While the North Carolina House of Representatives has finally killed the bill to allow the state to establish a state religion, a new study found that 34 percent of adults would favor establishing Christianity as the official state religion. While 47 percent opposed the establishment of state religion, it was less than a majority.
Another 11 percent thought that the Constitution allowed for the establishment of an official religion. Thus, they are entirely unaware of the workings of the first amendment or the prior rulings of the Supreme Court.
Republicans were the most likely to favor the establishment of a state religion with 55 percent favoring it in their own state and 46 percent favoring a national constitutional amendment.
While the poll reportedly included 1000 people (a sizable group), I still want to believe that it is skewed and that most people recognize the danger of religious-based government in a world torn apart of sectarian violence. Even if these people lack knowledge of the Constitution, they are given a daily lesson on the dangers of state-sponsored religion in their newspapers and news broadcasts. For those advocating such a change, they leave us with the chilling view that, for some, the problem with abusive theocratic regimes like Iran is simply the disagreement with the choice of the religion.
Source: HuffPost
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/04/mcconnell-guns-filibuster.php?ref=fpb
Blouise just put her finger on a very large part of the problem. This is one reason all the research to date is flawed. There is no reason whatsoever to restrict government research unless it has to do with national security, and even then, the classification process for that should be damn difficult.
The CDC and NIH should be free to publish any and all studies they do without political interference. There is no way to enact meaningful legislation without good data.
Of course, this is a big problem. The senator or representative who wants a big road project in their district doesn’t want to know the only traffic on it will be a dozen pickup trucks and two farm tractors a day.
Blouise, I see that McConnell is coming to the gun lobby’s rescue with his filibuster. Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and many other southern republicans have signed on.
Elaine,
I tried to look up the article referenced in your comment above. You link to a news page, but the study was done by Eric Fleegler, and will not be published until May in JAMA. The study is already coming under criticism by other academics as being flawed. They must have pre-publicaiton copies.
Just from reading the news article and the critiques that are already coming out, it appears the research design is flawed. I just read a critique of Fleegler’s research methodology from the University of California. I won’t know for sure until I see the original journal article. Frankly, I don’t see how they can control for all the variables without a monumental effort. There is a good reason that my favorite statistical method for studies like this is the multiple regression technique. Too many researchers fall into the cum hoc ergo propter hoc trap of conflating correlation with causation.
“The nation might be in a better position to act if medical and public health researchers had continued to study these issues as diligently as some of us did between 1985 and 1997. But in 1996, pro-gun members of Congress mounted an all-out effort to eliminate the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Although they failed to defund the center, the House of Representatives removed $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget—precisely the amount the agency had spent on firearm injury research the previous year. Funding was restored in joint conference committee, but the money was earmarked for traumatic brain injury. The effect was sharply reduced support for firearm injury research.
To ensure that the CDC and its grantees got the message, the following language was added to the final appropriation: “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”
“…. When other agencies funded high-quality research, similar action was taken. In 2009, Branas et al published the results of a case-control study that examined whether carrying a gun increases or decreases the risk of firearm assault. In contrast to earlier research, this particular study was funded by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Two years later, Congress extended the restrictive language it had previously applied to the CDC to all Department of Health and Human Services agencies, including the National Institutes of Health.”
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1487470
JAMA is the Journal of the American Medical Association
It appears that Congress has over the 17 years made sure that gun studies weren’t done which explains the dearth of available statistics. Wonder who lobbied them to do that.
OS,
I’ll add to the list…. You can’t legislate crazy, criminals or politicians for whom the laws are irrelevant….
Raff,
I respect your views…. Do I think guns should be as available as can soda…. No…. Do I think that something more can be done to assure that every reasonable measure is being utilized, but for total banning…. Yes…. Where do you stop……
I read something that Obama stated this proposed legislation is not about me….. If we could get more info rather than a sketchy sketch…. It might get more support…. But come on… The man says one thing and does another….. I do not trust a word he has to say….
Raff sez:
“You can legislate that people who are not stable from having guns”
*******************************************.
This is a slippery slope. A veteran who is having trouble getting her conceal carry permit renewed because she takes anxiety medications (Xanax) to help her sleep, sent me this item:
What is stable? A substantial number of police officers I know take some sort of psychiatric medication. The most common is Xanax, but Ambien for sleep is also common. I would much rather see someone take a low dose of an anxiolytic to help unwind after work than several stiff drinks.
Predicting dangerousness is a tricky business. People pay me to evaluate dangerousness, and it is not as simple as asking if they have had counseling or take a psychiatric medication. Mike Spindell may wish to weigh in here, but I have discovered the average psychologist, psychiatrist or clinical social worker has no idea how to sort out whether a person is a genuine danger or not.
