Posted on 10/04/2015 1:39:31 PM PDT by Red in Blue PA
Still, some gun-control advocates say Obama could do more than talk.
"We believe that on a few very specific fronts they can do more to crack down on bad-apple gun dealers, the very small percentage of gun dealers who sell almost every crime gun in the U.S.," said Dan Gross, president of the Brady campaign.
"The ATF has the power to crack down on them and pull their licenses if they are responsible for business practices that wind up causing gun crime and gun violence."
The White House could also lead a national conversation on the public health and safety risks associated with gun ownership, said Gross. After all, the administration does have a campaign on healthy eating, so why not guns?
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
They are not about justice; they are about punishing gun store owners for something they cannot control.
CNN: manipulator of the truth for the tyrant.
Guns sure have the Left frustrated, right? This is simply an issue which they can’t spin or propagandize.
Here is our answer, some of you might like the article. http://journal.ijreview.com/2015/07/245635-gun-rights-advocates-have-a-devastating-new-argument-against-gun-control-here-it-is/
“Because Christopher Harper-Mercer can’t be trusted with firearms, no one in America can be trusted with firearms.”
“Guns sure have the Left frustrated, right? This is simply an issue which they can’t spin or propagandize.”
Gun ownership is one of the very few issues that crosses all political and cultural lines because it equates with the right of self defense. Living here in NY I’ve known many otherwise flaming liberals who are more pro-gun than the so-called “Golfers with Guns” on the right.
Yeah, michelle my bell’s healthy eating plan has gone over so well!
Its just cover to force more small gun sellers out of business. They have been doing so for years, on purpose.
They go out of business, atf gets all their files.
They know criminals get most guns by straw purchases, stealing guns, or black market guns from other criminals.
There was a time when they were looking to the criminologists and sociologists for answers to gun violence, but the criminologists and sociologists came to a consensus, and the anti-gun groups didn't like the answer.
So they turned to public health, because their standards for peer review are so lax that anything can get published, so long as it conforms to the political biases of the editors.
Years ago, I read Don Kates' Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda?, and thought there was something very wrong with the public health field on the issue of guns. Then I read Gary Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health, and realized that there was something seriously wrong with the public health field in pretty much everything.
More:
Meanwhile, Kates quotes Gary Kleck:
Up until about 1976 or so, there was little reliable scholarly information on the link between violence and weaponry. Consequently, everyone, scholars included, was free to believe whatever they liked about guns and gun control. There was no scientific evidence to interfere with the free play of personal bias. It was easy to be a "true believer" in the advisability of gun control and the uniformly detrimental effects of gun availability (or the opposite positions) because there was so little relevant information to shake one's faith. When I began my research on guns in 1976, like most academics, I was a believer in the "anti-gun" thesis, i.e. the idea that gun availability has a net positive effect on the frequency and/or seriousness of violent acts. It seemed then like self-evident common sense which hardly needed to be empirically tested. However, as a modest body of reliable evidence (and an enormous body of not-so-reliable evidence) accumulated, many of the most able specialists in this area shifted from the "anti-gun" position to a more skeptical stance, in which it was negatively argued that the best available evidence does not convincingly or consistently support the anti-gun position. This is not the same as saying we know the anti-gun position to be wrong, but rather that there is no strong case for it being correct. The most prominent representatives of the skeptic position would be James Wright and Peter Rossi, authors of the best scholarly review of the literature.
[Subsequent research] has caused me to move beyond even the skeptic position. I now believe that the best currently available evidence, imperfect though it is (and must always be), indicates that general gun availability has no measurable net positive effect on rates of homicide, suicide, robbery, assault, rape, or burglary in the U[nited] S[tates]. This is not the same as saying gun availability has no effects on violence--it has many effects on the likelihood of attack, injury, death, and crime completion, but these effects work in both violence-increasing and violence-decreasing directions, with the effects largely canceling out. For example, when aggressors have guns, they are (1) less likely to physically attack their victims, (2) less likely to injure the victim given an attack, but (3) more likely to kill the victim, given an injury. Further, when victims have guns, it is less likely aggressors will attack or injure them and less likely they will lose property in a robbery. At the aggregate level, in both the best available time series and cross-sectional studies, the overall net effect of gun availability on total rates of violence is not significantly different from zero. The positive associations often found between aggregate levels of violence and gun ownership appear to be primarily due to violence increasing gun ownership, rather than the reverse. Gun availability does affect the rates of gun violence (e.g. the gun homicide rate, gun suicide rate, gun robbery rate) and the fraction of violent acts which involve guns (e.g. the percent of homicides, suicides or robberies committed with guns); it just does not affect total rates of violence (total homicide rate, total suicide rate, total robbery rate, etc.).
That’s been my answer for a long time now. I’m not debating it with anyone.
MOLON LABE!
“The ATF has the power to crack down on them and pull their licenses if they are responsible for business practices that wind up causing gun crime and gun violence.”
This was Obama-Holder plan for Fast and Furious. They were trying to entrap legitimate gun dealers, by claiming they were selling weapons to the Mexican drug cartels, and then arresting them. Fortunately for everyone but Brian Terry, the feds screwed the plan up, and it became obvious to everyone but the Democrat media that Obama and Holder had directed the guns to the cartels. They should have been arrested at that point for causing the death of Border Patrol agent Terry, but we have a cowardly Congress that isn’t worth voting for next year after their record of incompetence in office.
The single biggest offender group in regard to gun crime is young black males. Their single biggest victim class are other blacks.
Do you think the left wouldn’t scream if someone suggested taking guns from young black males?
There are quite a few more dangers in America than guns.
The NUMBER ONE danger in America to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are Public/Government Schools..
If you believe me, good. If you don’t, too bad because it is true.
Because Ted Kennedy couldn’t be trusted with automobile, no one can be trusted with an automobile.
What’s the difference between a “crime” gun and a non-crime gun?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.