Dean’s Example, Tennessee, for State with Low Gun Violence was WRONG

[valniel]

When Dean mentioned that the Federal Gun Control Laws should not be dictated to the various states with low gun violence rates he mentioned Tennessee.
According to data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC):
In Tennessee, 6.16 per 100,000 individuals are murdered by firearms, whereas the national rate of firearm homicides is 3.92.
In 2000, there was a total of 343 gun homicides in Tennessee.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/maps/default.htm

[deutsey]

1. Could you provide the link/quote for what Dean said?

Thanks.

[renie408]

2. I have seen several references to the comment

But I can't find it on Google. Did he say it in the debate the other night?

[clar]

3. Deanis?

Error? Or Deanis as in penis as in prick? If the latter, you've strayed into deliberate provocative flame war territory. In other words, it's, rude, abrasive and unhelpful.

[renie408]

5. I get

"Dean's" on my screen, not Deanis. It might be something with your computer.

[clar]

6. Thanks, renie

and apologies to the author.

[DrFunkenstein]

8. No, But It's Catchy...

Just kidding. If I was going to go childish, I'd say Dean Fartin' and show a picture of him with his chin down, looking drunk/flatulent. But I digress...

:donut:

Care for a donut?

(I gotta stop posting before coffee...)

[dsc]

4. Please explain

how you got info on gun homocides (as opposed to gun deaths) from this link. I will say when he used Tennessee as his example I cringed given the fact it has very large cities in it. He should have used MS or AL which do buttress his point.

[AWD]

7. Dean once shot a man just to watch him die

[DrFunkenstein]

9. LMAO

:yourock:

[AWD]

10. Thanks Dr....

...I've decided to start being silly in the whole "candidate vs. candidate issue". My blood pressure will be much better off

[papau]

11. Usually rural has better rates than urban, but Mass, a tough gun law

state that is quite urban, has the lowest rate.

Not that this proves anything.

Just a fact from the latest stats - which can be found in Boston Globe archives.

[slackmaster]

12. I think you are mis-paraphrasing him

Didn't Dean actually say that Tennessee had a low homicide rate?

If so he is incorrect. According to the CDC charts TN is somewhere between the 75th and 90th percentile.

[renie408]

14. I *think*

that Dean said something along the lines of what his position has been all along. That the reason he does not support national gun control is because the gun problem from state to state is so variable. I *think* he cited Tennessee as a state that might not need strict gun control because of its low incidence of gun related crime. Some people have said that Tennessee was a poor example because, statistically, southern states actually have a higher per capita gun related crime rate than other parts of the country. Again, I am paraphrasing what I have read and may have screwed it up, but that is what I got out of it.

[MercutioATC]

36. Dean was stating that not only mostly-white northeastern rural states

might have different gun control needs than more diverse, urban states.

He said something like "A state like, say, Tennessee" might not need the same laws as New Your or New Jersey or California.

Tennessee was not a great example because they actually have a relative high gun-related crime rate.

However, Dean was trying to use Tennessee as an example of a rural state that was NOT mostly white. Not the strongest example, but hardly the issue that it's been turned into.

[kwolf68]

13. LOL

Nothing like the Dean heard of sheep moving into NRA territory just to support their hero. I have seen the most passionate defense of limited gun control by Democrats supporting Dean than I have over at NRAthugbastards.com

[no name no slogan]

15. C'mon people...

With the exception of Dr. Dean, can't we all just agree that there should be a nationwide ban on ALL non-hunting firearms, and all hollow tip "cop killer" and armor-piercing bullets?

After all, "Guns don't kill people, idiots with guns kill people."

[renie408]

16. Oddly enough

No, we can't. And I cannot understand it to save my soul. It seems so obvious to me that we need some kind of national guideline for the really horrible ammunition available for guns or for the kinds of guns that nobody should really need for anything other than a phallic symbol. Who really NEEDS a gun that could stop a charging rhino? Even hunters don't need that sort of thing here. Or what is the real need for a semi-automatic gun?

[slackmaster]

18. There you go again with needs-based arguments

The right to buy and own things is not based on needs.

[renie408]

20. What about drugs?

Nobody really needs illegal drugs, but should have the right to buy and own them? Hey, you really ARE a liberal, aren't you??

There are LOTS of things that we don't need (shoulder launched missiles?) that we aren't allowed to buy and own. Lions? Tigers? Bears? Oh my? (actually, you can buy and own lions, tigers and bears with lots of restrictions. Unless you live in SC, where there aren't really any restrictions on anything.)

Your argument is...not good.

[slackmaster]

22. IMO you do have the right to use any drug you want

Your right to smoke pot has been infringed.

There are LOTS of things that we don't need (shoulder launched missiles?) that we aren't allowed to buy and own. Lions? Tigers? Bears? Oh my? (actually, you can buy and own lions, tigers and bears with lots of restrictions. Unless you live in SC, where there aren't really any restrictions on anything.)

You are misinformed.

In most states you can buy a shoulder-launched missile if you can find one for sale. You have to get your local chief law enforcement officer to sign off, pass a federal background check, and pay a $200 transfer tax to the BATFE. The process is similar to buying a transferrable machine gun.

Buying a lion, tiger, or bear in most states requires getting a permit. You can own one in California if you can get the permit.

Your argument is...not good.

Mine is based on fact and reason rather than emotion and propaganda.

[renie408]

23. Here I am

I am going to use the response that I most dislike...can you give me a link for that? I am wide open to the fact that I am wrong about shoulder launched missiles, but it would really bug me to think that anybody can have one if they can find one.

[slackmaster]

29. Here's a link to the BATF's Web site

Here is the actual text of the original Gun Control Act of 1968, which defines what constitutes a "destructive device".

http://www.atf.treas.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/gca.htm

If you get all the required licenses and permits, you can build, keep, and fire your own shoulder-launched missile.

Regulated but not outlawed.

[renie408]

31. And that does not freak you out at all?

[slackmaster]

33. Not in the slightest

There is no domestic retail market for shoulder-launched missiles. AFAIK no civilian has ever bought one for personal use in the US, and there is no record of a crime ever being committed with one in the US.

The system is not broken. It's working just fine.

[renie408]

24. Oh

And I actually do not do any kind of drugs. Not even caffeine. So, my right to smoke pot being infringed is not really a problem for me.

I have the feeling that your argument is a convenient sophism, but I am going to have to ponder it more. It appears to me that you are saying that society should not have the right to limit the ownership of ANYTHING, no matter how dangerous that thing has been found to be. Maybe 'limiting' is not a good word. Maybe 'regulate' is better. I just think there are some things you cannot demonstrate a reasonable need for that are inherently so dangerous that their ownership should be curtailed. But maybe that's because I live in a state where it is perfectly legal to target shoot with a high powered rifle in your backyard if you feel like it. Here, a few years back, a small child was killed by a stray bullet that traveled something like TWO MILES from the practice range where it was fired. What on earth would somebody need a gun that could fire TWO MILES for?

Oh, that's right. Whether they need it or not, no matter how dangerous and destructive it is, they have the right to own it. And any argument against that is emotional propaganda.

[slackmaster]

27. To answer your one factual question

What on earth would somebody need a gun that could fire TWO MILES for?

A rifle with that level of power is appropriate for hunting deer. Calibers often used for hunting e.g. .308 Winchester, .270, and 30-'06 can be deadly at that range. Most states have a mimimum required caliber for deer. I believe the lower limit in California is the old 30-30.

Oh, that's right. Whether they need it or not, no matter how dangerous and destructive it is, they have the right to own it. And any argument against that is emotional propaganda.

The strawman argument you present here tends to prove my point.

[renie408]

30. OK

This is going to get nowhere. I think what I think and you think what you think. Guns are not a part of my life and they never have been. Perhaps my mistrust of them is based on unfamliarity. But I somehow doubt it.

[slackmaster]

34. I thank you for a civil conversation

In my experience most people who call for blanket gun controls like banning all semiautomatic firearms are far less familiar with weapons than I am. I collect old firearms.

If you ever have any factual questions about guns or gun laws feel free to ask me.

[slackmaster]

17. No, no, and no

...can't we all just agree that there should be a nationwide ban on ALL non-hunting firearms, and all hollow tip "cop killer" and armor-piercing bullets?

We definitely cannot all agree on any of those, so why not just drop it and stop hurting the party?

After all, "Guns don't kill people, idiots with guns kill people."

I support a nationwide ban on idiots.

[renie408]

19. This seems kind of creepy to me

You mean we are just supposed to ignore issues that are important to us because they might hurt 'the party'? That doesn't seem right. That doesn't seem to be the way to get anything changed.

[slackmaster]

21. We have much bigger fish to fry

And we are not all of the same mind on the gun issues. I personally do not agree that any of the items you mentioned should be banned.

I think our focus should be on the economy, justice, education, and foreign relations. That's where Democratic strength lies.

[renie408]

25. It is honestly not a make or break

issue for me because I do not think that the majority of the country is ready to talk about it. But that doesn't mean that I think that dscussion should be curtailed on the subject or that an open discussion is going to hurt 'the party'.

You can still add a candidates position on guns to the things that either attract or repel you about them. It is not a big selling point for me that Dean gets a 100% from the NRA.

[no name no slogan]

32. oh please, let's stop with the "hurting the party" bullshit already

The platform of the democratic party has had a plank in it demanding gun control laws since the death of JFK at the hands of a nutcase who purchased a gun through the mail, so please go park the "hurting the party" meme back behind the outhouse where it belongs.

I'm sorry, but WTF do you need armor-piercing bullets for, anyway? What are you hunting? Do the new models of deer and elk now come with with 1cm metal-alloy armor?

What kind of meat are you going to get from an animal you just nailed with a hollow-tip bullet? Hamburger? Steak tartar? Frickin' sausage?

A rational society has the right to prohibit things which it deems dangerous to the public good. That's why we have laws against environmental destruction, pollution, crime and murder.

