HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » friendly_iconoclast » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 41 Next »

friendly_iconoclast

Profile Information

Member since: Fri Sep 8, 2006, 12:47 PM
Number of posts: 13,057

Journal Archives

Once again, the VPC hopes you are both easily frightened and poor at math

The Violence Policy Center has cranked up its evergreen moral panic
"Concealed Carry Killers"- and the gullible and doctrinaire fall for it:

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22concealed+carry+killers%22&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com

http://www.democraticunderground.com/126210658

Concealed Carry Tragedies Include Workplace Shooting, Six-Year-Old Unintentionally Killing Father.

Washington, DC — Concealed handgun permit holders are responsible for at least 873 deaths not involving self defense since 2007, including 29 mass shootings that killed 139 people, ongoing VPC research shows. Since there is no comprehensive record keeping of fatal incidents involving concealed carry permit holders, this tally most likely represents a small fraction of the actual total.


I couldn't be arsed to look for any 2014 or 2015 screeds from them, so let's
look at one from 2013:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023118413

Research Details Hundreds of Examples of Innocent Lives Lost to “Concealed Carry Killers"


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 27, 2013
3:18 PM
CONTACT: Violence Policy Center
Avery Palmer, 202-822-8200 x104, apalmer@vpc.org

As Zimmerman Case Begins, VPC Research Details Hundreds of Examples of Innocent Lives Lost to “Concealed Carry Killers

WASHINGTON - June 27 - Washington, DC— As the trial opens this week over the deadly shooting of Trayvon Martin, research shows that similar fatal incidents are shockingly common. The Violence Policy Center has uncovered hundreds of examples of non-self defense incidents involving private citizens legally allowed to carry concealed handguns. These incidents resulted in 516 deaths — including 24 mass shootings and the killing of 14 law enforcement officers.


Doing the math, and according to the VPC, concealed carriers are responsible for 357
deaths over the last three years, or 119 a year.
Lets stipulate, for the sake of this argument, that all of those deaths were murders
even if they were not.

Now comes the part where the wheels fall off the panic mongering.

The lowest estimate I can find for the number of concealed handgun permit holders
in the US is 11.1 million- other figures cited were a high of 12.8 million but
I'll stick with the low one. Taking that number, and using the numbers given by the
VPC, we see that 119/11100000 = a murder rate of 0.93 per 100,000 permit
holders, a rate about one-fifth of the US population as a whole

Source for US murder rate:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-1

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/preliminary-semiannual-uniform-crime-report-januaryjune-2015/tables/table-3

Worse for the controllers, these numbers mean that those 'concealed carry killers'
kill at a lower rate than does the populations of the UK, France,
Australia (where have I heard that name recenly?), Ireland, Canada...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

http://rboatright.blogspot.com/2013/03/comparing-england-or-uk-murder-rates.html


and at par with Norway and Sweden




Posted by friendly_iconoclast | Wed May 18, 2016, 06:03 PM (31 replies)

The VPC contradicted itself, and the anti-gunners fell for it

From the other group:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/126210633

Self-Defense Gun Use is Rare, New VPC Study Confirms

Washington, DC — New research from the Violence Policy Center (VPC) confirms that contrary to what the firearms industry and gun lobby claim, private citizens rarely use guns to kill criminals or stop crimes.

The new study, Firearm Justifiable Homicides and Non-Fatal Self-Defense Gun Use, analyzes the most recent federal data available, which shows that private citizens use guns to harm themselves or others far more often than to kill in self-defense.


Got that headline and first sentence? A strong clear claim, is it not? Not surprisingly,
given the general mendacity of Josh Sugarman and the VPC, it's not true

Who says so? The VPC itself, in the body of the touted 'study':

http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable16.pdf

Page 5:

ESTIMATES ON SELF-DEFENSE USE OF FIREARMS FROM THE BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMIZATION SURVEY

Hemenway notes, and numerous others agree, that the most accurate survey of self-defense
gun use is the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) conducted
by the Bureau of Justice Statistics.


And what numbers did the NCVS give for self defensive use of firearms?
From the next page:

SELF-PROTECTIVE BEHAVIORS, BY TYPE OF CRIME, 2012-2014

"Threatened or attacked with a firearm"


Note: This is *not* the only type of defensive gun use. Sometimes, mere display suffices
and many DGUs are not reported to police - mine wasn't, for instance

Cut to the chase- how many of these 'rare' occasions happened during the period under study?

262,500

From the same page:

SELF-PROTECTIVE BEHAVIORS, BY TYPE OF CRIME, 2012-2014
Violent Crime 2012-2014
Property Crime 2012-2014

Self-Protective Behavior
Threatened or attacked with a firearm
163,600 99,900


Given the total number of DGUs, and even accounting for the restricted definition,

262,500/731 (days) = 359 defensive gun uses per day 2012-2014

How many people were murdered via firearm in 2013? The FBI says 8454:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls

8454/365(days) = ca. 21 firearms murders per day

Therefore in 2013 there were 18x as many defensive gun uses (using the VPC's own
restricted definiton than there were murders via gun



Posted by friendly_iconoclast | Mon May 16, 2016, 12:13 AM (22 replies)

If GD:P is important to you, start downloading and saving it now before it closes

I find GD: Primaries fascinating, so I will be 'caching' it for historical purposes

Granted, DU isn't a hotbed of Memory Hole use like Free Republic- but GDP *will* be going
away in a few weeks. So if any of you want to keep it permanently, you need to get
a few terabytes worth of external drives (or a BD/DVD burner and a spindle of blank discs)
and get busy- I've got a couple of drives I can fill...

Posted by friendly_iconoclast | Sun May 15, 2016, 05:44 PM (24 replies)

In yet another Massachusetts town, further gun controls are rejected

Two months back, it was Lexington:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172189304

Yesterday, it was Longmeadow's turn, previously discussed at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172190855

It turned out even less well for the controllers than it did in Lexington:

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/05/longmeadow_town_meeting_defeat.html

Longmeadow residents defeat controversial gun control initiatives in Town Meeting

LONGMEADOW — Longmeadow residents defeated three proposals for increased gun control bylaws with overwhelming majorities in a Town Meeting that also rejected a 20 mile per hour speed limit, and designated Wolf Swamp fields as a recreation space.

For more than an hour, nearly 1,000 residents who attended Town Meeting Tuesday night debated the three citizen-led initiatives to impose bylaws that would have imposed $300 fines for carrying guns in public buildings, possessing an assault weapon and required gun owners to register their weapons with the police department...

...All three bylaw proposals failed by an overwhelming majority.


One report said the vote was 950 to 30. Heh!



Posted by friendly_iconoclast | Wed May 11, 2016, 10:21 PM (4 replies)

Poll in regard to the moral panic over open carry of firearms

In your opinion, how does it compare to the current right-wing transphobic moral panic?

Are they comparable, or is one, for want of a better term, more 'legitimate' than the other?

Please leave any explanations and/or comments below.
Posted by friendly_iconoclast | Sun May 8, 2016, 03:36 PM (4 replies)

'Gun safety organizations' are no different from 'crisis pregnancy centers' in that...

...their true purposes are elided by those who operate them, and I wouldn't trust
either sets of management as far as I could throw them.
Posted by friendly_iconoclast | Mon May 2, 2016, 04:05 AM (2 replies)

Oopsie: "Brady Campaign's ad draws ire of U.S. anti-gun violence activists"

Saw this mentioned at the other group, and felt it was too good not to post:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guncontrol-idUSKCN0XQ29O

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said on Friday it has sharply cut back an online ad that had used the names and faces of mass shooters and urged the news media not to identify them after the group drew criticism from other gun control activists...

...The prominent use of the names and images of Adam Lanza, who shot dead 20 children and six educators at a Newtown elementary school, and James Holmes, who fatally shot 12 people at an Aurora movie theater, in the two-minute online spot angered fellow anti-gun-violence campaigners.

The Brady Campaign's ad prompted a petition (chn.ge/1SCfovp) on activist website Change.org calling for the ad to be taken down. Some 93 people had signed that petition as of midday Friday.

"It was very hurtful to many gun violence victims and survivors," said Anita Busch, a Los Angeles-based entertainment journalist whose cousin was slain in the Aurora massacre and who said she posted the petition. "For the Brady Campaign to not get it is just shocking, honestly."


Posted by friendly_iconoclast | Fri Apr 29, 2016, 08:00 PM (4 replies)

And the voice of the Third Wayer is heard in the land: "Hillary Clinton shouldn’t move to the left"

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/04/25/sanders-more-dangerous-loser-than-winner/zSqhAPsl0xP8aDmxJh4i0H/story.html#comments

OPINION | ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
Hillary Clinton shouldn’t move to the left

Bernie Sanders may no longer be a serious threat to Hillary Clinton’s nomination bid, but he and his supporters could still wreak havoc on the Democratic Party this fall. Had Sanders won the nomination, he would likely have been demolished in the general election, as were liberals Michael Dukakis and George McGovern. The difference is Sanders is much further from the party’s center than those two candidates were. Sanders’ far-left followers would have been marginalized because the Democrats can win only as centrist liberals, not as far-left radicals. But now that Sanders appears to have lost the nomination, his power and that of his supporters, will likely increase — Clinton needs people who “feel the Bern’’ to sign on to her cause. That will empower not only the real progressives who have been supporting Sanders, but also the repressives who falsely hide their true anti-liberal views under the ill-fitting cloak of progressivism. These repressives have little tolerance for differing viewpoints and seek to shut down speakers who refuse to toe their politically correct line.

Clinton would be smart to resist the temptation to move to the left once she has secured the Democratic nomination. Despite her refusal to use the label “liberal,” that’s in fact what she is: a centrist liberal who rejects revolution and the radical dismantling of imperfect institutions, such as Obama health care. Like her husband, she should stay in the liberal center, both on domestic and foreign policy issues. That has always been the winning strategy for Democrats, and the Sanders’ brush-fire should not change that successful approach.

If Clinton feels the need to move to the far left, she may succeed in the short run in keeping some Sanders’ supporters from staying home on Election Day, but she will risk alienating centrist, independent, and undecided voters, who determine the outcome of most national elections. In any event, it is likely that most Sanders’ supporters will come out and vote for Clinton, though some who want to shake up the system may support Trump. Far-left zealots, who hate liberals even more than they hate conservatives, may stay home, but their numbers are relatively small, despite the loud noises they emit. Moreover, there is nothing Clinton could do to satisfy the far-left repressives who want to overthrow existing institutions and suppress speech they deem incorrect. These intolerant extremists reject the “politics of respectability” that demands that respect be accorded even to those with whom they disagree.

It is important to understand that the differences between Clinton and far-left Sanderite repressives are not merely matters of degree on many important issues. They are matters of kind. Clinton wants realistic improvements in existing institutions, such as health care, capital markets, banking, the military, our education system, and other structures. Sanders and his far-left followers want revolutionary dismantling of these and other existing institutions. His most radical supporters want even more revolutionary structural changes that would destabilize and weaken our nation. It’s not that Sanders is an idealist whose ideas are good but unrealistic, and Clinton a pragmatist whose ideas are compromised with Sanders’ ideals. Clinton is right and Sanders is wrong on many key issues over which they disagree. And Clinton should stick to her guns.


Hmm, partisan hack with an added personal grudge against Sanders, or just another Sensible Woodchuck?







Posted by friendly_iconoclast | Wed Apr 27, 2016, 01:55 PM (14 replies)

The hidden: how Chicago police kept thousands isolated at Homan Square

Crosspost from LBN:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141413521

From the Guardian:

For nearly two decades, when Chicago’s police brought people under arrest to their detentions and interrogations warehouse, not even the vast majority of the police force knew where they were, according to an internal memo acquired by the Guardian.

Homan Square, a warehouse complex headquartering narcotics, vice and intelligence units for the Chicago police, has also served as a secretive facility for detaining and interrogating thousands of people without providing access to attorneys and with little way for their loved ones to find them. Records documenting the presence of someone at Homan Square, especially while they are there, have existed largely outside Chicago police’s electronic records system.

Now, documents and evidence from senior officers have for the first time disclosed detailed official accounts of how police based at the unit were able to operate – and how it was almost impossible to tell who was being held inside.

Depositions of senior officers, memorandums for the current police chief and other internal police records portray Chicago police procedures and record-keeping that obscured visibility into Homan Square’s apparatus of detentions, both to the public and even to police themselves.


More at:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/13/homan-square-chicago-police-records-secret-interrogation-facility-new-documents-lawsuit
Posted by friendly_iconoclast | Wed Apr 13, 2016, 05:01 PM (2 replies)

The hidden: how Chicago police kept thousands isolated at Homan Square

Source: Guardian (UK)

For nearly two decades, when Chicago’s police brought people under arrest to their detentions and interrogations warehouse, not even the vast majority of the police force knew where they were, according to an internal memo acquired by the Guardian.

Homan Square, a warehouse complex headquartering narcotics, vice and intelligence units for the Chicago police, has also served as a secretive facility for detaining and interrogating thousands of people without providing access to attorneys and with little way for their loved ones to find them. Records documenting the presence of someone at Homan Square, especially while they are there, have existed largely outside Chicago police’s electronic records system.

Now, documents and evidence from senior officers have for the first time disclosed detailed official accounts of how police based at the unit were able to operate – and how it was almost impossible to tell who was being held inside.

Depositions of senior officers, memorandums for the current police chief and other internal police records portray Chicago police procedures and record-keeping that obscured visibility into Homan Square’s apparatus of detentions, both to the public and even to police themselves.

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/13/homan-square-chicago-police-records-secret-interrogation-facility-new-documents-lawsuit
Posted by friendly_iconoclast | Wed Apr 13, 2016, 04:58 PM (6 replies)
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 41 Next »