What does anyone believe that dialogue is going to look like, considering where it is today? The NRA is now living its prophesy.
The chart to the right is from 1994.
The only approach for the USA to state it has a profound reason to effect gun control, is to call in the reality of statistics that prove guns in our society at these levels are dangerous to the people whom were elected to Congress and the Executive Branch.
- How many rapes were prevented or stopped because the woman was carrying a concealed weapon or otherwise?
- How many crimes were ended or prevented when guns were present to prevent the crime?
- How many guns are used for sport in the USA?
- How many guns are used for target shooting?
- How many gun owners participate in SAFE competition to ultimately lead to participation in events such as the Olympics?
- What are gun owners saying about their guns? Do they have social acceptance because they own? They carry? They stand for the Second Amendment defined as the NRA would define it?
- Do owners like owning their guns? Do they use them regularly? Practice? Do they feel more secure with a gun in their possession? Do they worry about owning a gun? Do they worry about carrying a gun? Do they worry in a wholesome way? Is there a limit to the presence in their own lives to the gun in their life?
- Do they spend money on securing their guns? Do they have a bedside table with a lock where the gun is stored? Do they pay warehousing fees on ownership of large amounts of ammunition and guns? Do they fear an adverse outcome to owning a gun?
From the thread at the blog this entry was about two months ago (11/12).
...For fun, (click here) I put together a fairly conservative breakdown of the costs associated with owning/using a competition gun and the 1st thing that is clear is the cost of a quality firearm is only about 11% of the equation....
I always chuckle when I think of the enormous amounts of ammunition and guns purchased after an event that brings about discussion of gun control. Like, where does that money come from to do that? Guns and ammunition are not cheap, so like do these folks run to Pay Check Advance? What does a man say to his 'woman' when it arrives home and the checking account is severely damaged after a trip to the gun shop in these occasions? My favorite fantasy to that potential reality is, "Look, honey, I have to protect my family and no government is going to stop me. I don't care if we can't pay the mortgage right now. If they come to evict us, they'll never succeed, okay?"
This is a chart from the standard argument that when gun legislation in the UK was enacted the crime statistics went up. That is not exactly the case, so the statistics used have to be real. Impacting these statistics are the definitions used, namely what is crime, what is violent crime, what is homicide and what is not as well in all these cases. The USA needs its own statistics to 'find' the reason why legislation effects dynamics of crime and why it does not. To simply state gun legislation causes higher crime rates is not accurate. To state that means people with guns were actually acting as a threat to the escalation of crime. Not so. People are not out there preventing crime. As a matter of fact vigilantes are not allowed to carry out the role of police officers. So, these arguments have to be met with economic dynamics that would effect government budgets to reduce officers in its society. Economics also causes higher crime rates or prevents them. There is a lot here that dictates crime rates. Crime rates are not directly connected to the incidence of guns. It is a gross deception. Crime and its prevention is the role of the government, not the citizen. These statements by the NRA are focused to convince people they are accurate in the face of many other factors that contribute to crime and violence. There has to be a none biased examination of American crime as well as American violence. Both are not the same, but, most people think they are because Americans frequently equate crime with guns. Follow? There needs to be sanity brought to the arguments of the private sector stating they have the best arguments. They do not. They have AN argument and it is based in economic success and political pressure.
The ethical problem in the USA within the federal government are the amendments attached to what could be effective legislation in order to water it down and perhaps make it ineffective. This is corruption. When it comes to controlling violence and saving lives I would object to any and all amendments to weaken the words of the legislation. Why go through asking police officers how to best protect their lives and the lives of the communities where they work, if it will be undone by an NRA amendment?
If we are to end the slaughter. And we are talking about children. If we are to end the slaughter, we need to have the best policies, the best outcomes, the best realities. Not those that serve a faux agenda by extremists. Please. Let's keep this one real.
- What do police officers say about defending the law these days? More dangerous, less dangerous? Is there a profoundly good dynamic in their jobs when large volumes of guns exist within the USA society? Have they ever lost anyone due to a gun? How do they cope with that? Is your union proving to be an effective advocate for gun safety in the USA to reduce the gun crimes you face? Do you seek that type of advocacy from your unions as well as seeking pay and benefits? Do you believe they are trying everything they can to stop this momentum in the USA?
- Do gun owners and police officers believe the Second Amendment is being enforced by the courts in the spirit it was intended? Why or why not? Do they believe the Second Amendment as been perverted for the sake of economic benefit?
- Has a gun owner / police officer visited gun manufacturers? Why or why not? With such a supposedly important aspect to the USA Constitution and the brevity of life and death in the balance don't they feel a need to understand the industry better?
- What do gun owners/purchasers believe is a realistic number on the amount of guns any one person should own in the USA? If no limit, why? A no limit capacity doesn't speak to respect of the Second Amendment or does it?
- Should Concealed Carry permits require proof of need? Is there such a thing as unreasonable possession? Should ownership be limited to those who take lessons and to what extent does that add an unreasonable demand to ownership, especially in the demands on the industry for sport. What do hunting permits prove to gun ownership for sport? Should a gun owner be viewed through the lens of USE as well as ownership? If a gun owner / purchaser doesn't find use of the guns, except, in hoarding them what does that say about a law allowing it? What does that say about the people that will be victimized by that dynamic?
Have a better day? Yes or no?
Prove the case and win the day.
The chart to the right is from 1994.
The only approach for the USA to state it has a profound reason to effect gun control, is to call in the reality of statistics that prove guns in our society at these levels are dangerous to the people whom were elected to Congress and the Executive Branch.
- How many rapes were prevented or stopped because the woman was carrying a concealed weapon or otherwise?
- How many crimes were ended or prevented when guns were present to prevent the crime?
- How many guns are used for sport in the USA?
- How many guns are used for target shooting?
- How many gun owners participate in SAFE competition to ultimately lead to participation in events such as the Olympics?
- What are gun owners saying about their guns? Do they have social acceptance because they own? They carry? They stand for the Second Amendment defined as the NRA would define it?
- Do owners like owning their guns? Do they use them regularly? Practice? Do they feel more secure with a gun in their possession? Do they worry about owning a gun? Do they worry about carrying a gun? Do they worry in a wholesome way? Is there a limit to the presence in their own lives to the gun in their life?
- Do they spend money on securing their guns? Do they have a bedside table with a lock where the gun is stored? Do they pay warehousing fees on ownership of large amounts of ammunition and guns? Do they fear an adverse outcome to owning a gun?
...For fun, (click here) I put together a fairly conservative breakdown of the costs associated with owning/using a competition gun and the 1st thing that is clear is the cost of a quality firearm is only about 11% of the equation....
I always chuckle when I think of the enormous amounts of ammunition and guns purchased after an event that brings about discussion of gun control. Like, where does that money come from to do that? Guns and ammunition are not cheap, so like do these folks run to Pay Check Advance? What does a man say to his 'woman' when it arrives home and the checking account is severely damaged after a trip to the gun shop in these occasions? My favorite fantasy to that potential reality is, "Look, honey, I have to protect my family and no government is going to stop me. I don't care if we can't pay the mortgage right now. If they come to evict us, they'll never succeed, okay?"
This is a chart from the standard argument that when gun legislation in the UK was enacted the crime statistics went up. That is not exactly the case, so the statistics used have to be real. Impacting these statistics are the definitions used, namely what is crime, what is violent crime, what is homicide and what is not as well in all these cases. The USA needs its own statistics to 'find' the reason why legislation effects dynamics of crime and why it does not. To simply state gun legislation causes higher crime rates is not accurate. To state that means people with guns were actually acting as a threat to the escalation of crime. Not so. People are not out there preventing crime. As a matter of fact vigilantes are not allowed to carry out the role of police officers. So, these arguments have to be met with economic dynamics that would effect government budgets to reduce officers in its society. Economics also causes higher crime rates or prevents them. There is a lot here that dictates crime rates. Crime rates are not directly connected to the incidence of guns. It is a gross deception. Crime and its prevention is the role of the government, not the citizen. These statements by the NRA are focused to convince people they are accurate in the face of many other factors that contribute to crime and violence. There has to be a none biased examination of American crime as well as American violence. Both are not the same, but, most people think they are because Americans frequently equate crime with guns. Follow? There needs to be sanity brought to the arguments of the private sector stating they have the best arguments. They do not. They have AN argument and it is based in economic success and political pressure.The ethical problem in the USA within the federal government are the amendments attached to what could be effective legislation in order to water it down and perhaps make it ineffective. This is corruption. When it comes to controlling violence and saving lives I would object to any and all amendments to weaken the words of the legislation. Why go through asking police officers how to best protect their lives and the lives of the communities where they work, if it will be undone by an NRA amendment?
If we are to end the slaughter. And we are talking about children. If we are to end the slaughter, we need to have the best policies, the best outcomes, the best realities. Not those that serve a faux agenda by extremists. Please. Let's keep this one real.
- What do police officers say about defending the law these days? More dangerous, less dangerous? Is there a profoundly good dynamic in their jobs when large volumes of guns exist within the USA society? Have they ever lost anyone due to a gun? How do they cope with that? Is your union proving to be an effective advocate for gun safety in the USA to reduce the gun crimes you face? Do you seek that type of advocacy from your unions as well as seeking pay and benefits? Do you believe they are trying everything they can to stop this momentum in the USA?
- Do gun owners and police officers believe the Second Amendment is being enforced by the courts in the spirit it was intended? Why or why not? Do they believe the Second Amendment as been perverted for the sake of economic benefit?
- Has a gun owner / police officer visited gun manufacturers? Why or why not? With such a supposedly important aspect to the USA Constitution and the brevity of life and death in the balance don't they feel a need to understand the industry better?
- What do gun owners/purchasers believe is a realistic number on the amount of guns any one person should own in the USA? If no limit, why? A no limit capacity doesn't speak to respect of the Second Amendment or does it?
- Should Concealed Carry permits require proof of need? Is there such a thing as unreasonable possession? Should ownership be limited to those who take lessons and to what extent does that add an unreasonable demand to ownership, especially in the demands on the industry for sport. What do hunting permits prove to gun ownership for sport? Should a gun owner be viewed through the lens of USE as well as ownership? If a gun owner / purchaser doesn't find use of the guns, except, in hoarding them what does that say about a law allowing it? What does that say about the people that will be victimized by that dynamic?Have a better day? Yes or no?
Prove the case and win the day.
