Brady Campaign gives California high marks but murder and robbery rates

[spin]

are high.

California – -(AmmoLand.com)- Despite California’s bans on “assault weapons,” “unsafe” handguns, private gun sales, and sales of two handguns in a 30-day period; its 10-day waiting period on all gun sales; and its denial of carry permits to people who don’t have the right connections, the Golden State’s murder and robbery rates are 12 and 20 percent higher, respectively, than in the rest of the country.

Nevertheless, the Brady Campaign calls California’s “assault weapon” ban “a model for the nation,” and gives the state a high “grade” just for having more gun control than other states. Washington, D.C.’s city council adopted California’s “assault weapon” ban and “unsafe handgun” ban whole cloth in January, backtracking on handguns this summer only in the face of court challenges.
http://www.ammoland.com/2009/09/05/national-gun-registration-and-waiting-period-are-goals-of-misleading-gun-show-study/

[fascisthunter]

1. well.... pass out guns and see if those numbers fall

[spin]

3. The "shall issue" concealed carry permit worked well in Florida...

But in 1988, Florida set off a national trend by enacting a "shall issue" handgun permit law, thanks to the energetic support of the Florida Chiefs of Police Association and Unified Sportsmen of Florida. The Florida law specifies that any adult who has a clean record and who has taken safety training may obtain a permit to carry a concealed handgun for lawful protection.

****snip****

The results? Concealed handgun license laws significantly reduce violent crime. On the average, after enactment of such laws, murder falls by 10%, rape by 3% and aggravated assault by 6%

While crime does begin dropping immediately, the full benefits of concealed handgun laws take about three years to make themselves fully felt. This should not be surprising; in most states, there is a flood in applications in the first few weeks the law is on the books, and a much longer gradual rise in the percentage of population which has permits. The larger the percentage the population with permits, the greater the drop in crime. (Usually the percentage of the population which obtains permits ranges from 1% to 5%.)
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Mags/LottReview.htm

Maybe California should try this. It would hurt their high rating with the Brady Campaign, but it might work.

[divideandconquer]

5. Gun hating New York City seems to be doing a good job cutting violence

Many cities in California are also doing well. Honolulu has very strong gun laws on an island and comes in first. Notice Gary Indiana is on the list but not Chicago.

http://os.cqpress.com/citycrime/Population_Rankings.pdf

[spin]

8. New York City and the drop in crime rate is fascinating...

Violent crime in New York City has decreased in the last fifteen years and the murder rate in 2007 was at its lowest level since at least 1963, when reliable statistics were first kept and the city had half a million fewer residents.<1><2> Crime rates spiked in the 1980s and early 1990s as the crack epidemic hit the city. During the 1990s the New York City Police Department (NYPD) adopted CompStat, broken windows policing and other strategies in a major effort to reduce crime. The city's dramatic drop in crime has been attributed by criminologists to these policing tactics, the end of the crack epidemic and demographic changes.<3><4>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_New_York_City

Why Did Crime Fall in New York City?
By Sewell Chan

Did the “broken windows” strategy and CompStat drive down crime in New York City in the 1990s?

Both strategies are indelibly linked to former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and his first police commissioner, William J. Bratton.

Social scientists and criminologists have endlessly debated the extent to which effective policing was truly responsible for the drop in crime, compared with other factors like the higher incarceration rate, improved economic conditions, the lessening of the crack cocaine epidemic, a relative reduction in the numbers of 16- to 24-year-olds and even the abortion rate.
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/13/why-did-crime-fall-in-new-york-city/

The second article is well worth reading. Obviously something happened to drive the crime rate down in NYC and the city had strict gun laws before and after the change.

If NYC liberalized their gun laws would crime drop more? Over time, I believe the nature of crime would change. Fewer home invasions and robberies on the street (if NYC adopted a shall issue law).

In reality, more could be accomplished in crime ridden cities by adding more police. Also an effort has to be made at the federal, the state and the local level to combat drug gangs who are terrorist organizations.

[X_Digger]

13. Chicago not on the list?

That's because IL fudges their numbers for UCR reporting-

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/08aprelim/table_4il-mo.html

The data collection methodology for the offense of forcible rape used by the Illinois and the Minnesota state UCR Programs (with the exception of Rockford, Illinois and Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota) does not comply with national UCR Program guidelines. Consequently, their figures for forcible rape and violent crime (of which forcible rape is a part) are not published in this Report.

[Euromutt]

39. Give credit to more and better policing

I don't give a whole lot of credit to the "broken windows" hypothesis of crime prevention, not in the least place because it's never been scientifically tested, and if New York is anything to go by, it results in some major trampling of civil liberties.