As I said above, way too much of the time such legislation is a matter of throwing out the baby with the bathwater as Sarah Merkle pointed out in her testimony. In case you did not watch it, I suggest you take a look at the video by Colion Noir, above. He has some fact and numbers, but more important, he puts the data into context. Nearly four hundred black youngsters dead in Chicago alone, and no one notices. A couple of dozen white kids dead and all of a sudden it is a national emergency. I am not minimizing the tragedy. I have lost a son and grandson to death, so I know the pain of losing a child. I would just like people to step back, take a deep breath and try to figure out what might actually work.
To be frank, I could give a damn less about what states have more gun violence etc etc.
Typically the stats can be skewed one way or another anyways.
Fact is, its my 2nd Amendment right and you are not touching it. Gun grabbers are picking a fight that will end up costing them dearly in the end.
Study: States with more gun laws have less gun violence
Yamiche Alcindor, USA TODAY1
March 7, 2013
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/07/gun-violence-study-chicago/1969227/
New study by Boston Children’s Hospital finds that tougher laws on guns can have an effect on homicide and suicide rates
Excerpt:
States with more gun laws have fewer gun-related deaths, according to a new study released Wednesday by Boston Children’s Hospital.
The leader investigator behind the research hopes the findings will drive legislators to pass gun reform across the country and increase federal funding to research on gun laws and violence. However, at least one critic argues that the study fails to take into account several important factors such as the types of laws, enforcement of laws, and gun ownership rates in states.
“Our research gives clear evidence that laws have a role in preventing firearms deaths,” said Eric Fleegler, the study’s lead investigator and a pediatric emergency doctor at Boston Children’s Hospital. “Legislators should take that into consideration.”
Fleegler and researchers from Boston Children’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health studied information from all 50 states between 2007 to 2010, analyzing all firearm-related deaths reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and data on firearm laws compiled by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
States with the most laws had a mortality rate 42% lower than those states with the fewest laws, they found. The strong law states’ firearm-related homicide rate was also 40% lower and their firearm-related suicide rate was 37% lower.
Specifically, Fleeger pointed to states with many gun laws like Massachusetts, which had 3.4 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people, and New Jersey, which had 4.9 gun-deaths per 100,000 people. Conversely, he focused on states with less laws like Louisiana, which had 18 deaths per 100,000 individuals and Alaska, which had 17.5 deaths per 100,000 individuals.
The study also found that laws requiring universal background checks and permits to purchase firearms were most clearly associated with decreasing rates of gun-related homicides and suicides.
People like Bob Kauten are how people like Hitler and Stalin came to power.
I am not speaking of ‘commie etc etc’ either. I am speaking of mindless well intentioned sheep who blindly follow and obey the pied piper. Well the path to hell is paved with good intentions.
What I do not understand is, if they are so unhappy here with all of the guns, why do they not simply leave, move to another country where there are stricter gun control laws. Mexico comes to mind.
raff,
I think you miss the point. I’m not against background checks. The point was the best practical solutions we have that don’t step all over the 2nd are simply mitigation, not remedy, to the kind of thing that happened at Sandy Hook. If some crazy person is determined to kill a bunch of people, there’s really not much we can do about it in the preventative sense.
On the MJ chart for gun deaths, did you notice as the numbers go up that most of those states have severe poverty problems too?
#5 is blatantly skewed in presentation.
“Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.” – This is statistically meaningless as the murder number has no context and it is in line with the total number of murders in the BJS data – not just those in the home. Suicide and accidents? Changing gun laws isn’t going to change those. Better mental health care might though. And as the saying goes, accidents will happen. The last two point in the section?
“• 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.”
Human behavior. Even making gun locks and/or gun safes mandatory wouldn’t stop that. They’re only effective if used.
“• In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.”
I bet I can design one experiment to give any result I want not to mention that one is not a valid sample space to determine what is typical. This is meaningless from an objective data validity standpoint.
The rest of the story is just as biased. The numbers are cherry picked from a zany array of sources, some probably valid and some probably not, and what data that is presumably valid – the chart attributed to CRS data for example (which I’m sure is accurate knowing what Vince has told us about CRS methodology) – is skewed as it shows only a representation of handguns and assault rifles owned by the military and we both know they’re armed with a helluva lot more than that if you count mounted guns alone let alone other ordinance.
I usually enjoy MJ, they often have some really good reporting. This story isn’t it though. Their numbers and their presentation are just as skewed as the NRAs they complain about. The raw BJS numbers give a far better picture that is far less clouded by either end of the argument’s polar agendas. Yeah, interpretation is one thing, but on some issues seeing raw data is simply a truer picture. It requires a bit more work to understand it, but it has the benefit of not being filtered through someone else and whatever bias they bring to the data. I don’t ask for much, the truth would do just fine. I can make up my own mind from there.
