GUNs / Both the pro-gun and anti-gun lobbies are out of control.
Yes, guns can be scary … and so can cable TV which runs the same sad stories over and over and over and over.
The FBI says that rifles of ANY kind accounted for less than 400 deaths last year out of 10,000 violent deaths.
What problem are we trying to solve?
The best source on this debate is the FBI, which provides an annual crime report that also provides history so that you can compare crime rates by category and across time.
3.8% deaths per 100,000 due to violence in 2012 (preliminary number; final number to be released in Jun 2013) is the current estimate of whether the use of guns to commit violence is on the rise or the fall. 3.8% @100,000 is itself a major improvement over 2011′s 4.6%.
The rate in 2006 was 5.8% and in 1996 it was 7.4%
In the end, the anti-gun lobby will lose because they are trying to solve the wrong problem, assuming they are focused on ‘violent crime’ without regard to the implement of death that is used. Assault Guns are just a boogeyman that plays in well with a theme of gun control, regardless of their actual use in our society.
The pro-gun lobby will come out of this looking like a bunch of tone deaf nuts because they seem incapable of empathy at a time when appearing to actually care would be one of the best things they could do to deflect near hysterics by the anti-gun crowd … assuming that they do care — which can be in doubt when they go out of their way to block almost any form of research into how guns are used and all the while claiming that what we need to do is to examine the facts.
This quote implies that A) Washington was talking about individuals being armed, and B) that they were to be wary of their own government.
The actual quote is very different and Washington is asking for support for armed organized forces.
The bogus quote bastardizes Washington’s comments from his first address to Congress and refers to a standing army equipped and maintained by the fledgling nation itself.
What Washington really said:
“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.”
– First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8th, 1790.
Kudos to my FB friend Bob Morehead for catching the misquote and doing the factcheck.
At this point, President Obama said whatever you wanted him to say. So either you did build that or you didn’t, and if you did then you did it on your own or you didn’t. No man is an island. For that matter, no man is a stoplight either … unless they are a member of ‘that party’ instead of the ‘we just want free stuff party’.
Luckily we almost to 2013 and it starts on a Friday. (That’s a lie … but lies are OK because we are talking politics and it is not like anyone is interested in the truth … except the factcheckers — and God knows they are all biased so why even care or try to care, eh?)
Fox News summarized Ryan’s speech as “Dazzling. Deceiving. Distracting.”
From Fox News: “… to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to facts, Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech.”
I agree. I agree as someone that likes Paul Ryan and believe that he has/had a bright future.
Ryan’s speech was more pink slime than red meat. Why didn’t he stick to the facts? He actually made a very good case for not voting for the GOP in November. The GOP has truth issues — not that the Democrats don’t as well BUT the GOP really has some truth issues.
HOWEVER, Romney WINS the untruthfulness contest easily with 43% of his statement of facts flunking the truthfulness test … Romney also beats out Obama badly in the ‘Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire’ judgements against him … http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/
So should we trust someone more that misleads us 31% of the time, rather than 43% of the time?
Or is it what it is and we should just vote A) the lesser of two evils, or B) vote for the philosophy, hoping it prevails, and consider lying an All-American election normality? Election 2012 is not a contest of angels.
Exaggeration is part art and part mathematics (probability versus possibility that someone will factcheck you).
For an exaggeration to be believable it needs to be something that cannot be easily verified, or something which is debatable.
I am a gun owner. Bad people misusing weapons is ungood. Good people that go bad and use guns for ungood are relatively rare. I support minimal controls over who and how guns are owned and carried.
It may be that my opinion would change if rampant misuse of guns as weapons were the case.
Since the Aurora, Colorado shootings there have been many pro-gun/anti-gun memes floating around the internet.
For those that support gun ownership and relative free usage the facts about misuse are generally on their side. So why exaggerate?
Here is one pro-gun meme that got it is very debatable:
This graphic offers a trick question: Guess which items are used in more murders?
If the image in Choice B is meant to infer ‘guns’ then the answer is most certainly ‘B’.
If the question is about ‘military-style rifles’ then the answer is somewhat debatable. Per the Department of Justice the usage of non-handgun guns to commit murder have been tied with other weapons since 1995 as the second most common murder weapon.
The graphic below is making many rounds on the internet, and its publication is specifically widespread on Facebook.
Problem: The primary claim is grossly incorrect — so incorrect that the claim qualifies as a BIG Lie.
Grossly inaccurate/BIG Lie category: Clinton left a $5.6 trillion surplus? Really? Per the Clinton administration’s own numbers, the surplus never exceeded $400 billion, and was just $237 billion in its best year (2000).
Good things were done to manage debt during President Clinton’s last few years: there was significant progress in paying down national debt in 1999 and 2000. The National Debt Clock had stopped and was even reversing.
Also good was that new debt under President Clinton’s eight years was minorly incremental as compared to almost all other presidents since World War II. Yet national debt within President Clinton’s last year in office began to rise again — all the gains of debt paydown in 2000 were wiped out by 2001′s gains.
As for debt hitting $10 trillion on Bush’s watch: $10,628,881,485,510.23 was the debt on President Bush’s last day in office. It was $5.727 trillion on the day he took office.
Note: It is easy to check such numbers. The Department of the Treasury has a website that let’s you check the national debt (technically ‘Public Debt’) at any time. You can check the numbers yourself at Debt to the Penny.
WARNING: Bogus factoids ahead.
This image from the Occupy Wall Street FB page claims that “43% of veterans are receiving food stamps”.
Whatever the intent of the message designer, this is just not true, nor anywhere close to being true.
As of May 2012:
>> Unemployment among veterans of all generations is just 7.8% — BETTER than the general population.
>> Unemployment among young veterans (<26 years old) is now 9.5% although it had hit a high of almost 30% not so long ago. Yet even at its worst the impact on veterans was not even half of what this bogus chart depicts.