Blogalwarning

The truth that was swept under the rug

Excise Tax On Gun Owners?

I would like to thank E Schwartz for this idea, in his/her response to my pervious entry 30,000 Gun Deaths per year. The idea in the comment is that with 10,000 gun homicides/year at cost of $1,000,000 per death, it makes sense to impose an excise tax of $10B/year on guy owners.
Well. I LIKE THE IDEA. I like it so much that I think its application should be significantly expanded.

Expansion#1: A 1993 nationwide concluded that  162,000 incidents in which a person would have been killed if not used a gun for self defense occured per year.” This figure excludes all “military service, police work, or work as a security guard.”[12].”  Now, I will ignore the US population growth since 1993. I will also take a more conservative figure since these are reports of “would be” situations that are not 100% factual. Let’s assume “only” 100,000 situation in which a homicide was avoided by a gun owner. By the same logic presented by the commenter E Schwartz, Gun owners should get tax credit at the rate of $1,000,000 for every death avoided. Deduct the 10,000 deaths from the 100,000 deaths avoided and we are left with 90,000 deaths avoided. Tax credit of $90B for gun owners! Now, how are we going to spread this tax credit around? The more guns the person owns the higher the tax credit? Or the highest the caliber of gun the person owns the highest the credit? Maybe this discussion is a little bit premature? However what’s clear is that properly applying the idea from E Schwartz could make gun ownership an unexpected tax shelter for the non-rich!

Expansion#2: I will give E Schwartz the benefit of the doubt. I will assume he/she is an individual who is not gun control biased. Rather an individual who is honestly worried about the well being of Americans. The question now is why focus on deaths that are a fraction of the overall deaths from all reasons? Car accidents deaths greatly surpass those from guns. Should we apply the same excise tax on car owners? Well, with cars also saving lives (ambulances and such) this may be a wash. (I don’t know) But how about imposing such tax on alcohol sales that will cover cost of deaths from DUI accidents “only”?

Reminder: The constitution says “Government shall not infringe” about guns. It does not say that about cars ownership. Nor about alcohol drinking…

Advertisements

January 16, 2011 Posted by | 2nd amendment | , , , , , | 1 Comment

Armed Society Is Polite Society

Todd Wright from MIAMI MSNBC , is (based on his article) an anti-gun reporter. His article is about new rules that “will allow people with concealed weapons permits to bring their guns to parks, ball fields, beaches, camping grounds and a host of other publicly-owned areas where children frolic” in Palm Beach County. Interestingly enough – this is how he opens his article: “residents might want to think twice about starting an argument with another parent”. Mr. Right ignores the fact that holders of Concealed Weapon Permits are hardly ever involved in gun crimes, but he does acknowledge that an armed society is a polite society and for that he is praised! To read the article follow this link:http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/politics/Palm-Beach-County-Parks-Kids-Fun-and-Guns-Welcome-112333749.html

December 25, 2010 Posted by | 2nd amendment | , , , | 2 Comments

ATF Attack On 2nd Amendment And Gun Rights

“As soon as next month, gun sellers with a federal firearms license in Texas could be required to furnish letters to ATF chronicling the sale of two or more semi-automatic rifles to one person within a five-day period. The policy covers guns with a caliber greater than .22 and a detachable magazine clip, including the AR-15 and AK-47s, which ATF says are increasingly being used in border crimes.Gun rights advocates, including Gov. Rick Perry, say the policy is misguided and would unfairly target legitimate businessmen — the gun sellers — under the guise of securing the border.”

I think Mr. Perri is  missing the point. It is not about being fair to Texas gun sellers. It is about using the violence in Mexico as an excuse to encroach on the 2nd amendment. The violence in Mexico is not to be solved by taking away freedoms from U.S citizens. If the Mexican government has a problem with guns being smuggled into Mexico – it is more than welcome to put its forces along the border and seal it, from the Mexican side. And to both directions please.

Other questions that come to mind: If the ATF has the power to impose such requirements, where does it end? And how far will it expand after people get used to abide by such a requirement?

The the Article in the “Texas Tribune” can be found at: http://www.texastribune.org/texas-dept-criminal-justice/guns-texas/atf-aims-for-increase-requirements-for-gun-sellers/

December 25, 2010 Posted by | 2nd amendment | , , , | Leave a comment

30,000 Gun Deaths per year!

by bigblock57, blogalwarning blog.

This number touted by gun-controllers seems to be about right. However, a deeper look reveals the following:

1).Suicides account for about 48% of deaths by guns. They need to be taken off the figures, as suicide will take place with or without a gun. (Sweden has higher suicide rate than US, but guns hardly used there for that…) So now we are down to 16,300 deaths per year to deal with.

2.)Homicides account for about 16,000 gun deaths in the US annually. Half of the homicides are blacks on blacks while blacks are just 13% of the population. If we figured out the social issues among blacks in the US, homicide rate would have dropped by about 40% with no change in guns ownership.(Data for 1995-2005.) Most of these homicides are with guns, but how many of them would be avoided if guns weren’t around? (See suicides above…) So now we are down to about 9300 gun  homicides. (8000 among whites, and 1300 among blacks which will bring the rate to same as whites poroportional to population. 

3.)As far as accidental deaths in 2007 , 39% cars, 18% poisoning, 16% falls,….only 0.6% guns! Even deaths from medical mistakes are three times higher than from gun accidents.

4.) Gun homicides decreased during the mid 90’s and remained stable todate, in-spite of population growth, and dramatic increase in gun ownership. Accidental guns deaths have decreased over 90% during the last 100 years! (Again, in the face of population growth and increase in gun ownership).

5.)there are about 9300 gun homicides (not counting the unproportional high rate within the black community) and about 700 accidental gun deaths in the US every year. 10,000 too many deaths, but nothing like the 30,000 number that is used to call for a “gun ownership crisis” in the US. The only crisis at hand is that some people, while calling themselves “Americans” are trying to take away from me my constitutional gun rights.

(Sources; FBI, CDC, US Census Beureau, allcountries.org)

March 26, 2009 Posted by | 2nd amendment | , , , , , , | 21 Comments

Great response to a Gun Control article

This is a short and sharp response, written by “Happy Indep” to a gun control article by one fool Michael Stone who is the “Portland Progressive Exminer” in http://www.progressive.com: 

——————————————————————————————–

“There should be strict and stringent requirements for those who own and possess fire arms.”

Have you ever read the US Constitution? There is a little pain in the butt set of rules called the bill of rights. 

It is the gun that allows and secures your sorry asses right to write the vile hate filled crap you write. That just goes completely over your head though don’t it?

Care to enlighten us all as to just WHICH gun law has stopped people from using guns?

March 24, 2009 Posted by | 2nd amendment | , , , , , | 3 Comments

Is It Justified to Fight?

Bigblock57, blogalwarning blog.

It is not un-American to fight to preserve our rights against tyrannical government. (See the quote at the bottom of this post.) The 2nd Amendment clearly intended to make sure citizens will have the means to do exactly that. However, I have a different issue here. As much as I hate it, more than 50% of Americans voted for that anti-American and corrupt president – Obama. So the question is, is the minority justified in fighting the will of the majority? Bear in mind that the constitution has been gradually eroded for decades. The only difference is that the new administration continues in the erosion set forth, in a much faster pace than before. Everybody was agreeable with constitutional erosion for decades (except for ranting), and several periods of republican majority were not used to un-erode the constitution or to strengthen it agains further erosion by adding amendments and improving existing amendments. Maybe it is just the nature of the beast – that a constitution focused on giving the power to the people, will be eroded by power-grabbing politicians. (Which politicians are by definition power grabbers.) And by definition there will always be enough people who prefer to rely on government that will let politicians grab power. Maybe this amazing experiment in liberty has come to its end?  Maybe the only solution (other than giving up) is a separation to two countries – a liberal and a constitutional? Given the results of the several previous elections that were so close to 50:50, could it be that we already are two separate countries?


“As civil rulers… may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces… might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” (Tench Coxe)

March 19, 2009 Posted by | 2nd amendment | , , , , , | 1 Comment

Privacy of Conceal Carry Permit Holders in Oregon

By Bigblock57, Blogarwarning blog.

The question if identities of Conceal Carry Permit holders should be a public record or kept from public eyes’ is now being dealt with by the Oregon legislature. Here is my response to an article on the subject in the Portland edition of Examiner.com.  (Edited since initial posting).

To begin with, all licensing of firearms or the permission to carry them in a certain way, and the background check now required to purchase them are infringements on the basic constitutional right to bear arms. It is all part of the grand plan of left-leaning organizations and politicians to take guns away from citizens. First, a gun owner shows up on a state list of people who purchased a gun. Then the fact that a person has a permit to carry concealed weapon is a public record which gives anti-gun activists access to his/her name and address. At the right time, these activists will begin to personally harass permit holders (which is exactly why their identity needs to be kept from the public). In the end owning a gun will involve so much hassle and controversy that many people will want to have nothing to do with that. In case of a decision to completely ban guns, the list compiled by the state from background checks will automatically become a confiscation list. Look at this childish excuse why identity of permit holders needs to be public: “people deserve the right to know who is packing a gun”; Really? what makes them deserve that? Is there a hint here that if someone “packs” a gun he/she is someone bad? dangerous? The funny thing is that the guns in the hands of really dangerous people (i.e criminals) are not on any state list, and are being carried concealed with no permit. How come anti-gunners are never concerned about the inability of law enforcement to deal with those? Instead they are obsessed with guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens who (unnecessarily and against their constitutional rights) went through a background check before they could purchase their weapon, or granted concealed carry permit. Rights aside, society should have the proper ratio bewteen guns in the hands of law abiding citizens and guns in the hands of criminals. This necessity is confirmed when comparing crime trends and rates in states and cities that make it easy to own and carry guns vs. states and cities that make it hard. Anything that makes it harder or less convenient to own and carry a weapon, is unconstitutional and bad for public safety. Privacy of Conceal Carry Permit holders is important for both.

