45 Facts that challenge the NRA's talking points

[SecularMotion]

Last edited Sat Aug 30, 2014, 01:07 PM - Edit history (1)

1) States with the most gun laws have the fewest gun deaths.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/03/07/1686081/study-states-with-most-gun-laws-have-fewest-gun-deaths/

2) States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/

3) More than half of mass shooters in the United States used what is conventionally considered an assault weapon and high-capacity magazines.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/assault-weapons-high-capacity-magazines-mass-shootings-feinstein

4) 25 of the 62 mass shootings in the United States since 1983 have happened since the Assault Weapons Ban was overturned in 2006.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

https://www.facebook.com/notes/the-why-movement/45-facts-that-challenge-the-nras-talking-points/513823872000347

[Lurks Often]

1. Do you have any thoughts of your own or is this a google dump AGAIN

[IronGate]

2. Do you have any comments on these google dumps? nt.

[Duckhunter935]

3. would you like to have a nice discussion on your post?

[Eleanors38]

25. Now, try this wonderful spinach!

[Duckhunter935]

26. you are a bad person

made me look.

[Eleanors38]

4. I got my van aligned yesterday! The front end was O.K., too

I kept up a half-decent regime of lubing it myself, and after 195,000 miles the mechanic could still get it right.

I'm hoping my venture into this C&P OP can engender something. Anyhoo, I'm off to eat a green chili & pork omelet, and buy a box or two of #8s -- dove season opens Labor Day!

[DonP]

21. FYI Head Hunting going on

Look! Seems like somebody is overcompensating for getting slapped on the wrist this week. Now who could have possibly alerted on this rather innocuous but funny post, hmmm? Someone with major insecurities that can't stand anyone disagreeing with them?

On Sat Aug 30, 2014, 08:41 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

I got my van aligned yesterday! The front end was O.K., too
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=152591

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Which of the 45 NRA talking points is being addressed here?

The post doesn't specify.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Aug 30, 2014, 08:47 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There were no "NRA talking points" in the post he responded to, just some crap from a facebook page. Not exactly a reliable source. In any event the OP didn't even bother to include any of his own thoughts in his post. Hard to be "rude" to a cut and paste.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The poster used a rather civil device to tell the OP to eff off. I hate guns, I hate the NRA with every fiber of my being ... but, I love this post.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Not funny. Intentionally inflammatory with no other purpose. Hide it.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Eleanors38]

24. #2 takes an existential approach I find perceptive;

#5 actually liked my stuff!

[Duckhunter935]

27. WOW

some one alerted on that?

I am amazed. And two voted to hide, incredible. I like #2's take.

[Duckhunter935]

29. question

can a member on vacation alert?

[IronGate]

32. Yes they can,

which I disagree with, if you're on a time out, you shouldn't be able to do anything until you're reinstated.

[Duckhunter935]

33. Thanks

That does make some sense about why all of the sudden there seems to be a few on an agenda.

[ileus]

58. Our dear Canadians legacy lives on.

[beevul]

5. Aww, isn't that cute.

"1) States with the most gun laws have the fewest gun deaths."

Patently untrue.

States with the most gun laws may have the lowest "rate", but they surely don't have the fewest gun deaths.

Behold:



See, that map is a map of ACTUAL gun violence. Not rates.

And by golly, it sure looks to these eyes, that these states with the most gun control laws, far more often than not, have the MOST gun deaths.

"2) States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence."

Again, patently untrue:




3 and 4:

And? Was there some conclusion you expected to be drawn?





Lets do a closer analysis of the subject matter that 1 and 2 touch on:

Look at that map I posted, and see what the leading gun control pusher group has to say about these states:

(http://www.bradycampaign.org/sites/default/files/SCGLM-Final10-spreads-points.pdf)

Montana and Wyoming get an F. What does the map show?

North and south Dakota get an F. What does the map show?

Nebraska gets a D. What does the map show?

Utah, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, Oklahoma, and Kansas get an F. What does the map show?

Now lets look at the places the brady campaign gives high grades to:

Illinois gets a B. What does the map show?

CA gets an A-. What does the map show?


Too cute by half, what you pro-lots-more-control folks are up to.

With the cutest part being that you continue to appear to think that nobody notices.

