Monday, July 23, 2012

Lies, Damn Lies and Liberal Statistics

Liberals never let a good tragedy go to waste.  The bigger the better.  The latest shooting in Aurora, Colorado has the gun-grabbers again railing against our liberties while the blue staters confect dubious statistics to make themselves feel better.

First came the liberals' favorite go-to pseudo-conservative, David Frumble.  Mr. Frumble compiled data that showed, among other things, that voting for John McCain caused gun violence, and voting for Barack Obama prevents it.

All his "data" really showed was that where there are more guns, there are more incidents involving them.  More cars = more accidents, more free speech = more people being offended, more unprotected sex = more venereal disease.  Earth shattering, isn't it?

There are many problems with his numbers, which to be fair, he admits don't prove causation (but let's get them out there anyway to feed the frenzy!)

For example, Illinois voted for Obama and Mr. Frumbles claims it has a lower than average gun death  statistic (more on that lie in a minute).  However, if you disaggregate the data, it reveals just the opposite.  Chicago voted overwhelmingly for Obama and it has some of the worst gun violence in the nation.  Crime centers Springfield, Decatur, Peoria and East St Louis also voted heavily for Obama.  The rest of the state went for McCain or for Obama just narrowly, but is almost free of gun violence.  Add in that Chicago has a severe gun ban, while downstate Illinois does not, and you see just how meaningless such liberal twaddle is.

Massachusetts is More Violent than Colorado

But let's get down to the hard numbers.  What liberals conveniently avoid is overall violent crime statistics, because they do not correlate with gun laws or number of guns per capita.

A liberal from Massachusetts snarked that she was glad she lived there and not Colorado. If she was referring to crime rates and gun deaths, she is deluded:

2010 Firearm Murders per 100,000

Colorado: 1.28
Massachusetts: 1.78
New York: 2.64
Illinois: 2.81
US Average:  2.84

2009 Violent Crime Rates per 100,000

Colorado: 340.9
New York: 385.5
Massachusetts: 465.6
Chicago:  1041
US Average:  439.7

While Colorado does have more gun assaults, Massachusetts, Illinois and New York all have more more overall assaults of all categories.  So I guess they feel better being assaulted by bludgeoning and stabbing than with a gun.  

Those states also have more gun murders than Colorado.  

The gun control cities of New York, Boston, Chicago and DC also have overall murder rates higher than Denver...

2011 Murder Rates per 100,000

Denver: 5.4
New York: 6.3
Boston: 10.1
Chicago: 15.9

So these progressive cities may console themselves that even though they have higher murder rates than Denver, at least they have good gun control laws.

So no matter how you slice it, the progressive, enlightened, liberty-emasculating, gun-fearing states of Massachusetts, New York and Illinois are more violent than gun-loving, cowboy Colorado, even in the category of gun violence. The truth hurts, libs.

Examining the empirical evidence and hard statistics from the FBI and the US Census Bureau reveals a weak correlation at best between strict gun laws and lower gun violence, and there are many outliers on both sides.

More importantly, there is no correlation between strict gun laws and overall crime and violence.

Instead of letting someone explain it to you, go investigate for yourself!

FBI - Crime in the US
IL Atty Gen
NY Times - Colorado Gun Laws
Atlantic - America's Most Dangerous Cities
Crime Rates by State
Gun Crime 2010
Wikipedia - US Cities by Crime Rate 2010


Princess Natasha said...

Liberals = Lies, Liberals = Damn Lies. Period.

Z said...

The truth does hurt.
I believe voting for Obama does cause gun violence. I personally have friends who say "If Obama wins, I'm going to shoot myself!" :-)

Paul said...

Listen to what a member (you) of the Westboro Baptist Church says.
Scum like you should have been one of the victims.

jez said...

"I guess they feel better being assaulted by bludgeoning and stabbing than with a gun."

Well yeah, wouldn't you?
It's obviously not a fun choice but as assault weapons go, "gun" is the one I'd least like to face.

LD Jackson said...

There you go again, Kurt. Don't you know you aren't supposed to use facts in these debates?

Progressives Are Erupting said...

