Ownership of high caliper pistols has dropped 50% since the 1990's and continues to trend downwards, all of it voluntarily. No need for gun control, there. Myth #1 destroyed.
You cannot purchase a fully automatic weapon from a legal gun dealer, anywhere in the United States . . . . haven't be able to make that kind of purchase for years. I have seen several articles in the last 24 hours that decry the absurdity of purchasing an automatic weapon. If you see that sort of theme, know that the author simply does not know what he/she is talking about. Myth #2 obliterated.
While the gunman in CT, brought two 9mm pistols and an AR - 15 into the school, he used the AR - 15 to do most if not all of the killing. This rifle, the AR - 15, is being called a "heavy duty" assault rifle, when, in fact, its ammo (.223 caliper) is not noticeably larger than my .22 Ruger semi-automatic small arms rifle. The AR - 15 is used as a hunting rifle because of its long range accuracy. Many will tell you that its kissing cousin is the truly heavy duty AK-47. The two rifles look very similar, the big difference being the caliper of the ammo fired, a .223 versus a 39 mm.
 |
| M - 15 fires a 22 long rifle. The AR-15? A .223. |
The point being this: the know-nothings in the liberal Left are clamoring for the abolition of the AR-15, but ignore the fact that it is a light weight weapon that does not have the knockdown power of a .38 or .39 caliper weapon, a .44, a .45, and a 9mm. The arguments against the AR-15 are simply silly. Myth #3 made to look like the rantings of a deranged story teller.
Finally, understand that illegal gun ownership is only a fraction of the larger and legal gun ownership population; I am talking about just a percentage point or two. The real problems as relates to gun violence are three fold: gang membership, mental illness and the absence of a values system taught in the schools. Can't teach "values" because that is "religion." Our mental healthcare systems are in complete disarray. That leaves us with gangland ownership and usage, as problem with which to be dealt
Solution: start prosecuting the thousands of gang members as terrorist, get them off the streets and into permanent lock-up, and watch the fatality counts drop like nickles in a glass of water. Myth #4 given a genuine shot of "truth."
Map by MPI’s Zara Matheson based on data from Centers for Disease Control [PDF]
The map, above, shows
the overall rate of gun-related deaths per 100,000 people by metro. The rates
vary substantially from a high of 32.8 in New Orleans to a low of 3.6 in
Boston. Birmingham has the second highest rate with 20.5, followed by
Memphis with 19.8. Las Vegas (17.6) and Jacksonville (17.5) round out the top
five metro rates. After Boston, the metros with the lowest rates include San
Jose (3.8), followed by Providence (4.1), New York (4.8), and Hartford (4.8).
Not mentioned is the fact that the Central/Southern of
California is, in general terms, the most violent region in the nation. No mention is made of D.C. , which rates #2 in the nation for gun violence.
Also,
shockingly, no mention is made of
#1, Chicago. Its omission draws into question the
accuracy of this map, not to mention its
bias.
A recent article held that the South lead the nation as the
most violent of regions, for gun
violence. Whether that is technically
true, clearly, the North is as predominate a gun violence
region as the South. Of course, if you ignore Chicago and D.C., a case can be made for the "ignorant" and redneck
South, and, make no mistake, that is the bias of this mapping. Myth #5 is refuted by the actual facts of gun ownership and regional statistics.
| Cities with the Highest Rates of Total Gun-Related Deaths (per 100,000 people) |
||||
| Rank | City | City Rate | Metro Rate | City/Metro Ratio |
| 1 | New Orleans | 69.1 | 32.8 | 2.1 |
| 2 | Detroit | 41.4 | 14.8 | 2.8 |
| 3 | Las Vegas | 36.9 | 17.6 | 2.1 |
| 4 | Miami | 33.5 | 11.7 | 2.9 |
| 5 | Baltimore | 33.1 | 15.2 | 2.2 |
| 6 | St. Louis | 31.1 | 14.0 | 2.2 |
| 7 | Richmond | 29.9 | 15.7 | 1.9 |
| 8 | Memphis | 25.5 | 19.8 | 1.3 |
| 9 | Cleveland | 25.2 | 10.9 | 2.3 |
| 10 | Philadelphia | 24.3 | 12.4 | 2.0 |
Guns at Home Increase Dangers, Not Safety
ReplyDeleteBased on a review of the available scientific data, access to guns greatly increases the risk of death and firearm-related violence. A gun in the home is twelve times more likely to result in the death of a household member or visitor than an intruder.
Thats all you need to know.
http://www.news-medical.net/news/20100204/Guns-in-homes-can-increase-risk-of-death-and-firearm-related-violence.aspx
What a ridiculous statistic. Of course, people who live in a freaking home are more likely to be shot by an in home gun. They are also more likely to eat three meals a day in that home or run into a wall, or be forced by the wife to take out the garbage. Do you not know that an intruder is unlikely to ever "visit" any home?
ReplyDelete