Gun Violence Tracker (4 Viewers)

[jbutler]

It's not that he denied it but rather he and the media ignored or refused to acknowledge that until recently. In every Presdiential address he talks about increased gun violence. The media parrots this

He was confronted on this by the wife of Chris Kyle (American Sniper) where she brought up the FBI stats. That was the first time I ever saw him acknowledge those conflicting statistics...shown here

It seems curious to bolster the claim that the President avoiding the truth about violent crime by posting a video of him acknowledging accurate statements about violent crime.

Certainly he has an agenda and I'm sure his stump speeches do their best to present data in a way that is favorable to his agenda, but I don't think you're being any more objective about the facts by claiming he "dismisses" the falling violent crime rate and then posting a video of him acknowledging it.

Another report that is mysteriously ignored is the CDC report that Obama ordered after Newtown. It was released in 2013. Do you ever remember him or the media mentioning it? Not only do they not mention it, they continue the misleading narrative of how the CDC was blocked from gun research and actually, in some instances, deny its existence.

Here is a direct link to that report: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/pr...reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence

In it is states:

"Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996, Kleck 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun use by victims is at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2010)."

Here is an example of the media trying to deny the existence of this report..ordered by the President mind you. What the commentator doesn't even realize is that the 30k number he was given in her script is from the exact report/data set that she says does doesn't exist.

If I post a video of a news report or panel discussing the report, does that disprove your claim that "the media" is "trying to deny the existence" of the report? Showing one video and claiming it stands for what "the media" - as if "the media" is some monolithic organism - does or believes as a whole is silly.

Of course, "the media" is not ignoring the report as evidenced by the fact that with a simple Google search I found plenty of coverage including this article on Slate, an outlet routinely slammed as one of the most leftist.

 

[Old State]

I dont want to get sucked into 29 pages of passionate opinions. I just have to say it though. Anyone who thinks the US does not have a gun problem is completely delusional.

But its like a raging alcoholic. Until he admits there's a problem and takes responsibility, nothing will change.

It's a matter of context. There were 8124 people murdered with firearms in 2014 as the FBI I reported here...

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....able_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

Of that 80% was gang related violence according to FBI and CDC reports. So that leaves you with 1624 non gang related gun murders in a population of 350M. That equates to .00000464% of th US population

In 2014 4295 people were killed driving motorcycles yet we don't hear about our epidemic of motorcycle deaths. Mass shooting are also extremely rare but the media coverage implies this is happening everywhere all the time. We need to keep things in statistical perspective.

 

[jbutler]

It's a matter of context. There were 8124 people murdered with firearms in 2014 as the FBI I reported here...

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....able_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

Of that 80% was gang related violence according to FBI and CDC reports. So that leaves you with 1624 non gang related gun murders in a population of 350M. That equates to .00000464% of th US population

In 2014 4295 people were killed driving motorcycles yet we don't hear about our epidemic of motorcycle deaths. Mass shooting are also extremely rare but the media coverage implies this is happening everywhere all the time. We need to keep things in statistical perspective.

Why shouldn't we be concerned with gang-related violence?

 

[Old State]

It seems curious to bolster the claim that the President avoiding the truth about violent crime by posting a video of him acknowledging accurate statements about violent crime.

Certainly he has an agenda and I'm sure his stump speeches do their best to present data in a way that is favorable to his agenda, but I don't think you're being any more objective about the facts by claiming he "dismisses" the falling violent crime rate and then posting a video of him acknowledging it.



If I post a video of a news report or panel discussing the report, does that disprove your claim that "the media" is "trying to deny the existence" of the report? Showing one video and claiming it stands for what "the media" - as if "the media" is some monolithic organism - does or believes as a whole is silly.

Of course, "the media" is not ignoring the report as evidenced by the fact that with a simple Google search I found plenty of coverage including this article on Slate, an outlet routinely slammed as one of the most leftist.

I would challenge anyone to find evidence of the the President acknowledging the decline of gun murders anywhere before that CNN town hall. Then contrast any findings with the instances where he implies there is a growing epidemic of gun violence.

I found those same reports on the CDC study. Again they are pretty rare statistically. That study was LARGLY ignored by the media and I saw no reference to it ever on TV news outlets.

As for the CNN commentator, I said that this was ONE example. The media is STRONGLY anti gun....that would be pretty hard to deny.

 

[Old State]

Why shouldn't we be concerned with gang-related violence?

We should, but the laws being proposed don't affect criminals shooting other criminals with stolen or black market guns. Controlling gang violence requires far far move than a discussion about guns.

Also, you a diverging from the point here which is whether we statistically have a "growing epidemic of gun violence" and if gun are used in large numbers for self defense.

 

[Meddler2]

The media is STRONGLY anti gun....that would be pretty hard to deny.

Same as any reasonable person is anti cancer.

Nobody on this thread has advocated a gun ban. Simple regulations in an attempt to lower gun violence and gun death.

Same as seat belts and air bags reduce vehicle deaths and injuries.

2nd amendment does not mean we can't regulate gun ownership.

 

[Meddler2]

We should, but the laws being proposed don't affect criminals shooting other criminals with stolen or black market guns. Controlling gang violence requires far far move than a discussion about guns.

Also, you a diverging from the point here which is whether we statistically have a "growing epidemic of gun violence" and if gun are used in large numbers for self defense.

Violent crime has been thwarted by someone with a gun less than 3%. I posted that link previously.

 

[Old State]

You link is from the antigun website you reference and they provide zero citation as to where that data is from. It also conflicts dramatically with the CDC findings from the study the President ordered.

Why would you rely on that website when the FBI data is easily accessed? A partisan website that doesn't list its sources is hardly credible compared to FBI statistics.

The media has been somewhat successful in convincing the public that gun murders are rising despite the actual FBI and CDC statistics. According to pew, between 75-80% of American wrongly believe gun crime is either rising or has stayed the same.

BTW, the cancer comment is a pretty absurd stretch of logic

 

[jbutler]

I would challenge anyone to find evidence of the the President acknowledging the decline of gun murders anywhere before that CNN town hall. Then contrast any findings with the instances where he implies there is a growing epidemic of gun violence.

Generally the onus is on the person making a claim to provide proof. Your standard of debate is very different from mine if you permit people to simply make claims and then place the onus on others to prove them wrong.

...the laws being proposed don't affect criminals shooting other criminals with stolen or black market guns. Controlling gang violence requires far far move than a discussion about guns.

Of course laws that restrict gun sales impact "criminals shooting other criminals". Where do you think "black market guns" come from? The black market gun factory? They are guns that were originally sold by a gun dealer to a consumer and were later sold to or stolen by someone else.

Saying that "controlling gang violence requires far far move than a discussion about guns" as a means of defending removing the number of gun deaths from gang violence is irrational. It doesn't matter that they're "criminals shooting other criminals." Their deaths are part of the impact of gun violence.

 

[Old State]

Generally the onus is on the person making a claim to provide proof. Your standard of debate is very different from mine if you permit people to simply make claims and then place the onus on others to prove them wrong.



Of course laws that restrict gun sales impact "criminals shooting other criminals". Where do you think "black market guns" come from? The black market gun factory? They are guns that were originally sold by a gun dealer to a consumer and were later sold to or stolen by someone else.

Saying that "controlling gang violence requires far far move than a discussion about guns" as a means of defending removing the number of gun deaths from gang violence is irrational. It doesn't matter that they're "criminals shooting other criminals." Their deaths are part of the impact of gun violence.

In this case it's not a matter of proving anything. Do you honestly ever remember a story on the news about that CDC study? If it was covered to the extent other things were you would have. You would think this would have been a very big story....the results of the President executive order for gun research, no? But it doesn't fit the narrative.

Selling guns to criminals aka straw purchases, are already a crime and not all illegal gun originate in the US. Almost all of the fully automatic AKs etc you see in police pictures came via Mexico from overseas

Also, again, my main point was about the statistical numbers of gun deaths where I have provided several links to credible sources.


Obama stating there is an epidemic of gun violence despite FBI data showing the opposite


https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...kly-address-making-america-safer-our-children

 

[jbutler]

In this case it's not a matter of proving anything. Do you honestly ever remember a story on the news about that CDC study?

I'm 90% sure I read the exact story in Slate I linked to before, which would make sense since I read Slate and, in particular, Will Saletan.

If it was covered to the extent other things were you would have. You would think this would have been a very big story....the results of the President executive order for gun research, no? But it doesn't fit the narrative.

Perhaps the problem is with what you read and watch. We've gone from you making a statement asking other people to disprove to you making claims about what you remember seeing and asking that we accept your memory of your media consumption stand as proof of media bias.