[slackmaster]

37. Please allow me to straighten you out on some facts here

I'm sorry, but WTF do you need armor-piercing bullets for, anyway?

Armor-piercing handgun ammunition is already banned for civilian use. You can't buy it or the bullets to load your own.

Commerce in armor-piercing rifle ammunition is banned for civilian use except for certain calibers that are used for hunting, and for which military surplus steel-cored ammunition is commonly available. There is no record of their AP capability being used in crimes.

We don't ban things out of unfounded fear.

What kind of meat are you going to get from an animal you just nailed with a hollow-tip bullet? Hamburger? Steak tartar? Frickin' sausage?

Hollow-tipped handgun ammunition is useful for self-defense against humans (or other dangerous animals) for two reasons: Better stopping power and less tendency to over-penetrate.

Most hunting is done with rifles with bullets that are designed to expand on impact. Some bullets have soft lead tips, some have plastic tips, and some are just plain hollow (Jacketed Hollow Point or JHP).

ON EDIT: I forgot to mention that JHP rifle bullets are inherently more stable than solid ones, so they are often used in target matches.

[renie408]

39. Wait a minute

I am going to cut you some slack here, but wasn't your essential argument with me that we should not limit ownership? So then, are you ok with a ban on armor piercing ammunition?

[slackmaster]

40. Sorry I haven't made myself more clear

I hope this unmuddies the water I have stirred up:

I am going to cut you some slack here, but wasn't your essential argument with me that we should not limit ownership?

My position is that the limits we presently have in place are adequate and in most cases appropriate. I support the ban on mail-order guns. I support the ban on convicted felons having guns. But we have a serious deficiency of enforcement. A convicted felon can attempt to buy a gun (which is illegal), get denied, and walk away without fear of being prosecuted.

I do not agree with the federal "assault weapon" ban and look forward to its expiration next year. AWs have never been used much in crime. Most are rifles, and in most cases anything you can do with an assault weapon can be done equally well with an ordinary hunting rifle or a shotgun. Handguns are much more often used in crimes.

So then, are you ok with a ban on armor piercing ammunition?

I'm ambivalent on the ban on AP handgun ammunition. It's not a big deal to me, but I do not believe we are significantly safer with that ban in place. I wouldn't buy it if it was available.

[renie408]

42. Yeah

but from what I have read that you have written, I don't so much mind you having a gun. You don't seem like the type who goes out on the back forty and shoots at a pile of dirt or a tree trunk. Its all the other weirdos out there that I want to keep armor piercing ammo away from.

[Egnever]

49. No sory cant agree with that

I choose to reserve my right to defend myself with whatever i want to defend myself with thanks very much. If i thought there was a chance in hell the dems would ever get into office and make gun control a priority issue I would stop voting dem.

This is something I feel very strongly about and odly enough i have never in my life owned a gun nor do I intend to. However if the climate ever became such that I felt the need to defend myself I would want the meanest badest stop a friggin rhino in his tracks gun I could get my hands on. With bush in office I have felt that climate coming closer all the time.

[Nazgul35]

26. improper use of statistics alert...

First, you compare the state to the national average....instead you should be comparing the state to all the other states averages...how does the state rank against all other states?

Going to this site, which provides data from 1996, Tenesse ranks 7th for Firearm homicides per 100,000 people...

http://www.vpc.org/studies/whostate.htm

Second, this doesn't show what laws are in place in Tennessee as compared to other states....

Third, Dean didn't say that Tennessee was positivey one, he said perhaps a state like Tennesse as I recall....

[renie408]

28. !!!TEN YARD PENALTY!!!

[valniel]

38. Just pointing out that Tennessee was not a great example!

[dsc]

41. I asked above

and ask again, how do you get your link to provide gun homicides instead of merely gun deaths? Those are different things.

[valniel]

43. In "Shade States" use drop down menu & select "Firearm Homicide"

[dsc]

45. Just tried that

and I get two maps. One of homicides and one of firearms deaths. Neither is firearms homicides. Not every firearm death is a murder. Not even every homicide is.

[valniel]

46. Create National Map

In "Shade States;" Drop down menu "Firearm Homicide"

[dsc]

47. Oh sorry

I am not the most computer literate person (obviously). Thanks.

[valniel]

44. And I was wrong, Tennessee's homicide rate was 6.86, not 6.16! Sorry

[kang]

35. Tennessee's homicide rate is nothing compared to Iraq's

On ABC's Nightline, the Baghdad chief coroner reported that in the last month alone there were over 400 gun-shot related deaths. In one month, in one city! I don't think it's getting reported enough to the public just how crazy things are over there.

[genius]

48. Dean loses his brain during the debates.

I think it's because he doesn't stand for anything except whatever postion is currently popular.

[Egnever]

50. who friggin cares?

Did you understand what his point was or not?

[valniel]

51. Almost everybody does!

I felt that he was implying that federal gun control should not apply to states with a low incidence of firearm homicides, e.g. Tennessee.

[Egnever]

52. huh?

What in the world are you talking about?