PDA

View Full Version : Guns, Gun Control and Mass Shooting Fact Quiz + plus additional resources 12/23


vincewarde
12-18-2012, 1:53 PM
I have prepared a fact quiz designed to enable the average non-gun person to understand why a knee jerk reaction to Newtown won't prevent more shootings. PLEASE consider sharing this link via email, social media, etc.

http://reasonedpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/12/gun-and-gun-control-facts-test-how-much.html

Update:

I will continue to produce fact based articles designed for "non-gun people" to enable them to understand why the knee jerk reaction of "more gun control" is a futile option and that the people pushing them are shamelessly exploiting these horrible tragedies. PLEASE promote these articles in ways that those not familiar with the facts will read them. We will never convert the anti-gun zealots - but we can influence those who are uninformed and misinformed, this is how we can win this. Talking to ourselves is not enough. THANK YOU for promoting the first article - it has had over 900 hits in the last two days, a record for my blog.

Which Gun Control Measures Would Have Made A Difference? (http://reasonedpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/12/which-proposed-gun-control-measures.html)

What Can Be Done To Prevent More Mass Murders? (http://reasonedpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/12/what-can-be-done-to-reduce-mass-murder.html)

The Real Problem: A Completely Broken Mental Health System (http://reasonedpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-real-problem-completely-broken.html)

Why is the AR15 Rifle So Popular? (http://reasonedpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/12/why-is-ar15-rifle-so-popular.html)

GFelix
12-18-2012, 2:10 PM
Thanks, that is a very well laid out and worded quiz. The information for each answer should be very helpful for people who are interested.

GFelix

SoCal Bob
12-18-2012, 3:35 PM
Well done Vince, thank you.

nothinghere2c
12-18-2012, 3:50 PM
pretty good quiz. Thanks for sharing.

Paul S
12-18-2012, 5:00 PM
Well done Vince....many thanks for putting that together and posting it.

aileron
12-18-2012, 5:19 PM
I believe in the answer section you meant to say IF where you have IN.

See ren IN below:

Lever and pump action rifles made as far back as the 1860s would be classified as having “hi-capacity” magazines in made today. Without special exemptions, they would be classed as assault weapons under California law.

M1Kev
12-18-2012, 6:25 PM
Good job. Now... Distribution and education

AeroEngi
12-18-2012, 6:29 PM
Shared it on Facebook. Thanks for sharing.

barracudamuscle
12-18-2012, 7:14 PM
I also put it on the ole book face to spread!

Casual_Shooter
12-18-2012, 7:27 PM
Nice job.

Stupid question: Since the "militia" is for men 18-44 years of age, when I turn 45, am I no longer part of the militia and no longer have a right to keep and bear arms?

vincewarde
12-18-2012, 9:26 PM
I believe in the answer section you meant to say IF where you have IN.

See ren IN below:

Thanks, I fixed it. There may be more where that one came from :)

GunNut666
12-18-2012, 9:50 PM
Pretty cool quiz. I passed it on to some friends.

morfeeis
12-18-2012, 10:00 PM
Nice job.

Stupid question: Since the "militia" is for men 18-44 years of age, when I turn 45, am I no longer part of the militia and no longer have a right to keep and bear arms?
Nope, but just cause i'm such a nice guy i'll pay the fee to have all of your firearms PPT'ed to me at the nearest FFL.


As for the quiz looks great, i'll post it on Facebook tomorrow, i've been hitting my facebook friends pretty hard with pro 2A stuff.

chillincody
12-18-2012, 10:01 PM
nice quiz also here is a report another member shared with me about the use of AW in shootings please share this also https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf people need to see the real facts


The Banned Guns and Magazines Were Used in Up to A Quarter of Gun Crimes
Prior to the Ban
• AWs were used in only a small fraction of gun crimes prior to the ban: about 2%
according to most studies and no more than 8%. Most of the AWs used in crime
are assault pistols rather than assault rifles.
• LCMs are used in crime much more often than AWs and accounted for 14% to
26% of guns used in crime prior to the ban.
• AWs and other guns equipped with LCMs tend to account for a higher share of
guns used in murders of police and mass public shootings, though such incidents
are very rare.

• Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at
best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in
gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs are involved in a more substantial share
of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on
the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity
limit) without reloading

vincewarde
12-20-2012, 3:25 PM
nice quiz also here is a report another member shared with me about the use of AW in shootings please share this also https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf people need to see the real facts


The Banned Guns and Magazines Were Used in Up to A Quarter of Gun Crimes
Prior to the Ban
• AWs were used in only a small fraction of gun crimes prior to the ban: about 2%
according to most studies and no more than 8%. Most of the AWs used in crime
are assault pistols rather than assault rifles.
• LCMs are used in crime much more often than AWs and accounted for 14% to
26% of guns used in crime prior to the ban.
• AWs and other guns equipped with LCMs tend to account for a higher share of
guns used in murders of police and mass public shootings, though such incidents
are very rare.

• Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at
best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in
gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs are involved in a more substantial share
of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on
the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity
limit) without reloading

Great report. Thanks for sharing. I have also covered these same issue in my latest post: http://reasonedpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/12/which-proposed-gun-control-measures.html

I am trying to use my blog to influence the soft supporters of gun control - specifically those whose grief is being exploited. As we get further away from these horrible mass murders, more people are going to be willing to consider the facts. As they do so, support for gun control will drop.

As a minimum, we should be able to get some things we want, especially in the area of CCW reform (100% shall issue with national reciprocity and a ban on phony gun free zones). Since the courts are likely to give us the "shall issue" anyway, and over 99% of mass shootings happen in gun free zones protected by nothing more than a sign, we likely can get these measures in exchange for uniform CCW screening and training requirements and perhaps background checks on all sales. Above all, we should not accept legislation in which we get nothing - we have more than enough political capital to prevent that.

vincewarde
12-20-2012, 10:33 PM
Nice job.

Stupid question: Since the "militia" is for men 18-44 years of age, when I turn 45, am I no longer part of the militia and no longer have a right to keep and bear arms?

I am sure some would argue that, but there are many reasons why they would be wrong:

1) While the militia is related strongly to the 2nd Amendment, it is not the only reason for it - if it was, the founders would have written, "the right of militia members to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

2) While the current unorganized militia only includes people 18-45, there is nothing preventing the Congress or even the states, from expanding or narrowing the ages. In the past, both older and younger people have served in state militias. The law simply defines who may be called upon right now.

3) In Heller, the court also found that the 2nd Amendment also served a self-defense purpose. It can also be argued that the 2nd Amendment serves to deter people from attempting to overthrow our democracy - because the founders said exactly that.

For those of us on the gun rights side, the militia aspect has two primary uses:

1) It turns the former anti-gun rights argument against them. The have argued for decades that the 2nd Amendment was about the militia - now they want to say that guns that are "too military" are not covered. Sorry, you got your way in Miller, and Miller + Heller + McDonald logically = right to own so called assault rifles.

2) It can be used to demonstrate that the 2nd Amendment does indeed strengthen the national defense. One need only point to the UK's experience with the "Home Guard" - their unorganized militia. They called them up and organized the post Dunkirk. Their biggest problem was a lack of weapons. Most were armed with pitchforks or broom sticks. They had about one shotgun per squad. Very few rifles. All the new arms had to go the re-equip the army. If the Germans had invaded, they would have been worthless. As it was, they were tasked with hunting downed German air crews - who did actually have firearms. When the UK was forced to call upon its' unorganized militia within living memory, it is certainly possible that the US would have to do the same.

Casual_Shooter
12-21-2012, 7:32 AM
I am sure some would argue that, but there are many reasons why they would be wrong:

1) While the militia is related strongly to the 2nd Amendment, it is not the only reason for it - if it was, the founders would have written, "the right of militia members to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

2) While the current unorganized militia only includes people 18-45, there is nothing preventing the Congress or even the states, from expanding or narrowing the ages. In the past, both older and younger people have served in state militias. The law simply defines who may be called upon right now.

3) In Heller, the court also found that the 2nd Amendment also served a self-defense purpose. It can also be argued that the 2nd Amendment serves to deter people from attempting to overthrow our democracy - because the founders said exactly that.

For those of us on the gun rights side, the militia aspect has two primary uses:

1) It turns the former anti-gun rights argument against them. The have argued for decades that the 2nd Amendment was about the militia - now they want to say that guns that are "too military" are not covered. Sorry, you got your way in Miller, and Miller + Heller + McDonald logically = right to own so called assault rifles.

2) It can be used to demonstrate that the 2nd Amendment does indeed strengthen the national defense. One need only point to the UK's experience with the "Home Guard" - their unorganized militia. They called them up and organized the post Dunkirk. Their biggest problem was a lack of weapons. Most were armed with pitchforks or broom sticks. They had about one shotgun per squad. Very few rifles. All the new arms had to go the re-equip the army. If the Germans had invaded, they would have been worthless. As it was, they were tasked with hunting downed German air crews - who did actually have firearms. When the UK was forced to call upon its' unorganized militia within living memory, it is certainly possible that the US would have to do the same.

Appreciate the educated and detailed explanation.

vincewarde
12-21-2012, 6:40 PM
What Can Be Done To Prevent More Mass Murders? (http://reasonedpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/12/what-can-be-done-to-reduce-mass-murder.html)

vincewarde
12-22-2012, 2:18 PM
The Real Problem: A Completely Broken Mental Health System (http://reasonedpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-real-problem-completely-broken.html)

vincewarde
12-23-2012, 2:21 AM
Why is the AR15 Rifle So Popular? (http://reasonedpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/12/why-is-ar15-rifle-so-popular.html)