The Liberal Guncast

[virginia mountainman]

I stumbled over this this afternoon, and thought I would share with you fine folks here!!

http://liberalguncast.com/index.html

I wonder, I know of DOZENS of pro-2nd amendment radio shows, and pod casts, does anyone know OF A SINGLE Anti-Gun one????

I have been searching, and have yet to find one, of for that matter, a SINGLE Forum dedicated to gun control?? Are they really that ineffective???

If anyone knows of one, please post a link, I would like to see one first hand.

[tularetom]

1. Yeah I think they really are that ineffective

I don't think there are many people that buy into gun control and that's a good thing.

It also makes me wonder why I get scare letter after scare letter from the NRA warning me that someone is trying to take my guns away.

You can put me down as a pro RKBA, anti NRA, liberal gun owner.

[Naked_Ape]

2. I keep an Obama sticker on my pistol case..

to spark conversation at my gun range here in Texas. Most Republicans "know for a fact" that we are out to grab their guns. The right has played up this concept for years and we need to spread the word that it just ain't so. I enjoy reminding my Republican friends that my Soviet collection consists of "Weapons of Liberation."

[GreenStormCloud]

4. Unfortuanately, Obama's record is strongly anti-gun.

Some very high profile Democrats are also strongly anti-gun. Fortunately, the Democratic party is starting to move away from being so hostile to guns.

[DonP]

6. "we are out to grab their guns." In fairness though they have had plenty of help

... and they still do from people like Schumer, Bobby Rush, Feinstein, Kerry and a lot of other North East Coast and big city political types that keep trying to cram their version of a "safe city" down our throats. They are aided and abetted by a lot of major city new outlets too. For the last two years we have been hearing about the gun sales boom, with record numbers of NICS checks and sales of ammo, to the point that there have been shortages.

They won't shut up until they are replaced by Dems with a more reasonable and real world view of the second amendment.

We've had the usual suspects down here telling us that it's just a matter of time before all those "gun nuts" just go crazy and start shooting up the place. (Serious projection issues about self control, delay of gratification and maturity from some gun grabbers)

Hell, there's even a thread right now with some posters trying to convince everyone that protestors carrying, open or concealed, will snap any minute and start shooting up people and stores! Of course none of that has happened but any minute now ... It's wishful thinking of the ugliest kind.

The facts are that gun crime and murders are at a 20 year low now and none of these people will even admit it.

Never mind if all the guns in private hands did nothing to lower the crime rate. (Which is like saying that all those new firehouses had nothing to do with fewer deaths from fires.)

The point is all those guns and all the ammo sales apparently did not increase crime, gun or otherwise, and the murder rate is the lowest in 20 years.

But I'm sure we'll hear all about it from the usual crowd if the rate ticks up even a half percent next year and it will all be the fault of the NRA and the "gun nuts".

[russ1943]

27. Question

Twice in your post you’ve made claims; First that “The facts are that gun crime and murders are at a 20 year low now…” & then “……….the murder rate is the lowest in 20 years.”

Where do you get your “facts”?

Last full year statistics available from FBI’s UCR are for 2008. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/rankingmessage.htm
Bureau of Justice Statistics are complete through 2007. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/guncrimetab.cfm

[eqfan592]

28. Same place you get your "facts"

There were 1,646,040 violent crimes reported in 1989, and the number peaked at 1,932,270 in 1992. In 2008, with approximately 50,000,000 more people in the nation than there were before, the number of violent crimes reported had dropped to 1,382,012. And if you look at the data over the last 20 years, you'll see that this is part of an overall trend (with small peaks and valleys along the way).

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

You'll find a similar trend with the murder rate. The number of murders in 2008 (16,272) was a good deal lower than the number in 1988 (20,680) and the peak number of murders which was in 1991 (24,700). The rate looks even lower given the aforementioned increase of population over that period of time.

The murder rate in 2008 was 1 murder for every 18686 people. In 1991, at it's peak from what I can calculate, it was at 1 murder for every 10209 people, significantly higher. It does appear 2008 was the lowest murder rate in the last 20 years.

So I hope that helps clear things up for you, russ. ;)

[DonP]

31. Thanks for the help

The record low murder rate has been in pretty much every major news outlet for the last week. (Of course here in Chicago that record does not apply - we're "gun Free")

The crime numbers have been well publicized too. Funny how some people have no trouble finding and quoting Brady "Facts" when it suits their purposes but can ignore other reports.

[eqfan592]

34. Not a problem :)

I just wonder if russ has even come back here to view the info presented to him.

[DonP]

35. Eagerly searching for data...

... that somehow disproves the updated FBI and DoJ reports on the crime and murder rates dropping.

After all, all them people buyin' guns and ammo must be gettin' ready to shoot somebody dammit!

Maybe he can get some updated data from Michael Bellisles notebooks and records.

Next year, if it goes up even a fraction of a percent, he'll be back to tell us how guns caused the "dramatic rise" in crime.

[russ1943]

38. .Do you have any idea?

You used the term “gun crimes” saying the FACT is they were at an all time low then the FACT is that murders were at an all time low.

Again, I ask where did you get your FACTS?

Is your answer in post#31 “the record low murder rate has been in pretty much every major news outlet? And “The crime numbers have been well publicized too.”
What does that have to do with your ““The FACTS are that gun crime and murders are at a 20 year low now.” Statement?
You may find the Bureau of Justice statistics I linked interesting regarding Crimes committed with firearms, 1973-2007. I seldom use Brady "Facts" unless necessary.
Bureau of Justice Statistics are complete through 2007. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/guncrime... (There are two charts)

As best I can determine the most recent statistics available from the Bureau of Justice Statistics , Office of Justice Programs clearly show;

Total Firearms crimes, are not at an 20 year low, nor an all time low.
Total Firearms crime rate, is not at a 20 year low, nor an all time low.
Murders With Firearms are not at an 20 year low, nor an all time low.
Murders with Firearms rate is not at a 20 year low, nor an all time low.
Total Murders are not at a 20 year low, nor an all time low.

Or are you now just saying “updated FBI and DOJ reports crime and murder rates dropping?

That is considerably different from your original statement; “The facts are that gun crime and murders are at a 20 year low now and none of these people will even admit it.”

[eqfan592]

40. But the murder RATE does appear to be at a 20 year low.

And arguably that was the point that was originally trying to be made. With that aside, your link does not appear to work (at least for me) so I am unable to find any statistics for 2008 (or 2009 even) to show a representation of gun crime. But at a glance, it looks like 2004 was the lowest rate over the last 20 years, not counting 2008 or 2009 as I haven't found that data yet, and I'm going to have to hit the hay as it's pretty late for some of us. Until tomorrow :)

[russ1943]

42. GUN CRIME NOR NUMBER OF MURDERS

ARE THE SAME AS MURDER RATE.
I know the murder rate does appear to be at a 20 year low and I didn’t say it wasn’t.
You state “And arguably that was the point that was originally trying to be made.” NO IT WAS NOT. If the point that was trying to be made was the murder rate, I wouldn’t have posted. No, the point trying to be made wasn't just about what the murder rate was. In my post # 37, I stated I had no objection to the murder rate statement. I know what the murder rate is, while I inquired "Where do you get your “facts”? I didn't disagree or criticize them by my query.
The point that was originally questioned was DonP’s statement in #6 when he wrote;
The FACTS ARE that gun crime and murders are at a 20 year low now and none of these people will even admit it.”

He claimed to know as a FACT that A. guncrimes and B. murders are at a 20 year low. That is separate from the gun rate question. My initial post simply requested “Where do you get your “facts”?

[eqfan592]

44. You just contradicted yourself.

In the early part of your post you state that Don was not trying to speak about the overall murder rate. You then later state that he was, but that you had no problem with that statement. Which is it?

And this doesn't change the fact that your link was apparently broken and that you've yet to produce any actual evidence to show don's statements were incorrect. If you have such evidence, please produce it.

[russ1943]

46. While your searching for that data....

How about you just answer the question I asked.

In your # 6 you posted;“The facts are that gun crime and murders are at a 20 year low now…”

Where do you get your “facts”?

Any source for "gun crime are at an all time low"?
Any source for "murders are at an all time low"?

[russ1943]

37. Not really

No one mentioned the “violent crime” statistic but if you look at the most recent complete FBI’s UCR in the violent crime section, you will see the statement “The 2008 estimated violent crime total was 1.6 percent ABOVE the 2004 level.
If the 2004 violent crime level(1,360,088) was less than or fewer than 2008’s as the (FBI’s UCR states), then 2008’s 1,382,012 was not an all time, nor a 20 year low.
As I noted the violent crime statistic wasn’t one DonP posted nor was it one I commented about. You brought up the 1,382,012 violent crime figure.
While you did mention small peaks and valleys, that doesn’t change the 20 year or all time low claim.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/violent_crime/index.html


Your murder rate calculations are somewhat unique in that most statistical charts and tables present rates as a number per thousand or per hundred thousand or even occasionally per million. I have no objection to the murder rate statement, but it should be obvious that since 1998 the murder rate per 100,000 has changed so little as to be statistically insignificant. It quit declining then and has since leveled off. In addition to the FBI's UCR see;
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0295.pdf

[eqfan592]

39. Violent crime TOTAL, not violent crime RATE

And it's the rate that I was speaking about. The violent crime rate in 2008 was 1 per every 220 people in the US. The violent crime rate in 2004 was 1 per every 216 (215.9 actually, but just so we're dealing with even numbers). This is an admittedly small difference, but it is a difference if one is trying to point to which year has, statistically, the lowest violent crime rate. Admittedly I have not taken the time to do the math on each year, but I did do a few of the potential candidates, and they did not beat out 2008.

