We get serious about gun violence and the massacre in Charleston; Why we’ll never pass new gun legislation; Fox and Friends are evil monkeys; Alex Jones says this is the beginning of a race war; Lindsey Graham and Steve Doocy say this is a war on Christians; Brian Kilmeade tries to do math; and much more.
Professor David Hemenway of the Harvard School of Public Health recently took a series of surveys of scientists in the fields of criminology, economics, public policy, political science and public health on the effects of firearms on society, and made some very interesting discoveries: There’s Scientific Consensus on Guns — and the NRA Won’t Like It.
I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won’t please the National Rifle Assn.
Last May we began sending out short, monthly surveys. The first question on each survey asks how much the respondent agrees with a particular claim related to firearms, and the second and third questions ask the respondent to rate the quality of the scientific literature, as well as their own level of familiarity with the scientific literature on that particular topic.
So, for example, one survey asked whether having a gun in the home increased the risk of suicide. An overwhelming share of the 150 people who responded, 84%, said yes.
This result was not at all surprising because the scientific evidence is overwhelming. It includes a dozen individual-level studies that investigate why some people commit suicide and others do not, and an almost equal number of area-wide studies that try to explain differences in suicide rates across cities, states and regions. These area-wide studies find that differences in rates of suicide across the country are less explained by differences in mental health or suicide ideation than they are by differences in levels of household gun ownership.
I also found widespread confidence that a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide (72% agree, 11% disagree) and that a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates (62% vs. 9%). Finally, there is consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide (71% vs. 12%).
Ted Cruz calling blocked Surgeon General nominee Dr. Vivek Murthy an “anti-gun activist” is incredibly dishonest. Murthy advocates very minimal restrictions on guns because guns are used in more than 300,000 violent crimes against American citizens every single year. Murthy sees that as a public health problem, and he’s NOT WRONG. It is.
The fact is, looking at this as a public health issue is absolutely appropriate, and not “extreme” at all. The Republican Party and their NRA cohorts have pushed the debate about guns so far to the right, it’s utter insanity at this point. A nominee for Surgeon General proposes simple common sense measures to address the gun violence problem, and the right freaks out and blocks his nomination at a time when we need a strong voice for public health more than ever. It’s sick. Deeply sick.
This shit makes me crazy. America is incredibly dysfunctional on the gun issue and people are dying every day because we won’t face the monster we’ve created.
Last week Gabby Giffords co-authored an op-ed for CNN on Domestic Abuse and gun violence.
Basically, she is asking Congress to extend Federal gun laws that protect married women against abusive spouses to include single women who are abused and stalked.
Seems, to me anyway, a reasonable position.
That’s why it is time for Congress to address this lethal mix of domestic violence and guns. Our leaders must pass laws that prevent stalkers and abusers from accessing guns to intimidate, hurt or kill women.
The numbers should shock you: Women in America are 11 times more likely to be murdered with a gun than women in other democratic countries with developed economies. In domestic abuse situations, if the abuser has access to a gun, it increases the chance that a woman will die by 500%.
Most of the time, women are murdered with guns by someone they know, either by a family member or an intimate partner, such as a former or current husband or boyfriend.
Between 2001 and 2012, more women were shot to death by an intimate partner in our country than the total number of American troops killed in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined. That is a national shame.
Fortunately, the momentum is on our side. On Wednesday, the Senate will hold its first-ever hearing on domestic violence homicides and the use of gun violence against America’s women. Many of our elected leaders are calling for new protections for those who are subject to abuse. States are already taking bipartisan action. And Americans support these laws by staggering margins.
Currently, federal law prevents people who are under domestic violence protection orders or have misdemeanor domestic violence convictions from accessing guns. But even though increasing numbers of couples are choosing to marry later in life, the law hasn’t been extended to address dating partner abuse. And convicted stalkers can still get guns.
Common sense says that these dangerous loopholes should be closed now. Congress has the power to do it.
