Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Joan Peterson - She can't handle the truth

Joan Peterson, the owner of common gunsense blog, is having a little bit of a problem handling the truth. In her blog post Homicide Victims, she rambles on about how many homicide victims there are as a result of being shot with a firearm. and then presents the reader with this little jewel:

That comes out to 3.7 per 100,000- the most gun homicide deaths of any other civilized country not at war.

The anti-rights cultists bigots have been spouting this one for a while, along with "wealthy nations" and "industrialized countries", "developed nations", etc. I'm guess Joan and company don't keep up with current events because ummm, AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ, WAR ON DRUGS, WAR ON TERROR....

Moving on... I dropped Joan a comment reminding her that we are, in fact, at war and responded to another little lie she published:

Gun-related homicides have increased slightly each year since 2002.

One of the problems with the anti-rights cultists bigots, is that they parrot things they read or hear, without checking the facts. The quote above came from the National Institute for Justice, which was written sometime in 2006, by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, based on information found in the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, only slightly outdated.

The fact is, as I provided to Joan, which she published is:

Actually, no. The number of homicides has been declining since 2007 and the the homicide rate has been falling slightly every year since 2006. The same is true with firearm related homicides.

From CDC 2006 - 2010


Also, from your NIJ Source

Nonfatal firearm-related crime has fallen significantly in recent years, from almost 1.3 million victims in 1994 to 477,040 victims in 2005.

and according to the FBI, in 2010, there were 312,658 nonfatal, firearm-related crimes. Again, we're seeing a trend, not only is violent crime going down, but gun related violent crime is decreasing.

We need to demand a plan from our politicians to prevent gun deaths and injuries. 

It seems like the plan that's in place is working. There's not a magic wand that's going to make all things horrible just go away in an instant.

Continuing... I'll just post the conversation as it was published.

japete September 25, 2012 10:27 AM
If you think that over 11, 000 people dying of gun homicides is a plan that's working, we can't have any further "discussion."

Bill Baldwin September 25, 2012 11:37 AM
What do you suggest we do, another assault weapons ban that had no measurable effect on violent crime? California has a pretty strict AWB but has the highest instances of mass killings than any other state. DC and Chicago both have registration, waiting periods, no carrying of weapons outside of the home, etc. and still have the highest rates of violent crime. People that are willing to take the life of another are not concerned with how they do it.
11,000 people being killed by a firearm isn't a good thing, but it's better than the 17,000 from the 90's. 2010 had a murder rate of 4.8, which we haven't seen since the 60's, so yeah, something's working.
Please recall, back in the early 60's, one could purchase a firearm through the mail, at the local hardware store, or at a sporting goods store, and the dealers didn't need a licence.

japete September 25, 2012 2:05 PM
What's working, Bill? Please explain what you mean? People can still purchase firearms at local sporting goods stores, on the internet, through the newspaper, at some liquor sotres, around kitchen tables and from a myriad of other unlicensed sellers. I wouldn't say that's an improvement at all. I have seen a website with photos of signs where guns are sold- some at liquor stores, some at the same place wedding gowns are sold. Please tell me how that is an improvement from the 60s.

and that's where the 'discussion' dies. I explained to her, and at the time of this writing, my comment has yet to be posted, but here it is.

Please tell me how that is an improvement from the 60s.
The 1960's represents a time that had some of the lowest crime rates since before World War I. I used the 60's as an example because the FBI online database only goes back to the 60's. The mid 1950's actually had the lowest level of crime rates (homicide rate of 4.0)since about `1903 or so.
There was no gun control in the early 60's (murder rate 4.6 in 1963), other than the NFA, which only placed a tax on automatic weapons, short rifles and shotguns and suppressors, and our homicide rate as of 2010 was 4.8. According to the FBI, the projected homicide rate will be 1.9% lower in 2011. Is this better than the 60's? No, but it's sure getting close, without the need for additional gun control measures.
Also, the gun control crowd says "highest murder rate of any country not at war", but as I pointed out, we at war. If you look at the violent crime trends, you will notice that some of our highest violent crime rates occurred during times of war, but what we have today, is the lowest murder rate in nearly 50 years. Has gun control helped with lowering the violent crime rates? It's doubtful. Our murder rate peaked in 1980 and has been on a decline ever since. There are no studies that indicate that the 10 year ban on 'assault weapons' had any measurable effect, and in fact, the homicide rate is lower now than anytime during the ban.
So, what's working? I don't know. What I do know, is that we have more relaxed gun laws, we have more states allowing concealed carry in more places, and we have a homicide rate that we haven't seen in nearly 50 years.

I've come to the realization that the anti-rights cultists bigots just don't know what they want. Our homicide rate is at the lowest level that any anti-rights bigot can ever remember, but still want MORE. I feel sorry for her husband, obviously she'll never be pleased, and if the conversation is not going her way, she'll stick her fingers in her ears and stark yelling LA LA LA LA LA LA LA. I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

Moving on, some more... dog gone thought she'd toss a dog in this fight. Which is surprising because she hasn't commented to me in a while. I suppose she got tired of getting slapped around with the truth.

dog gone September 25, 2012 7:17 PM
We are at war in other countries, not here in this one.
That is the significant distinction; it would be different if the war were here, but it is not, and so far as I know, those military deaths and injuries are not counted into the totals you mentioned B3.
Back in the 60s we had fewer guns, fewer mass shootings, fewer homicides.
We'd be better off if we had fewer firearms, because people do NOT handle them responsibly - they don't store them responsibly or securely, they commit on average more than 3 murder suicides every week, they commit record numbers of mass shootings since then, and oh yea - -far fewer crazy people got their hands on them when they were more restricted by law enforcement. Fewer members of law enforcement were killed and injured too.

As you can see in the picture above, my comment to dog gone will be visible after approval, yeah, I bet that's going to happen real soon. My reply:

dog gone said..."We are at war in other countries, not here in this one."
So! During every war we've been involved in since WWI there have been spikes in the homicide rate, and every war, except for the Japanese attack on pearl harbor has been over seas. 

dog gone continued..."and so far as I know, those military deaths and injuries are not counted into the totals you mentioned B3."
Then how are they counted? The only deaths not counted by the CDC are the deaths that occurred during the WTC attacks in 2001.

and some more...Back in the 60s we had fewer guns, fewer mass shootings, fewer homicides." But not much less of a homicide rate. As long as there is more people, there will be more crime, but the homicide rate we're experiencing now, is very close to the homicide rates nearly 50 years ago, even with MORE guns, and MORE guns in public, and MORE 'assault rifles'. As I pointed out in a comment that hasn't been published yet, the best homicide rate in the 60's was 4.6, in 2010 the homicide rate was 4.8 and in 2011 it will be less, despite the fact that there are more people carry concealed, loaded guns in more public places, and despite the fact that more people own firearms with a magazine capacity over 10, and despite the fact that more people own 'assault weapons', and despite the fact that there are less gun control laws. 

and again..."because people do NOT handle them responsibly..."
but there are FEWER deaths and injuries as a result of accidental shootings. According to the CDC, accidental injuries from firearms fell from 17,696 in 2001 to 14,161 in 2010 which shows a DECLINE, even though there are MORE people with concealed carry permits, MORE 'assault weapons', and MORE firearms with a magazine capacity over 10 rounds.

Clearly these people have more of an agenda than just a discussion on how to reduce gun violence and death and obviously lack common sense.

Here's the truth. There was very little gun control in the 60's. As noted above, there was the NFA, and that's about it. The Gun Control Act didn't surface until 1968 and clearly had no affect on violent crime. The homicide rate didn't start to drop until the 90's. Back in the 60's, there were no Federal Firearm Licenses to sell firearms. Firearms could be sold at any store, or ordered through the mail. There were no background checks, no Brady Act, no nothing.

You want more truth? Are you sure you can handle it? According to the Gallup Poll, more households reported having a gun in the home in 1960 (49%) than in 2008 (39%). What does this tell us. Not much really, except that it APPEARS there were actually MORE guns in 1960, eat that you anti-rights cultist bigots.

I think they just want to disarm the American People, what do you thing?


  1. Yes, they want to ban guns. But Brady, MAIG, media commentators and the handful of anti rights bloggers are too timid to admit it. While they are absolutely wrong, I would respect them more if they would come right out and say they wanted to ban guns.

    Data indicates that the homicide rate moves up and down independent of gun laws. So, if you're looking for causation, a lower homicide rate wouldn't appear to be due to laws that restrict guns and/or ownership. They argue (and this is kind of new) that homicides via gun would have dropped even more than they had if their were even stricter gun laws. But there is no way to prove that, and there is no indication that gun laws impact homicides in that way.

    Their argument is a little like saying that you would have enjoyed the mashed potatoes more if it had been sunny outside. Well, you've enjoyed them before regardless of the weather, and you can't possibly go back and change the weather to test your hypothesis. Now, you can say that you would have enjoyed the mashed potatoes more if they had more butter on them. Why? Because you've had mashed potatoes before with varying amounts of butter, and you prefer more butter to less.

    The anti gun rights cultists will force whatever data or logic they want to maintain their belief that no one should have guns. Keep up the good work and take the fight right to them.

    1. Thanks for the comment, Tom.

      Yes, they do want to ban guns, but they are all scared to publicly stand on that position. Joan said that she changed her mind about banning firearms after Heller and Mc Donald. Brady Campaign started as Handgun Control, Inc., and Coalition to Stop Gun Violence started as National Coalition to Ban Handguns.

      Certainly their position didn't change because they had a change of heart, their positions changed because they were seeking public support and couldn't get that while publicly saying they wanted to ban firearms.

  2. Thank you for such an awesome blog, I am in fact good to see this post. Nice article. airsoft guns