SCOTUS Overturns D.C. Gun Ban
June 26th, 2008 by ACTivist
Just in. On a 5 to 4 vote, the Supremes have upheld that a D.C. gun ban is unconstitutional and been struck down. As soon as there are more details, I will update this post. Know this. It was ruled on the narrowest or margins and we probably know who the dissenting justices were. This is why it is imperative to vote this election. The SCOTUS is full of old peoples and the next president will be picking a few when he isn’t picking his nose!
This entry was posted on Thursday, June 26th, 2008 at 9:22 am and is filed under 2nd Amendment, Campaign 2008. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
June 26th, 2008 at 9:27 am
THANK YOU GEORGE W. BUSH!!!!
June 26th, 2008 at 9:46 am
It will be amusing to tear apart the dissenters’ tortured logic.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”
Guess Stevens is still reading Bill Clinton’s abridged version of the Constitution. Obama’s is likely even more draconian.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Here is an excerpt from a FoxNews.com article about this:
“In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”
He said such evidence “is nowhere to be found.”
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, “In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.”"
Have fun, Jack! Tearing these statements apart should be easy!
June 26th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Here is the opinion and Steven’s dissent.
(BTW, the 1936 Miller case ruled against the possession of sawed-off shotguns because they had no evidence that sawed-off shotguns were military weapons — despite their use in WWI trench warfare.)
June 26th, 2008 at 10:26 am
They also struck down the trigger-lock requirement.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:38 am
We’ll start with this:
June 26th, 2008 at 11:14 am
This decision was hand craft to overturn all the garbage control laws that were built up over the past 50 years. The witch is dead. The 2nd amendment lives!! Yee-hah!
June 26th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Decision is minimalist 2nd amendment CRAP.
They can’t outright ban all of my guns, but they can regulate the hell out of them and me. Gee thanks Scalia.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Imagine the discussions we would be having had either Al Gore or John Kerry made the last two selections to the Supreme Court. We would be devising a 40 year plan on how to get our gun rights back.
June 26th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Thank goodness, now you all can stop your complaining. But it probably won’t stop there. You know how conservatives are, next you’ll want more, moRE, MORE!
Jack, let’s you and I brace ourselves for the dramatic decrease in crime you promised so long ago. Statisticians. . .pens ready.
June 26th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
G. Agreed. But we cannot rest on our laurels. Imagine what this result would have been with one or two seated Oboma appointees.
June 26th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
“You know how conservatives are, next you’ll want more, moRE, MORE!”
More FREEDOM!! Absolutely!
June 26th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
“You know how conservatives are, next you’ll want more, moRE, MORE!”
Kiddin’, you asked me once why I thought you were a liberal. Your statement says it all.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Oh c’mon ACTor, take a joke for once. Didn’t you notice the
instead of a 
? I was simply lampooning the commentary here from you and your ilk whenever some liberal gets an inch. Oh well. I know nuances are hard for you.
For the record, and Jack can tell you this too, gun ban or no gun ban, I don’t have a preference. Neither seem to make any difference with regard to violent crime. Jack, on the other hand, routinely asserts that more guns equal less violent crime. Only history will tell. He asserts, mistakenly, that the gun ban in DC (and other locales) resulted in an increase in violent crime. If that is true, which it isn’t, we should see violent crime decrease in as dramatic a fashion as it increased, were the increase due to the gun ban, which it wasn’t.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Kiddin’,
“He asserts, mistakenly, that the gun ban in DC (and other locales) resulted in an increase in violent crime. If that is true, which it isn’t, we should see violent crime decrease in as dramatic a fashion as it increased, were the increase due to the gun ban, which it wasn’t.”
Know this. Stupid people are persistant. As D.C. residents become armed there will most likely be MORE shootings until the criminal element realize that armed citizens will fight back. Then both gun violence and violent crime will most assuredly go down. I know that this is hard for you to swallow but stats have proven that for decades and denying it does you a disservice. But then again, you will be who you are.
<- smiley face-nuance.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
“Neither seem to make any difference with regard to violent crime. Jack, on the other hand, routinely asserts that more guns equal less violent crime.”
Because the historical data back me up. Crime went down faster in Florida after they passed their CCW law than it did nationwide. Canada, the UK, and Australia all saw their violent (and gun!) crimes spike after banning guns. Canada’s violent crime rate is twice ours, and their rate of occupied-home break-ins is four times what it is here.