They are ALL Idiots. I just can't wait till I see them spin and cry foul, fraud, etc, etc, after Obama's upcoming defeat.

Progressives Are Erupting said...

Anyone with any common sense at all can see how much trouble our Country is in and that Obama is completely clueless as to what to do about it except to raise taxes. . With the whole the Country worried about the economy, and the lack of Jobs. Obama doesn't even want to talk about it. He thinks it's more important to go on fundraisers and BS the public about other issues like Big Government helping Business people succeed, and other socialist/commie remarks..Obama stuck his foot in his mouth revealing his true feelings about business, like the true Socialist that he is. ....Changing and avoiding the subject isn't going to get him re-elected.
Romney needs to stick it to Obama and let him have it, and to go on offense. He has to keep hammering his record and his failures. And show the country just what a incompetent clown he really is..

Shaw Kenawe said...

I had hoped for something other than "It's all the Liberal's fault" from you, SF.

And calling David Frum, a well-respected journalist who thinks differently from you, a foolish name may make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside and get you a few laughs from your audience, but it solves nothing.

And turning the Aurora tragedy into a "My-State-Is-Better-Than-Your-State" debate is inane.

Gun violence is a national tragedy and disgrace.

What the hell are you trying to prove by pointing out that Chicago has terrible gun violence, and it voted for President Obama?

It makes as much sense as someone pointing out that Arizona is one of the most gun violent states and its governor is Republican Jan Brewer.

Is this all you've got? It's the Liberals fault? And "My State Is Way Better Than Your State?"

There really is nothing to see here, so I'll just move along.

But not before I include these stats that you ignored:

"VPC Legislative Director Kristen Rand states, 'Massachusetts’ low gun death rate stands as proof of how long-term, comprehensive firearms regulation can increase public safety and protect communities and families.'

States with the Five LOWEST Per Capita Gun Death Rates:

Massachusetts--Rank: 50; Household Gun Ownership: 12.8 percent; Gun Death Rate: 3.14 per 100,000."

Silverfiddle said...

Shaw, please do keep moving along.

You started it with your snarky comments about my state, so I proved you wrong. I guess that stings.

And nowhere am I "blaming liberals." I'm just providing the facts.

Who's to blame for the Aurora killings? The killer.

And Frum is a bum. Respected? Yeah, by msnbc liberals like you. I was one of the first people to sign up for his website years ago, but I got tired of correcting his numerous factual errors.

He's a nice guy, and he'd acknowledge my corrections in the comments, but he has a habit of pontificating on things he knows nothing about. He doesn't even do basic research most of the time, and it shows.

Finally, I thank you for the link you provide.

See folks? I bring statistics from the census bureau and the FBI, while a liberal brings us numbers provided by an anti-gun advocacy organization.

Overall gun deaths include suicides, accidents and righteous shoots by armed citizens who kill a perpetrator, so where concealed carry and stand your ground or make my day laws work, you will see more deaths, of criminals caught in the act!

So, nice try at spinning it Shaw, but FBI statistics and the census bureau numbers show your state suffers more gun violence that wild west Colorado.

Anonymous said...

Silverfiddle said...

Shaw, please do keep moving along...........
Sounds like she could use all the help ahe can get. ... Why do liberals hate so much. Oh I know, it's because that’s what they do.
They are the ones that are are guilty of shamefully politicizing this tragedy

Rob said...

Ok, so if gun "control" isn't the answer, then what? Surely there's some way to apply limits to keep inappropriate defense technology out of the hands of the citizenry. You can't go sporting around city streets in a M35, can ya? But nobody's bellyaches about how that's limiting their freedoms.

If we can't stomach the idea of banning certain types of weaponry, then perhaps we need to target (rimshot!) the ammo or other tactical gear purchases that should raise red flags.

But ultimately, aren't there certain firearms that are simply not suitable for civilian ownership? Why does the idea of ANY limitations bruise the 2nd Amendment groupies' skin so badly?

Shaw Kenawe said...

SF: "I bring statistics from the census bureau and the FBI."

