consumer
Bluelighter
Or young girls in the case of Trump and his mates...how creepy is it he owned / owns Miss Teen USA.
Riots Break Out In Berkley Over Gay Libertarian Immigrant Speaker
- Thread starter Morninggloryseed
- Start date
What 23
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
- Messages
- 3,905
From what I seem to be gathering about Milo is that he was careless with his words. His personality is that of a provocateur, or devil's advocate. He likes arguing and being controversial.
What he said is not much different than gay lefty George Takei talking about being molested at camp by a counselor. Milo enjoyed his sexual experience with an older man, like George. Milo was smeared over it, where George wasn't, however.
Milo is not a "pedophile".
What he said is not much different than gay lefty George Takei talking about being molested at camp by a counselor. Milo enjoyed his sexual experience with an older man, like George. Milo was smeared over it, where George wasn't, however.
Milo is not a "pedophile".
consumer
Bluelighter
He just advocates for them and thinks its ok...
Exactly.
He's a phony and a media whore (like pretty much every hero of the american right) - and proved a very interesting point about so-called "free speech" advocates;
Violent harrassment is fine
Rape threats are fine
Racial hatred is fine
But hey - joking aboit paedophilia gets you ostracised. You couldn't make this shit up.
Fucking hypocritical inbeciles.
Props to the UC Berkley crew.
He's a phony and a media whore (like pretty much every hero of the american right) - and proved a very interesting point about so-called "free speech" advocates;
Violent harrassment is fine
Rape threats are fine
Racial hatred is fine
But hey - joking aboit paedophilia gets you ostracised. You couldn't make this shit up.
Fucking hypocritical inbeciles.
Props to the UC Berkley crew.
What 23
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
- Messages
- 3,905
Can you tell me how exactly he advocated for pedophilia? I read little about it, but it seems he said "boy" referencing young men of consenting age. He talked about his experience when he was a "boy" of 16 or 17- 16 being the age of consent, with a man 10 years older than him.
I may be wrong, though.
I should probably post the video of the liberal hero George Takei speaking so fondly of his 13 year old experience at camp with an 18 or 19 year old...
Just to be clear, I never much followed Milo. But I don't much trust people here, or lefties. Or righties. Maybe I'll actually watch the stuff or read it. There are just too many things to read/watch in a day and do other things.
I may be wrong, though.
I should probably post the video of the liberal hero George Takei speaking so fondly of his 13 year old experience at camp with an 18 or 19 year old...
Just to be clear, I never much followed Milo. But I don't much trust people here, or lefties. Or righties. Maybe I'll actually watch the stuff or read it. There are just too many things to read/watch in a day and do other things.
What 23
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
- Messages
- 3,905
Yea, there is definitely inconsistency there (with him taking down Pedophile people on one side but in his own experience defending them). But the problem is there is on both sides. I have enjoyed some of Milo's contributions, because of what he has pointed out on the left. But he doesn't seem to have it on his side either.
But also, pedophilia is love of children, under 13. He never really ventured to defend this technically.
But also, pedophilia is love of children, under 13. He never really ventured to defend this technically.
ok, this has derailed badly. i just unapproved a load of posts until the ce&p staff have a chance to review. if you have a post about the thread topic, post away.
if you have a complaint, start a thread in support. don't start up again in this thread or i'll just infract and we'll ask questions later.
alasdair
if you have a complaint, start a thread in support. don't start up again in this thread or i'll just infract and we'll ask questions later.
alasdair
Can you not see what your doing alasdairm, you've deleted everything right back to where your pal has his little dig at droppers by calling him droopers.
Please try to see how this looks.
As a mid you should treat everyone the same in an unbiased way and your not.
Instead you will prob just give me another warning/infraction.
Please try to see how this looks.
As a mid you should treat everyone the same in an unbiased way and your not.
Instead you will prob just give me another warning/infraction.
jfc, you know i have a lot more to do than this clean up in aisle 5. i unapproved posts back to about where things started to derail, including 5 of my own posts. but you can't seem to find a way to let this go so i have unapproved one post further back. hope you are happy now.
nope.
but if you can't find a way to post on-topic i will. i don't know how many times i have to say this for it to sink in but, if you have an issue, take it to support.
alasdair
cashfl0w_d0nkey
Bluelight Crew
It's too bad that Milo's gay, because I think he and Tomi Lahren would make a great couple
Droppersneck
Bluelighter
I'm still trying to figure out how milo is a racist and a homophobe in liberals minds. No examples, this pedo narrative is all they could come up with.
This is pretty great.
Poetic justice for a misogynistic fool - turns out milo got metaphorically fucked by a 16 year old girl
Meet the 16-year-old Canadian girl who took down Milo Yiannopoulos
Poetic justice for a misogynistic fool - turns out milo got metaphorically fucked by a 16 year old girl
Meet the 16-year-old Canadian girl who took down Milo Yiannopoulos
This is the real story of how the video that took down Milo surfaced.
The story of Milo Yiannopoulos’s fall from conservative grace ended when a conservative blog posted video footage of him making comments that seemed to rationalize pedophilia. But it started when a 16-year-old high school student in Canada decided Yiannopoulos was embraced much too closely by mainstream conservatives.
The teen was moved to dig up footage on Yiannopoulos when she heard that he’d been invited to speak at the highest profile gathering of conservatives each year in America, the 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). She defines herself as “very socially liberal,” but leans right on economics and foreign policy. Yiannopoulos, who has built his personal brand on anti-Muslim, anti-feminism, and general bigotry, exemplifies the place where she doesn’t believe the conservative movement should go.
“I see Milo as this embodiment of the awfulness you see over the past few years with the general tilt of millennial conservatism,” said the teen. “It’s diverged from this traditional conservatism so much. You’ve seen it essentially become full of awfulness and all about attacking the left and not about actual principles. It has nothing to do with conservative ideology so much as it has with opposing the leftists, SJWs, and so on and so forth.”
Within days of his old statements coming to light, Yiannopoulos lost his spot at CPAC, his book deal, and his job at the ultra-conservative website Breitbart.
I am keeping the teen’s name and social media accounts out of the story because of her and her parents’ request to protect her safety, and will only refer to her as “Julia.” But we have confirmed her identity and her communications with the conservative blog that resurfaced the Yiannopoulos tape for a wide audience.
Many critics have tried and failed to take Yiannopoulos down, from feminists to other liberals who despise his bigoted messages. But those efforts only buoyed his appeal among his fan base on the far right, rocketing his profile among movements like the alt-right, a far-right fringe movement that spouts white nationalist ideals and opposes social liberalism. But this 16-year-old helped take Yiannopoulos down by managing to get not just the left angry at him, but the right as well.
How a 16-year-old took down Milo
Julia closely follows political news from her home in Canada, with a deep interest in American politics. She has been particularly alarmed by the recent rise of Yiannopoulos and others like him. So as soon as she heard Yiannopoulos would speak at CPAC, she was appalled.
Then an old moment popped in her head. She remembered hearing an obscure podcast, the Drunken Peasants, in which Yiannopoulos, responding to a video by YouTube pundit Kevin Logan, defended the idea of “13-year-olds” having sex with “older men,” arguing that child molestation provided a “sort of ‘coming of age’ relationship” for teenagers.
Her memory was right. She found the July 2016 clip.
She didn’t think she’d have much luck spreading the news herself with her small Twitter following, so she contacted a conservative outlet to get the story out. She figured a liberal outlet would have less credibility among CPAC followers.
She landed on the previously not-very-well-known conservative blog Reagan Battalion, which, after a bit of back and forth, tweeted out the video — leading not just to CPAC canceling Yiannopoulos’s speech, but to Simon & Schuster pulling his already controversial book deal and his resignation from Breitbart.
“I thought it would only get, like, 200 retweets,” Julia said. “I had no idea that it would blow up to the extent that it did.”
It ended up at thousands of retweets.
Reagan Battalion confirmed that screenshots of Julia’s conversation with the blog were legit. As the screenshots show and as she relayed to Vox, she first saw the Reagan Battalion tweet out other videos showing Yiannopoulos making offensive comments. She told Reagan Battalion that there’s more damaging stuff out there. In private messages, she linked the video to them, with specific timestamps for Yiannopoulos’s pro–child molestation comments.
The teen’s mom couldn’t have been more proud of her kid, initially contacting Vox because she said her daughter’s story deserves more attention. She told me that the Canadian family is “more libertarian than anything,” but they’re nonetheless “devastated to see that Orange Julius win.” And in particular, they’re dismayed by reactionaries taking over the conservative movement and especially the alt-right, a movement that Yiannopoulos had become a leader for through his provocative, extreme work at Breitbart.
Julia and her mom have taken part in some activism before, including at a Women’s March last month. But when Yiannopoulos was invited to talk at CPAC, this Canadian teenager saw an opening. She worked to get his speech canceled — and she won.
This anti-Trump teenager is terrified by reactionary conservatism
The Canadian 16-year-old had a concise way of describing Yiannopoulos: “He’d be more accurately described as anti-liberal than he would be conservative.”
This is an accurate description of the reactionary movement Yiannopoulos is a part of. It’s not necessarily that they support any specific conservative policies or political ideals; they by and large just oppose social liberalism — multiculturalism, cosmopolitanism, equality for people of all races, religions, and genders, and so on.
One of the reasons Yiannopoulos blended in so well with reactionary conservatives — despite being an openly gay man — is because he spouted the anti-feminist, anti-Muslim, and otherwise bigoted messages that the fringe movement trumpets. To them, his bigoted comments have become an example of Yiannopoulos standing up for “free speech” and against “political correctness” by plainly saying what many of them believe despite opposition from the left.
Yiannopoulos, for example, said that he “went gay” so he “didn’t have to deal with nutty broads.” He suggested that gay and transgender people are “disordered.” He set up the “Yiannopoulos Privilege Grant,” a college scholarship available only to white men to put them “on equal footing with their female, queer and ethnic minority classmates.” And he flashed his sexuality as a gay man in ways that he knew would offend liberals, like when he wrote an article headlined “My Grindr Profile Says 'No Whites' — Am I Racist?” in which he exoticized and stereotyped black men.
As my colleague Zack Beauchamp explained, Yiannopoulos’s entire shtick is to say something inflammatory, anger a whole lot of people (particularly on the left), get widespread media attention, refuse to back down, and say he did it all to stand up for free speech — because no one can control what he says. Yiannopoulos pushes the boundaries just enough to force this chain of events, which conveniently prop him up as a hero.
Milo Yiannopoulos attends the Young British Heritage Society launch event in the UK shortly after he was banned from Twitter.
Milo Yiannopoulos attends the Young British Heritage Society launch event in the UK. Darragh Field/Barcroft Images/Barcroft Media via Getty Images
Reactionary movements like the alt-right and Gamergate love this. As they see it, political correctness has stifled discourse, particularly on college campuses. So when someone like Yiannopoulos purposely says offensive things, they celebrate it as a brave defense of free speech.
Indeed, this is why CPAC said it invited him to speak. As American Conservative Union Chair Matt Schlapp said, “We initially extended the invitation knowing that the free speech issue on college campuses is a battlefield where we need brave, conservative standard-bearers.”
But as many people are quick to point out, much of this just seems like an excuse to say horrible things. Yiannopoulos isn’t pushing the boundaries of free speech to make salient political arguments; he’s just said provocative things that denigrate minorities, women, and especially feminists — and even defended child molestation. All of this is meant to anger liberals, but there’s really not much substance there.
Still, reactionaries such as Yiannopoulos and the alt-right, despite initially remaining on the fringes of conservatism, have made an impact — most recently helping Trump get elected. They loved that Trump was essentially willing to do and say whatever he wanted, from decrying political correctness repeatedly on the campaign trail to proposing outright bigoted policies like banning Muslims from entering the US. This was the kind of candidate people like Yiannopoulos, who took to calling Trump “daddy,” had long hoped for.
