My challenge to the Facebook Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence went unanswered. Then it was removed. Then they changed their site to cover up what they had previously written. I have re-posted it and will continue to do so until they leave it up. You can find it here for now...
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2243394202&topic=4552
I thought they might delete my civil and appropriate topic and censor the other side (ie in their words "the gun lobby"). I guess I must keep posting it until they leave it. I just looked at the group page and they edited their group page to remove the text that I criticize. I guess its easy to keep changing your views and not answering any criticism or flaws in your argument. Just cover it up and hope nobody notices.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This page says that "We believe it is too easy for dangerous people to obtain dangerous weapons. There are only a few gun control laws on the books, and even those loopholes. This leads to senseless gun violence affecting tens of thousands."
There are over 20,000 gun laws in the USA, all without any proven reduction in gun violence or crime. If by few, you mean 20,000 laws at the federal, state, and municipal level, then yes, America has very few laws concerning guns. Also, the availability of weapons causing an increase in crime is a baseless argument. The vast majority of gun crime is committed with illegal guns that are bought and sold on the black market. This black market exists even in countries that have an outright ban on all firearms such as the UK and Australia. After the bans were put in place in the UK for example, violent crime rates with guns skyrocketed including "hot burglaries" which occur while the homes are occupied. More Guns, Less Crime and the Bias Against Guns by Dr. John Lott have set a pretty solid case that gun ownership rates, if anything, lower violent gun crime rates. Shall-issue concealed carry permit systems have similar deterrence results. Please check out these books for more information on violent crime committed with guns. The Bias Against Guns further makes a solid argument that the Brady's numbers about accidental child deaths due to guns are wildly inflated including all 17, 18, and 19 year old's deaths including all gang-related crime.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113094,00.html
According to the CDC, in 2005, 209 children age 0-12 were killed by a gunshot (all intents-- accidental and otherwise). Far more drowned (782), were burned to death in fires (498), or died in car accidents (1,759). http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/WISQARS/ . Why does the Million Mom March and Brady Campaign inflate their numbers so wildly in arguing for even more gun control to save the children? Why, also, do the states the Brady Campaign assigns F grades (indicating high gun ownership rates/ "lenient" laws or shall-issue concealed carry), have lower gun crime rates per capita? Obviously there are many factors but the argument that the wide availability of weapons causes increased crime is bunk.
All gun sales at gun stores require a federal background check on the buyer and that the dealer has a federal license. If you want to argue for an improved NICS (background check system) you should all join the NRA, because that is what they argue for in addition to tough sentencing on convicted violent felons and criminals who violate existing gun laws.
"But we CAN do something about it. We should make it harder for convicted felons, the dangerously mentally ill, and others like them to get the guns in the first place."
It's already illegal for felons and the mentally ill to purchase firearms. They wouldn't pass the background check. Again the NRA argues for these things in addition to an improved NICS system, while strongly arguing the overwhelming positive uses of firearms including an estimated 800,000 - 2.5 million defensive uses per year. Guns are not the problem, but we can do something about criminals who abuse guns.
This group was originally founded as Handgun Control, Inc. By arguing for "reasonable, sensible gun laws" this group has argued in the past for even a total ban on the possession of handguns (which are the most popular gun used in defense by far). The very qualities that make such weapons desirable for criminals are the same qualities that law abiding citizens appreciate in a self defense tool. So-called "assault weapons" only comprise 2% of total gun crime and are also very desirable and popular in hunting, target shooting and self-defense applications. In fact, AR-15s are the MOST popular rifle in America. In other words, the gun, the weapon, the tool is neutral and can be used for good or evil. Laws that attempt to restrict the number of guns only affect the law abiding citizens of a society. It is worth noting that multiple victim public shootings ONLY occur in so-called "gun-free zones." These zones only disarm those who choose to follow the law.
Paul Helmke, Brady Campaign President, in the past argued the collective right theory of the Second Amendment in order to advocate more gun control. After the SCOTUS decision he said that "they have lost the battle over what the Second Amendment means." http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=5055064&page=1
Apparently he thought that it was reasonable and sensible to even prohibit handguns completely and ban any assembled loaded firearm of any type in the home entirely. The Supreme Court has affirmed what the NRA has been saying all along with their decision on the Heller case. I want to encourage you all to read the Supreme Court ruling in its entirety but the essential fact remains that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right of all American people to keep and bear arms for any lawful use including self-defense.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-a-constitutional-right-to-a-gun/
This does not make the 2nd Amendment absolute, but it forces the Brady Campaign to rethink its strategy. Despite the disappointment of the Brady Campaign and other groups, they neglect to mention that Washington D.C.'s violent crime rate with illegal handguns skyrocketed peaking in the middle to late 90s AFTER the 1973 ban was enacted.
The Brady Campaign doesn't have the numbers on their side. People could understandably fear weapons, especially with all the major news coverage of terrifying events such as school shootings. But to blow the gun issue up into something it is not, while completely ignoring the positives of gun ownership, is irresponsible and fear-mongering. Now Brady Campaign will have to adjust its strategy, but the fact remains that the policies they advocate actually endanger people rather than keep them safe. I will be posting this and leaving the group since I do not support their goals, but I will gladly come back to respond to any objections or arguments posed here.
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2243394202&topic=4552
I thought they might delete my civil and appropriate topic and censor the other side (ie in their words "the gun lobby"). I guess I must keep posting it until they leave it. I just looked at the group page and they edited their group page to remove the text that I criticize. I guess its easy to keep changing your views and not answering any criticism or flaws in your argument. Just cover it up and hope nobody notices.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This page says that "We believe it is too easy for dangerous people to obtain dangerous weapons. There are only a few gun control laws on the books, and even those loopholes. This leads to senseless gun violence affecting tens of thousands."
There are over 20,000 gun laws in the USA, all without any proven reduction in gun violence or crime. If by few, you mean 20,000 laws at the federal, state, and municipal level, then yes, America has very few laws concerning guns. Also, the availability of weapons causing an increase in crime is a baseless argument. The vast majority of gun crime is committed with illegal guns that are bought and sold on the black market. This black market exists even in countries that have an outright ban on all firearms such as the UK and Australia. After the bans were put in place in the UK for example, violent crime rates with guns skyrocketed including "hot burglaries" which occur while the homes are occupied. More Guns, Less Crime and the Bias Against Guns by Dr. John Lott have set a pretty solid case that gun ownership rates, if anything, lower violent gun crime rates. Shall-issue concealed carry permit systems have similar deterrence results. Please check out these books for more information on violent crime committed with guns. The Bias Against Guns further makes a solid argument that the Brady's numbers about accidental child deaths due to guns are wildly inflated including all 17, 18, and 19 year old's deaths including all gang-related crime.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113094,00.html
According to the CDC, in 2005, 209 children age 0-12 were killed by a gunshot (all intents-- accidental and otherwise). Far more drowned (782), were burned to death in fires (498), or died in car accidents (1,759). http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/WISQARS/ . Why does the Million Mom March and Brady Campaign inflate their numbers so wildly in arguing for even more gun control to save the children? Why, also, do the states the Brady Campaign assigns F grades (indicating high gun ownership rates/ "lenient" laws or shall-issue concealed carry), have lower gun crime rates per capita? Obviously there are many factors but the argument that the wide availability of weapons causes increased crime is bunk.
All gun sales at gun stores require a federal background check on the buyer and that the dealer has a federal license. If you want to argue for an improved NICS (background check system) you should all join the NRA, because that is what they argue for in addition to tough sentencing on convicted violent felons and criminals who violate existing gun laws.
"But we CAN do something about it. We should make it harder for convicted felons, the dangerously mentally ill, and others like them to get the guns in the first place."
It's already illegal for felons and the mentally ill to purchase firearms. They wouldn't pass the background check. Again the NRA argues for these things in addition to an improved NICS system, while strongly arguing the overwhelming positive uses of firearms including an estimated 800,000 - 2.5 million defensive uses per year. Guns are not the problem, but we can do something about criminals who abuse guns.
This group was originally founded as Handgun Control, Inc. By arguing for "reasonable, sensible gun laws" this group has argued in the past for even a total ban on the possession of handguns (which are the most popular gun used in defense by far). The very qualities that make such weapons desirable for criminals are the same qualities that law abiding citizens appreciate in a self defense tool. So-called "assault weapons" only comprise 2% of total gun crime and are also very desirable and popular in hunting, target shooting and self-defense applications. In fact, AR-15s are the MOST popular rifle in America. In other words, the gun, the weapon, the tool is neutral and can be used for good or evil. Laws that attempt to restrict the number of guns only affect the law abiding citizens of a society. It is worth noting that multiple victim public shootings ONLY occur in so-called "gun-free zones." These zones only disarm those who choose to follow the law.
Paul Helmke, Brady Campaign President, in the past argued the collective right theory of the Second Amendment in order to advocate more gun control. After the SCOTUS decision he said that "they have lost the battle over what the Second Amendment means." http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=5055064&page=1
Apparently he thought that it was reasonable and sensible to even prohibit handguns completely and ban any assembled loaded firearm of any type in the home entirely. The Supreme Court has affirmed what the NRA has been saying all along with their decision on the Heller case. I want to encourage you all to read the Supreme Court ruling in its entirety but the essential fact remains that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right of all American people to keep and bear arms for any lawful use including self-defense.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-a-constitutional-right-to-a-gun/
This does not make the 2nd Amendment absolute, but it forces the Brady Campaign to rethink its strategy. Despite the disappointment of the Brady Campaign and other groups, they neglect to mention that Washington D.C.'s violent crime rate with illegal handguns skyrocketed peaking in the middle to late 90s AFTER the 1973 ban was enacted.
The Brady Campaign doesn't have the numbers on their side. People could understandably fear weapons, especially with all the major news coverage of terrifying events such as school shootings. But to blow the gun issue up into something it is not, while completely ignoring the positives of gun ownership, is irresponsible and fear-mongering. Now Brady Campaign will have to adjust its strategy, but the fact remains that the policies they advocate actually endanger people rather than keep them safe. I will be posting this and leaving the group since I do not support their goals, but I will gladly come back to respond to any objections or arguments posed here.
