF the typical arguments compare the US to nations with similar GDP or economic development. In all cases used, the comparative nations dont have anywhere near the same culture diversity, population base, population density, ect to be accurate comparisons.

The mistake of only comparing US murder rates to developed nations
Link Posted: 2/28/2016 12:27:43 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Prime:
I had cause to argue this with a liberal on Facebook, who briefly tried to claim that "the statistics" supported his beliefs. I researched the statistics, because I was pretty sure I had a decent sense of what numbers would be like, but the 2014 statistics are worse than I expected.

I'll also preface the statistics with the disclaimer that I use these numbers only to prove that Democrats are generally hypocrites who don't really give a shit about black lives. To me, race doesn't have anything to do with the violence, it's more about tribalism in Africa and Democrat policies here in the US.

Usually the way this argument goes is a conservative says "blacks commit lots of crimes" and a liberal replies "blacks are disproportionately arrested and convicted so you're wrong and racist". That's arguably true, the disproportionate part anyway. This is how you prove that there is a problem, and that Democrats willfully choose to ignore it every time they say the problem doesn't exist. Go strictly by homicides- this goes right to the heart of "black lives matter".

Here's the rundown in a form you can use to both find the information and to show someone else how to find the information.

Go to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report and find the report for 2014.

Next find the expanded homicide data tables.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_1_murder_victims_by_race_ethnicity_and_sex_2014.xls#disablemobile
Table 1 will tell you that in total in 2014 there were about 700 more black murder victims than white murder victims. 6,100 black to 5,400 white.

Now go to table 6, which will tell you that whites are overwhelmingly killed by other whites, and blacks are overwhelmingly killed by other blacks. 90% to be specific.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2014.xls
Remember, we're talking about 13% of the population, with most of the nation's murder victims, perpetrated by 90% black offenders.

None of these numbers are that much outside the norm- I expected from past years more of an even split, but even that from 13% of the population is a terrible damn problem. But Democrats ignore it because, to paraphrase Howard Metzenbaum, it ain't about the criminals or even the black lives. It's about guns, money, or whatever else serves the party's purposes at the time.

Little black pawns on a great big blue chessboard.

View Quote

Link Posted: 2/28/2016 12:37:42 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By gumbii:
A fantastic article detailing how the most common nation comparisons for the US and gun control fail to account for a huge amount of factors. BLUF the typical arguments compare the US to nations with similar GDP or economic development. In all cases used, the comparative nations dont have anywhere near the same culture diversity, population base, population density, ect to be accurate comparisons.

The mistake of only comparing US murder rates to developed nations
View Quote

That really is fantastic. That does a great job of shaming them in their own language- they're prejudiced against less developed nations.



Link Posted: 6/15/2016 7:38:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/15/2016 7:40:30 PM EDT by gumbii]
A good link from Member Tohbii covering an FBI analysis of active shooter situations in the US from 2000-2013, with a specific section for legally armed citizen results.

In other incidents, it was a combination of actions by citizens and/or law enforcement that
ended the shootings. In at least 65 (40.6%) of the 160 incidents, citizen engagement or the
shooter committing suicide ended the shooting at the scene before law enforcement arrived.
Of those:
¦ In 37 incidents (23.1%), the shooter committed suicide at the scene before police
arrived.
¦ In 21 incidents (13.1%), the situation ended after unarmed citizens safely and successfully
restrained the shooter. In 2 of those incidents, off-duty law enforcement
officers were present and assisted.
¦ Of note, 11 of the incidents involved unarmed principals, teachers, other school
staff and students who confronted shooters to end the threat (9 of those shooters
were students).
¦ In 5 incidents (3.1%), the shooting ended after armed individuals who were not law
enforcement personnel exchanged gunfire with the shooters. In these incidents, 3 shooters
were killed, 1 was wounded, and 1 committed suicide.
¦ The individuals involved in these shootings included a citizen with a valid firearms
permit and armed security guards at a church, an airline counter, a federally
managed museum, and a school board meeting.
¦ In 2 incidents (1.3%), 2 armed, off-duty police officers engaged the shooters, resulting
in the death of the shooters. In 1 of those incidents, the off-duty officer assisted a
responding officer to end the threat.
View Quote


FBI Active Shooter Study
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top