How Many People Have Been Killed by Guns Since Newtown?

[BridgeTroll]

Well the gun homicide rate is about to go through the roof using Adams logic.  The talk of gun and magazine bans has certainly boosted gun sales... certain types of ammo are in short supply. I am even having trouble finding target loads for my shotgun. Many models of guns are in short supply due to the splurge in buying... with first time gun owners leading the way.  Was at Green Acres last week... the place was PACKED... Male, female, racially diverse, young and old.  The area for the concealed weapons class was overflowing...

[Adam W]

Well the gun homicide rate is about to go through the roof using Adams logic.  The talk of gun and magazine bans has certainly boosted gun sales... certain types of ammo are in short supply. I am even having trouble finding target loads for my shotgun. Many models of guns are in short supply due to the splurge in buying... with first time gun owners leading the way.  Was at Green Acres last week... the place was PACKED... Male, female, racially diverse, young and old.  The area for the concealed weapons class was overflowing...

Well, BT - I don't think there is necessarily a geometric relationship. It's just a fact that more guns means more gun deaths. There really is no denying that.

[BridgeTroll]

Well the gun homicide rate is about to go through the roof using Adams logic.  The talk of gun and magazine bans has certainly boosted gun sales... certain types of ammo are in short supply. I am even having trouble finding target loads for my shotgun. Many models of guns are in short supply due to the splurge in buying... with first time gun owners leading the way.  Was at Green Acres last week... the place was PACKED... Male, female, racially diverse, young and old.  The area for the concealed weapons class was overflowing...

Just because things have a sometimes sad way of working out, ive quoted this post for posterity.  Lets revisit this in a couple of years.

Thanks Stephen... I hope Adam is wrong. 

[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.

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.

Well I would think so. Just like more cars = more auto deaths/injuries, or less income = more deaths (from bad health & no access to decent healthcare). But we don't talk about that do we? Why not?? I mean, if our overall concern is safety & deaths, no matter the cause, then lets put it all out on the table instead of using an isolated incident & pandering to bleeding hearts to do it "for the children". Thats a load of hogwash & anyone who can think critically knows it. Forget who's saying it & what side its coming from for a second, I know you guys are smart enough to see that.

Obama says if we can just save one life it'll all be worth it. Never minding all the other ways lives will be lost today, including children. Or never minding the likely repercussions from such an act that would follow (the whole prohibition never working thing). The fact of the matter is, at least as I see it, is that he's pandering to bleeding heart liberals in the same way GWB pandered to ultra conservatives to go to war & to take away your rights as an individual. If I'm wrong, I'll eat my hat. But I don't think I am. Its the same story with a different narrator.

Why is all of this happening, like, really happening? I have no idea. Although I do have my suspicions that I won't get into here. But it likely has jack shit to do with your safety, rights as an individual or the benefit to society as a whole.

[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.

Well I would think so. Just like more cars = more auto deaths/injuries, or less income = more deaths (from bad health & no access to decent healthcare). But we don't talk about that do we? Why not?? I mean, if our overall concern is safety & deaths, no matter the cause, then lets put it all out on the table instead of using an isolated incident & pandering to bleeding hearts to do it "for the children". Thats a load of hogwash & anyone who can think critically knows it. Forget who's saying it & what side its coming from for a second, I know you guys are smart enough to see that.

Obama says if we can just save one life it'll all be worth it. Never minding all the other ways lives will be lost today, including children. Or never minding the likely repercussions from such an act that would follow (the whole prohibition never working thing). The fact of the matter is, at least as I see it, is that he's pandering to bleeding heart liberals in the same way GWB pandered to ultra conservatives to go to war & to take away your rights as an individual. If I'm wrong, I'll eat my hat. But I don't think I am. Its the same story with a different narrator.

Why is all of this happening, like, really happening? I have no idea. Although I do have my suspicions that I won't get into here. But it likely has jack shit to do with your safety, rights as an individual or the benefit to society as a whole.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I've never mentioned children and I don't really have any thoughts on Barack Obama or his policies. As far as prohibition (or, more accurately, controls) is concerned... it clearly does work where I live.

