EDITORIAL: Gun grabbers grasp at straws (Actual headline, NOT my wording)

[shadowrider]

Gun grabbers love statistics, especially when they’re misleading. The latest report from the Violence Policy Center (VPC) would have us believe that Americans are lined up at the recycling center ready to toss out their Glocks. The group claims that a firearm protected every other home in 1980 but only one out of three today. It’s a not-so-subtle attempt to convey the message that the anti-Second Amendment crowd is winning. “Despite the short-lived uptick in gun sales that occurred after the election of President Obama, the fact is that gun-free households are an increasing majority while gun-owning households are a shrinking minority,” said VPC Executive Director Josh Sugarmann in a statement Tuesday.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/27/gun-grabbers-grasp-at-straws/

[valhalla]

1. Important to point this out, but...

someone will be along to attack the source.

[beevul]

2. Of course...

Though they have pretty well run away when gun walker gets mentioned, and there just happens to be a plethora of corroborating cites for that. On CBS, which they can not so easily dismiss.

[sasha031]

3. since when has the mooney times been a legit source on DU

[jaxx]

4. Must be since yesterday when I saw it used then too for guns.

Makes you wonder!

[sasha031]

5. it's common knowledge that source is extreme right wing

and certainly not reliable.

[shadowrider]

6. Do you have a comment regarding CONTENT? n/t

[sasha031]

7. wouldn't consider even clicking such a link

[cleanhippie]

14. Of course not. No need to contradict those biases, right?

[gejohnston]

9. no, you know what they say about broken clocks

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Euromutt]

41. So if, hypothetically, the WaTi ran an impassioned op-ed piece...

...decrying the amount of gun violence in American society and the loosening of gun laws, as USA Today did a week or so ago (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2011-04-24-state-gun-laws-radical.htm see DU thread here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x406138), you would reject its message on the basis of the source alone?

Or would you hail it as an encouraging sign that even some right-wingers are turning against gun rights?

[jpak]

43. The Moonie Times is the Go-To source for straw grabbers

yup

[Euromutt]

62. I refer you to my post #41 above

Say, you were the one who started that thread about the USA Today editorial, weren't you?

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Upton]

10. "we really don't need you people"

Just what do you mean by "you people"??? Who are you referring to?

And, instead of attacking the source, why not try to come up with some facts to refute their claims?

[HankyDubs]

11. which claim?

"While Mr. Sugarmann is right to credit Mr. Obama as the greatest firearms salesman in world history..."

That one? I'd say that's pretty far off the mark. The sort of freeper-moonie claim that we don't need at DU.

"As the number of guns per capita increased, the violent crime rate has fallen - down 6.2 percent last year, according to the FBI."

Or that one? Easy--correlation does not equal causation.

[Upton]

13. Oh really?

Weapons dealers in much of the United States are reporting sharply higher sales since Barack Obama won the presidency a week ago.

Buyers and sellers attribute the surge to worries that Obama and a Democratic-controlled Congress will move to restrict firearm ownership, despite the insistence of campaign aides that the president-elect supports gun rights and considers the issue a low priority.

According to FBI figures for the week of November 3 to 9, the bureau received more than 374,000 requests for background checks on gun purchasers -- a nearly 49 percent increase over the same period in 2007. Conatser said his store, Virginia Arms Company, has run out of some models -- such as the AR-15 rifle, the civilian version of the military's M-16 -- and is running low on others.

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-11-11/justice/obama.gun.sales_1_gun-shop-brady-campaign-gun-owner?_s=PM:CRIME

Maybe not so far off the remark after all. The election of Obama has done wonders for gun sales..

[HankyDubs]

15. this is exactly

why the moonie times editorial page is not a reliable source of information.

Mr Obama did not sell any guns. Blatant racism and irrational "gun grabber" fear sold these guns. Not Mr. Obama.

[rl6214]

29. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah

Those who first call racism are really...

Well, all it took was a Dem Pres with a history of anti gun, a Dem House with a history of high profile members that are anti gun, a Dem VP with a history of anti gun and helped write the last AWB, a Dem Senate with high profile members with a history of advancing anti gun legislature.

You wanna rethink this statement?

"Blatant racism and irrational "gun grabber" fear sold these guns"

[HankyDubs]

31. nope

Racism and irrational fear sold those guns. Mr. Obama didn't sell a single one.

