Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drunks

Thursday, January 10, 2013

"Fox Affiliate Thoroughly Debunks Piers Morgan’s Gun Homicide Statistics"

Posted by on Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:56 AM

So Piers Morgan has been misleading the American public? Let's read and see how...

After playing a clip of Morgan’s interview with radio host Alex Jones, WXIX’s Ben Swann said, “The stat that Piers Morgan was continuing to cite, one that Great Britain which banned guns about fifteen years ago had only 35 gun-related murders in 2011 compared to the United States which had 11,000. Let’s start there because that number is not correct.”

Swann then broke down the FBI crime statistics for 2011, showing that there were 12,664 homicides in the US. Of those, 8,583 were caused by firearms.

“But of those,” said Swann, “400 are listed as justifiable homicide by law enforcement, 260 justifiable homicide by private citizens.”

As such, Morgan has been routinely citing an incorrect figure for the U.S.

Morgan was also misstating Britain’s gun-related homicide rate in 2011 which was actually 59 NOT the 35 he repeats over and over again...

As you can see, the gun people don't have a solid argument to stand on. If the population of the UK were the same as that of the US, its 59 gun-related murders would only translate to about 300 murders. Why are the gun people even trying to make an argument based on numbers and statistics? They should stay away from reality and stick to the only ground that can support their stupidity, ideology.

By the way, Obama will not deport Morgan.

 

Comments (80) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
59 gun-related homicides in the UK versus at least 7500+ gun-related homicides in the US still reflects badly on the US.
Posted by Patricia Kayden on January 10, 2013 at 9:03 AM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 2
Now let's see some stats on how many of those 7,500 were gang/drug-related.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on January 10, 2013 at 9:09 AM · Report this
Arsenic7 3
I don't see how that makes a difference in this context, 5280.
Posted by Arsenic7 on January 10, 2013 at 9:16 AM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 4
Of course you don't. But the fact remains that the cultural differences between America and England make comparing the two a case of "apples and oranges."

My guess, and I have nothing to back this up (because as far as I know, nobody keeps track of this) would be that, if you remove the drugs and the gang-bangers from the equation, the numbers would be roughly comparable.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on January 10, 2013 at 9:23 AM · Report this
5
Yawn.
Posted by CPN on January 10, 2013 at 9:23 AM · Report this
Asparagus! 6
Pssssst, they have drugs in England too.
Posted by Asparagus! on January 10, 2013 at 9:26 AM · Report this
Asparagus! 7
Psssssst, they also have gangs in England.
Posted by Asparagus! on January 10, 2013 at 9:27 AM · Report this
8
It's funny though how they will Google for blogs with any mention of gun control and try to dominate conversation with emotional blather that has nothing to do with public safety. How is it they have so much free time? Are they seniors or unsupervised children or criminals under house arrest?
Posted by school district blogs don't need gun nut drool on January 10, 2013 at 9:31 AM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 9
OK, I was able to come up with one stat. 74% are gang-related. That may or may not be ddrug-related, as there's considerable overlap. But it gives you an idea what I'm talking about.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on January 10, 2013 at 9:33 AM · Report this
10
Anytime someone like 5280 makes a statement like that -- clearly predicated on the idea that the UK is some lily-white, hermetically sealed anachronistic impression from his childhood viewing of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang -- it proves him to be the worst kind of Proudly Ignorant American Exceptionalist.

The rest of the world: it's diverse/complicated/messy/interesting too!
Posted by d.p. on January 10, 2013 at 9:36 AM · Report this
11
@10, I have to assume that people like him are behind the NRA's push to stop gun buy back programs. They enjoy the effects gun violence has on Heston's "certain ethnic minorities."
Posted by GermanSausage on January 10, 2013 at 9:39 AM · Report this
12
tl;dr The UK has gangs, drugs, blight, crime. And plenty of it. Still far fewer gun-related homicides, and, thusly, far fewer homicides in total.
Posted by d.p. on January 10, 2013 at 9:40 AM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 13
And this is precisely why you guys will never "get it." America doesn't have a "gun problem," it has a "race problem." Always will — the "gun problem" is just a symptom. Go ahead and treat the symptom instead of the disease — all the while calling anyone who identifies the disease a racist — and you're still going to lose the patient.