March 13, 2009 Posted by | 2nd amendment | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Dreaded 43:1 Ratio

By Bigblock57, Blogalwarning blog.

One of the most beloved slogans of the gun control crowd is that for every justifiable gun-related death (i.e self-defense) there are otherwise 43 gun related deaths. The reader is supposed to conclude here that “it is not worth it” to have guns among the general population. Second amendment and gun rights aside, what is that 43:1 ratio?

This ratio is a result of the famous research of doctors Kellerman and Reay that was published in 1986. It studied reasons for gun related deaths in King County, Washington (population 1,270,000), from 1978 through 1983. The table below is a summary of their results:

Unintentional deaths

12

Criminal homicide

41

Suicide

333

Unknown

3

 

 

Total

389

Self-protection homicide

9

 

 389:9 = 43:1

 

 

There are two phases for evaluating this study.

Phase 1: What’s in it.

The most obvious observation is that 333 of the 389 gun related deaths are suicides. Including those in the research must be under the assumption that with no access to guns those 333 suicides would have been alive today. Which is utter nonsense. A person who is determined to commit a suicide will do that, with or without a gun. So now we are left with 56:9, which is more like 6:1. We can leave it at that, or go further to say that out of the 56, 42 are criminal homicides. Since we know that gun laws only take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, there is no point in discussing these 41 in the context of gun control. Criminals will keep having guns and will keep using them to kill people. So what are we left with? 15:9? Which is 1.5:1. The dreaded 43:1 have shrunk quite a bit hasn’t it?

Phase 2: what is not in it.

The 9 justified self defense deaths, are just the tip of the iceberg of self defense by a gun. The body of the iceberg, all underwater is the many times that guns were used in self defense, which either a stopped a crime without shooting, or in which the attacker was shot but not killed. The numbers are astounding. Since no such research was conducted for the same population during the same period of time, there is no way to establish an alternative ratio for the research of Kellerman and Reay. However, there is no need. The numbers speak volumes.

In their study, “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun,” 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995) Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz concluded that guns are used to defend law abiding citizens against crimes 2.5 million times each year. Out of them As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.

Anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of “Guns in America” — a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig

The good news about using guns for self-defense is that in only less than 3% of the cases that a gun was used in self defense, a shooting actually occurred. In most cases guns are merely pointed at another person, or perhaps only referred to (“I’ve got a gun”) or displayed, and this is sufficient to stop a crime.

In summary, not only the dreaded ratio of 43:1 is nonsense and baseless, it is also completely not important as it looks at those cases that are less than 3% of the self-defense-by-guns story.

March 9, 2009 Posted by | 2nd amendment | , , , , , | Leave a comment

The ratio of 43 to 1

 

The Fallacy of “43 to 1”
The all-time favorite statistic of the gun-prohibition lobby.
   

By Dave Kopel, of the Independence Institute
January 31, 2001 11:10 a.m.

 
erhaps the most enduring factoid of the gun prohibition movement is that a person with a gun in the home is 43 times as likely to shoot someone in the family    

 Printer-Friendly

as to shoot a criminal. This “43 times” figure is the all-time favorite factoid of the gun-prohibition lobby. It’s not really true, but it does tell us a lot about the gun-prohibition mindset. 

The source of the 43-to-1 ratio is a study of firearm deaths in Seattle homes, conducted by doctors Arthur L. Kellermann and Donald T. Reay (“Protection or Peril?: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home,” New England Journal of Medicine, 1986). Kellerman and Reay totaled up the numbers of firearms murders, suicides, and fatal accidents, and then compared that number to the number of firearm deaths that were classified as justifiable homicides. The ratio of murder, suicide, and accidental death to the justifiable homicides was 43 to 1.

This is what the anti-gun lobbies call “scientific” proof that people (except government employees and security guards) should not have guns.

Of the gun deaths in the home, the vast majority are suicides. In the 43-to-1 figure, suicides account for nearly all the 43 unjustifiable deaths.

Counting a gun suicide as part of the increased risk of having a gun in the home is appropriate only if the presence of a gun facilitates a “successful” suicide that would not otherwise occur. But most research suggests that guns do not cause suicide.

In the book Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck analyzed suicide data for every America city with a population more than 100,000, and found no evidence that any form of gun control (including handgun prohibition) had an effect on the total suicide rate. Gun control did sometimes reduce gun suicide, but not overall suicide.

Notably, Japan, which prohibits handguns and rifles entirely, and regulates long guns very severely, has a 

Japan, which prohibits handguns, has a suicide rate of more than twice the U.S. level.

suicide rate of more than twice the U.S. level. Many of the northern and central European nations also have very high suicide rates to accompany their strict gun laws. (Of course, if you have any suspicion that anybody in your home might be suicidal, it would hardly be a mistake for you to ensure that they do not have ready access to guns, tranquilizers, or other potentially lethal items.) 

Putting aside the suicides, the Kellermann/Reay figures show 2.39 accidental or criminal deaths by firearm (in the home) for every justifiable fatal shooting. Now, 2 to 1 is a lot less dramatic than 43 to 1, but we still have more unjustifiable gun deaths than justifiable gun deaths in the home.

But just as many other people who would commit suicide with a gun would use an equally lethal method if guns are unavailable. Many of the people who kill themselves in firearm accidents may also be bent on destruction, regardless of the means. One study of gun-accident victims found that they were “disproportionately involved in other accidents, violent crime, and heavy drinking.” (Philip Cook, “The Role of Firearms in Violent Crime: An Interpretative Review of the Literature,” in Criminal Violence).

Or, as another researcher put it, “The psychological profile of the accident-prone suggests the same kind of aggressiveness shown by most murderers.” (Roger Lane, “On the Social Meaning of Homicide Trends in America,” in Violence in America, Vol. I, 1989.)

Without guns, many accident victims might well find some other way to kill themselves “accidentally,” such as by reckless driving.

So by counting accidents and suicides, the 43-to-1 factoid ends up including a very large number of fatalities that would have occurred anyway, even if there were no gun in the home.

Now, how about the self-defense homicides, which Kellermann and Reay found to be so rare? Well, the reason that they found such a low total was that they excluded many cases of lawful self-defense. Kellermann and Reay did not count in the self-defense total of any of the cases where a person who had shot an attacker was acquitted on grounds of self-defense, or cases where a conviction was reversed on appeal on grounds related to self-defense. Yet 40% of women who appeal their murder convictions have the conviction reversed on appeal. (“Fighting Back,” Time, Jan. 18, 1993.)

In short, the 43-to-1 figure is based on the totally implausible assumption that all the people who die in gun suicides and gun accidents would not kill themselves with something else if guns were unavailable. The figure is also based on a drastic undercount of the number of lawful self-defense homicides.

Moreover, counting dead criminals to measure the efficacy of civilian handgun ownership is ridiculous. Do we measure the efficacy of our police forces by counting how many people the police lawfully kill every year? The benefits of the police — and of home handgun ownership — are not measured by the number of dead criminals, but by the number of crimes prevented. Simplistic counting of corpses tells us nothing about the real safety value of gun ownership for protection.

Finally, Kellermann and Reay ignore the most important factor of all in assessing the risks of gun ownership: whose home the gun is in. You don’t need a medical researcher to tell you that guns can be misused when in the homes of persons with mental illness related to violence; or in the homes of persons prone to self-destructive, reckless behavior; or in the homes of persons with arrest records for violent felonies; or in the homes where the police have had to intervene to deal with domestic violence. These are the homes from which the vast majority of handgun fatalities come.

To study these high-risk homes and to jump to conclusions about the general population is illogical. We know that possession of an automobile by an alcoholic who is prone to drunk driving may pose a serious health risk. But proof that automobiles in the hands of alcoholics may be risky doesn’t prove that autos in the hands of non-alcoholics are risky. Yet the famous Seattle 43-to-1 figure is based on lumping the homes of violent felons, alcoholics, and other disturbed people in with the population as a whole. The study fails to distinguish between the large risks of guns in the hands of dangerous people, with the tiny risks (and large benefits) of guns in the hands of ordinary people.

But then again, treating ordinary people according to standards that would be appropriate for criminals and the violently insane is what the gun control movement is all about.

 Here is the table that generated the famous ratio of 43:1 
Type of Death No.
Unintentional deaths 12
Criminal homicide 41
Suicide 333
Unknown 3
   
Total 389
Self-protection homicide 9
 389:9 = 43:1

March 7, 2009 Posted by | 2nd amendment | , , , , , | Leave a comment

STRAIGHT FROM CPAC: The NRA’s Wayne LaPierre Rocks the House!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTdO-w3xnpw&NR=1

Need to copy and paste to your browser. Link does not work directly.

March 4, 2009 Posted by | 2nd amendment | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment