Thanks for the post. There is a variety of links that I can follow to find exactly what I am looking for. Also, I congratulate the winners!
Rachel Ross | http://mcfaddendalehardware.com/
I love learning more about eating healthy food. Are you familiar with this website at all: www.southtownhealthfoods.com? They seemed to have some good information.
There are so many problems with this piece, and Ms. Haldeman's opinions about law-abiding citizens exercising the right to bear arms to defend themselves and their families. I suppose I can go point-by-point...
“The group, the brainchild of an indignant Indiana woman...“ Watts is a former Monsanto PR executive currently funded by Bloomberg.
“membership has swelled to almost 130,000 people...“ Having a list of email addresses in not the same thing as having members.
“There have been 30 school shootings in the United States since Newtown...“ Unlikely. The few that have occurred were psychopaths targeting kids they knew were defenseless in “Gun Free” schools.
“The statistics are sobering. A recent World Health Organization study found that Americans have 88 guns per 100 people...“ This is “sobering”? Why?
“there are about 10 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people” No. Actually there are about 4.7/100K. If you exclude cities that ban guns (e.g. Chicago & DC) this number drops to about 2/100K, similar to UK and Canadian rates.
“a child is shot in this country every 30 minutes...” Only if you consider 18-24 y/o gang members killing themselves over drugs to be “children”.
"I remind business owners: You're not prohibiting a human," she says. "You're prohibiting a weapon." You are encouraging encroaching on the fundamental rights of Americans. The right to bear arms derives from the right to life – we all have a right and responsibility to defend ourselves.
"We've had 30 years of an unchecked gun lobby creating the narrative in this country" True. This explains murderous “Gun Free Zones” and pointless “Assault Weapons Bans”. It is past time to eliminate these bad laws that only punish the law-abiding.
“The group now has 10 full-time staff members in North Carolina” Really? If true, they must be funded by Bloomberg. We don't need New York gun control in NC.
"It's kind of sad" Yes. It is sad that misguided people think that disarming people protects them.
Congratulations Thava! You have done so much for recovery and mental health in North Carolina! Proud to have visited Penny Lane- its a wonderful oasis!
Karen Boekschoten, what is "common sense gun reform?" Taking guns away from people who obey the law? Making it harder for those same people to buy guns in the first place? You all have no answers other than "all guns are bad and therefore need to be banned."
What an inspirational person this woman is! I am utterly indebted to these women working to assure that our families and children can continue to live safely in our country. I pledge to do one thing every day to help this country achieve gun sense. We need more people to stand up and demand common sense gun reform.
This is quite a monologue we have going here. When will someone from MDA come along to engage us in a healthy debate?
"The group now has 10 full-time staff members in North Carolina, with volunteers statewide, ..." Well that is a big budget! I wonder where the $$ comes from? Humm? Any chance the author of this post, Billy Ball knows who is funding this work? I guess he didn't think you need to know those facts.
On another note; when anyone like Karren or her husband -unarmed citizens- are attacked what do they do? The call people with guns, the Police! Think of this for a minute.
It amazes me that well educated people like Kaaren can be so short sighted. I guess, in the rarefied air of academia, it's difficult to deal with reality.
Our free nation, based upon experiment after experiment, has repeatedly proven that prohibition doesn't work. Prohibition just makes things worse. It enables the shift from individual crime to massively organized crime. Whether alcohol, drugs or guns, prohibition just leads to a greater social divide, increased danger for citizens and profit for criminals.
If you prohibit guns in certain places, it attracts armed criminals who know that law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves. If you prohibit guns, criminals will steal them from the law abiding or traffic them from places where they are available. If you completely prohibit guns or classes of guns, criminals will make a fortune providing them on the black market.
American citizens proved the folly of gun prohibition last year by their actions when congress began considering this misguided infringement on constitutionally guaranteed individual rights. They bought more guns faster than at any time in our country's history, and then created a market run on ammunition.
The only rational people that want gun prohibition in our country are the criminals, whose violent actions will become easier and more effective.
Legitimate study after academic study has adequately proven my point. The prevalence of violent armed attacks on or near school campuses absolutely proves the danger of establishing protection free gun prohibition zones where our most precious children spend their days completely unprotected from mass insane violent armed criminals.
You can take Bloomberg's money to establish organizations like MDA, and make inflated claims for participation and effectiveness, but the truth is that emotional commitment to this folly is regressive and will not help solve the problem.
There you go again, Kaaren. You say, "Guns may save lives...But they take lives too, at a rate far greater than they save lives" -- another "factoid" bludgeoned into the collective consciousness.
But is it true, Kaaren? Despite claiming to be a scholar, you don't cite empirical evidence (your side rarely does, at least not truthfully) because there isn't any. By contrast, let's look at work by the researcher who has probably done more to study defensive gun use than any other: *Liberal* criminologist Gary Kleck of the University of Florida.
Specifically, let's look at his book "Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control," which contains an excellent literature review on defensive gun use. Noting that flawed methodology in the "National Crime Victimization Survey" (NCVS) led to under-reporting of defensive gun use, he turned to your beloved co-conspirator Phil Cook, of Duke University, who has been cooking the books on the topic for years: "Faced with estimates that he [Cook] himself had helped develop, which radically contradicted his earlier acceptance of the deviant NCVS estimates, Cook refused to accept the verdict of the evidence." Refused? Doesn't sound like an unbiased research to me.
But after earlier noting that guns are used in self defense at least 2.1 -- 2.5* million times per year, here is the gem of the book: "Thus the best available evidence indicates that guns are used about three to five times as often for defensive purposes as for criminal purposes" (p.160).
So please, Kaaren: Tell us why we shouldn't believe you are just making this stuff up as you go along.