But William Bratton did manage to replicate his performance in New York in Los Angeles, despite the fact that California has a pre-emption statute (i.e. local governments can't make their own rules wrt firearms). Bratton's main focus has been on analyzing where trouble spots are and putting more cops on the beat in those areas, and doing more community policing. Having more cops never hurts either. Bear in mind that much of NYC's increase in crime occurred during a period in which the NYPD's numbers had been scaled back, and foot patrols in particular were reduced as a result.

[Euromutt]

21. Am I first in coining the term "the 'arm everyone' canard"?

I can't imagine that I am, but it definitely exists. Every single time somebody points out empirical evidence of how gun control measures are failing to curb violent crime, some wit (or half of one, anyway) pipes up with some variation of
"oh yeah, because arming everybody is going to cut crime :sarcasm:"

The fact is, of course, that nobody is suggesting that "arming everyone" will cause crime rates to drop. Besides, every proponent of private ownership of firearms that I've ever encountered is "pro-choice" on the matter; if you don't like guns, nobody's going to force you to acquire one. What most pro-RKBA types are suggesting is that if gun control measures fail to achieve the purpose of keeping down violent crime rates (and all the available evidence indicates they don't), then such measures are an unwarranted intrusion on the freedom of those who are unlikely to use any guns they own for unlawful purposes. Or, in plain English, if a law doesn't do any good (or prevent any harm), then there's no reason to have it.

[joeybee12]

2. Oooh! Ammoland...A TRUSTED news source...

...lets make up statistics some more, nutjobs!

[raimius]

4. Check the UCR

Unless you want to claim that owning a firearm makes you 42 times more likely...(insert effect).

[spin]

6. Far more reliable than the main stream media...

which calls any rifle used in a incident an AK-47.

Or the common lies spread by the media, for example:

1. Thousands of children die annually in gun accidents.

False. Gun accidents involving children are actually at record lows, although you wouldn't know it from listening to the mainstream media. In 1997, the last year for which data are available, only 142 children under 15 years of age died in gun accidents, and the total number of gun-related deaths for this age group was 642. More children die each year in accidents involving bikes, space heaters or drownings. The often repeated claim that 12 children per day die from gun violence includes "children" up to 20 years of age, the great majority of whom are young adult males who die in gang-related violence.
http://rockoutwithmyglockout.blogspot.com/2008/02/gun-control-lies.html

[divideandconquer]

7. Any proof the media calls any rifle an AK-47?

Sounds unlikely, I'm skeptical of any "facts" from any gun pushers. Any links?

[spin]

9. Sure...

Teen Charged In AK-47 Shooting
18-Year-Old Shot, Killed

POSTED: Monday, August 10, 2009
UPDATED: 12:46 pm EDT August 10, 2009

OPA-LOCKA, Fla. -- A 16-year-old boy has been charged in connection with the death of an 18-year-old who was shot and killed with an AK-47 assault rifle over the weekend. <1>emphasis mine

The shooting at about 3:15 p.m. in an upstairs bedroom at an Opa-Locka townhouse in the 14000 block of Northwest 17th Avenue, Miami-Dade police said.

Police said 18-year-old Caesar Romero Ervin Jr. and 16-year-old Stanley Raphael were somehow in the presence of an AK-47 inside the home. The weapon went off, and Ervin was shot in the head, police said.
http://www.justnews.com/news/20344641/detail.html

What is an AK-47 assault rifle?

The AK-47 (or Kalashnikov) is a selective fire, gas operated 7.62mm assault rifle developed in the Soviet Union by Mikhail Kalashnikov in the 1940s. Six decades later, the AK-47 and its variants and derivatives remain in service throughout the world. It has been manufactured in many countries and has seen service with regular armed forces as well as irregular, revolutionary and terrorist organizations worldwide.emphasis mine


The designation AK-47 stands for Автомат Калашникова 47 (Avtomat Kalashnikova 47) - Kalashnikov automatic rifle, model of 1947.
***snip***

Operating cycle

To fire, the operator inserts a loaded magazine, moves the selector lever to the lowest position, pulls back and releases the charging handle, aims, and then pulls the trigger. In this setting, the firearm fires only once (semi-automatic), requiring the trigger to be released and depressed again for the next shot. With the selector in the middle position (full-automatic), the rifle continues to fire, automatically cycling fresh rounds into the chamber, until the magazine is exhausted or pressure is released from the trigger. As each bullet travels through the barrel, a portion of the gases expanding behind it is diverted into the gas tube above the barrel, where it impacts the gas piston. The piston, in turn, is driven backward, pushing the bolt carrier, which causes the bolt to move backwards, ejecting the spent round, and chambering a new round when the recoil spring pushes it back.<21>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47

