Brady Center Says Obama Has Failed on Gun Control.

[USAFNoDak]

TG:

Well, you may differ but I have heard Paul Helmke, Dennis Henigan, and Ladd Everrett say exactly that. Everrett said it on Tom Gresham's Guntalk if you want to hear him I can send you the link.

They may very well have said that. But it's only a piece of their argument. They continually attempt to point out that the "assault weapons" ban led to increased police safety and that the expiration of same has led to decreased police safety. See my post above with numbers from the FBI. They are not simplistic and seem to prove the error in the Brady's claims.

Their claims of increased police safety with the ban vs. decreased police safety without the ban is very analogous to the claim of "more guns equals more crime". It isn't true, necessarily. We can't let them sit on that premise. Their friends in the media will carry their water for them if we don't shoot holes in their buckets.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by USAFNoDak

More guns does not mean more crime anymore than more guns means less crime.

On this we agree.

[Double Naught Spy]

They may very well have said that. But it's only a piece of their argument. They continually attempt to point out that the "assault weapons" ban led to increased police safety and that the expiration of same has led to decreased police safety. See my post above with numbers from the FBI. They are not simplistic and seem to prove the error in the Brady's claims.

Regarding your first paragraph, John Lott was shot down, stomped upon, burned in effagy, and ridiculed, by many people, including some who are pro gun rights, such as Gary Kleck

John Lott may have been ridiculed, but by golly folks still believe and reiterate the claim being made and they are just as wrong as the Brady Center's claims. Both sides are equally guilty of this misuse of information.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...=206&issue=007

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...ght=crime+rate
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...ght=crime+rate
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...ght=crime+rate

Their claims are silly and we seem to keep making the same mistakes.

So if you are so worried about invalid claims being made, then you need to take a look at both sides of the argument.

[USAFNoDak]

Double Naught Spy:

So if you are so worried about invalid claims being made, then you need to take a look at both sides of the argument.

I agree that Lott and anyone else making a claim that more guns equals less crime is not a valid argument, and I believe I've said so, numerous times within this thread.

However, we have a mainstream media which seems to take the side of "more guns equals more crime". Would you not agree with that? Who has a broader broadcast of their message, the mainstream media, or John Lott? He is one person, vs. thousands of journalists in the print and video media. That's why I asked the question of when a reporter would question the logic of the anti gun and gun control proponents when those people trott out the "if we only had less guns we wouldn't have the violent crime problem that we do in the US" argument. If that claim is true, then by pure logic we should be seeing a significant increase in violent crime rates because gun purchases have risen. However, violent crime rates are trending downwards.

If the mainstream media was objective in their coverage of gun rights vs. gun control, I would hope to see them pointing out these two trends. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places, but I only see pro gun rights outlets who seem to be reporting this. That's my point.

Please don't think I'm a supporter of Lott's theory or that there is any causal relationship between more guns resulting in less crime. I'm not. I believe I've explicitly stated so.

My beef is that the anti gun and gun control groups, bolstered by their friends in the media, do not seem to be questioned on their premise that more guns results in more crimes, even when there is data which would seem to disprove that premise.

[USAFNoDak]

Double Naught Spy:

John Lott may have been ridiculed, but by golly folks still believe and reiterate the claim being made and they are just as wrong as the Brady Center's claims. Both sides are equally guilty of this misuse of information.

I agree. However, who gets the affirmation of the mainstream media, John Lott or the Brady Center? That's where my issue exists. The misuse of the information is much more widespread on the side of "more guns equals more crime" than on the side of "more guns equals less crime". Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by USAFNoDak

However, who gets the affirmation of the mainstream media, John Lott or the Brady Center?

I think most on TFL would say that the mainstream media tends to be anti-gun and so yes the Brady Center gets quoted more often by them. However, within the gun world and that includes the NRA and TFL, John Lott is a demi-god. So, to answer where I see you going, both ideas are wrong.

Therefore, if your purpose in using the simplistic chart is simply to take the issue of guns being causational to violent crime either good or bad off the debating table then fine and I would go along with that.

I watched a debate with Gary Kleck and someone from the audience asked him "if guns make us safer, and we have so many why do we have so many murders?" and he answered that the issue of crime is multifacted and no one factor could answer that question. That is why I do not favor the use of simplistic "bumper sticker" approaches to understanding our violent crime problem in the USA.

[firespectrum]

When I opened the link my browser froze up and I had to restart my computer. There must have been an offensive BS overload... I knew I liked Firefox for a reason

[USAFNoDak]

TG

I think most on TFL would say that the mainstream media tends to be anti-gun and so yes the Brady Center gets quoted more often by them. However, within the gun world and that includes the NRA and TFL, John Lott is a demi-god. So, to answer where I see you going, both ideas are wrong.

As I stated in one of my recent posts above, it is incorrect to say that more guns equals less crime. I agree with you. However, the MSM has much broader reach in our society than the NRA, John Lott, and TFL, combined. They take the opposite approach, which is also wrong. Yes, we need to police our side. Who is going to police their side, other than us?

Therefore, if your purpose in using the simplistic chart is simply to take the issue of guns being causational to violent crime either good or bad off the debating table then fine and I would go along with that.

I believe that has been my point all along, so I thank you for your willingness to agree on that point. We are, for the most part, on the same side, TG.

I watched a debate with Gary Kleck and someone from the audience asked him "if guns make us safer, and we have so many why do we have so many murders?" and he answered that the issue of crime is multifacted and no one factor could answer that question. That is why I do not favor the use of simplistic "bumper sticker" approaches to understanding our violent crime problem in the USA.

I agree 100% with you and Mr. Kleck on the fact that crime has so many factors it is unreasonable and illogical to point to one factor and say "See, that's why we have such high crime rates". That's what bothers me about the Brady Center and their friends in the MSM getting away with "more guns equals more crime" with no one seeming to question it other than pro gun rights groups which don't get anywhere near the coverage in the MSM that gun control groups get.

I do not favor using simplistic "bumper sticker" approaches to understanding our violent crime rates. I'd like to force the anti gun and gun control side to move away from their "bumper sticker" approach regarding "more guns equals more crime". A graph which seems to refute that claim would help someone from our side to claim just what you and Kleck have been saying. That is, you cannot make such a simple claim about guns vs. crime. The graph would be a way to change the debate towards trying to figure out why our violent crime rates are so high. This would be done by exploring more demographics than just the amount of guns in the US.

Unfortunately, the MSM consistently runs with the "more guns equals more crime" bumper sticker claims from groups such as the Brady Center. If the MSM were as objective as you and I are, they'd be looking into other issues regarding crime. At the very least they'd question their own premise by looking into the fact that gun purchases have been increasing while violent crime has been decreasing in the USA.

That would not help their own agenda, which, as you've agreed, tends to be for more gun control. The reason for that agenda may truly be a belief on their part that more guns equals more crime. If so, how do we change that belief?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by USAFNoDak

The reason for that agenda may truly be a belief on their part that more guns indeed equals more crime.

I think for the most part they do believe it. And using a defective logic it rings true. If there were no guns there would be no gun crime. However, as I said the logic is defective because there are guns and there will always be guns in any foreseeable future I can imagine. Same same for violent crime, see Cain and Abel.

Originally Posted by USAFNoDak

If so, how do we change that belief?

That is a question that would require a long answer. However, what we do not want to do is what folk often do who oppose one another's position. That is, mirror-image. Junk science is junk science whether it is pro or anti-gun. I would use real science to refute junk science, not junk to junk.

Absolutely we should question and oppose anti-gun junk science. But let's do it thoughtfully and with objective means. That is my point.

[USAFNoDak]

TG

Absolutely we should question and oppose anti-gun junk science. But let's do it thoughtfully and with objective means. That is my point.

I believe it's my point as well. One tool we can use to cause thoughtful and objective engagement by people who have been misled by the anti-gun-junk-science argument (more guns = more crime) is a visual tool (ie, graph) to show that the premise (more guns = more crime) is not necessarily valid. Then we move to where you, Kleck, and I want to go. We begin the discussion regarding the multifaceted issue of violent crime. If we can do that, we've scored big time. The anti's will be forced to scramble for a new "bumper sticker" talking point.

[USAFNoDak]

TG

I think for the most part they do believe it. And using a defective logic it rings true. If there were no guns there would be no gun crime. However, as I said the logic is defective because there are guns and there will always be guns in any foreseeable future I can imagine. Same same for violent crime, see Cain and Abel.

If we can get them to move away from "more guns equals more crime", then we can indeed start to discuss how violent crime has been with man since Cain and Abel. Also, we can start to talk about how removing guns from civilians hands does not prevent tyrannical governments from killing people, including their own. We witnessed this during Hitler, Stalin, Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot, Castro, etc. It then becomes a debate on how humans have always killed each other regardless of the presence of guns. Also, we can introduce such topics as the high suicide rate in Japan where there are virtually no guns in their society. Off the top of my head, I'm thinking that more than half of US deaths involving firearms are the result of suicide, not crime. The Japanese have a higher per capita suicide rate than we do. How would they explain that? It couldn't be done with a simple approach stating that Japan has too many guns.

[USAFNoDak]

This is pretty close to what I've been looking for, though it only goes up to 2001. I'd like to see the most recent one through 2008. The numbers for 2009 are probably not compiled yet.

One note here is that though the graph doesn't show overall firearm ownership rates, one can assume those have been increasing as well as handgun ownership rates, which are shown on the graph.

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-fa...5.1-screen.pdf

Page 30 of 105 or page 23 in the actual document.

[bikerbill]

The bradys and their ilk have no interest in reducing crime per se, or they'd be out of business, since crime rates are dropping even as guns are being purchased in growing numbers all over the country. Their only interest is in seeing you and me disarmed, and they will lie and fudge statistics to achieve those ends. The fact that gun owners are more than happy to take part in defeating anti-gun politicians is probably the only reason we're not all carrying tree branches for SD right now. If a politician's position on the 2nd Amendment is anti, he or she does not get my vote, no matter what their stand on other issues. Keeping NRA A-rated pols in office is the only way to protect your right to keep and bear arms.

[sonick808]

echoing what other have already said but still i have to say that I notice it also: Brady seems not to focus on gun CRIME, but guns. Period.

I think the Brady's want revenge, not less crime.

They are irrelevant anymore anyway.

[CowTowner]

They are irrelevant anymore anyway.

Sorry to disagree. But they are relevant as long as there are people supporting, parroting and believing their mantra.

Because the current state of things is not bending their way is no reason to count them down or out.

[USAFNoDak]

Sorry to disagree. But they are relevant as long as there are people supporting, parroting and believing their mantra.

Yup, we cannot let our guard down. We must take the high ground and defend it at all times. Liberty must be constantly guarded, 24/7, because there are people who would like to chip away at it, if not take it all at one time. We probably won't see any politicians in America who have the backbone or the will to try and take it all at once. They do fear the people to some extent, even today. We still have the constitution, even if the federal government seems willing to ignore it often. The Supreme Court has been willing on several recent occasions to slap the feds across the face and tell them to knock it off. Obama certainly didn't like the last one regarding campaign financing or McCain-Feingold. That law does have an effect on pro gun rights organizations in getting their message across during an election cycle.

I believe the Brady's do not control much of the high ground, if any, at this time. They are down in the valleys trying to figure out ways to get back to being king of the hill as they were during the Clinton presidency. We must not let them retake even 1 inch of the ground where we are protecting our rights and our freedom. They are still a dangerous enemy and have a vast communications network called the MSM. That's main steam media for those of you in Rio Linda, CA.