[SecularMotion]

7. That's correct. States with more gun laws have lower rates of gun deaths

[beevul]

8. Lower rates perhaps, but also the lions share of gun deaths.

That makes the titles of 1 and 2 which you posted, inaccurate, misleading, and false.


Do you approve of that?

[SecularMotion]

10. They are not incorrect

What is inaccurate, misleading, and false is your interpretation of the headlines.

[Duckhunter935]

13. TWO replies in one of your

Google dump posts. I am seriously shocked today. Thank you for participating in a discussion. I hope to see much more of it. Unfortunately we are not allowed the same privilege in the group you run, are we?

[Straw Man]

14. Sorry, they are.

"Fewest" and "fewer" are quantifiers of raw numbers, not of rates. That is not an interpretation, unless you believe that the meanings of words are totally subjective.

If the headline had said "a lower rate of," it would have been arguably correct.

[SecularMotion]

15. That's correct. States with more gun laws have lower rates of gun deaths

[blueridge3210]

16. Which does not equal a lower raw number.

Thanks for playing.

[Straw Man]

17. Which is not what the headlines you posted say.

States with more gun laws have lower rates of gun deaths

The headlines you posted use the words "fewer" and "fewest" -- they say nothing about rates. Are you paying attention to what you post?

[SecularMotion]

18. Are you disputing the fact that states with more gun laws have lower rates of gun deaths?

[Straw Man]

20. No.

Last edited Sun Aug 31, 2014, 01:51 AM - Edit history (1)

Are you disputing the fact that states with more gun laws have lower rates of gun deaths?

I'm disputing the statement that they have "fewer" gun deaths. That's what the headers in your OP say.

Whether the difference in rates is significant is another question. The study itself doesn't claim a causal connection.

[Eleanors38]

30. There's a t.v. ad out which has 2 computers next to

each other, giving automated responses to humans which are opposite or irrelevant, and the poor human is left wandering the ether.

[Duckhunter935]

34. I like those ads

I like the one where they tell the janitor guy they are good and do not require him that day.

"your data will now be disseminated"

[clffrdjk]

36. By what measure?

Is it based on population or number of legal guns?
Have you taken out suicides?

[krispos42]

39. Are you disputing that your OP says "gun deaths" and not "rates of gun deaths"? n/t

[beevul]

40. Are you disputing that states with more gun laws have far more gun violence than states that don't?

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

35. Care to cite your source for those maps and what makes you think they represent

"ACTUAL gun violence"?

[beevul]

42. Here ya go.

http://billmoyers.com/2013/05/03/gun-violence-since-newtown/

"what makes you think they represent "ACTUAL gun violence"?"

Um, because that' what its creators intend to depict?

One of our resident anti-gun folks was kind enough to post it without giving any thought to how "at odds" it is with typical "rate" maps. You know, the ones which are used by anti-gun folks and the orgs they support, to attempt to paint places like Wyoming and Montana as double-sooper-dangerous places, while painting states that lead the nation in gun violence deaths as tranquil peace sanctuaries.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172149251

That reminds me, I need to thank him/her.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

55. So, you'll believe that any map accurately represents what the creators intend for it to represent?

I don't know you, except to note that you're someone who posted a map without any source info whatsover, so who knows...but Slate presented that map with the following title and introductory paragraph:

How Many People Have Been Killed by Guns Since Newtown?

The answer to the simple question in that headline is surprisingly hard to come by. So Slate is collecting data for our crowdsourced interactive. This data is necessarily incomplete (click here to see why, and to learn more about @GunDeaths, the Twitter user who helped us create this interactive).

Continued.

So even then they admitted that that map did not represent actual gun violence stats. But they have since updated their thoughts on that to an even stronger skepticism on the map's accuracy, which you can find by following the links at the link above.

If no one does it first, I'll try to get around to posting more on that follow-up, but I'm very busy just now so not a lot of time for DU.

[beevul]

60. I believe it accurately contradicts the inferences intended by the use of "rates".

I believe it accurately contradicts the inferences intended by the use of "rates".

[blueridge3210]

6. More Google.

Comments?