I don't care. I'm getting old. Fuck it up however you want, I won't be around to see the end result. Thank God.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on January 10, 2013 at 9:49 AM · Report this
14
More to the point, the UK's ban on guns did very little to reduce their overall homicide rates. Plenty of statistics here:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication…

(Page 2 - relevant file is 'Historical crime data')

And here: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication…

You'll notice that from 1980 to 1997, the per capita homicide rate was an average of 11.2 (per million). Handguns were banned in 1997. From 1997 to 2002, per capita homicide INCREASED to a maximum of 17.9 (per million) in 2002. (Mostly due, I believe, to Shipman) it has trended downward since then, averaging 12.9 from 2003-2011 with 11.5 (per million) in 2011.

While firearms are currently responsible for a miniscule number of deaths (.07 per 100k) their use has been replaced with sharp and blunt instruments. Additionally, per capita rates of at-home burglaries, assault and sexual assault are much higher in the UK and have gone up since the handgun ban. During that same time period, in the USA, virtually all crime has gone down.
Posted by randoma on January 10, 2013 at 9:57 AM · Report this
Lew Siffer 15
Yeah, no one likes to admit that whites aren't the ones commiting the bulk of gun homicides.
Posted by Lew Siffer on January 10, 2013 at 10:19 AM · Report this
16
@13: Well, there are some diseases where you have to treat the symptoms instead of the disease itself, aren't there? Some things can't be cured, so all you can do is try to control the fever and hope the patient gets better. I know, I've carried the metaphor about three steps too far.
Posted by jzimbert on January 10, 2013 at 10:22 AM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 17
Doesn't the UK take a little better care of its citizens though? Yeah, they have gangs and drugs and race problems like the US does, but they also provide health care to everyone. Do they have ghettos and slums like the US, where people wallow in misery for decades? Do they sling massive numbers of people in prison for minor offenses and then simply toss them out into the street when their sentence is over?

I mean, I don't know how socialist the UK really is, but if the government takes better care of the people, maybe the people don't feel so helpless and hopeless to the point of not caring about their own or anyone else's life and go on a killing spree?
Posted by Urgutha Forka on January 10, 2013 at 10:22 AM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 18
I don't even buy subtracting the so-called "justifiable" homicides by police and our well regulated [sic] militia. Many of those would never have escalated to the point of shooting at all if our society were not flooded with guns, thanks to the NRA, "the criminal's best friend".

It isn't just pencil-dicked losers with Walter Mitty fantasies who make up our crazed gun culture. It's criminals too. They believe the gun hype. And it's the "law abiding" gun owners who supply the gun food chain, feeding the legal, quasi-legal, and illegal transfers of weapons that arms the criminals. Which leads to somebody getting shot.

Sometimes it's the good guy, sometimes it's the bad guy. But somebody getting shot happens because of all the guns out there.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on January 10, 2013 at 10:23 AM · Report this
19
@15

According to Mother Jones, 71% of mass shootings in the last 30 years were committed by white males.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012…
Posted by CPN on January 10, 2013 at 10:35 AM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 20
Ah, yes. This is my favorite part, where Tinkerbell spreads the magic fairy dust and makes 300,000,000 guns disappear. Do keep going.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on January 10, 2013 at 10:36 AM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 21
@19, yeah, and that accounted for what, 1% of the body count? Mass shootings, much as the media loves them, make up about 70 deaths a year on average.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on January 10, 2013 at 10:39 AM · Report this
22
@13 Is it possible that America has both a race problem and a gun problem?
Posted by Ken Mehlman on January 10, 2013 at 10:41 AM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 23
@13

You need to say this more. You make so many arguments that don't make sense. If you really believed what you say, you'd not be saying it.

But when you bring in your racism, it makes perfect sense. Like here you linked to a racist rant on a really shitty web site that went on about unstoppable hordes of black animals who need an elephant gun to bring them down, and the waves and waves of armed Mexicans flooding our borders. You called this racist shit " intelligent thoughts".

Obviously you're wrong about the supremacy of the white race, and all the conclusions that follow from that, but at least you're logic is sound. And you're never going to get your fellow whites to wake up and see the "race problem" if you don't talk about it.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on January 10, 2013 at 10:41 AM · Report this
24
So excited about the www.standupwa.org march and rally this Sunday at 1:30.
Posted by Sandman on January 10, 2013 at 10:48 AM · Report this
25
5280 just doesn't get it.

America doesn't have a "gun problem," it has a "race problem."

And the UK has all manner of "race problems", too. Some unique to an ex-Colonial power, many you'd find perfectly familiar.

Oh, and Australia got rid of the (assault-type) guns. Yes, all of them. And severely restricted the handguns. Took a few years and a great deal of concerted effort, but yes, they basically made them disappear from the landscape with Tinkerbell fairy dust.

Your utter ignorance of the world outside your Rocky Mountain bubble continues to leave me aghast.

Urgutha @17:

Do they have ghettos and slums like the US, where people wallow in misery for decades?

Sadly, yes. Despite the healthcare and the better bottom-rung safety net than we have, income disparity in the UK has exploded since the policies of the Thatcher era reached full bloom. There is, in fact, intractable poverty. Thus the drugs and gangs and London being one of the less safe cities in Europe in which to walk alone at night.

You're still far more likely to get shot in Denver.
Posted by d.p. on January 10, 2013 at 10:49 AM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 26
@23, anybody who could call one word that my bud Mas Ayoob writes "racist" is clearly so clueless it's not even deserving of a response. Maybe you should Wiki him before blowing off.

But you've already lost all credibility here thanks to your hysteria anyway. Nobody cares what you think any more.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on January 10, 2013 at 10:52 AM · Report this
27
@21, The difference is, the majority of victims from mass shootings are predominately white and middle-to-upper class. The majority of victims of homicide, as a whole, are poor non-whites, so no one gives a shit.

http://readersupportednews.org/news-sect…

If people were actually interested in reducing gun crime, they wouldn't be concentrating on "assault weapons", but would be concentrating on handguns. Incidentally, Mother Jones appears to be classifying any scary looking rifle as an "assault weapon" including a Ruger 10/22 and a bolt-action Ruger, in both cases, a handgun was the 'preferred' weapon. Actual "assault weapons" as defined by the ban was more like 10 and half of those were actually "assault pistols" (Uzi, Tec-9..etc.)
Posted by randoma on January 10, 2013 at 10:55 AM · Report this
28
@25, And yet, despite Australia getting rid of a lot of firearms (households with firearms reduced by 50%), armed burglary rates still track at the same percentage of all burglary rates (whups, guess criminals still have about the same percentage of firearms), assaults and sexual assaults are up significantly and homicides are down marginally - in fact, the trend in homicide reduction is less than what it was before the firearms bans. On the plus side, there haven't been any mass shootings yet!

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent…
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent…
Posted by randoma on January 10, 2013 at 11:02 AM · Report this
29
@27 Requiring that all legally owned handguns be registered with the federal government, that all transfers of gun ownership be approved through the instant background check system, and that all thefts of firearms be reported to the police would go a long way toward keeping guns out of the hands of bad guys.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on January 10, 2013 at 11:02 AM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 30
Maybe. Maybe not. We could argue that all day, but we don't have to, because that would be unconstitutional.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on January 10, 2013 at 11:08 AM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 31
@26

I don't believe you think nobody listens to me, because you obviously are desperate to make me shut up. If nobody cared what I thought, what is driving you to silence me? You know every time you reply to me it makes your tens of thousands of loyal fans read my posts, right?

On the other hand, I want you to post more. I want you to link more to Massad Ayoob's words. Tell your story. Do you have more articles like "Why Good People Need Semiautomatic Firearms and High Capacity” Magazines Part I"? Holy crap this is only Part 1 of a series! Link to Part 2! Please?

Your opinions on our "race problem" are extremely helpful in clarifying this discussion. Stop censoring yourself and show us where stand. Open up, will you? Tell us how you really feel.

I'd even offer you a deal. I'll post less if you will post more of this stuff like the Ayoob assault weapon's are for darkies essay. Deal?
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on January 10, 2013 at 11:14 AM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 32
Au contraíre, my dear, I don't want you to shut up. I want you to grow up.

Let me know when that happens.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on January 10, 2013 at 11:20 AM · Report this
keshmeshi 33
@14,

sexual assault are much higher in the UK and have gone up since the handgun ban


Much higher than what? Than it was before? Are you trying to imply that's because guns were banned? You do know that the vast majority of rapes are committed by acquaintances and so guns on either side would never enter the equation, right? And, the UK, up until two years ago, had a lower sexual assault rate than the U.S. Does that mean the proliferation of guns in the U.S. causes rape?
Posted by keshmeshi on January 10, 2013 at 11:21 AM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 34
@30

Why is it constitutional to regulate machine guns but not all guns? It makes no sense. There's nothing in the Second Amendment that draws a special line between types of guns. The Second Amendment specifically empowers the legislature to draw these lines. I know some activist judges have made up reasons to draw lines here or there or over there, but that's activist judges for you. Nothing in the Second Amendment tells you that handguns can't be regulated but rocket launchers can.

