How Many People Have Been Killed by Guns Since Newtown?

[Ocklawaha]

The solution is reducing the number of available guns, full stop. That means reducing the importation and sale of all guns. Over time, this would reduce the number of illegal guns. It would never eliminate illegal guns - that is an impossibility - but it would eventually make it much more difficult for a garden variety criminal to obtain one.

So by making all guns 'antique collectables' by the year 2075 M/L we will have ended murder? Changing the weapon of choice will have no effect on the criminal mind intent on killing. Lose the gun and he'll use his or her car, or a hammer, or a knife, or rat poison, or pillow, or homemade bomb....  Fact is, killers intent on killing are still going to kill. This explains what China is calling an epidemic of murder.

Laws to actually work. The argument that we shouldn't pass laws because criminals don't follow them is ludicrous - we outlaw all sorts of other things. We find it reasonable to outlaw murder, for example. Murderers still murder, though.

Running red lights is illegal and dangerous, the solution isn't to remove them (in addition to the law) and build traffic circles at all 300k intersections in the US. Murderers still murder, the workings of the law are limited to the punishment given a convicted killer and have little to no deterrent effect on a criminal mind determined to commit a criminal act. However a simple, clearly written law 'Use a gun to murder = life without parole,' might actually remove some of these people from the population.

Such flaws in logic are nothing new to the pro-gun crowd. A similar example would be the "law abiding gun owners are not the problem" argument. No shit. Any gun owner is a law abiding gun owner until he uses his gun illegally - then he's a criminal.

Likewise, law abiding drivers are not the problem - use the car illegally and your a criminal. The solution is in education, counseling, available inpatient mental health care, and proper swift punishment, since any amount of police 'protection' or 'law,'  isn't going to change criminal minds.

[Adam W]

Ock - Your logic re: red lights is very flawed. If people don't obey laws, we enforce the laws. No one is talking about taking away red lights. Red lights are not analogous to guns in this example.

We understand that criminals aren't always going to obey laws. But that doesn't stop us from passing laws. So the logic that we shouldn't outlaw guns because only outlaws will have guns is silly - even if it's true.

We need to reduce the number of available guns. It's an issue of supply. If you look at the UK as an example, our gun homicide rate is much lower than that of the USA. Now, we had a much lower gun homicide rate than the USA before we tightened our gun laws. But guns are more strictly controlled here and I think it's for the better. Although it means only criminals have guns, very few criminals actually have guns. That is a fact. Gun crime rates are very, very low. If you believe all the alarmists out there, you'd believe that we'd all be sitting ducks, waiting to be murdered by the armed hordes who know that we are sitting unarmed and defenceless in our homes. But it just doesn't happen.

[KenFSU]

I would argue it makes none whatsoever. The solution is reducing the number of available guns, full stop. That means reducing the importation and sale of all guns. Over time, this would reduce the number of illegal guns. It would never eliminate illegal guns - that is an impossibility - but it would eventually make it much more difficult for a garden variety criminal to obtain one.

Serious, non-trolling question for the anti-gun crowd:

One of the main reasons that the 2nd Amendment was put into place was to protect U.S. citizens from threats, both outside and in. Don't you feel that an armed citizenry is an important deterrent to government tyranny, societal anarchy, and foreign invasion? I'm not the type to think that we're going to suddenly slip into totalitarianism next week, but anyone with a history book would agree that the precedent is certainly there that, whether now or a hundred years from now, we're going to be faced by such a situation eventually. A population that can defend itself and potentially overthrow its government if necessary seems like a genuinely valuable check and balance to maintain. Does a neutered population armed with only an internet petition instill that same fear?

What about foreign invasion? I'm certainly not suggesting that we're going to find ourselves in a Red Dawn situation in the next decade, but to discount the possibility entirely seems like a dangerous and naive thing to do. For example, when asked in the 1940s why Japan didn't stage a ground invasion of the U.S., Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto allegedly said "You cannot invade the mainland United States because there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Estimates put the number of U.S. gun holders at approximately 100 million. Don't you think that's a) a valuable deterrent against invasion, and b) a valuable defense force if an invasion were to occur? Again, it's easy to say "that's not going to happen" today, but with North Korea beating its goofy war drums, constant economic tension with China, etc., it's impossible and reckless to discount the long-term possibility entirely.

On the anarchy front, you've got to think that the possibility of being blasted in the face with a shotgun keeps the criminal element, and especially the fringe criminal element, from breaking into houses at night. Look at Mexico for another example. Heavily armed drug cartels rule the land, kidnapping, torturing, and violently murdering citizens without discretion. Meanwhile, it's nearly impossible for a law abiding citizen to get a gun permit in Mexico, and if he does, I believe there is only one gun store in the entire country. How would that situation be different if the law abiding population was more heavily armed? What if we face food shortgages, pandemic outbreaks, power outtages, etc? Who wins in this situation if the law abiding people cannot defend their homes?

I don't know, I hate gun violence as much as the next guy, but it seems like your suggestion makes too many dangerous, best-case scenario assumptions about how the world will play out in coming decades. I've never been an alarmist, but the world isn't a pretty place. You can enact every policy in the world to keep guns out of the hands of violent felons and the legitimately insane, but you're never going to win by neutering the good guys, hoping the bad guys follow suit, and making the long-term assumption that government and law enforcement will also have your best interest at heart, and foreign enemies will always stay at bay.

[KenFSU]

I would argue it makes none whatsoever. The solution is reducing the number of available guns, full stop. That means reducing the importation and sale of all guns. Over time, this would reduce the number of illegal guns. It would never eliminate illegal guns - that is an impossibility - but it would eventually make it much more difficult for a garden variety criminal to obtain one.

Serious, non-trolling question for the anti-gun crowd:

One of the main reasons that the 2nd Amendment was put into place was to protect U.S. citizens from threats, both outside and in. Don't you feel that an armed citizenry is an important deterrent to government tyranny, societal anarchy, and foreign invasion? I'm not the type to think that we're going to suddenly slip into totalitarianism next week, but anyone with a history book would agree that the precedent is certainly there that, whether now or a hundred years from now, we're going to be faced by such a situation eventually. A population that can defend itself and potentially overthrow its government if necessary seems like a genuinely valuable check and balance to maintain. Does a neutered population armed with only an internet petition instill that same fear?

What about foreign invasion? I'm certainly not suggesting that we're going to find ourselves in a Red Dawn situation in the next decade, but to discount the possibility entirely seems like a dangerous and naive thing to do. For example, when asked in the 1940s why Japan didn't stage a ground invasion of the U.S., Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto allegedly said "You cannot invade the mainland United States because there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Estimates put the number of U.S. gun holders at approximately 100 million. Don't you think that's a) a valuable deterrent against invasion, and b) a valuable defense force if an invasion were to occur? Again, it's easy to say "that's not going to happen" today, but with North Korea beating its goofy war drums, constant economic tension with China, etc., it's impossible and reckless to discount the long-term possibility entirely.

On the anarchy front, you've got to think that the possibility of being blasted in the face with a shotgun keeps the criminal element, and especially the fringe criminal element, from breaking into houses at night. Look at Mexico for another example. Heavily armed drug cartels rule the land, kidnapping, torturing, and violently murdering citizens without discretion. Meanwhile, it's nearly impossible for a law abiding citizen to get a gun permit in Mexico, and if he does, I believe there is only one gun store in the entire country. How would that situation be different if the law abiding population was more heavily armed? What if we face food shortgages, pandemic outbreaks, power outtages, etc? Who wins in this situation if the law abiding people cannot defend their homes?

I don't know, I hate gun violence as much as the next guy, but it seems like your suggestion makes too many dangerous, best-case scenario assumptions about how the world will play out in coming decades. I've never been an alarmist, but the world isn't a pretty place.

This wasnt why the second amendment was included.  So the argument is faulty.

While I agree with the basic premise, its just historically inaccurate

Disregarding semantics then, I'm genuinely curious as to your thoughts on the premise

[Adam W]

I would argue it makes none whatsoever. The solution is reducing the number of available guns, full stop. That means reducing the importation and sale of all guns. Over time, this would reduce the number of illegal guns. It would never eliminate illegal guns - that is an impossibility - but it would eventually make it much more difficult for a garden variety criminal to obtain one.

Serious, non-trolling question for the anti-gun crowd:

One of the main reasons that the 2nd Amendment was put into place was to protect U.S. citizens from threats, both outside and in. Don't you feel that an armed citizenry is an important deterrent to government tyranny, societal anarchy, and foreign invasion? I'm not the type to think that we're going to suddenly slip into totalitarianism next week, but anyone with a history book would agree that the precedent is certainly there that, whether now or a hundred years from now, we're going to be faced by such a situation eventually. A population that can defend itself and potentially overthrow its government if necessary seems like a genuinely valuable check and balance to maintain. Does a neutered population armed with only an internet petition instill that same fear?

What about foreign invasion? I'm certainly not suggesting that we're going to find ourselves in a Red Dawn situation in the next decade, but to discount the possibility entirely seems like a dangerous and naive thing to do. For example, when asked in the 1940s why Japan didn't stage a ground invasion of the U.S., Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto allegedly said "You cannot invade the mainland United States because there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Estimates put the number of U.S. gun holders at approximately 100 million. Don't you think that's a) a valuable deterrent against invasion, and b) a valuable defense force if an invasion were to occur? Again, it's easy to say "that's not going to happen" today, but with North Korea beating its goofy war drums, constant economic tension with China, etc., it's impossible and reckless to discount the long-term possibility entirely.

On the anarchy front, you've got to think that the possibility of being blasted in the face with a shotgun keeps the criminal element, and especially the fringe criminal element, from breaking into houses at night. Look at Mexico for another example. Heavily armed drug cartels rule the land, kidnapping, torturing, and violently murdering citizens without discretion. Meanwhile, it's nearly impossible for a law abiding citizen to get a gun permit in Mexico, and if he does, I believe there is only one gun store in the entire country. How would that situation be different if the law abiding population was more heavily armed? What if we face food shortgages, pandemic outbreaks, power outtages, etc? Who wins in this situation if the law abiding people cannot defend their homes?

I don't know, I hate gun violence as much as the next guy, but it seems like your suggestion makes too many dangerous, best-case scenario assumptions about how the world will play out in coming decades. I've never been an alarmist, but the world isn't a pretty place. You can enact every policy in the world to keep guns out of the hands of violent felons and the legitimately insane, but you're never going to win by neutering the good guys, hoping the bad guys follow suit, and making the long-term assumption that government and law enforcement will also have your best interest at heart, and foreign enemies will always stay at bay.

I will attempt to answer your question, Ken.

I don't think an armed populace would make much of a difference against an oppressive government. I think the most important deterrent is civil disobedience or direct action - as seen in Egypt, et al. The so-called Arab Spring happened when people stood up to their governments and took to the streets in protest. The same thing happened in the Warsaw Pact countries in the late 80s. It wasn't violent revolution that destroyed the iron curtain, it was people speaking up.

I think people with guns wouldn't do much to stop an oppressive government these days anyway - your guns won't do anything against tanks, grenades, attack helicopters and (apparently) drone aircraft. In Egypt, the revolution succeeded (if we can really claim it succeeded in doing much of anything) because the military decided to back it. That would have to happen anywhere - and it usually is what does happen. The military is, after all, made up of citizens. Once they refuse to fire on their own, the government's days are numbered. Until that happens, you aren't going to stand much of a chance with your guns.

As far as foreign invaders go, if we ever get to that point - where our military is so compromised that we seriously have to rely on me and my hunting rifle or whatever - to try and defend the country.... well, we're basically fucked and I can't see it making that much of a difference. Not in this day and age.

And there is one very important point I'd like to make about people and guns and them using those guns to overthrow the government: why should I trust a bunch of guys with guns to be any more democratic than the supposedly oppressive government they unilaterally decided to overthrow? There is nothing democratic in their decision to go and have a revolution. Then they take over and they have the guns and the power - and they make the rules. I don't trust that. I don't want that.

I personally think change should come from the ballot box, not the armalite (apologies to Sinn Féin).

As far as crime is concerned, I think if you work to remove guns from "the street" (e.g. strictly limit the importation, production, sale and general availability of guns), over time the number of available guns will be reduced. You should see a decrease in gun-related crimes. I don't believe that criminals will start preying on the unarmed populace - I think that's a paranoid fantasy fueled by the gun lobby and by arms manufacturers (among others).

