Thursday, March 7, 2013

In Louisiana They Love Their Guns

U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) speaks during a news conference after Hurricane Isaac in Belle Chasse, Louisiana, August 31, 2012. REUTERS/Jonathan Bachman
Reuters/Reuters - U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) speaks during a news conference after Hurricane Isaac in Belle Chasse, Louisiana, August 31, 2012. REUTERS/Jonathan Bachman

Yahoo News reports

In the gun-friendly state of Louisiana, the backlash against President Barack Obama's proposed restrictions on firearms seems to be everywhere.


It can be seen in the frenzied sales and empty racks at Jim's Firearms store in the state capital, Baton Rouge, where customers have rushed to make purchases as Congress weighs several gun-control bills.

It is evident in the state Legislature, where a series of bills aimed at protecting gun owners' rights have been introduced as a counter-punch to Obama's push in Washington.

It is abundantly clear in the sea of hands that pop up when a congressman asks an overflow crowd in Baton Rouge how many are worried about their constitutional right to bear arms being threatened.
It's also evident in the murder rate of New Orleans, but you won't hear about that from the pro-gun crowd. They only talk about Chicago.

What do you think?  Please leave a comment.

28 comments:

  1. Louisiana is not alone in passing laws like this. Gun control is dividing the country. The harder your side pushes, the more antagonistic things will get.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now, your antagonism is our fault. Don't you have any rules about personal responsibility?

      Delete
    2. Don't play cute--you fail miserably. I've told you all along that it's a basic human right to respond to an attack. Your side is attacking; we're defending.

      Delete
    3. You feel attacked? Just like when you were told to wear a seat belt or risk a fine? Grow up, Greg and take responsibility for your part.

      Delete
    4. Yes, Dipshit, we feel attacked. Not physically, but a political attack on our rights.

      I'm sure you'll accuse us of paranoia, but you're the one who has posted, today, that we need to have our Rights (your word) infringed more than they are already and that we should lose our rights if we make any mistakes whatsoever.

      Fuck you and your constantly changing Alinsky tactics.

      Delete
    5. Risk a FINE. Not wearing a seat belt is an infraction- not a crime. You want to make a bunch of new crimes for us. Would you honestly be happy with only fining us?

      Delete
    6. Mikeb, I do take responsibility. I wear my seat belt because I'm safer when I do. The law shouldn't be involved, even to the degree of a civil infraction, as TS points out. It's my choice.

      Regarding your deepest desires, yes, those are an attack on basic human rights. How would you feel if someone advocated for literacy and intelligence tests for voting? Would you feel that basic rights were being attacked? Would you respond?

      Delete
  2. Nice statistic page. What it says is, is that there are more criminals in the Big Easy which means that the non-criminals need to stock up on guns and ammo. That there is whachya call common sense.

    New orlin sellers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, what it means is you gun rights fanatics are full of shit when you keep citing Chicago and ignoring NOLA.

      Chicago has lots of gun violence IN SPITE OF the gun control laws. New Orleans has lots of gun violence BECAUSE of the loose gun laws.

      See how it works?

      Delete
    2. Chicago has violence because of the banning of the means of defense. NOLA has violence because of societal problems, in spite of good laws on guns and self defense.

      Making unsupported statements works both ways and does not qualify as a winning argument.

      Delete
    3. You silly goose, murders are committed by murderers, not peace-loving, law-biding gun owners. SHEESH!

      New orlin sellers

      Delete
    4. That's called "having your cake and eating it too". You are doing the exact thing you are accusing the pro rights side of. See my comment below. I don't ignore New Orleans.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous, almost all of Chicago's violence is gang and drug related. That's proof that the gun control laws work even there. In The Big Easy, on the other hand, it's not limited to that because every wife-beater and rageaholic can easily own a gun legally.

      Delete
    6. I suppose you have stats to back that up?

      Or are you just pulling that out of your ass to dress up the wild assertion you made above?

      Delete
    7. Do your own homework to prove it wrong. I dare ya.

      Delete
    8. You're the one proposing limits on my freedom. You do the homework to show a compelling need to limit my rights, or Fuck Off.

      Delete
  3. No surprise that the gun death rate (18 per 100,000) in Louisiana is the highest of all states. Not coincidentally, Louisiana is also one of the lowest for number of gun regulation laws. http://news.yahoo.com/more-gun-laws-fewer-deaths-50-state-study-224508338.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mike, we've never had an issue talking about new Orleans here. If you just want to keep it simple and look at NO and Chicago, we could conclude that gun control has nothing to do with murder rates since they are both high in murders with vastly different laws. If we expand that and look everywhere we reach the same conclusion. No correlation. But you knew that from the last dozen or so time we discussed this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly, TS. Mikeb has decided his position before looking at the evidence. No matter what the facts and logic say, he's already made up his mind.

      Delete
    2. Nice try, guys. But it's not that simple and you know that from the last twenty times I explained it. It's perfectly conceivable that if Chicago had loose gun laws, the murders and other violent crimes would be way higher than they are now. On the other hand, if NOLA had strict gun laws, theirs would be much lower.

      Generally speaking, where there are strict gun laws, there are lower rates of murder and violent crime. But, you guys keep denying that, it shows how biased and dishonest you are.

      Delete
    3. Mike, you said "murder" and "violent crime", but what you were thinking about was "gun death". I am not being dishonest, because what I said about murder rates and gun laws is true, and we've proved it here before. You ignore, and deny, and I have to keep reminding you how we've showed you using Brady campaign ratings and FBI data. No you say? Then prove it. Show us right now. I am sure right now you are thinking about a myriad of studies that show how right you are, but go look at them. It's "gun death"- not murder. Go look, I'll wait...

      See? The reason your sides studies don't use murder rates is because there is no correlation.

      Delete
    4. It's neither biased nor dishonest to look at a map of gun laws and gun violence and see that there's no correlation. Plenty of states with good gun laws have low rates of violence. Plenty of states with lots of gun control have high rates.

      What's biases and dishonest is to redefine what correlation means.

      Delete
    5. TS, believe it or not, I know the difference between gun deaths and gun murders. You haven't proven shit to me using the Brady and FBI stats. Saying something or drawing nonsensical conclusions is not proof.

      Delete
    6. I said "gun death vs. murder". Again you inserted "gun" into murder- it is like your subconscious can't help it. What does it mean to you that there is no correlation between Brady scores and murder rates? Why is that nonsense to you?

      Delete
    7. Sorry TS, maybe I'm not following you. Why don't you just say what you mean.

      Delete
    8. Six posts up you said where there are stricter gun laws murder rates are lower. I said that is not true, and that I have showed proof that the correlation between Brady scores and FBI murder stats calculates out to be zero. I've done the calculations myself, and showed you the results. Note that you said "murder rates" Not gun deaths, or gun murders, but overall murders with include means other than guns. When I called you on this, you said you know the difference between gun deaths and gun murders. You inserted "guns" back into the metric when that was not what we were talking about. It is like you can't help it.

      So do you still stand by that statement you made? If so, how do you prove it, or disprove the data that I have shown you in the past that shows zero correlation (murder and violent crime rates as well)? Or you can accept the data and tell me why you don't feel it matters that murder rates don't correlate with gun control. That will be a hard case to make, that is why you side ignores it by making sure they say "gun death", or "gun murder", or "gun suicide". You add the word "gun" to the metric so that you can correlate it to areas with high gun ownership, but what we see when we look at the big picture is that just as many people are dying regardless.

      Delete
    9. Would you show me that again? Or provide a link to your "proof."

      I imagine you did some cherry picking in order to come up with it, but I don't remember.

      The idea that by removing guns from the equation, murderers use other tools and there is NO diminished is absurd. Please show me the "proof."

      Delete