It’s a litmus test: if this story doesn’t bother you, then you believe the ends justify the means, as long as you like the ends.
“Gun crime has plunged in the United States since its peak in the middle of the 1990s, including gun killings, assaults, robberies and other crimes, two new studies of government data show. Yet few Americans are aware of the dramatic drop, and more than half believe gun crime has risen, according to a newly release report by the Pew Research Center. In less than two decades, the gun murder rate has been nearly cut in half. Other gun crimes fell even more sharply, paralleling a broader drop in violent crimes committed with or without guns. Violent crime dropped steeply during the 1990s and has fallen less dramatically since the turn of the millennium.”
Interesting timing, don’t you think? This information would have been invaluable during the months of Democrat-fueled hysteria following the Newtown tragedy, when gun violence suddenly was represented far and wide, on television, in print and on the stump, as a deepening crisis so serious and deadly that it warranted pushing all other priorities aside. Now, after the dishonest and emotion-based assault on guns and gun-ownership stalled, the public is provided with the information, always there and waiting in official government statistics, that would have placed the need for new gun laws in proper perspective. Instead, the public was treated to laments by mourning parents, scripted statements by Gaby Giffords, and harangues by Piers Morgan.
Gee. I wonder why more than half the public believes that gun violence is getting worse?
The information would have been invaluable, but it also would have been damaging to the anti-gun agenda, narrative, and fiction. The Los Angeles Times, hardly a bastion of the NRA, asked its online readers, “Does the decline in gun crime weaken the case for gun control?” 94% of almost 32,000 responders voted “yes.” Of course they did. That’s why President Obama, his political allies and the fully-committed anti-gun mainstream media withheld that data, which was easily obtainable, during the contentious debates in the wake of Newtown. (“Transparency! Transparency!”) Better to leave that inconvenient statistic to come from the NRA, so it would be discounted as biased and false. The Pew foundation found that women, blacks, and the elderly were most prone to believe that gun violence is increasing. You know. Democrats. They are most likely to accept the deceits of their own partisan heroes, and to be most forgiving afterwards, when the lies are revealed. Besides, they want their illusions to be true, because they just don’t like guns or respect gun ownership.
So let’s take stock, shall we? A horrendous but unprecedented shooting at an elementary school was seized upon by the White House to launch what was seen as an effective distraction from the budget battles, and an opportunity to paint Republicans and conservatives as heartless and doctrinaire. With full complicity of the news media, which dropped all pretense of objectivity and fairness, the public was subjected to a full pageant representing the threat to the lives of children as having reached a monstrous level demanding new and stringent laws and regulations. Children were used to dress the sets when the President spoke; dead children were evoked in cartoons and op-eds and testimony before committees, even though none of the measures being proposed would have stopped the deaths at Sandy Hook Elementary. The public was whipped up into a frenzy of fear, and also hate, with the NRA and its members being the primary targets, but also anyone who questioned the wisdom of legislation passed through panic, bullying, and exploitation.
And while all of this was going on, with President Obama and Vice-President Biden cheerleading throughout, the Bureau of Justice Statistics had data on hand showing that the number of gun killings dropped 39% between 1993 and 2011, and that non-fatal gun crimes fell by 69%. This is a problem that is getting much better, not worse, and fast….and this was what the Administration portrayed as a dire emergency, worthy of the President’s prime attention, and that of Congress.
Yet there are so many genuine crises, looming, gathering and festering, that do need immediate attention: the debt; the infrastructure, education, health care, and many more. Most of all there is a crisis of trust, with fewer Americans than ever believing that their government and leaders are competent and have their best interests at heart. This disgraceful episode not only failed to address that crisis—-it made it worse.
__________________________
Pointer: Washington Post
Facts: LA Times
Graphic: Kids Britannica
Ethics Alarms 
Jack- Trust Across America and our Alliance of Trustworthy Business Experts have taken on the challenge of fixing the crisis of trust.
Barbara Kimmel, Executive Director
Trust Across America
http://www.trustacrossamerica.com
I think that I would have given you a bit more credibility if you had contributed to the discussion before including your advertisement.
I try not to comment at all unless I think I have something unique to add to the conversation – it enhances credibility. I am even questioning whether I should leave this comment, but I have gotten protective of the comments in this blog – I sometimes like them better than the original post (sorry Jack).
No offense taken. I agree with you.