This terrified a lot of liberals and conservatives, including the Canadian teenager who helped bring down Yiannopoulos. With Trump and his support from reactionaries, they were worried that we were seeing the mainstreaming of a fringe of the far, far right — and that could have horrible consequences for the Republican Party, America, and the world.
“America is a global power, and it affects the entire world,” Julia said. “Whatever Trump says now in terms of foreign policy does change the course of world history and does alter not just America’s position in the world but it will also affect Western civilization’s position in the world stage.” To this end, she added, “There’s not a politician in American politics today that would be worse than Donald Trump.”
There’s a lesson for the broader conservative movement in this story
Still, that an anonymous Canadian 16-year-old had the ability to take down Yiannopoulos — by teaming up with a conservative blog like the Reagan Battalion — shows the resistance against Trump and reactionaries more broadly really can work.
Consider CPAC’s position: They thought they would get away with inviting someone as inflammatory as Yiannopoulos, despite his past bigoted remarks. In doing this, they were pushing the boundaries of the acceptable — potentially letting a hateful man speak in detail about his ideas on a mainstream conservative stage, supposedly in the defense of free speech.
Then it all backfired. And CPAC, along with Yiannopoulos’s publishers and Breitbart, disowned him.
If you’re an organization like CPAC looking at all of this, it will probably make you think twice about giving someone like Yiannopoulos a platform. Maybe these reactionaries really are a dangerous kind of breed of conservatism, and they should be treated as such.
The Canadian teenager said she hopes this is the lesson conservatives draw from the Yiannopoulos debacle. And more broadly, she hopes that her actions will push groups like CPAC to stand up for traditionally conservative values instead of embracing provocative figures just because they attack the left.
“You shouldn’t have to feel intimidated to stand up for what you believe in,” she said. “Hopefully they’ll realize that you can’t keep being this reactionary movement — if you can even call it that. You can’t just keep looking for enemies to attack and pointing the finger. Eventually, you have to stand up for something.”
Reactionary movements like the alt-right and Gamergate love this. As they see it, political correctness has stifled discourse, particularly on college campuses. So when someone like Yiannopoulos purposely says offensive things, they celebrate it as a brave defense of free speech.
Indeed, this is why CPAC said it invited him to speak. As American Conservative Union Chair Matt Schlapp said, “We initially extended the invitation knowing that the free speech issue on college campuses is a battlefield where we need brave, conservative standard-bearers.”
But as many people are quick to point out, much of this just seems like an excuse to say horrible things. Yiannopoulos isn’t pushing the boundaries of free speech to make salient political arguments; he’s just said provocative things that denigrate minorities, women, and especially feminists — and even defended child molestation. All of this is meant to anger liberals, but there’s really not much substance there.
Still, reactionaries such as Yiannopoulos and the alt-right, despite initially remaining on the fringes of conservatism, have made an impact — most recently helping Trump get elected. They loved that Trump was essentially willing to do and say whatever he wanted, from decrying political correctness repeatedly on the campaign trail to proposing outright bigoted policies like banning Muslims from entering the US. This was the kind of candidate people like Yiannopoulos, who took to calling Trump “daddy,” had long hoped for.
This terrified a lot of liberals and conservatives, including the Canadian teenager who helped bring down Yiannopoulos. With Trump and his support from reactionaries, they were worried that we were seeing the mainstreaming of a fringe of the far, far right — and that could have horrible consequences for the Republican Party, America, and the world.
“America is a global power, and it affects the entire world,” Julia said. “Whatever Trump says now in terms of foreign policy does change the course of world history and does alter not just America’s position in the world but it will also affect Western civilization’s position in the world stage.” To this end, she added, “There’s not a politician in American politics today that would be worse than Donald Trump.”
There’s a lesson for the broader conservative movement in this story
Still, that an anonymous Canadian 16-year-old had the ability to take down Yiannopoulos — by teaming up with a conservative blog like the Reagan Battalion — shows the resistance against Trump and reactionaries more broadly really can work.
Consider CPAC’s position: They thought they would get away with inviting someone as inflammatory as Yiannopoulos, despite his past bigoted remarks. In doing this, they were pushing the boundaries of the acceptable — potentially letting a hateful man speak in detail about his ideas on a mainstream conservative stage, supposedly in the defense of free speech.
Then it all backfired. And CPAC, along with Yiannopoulos’s publishers and Breitbart, disowned him.
If you’re an organization like CPAC looking at all of this, it will probably make you think twice about giving someone like Yiannopoulos a platform. Maybe these reactionaries really are a dangerous kind of breed of conservatism, and they should be treated as such.
The Canadian teenager said she hopes this is the lesson conservatives draw from the Yiannopoulos debacle. And more broadly, she hopes that her actions will push groups like CPAC to stand up for traditionally conservative values instead of embracing provocative figures just because they attack the left.
“You shouldn’t have to feel intimidated to stand up for what you believe in,” she said. “Hopefully they’ll realize that you can’t keep being this reactionary movement — if you can even call it that. You can’t just keep looking for enemies to attack and pointing the finger. Eventually, you have to stand up for something.”
The story of Milo Yiannopoulos’s fall from conservative grace ended when a conservative blog posted video footage of him making comments that seemed to rationalize pedophilia. But it started when a 16-year-old high school student in Canada decided Yiannopoulos was embraced much too closely by mainstream conservatives.
The teen was moved to dig up footage on Yiannopoulos when she heard that he’d been invited to speak at the highest profile gathering of conservatives each year in America, the 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). She defines herself as “very socially liberal,” but leans right on economics and foreign policy. Yiannopoulos, who has built his personal brand on anti-Muslim, anti-feminism, and general bigotry, exemplifies the place where she doesn’t believe the conservative movement should go.
“I see Milo as this embodiment of the awfulness you see over the past few years with the general tilt of millennial conservatism,” said the teen. “It’s diverged from this traditional conservatism so much. You’ve seen it essentially become full of awfulness and all about attacking the left and not about actual principles. It has nothing to do with conservative ideology so much as it has with opposing the leftists, SJWs, and so on and so forth.”
Within days of his old statements coming to light, Yiannopoulos lost his spot at CPAC, his book deal, and his job at the ultra-conservative website Breitbart.
I am keeping the teen’s name and social media accounts out of the story because of her and her parents’ request to protect her safety, and will only refer to her as “Julia.” But we have confirmed her identity and her communications with the conservative blog that resurfaced the Yiannopoulos tape for a wide audience.
Many critics have tried and failed to take Yiannopoulos down, from feminists to other liberals who despise his bigoted messages. But those efforts only buoyed his appeal among his fan base on the far right, rocketing his profile among movements like the alt-right, a far-right fringe movement that spouts white nationalist ideals and opposes social liberalism. But this 16-year-old helped take Yiannopoulos down by managing to get not just the left angry at him, but the right as well.
How a 16-year-old took down Milo
Julia closely follows political news from her home in Canada, with a deep interest in American politics. She has been particularly alarmed by the recent rise of Yiannopoulos and others like him. So as soon as she heard Yiannopoulos would speak at CPAC, she was appalled.
Then an old moment popped in her head. She remembered hearing an obscure podcast, the Drunken Peasants, in which Yiannopoulos, responding to a video by YouTube pundit Kevin Logan, defended the idea of “13-year-olds” having sex with “older men,” arguing that child molestation provided a “sort of ‘coming of age’ relationship” for teenagers.
Her memory was right. She found the July 2016 clip.
She didn’t think she’d have much luck spreading the news herself with her small Twitter following, so she contacted a conservative outlet to get the story out. She figured a liberal outlet would have less credibility among CPAC followers.
She landed on the previously not-very-well-known conservative blog Reagan Battalion, which, after a bit of back and forth, tweeted out the video — leading not just to CPAC canceling Yiannopoulos’s speech, but to Simon & Schuster pulling his already controversial book deal and his resignation from Breitbart.
“I thought it would only get, like, 200 retweets,” Julia said. “I had no idea that it would blow up to the extent that it did.”
It ended up at thousands of retweets.
Reagan Battalion confirmed that screenshots of Julia’s conversation with the blog were legit. As the screenshots show and as she relayed to Vox, she first saw the Reagan Battalion tweet out other videos showing Yiannopoulos making offensive comments. She told Reagan Battalion that there’s more damaging stuff out there. In private messages, she linked the video to them, with specific timestamps for Yiannopoulos’s pro–child molestation comments.
The teen’s mom couldn’t have been more proud of her kid, initially contacting Vox because she said her daughter’s story deserves more attention. She told me that the Canadian family is “more libertarian than anything,” but they’re nonetheless “devastated to see that Orange Julius win.” And in particular, they’re dismayed by reactionaries taking over the conservative movement and especially the alt-right, a movement that Yiannopoulos had become a leader for through his provocative, extreme work at Breitbart.
Julia and her mom have taken part in some activism before, including at a Women’s March last month. But when Yiannopoulos was invited to talk at CPAC, this Canadian teenager saw an opening. She worked to get his speech canceled — and she won.
This anti-Trump teenager is terrified by reactionary conservatism
The Canadian 16-year-old had a concise way of describing Yiannopoulos: “He’d be more accurately described as anti-liberal than he would be conservative.”
This is an accurate description of the reactionary movement Yiannopoulos is a part of. It’s not necessarily that they support any specific conservative policies or political ideals; they by and large just oppose social liberalism — multiculturalism, cosmopolitanism, equality for people of all races, religions, and genders, and so on.
One of the reasons Yiannopoulos blended in so well with reactionary conservatives — despite being an openly gay man — is because he spouted the anti-feminist, anti-Muslim, and otherwise bigoted messages that the fringe movement trumpets. To them, his bigoted comments have become an example of Yiannopoulos standing up for “free speech” and against “political correctness” by plainly saying what many of them believe despite opposition from the left.
Yiannopoulos, for example, said that he “went gay” so he “didn’t have to deal with nutty broads.” He suggested that gay and transgender people are “disordered.” He set up the “Yiannopoulos Privilege Grant,” a college scholarship available only to white men to put them “on equal footing with their female, queer and ethnic minority classmates.” And he flashed his sexuality as a gay man in ways that he knew would offend liberals, like when he wrote an article headlined “My Grindr Profile Says 'No Whites' — Am I Racist?” in which he exoticized and stereotyped black men.
As my colleague Zack Beauchamp explained, Yiannopoulos’s entire shtick is to say something inflammatory, anger a whole lot of people (particularly on the left), get widespread media attention, refuse to back down, and say he did it all to stand up for free speech — because no one can control what he says. Yiannopoulos pushes the boundaries just enough to force this chain of events, which conveniently prop him up as a hero.
Milo Yiannopoulos attends the Young British Heritage Society launch event in the UK shortly after he was banned from Twitter.
Milo Yiannopoulos attends the Young British Heritage Society launch event in the UK. Darragh Field/Barcroft Images/Barcroft Media via Getty Images
Reactionary movements like the alt-right and Gamergate love this. As they see it, political correctness has stifled discourse, particularly on college campuses. So when someone like Yiannopoulos purposely says offensive things, they celebrate it as a brave defense of free speech.
Indeed, this is why CPAC said it invited him to speak. As American Conservative Union Chair Matt Schlapp said, “We initially extended the invitation knowing that the free speech issue on college campuses is a battlefield where we need brave, conservative standard-bearers.”
But as many people are quick to point out, much of this just seems like an excuse to say horrible things. Yiannopoulos isn’t pushing the boundaries of free speech to make salient political arguments; he’s just said provocative things that denigrate minorities, women, and especially feminists — and even defended child molestation. All of this is meant to anger liberals, but there’s really not much substance there.
Still, reactionaries such as Yiannopoulos and the alt-right, despite initially remaining on the fringes of conservatism, have made an impact — most recently helping Trump get elected. They loved that Trump was essentially willing to do and say whatever he wanted, from decrying political correctness repeatedly on the campaign trail to proposing outright bigoted policies like banning Muslims from entering the US. This was the kind of candidate people like Yiannopoulos, who took to calling Trump “daddy,” had long hoped for.
This terrified a lot of liberals and conservatives, including the Canadian teenager who helped bring down Yiannopoulos. With Trump and his support from reactionaries, they were worried that we were seeing the mainstreaming of a fringe of the far, far right — and that could have horrible consequences for the Republican Party, America, and the world.
“America is a global power, and it affects the entire world,” Julia said. “Whatever Trump says now in terms of foreign policy does change the course of world history and does alter not just America’s position in the world but it will also affect Western civilization’s position in the world stage.” To this end, she added, “There’s not a politician in American politics today that would be worse than Donald Trump.”
There’s a lesson for the broader conservative movement in this story
Still, that an anonymous Canadian 16-year-old had the ability to take down Yiannopoulos — by teaming up with a conservative blog like the Reagan Battalion — shows the resistance against Trump and reactionaries more broadly really can work.
Consider CPAC’s position: They thought they would get away with inviting someone as inflammatory as Yiannopoulos, despite his past bigoted remarks. In doing this, they were pushing the boundaries of the acceptable — potentially letting a hateful man speak in detail about his ideas on a mainstream conservative stage, supposedly in the defense of free speech.
Then it all backfired. And CPAC, along with Yiannopoulos’s publishers and Breitbart, disowned him.
If you’re an organization like CPAC looking at all of this, it will probably make you think twice about giving someone like Yiannopoulos a platform. Maybe these reactionaries really are a dangerous kind of breed of conservatism, and they should be treated as such.
The Canadian teenager said she hopes this is the lesson conservatives draw from the Yiannopoulos debacle. And more broadly, she hopes that her actions will push groups like CPAC to stand up for traditionally conservative values instead of embracing provocative figures just because they attack the left.
“You shouldn’t have to feel intimidated to stand up for what you believe in,” she said. “Hopefully they’ll realize that you can’t keep being this reactionary movement — if you can even call it that. You can’t just keep looking for enemies to attack and pointing the finger. Eventually, you have to stand up for something.”
Reactionary movements like the alt-right and Gamergate love this. As they see it, political correctness has stifled discourse, particularly on college campuses. So when someone like Yiannopoulos purposely says offensive things, they celebrate it as a brave defense of free speech.
Indeed, this is why CPAC said it invited him to speak. As American Conservative Union Chair Matt Schlapp said, “We initially extended the invitation knowing that the free speech issue on college campuses is a battlefield where we need brave, conservative standard-bearers.”
But as many people are quick to point out, much of this just seems like an excuse to say horrible things. Yiannopoulos isn’t pushing the boundaries of free speech to make salient political arguments; he’s just said provocative things that denigrate minorities, women, and especially feminists — and even defended child molestation. All of this is meant to anger liberals, but there’s really not much substance there.
Still, reactionaries such as Yiannopoulos and the alt-right, despite initially remaining on the fringes of conservatism, have made an impact — most recently helping Trump get elected. They loved that Trump was essentially willing to do and say whatever he wanted, from decrying political correctness repeatedly on the campaign trail to proposing outright bigoted policies like banning Muslims from entering the US. This was the kind of candidate people like Yiannopoulos, who took to calling Trump “daddy,” had long hoped for.
This terrified a lot of liberals and conservatives, including the Canadian teenager who helped bring down Yiannopoulos. With Trump and his support from reactionaries, they were worried that we were seeing the mainstreaming of a fringe of the far, far right — and that could have horrible consequences for the Republican Party, America, and the world.
“America is a global power, and it affects the entire world,” Julia said. “Whatever Trump says now in terms of foreign policy does change the course of world history and does alter not just America’s position in the world but it will also affect Western civilization’s position in the world stage.” To this end, she added, “There’s not a politician in American politics today that would be worse than Donald Trump.”
There’s a lesson for the broader conservative movement in this story
Still, that an anonymous Canadian 16-year-old had the ability to take down Yiannopoulos — by teaming up with a conservative blog like the Reagan Battalion — shows the resistance against Trump and reactionaries more broadly really can work.
Consider CPAC’s position: They thought they would get away with inviting someone as inflammatory as Yiannopoulos, despite his past bigoted remarks. In doing this, they were pushing the boundaries of the acceptable — potentially letting a hateful man speak in detail about his ideas on a mainstream conservative stage, supposedly in the defense of free speech.
Then it all backfired. And CPAC, along with Yiannopoulos’s publishers and Breitbart, disowned him.
If you’re an organization like CPAC looking at all of this, it will probably make you think twice about giving someone like Yiannopoulos a platform. Maybe these reactionaries really are a dangerous kind of breed of conservatism, and they should be treated as such.
The Canadian teenager said she hopes this is the lesson conservatives draw from the Yiannopoulos debacle. And more broadly, she hopes that her actions will push groups like CPAC to stand up for traditionally conservative values instead of embracing provocative figures just because they attack the left.
“You shouldn’t have to feel intimidated to stand up for what you believe in,” she said. “Hopefully they’ll realize that you can’t keep being this reactionary movement — if you can even call it that. You can’t just keep looking for enemies to attack and pointing the finger. Eventually, you have to stand up for something.”
consumer
Bluelighter
Its funny the alternative facts that spring from the rwnj's that milo was talking about boys over the age of consent when he was talking about 13 year old boys being preyed upon by older men. What a douche
swilow
Bluelight Crew
I dunno, by all accounts he was (is) pretty predatory.
I could be talking about Bill or Donald there.
I could be talking about Bill or Donald there.
Morninggloryseed
Bluelight Crew
Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives
A. Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict
* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. [1] This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. [2]
* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.[3]
* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.[4]
* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.[5]
* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).[6] And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."[7]
* Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year. [8] Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night Specials."
B. Concealed carry laws help reduce crime
* Nationwide: one-half million self-defense uses. Every year, as many as one-half million citizens defend themselves with a firearm away from home. [9] * Concealed carry laws are dropping crime rates across the country. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed:
* States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%; [10] and * If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.[11]
* Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee... or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union -- having three times received the "Safest State Award."[12]
* Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rates in the state. In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state. [13] FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period -- thus putting the Florida rate below the national average. [14]
* Do firearms carry laws result in chaos? No. Consider the case of Florida. A citizen in the Sunshine State is far more likely to be attacked by an alligator than to be assaulted by a concealed carry holder.
1. During the first fifteen years that the Florida law was in effect, alligator attacks outpaced the number of crimes committed by carry holders by a 229 to 155 margin.
2. And even the 155 "crimes" committed by concealed carry permit holders are somewhat misleading as most of these infractions resulted from Floridians who accidentally carried their firearms into restricted areas, such as an airport. [15]
C. Criminals avoid armed citizens
* Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole. [16]
* Ten years later (1991), the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was still 72% lower than it had been in 1981, before the law was passed. [17]
* Nationwide. Statistical comparisons with other countries show that burglars in the United States are far less apt to enter an occupied home than their foreign counterparts who live in countries where fewer civilians own firearms. Consider the following rates showing how often a homeowner is present when a burglar strikes:
* Homeowner occupancy rate in the gun control countries of Great Britain, Canada and Netherlands: 45% (average of the three countries); and, * Homeowner occupancy rate in the United States: 12.7%. [18] Rapes averted when women carry or use firearms for protection
* Orlando, FL. In 1966-67, the media highly publicized a safety course which taught Orlando women how to use guns. The result: Orlando's rape rate dropped 88% in 1967, whereas the rape rate remained constant in the rest of Florida and the nation. [19]
* Nationwide. In 1979, the Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful. [20] Justice Department study:
* 3/5 of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun." [21]
* 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."[22] * 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police." [23]
[1] Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995):164. Dr. Kleck is a professor in the school of criminology and criminal justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee. He has researched extensively and published several essays on the gun control issue. His book, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, has become a widely cited source in the gun control debate. In fact, this book earned Dr. Kleck the prestigious American Society of Criminology Michael J. Hindelang award for 1993. This award is given for the book published in the past two to three years that makes the most outstanding contribution to criminology. Even those who don't like the conclusions Dr. Kleck reaches, cannot argue with his impeccable research and methodology. In "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," Marvin E. Wolfgang writes that, "What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator.... I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence." Wolfgang, "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, at 188.
Wolfgang says there is no "contrary evidence." Indeed, there are more than a dozen national polls -- one of which was conducted by The Los Angeles Times -- that have found figures comparable to the Kleck-Gertz study. Even the Clinton Justice Department (through the National Institute of Justice) found there were as many as 1.5 million defensive users of firearms every year. See National Institute of Justice, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," Research in Brief (May 1997).
As for Dr. Kleck, readers of his materials may be interested to know that he is a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International USA, and Common Cause. He is not and has never been a member of or contributor to any advocacy group on either side of the gun control debate.
[2] According to the National Safety Council, the total number of gun deaths (by accidents, suicides and homicides) account for less than 30,000 deaths per year. See Injury Facts, published yearly by the National Safety Council, Itasca, Illinois.
[3] Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 173, 185.
[4]Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 185.
[5]Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," NIJ Research in Brief (May 1997); available at http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt on the internet. The finding of 1.5 million yearly self-defense cases did not sit well with the anti-gun bias of the study's authors, who attempted to explain why there could not possibly be one and a half million cases of self-defense every year. Nevertheless, the 1.5 million figure is consistent with a mountain of independent surveys showing similar figures. The sponsors of these studies -- nearly a dozen -- are quite varied, and include anti-gun organizations, news media organizations, governments and commercial polling firms. See also Kleck and Gertz, supra note 1, pp. 182-183.
[6]Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, (1991):111-116, 148.
[7]George F. Will, "Are We 'a Nation of Cowards'?," Newsweek (15 November 1993):93.
[8]Id. at 164, 185.
[9]Dr. Gary Kleck, interview with J. Neil Schulman, "Q and A: Guns, crime and self-defense," The Orange County Register (19 September 1993). In the interview with Schulman, Dr. Kleck reports on findings from a national survey which he and Dr. Marc Gertz conducted in Spring, 1993 -- a survey which findings were reported in Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime."
[10]One of the authors of the University of Chicago study reported on the study's findings in John R. Lott, Jr., "More Guns, Less Violent Crime," The Wall Street Journal (28 August 1996). See also John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," University of Chicago (15 August 1996); and Lott, More Guns, Less Crime (1998, 2000).
[11]Lott and Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns."
[12]Kathleen O'Leary Morgan, Scott Morgan and Neal Quitno, "Rankings of States in Most Dangerous/Safest State Awards 1994 to 2003," Morgan Quitno Press (2004) at http://www.statestats.com/dang9403.htm. Morgan Quitno Press is an independent private research and publishing company which was founded in 1989. The company specializes in reference books and monthly reports that compare states and cities in several different subject areas. In the first 10 years in which they published their Safest State Award, Vermont has consistently remained one of the top five safest states.
[13]Memo by Jim Smith, Secretary of State, Florida Department of State, Division of Licensing, Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Statistical Report (October 1, 2002).
14Florida's murder rate was 11.4 per 100,000 in 1987, but only 5.5 in 2002. Compare Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Crime in the United States," Uniform Crime Reports, (1988): 7, 53; and FBI, (2003):19, 79.
[15]John R. Lott, Jr., "Right to carry would disprove horror stories," Kansas City Star, (July 12, 2003).
[16]Gary Kleck, "Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force," Social Problems 35 (February 1988):15.
[17]Compare Kleck, "Crime Control," at 15, and Chief Dwaine L. Wilson, City of Kennesaw Police Department, "Month to Month Statistics: 1991." (Residential burglary rates from 1981-1991 are based on statistics for the months of March - October.)
[18]Kleck, Point Blank, at 140.
[19]Kleck, "Crime Control," at 13.
[20]U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities (1979), p. 31.
[21]U.S., Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, "The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons," Research Report (July 1985): 27.
[22]Id.
[23]Id.
A. Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict
* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. [1] This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. [2]
* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.[3]
* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.[4]
* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.[5]
* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).[6] And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."[7]
* Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year. [8] Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night Specials."
B. Concealed carry laws help reduce crime
* Nationwide: one-half million self-defense uses. Every year, as many as one-half million citizens defend themselves with a firearm away from home. [9] * Concealed carry laws are dropping crime rates across the country. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed:
* States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%; [10] and * If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.[11]
* Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee... or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union -- having three times received the "Safest State Award."[12]
* Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rates in the state. In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state. [13] FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period -- thus putting the Florida rate below the national average. [14]
* Do firearms carry laws result in chaos? No. Consider the case of Florida. A citizen in the Sunshine State is far more likely to be attacked by an alligator than to be assaulted by a concealed carry holder.
1. During the first fifteen years that the Florida law was in effect, alligator attacks outpaced the number of crimes committed by carry holders by a 229 to 155 margin.
2. And even the 155 "crimes" committed by concealed carry permit holders are somewhat misleading as most of these infractions resulted from Floridians who accidentally carried their firearms into restricted areas, such as an airport. [15]
C. Criminals avoid armed citizens
* Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole. [16]
* Ten years later (1991), the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was still 72% lower than it had been in 1981, before the law was passed. [17]
* Nationwide. Statistical comparisons with other countries show that burglars in the United States are far less apt to enter an occupied home than their foreign counterparts who live in countries where fewer civilians own firearms. Consider the following rates showing how often a homeowner is present when a burglar strikes:
* Homeowner occupancy rate in the gun control countries of Great Britain, Canada and Netherlands: 45% (average of the three countries); and, * Homeowner occupancy rate in the United States: 12.7%. [18] Rapes averted when women carry or use firearms for protection
* Orlando, FL. In 1966-67, the media highly publicized a safety course which taught Orlando women how to use guns. The result: Orlando's rape rate dropped 88% in 1967, whereas the rape rate remained constant in the rest of Florida and the nation. [19]
* Nationwide. In 1979, the Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful. [20] Justice Department study:
* 3/5 of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun." [21]
* 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."[22] * 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police." [23]
[1] Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995):164. Dr. Kleck is a professor in the school of criminology and criminal justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee. He has researched extensively and published several essays on the gun control issue. His book, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, has become a widely cited source in the gun control debate. In fact, this book earned Dr. Kleck the prestigious American Society of Criminology Michael J. Hindelang award for 1993. This award is given for the book published in the past two to three years that makes the most outstanding contribution to criminology. Even those who don't like the conclusions Dr. Kleck reaches, cannot argue with his impeccable research and methodology. In "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," Marvin E. Wolfgang writes that, "What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator.... I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence." Wolfgang, "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, at 188.
Wolfgang says there is no "contrary evidence." Indeed, there are more than a dozen national polls -- one of which was conducted by The Los Angeles Times -- that have found figures comparable to the Kleck-Gertz study. Even the Clinton Justice Department (through the National Institute of Justice) found there were as many as 1.5 million defensive users of firearms every year. See National Institute of Justice, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," Research in Brief (May 1997).
As for Dr. Kleck, readers of his materials may be interested to know that he is a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International USA, and Common Cause. He is not and has never been a member of or contributor to any advocacy group on either side of the gun control debate.
[2] According to the National Safety Council, the total number of gun deaths (by accidents, suicides and homicides) account for less than 30,000 deaths per year. See Injury Facts, published yearly by the National Safety Council, Itasca, Illinois.
[3] Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 173, 185.
[4]Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 185.
[5]Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," NIJ Research in Brief (May 1997); available at http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt on the internet. The finding of 1.5 million yearly self-defense cases did not sit well with the anti-gun bias of the study's authors, who attempted to explain why there could not possibly be one and a half million cases of self-defense every year. Nevertheless, the 1.5 million figure is consistent with a mountain of independent surveys showing similar figures. The sponsors of these studies -- nearly a dozen -- are quite varied, and include anti-gun organizations, news media organizations, governments and commercial polling firms. See also Kleck and Gertz, supra note 1, pp. 182-183.
[6]Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, (1991):111-116, 148.
[7]George F. Will, "Are We 'a Nation of Cowards'?," Newsweek (15 November 1993):93.
[8]Id. at 164, 185.
[9]Dr. Gary Kleck, interview with J. Neil Schulman, "Q and A: Guns, crime and self-defense," The Orange County Register (19 September 1993). In the interview with Schulman, Dr. Kleck reports on findings from a national survey which he and Dr. Marc Gertz conducted in Spring, 1993 -- a survey which findings were reported in Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime."
[10]One of the authors of the University of Chicago study reported on the study's findings in John R. Lott, Jr., "More Guns, Less Violent Crime," The Wall Street Journal (28 August 1996). See also John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," University of Chicago (15 August 1996); and Lott, More Guns, Less Crime (1998, 2000).
[11]Lott and Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns."
[12]Kathleen O'Leary Morgan, Scott Morgan and Neal Quitno, "Rankings of States in Most Dangerous/Safest State Awards 1994 to 2003," Morgan Quitno Press (2004) at http://www.statestats.com/dang9403.htm. Morgan Quitno Press is an independent private research and publishing company which was founded in 1989. The company specializes in reference books and monthly reports that compare states and cities in several different subject areas. In the first 10 years in which they published their Safest State Award, Vermont has consistently remained one of the top five safest states.
[13]Memo by Jim Smith, Secretary of State, Florida Department of State, Division of Licensing, Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Statistical Report (October 1, 2002).
14Florida's murder rate was 11.4 per 100,000 in 1987, but only 5.5 in 2002. Compare Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Crime in the United States," Uniform Crime Reports, (1988): 7, 53; and FBI, (2003):19, 79.
[15]John R. Lott, Jr., "Right to carry would disprove horror stories," Kansas City Star, (July 12, 2003).
[16]Gary Kleck, "Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force," Social Problems 35 (February 1988):15.
[17]Compare Kleck, "Crime Control," at 15, and Chief Dwaine L. Wilson, City of Kennesaw Police Department, "Month to Month Statistics: 1991." (Residential burglary rates from 1981-1991 are based on statistics for the months of March - October.)
[18]Kleck, Point Blank, at 140.
[19]Kleck, "Crime Control," at 13.
[20]U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities (1979), p. 31.
[21]U.S., Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, "The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons," Research Report (July 1985): 27.
[22]Id.
[23]Id.
it's just as easy to find statistics which repudiate these claims e.g.
Do guns make us safer? Science suggests no
Professor John Donohue: Facts Do Not Support Claim That Guns Make Us Safer
More Guns Do Not Make the United States Safer
from that last article:
the huge bulk of u.s. citizens support expanded background checks: At DNC, Sen. Chris Murphy says 90% of Americans want expanded background checks for gun purchases
not only that but the huge bulk of u.s. citizens who own guns support expanded background checks: Poll: 92 percent of gun owners support universal background checks
so it's constitutional, most americans want it and most gun-owners want it. so why doesn't it happen?
seems we disagree on the topic, mgs, but perhaps we can at least agree that gun violence is a problem and - regardless of which side of the discussion one is on - we can't fully understand the topic if we're not even allowed to research it? we can't even start to look at it scientifically because the gun lobby's got their hand on congress there too: Quietly, Congress extends a ban on CDC research on gun violence
we can't even research the issue!
alasdair
Do guns make us safer? Science suggests no
Professor John Donohue: Facts Do Not Support Claim That Guns Make Us Safer
More Guns Do Not Make the United States Safer
from that last article:
the huge bulk of u.s. citizens support expanded background checks: At DNC, Sen. Chris Murphy says 90% of Americans want expanded background checks for gun purchases
not only that but the huge bulk of u.s. citizens who own guns support expanded background checks: Poll: 92 percent of gun owners support universal background checks
so it's constitutional, most americans want it and most gun-owners want it. so why doesn't it happen?
seems we disagree on the topic, mgs, but perhaps we can at least agree that gun violence is a problem and - regardless of which side of the discussion one is on - we can't fully understand the topic if we're not even allowed to research it? we can't even start to look at it scientifically because the gun lobby's got their hand on congress there too: Quietly, Congress extends a ban on CDC research on gun violence
we can't even research the issue!
alasdair
Morninggloryseed
Bluelight Crew
Can you be specific? What are you disputing? Your links about background checks have no relation to what i posted.
Dispute what the center for disease control has to say....
Here are some key findings from the CDC report, “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” released in June:
1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”
2. Defensive uses of guns are common:
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:
“The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”
4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results:
“Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”
5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:
“There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”
6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:
“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”
7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:
“Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”
Why No One Has Heard This
Given the CDC’s prior track record on guns, you may be surprised by the extent with which the new research refutes some of the anti-gun movement’s deepest convictions.
What are opponents of the Second Amendment doing about the new data? Perhaps predictably, they’re ignoring it. President Obama, Michael Bloomberg and the Brady Campaign remain silent. Most suspicious of all, the various media outlets that so eagerly anticipated the CDC research are looking the other way as well. One must wonder how media coverage of the CDC report may have differed, had the research more closely fit an anti-gun narrative.
Even worse, the few mainstream journalists who did report the CDC’s findings chose to cherry-pick from the data. Most, like NBC News, reported exclusively on the finding that gun suicides are up. Largely lost in that discussion is the fact that the overall rate of suicide—regardless of whether a gun is involved or not—is also up.
Others seized upon the CDC’s finding that, “The U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries.” However, as noted by the Las Vegas Guardian Express, if figures are excluded from such anti-gun bastions as Illinois, California, New Jersey and Washington, D.C., “The homicide rate in the United States would be in line with any other country.”
The CDC report is overall a blow to the Obama Administration’s unconstitutional agenda. It largely supports the Second Amendment, and contradicts common anti-gun arguments. Unfortunately, mainstream media failed to get the story they were hoping for, and their silence on the matter is a screaming illustration of their underlying agenda.
Read more: http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/cdc-gun-research-backfires-on-obama/#ixzz4ZwhjyEQZ
Dispute what the center for disease control has to say....
Here are some key findings from the CDC report, “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” released in June:
1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”
2. Defensive uses of guns are common:
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:
“The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”
4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results:
“Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”
5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:
“There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”
6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:
“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”
7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:
“Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”
Why No One Has Heard This
Given the CDC’s prior track record on guns, you may be surprised by the extent with which the new research refutes some of the anti-gun movement’s deepest convictions.
What are opponents of the Second Amendment doing about the new data? Perhaps predictably, they’re ignoring it. President Obama, Michael Bloomberg and the Brady Campaign remain silent. Most suspicious of all, the various media outlets that so eagerly anticipated the CDC research are looking the other way as well. One must wonder how media coverage of the CDC report may have differed, had the research more closely fit an anti-gun narrative.
Even worse, the few mainstream journalists who did report the CDC’s findings chose to cherry-pick from the data. Most, like NBC News, reported exclusively on the finding that gun suicides are up. Largely lost in that discussion is the fact that the overall rate of suicide—regardless of whether a gun is involved or not—is also up.
Others seized upon the CDC’s finding that, “The U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries.” However, as noted by the Las Vegas Guardian Express, if figures are excluded from such anti-gun bastions as Illinois, California, New Jersey and Washington, D.C., “The homicide rate in the United States would be in line with any other country.”
The CDC report is overall a blow to the Obama Administration’s unconstitutional agenda. It largely supports the Second Amendment, and contradicts common anti-gun arguments. Unfortunately, mainstream media failed to get the story they were hoping for, and their silence on the matter is a screaming illustration of their underlying agenda.
Read more: http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/cdc-gun-research-backfires-on-obama/#ixzz4ZwhjyEQZ