Have fun reading the moonie times.

[Euromutt]

63. Good grief, that's pretty weak

It's not uncommon to use the term "salesman" as a figure of speech. You could refer to Robert Young as a "salesman" for Sanka, or Brad Pitt as a "salesman" for Roots canned coffee (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYsV4yK0xW8), even though neither ever directly sold a container of the product to a consumer.

I will acknowledge that the line "the public might draw the obvious conclusion that the repeal of useless gun-control restrictions like the so-called assault-weapons ban has only made us safer" was poorly phrased; it would have been more accurate to say that the repeal of the so-called assault-weapons ban has not made us any less safe.

That said, however, isn't it remarkable how proponents of increased gun control pull out the argument that "correlation does not equal causation" when empirical evidence shows that the number of guns in private hands have gone up while violent crime rates have gone down, but (conveniently) forget that argument when increased sales of firearms are accompanied by an increase in violent crime, or when comparisons are made between gun laws in the United States and various western European countries?

The fact is that proponents of increased gun control have repeatedly asserted that American violent crime levels are due to the fact that "there are too many guns on our streets," or words to that effect, thereby claiming that correlation does equal causation. I won't dispute that correlation does not equal causation, but somebody needs to tell the Brady Campaign, the VPC, MAIG etc. that before they choose to lecture pro-gun types.

[shadowrider]

12. If you choose not to read info from the source, that's your business

Me? I prefer to read a variety of articles and opinions from a variety of sources. It's the only way I can see, firsthand, what the opposition is up to, and NOT rely on second or thirdhand "he said, she said" (and vice versa) heresay.

As far as believing this kind of "shit", praytell, what do you find incorrect about the article that you classify it as "shit" or did you just see the source and not read the article?

[HankyDubs]

16. your source is a steaming pile of right wing shit

the moonie times editorial page? Seriously, you should go back to quoting Charles Krauthammer.

[shadowrider]

17. Your opinion is your opinion and you're entitled to it n/t

[HankyDubs]

18. its not an opinion

it's a fact. The Washington Times editorial page is a cesspool of right wing insanity.

You cited it, probably for no other reason than the title.

Do you really read this paper?

[gejohnston]

20. editorial pages are rarely worth reading

but on this issue liberal/conservative trade places for some reason.

[RSillsbee]

24. You have to admit the title is pretty accurate NT

[HankyDubs]

25. the title is a misrepresentation

so its not surprising that you like it.

[RSillsbee]

28. I realize this is stricly an opinion but

After reading some of the pro restriction posts in this sub forum I'd say that title is spot on

[HankyDubs]

30. if you want to promote a hysterical misrepresentation

that's ok with me.

[RSillsbee]

36. If you want to ignore the emotion based hysteria of your brethren

that's ok with me.

[HankyDubs]

37. if you want to embrace the fear-based emotions of your brethren

that's ok with me.

[RSillsbee]

59. Fear based emotion?

I thought fear was and emotion

[HankyDubs]

67. exactly my point

you call gun control proponents "emotional" as if that were some sort of insult, but gun "rights" advocates play on emotion all the time. Fear of minorities. Fear of the government. Fear of a faceless crimial so you can play the knight in shining armor in the fantasy in your heads.

[RSillsbee]

68. Is it still fear when it's real

I'm not afraid of minorities or faceless criminals ( the few I've run into it was over before I had time)

The government? OK you got me them I'm a trifle nervous about

[HankyDubs]

71. is it still real when its grief

grief at another senseless slaughter, another spouse murdered, another mass shooting?

[RSillsbee]

72. Absolutely

But you are talking about criminal acts. Why should my civil liberties be curtailed because of the actions of criminals?

[RSillsbee]

21. You know, he asked you a pretty specific question

What do you find incorrect about the article that you classify it as "shit"?

So if the source is so blatantly wrong you shouldn't have any problem pointing out specifically what is incorrect about the article.


Or you could just duck and weave

[HankyDubs]

22. already done

scroll up

[RSillsbee]

27. Ok I see some answers

can you back any of them up w/ fact? I know Obama per se didn't sell any guns bu tI know quite a few people who specifically bought guns because they thought Obama was going to ban guns because of his previous pro restriction history with no reference to his ethnicity at all

[beevul]

69. Uhh...Charles Krauthammer is on the side of the gun banners. N/T

[iverglas]

51. it's a fucking EDITORIAL, not an article

An editorial in the Moonie Times,

Who the hell cares WHAT it says??