[KenFSU]

Sure, let's leave Constitutional talk completely off the table. I don't want to put words in your mouth and lump you Adam, because I'm not sure if your ideas for stricter gun control are as extreme as his. My question for those in favor of wide-reaching measures that significantly disarm the American population is: Will the benefit of decreasing gun violence outweigh the costs associated, including upsetting the balance of power between government and citizens (and police and citizens), leaving us more susceptable to foreign invasion, decreasing law abiding citizen's ability to defend their home, and also upsetting the balance between armed criminals with unarmed citizens. Basically, a cost/benefit analysis. I completely understand the benefits that the anti-gun folks believe will result from a reduction in firearms. What I don't understand is how they factor in the societal cost.

[Adam W]

Sure, let's leave Constitutional talk completely off the table. I don't want to put words in your mouth and lump you Adam, because I'm not sure if your ideas for stricter gun control are as extreme as his. My question for those in favor of wide-reaching measures that significantly disarm the American population is: Will the benefit of decreasing gun violence outweigh the costs associated, including upsetting the balance of power between government and citizens (and police and citizens), leaving us more susceptable to foreign invasion, decreasing law abiding citizen's ability to defend their home, and also upsetting the balance between armed criminals with unarmed citizens. Basically, a cost/benefit analysis. I completely understand the benefits that the anti-gun folks believe will result from a reduction in firearms. What I don't understand is how they factor in the societal cost.

Well, I don't really think there is a balance of power issue here. I don't think the government or the police (or criminals) act in any particular way because people have guns. And I don't think foreign nations don't invade because people have guns.

It's true that a small number of crimes are thwarted annually because people are armed. But a much, much larger number of people are killed accidentally each year by guns. So in the balance we could argue probably that guns do more harm than good in that sense.

It would be hard to know, I have to admit, the actual societal cost (to use your term) of (relative) disarmament without actually doing it and then allowing a number of years to observe the effects (as it would take many years to reduce the number of illegal guns in circulation). All of this is conjecture, of course, as are the arguments in favour of guns.

Although I am not a meat-eater, I can see that guns do serve some purpose for hunting and sport. I'm not crazy about it as you can imagine, but they have their good points. And I can see the benefits of having a gun out in the wilderness. So I am not completely in favour of taking away all guns.

[Ocklawaha]

Nice spin boys and girls. I feel so guilty I'm going to immediately turn in the old Thompson for a misericorde, at least I'll know what to do with it.   

[Adam W]

Nice spin boys and girls. I feel so guilty I'm going to immediately turn in the old Thompson for a misericorde, at least I'll know what to do with it.   

You're one to talk about spin.

[peestandingup]

Restricting LEGAL purchases of firearms will not reduce gun violence levels but will instead cause an increase. 

This drop in crime happened nationally. New York's drop was even more noticeable.  Mainly because they enforced very strict gun laws. Nice try, but you are just wrong.

Next talk about Chicago & how the magical gun law fairies helped them.

And explain how the chart is wrong exactly. Even if we're talking about it on a national scale, how can murders & overall violent crimes be lower if gun ownership is at an all time high? In your view, shouldn't we just be tearing ourselves apart by now?

[Ocklawaha]

Yeah, maybe so but this is how much difference a gun ban is going to make in my house: ________________________

[Adam W]

Restricting LEGAL purchases of firearms will not reduce gun violence levels but will instead cause an increase. 

This drop in crime happened nationally. New York's drop was even more noticeable.  Mainly because they enforced very strict gun laws. Nice try, but you are just wrong.

Next talk about Chicago & how the magical gun law fairies helped them.

And explain how the chart is wrong exactly. Even if we're talking about it on a national scale, how can murders & overall violent crimes be lower if gun ownership is at an all time high? In your view, shouldn't we just be tearing ourselves apart by now?

It's wrong simply because it supposes a link between gun ownership and a reduction in crime rate when the two may not be linked. If there is a national decrease in crime, that may not have anything whatsoever to do with gun ownership, irrespective of the fact that gun ownership was at an all-time high.

And if you look at the chart, murder rates were lower at a point in time well before the right-to-carry law. So that would indicate that maybe there was something else at play.

