Rebane's Ruminations
April 2013
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

 

George Rebane

In doing some research for the upcoming Breaking Bread episode on the Second Amendment, I found this clear summary of America’s murder rate.  It is compiled by the Death Penalty Information Center using FBI statistics. These numbers and the trend overwhelm the infrequent episodic mass killings that have occurred over the last years.

MurderRate
Guns account for approximately 75% of the means used to murder people in America according to factcheck.org (I thought it would have been higher).  The rate of guns used for murder has been going down for the last twenty years, while gun ownership has been steadily rising.  In 2007 Americans owned about 89 guns for every 100 people.  And other gun violence numbers also going down are ‘gun aggravated assault’ and ‘gun robberies’ which in 2011 were the lowest since 2004.  All this goes to illustrate and highlight the bogus nature of the recently failed gun control bill in Congress, and the misleading arguments used by the nation’s gun control crowd even before the Second Amendment considerations are included.
 

[Addendum]  Apropos to the ongoing gun control debate, the following is a verbatim extract from one of several such emails that are circulating among conservatives, and fueling the polarization of Americans.  I post the email in its entirety to let our liberal readers understand what also fuels the emotions of the Right; emotions that go beyond the more reasoned and measured arguments usually made by conservatives in defense of the Second Amendment, and the private ownership of arms and the concealed carry of guns.  The Brunswick, Georgia mother most certainly could have used one, and should have had one to protect herself and her baby.  The murder is reported by CNN here, and the Crime Library site gives some background here on the alleged killer’s family.


I have no corroboration of the additional claims made about Elkins in the second paragraph.  But since these allegations can be verified, I think it’s plausible that a profitable enterprise would result from making book with a progressive or two on which of these claims being ultimately verified as true.


ElkinsMugshotIn late March 2013, 17 year old De’Marquis Elkins shot and killed a 13 month old baby who was sitting in a stroller.  Elkins shot the infant in the face after the mother refused to give him money.  He also shot the mother in the leg and the neck in Brunswick , GA.

De’Marquis Elkins is not a member of the NRA.  He did not use an assault rifle.  He did not get his stolen pistol from a gun show.  His favorite music is rap.  He did not attend Christian school, nor was he home schooled.  He did attend multicultural public education, and was not instructed in the Ten Commandments.  His Momma was on welfare, got food stamps, and lived in public housing.  His daddy was not around, and his two brothers have a different daddy.  He already has a record for violent crimes.  He is gang member.  His mom, grandma, and Aunty all voted for Obama.  He never earned his hunter safety card, nor did he shoot CMP, Junior NRA, or 4H Air Rifle Competitions.  He was never instructed in gun safety from his father or grandfather.  His public education and family taught him that the white man owes him something.  He went to collect it.  He has no plans on getting married, but does have a Baby Momma, and no, he is not supporting her baby.  He smokes dope.  He does respect Kayne West.  While he has no job, nor is looking for one, he is well fed.  He has no skills outside of crime.  He speaks Ebonics, and is not capable of doing a professional interview, even though he spent 11 years in public education.

He is one of millions.  This is what we are up against.  Make no mistake that people like Elkins will have their guns.  There are people wanting to deny you the right to arm yourself.  Your tax dollars are paying for the continuation of a system that breeds pieces of shit like this one.

[27apr13 update]  Here is an eye-opening survey of gun policy attitudes held by the ‘boots on the ground’ law enforcement community.  It was conducted recently by the PoliceOne.com organization and involved a very impressive sample size of over 15,000 law enforcement officers nationwide.  It throws a new light on the kind of reports we get from the lamestream. 
Download PoliceOne Gun Policy Survey.

Posted in , , , , ,

115 responses to “US Murder Rate History [Addended] (updated 27apr13)”

  1. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    You may want to look at what the authors of Freakonomics have to say about the direct correlation between the aging of the American population and declining birth rate and declining rate of violent crime.

    Like

  2. Gregory Avatar

    If Steven Frisch has a valid point to make, he should try to make it.
    We are not awash in a wave of homicides. Frisch and friends wallowed in the blood of the children in Newtown for the shock value, hoping it would be the proverbial crisis not going to waste. A wave that had to be stopped.
    I’d like to think the flameout had something to do with Frisch’s lobbying, but I doubt it had any effect one way or the other.

    Like

  3. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    Seriously Greg, you need mental health counseling.