So I read it anyhow.

“Despite the short-lived uptick in gun sales that occurred after the election of President Obama, the fact is that gun-free households are an increasing majority while gun-owning households are a shrinking minority,” said VPC Executive Director Josh Sugarmann in a statement Tuesday.

Kewl. Thanks for sharing that!

[Doctor_J]

61. Jeez, you're proving my point

Thanks!

I prefer to read a variety of articles and opinions from a variety of sources.

Hope the World Nut Daily, Sludge Report, Moonie Times, and Fox Lies are entertaining. TO me, that makes you a moron

It's the only way I can see, firsthand, what the opposition is up to

Sorry, thanks for playing. You're addicted to NRA propaganda. First step to recovery is admitting it.

As far as believing this kind of "shit", praytell, what do you find incorrect about the article that you classify it as "shit" or did you just see the source and not read the article?

Everything from the Moonie Times the other sources in my previous post is right-wing horseshit. They also say that Obama is a socialist, a marxist, a Kenyan national, a Muslim, raised taxes, and wants to replace every church and temple in the US with a madrassa. That's your source for this steaming pile of crap. If you believe it, you're no better than the Glen Beck addicts

Hopefully you'll get to read this before it's deleted.

[petronius]

19. Does it matter? Assuming it's true that fewer households contain guns, is that bad?

It's clear that gun laws across the country are becoming increasingly liberal, with fewer restrictions on those who choose to exercise the right to keep and bear arms. As long as my rights were protected, why would it matter if the percentage of households without guns went up (again, assuming that's the case)?

I'd consider that good news as well: if more people who don't want guns don't have them, that's fewer unattended and perhaps improperly stored firearms floating around. But placed next to the legislative trends, it hardly suggests that the anti-rights crowd is 'winning' anything...

[shadowrider]

23. Agreed, but the rhetoric makes it SEEM like they're winning

when in fact their a**es are being handed to them on a silver platter, weekly if not daily.

More guns in the hands of those who want them AND who know how to treat them with the care and respect they should be treated with is not a bad thing. I just hate it when blatant misconceptions are raised in an attempt to REMOVE those same weapons from law abiding people.

[rl6214]

26. You mean the VPC and "gun grabbers" would say something misleading

(LIE) That's just crazy:crazy:

Nothing new here, it's been done for years.

[bahrbearian]

32. The increase of cameras has decreased crime

[spin]

40. I agree that that might be one of the largest driving factors..

cameras are everywhere.

[bahrbearian]

33. Improved forensics has decreased crime

[spin]

39. Quite possibly. Many factors influence the violent crime rate ...

and I personally attribute proactive policing as one of the prime causes for the decrease.

The interesting fact is that it would be logical to assume that the skyrocketing sales of firearms would have led to an increase in crime. It didn't. If the availability of firearms and the quantity of such weapons in civilian hands were extremely important factors, the violent crime rate would have definitely increased. But the sales we have seen in recent years are proof that more guns does not equal more crime.

There is a possibility that wise criminals who fear armed civilians more than they fear police have decided to avoid confrontations with armed citizens. Because of the spread of concealed carry licenses in our country, a predator who once felt safe attacking a victim on the street now realizes that it's hard to determine if the prey has teeth and can fight back. A robber who once felt safe entering an occupied home will now wait until the home is unoccupied.

The reality is that there is no way to prove that more guns = less crime. Still since more guns does not lead to more crime even in a troubled economy, there is no reason to launch campaigns to pass draconian gun laws such as another assault weapons ban. We should instead work to improve and better enforce our existing laws.

[bahrbearian]

34. More Boomer's hitting retirement has decreased crime

[bahrbearian]

35. Ect. Ect. Ect.

[spin]

47. delete...replied to wrong post. (n/t)

[Euromutt]

65. It's spelled "etc."

Short for "et cetera," Latin for "and so forth".

[jpak]

42. "EDITORIAL: Gun grabbers" are right & the NRA is wrong on gun ownership

straw grasping fail

yup

[Hoyt]

44. Why is that hard to believe. Most gun sales are going to the same old weapons hoarders.

They gotta have the latest killing machine, and many have to have two or more.