I don't know if I'd say my calculations are unique (I basically did the simplest thing possible with them in dividing the population by the total number of whatever stat I was looking at), and they don't provide as many round numbers so they don't look as nice and clean, but they give slightly more accuracy because I don't do much rounding.

You are correct that the major decline has leveled off to relative statistical insignificance. But given that the firearm ownership rate has steadily increased during the entire 20 year time frame, the primary argument is made that there appear to be much larger factors at play when it comes to crime and the violent crime rate than the increase in the firearm ownership rate (or the prevalence of firearms in general). Otherwise one would expect to see some more correlation between the two numbers. But no such correlation appears to exist, much less proving any causation.

[russ1943]

41. No, it wasn't the RATE you posted about!

No it clearly wasn’t the RATE that you spoke of. You brought up the violent crime level and used the number 1,382,012 violent crimes occurred nationwide in 2008. If it was the rate you had been discussing, I wouldn’t and couldn’t have made the response I did.
You posted;
There were 1,646,040 violent crimes reported in 1989, and the number peaked at 1,932,270 in 1992. In 2008, with approximately 50,000,000 more people in the nation than there were before, the number of violent crimes reported had dropped to 1,382,012. And if you look at the data over the last 20 years, you'll see that this is part of an overall trend (with small peaks and valleys along the way).

You didn’t make any mention of the violent crime RATE for 2008 which the FBI notes was 454.5 per 100,000 Inhabitants. Also at that point I tried to inform you the original poster nor I had referenced the violent crime level nor the violent crime rate. If the discussion is to be about violent crime rates you might want to consider rather than using your own unique calculations, you reference FBI’s UCR reports or some other such reputable source. That not only diminishes an inadvertent math error, but makes it easier to compare figures.

Regarding your claim, now, about ownership increasing and a corelationship to violent crime rate, I disagree, but that’s another subject and Im not commenting on that at this time. This thread has gone on far enough.

[eqfan592]

43. Does not mention of total numbers and allowing for the increased population...

...point to my speaking on the violent crime RATE? If not, why else would I even mention the population increase at all? An increase in population combined with a decrease in total violent crimes implies a significant decrease in the violent crime RATE. And I rather enjoy my calculations, since they are easy to replicate by anybody for verification if they so choose, and give you a very specific and easily understood number to deal with.

And please, do comment on the supposed correlation between firearms ownership increasing and violent crime rate. Given that such a correlation does not appear to exist in the data itself, I'm interested to see exactly where you're finding it. And beyond that, I'm also interested in if you believe there is a causal relationship (which is really what must be proven for anti-gun advocates to even be correct) and if so, if you are willing to offer proof of this.

EDIT:

Here's an interesting graph that was posted originally by The Wraith some time back.



You'll see that the number of firearms and the firearm ownership rate both increase at a very steady rate, while the firearm related death rate jumps all over the place. If you were to look at the violent crime rate numbers in the link I provided earlier (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm) and compare them with the gun ownership rate increase in this graph, you will see there is no visible correlative relationship between the two. The only correlations that could be drawn that allow for the major drop in the firearms related deaths and violent crime rates are the increase in the number of shall issue concealed carry states and the passage of the Brady Bill. Were one or both of these factors major players in continuing the drop in violent crime that started between 1993 and 1994? Or are there other socioeconomic factors at play? I believe the latter to be most likely true, based on the experiences of nations like the UK.

EDIT 2: I read your post, russ, in reference to this same graph posted some time ago, so I acknowledge the points you made then. However, with that being said, you stated that you do believe there is a correlative (and causal?) relationship between the firearms ownership rate and the violent crime rate. But you yourself in the posting I'm referencing pointed out the poor availability of the data in question that would prove such a thing, at least according to the source you cited.

I also found this site to be interesting on this topic. It references the ATF and the total handgun supply. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvsupp.html

[russ1943]

45. Never mind.

You either can't read or just don't understand what words and statistics mean.
Have a happy and ignorant new year.