The weapon used was a semi-automatic look alike of the AK-47 which is called an "assault weapon" not an "assault rifle"

[Treo]

10. I've seen them do it NT

[spin]

11. I notice that recently the media (msnbc)...

has decided to use a more accurate term:

AK-47-type guns turn up more often in U.S.

updated 4:17 p.m. ET, Wed., March. 26, 2008

***snip***

The Sept. 15 killing was remarkable in that it took place in the most innocent of settings — the fifth birthday of twin boys. But it was unremarkable in that one of the guns brandished was an AK-47-type rifle — a powerful, rapid-fire weapon that has long been used in Third World conflicts but is increasingly being used in American street fights.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23813856/

Notice the "AK-47 type" description followed by the statement "was an AK-47-type rifle — a powerful, rapid-fire weapon that has long been used in Third World conflicts but is increasingly being used in American street fights."

True, the weapon used was similar to an AK-47 but was semi-auto rather than full auto. Therefore the description "AK-47 type weapon" is correct. (The weapon resembles an AK-47 in appearance but operates differently.)

However, the following statement "a powerful, rapid-fire weapon that has long been used in Third World conflicts but is increasingly being used in American street fights."is incorrect. Third world countries do NOT use AK-47 type weapons, they use REAL FULLY AUTO AK-47s. BIG, BIG difference.

[divideandconquer]

12. The gun nut up the street brags about his "AK-47", it's semiautomatic

Seems like the difference between a 4x4 truck and a 2WD truck, just a few parts difference.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. But one can actually go offroad without getting stuck

and the other just looks silly.

[TheWraith]

16. Bingo. It's a huge difference in functionality.

Another example would be, say, the difference between a Rolex and an imitation. Not least because a real AK-47, in the US, would cost about $20,000 or so.

[AtheistCrusader]

31. Were there any imported before 1986?

I think the number of lawfully owned AK-47's in the US might be 0.

[TheWraith]

34. I don't know for sure, but I would assume that there have to be some.

They were around for more than 40 years before the NFA registry was closed, so I would figure that there were a few.

[X_Digger]

35. Yup, there are some that pop up

Google 'Class 3 dealer' and you'll get lots of internet stores, some of which have form 4 transferable AKs (~$15k to start.)

[Statistical]

60. There are a few I have seen some for sale however the numbers are likely in the few hundreds.

Given 300 million people in US that puts the ratio to something like one real AK-47 assault rifle for every million people or so.

Last time I checked a 86 legal AK-47 with verified documentation runs about $16,000 (not including $200 transfer stamp).

EDIT: You got me curious.
http://www.subguns.com/classifieds/index.cgi?db=nfafirearms&website=&language=&session_key=&search_and_display_db_button=on&results_format=headlines&category=All+Items+in+this+Category&query=category

$11K - $24K depending on quality and place of origin.

Soviet AK are considered the most collectible and likely would go for $30K+ in mint conditions if cheap Chinese and Egyptian knockoffs are going for $13K+.

[spin]

18. Or the difference between a Humvee and a 4x4 truck. (n/t)

[Euromutt]

22. It's those few parts that make a very important difference

The genuine AK-47 and its offshoots (AKM, AK-74, etc.) and clones (Chinese Type 56, Yugoslav M70, East German MPi-K, Romanian PM md. 63, etc. etc.) are actually intended to be used primarily in automatic mode (using short bursts), as is evident from the fact that the safety/fire selector lever goes from "safe" to "automatic" and only then to "repeat." It was, moreover, designed to provide riflemen with a amount of firepower approaching that of the PPSh-41 sub-machine gun (http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg02-e.htm), but with more power and range. While the AK mechanically most closely resembles the light machine guns of the period, doctrinally it's an overgrown SMG. Which means that a semi-auto-only version rather defeats the way the gun was designed to be used.

(Note that the story is different for guns that use a Kalashnikov mechanism but aren't intended to be assault rifles; the Yugoslav Zastava M76 sniper rifle http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn65-e.htm is a good example.)

[benEzra]

23. More like the difference between a Baja 1000 race truck and a 2WD 4-cylinder Tacoma

One is a non-streetable full-race vehicle, and the other is a street-legal vehicle that meets the same DOT and NHTSA standards and regulations as any other passenger car.