Otherwise, what is the constitutional justification for the regulation of machine guns and mortars and missiles?
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on January 10, 2013 at 11:23 AM · Report this
Knat 35
And of course NewsBusters - paragon of journalistic integrity that they are - don't link to the full clips, only to a local Fox affiliate who has already greatly edited the segment, making Alex Jones look nearly credible, not the foaming-at-the-mouth conspiracy theorist nut that he is (or acts as when near a microphone), and clearly came off as during his appearance.

I will concede their point that facts largely don't matter to Piers Morgan, given his history, but still I have to agree with his sentiment that watching Alex Jones is the best argument one could have for sensible gun control.
Posted by Knat on January 10, 2013 at 11:27 AM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 36
@32

"Grow up" is how white supremacists try to badger non-racists. Grow up. Wake up. Can't you see? It's right there!

They're SO BLACK! Can't you see?
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on January 10, 2013 at 11:28 AM · Report this
37
@27
"The majority of victims of homicide, as a whole, are poor non-whites, so no one gives a shit."

Except as statistics to be tossed about by such "white and middle-to-upper class" people.
I've said it before and I'll keep saying it.
If the staff at The Stranger was really interested in this subject (more than just grief porn) then they would have a column on all the shootings (whether anyone was hit or not) that happen in Seattle.
Including as many details on those shootings as possible.
Who, specifically, is shooting what at whom and why.

But that won't happen because real facts don't bring as many advertising hits as grief porn does.
And the real facts might just show that your grief porn assumptions are wrong.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on January 10, 2013 at 11:29 AM · Report this
38
@33, Actually, apparently since the US figures for sexual assault are going down, and the UK figures are going up, while the reverse is true for gun ownership, I guess you said it perfectly.

Nice cherry picking though.
Posted by randoma on January 10, 2013 at 11:29 AM · Report this
39
@34, Actually any citizen (who is not a felon..etc.) can own a pre-1986 machine gun. You just have to find one, have the funds ($5-40k, probably), pay the $200 tax and wait 6 months for your stamp. Approximately half of the 240,000 pre-1986 machine guns in circulation are owned by private citizens.
Posted by randoma on January 10, 2013 at 11:35 AM · Report this
Posted by d.p. on January 10, 2013 at 11:37 AM · Report this
Max Solomon 41
@13: then get out of the way and stop commenting on this topic.
Posted by Max Solomon on January 10, 2013 at 11:44 AM · Report this
42
Mmm hmmm, @30.

Background checks: already pass constitutional muster.
Reporting of various property transfers: already passes constitutional muster.
Reporting of theft of various types of property (e.g. controlled substances): already passes constitutional muster.

None of these things even remotely "infringe" upon ownership in any way.

You're full of shit as usual, gunboy.

Posted by d.p. on January 10, 2013 at 11:47 AM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 43
@39

I understand that. It's proof that air-tight regulations are not necessary. It's proof that by making it harder to own a particular gun, you end up with fewer of them on the street. It's proof that an assault weapons law doesn't need to be perfect. Those 240,000-some machine guns aren't floating around in the hands of petty criminals because they're in the hands of people who value them and make damn sure they don't lose them. We could make all guns objects of respect instead of cheap toys to be thrown around carelessly the same way.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on January 10, 2013 at 11:48 AM · Report this
44
@40, Why don't you look at the figures published by the Australian Government, or did they just make shit up? If you actually read the Snopes article, the letter referenced does not say what I said. Nice try though.

However, the best part of the Snopes article is the last line:

"And no matter what the outcome of that analysis, the results aren't necessarily applicable to the USA, where laws regarding gun ownership are (and always have been) much different than those in Australia."

Tell you what - I'll stop posting facts about Australia (and the UK, or wherever) when people stop trying to point at Australia as this gun-free utopia where there is no relationship between gun ownership and crime.

By the way, here's Australia's stats on homicides:

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicid…

You'll notice that the downward trend does not accelerate, or change much, in the post-ban years.

The problem is that you, and others like you, are trying to have it both ways - you want to point at Australia and say, "Hey! Look! No guns! No gun-homicides!" and at the same time you don't want to look at the actual numbers. Of course, you are given extra ammunition because the majority of gun-nuts that are given TV time are crazy! (Yes, I think La Pierre, the writer of the Snopes letter, the NRA and others like them do more harm than good.)
Posted by randoma on January 10, 2013 at 11:53 AM · Report this
45
@43, "Assault weapons" aren't "floating around in the hands of petty criminals" either. "Assault weapons" are used in a very small percentage of overall crime and homicides.