* "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun", Kleck, Gary and Gertz, Marc J., Criminal Law and Criminology, v.86, n.1, (1995).
Perhaps it would be good to look at the study from The Pew Research Center.
The title (also in the link): "Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware"
So even as the gun ownership rates have been increasing, thanks to the best gun salesmen on the planet (Presidents Clinton & Obama), the homicide rate has been decreasing.
It just couldn't be that Moms Demanding Banning and Mayors Against Guns are attacking the wrong problem, could it?
As a Mom (and school staff member) with a CHP, I'd like to "Demand Action Against Untruth and Bias". This article is loaded with both, as has already been pointed out in a multitude of comments here. But such groups as Ms. Haldeman's care not for the truth, but for hyperbole and emotionalism -- because they know that the truth is not on their side.
Here's what I see. There are 16 generally facts-based posts refuting the author's statements and premises. There are 0 posts supporting her position, validating her facts, or discrediting other poster facts.
Yet the ratio of likes to dislikes is currently 64 - 50.
So, to the thumbs-down crowd, sit back and think about it a little. Hit some of the links. Don't be sheep, think for yourself.
Limiting the rights of citizens to make them "safer" is an insidious and disingenuous as her willingness to flaunt her UNC PHD (it's almost too easy to make jokes about this) as some sort of qualification to talk about gun violence.
It's interesting to me that she lives in a city so ridden with gangs and interracial violence ... yet she's going to tow the same drag line that the rest do about how we need to ban "assault" weapons, how we need limits on magazines, etc. I mean, if you can't fix the root of the problem, go after the fringes, right? Make life miserable for the rest of us so she can feel like she "did something". For the kids.
It'll be amusing to see what Kaaren and her 10 full-time staff members manage to not accomplish in North Carolina—a state steeped in traditions of gun ownership. I suspect this group will wither like its predecessor (NCGV) did, when they realize that Durham and Chapel Hill do not speak for the other 98 counties.
That's pretty funny. someone already "disliked" my facts post. What about it did you dislike? Did the facts make you uncomfortable? Challenged your paradigm? Or is it your habit to blindly go along, following your emotions and ignoring facts, not even willing to consider alternatives.
How about instead of a knee-jerk, feel-good "dislike" you actually try to refute some of the data? Let's engage in facts-based discourse. It will lend you and your cause more credibility than a drive-by thumbs-down shooting.
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
~ John Adams
Let's get this straight - Kaaren's facts are not correct.
This isn't for the author, she made up her mind a long time ago. It is for any reader who has an open and objective mind.
Here we go:
First, I highly encourage any reader to do their own research on both the author's data and any poster's data. Just don't take Kaaren's word for it....or mine.
She said: "There have been 30 school shootings in the United States since Newtown"
He said: "Yep, and EVERY ONE has been a Victim Zone, otherwise known as a gun-free zone. In fact, every single mass shooting except for one since 1950 has been in a gun free zone".
She said: "...Durham...a robber pointed a gun in her face, and husband held up at gunpoint at UNC-Chapel Hill in 1995"
He said: "The script writes itself, doesn't it? Durham, liberal leaning, anti-gun, park-banning city, and UNCCH, a gun-free school zone. Kaaren should pay attention to the data in her own life. And wait, 1995? Wasn't that a year *after* the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Ban was passed? Hmmmm....".
She said: "She's fond of citing statistics, and with good reason. The statistics are sobering."
He said: "Kaaren needs to understand the statistics she's citing, and look at other data. "Sober" will take on a whole new meaning for her. Some stats she cites is the 2010 CDC report. Here are a few salient points.
- she says a "Child" is shot every 30 minutes. Since when is a 19 year old a "child"? That alone should get your BS radar into high gear. The CDC report goes up to age 19, counts "children" that are part of gangs and inter-gang violence and includes "children" shot by police during criminal activity.
She said: "...Guns may save lives, but they take lives too, at a rate far greater than they save lives".
He said: "Well, this is is the whopper in her story. Good for her, she does admit that 'guns may save lives', maybe there is hope for her yet.
Here's the real deal. Guns save lives at a rate 80X more than they take lives. Let me say that again - EIGHTY TIMES MORE TO SAVE LIVES....... 2.5 Million times a year...one Defensive use every 13 Seconds....www.americangunfacts.com....
Kaaren, please for your own sake and sake of those you are influencing, get some objectivity, get more facts and data than you are from Team Groupthink.
Get the facts....
"But Haldeman, a liberal-leaning public health worker from Durham, had found her cause."
She was active in gun banning circles long before Newtown. She was a member of NCGV before they basically went bankrupt. I think it's far more likely that she got to the end of her term as a post-doctoral researcher in cultural anthropology and saw an opportunity to take Michael Bloomberg's money. Moms Demand Action is, of course, a wholly owned subsidiary of Michael Bloomberg, Inc.
You can't blame her. She already hated guns, so why not make a buck while attacking our rights?
Gun-Free Zone signs AREN'T going to keep the bad guys and mentally-ill out. And they don't obey the laws anyway. There is no telling how many times a day that the presence of a gun in the hands of a law-abiding citizen has kept a crime from being committed. But you'll never hear anything about that. You have this thing backwards/upside down.
It is just mystifying how liberals support a woman's choice that "always" kills an unborn innocent child, and they have no problem with that, yet will deny the same woman the choice to use a gun ot protect her students, because a child "might" get harmed, and they are OK with that.
These liberals are insane, and should have to pass a test to vote.
The only assumption I can make , is that these liberals fear they might get shot by an armed citizen, but have no fear they will ever be aborted.
Freedom is messy, o insane ones, deal with it.
It appears that Moms Demand Action is pro-criminal.
Serving up helpless victims to them seems to be the ultimate game plan.
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation