Summations Only

Well we can't get a more liberal argument than reading the 2000AD NY Times analysis, but here is what the articles attached to my graphic says:Abolitionists have pointed to the fact that states with the highest execution rates have the highest murder rates, whereas proponents have suggested that high murder rates had forced the adoption of execution. 1) On March 1, 1847 the State of Michigan became the first English-speaking territory in the world to abolish the death penalty. It may be no accident that Detroit rivals Washington, DC as the city with the highest murder rate among American cities having a population over half-a-million.2) Texas, the state with the highest number of executions, dropped from being the state with the second highest murder rate to the 15th in the 1990s after beginning lethal injection in 1982.Consider these studies and the credentials of those reportingthem;David B. Muhlhausen, PhD, Senior Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis, in testimony delivered on June 27, 2007 before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights of the US Senate Judiciary Committee, stated:"The recent studies using panel data techniques have confirmed what we learned decades ago: Capital punishment does, in fact, save lives... Over the years, several studies have demonstrated a link between executions and decreases in murder rates. In fact, studies done in recent years, using sophisticated panel data methods, consistently demonstrate a strong link between executions and reduced murder incidents. Using a panel data set of over 3,000 counties from 1977 to 1996, Professors Hashem Dezhbakhsh [and] Shepherd of Emory University found that each execution, on average, results in 18 fewer murders...They found that executions had a highly significant negative relationship with murder incidents. Additionally, the implementation of state moratoria is associated with the increased incidence of murders... While opponents of capital punishment allege that it is unfairly used against African—Americans, each additional execution deters the murder of 1.5 African—Americans. Further moratoria, commuted sentences, and death row removals appear to increase the incidence of murder... Americans support capital punishment for two good reasons. First, there is little evidence to suggest that minorities are treated unfairly. Second, capital punishment produces a strong deterrent effect that saves lives."June 27, 2007 - David B. Muhlhausen, PhD

So according to you, a gun manufacturer saying that selling assault rifles saved his business is no support for my statement that assault rifle revenue is the life blood of the industry. Statements that other sales of guns (e.g hunting rifles) were declining, and that the rapid increases in sales of assault rifles propped up flagging sales revenues is no support either, at least according to you.I'll admit that the single Huffington Post article is not a primary reference, or peer-reviewed work, but before I'd bother adding more, I'm really curious about how you interpret my if you believe that the remarks I've posted are not supportive of my position.Actually, I don't have to guess. This is your statement of what I must establish in order to say that "lifeblood over the last few decades has been the sale of semi-automatic assault weapons". I disagree that I have to meet your given standard just as I disagree that using the term 'diddly squat' to mean 'next to nothing' rather than 'absolutely nothing' is a falsehood. The quotes I provided support my actual position. I have no idea if your 'expectation' is correct or not.

Thanks for posting on this topic. I was going to get around to it in a bit. The tobacco industry method (at least as practiced in the US) would be for the industry to form a 'Tobacco Institute' to help put out false information. That method worked for awhile. The industry avoided liability for a while, but ultimately, the practice of lying and having corporate executives swear to it in front of Congress ended up making the tobacco industry almost universally reviled even among many of their own customers.The gun industry approach is light years ahead of the 'Tobacco Institute'. Congress, is complicit in the blocking of research to the point where there is little for the gun industry to lie about. Congress has passed laws eliminating problematic liability for gun makers that results from the use of the stuff they sell.No need to speculate about what kind of results the gun makers were trying to block.Here is the kind of research that the gun lobby (which for most purposes means the NRA and a number of like minded groups) wanted and got blocked.Sway of N.R.A. Stymies Firearms Research, Scientists Say - The New York Times

quote:

---

The dearth of money can be traced in large measure to a clash between public health scientists and the N.R.A. in the mid-1990s. At the time, Dr. Rosenberg and others at the C.D.C. were becoming increasingly assertive about the importance of studying gun-related injuries and deaths as a public health phenomenon, financing studies that found, for example, having a gun in the house, rather than conferring protection, significantly increased the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

---

That's correct, it doesn't. Firstly one business does not an industry make. Secondly, "selling assault rifles" would by definition refer to military arms sales, and militaries are going to continue to buy assault rifles from American manufacturers regardless of what gun control laws you pass. You're talking about banning or otherwise reducing the sale and manufacture of semi-automatic modular long rifles, rifles with detachable magazines, lightweight stocks and grips, and accessory rails, all in a matte black color, for the private market.And since that's such a narrow market segment - those rifles are just stupidly expensive - that I need some actual evidence that they constitute the majority of the gun industry's private sales. I don't think propping up one flagging market with an increase in another market constitutes "lifeblood" to anyone. For instance, if a gun manufacturer's sales went from 90% handguns, 5% long hunting rifles, and 5% modular semi-automatic rifles in one year to 90% handguns, 4% long hunting rifles, and 6% modular semi-automatic rifles, that would certainly be something you could describe as "rapid sales of assault rifles propped up declining hunting rifle sales" yet, even a casual glance at those sales figures would prove that the lifeblood of the company was handguns. As I suspect is true about the gun industry in general. You're free to disagree with whatever you like, all I asked was for you to substantiate a claim that you had made. If you had no wish to do so to my satisfaction, then you could simply have responded to my request by saying "no." Only if you have no idea what words mean, I guess.

I realize you hold that view, but you've seemingly chosen to ignore the entire rest of my post that actually dealt with that view. Do you think you could go back and actually reply to it?

