via my Facebook friend Mayuka who thinks this video is just "amazing."
The lies:
1. Ever since the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution was first written this was a hotly contested issue.
2. Cars kill WAY more people each year than guns do.
3. Out of those gun deaths about 80% are suicides.
4. Guns are used about 2 million times a year to stop crime.
5. You can pass all the laws you want and they (the criminals) will still have access to these weapons. Alan Keyes
These gunsucks will say anything to keep access to the vital stimulation for their dicks.
ReplyDeleteSee, Mikeb? It's your side that keeps making the penis references. Compensating, much?
DeleteOn point 5, Mr. Keyes is absolutely correct.
ReplyDeleteIf gunz are outlawed only criminulz will haz teh gunz. That number will include all the "from my cold dead hands" gunzloonz who will have decided--immediately a gunzlaw that they don't like is passed--that it's time to hunker down and work on a "repeal".
Can you translate that to normal person speak?
DeleteHe may have misinterpreted some things, and you may not like some of the studies that he is quoting, but he's not lying:
ReplyDelete1. Here I disagree. Owning and carrying guns has been a part of American culture since the start. It's only been in the last century that control freaks have tried to change that.
2. Cars do kill more people than guns. "Way" is an unnecessary adverb, but Mikeb, you know about that. Medical errors kill around six times as many people as guns.
3. It's actually about 60%.
4. That's according to one study. The Department of Justice said it's around 1.5 million. The most conservative study on the subject says around 100,000.
5. Correct. Ban guns, confiscate every gun in this nation, and in short order, many more will come in across the borders. Machine shops will start making guns. And, of course, removing the 300,000,000+ guns in this country is impossible.
So you admit 4 out of 5. That's amazing cooperation from you, Greg. The 5th is also false because nothing could replace the accessibility criminals enjoy now.
DeleteWhat's the admission? I've said all along that the 2.5 million number is at the high end of the studies. But do explain: Why do you deny that guns will come in along with drugs and illegal immigrants? Why do you deny that some machine shops will make guns? There might be fewer guns in the country, but they'd mostly be in the hands of bad people. Is that what you want?
DeleteGreg, if the sources of guns to criminals were cut off to a large extent, your ideas about importation with cocaine and basement machine shops couldn't possibly make up the difference.
DeleteYou apparently don't know much about the importation of contraband. And more than that, you're forgetting the 300,000,000+ guns in this country already. You don't have a magic wand.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete"2. Cars do kill more people than guns. "Way" is an unnecessary adverb, but Mikeb, you know about that. Medical errors kill around six times as many people as guns."
Item 1 of your stupid fucking assertion sez cars kill more people. Well, shit, we can't argue with that. (source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm)
If we want to apply a little bit of "context" to your attempt at equivalency, we have this bit of data:
number of licensed drivers in the U.S. = 209,618,386
(source: http://www.bts.gov/publications/state_transportation_statistics/state_transportation_statistics_2010/html/table_04_02.html)
which is not, afaia, a known commie or anti-tehgunz front group.
So, we have something like twice as many documented licensed drivers as the total ESTIMATED number of firearms owners in the U.S.
And then we can plug this information into the equation.
"•Americans take 411 billion daily trips a year or about 1,500 trips per person
•U.S. daily travel totals about 4 trillion miles — 14,500 miles per person"
and
"The Average Driver
•Spends 55 minutes a day behind the wheel
•Drives 29 miles a day"
(source: http://www.bts.gov/programs/national_household_travel_survey/daily_travel.html)
So we're talkin' bout LOTS of people spending approximately an hour a day in their car in all sorts of conditions that are not conducive to safe driving. And they're doing their driving in a largely uncontrolled and uncontrollable enviroment--no practice ranges, no paper targets, no blaze orange safety vests, no driving along with the car's "safety on".
Not that I would trust his figures in any case, but John "my supporting data got losted and wasn't backed up, nowhere!" Lott doesn't, so far as I know, offer any stats about how many of the ESTIMATED 100,000,000 (the number is really impressive, but not as impressive, ya gotta admit, as 209,618,386) firearms owners in the U.S. use their firearms an average of 1,500 times per year. Even a shootist like you would have a hard time averaging over 4 uses of your gunz/day--unless you're doing things with them that the rest of us would rather not hear about.
Your first assertion is bullshit.
Now this one:
"Medical errors kill around six times as many people as guns."
must be easily verifiable.
Um, maybe not.
This source:
http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/justice/hs.xsl/8677.htm
pegged the number at 98,000--a little less than SIX times the rate for gunshot wounds ( 6 x 31,347 = 191,882, feel free to check my math). So, your "citation" or "quote" or whatever the fuck you want to call is untrue.
There's more. Unfortunately, this source
http://www.acponline.org/clinical_information/journals_publications/ecp/novdec00/sox.htm
disputes the data used to arrive at those numbers from this organization:
http://www.iom.edu/About-IOM.aspx
Well that figures, the acp.online is a bunch of doctors, why wouldn't they call those other peoples' data a bunchacrap.
If only the CDC didn't also find fault with the estimate:
http://wwwn.cdc.gov/mlp/QIConference/docs/whitepaper.pdf
Oh, well, another case of Greggie taking a number out of his ass and seeing if it will stick to the wall.
Feel free to argue your case, but you're gonna need some REAL data, not outtayerassguesstimates, to support your assertions.
Oh, let's see:
Deletehttp://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/11856.php
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2811%2960520-5/fulltext?rss=yes
Notice that the numbers are different, depending on the study that you read. Democommie, I realize that you're too blitheringly stupid to understand how that's possible, but you might want to stop embarassing yourself in public.
Greg, I can only deduce that Democommie read this line by Mark Twain and adopted it as his own:
Delete"I would rather have my ignorance than another man's knowledge, because I have so much more of it."
orlin sellers
Yup, I haven't seen anyone so stubbornly ignorant and in such denial of the condition anywhere else, and that's saying a lot, considering the levels that I've taught.
DeleteOh look Greg; DC found a CDC study. You know, just like the one showing 500,000 DGU's each year that we have shown to him about a half a dozen times. The one he somehow fails to comment on.
DeleteOh wait, I forgot, THAT CDC study "waz teh one doone by teh rite wingz gunloonz" when Clinton and the Democrats were seated on the throne of his lord and savior the federal gooberment.
The dumbass is strong in this one.
Yup, I'm through providing evidence to Democommie. Typical for his side, he ignores anything that doesn't support his narrative, but he's also rude about it.
DeleteHe's just completely filled with hate. Might be worth pitying him, certainly NOT worth taking him seriously.
Delete"Might be worth pitying him."
DeleteNa, not even worth that. One second reflecting on his miserable existence is one second wasted. Don't be a Democommie. Don't waste your seconds.
Cars kill more people. There are millions of cars that are driven ever day, for hundreds of thousands of hours per year over millions of miles. So it's a false analogy to compare Gun Nuts gun violence with car accidents.
ReplyDeleteThe influx of guns into society is what is driving the Gun Violence. More guns equals more gun violence.
Gene, the number of guns in this country is going up, and the gun laws are loosening, yet violent crime rates are falling. The rate of accidental gun deaths is at an all-time low.
DeleteThere are over 300,000,000 guns in this country, and between eighty and one hundred million gun owners. If guns were the unmitigated evil that you claim them to be, everyone would be dead. Learn to work with data before trying to take away my rights.
Gun violence in this country is ridiculous. What part of WELL REGULATED don't you understand???
DeleteDon't be upset with me that your comparrison is false and incorrect.
What part of "the right of the people" don't you understand? I get that the militia is the excuse. The right is identified as belong to the people.
DeletePlease, Grungy. Well Regulated in the 18th century meant well TRAINED. The founders didn't mean that the right should be regulated, ESPECIALLY by the government. I guess you are one of those that believes the meaning of the Constitution should change as the words meanings or usages change over time.
DeleteJim and Gregm
DeleteThe Cinstitution is not a suicide pact. We the People do not have to abide by the insane whims of Gun Fanatics,
And Jim if the Cinstitution was meant to be unchangable why did the Founders include a process to change it? I guess you're one of those who doesn't like to read everything and merely picks what fits your unrestricted Gun Violence agenda.
Gene, we don't have a gun violence agenda. We care about our rights. We even care about yours. The nation isn't committing suicide. Turn off your television, and read reliable sources about the rates of violent crime in this country. Those rates are dropping. They have been since the early 90s. At the same time, people are buying guns, and the gun laws are loosening.
DeleteGene's first point is a good one. People who own guns, except for the fringe fanatics and gun-rights advocates, use their guns occasionally. People who own cars use them daily. It's a shit comparison.
DeleteNot at all, Grungy. I don't mind gun control nuts trying to change the Constitution. I would actually respect them for trying to implement their agenda the right way by following the procedure layed out in the Constitution for making that change. Instead they try to do an end run around the Constitution by insisting the government can make changes without following the Amendment process. They lose any and all credibility with me by not following the Constitution.
DeleteFigures lie and liars figure.... or is it
ReplyDeleteliars figure and figures lie?
Question: What does 2+2 equal?
Government official: What do you need it to be?
orlin sellers
Mike you seem to forget the Officer who agrees more laws wont help. Also I'M NOT YOUR FUCKING FRIEND! I DON'T FRIEND COWARDS. If these are lies PROVE IT, with our using your own blogs to do so. While you're at it tell us about all the shooting is Texas a pace with lose gun laws and please show us one gun law that has reduced crime.
ReplyDeleteYou really know how to hurt a guy, not friending me like that.
DeleteAll gun control laws reduce crime.
The residents of Maryland and D.C. and Chicago would disagree.
DeleteHere's the link to Mikeb FB I argue him and use the FBI and Burrow of Justice to show more guns less crime. He claims the numbers are wrong, but unless the NRA owns those to Govt. Departments I don't see how that could be. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mikeb302000/199336103422715
ReplyDeleteFBI NICS back round checks http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/copy_of_TotalNICSBackgroundChecks.pdf
ReplyDeleteBurrow Of Justice showing crime rates. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/firearmnonfatalno.cfm
This:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/11856.php
magazine article--no review, afaia, by anyone.
This Lancet piece refers to the "study" that says 98,000 people die as a result of "medical error". It also refers to a study by a marketing firm in Denver. Nowhere in any of the several pieces that I read was there any indication how their numbers were arrived at. Oh, the word, "extrapolated" was used but, not, explained. No peer review of any of this stuff. Both cites are essentially magazine articles quoting other magazine articles.
You need a lot more authoritative source than a magazine of the self-serving "research" a marketing group doing a study funded by an actuarial group.
I notice that you completely ignore the obvious disparity in the numbers 98,000 and 191,882. Perhaps that difference is what an English teacher might consider a "rounding" error. Those of us who know how to add and subtract can smell the whiff of bullshit coming all the way from Arkansas. Oh, wait, now you found a number that vindicates you, except it's not a number that you will find anywhere in the CDC's cause of death/morbidity tables. If it's not there and it's not in a study undertaken by people without a financial motive (hint, hint, marketing firm) then it's likely bullshit.
So, you, as usual are backpedaling as fast as you can from your original premise that the "cite" you provided was horseshit. Okay, we already know you'll do that.
But, what about the fact that your gunz v carz analogy is completely idiotic. Or did you just forget that you're full of shit on that one, too?
I realize that your ADHD prevents you from detailed reading, but drink some Mountain Dew and take your medications, then read down the page. Note that part about Medicare patients? In addition, are you seriously questioning The Lancet as a reliable source?
DeleteBut let's be charitable, considering your mental handicaps. Even if you're right and the number's only three times the number of gun deaths, that's still three times the number of gun deaths.
Since the Assault weapons ban has ended, we have seen mass murders and massacres go up up up. Since Reagan, we have seen mass murders and massacres extremely frequently.
ReplyDeleteWe need a VERY strict restriction on military hardware like the Bushmaster .223. This is a military weapon. No non-military person should own one. There is NOTHING in the 2nd Amendment which requires military weapons in civilian hands.
ANd gunsuck sick perverts like Camp are lying every post.
The rate of mass murders remains relatively constant--one, two, or three in a year--and the rates of violent crimes of all types have been dropping. At the same time, more and more people are buying guns, and gun laws are loosening.
DeleteBut isn't it your side that keeps telling us that the Second Amendment is about militia arms? If so, military weapons are precisely the kind that it would protect.
Before you call me a liar again, grow a brain, and find some evidence.
This is a rowdy bunch. The NRA lies and so does the other side. Just like Republicans and Democrats. What are the truths we can agree on? Guns themselves are clearly not the cause of these tragedies, at the same time it isn't really necessary for people to use assault weapons or high capacity magazines. I am sure we can make machine gun type looking weapons that are no more powerful than a handgun and have magazines that match in appearance but not in capacity those same guns. Banning any kind of weapons without also investing into the mental health aspects of these tragedies, would be a waste of time.
ReplyDeleteThe second amendment is not about hunting or sports, it's about preventing tyranny. Hitler also liked gun laws. Going by what's necessary then get rid of cars that go over 90mph. Fire works, tobacco and beer.As far as magazine size trust me it douse not take long to change a magazine 1-3 seconds. Look up US code 10 section 311 Militia act. The rifle is a tool and it was not a assault rifle, those are full auto. His mom had a license to own that gun he killed her and stole it nothing really could have bin done to stop that. Look up Burrow Of Justice and the FBI stats. They are also posted a few comments up. Even the FBI said the AWB was pointless it did not reduce any crime. You should be able to trust them unless the right or left owns them, but if that's the case then I think it's safe to say we're in more trouble then needed more gun laws.
DeleteAdam, you try to sound reasonable, but I read your blog article about gun control. There will be no compromises. You said that guns are not the cause of these events, but then you go on to call for increased regulation on the thing that isn't the cause. Where's the sense in that?
DeleteThe fact is that we can't trust your side. We know what your real goal is.
I have no side. Drinking is not illegal, but you cant drink and drive, and we have thresholds to how much you can drink before you get behind a wheel. All those things happened over time once the car was invented, and we realized new stipulations were required. Your right to drink and drive was taken away, but was that a right that was necessary? I am sure there are many people who still wish we had Prohibition. That was and would be again a ridiculous extreme notion. Guns should be no different, what if the 2nd amendment had said specifically “only guns of this time”? Should that mean you can only own a musket? That too would be ridiculous. I am very afraid of extremes. When each side has to be right we get things like Prohibition. We are looking for a serious solution not just to this tragedy, but gun violence in general. Yet we are too busy arguing about those extremes and nothing gets accomplished. You already assumed i have some ulterior motive. That is why I write in our first post that as the Nation Us platform unfolds it will remain open to constructive discussion in the hope of improving and shaping the details and goals of the issues set forth in it. We have no side or all the answers, that is why we want to form a party on getting things right not hyperbole. There are no set ways. If more rules were in place and they reduced gun violence over 20-30 years by say 30% would that be worth it? My perspective yes, others perhaps no, but maybe a majority would say that it was a good idea and that was what was best for this country. We should be allowed to have guns but I would question someones need for a .50 caliber machine gun fixed to the roof of their car. I think most people would. Everyone will never agree on everything. Maybe banning automatic weapons and magazines that go on for days isnt necessary, but 3 seconds between clip loads is an eternity when you are trying to flee a room. The governments job is not about eliminating all dangers and fears, its about minimizing, to the best of its ability these things while retaining peoples personal core freedoms. I believe we are afraid of the extremes because we no longer have people representative of us in government, and that they will take away something entirely because they are owned by some special interest. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep trying together to fix what we can.
DeleteAdam, this has been debated endlessly. We've seen what the gun control freaks want. Nothing short of total disarmament will satisfy them.
DeleteYou referred to laws against drunk driving. Those are laws against doing something that cannot be done in a legitimate way that harms no innocent person. There are many things that I can do with a gun that will hurt no one. I carry a gun daily. It's never fired, except at the range. It stays concealed. No one is hurt.
The only principle that I'll accept as the starting point for the discussion is that good citizens have the right to own and carry firearms. Unless that's where we begin, nothing past that point will be acceptable.
I can agree with your starting point, so where do you go from there than?
DeleteImproving the background check system makes sense. There are problems with a lack of reporting. Eliminating gun-free zones is another step. If I've gone through the process to get a carry license, let me carry wherever I go--I'll make an exception for airplanes and nuclear plants, but I don't spend much time in either.
DeleteOther steps have little to do with firearms. Decriminalize drugs, leaving prisons clear for giving longer sentences to violent criminals. Improve the educational system so that it doesn't matter whether a child goes to school in the city, the country, or suburbia. Perhaps create a civil service corps for everyone eighteen to twenty.
Remember that even though the media makes incidents like this into big events, the reality is that America actually has a peaceful society with a low rate of violent crime. What problems we have won't be solved by a magic bullet or by a flurry of laws, but by careful work that respects basic rights and American values.
How would you improve them? Not allow personal sales without background checks? What is the fear about registering fire arms? What if they were for only purchases going forward, including if you sell used guns you have owned for years? I do agree that a lot of the carry laws are strange so are the liqueur laws. I think states should work together better in allowing carry laws to pass from state to state. I know NY is a pain in the ass. Improve education? Meaning that your education is now dependent on where you live? Addressing our drug laws is definitely a serious issue.
DeleteAt the end of the day I do understand where people such as yourself feel, "why should what i care about be taken away or infringed upon when I am a responsible gun owner?" That is and will always be a valid argument. Its really our job to find what can be done to minimize incidents like this and other gun related crime, without jeopardizing honest citizens rights and enjoyments to use a gun if they so choose. The longer we wait on striking a real balance, the greater chance of more draconian laws being passed because of horrible incidents.
"are you seriously questioning The Lancet as a reliable source?"
ReplyDeleteIf I was, dumbfuck, I wouldn't be the only one, read this:
"http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm"
I am not, however,"seriously questioning The Lancet as a reliable source". It is NOT the source of the "statistics" which you're using to bolster your argument (which is a FAIL, regardless your "numbers"). The source of the figures you're relying on is a couple of "studies" that have not been received favorably by either the CDC or medical organizations like the AMA. The methodology used for arriving at those numbers has been called into question and the people who conducted the "study" have not deigned to defend or explain their methodology in anything that I've read.
"I realize that your ADHD prevents you from detailed reading, but drink some Mountain Dew and take your medications, then read down the page. Note that part about Medicare patients?"
Well, first of all, fuckface; my ADD (it's not ADHD, asshole, but thanks for your long distance diagnosis--I find it especially touching, considering how much you dislike the mental healthcare profession, that you would go out of your way to say something incredibly ignorant about someone else's mental health) does not affect my reading comprehension. It does affect my ability to stay on task when doing certain things, especially tasks which are repetitive and have no apparent value, such as talking to gunzloonz.
Re: the medicare numbers, oh yeah, quite interesting, but, regrettably--for you--no citation to primary source. Sorry, dumbfuck, but if you're going to rely on "he said" as a "source" you're going to get laughed off the stage in any debate.
Boy, it's amazing how fast you can move those goalposts.
"But let's be charitable, considering your mental handicaps."
There you go again. Your insults are not original or effective but it's pretty funny to see someone who was trying to keep dog gone from using a photo that he put on his own blog on a post about your being a wannabe gunzslinger and who has complained to mikeb302000 about "tone" resorting to such sordid, common, vulgar repartee.
"Even if you're right and the number's only three times the number of gun deaths, that's still three times the number of gun deaths."
And that means precisely what? What is the connection between someone's deliberately shooting children to death, to someone's shooting their own mother in the face and medical malpractice. Do you somehow equate medical care with mass murder?
I see that you are still mum on the "carz" thing. I can understand why; I mean, you make an incredibly stupid argument of equivalency when there is NONE present so, I can understand why you can't defend it. I would think that a person with some integrity and honesty might admit that they were completely full of shit and admit that they were WRONG. But, then, I remember that I'm dealing with a guy who is so fucking paranoid that he still uses this line:
"The fact is that we can't trust your side. We know what your real goal is."
whenever he feels threatened.
You are truly pathetic.
Democommie, I was polite to you for a long time, but no more. You have never once shown any respect to anyone on my side of the discussion, regardless of how the person commented or whether or not it was the first time. That tells me everything I need to know about you. You're an angry and bitter old shit. Based on the way you operate here, you've been a failure at everything you've tried. Your uncontrolled rage is likely a cover for some deep pain, but at this point, I don't care. Your own actions have lost you any claim to being treated with civility or decency.
Delete"Your insults are not original or effective"
Delete"fuckface"
"Based on the way you operate here, you've been a failure at everything you've tried."
DeleteNo doubt. Look up his photography business online some time. That has failure written all over it. Don't even get me started on his personal life.
What's the name of the business?
DeleteShun him ("democommie") until he learns his lesson. Dogmatism does not deserve a response.
DeleteWell, golly gee, the dogmatic opponent of individual rights wants to shun someone else for dogmatism.
DeleteHow do I oppose individual rights? If anything you oppose them (such as the right to life).
DeleteChickadee, where have I opposed the right to life? People who violate that right are called murderers, and we prosecute and punish them. But that doesn't mean that we should take away choice from those who do no wrong.
DeleteOh, dear, Greggies gonna get all mean on me. Good luck with that one, sonny.
ReplyDeleteYou and your whining pathetic sockpuppet friends go on and on about a right that is apparently so fragile that you spend hours every day on this or other blogs--talking about the one subject that's near and dear to your hearts.
'Based on the way you operate here, you've been a failure at everything you've tried."
No doubt. Look up his photography business online some time. That has failure written all over it. Don't even get me started on his personal life."
It's nice that the gutless piece of shit, Weerdybeardy outs himself occassionally. Been carryin' yore piece to the Pat's games, lately?
Come back when you have a coherent argument to represent your case.
DeleteDon't post the rantings of a schizophrenic.
Obvious troll is obvious.
Delete"Ditto", BC