Do we need to take steps to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and the insane? Yes. But we need to do so based on both reason and real numbers, not propaganda from either end of the spectrum or purposefully skewed data from otherwise reliable sources that tries to exaggerate or underestimate the problem based on a particular group’s agenda. And speaking as a self-declared small L liberal, it’s not exactly a secret that MJ has as much a big L Liberal bias and the WSJ has a big C Conservative bias. I’m not slamming them for it either, it often leads them to stories otherwise ignored in the mostly money (and therefore conservative) dominated media, but I am recognizing it for what it is. Which in this case is spun.
What I’d like to see is new updated BJS numbers. Just data. No interpretation. No agenda. No commentary except exposition on methodology.
That would be the way to start the debate properly – a common, mutually acceptable unified data set so all sides are working from an accurate a picture as possible with no spin at all from either side.
OS,
You can legislate that people who are not stable from having guns. You can legislate to make it harder for criminals to get guns. A simple and common sense background checks on all gun sales and transfers would help prevent illegal guns from getting in the wrong hands. Most gun owners favor background checks, but the minority says no it won’t help. It will never help if it is never implemented. This country is a disgrace to the world when it comes to gun violence and much of it can be avoided without harming the second amendment. Here is a great Mother Jones article that dismisses 10 pro gun myths and details just how lax gun laws increase gun violence. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check
See you in the morning!
raff,
Over my career I have seen every conceivable way for people to kill each other and some that aren’t conceivable by any rational being. As Gene said, you cannot legislate craziness. A friend of mine just died recently. He was a biochemist who used to work for the Army. He knew more ways to kill people than you can imagine, using only stuff you might have under your kitchen sink, in the garage or garden shed, plus a few herbs and spices he might gather on a short walk in the woods.
Did you know that black powder is an explosive, while modern smokeless powder is considered a propellant? Explosives and propellants are similar, but different in critical ways. Almost anyone can make black powder. It only has thee ingredients, sulfur, saltpeter and charcoal. Saltpeter is potassium nitrate (KNO3, a common and inexpensive fertilizer. Charcoal made from Willow works best.
Bombs and chemicals are much more efficient than guns. Look at the IEDs and suicide vests being used against our troops. As Gene pointed out, any of the mass murderers in the past few years would have done a lot more damage with a couple of milk cartons full of gasoline than they did with guns. The “Happy Land” arson killed 87 people.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/jealous-ex-boyfriend-fury-killed-87-happy-land-fire-20-years-article-1.173625
You cannot legislate either mental illness or criminals. There are those for whom laws are irrelevant.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/jealous-ex-boyfriend-fury-killed-87-happy-land-fire-20-years-article-1.173625
Gene regulating guns is not building our laws around what crazy people might do. It is only part of the response.
Gene,
You can legislate that mentally ill people can’t own guns. You can regulate what tyes of guns and/or ammo can be owned to prevent large disasters. Doing nothing is not the answer.
raff,
Ask yourself who is responsible for mass murders committed for non-political reasons?
Crazy people.
That loon in Newtown could have killed just as many if not more people with some gasoline, a lighter and one of the hundreds of ways he could have secured the doors to the building available at any hardware store. Burned? Shot? Dead is dead. He was determined to kill and he’d have found another way if he hadn’t had the guns.
You can’t legislate away the danger of crazy people.
Can we make it harder for crazies to get guns? Sure we can. But we’ll never stop spree killers or serial killers or any other kind of deranged violent person bent on killing others. Lucky for us, they are a distinct minority in our species. Even if we had a system of universal high quality mental health care in this country and it was blind indexed to gun purchases? We’d still miss some of them as treatment is generally voluntary. Also, the nature of some psychotic behavior is the people aren’t a danger . . . until they are set off by some triggering event.
We cannot build all our laws around what crazy people might do.
G. Mason may have already been written but NRA and repubs were for background checks before they were against them but that would deflate your arguments if you actually were to vilify both sides instead of just the one side you are against.
OS and AY,
If you don’t try to prevent these mass murders, we are lost as a nation. This country has an illness with guns and we need a cure.
Raff,
Sir, I will not disagree with your position….. Like anything else it can and will be misused if it can….. None of the most recent shooting were lacking in ability to purchase or obtain the same….
raff,
That observation cuts across many lines and situations. If you can find a way to implement it, you will never have to work again.
There was this local guy arrested on 13th DUI, revoked license, and numerous other charges. When they wreck their car or have it confiscated, they go find an old $500 beater and are back on the road as soon as they get out of jail. The car wrecks here in the mountains look like plane crashes. Just recently, a woman was apparently angry with her husband. After an argument, she took off down the road at over 100 miles an hour, lost control, crossed the median and hit a couple in a van head on. Her two kids, 2 and 7 years old, were killed. She died five days later. It happened almost directly in front of my house. I have not looked at the statistics, but just from reading the news, we seem to have more motor vehicle fatalities around here than firearm deaths.