The NRA and their willing allies — denial, deception, and deflection — are working overtime in the nation’s newspapers, and our Valley dallies are no exception.
Denial does its part to insure that reliable data on gun violence cannot be obtained from any agency of the federal government. The Center for Disease Control in Atlanta is barred from collecting data on gun injuries and fatalities. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms is likewise prohibited from collecting or sharing any kind of data, as is the FBI and on down the line. Why? Over time, the NRA and its monied lobby worked these prohibitions into congressional amendments while destroying the effectiveness of all previous attempts at gun regulation. President Obama could claim that more than 1,000 Americans died of gun violence since Sandy Hook, but the NRA can counter that verifying data is unavailable.
Denial now hands the baton to Deception. An NRA sympathizer wrote in a recent Letter to the Editor, “The facts are that between 800,000 and 2 million crimes are prevented by civilian access to guns annually.” What could be the source of these numbers? The NRA abounds with such stats after having seen to it that it is the only resource left standing. The gap between 800,000 and 2 million is laughable in itself!
For a local example of Deflection, we turn to the most recent, oh so predictable column by Linda Turley-Hansen. The evils of alcohol are one of her favorite topics, but she can put them to good use against gun regulation advocates, so why not? Better, dear reader, to fear the drunk behind the wheel than the man with the gun. This is a favorite Deflection of the NRA, unless you pause to think about it. If I am in a crowd at a Tucson parking lot, and I have my choice of threats between a lunatic firing thirty shots in fifteen seconds and a speeding automobile, which would I take? Let’s see, thirty bullets I can’t see, traveling at twice the speed of sound versus a vehicle I might see and hear doing 80 mph. Sorry, Ms Turley-Hansen, I’ll take my chances on the car.
We are bound to see the 3Ds of the NRA almost daily in our nation’s media. What must disturb the NRA Board of Directors, each member an executive from domestic armaments corporations, is that we may be kept from seeing the actual numbers, but we know the total of dead, wounded, and those who suffer their loss; too many.
Ron Weitbrecht
Gilbert
valleynative posted at 1:42 pm on Thu, Feb 21, 2013.
There have been many studies by entities unrelated to the NRA which have concluded that there is a significant negative correlation between rates of violent crimes and saturation of gun ownership. The NRA isn't really a source of any data.
They actually block funding for studies because people who have made up their minds that guns are evil will be fooled by the headline associated with a study, regardless of the methodological flaws that might be apparent to a person with an open mind.
The "laughable" range from 0.8 to 2.0 isn't really as large as you seem to think.
The uncertainty reflects the simple fact that people who use a gun to stop a crime don't necessarily report those crimes. There's very little incentive to do so.
Loughner didn't fire 30 shots, he only got off about 20 before his ludicrously large magazine did what any experienced gun owner knew it would do. It jammed.
If it's so easy to get out of the way of drunk drivers, how is it that they manage to kill more people every year than guns do?
VofReason posted at 1:55 pm on Thu, Feb 21, 2013.
Lets step back and use logic for a moment. How many people do you think own guns in the US- lots. If people with guns were so insidious, you would be able to walk out your door. In reality, everyday, you are in the presence of many people who are either carrying guns (in AZ for sure) or those who own them. Yet, very few people die from guns. That isn't to say their should be laws and limitations, but keep it in perspective. If someone is breaking into your house a 2am , what would our friend Ron rather have to protect his family? Perhaps his questionable statistics on gun violence?
truth posted at 2:27 pm on Thu, Feb 21, 2013.
If we don't do something to stop gun violence in this country we will lose our right to own guns.
valleynative posted at 2:29 pm on Thu, Feb 21, 2013.
Back when folks where being shocked by the idea that they would be expected to eat in a restaurant where some other customer might actually be carrying a concealed handgun, I used to tell people that if they've ever been in a busy grocery store or gone to the mall, they've almost certainly been near somebody carrying concealed.
People whose only experience with firearms comes from watching TV dramas or reading about incidents in the newspaper grossly underestimate the number of safe, law-abiding gun owners there are and seem to have the false expectation that anybody who isn't a police officer but is carrying a gun is either evil or stupid and is certainly going to shoot somebody sometime before very long.
valleynative posted at 5:29 pm on Thu, Feb 21, 2013.
truth, gun violence has been trending down for decades. Gun laws have had nothing to do with that, and will not have any positive impact on the current upwards blip.
What needs to be reformed is our attitude towards mental health care.
DonMey posted at 5:34 pm on Thu, Feb 21, 2013.
Typical. Make some generic statements which sound true, then build a whole case on those false assumptions.
