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
Thanks Elaine ….. But as OS has stated…. More info is needed….
SwM,
The corporatists on Wall Street and banks could learn a lot from the gun corporatists … compared to the gun corporatists the Wall Street bunch are amateurs.
The Case for Gun Policy Reforms in America
Johns Hopkins
http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/publications/WhitePaper102512_CGPR.pdf
Excerpt;
The Burden of Gun Violence in the United States
More than 31,000 people a year in the United States die from gunshot wounds. Because victims are disproportionately young, gun violence is one of the leading causes of premature mortality in the U.S. In addition to these deaths, in 2010, there were an estimated 337,960 non-fatal violent crimes committed with guns, and 73,505 persons treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds.
Gun violence in the United States is unusually high for a nation of such wealth. Although there is little difference in the overall crime rates between the United States and other high-income countries, the homicide rate in the U.S. is seven times higher than the combined homicide rate of 22 other high-income countries. This is because the
firearm homicide rate in the U.S. is twenty times greater than in these other high-income countries. The higher prevalence of gun ownership and much less restrictive gun laws are important reasons why violent crime in the U
.S. is so much more lethal than in countries of similar income levels.
There are enormous economic costs associated with gun violence in the U.S. Firearm-related deaths and injuries resulted in medical and lost productivity expenses of about $32 billion in 2005. But the overall cost of gun violence goes well beyond these figures. When lost quality of life, psychological and emotional trauma, decline in property values, and other legal and societal consequences are included, the cost of gun violence in the U.S. was estimated to be about $100 billion annually in 1998. A new study has examined the direct and indirect costs of violent crime in eight geographically-diverse U.S. cities, and estimated the average annual cost
of violent crime was more than $1,300 for every adult and child. Because much of these costs are due to lowering residential property values, violent crime greatly reduces tax revenues that local governments need to address a broad array of citizens’ needs. The direct annual cost of violent
crime to all levels of government was estimated to be $325 per resident.
Elaine, regarding validity. I have no idea at this time. I do not subscribe to online JAMA, so will have to get a copy of the article from someone who does. We have to ask ourselves, would the study withstand a Daubert challenge?
If validity of any study is questionable due to flawed design, it is not helpful and may be harmful. If the researcher has a hidden agenda, we start getting into ecological validity issues. I will try to find out. In the meantime, news articles by reporters who do not know how to analyze a study are not much different than those who reported the nonexistent “no-fly” zone around Mayflower, Arkansas.
U.S. Gun Policy: Global Comparisons
Author: Jonathan Masters, Deputy Editor
Council on Foreign relations
December 21, 2012
http://www.cfr.org/united-states/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons/p29735
Excerpt:
Introduction
The debate over gun control in the United States has waxed and waned over the years, stirred by a series of incidents involving mass killings by gunmen in civilian settings. The killing of twenty schoolchildren in Newtown, Ct. in December 2012 prompted a national discussion over gun laws and initial calls by the Obama administration to limit the availability of military-style assault weapons. Gun ownership in the United States far surpasses other countries, and the recent mass shootings, in particular, have raised comparisons with policies abroad. Democracies that have experienced similar traumatic shooting incidents, for instance, have taken significant steps to regulate gun ownership and restrict assault weapons. They generally experience far fewer incidents of gun violence than the United States.
United States
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Supreme Court rulings, citing this amendment, have upheld the right of states to regulate firearms. However, in a 2008 decision confirming an individual right to keep and bear arms, the court struck down Washington DC laws that banned handguns and required those in the home to be locked or disassembled.
A number of gun ownership advocates consider it a birthright and an essential part of the nation’s heritage. The United States, with less than 5 percent of the world’s population, has about 35-50 percent of the world’s civilian-owned guns, according to a 2007 report by the Swiss-based Small Arms Survey. It ranks number one in firearms per capita. The U.S. also has the highest homicide-by-firearm rate among the world’s most developed nations (OECD), though some analysts say these statistics do not necessarily have a cause-and-effect relationship.