“Only history will tell.”
It already has, you just refuse to acknowledge it. We will see it again in DC, as people being arming themselves. It will probably take a few more lawsuits, too. DC will stall, and not hire any people to process permit applications. They will make noises about the “burden” that the licensing is putting on city finances, etc.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:18 am
Jack is 100% correct.
If you have not read More Guns Less Crime, you should.
There are several immutable facts about gun control, but one of the most telling is that the majority of our gun homicides in the U.S. occur in those few cities or counties with draconian attempts at gun control, rather than criminal control.
I expect tomorrow the chatter will begin about DC becoming the Wild West with people shooting each other in the streets. Like it isn’t already ?
June 27th, 2008 at 4:07 am
I have not read More Guns Less Crime but it does sound like a good read. With a title like that, though, is it very one-sided? Remember I don’t have a dog in this fight, unlike many who feel passionately about the issues for one reason or another.
The gun bans in Chicago and DC were enacted in response to an uptick in violent crime. The fact that violent crime, throughout the country during those years, continued to rise (gun ban or no gun ban) seems to be of no consequence to you.
For 2007, for the first time in (very) recent memory, Bmore was bumped out of 2nd place to third for most violent city with a pop. over 500,000 and Memphis, TN took it’s slot. Coincidentally, Bmore also most recently passed a ban on pellet guns. Eh? Think about it, gentlemen. Homicides here have dropped 40% for the year. I’m just sayin’.
Simple solutions to fighting violence are easy for politicians to get elected on and easy for rights activists to grasp on to. If you seriously think that by banning guns you will solve the problem, you are, IMO, mistaken. And I also understand that, in order to get your guns back in DC, you are required to argue with books like More Guns Less Crime. Simple political gestures as such are the busy work of both parties.
June 27th, 2008 at 6:46 am
Kevin,
The book is one-sided because the evidence is one-sided. Lott started out trying to show that gun control reduced crime. All the data he gathered argued against that theory, and none for it.
June 27th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Kevin:
You do have a dog in this fight. The dogs name is Civil Rights. I know that is a stupid name for a dog, but work with me here.
Gun Rights is a Civil Rights issue. When the Government decides it has the power to restrict your gun rights whats next ? maybe a right a bit closer to your heart ?
Here Civil Rights, here boy. Good boy, now go take a crap on Obamas lawn.
June 27th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Jack,
“All the data he gathered argued against that theory, and none for it.”
I’ve already told you that I don’t believe gun control reduces crime, bud. Go ahead, cite anOTHER book arguing that gun control doesn’t reduce crime. That’s not the argument, intransigent as you are.
Even Dan agrees with me: “but one of the most telling is that the majority of our gun homicides in the U.S. occur in those few cities or counties with draconian attempts at gun control, rather than criminal control.”
Token gestures such as allowing gun ownership or banning gun ownership do nothing. As in no effect.
BTW, shootings are down 26% for the year here in cHARM City. They have not become more lax with the gun ownership restrictions. Surprisingly there are politicians here saying, “Don’t worry about SCOTUS, it’s not going to result in an increase in violent crime in MD.” Certainly didn’t expect to hear that. Refreshing.
June 27th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
GStone,
I thought Obama’s reaction was more duplicitous on the issue?
June 27th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
As for Baltimore:
Later, the article says, “So far this year, arrests in the city are up five percent from the same time last year.”
Wow, lock up the violent criminals, and the crime rate goes down. Imagine that.
June 27th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
“I don’t have a dog in this fight….”
As Greg points out, we ALL have a dog in this fight. If the government can take your guns, what can it NOT take?
June 27th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Jack,
I can’t tell if you’re juxtaposing the first quote from the article with the second quote or if you mean to be keeping with the same theme? It is a multi-pronged effort here.
June 27th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
I have a dog in the race. That dog is that every person has an inalienable right to self-defense with tools that are effective in that purpose. If I were in a country like Iraq (regardless of what my religious beliefs) I would want something much more substantial than a pistol. An AA12 shotgun would be something I would probably want. In the US, a semi-automatic pistol is about all I would need.
June 27th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Kevin,
I was trying to demonstrate that there are other factors that can influence the crime rate. This fact is obvious, but is often forgotten. In the case of Baltimore, a police crackdown (arrests up 5%) seems to have had the effect of reducing crime.
June 27th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Brian:
Our current “need” is irrelevant. As I mentioned in another post, had semi-auto pistol been banned shortly after they were invented, they would not now be common, and, by Scalia’s logic, could be constitutionally banned.
June 27th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Jack,
Gotcha. Yes there are other factors but also to think that a police crackdown is resulting in decreased crime would be to simplify it quite a bit. A police crackdown is what we just had with our now Gov. The police “crackdown” was not helpful. Odd as that may sound.
June 27th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Kevin, It is a good book, and any one sidedness is due to the conclusion reached after analysis of crime stats and trends, as Jack pointed out.
Actually the national crime rate was consequential to me during this period as I lived it, you ? I hope you are not trying to lecture me on a time period when you were still swimming about in your father’s scrotum. Crime was a problem then, and well into the 80s when many realized that the feel good policies of the 70s were not working. DC and other major cities never seemed to have gotten that memo.
You misread this my earlier post. The reality is that incidence of gun crime appears to rise in direct proportion to local gun control. Statistical analysis also supports the inverse. In simpler terms, gun control has failed, and failed very badly where it has been attempted as a crime fighting measure.
Per the Bawlmer 2007 stats, I will likely wait until there is other than preliminary data to render an opinion on Bawlmer’’s success at crime fighting. One could argue that the result is due to a downward trend in the population of Bawlmer. There was an article in the paper about this just this week. Seems many Bawlmerians have gotten out of Dodge for various reasons.. The same article also discussed very significant increases this year in crime around the inner harbor, and the stadiums. You too might want to wait for the final stats before you go tooting your horn.
June 27th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
” A police crackdown is what we just had with our now Gov.”
What’s an O’Malley police crackdown ? Busting a few Gideon’s for passing out bibles ?
June 27th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
O, dan, I don’t have any idea what you mean at all by “busting a few gideons for passing out bibles”. I don’t know where you live but its clear you don’t live here. . .
If you’re so old that you think I’m lecturing you on a time when you were becoming aware of the worlds problems then whatever. Get all defensive about age please, its standard around these parts.
And if you want to attribute a lower crime rate to white flight that’s you’re argument to make!! LOL!
June 27th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
“Canada, the UK, and Australia all saw their violent (and gun!) crimes spike after banning guns. Canada’s violent crime rate is twice ours, and their rate of occupied-home break-ins is four times what it is here.”
what’s the source for this?
June 27th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Dan,
“The reality is that incidence of gun crime appears to rise in direct proportion to local gun control.”
Prove it.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Joe,
I think there is new competition for the AK video. Evidently they have taken the street sweeper and improved it massively. Talk about clearing a room. If any of the perps got outside and into a getaway car, all you need do is send a few grenade rounds their way. And since it IS (or will be) military inventory then I should be able to get one for “militia” purposes!
June 27th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Hot diggity, ACT! I just landed back home, look forward to getting caught up on all the above.
June 28th, 2008 at 1:00 am
Kevin, I have already indicated to you where you may find the proof, assuming your mind is sufficiently open to seek it. Bet it’s not..
Trust me, I am not defensive of my age, but I suspected you did not have a clue what you were talking about wrt the 70s. You did not bring up the world’s problems either, you specifically mentioned escalating crime in the US during the late 70s. Seems your gears are slipping a little, might want to have them checked.
What’s O’Malley done, other than increase technology grants to some state LE agencies ?
I did not say white flight, you did. The article I was referring to cited escalating crime, but more importantly draconian over use of eminent domain in the city. Folks were leaving because they saw little future in investing in their homes when the city might take it.
Regarding shootings in Baltimore, here’s an interesting morsel :
http://www.burgersub.org/shootings2k7.htm
We should expect all these pins to disappear now that you have banned pellet guns huh ?
Seems like crime is decreasing there so much that you guys have your own blog to track the reductions :
http://baltimorecrime.blogspot.com/
When you say shootings are down by 26%, is this intentional, or unintentional shootings ?
Bottom line, if you really want to lecture us on gun control and it’s relationship to crime, the above pages might support the notion that Baltimore is a very poor example to choose.
Or a very good example to support my assertions…
June 28th, 2008 at 7:37 am
Jefe:
Please go search this blog under the 2nd Amendment tag. I have posted the data for Canada, the UK, and Australia several times, and do not feel like doing so yet again.
