Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Howzit

Howzit's Journal
Howzit's Journal
May 9, 2013

How often are guns used in legal self defense?

Forget "studies"; how about actual news reports of actual events captured on a daily basis?

See: http://www.reddit.com/r/dgu/ for exactly that kind of raw information.


This surveillance footage must be fake, because we are told that nobody is skilled enough to take on armed robbers by themselves:










May 8, 2013

Gun violence in US has fallen dramatically over past 20 years, Justice Dept. report finds

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/07/18108298-gun-violence-in-us-has-fallen-dramatically-over-past-20-years-justice-dept-report-finds?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=2

Gun violence in America has fallen dramatically over the past two decades, and the number of murders committed with a firearm is down too, though guns are still by far the leading type of crime weapon, according to a new report from the Justice Department.

As for where crime guns came from, the study notes that less than two percent of convicted inmates reported buying their weapons at gun shows or flea markets. The highest number, 40 percent, said the guns came from a family member or a friend. About 37 percent said the weapons were stolen or obtained from an illegal source. The rest say the guns were bought at a retail store or pawn shop.

Murders committed with a gun dropped 39 percent to 11,101 in 2011, from a high of 18,253 in 1993, according to the report. Other crimes committed with guns were down even more sharply — from 1.53 million in 1993 to 467,300 in 2011, a drop of 70 percent, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Around 70 percent of murders were committed with a firearm, and of those, the vast majority involved a handgun -- fluctuating between 70-80 percent.


Translation: We need to ban more guns on general principle, even if it has no beneficial effect...
January 6, 2013

Amendment proposed to repeal constitutional limit on number of Presidential terms?

Has the congressional website been hacked or is this real?


H.J.Res.15 - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.


[url]http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-joint-resolution/15?q=113th+CONGRESS+1st+Session+H.+J.+RES.+15[/url]
January 4, 2013

Wiser words were never spoken: Jon Stewart on gun control

Jon Stewart summed up the gun control debate by uttering these words:

We end up enforcing laws enforcing everyone to live by rules that only attempt to prevent the last thing that was done by the least controllable among us.


See the whole thing here: [url]http://www.yaliberty.org/posts/jon-stewart-on-why-1st-and-2nd-amendment-violating-bans-arent-the-response-we-should-have-to-t[/url]
December 23, 2012

Self-described Leftist writes: Why Not Renew the “Assault Weapons” Ban? Well, I’ll Tell You…

http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/

This covers a lot of ground:

Why Not Renew the “Assault Weapons” Ban? Well, I’ll Tell You…
[EDIT: Since this article was published, the Democratic party has officially added support of the assault weapon ban renewal to their party platform and Senator Feinstein has vowed to introduce it again in the upcoming session, hoping the Newtown massacre will help it push through. This bill WILL be debated and voted on, and I hope you can learn something about it here.]

It’s not easy being a leftist who loves guns. It’s like being a Republican who listens to NPR or supports single payer health care. But being a leftist, I get exposed to all the liberal publications and media that invariably call for gun control every time someone does something stupid with one. Being a gun enthusiast, I also get exposed to the political Right’s oversimplification of those liberals as somehow lacking moral fiber or true appreciation of freedom. Rather than agreeing with both, I tend to end up arguing with both. It’s exhausting to always feel like I’m apologizing for the other “side”.

This article takes a point of view, but aims to do so in a way that members of both sides of the political spectrum can understand. I’ll try to give some idea as to why we on the political left roll our eyes at the rhetoric of the NRA, and how we in the “gun culture” can possibly defend something called “assault weapons”. We all know the cycle by now: Tragic incident occurs, both sides attempt to use it for their political gain, both sides act shocked that the other would attempt to use it for political gain, insults are flung, statistics are cherry-picked, rinse, repeat.

I began writing this some time after the Aurora massacre, but it was just this morning that news started coming in of the mass shooting at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin. I knew the wave of cries for a renewal of the “assault weapon” and “high capacity” magazine bans hadn’t yet faded from Aurora, and that they would be reinforced by this next event, regardless of how relevant either of the topics were to the incident. So in order to get around to why the assault weapons ban was an utter and absolute failure in its attempt to deter violent crime, I have to start with mass shootings. I’m just going to submit this uncomfortable truth to both camps up front, with the vain hope that it will not sound callous:

Mass shootings are a tiny, tiny problem. Which isn’t to say that they aren’t utterly horrifying in more than one way. People’s lives are destroyed, both literally and figuratively. What I mean to say is that if we were to prioritize our political attention to topics according to how many lives were at stake, mass shootings wouldn’t even be on the radar. Factoring in the rate of death caused by mass shootings from Columbine to the present (about 210 people in 13 years), it will be more than 300 years until we reach the number of casualties that occur from accidental drownings every single year in this country. In a little more than 150 years from now, we’ll approach the number of people who are poisoned to death every single year in this country. Sometime in 2014 we might surpass the number of people struck by lightning every single year in this country. Which is to say that mass shootings are incredibly rare and don’t kill a lot of people when they do happen.


Much more at link


Video discussed in article





December 23, 2012

Gun ownership causes crime

[url]

[/url]
or does it?
November 27, 2012

The UN wants to regulate your ability to freely discuss this or any other topic

http://news.yahoo.com/bitter-struggle-over-internet-regulation-dominate-global-summit-040702595--sector.html

The 12-day conference of the International Telecommunications Union, a 157-year-old organization that's now an arm of the United Nations, largely pits revenue-seeking developing countries and authoritarian regimes that want more control over Internet content against U.S. policymakers and private Net companies that prefer the status quo.

While specifics of some of the most contentious proposals remain secret, leaked drafts show that Russia is seeking rules giving individual countries broad permission to shape the content and structure of the Internet within their borders, while a group of Arab countries is advocating universal identification of Internet users. Some developing countries and telecom providers, meanwhile, want to make content providers pay for Internet transmission.

Fundamentally, most of the 193 countries in the ITU seem eager to enshrine the idea that the U.N. agency, rather than today's hodgepodge of private companies and nonprofit groups, should govern the Internet. The ITU meeting, which aims to update a longstanding treaty on how telecom companies interact across borders, will also tackle other topics such as extending wireless coverage into rural areas.

If a majority of the ITU countries approve U.N. dominion over the Internet along with onerous rules, a backlash could lead to battles in Western countries over whether to ratify the treaty, with tech companies rallying ordinary Internet users against it and some telecom carriers supporting it. In fact, dozens of countries including China, Russia and some Arab states, already restrict Internet access within their own borders, but those governments would have greater leverage over Internet content and service providers if the changes were backed up by international agreement
March 20, 2012

Holder callED for brainwashing to help the antigun message soak

The call for brainwashing occurs 3 minutes into this video captured in 1995.


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fd0_1332112760&p=1


Note how Eric Holder does not make any distinction between legal and illegal firerams use and possesion - as if we the people are all criminals.

Profile Information

Member since: Sat Apr 28, 2007, 01:41 AM
Number of posts: 967
Latest Discussions»Howzit's Journal