Federal law sets the minimum standards for firearm regulation in the United States; however individual states have their own laws, some of which provide further restrictions, others which have more lenient guidelines.
The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibited the sale of firearms to several categories of individuals, including persons under eighteen-years of age, those with criminal records, the mentally disabled, unlawful aliens, dishonorably discharged military personnel, and others. In 1993, the law was amended by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which mandated background checks for all unlicensed persons purchasing a firearm from a federally licensed dealer.
However, critics maintain that a so-called “gun show loophole,” codified in the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, effectively allows anyone, including convicted felons, to purchase firearms without a background check.
gmason
It should be impossible for any conscionable person to view the photos of those young innocent children who were so tragically shot to pieces in CT and not conclude that restrictions on weapons are necessary.
The American gun culture is an outgrowth of the frontier heritage when defense against enemies, Indians,Europeans, and outlaws, was a real consideration. Teachers in Israel need to carry assault weapons around because that country actually is under siege. But now that our frontier has vanished and the rule of law has been established here, there is no longer any real need for American society to consider itself under threat, yet a segment of the populace remains weaponized and, fueled on suspicion and hysteria, is only too willing to turn its weapons on fellow citizens, to say nothing of the mentally unstable who are able get ahold of guns. The underemphasis on education has allowed the media and entertainment industry to become the informational base for too many, and it’s creating a sector of pathological citizens, and the demand for an armed society means that they be given access to weapons, too. That must end; we can’t create a crazy, suspicious society, and then pass out the guns and think everything will turn out ok.
Then there are those, like yourself, that insist on that right to bear arms is somehow essential to defend against a government takeover. This nation was founded on the principle that the right to suffrage was the surest guarantee of freedom, and that ballots, and not bullets, were the hallmark of a civilization. This ain’t Somalia. If you think for one minute that the weapons in you possess, no matter the size of your arsenal, will enable you to hold off a local police or sheriffs dept., let alone any military unit, then you’re delusional, g.
Look again at the pictures of those children. I’d hope you’d reconsider your position.
States with strict gun laws found to have fewer shooting deaths
BOSTON | Thu Mar 7, 2013
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/07/us-usa-guns-study-idUSBRE92617D20130307
(Reuters) – States that have more laws restricting gun ownership have lower rates of death from shootings, both suicides and homicides, a study by researchers at Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard University found.
States with the most laws on gun ownership, including Massachusetts and New Jersey, have 42 percent lower rates of death from guns than those with the least restrictions, including Utah and Oklahoma, according to the study, published on Wednesday in the online edition of JAMA Internal Medicine.
The study was released as a Senate committee approved new gun-control measures backed by President Barack Obama to crack down on illegal trafficking in firearms in the wake of the December massacre at a Connecticut elementary school.
Based on data from 2007 through 2010, the study looked at the relationship between the number of restrictions states placed on gun ownership — from background checks on gun buyers to bans on military-style assault weapons — and the number of gun-related homicides and suicides reported.
The most likely link between the strictness of a state’s gun regulations and the number of shootings was that in states with more restrictive gun control laws, fewer households own guns, the study’s lead author, Dr. Eric Fleeger, said on Thursday.
“One of the questions that is always raised in this debate is, ‘Do laws make a difference?’ There are many people who will try to argue that laws don’t make a difference, don’t bother passing them, let people do what they want,” Fleeger said.
“Our study really suggests the opposite. The states that have taken the time and thought to pass this legislation, we see lower rates of firearms fatalities.”
The study determined the strictness of a state’s gun regulations by assigning a point value to different rules — from one point for rules against guns in the workplace to six points for rules regulating how gun dealers may operate. The points for each state were totaled to determine which had the most restrictive gun-control regimes.
The data was compared with federal figures on the number of deaths caused by guns, both homicides and suicides, in each state.