Selling guns to criminals aka straw purchases, are already a crime and not all illegal gun originate in the US. Almost all of the fully automatic AKs etc you see in police pictures came via Mexico from overseas

It doesn't have to be a straw purchase for the gun bought to ultimately end up in the hands of someone who shouldn't have it. And again, you rely on the argument that the proposed laws will not fix 100% of the problem. I agree. And yet we should still be taking action to restrict distribution because it will fix some of the problem. I would think that fixing some of the problem is preferable to fixing none of the problem.

Also, again, my main point was about the statistical numbers of gun deaths where I have provided several links to credible sources.

Obama stating there is an epidemic of gun violence despite FBI data showing the opposite

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...kly-address-making-america-safer-our-children

See Chicken's previous statement:

Gun violence and violent crime is at an all time low. Mass shootings are at an all time high, and on the rise. This is the crux of the differing spin.

It's pretty clear that's what's going on here. It can still be an epidemic even if it's a less severe or characteristically different epidemic.

 

[Old State]

Please reread my original post as that is the main point I am making.

To Slates credit they acknowledged the CDC report. That said, Slate is hardly a mainstream news source and has published exponentially more antigun articles. Slate obviously has an openly hostile position on guns. This is evident with a quick search of their wesite. As a matter of fact Slate owns the tracker that this thread was started about.

If one is interested in unbiased fact based debate there is absolutely no need to reference websites like this or Slate when we have easy access to objective FBI.gov data.

Statistically speaking, in context of the overall population, if gun violence is an "epidemic" than so are hundreds of other things....motorcycles for example.

As for laws, there are very few proposed that would or could have any statistical impact on illegal use of firearms without adversely impacting the 99.99% percent of gun owners who will never commit a crime.....unless you are proposing a ban and confiscation, which would be unconstitutional, impossible to enforce and most likely lead to civil unrest. There are already 300M guns in the US.

As for "mass shootings" most of the data on that incorporates any shooting with more than 4 people the majority of which are criminal and or gang related. Yet when these "stats" are reported it is done in a way to imply that these are the type of mass shooting with a maniac shooting up a club (which IMO have more to do with copy cat crime based on saturation media coverage and immortilazation of the shooters). Those are statistically extremely rare despite the media coverage.

If you would like to diverge on that topic that is fine, but keep in mind my original post which concerns the legitimacy of the this "tracker" and the perception of gun violence compared to actual statistics.

 

[Meddler2]

Yes, murder by gun has remained somewhat steady over the past few years 11,000-12,000 with suicides by gun nearly doubling murder by gun. Still approximately 32,000 gun fatalities are expected this year; slight increase over last year and slightly more than the expected number of deaths by auto accidents.
People can argue and hand wrangle all day long of the nuances and biases of statistical data and it's source but if someone can't recognize that 32,000 possibly preventable deaths are too many, then the true problem isn't the guns, it's the society, culture, and government that is too lazy to lift a finger to solve this crisis.

In another 10 years 300,000 more people will have been murdered or committed suicide by a firearm and I wonder if we'll still be having this debate because data shows the death rate flat or slightly down previous years? Down from what? Cut the numbers in half to eliminate all the imaginary or true bias and the numbers are still staggering....and shameful.

 

[Old State]

I posted the direct link to the FBI report. gun murders are relatively flat but even lower than you state at around 8K. 80% of that is criminal activity.

Suicide is a personal decision and outside a ban on confiscation there is no law that will prevent a person from choosing to use a firearm over other numerous other methods to kill themselves.

What I don't see is anyone connecting the dots with proposed laws and reduction in these murders. Its just simply a "we must do something" / let's throw crap at a wall and see what sticks strategy. If it infringes on certain peoples rights, who cares....we don't like guns' we don't own guns, and they don't vote for us anyway.

What I do see is out of context mis/disinformation being deseminated by certain politicians and their allies in the media to scare the public and change their perception of reality. As of now, the antigun crowd is losing the debate and has been for a while because they can not connect those dots. They can not separate emotion from facts and tolerate propaganda because the ends justify the means in their eyes.

Think about those who want to regulate poker. Do you think they actual understand the game or care too? No. To them it's gambling and gambling is evil. The only good that can come from it is revenue generated from taxing it heavily as a vice. Then it's OK

 

[Meddler2]

Statistically speaking, in context of the overall population, if gun violence is an "epidemic" than so are hundreds of other things....motorcycles for example.

As for laws, there are very few proposed that would or could have any statistical impact on illegal use of firearms without adversely impacting the 99.99% percent of gun owners who will never commit a crime......