    Like

  4. Michael Anderson Avatar
    Michael Anderson

    Steve F. accurately describes the reason there is a declining rate of violent crime in America. It’s due to the aging of the American population.
    Reasonable background-check legislation did not pass in the Senate due to the fact that the southern states are over-represented in the Senate, an unfortunate consequence of the lack of political reform for a constitution that is antiquated and has been tweaked over many decades with arcane Senate rules to marginalize huge urban voting blocks.
    The current 3-branch system is not sustainable and will either collapse and be replaced, or it will be heavily reformed. Either way, we will move away from this horrible morass eventually, and things will get better. Of that I am 100% certain.

    Like

  5. George Rebane Avatar

    MichaelA 949pm – could you outline a subsequent system of governance that you see as being more favorable, and that would be a candidate for inclusion in your “100% certain” future?

    Like

  6. Gregory Avatar

    Seriously, Steven Frisch, the 6 figure salary CEO of a rent-seeking Nevada County non-profit, the so-called Sierra Business Council, you’ve just done me the favor of a libel per se. Ask your lawyer.
    Tell me, why were you pushing for a reprise of DiFi’s failed ugly rifle ban (it lapsed the first time because even Senate Democrats could see it did nothing worthwhile) before the police report of what actually happened in Newtown was released? You know, actually have an idea as to the complete chain of events and figure out possible solutions that would actually help such a thing from happening again.
    We still have no report.
    Did you know the following:
    “NEWTOWN, Conn., April 15 (UPI) — Adam Lanza, who killed 20 students and six staffers at Sandy Hook Elementary School, was beaten by classmates when he attended the school, a family member says.
    Lanza’s mother, Nancy Lanza, who he also killed before taking his own life, had considered suing the school because she thought school officials weren’t doing enough to stop the taunts and attacks, the New York Daily News reported Sunday.”
    A sick kid, made even sicker by others.
    Between the complete implosion of gun control at the Federal level and the slo-mo collapse of the anthropogenic global warming scare, somehow I don’t think long term bets on your mental stability are secure. With The Economist, The Telegraph and even Die Zeit all dialing back their AGW positions, it’s getting easier and easier to get the realist position in front of the public.

    Like

  7. Gregory Avatar

    Anderson and Frisch, then does that mean you accept that more guns doesn’t facilitate more murders?
    Age demographics points towards fewer murders but gun sales have been rising, and the right to carry a concealed weapon has been slowly gaining in states nationwide, with Illinois now the only state that doesn’t allow it at all (that may be changing thanks to the SCOTUS) and the states that allow concealed carry without a permit has quadrupled, with Vermont now joined by Alaska, Arizona and Wyoming.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States
    Not only was the demographics shifting older, but the number of guns has been increasing, and the number of states that allow concealed carry has been exploding. And yet murder rates are reducing.
    Imagine that.

    Like

  8. Gregory Avatar

    “The current 3-branch system is not sustainable and will either collapse and be replaced, or it will be heavily reformed. Either way, we will move away from this horrible morass eventually, and things will get better. Of that I am 100% certain.” -MA
    Wow, it looks like a job for mandersonation. Somehow, I think the people buying so many guns and so much ammunition prefer the Constitution we have over the one that Frisch and Anderson wish we had.

    Like

  9. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    Greg, get help……I am sure your obsessive anger must be a drag for the people you still have around you.
    All I did was point George to information that might have given him another data point for his upcoming starring role in Breaking Bad 🙂

    Like

  10. Ryan Mount Avatar

    The uncomfortable Freakonomics chapter was based on a 2001 study by Steve Levitt and John Donahue (they weren’t the first to make this observation) that correlated the decline in violent crime with the rise of legalized abortion. Not due to aging populations, declining birthrates, increased policing, or a number of other factors. All those took second seat to abortion.
    In a nutshell, women were not having babies born into higher crime potential communities. The implications of such an assertions are really grim, IMHO and smacks of kind of eugenics.
    As you might imagine, the study has been vigorously scrutinized and attacked. And also defended somewhat successfully, although Levitt and Donahue had to back off some of their more aggressive assertions.
    Lots of places to verify all of this, but one may want to start here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Legalized_Abortion_on_Crime

    Like

  11. Gregory Avatar

    You don’t know me, Frisch. Perhaps Paul Emery will chime in about that anger you are deluded into thinking I’m consumed with, we had a pleasant chat of well over an hour over coffee on Saturday.

    Like

  12. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    On this issue we are all correct the question is where does the compromise land? And oddly enough I fall towards the side of RR conservative opinions on the issue.

    Like

  13. Scott Obermuller Avatar

    “due to the fact that the southern states are over-represented in the Senate…”
    I’m trying my best to understand how this could be so, but it seems to end up being just a matter of ‘I don’t think folks who don’t agree with me should be represented in the govt.’
    Perhaps some sort of argument to support this ‘fact’ might be forthcoming, but I won’t hold my breath.
    As to the rise and fall of the murder and crime rate – high incarceration rates and lengthy sentences have also been plainly shown to have an effect. In CA we are already seeing the results of Moonbeam’s ‘realignment’ program. For reasons that we can argue over for centuries, there are identifiable career criminals that are simply not going to be rehabilitated. Separating them from society for life yields measurable reductions of crime. The argument about legalizing abortion on demand leading to reductions in crime should also include a breakdown of the different percentages of national origins of the participating women.

    Like

  14. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    If the murder rate is declining, somebody should tell Mayor Emmanuel of Chicago the good news. Apparently they do things differently in Chicago.

    Like

  15. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    Face it Greg, I did not address you, I addressed George’s point. The fact that you just have a hard on for trying to attack me personally is evident by you posts. I consider that to be a combination of anger, envy and your low sense of self worth.
    The fact remains, and logic dictates, that the less young men between the ages of 16-35 there are the less violent crime there is, whether perhaps due to abortion, as Leavitt points out, or simply shifting values and demographics. Nothing to do with the number of privately owned guns in the country. My contention is that the violent crime rate would be even lower than it is if we were not awash in guns.
    Finally, breaking bread with Paul Emery is not my litmus test for rationality.

    Like

  16. Ryan Mount Avatar

    Scott Obermuller | 22 April 2013 at 08:03 AM> “For reasons that we can argue over for centuries, there are identifiable career criminals that are simply not going to be rehabilitated. Separating them from society for life yields measurable reductions of crime.”
    There seems to be some truth to this. The USA has the highest incarceration rate of any other country, and some of the relatively lowest violent crime (pick one like, intentional homicide). However, a little digging reveals that Africa and the Caribbean continue to be the most dangerous places on Earth. The Caribbean has incarceration rates about equal ( a little lower) to that of the USA, but again, high rates of violent crime which seems to contradict the assertion that making more jail space reduces crime.

    argument about legalizing abortion on demand leading to reductions in crime
    Wealthy (wealthier) people have always been able to get abortions. It’s the poor and disenfranchised that did have access to them. Once they did post Roe V Wade, they stopped bringing unwanted children into the world. That’s the inconvenient Freakonomics point. And it underscores the twice-told tale that poverty breeds (literally) crime.

    Like

  17. Steve Enos Avatar
    Steve Enos

    The case of De’Marquis Elkins rasies issues about welfare, the “I’m owed” mindset and the line between helping and enabling that is now long gone.
    Here’s a link to a good story about Denmark, welfare, aging demographics and the issues of helping vs. enabling and being a taker. I think this story relates well to our situation in the U.S.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/world/europe/danes-rethink-a-welfare-state-ample-to-a-fault.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    Like

  18. Michael Anderson Avatar
    Michael Anderson

    George asked: “…could you outline a subsequent system of governance that you see as being more favorable(?)”
    I think there are a robust number of systems that could do the job better including the one we currently have, which just needs some targeted reforms to get us back to “one man, one vote” (as currently outlined in the 15th, 17th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments.

    Like

  19. earlcrabb Avatar

    You could dump the Senate, but there would no longer be a fifty-state union. Once the minority had no representation, they’d be pulling out faster than a traveling salesman caught in bed with the farmer’s daughter.

    Like

  20. Gregory Avatar

    Face it, Frisch, if you want to address just George, send him an email. Post here and you’re addressing everyone.
    “My contention is that the violent crime rate would be even lower than it is if we were not awash in guns.” Yes, you have that belief, and I completely support your choice to be unarmed at home or at work. The state of Illinois has the gun laws you want for all, and it’s awash in both guns and murderers.
    You go right for the ad hominems and slanders and then proclaim me to be the angry one. Yes, you were dipping your hands in the blood of the Sandy Hook children when you were proclaiming you’d be lobbying for the new DiFi ban that went nowhere. That’s a well known political metaphor, perhaps you need to sit through a performance of Julius Caesar to be reminded. It didn’t work.
    I’m particularly interested in your (Frisch’s) reason for painting KVMR’s news director as being irrational. Do tell.

    Like

  21. Gregory Avatar

    “If the murder rate is declining, somebody should tell Mayor Emmanuel of Chicago the good news.” – Tozer
    Unfortunately, Illinois in general and Chicago in particular are alone in the US in supporting Steven Frisch’s view that no one should be allowed to even possess some commonly owned guns, no matter what background checks they pass. The SCOTUS has only just begun to turn that around.

    Like

  22. Paul Emery Avatar

    Gregory
    Are you saying that the parents of the Sandy Hook victims are “dipping their hands” in the blood of their own children when they support legislation for more gun control?

    Like

  23. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    Paul E, more gun control legislation would have not saved one single Sandy Hook child. First, the crazy guy stole his Momma’s firearm and shot her dead. That is at least 2 laws broken before he even got started. He did not even own a gun himself. Then he transported the stolen firearm and entered a “gun free” school zone. More violations of the law. After trespassing, he shot up the school, which is a whole bunch more broken laws. Didn’t even get a hall pass.
    Kinda reminds me of that crazy Batman guy who shot up the Colorado movie house. He lived pretty darn close to a movie theater down the street, yet had to drive across town, passing other theaters to find the politically correct “gun free” movie house. Unarmed people is like shooting fish in a barrel. Heck, them immigrant Musslum kids from Chechnya did not have to fire a shot. Crazy is what crazy does.

    Like

  24. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    Hey Greg, what I actually said was, “Finally, breaking bread with Paul Emery is not my litmus test for rationality.”
    What I did not say was that Paul was irrational. I am sure that Paul, like most of us, share a fair number of coffees, lunches and dinners, with loons and crackpots. I am merely saying that just because you had coffee with a sane person that does to make you sane.
    This is just another classic example of you misquoting someone in order to pretend your stream of psychic piss shoots farther than theirs.

    Like

  25. Russ Steele Avatar

    How come we do not hear about the Sandy Hook parents that lost a child, who support gun rights. How come the President and Congress are not including those parents in the discussion? Oh, wait they do not support the take away people guns narrative.

    Like

  26. Gregory Avatar

    Paul, had I written that, it would be obvious. Since you had to ask you can guess the answer.
    Those families were drenched in the blood of the loved ones, they didn’t have to dip their hands into it in order to get some moral authority.
    I think they were being cynically used as props by people who did. If you think not, just what in the legislation would have kept the shooter from killing those kids and adults? Nothing, one of the reasons Senate supporters peeled away, one by one until there were too few to make progress. Much to the relief of House Democrats, all of whom are up for reelection in 2014.
    It should also be noted that most of the families chose not to become Washingtonian props.

    Like

  27. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    I do think its interesting that I posted a simple data point for George to look at and Greg charged me with “….wallowing in the blood of the children in Newtown” if that’s not a hard on for attacking me personally, I don’t know what is. Of course I don’t come here for a sense of equity or fair play, it merely comic relief. But the data point stands and has been validated by a variety of sources from all ranges of the ideological spectrum: violent crime is declining substantively because of the lower proportion of young men between the ages do 16-35 in American society, not because of the extremely high number of privately owned guns.

    Like

  28. George Rebane Avatar

    re SteveF’s 141pm – It was not my intention in this post to posit that greater gun ownership was the cause of a diminishing murder rate. That may or not be the case.
    But a smaller proportion of criminals in society is a plausible reason for a lower crime rate. Nevertheless, given that shrinking lawless demographic and the law abiding demographic growing along with the ownership of guns. Why is that not enough reason to let well enough alone as far as gun rights are concerned? Let’s declare total victory there, and go on to more important issues like healthcare, immigration, education, … .

    Like

  29. Gregory Avatar

    The murder rate isn’t dropping in Chicago, is it, Steven? And this fixation of yours on your imagined “hard on” I have for you is just a bit creepy. Chat with your private brain care specialist over that one, would you?
    You were the one who went off the deep end with your own “hard on” for DiFi’s recycled legislation… In order to not drive additional traffic to Pelline’s, here’s what Frisch wrote there when the kids were barely cold:

    “The new canard from the logically challenged right on this issue has two parts; these types of shooters choose ‘gun free zones’ like schools to prey upon, and that if we armed people more widely through concealed carry and open carry gun laws, people, ordinary citizens, would intervene and thus act as a deterrent to future mass shooting incidents. The dual canard is being trotted out right now by advocates of looser gun restrictions, from the Sunday morning talk shows down to comments on the local blogs and newspapers (at least those that still encourage comment).
    I started to construct a very carefully reasoned argument about how stupid these premises are; including real data about the point that most of the 61 shootings killing 4 or more people since 1982 were in public places where the expectation would be that people were carrying arms or where security guards were present; studies that show that the profile of the killers proves that in almost every case they are actually seeking to die, and that ‘deterrence’ does not apply; and crime scene facts that show that the incidents occur so quickly that in the vast majority of cases even if armed citizens were present they would not have time to intervene (Sandy Hook was 28 dead in under 10 minutes); and policy statements from law enforcement stating that if citizens did intervene it would actually put many more people at risk as law enforcement officials attempt to sort out killers from ‘citizen responders’ or as ‘citizen responders’ shoot each other believing they are killers; and gun ownership records showing that in almost every case the guns used in these murders were semi-automatic or assault style weapons purchased legally; and medical records showing that in a majority of these cases there were advanced signs of mental illness and intervention could have prevented the murders.
    In addition, no one seems to care that while we are (rightly) obsessing on Newtown, thousands of murders a year and thousands more suicides, are enabled by guns that we own at a rate of 88 weapons per 100 people in the country. Since we have been talking about Newtown 8 people have died from gun violence in Chicago alone.
    But reading and hearing the comments from gun owners arguing for their ‘constitutional rights’ I have come to the conclusion that no amount of logic, reason or dispassionate study of the steps that could be taken to reduce gun violence matters: they just don’t give a shit. All they really care about is keeping and expanding their own gun ‘rights’ at the expense of other citizens safety. Thus there is really no choice at this point. We need to restrict gun rights, and take other interventions, if we want to reduce gun violence.
    Here is how we could start to do it:
    1. Ban military style assault weapons.
    2. Institute a Federal 30 day waiting period, and require that no weapon can be sold without a mandatory AND COMPLETED criminal AND MEDICAL background check, including people in their immediate household, to be conducted at the expense of the purchaser.
    3. Ban extended clips that allow weapons to increase capacity.
    4. Limit the one time sales of ammunition and require ammunition sales to be managed through a national database.
    5. Require that all new gun sales in the US include require fingerprint trigger locks by 2020.
    6. Increase funding in schools for mental health services to encourage early intervention
    7. Institute a national campaign to increase funding for mental health services including media campaigns de-stigmatizing mental illnesses to encourage treatment.
    I am kind of done with listening to the bullshit coming from the gun rights crew….they will never listen to logic..we need to crush them at the polls, in the courts and in Congress.
    Dianne Feinstein will be introducing an assault weapons ban on the first day of the new Senate. I plan to go to DC and personally lobby on its behalf.

    We never heard if Frisch actually went to DC to lobby, and it’s a shame the only useful point he made, at #7, the end of the list, was the mental health issue that was the only one that was both constitutional and likely to do some good.

    Like

  30. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    I am very happy to see the Frisch here again. I love the comic relief his inane comments creates. We can see how ridiculous those people that have never been a success in the real world are when it comes to logic. Thanks for the guffaws.

    Like

  31. Gregory Avatar

    I found a posting at the DailyKos that conservatives like George and Todd would love; a lefty soldier writing about sheep, sheepdogs and wolves…
    “having fun practicing to kill people”
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/27/1197092/-having-fun-practicing-to-kill-people

    Like

  32. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    “and the misleading arguments used by the nation’s gun control crowd even before the Second Amendment considerations are included.”
    Dr. Rebane, I don’t like how that last part is worded. Even before Second Amendment considerations….Even before???? I know what you meant, but nothing comes before our Constitutional guarantees that government must protect and ensure. Nothing else needed in a debate. It is the the debate stopper, not part of some three legged stool.
    Don’t know what you said at Breaking Bread or how eloquently you pleaded your case, but it should have gone along these lines:
    We have been endowed by our Creator with certain rights that are irrevocable and it is government’s number one job to protect these rights. We don’t have to debate the right to assemble or move freely about our country. Go screw yourself ass wipes if you try to stop that or free speech or free press or the right to bear arms. Hey shitheads, it ain’t up for debate. Debate this and grip it tight. Government or you don’t have any say in the matter. Inequitable and irrevocable and precedes the best part of you that ran down your mommie’s leg. Now, what is there to debate when you have the trump card? Or simply change the Constitution, a very simple process.