Noting that little academic research is done on the link between firearms and public health in the United States, largely due to restrictions on federal funding for such research, Fleeger said he hoped the findings would influence debate on gun-control laws.
The authors cautioned that their methods did not prove any cause and effect connection between firearms laws and deaths, and that factors including how effectively the laws were enforced could undermine their conclusions.
Proponents of gun control argue that restricting access to weapons and ammunition could lower the number of shootings the United States experiences each year, while gun-rights advocates note that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the right to possess weaponry and contend that laws restricting gun ownership do little to deter the criminal use of guns.
(Reporting By Scott Malone; Editing by Cynthia Johnston, Bob Burgdorfer and Leslie Adler)
http://dcist.com/2013/04/omalley_to_sign_gun_control_bill_th.php Blouise, They use economic blackmail. Beretta is threatening to close a plant in Maryland. The gun manufacturers did the same thing in Colorado. One also has to wonder how much they are investing in this violent revolution rhetoric.
Gene: I don’t think you appreciate how easy fatal violence is to commit without any weapon at all.
I trained in Wing Tsun Kung Fu, I think I do appreciate that.
You still miss the point; however, and saying it is the “prime” cause does not mitigate your error, when in the same paragraph you reject anything other than your “prime” cause (i.e. people); you have made a de facto claim of “sole” cause.
The inertness of tools is immaterial, there are three dimensions of danger to consider.
1) some tools are inherently less dangerous than others, even when used correctly. In particular weapons with their own energy source (electricity for a taser, gunpowder for a gun, string tension in a bow, compressed springs or air in other weapons), or are capable of inflicting harm at a distance, generally carry greater danger.
2) Conflated with inherent danger, but with its own component, is the danger of accident, or creating unintentional harm. This is the inverse of safety, and the conflation is due to the stored energy and effective range aspect. The independent aspect is how easy it is to trigger: A long range missile is very unlikely to be accidentally triggered, so is a traditional bow and arrow, but some guns are very likely to be accidentally triggered.
3) Separate from both of those points is the level of intent required to commit harm; tools or weapons occupy a spectrum of how much human effort and time it takes to act upon an intent of harm.
I suppose (but do not know) that the law may consider all intent to harm that results in harm equal in measure, but that is not the reality of how the human mind works. A moment of rage can pass in a moment, and even the time it takes to cross the room with a knife may be enough time to reconsider and reject an intent of murder.
An intent to murder is seldom a permanent state of mind; but rage can temporarily blind one to the consequences, and when all that stands between murder and a wiser course of action is the 50 millisecond twitch of a finger, the possibility of taking an intentional action that one regrets within seconds is greatly magnified.
For example, recently Oscar Pistorius (the Olympian) shot and killed his girlfriend through a closed bathroom door. That is an impulsive murder in anger I think would not have happened without the gun, or would be less likely to happen if, for example, the gun required two independent actions to fire (e.g. it had to be fully cocked by hand and could then only be fired by pulling, say, a six pound trigger, which requires clear intent to fire.)
Murders by gun outnumber murders by knife about 15 to 2 (13,000 vs 1700 in 2010). With knives, I agree the problem is the people, or more specifically their persistent intent to inflict harm, and that is intractable. But the ratio suggests (along with stats in other countries with stricter controls) that much of the problem is in the gun, not the person, because the gun permits (successfully) acting in a moment of extreme irrational rage far more readily than does a knife.
Intent is not a constant. The argument that if somebody wants to kill, they will find a way, makes the presumption that “wanting to kill” is a permanent or at least very long lasting state of mind, and it seldom is (perhaps 15% of the time, comparing knife murders to gun murders).
The problem is the gun because the gun (as currently constituted and regulated) removes all barriers to successful impulsive murder. The problem is not in the people for having these impulses, those are a natural result of evolutionary pressures in our psychology. The problem is in removing the time and action barriers that would give rationality time to dissuade the shooter from murder. If somebody commits considered murder (as the crazies and criminals do), THEN the problem is in the person.
