Not that it’s a big surprise, but the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence takes issue with the Heller ruling:

And now the Supreme Court has overturned over 100 years of judicial precedent and stood the Second Amendment to the Constitution on its head. The 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, written by Reagan appointee Justice Antonin Scalia, holds that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for self-defense purposes unconnected with service in a well regulated militia.

As Josh Horwitz, Executive Director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, recently wrote: “By deliberately omitting what test the Court is using to decide that [the District’s handgun ban and trigger lock requirement] unreasonably burden this newly proclaimed individual right to possess firearms, the Court leaves legislators and lower courts adrift at a time when public health data clearly shows the harm associated with handguns far outweighs any benefit from their use for lawful self defense.”

The decision is a terrible one and complete misreads the Framer’s intent in drafting in the Second Amendment. It is relatively narrow in scope, however, and leaves many critical questions unanswered. More importantly, it does not prevent gun violence prevention organizations from actively pursuing a wide range of legislative initiatives to reduce gun violence.

The harm from guns outweights any benefit from their lawful use. Debatable, but let’s assume it’s true. Shall we then start applying cost-benefit analyses to other articles in the Bill of Rights? Quick, grab a pencil!

Another fact you can use to make a liberals head explode is this.

The FBI’s 2005 crime report shows that blacks commit 51% of all murders yet account for roughly 12-13% of the population. When you subtract black women and black males over 35 (who aren’t in the “murder prone” bracket), the number would drop to…say 5-6% of the ppulation being responsible for half of all murders.

So…if using statistics to isolate a threat is justification for banning something…...why not ban black males in the age bracket most likely to commit murder?

BOOM!!! Their heads will come completely off and their spindly torsos will run around like a headless chicken…which is pretty no change from when their heads were still attached.

I think that the anti gun violence crowd should have a sit-down with all the criminal types. Convene a convention.
Armed with (pun intended) with all their statistics and the slime of their amiability I am sure that they will be able to persuade those of the murderous persuasion to put down their weapons and take up the conversion.

To ensure that the dialogue can take place it must be arranged that all seats will be lined upagainst the wall with a clear view of the entrance.

The subject of uneven distribution could be discussed logically and reasonably. A deal could be struck.

If they will stop taking out stuff and shooting at us we will stop putting them in jail and taking away their drugs.

It is all about meaningful dialogue.

I don’t think these cost-benefit analysis arguments are sufficiently serious.

I believe if we make our elected officials pack their own lunchs and pay themselves for any legislation enacted out of their own pockets, plus provide their own transportation to Washington, at 5mph max, no allowances or pension of any kind, then many of these so-called problems will resolve themselves.

Cost to taxpayers will be nil. Benefits enormous. A public servant will truely and completely be a “servant”, as it should be, rather than a freeloading parasite.

The only people capable of or interested in holding office will be a few billionaires who do their own thing and don’t bother the rest of us.

The rest of us will be free to carry guns, run naked, eat roots and berries, and make babies. Preferably not all at the same time, but not a bad idea to try it sometime.

Hereby propose the 28th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

All members of the Congress of the United States, the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall hereby be required to pack their own lunchs and pay their own way.

Celery sticks shall be provided as right and freedom for no charge for so long as the celery plant shall not be extincted due to global warming or other event of nature or man.

Peanut butter or cream cheese filling shall remain optional for said sticks of celery.

*************

I sincerely hope this amendment will be ratified in due course and short order. The celery lobby in particular has shown urgent interest in the outcome of this amendment.

Please, write your Congressman this July 4th to show your support.

As Susan says, it’s all an attempt to mislead…all hype.

back when the “assult” weapons ban was the latest, greatest gimmick to fight crime we were exposed nitely to footage of menacing automatic weapons being fired juxtaposed with footage from Bosnia ect. Never mind that the weapons being banned bore no functional similarity to their distant military cousins, but another conveniently ignored fact was that, according to the FBI, more people were killed yearly with “fists and feet” than were killed with assault weapons.

It’s all about misleading the public through propaganda targeted at emotional reaction instead of reason.

Like exploiting cripples in campaign ads.

Addressing Bart’s cost-benefit analysis question more directly, how about using this example?

According to WISQARS and Horwitz’ parameter of including 15-19 year olds as “children”, there are 7,204 child deaths per year caused by motor vehicles, a rate of 8.81 per 100,000 population.

Hypothesis: We should reduce speed limits to 5 mph, a common sense solution that will drastically reduce the danger to our children from motor vehicle violence.

After all, if it saves one life, it’ll be worth it…

I agree with Roger, people like Horwitz will never listen to reason.  They are aware of the truth, they just don’t care in their zeal to impose their ideas on others.

However, others, maybe just under- or mis- informed, might change their minds, or at least learn to question Horwitz’s rhetoric if we keep putting the actual data out there.

From Horwitz’s link on his homepage to the data source for his terrifying “8 children die from gun violence EVERY DAY” statistic, you can a get the real picture.

WISQARS says that 3,027 children, as Horwitz calls them, die each year from firearm injuries.  What he fails to tell you is that that figure includes 15-19 year olds, the age group where gang involvement becomes an issue.  The total age population of those deaths is 81,814,633, a rate of 3.7 per 100,000.

Take out that age group and you find that the number dramatically decreases to 404 out of a total age population of 60,751,511.  Rate = 0.67 per 100,000.

Take out the 10-14 year olds, and it goes to 131 out of a total age population of 39,872,768.  Rate = 0.33 per 100,000.

So the danger, for the national average, to actual “children” is somehwere between .3 and .7 out of 100,000.

Not nearly as frightening as Horwitz’ ‘8 children a day’ statistic, is it?

The so-called anti-gun violence crowd loves to throw out numbers without giving you the full story.  That lends significant doubt in mind as to their credibility in their other statements.

As a side note, it would be interesting to compare the metro Richmond numbers for the same age populatons to the national average.

If defending yourself with a gun saves one life…just one life…then it’s worth it!

Wow…I made my own skin crawl with the application of that lefty ka-nerd!

It does no good to reason with people like this. They simply want to ban guns. Period. It’s best to just ignore them. Time would be better spent explaining the concept of self defense and the purpose of the first ten to someone who isn’t a vein bursting fanatic.

The good thing is that they’ll keep the issue alive which will tend to motivate voters.

Post Your Comments: