13 Dead, 20 Wounded...

[lilpixieofterror]

This is not a political issue. It is about the way American kids are taught to vent their anger. It is about children’s education in all its forms, schools, churches, comic book heroes, movies and television. It might even partly be the crappy fast food and sugary drinks they eat all day.

“[An 11-year-old boy in the US state of Tennessee has been held on suspicion of shooting dead an eight-year-old girl in a row over a puppy.]”

When are you guys going to get a grip?

Interesting because from the time I was a kid to today, I've never once even thought about shooting anybody in anger let alone carrying it out. I guess blaming over 300 million people, for the actions of a few, is all you got though.

[rogue06]

This is not a political issue.

In his speech that Obama gave before any of the victims had even been positively identified Obama himself straight out and declared that he was going to "politicize" the tragedy. From the Washington Post, the newspaper that only Starlight could possibly think is conservative, they quote his speech:

Source: President Obama wants to politicize the Oregon shooting

And, of course, what’s also routine is that somebody, somewhere will comment and say, Obama politicized this issue. Well, this is something we should politicize. It is relevant to our common life together, to the body politic.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

That was the word he used.

That was exactly what he did.

That is what he admits doing.

And that is what he is going to Oregon to continue doing.

[Sam]

And exactly what should be done. The idea that a nation can experience mass shootings every month or so without that being a political issue is insane. Of course, everyone already treats it as a political issue, which is why the NRA exists.

[Starlight]

From the Washington Post, the newspaper that only Starlight could possibly think is conservative

If you're going to include throwaway digs at me, at least do me and others the courtesy of being truthful. As I pointed out last time, a long list of observers have made comments about the Washington Post going very conservative in recent years. eg Chris Matthews said "The Washington Post is not the liberal newspaper it was, Congressman, let me tell you. I have been reading it for years and it is a neocon newspaper."

[lilpixieofterror]

If you're going to include throwaway digs at me, at least do me and others the courtesy of being truthful. As I pointed out last time, a long list of observers have made comments about the Washington Post going very conservative in recent years. eg Chris Matthews said "The Washington Post is not the liberal newspaper it was, Congressman, let me tell you. I have been reading it for years and it is a neocon newspaper."

Yep, dimbulb finds yet another liberal hack and what do you know; he agrees with what dimbulb says.

[rogue06]

And exactly what should be done. The idea that a nation can experience mass shootings every month or so without that being a political issue is insane. Of course, everyone already treats it as a political issue, which is why the NRA exists.

One should at least wait until the bodies are cold before they seek to exploit them on the national stage to further their agenda.

[Starlight]

One should at least wait until the bodies are cold before they seek to exploit them on the national stage to further their agenda.

When the 'agenda' is stopping things like that from recurring, surely there's a moral imperative to act as fast as possible. Isn't that what at least half of the Republican fake Benghazi scandal was all about - Obama didn't use the label 'terrorist' soon enough for the Republicans liking, and/or Hillary didn't take enough action to prevent it?

It's fairly common for the parents of the victims of gun violence to demand action on gun control immediately after. So it doesn't seem 'insensitive' for politicians to do it if the grieving parents of the victims are themselves doing it.

[Sam]

One should at least wait until the bodies are cold before they seek to exploit them on the national stage to further their agenda.

Yeah, not buying that, for reasons that Starlight articulated above. These tragedies are preventable. We could, given the national willpower, prevent this from happening every couple of months. Every time this happens as a consequence for our national inaction and the stubborn intent of a minority to prevent even small steps toward that goal is exactly the right time to call attention to the issue. It's not like this is a one-off event that blindsided the nation; we know the next one is coming and probably less than three months away.

[Starlight]

Politifact today released their truth'o'meter rating for Obama's claim:
Obama: More gun laws means fewer gun deaths - Mostly True

There is plenty of debate over the effectiveness of gun control laws, so we decided to dig into Obama’s sweeping claim: that "states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths."

We ran this claim past several experts and found that the statistic generally holds up

Most instructively they link to this chart, which shows gun death rates down the left, and gun control laws in the blue boxes:


It is clear at a glance that the rule of "more gun control laws = few gun deaths in US states" is true. The states near the top of the chart that have the fewest gun deaths are generally the states with the most gun control laws.

It is also worth noting that a study published 2 months ago found:

Police officers are most likely to be killed in states where the most people own guns, a new study finds...

