Can Bloomberg Run In A Country That Loves Guns?

AK... We need leadership. I've had enough of candidates saying what people want to hear. That's what has gotten us into the mess we're in today.

People love their guns, yes. But they love leadership more. In fact, they're starved for it.

I agree with you, walter but you know what? "Leadership" -- of the GWB variety -- has gotten us into one of the worst messes we've ever been in.

The difference is that GWB is handing out guns and that Bloomberg is trying to get them off the streets.

more accurately the ones handing out the guns are the virginia citizens defense league. maybe it's good they're getting all nutty and attracting the attention of the press.

A minority of Americans "Love" Guns -- Opponents of Bloomberg on this issue do not represent the mainstream

but the nation loves its guns.

Actually this is only partly correct. There is a vocal minority that strongly opposes any measures that in anyway restrict on gun ownership.

The real question is whether Bloomberg can be nominated by a party with core members that love guns and adamantly oppose any restrictions no matter how reasonable or not.

In fact, Americans support stricter gun control laws almost two to one.

"Do you favor or oppose stricter gun control laws in this country?"
61% Yes 36% No April 2007

"If you agreed with a political candidate on other issues, but not on the issue of gun control, could you still vote for that candidate, or not?"
60% Could 31% Could Not

Do you or does anyone in your house own a gun, or not?"

45% Yes 55% No.

According to a Pew opinion survey taken in March this year, 52% of people respond favorable to the NRA. I would not call that a vocal minority.

Your numbers are from a ABC news poll which polled 782 people nation wide. Some stats you may have missed from that poll include:

"What do you think is the best way to reduce gun violence in this country: by passing stricter gun control laws, or by stricter enforcement of existing laws?"

29% - Stricter Laws
52% - Stricter Enforcement
9% - Both
8% - Neither
1% - Unsure

"Which of the following do you think is the primary cause of gun violence in America: the availability of guns, the way parents raise their children, or the influence of popular culture such as movies, television, and the Internet?"

18% - Availability Of Guns
35% - Way Parents Raise Kids
40% - Popular Culture
5% - Other
2% - Unsure

9% isnt a minority?

Roan,

The fact that a bare majority respond favorbly when asked how they fell about the NRA hardly shows that America "loves" guns. Responding favorably is hardly an endorsement either. I do think it might be reasonable to conclude that it wouldnt be fair to come out with the blanket statement America hates guns.

The fact is that America is divided about guns with a majority expressing the opinion we should have more restrictions. Funny you chose to leave out the rest of the PEW report:

Should laws restricting handguns be...

more strict 56%

kept as they are now 31%

less strict 9%

The NRA falls into the 9% minority.

aktylor,

I think Bloomberg is going to have to watch out for this and he's going to have to speak to it.

I completely agree, but its not because "America loves guns" - most Americans dont even have a gun and want stricter controls. Its primarily because:
GOP Primary Voters tend to support the minority view on gun laws.
Its a very important issue among many with that issue.

"Would you be more or less likely to support a candidate for president who favors stricter gun control laws?"

April 4/17-19/07
More Likely 55%
Less Likely 32%
No difference 11%

Of course what is far more difficult to measure is whether the position makes a crucial difference. How ever you add it up those opposed to stricter gun laws are in a minority. They are very vocal and intense but they dont make up the mainstream of America.

aktylor,

For polling data the best place by far I have found is pollingreport.com

Roan,

I should add that the two other questions really dont address the central issue:

"What do you think is the best way to reduce gun violence in this country: by passing stricter gun control laws, or by stricter enforcement of existing laws?"

Just because you believe the best way is stricter enforcement doesnt mean that you do not endorse stricter laws. Your data also demonstrates the opposite of your contention - since it demonstrates that most people think gun laws are good thing and need to be more strictly enforced.

"Which of the following do you think is the primary cause of gun violence in America: the availability of guns, the way parents raise their children, or the influence of popular culture such as movies, television, and the Internet?"

Again this is a different question and merely addresses the primary cause which is subject to broad interpretation. Just because you think its something other than availability doesnt mean you dont think availablity is part of the problem.

I certainly dont believe that availablity of guns is leading cause of violence. Of course, logically speaking you cannot have gun violence without guns being available.

I guess it's how you define 'love guns'. I see people who view the NRA as favorable as having a love for firearms. Why would anyone who is indifferent to guns view the NRA as favorable?

The NRA may certainly make up a large number of the people who responded that laws restricting handguns should be less strict, but to assume that that is the only option they would choose is incorrect.

Any assumption that a person who loves guns would not want more strict laws restricting handguns would be flawed. People who enjoy firearms are just as eager to keep them out of the hands of those who should not possess them.

Your data also demonstrates the opposite of your contention - since it demonstrates that most people think gun laws are good thing and need to be more strictly enforced.
I made no such contention. People who truly love guns, should know that gun laws are good thing and need to be more strictly enforced.

I'm surfing around the net for a breakdown of the percent of households with guns by state.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.html

Most gun control legislation is up to individual states. According to studies, some states even fall behind federal legislation (see ).

This probably has to do with the fact that national politicians don't want to touch the issue. So all Bloomberg has to do if he's called on gun control in the national spotlight is say that "it's a state issue."

Roan,

It at least sounds like you are just playing semantic games.

I guess it's how you define 'love guns'. I see people who view the NRA as favorable as having a love for firearms Why would anyone who is indifferent to guns view the NRA as favorable?

Did you honestly think about that critically before you wrote it? Do you assume that everyone who views Bush favorably loves him and what he does? Do you assume that everyon who views Hillary Clinton loves everything she stands for? Do you assume that everyone knows exactly what the NRA does? Do you asume that if people were asked if they favorably viewed General motors yes meant they love GM? This seems like a very odd determination of love indeed. Do you consider that they might just respect what they do or that they have been influenced by lobbying or that they dont really know what the NRA stands for?

If so many Americans love guns why do only about a third of them actually own one of their own?

The thesis of the article is that Bloombergs enforcment of the laws somehow is going to alienate voters. So by your new standard of gun loving its irrelevant. So I guess you feel that gun lovers everywhere should embrace Bloomberg fot his stance on greater enforcement of gun laws?

People who truly love guns, should know that gun laws are good thing and need to be more strictly enforced.

The point is that most people think that gun laws should not only be more strictly enforced but they should also be stricter than they are now. The NRA says they want more strict enforcement, yet they focus most of their efforts at trying to strike down and weaken existing laws. Under your account, true gun lovers should abhor this since they know gun laws are "good" and more strict laws are "best."

No semantics Catch, I was thinking of love in the terms I saw youas presenting it, in inverted commas. Actual love of an inanimate object is indication of serious mental issues.

You are correct, I should have reviewed my statement before I wrote it. Suffice to say, my only disagreement was with the idea the only a minority "love" guns. That is, view them favorable. If that is not how you were presenting "love" then I assumed wrong, and my point is moot.

The NRA fights the laws which they believe only serve to keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. The Assault Weapon ban for instance.

Under your account, true gun lovers should abhor this since they know gun laws are "good" and more strict laws are "best."
No, that is not what I said.

Of course, logically speaking you cannot have gun violence without guns being available.

That isn't even a valid point. Fact is, guns were invented. Fact is, guns are massed produced everywhere in the world. Armies need them, war loads need them, mobs need them and gangs need them. They will always be available and there is nothing the government, no amount of restrictions or laws, that is going to keep them out of a determined criminals hands.

The only one that suffers by gun strict gun control is the average citizen. If every parent taught their child about weapons, what they are used for and how to use them, accidental deaths from weapons would plummet.

Then there is the issue of self defense...

So all Bloomberg has to do if he's called on gun control in the national spotlight is say that "it's a state issue."

Paxilnation: Not as long as illegal guns can travel across state lines.

Roan,

The NRA fights the laws which they believe only serve to keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. The Assault Weapon ban for instance.

That is a good example of a position of the NRA that is opposed by a large majority of Americans. Roughly two thirds of Americans support a ban on the sale of Assault Weapons. Of course there are different legisilative mechanisms and some approaches are better than others. The NRA's and like minded groups public relations and lobbying efforts appear to have had some impact on public opinion. A dozen years ago roughly 80% of Americans supported such a ban. It remains to be seen whether this trend continues.

MartinEZ,

Of course, logically speaking you cannot have gun violence without guns being available.