But gun manufacturers are thankful for the compulsive gun hoarders and those building their weapons caches for god knows what purpose.

[bahrbearian]

45. I've increased my hoard from buying guns from Repuk friends that went bankrupt.

They keep calling me making sure I keep "their" guns clean. They think I'm suppose to return the guns when "Shit hits the Fan" They seem to need a lot of money for attorney fees.

[oneshooter]

46. Did you ever get a definition for "cache".

Or do you just like the word?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[bahrbearian]

49. Storing food is a cache. Storing Data is a cache.

Having more guns than you can use is ??

[gejohnston]

58. a collection, like cars

[Euromutt]

64. The word implies concealment

"Cache" is derived from the French cacher, meaning to hide. A gun safe in one's garage is not a cache; a bunch of guns and ammunition encased in PVC pipe and buried in the woods is.

[RSillsbee]

66. Interesting (to me) sidenote

There is a street here in Co Springs named Cache Le Poudre

[oneshooter]

70. There is also a river(stream?) called that.

Many early names were given to items due to the use. Early Mountain Men would cache powder and lead next to landmarks. To be recovered later when needed.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[RSillsbee]

60. Two or more. ?

Seriously? If you ever get a look in my gunsafe you are going to shit your britches

[spin]

74. Perhaps I would only own one gun if I thought its only reason was to kill ...

However I enjoy target shooting handguns but also own firearms and carry for self defense.

A .22 caliber target pistol is an excellent choice for target shooting and will teach you the basics of shooting all without a nasty recoil. It can be used for self defense, but it lacks stopping power.


Ruger Mark III .22 cal

Possibly the best handgun for informal target shooting, hunting and self defense in the home is a .38/.357 magnum revolver. This very versatile firearm can shoot low recoiling target loads all the way to hard hitting (and recoiling) hunting ammunition. Such a revolver can be an excellent home defense weapon but is often difficult to conceal if you have a carry permit and live in a warm environment.



My personal choice for a concealed carry weapon is a .38 caliber snub nosed revolver. The S&W Model 642 is an extremely light and easy to carry firearm. On the way out the door, I drop it and its pocket holster into my pants pocket and I'm off.



Over 50 years of target shooting I have accumulated several other firearms including .45 automatics, a S&W .44 magnum, several rifles and a 12 gauge coach gun. I've enjoyed the challenge of shooting these firearms and have never used any of these weapons in an irresponsible manner.

To someone unfamiliar with shooting, I can understand why such a person would find owning a collection of weapons somewhat unusual, but golfers use a bag of different clubs in their sport and those who enjoy fishing often own a wide assortment of gear.

You might consider the hobbies that you enjoy and ask yourself why you invest money in such activities. While it is true that firearms are weapons and were originally designed as killing weapons, they can be legitimately used for hunting and target shooting as well as self defense and many enjoy collecting firearms as an investment. Obviously using a firearm to murder or to commit other crimes is a misuse and illegal, but only a small minority of gun owners use their weapons irresponsibly.

[spin]

48. As I read through the replies to the OP, I find many criticize the source ...

If the source is using false statistics or exaggerating facts then it is fair to point this out.

While I have been a registered Democrat since the 70's and my father and uncle were life long Democrats who worked in the steel mills of Pittsburgh, I am also a strong supporter of firearm rights and the Second Amendment.

Often posts in the Gungeon from those who post in favor of gun control are from sources that Republicans would label as left wing or liberal. I read and consider the information in those posts carefully and if I disagree (as I often do), I reply with my criticism and back it up with statistics and facts.

In the OP in this thread, it was stated that by the Washington Times the Violence Policy Center stated that "that a firearm protected every other home in 1980 but only one out of three today." The Times then went on to say, "While Mr. Sugarmann is right to credit Mr. Obama as the greatest firearms salesman in world history, gun sales are not on the decline." The newspaper backed its view of increasing firearms sales up with data from the FBI NICS background check system which said that 14.4 million background checks were preformed in 2010.

First I checked on the figure of 14.4 million background checks in 2010 and verified that there were indeed 14,409,616 checks. source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/2010-oper... Despite the source, that data is accurate.

Then I looked at the VPC report which is at:http://www.vpc.org/studies/ownership.pdf I found the following info.