I own a non-automatic civilian AK, and shoot competitively and recreationally with it. Functionally, it is absolutely identical to a Ruger Mini Thirty deer rifle.

[Treo]

33. But it's easier to find good magazines for NT

[SteveM]

58. Few parts? Maybe the whole receiver? (nt)

[iverglas]

15. how about the common lies spread about non-existent lies

Thousands of children die annually in gun accidents.

Yeah? So who exactly said it?


The often repeated claim that 12 children per day die from gun violence includes "children" up to 20 years of age, the great majority of whom are young adult males who die in gang-related violence.

I'm not clicking on a link called somethingglockanything, sorry. Does your source have a source for this allegation - both parts of it?

Surely there is one, and producing it would be better than rockmyglock.com.

[spin]

17. It's fair to add the statement "up to 20 years of age":...

stops confusion. Most people do not consider an individual old enough to drive a car or "join the army, travel to foreign lands, meet interesting people and kill them", to be children.

As to where the comment came from:

This is an old saw, oft repeated by anti-gun types and enthusiastically broadcast by the liberal media. People have heard it so many times, most probably believe it's true. It's not. As you might suspect, the statistic is contrived and distorted. It was last sighted in prominent statements by Bill and Hillary Clinton. Bill dusted it off and wheeled it out for an appearance on NBC's TODAY show on March 2 while lobbying for legislation to mandate trigger locks and smart guns. He insisted that "every single day there are 13 children who die from guns in this country." Hillary reprised the statistic on April 27 when she claimed that "every day in America we lose 13 precious children to gun-related violence."

Apparently, the original source is a 1997 study published by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). It found that 4,205 personas up to and including the age of 19 were killed in that year in firearm-related fatalities. Divide that number by 365, and you get an average of 11.5 per day. Somehow, the Clintons rounded that up to 13.

But the use of the term "children" is the most manipulative element of this emotionally charged claim. It conjures up images of thousands of 6-year-olds lying prostrate in a pool of blood, with a handgun alongside. My American Heritage Dictionary defines a "child" as a person between birth and puberty ... An infant; a baby".

According to Yale University researcher John R. Lott Jr., fewer than 3 percent of young people killed by guns are under the age of 10. The great majority are virtually adults between the ages of 17 and 19, and most of those are gang members, not young children who are victims of household mishaps. "Trigger locks would do nothing to stop gang members from using guns," say Lott.
http://www.lizmichael.com/gunsdont.htm

[iverglas]

19. you know, deceit doesn't really help

You quote:

“Just as gruesome as incoming casualties from a battlefield, the bodies of young gunshot victims stream into urban hospital trauma centers on the frontlines of an undeclared war on America’s children,” said Marian Wright Edelman, president of the Children’s Defense Fund. The children that die every year from gunshot wounds come from all racial groups and are all ages. Some of the children killed by guns are too young to start kindergarten.

“The deaths of thousands of children each year is morally obscene for the world’s most powerful nation, which has more resources to address its social ills than any other nation,” said Edelman.

as if you had proved that some false statement was being made.

You omitted this bit:

Citing the most recent data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the report reveals that 2,827 children and teens died as a result of gun violence in 2003

Yup, those are individuals under the age of 20. I don't give a shit who doesn't give a shit about 19-year-olds. I do. Many other people do.

The firearm death rate for black males ages 15 to 19 is more than four times that of white males the same age.

That isn't an indictment of African-American adolescents/young men. It's an indictment of the society that tolerates that kind of violence against its youth.

No, not all of the victims were gang-bangers. Many of the victims were not. Many of the offenders were -- but they aren't the ones dead.


Y'know, I still just can't believe somebody producing NRA-ILA spew here at DU to support an argument.

Not to bleeding mention whoever the hell Liz Michael is, and of course "According to Yale University researcher John R. Lott Jr." No shame at all.


Got anything to rebut this bit?

The rate of firearm deaths among children under age 15 is far higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined.

Or shall we lower the bar to, oh, age 4 ...


Oh look, Liz Michael: http://www.lizmichael.com/

Great flying spaghetti monster on an electric pogo stick. Now I remember.

I am a veteran of the political arena, having run for office 5 times including twice for the U.S. House of Representatives, and was the Republican nominee for State Assembly (California) in 1990 - I have also consulted many diverse campaigns. I am a registered Democrat and a philosophical Libertarian conservative.

Let me outa here before the stench of loonytarian ... make that flat out psychotic ... right-wingery overcomes me ...


Just no shame.

[spin]

26. I didn't think you would like my answer or my sources...

and I was right. Oh well. I'm just devastated.

[Euromutt]

43. Additionally, there's the Brady Campaign's current website

Specifically, this page: http://www.bradycampaign.org/issues/gvstats/kidsandguns/
Note the last bit of the URL there: "kidsandguns"

CHILDREN & GUNS: A LETHAL COMBINATION
In 2006, an average of nine young people aged 19 and under were killed a day by a firearm in the United States.1 In 2007, an average of 48 per day were non-fatally wounded.2 The scourge of gun violence frequently attacks the most helpless members of our society - our children.

Note that while statistic has been corrected to "young people aged 19 and under," in the rest of page, the term "children" is still used repeatedly. Most significantly, the page is not titled "Young people and guns" even though an actual perusal of the CDC WISQARS data indicates that the GSW victims in the age group 15-19 outnumber those in age groups 0-14 (that is, children) several times over.

Note also phrasings like "killed by a gun" and "firearms were responsible for," as if inanimate objects were to blame, rather than the people operating them. I also love this one:

Firearm homicide is the second-leading cause of death (after motor vehicle crashes) for young people ages 1-19 in the U.S.

Pointing at something as "the leading cause of death" is so meaningless. By definition, if even only one person in an entire demographic dies, whatever he died of will be the "leading cause of death." Teenagers don't die from disease very much, so it follows that physical trauma is a likelier cause of death in that age group.

[spin]

59. Thanks for pointing that out, I don't usually visit the Brady Campaign's...

web site.

The lies and the deceit make me want to throw up.

[beevul]

20. Those wacky folks at brady...

I wonder if they'll bother making DC's grade public now that they don't ban handguns...


They didn't when the ban was in effect, even though they would have most certainly given DC an A+++ Double good...In spite of the amount of gun violence.


So interesting, that they grade based on gun laws, rather than on the amount of gun violence in a given place...


But yeah...they're aiming at gun violence...


And I got some oceanfront property in the Arizona desert for sale too...cheap...

Lets examine the Brady bunch :


This is a group that has deliberately included adults in thier "statistics" to inflate them. No organization that has a legitimate intent to reduce gun violence would do such a thing.


This is a group that claims to want to prevent gun violence, yet gives grades on a per state basis based on how much they restrict guns rather than how high or low the level of gun crime/gun violence is in that state. Again, no organization that has a legitimate intent to reduce gun violence would do such a thing.


This is a group that claimed that civilian owned 50 caliber rifles which are esentially never used in crime could shoot down aircraft, which is a huge lie, and used that false rationale for stamping thier feet and screaming ban at the tops of thier lungs.

Again, no organization that has a legitimate intent to reduce gun violence would do such a thing.


This is a group that opposes concealed carry, even though police as a group are convicted of a larger number of crimes than CCW holders.

Once again, no organization that has a legitimate intent to reduce gun violence would do such a thing.


This is a group that claimed that "assault weapons" were the choice of criminals, in spite of the fact that ALL rifles - which 99 percent of so called "assault weapons" are - are used in less than 3 percent of all firearm homicides, and used that false rationale for stamping thier feet and screaming ban at the tops of thier lungs.

Once again, no organization that has a legitimate intent to reduce gun violence would do such a thing.




They may as well be "the brady campain to reduce guns", because 90 plus percent of the things they stump for are aimed squarely at doing just that.


And did I mention that they thought a republican would be a good fit as president of thier org?

No organization that has a legitimate intent to reduce gun violence would go after legally owned guns, unless thats what they want gone. They aren't interested in reducing gun violence unless its through restrictive gun laws aimed at people who by and large aren't a problem in the first place.

Do they look at root causes of gun violence? No. They go after guns.

Do they bother investigating how much the "war on some drugs" effects gun violence? Of course not. Like good little republicans they never bring that up, and go after guns instead.

As far as they're concerned, its the guns, and that should put them at odds with anyone who values his or her rights where firearms ownership is concerned.

[iverglas]

24. "So interesting, that they grade based on gun laws"

rather than on the amount of gun violence in a given place...

Isn't it? That their report on gun laws is actually about gun laws?

Damn. Imagine if your mark in French class were based on your French exam ...

Oh wait!

[JonQ]

29. A more apt analogy

Your grade in french class is based on how many classes you attend, how many books you've purchased and how many hours a night you claim to study french, but not at all based on your ability to speak french.

That is what they are doing: looking only at superficial things they believe will reduce crime, but ignoring actual crime rates.

In theory studying will improve your grades, so why not base your grade on how much you study? Because in reality that isn't always the case, and the final goal is to produce kids that can speak french fluently, not simply ones that stare a book for hours on end. In theory (according to the brady bunch) banning guns will reduce crimes, in reality not so much.

Basically it comes down to what your motivations are: rewarding those who reinforce your own prejudices not backed by reality, or accurately tracking the problem and coming up with a functioning solution.

We know what the brady bunch has decided. Let's go the other route.

[iverglas]

30. nope

[JonQ]

32. yep

[TPaine7]

36. Excellent point. Brady does not measure the desired effect--lower crime rates--

they measure the theoretical means. Your logic and analogy are sound.

Of course there's iverglas' penetrating rebuttal:

"nope"

I guess you should consider your points refuted--in iverworld, at least.

:rofl:

[iverglas]

37. thermometers don't measure weight

They measure temperature.

Amazing, ain't it???


I do believe that the organization in question is aware that there are no moats around the various states of the US, and thus that any effort to "measure" the effects of laws in force in one jurisdiction would not be measuring any such thing.

[TPaine7]

38. To you, maybe.

thermometers don't measure weight

They measure temperature.

Amazing, ain't it???

To you, maybe. Glad to see you're furthering your education.

I do believe that the organization in question is aware that there are no moats around the various states of the US, and thus that any effort to "measure" the effects of laws in force in one jurisdiction would not be measuring any such thing.

This has nothing to do with moats--and everything to do with living up to their billing. They call themselves The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, yet they rank states not on how well they do in preventing gun violence, but on how well they do in suppressing or infringing Second Amendment rights. If the lack of moats--or any other pretext--means that they cannot measure how well states do in preventing gun violence, then the honest thing to do would be to not hand out grades at all. Or they could change their name to The Brady Campaign to Suppress Second Amendment Rights.

Basic honesty. It's even more fundamental than your recent discoveries about thermometers, temperature and weight.

[JonQ]

50. Regarding their name:

The Brady "campaign to prevent gun violence" as you pointed out.

And yet, according to some, the mere idea that they should care about "gun violence" is ridiculous, as silly as using a thermometer to measure weight. Instead they should only care about banning guns.

Shouldn't it then be the "brady campaign to ban firearms"? Or perhaps the brady campaign to abolish the 2nd amendment? If they don't concern themselves with gun violence, as iver claims, then they really ought to remove that bit from their name.

[Euromutt]

54. Personally, I'd have a lot more respect for their cause...

... if they were the "Brady Campaign to Prevent Violence," rather than just "gun violence," as if being beaten or bludgeoned or stabbed to death didn't make you just as dead as if you'd been shot to death.

But we needn't count on that, given the organization's previous names: "Handgun Control, Inc." and before that, the "National Council to Control Handguns." The organization has never been about violence prevention, it's been about banning guns, and the only reason they dropped the "handgun control" part is because it got in the way of jumping on the bandwagon of banning so-called "assault weapons," large-caliber rifles, and any other class of firearm that caught the media's attention.

Oh, and, I'd also have a lot more respect for their cause if they didn't feel the need to lie all the fucking time. Honestly, as someone who would like to think he has a modicum of critical thinking ability, nothing cemented my position on the pro-RKBA side of the aisle more than reading a few Brady Bunch "fact sheets." If ya gotta lie, or at least severely obfuscate the facts, to convey your point, it tells me that your point was shit to begin with, and that you knew it was.

[JonQ]

56. Bingo

Preventing violence has never been their aim, or even a minor concern to them.

If it were they would attempt objectively review what works, and what does not work, at reducing violence and support those efforts that work and oppose those that do no. A more scientific and logic (and hence, effective) approach.

Instead they are going the route of literal creationists and other such folks: they have their conclusion first (and it must be right, because they said so) then they go about cherrypicking data to back that, denouncing data that refutes it, all the while attempting to force others to accept their dogma through changes to the law. And of course any who disagree are simply evil.

[JonQ]

49. Unfortunately to her

that passes for reasoned response.

[iverglas]

52. unfortunately for the world

that seems to be your idea of English.

[JonQ]

57. Well I did tell you to get a new

shtick, and being a whiny grammar nazi is different than simply denying you have ever said anything at any point.

But that's more of a lateral move, I was hoping for progress. So a better routine, rather than merely a different one.

A start, but it needs improvement.

C+ (bumped up from a C- for effort)

[beevul]

40. And there we have it...A confirmation of sorts...

We've already discussed the particulars having to do with the brady bunch...And following it up, your post.