    Like

  33. George Rebane Avatar

    BillT 517pm – My statement points out that it is the gun control crowd that introduces the misinformed and misleading arguments at the start of their effort to constructively ban guns. There is nothing you or I can do to program the order of their arguments. In fact, if they can avoid any mention of the Constitution in delivering their anti-gun screed, they will gladly do so. It is up to us and others to bring in the Constitutional case to counter them.

    Like

  34. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    George Rebane | 22 April 2013 at 02:38 PM
    I hardly see almost 30,000 gun deaths a year as a “total victory”….but I agree that the debate over gun proliferation should not impede our proven ability to agree on other important public policy issues like immigration, education, health care, debt, the environment and foreign policy!

    Like

  35. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    Gregory | 22 April 2013 at 03:22 PM
    Gee, Greg, I stand by every one of those comments. Upon re-reading them they are right on point……and an accurate re-iteration of the very points that gun rights advocates were making a few short days after Newtown….but I guess they were not “….wallowing in the blood of the Newtown children” by pushing their point, eh? If someone has blood on their hands in addition to the killer, it is the people who used Newtown to whip up the emotions of gun advocates. They are swimming in it…and will be until so many people die that they finally lose power over our political processes.

    Like

  36. George Rebane Avatar

    SteveF 632pm – Indeed, let’s do return to our proven abilities to agree.
    (BTW, 30K/yr = ‘total victory’ is a matter of perspective, even if we subtract more than half of them being suicides and accidents, and ignore the uncountable violent incidents that guns stop each year. But along with the Founders, I worry about the considerably higher number of deaths that rogue governments bring on their people, not to mention the millions of lives ruined in the shadow of autocracy. Nevertheless, I do recognize that these considerations are truly invisible and/or laughable to progressives.)

    Like

  37. earlcrabb Avatar

    There is one factor in the suicide rate that has not been addressed, and that is a good number of baby boomers who have seen their parents slowly sink into the nightmare of dementia and alzheimer’s. I believe there are many who have experienced this that would rather take their own life before becoming a drooling, diaper-wearing vegetable who will probably be shuttled off to a senior warehouse for who knows how long? Not to mention the astronomical cost to the family.
    It does make you think about assisted suicide, which wouldn’t be as messy as having to do it on your own with a gun, which might end up being a botched attempt. I know this sounds morbid, and probably plays into Steve F’s “culture of death” scenario, but it is a real fear for many.

    Like

  38. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    George Rebane | 22 April 2013 at 06:46 PM
    George, do you really think that “progressives” don’t worry about the death of innocents at the hands of rogue governments or the persistence of autocracy in the world today? If so, I believe you are mistaken.
    “Progressives” simply have a different set of means to reach the same end you support: and end to autocracy, security for everyone, and the rule of law. Progressives support the extension of democratic forms of governance, the protection of individual rights, universal suffrage, equal protection, and economic security. When it comes to actual values almost all Americans are trying to reach the same goals, we merely differ on tactics.
    The difference really is whether one believes government, as the collective will of the people, has an active role in advancing the solutions to these problems, or whether the solutions should be more centered in the individual actions of people. It is really just a matter of degrees.

    Like

  39. Michael Anderson Avatar
    Michael Anderson

    Earl wrote: “You could dump the Senate, but there would no longer be a fifty-state union. Once the minority had no representation, they’d be pulling out…”
    No need for them to take a dump, I’d just like to see the filibuster tightened up. You wanna stop the legislation? Then get up there and stop it like a good shortstop, with your whole body. The phoned-in filibuster is a bunch of baloney.
    Balancing the tyranny of the majority with the tyranny of the minority is an art, not a science. My argument is that the current reign of the tyranny of the minority has gone on too long. We are long overdue for a correction.