Yes other activities result in death/injury no doubt. But those activities are constantly undergoing vigorous safety improvments which do result in a lower number of fatalities albeit the total number of fatalities still remaining higher than desired.

You erroneously used motorcycles as an epidemic.

Fact check: motorcycle fatalities have dropped for the second year in a row. There were still an estimated 4,584 fatalities in 2014, but that’s 2% lower than in 2013. 2013, meanwhile, had 6% fewer fatalities than 2012. Those numbers are still 26% higher than they were ten years ago, but there are also twice as many motorcycles on the road now as there were in 1997, so the numbers are difficult to compare.

 

[jbutler]

Statistically speaking, in context of the overall population, if gun violence is an "epidemic" than so are hundreds of other things....motorcycles for example.

I agree. But that doesn't mean we don't address one problem because other problems exist.

As for laws, there are very few proposed that would or could have any statistical impact on illegal use of firearms without adversely impacting the 99.99% percent of gun owners who will never commit a crime.

That's not a problem. The vast majority of regulations impact those who do not intend to violate the regulation.

Suicide is a personal decision and outside a ban on confiscation there is no law that will prevent a person from choosing to use a firearm over other numerous other methods to kill themselves.

"A study by the Harvard School of Public Health of all 50 U.S. states reveals a powerful link between rates of firearm ownership and suicides."

No, regulations will not be 100% effective in preventing suicide by gun, but lowering the rate of gun ownership and passing smart regulations concerning gun storage will lower the rate of suicide by gun.

 

[Meddler2]

I posted the direct link to the FBI report. gun murders are relatively flat but even lower than you state at around 8K. 80% of that is criminal activity.

Suicide is a personal decision and outside a ban on confiscation there is no law that will prevent a person from choosing to use a firearm over other numerous other methods to kill themselves.

What I don't see is anyone connecting the dots with proposed laws and reduction in these murders. It just simply "we must do something" . What I do see is out of context mis/disinformation being deseminated by certain politician and their allies in the media to scare the public and change their perception of reality. As of now, the antigun crowd is losing the debate and has been for a while because they can not connect those dots. They can not separate emotion from facts and tolerate propaganda because the ends justify the means in their eyes.

You obviously are not educated on suicide prevention. Statistically speaking, a high percentage of suicides can be prevented IF there is some sort of intervention within the first few minutes.
So if somebody (who doesn't own a gun) is hell bent on killing themselves, they would at the very least give it some more thought if they had to wait a day or 8 while their gun purchase application was being processed.

I'm not gonna rehash 30 pages of this thread to find the stats for you, you won't believe them anyways, but numbers are not the definitive justification to act or not act. They merely point us in a moral direction as a society and we can either ignore them and accept their tragic consequences or we can to something about it....

...again nobody is advocating taking the right away to own, carry, aim, shoot, a gun.

 

[Chicken Rob]

I'm probably in the minority here. I'm pro suicide. We need better and more humane assisted suicide options.

I also think suicide by gun is much more humane than what I have seen happen to many of my 8 friends who have killed themselves. A gun would have been a blessing.

We put our pets down when we believe prolonging their life is cruel, but we don't allow humans to draw their own line for when they've had enough suffering.

I think the suicide numbers don't belong in the gun argument.

 

[jbutler]

I'm probably in the minority here. I'm pro suicide. We need better and more humane assisted suicide options.

I also think suicide by gun is much more humane than what I have seen happen to many of my 8 friends who have killed themselves. A gun would have been a blessing.

We put our pets down when we believe prolonging their life is cruel, but we don't allow humans to draw their own line for when they've had enough suffering.

I think the suicide numbers don't belong in the gun argument.

I agree with all you said except the last sentence. We don't know how many of those gun suicides were seriously contemplated and how many were impulsive. Most impulsive suicides are indicative of mental health issues and I don't think we should allow mentally unfit people to take their own lives (with exceptions to the degree that depression and other long term mood disorders are characterized as mental illnesses).

 

[abby99]

I'm probably in the minority here. I'm pro suicide. We need better and more humane assisted suicide options.

I also think suicide by gun is much more humane than what I have seen happen to many of my 8 friends who have killed themselves. A gun would have been a blessing.

We put our pets down when we believe prolonging their life is cruel, but we don't allow humans to draw their own line for when they've had enough suffering.

I think the suicide numbers don't belong in the gun argument.

Agreed.

However, there are suicidal people who intentionally take out a number of people in the process. In most of the cases that come to mind, guns were used to murder others. OK, one guy used an airliner, but that's got to be a rare occurrence.

I don't think we should allow mentally unfit people to take their own lives (with exceptions to the degree that depression and other long term mood disorders are characterized as mental illnesses).

Huh?

 

[Old State]

Two times you implied I am made erroneous comments on things I didn't comment on.

I could plug in gun death data I the exact same way you just did with motorcycles and show similar findings. There are far more guns now than 30 years ago yet gun murders are way lower

 

[jbutler]

I don't think we should allow mentally unfit people to take their own lives (with exceptions to the degree that depression and other long term mood disorders are characterized as mental illnesses).

Huh?

Schizophrenics = can't kill themselves. Depressed people = can kill themselves (with certain oversight).

Two times you implied I am made erroneous comments on things I didn't comment on.

I could plug in gun death data I the exact same way you just did with motorcycles and show similar findings. There are far more guns now than 30 years ago yet gun murders are way lower

It would be helpful if you quoted whoever you're intending to respond to.

 

[Old State]

There is a big difference with regulating firearms vs other things as self defense is a natural right protected by the Constitution. Protection of natural rights are a prerequisite for individual liberty which doesn't jive 100% with total safety. When Ben Franklin said "those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." he is was simply parrotting a common concept of Enlightenment thinkers that you can not be totally free and totally safe simultaneously.

The theory applied to privacy and many other things and similar statements were made by many people before and after Franklin.

 

[Old State]

Schizophrenics = can't kill themselves. Depressed people = can kill themselves (with certain oversight).



It would be helpful if you quoted whoever you're intending to respond to.

I thought I did but it didn't show up in the posts

 

[jbutler]

There is a big difference with regulating firearms vs other things as self defense is a natural right protected by the Constitution. Protection of natural rights are a prerequisite for individual liberty which doesn't jive 100% with total safety.

Possession of firearms is not a natural right. And under current US law, firearms are not protected from regulation.

 

[Old State]

...again nobody is advocating taking the right away to own, carry, aim, shoot, a gun.

This would be difficult to do but you can't blame people for thinking that. Obama, Clinton, and numerous other politicians and media have referred to the gun confiscation programs of Britain and Austrailia dozens of times.

 

[Old State]

Possession of firearms is not a natural right. And under current US law, firearms are not protected from regulation.

100% historically and legally incorrect on the first part. To your comment earlier, I'll put the burden on you to find a single primary source to support that. Not an opinion piece from Slate, et al, but something from the people who wrote and ratified the Second Amendment. This is a creation of 20th century "progressives"

On the second part, the Federal Government is themselves heavily restricted from unlilateral regulation. In the US most gun regulations are from the States. And since McDonald vs Chicago, anti gun crowd is in a conudrum. The 14th Amendment has been used to justify the incorporation of the States into the Bill of Rights with numerous initiatives. However, Chicago argued that this theory didn't apply to the Second Amendment...just everything else that the "progressives" like. SCOTUS said no, you can't have it both ways. So now the States are bound the the same limits on regulation that the Fed is. The only hope is to get sympathetic justices on the court that are willing to ignore the original intent of the law and reinterpret it to satisfy the political factions that appointed them.

 

[the3rd]

Yeah, an armed civilian. Howd that work out?

Back in 1966 just about every pickup truck in the parking lot had loaded rifles and they had little effect on an well-armed, trained civilian with a tactical advantage.

17 killed 30 wounded. Perfect.

many of the armed men were reckless and unorganized. At times, they put police in danger."

It was proven the shooter was mentally ill. If he didn't have access to guns he would have drove a truck through a crowd. Can't stop crazy.

 

[jbutler]

100% historically and legally incorrect. To your comment earlier, I'll put the burden on you to find a single primary source to support that. That is a creation on 20th century "progressives".

How about Scalia writing for the majority in Heller, the most unabashedly pro-Second Amendment decision in the history of the Court?

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[26]

Which was accompanied by a footnote emphasizing that there are more valid regulations of firearms where that came from in case you were wondering:

[26]We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

 

[the3rd]

Gun violence and violent crime is at an all time low. Mass shootings are at an all time high, and on the rise. This is the crux of the differing spin.

Steven Pinker explains copycat violence in How the Mind Works. If the media would just report without sensationalism, the number of incidents would go down.