It wouldn’t have mattered if Gandhi himself had released this report, no one on the left would have believed it. I don’t even try to have discussions with friends of mine who are for stricter gun control because of their total lack of knowledge on weapons, how the laws they are passing will affect weapons and ownerS. Also the fact that they make no effort whatsoever to conceal that the laws they are trying to get passed are just the beginning and they will not be satisfied until all pistols and rifles are banned.
Gosh, I’ve gotten beaten up enough on this site today, so I’m not going to get involved in a gun debate. I will say though that I was aware (as are many of my progressive friends) that gun violence is on the decline and, in general, that the US is a safer place now than it was in the 70s and 80s. Note — that doesn’t mean that gun violence isn’t still a problem though. And, it also doesn’t mean that the media shouldn’t do more responsible reporting on the topic.
Really? You knew it had declined that much since the 90’s, not just the 70’s, which was a crime wave? Did you ever hear a gun reform advocate mention those stats during the past few months? Was that your impression when Charlie Rangel said “We’re talking about millions of kids dying — being shot down by assault weapons”? You really think our top policy priorities should be problems that are improving rapidly?
I really did know. I’m not anti-gun — although I think we should all be a bit more rational in our gun use. First, doesn’t everyone know that many places in the 70s were terrifying compared to today — NYC being a prime example? But the 90’s stat that you reference also is widely known among liberals. I will acknowledge that there is liberal spin though — which I haven’t cared enough about to research but I will repeat it here. So, here’s the liberal spin: “The marked drop in gun crime beginning in the 1990’s is a direct result of the assault weapons ban.” No one attack me on this! I’m just repeating the spin. As for policy priorities, do we really want to start a list of what Congress contemplates and list them in order of importance? There would be a lot of stupid things on that list. Perhaps another Reader’s Digest poll? Congress could multi-task if it wanted to.
Oh, and there’s one more liberal spin — which again I haven’t researched, but here it is. “It is widely reported that violent crime is down since the 1990’s, and that may be true, but given that the NRA has effectively blocked any effort to gather stats on this issue, it’s unclear just how much – if at all — gun crime has fallen.”
Yep. That’s liberal spin, alright. Using the NRA as the demon “straw man” is the accepted liberal manner in presenting all statements pertaining to the gun issue. When I read this a few hours ago, I was in a bit of wonder that the LA Times would have the nerve to print this EVER. Well… better late than never, I guess. I can only assume that it’s come to one of those points where public opinion has so turned against the leftist spiel that they’ve HAD to print this or risk a complete loss of credibility.
I can’t speak for the rest of the country, but I know enough about Cali (LA in particular) to know that crime went down mostly because of the three-strikes law, the enabling of life-without-parole sentencing, and a few other tough-on-crime-policies opposed almost entirely by liberals.
I’m in favour of gun control and I knew that crime rates in the USA and other developed countries have been falling. Falling crime rates have been reported in many reputable newspapers, including the New York Times (see http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/us/24crime.html). I don’t think the media are trying to hide information from us.
I do not think that gun control is inconsistent with falling crime rates. If crime rates are high, opponents of gun control could argue that people need guns to protect themselves from violent criminals. Lower crime rates mean that people do not need the guns for protection, so gun control makes more sense, given the dangers associated with guns (i.e. accidents, making suicide easier and the risk that the mentally infirm might get their hands on them).
Actually, there is a bit of a Morton’s fork when it comes to gun control. If crime is high, gun control is a good idea because controlling guns would make it harder for criminals to get guns and could reduce crime rates. If crime is low, gun control is a good idea because people have less need of guns to defend themselves.
Again, I’m not claiming it is inconsistent with falling crime rates, or undesirable in some form. What is inconsistent with falling gun violence rates is “OMIGOD KIDS ARE DYING LIKE FLIES WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING NOWNOWNOW OR YOU ARE ALL MONSTERS!!!”
You know. The basic pitch we have been getting since Newtown.
Yes, the rhetoric got overblown after Newtown. Gun control is a controversial issue, so the rhetoric will always be overblown, especially after a shooting. Just because rhetoric is overblown does not mean that nothing should be done, however.
Come on, Eric. It wasn’t “overblown.” It was intentional, widespread, and a calculated strategy to distort the issues, exploit a tragedy and stifle debate. Is there room for better gun regulations? I think so. Should despicable tactics as those employed by the anti-gun forces in this instance ever be seen as effective and acceptable? No. That was the theme of my post about why gun reform deserved defeat.
