I write about Economics & Politics and sometimes I post pictures of things I like. Find me elsewhere on the intrenet:
twitter.com/Suga_Shane
LarryBrownSports.com
NBAOffseason.com
NFLoffseason.com
MLBOffseason.com
gunsgeargallantry.tumblr.com/
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Gun-related homicides and other crimes involving guns have fallen sharply over the last two decades in the United States, but most Americans believe firearms crime is higher now than 20 years ago, according to an analysis and a separate poll released on Tuesday.
Some 11,101 gun-related homicides were reported in the United States in 2011, a figure that is down 39 percent from the 1993 peak, the Justice Department reported. Nonfatal firearm crimes declined by 69 percent to 467,300 in the same period.
Amid an intense national debate about gun control - which flared anew in the wake of a December shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, that left 26 people dead - some 56 percent of Americans believe that gun crime is higher now than it was 20 years ago, the Pew Research Center said its poll showed.
Only 12 percent of Americans realize that gun crimes have fallen, the center said in a statement. The Pew survey was based on a March 14-17 survey of 924 adults and had a margin of error of 3.9 percentage points.
The drop in gun crime mirrors a general fall in U.S. violent crime. The Justice Department study found that for fatal and nonfatal firearm crimes, most of the decline occurred from 1993 to 2002.
In 2011, about 70 percent of homicides and 8 percent of nonfatal violent crimes, such as rape, sexual assault, robbery and aggravated assault, were committed with a firearm, mainly a handgun.
From 2007 to 2011, about 1 percent of victims in nonfatal violent crimes reported using a firearm to defend themselves.
The Justice Department findings were based on data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics National Crime Victimization Survey, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, and the Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System.
Politicians are distorting facts to trick the public into supporting their own agendas? SHOCKER!
At long last, MSNBC gives us some real news that we can all use!
I happened, per chance, to be flipping through the channels last night when I came upon MSNBC’s Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell. This final bit of the program had to do with the fact that, according to O’Donnell, the “assault weapons” ban that was dropped in the Senate earlier this week is not really dead yet and there is still hope for the ban to be included in a future Senate bill!According to O’Donnell, the plan to introduce this legislative ban is a simple one: simply add it as an Amendment and have the Senate vote on it. The interesting thing about this is that THIS IS EXACTLY what Feinstein did in 1993 with the original assault weapons ban!
According to O’Donnell:
“…The question is always the same: what happens to a bill if a certain controversial provision is in it from the start and what happens if it’s left out? And, leaving it out does not mean the controversial provision won’t end up in the bill through the amendment process, which is exactly how Dianne Feinstein’s original assault weapons ban ended up in the Crime Bill in 1993…Senator Dianne Feinstein offered it as an amendment on the Senate floor and argued her case and, in on November 16th 1993, there was a roll call on the Senate floor and Dianne Feinstein’s amendment #1152 to the Crime Bill and the Feinstein Assault Weapons Ban passed with 56 votes…”
In other words, to pass a ban on firearms, the democrats in the Senate will add it as an amendment to - more than likely - a popular bill and, as soon as the GOP members refuse to vote on said popular bill, the democrat’s will scream: “See! We told you so! Their simply obstructionist! They refuse to vote on this bill that the American people want!” The MSM will, naturally, follow suit in portraying the importance of this popular bill and portraying the GOP as insensitive and uncaring in order to shift public sentiment towards the democrats, heck, I’m sure we’ll see Obama on TV stumping for it as well as stating that the Senate minority has to “listen to the American people” or, that the Senate GOP “has to get their priorities straight.”
Shortly thereafter, several GOP Senators will start caving in since they have - more than likely - attached riders to the popular bill that they want passed for their constituents back home. At which point, Harry Reid & Co. will legislatively sweeten the deal for the GOP Senators who may be on the fence as to whether or not they should vote for the bill with Feinstein’s weapons ban.
How do I know? That’s exactly what happened in 1993! Several of the GOP Senators that voted for the bill stated that they supported it because it would expire in 10 years, at which point, they could reevaluate the situation. Feinstein’s new ban NEVER expires, it becomes law if passed and the freedom of law-abiding citizens to purchase what ever gun they so wish to buy for their protection/hobby/collection/investment comes under governmental scrutiny.
Make sure that you know your Senator’s office number so that you can flood it with calls the moment the Senate Leftists try to take away our right to own and posses firearms.
I just puked all over myself.
Dianne Feinstein is the worst thing ever. WORST.
How the market is disarming government
Gun manufacturers are refusing to sell or service government agencies who support the disarming of citizens.
Opponents argue that gun control, by disarming potential victims, makes it more difficult for them to protect themselves. Supporters reply that since criminals are more experienced in violence than victims, the odds in an armed confrontation are with the criminal. This is probably true but almost entirely irrelevant to the argument.
Suppose one little old lady in ten carries a gun. Suppose that one in ten of those, if attacked by a mugger, succeeds in killing the mugger instead of being killed by him—or shooting herself in the foot. On average the mugger is more likely to win the encounter than the little old lady. But—also on average—every hundred muggings produces one dead mugger. At those odds, mugging is an unprofitable business—not many little old ladies carry enough money to justify one chance in a hundred of being killed getting it. The number of muggers declines drastically, not because they have all been killed but because they have, rationally, sought safer professions.
— David Friedman, Hidden Order: The Economics of Everyday Life (via utilitymaximiser)Freakonomics tackles the “Gun” issue.
Yes, there is a gun issue, although it is diminishing, there are still issues that we need to discuss. Guns aren’t safe, they aren’t meant to be, but a lot of other everyday things are less safe than guns, like swimming pools.
As always, Freakonomics does a good job catering to both arguments (for and against guns). Levitt’s final conclusion? Guns aren’t going anywhere and laws don’t do much to deter illegal use, especially by mentally unstable individuals. He believes that we’d have more success in reducing crime if we figured out why people want to kill and fix that instead of trying to ban a specific tool that’s used to kill with.
Sounds like the logical solution to me.
The future of America: I present to you the United Kingdom’s Police State.
Kids are being arrested in the UK for taking and posting pictures with knives on the internet. Yes, I shit you not. Their sole offense is taking and posting pictures.
Congress Can Go Ahead And Ban All Guns
If you haven’t heard, Feinstein introduced the 11th step to fascism new Gun Ban Bill to Congress today. Her stated purpose of the bill, and as I’ve mentioned many times before, is to “dry up the supply of these weapons over time, therefore, there is no sunset on this bill”.
Congress can go ahead and ban whatever they want, the people will find legal ways around it. Just like they did with the bullet button and other innovations, Congress can only build temporary walls because the possibilities of innovation far exceed the ability to limit things. Congress does not have the knowledge or the foresight to ban all things that exist today and that can possibly exist in the future, so it’s only a matter of time until new methods of production are discovered and guns of the same capability and perhaps even greater ability once again, legally, find their way back into the hands of the people.
Heck, this weapons ban might even push for innovations that go beyond physical rounds and traditional guns. Perhaps this will finally bring about the invention of laser guns or powerful air guns or maybe even some other technology that we haven’t even conceived of yet.
Congress is only quasi-capable of legislation but the people are masters of innovation. Like they’ve done before, they will once again legally innovate their way around silly laws that exist through a very narrow and backwards thinking lens.
So I say to Congress, go ahead and ban what you want and watch the people peacefully destroy your position on guns while efficiently bettering their own.
- Sha
Whoever the artist of this garbage is, needs to have their college, high school, and jr high diplomas revoked.
By far the most clueless and brainless political cartoon I have ever seen.
Gun ‘Control’? Control is a myth. What we really need is gun safety and that doesn’t come through legislation. If you truly want gun safety, teach your kids how to properly handle and respect a gun at a young age. Go to the range, practice and, most importantly, always respect the power of the gun.
If you don’t care for actual gun safety, bypass Congress like a dictator, create a bunch of laws to suppress lawful ownership of guns all while working with the DOJ, CIA and groups that you yourself deem as “terrorists” in illegally trafficking “military style” guns all around the world.
If you’ve done the former, you are an upstanding citizen and a responsible member of society. Do the latter and you are the President of the United States of America.
— Sha