Otteray,
Studies about gun violence/gun control have to start somewhere. This study may be flawed. Does that mean that the researcher’s findings have no validity?
*****
Could the US learn from Australia’s gun-control laws?
As the US debates its gun laws in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shooting, some Australians are urging the US to consider modeling its laws after Australia’s.
By Helen Clark, Contributor
Christian Science Monitor
December 24, 2012
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2012/1224/Could-the-US-learn-from-Australia-s-gun-control-laws
Excerpt:
Melbourne, Australia
Almost two weeks after a shooting spree stunned Australia in 1996, leaving 35 people dead at the Port Arthur tourist spot in Tasmania, the government issued sweeping reforms of the country’s gun laws.
There hasn’t been a mass shooting since.
Now, after the recent shooting at a Connecticut elementary school, Australia’s National Firearms Agreement (NFA), which saw hundreds of thousands of automatic and semiautomatic weapons bought back then destroyed, is being examined as a possible example for the United States, to mixed reaction in Australia.
Australians have been following the Connecticut tragedy closely, and many say the US solution lies in following Australia’s path, or at least reforming current laws. But a small but vocal number of Australia’s gun supporters are urging caution.
Just 12 days after the 1996 shooting in Port Arthur, then-Prime Minister John Howard – a conservative who had just been elected with the help of gun owners – pushed through not only new gun control laws, but also the most ambitious gun buyback program Australia had ever seen. Some 650,000 automatic and semiautomatic rifles were handed in and destroyed under the program.
Though gun-related deaths did not suddenly end in Australia, gun-related homicides dropped 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. Suicides by gun plummeted by 65 percent, and robberies at gunpoint also dropped significantly. Many said there was a close correlation between the sharp declines and the buyback program.
A paper for the American Law and Economics Review by Andrew Leigh of the Australian National University and Christine Neill of the Wilfrid Laurier University reports that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80 percent, “with no significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise.”
Perhaps the most convincing statistic for many, though, is that in the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there were 11 mass shootings in the country. Since the new law, there hasn’t been one shooting spree.
In the wake of the shooting, polls indicated that up to 85 percent of Australians supported the measures taken by the government.
AY,
every time the gun control issue is discussed every gun proponent starts responding that they are not in favor of banning all guns. No one is suggesting that all guns should be banned. Regulate who can own guns and which guns should not be sold, like the so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines. Background checks on all weapons transfers and sales is not banning all guns.
How many more school shootings alone must we suffer through before anything substantive is done to try to prevent more needless deaths?
G. Mason,
Respectfully, Your comment that leftists want to get rid of the 2nd amendment is just unsupported hyperbole. An idiot on You Tube is your evidence?
Do I want to get rid of the so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines? Yes. Do I want to have full background checks on all gun sales and transfers with no gun show loopholes? Yes. Do I want straw man purchases to be restricted? Yes. That is it. You can buy as many rounds and as many guns, rifles, and shotguns as the NRA scares you into buying.
You gotta hand it to the American Gun corporatist. They effectively removed the threat of imports back in ’68, built their constituency coupled with the 2nd and then effectively removed any threat of data or studies on gun violence that would threaten their product. No Ralph Nader “Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile” for them.
It’s been a beautifully run con.
Who cares about the First Amendment?
Everybody knows the Second Amendment is the One TRUE Amendment.
Blouse,
As has been stated, fire arm safety, training, geneal background checks…. But, to say we need more control….. And I’m from the government and here to help you…. Brings chills down my spine…..
Can’t make informed decisions if the data is purposely kept underwraps and the studying of the data is defunded or discourged with threats of sanctions and fines.
“Injury prevention research can have real and lasting effects. Over the last 20 years, the number of Americans dying in motor vehicle crashes has decreased by 31%. Deaths from fires and drowning have been reduced even more, by 38% and 52%, respectively. This progress was achieved without banning automobiles, swimming pools, or matches. Instead, it came from translating research findings into effective interventions.