The CDC does track gun fatalities. They don't track non-lethal injuries, but there is no law preventing them from doing so. I would also question why the Center for DISEASE CONTROL would spend anytime looking at guns. The FBI also has gun crime statistics, so you're just flat out lying right there.
I imagine the numbers come from the same formulas that predict elections...they poll people. Or they use the same ideas which state we have 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants in this country.
There are more guns than cars in the USA. There are more car-related fatalities in the US than gun deaths. Your anecdote is meaningless in the face of actual data.
samkat posted at 6:24 pm on Thu, Feb 21, 2013.
Ron is probably one of those individuals who drives while texting or talking on his cell phone while in full denial of its consequences because he read some poll that said it is safe to do so.
Of course, he also is in denial of the numbers of people killed and maimed by automobiles each year.
Now, if I had Ron's email address which I don't want, I could forward the 7 separate emails I have received in the past 24 hours from the Obama propaganda machine in the past 24 years asking me to support their gun control efforts. My response is to send a donation to the NRA.
onerebel posted at 6:28 pm on Thu, Feb 21, 2013.
A pro Obama Liberal accusing the OTHER SIDE of denial, deception and deflection ? Now that's priceless !
Mike McClellan posted at 6:53 pm on Thu, Feb 21, 2013.
FYI, Loughner's gun DID jam . . . but only after he hastily tried to change magazines. The first one fired off all the bullets, 31 according to the FBI.
But hey, 31 bullets. We all know we need that kind of magazine to hunt and protect ourselves, right? I mean, after all, if you haven't hit the deer with your first 20 shots, why not 11 more? And if you missed that intruder with the first 20 shots, why not eleven more?
Leon Ceniceros posted at 7:24 pm on Thu, Feb 21, 2013.
Chicago, Detroit, New York City, Atlanta, and Washington D.C.....all have enacted extremely stringent ....GUN LAWS......and guess what..........THEY ALL HAVE THE HIGHEST MURDER RATES IN THE NATION.
THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT GANG UNIT HAS HAD IT'S BUDGET SLASHED BECAUSE THE LIBERAL DEMOCRAT MAYOR OF LOS ANGELES....A "HISPANIC"....WAS AFRAID THE TOO MANY HISPANICS, BLACK AND VIETNAMESE GANGS WERE BEING BROUGHT TO JUSTICE.....TOO MANY MINORITIES WERE BEING SHOWN ON LOCAL LOS ANGELES TELEVISION IN HANDCUFFS OR IN COURT.
valleynative posted at 7:30 pm on Thu, Feb 21, 2013.
Mike, witnesses reported 15-20 shots. I haven't seen anything different and have never seen anybody get all the rounds out of a "chump stick" without a jam.
Have you noticed that the police, who, on average, require more than 10 rounds to incapacitate somebody don't carry 30 round magazines? That's because they're stupidly unreliable and difficult to change (which is where Loughner had the problem). Instead, they carry spares, like the Ft Hood shooter did, who got off over 100 rounds without anybody being able to tackle him, because he wasn't trying to change huge magazines.
Oversized magazines didn't really give Loughner or the theater shooter any tactical advantage. Both suffered for their stupid choices (fortunately).
valleynative posted at 7:30 pm on Thu, Feb 21, 2013.
The only time a 30 round magazine might make sense is for home defense. If you wake up in the middle of the night with an intruder, you're not likely to have any place to carry spare magazines, If it takes the police 10+ rounds to incapacitate a felon, who are you to tell a homeowner he has to stop and give up at 8?
Before you bluster about those misses putting the neighbors in danger, stop and think for a moment that you're not pulling your weapon in the first place unless you believe you're about to be killed. In that scenario, the relatively small chance of hitting a neighbor can morally be considered to be secondary by the homeowner, just as it is by the police.
Rich posted at 7:31 pm on Thu, Feb 21, 2013.
Gun fatalities, gun violence has been declining for a couple decades. Because the politicos need something to misdirect us from their woeful handling of our economy and the national exchequer they incite the media to blow up every bullet fired. The danger is, despite the ban, gyrating around and generally parading their ignorance of
guns, they will reverse a very good trend.
Mike, every time you post on guns you say something absurd. Have you ever actually shot one?
k33j88 posted at 6:56 am on Fri, Feb 22, 2013.
The NRA has a long history of presenting accurate, factual, statistics. Mr Weibrecht is obviously diluted in presenting his argument. M. McClellan----please don't buy a gun----society may suffer because of it.
Mike McClellan posted at 9:03 am on Fri, Feb 22, 2013.
valley, witnesses might've "reported hearing 15-20 shots," but 20 people were shot that day, some multiple times. And Loughner only fired off one magazine's worth of bullets.