Since the early 1970s the General Social Survey has asked the question: “Do you happen to have in
your home (if house: or garage) any guns or revolvers?” According to the GSS data available2 for
the years 1973 to 2010 detailed in the chart below:
# From 1977 to 2010, the percentage of American households that reported having any
guns in the home dropped more than 40 percent.
# During this period household gun ownership hit its peak in 1977, when more than half
(54 percent) of American households reported having any guns. By 2010, this
number had dropped more than 20 percentage points to a low during this period of
32.3 percent of American households reporting having any guns in the home.
# In 2010, less than a third of American households reported having a gun in the home.

Just who is the General Social Survey?

The General Social Survey (GSS) is a sociological survey used to collect data on demographic characteristics and attitudes of residents of the United States. The survey is conducted face-to-face with an in-person interview by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, of a randomly-selected sample of adults (18+) who are not institutionalized. The survey was conducted every year from 1972 to 1994 (except in 1979, 1981, and 1992). Since 1994, it has been conducted every other year. The survey takes about 90 minutes to administer. As of 2010 28 national samples with 55,087 respondents and 5,417 variables had been collected. The data collected about this survey includes both demographic information and respondent's opinions on matters ranging from government spending to the state of race relations to the existence and nature of God. Because of the wide range of topics covered, and the comprehensive gathering of demographic information, survey results allow social scientists to correlate demographic factors like age, race, gender, and urban/rural upbringing with beliefs, and thereby determine whether, for example, an average middle-aged black male respondent would be more or less likely to move to a different U.S. state for economic reasons than a similarly situated white female respondent; or whether a highly educated person with a rural upbringing is more likely to believe in a transcendent God than a person with an urban upbringing and only a high-school education.emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Social_Survey emphasis added

My daughter worked on the 2010 census and had a difficult time getting any answers from a surprising number of people to what were far less controversial questions than, “Do you happen to have in your home (if house: or garage) any guns or revolvers?”. Considering the animosity many expressed towards her and the simple questions she was required to ask, she was thankful that she didn't have to question them on firearm ownership. She often had a hard time finding out how many people lived in a house.

Therefore, I suspect the results of the "face to face" survey conducted by the GSS has questionable accuracy especially on how many households actually have firearms. People who own firearms and fear a confiscation by Obama would never tell a stranger taking an official survey that they own any! I would, because I know the government is well aware that I own firearms and I don't believe that Obama and the Democrats have any plans to confiscate my firearms.

Just because a newspaper or site is favors the right doesn't mean that they are always wrong just as a newspaper or site that favors progressives is always right. The data and facts they both present deserve careful consideration and discussion. In this particular thread the survey used by the VPC may indeed be unreliable because of the reluctance of many people to admit to a stranger taking a survey that they own firearms and therefore far more then 1/3 of the households in the United States may have firearms inside.

[iverglas]

50. "actual headline", great big snork

I guess there weren't any two-headed cows born that day.

:rofl:

[beevul]

53. Do make sure you remind everyone in the thread how lovely it is...

Do make sure you remind everyone how lovely it is that they "think attacking the speaker instead of the speech constitutes civil / democratic discourse."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=408879&mesg_id=409678



Wouldn't want anyone coming to the conclusion that you're some kind of hypocrite now would you?




:rofl:

[iverglas]

54. my some kind of hypocrite?

Dunno about that!

Somebody made a great big point about how this was an ACTUAL HEADLINE!!!

I thought that was pretty funny.

Donchoo??

[iverglas]

55. oh dear, you seem to have missed something

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=409492&mesg_id=409685

I read the "article". And commented.

There's none so blind ...

[beevul]

56. Maybe you can show me where I claimed you didn't.

I just enjoy pointing out how you so enthusiastically criticise those that disagree with you on this, such as stating that we "think attacking the speaker instead of the speech constitutes civil / democratic discourse"...

While turning a blind eye to it with equal enthusiasm when people you agree with on the gun issue do it.



Hyporcite, is the word that describes such things.

And recorded for all to see, no less.



You really aren't as good at this as you used to be.

[iverglas]

57. oh, my dear chappie

I wasn't attacking anything or anybody.

I was laughing.

You seem to think that a post about / link to the Moonie Times was meant to be taken seriously!

I know, you folks down there just don't get dry humour. ;)

[cleanhippie]

73. oh, SNAP!

:rofl:

[onehandle]

52. Yes. DUers are So interested in the opinion of the mooniegop times.

Not that anyone will see it here.