That isn't even a valid point. Fact is, guns were invented.

Of course its a valid point. Your purported refutation isnt valid. Its simply a fact that if a gun is not available to an individual at the moment in time where the decide to engage in a violent act, they cant engage in gun violence. Its true by definition. I didnt chose the wording of the poll question.

The fact that guns have been invented and are utilized for many purposes doesnt address the question. Availability isnt a black or white yes no issue, but in this context is clearly on a spectrum. As just one example, the United Kingdom has an army with guns. Guns are not as readily available in the UK as they are in the US. Its no surprise that their is less "gun violence." Its also worth noting that the homicide rate is lot lower also, of course that relationship is more complicated.

The only one that suffers by gun strict gun control is the average citizen. If every parent taught their child about weapons, what they are used for and how to use them, accidental deaths from weapons would plummet.

This is just a sloppy talking point. Gun restrictions do not prevent parents from teaching their children about weapons. Fewer restrictions is no guarantee of such parental intervention. There is no direct causal relationship. I hate to break it to you, but you have no evidence that more guns = "plummet"ing accidental deaths. In fact, your spin ignores the fact that the emprical evidence is the opposite.

What is the number one predictor of self injury by a child? Availablity of a firearm and ammunition. Next, failure to properly secure a firearm in the household. Responsible adults who engage in responsible education take care to ensure that kids not have unsupervised access to firearms.

Then there is the issue of self defense...

Yes and the issue that having a firearm in the house is far more likely to lead to injury to the people that live in the house or other innocent people than to ever be properly used in self defense. Feel free to provide a factual basis for your opinion. The more guns the more injuries.

I hate to break it to you, but you have no evidence that more guns = "plummet"ing accidental deaths.

I did not say more guns equals less accidental deaths. I said more education and training by parents to their children would lower the rates...

If you think banning guns will lower gun violence you are out of your mind. Check out statistics regarding countries that enacted laws giving citizens the right to carry. In almost every case, crime dropped.

Blaming guns for violence if like blaming sex for abortion.

Gun restrictions do not prevent parents from teaching their children about weapons.

How else do I show my child what a gun does, how it works, and the capability to murder or maim that they have. If I do not expose a child to the weapon, and simply tell them they are dangerous, I bet they are more apt to go find one and "check it out for themselves." If I can instruct them through demonstration and allow them to become accustomed to a weapon, curiosity might not kill the cat.

Simply put, taking guns from law abiding citizens is no more logical than executing the insane. It is however on the opposite side of the spectrum. In this case, it is the insane trying to tell me I do not have the right to defend myself.

I have three words for you.

Come get them.

That is a good example of a position of the NRA that is opposed by a large majority of Americans. Roughly two thirds of Americans support a ban on the sale of Assault Weapons. Of course there are different legisilative mechanisms and some approaches are better than others. The NRA's and like minded groups public relations and lobbying efforts appear to have had some impact on public opinion. A dozen years ago roughly 80% of Americans supported such a ban. It remains to be seen whether this trend continues.
That just shows that the people who support the ban are either uneducated about firearms, or they would support any gun ban regardless of its effectiveness.

There is a very big difference between effective gun control, and ineffective gun banning. Unfortunately many politicians only excel at the latter.

Blaming guns for violence if like blaming sex for abortion.

Why are you addressing strawmen?
I never blamed guns for violence. In fact I made clear the opposite. I did point out that availablity to guns tends to lead to higher homicide rates.

Check out statistics regarding countries that enacted laws giving citizens the right to carry. In almost every case, crime dropped.

What statitics are you talking about exactly? Are you sure you are not confusing correlation with causation?

Check out statistics for homicide in the US versus Europe if you want to view overall statistics. Compare crime rates between states with restrictive vs. less restictive gun laws.

The fact is there a lot of factors that contribute to homicide but one thing is fairly constant, the more readily guns are available the more homicides there are.

A 1997 Justice Department report on murders in the U.S. shows that our country has a murder rate of seven victims per 100,000 population per year. There are a number of well-known examples of countries with more liberal gun laws and lower murder rates than the U.S. One is Finland, with a murder rate of 2.9. Israel is another example; although its population is heavily armed, Israel's murder rate is only 1.4. In Switzerland, gun ownership is a way of life. Its murder rate is 2.7.

By contrast, consider Brazil. All firearms in Brazil must be registered with the government. This registration process can take anywhere from 30 days to three months. All civilian handguns are limited in caliber to no more than 9mm. All rifles must fire handgun ammunition only. Brazilians may only buy one gun per year. At any one time, they may only have in their possession a maximum of six guns: two handguns, two rifles and two shotguns. To transport their guns, citizens must obtain a special police permit. CCW permits are available but are rarely issued.

Therefore, it should not be a revelation to anyone that Brazil has a thriving black market in guns. Virtually any type of gun is available, for a price. Incidentally, Brazil's murder rate is 19 victims per 100,000 population per year.

Here

Link to DOJ Graph (2002).

Link to website regarding Brazilian homicide rates.

Just to prove he didn't make those numbers up...

You provide an excellent example of wildly cherry picking statistics.

There is no basis to select Brazil to represent all countries with gun laws. Absolutely none.

Guns & Ammon Magazine clearly has an agenda and the "methodology" here is ridiculous.

Lets look at countries with a lot more in common with the US without first Cherry picking the statistics. What countries are more like the US than say Canada and the United Kingdom? Perhaps you can name some countries more like the US for comparison?

Cherry picking?

I Googled it and picked a handful of links.

Nice try.

How about you pull something out your ass that proves your point? At least I tried, you are just blowing smoke.

Cherry picking?

I Googled it and picked a handful of links.

Do you know what cherry picking statistics means? What is the methodological basis for selecting Brazil other than cherry picking?

Do you understand that Google is just a tool and that the words you choose for searches and what you choose to click on can directly impact what you find and that you if you go looking to prove your theses, the fact that you might find some eviedence to support it, is not indicative of the overall prevalence of such evidence to support your thesis?

Googling is not a replacement for critical thinking analysis and context. Just because you find something on the internet does not make it reliable in the least.

Did you read that article I quoted?

Critical analysis is no substitute for reading.

Anyone who even thinks I don't have the right to defend myself with equal force has no opinion on this matter. And that is my opinion.

Did you even look at the links? Probably not judging your response. After all, if the DOJ is not a reliable source to you, once again your opinion doe not matter.

MartinEZ-

not to be too picky, but the DOJ does not have the best reputation of late.

:-)

Agreed, but when someone wants statistics, and you get them from a department that keeps said statistics, and they argue with them, what the hell else am I left with. I might as well guess, just as he or she does, and pretend the numbers he or she asked for and received mean nothing because they don't back up my point of view.

It stinks of ignorance when someone asks for "proof" but accepts nothing as proof unless it backs up their side of the argument.

MartinezEZ

The link you provided is to the CDC and NOT the DOJ.

The graph you provide is irrelevant to the issue under discussion and it does not address the underlying causes. The fact that the homicide rates in brazil have beein increasing over the past two decades really tells us almost nothing about the issue at hand.

The CDC does not support the conclusion or your alleged causal connection you have to offer. In fact there is at least some evidence that the gun control legisilation might help reduce homiceds in Brazil.

The CDC does note that the Brazilian authorities had enacted greater gun strictions in 2001. While I am not going to leap to conclusions, the graph you provided shows that the Homicide rate in San Paulo has declined since then.

Yes I can go out and find statistics on homicide from all around the world with many complex causal factors. Nothing in the link you provide really backs up your point.

My point is that the graph alone doesnt tell you much at all other than homicide rates.

It stinks of ignorance when someone asks for "proof" but accepts nothing as proof unless it backs up their side of the argument.

It stinks of ignorance when someone thinks that by showing a homicide rate for Brazil that that alone proves whether or not gun control legislation has impact on homicide.

It stinks of ignorance when someone pretends that gun control legisilation is the only factor in homicide rates.

It stinks of ignorance when someone takes a depiction of gun control legislation from an advocate and doesnt even read their own evidence.

It stinks of ignorance when someone with an obvious axe to grind opts to single out a single country and pretend they are representative of the world without explanation.

Why not try to explain in rational fact based language why you believe this graph supports your argument and the factual basis for your conclusions. Why is Brazil the correct country to choose of all of the countries in the world?