Why BG's cherry-picking is dishonest

[Seth]

Obama: ‘Important’ Second Amendment Responsible for High Homicide Rates

by AWR Hawkins9 Mar 20150
Speaking at Benedict College in South Carolina on March 6, President Obama said the “Second Amendment … is important,” that it is “part of our culture” and “part of who were are.” Then he quickly added, “But what we also have to recognize is, is that our homicide rates are so much higher than other industrialized countries–by like a mile.”

So, the Second Amendment is important but…

Moreover, Obama hinted that the individual right to bear arms–the very right protected by the Second Amendment–is the result of a Supreme Court interpretation. On June 22, Breitbart News reported that The Washington Post espoused this same liberal talking point, claiming that the Supreme Court created an individual right to keep and bear arms via the District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) decision.

In other words, prior to 2008, there was no individual right to keep and bear arms. It wasn’t what our Founding Fathers intended and it wasn’t what generation upon generation of Americans from 1791 to 2008 believed and lived by. It’s all based on a decision by a group of justices.

In his speech, aired on C-SPAN, Obama said:

We have a long tradition of gun rights and gun ownership in this country. The Second Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean the people have the right to bear arms. There are a lot of law-abiding, responsible gun owners who use it for protection or sport. They handle their weapons properly. There are traditions of families passing down [hunting] from father to son, or daughter … and that is important; that’s part of who we are. But what we also have to recognize is, is that our homicide rates are so much higher than other industrialized nations–by like a mile.

And most of that is attributable to the easy, ready, availability of firearms, particularly handguns.

However, the gun control lobby’s relentless claim that America’s homicide rate is so much higher than other industrialized countries breaks down under scrutiny.

For example, in August 2013, Breitbart News reported on a study in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy which showed that the murder rate in heavily gun-controlled Russia was approximately 20.52 per 100,000 people in 2002. A high point for America was 6.6 per 100,000 people in 1993, and that rate fell to 3.2 per 100,000 by 2011, after the number of privately owned guns in America went from 192 million in 1994 to 310 million in 2009.

So, 20.52 per 100,000 people are murdered in Russia versus America’s 6.6 per 100,000–later to be 3.2 per 100,000–yet, according to President Obama, America’s murder rate is, “like a mile” higher than that of other industrialized countries.

[Ian]

Seth, you cherry-picked an opinion piece which itself cherry-picked Russia of all countries to which the US could be compared. Well done.

[JimC]

Does he sneak into an orchard and pick them without paying the owner?

[jaydot]

on balance, if forced to choose one of two indescribably shitty options, i'd choose the states on the ground that they speak a form of english i can understand.

[Seth]

AP Cites Pro-Gun Control Survey to Claim Americans Losing Interest in Guns
AP Photo/Jeff Roberson
AP Photo/Jeff Roberson

by AWR Hawkins10 Mar 20150
On March 9, the Associated Press reported the results of a pro-gun control survey to show that Americans are losing interest in guns.

In fact, according to the AP, “The number of Americans who live in a household with at least one gun is lower than it’s ever been.”

Using numbers gathered by the General Social Survey (GSS), the AP claims “only 32 percent of Americans either own a firearm themselves or live with someone who does.” This number “ties a record low set in 2010″ and means that fewer Americans are buying guns.

Applied to individuals rather than households, the GSS numbers show that “22 percent of Americans own a firearm, down from 31 percent who said they did in 1985.”

There are some serious questions about these numbers.

For example, those behind the GSS survey appear to have strong pro-gun control leanings. The Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) reports that GSS principal investigator Tom Smith once told John Lott that the decline in gun ownership “implied” by GSS numbers “[made] it easier for politicians to do the right thing on guns.”

And in 2013, the CPRC reported that GSS received funding from the Joyce Foundation, a group “well known for its gun control advocacy” and one for which Obama served on the board of directors from 1994 to 2002. Politico reported that during Obama’s time on the board, the Joyce Foundation “doled out” various grants to gun control groups,” totaling $2.7 million.”

In addition to these things, the GSS numbers run completely counter to numbers and historical trends reported by Gallup since 2000.

A Gallup Poll conducted in 2014 showed that the percentage of Americans with a gun in their home was “44 percent,” yet the GSS survey–also conducted in 2014–reported a figure of “32 percent.” Moreover, while GSS suggests a decline in the number of Americans owning guns since 1985, Gallup shows a historical trend in the opposite direction beginning in 2000.

When Gallup asked if having a gun in the home made the home safer, 35 percent said yes in 2000, “42 percent” said yes in 2004, “47 percent” said yes in 2006, and “63 percent” said yes in 2014.

The AP did not include these Gallup numbers nor address the disparity between them and the GSS numbers.

On top of the CRPC report and the Gallup numbers, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) released a report based on firearms sales numbers from 2011 and 2012 that showed a “79 percent … increase in female customers.”

The GSS claim that the number of Americans buying guns is decreasing simply is not congruent with the NSSF findings.

[pErvinalia]

Seth, you cherry-picked an opinion piece which itself cherry-picked Russia of all countries to which the US could be compared. Well done.

It's highly likely Seth doesn't understand this.

[Brian Peacock]

I have 'strong gun-control leanings,' but then again I don't live in a society where guns are prevalent, or at least prevalent enough that one could reasonably assume someone or other might actually possess one and/or have one on them. I have strong knife-control leanings and strong explosive-control leanings too, even though I possess a good number of potentially lethal edged implements and can look up the recipe for a DIY explosive on the internet if I chose to. In the society I live in such controls don't limit my freedom nor adversely impinge on my personal security.

[pErvinalia]

They do, though. You don't have the freedum to overthrow the taxman.

[Seth]

Seth, you cherry-picked an opinion piece which itself cherry-picked Russia of all countries to which the US could be compared. Well done.

It's highly likely Seth doesn't understand this.

Of course I understand it, that's why I cited the article.

[hackenslash]

You shouldn't hit yourself in the head like that. You can't afford any further brain damage.

[Seth]

I have 'strong gun-control leanings,' but then again I don't live in a society where guns are prevalent, or at least prevalent enough that one could reasonably assume someone or other might actually possess one and/or have one on them. I have strong knife-control leanings and strong explosive-control leanings too, even though I possess a good number of potentially lethal edged implements and can look up the recipe for a DIY explosive on the internet if I chose to. In the society I live in such controls don't limit my freedom nor adversely impinge on my personal security.

Of course they do. I suspect that if you start looking up explosive recipes on the Internet in the UK you're going to come to the attention of MI6 and a bunch of other 3-letter agencies.

And your inability to (legally) carry a defensive weapon of any sort, including non-lethal chemical sprays like Mace or OC spray, absolutely limits your freedom and your personal security. Just because you may never have had occasion to need a defensive weapon so far does not mean you won't need one in the next 30 minutes.

Thinking you're "safe" from crime is a very common delusion, particularly for the sheeple in Europe, who have been indoctrinated to think that they don't "need" to take care of themselves, the government will do it for them. Of course anyone with a lick of sense knows that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

[Seth]

You shouldn't hit yourself in the head like that. You can't afford any further brain damage.

You would certainly know about brain damage, being near-fatally afflicted yourself.

[JimC]

I have 'strong gun-control leanings,' but then again I don't live in a society where guns are prevalent, or at least prevalent enough that one could reasonably assume someone or other might actually possess one and/or have one on them. I have strong knife-control leanings and strong explosive-control leanings too, even though I possess a good number of potentially lethal edged implements and can look up the recipe for a DIY explosive on the internet if I chose to. In the society I live in such controls don't limit my freedom nor adversely impinge on my personal security.

I have strong leanings against gin control.

[Seth]

I have 'strong gun-control leanings,' but then again I don't live in a society where guns are prevalent, or at least prevalent enough that one could reasonably assume someone or other might actually possess one and/or have one on them. I have strong knife-control leanings and strong explosive-control leanings too, even though I possess a good number of potentially lethal edged implements and can look up the recipe for a DIY explosive on the internet if I chose to. In the society I live in such controls don't limit my freedom nor adversely impinge on my personal security.

I have strong leanings against gin control.

Why? Gin, and it's ilk, kill way more people than guns do.

[JimC]

You'll prise my gin bottle from my cold, dead hands!