Given the chance, could researchers achieve similar progress with firearm violence?”
I
When the GOP had control and the Democrats were filibustering and the GOP threatened to remove it, the Democrats howled with anger and outrage. Now that they have control, they consider it a good idea.
We are the Democrats, we love hypocrisy.
And as much as I disagree with Mitch on many levels…. He has the right to do what he does …..
Blouse,
You bring up an excellent points…the issue is special interest…. I do not support any infringements of the right to bear arms until we know where they are going with this….. So many other rights have been given up with out our knowledge….. All in the support of anti terror …..
Maybe Genes article the 100 mile rule should be renamed the 100 years to dismantle the US…..
OS,
Exactly. Further info from the same:
“These are not the only efforts to keep important health information from the public and patients. For example, in 1997, Cummings et al used state-level data from Washington to study the association between purchase of a handgun and the subsequent risk of homicide or suicide. Similar studies could not be conducted today because Washington State’s firearm registration files are no longer accessible.
In 2011, Florida’s legislature passed and Governor Scott signed HB 155, which subjects the state’s health care practitioners to possible sanctions, including loss of license, if they discuss or record information about firearm safety that a medical board later determines was not “relevant” or was “unnecessarily harassing.” A US district judge has since issued a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of this law, but the matter is still in litigation. Similar bills have been proposed in 7 other states.
The US military is grappling with an increase in suicides within its ranks. Earlier this month, an article by 2 retired generals—a former chief and a vice chief of staff of the US Army— asked Congress to lift a little-noticed provision in the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act that prevents military commanders and noncommissioned officers from being able to talk to service members about their private weapons, even in cases in which a leader believes that a service member may be suicidal.9
Health researchers are ethically bound to conduct, analyze, and report studies as objectively as possible and communicate the findings in a transparent manner. Policy makers, health care practitioners, and the public have the final decision regarding whether they will accept, much less act on, those data. Criticizing research is fair game; suppressing research by targeting its sources of funding is not.”
Other day on a youtube video I watched a gun grabber get worked up into a frenzy arguing with someone and then posted that “members of the NRA should be lined up against a wall and shot”. I do not jest.
People like that are why the 2nd Amendment will always exist.
The interesting thing to note is, that most gun grabbers are cowards who are unwilling to pick up a gun themselves and go to war. Yet they hide behind others in uniform that they think they can control. Rather telling.
Also I must admit that I too was once a gun grabber.
I do not believe in dishonesty and feel that should be disclosed. I now realize how foolish and Pollyanna that stance is. It is also why I understand exactly how the leftists gun grabbing mindset is.
When a leftist(usually not always) tells someone that they only want stricter gun laws and they do not want to take away rights, they are almost always lying straight through their teeth.
They have every intention of getting rid of the 2nd. They are dishonest about it. Liars. I guess it goes with their hypocrisy as well. I have more respect for those who outright admit they want ALL guns gone. At least they are being upfront and not lying as they aim for the slippery slope attack.
I wonder how many older people here feared the Nixon Administration. Yet you want to trust the government? OH wait I get it, you think that the voting tide has turned and now that you have ‘control’ THAT TOGETHER WE CAN TAKE OVER THE WORLD. Tsk tsk.
Fascism of any party is bad bad BAD. I am not sure which party I would trust less with absolute power. Both would end up pretty evil and oppressive.
Michael Bloomberg is a perfect example of a Fascist running wild. I know some of the left like to distance themselves from him but lets be honest here. He is a shining example of the bizarre corporate fascism that has taken over the Democratic Party. Hell you might as well take in Lindsey Graham too.
Btw I am not the only Liberal waking up to what is going on. You mouth foaming crazies that have hijacked the party are looking more insane by the day.
This country needs a political enema. Flush both parties.