[Duckhunter935]

9. Would you care to discuss your post?

bump

[Jenoch]

11. Number 4 is inaccurate.

[NYC_SKP]

12. Oh, we are surely doomed now. An anonymous Facebook post listing assorted lies and distortions.

How scholarly and academic.

I don't see anyway out of this.

I surrender.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

19. Lies, damned lies and statistics. "Gun deaths"? Perhaps but not violent crime.

Here's homicide rates --



?w=595&h=484

Those tempted to crow about Texas and others should also note that California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Illinois amongst others have not turned into to the safe havens we have been evangelized to believe. Meanwhile, very (gun) liberal states such as Vermont fair even better.


Grabbers don't want us safe; they want us controlled.

[Hangingon]

22. Where can I find the NRA talking points?

NT

[Duckhunter935]

28. I have asked many times

always answered with silence or some kind of a cute non-answer or name calling.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

37. Fox News is a good place to start. You'll hear a lot of NRA talking points there.

You could also do a search on "gun control" at Freeperville, or anywhere else that 2A enthusiasts congregate.

It might be a little harder if you need to have them specifically labeled, "NRA talking points." But not impossible. Especially if you pay your NRA dues. But, for free you can get a pretty basic list here. These are specifically presented for attacking Initiative 594, but you'll find most of them are the same ones used against any gun legislation:

NRA-ILA I-594 Talking Points
National Rifle Association of America
Institute for Legislative Action
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 625
Sacramento, California 95814
[phone]. ■ [e-mail]

-WOULDN’T STOP CRIMINALS
-BURDEN ON LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS
-UNENFORCEABLE
-MASSIVE GOVERNMENT DATABASE OF LAW-ABIDING HANDGUN OWNERS
-BURDEN ON LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS
-HUGE REGULATORY SCHEME
-EXPENSIVE DIVERSION OF SCARCE LAW ENFORCEMENT RESOURCES
-UNFAIR

Go here to get more specifics.

[beevul]

43. Which of those are not true?

-WOULDN’T STOP CRIMINALS
-BURDEN ON LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS
-UNENFORCEABLE
-MASSIVE GOVERNMENT DATABASE OF LAW-ABIDING HANDGUN OWNERS
-BURDEN ON LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS
-HUGE REGULATORY SCHEME
-EXPENSIVE DIVERSION OF SCARCE LAW ENFORCEMENT RESOURCES
-UNFAIR

To my knowledge they're all factually true.

Feel free to point out which ones are false, and correct me, if they aren't.

Is the fact that over 7500 police and sheriffs (you know, the ones that enforce the law) are against I-594 an nra talking point too?

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

57. I think most of them are untrue or simplistic and not valid arguments against gun

control legislation, which is what these particular NRA talking points are trying to be.

But my post, to which you replied, is simply about refuting the silly idea that NRA doesn't' have talking points. They've got an extensive catalog of them right on their own website, but they don't label them as such. They're still NRA talking points.

[beevul]

61. Lacking any objective measure...

Lacking any objective measure of truth or untruth, the retort "nra talking points" is just a club intended to be swung at pro-gun posters in an effort to stifle dissent against anti-gun dogma, and swung by those who are utterly uninterested in differentiating between truth and falsehood.

[Hangingon]

45. Looks to be closer than responses to earlier request

I could not google nra-ila i-594 talking points. Yes they had a position statement. Still, statements on an obscure legislative proposal do not constitute NRA talking points.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

56. Yeah, they do consitute NRA talking points. Unless you're going by some definition of talking points

different from the generally accepted one.

I don't know why you're telling me what you couldn't google.

[ileus]

23. 45 "facts"....LOL

[Eleanors38]

31. Shhh, can't discuss the facts about .45s.

[acalix]

38. Gun deaths includes gun suicides

It is not looking solely at gun homicides.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Obviously states with more gun have more gun deaths, same with higher alcohol consumption and alcohol deaths. I bet you would find more motorcycle deaths in states with more registered motorcycles.

[krispos42]

41. Regarding the numbers of "gun deaths", points 1 and 2 in your excerpt...

...could there be any other differences between the states that might account for it?


Such as:

• High-school graduation rates
  
• College graduation rates
  
• Poverty rates
  
• Educational spending per capita
  
• Mental health care spending per capita
  
• Social services spending per capita
  
• Drug rehab spending per capita
  
• Ex-convicts per capita
  
• Convicts per capita
  
• Severity of drug laws
  
• Unemployment rate
  
• Social mobility rate
  
• Gini index
  
• Income per capita
  

I'd be fascinated to find out if states with tough gun laws had a lower rate of non-gun crimes, too. How about you scare that up for me during your google searches, SM?

[krispos42]

44. And I love point #4...

The Rove/Luntz way it is written would lead the reader to assume that all of the 25 shootings since... wait a minute, the Federal AWB expired (not overturned, EXPIRED) in 2004!

Assuming that MoJo had a typo and they meant 2004, I'll continue.

The Rove/Luntz way it is written would lead the reader to assume that all of the 25 shootings since 2004 were "assault weapons". Very nice piece of opinion-changing subtly there.

However, as we know, many of these incidents were done with guns that were not assault weapons, such as the Newtown school shooting, and the Washington Navy Yard, or that an "assault weapon" was only one part of an arsenal, such as the Colorado theater shooting.


Damn facts, they're awfully inconvenient, aren't they?



I'd like to look at the AWB timeline a bit, if you don't mind.


Okay then, from 1983 to 2013 is thirty-one years of data. We can agree on that?


The Federal AWB lasted from September 14th, 1994 to September 14th, 2004. So for 10 years (out of 31) there was a FEDERAL, nationwide ban on semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and handguns that fed from detachable magazines AND had more than an allowable number of external features such as pistol grips and telescoping stocks.


California enacted theirs in 1989, New Jersey in 1990, and Connecticut in 1993. Those are still on the books, and in some cases have been made stricter. Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York all put in their AWBs before the Federal ban ended.


So, California has had theirs in place for 24 years, New Jersey for 23, and Connecticut for 20. Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York have all had theirs in place for 19 years. All other states had assault-weapon bans in place for 10 years, courtesy of the Federal AWB.


Now, let's do some math!


There are 435 Representatives from the 50 states in Congress. I'll use that as an easy-to-use approximation of the state's population relative to the national population. I'll use current apportionment.


So, 435 Congresscritters times 31 years equals 13,485 Representative-years. This can be used to approximate the percent of how much of the country has been under an assault-weapons ban. Obviously, if the entire country had been under the ban the entire 31 years, then the math would show 13,485 Rep-years, or 100%.


Now, California is 53 Reps x 24 years = 1,272 Rep-years, New Jersey is 12 x 23 = 276, and Connecticut is 5 x 20 = 200. The vanguard's total is 1,648.

Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York total 46 Reps, times 19 years equals 874.

The balance of the country is 319 reps x 10 years = 3,190.

So, 3,190 + 874 + 1,648 = 5,712 Rep years, or 42.4 %. That means, that out of the total time and population available in the timeframe given, 42.4% of it has people living in states with assault-weapon bans.

And this number will only continue to decline, as only about a quarter of the population lives in an area where an AWB is in effect.

Caveats: state representations have changed over the last 31 years, the population has grown by about 50 million since 1983, Congressional representation is a good but not perfect substitute for accurate proportions, DC and US territories are not included, and some cities or counties have their own AWBs in place. Do not fold, spindle, or mutilate.

[SecularMotion]

46. Request to have this thread pinned

Krispos?

[IronGate]

47. Why?

What special reason does this thread deserve to be pinned?

[blueridge3210]

48. You're expecting a reply?

[Duckhunter935]

50. I would not nt

[IronGate]

51. No, not at all,

but I thought I would be fair and give SecMo the chance to explain himself.

[Duckhunter935]

49. it would be courteous

to give the host of the group an explanation on why this should be pinned. In my mind and I do not make the call but it should be something quite important to be pinned and I do not see it. But I also am not the host.

[DonP]

52. You haven't even posted it in your own forum. Post and Pin it there.

Then both your followers can comment and applaud it.

[Duckhunter935]

53. I like that idea nt

[beevul]

54. When...

"Then both your followers can comment and applaud it."

Whos the new poster?

[ileus]

59. This facebook post just reinforces our need to continue our civil rights right.

We need to fight like hell to keep what little of the 2A we have left.


Remember your family is worth it, no matter what they claim.