This is a few days ago so maybe it is old news to some, but I couldn’t help being thoroughly disgusted by Breitbart’s reaction to Giffords’ op-ed. First, by the title; it is a complete misrepresentation of the op-ed. She never mentioned “war on women” nor implied it. Then, there are the vile comments about Gabby Giffords.
Gabby, I’m sorry you were shot in the head, but you were shot in the head! You’re position on anything is seriously discounted because of that fact. Shut up. Go away and enjoy your congressional pension and let the grown ups mind the store. SHUT UP, GABBY!!!! You didn’t have a gun the day you were shot! I think you should have had one, dumb a**!!!
This is odd….seeing as how that babes on THE VIEW are calling for all women to become armed in order to protect themselves and their kids.
Stupidity is getting more gender specific as time goes by….\
Ladies…try keeping your arguments on the same page.
Mark Kelly is a great Dummy operator. I never see his lips move. And he is great at pitching his voice up.
Being shot in the head helps in being a useful idiot!
So Gabby… women are too stupid and useless to buy a gun and defend themselves? Not the women I know. Who’s waging the war on women now?
AS SOON AS HER WORTHLESS HUSBAND GETS A JOB AND QUITS FEEDING OFF THIS POOR WOMAN, THE SOONER SHE CAN RELAX AND QUIT BEING HAULED AROUND LIKE A CART PONY!!
And another thing… this crap here is the war on women! They want to leave my daughters with no defense against the creeps in this world they have another think coming! In Arizona we the best gun rights, plus conceal/carry. You will never change that, EVER! We are keeping our firearms. Suck on that!
Sorry Gabs, but you may want to get tested for lead poisoning…. Yup, I just went there. Why? Nice doesn’t work with “these” people.
I saw a video of her driving by in a car using her right arm. You folks are suckers and believe anything you are told. Shot in the forehead and out the back and no visible scaring or discoloration. Hair doesn’t grow through scar tissue. Boy people sure are gullible. One of the bystanders who was the last one shot , got shot twice in the arm and once in the back. 2 days later she is laughing and waving her arms all around while doing a interview. LOL Get out of here Gabby you PHONY
They don’t seem to have read the Op-Ed at all. Nobody is trying to take away guns from women or anybody else, unless they have a history of domestic abuse/stalking.
I’d like to see Gabby take my wife’s .25 Cal. Colt away from her
Gabby owns guns, but her and Mark, don’t want you to own any !
These people are ignorant, hateful liars. And that is putting it as mildly as possible.
Holly Fisher, aka “Holly Hobby Lobby,” thought she was being pretty clever tweeting her super-patriotic selfie this week.
There she is, standing in front of a huge American flag, with a huge Bible in her left arm, and a serious looking assault rifle in her right. Take that, librulz!
But the law of unintended consequences caught up with her.
Holly Fisher, a conservative Christian, has been getting insane amounts of attention recently by trolling liberals on social media over the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision. Unfortunately, she tried to up the ante one too many times and now she has unintentionally become the living symbol of how fundamentalism, no matter in what religion, looks disturbingly similar.
Holly’s imagery and pose were very similar to a photo of another young woman, standing in front of an Islamic flag, holding the Quran in her left hand and an assault rifle in her right. Rather than looking merely sweet, this woman looks defiant.
Predictably. someone Photoshopped the two images side-by-side and tweeted the result. Take that, conservatives!
So, who is the woman on the right? She’s not a liberal plant, and the photo was not staged to tweak Holly Fisher.
The woman on the right was Reem Riyashi. Like Holly Fisher, she has children. Unlike Holly Fisher, Riyashi was a suicide bomber. She killed herself and four Israelis on January 14, 2004, in Gaza City. She was 22. en.wikipedia.org
Her photographs are archived at Getty Images.