SF, you forgot to include the FBI's very own warning about "stats" on its very own website where you obtained the info. Why are you not sharing that with your audience? I shared it with mine. The FBI itself warned against doing exactly what you have done:

FBI: "Each year when Crime in the United States is published, some entities use the figures to compile rankings of cities and counties. These rough rankings provide no insight into the numerous variables that mold crime in a particular town, city, county, state..."

As for snark and spin, Mr. Silverfiddle, you are its Emperor.

Another site that backs up the stats I linked to, which, if you bother to read its homepage, uses Census Bureau info as well.

Anonymous said...

Wow, somebody sounds as if they are constipated

Silverfiddle said...

Thanks for the link and the reminder Shaw. But the caveat, as I explained to you yesterday, does not say that the stats are untrustworthy, but rather that there are various factors that feed gun violence.

Get it? Various factors, meaning it's not just the guns.

Shaw Kenawe said...

I understand perfectly. The stats may not be "wrong," but you're ignoring the factors that influence them, and are using them to make this into a state vs. state contest.

BTW, the only thing I said about my state was that I was glad I lived here. I said absolutely nothing negative about Colorado--so you were spinning on that charge and using it as an excuse to say I snarked about it.

You were wrong.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Gun violence is a national problem.

"...[the]gun murder rate in the U.S. is almost 20 times higher than the next 22 richest and most populous nations combined.

Among the world’s 23 wealthiest countries, 80 percent of all gun deaths are American deaths and 87 percent of all kids killed by guns are American kids."

" the 44 years since Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King were shot to death, bullets have ended the lives of more than one million people — including 12 in Aurora, Colo. "

Sam Huntington said...

This is an excellent post, SF. While I have long believed Shaw the epitome of intellectual dishonesty, which is to say the essence of progressivism, which is to say I find nothing inspirational or surprising about anything she writes, the jury was out on Little Stevie … until today. He proved himself contemptible in the finest tradition of the new communist movement.

We should be discussing the behavior of people, not the behavior of hardware. Honestly, has the left ever had a good idea? How has Lyndon Johnson’s “great society” made us into a better country? It hasn’t. There are more poor people today than twenty years ago. How did Carter’s Mental Health initiative, resulting in the release of mentally disturbed citizens from state hospitals, give us a safer society? It didn’t … Carter only gave us more homeless people. He made it more difficult to incarcerate people like Holmes or Loughner.

If I were a liberal, given their litany of failures, I’d be far too embarrassed to open my pie hole in a public forum.

Silverfiddle said...

Since I don't want to go back a read every word you wrote, I'll take you at your word that you did not use this to attack Colorado, but you are part of a baying pack of liberals who are, and the advocacy numbers you bring advance the same agenda.

It is clear from the data that gun laws don't solve the problem.

We also have much more societal dysfunction than those other countries. Think that's got anything to do with it?

Anonymous said...

I wonder if the gun control advocates would have prefered that Holmes had brought a bomb to the theater instead of an automatic fire arm? IT'S THE MAN NOT THE WEAPON!

Ducky's here said...

Well, I'll tell you this.
Concealed carry ain't an answer. In the areas with high homicide rates there is plenty of concealed carry.

When has anyone slammed Colorado here, Silver? Perfectly respectable state. No access to the ocean is a problem but you've got some killer mountains.

It's also not as urban as Massachusetts which has something to do with the violence stats. Complicated issue made more complicated by both the gun loons on the right and those on the left who think gun culture isn't here to stay.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"It is clear from the data that gun laws don't solve the problem."

No, it's not that simple. The laws haven't been in effect long enough to determine that; and because we are a nation saturated with firearms [legal and illegal], it will be a while before we can see any real results. But at least I'm living in a state that has defied the venal NRA and is doing something about it.

Saying guns don't kill people; people kill people, doesn't solve the problem, it just makes you a tool of the NRA.

Louis H. said...

I see someone erected memorials to the victims in the form of white crosses. It is only a matter of time before the leftists demand the removal of these crosses, yes?

Anonymous said...