The only time that fully automatic weapons were commonly used was during prohibition. With the end of prohibition, automatic weapon use (for crime) was already in steep decline before the NFA laws even came into effect. Additionally, the 1986 ban on machine guns came about even though machine guns have historically been used in a miniscule number of crimes.
Posted by randoma on January 10, 2013 at 11:57 AM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 46
@45

This isn't only about assault weapons. We didn't reduce the rate of traffic deaths nationwide by a factor of 20 by focusing on one specific type of car. We didn't reduce drunk driving deaths by focusing only on vodka sold at Smitty's Bar to drivers of 1986 Oldsmobiles. We have some very specific rules, like dictating how bartenders serve and to whom, and we have some very broad social changes, like changing drunk driving from something that is cool to something that is uncool.

Picking holes in the Assault Weapons Ban is part of a strategy of picking away at every single effort to reduce gun deaths. To divide them up and whittle them down one by one. The idea is to distract us from the big picture by geeking out over details.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on January 10, 2013 at 12:06 PM · Report this
blip 47
@26 I read your friend's wiki from top to bottom and I'm still unclear as to what in his bio exempts him from racism. Can you please explain? As you are well aware, I have a hard time "getting it" and could use a little help.
Posted by blip on January 10, 2013 at 12:14 PM · Report this
48
@46, If it isn't about "assault weapons" then why is it called an "assault weapons" ban? For the record, I'm for liability for gun owners when their firearm is used in a crime, I'm for more extensive/intensive background checks, I'm for closing the 'private party' loophole (not exactly sure how you're going to enforce that, but I'm certainly open to it), I'm for better mental health restrictions on firearms, I'm even for a ban on high capacity magazines (5, 10, 15, whatever) - as long as it doesn't grandfather existing magazines.

I am absolutely against a ban on cosmetic features. I realize it is the easiest thing to do, but it just distracts from gun control that will actually reduce gun crime. And, actually if you thought about what you wrote, I think you'd agree, in principle, that an "assault weapons" ban is, in fact doing what you said was not done to reduce traffic deaths.
Posted by randoma on January 10, 2013 at 12:46 PM · Report this
49
@44: You keep pointing to stats reported in absolute numbers, which are increasing at a slower rate than the total population of Australia. As in, exhibiting a per-capita decrease (except for homicides, which are experiencing an absolute decrease).

This was the very first fallacy explained in the Snopes piece.

Scary that it makes you so giddy to see a violent-crime line flicker upward (even if you are misreading the implications of that line).
Posted by d.p. on January 10, 2013 at 12:54 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 50
@48

I guess you should go to Google News or something. There's a broad range of proposed new laws, both state and federal, and possible executive orders. Senator Diane Feinstein's bill is just one of those many proposals.

Even at that, if it were in fact purely cosmetic, then it would make no sense why there is so much opposition. It would make no sense why the armed forces and police SWAT teams spend so much money to develop weapons that are merely cosmetically different than civilian ones. Sure, there's a lot of pork out there in military spending, but really? Think of all the billions that could be saved by armies around the globe if they were not so concerned with the cosmetics of their guns. It doesn't add up. The truth is that military features make the weapon deadlier. They're not decorations.

And then there's politics. Obmacare doesn't provide 100% coverage either. Concessions had to be made to get it to pass. A lot of the weaknesses in the AWB were put there by the NRA's lackeys in Congress to weaken it. One of the way change works is that you pass what you can now and work for more later. Look at the progress of piecemeal rights for gay couples, to civil unions, to marriage. I guess the gun nuts think that's a slippery slope, but to me it's called the political process.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on January 10, 2013 at 1:05 PM · Report this
51
@49, Actually, if you look at the figures, *per capita* assaults and sexual assaults have gone up in Australia. Indicating, since apparently you have difficulty with reading comprehension, that these crimes have gone up at a higher rate than increases in population. And I never said that homicide rates, absolute or per capita, were not going down. Please actually read the data before you spout off nonsense.
Posted by randoma on January 10, 2013 at 1:05 PM · Report this
52
@50 There's a lot of opposition because declaring an AR15 an NFA regulated firearm involves a lot of hassle for anyone that owns one. And a lot of people (not me) think it is one of the first steps towards the government taking their guns.

