Don't ignore the facts

[dan_s]

I don't own a gun and probably never will (unless Susan goes whacko on me), but I do think we should look at the cold hard facts before we let Washington (already wacko) get rid of the 2nd amendment. Fact #1: Laws don't stop crime because 99.9% of criminals don't stop to think they will held accountable for what they do.
-----------------------------------
There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:


• 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – gun violence
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths


So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?
• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D..C. (a 54% increase over prior years)


So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.
This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.


Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, so it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.


Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault all is done by criminals and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.


But what about other deaths each year?
• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)


Now it gets good:
• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!
• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides......Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!


So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple.
Taking away guns gives control to governments.


The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.
Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.


So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."


Remember, when it comes to "gun control," the important word is “control," not “gun."

[gjames]

Dan,
good post. did you assemble these facts or was this copied from somewhere else?

[dan_s]

It was sent to me by one of our members.

Let me be clear that I have no problem with some gun controls. No one should be able to buy a tank, missile launcher or a machine gun. However, there are no laws that will stop crazy people from killing people. Only the idiots in Washington believe that passing a law will change human behavior.

BTW I firmly believe that about 90% of our elected officials are "crazy" or just don't really care about what's best for America. They are in it for the money.

[dirtdauber]

I hope that the author's facts are better than his ability to compute percentages. He moved the decimal 2 points in the wrong direction, for a total of 4 places; so, the actual percentage is 10,000 times bigger than what he stated. Don't get me wrong, I do not favor gun control for the basic reasons stated. But, I take the basic approach that when I find one error or discrepancy (particularly when something is "off" by such a large margin), it is time to take a closer look for others. So, I must take the entire article with a grain of salt.

[dan_s]

I think the fact that the states with the tightest gun controls have the most shootings says it all - laws will never stop crazy people. Anyone who goes on a rampage and kills a bunch of people he or she doesn't even know, they are either insane or an ISIS terrorist.

I'm sure that back in the Wild Wild West there were a lot of killing, but most people didn't hear about it. Today we have 24-hour news channels that are starving for bad news to report.

Here is a good place to start your own fact checking: http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

This actually happened: I grew up in St. Louis. My aunt Hilda lived in Illinois. She was an avid hunter and knew how to use a gun. After her husband died, she always carried a gun. After one Christmas at our house in South St. Louis she was driving home though a rough part of East St. Louis. BTW all of East St. Louis is "rough", so when I say rough here I mean a "War Zone". While waiting for a stop light to turn green a gang of men decided to surround Aunt Hilda's car and start beating on the hood. A very bad idea. She shot out her windshield and told us that she got at least two of them when my father and I arrived to check on her. We reported it to police, but nothing ever came of the incident. Aunt Hilda was at least 65 at the time. What do you think would have happened to her if she didn't have a gun?