There is no reason why honest citizens can't be armed everywhere. There's a reason these guys don't shoot up police stations (and I didn't add military bases, because as the Major Hassan case showed, individual soldiers are not allowed to carry weapons on base unless they are either on the firing range or are Military Police.
It is still a free country. I wonder how many hundreds or thousands of people have purchased four weapons in a short period of time, yet never shot up a theater. full of people. Instead of banning guns, why not ban midnight showings at movie theaters with patrons wearing Tin Foil on their heads.
The liberal will tell you something else of course.

Anonymous said...

Who's kidding whom here? The only thing that these leftists want banned is Conservative talk shows like Rush and Hannity .

Finntann said...

@The laws haven't been in effect long enough to determine that.

So tell me, how effective are your laws against drugs? And what makes you think your gun laws would be any more effective?

Laws do not prevent crime, especially in cases like this. At best, laws like locks keep honest people honest.

Do you think a lack of guns or further restriction of access would have prevented a person whose apartment was full of explosives and incendiaries from killing a large number of people?

The problem is not a gun problem it is a social and cultural problem, and no amount of legislation is going to change that.


Mustang said...

In 2011, more than 1.28 billion theater tickets were sold in the United States. There is no rational reason for anyone to curtail going to the movies because of this one incident.

Less than 1% of homicides involve five or more persons, a constant for the past several decades. Based on this “mass murder” statistic, there is no rational justification for demanding gun control or restricting the purchase of butcher knives and fire axes within a predominantly law-abiding society.

This sudden rush to ban firearms because of one senseless tragedy is completely irresponsible, particularly when there is no greater “restriction” on firearms than in Chicago, which is the murder capital of the world. It is impossible to have a free society if society isn’t free.

Jersey McJones said...

So, Silver, what you are saying is that all guns used in crimes must therefore come from the places in which they are used?

What a silly argument.

Oh, and it's a lie.


Bob said...

I have avoided arguments about firearms. Anti-advocates seem to argue with a religious fervor, and there are no statistics that can satisfy them.

Nobody is going to back down from their position in this argument. This is one of those arguments in which nobody wins, even if guns are eventually outlawed.

We are better served spending our energies determining why people jump their mental tracks and commit mass murder. I believe that's the issue, and the hue and cry about guns is just a red herring.

As for the right to bear guns being a national disgrace, that depends on your perspective. I have no respect for those nations who see us that way. First of all it is none of their business, and secondly, they need to pay attention to their own problems.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Silverfiddle said...

Jersey: Focus, man, focus.

There are various factors. Colorado is spilling over with guns. We have open carry, and concealed carry with a permit that is easy for a law-abiding citizen to get, yet we have gun crime rates below the national average.

There are very strict states that have gun crime above average.

Chicago and Detroit have gun bans and they are competing to see who can be the murder capital of the US.

You're the one making silly arguments. What a preposterous question.

So what's your solution?

Rational Nation USA said...

Jersey McJones said...
So, Silver, what you are saying is that all guns used in crimes must therefore come from the places in which they are used?
What a silly argument.
Oh, and it's a lie.

Jersey is just following the liberal template – don’t let a good tragedy go to waste…what a weak-minded simpleton.
Maybe we should think about banning, knives, and box cutters, and cars, along with Big Gulp Soda’s, French Fries, and Potato Chips. Of course the Big Butt First lady would like it.

Ducky's here said...

Radical Butt-munch, the guns that the local gang bangers conceal carry are shipped in from cracker hell holes like Georgia and Virginia.

Rational Nation USA said...

I'm shocked that even a dumb asses liberal like Ducky's here, would be so intolerant, hateful, and have such a potty mouth.
Some thing never cease to amaze me. Like Al Sharpton rushing to Judgment on the George Zimmerman case or the Progressives saying that the Batman shooter MUST be a Tea Party guy.
Or even Obama:saying: "None Of Us Make It On Our Own Without Government Help."

Finntann said...

@the guns that the local gang bangers conceal carry are shipped in from cracker hell holes like Georgia and Virginia.

In 2009 the ATF trace for 1084firearms recovered in Massachusetts was:

84: Maine
35: Vermont
105: NH
395: Mass
27: Rhode Island
26: Connecticutt
28: Pennsylvania
26: Ohio
38: Virginia
28: North Carolina
23: South Carolina
53: Georgia
19: Alabama
53: Florida
15: California

An additional 29 states accounted for the other 129 traces.

