jade-
There's certainly no twisting these statistics now, is there?
"The regular citizen in Chicago cannot go anywhere and buy firearms," says Williams, eyebrows raised. "And yet, in one year, in the 1990s, we had more than 19,000 weapons recovered. In one year. We've been averaging 10,000 weapons recovered every year for the last 10 or 12 or 14 years. And that's with a ban."
http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/418838
Or maybe you'd like to throw out the "racist red herring" as you usually do?
Good thing Josh and jade aren't doctors, or their treatment for brain cancer would be chemotherapy for the foot.
What aren't we focusing on legislation and remedies which target a specific demorgaphics, geographic areas, and thinking with regards to violenct crime instead of focusing on blanket policies which nto only infringe upon the rights of the law-abiding, but also target areas which are non-issues?
NRA Misplaces a Million Members
When talking to the news media and policymakers, the National Rifle Association never misses a chance to boast of its membership of four million. From news releases to statements by its leadership, this number, virtually by its very utterance, is offered as validation of the organization's mission.
And it's so much larger than the 30,000 Americans who die from guns each year.
When asked for proof of these claims, the NRA cites the sanctity of its membership list and falls into its default mode of 'trust, but don't expect us to verify.'
This week I received in the mail a letter from the NRA promoting one of the various specialized insurance plans it's always trying to foist on its members with manufactured urgency. The letter, from NRA Treasurer and CFO Wilson H. Phillips Jr., urged me to register (yes, register) for the NRA's new Emergency Assistance Plus insurance.
The letter states the program was developed "especially for NRA Members. This is because we are more at risk while we're traveling. So we're more likely to get hurt or sick in a place we don't know."
The insurance is primarily a series of support services if you're faced with a medical or other emergency while traveling. Why NRA members are more at risk than others while traveling is never explained. Maybe it's because they don't bring their guns with them. Or more likely because they do.
Mr. Phillips continues, explaining what a bargain this insurance represents, promising that the NRA has "put together a package of essential support services. All are vital in an emergency. Then, with about 3 million NRA Members 'on our side of the table,' we negotiated a bargain price."
Wait a minute: "about 3 million NRA Members"? What happened to "four million members strong"? Where's the missing million members? Shouldn't the Treasurer and CFO of the NRA know the membership numbers? Unless, of course, the NRA is being less than, uh, forthcoming. This would, however, help explain why an organization that gives every adult member a choice of one of three free magazines with their membership dues has a total circulation for these publications of less than 2.7 million for the six months ending in December 2007 according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations.
Maybe Mr. Phillips' citation of "about 3 million NRA Members" is just an error. Or maybe it's because the underwriter for the plan is in California, and practices forbidden under California's insurance statutes include:
Making or disseminating or causing to be made or disseminated before the public in this state, in any newspaper or other publication, or any advertising device, or by public outcry or proclamation, or in any other manner or means whatsoever, any statement containing any assertion, representation or statement with respect to the business of insurance or with respect to any person in the conduct of his or her insurance business, which is untrue, deceptive, or misleading, and which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue, deceptive, or misleading.
Or maybe those who accept the NRA's membership claims at face value should be a little more skeptical.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Ahhh yes. I was wondering when MolonLabe would toss out this canard.
The gun ban (its not really a total gun ban) in Chicago was implemented years ago. According to MolonLabe and his fellow adherents, this means Chicago should see murder and crime rates that climb ever Northward.
But reality shows us crime n Chicag has declined. Murders are down over the past 4 years.
And according to jade and his ilk, Chicago, with their stringent gun control laws, should never experience instances where 37 people are murdered in less than a week.
I wonder why we never saw the "Click Here to Donate Now(tm)" campaign for Chicago like we have been seeing for the past year with the Brady's and Virginia Tech? I guess to draw attention to the fact that gun control is useless against violent crime no matter what the Brady rating grade is would be a no-no, hugh?
Over the past four years. What happened in the 20 years prior? Oh, right. They climbed ever Northward, still accounting for 60% of Il Murders yet only 22% of the population.
That Jadegold "reality" again.
And the NYC nuisance lawsuit is dismissed:
http://www.wcbs880.com/NYC-Loses-Lawsuit-Against-Gun-Industry/2100199
3 million or 4 million, the NRA still has several time the membership of the VPC, the Brady Center and the Million mom march combined
Essentially, djkrlsn is saying it's ok for the NRA to lie to him because it's larger than other groups.
PT Barnum had it right.