By pointing out when the right-to-carry law took effect, it gives the impression that the drop-off after that point resulted from the law. But that is misleading at best.

[peestandingup]

Next talk about Chicago & how the magical gun law fairies helped them.

And explain how the chart is wrong exactly. Even if we're talking about it on a national scale, how can murders & overall violent crimes be lower if gun ownership is at an all time high? In your view, shouldn't we just be tearing ourselves apart by now?

It's wrong simply because it supposes a link between gun ownership and a reduction in crime rate when the two may not be linked. If there is a national decrease in crime, that may not have anything whatsoever to do with gun ownership, irrespective of the fact that gun ownership was at an all-time high.

And if you look at the chart, murder rates were lower at a point in time well before the right-to-carry law. So that would indicate that maybe there was something else at play.

By pointing out when the right-to-carry law took effect, it gives the impression that the drop-off after that point resulted from the law. But that is misleading at best.

True, they may not be linked, but they also might be. How can you really tell? If you were a criminal & you thought there was a good chance the owner of the home you were going to rob had a gun, would you still rob it? I know I wouldn't. Would I be more inclined to rob it in a "gun free zone"? Probably. And are we also suggesting that perhaps if we just had more gun bans that this overall violent crime rate would have been even lower?? While debatable, its certainly doubtful since we know that prohibition usually has the opposite effect & ends up creating more crime (IE: Drug war), not to mention the scenario I just described above. Criminals usually don't follow the law, thats why they're criminals. And still no one wants to take a stab at Chicago & the effect its had on them.

Besides, I was more talking about the correlation between the idea that more guns = more crime mantra we've been hearing lately. That's obviously not the case. If it were, you'd see crime exploding everywhere since gun ownership has always continued to rise.

[Adam W]

Next talk about Chicago & how the magical gun law fairies helped them.

And explain how the chart is wrong exactly. Even if we're talking about it on a national scale, how can murders & overall violent crimes be lower if gun ownership is at an all time high? In your view, shouldn't we just be tearing ourselves apart by now?

It's wrong simply because it supposes a link between gun ownership and a reduction in crime rate when the two may not be linked. If there is a national decrease in crime, that may not have anything whatsoever to do with gun ownership, irrespective of the fact that gun ownership was at an all-time high.

And if you look at the chart, murder rates were lower at a point in time well before the right-to-carry law. So that would indicate that maybe there was something else at play.

By pointing out when the right-to-carry law took effect, it gives the impression that the drop-off after that point resulted from the law. But that is misleading at best.

True, they may not be linked, but they also might be. How can you really tell? If you were a criminal & you thought there was a good chance the owner of the home you were going to rob had a gun, would you still rob it? I know I wouldn't. Would I be more inclined to rob it in a "gun free zone"? Probably. And are we also suggesting that perhaps if we just had more gun bans that this overall violent crime rate would have been even lower?? While debatable, its certainly doubtful since we know that prohibition usually has the opposite effect & ends up creating more crime (IE: Drug war), not to mention the scenario I just described above. Criminals usually don't follow the law, thats why they're criminals. And still no one wants to take a stab at Chicago & the effect its had on them.

Besides, I was more talking about the correlation between the idea that more guns = more crime mantra we've been hearing lately. That's obviously not the case. If it were, you'd see crime exploding everywhere since gun ownership has always continued to rise.

There's a difference between saying there may possibly be a link and claiming there is a link. You cannot claim a link where there is no evidence to show a link.

I have never claimed more guns = more crime. I have claimed more guns = more gun homicides. And that has been proved.

Edit: more guns = more gun crime

Edit #2: as far as how you can really tell if the reduction in crime is linked to gun ownership: I bet the guys of Freakonomics could talk about that. There are ways Economists can play with the data to isolate that sort of thing, I believe. Last I heard, there was no definitive answer to that question, though.

[Adam W]

As far as Chicago is concerned, I can refer you to this article. I think it offers a number of explanations. I cannot claim to be an expert, but I would only say that I cannot see the point in restricting guns in one area only if they are available throughout the rest of the country. Seems a bit pointless. I remember a lot of the problems they had in NYC was with guns being shipped in from Florida.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/15/1599631/no-chicago-isnt-proof-that-gun-regulation-doesnt-work/?mobile=nc