Seems like you got more problems 'Down East' than down South.

So much for that theory yah Oystah Crackah.

Finntann said...

Oh and if you'd like more recent data:

2011 firearm traces for Massachusetts, of 1020 source states identified:

79: Maine
133: New Hampshire
351: Massachusetts
14: Rhode Island
17: Connecticutt
13: Pennsylvania
20: Ohio
20: Virginia
31: North Carolina
18: South Carolina
60: Georgia
15: Arkansas
56: Florida
18: Texas
13: Arizona
38: California

28 States accounted for 124 other traces.

Again, 'Down East' is a larger source than down South.


Thersites said...


The fact that you blame guns and not the inspiration for violence (Hollywood) just proves that you are a SAG/MPA tool...

Rational Nation USA said...

But we should not be surprised that the Liberals would blame everyone but the shooter! Are you shocked that the liberal media would do such a thing. They immediately politicized the Gabrielle Giffords shooting claiming that Sarah Palin might somehow be to blame because of her “target list” that she posted to her Facebook, didn’t they! In this case, George Stephanopoulos immediately said “He must be Tea party member”
There is no doubt in my mind, and there shouldn’t be any in yours either that the media and Progressive Democrats was going to shamelessly exploit this and in the end there will be a cry for more gun control and more attempts to tie this to Conservatives and the Tea Party. Let’s not forget that there’s an election coming up and Obambi is going to need all the help he can muster up, So don’t be so surprised. I can remember when people thought that a Communist would never be elected president in America! We have to make a choice, what’s more importing Banning Guns or Obesity? Don’t be a Hog and ask for both.
And PS, somewhere Bush, and Cheney are responsible for this as well.

Rational Nation USA said...

Look people..Yes it was a a terrible thing. Now it's time to let the victims and their families have some private time....

Yes, the shooteris a loon and should be either given the gas pipe or locked up for the rest of his miserable life and that's the name of that tune....

So it's time to give it a rest. And let's not do what Obama wants us to do, let's not get distracted from the up coming election and do whatever we can to defeat this inept president who;s Mommie was a Commie and make sure that he;s not going to be around to do any further damage thane he's already done.

OCTOPUS said...

The liberals/progressives/communists wanted SO badly for the shooter to be a conservative.
As did Piers Morgan, CNN, and the rest of the press in America .
Anything to help their master Obama. But it didn't turn out that way.

Bob said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bob said...

Ducky said "cracker hell holes like Georgia and Virginia."

Well, it is hot in Georgia in the summer time. Why, we even have one town where a local ordinance specified that all homeowners should have a gun. It is a pretty nice place to live, too.

If you want to buy a gun in Georgia, be my guest. We welcome the business.

Liberalmann said...

It's time people. It's time to ban or limit access to assault weapons and mega magazines. There's no reason to own one and this type of crime doesn't happen in other civilized countries.

Liberalmann said...

And screw the NRA pigs while you're at it!


Liberalmann said..
It's time people. It's time to ban or limit access to assault weapons and mega magazines. There's no reason to own one and this type of crime doesn't happen in other civilized countries.

Spoken like a true Liberal pussie. and whats next, banning the sale of cigarettes in drugstores, and, supermarkets; banning plastic bags, and no more big Gup drinks at the 7-11?

Liberalmann said...

Spoken like a true tin foil hat wearing wingnut, LMLV. Lol! Pussie? Opps, you're dumb!

Finntann said...

@And screw the NRA pigs while you're at it!

Well, you have an almost rational post and then you go and screw it up.

Keep trying!

Silverfiddle said...

So Liberalmann, what explains our societal dysfunction (divorce, drug use, out of wedlock births) that is out of control and way worse than in Europe?

Trekkie4Ever said...

I have gotten a little flack for saying that the USA should follow the same suit as Switzerland.

Every male serves in the military for two years and is taught how to use a gun, and furthermore, they are taught discipline and respect.

From seeing interviews on youtube and on tv, these young men, don't regret serving their time, nor do they resent it.

Each household has a gun. So, what do you think would happen here in the states?

The liberals can do their best to tear down our 2nd amendment right, but it will never happen, especially in the south. We like our guns and we intend to keep them.

Z said...

Geeez, said "There's no reason to own one and this type of crime doesn't happen in other civilized countries."

From how you usually sound about America, I'm thrilled to hear you say "OTHER civilized countries"....bravo

But this type of crime DOES happen in other civilized countries, like Italy, France,'ve seen German schools shut down for a whacko shooter, and the Jewish kids killed in France early this year and in Italy... it does happen. Sadly. Trust me

Sam Huntington said...

There have been 97 mass murders in Europe since 1925. Honestly, doesn’t Liberalmann ever get tired of being wrong 100% of the time?

skudrunner said...


You really should shoot an AK or AR and you would understand the why people own them, they are fun. Maybe we should concentrate on enforcing the existing gun laws instead of coming out with more laws that will not be enforced.

Z said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Z said...

Sam, with liberals, it's an avocation or hobby, this being wrong so much of the time :-)

I just watched three minutes of The Ed Show and they showed Obama waxing eloquent to the VFW (they never did play the applause afterwards, which I'm thinking is because there wasn't much!) about what a great country America democracy is a good thing, etc. Man, if it wasn't that he seems to go against democracy by sneaking things in, to bowing to the UN over OUR sovereignty, to dissing the Boy Scouts and the National Day of Prayer, to having his Atty' Gen call Americans RACIST, to hiding his own background, etc etc ETC etc.., we'd like him, too!

I sat there listening to his speech, hearing the hypocrisy, then the sit-in for Ed on his show, said "And people think HE's not pro American?"

And I thought "he's LYING, do you GET THAT?" It's unbelievable! What a naive crowd the left can be.

I hear Australis's PM told Romney something about our being in decline, so the Obama thugs are in overdrive saying he's awful for having suggested AMerica's not doing great...what am I MISSING? We're NOT in DECLINE? GEEEZ, then what IS decline?

Shaw Kenawe said...

"The truth is made worse by the reality that no one—really no one—anywhere on the political spectrum has the courage to speak out about the madness of unleashed guns and what they do to American life. That includes the President, whose consoling message managed to avoid the issue of why these killings take place. Of course, we don’t know, and perhaps never will, what exactly “made him” do what he did; but we know how he did it. Those who fight for the right of every madman and every criminal to have as many people-killing weapons as they want share moral responsibility for what happened last night—as they will when it happens again. And it will happen again.

The reality is simple: every country struggles with madmen and ideologues with guns, and every country—Canada, Norway, Britain—has had a gun massacre once, or twice. Then people act to stop them, and they do—as over the past few years has happened in Australia. Only in America are gun massacres of this kind routine, expectable, and certain to continue. Does anyone even remember any longer last July’s gun massacre, those birthday-party killings in Texas, when an estranged husband murdered his wife and most of her family, leaving six dead?

But nothing changes: the blood lobby still blares out its certainties, including the pretense that the Second Amendment—despite the clear grammar of its first sentence—is designed not to protect citizen militias but to make sure that no lunatic goes unarmed."

How does one argue with someone convinced that the routine massacre of our children is the price we must pay for our freedom to have guns, or rather to have guns that make us feel free? You can only shake your head and maybe cry a little. “Gun Crazy” is the title of one the best films about the American romance with violence. And gun-crazy we remain.

--Adam Gopnik, The New Yorker

Z said...

"How does one argue with someone convinced that the routine massacre of our children is the price we must pay for our freedom to have guns, or rather to have guns that make us feel free?"

Who in the WORLD has said that the massacre of our children is the price we must pay...? My GOD..the unthinking unthinkingness of some people.
Sadly, it WILL happen again, of COURSE it will happen again. This is life and there are crazies amongst us and they will kill somehow.

Now if we could only get ALL CRIMINALS, or WANNA BE CRIMINALS or ALL SCHIZOPHRENICS or ALL PEOPLE SOON TO BE LAID OFF WHO HAVE MENTAL PROBLEMS, etc etc etc, to give back their guns.......:-)
Isn't it amazing that CHicago has such tight gun laws and such horrible gun crime? Go figure.

Finntann said...

@ despite the clear grammar of its first sentence

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570

So, Mr Gopnik can either muster the 2/3 majority necessary to amend the Constitution or he can STFU, or I guess a third alternative would be he can shag his sorry ass back to Canada.

Funny how you liberals view the supreme court as sacrosanct in matters such as Roe v. Wade, but in 2nd amendment issues you offer the legal interpretation of a Fine Arts major over the court.

Z said...

Finntann..what an excellent response. Also, I don't tout my blog at others' blogs, but my link above here is for you; it is SO FUNNY and full of wonderful inferences to the state of our country today under Obama.
I hope you get this book and enjoy it!

Finntann said...

Z: I'll be sure to check it out.


Silverfiddle said...

Excellent summary of our constitutional rights, Finn.

And Z, I love this...

My GOD..the unthinking unthinkingness of some people.

Unthinking unthinkingness is such a wonderful neologism turn of phrase.

Finntann said...

Wasn't my summary, it was the Supreme Courts.

I'm tempted to pick apart Gopnik's entire rant, but I'll leave it at this:

"Those who fight for the right of every madman and every criminal to have as many people-killing weapons as they want"

We currently have gun control... the mentally ill and convicted felons may not purchase or possess them... and we see how well that works.

I already addressed the 2nd, so...

"The American romance with violence."

Need I point out that the UK, with strict gun control laws has four times the per capita violent crime rate than the US does.

It's all rather pointless though, you can't present a rational argument in response to an emotional rant.


viburnum said...

Finntann: can't present a rational argument in response to an emotional rant."

I know. I've been trying. Just can't get them to understand that this is a random act by a deranged individual, as unpredictable and unpreventable as a lightning strike. Or to understand that legislating in response to an act of insanity, is an act of insanity.

Finntann said...

The police detonated a portion of the explosives and incendiaries he had in his apartment, here is the video:

A lack of guns wouldn't have stopped him.

Here's a link to an event that took place while I was living in Korea, which has stricter gun laws than Europe.

jez said...

"Need I point out that the UK, with strict gun control laws has four times the per capita violent crime rate than the US does."

This is surprising isn't it? (or is it?) Could you provide sources please? Are you sure this is an apples to apples comparison?

Shaw Kenawe said...

"Who in the WORLD has said that the massacre of our children is the price we must pay...? My GOD..the unthinking unthinkingness of some people.

Sadly, it WILL happen again, of COURSE it will happen again. This is life and there are crazies amongst us and they will kill somehow."

Say all the deaths and massacres this country sustains were caused by a chemical/biological agent: ricin for example in this case. And the bio-weapon was used in schools, churches, malls, and theaters to kill men, women and children at the same rate gun deaths kill them.

Would you say the same thing?

Ignore, for this thought test, the fact that the 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about anyone's "right" to grow castor beans. There is no general federal law against growing them, but individual municipalities can pass them, as they do gun laws.

"Despite ricin's extreme toxicity and utility as an agent of chemical/biological warfare, it is extremely difficult to limit the production of the toxin. The castor bean plant from which ricin is derived is a common ornamental and can be grown at home without any special care, and the major reason ricin is a public health threat is that it is easy to obtain."

Would you say this same thing?

"Sadly, it WILL happen again, of COURSE it will happen again. This is life and there are crazies amongst us and they will kill somehow."

If you were to call for the illegalization of individual's growing castor beans, explain why, if you were to accept that deaths by ricin poisoning is just something we have to live with, "this is life," explain that too, please--taking into account the fact that one can live out one's life comfortably without guns or castor beans.

I'd like to understand.

Shaw Kenawe said...


The essay by Gopnik was simply offering a different pov.

You seem not to be able to see any point of any discussion but your own.

And apparently you have a very high regard for everything you say.

Silverfiddle said...

The right to keep and bear arms flows from the natural right to life, liberty and property.

If you have a right to them, you have a right to defend them, which is where the guns come in.

Not so with Ricin or other dangerous substances, which is why total bans on owning certain substances have not been challenged on constitutional grounds.

And a constitutional point: The Second Amendment doesn't "give" us the right to possess firearms. Rather, iIt recognizes a preexisting right and enshrines it, as it does other preexisting rights in the Bill of Rights.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Religious people argue that "pre-existing" rights come from God.

I think you'd have a hard time arguing that God, in his infinite wisdom, gave humans the "right" to own guns.

Does God promise his creations gun ownership in the Bible? I'm not a Biblical scholar, so I don't know.

Shaw Kenawe said...

BTW, SF, you [actually the question was directed at Z] did not answer my hypothetical question.

Growing castor beans is not a federal offense. If they were used to produce the toxin ricin (and castor beans are used more widely for non-lethal purposes), and as many deaths resulted from that as from guns, would people say "that just life?"

And where did this "pre-existing" right to bear arms come from?

Silverfiddle said...

You can't grow marijuana, coca or other plants that produce narcotics, so banning the production of castor beans would not be unprecedented.

People cook meth all the time. Are we just saying, that's life?

No, they treat cough medicine purchases like they do alcohol and they take down meth labs when they find them.

So if there were suddenly an explosion of ricin killing, I assume law enforcement would take the same approach.

And please Shaw, drop the feigned ignorance on natural rights, it's transparent and it doesn't become you.

I used "natural" instead of God-given because the political philosophy comes from John Locke, not the Bible.

Locke's Second Treatise on Government

As I've previously explained to you, the right to possess a firearm is a corollary to your right to life, liberty and property.

You may disagree, but Locke's philosophy is the basis for much of the foundation of our government. You should read his treatise. I don't expect you to be convinced he is right, because progressives hate such notions, but at least you could understand it and discuss it intelligently.

Z said...

We don't have the right to own castor beans, apparently. A good thing.

And, when all the 'good people' turn in their castor beans, the bad guys will keep theirs. etc etc etc......

Liberalmann said...

Clip from HBO's Newsroom a few weeks ago. The show is fictitious but the facts aren't:

Finntann said...

Shaw, our concept of government is by the consent of the governed, with certain non-negotiable principles enshrined in the constitution.

There is a long history of governments oppressing their people. The American right to keep and bear arms traces back to the English Bill of Rights of 1689

"no royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defence"

Prior to the ratification of the Constitution it was clearly understood. From the Pennyslvania ratifying convention for the constitution:

"The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed."

From US v Emerson:

Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the 'people' [or 'citizen' or 'citizens'] "to bear arms in defense of themselves [or 'himself'] and the state,' or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage 'bear arms' was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service."

I don't have a high regard of what I say, I have a high regard for the constitution and the principles this country are founded on.

There are few relevant facts found in Gopnik's dissertation, it is an emotional appeal, nothing more.


Finntann said...


There were 821,939 cases of "violence against the person", the British term out of a population of 62,641,000. That works out to a rate of 1312.14 per 1000 for the time period 2011-2012.

There were 1,246,248 "violent crimes", the US term out of a population of 308,745,538. That works out to a rte of 403.64 per 100,000

I can't say the categories are exact matches, but they are similar.

My recollection from living in Swindon is you Brits are far more prone to fisticuffs than we Yanks.


Finntann said...

Oh the numbers have gone down some since the original 2009 Guardian article that I referenced in my statement of yesterday.


jez said...

Thanks finntann. Your link is being a bit insolent for me, but I found your UK figure quoted at

is actually for the previous year, but that only makes the per capita rate come out worse for the UK.

I agree that these categories seem reasonably similar. Fascinating stuff -- and I can only apologise for Swindon.

Finntann said...

Jez, are you apologizing for the fisticuffs or are you apologizing for Swindon? LOL

I can honestly say I never got in any bar fights over there, but I certainly saw more in the limited time I lived there than my entire time in the States.

Swindon is okay, although I once heard it described as the Cleveland of the UK. I preferred Thetford, and of course London.


jez said...

I don't know Swindon, but it's got a reputation for dreariness which might be unfair but probably isn't. I've no intention of investigating the matter.

I suppose we do like a bit of fighting as a nation, it's not part of my world though which is why the statistics surprised me. It probably does make sense. Alcohol is quite a fighty drug. We'd probably be better of binging on LSD at the weekends instead.