Thats the best you could muster in reply?


Me, I'd say that there is a confirmation of sorts, yes indeed.


And thanks very much for it.


You can say and spin however you like, but the raw unspun facts are the raw unspun facts:

The brady bunch grades are based on gun laws, not on how well any given state scores in the catagory of gun violence. Thats a fact.

And the brady bunch CLAIMS to to have as a goal the prevention of gun violence. Thats a fact as well.

Whether you like it or not, any organization with so much as a shred of decency and/or credibility would measure and grade states to determine first and foremost, where the problems exist, then where they exist worst, and why.

And any organization with so much as a shred of decency and/or credibility would give grades based on those things, and be trying to get to the bottom of it all.


The brady bunch - not so much, on all counts.


On top of that, they're against lawful authorized concealed carry - an elegant example of them being against the guns, rather than specifically "gun violence".

Theres no defending them, or spinning it into something it isn't.


I do note however, that does not prevent you from trying.

[iverglas]

41. nope

The brady bunch grades are based on gun laws

The grades are ABOUT gun laws. What the fuck else would they be "based on"?

not on how well any given state scores in the catagory of gun violence

Huckleberry Finn is about some kid wandering around the countryside, not about murder on the Orient Express.

Do you actually imagine you have a point when you say such moronic things?

I don't think you imagine any such thing, myself.


Whether you like it or not, any organization with so much as a shred of decency and/or credibility would measure and grade states to determine first and foremost, where the problems exist, then where they exist worst, and why.

And any organization with so much as a shred of decency and/or credibility would give grades based on those things, and be trying to get to the bottom of it all.

Hey. Go tell it to the NRA-ILA, 'k? I'm sure you have their ear.

Maybe you can get them to work on some of those "root causes". You know, the ones the Republicans they try to shove into office at every opportunity are so concerned about.


Theres no defending them, or spinning it into something it isn't.

There's nothing to defend them against. And you and all the other gun militants are the only ones trying to spin this into something it isn't.

Jeez, that was too easy, that was.

[beevul]

42. Lordamighty, I KNOW you aren't that thick.

"The grades are ABOUT gun laws. What the fuck else would they be "based on"?"

NO SHIT SHIRLEY. If the brady bunch has as its mission "to reduce gun violence", it WOULDN'T be anything having to do with gun laws at all. It would be particulars rather than peripherals.

It isn't.

They're all about the peripherals rather that the particulars.


"Hey. Go tell it to the NRA-ILA, 'k? I'm sure you have their ear."

"Maybe you can get them to work on some of those "root causes". You know, the ones the Republicans they try to shove into office at every opportunity are so concerned about."


And here I thought it was just those that are actually concerned with and interested in solving problems that concentrate on root causes...turns out it was republicans too? Are you serious?




Go ahead, carry water for republican helmke and his minions some more.

"There's nothing to defend them against."

Yeah, you're right, railing against 50 caliber target rifles is SO in line with thier goals, seeing how much violence is attributed to them. Not.


You lose, ms quixote.

Someone ought to come up with a video arcade game named "defend the brady bunch" and pepper all of canada with them, in supermarkets and various stores...

Naw, that would be bad, because your cats would starve, and your fingers would fall off from inserting all those quarters.

<insert coin>

Game Over

<insert coin>

Game Over

<insert coin>

/infinity

[iverglas]

44. nice, eh?

Someone ought to come up with a video arcade game named "defend the brady bunch" and pepper all of canada with them, in supermarkets and various stores...

Nobody in Canada would have a clue what this was about. Maybe they'd think it was some big promo for some new television show. Or, like, art. I'd never heard of any of those outfits before dropping in here, you know. Well, I mean, the NRA, everybody knows them and what they are. The ball caps. On tourists. Weird.

Defend the Brady Bunch against the NRA. One of those stupid reality show they're always coming up with south of the border, maybe, with aging, forgotten child stars pitted against senile old white guys in ball caps ...


Naw, that would be bad, because your cats would starve

You seem to have missed how all three of our cats died within five weeks this summer of three apparently different mystery diseases. Nice of you to think of them. Since it hasn't been my job to feed the cats for about 10 years now, nothing I did would have affected their diet anyway. I do feed Raúl the feral, since the co-vivant hates him. Keep up, will you?

[beevul]

45. Fair enough...

But your fingers would still fall off.

