The Democrats Blame Guns As the Killers, Then Why Are Guns Not Being Prosecuted as Criminals? [1 840]
Gun Control is not a solution, it is a panacea
More gun controls on top of gun controls. Why is that a solution?
Contrast gun control with the total prohibition of alcohol, gun prohibition would fail for the same reason that alcohol prohibition failed. If gun control becomes gun prohibition it is an attack on the 2nd amendment. In either case the results of the alcohol prohibition constitutional amendment failed attempt will also fail if guns are prohibited. The problem was alcohol consumption, and the proposed solution was alcohol prohibition. The result of its enforcement was failure, and the repeal of the amendment.
The problem is deaths caused by guns, and the proposed solution is gun control or gun prohibition. Today, alcohol consumption is still a major problem in health, and deaths. The Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) have even taken deaths caused by driving under the influence being upgraded to homicides from accidental. Homicides have criminal penalties, while accidental has civil law penalties of negligence or other torts. Drunk drivers risk the courts taking their vehicles and, courts have ordered DUI convictions to be followed by jail, and or driver prevention devices so they can't start their car if under the influence. However, these are far from being a solution, and only have a small success as a prevention to causing deaths. Alcohol is not prohibited, and their are no background checks when they buy alcohol. The courts don't get involved until an alcohol related crime occurs, while the democrats want the gun control to treat everyone is a criminal just for wanting to have gun. They don't wait until a crime is committed.
We already have gun controls the left doesn't seem to think are good enough. Yet, they can't really equate how it will help, who it will help, and what will happen if they are passed or not passed. When they talk about these changes of increasing gun control, their arguments make it sound like we don't have ANY gun control laws now. They include every statistic on gun shootings and deaths, except the 2 million uses of gun as a defense by the gun own to protect their life and those of their family. They also don't pay attention that half of the gun deaths in the country are from suicide. And as such, these shooting will not change any of these deaths. What would a suicidal person do with a 100 round rifle magazine? These gun control advocates from the far left, don't think that the rest of us are smart enough to recognize a Trojan Horse. In that horse is not Gun Control but Gun Removal and a repeal of the 2nd amendment. They have even painted this horse in Red, Whit, and Blue as well as draped in an American Flag.
So let us Trump to the chase and say we found Waldo disguised as a far left Trojan Horse.
It is all politics including gun control
Most Gun Owners DO Support Gun Regulations
The NRA, and the majority of gun owners, do support gun regulations.
- They don’t support generalized regulations proposed by the left to create a "guilty party" arguing position.
- The problem not identified by looking strictly at gun related deaths.
- Because these numbers count not only count homicide rates, but suicide, accidental shootings, self-defense and manslaughter.
- Without Analyzing ALL Violent Crimes how can we ascertain if strict gun control laws help at all,
- Not just those which involve guns.
Statistics and percentages can be manipulated to support either side of an argument.
Percentages are not numbers. What does a 30% drop or increase mean? It is relative to X where X is unknown. The numbers behind the percentage are meaningful.
The number X has to be valued so that a percentage of X would be meaningful.
- X = 10 then 30% = 3
- X = 100 then 30% = 30
- X = 1000 then 30% = 300
- X = 10000 then 30% = 3000
- X = 100000 then 30% = 30000
- X = 1000000 then 30% = 300000
While the % appears to be an impressive number, it is only impressive if you have validated X first.
In the case of gun shootings
The percentage increase or decrease year to year basically uses last year’s number for X and then compares it with this year’s X. Then we take the difference and produce a percentage either up or down or it may also stay the same.
- That may sound good but we don’t live in a static world, and as things change so do these results. The problem with statistics and percentages is that they only tie into references that the people that are using them get to choose.
- For example for X to be of real value for the gun shooting, then wouldn’t or shouldn’t we need to know what is the population of the country?
What about the number of registered gun owners to compare against the total.
- Is it meaningful to have an aggregate of gun shooting without knowing the different types of shooting that have happened?
How many different types of gun shooting can you think of to breakdown from the total of gun shootings? Do all gun shooting draw the same conclusion about the reason for gun control?
Let us start with a major division of the shootings.
Intentional versus Unintentional
- Can we breakdown Unintentional
- Into Accidental and
- The shooting was intentional but what it hit wasn’t the intended target. This would be important for a legal status.
Intentional versus Legal or Criminal.
A legal shooting
- Could be law enforcement but sometimes they are not legal
- Could be Self Defense
A criminal shooting
- Could be one where there was a claim of self defensive but it was later adjudicated as not self defense.
- A shooting in the course of a crime by the person committing the crime.
- This category would also include Suicide because it is both intentional and a crime. The latter doesn’t make sense but true.
- For the criminal there are various levels of the crime that could make the punishment more or less based on the details of the shooting.
- A shooting that doesn’t result in death for more than a year after is not classified as a homicide because the victim lived.
- A shooting that results in death in less than a year after the shooting is a homicide.
- The details of the shooting and the evidence obtained could go from Homicide, Manslaughter, degrees of murder. And to transition between these legal levels has a lot to do with the shooters intent.
- Many jurisdictions have some form of the Felony Murder Rule which imputes the intent to murder to the person committing a felony. Even if that person didn’t have a firearm, or didn’t shoot the firearm in the course of the felony. That person would still be charged with Murder.
These previous information is just one way to look at the picture of gun shooting in a more realistic perspective. If we did this to cuts of meat, everything would look and taste like a Hot Dog?
The point is that using percentages does tell a story but it doesn’t give the total story.
The details of the information using percentages are hidden to make it simple to sell. But, it also gives an opinion by the creator of what they think is important, and you have to either accept it or reject it. But your decision was not based on all the facts.
- Details should be important for your decision on anything, and just as important when you are being asked to make a decision on gun control.
- How statistics are accumulated batched and ordered can make their simple results in percentages or ungrouped values look convincing, but you never really got to look at the big picture.
Another example with misleading numbers
If you heard that four out of five doctors recommend product x?
What does it mean to you?
- Do you think that it means that 80% of all doctors recommend X?
- Do you know how many doctors were asked the ? about X?
- How familiar were these doctors with X?
- What kind of doctors were these, what do they do as doctors?
- How many of these doctors were incentivized by the maker of X?
The point is that you know nothing from that statement about four out of five doctors recommend X. But, you might say, if it is that popular with these doctors, then I should probably try it myself.
Gun Control Versus 2nd Amendment Right of an Individual to own a gun
- Gun Control versus the 2nd Amendment Rights
Today, it is really important to know your constitutional rights because in this century these rights have methodically been watered down.
The 2nd Amendment is one of those rights that is currently in the planning stage of how to water it down. Gun control people are filling their buckets, and they are large buckets filled with their special water. The kind of water that they want to act as a tidal wave to completely was away not only the words, but their meaning. They want to replace it with something that they think, not what the founders thought.
This word is especially the focus of that left tank of amendment water.
- However the founders took the extra effort to make it clear that the 2nd amendment gave Individuals the right to bear arms.
- The 2nd amendment specifically includes the word "individual".
- The founders didn’t mean the Militia as a standing army.
- The Militia would be form when and if it becomes necessary
- When would it be necessary, how about when the government becomes tyrants?
- It hasn’t happened since the country was created but that doesn’t mean it will never happen.
- You have a fire extinguisher in your home or car, and you may never have to use it. But, if the day came when there was a fire you would have it to use against the fire.
- The reason that individuals need to be armed, and not only those who serve in a militia, is that most often, militias are used by the government to enforce their will upon the people.
- This is, of course, interpreting the 2nd amendment as it is written in its entirety by the people who fought the American Revolution?
- It was not "previously and well formed militias".
- It was the average citizen, who THEN formed militias.
- If these citizens did not own their own firearms, we would not even exist as a country.
Treating the group of Law Abiding Gun Owner as potential criminals does try to actually infringe on the rights given by the 2nd amendment. As law abiding gun owners, they will agree and support laws that would limit criminals from using guns.
The problem is that the gun control people don’t seem to be honest or educated in the realistic limits and benefits of gun control.
- When existing gun control laws are not strictly enforced, the gun control people demand that we have more gun control laws. Why are more gun control laws going to help when they don’t strictly enforce the existing one