June 28th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Dan,
My friend, truly, whose gears are slipping? It would appear I’ve taken you around the block once or twice by now and you’ve suddenly come off the chain.
>The banning pellet guns issue was sarcasm.
>The police crackdown issue was not praise.
>The decrease, for now, in murders is real.
>The two links you provided are amazing indeed but have little to do with the discussion.
>The reported shootings are down and my guess is they’re the intentional kind (I’m pretty sure stray bullets are considered intentional too).
>I’m not lecturing anyone on gun control.
I will temper things down a little though now that I know better.
I know the articles of which you speak, I believe, and they’re very interesting and informative. If you can help me with clarifying your what you were saying again, I’m sure we see a lot more eye to eye on some issues. It may be I’m a little slow or you’re a little fast in assuming I know where you’re going with the discussion of eminent domain being the cause of a dent in the murder rate THIS YEAR SO FAR. Yes, it’s draconian. Yes ground rent is a major problem. And there’s probably a lot more that you wanted to say about it, right?
June 28th, 2008 at 10:21 am
I’m guessing The National Review, not really an objective source so I can see why you wouldn’t repeat it. It appears Canada classifies more crimes as violent than the US (abduction, sexual offenses). Look at the homicide rate, it’s consistently been 3 times greater in the US than in Canada. And guns are responsible for most of the murders in the US and less than half in the Canada.
June 28th, 2008 at 10:26 am
>The banning pellet guns issue was sarcasm.
so was mine..
>The police crackdown issue was not praise.
I did not say it was praise. I am saying that O’Malley’s crackdown from what I have read was overhyped fodder in his run for Gov.
>The decrease, for now, in murders is real.
Can you point me to the source of your numbers please ? The FBI stats for 2007 are preliminary, and FBI has posted nada for 08. I would very much like to see the source of your data.
>I’m not lecturing anyone on gun control.
“Token gestures such as allowing gun ownership or banning gun ownership do nothing. As in no effect.
BTW, shootings are down 26% for the year here in cHARM City. They have not become more lax with the gun ownership restrictions.”
I know what your point was. All I am saying is that Bawlmer is not a very shining example in this regard. Btw, I am not dumping on Bmore or her citizens, I grew up near there, and I know firsthand it is a fine city. But, it remains a city and as such will always have the problems that urbanization brings.
June 28th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Dan,
The decrease in murders started at the end of last year and is carrying on through this year. That link you provided has the names and number of each murder victim so far this year. It’s one of the minor successes this year that everyone is holding their breath about after last years bloodbath. Bmore was on track last year to surpass 300 for the first time in a decade and then there were a number of changes that occurred toward the end of the year and murders seemed to slow way down. This year the rate has slowed to numbers not seen in twenty years, if you believe the news stats. This year only. Could be a fluke. Could be things are being done smarter, rather than harder, with enforcement. The crackdown issue is all in what one calls a “crackdown”. Overhyped fodder for a run for gov’ship would be too simple an understanding of hizzoner’s legacy, although it’s probably easier to see it that way from the outside looking in.
Now back to the issue on gun control lecturing, I think if you re-read what we were discussing you’ll see that the question at hand has more to do with whether it’s possible to say that simply changing laws on gun ownership leads to a decrease/increase in crime. Without changing laws here, save for the laughable measure of banning pellet guns (which I still would argue has had no effect), numbers are a little different this year. Similarly, and this is purely assumption since I haven’t even looked into TN laws, a place like Memphis, which presumably has less restrictions on ownership, has unseated our fair city in violent crime (preliminarily at that) for the grand total of 1 year. I hope that’s a fair enough statement for you to accept.
Gun bans appear to be enacted as crime is already on the rise so the argument that they result in crime increases doesn’t hold any water for me. The pipe dream that simply loosening restrictions results in a decrease in crime is similarly an argument fraught with problems. It is just not that simple.
June 28th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Actually, the data came from the crime bureaus in each country.
June 28th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
And as I point out in my analysis, the murder rate for non-Hispanic Whites in the United States is on par with Canada’s murder rate. If Canada and the United States had similar population profiles, we would have similar murder rates.
June 28th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Let’s look at 2004 (I didn’t find more recent Canadian data).
Violent crime rate (per 100,000 residents):
Canada: 946
United States: 465.5
Sexual Assault:
Canada: 74
U.S.: 32.2
Assaults:
Canada: 732
U.S.: 291.1
Robbery:
Canada: 86
U.S.: 136.7
So, except for robbery, you are safer here than in Canada. Of course, if we look at the U.S. robbery rates more closely, we see that outside of Metropilitan Statistical Areas, the rate drops to 15.5 per 100,000. Again, if we had the population distribution that Canada has, we would fare much better.
June 28th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Joe,
I’m surprised you haven’t latched onto the AA12 instead of the AK-47. Anything within 100 yards I’ll take the AA12 any day, and around here, 100 yards is a long distance. Anything more than 100 yards and I want something more stable through the shot than an AK.
If a person is dealing with distance, and AK is not a very accurate choice, so the AA12 tends to be “as good” especially with the explosive rounds.
June 28th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
hmm, some big problems with your analysis (besides the racial stuff). assuming your figures on the white, not-hispanic rates are correct:
1) higher homicide rates among minority populations would suggest that more access to guns in the US appears to be associated with greater homicide rates among minority (and traditinally disadvantaged) populations. I think lawyers heading up lawsuits of gun companies would love this data.
2) it’s ironic that whites, who are relatively safe, are overrepresented in gun rights groups with the right to protect themselves as their primary argument. cities and populations that are at increased risk of being a victim of a crime appear to favor more gun restrictions.
3) examine stats more dude. you are comparing “forcible rape” in the US to “sexual assault” in Canada. sexual assault includes more crimes, thus the higher rate. same goes for assualts. they are the same in both countries, if not higher in the US.
it’s analyses like these that lead to the “terrorist fist pump” conclusions.
June 28th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Brian - ACT just stopped by and told me about that!! Somehow I missed the key fork of this thread while I was traveling. I am going to the link right now…
June 28th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
My oh my, that is about the most ridiculously wonderful machine I have ever seen.
Yes, after giving the matter some thought, I agree there would be significant advantages in terms of force projection by adding the miniature grenades.
I feel comfortable in most situations carrying a .40, but I can imagine certain times it would be preferable to have the 32 explosive 12-gauge rounds in a fully automatic shotgun.
June 29th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Joe,
Could not find the link to the aa12 on this page so I just looked it up…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4ebtj1jR7c&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhstuvzMiB0
the thing rocks!
20 rd drum magazine, with a 360rd/min rate of fire from a 12ga. talk about home defense! The nice thing is the 12ga rd does not pas through walls easily. But if some loser is in the hallway when you open up, it good night Alice!
June 29th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
jacob sure is a blood thirsty little imp, isn’t he?
June 29th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Jefe:
I will anwser you disagreements seriatim:
“1) higher homicide rates among minority populations would suggest that more access to guns in the US appears to be associated with greater homicide rates among minority (and traditinally (sic) disadvantaged) populations. I think lawyers heading up lawsuits of gun companies would love this data.”
So, guns are more lethal to Blacks and Hispanics (about 9 and 4.5 times more lethal, respectively) than they are to non-Hispanic Whites? That makes no sense.
Death by Murder
It’s not the guns, pal.
“2) it’s ironic that whites, who are relatively safe, are overrepresented in gun rights groups with the right to protect themselves as their primary argument. cities and populations that are at increased risk of being a victim of a crime appear to favor more gun restrictions.”
Perhaps they are more at risk because they cannot defend themselves.
“3) examine stats more dude. you are comparing “forcible rape” in the US to “sexual assault” in Canada. sexual assault includes more crimes, thus the higher rate. same goes for assualts. they are the same in both countries, if not higher in the US.”
Read the FBI link I provided, before demonstrating your profound ignorance: “Assaults and attempts to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included.”
Our standards are the same as Canada’s, we just use a different term.
June 29th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
ouch, my profound ignorance. Jack, I will answer your criticisms without the pretentious use of latin:
I read the FBI link more closely. The Canada stats include sexual assault which they define as unwanted touching, physical contact, etc., Canada’s law is fairly broad. The FBI stats on offenses include crimes of rape or attempted rape. they include only under arrests things that might be classified as sexual assaults in Canada, including “offenses against chastity.” I think the Canadian stats are inflated. also, i was able to find the 2006 Canadian crime data if you are interested.