Speaking of statistics, here's a common one we like to refer to as "The Children(tm)."
Lies about children and guns.
Brady Campaign and Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) have claimed that 12 children die from gun accidents every day, and 2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has claimed that 13 children are killed with guns every day. The HELP (Handgun Epidemic Lowering Plan) Network (which is dedicated to "changing society"s attitude toward guns so that it becomes socially unacceptable for private citizens to have handguns") put the figure at "an average of 9 children" daily. Other "gun control" advocates have varyingly claimed 14 per day (or 5,000 yearly or one every 90 seconds). Some count anyone under the age of 24 as a "child," to get even higher numbers.9 Anti-gunners add the relatively small number of firearm-related deaths among children to the much larger number of deaths among juveniles and young adults, and dishonestly call the total "children." In fact, on average there is just under one firearm-related death among children per day, including one accidental death every 5.8 days.
http://www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=120
"just one"
I guess if it's your kid, you can shrug it off and say it's "just one."
Here is a common tactic used by the NRA. They take differing statistics --using different sources and differing parameters in different time periods--then accuse their opponents of lying.
Of course, the NRA isn't above a little creative statistic-twisting. For example, they claim only 1 (actually 1.2) firearm death per day among children. But that's only kids under 14. Over 14 to age 19, the total jumps to 8.3. Additionally, the NRA claims its opponents count children as up to age 24. But they never cite an instance.
In reality, the number of children killed by firearms is not hard to ascertain. In fact, the figures are broken down by age groups and cause (accident, homicide, suicide, legal intervention, etc.). Nor are the sources of these stats partisan--unless one counts the CDC, FBI, or National Safety Council as partisan.
Well the source is the Brady Bunch in their "1997 Firearm Deaths" report that, like you, included 18 and 19 year olds as "children". The problem? 4223/365 = 11.6 not "13" as was claimed by them and Bill Clinton. To get to the 13 number, they worded it as "young lives" in their official "Firearm Facts" report including 10-24 year olds. No "creative statistic-twisting. " there right?
. A cited instance.
You are deliberately ignoring the fact. The Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center routinely misrepresent data. Why? To frighten and manipulate people.
You also fail to realize the most effective way to reduce violent crime is to take the criminals off the streets. They should never be released. If necessary, put them on a reservation, from which they cannot escape.
Sorry, Lady--but assuming what you say is true (it, of course, isn't), how does this excuse the NRA lying?
Would you accept your children lying with the excuse that other kids lie, too?
I see Jade has taken a big gulp of his "i know you are but what am I" juice today.....
Ok, Jade. Let's assume that the NRA only has 3 million members. How 'bout this, lets say they only have a million. Or for argument's sake, only 1.
As a US citizen and a gun owner, these are the only statistics I really care about (2007):
Firearm accident deaths have been decreasing for decades. Since 1930, their annual number has decreased 80%, while the U.S. population has more than doubled and the number of firearms has quintupled. Among children, such deaths have decreased 89% since 1975.
Firearm accident deaths are at an all-time annual low, while the U.S. population is at an all-time high. Therefore, the firearm accident death rate is at an all-time annual low, 0.2 per 100,000 population, down 94% since the all-time high in 1904.
Today, the odds are a million to one, against a child in the U.S. dying in a firearm accident.
Firearms are involved in 0.6% of accidental deaths nationally....
http://www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=120
These are the only statistics that will prove time and time again that gun control was, is, and will continue to be an utter failure. These are the statistics which cannot be refuted by anti-rights people like Josh and jade.
This is why they have to resort to cookies and paint and membership numbers.
I would like to know more about Josh Sugarmann's Federal Firearms License, with the listed address as the Violence Policy Center. Why does Josh Sugarman need a Federal Firearms License in Washington, DC? Why does Josh Sugarman want a Federal Firearms License, when the avowed purpose of the Violence Policy Center is to ban firearms? We would really like to know.
Quick question: are the 3,000,000 the entire membership of the NRA, or the membership of the NRA who were interested in the insurance process?
If the first case is true, then the organization has misplaced a million members.
If the second case is true, then you are confusing two different categories to make a point, and are not interested in the plain facts of the case.
MolonLabe quickly changes the subject.
I don't blame him, it must be uncomfortable to see his beloved organization caught in such a lie. People who are duped into investing in perpetual motion machines, beachfront properties in Utah, and a 4M member NRA often quickly switch topics.
Jade and Josh, quick question.
As I'm sure both of you know, the NRA has regular members and then they have NRA-ILA members in addition to the regular contributors of yearly dues.
The dues are different and each are regarded quite differently in the tax code.
Which number does this 3 million member stat reference. Regular members or regular members plus NRA-ILA members?
Just wondering.
So where's your evidence Jade? Josh's numbers are a joke and bely the fact that they have ZERO members. It's also been noted that the misnamed "Million Mom March" has also lost about 950,000 members if you include the Brady Numbers (which they also refuse to provide). Still. Let's say the NRA is half what they claim. That's still 40X the largest anti-gun groups largest claimed numbers.
I'm sure we'll keep waiting for the evidence.
Here's a game Jade.
I'll provide a picture of the NRA's headquarters
http://www.satellite-sightseer.com/id/4669
Now you go out and find a picture of the VPC's headquarters.
Let the lurkers here decide which organization doesn't really want to brag about membership numbers.
BTW, Kaveman seems to believe his precious NRA HQ is solely inhabited by the NRA.
In reality, of course, most of the offices at NRA HQ are leased out (or are vacant) to a variety of companies having nothing to do with firearms policy. Apparently, the address isn't particularly desirable as the NRA is advertising on CraigsList to lease office space. Recently, office space at NRA HQ was going for $16/sqft--which, in the Washington DC area, is about what one would pay for industrial space.
"In realit" taking Jade's word for anything is a bad idea. Notice the lack of corroborating evidence.
Can you provide any evidence that the NRA is leasing space at its HQ.
I went to Craigslist and searced for NRA-office/commercial space.
Got no results.
Please provide a direct link to evidence your claims.
Note Kaveman also switches the subject.
NRA caught lying about membership? Look! There's a shiny building! The one with the bird on it!
Fine. I'll address the subject directly.
Let's assume the NRA has "only" 3 million contributing members.
How many contributing members does does Josh's VPC have or claim to have?
How many contributing members does the Brady Campaign have or claim to have?
And please don't throw up the number of 150,000 email activists as contributing members. I recieve emails from both organizations, as many of us here do, and have never sent either a dime.
So, can you provide any evidence whatsoever to answer my questions or are you just waiting for kelli to come save the day with her deep insight and emotions?
Translation:
No actual evidence besides Jade's personal beliefs.
Shock.
Jade writes..."I don't blame him, it must be uncomfortable to see his beloved organization caught in such a lie."
And we all know how the Brady Campaign and the VPC is "all facts all the time."
What a joke.
" I have sensed that NRA membership is declining, but it isn't due to a sudden surge of support for the anti-gun lobby. It is simply a reflection of the fact that the political pendulum has swung in favor of the NRA and gun owners don't feel as threatened." -DrMichaelSBrown
This is a logical fallacy. It assumes there are only two possible outcomes--that one is either "pro-gun" or "anti-gun."
IOW, Dr. Brown apparently believes one rigidly agrees with the NRA agenda or one is "anti-gun."
Further, in trying to explain away the NRA's exaggerated membership, Dr. Brown suggests the NRA has achieved its goals and therefore membership has dwindled. Of course, this is rather laughable in light of the fact polling shows the vast majority of Americans favor keeping gun laws and regulations as they are or making them more strict. Issues dear to the NRA get single digit support.
Of course, Dr. Brown hasn't carefully read Josh Sugarmann's article. Nowhere does Sugarmann suggest the NRA's membership has declined--what he is saying is that the NRA never had 4M members.
Jade-
Before dumping more unsubstantiated "facts" over on ths blog, I think there's a few people waiting for explanations and citations over on Bryan Miller's. Where've ya been?
While people like Josh and Jade like arguing over member size, paint, cookies that look like guns, let's not forget the fact that anti-rights groups can't even get the most "vanilla" of gun-control legislation (NICS Improvement) passed without NRA backing. 4 million, 3 million, a hundred... In the grand scheme of things, Josh arguing membership size is about as transparant as the liberal smear campain of John McCain....oh yeah....and eachother.
When you have no statistics, historical precedent, and no way to substantiate the argument FOR gun control, you have to resort to declining gun ownership, NRA membership, and other issues which are just fodder for the sheeple.
The truth is out there, sheeple. Just do a little research.
The truth is the NRA has never had 4M members. This shouldn't come as a major surprise; the NRA has, over the years, inflated its membership size.
In the 1990s, an NRA official even admitted the NRA probably still carried many deceased and lapsed members on its rolls. Over the years, the NRA has offered free memberships and freebies if one became a member; many folks are NRA members in name only--they have zero interest in the aims of the organization.
It's also a fallacy to believe all NRA members have the same agenda. Many aren't interested in the NRA's desire to make guns accessible to terrorists and felons--they are members because they're interested in the hunting or competitive shooting publications and events.
"The truth is the NRA has never had 4M members."
Any evidence of this. I thought so.
"In the 1990s, an NRA official even admitted the NRA probably still carried many deceased and lapsed members on its rolls."
Although I don't really doubt this one, as I can understand how this could easily occurr, but who was this "NRA official?" Again, provide evidence with links.
"It's also a fallacy to believe all NRA members have the same agenda."
Noone here has ever said that every NRA member has the same agenda. I can't even hold an office meeting with 14 people without running into seperate agendas. Hint...14 is a smaller number than 3 million.
Any fence sitters who would like to educate themselves on the "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act" which Jade says shows that the NRA wants to arm AL Queda can read it here for yourself.
Don't believe anything I or Jade says without checking for yourself, then you can make an informed decision as to who here is telling the truth.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2074:
Keep in mind...
The Clean Air bill was about promoting clean air, right?
The Healthy Forests Act was about promoting healthy forests, right?
The Patriot Act was about promoting patriotism, right?
As long as you're "checking for yourself," you might ask the terrorists what they think.
Shortly after we invaded Afghanistan, US forces seized an Al Qaeda training manual that urged its followers to take advantage of the US' lax gun laws. Since the NRA seeks to make already lax gun laws even less strict or to do away with laws altogether--it's something terrorists must be licking their chops over.
Similarly, the NRA has long been on record as favoring allowing convicted felons legal access to guns.
These are facts and not in dispute.
As usual, you don't put things in context nor provide evidence.
I'ld like to see this "al qaeda training manual". Please show it.
The NRA supported allowing non-violent felons to go through the courts to be allowed to own firearms again during the 80's. The Gov't fouled up the program so it was discontinued.
Another Jade lie by omission. But it's okay when it's your side doing it,right?
Jade writes..."Many aren't interested in the NRA's desire to make guns accessible to terrorists and felons"
Care to provide some evidence for this whopper?
I suspect that you are referring to the NRA's opposition to the "Denying firearms and explosives to dangerous terrorists act of 2007."
Have you read this piece of legislation? Do you know what due process is? This Act makes no distinction between a known terrorist, dangerous or non-dangerous, and people SUSPECTED of being a terrorist, which is anyone Bush or the AG says so.
Let's see if we can learn from history. In Salem Mass. a few years back, some women were SUSPECTED of being witches. The courts allowed something they called "spectral evidence" to be used against them. These were dreams that other people had that convinced them that the ascused were indeed under the devil's spell.
These women were then burned alive.
Is this the justice system you want to RETURN to this country?
{{These women were then burned alive.}}
No, they were hung. If one tries to draw inept historical analogies, one should try and get the facts somewhat right.
{{I suspect that you are referring to the NRA's opposition to the "Denying firearms and explosives to dangerous terrorists act of 2007."}}
Per usual, you suspect incorrectly.
So you support "spectral evidence" in courts and oppose the 4th amendment as well?
" I have sensed that NRA membership is declining, but it isn't due to a sudden surge of support for the anti-gun lobby. It is simply a reflection of the fact that the political pendulum has swung in favor of the NRA and gun owners don't feel as threatened." -DrMichaelSBrown
Good observation, Doc. I myself, as vehemently pro-gun as I am, almost let my NRA membership expire this past year. In part, to the exact phenomenon that you touch on.
Also, because the price of .223 ammunition is so outrageously expensive these days that I could've used that $35 toward that last case of ammo I just bought. After all, what good is an "Assault Gun Machine Pistol Death Device(tm)" without a healthy diet of lead to feed it?
But the way Brady Campaign has been trampling the dead in the name of political agenda lately made me realize that even though the "political pendulum" is swinging our way, that $35 to keep the 800 lb gorilla on the hill is money well spent.
I wonder how many members the VPC really has? I also wonder how many memeber Josh's buddies, the Brady Campaign have. They won't tell us. It's a big secret.
I do know that if you log onto the BC Blog, they count you as one of their "hundreds of thousands" of online supporters. Kaveman and I are 2 of thousands. LOL.
Posted April 24, 2008 | 11:59 AM (EST)