From the L.A. Times article: "Loughner fired all 31 bullets in the magazine and was reloading when a woman in the crowd, already wounded, attempted to grab the gun from him. He finally changed the magazine and tried to fire, but the gun jammed. Meanwhile, two men from the crowd grabbed him and subdued him, officials said."
Mike McClellan posted at 9:05 am on Fri, Feb 22, 2013.
Had Loughner only had a magazine of 10 rounds available, the carnage might not have been as awful.
And before you bluster about how easy it is to change out a magazine, remember that these are not professionals in a calm situation, so the relative ease of changing magazines might not be that easy for a disturbed, nervous shooter.
And you argue that maybe homeowners should have 30-round magazines after telling us that those size magazines are "stupidly unreliable"?
Meanwhile, the NRA's Wayne LaPierre has done a 180 on gun show background checks, having argued for them in 1999 and now against them as "government intrusion."
valleynative posted at 9:33 am on Fri, Feb 22, 2013.
Mike, you're appealing to a reporter as evidence that he had fired all 31? Most reporters know less about guns than you, and would quickly assume that if a person is changing a magazine, it must be because it was empty.
You should also know that it's not really difficult to wound 20 people in a crowd by only firing 15-20 rounds, particularly since he was using range ammo which is considered unsuitable for defensive use because it tends to pass through soft tissue and go on to hit something else.
valleynative posted at 9:34 am on Fri, Feb 22, 2013.
I disagree with your policy of passing laws that are only effective against the most incompetent criminals. Anybody who spends 10 minutes practicing can change normal magazines in a couple of seconds, and (I doubt you know this), can fire one more round while in the process of changing them, if somebody tries to tackle them .
valleynative posted at 9:36 am on Fri, Feb 22, 2013.
I wasn't arguing for the use of 30rd magazines by homeowners, but rather giving an example of where large capacity magazines are justified. I would never use any magazine I didn't completely trust for home defense. Mine have capacities ranging from 10 to 17 rounds.
valleynative posted at 9:48 am on Fri, Feb 22, 2013.
If you really want to enforce a policy that makes it easier to tackle mass shooters, you should be pushing for legislation requiring that all mass shooters use rifles like the AR-15. Not only are they clumsy to reload, but if somebody wanting to tackle you gets within a few yards of your side or rear, you're done.
If you find yourself asking why we should expect criminals to obey such a law, you're beginning to understand why gun control laws don't reduce violent crime.
chatmandu002 posted at 10:52 am on Fri, Feb 22, 2013.
Ron,
You forgot to mention the 3 F's the anti-gun lobby uses to push gun control.
1. FEAR: Fear anyone with a gun.
2. FACTS: Change the facts to fit their argument.
3. FICTION: Guns kill people. (actually people kill people)
Accuracy posted at 11:04 am on Fri, Feb 22, 2013.
Ron Weitbrecht......Get your 3Ds (“denial, deception, and deflection”) straight.
It’s President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden that are pushing for the biggest expansion of gun control in two decades.
And it’s the National Rifle Association (NRA), the nation's largest gun-rights lobbying group, that are saying new gun laws aren't the way to prevent more tragedies.
valleynative posted at 1:06 pm on Fri, Feb 22, 2013.
Does anybody else find it funny, in a sad for society sort of way, that anti-gun people seem to want to attribute all pro-gun thoughts to the NRA, as if those of us who value our gun rights have simply been duped or frightened into our beliefs?
It's as if they can't imagine that hundreds of thousands of other people could possibly think for themselves and come to different conclusions than the ones they've been told are correct.
Rich posted at 8:53 pm on Fri, Feb 22, 2013.
They have succeeded in making us fear one another, more than we fear them. There is no way to go but down when we start trusting them, instead of us.
Accuracy posted at 8:45 am on Sat, Feb 23, 2013.
Obama’s proposed “gun control laws” are nothing more than “people control laws.”
What America needs is good citizens who are better-armed, and less of an assault, by Obama and Liberal Democrats, on the Second Amendment.
Arizona Willie posted at 10:04 am on Sat, Feb 23, 2013.
If people want a gun for home defense --- they would be far better off with a shotgun than a pistol. Pistols are terribly inaccurate and, unless you hit the perp in a fatal place ( which places are rather small ) it won't necessarily stop him.
valleynative posted at 11:18 am on Sat, Feb 23, 2013.
I don't know why this seems to be spam, but I'll try breaking it into two posts. That usually seems to work.
There are a lot of factors to consider when choosing between a shotgun and a pistol. A few examples: You don't have to practice as much with a shotgun, but on the other hand, you might enjoy practicing with a pistol. If you train and practice, you'll find that pistols aren't really inaccurate at home-intruder distance. At least, until the adrenaline kicks in.
valleynative posted at 11:18 am on Sat, Feb 23, 2013.