    Like

  40. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    The filibuster is actually an important tool to keep government at a vry slow pace. If it was a simple majority, the last 50 years would have seen the tax rates probably more than doubled and the number of laws and regulations tripled. The democrats held the House my whole life up until we kicked their ass out in 1994 and brought some sanity back to DC. The Senate filibuster was 66 required for many many years and then brought down to 60.
    If one looks at California you now get to see the tyranny of the majority, a majority in stone now that the redistricting has been accomplished. No, the filibuster keeps things slower in DC and that is fine with most Americans. Only dictator lovers like it different.
    Besides, when things have been a bit too slow for Obama, he just uses Executive Orders. That seems to satisfy the tyranny lovers just fine.
    I attended the Rincon del Rio Board of Supes hearings last week and after six years of BS it passed. Why should Congress be able to pass a new law in one session when here in our state it takes six years for a land use project?

    Like

  41. Michael Anderson Avatar
    Michael Anderson

    ToddJ 901pm – I agree with a lot of what you wrote here, and the I am sure the Democrats in the CA state legislature will knot their own hanging ropes sooner rather than later, now that the check has lost the balance.
    But a clown strike occurred when Senator MM filibustered his own bill, a Dali painting on the Senate floor where stuffed shirts were literally leaking filet mignons, and only ghosts were left to cast their votes:
    “On December 6, 2012, another milestone in filibuster history was reached when Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Senate Minority Leader, became the first senator to filibuster his own proposal, though he did not give a lengthy speech, instead merely invoking the rules of filibuster on his bill to raise the passage threshold to 60 votes. McConnell had attempted to force the opposition Democrats, who had a majority in the Senate, to refuse to pass what would have been a politically-costly measure that would nonetheless solve the current ongoing debt ceiling deadlock; when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) elected to call a vote on the proposal regardless, McConnell immediately invoked the rules regarding filibusters on his proposal, effectively engaging in the first self-filibuster in Senate history.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate

    Like

  42. Gregory Avatar

    “Gee, Greg, I stand by every one of those comments. Upon re-reading them they are right on point.” – Frisch
    Steve, I had every expectation that was the case, giving you the same moral rectitude and constitutional authority as George Wallace when he declared, “Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”
    It’s a constitutional right that you’re wanting to treat so cavalierly, and for no good effect… the 20th century tried to deal with violent trends by more and more restrictions on lawful gun ownership. We’ve now had a solid series of legal decisions affirming what has become to be known as the standard model… the 2nd really does establish a right for the individual to own and carry guns, and the US v. Miller decision establishing the right to arms usable in a militia conflicts with the DiFi/Frisch dream of banning all arms that are appropriate to a militia.
    Whether you want to believe in such rights or not, they have been established, and no majoritarian statist wet dream of yours will make that go away.
    Pleasant dreams.

    Like

  43. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    I’m sorry Greg but not a single one of the measures I mentioned in my post falls under the definition of a ‘constitutionally protected’ right. Nor is any of them covered by the Miller decision. Every one of them has been tested in court and passed muster under our legal system.
    1. Banning military style assault weapons was never overturned in court, the law expired.
    2. Waiting periods have been tested several times and found to be constitutional.
    3. Extended clips that allow weapons to increase capacity are already banned in several states.
    4. Many states and local governments already limit the amount of ammunition a person can purchase at one time and require ammunition purchases to be entered into a database.
    5. Many different kinds of trigger locks, and requirements to have them, have already been passed.
    As a matter of fact I picked those reforms because each and every one of them has been tested and found legal, and although no one of them would have significant effect, all of them together would be a substantial effect.
    So you can call me names all you want…you are FACTUALLY wrong. By the way perhaps you should actually read both the background and the follow on case law flowing from the Miller decision.
    Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
    Then go here: http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv2/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__journals__journal_of_law_and_liberty/documents/documents/ecm_pro_060964.pdf

    Like

  44. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    The addenda is quite the eye opener and one of the reasons Americans support the 2nd Amendment so strongly. It has been stated somewhere that over a million or more crimes have been thwarted by a gun toting good guy. If this woman had her 22 pistol perhaps Elkins would be dead and her 13 month old baby alive. But, the point of the email is we are breeding these thugs in the broken homes of our country and fueled by mama government, the mess continues.
    Please Frisch, tell us how you would have removed the weapon from the hands of Elkins and thwarted the murder.

    Like

  45. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    Todd, no one is saying we can eliminate murder, like the one Mr. Elkins is accused of committing. What we are saying is that we can make the gun that commits the murder, in this case a .22 caliber hand gun owned by his mother– a convicted felon– harder to get, more expensive, easier to track, and less lethal when used in the commission of a crime. In this case, if guilty, the perpetrator should spend the rest of his life in jail. But since the event happened in mere seconds, and if the mother of the child had been carrying a gun it likely would have been in her purse, which was the apparent subject of Mr. Elkins robbery and was struggled over as the shooting occurred, the opportunity to shoot the accused killer may not have even presented itself.
    [by the way, if you are going to make a statement like, “over a million or more crimes have been thwarted by a gun toting good guy”, you may want to cite a source to lend credibility to your case]
    I do agree with you [“we are breeding these thugs”] and that in the long run the answer lies in education, provision of good moral standards, strengthening families, and social pressure to act in a civilized manner. A significant part of breeding ‘these thugs’ is raising them in a culture where violence and the use of firearms to solve problems is acceptable behavior, The question is how does one do that?
    George carefully distances himself from the second paragraph of the post above, but prints it. The second paragraph is a well worn meme stereotyping certain killers and intentionally playing on racial tension to make a point. Although distanced, as long as we perpetuate that meme, we are perpetuating the racial stereotype behind it, and it is reprehensible behavior.

    Like

  46. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    Hey Greg, how does the following statement, completely unsupported, fit into your “wallowing in the blood of children” argument? Is George wallowing in the blood of a baby to make a point”
    “He did not attend Christian school, nor was he home schooled. He did attend multicultural public education, and was not instructed in the Ten Commandments. His Momma was on welfare, got food stamps, and lived in public housing. His daddy was not around, and his two brothers have a different daddy. He already has a record for violent crimes. He is gang member. His mom, grandma, and Aunty all voted for Obama.”

    Like

  47. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    Frisch, I said it was stated “somewhere”. The NRA is my best recollection. I think it might be over two million too.
    You are simply living in a dreamworld regarding the gun in Elkin’s hand. You approach it from the point prior to him possessing the gun and my question is now that he has it how would you prevent him from using it? There are what, 300 million weapons so their possession is a done deal. Someone owns them. So, tell us how you would prevent Elkins from being able to use the gun on the baby.
    The use of Elkins has nothing to do with stereotypes other than the thug stereotype. They come in all colors and from all ethnicities. I think the white Albanian males are the thug murderer of choice in Europe. So, I am not to concerned with a PC bunch of crap as others may be. A thug is a thug. In South Africa, male blacks rape babies for sex because they believe the baby is AIDS free. In India, children are used as sex toys. In Arab lands, the rich Arabs have child concubines. In Europe, the importation and rape of women from eastern Europe is a proven fact. Bad people come in all shapes, colors and sizes.

    Like

  48. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    300 million privately owned guns is a temporal problem. Make them more expensive and the law of supply and demand will reduce their number over time.
    I would put Mr. Elkins in jail and through away the key. No one is saying we do not need vigorous enforcement of the law.
    If that gun had cost his mother $2000 instead of $50 she probably would not own it. If she could have gotten $500 in a gun buy back program she probably would have sold it to pay bills. It’s all about reducing the marginal utility of the weapon. She was apparently a felon in possession of a gun, contrary to law. How did she get that gun? If people who sold guns illegally went to jail for 20 years instead of 6 months the cost of the gun would have been higher. Once again,the law of diminishing marginal utility: enforce
    strict background check laws and the criminal selling the gun would spend more time in
    jail to sell each unit, and the price would go up.
    Once again no one is saying we should not enforce the laws we have, indeed gun control advocates believe we should enforce them more stringently, a point of agreement wit the stated position (but not the reality) of the NRA.

    Like

  49. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    You still have not answered how you would have stopped Elkins from using the gun he possessed. I am guessing you have no answer.
    You are simply acting emotionally about guns and that scares we rational people more than you might guess. Too many knee jerkers makes for a tyranny.

    Like

  50. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    I answered your question, I would enforce the law, to the maximum amount practicable, and I would look at the root causes of violent crime that you identified above. In addition, a fingerprint based trigger lock would have literally meant Mr. Elkin could not fire the gun.
    I must note, my tone has been respectful and non-emotional–so if you want to have a meaningful conversation don;t drag us down into the mud, as reg does every single day.

    Like

Leave a comment