(Some sources have misidentified her as Samantha Lewthwaite, “the White Widow,” who’s been implicated in terror attacks in Kenya and elsewhere. Apparently, The Daily Mail mistakenly used Riyashi’s photo to illustrate an article about Lewthwaite. A sharp commenter at PZ Myers’ blog, Pharyngula, caught the error.)
Two young mothers in similar poses, with similar symbols, but in different contexts.
One is a patriot who probably attends church every week and likes to shoot guns as a hobby. The other was a patriot who probably worshiped at her mosque every week and shot guns as part of her combat training. One is alive, enjoying her freedom to tweak “librulz” with ineffective selfies. The other is dead and a murderer, because she believed her patriotism and her religion were more important than life itself.
Fanaticism is dangerous. It’s the cause for a lot of the grief in this world, and for the political stalemates in the USA. Instead of celebrating it, we ought to be backing away from it.
Holly Hobby Lobby ought to take time to reflect what message she really wants to send out into the Twitterverse.
[Live event concluded.]
Yet another horrifying mass murder, this time by a highly privileged young man who hated women.
Police said they were examining a video posted on YouTube in which a man, sitting in a car, said he had planned an attack in Isla Vista because he was sexually frustrated and had been snubbed by women. The young man, who said he was 22, described himself as a virgin and said he planned an act of retribution because women had not found him attractive.
“We’re investigating that as evidence we believe is connected to the crime,” Brown said.
In the video, which the man said he was making on the eve of the attack, he said he planned to shoot students at a sorority near UC Santa Barbara.
“For the last eight years of my life, ever since I hit puberty, I have been forced to endure an existence of loneliness, rejection and unfulfilled desires, all because girls have never been attracted to me,” he said, looking into a camera on the dashboard of his vehicle with palm trees in the background.
“I will punish all of you for it,” he said with a sinister laugh, saying he would enter a sorority. “I will slaughter every single spoiled, stuck-up blond slut I see inside there.”
Oh no. Here we go again: 3 Shot at Pittsburgh Brashear High School - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
Three people were shot at Pittsburgh Brashear High School in Beechview this afternoon, an Allegheny County dispatch supervisor said.
Police and K-9 units are searching the nearby woods for the shooter, the dispatcher supervisor said.
Several streets nearby have been closed, including Crane Avenue at Fallowfield Avenue and Dagmar Avenue. Traffic was at a standstill just before 3:30 p.m.
According to multiple sources, the suspect in the LAX shootings has been identified as 23-year old Paul Anthony Ciancia, from Pennsville, New Jersey.
Ciancia was shot in a standoff with police, and is in critical condition at this point. But he’s being described as having “strong anti-government views” based on written material in his possession at the time of the shooting.
One eyewitness described the shooter coming up to him and asking, “TSA?” before moving on, which suggests he may have been targeting TSA agents in his rampage. One TSA agent was killed, and several wounded; the actual number of wounded isn’t clear yet.
KCAL 9 in LA is running this photograph of the suspect:
The police chief in New Jersey was alerted by Ciancia’s father that he was worried about his son, because he had made a reference to suicide in a text message.
Here we go again, folks: LAX Evacuated After Gunman Fires at TSA Agent.
(CNN) — A suspect has been shot and is in police custody after Friday’s shooting at Los Angeles International Airport, a law enforcement source close to the investigation tells CNN’s Miguel Marquez.
A person with a firearm at Los Angeles International Airport approached a checkpoint at Terminal 3 and opened fire Friday morning at a Transportation Security Administration agent, a former Los Angeles Police Department ranking officer who was at the scene told CNN.
Reports of gunfire Friday morning at Los Angeles International Airport prompted evacuations of portions of LAX and led to a “ground stop” for arriving planes, said police and the Federal Aviation Administration.
No further details were immediately available on the gunfire, police said.
Airport officials said a police incident began about 9:30 a.m. at Terminal 3 at LAX, airport spokeswoman Nancy Suey Castles said.
UPDATE: One TSA employee killed, one wounded in LAX shooting