Shotgun pellets are less likely to penetrate multiple walls and hit a neighbor, if you live in an apartment, but you can't carry a shotgun with you when you're walking through a dark parking lot, and you can't easily keep it locked in a quick-open safe beside your bed. Shotgun pellets are less likely to penetrate multiple walls and hit a neighbor, if you live in an apartment, but you can't carry a shotgun with you when you're walking through a dark parking lot, and you can't easily keep it locked in a quick-open safe beside your bed.
Mike McClellan posted at 4:18 pm on Sat, Feb 23, 2013.
Maybe the most absurd comment on this thread:
"They have succeeded in making us fear one another, more than we fear them. There is no way to go but down when we start trusting them, instead of us."
You wanna talk about fear, how about the fear the NRA puts in gun owners, to the point that gun owners put a run on guns, afraid -- courtesy of the NRA's scare tactics -- that "the government's gonna take our guns"?
Please. The NRA's speciality is scare tactics, starting with La Pierre's "jackbooted thugs" comment from 20 years ago up to today.
valleynative posted at 4:45 pm on Sat, Feb 23, 2013.
Mike, it's really difficult to educate somebody who doesn't want to learn, but I'm not going to give up on you, yet.
Gun owners are not blind sheep following the voice of the NRA. I know that it's easier for you to believe that than to believe that hundreds of thousands of people might be able to read the newspapers and think for themselves and come up with different answers than you do, but you really should entertain the possibility that you could be wrong.
The run on guns wasn't because of a misguided fear that the government was going to take guns away. It's because the government came out and said that they wanted to make it more difficult (ie, more expensive) to buy guns.
Even though some unAmerican thugs like Feinstein actually said that they would require people to turn in all guns if they could, nobody really took such fools seriously.
k33j88 posted at 4:36 am on Sun, Feb 24, 2013.
Mr. McClellan: The federal gov,t has expanded well beyond its Constitutional limitations. Liberal judicial activists have redefined interpretations thereof. The 10th amendment is nearly a non-issue. Issuance of executive orders is rampant and Congressional approval is non-existent on nearly all issues. Czars in the White House? Who would have guessed?
valleynative posted at 8:44 am on Sun, Feb 24, 2013.
Unless they had the foresight to stockpile reloading components before the election, reloaders are facing the same situation. Primers and gunpowder are difficult to find.
I still sometimes run into somebody who seems to believe that an ammo shortage is a good thing, but if you take a moment to think it through, you realize that the shortage is preventing a lot of responsible gun owners from being able to train and practice as much as they should, but isn't really harming criminals.
A robber or rapist doesn't need to go to the range to practice. They don't really need to have very much ammunition at all. All they need to do is to point the gun at their victims.
valleynative posted at 11:00 am on Sun, Feb 24, 2013.
Yes, Ateam1, I believe they'll try. Obama is on record as favoring a large increase in the federal surtax on ammunition, and I'm sure he won't pass up an opportunity to say that it will help to balance the budget while also reducing gun crimes, which would just be another lie. Another suggestion that's been floating around is to require a serial number stamped into every bullet. That would drive prices up to the point where citizens couldn't afford to practice, but again, wouldn't bother the armed robbers and rapists. It would have no real impact on crime or on the ability to prosecute criminals, either.
valleynative posted at 12:37 pm on Sun, Feb 24, 2013.
If citizens can't protect themselves from criminals, then the government becomes more powerful. If the people can't make their own health care decisions, then the government becomes more powerful. If the people rely on the government for their food and income, then the government becomes more powerful.
And some people actually think that four more years of these policies will be a good thing.
sockratties posted at 8:45 am on Mon, Feb 25, 2013.
There are two diametrically opposed sides in the comments above. Head to head, certain they are 100% right and the other side is 100% wrong. That will definitely result in radical gun control. I want to keep my gun but those who are unwilling to compromise will surely lose it for me. Look at what happened in Australia. It could happen here in a heartbeat. If wanting to be right is more important to gun owners than guns, so be it.
valleynative posted at 4:37 pm on Mon, Feb 25, 2013.
sockratties, That's how rights are really lost, not through an overnight executive order, but by people gradually giving them up because they don't seem to be worth fighting for.
What you see as two diametrically opposed sides are really one side that is familiar with firearms and is able to think about the issue calmly and rationally, and another than fears guns, blames them for crimes, doesn't understand the existing laws or the impact (and lack of impact) of proposed new laws, and who wants the government to take care of them.
Education can change the view of one of those two sides.
sockratties posted at 7:38 am on Thu, Feb 28, 2013.
valleynative... I couldn't have made my point better than you have!