[I-10east]

So lets get to the point anti-gun people; What do yall want ultimately to ban all guns completely in the US? I guess that we better get used to settling our unfortunate disputes with good old fashioned blunt force objects...

[I-10east]

^^^I'm being serious, answer the question. What's your stance on guns in America? Do you just wanna do away with them all? Because it sounds like it.

[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.

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.

Well I would think so. Just like more cars = more auto deaths/injuries, or less income = more deaths (from bad health & no access to decent healthcare). But we don't talk about that do we? Why not?? I mean, if our overall concern is safety & deaths, no matter the cause, then lets put it all out on the table instead of using an isolated incident & pandering to bleeding hearts to do it "for the children". Thats a load of hogwash & anyone who can think critically knows it. Forget who's saying it & what side its coming from for a second, I know you guys are smart enough to see that.

Obama says if we can just save one life it'll all be worth it. Never minding all the other ways lives will be lost today, including children. Or never minding the likely repercussions from such an act that would follow (the whole prohibition never working thing). The fact of the matter is, at least as I see it, is that he's pandering to bleeding heart liberals in the same way GWB pandered to ultra conservatives to go to war & to take away your rights as an individual. If I'm wrong, I'll eat my hat. But I don't think I am. Its the same story with a different narrator.

Why is all of this happening, like, really happening? I have no idea. Although I do have my suspicions that I won't get into here. But it likely has jack shit to do with your safety, rights as an individual or the benefit to society as a whole.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I've never mentioned children and I don't really have any thoughts on Barack Obama or his policies. As far as prohibition (or, more accurately, controls) is concerned... it clearly does work where I live.

What do you mean you don't know? We're talking about safety & deaths, right?? That's the ultimate argument for more gun control.

[Adam W]

I mean I you're talking about all sorts of things I've never mentioned. If I haven't made an argument, then I cannot answer for it. And you're talking about "bleeding heart liberals" and I'm not one of those, either. You seem to be making a lot of assumptions or responding to other people's arguments instead of mine.

[peestandingup]

I mean I you're talking about all sorts of things I've never mentioned. If I haven't made an argument, then I cannot answer for it. And you're talking about "bleeding heart liberals" and I'm not one of those, either. You seem to be making a lot of assumptions or responding to other people's arguments instead of mine.

And I never called you one. Just that that was who this whole thing was directed towards from the establishment. And the fact that we're not talking about those things is kinda the point since we're talking about deaths, safety & that whole betterment for society thing in general (again, that's the basis for gun control, right??). Esp since they absolutely dwarf gun deaths, not to mention how some of them have a direct effect on health/mental health in general, which in turn causes certain people to flip out & go on shooting sprees. But I guess it's much easier for people to wrap their heads around blaming a tool/object than it is to go deeper.

I'm trying to get you to look at the broad scope of this stuff & actually problem solve at the root, instead of just picking at it. So do wanna problem solve, or so you wanna blame the hammer because it was used to smash someone in the head?

[Adam W]

I mean I you're talking about all sorts of things I've never mentioned. If I haven't made an argument, then I cannot answer for it. And you're talking about "bleeding heart liberals" and I'm not one of those, either. You seem to be making a lot of assumptions or responding to other people's arguments instead of mine.

And I never called you one. Just that that was who this whole thing was directed towards from the establishment. And the fact that we're not talking about those things is kinda the point since we're talking about deaths, safety & that whole betterment for society thing in general (again, that's the basis for gun control, right??). Esp since they absolutely dwarf gun deaths, not to mention how some of them have a direct effect on health/mental health in general, which in turn causes certain people to flip out & go on shooting sprees. But I guess it's much easier for people to wrap their heads around blaming a tool/object than it is to go deeper.

I'm trying to get you to look at the broad scope of this stuff & actually problem solve at the root, instead of just picking at it. So do wanna problem solve, or so you wanna blame the hammer because it was used to smash someone in the head?

Well, that logic is seriously flawed. You're basically saying that if we can't fix all of the problems facing the country (auto accidents, lack of healthcare, lack of income) we shouldn't bother trying to fix one that is really a problem -- our ridiculously high homicide rate. And when we look to tackle that ridiculously high homicide rate (of the G8 countries, second only to Russia and higher than such non-G8 countries as India, Laos and Albania), we should probably start with the method that accounts for over twice as many homicides than all other methods combined.

So I don't really understand the argument that we shouldn't try to tackle what is clearly an issue - gun homicide. The USA has a problem with murders. And the USA mainly has a problem with gun murders. If fewer guns were available there would be fewer murders. You would not eliminate murder if you eliminated guns (a rhetorical example - I am not proposing to eliminate all guns). But you would definitely reduce murders (we don't live in a "Murder She Wrote" society where every murder is premeditated and where the murderer would hatch an elaborate plot to kill his victim by some other dastardly means if a gun were not available).

I'm not talking about "bettering society" so much as I'm talking about reducing deaths. I'm not talking about saving children.

The vast majority of guns used in the commission of crimes start out as legal weapons. That means there is a way to actually tackle this issue. Reducing the number of available guns will reduce the number of gun deaths over time. It will happen gradually.

[NotNow]

I don't know.  But hundreds have been saved by citizens using guns for their intended purpose.  Millions are protected everyday by public servants who are armed with firearms.

They didnt do a very good job of protecting Kiko Battles, though, did they NotNow?

hundreds have also been shot by citizens using guns for their intended purpose.  And thousands are shot to death, many under unclear circumstances by public servants who are armed with firearms.

Number of americans shot to death in 2010 by cops: 387
Number of UK Citizens shot to death in 2010 by police: 0
Since 1995 in the UK?  33

http://www.lvrj.com/news/deadly-force/142-dead-and-rising/national-data-on-shootings-by-police-not-collected-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315288/Police-shot-dead-33-people-1995--marksmen-named.html134256308.html

Im not sure that a fuller look at the data supports your point, notnow.

I disagree.  There are literally hundreds of reports every year of citizens protecting their own lives, and the lives of others bucause they were in possession of a firearm.  These incidents often don't result in a shooting, but the crime is prevented nonetheless. 

Your case in point, Mr. Battles, was shot by Officers after he reached for his stolen pistol.  He had recently been released from prison.  The case was reviewed by the State Attorney and the Officers were found to have been within the law.  I believe the data supports my point very well.  And, as you yourself illustrate, there will always be some who will not accept the facts when it comes to police involved shootings. 

[Pinky]

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.

Not so fast big boy...  You don't get to just dismiss facts because they gut your position.   Lets look at the effect that lawful ownership of firearms has on "gun violence".

Here's Florida again, re-sized so the entire image fits here on MJ.



No deterrent effect shown there, huh?  LOL.

Now lets look at DC, where they banned all handguns. 



Hmmm, thats interesting, isn't it?  That ban on LEGAL handgun ownership was a real winner.

How about Chicago? 



Golly, that sure didn't work either.

What say you to that?  (Is this the part where that legendary Stephen Dare Civility starts calling me an "idiot"?)

Source: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

[Pinky]

Wait, lets just ask the criminals themselves:

"A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

Same source as above.

[Pinky]

Well Pinky, its regrettable that you have to descend to namecalling in these arguments.  Even if they are only fantasy slurs like 'idiot'.

Perhaps you should ponder on how constructive this kind of pish posh martyrdom approach really is.

The decline in crime happened nationally, 18 years after universal abortion became illegal in 1972.

Florida beat the rest of the country by a couple of years.

In short the correlation simply is not causal.

And it (meaning the factual basis of the decline) doesnt care whether or not you fantasize about your intellectual betters calling you an 'idiot' or any other such slur.

So no, you can't dispute the facts I've cited.

Furthermore, I didn't pose the question to my "intellectual betters", I asked you.