[TPaine7]

48. But what does the NRA-ILA claim as its objective?

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is committed to preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

ILA’s ability to fight successfully for the rights of America’s law-abiding gun owners directly reflects the support of NRA’s nearly 4 million members—a number that has more than tripled since 1978. When restrictive “gun control” legislation is proposed at the local, state or federal level, NRA members and supporters are alerted and respond with individual letters, faxes, e-mails and calls to their elected representatives to make their views known.

Source: http://www.nraila.org/About/

If the NRA-ILA claimed to be fighting gun violence, you MIGHT have a point:

Whether you like it or not, any organization with so much as a shred of decency and/or credibility would measure and grade states to determine first and foremost, where the problems exist, then where they exist worst, and why.

And any organization with so much as a shred of decency and/or credibility would give grades based on those things, and be trying to get to the bottom of it all.

Hey. Go tell it to the NRA-ILA, 'k? I'm sure you have their ear.

Maybe you can get them to work on some of those "root causes". You know, the ones the Republicans they try to shove into office at every opportunity are so concerned about.

Of course we have to keep the context in mind, as well. So here's a contextual quote from the post you answered:

The brady bunch grades are based on gun laws, not on how well any given state scores in the catagory of gun violence. Thats a fact.

And the brady bunch CLAIMS to to have as a goal the prevention of gun violence. Thats a fact as well.

The problem is hypocrisy--inconsistency--lack of integrity. Why can't you see the problem? Oh... never mind.

Well as I said, if the NRA-ILA claimed to be fighting gun violence, you MIGHT have a point. They don't make that claim, and you have no point.

Par for the course.

[JonQ]

51. So are you admitting that the brady bunch

and their little campaign have nothing to do with preventing gun violence, only foisting their ideology on everyone else?

We all know that's true, it's just odd for you to admit it.

[iverglas]

53. so you hold the truth in complete contempt

and persist in demonstrating that fact.

Please. Everbody is fully aware of it already.

[JonQ]

55. Yawn

You need a new tactic. The old imply one thing, then get pissy and indignant when called out on it shtick is getting old.

[friendly_iconoclast]

62. 'The grades are ABOUT gun laws. What the fuck else would they be "based on"?'

How about:

How well the various states prevent gun violence? You know, their stated goal?

In which case, their 'ratings' are ludicrous.

There's nothing to defend them against.

Well, they're committing fraud. And you are defending them.

[spin]

27. That sums it up neatly. (n/t)

[friendly_iconoclast]

46. I guess Prohibition would be a success by the Bradyite's standards

Since it totally banned alcohol.

If we point out that passage of the Eighteenth Amendment to the US Constitution actually didn't slow down drinking
in the States much (if at all), we will be called alcoholics, bootleggers, and touts for distilleries.

[slackmaster]

25. The Brady Campaign has never claimed that its "grades" have anything to do with actual public safety

They just want to ban as many firearms as possible, and make it more difficult for honest people to get the ones they haven't managed to get banned.

[Euromutt]

47. They sure as hell imply it, though

From http://www.stategunlaws.org/

The Brady Campaign released its annual state scorecards, which rates each state on the strength of its gun laws.

So far, so honest...

The scores indicate that states could do more to protect families and communities from gun violence.

Hold the phone! The implication being made is that "strong" gun laws (and only "strong" gun laws) automatically translate into increased public safety. Which is exactly what this thread points out is not the case; in spite of the Brady Campaign's lauding California as being "the state with the strongest gun laws," in spite of public safety actually being worse.

[JonQ]

28. Citing those stats won't make a bit of difference to them

they would only be relevant if their goal was to reduce crime and make people safer.

They have no interest in such things.

[spin]

61. The Brady Campaign would be better off to insist that existing laws...

are enforced.

If you get caught carrying a firearm illegally, you go to prison for a long time. NO PLEA BARGAINING.

If you get caught being a straw purchaser of firearms, you go to jail for a LONG time. Or if you are a firearms dealer who illegally sells firearms you go to jail for a LONG time. If you use a firearm in a crime, guess what? YOU GO TO JAIL FOR A LONG TIME!

If you are a member of a criminal gang, you should be considered a terrorist (because you are). I'm not suggesting that you go to Gitmo, but you should go to jail for a long time.

The Brady Campaign should focus its efforts on attempting to pass a law that says that EVERY transaction involving a firearm must go through a NICS background check. This check could be conducted by a firearms dealer for a minimal fee. The Brady Campaign could insist the NICS background check system be improved to incorporate more state records and incorporate them quicker. It should also be capable of identifying those with severe mental problems.

The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence could become a very effective organization that would actually reduce gun violence. If they actually did this, I might join their organization.