Additionally, most of the proposals are linked to an "assault weapons" ban, so even though I think many of them have the potential to be good bills, the "AWB" fixation is a big negative. Of course, as you point out, we have that problem in politics all the time. Furthermore, the majority of gun control options do, in fact, center around an "AWB".

Sorry, a bayonet lug has no relevance to a gun used in criminal acts (how many crime victims were stabbed by someone with a firearm with a bayonet attached), a pistol grip and collapsible stock? I guess you could say that being able to fit a firearm to multiple shooters makes it more deadly since you want to use a tool that fits your stature. However, that is hardly a 'military' feature. Flash suppressor - fine you can have that one, it has certainly been a great aid to criminals using their "assault weapons" at night. But how about you make a ban on flash suppressors rather than "assault weapons"? High capacity magazine - maybe - but I have no problem with a magazine capacity cap.

Incidentally, to the best of my knowledge, the M16 was picked up by the army essentially due to lack of competition at the time. The main criteria were also related to robustness and light-weight, not deadliness.
Posted by randoma on January 10, 2013 at 1:32 PM · Report this
53
Whoops, @51. The Australian government's own study concludes that those two outlier statistics are attributable almost entirely to "self-reporting" trends:

Based on self-reported victimisation and reporting to police, it would seem increased reporting of assault is somewhat responsible for the rise in recorded assault rates against adult victims. However, victimisation survey data suggest there has been little change in rates of sexual assault, although reporting to police by women seems to have increased.

And so forth: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/curre…

But go ahead and get your cause-and-effect interpreted by half-literate American gun crazies on the internet instead.
Posted by d.p. on January 10, 2013 at 1:54 PM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 54
Well, I just placed an order for my assault gorilla, so I figure I'm all set. They're already black, so they had to add a bayonet lug and a flash suppressor.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on January 10, 2013 at 2:00 PM · Report this
55
@53 Wow, did you actually read the entire article? Or did you just take a quote out of context that fits your belief? You really need to work on that reading comprehension.

"somewhat responsible" == "almost entirely"??? You make the half-literate gun crazies look good.

Not to mention, but if you're going to pull your quote of the middle of the paragraph, you really should include the beginning of the paragraph:

The public's perception is that violence is increasing, but trends in violent crime reported to police since the early 1990s reveal a mixed story. Homicide has decreased by nine percent since 1990 and armed robbery by one-third since 2001, but recorded assaults and sexual assaults have both increased steadily in the past 10 years by over 40 percent and 20 percent respectively. The rate of aggravated assault appears to have contributed to the marked rise in recorded assault, and for both assault and sexual assault the rate of increase was greater for children aged under 15 years, with increases almost double that of the older age group. Neither population changes among young adult males nor rates of offending seem to explain the trends in recorded violent crime, and indicators of change in reporting to police provide only a partial explanation.
Posted by randoma on January 10, 2013 at 2:17 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 56
@52

Yeah they picked the M-16 because of a big fat conspiracy. Woooooo.

Oh, and every other military picks guns that have that assault weapons "look" because, uh, fashion? Cosmetics? No. Come on.

Your objections are not politically relevant. They're just talking points that the opposition would use to try to scuttle any law. You're just harping on the fact that it's not perfect. Everyone knows it's not perfect.

It's getting boring to listen to the same "it's not perfect" talking points. It's like Fox News around here.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on January 10, 2013 at 2:37 PM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 57
Yeah, it is like Fox News. But only when you're around. There's only one person here who's ranting and raving with nothing to back it up, and it's not the rest of us.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on January 10, 2013 at 2:49 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 58
@57

Well, then if it's just me, then why don't you answer blip's question @47 ?
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on January 10, 2013 at 4:10 PM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 59
Well, for starters, I don't see any racism at all there. I see a guy who, much like myself, who has spent his entire life dealing with the harsh realities of crime and criminals.

It's not nice, it's not prettyn and it doesn't fit into your "perfect world" bubble. It's ugly, nasty shit, and 99% of who you're dealing with out there on the streets involve either black or brown people.

Sorry if that doesn't fit your preconceptions, but it's reality.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on January 10, 2013 at 4:29 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 60
@59

OK, let's agree that Massad Auyoob is no more a racist than you are, and vice versa.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on January 10, 2013 at 4:34 PM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 61
Sure. As long as we can also agree that you're a racist by virtue of your making that statement.

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You've never been out there on the street in a set of blues. You've never done a traffic stop, much less a domestic violence call. You've never had to clear a drug house.

You're completely content to live in your perfect little la-la-land where none of that shit ever happens. Well, for 32 years of my life, it happened every fucking day. And people died from it — lots of them.

It comes across to me as if you're actually defending that bullshit. You know what? You, honey, could not be more wrong if you tried. The underbelly of this world is far more sick than you could imagine in your wildest dreams. Don't be so quick to step up in its defense.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on January 10, 2013 at 4:45 PM · Report this
62
lol Like the criminals will give up their guns... where is your common sense? http://www.policymic.com/articles/22622/…
When did people get so stupid? I mean, the gangs and the criminals already have the guns, why would non criminals turn in their guns? So the murder rate will increase? CLUE IN.
Posted by whichpamiam on January 10, 2013 at 4:53 PM · Report this
blip 63
@59, I'm guessing close to 99% of them are men, too, meaning we not only have a "race problem" but also a "gender problem," right? Did you quiz any of them about their socioeconomic status? Education? Or is skin color the only characteristic it makes sense to reduce a person down to?
Posted by blip on January 10, 2013 at 4:56 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 64
@61

And that's why everyone needs a 5.56mm high powered semi-automatic. Because these basic brown types don't drop with one shot from a .38. I got that line from Lt. Howard Hunter on Hill Street Blues. Firepower. Got to have it because they're so black.

Maybe you can explain the racial aspect better than I can. The logic is we have a "race problem" (wink wink) and that requires a military cartridge fired at a very high rate. With 30 round magazines. They're charging rhinos, these Latinos and blacks. Bull elephants.

I'm getting it all wrong, no? I'm all confused. You explain about the blacks and the browns and the whites for us all.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on January 10, 2013 at 5:04 PM · Report this
65
I've said it before and I'll keep saying it.
If the staff at The Stranger was really interested in this subject (more than just grief porn) then they would have a column on all the shootings (whether anyone was hit or not) that happen in Seattle.
Including as many details on those shootings as possible.
Who, specifically, is shooting what at whom and why.
Updated daily.

But that won't happen because real facts don't bring as many advertising hits as grief porn does.
And the real facts might just show that your grief porn assumptions are wrong.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on January 10, 2013 at 5:55 PM · Report this
66 Comment Pulled
67 Comment Pulled
Bonefish 68
"Since when is it racist to argue that America has a "race problem" due to blacks and browns being violent thugs?"
-- 5280

Man. I never thought I'd see a commenter dumber than MisterG or Seattleblues, but this wannabe-tough-guy has managed to take the cake.

Your assertions are, at best, misinterpretations of the confounding correlations between crime, poverty, and race. Most likely though, you're the gullible victim of racist propaganda, spewing out a bunch of faux world-weary cliches in order to look like you've led this tough gritty life battling mud-people. You're a pathetic racist pussy who laps up oversimplified, biased nonsense and shits it out on slog.

You'll rationalize this as you being a realist and acknowledging "harsh truths" about race, choosing to believe that everyone's pissed at you because racism is taboo to our delicate liberal sensibilities. But the fact is that these racist theories of yours are just stupidly inaccurate and oversimplistic; that's how they became taboo in the first place. You're merely too stupid to realize you're racist.

This stems from your larger problem of being too stupid to know you're stupid.
Posted by Bonefish http://5bmisc.blogspot.com/ on January 10, 2013 at 7:29 PM · Report this
69
@56, The most used/popular assault rifle in the world is the AK-47, and it's variants, the basic configuration does not have a flash hider or collapsible stock, although it can have a grenade launcher and/or bayonet lug (and we know that those are essential to any modern crime spree), it isn't even very accurate at ranges >2-300 meters. It is, however, extremely robust and reliable in virtually any weather/environmental conditions and it is cheap to produce. It was not successful due to it's great killing effectiveness, but due to its cost to manufacture, simplicity to repair and use, and its longevity in the field.

So exactly what cosmetic feature is it that you believe makes an "assault weapon" a "deadly killing machine" that doesn't apply to any other semi-automatic weapon? Let's take a look at the Keltec SU-16A again:

http://www.keltecweapons.com/our-guns/ri…

Exact same capabilities as an AR15 as far as how many projectiles it can fire as well as approximately how accurately. Yet, due to cosmetic differences, it is not an "assault rifle". The SU-16C with a few cosmetic differences, but no functional difference is a banned "assault rifle".

There is no conspiracy behind the adoption of the M16 - only facts - you're the one that sees conspiracies everywhere.

Its sad how your arguments always devolve into name calling and aspersions of 'talking points' or 'conspiracies', whenever facts don't support you.