As for defending ouselves, we are more at risk because there are more guns around us. if someone is more likely to be a victim of a crime, and that crime involves a gun, my guess is that it is more likely to be lethal (the canadian data suggests this). The comparison to 1900 is pretty funny, things have changed slightly. and i’d like to know the “large american study” that showed the drop in crime with concealed weapons.
June 29th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
So what is a crime in Canada is not a crime here? I don’t think so.
Go ahead — compare the 2006 Canadian data with the U.S. data. You will find the same results as in the 2004 data.
We are more at risk if criminals are the only ones with guns. I doubt seriously you would like to see the study. If you did, you would have found it already. Here is a good place to start.
June 29th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
jack, it’s inclusion into what’s considered assault, not what’s a crime that is different. anyway, i’ll take the last post as a concession.
Obama ‘08!
June 30th, 2008 at 11:57 am
NoVisa,
“jacob sure is a blood thirsty little imp, isn’t he?”
As a matter of fact-NO! He, like many of us here like our guns and new products that do “multi-tasking” are wonderful. Think of it in terms of womens’ shoes. Different styles and applications. And you can never have enough, right?
Imp? Name caller!
June 30th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Lovisa,
“jacob sure is a blood thirsty little imp, isn’t he?”
Blood thirsty!?! Yes, I remember when I went to the induction center … They asked me if I had committed any crimes, I said ‘Yes, littering’, so they sent me to the shrink and he asked me ‘Why do you want to join the military?’
so I said …
‘I want to kill …’
he said you want to ‘Kill!!’
‘Thats right’, I said,
‘I Want to kill, Kill, KILL!!’
‘KILL KILL KILL’
I was jumping up and down on the couch screaming,
‘KILL KILL KILL …’
and the shrink was jumping up down to screaming
‘KILL KILL KILL …’
and the sergeant ran in and pinned a medal on my chest and said,
‘You’re our boy!’
June 30th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Whoa! This just in: 55% gun deaths are suicides!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080630/ap_on_re_us/gun_deaths_suicide
Whoa! ONE public health study showed that homicides and suicides dropped after the DC gun ban was enacted!
Whoa! Who thought to consult the Center For Disease Control wrt to gun deaths? Them things is poison, I say, poison! Good thing Congress removed all the CDC’s teeth!
June 30th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
“it’s inclusion into what’s considered assault, not what’s a crime that is different”
So under what does the FBI classify such crimes?
Give me an example of a crime that Canada would classify as “Sexual Assault” that the FBI does not group with the “rape” statistics? (Provide references for the classification guidelines.)
June 30th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Kiddin’,
We played this game with Troll not too long ago.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5635a2.htm
http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html
http://danger.mongabay.com/injury_death.htm
We can play it all day. Get what you want from the “suicide stats”. What point are you trying to make? That if more people are allowed to have guns that there will be more suicides?
http://www.a1b2c3.com/suilodge/facint1.htm
Fraid not. Face it. You just want to be right at what you believe in. I know, you don’t mind guns, you don’t want to take away anyones rights, you aren’t afraid of guns, blah, blah, blah! Heard it before and it seems awfully strange that you keep trying so hard to convince us that more guns will NOT help the situation. This is liberal think, Kiddin’!
June 30th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Very interesting, Kevin.
Were you aware that Canada has a higher suicide rate, too. Must be all of their guns.
June 30th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
jack, for suicide maybe it’s not the guns in Canada but all the white people. cut them out of the rate and see if the countries are comparable.
read through the FBI stats, they note that there are other sexual offenses besides rape, but they do not include these as offenses (look through appendices, they describe this). FBI only count these under arrests. Canada’s law has 3 levels of sexual assualt, level 1 (by far the most frequent in the stats, like around 90%) appears to include things that would only be counted under arrest data in the US. these would include unwanted physical contact, but not rape (do a search on canada’s sexual assualt laws, it should show the following definition: sexual assault encompasses all forms of intentional, non-consensual touching that violates the complainant’s sexual integrity, whether or not the touching would have amounted to rape or indecent assault before 1983).
besides that, there is the possibly of a reporting difference between the countries. point is, i would seriously question any statistic that shows Canada is twice as dangerous (or safe) when it comes to sexual assualt. the difference is in the definition. i would think they are very close in all crimes with the exception of homicides, where canada is way safer only because people tend to die when guns are available and used. and where’s the 8% drop reference?
Obama 08!!!
June 30th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Ditto for Japan, they too have pretty strict gun control..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/24/japan.mentalhealth
http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html
Yahoo article :
“Public-health researchers have concluded that in homes where guns are present, the likelihood that someone in the home will die from suicide or homicide is much greater.”
Reality :
The Kellerman study is like a bad penny, it keeps turning up :
“Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don’t….
In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of “methodologic and conceptual errors,” such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of “the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors.”"
Yahoo article :
“One public-health study found that suicide and homicide rates in the district dropped after the ban was adopted.”
Reality :
In a 1991 article in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Colin Loftin attempted to show that Washington, DC’s 1976 ban on new gun sales decreased murder. Loftin and his co-authors, funded by YOUR tax money from the anti-gun Centers for Disease Control (CDC), produced a piece of “research” with several major flaws. Despite these flaws, the editorial board of the New England Journal of Medicine, known for its anti-gun bias, published the article anyway.
Most shocking amongst the dozen flaws:
the apparent homicide drop began during 1974, 2 years BEFORE the gun law — so how could the law be responsible for the temporary drop?
if the gun freeze were responsible for the homicide drop, we would expect the drop to continue — the law hasn’t changed, but the overall Washington, DC homicide rate has skyrocketed to 8 TIMES THE NATIONAL AVERAGE since 1988.
justifiable and excusable homicides, including those by police officers, were treated the same as murders and were not excluded from the study.
the study used raw numbers rather than population- corrected rates, so did not correct for the 20% population decrease in Washington, DC during the study period or for the 25% increase in the control population — the imagined drop in total homicides was not due to the gun law, as Loftin claimed, but was due to other factors, such as the population drop!
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/suter-fa.html
http://www.haciendapub.com/edcor6.html
Yahoo article :
“But the agency cut back research on the subject after Congress in 1996 ordered that none of the CDC’s appropriations be used to promote gun control.”
Reality :
Fatalities caused by preventable medical errors are many times that of gun violence. This is where CDC should be spending taxpayer funds.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/11856.php
July 1st, 2008 at 5:20 am
Apparently I’m making time honored liberal arguments without knowing it. I simply had no idea that 55% of gun deaths were suicides, I thought more would be homicides. Equally as interesting was that the success rate from “jumping from high places” was only 34%, given the demise of poor Ruslana Korshunova.
Notice I emphasized “ONE” ph study. Do you really think I’d make an argument on that? I thought it was a funny thing to add in the article as it had nearly no relevance.
I believe I was being similarly sarcastic but a little double-sided with my last statement about the CDC. I do fully understand the conflict of interest though in the gov’t not using taxpayer’s $ to fight against what it has defined as taxpayer’s rights. It just struck me as funny that the gov would like to study it but not be interested in using it. I’m positive that happens quite often though.
“You just want to be right at what you believe in.”- ACTor
I guess that statement more describes you all and the lens you see things through.
Whatev.
July 1st, 2008 at 5:30 am
BTW Dan,
Thanks for the info about the ONE study. I’d heard about the study but didn’t know the AP story was talking about that same study. Does the fact that the study was funded make the CDC anti-gun or does the fact that the journal published it despite it’s flaws make the journal at fault. I know of no reputation that the CDC might have.
Poor studies are done all the time by all kinds of institutions. I was just curious what your thoughts were.
If the study cites drops prior to the gun ban it would be tantamount to how SOME people fail to recognize the trending of the increase in crime just before the gun ban when they make arguments that gun bans result in more crime.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:35 am
Kevin,
The argument that the ban resulted in an increase of crime is likely based upon the results during the 30+ years the ban has been in place, as opposed to the 2 years prior. 30 years is a much more significant statistical sample than 2, wouldn’t you agree ?
Think the anti-gun label was applied to the CDC as a result of this and other studies. You attach your name to a biased and flawed study, which appears to be be based more on politics this is the risk you take. Imho, CDC chose poorly. Personally I would tend to think this was the result of whoring themselves out for grant money.
I believe the current terminology for reciting unproven liberal arguments is being a “progressive”.
July 1st, 2008 at 4:02 pm
“30 years is a much more significant statistical sample than 2, wouldn’t you agree ?”
Yes I would agree. That’s why I said trending which started before the ban was in place. If crime hadn’t been rising on the march up to the ban then there likely wouldn’t have been a ban in the first place. I think the continued rise after the ban indicates that a simple argument cannot be made that banning guns will reduce crime.