It wasn’t just Newtown. It was also Arizona, and Columbine before that. It’s been a predictable pattern. I cannot help but be convinced that the extreme Left doesn’t actually care about crime victims (they make up ALL of the opposition there is to most victims’ rights-type movements). They do, however, recognize that hunter/redneck types are identified with the Right politically, and that gun rampages present a useful opportunity to demonize same.
Rednecks and gun-rampagers have a tenuous connection (basically none at ALL), but they do both have guns!
Ill give you the benefit of the doubt but I haven’t met anyone on the gun control side yet who knew violence was down or would admit they knew it. Everyones been running around screaming that the sky is falling.
I learned of this Pew report on CNN.com. They craftily managed to report the Pew results as if they weren’t that big a deal and would have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the recent gun debate. Much the same way as they reported on the Pew (I think) survey of Muslims on Islam’s teachings about, and Muslims’ attitude toward, “non-believers.” The media biases are as prevalent and as enveloping as air.
Actually gun violence is getting worse, A LOT WORSE, esp in the demographic that seems to be over the top religious about their guns.
While the Democrats are feeding their base with anti gun rhetoric, the changes regarding background checks that were earmarked were reasonable and worthwhile.. Do the ends justify the means?
Middle Aged White Men Suicide rates are climbing significantly, and is much worse than any murder rate.
So the sad irony of all this unethical behavior from BOTH sides is this:
1. Black Males are 6x more likely to be homicide victims than the rest of USA.. In fact, if you’re not a black male your chances of being killed by the boogeyman (i.e. a stranger) are extremely low.
Blacks voters are overwhelmingly in favor of more gun control, and they should be the ones wanting more accessible guns, since they are definitely more likely to be a homicide victim.
2. White middle aged and older males suffer far more suicides by gun than any group of homicide victims…Fed saw a stunning 40% surge in the suicide rate among 35-64 year old white men and women (with non-Caucasian rates steady) in the last decade.www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-03/middle-aged-suicide-rate-surges. The real impact has been white men.
White middle aged voters mostly want little to no new gun control laws.. And they should be the one who should not be owning guns, because arming themselves puts their lives and their families lives in much more danger than if they were gunless.
“Actually gun violence is getting worse, A LOT WORSE, esp in the demographic that seems to be over the top religious about their guns.”
Please provide links to information that shows this.
TRANSLATION: “My mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with facts.”
Blacks are among the groups Pew shows believing that gun violence is getting worse. I’m sure the Sandy Hook parents also believe this. Fish in a goldfish bowl believe the world is small and bordered in glass.
Wait…are you now saying that guns make people kill themselves? Then we should want criminals to get their hands on guns.
People don’t commit suicide. Their guns kill them.
What does the choice of weapon have to do with suicide rates? (The answer is next to nothing, I was just asking rhetorically).
Assuming the suicide point is true, why aren’t we having a debate about depression or cultural/social factors that lead to suicide?
For that matter, when a person shoots up a school full of 1st-graders, why do we immediately launch into a national dialogue over the weapon that was used? If that is a logical response, then why is the Congress not dealing with crock-pots right now? If banning them could only save ONE life…
Maybe, to maximize the impact of this research, we should have Tom Hanks and Sandra Bullock read the article out loud in a YouTube video.
Screw Obama. And screw all those who will twist and spin or omit any story that doesn’t fit with their biased party agenda. That includes conservatives. It never ceases to amaze me how many people from both sides are like this. So,if gun crime is down,Obama and his subjects know it,then why are they after more gun control? I actually think conservatives might know the answer to that question and it’s got nada to do with making us safer.
“Wait…are you now saying that guns make people kill themselves? ”
****
There really are some wild claims out there.
I read one last week that said guns can go off simply lying in a drawer, no human intervention required. @@
it’s called Spontaneous Cumgunblastion.
what about the children – do you think they care about the politics of gun control?
*Futurama Fry Squint*
Not sure if satire, trolling, or serious…. (the good, the bad, and the ugly)
I clipped the article into my Evernote, bolded the last three paragraphs, and tagged it under “Superior Examples of Writing”, a tag reserved for written arguments that I one day hope to be able to write like. Killed it.