David B. Muhlhausen, PhD.Dr. Muhlhausen, is as you have noted, the Senior Policy Analyst at the Center for Data Analysis of the Heritage Foundation and I don't find this to be a credential that inspires belief in anything he says. The doctor is entitled to his opinion, but there is plenty of evidence to show that the death penalty has been administered unfairly with respect to execution rates of minorities. I understand that you and Dr. Muhlhausen may have a 'Heritage' view of what constitutes unfair application of the death penalty to minorities.Further, more recent research suggest a completely different conclusion on the issue of the link between executions and deterence :EDITORIALS: Evidence Does Not Support Death Penalty As Deterrent | Death Penalty Information Center

quote:

---

For example, compare the homicide rates in California, New York and Texas, as the National Research Council has done. From 1974 to 2009, the homicide rates in those three states tracked virtually identically — going up at the same time in the late 1970s and late 1980s and all declining dramatically since then.

​

Yet during that time Texas had 447 executions and New York had none; California had 13. Clearly, something other than executions has had an effect on declining murder rates. And that clearly is what we should focus on.

​

That pattern holds up in comparisons of Canada and the United States, too.

---

And for this gem you've cited.

quote:

---

While opponents of capital punishment allege that it is unfairly used against African—Americans, each additional execution deters the murder of 1.5 African—Americans.

---

Let's explore the ramification of this statement. If unfairly executing African Americans actually did deter them from murder, would being even more unfair be the right policy to implement? After all, we get 1.5 fewer murders per each unfair execution. Why not execute all members of a minority that commit murder? Or who steal? What would happen if we unfairly executed non-minorities? Would that be a moral policy? So who is right? It looks like the proponents have no cases.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

In 1999, Michigan's violent crime rate was 4,324.8 per 100,000 people, compared to Ohio's 3,996.4. Legislators and citizens were fed up. Amidst howls from gun control extremists, failed court challenges, and veto-threats, Michigan's state legislature passed a "shall-issue" concealed carry reform bill into law. The state began issuing licenses in the year 2000.In the first year of widespread licensing, Michigan's rate dropped to 4,109.9, vs. Ohio's increase to 4,041.8 per 100,000 people.

In 2001, Michigan's crime rate dropped below Ohio's for the first time since modern crime trends have been recorded - down to 4,081.5 per 100,000 people, compared to yet another increase in Ohio - up to 4,177.6.With the success of Michigan's concealed carry law apparent even to some former opponents, the state legislature passed a number of liberalizations to that state's CCW law - making it easier to obtain a license, and to carry a firearm for self-defense in more places. The changes went into effect last July.The FBI has just released it's 2002 Uniform Crime Report, which reveals stunning facts about the success of Michigan's concealed carry law: amidst a slight upward trend in crime nationwide, Michigan's crime rate has dropped yet again: down to 3874.1, a 10.5% reduction in just three years. In that same time, Ohio's crime rate has increased 5%. As if this isn't enough, the devil can most certainly be found in the details:Ohio's violent crime rate is increasing at an even faster pace than the overall crime trend - up 4.24% in 2002. Michigan's violent crime rate, on the other hand, dropped another 2.63%.Ohio's murder rate was up a whopping 21.24% last year, while Michigan's experienced a less than one percent change.Ohio's rape rate (already one of the highest in the nation) rose another 13.31% last year, while Michigan's dropped 1.34%.Robberies in Ohio surged 6.5% in 2002, while they dropped a whopping 8.49% across the northern border. Car thefts, which include carjackings, increased 2.83% in Ohio last year, while falling 7.42% in Michigan.FBI: Michigan's crime rate down 10.5% with CCW law | Buckeye Firearms Association

But what you quoted above isn't all I said. I guess you wanted a more detailed answer to the other stuff, but concerning the actual topic I think it was only necessary to say what I wrote: "In the absence of guns some potential murderers will simply shift to other means, but only some, and in the aggregate these other means are far less certain than guns." Not only will gun deaths due to suicide, homicide and accident decline with declining gun prevalence, but deaths by other means will not increase by anywhere near the same amount, whether or not the US is inherently more murderous.--Percy

No crashfrog. I am not limited to saying a simple 'no' to in response to your questions. I can support my claims using reasoning other than a direct counter to the reasoning in your question. No, you don't think that. That simply means we disagree and not that I don't know what words mean. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Why is it that anytime we see the word "shill" being thrown around its always in regard to some industry. If industries don't defend themselves against attack, they will end up disappearing.

Because industries hire the most shills? It is rather rare for someone to shill for a private individual --- I, for example, don't own a single shill. Oh, I don't know. The drug industry and the prostitution industry haven't actually disappeared, despite that "authoritarian government" you're so down on. I didn't have you pegged for a libertarian, by the way, but life is full of surprises.

An opinion on gun controlLarry Correia(A very long and detailed blog.) Page not found | Monster Hunter Nation

No, you're not; I was just thinking it would save you the effort. But, do as you will.

Well, far be it from me to ask for more details about stuff, I guess.

When one considers that only 43 people have ACTUALLY been executed in America annually, the mere threat seems to have enough effect on curtailing murder in the States where it clearly has accompanied lower rates.IMAGINE the impact if all murderers we executed promptly and advertised as publicly as in Muslim nations where murder is so low?????? Isn't it ACTUALLY permissive and ACTUALLY enabling for America to practical say one can get away with killing someone if he/she really want to kill them?And, conversely, isn't the anti-death penalty people a waste of time (since we really do not kill anyone anyway, i.e., 43 people out of 10,000 murders), and waste of money/lobbying De facto, plus advocates that advertise that murderers might avoid such a fate, so they take their chances???Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.