Monday, May 9, 2011

Congratulations Utah!

The Brady anti-gun nuts have come out with their annual scold of "irresponsible" states who refuse to jump on the gun grabber bandwagon.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence this week gave Utah, Arizona and Alaska all scores of zero, and said they “do not have a single common sense gun law on their books.”  (Salt Lake Tribune - Utah Scolded for Gun Laws)

Utahans are taking the news like the rugged westerners they are...
“I’m glad we got a zero from that group. I actually wish we would get a negative score from them — like an F-minus-minus,” said Rep. Curt Oda, R-Clearfield
I hear that.  I was ashamed to see Colorado tied for 17th best on the Brady list.  Must be because of the Mile High Crime city of Denver's restrictive gun laws.
Rep. Carl Wimmer, R-Herriman — who this year passed a bill to make the Browning-designed M-1911 handgun the official state firearm — chuckled when he heard that the Brady Campaign gave California the highest score for gun laws among the states.

“Would the head of the Brady Center feel safer walking down the street at midnight in Salt Lake City or in south central Los Angeles?” he asked.
Statistics Show Liberalism is a Mental Disorder

"Crazy" Utah, has less gun crime than "responsible" California.  Alaska has even less.

How about Arizona?  Only in firearm robberies and assaults does California beat Arizona.  California still has a higher firearm murder rate than mean ol' Arizona.  So despite California's multiple violations of people's 2nd Amendment rights, it is still more violent than the Brady Bad Boy States of Utah, Arizona and Alaska.

Vermont, New Hampshire, North Dakota and Idaho have some of the overall lowest gun crimes in the nation, but none cracked the Brady Top 20.

Anti-gun liberals are willfully ignorant
There is no correlation between gun laws and gun crimes.  Indeed, by definition, criminals break the law.  The data does show that restrictive gun laws leave law-abiding citizens unarmed and vulnerable, just the way criminals like their victims. 

Salt Lake Tribune - Utah Scolded for Gun Laws


Anonymous said...

Excuse me while I take a few victory laps...

Okay done. I think the next step is to repeal the firing from a vehicle laws. I would like to turn my truck into a weapon.

Anonymous said...

Although I agree that anti-gun laws are fairly stupid, I think we have to remember something about California in terms of crime.

California's population is way, way bigger than that of Arizona and Alaska. They're bound to have a lot more gun-related crime than states with less population.

Also, California's population is incredibly dense as well, and where there are extremely dense areas of population (like LA county), there's bound to be more crime. We see a good share of gun related crime here in Columbus, and our gun laws are not overly restrictive.

So although I hate anti-gun laws (with the exception of things like criminal background checks) I think comparing California to Alaska is probably not the best thing to do. I would say comparing California and Texas, two large states with big populations and densely populated areas, would be a better comparison.

Silverfiddle said...

Jack: The data I refer to is population adjusted, per 100,000 people.

Compare the Brady list to the gun crime list, and you will see that with some exceptions, the lists are almost an inverse of one another.

jez said...

"There is no correlation between gun laws and gun crimes"

actually I thought there was. Martin Kilias' review (Canadian journal of criminology, 2001) reveals no correlation with violent crime, but a positive correlation with gun crime.

"The data I refer to is population adjusted, per 100,000 people."

Yes, but certain types of crime are correlated with population density. For example, you expect to see different types of criminal activity out in the country than you do from the inner cities.

Jersey McJones said...

I gave up arguing with gun nuts. Whatever. You guys want to play with you little metal phallices, then fine. Whatever.

Do they make you safer? No.

Guns in the home increase risks of murder, suicide and accidents.

Anyone who has ever actually been involved in a typical gun crime knows that whoever puills the gun first wins the vast majority of the time. So carrying a concealed weapon doesn't improved you safety.

Only one in three households has a gun, and yet there are enough to arm almost every man, woman, and child in the country, and we are still the most violent people in the developed world.

So, whatever. Have your stupid little metal phallices. You're all just not smart enough to understand that we could make gun ownership constitutionally safer and smarter, but you're all too stupidly paranoid to allow it. So whatever. Yet another example of conservatives making a America a bad joke.


Silverfiddle said...

Jersey: Keep your sexual hangups to yourself, please.

Neither you nor Jez can refute what I've said. The Brady nuts rated Utah a zero, but they rank very low on gun crime.

The evidence shows that restrictive gun laws do not lower gun violence. Just ask people from Chicago.

jez said...

Silverfiddle, you'd have to normalize for other variables before this could be evidence for anything. Population density is the most obvious problem in comparing Utah to Chicago.

Meanwhile, my reading indicates the evidence really shows a correlation between gun ownership and gun crime.

Anonymous said...

Insults are indicative of the intellectual quality of one's arguments. You'd probably do better to refrain from calling people stupid when you're trying to argue a point.

First, I don't think anyone here has said that we don't need to make gun owning safer and smarter. I don't think anyone here objects to criminal background checks.

I would agree that guns in the home increase the likelihood of accidents, but murder and suicide? If you want to murder someone, there are plenty of ways to do it without a gun, same with suicide. Outlaw gun ownership, and I'm sure that murders would not decrease, and we'd see an increase in murder by stabbing, beating, poisoning etc. We'd probably also see a lot more people slitting their wrists, hanging themselves, or purposely overdosing on medications. Guns are not like the One Ring in Lord of the Rings. They don't magically call to their wielders to use them illicitly.

Secondly, to equate guns to phallic symbols is rather juvenile. Knives are closer, so every time I cut my steak am I actually subconsciously thinking about jacking off? Or are you trying to assert that anything that is perceived as masculine or powerful is somehow phallic?

Some people are just interested in guns. It's not necessarily about power. For me, target shooting is fun. I'm a fairly good shot, and I like to brag among my friends about it.

Anyway, further restricting the use and ownership of firearms is not going to solve many problems. The good, responsible citizens who don't go bonkers with their guns would be denied a constitutional right, and the wackoes intent on using the weapons for criminal purposes would still get their guns via extra-legal channels. Just like the drug problem hasn't been solved by making drugs illegal, gun-related crimes will not be solved by making guns illegal.

That's just the reality of the human condition.

Silverfiddle said...

@Jez: Meanwhile, my reading indicates the evidence really shows a correlation between gun ownership and gun crime.

Duh! And there's also a correlation between car ownership and involvement in car accidents.

You can talk population density all day long (Utah does have cities, last time I checked), but you cannot show that restrictive gun laws result in less gun crime, because no such data existss

Anonymous said...

There aren't going to be cities in Utah that are as densely populated as some in California.

Plus, the argument can be made that less restrictive gun laws don't necessarily lead to less gun-related crimes.

Sam Huntington said...

Statistics are mere indicators of phenomena. Criminals in Chicago and Washington DC are exempt from restrictive firearms laws —which gives them an interesting monopoly, and not surprisingly, both cities have vastly higher percentages of crime involving handguns. Because criminal behavior is a concern, law-abiding citizens may not possess or carry firearms. The mental gymnastics behind this situation escapes me. But as Silver Fiddle said, the psychopathology of leftists has provided alienists with a wonderful career opportunity.

Silverfiddle said...

@ Jack: Plus, the argument can be made that less restrictive gun laws don't necessarily lead to less gun-related crimes.

Indeed, and in any case, this erodes the gun-grabbers' argument, which is presumably statistics-based.

We on the pro-gun side argue from a 2nd Amendment/natural rights perspective, statistics be damned. If we unconstituitonally restricted free speech rights less people would have their feelings hurt.

Anonymous said...

Good point Silver. You can't really believe in natural rights theory, or John Locke's ideas about the right to obtain and protect property, if you don't believe in the 2nd Amendment.

And as Sam mentioned, laws that restrict gun ownership only affect law abiding citizens, who generally don't commit said violent crimes. The criminals will continue to get their guns.

Jersey McJones said...

I have no problem with the Seocnd Amendment. It's pretty simple, really. But like any right, there are limits. The right to keep and bear arms does not include the right to sell them to criminals, or to manufacture then without regulation. The entire purpose of the Second Amendment is explained right in it - A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...

The "militia" is a the armed citizery of the United States. And that militia can and must be well-regulated.

You guys are utterly ignorant of the Second Amendment. You completely ignore it's purpose and wording. All you care about is your little metal phallices. Tell me - do you polish them daily? Careful, if you polish them the wrong way, you might go blind!


Fredd said...

Our goofy Illinois governor (Pat Quinn-D Il, who was Blago's lt gov) vowed to veto a concealed carry law that passed in the Illinois house earlier, stating something to the effect that if we all were packing hidden heat, if someone bumped into another in the grocery store, a gunfight would erupt, and he wanted to prevent such occurences. Puh-leeeze.

This, from a guy who has armed protection surrounding him constantly. But when it comes to our protection, screw us.

Anonymous said...

Let’s try it again, Jersey … but this time, try some intellectual honesty. I know, this is a new concept for you. Go ahead, look it up. I know you want to.

The Second Amendment states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” What part of “… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” do you not understand?

You come here day-after-nauseous-day telling us how smart you are —but you cannot discern the operative part of a single sentence Amendment?

Silverfiddle said...

Mustang: It appears Jersey's mind is weighed down with penis envy.

And Jersey, no one here is advocating selling guns to criminals.

Thanks for the comedy relief!

Anonymous said...

If it weren't for my choice to carry, I might not be here right now. I owe it to my kids to carry always and practice often. I'm the only one with the responsibility to protect me. The right to protect myself by any means necessary is absolute, whether a law imposed by a group of corrupt politicians says I do or not. That inherent right antedates and supersedes any such artificial law.

Mike aka Proof said...

Great quote from Carl Wimmer!

Hayden said...

Aw Jersey just learned a new word, is all, now he wants to see how many times he can reference it, albeit, in quite a disturbing consistency...

If he really wanted to learn something useful, he would stop listening to the idiotic talking points of the left and start to apply his own critical thinking skills, if any have survived the years of non-use.

Jersey McJones said...

Okay, my little geniuses, what part of the rest of the Second Aendment do you not understand?

Nice try Hayden. I have a zillion quips a day. The point here is that this 2nd Amendment argument never gets anywhere. It is devoid of logic. It's phallices and Americana and ideology and religion all rolled up into an unintelligible cluster#@$#. It's pointless. We are going to have guns all over the streets for the foreseeable future. Thanks a lot for that.


Silverfiddle said...

It means law abiding citizens have an unalienable right to own firearms. Remember that Supreme Court case last year?

The problem is guns all over the streets, it's criminals all over the streets. Thank liberal apologists for that. Instead of understanding criminals, we should simply be locking them up.

Finntann said...

For goodness sake Jersey, you get sodomized by a .45 caliber Phallus? Did we learn a new word today my little Genius? The word is spelled Phalluses, not Phallices.

I'm generally very forgiving of typos and misspellings, but you, genius, belabor the point. To think that your are going to settle debate or make a point by being obnoxious is just trolling.

"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms." -- Aristotle

"quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." [a sword never kills anybody; it's a tool in the killer's hand.]
-- Seneca the younger

It is a debate that has been raging for two thousand years, and it is a right that descends to our Constitution through English Common Law. Existent long before being codified in the English Bill of Rights after James II took to disarming his political opponents.

"The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave." -- James Burgh, British Whig Politician, his three volume treatise "Political Disquisitions" was recommended by Thomas Jefferson to James Madison and James Monroe.

What part of the Second Amendment do you not understand?

I'll leave you to your nanny state fascist ignorance with a final quote from Thomas Jefferson's library:

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--Cesare Beccaria

Anonymous said...

Jersey- You need to come shooting with me some time. There are few things more gratifying than hitting a moving target on the run. Yeah I'm nut, you should try it.

Anonymous said...

"... it's criminals all over the streets. Thank liberal apologists for that.

That, sir, is the definetive reply. Well done, Silver.

Anonymous said...

Jersey, I'm really having a hard time understanding what your argument is.

We've said here countless times that we all agree that guns should be kept out of the hands of criminals, and that they should not be manufactured and sold without regulation. So why do you keep insisting that we all want guns to be so ubiquitous as to bring back the Wild Wild West?

And I'm really not getting the whole phallus argument. You must have ignored my knife analogy, yes?

Look, if you're a person who believes in natural rights theory, then you have to believe that we have a right to bear arms.

It goes beyond government and militia. John Locke posited that the only way we can be happy in life is if we have a modicum of prosperity. Property enables that, so property becomes something sacred, essential to everyone's pursuit of happiness.

The government is supposed to protect our property for us, so we don't have to spend all of our time protecting it ourselves. But what if the government no longer protects it, or how do we protect our property against the government? This is why every human has the right to bear arms, because every human has the right to defend what belongs to him.

If you don't believe that, then you might be living in the wrong country.

Silverfiddle said...

Jack: You make perfect sense, which means you will get nowhere with Jersey.

He does not believe in Lockean natural rights. He believe his rights come from the state. It all makes sense now, doesn't it?

Trekkie4Ever said...

I believe citizens with no criminal records should be allowed to own firearms.

I don't carry one, but I keep one in our house. In my neighborhood you would be crazy not to have protection.

People should be allowed to defend themselves against those who try to do them harm.

Silverfiddle said...

Yes Leticia, and it's not just "people should be allowed to defend themselves."

It is "we have a God-given right to defend ourselves."

Trekkie4Ever said...

Silver, Amen to that!