This study looks at who's killing the cops, and it's overwhelmingly people with private guns

[lilpixieofterror]

Politifact today released their truth'o'meter rating for Obama's claim:
Obama: More gun laws means fewer gun deaths - Mostly True

There is plenty of debate over the effectiveness of gun control laws, so we decided to dig into Obama’s sweeping claim: that "states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths."

We ran this claim past several experts and found that the statistic generally holds up

Most instructively they link to this chart, which shows gun death rates down the left, and gun control laws in the blue boxes:


It is clear at a glance that the rule of "more gun control laws = few gun deaths in US states" is true. The states near the top of the chart that have the fewest gun deaths are generally the states with the most gun control laws.

It is also worth noting that a study published 2 months ago found:

Police officers are most likely to be killed in states where the most people own guns, a new study finds...

This study looks at who's killing the cops, and it's overwhelmingly people with private guns

And what is the ownership of guns, in each state, dimbulb?

[Starlight]

And what is the ownership of guns, in each state, dimbulb?

Please use my proper name, it's just basic politeness.

From here:




The overall correlation is pretty clear.

[rogue06]

Politifact today released their truth'o'meter rating for Obama's claim:
Obama: More gun laws means fewer gun deaths - Mostly True

There is plenty of debate over the effectiveness of gun control laws, so we decided to dig into Obama’s sweeping claim: that "states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths."

We ran this claim past several experts and found that the statistic generally holds up

Most instructively they link to this chart, which shows gun death rates down the left, and gun control laws in the blue boxes:


It is clear at a glance that the rule of "more gun control laws = few gun deaths in US states" is true. The states near the top of the chart that have the fewest gun deaths are generally the states with the most gun control laws.

It is also worth noting that a study published 2 months ago found:

Police officers are most likely to be killed in states where the most people own guns, a new study finds...

This study looks at who's killing the cops, and it's overwhelmingly people with private guns

Which explains why Chicago, with probably the most stringent gun control laws in the nation, has far and away the highest homicide rate with firearms of any of the country's large cities. In fact the decade after Chicago outlawed handguns, murders jumped by 41%, -- compared with an 18% rise in the entire U.S.

chicago_handguns-full.jpg
And the numbers have got much worse since 2007
3000 people have been murdered there since Obama took office

A similar thing happened in the nation's capital after they banned the possession of handguns (except for the politically well-connected and the ones with phalanxes of armed body guards). During the years in which the Washington D.C. handgun ban was in effect, the murder rate there averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.

dc-full.jpg

And please note that the dozen states with the highest "gun-related death" rates are largely rural which makes getting to a hospital in time to save someone’s life difficult and as a result will greatly skew the statistics. Likewise those with the lowest rates are either much less rural or small where the distance to the nearest city isn't very great.

[Starlight]

Which explains why Chicago, with probably the most stringent gun control laws in the nation, has far and away the highest homicide rate with firearms of any of the country's large cities.

There are exceptions to most generalizations. Chicago's big problem is that Indiana is right next to it with no gun regulations, and that Chicago itself has had a huge uptick in gang related issues and gang related violence in recent years. The gangs simply import guns from Indiana and Chicago authorities can only wring their hands. So the effectiveness of Chicago's own ban is sorely limited by the lax laws in nearby states.

A similar thing happened in the nation's capital after they banned the possession of handguns

DC is obviously going to have a similar issue: The region is so small, that nearby regions with laxer gun laws offer an easy source of guns.

[rogue06]

Yeah, not buying that, for reasons that Starlight articulated above. These tragedies are preventable. We could, given the national willpower, prevent this from happening every couple of months. Every time this happens as a consequence for our national inaction and the stubborn intent of a minority to prevent even small steps toward that goal is exactly the right time to call attention to the issue. It's not like this is a one-off event that blindsided the nation; we know the next one is coming and probably less than three months away.

So what exactly is the great cure all Sam?

• Longer waiting periods?

• More stringent background checks?

• Mandatory gun locks?

• Limits on the number of firearms you can purchase?

• Waving a magic wand?

[rogue06]

There are exceptions to most generalizations. Chicago's big problem is that Indiana is right next to it with no gun regulations, and that Chicago itself has had a huge uptick in gang related issues and gang related violence in recent years. The gangs simply import guns from Indiana and Chicago authorities can only wring their hands. So the effectiveness of Chicago's own ban is sorely limited by the lax laws in nearby states.

DC is obviously going to have a similar issue: The region is so small, that nearby regions with laxer gun laws offer an easy source of guns.

Then why doesn't Indiana have an even worse gun-related violence problem since firearms are even more readily available there? That is where that old canard falls flat on its face.