Gun nuts at Fox pull a bait and switch; Obama already outflanks them


President Obama visits with survivors of the shooting in Aurora, Colorado. July 22, 2012

President Obama visits with survivors of the shooting in Aurora, Colorado. July 22, 2012 – White House photo. Click image to go to White House site, with more information on reducing gun violence.

Yeah, I know: Someone has sent you a post on Facebook claiming there are more murders from hammers than guns, and they quote Fox.

If they’re not complete nuts, they were careful and noted it was rifles being compared, and not all guns.

Here’s the Fox headline:

January 03, 2013

FBI: More People Killed with Hammers, Clubs Each Year Than Rifles

Then, just to rub it in, that person who sent you the link said something like, ‘so you propose hammer control, too?’

The best debaters in college learn to listen to what their opponents say, and not what they think their opponents should have said.  Good lawyers listen like that, too, in court, and in depositions.

See that last word in the headline?  “Rifles.”

Yeah, it’s a limited part of the total population of guns.

Total gun deaths in 2011 were 8,583 — continuing a five-year trend downward, thanks for small blessings.  Homicides only, not counting suicides — according to figures compiled by the FBI.

Did more than 8,500 people die from hammer assaults in 2011?

No, the same tally shows 496 people were murdered by use of  “Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.).”

496 is 8,087 fewer than the 8,583 gun deaths.  But rifles?  Oh, yeah.

323 people died from rifle fire.  356 died from shotgun wounds.  6,220 died from handguns, 97 from “other guns,” and 1,587 died from gunshots where the type of gun was not recorded on the report to the FBI.  Add them up, you get 8,583 dead, murdered by gunfire.

Now, the gun advocates nuts say that it’s fair to compare rifle deaths only, since only the AR-15 is being questioned, and is the target for “taking guns away.”

That’s inaccurate.  President Obama laid out a plan of more than a score of actions, but only two refer to assault rifles, and only one refers to assault rifles directly:

Reinstate and strengthen the ban on assault weapons:  The shooters in Aurora and Newtown used the type of semiautomatic rifles that were the target of the assault weapons ban that was in place from 1994 to 2004. That ban was an important step, but manufacturers were able to circumvent the prohibition with cosmetic modifications to their weapons. Congress must reinstate and strengthen the prohibition on assault weapons.

And:

Limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds:  The case for prohibiting high-capacity magazines has been proven over and over; the shooters at Virginia Tech, Tucson, Aurora, Oak Creek, and Newtown all used magazines holding more than 10 rounds, which would have been prohibited under the 1994 law. These magazines enable any semiautomatic weapon to be used as an instrument of mass violence, yet they are once again legal and now come standard with many handguns and rifles. Congress needs to reinstate the prohibition on magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

President Obama laid out a plan that will make it substantially more difficult for people who shouldn’t have guns suitable for mass killings, to have them.  More important, however, the President’s plan steps up the non-gun means available to stop mass shootings before a shooter gets to a campus armed and ready to kill.

The “discussion” will get more ugly, I predict, before it gets better.

More:

About these ads

10 Responses to Gun nuts at Fox pull a bait and switch; Obama already outflanks them

  1. [...] “Gun nuts at Fox pull a bait-and-switch; Obama outflanks ‘em,” Millard Fillmore&#8… [...]

    Like

  2. jsojourner says:

    Which then leaves us, Nick, with the following possibilities…

    1. Opponents of the high capacity magazine ban are too lazy to switch clips every ten rounds or so.

    2. Switching magazines is just too confusing for them. In which case, are they mentally qualified to own guns of any kind?

    3. They want 30 and 100 round magazines because they fear something. I would like them to state specifically what it is they are afraid of. I think I know, of course. But I certainly hope I am wrong. Because if I am right — then they are either racist, crazy or both.

    Jim

    Like

  3. JamesK says:

    To quote: So why the 100-round drums? I’m still trying to figure out why citizens need them. Perhaps we’re too lazy to change magazines or reload a revolver after five or six shots.

    To quote Sam Seaborn from West Wing: The 76 year old grandmother doesn’t defend herself with a modified AK-47 Assault Rifle, Larry. Unless she’s defending herself against Turkish rebels.

    Like

  4. jsojourner says:

    *In the second paragraph of my prior post, I should have said…”I don’t feel MY rights threatened” rather than “might rights”. Good grief!

    Apologies!

    Like

  5. jsojourner says:

    Well Nick, I see some far right bloggers have reposted Ed’s article. I guess that’s a good thing. Maybe they are seeing the light?

    The legislation being considered offers plenty of allowances for gun owners like me. I don’t feel might rights threatened in the least. Of course, I keep and use guns for target shooting and sport. Not for treason.

    At the very least, we will hopefully get background checks passed. But I see no reason for rejecting a ban on banana clips and drum magazines. I promise you, whatever I have in the cylinder is more than enough to handle a burglar or two. Though after living close to 30 years in supposedly high crime neighborhoods, I found that excellent locks, good security lighting and a dog are quite a sufficient deterrent. The National Association of Chiefs of Police agree with me.

    So why the 100-round drums? I’m still trying to figure out why citizens need them. Perhaps we’re too lazy to change magazines or reload a revolver after five or six shots.

    I know the reasons offered from crazytown. I have people close to me who swear mobs of angry “black bucks” (their words, not mine) will be tearing down their doors in search of their white daughters and their coin collections. I also know the other popular reason offered by the tinfoil hatters: we might need to overthrow the gub’mint.

    I hope they don’t. Really. I hope they love America more than that. But if they do, they’ve made a grave miscalculation. Because America’s men and women in uniform — and the vast majority of our law enforcement personnel — are good. VERY good. Something tells me a couple dozen beer-bellied weekend warriors and fundamentalist “patriot” militia wouldn’t stand a chance.

    But then, I worry about such things. I think the world is much more interesting with the America-hating far right IN it as opposed to UNDER it. There’s certainly nothing on TV as entertaining or popcorn-worthy as what we read in the Tealiban blogosphere!

    Here’s hoping they choose wisely.

    Like

  6. [...] critic of statistics not noticing that many of the new gun laws proposed also call out rifles so the statistics is apter than he pretends, cf “assault” rifle bans which don’t actually ban assault rifles which are [...]

    Like

  7. [...] critic of statistics not noticing that many of the new gun laws proposed also call out rifles so the statistics is apter than he pretends, cf “assault” rifle bans which don’t actually ban assault rifles which are [...]

    Like

  8. JamesK says:

    oh darn, I answered the question Jim meant for the conservatives.

    Silly me.

    Like

  9. JamesK says:

    Well you have to remember, Jim, back in the 60’s the NRA was scared to death of “armed uppity black people.”

    So naturally they’re paranoid when it comes to a black president. It’s just 50 years of racism given steroids and 50 years to fester.

    Like

  10. jsojourner says:

    Thank you, Ed. As someone who enjoys shooting, I have yet to see or hear anything from Senator Feinstein, President Obama or anyone else on the “left” (their gun positions are far from left, really — more centrist) that would take away my hobby, home defense or investment.

    In the 1960’s, the NRA favored stricter gun control than what is currently being touted by the POTUS.

    Gee — I wonder why? Any of your conservative readers know?

    Jim

    Like

Play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,215 other followers

%d bloggers like this: