Chicago had a very high number of murders in 2012, and it also has some of America's toughest gun control laws. This morning, America’s Newsroom tried to use that factoid to prove that gun control didn't work, and brought a scary liberal guest, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, onto the show to rub his face in it. Jackson, however, rose to the occasion effortlessly.
Challenged by Martha McCallum on Chicago's high murder rate, Jackson replied that it should be seen in the context of drugs, poverty and race – besides which, he added, there are several gun manufacturers in the Chicago area and they target the city.
Well, said McCallum, Chicago has a very different context from, say, North Dakota. So why should there be national gun laws and a one-size-fits-all solution; shouldn't it be left up to the states? (Really? Is she implying that if some states pass strict gun laws, that's OK with Fox?) Jackson replied that some things should be nationalized: background checks, controlling the size of ammunition clips, and regulating assault weapons. As well as making manufacturers more accountable for their product, like cigarette manufacturers. What is the function of assault weapons, he asked? “These semi-automatic weapons, these assault weapons, can only kill people and in fact they are threats to national security. The young man who did the killing in Aurora, Colorado with the arsenal he had. He was right near the airport, right near the runways near the airport in Denver. He could shoot down airplanes. So this is a matter of homeland security…” Let’s get back to the subject,” McCallum dodged. And the interview wound to an inconclusive end.
Fox Nation also carried the interview. Not being able to say that McCallum had shredded, obliterated or otherwise devastated Jackson, the headline writer titled the post: “Jesse Jackson: Assault Weapons are a Threat to Homeland Security.” Which got some predictably revolting responses from the Nation:
Oh and by the way, gentle reader: Chicago may have had the most murders of any American city (512), but it was not America’s highest murder rate. In 2011 that dubious honor belonged to New Orleans and I don’t think anyone's accused Louisiana of having tough gun laws. On this list of top 10 most violent cities (includes all violent crimes, not just murder), Chicago doesn’t even appear. (Besides, in 1992 there were 943 murders in Chicago. Let’s celebrate some victories, eh?)
http://www.bing.com/local/default.aspx?what=gun+stores&where=Illinois+60657&s_cid=ansPhBkYp01&mkt=en-us&ac=false&q=gun+stores&qpvt=gun+stores&FORM=LARE
Wouldn’t accept explanations in text, wouldn’t accept other context… he wanted the segment. After admitting that it can’t be delivered with the people who provide the site’s relays are away.
Which fact was irrelevant to him? Which fact was somehow the point, despite being the result of the “irrelevant” fact?
I have yet to meet one Fox Defender that this isn’t their go-to strategy, every time it comes up. And Guns are their holy grail, so they’re gonna be 15 times worse for those, and we all know it.
The Fox “News” amateurs won’t bring up other states, but we will, and will inform all the masses of Princess Sarah’s state of Alaska’s very high crime rate. Post those statistics on other conservative websites.
Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell (Republican) has some explaining to do on his state’s high crime rate. We encourage the masses to call him out publicly through social media.
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (Republican), has proven to be a failure in combating his state’s very high crime rate. When discussing Louisiana’s high crime rate, tell the masses of Jindal’s failed leadership.
Speaking of failed leadership, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is the poster child of failure. Look at her state’s crime rate. When mentioning Brewer to conservatives, keep bringing up the state’s high crime rate.
Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant (Republican) is a sad excuse for a governor. It’s so dangerous in his state, a pitbull would need police protection.
But if the 17.6 you say is what’s right, it really doesn’t change my point much- they now have 477, which is 35 less than Chicago… but that’s still their average. What if Chicago’s gun crime goes down 27% next year? What if Alaska’s goes up 10%?
Any change along that line, and I’m right again- Even if I’m wrong now. And given that I’m getting 10 answers on 10 sources for who’s the most permissive, I’m not even touching that part anymore.
But I’m not letting go of Alaska- per capita, the only way they don’t come out worst is if one or two particular cities had such an out of control year that it passes even the snow snookie line.
Anyone who wants to wade through the muck on that, strongest case wins. But I’m out, and sticking to Alaska, because, with all respect to Doors… no way they ain’t in the top 5 for this.
Interesting.
Now to go see if I can validate the rankings- We have Louisiana, Alaska and Arizona all at #1, who’s right here?
Gun deaths per 100,000: 18.3
Permissive gun laws: 4th out of 50
#2, Arizona
Gun deaths per 100,000: 15
Permissive gun laws: 1st out of 50
#3, Alaska
Gun deaths per 100,000: 17.6
Permissive gun laws: 11th out of 50
#4, Arkansas
Gun deaths per 100,000: 15.1
Permissive gun laws: 7th out of 50
#5, Louisiana
Gun deaths per 100,000: 19.9
Permissive gun laws: 23rd out of 50
#6, New Mexico
Gun deaths per 100,000: 15
Permissive gun laws: 6th out of 50
#7, Alabama
Gun deaths per 100,000: 17.6
Permissive gun laws: 27th out of 50
#8, Nevada
Gun deaths per 100,000: 16.2
Permissive gun laws: 22nd out of 50
#9, Montana
Gun deaths per 100,000: 14.5
Permissive gun laws: 10th out of 50
#10, Wyoming
Gun deaths per 100,000: 14.5
Permissive gun laws: 8th out of 50
#11, Kentucky
Gun deaths per 100,000: 14.4
Permissive gun laws: 5th out of 50
#12, West Virginia
Gun deaths per 100,000: 14.8
Permissive gun laws: 25th out of 50
#13, Tennessee
Gun deaths per 100,000: 15
Permissive gun laws: 31st out of 50
#14, Oklahoma
Gun deaths per 100,000: 13.4
Permissive gun laws: 17th out of 50
You know which state has the loosest gun laws? Alaska, home of the sacred snow snookie. Now, let’s look at the statistics:
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000
Well, whaddaya know?!
Alaska has 20 people for every 100,000 residents killed a year since their laws were laxed to the point we all know and the gun nuts love. Alaska has 722,718 people, that’s 144.6 people a year.
Chicago has a population of 2,707,120. If Alaska had the population of Chicago, they’d have 541.4 gun related deaths per year. Their average is higher than what Fox News is boo hooing as “out of control” for one year, with less than a third the population. Wonder where they would stand having a bad year for shootings…
Not to mention my newfound interest in how many Alaskans kill people with guns in Canada and the continental 48, if we reset the stats for shooting in the United States and Canada to be listed by the shooter’s state of residence.
Care to bring Sarah Palin on to talk about that one? No, because it would hurt your case too much? Thought so- So you can shut up now.
Now, again…that’s on a per capita basis.
If we instead examined the rate on a ‘per tooth’ basis, the southern states would compare even less favorably.