[eqfan592]

47. Ummm....ok then.

Happy new year to you. as well?
:shrug:

[Old Codger]

3. Agreed

The NRA is a basic propaganda machine, I was a firearms dealer for a long time in Cal. back before the brady laws
I used to get inundated with literature from them, got tired of it and actually wrote them and asked them to stop... they did stop for a long time, then a few years later after I was no longer in the business they started again, they sent me a questionnaire/Poll at one time so I filled it all out and got to the end and the only way they would count my answers in their results was if I would join their little boys club... between that and dippy heston and his stupid act that time the "from my cold dead hands" statement I decided that they were not only paranoid but stupid also , I am very into the gun culture, I have 2 concealed carry permits and several handguns and rifles, I shoot, when i can find ammo anymore maybe 500to 1000 a month.. but will never join that bunch....

[PavePusher]

5. What was wrong with Heston? n/t

[Old Codger]

7. what he did

When he stood there with a gun in his hands and made that statement "from my cold dead hands" in reference to them stating they would not give up their guns while still alive. Although I mainly agree with the philosophy he looked stupid doing it (IMHO) and things like that alarm the anti gunners. It makes no sense whatsoever to do things like that, it accomplishes nothing. Other than that I have nothing against him...

[PavePusher]

8. "I won't give up my bus seat."

"I won't be stopped from registering to vote or go to school."

"I will not let you search my home/person without a warrant."

"I will not let you restrict my religous practices, or let you discriminate against me because of them."


Yeah, every person who ever vowed, in public, to safeguard their Civil Rights, looked stupid doing it. "It makes no sense whatsoever to do things like that, it accomplishes nothing."


Umm, you do realise how silly all that sounds, yes?

[tucsonlib]

9. No, THIS Would Sound Silly:

"I'll stop registering to vote when they pry the ballot from my cold, dead fingers!"

What does adding that little phrase accomplish, besides calling into question the sanity and rationality of the speaker? And, of course, stripping away the dignity and poignancy of the original sentiment?

When we resort to using macho jingoism to emphasize a point, we look and sound like lunatics, and we become the butt of jokes. Is this any way to win converts?

[PavePusher]

10. Registration does not stop anyone qualified from voting.

See the difference?

It functions rather like the NICS that way...

Edit: At what point would you stop defending freedom and Civil Rights? Mr. Heston was indicating his willingness to lay down his life for freedom, just as many in the past have done. Is there something intrinsicly wrong with that?

[tucsonlib]

11. I'm Not Questioning The Sentiment

Just the way it was (is) expressed. Winston Churchill managed to express his willingness to lay down his life for freedom eloquently, convincingly and passionately - In words that are quoted with respect to this day. Mr. Heston, on the other hand, sounded and looked like a macho, simple-minded lunatic. He turned every 2A advocate into a caricature in people's minds.

[PavePusher]

14. Odd, I rather thought his declaration was ...

"eloquent, convincing and passionate - In words that are quoted with respect to this day."

We may have to agree to disagree on this one.

Oh, Churchill - great speaker and a man to be studied and inspired by.

[Old Codger]

13. Context

I guess I was more put off by the fact that there was no real reason for that statement at that time, he was at an NRA convention, not at a rally to pretest anti gun laws... Came across(IMHO) as stupid and lame.

[PavePusher]

15. I guess one can only try to make passionate speeches...

to audiences that might disagree with your conclusions?

Umm, I don't think we see this the same way.

P.S. Mr. Heston was one of the greatest defenders of Civil Rights to ever make a name in Hollyweird.

[Old Codger]

17. Ok , well

I am a staunch supporter of RKBA and always will be, and if the fight ever happens I will be right there in the middle of it, but that statement at that time was infantile and macho crap, a lot the same as old * and his "bring it on" macho crap.. so you can agree with what he did and I can disagree with it, we are both still on the same side willing to fight the same battle for the same reasons.

[PavePusher]

18. Interestingly enough, Heston and Churchill were saying almost exactly the same thing...

just in rather different vernaculars.

But somehow, some folks dismiss one version of the message in favor of the other. I'm sure there are some significant sociological profundities there somewhere...

[GreenStormCloud]

32. That quote is not original to Heston. In fact, it has been on bumper stickers for decades.

It was already well known to all the conventioneers. By using their well known slogan, Heston was saying, "I am with you."

Watch the 1984 movie Red Dawn. In the opening scenes, after the town has been seized, the Communist officer pry a handgun from a dead civilian with that bumper sticker on the pickup next to him. That scene would not have really worked unless the movie going public could be expected to have seen the bumper sticker.

[PavePusher]

33. O.K., learn something new every day.

Wiki isn't a definitive source, but it can be a useful place to start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_my_cold,_dead_hands

[east texas lib]

12. They focus on that one statement, disregarding all else...

It's SOP round these here parts for a few.;-)

[PavePusher]

16. Education, it's the only way...

Tho' even I can get snarky and downright belligerent with some folks 'round here...

[applegrove]

19. When ever you post anything about gun control on the DU a whole host of

pro gun people show up and try and manipulate you into either shutting up or changing your views. You cannot have a discussion with them. If these are NRA disruptors they are successful. I can't be bothered most often to post a pro gun control thread.

[PavePusher]

20. "You cannot have a discussion with you"

Ah, I think I see your problem...

:rofl:

[applegrove]

21. I corrected it. I should reread my posts before I post them. LOL!

[PavePusher]

22. I resemble that remark.

See, we can have a discussion! Or at least a little good-natured banter...:toast:

[applegrove]

23. I don' t know enough about gun control anymore to make for good banter.

[PavePusher]

24. 'S O.K., I'm off to bed. Up at Oh-gohd hundred. Bugger. Cheers! n/t

[applegrove]

25. Cheers.

[rd_kent]

26. I think you are mistaken, but I will listen to what you have to say.

and have a rational, civil discussion with you, if you are willing.

Im 100% pro-Second Amendment, without restrictions, for those LEGALLY allowed to own/possess a firearm, inn pretty much the way the laws are right now.

What is your stance and why do feel that way.


Rational discussion in 3, 2, 1.....go!

[applegrove]

36. I'm just not read up on gun control right now to get into the discussion deeply.

I've moved on to other issues.

[rd_kent]

49. So if you admit you are not up on gun control issues why do you complain that pro-2A people will not

have a discussion with you? It seems silly to state that you are upset you cannot have a meaningful discussion on the subject, blame that on the opposition and then say never mind, I'm ignorant on the subject anyway....


WTF?

[eqfan592]

29. What's the point of discussion....

....if not to try and convince somebody else of your viewpoint? I just don't get your statement. And I honestly don't see many people around here attempting to "shut up" most anti-RKBA posters. Some anti-RKBA cross the line (like attempting to post personal information of CCW permit holders) and they get called out for it, but I don't think that equates to trying to "shut up" the other side.

Also, you have to admit that a lot of anti-RKBA posters tend to start their "rational discussions" by painting gun owners as ignorant, blood thirsty rednecks of one sort or another. This makes any actual rational discussion somewhat difficult. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen from the other side from time to time, but I don't think it's nearly to the same degree.

And notice how I say "anti-RKBA" and not "pro gun control" posters? That's because just about everybody here is "pro gun control." It's a matter of HOW MUCH gun control is necessary. Do we need a lot more than we have? Will more of it help to reduce crime? Or are we better off sticking with what we have, improving that system, and fighting the root sources of crime? These are the questions most of us have asked ourselves. I don't think you'll find many people who are opposed to having any gun control at all. You might be more accurate in saying you're "pro MORE gun control" or simply "anti-RKBA" all together as some other posters are.

[jeepnstein]

30. It has more to do with the messengers than the message.

It seems to me that most of the "gun control is good" crowd wind up using comparisons to genitalia, insults, and anger instead of any kind of polite discussion. Sure, we've got a few on the "guns is good" crowd who are just as bad but not as many.

I'm all for a reasonably polite argument now and then. When it gets down to insults and fighting words then I have no further use for it.

If someone has an idea for reducing crime that doesn't involve stripping Citizens of their Constitutional Rights, then I'm all ears.

[SteveM]

48. I thought this was the purpose of DU forums...

"When ever you post anything about gun control on the Du a whole host of pro gun people show up and try and manipulate you into either shutting up or changing your views."

My goodness, that's what the site(s) are about! It's not a mutual admiration society (though that may occur), nor is it preaching to the choir. I wouldn't be here if there were not a chance DUers would be convinced of pro-2A positions. But there certainly is that chance, and I believe that many DUers have "come over."

You can have a discussion with "them." Of course, when someone makes a reference to folks here being "freepers," or "NRA-types," or lacking "penis length" or some such, that does not make for good argument.

I don't know what you mean by "NRA disruptors." First, there is little disruption done by pro-RKBA folks, though I have seen ample evidence of some hateful-types who attack pro-2A folks at every turn. Review their arguments; review yours, and see where the onus most heavily falls.

FYI, there has been thoughtful and respectful debate over extension of the NICS test to all citizens, and not require it only of FFLs. But even here, one gun-controller condemned the discussion as meaningless since it did not call for bans on guns and ammunition.

As for knowledge of the subject, it is always wise to know as much as possible about the substance/object/behavior one wishes to control by law.