Incidentally, an AR15 is a terrible short-range self-defense weapon, particularly anywhere where a stray bullet can travel through multiple walls and hit an (innocent) bystander half a mile away (On the Arizona border, it may be a different story). It is, however, an excellent rifle for target shooting, varmint shooting and competition. With the correct upper receiver (allowing it to shoot 6.5mm to .308 to .50 caliber projectiles) it is an great hunting rifle.
More...
Posted by randoma on January 10, 2013 at 7:38 PM · Report this
Bonefish 70
PS- As someone who has actually lived in a gang neighborhood, I can tell you that this image of black and brown people as this monolithic, murderous, unstoppable gang-banging threat is an outlook completely unique to people whose only experience with other races is from TV and movies.

That's how I know how full of shit these people are when they claim that we're just happily ignorant of these "harsh realities" they spout. Gangs are dangerous and scary, yes. But only a sheltered liar from the suburbs will believe that anything close to a majority of nonwhites are gang members, or that whites don't also form violent gangs. Which you'd have to believe in order to think that gangs are a "race" problem rather than a drug, poverty, and, yes, GUN problem.

You know where I've heard these types of rants about these so-called "harsh realities" the most? Not in California, where nonwhite gangs actually exist, but in fucking Alaska, where there are maybe four black people (and none of them even know each other, let alone occupy the same "street gang"). That should tell the rest of you something about how honest these dipshits are being when they claim that their racism is just due to having more experience with the "real world" than us softie liberals.

I'm fucking done here. I see no reason to read anymore of this half-baked Mein Kampf thread.
Posted by Bonefish http://5bmisc.blogspot.com/ on January 10, 2013 at 8:02 PM · Report this
71 Comment Pulled
72 Comment Pulled
73
@70 According to the FBI in 2011 in a majority of murder cases in which the perpetrator's race was known, the killer was African American. Considering the blacks are only 12% of the US population that's a big disparity. Nobody is saying that all or even most African Americans are criminals, but a disproportionately large number of black people tend to be involved in crime.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on January 10, 2013 at 11:06 PM · Report this
74
A little late to the reply, but @55, every reference in your quote is to a rise in "recorded assault". Every single fucking last one.

You know how recorded assaults rise? People report them, and they get recorded. The papr chalks up all of the "increase" in sexual assaults to reporting, and it partially attributes the increase in the other crimes to reporting.

As for assaults against children, the following two statements are connected:

Indicators of change in reporting to police provide only a partial explanation...

The paper speculates that the rise could be due to better public understanding of child protection issues and increased reporting due to public awareness of what constitutes physical and sexual assault - especially within the family - but this requires further investigation...


So... partially it's about the way police log and categorize. Also it's about better public awareness and citizen reporting. Two separate reporting factors.

You know what never comes up? Any demonstrable proof whatsoever that such crimes are actually on the rise, much less on the rise because the victims aren't armed to the teeth like good 'Merican assault victims.
Posted by d.p. on January 10, 2013 at 11:15 PM · Report this
blip 75
@73, Race is associated with poverty; poverty is associated with crime. When you only consider a criminal's race you're overlooking the actual predictor(s).

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confoundi…
Posted by blip on January 11, 2013 at 1:23 AM · Report this
76
@75 African Americans and Hispanic Americans live in poverty at similar rates. Yet, black people commit a lot more crimes.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on January 11, 2013 at 5:27 AM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 77
Oh yeah, let's have a discussion about violence in America. As long as the only thing we're allowed to talk about is banning guns. That makes sense.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on January 11, 2013 at 6:14 AM · Report this
blip 78
@76 Source?
Posted by blip on January 11, 2013 at 9:28 AM · Report this
79
@74, You continue to amaze me. So, a verifiable trend based on recorded assaults (because there are no figures on un-recorded assaults!) going up year after year is just because police are recording more? But really, assaults have gone down. (As, possibly, maybe, speculated by someone who has a biased interest in showing a decrease in crime???)

You know, reporting on sexual assaults in the USA have also gone up. And you know what? Recorded sexual assaults have NOT shown a regular increase. In fact, rape has decreased 60% since 1993:

http://www.rainn.org/get-information/sta…
Posted by randoma on January 11, 2013 at 5:05 PM · Report this
80
@78 You can see a break down of poverty rates by race here:

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/compareb…

you can see official statistics regarding homicide perpetrators here:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cri…
Posted by Ken Mehlman on January 11, 2013 at 9:54 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy