http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html)
In 2011, there was 323 murders committed with a rifle, but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs. It's obvious we need to register all hammers, rolling pins and baseball gear... the stuff is deadly, they apparently can go off all by themselves. ;)
Everything would be all good if those blasted semi-automatic assault rifles (like an AR-15) and high capacity magazines would be banned; Because surely they put a significant dent in that murder ratio....
^^^You mean like the conspiracy to tear down the Hart Bridge ramp, in favor of highrises?
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.
Quote from: Ocklawaha on February 27, 2013, 09:40:03 PM
In 2011, there was 323 murders committed with a rifle, but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs. It's obvious we need to register all hammers, rolling pins and baseball gear... the stuff is deadly, they apparently can go off all by themselves. ;)
In 2011, there were 8,583 homicides by firearms in the USA. That's staggering. Guns are made for killing and they clearly are the most efficient means by which to do it.
No one has every tried to claim that people don't or won't try to kill people by other means. But there is a huge difference between 8,583 homicides committed with firearms and 4,081 homicides committed by: knives or cutting objects, blunt objects, personal weapons (hands, etc), poison, explosives, fire, narcotics, drowning, strangulation, asphyxiation and "other weapons or weapons not stated".
So according to the FBI,
in 2011 over twice as many murders were committed by guns than by all other methods combined.*for the record, the second largest category was knives, clocking in at 1,694 murders and "other weapons or weapons not stated" at 853 murders - and some of those may be guns.
How many of these killings involved firearms which were legally purchased?
Quote from: Pinky on February 28, 2013, 06:58:21 AM
How many of these killings involved firearms which were legally purchased?
I don't think it makes a blind bit of difference.
If the proposed solutions all involve putting more laws in place, then it absolutely does make a difference.
So the next time someone is raped in the city, you guys are going to be first in line for castration? Seems pretty obvious to me that your 'gun' is dangerous and should be removed immediately. This is essentially the 'logic' of the argument that says if NotNow bought everyone of you a new semi-automatic weapon, you would all immediately become mass killers living in 'compounds.'
We live in a violent society but I have yet to hear of a gun running down to the corner C-store and shooting a clerk of its own accord. Perhaps if we spent 1/2 the effort we expend on eliminating weapons and spent it on proper mental care and counseling we could actually cut the obscene numbers of murders. The root cause is peoples depravity and if that isn't properly addressed, all of the weapons laws or seizures in the world won't make a bit of difference. Even if successful beyond the wildest imagination, eliminating firearms will only change the weapon of choice. China doesn't have a problem with mass murder by firearm, but they have an epidemic of murder by knives.
Actually Stephen, the difference between hammers and bats, i.e.: subspecies of 'blunt object' murders, is no different then the difference between an AR-15 and an AK-47 or subspecies of rifles. ;)
Quote from: Pinky on February 28, 2013, 08:08:39 AM
If the proposed solutions all involve putting more laws in place, then it absolutely does make a difference.
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.
Laws do 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.
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. Jared Loughner and that joker guy from Colorado were law abiding gun owners until they went psycho and started shooting people.
This ought to be interesting...
QuoteFSU researcher says
guns protect the innocent
By Larry Keough
FSU Communications Group
How does a self-described liberal and member of the American Civil Liberties Union become the academic darling of the National Rifle Association?
The answer is in the research of FSU criminology Professor Gary Kleck, whose findings challenge much of the accepted wisdom about gun use and abuse in America.
The NRA has hailed Kleck's assessment of federal crime statistics as evidence that guns are much more likely to be used defensively than aggressively and are more likely to be owned by law-abiding citizens than by criminals.
"I'm treated as a hero by people I have very little in common with," Kleck says.
While the NRA cites his findings, gun-control advocates counter with research that says the risk of dying from a gunshot increases 2.7 times for people who live in a home where a gun is kept.
Kleck and his colleague, FSU Professor Marc Gertz, surveyed nearly 5,000 U.S. residents.
Based on the 4 percent who responded that they had used guns against criminal attacks, the researchers project that at least 2.1 million private citizens each year use guns to defend themselves against criminals. That's about four times the reported crimes committed with guns annually, he said.
Police officers, security guards and the military were excluded.
Of 213 people who admitted to using a gun when confronted by offenders, about 76 percent said they drew the gun, but did not fire. The other 24 percent said they fired as a warning (one-third) or at their attacker (two-thirds).
Defenders mostly drew guns to deter attackers who had a knife, stick or weapon other than a firearm.
"This study shows that armed victims are willing to use guns to thwart attacks, especially when assailants possess non-firearms," Kleck says. "In incidents involving gun-carrying attackers, they have the option of using their gun if they have to."
Though 18 percent of the armed citizens were confronted by an attacker with a gun, most of the criminals did not fire, Kleck says.
Only 3 percent of the survey's reported incidents involved an exchange of gunfire.
Most of those who used guns succeeded in protecting themselves and their property. If they were injured, it was usually before they used a firearm, Kleck says.
Kleck says the policy implication of his research is: Don't take guns away from law-abiding citizens.
"Instead of targeting particular types of guns, we should target certain types of individuals from possessing guns," says Kleck, author of the 1991 book, "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America."
Wonder how long it will take for this guy to be tossed under the bus for not walking in lock step?
Quote from: Ocklawaha on February 28, 2013, 08:35:47 AM
So the next time someone is raped in the city, you guys are going to be first in line for castration? Seems pretty obvious to me that your 'gun' is dangerous and should be removed immediately. This is essentially the 'logic' of the argument that says if NotNow bought everyone of you a new semi-automatic weapon, you would all immediately become mass killers living in 'compounds.'
We live in a violent society but I have yet to hear of a gun running down to the corner C-store and shooting a clerk of its own accord. Perhaps if we spent 1/2 the effort we expend on eliminating weapons and spent it on proper mental care and counseling we could actually cut the obscene numbers of murders. The root cause is peoples depravity and if that isn't properly addressed, all of the weapons laws or seizures in the world won't make a bit of difference. Even if successful beyond the wildest imagination, eliminating firearms will only change the weapon of choice. China doesn't have a problem with mass murder by firearm, but they have an epidemic of murder by knives.
Actually Stephen, the difference between hammers and bats, i.e.: subspecies of 'blunt object' murders, is no different then the difference between an AR-15 and an AK-47 or subspecies of rifles. ;)
No one is claiming guns commit crimes on their own. Guns are a very efficient way to commit crimes, however. And gun crimes are a real problem in the USA. Although knife crime may be an issue in China, it's worth noting that it's probably not an "epidemic" such as you describe, given that their intentional murder rate is almost 5 times lower than ours:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/oct/10/world-murder-rate-unodc (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/oct/10/world-murder-rate-unodc)
I certainly agree that mental health care is important. And I think it is something that is desperately needed and I would support funding for it. But the world's best mental health care is never going to make much of a dent in gun crimes. Because a) oftentimes mental health issues become apparent after something goes wrong, b) mental health problems rely on the person with them seeking treatment, but most of all....
c) the vast majority of gun crimes are not committed by crazy people.You might reduce the occurrence of the occasional mass shooting (again, doubtful...you're more likely to reduce the number of suicides by firearm). But you're not going to stop most gun murders.
Restricting LEGAL purchases of firearms will not reduce gun violence levels but will instead cause an increase.
(http://i1277.photobucket.com/albums/y500/PinkyVP/60F6178D-DB1C-41BB-B2BE-C1ED17B296D5-389-0000001868B12D59_zps67eceaae.jpg)
Quote from: Ocklawaha on February 28, 2013, 09:04:13 AM
This ought to be interesting...
QuoteFSU researcher says
guns protect the innocent
By Larry Keough
FSU Communications Group
How does a self-described liberal and member of the American Civil Liberties Union become the academic darling of the National Rifle Association?
The answer is in the research of FSU criminology Professor Gary Kleck, whose findings challenge much of the accepted wisdom about gun use and abuse in America.
The NRA has hailed Kleck's assessment of federal crime statistics as evidence that guns are much more likely to be used defensively than aggressively and are more likely to be owned by law-abiding citizens than by criminals.
"I'm treated as a hero by people I have very little in common with," Kleck says.
While the NRA cites his findings, gun-control advocates counter with research that says the risk of dying from a gunshot increases 2.7 times for people who live in a home where a gun is kept.
Kleck and his colleague, FSU Professor Marc Gertz, surveyed nearly 5,000 U.S. residents.
Based on the 4 percent who responded that they had used guns against criminal attacks, the researchers project that at least 2.1 million private citizens each year use guns to defend themselves against criminals. That's about four times the reported crimes committed with guns annually, he said.
Police officers, security guards and the military were excluded.
Of 213 people who admitted to using a gun when confronted by offenders, about 76 percent said they drew the gun, but did not fire. The other 24 percent said they fired as a warning (one-third) or at their attacker (two-thirds).
Defenders mostly drew guns to deter attackers who had a knife, stick or weapon other than a firearm.
"This study shows that armed victims are willing to use guns to thwart attacks, especially when assailants possess non-firearms," Kleck says. "In incidents involving gun-carrying attackers, they have the option of using their gun if they have to."
Though 18 percent of the armed citizens were confronted by an attacker with a gun, most of the criminals did not fire, Kleck says.
Only 3 percent of the survey's reported incidents involved an exchange of gunfire.
Most of those who used guns succeeded in protecting themselves and their property. If they were injured, it was usually before they used a firearm, Kleck says.
Kleck says the policy implication of his research is: Don't take guns away from law-abiding citizens.
"Instead of targeting particular types of guns, we should target certain types of individuals from possessing guns," says Kleck, author of the 1991 book, "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America."
Wonder how long it will take for this guy to be tossed under the bus for not walking in lock step?
Kleck's "research" has been pretty thoroughly discredited. For example:
http://www.oneutah.org/2009/11/national-rifle-association-continues-to-feed-its-readers-demonstrable-lies-and-distortions/ (http://www.oneutah.org/2009/11/national-rifle-association-continues-to-feed-its-readers-demonstrable-lies-and-distortions/)
Quote from: Adam W on February 28, 2013, 08:58:12 AM
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.
QuoteLaws 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.
QuoteSuch 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.
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.
Quote from: Adam W on February 28, 2013, 08:58:12 AM
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.
Quote from: stephendare on February 28, 2013, 10:52:32 AM
Quote from: KenFSU on February 28, 2013, 10:48:57 AM
Quote from: Adam W on February 28, 2013, 08:58:12 AM
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 :)
Quote from: KenFSU on February 28, 2013, 10:48:57 AM
Quote from: Adam W on February 28, 2013, 08:58:12 AM
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).
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.
Quote from: KenFSU on February 28, 2013, 11:21:23 AM
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.
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. :o
Quote from: Ocklawaha on February 28, 2013, 12:33:02 PM
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. :o
You're one to talk about spin.
Quote from: stephendare on February 28, 2013, 10:06:25 AM
Quote from: Pinky on February 28, 2013, 09:18:28 AM
Restricting LEGAL purchases of firearms will not reduce gun violence levels but will instead cause an increase.
(http://i1277.photobucket.com/albums/y500/PinkyVP/60F6178D-DB1C-41BB-B2BE-C1ED17B296D5-389-0000001868B12D59_zps67eceaae.jpg)
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?
Yeah, maybe so but this is how much difference a gun ban is going to make in my house: ________________________ ;)
Quote from: peestandingup on February 28, 2013, 12:42:03 PM
Quote from: stephendare on February 28, 2013, 10:06:25 AM
Quote from: Pinky on February 28, 2013, 09:18:28 AM
Restricting LEGAL purchases of firearms will not reduce gun violence levels but will instead cause an increase.
(http://i1277.photobucket.com/albums/y500/PinkyVP/60F6178D-DB1C-41BB-B2BE-C1ED17B296D5-389-0000001868B12D59_zps67eceaae.jpg)
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.
Quote from: Adam W on February 28, 2013, 01:20:49 PM
Quote from: peestandingup on February 28, 2013, 12:42:03 PM
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.
Quote from: peestandingup on February 28, 2013, 02:23:22 PM
Quote from: Adam W on February 28, 2013, 01:20:49 PM
Quote from: peestandingup on February 28, 2013, 12:42:03 PM
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.
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 (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/15/1599631/no-chicago-isnt-proof-that-gun-regulation-doesnt-work/?mobile=nc)
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...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 28, 2013, 02:47:34 PM
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.
Quote from: stephendare on February 28, 2013, 02:57:01 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 28, 2013, 02:47:34 PM
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.
Quote from: Adam W on February 28, 2013, 02:32:47 PM
Quote from: peestandingup on February 28, 2013, 02:23:22 PM
Quote from: Adam W on February 28, 2013, 01:20:49 PM
Quote from: peestandingup on February 28, 2013, 12:42:03 PM
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.
Quote from: peestandingup on February 28, 2013, 03:56:26 PM
Quote from: Adam W on February 28, 2013, 02:32:47 PM
Quote from: peestandingup on February 28, 2013, 02:23:22 PM
Quote from: Adam W on February 28, 2013, 01:20:49 PM
Quote from: peestandingup on February 28, 2013, 12:42:03 PM
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.
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'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.
Quote from: Adam W on February 28, 2013, 04:31:57 PM
Quote from: peestandingup on February 28, 2013, 03:56:26 PM
Quote from: Adam W on February 28, 2013, 02:32:47 PM
Quote from: peestandingup on February 28, 2013, 02:23:22 PM
Quote from: Adam W on February 28, 2013, 01:20:49 PM
Quote from: peestandingup on February 28, 2013, 12:42:03 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Adam W on February 28, 2013, 05:29:10 PM
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?
Quote from: peestandingup on February 28, 2013, 06:56:42 PM
Quote from: Adam W on February 28, 2013, 05:29:10 PM
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.
Quote from: stephendare on February 27, 2013, 11:39:26 PM
Quote from: NotNow on February 27, 2013, 11:02:34 PM
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.
Quote from: stephendare on February 28, 2013, 10:06:25 AM
Quote from: Pinky on February 28, 2013, 09:18:28 AM
Restricting LEGAL purchases of firearms will not reduce gun violence levels but will instead cause an increase.
(http://i1277.photobucket.com/albums/y500/PinkyVP/60F6178D-DB1C-41BB-B2BE-C1ED17B296D5-389-0000001868B12D59_zps67eceaae.jpg)
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.
(http://i1277.photobucket.com/albums/y500/PinkyVP/florida-full_zps19d7d4c9.jpg)
No deterrent effect shown there, huh? LOL.
Now lets look at DC, where they banned all handguns.
(http://i1277.photobucket.com/albums/y500/PinkyVP/dc-full_zpsea21fade.jpg)
Hmmm, thats interesting, isn't it? That ban on LEGAL handgun ownership was a real winner.
How about Chicago?
(http://i1277.photobucket.com/albums/y500/PinkyVP/chicago-full_zpsedb66cd0.jpg)
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
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.
Quote from: stephendare on February 28, 2013, 08:17:05 PM
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.
I understand the argument that Adam is making. Where he lives, guns have been very effectively removed from society. There is undeniably a much lower rate of injuries from firearms there. England does suffer from crime, and the people there (seemingly) accept that they are subjugated to the state and have no rights to protection from firearms. They have also accepted a higher crime rate per capita than the US.
American society is different. We are a society founded on personal independence. There are still vast areas of this country where the rural nature has developed a working relationship with firearms as a part of everyday life. Americans want to be able to defend themselves. In this country that means firearms.
I respect the opinions of those that would institute the kinds of firearms restrictions that we see in the UK. I don't agree, but I don't think we will settle that debate here.
The bottom line in this debate is this:
The US Constitution clearly states that American citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. "Shall not be infringed" is a pretty clear statement. The USSC as currently constituted is not going to close their eyes to the english language. That could change in the next few years, but as of now no change is in sight. An attempt to modify or repeal the second amendment would not succeed. It is my opinion that any "assault weapons ban" would not survive a court challenge. The American people can keep and bear arms....that's the bottom line. Any one who can read understands what the second amendment says. We should focus our time and energy on the things that can be changed. The mental health system, unemployment, education and purpose in the lives of our young people.
Quote from: Adam W on February 28, 2013, 07:39:33 PM
Quote from: peestandingup on February 28, 2013, 06:56:42 PM
Quote from: Adam W on February 28, 2013, 05:29:10 PM
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.
Its only flawed in your head because you're thinking two dimensionally & focusing on some moral crusade to stamp out "gun deaths", not even worrying about what causes people to do what they do in our society. And under some delusion that as long as we tackle the whole "gun homicide" issue, then it should be all roses. Never minding the fact that people would just kill each other in different ways, or the fact that most of these gun deaths happen in large urban ghettos that are plagued with crime & poverty.
So because the system's thrown these people under the bus having them kill each other like animals, or because some guy flipped his shit & went on a rampage because of the healthcare system racket, lets go ahead & punish the law abiding folks by removing that pesky 2nd amendment thing. Or at least limit it in such a way that its practically worthless. Oh, other countries like yours have done it? Well, good for you & there's nothing wrong with liking what you like. But my advice would be to stay there if that's what you're looking for & not try to pick certain elements out of the place you call home & apply it here. Because America doesn't really roll that way. And we don't roll that way for good reason.
So if you're not in it for safety, betterment of society & prevention of deaths, then what are you even talking about? Why bother?? Its an honest question that you don't seem to be grasping. Either because you're truly not getting it, or because you don't want to.
Quote from: stephendare on February 28, 2013, 08:17:05 PM
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.
Just curious, since you have presumed yourself to be my "intellectual better", on what do you base that? Surely an intellectual powerhouse such as yourself must have quite an impressive list of academic achievements. What are they? What degrees do you hold?
Quote from: stephendare on February 28, 2013, 10:08:00 PM
Quote from: Pinky on February 28, 2013, 09:24:07 PM
Quote from: stephendare on February 28, 2013, 08:17:05 PM
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.
Just curious, since you have presumed yourself to be my "intellectual better", on what do you base that? Surely an intellectual powerhouse such as yourself must have quite an impressive list of academic achievements. What are they? What degrees do you hold?
yawn.
back to subject.
Your attempt to establish a non existent causal relationship.
continue, please.
I didn't think so.
A friend emailed the following to me, but in a graphic form. I translate to words. I haven't verified the truth of the numbers.
During the 2011 year in America:
323 Deaths by Assault Rifles.
496 Killings by Hammers.
650 Killings by Knives.
12,000 by Drunk Drivers.
195,000 By Medical Malpractice.
But in my view, this data does not warrant allowing assault rifles, as this would be like saying that we should allow more drunk drivers and drunk physicians.
But I agree with NotNow, who said somewhere, the solution will be in education, mental health counseling, and jobs for the unemployed. I will add that things will get better in the killing world, when the society moves from one of winner take all, to one of more equality and fairness to all.
"The movie Anaconda was filmed in Chuck Norris's pants."
Quote from: NotNow on February 28, 2013, 08:38:19 PM
The bottom line in this debate is this:
The US Constitution clearly states that American citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. "Shall not be infringed" is a pretty clear statement. The USSC as currently constituted is not going to close their eyes to the english language. That could change in the next few years, but as of now no change is in sight. An attempt to modify or repeal the second amendment would not succeed. It is my opinion that any "assault weapons ban" would not survive a court challenge. The American people can keep and bear arms....that's the bottom line. Any one who can read understands what the second amendment says. We should focus our time and energy on the things that can be changed. The mental health system, unemployment, education and purpose in the lives of our young people.
Bingo. The only matter that I agree with concerning this gun purchase issue is make sure that gun owners are held responsible with thorough background checks etc, and that these 'gun show loopholes' which can allow anyone to become a rogue dealer to be closed. Those are pretty much standard issues that most agree on, even some members of the NRA.
Quote from: NotNow on February 28, 2013, 08:38:19 PM
I understand the argument that Adam is making. Where he lives, guns have been very effectively removed from society. There is undeniably a much lower rate of injuries from firearms there. England does suffer from crime, and the people there (seemingly) accept that they are subjugated to the state and have no rights to protection from firearms. They have also accepted a higher crime rate per capita than the US.
American society is different. We are a society founded on personal independence. There are still vast areas of this country where the rural nature has developed a working relationship with firearms as a part of everyday life. Americans want to be able to defend themselves. In this country that means firearms.
I respect the opinions of those that would institute the kinds of firearms restrictions that we see in the UK. I don't agree, but I don't think we will settle that debate here.
The bottom line in this debate is this:
The US Constitution clearly states that American citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. "Shall not be infringed" is a pretty clear statement. The USSC as currently constituted is not going to close their eyes to the english language. That could change in the next few years, but as of now no change is in sight. An attempt to modify or repeal the second amendment would not succeed. It is my opinion that any "assault weapons ban" would not survive a court challenge. The American people can keep and bear arms....that's the bottom line. Any one who can read understands what the second amendment says. We should focus our time and energy on the things that can be changed. The mental health system, unemployment, education and purpose in the lives of our young people.
NotNow, I am not going to comment on what you've posted about the Second Amendment, because that's your opinion and I don't really take exception to it - even if I don't quite agree with you 100% on your interpretation.
I will, however, take exception with a couple of things you've posted about the UK:
While it's true we have very restrictive gun laws, we have not removed guns from society. You are allowed to own guns in the UK. It's a common misconception that you are not allowed to. There are a lot of gun owners in the UK. To an American gun enthusiast, it might seem like the laws over here have essentially removed them from society, but that is not the case at all. Though you are more likely to find farmers and people in the country with guns than you are to find people in cities with guns. And certain classes of guns are not allowed.
I don't think you are in any position to comment on people in the UK feeling okay with being 'subjugated to the State'. That's absolutely ludicrous. There is a different opinion about guns here than there is in the USA - but that has nothing to do with how people view their relationship with the State. It has to do with how they view guns. As far as the crime rate goes, there are real problems with those statistics - mainly because crimes are reported differently in different countries.
But that has no bearing on this discussion, as there is no evidence to suggest that UK crime figures have any functional relationship to gun ownership. You cannot suggest a link without some evidence to support it. I can think of 5 other things I would list ahead of guns when addressing crime in this country. If it were an issue of guns, a lot more of our cops would be armed, I'd think.
Edit: I did find this story which addresses the issues with how crime statistics are compiled. Interestingly, it also mentions how gun ownership is declining in the USA while crime is falling. Funny, that.
http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/ (http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/)
Quote from: peestandingup on February 28, 2013, 09:15:44 PM
Quote from: Adam W on February 28, 2013, 07:39:33 PM
Quote from: peestandingup on February 28, 2013, 06:56:42 PM
Quote from: Adam W on February 28, 2013, 05:29:10 PM
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.
Its only flawed in your head because you're thinking two dimensionally & focusing on some moral crusade to stamp out "gun deaths", not even worrying about what causes people to do what they do in our society. And under some delusion that as long as we tackle the whole "gun homicide" issue, then it should be all roses. Never minding the fact that people would just kill each other in different ways, or the fact that most of these gun deaths happen in large urban ghettos that are plagued with crime & poverty.
So because the system's thrown these people under the bus having them kill each other like animals, or because some guy flipped his shit & went on a rampage because of the healthcare system racket, lets go ahead & punish the law abiding folks by removing that pesky 2nd amendment thing. Or at least limit it in such a way that its practically worthless. Oh, other countries like yours have done it? Well, good for you & there's nothing wrong with liking what you like. But my advice would be to stay there if that's what you're looking for & not try to pick certain elements out of the place you call home & apply it here. Because America doesn't really roll that way. And we don't roll that way for good reason.
So if you're not in it for safety, betterment of society & prevention of deaths, then what are you even talking about? Why bother?? Its an honest question that you don't seem to be grasping. Either because you're truly not getting it, or because you don't want to.
You don't really need to be rude. If this really is going to turn into a variety of the old "America, like it or leave it" argument, I probably shouldn't waste my time.
In America, you can try to change things if you don't like the way they are - even the Constitution. The Second Amendment is an Amendment, after all. There are legal ways to change these things. You may not like my opinions, but I am an American citizen and, should I decide to move back to the USA (which is
very likely), I might well work to change the laws to suit my political convictions - as every other American has the right to do. That's actually the way we roll in America. Or are at least supposed to.
I'm not on any moral crusade and I don't really understand how reducing gun deaths can be viewed by you as a "moral crusade" that is somehow not worth addressing, while addressing all those other issues you mention - the "issues with society" - is somehow not a moral crusade and
is worth addressing.
I'd rather we take a holistic approach and do both. Who says we can't try and deal with everything that plagues society? I never said we shouldn't try to address poverty. But I cannot for one second think that people who are affected by gun violence in the inner city or "urban ghettos" would be offended if the government did something to reduce the number of guns and the resulting numbers of gun deaths in the meantime. And using that as an example - you might get an increase in stabbings as gang members have to resort to knives. I would expect that. But you wouldn't see an increase in "drive by stabbings," for example.
And the idea that people would just find another way to kill their victim if they didn't have guns is ludicrous. Guns make killing easier. People kill in the heat of the moment. Also, people shoot without thinking - oftentimes without the intent to kill. Guns can escalate a situation. I would think that if a person is plotting to kill someone, then yes - no guns may mean he or she will find another way. And there will still be people killing people, even with fewer guns. But drive-bys, guns going off by accident in robberies, guns being shot in the heat of passion (that covers a lot of different scenarios), etc wouldn't happen.
And for the record - I didn't bring up the UK to say the US should be like this country. I mentioned it as evidence that a (relatively) unarmed populace would not be at the mercy of armed bad guys. I think it's fair to use evidence from the UK in this argument - especially when it is directly relevant. I am not attempting to say (and never did say) the US should be like the UK. So I don't appreciate the implication that I did.
Close the Gun Show loopholes and start universal background checks.
See where that gets us.
Quote from: ronchamblin on March 01, 2013, 02:15:25 AM
During the 2011 year in America:
323 Deaths by Assault Rifles.
496 Killings by Hammers.
650 Killings by Knives.
12,000 by Drunk Drivers.
195,000 By Medical Malpractice.
Seems like there is another solution in these numbers:
Close the loopholes, no more home brewing will be allowed.
Register all alcohol purchases, and sales by state licensed package stores.
Maximum of 10 drinks per container.
No high powered drinks, everything over 2% will be illegal.
Once the current stocks are depleted, we will have completely shutdown the 12,000 drunk driving deaths. ???
Quote from: Intuition Ale Works on March 01, 2013, 07:48:13 AM
Close the Gun Show loopholes and start universal background checks.
See where that gets us.
I
could get behind the Universal background check... depending on
how it is implemented. As it stands now... if I wish to sell a gun, I find a buyer, we agree on a price... and the deal is done. With the universal background check... the potential buyer would have to go to a gun shop and fill out the paperwork, pay the small fee, and is presented a certificate that must be presented to me (the seller) upon purchase. It would add a level of government bureaucracy and interference... but would essentially be the same process as buying a gun through a certified dealer/gunshop.
Will this stop the buying and selling of arms without the check? For people with criminal records... no. What it will do is give police and other authorities another tool to deny firearms to those who are proven to be unreliable. Stings and undercover sellers can be set up... luring those who are trying to buy a weapon "under the table". This process also protects the seller... who at the moment... might unknowingly sell to someone who should not have a weapon.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 01, 2013, 09:28:17 AM
Quote from: Intuition Ale Works on March 01, 2013, 07:48:13 AM
Close the Gun Show loopholes and start universal background checks.
See where that gets us.
I could get behind the Universal background check... depending on how it is implemented. As it stands now... if I wish to sell a gun, I find a buyer, we agree on a price... and the deal is done. With the universal background check... the potential buyer would have to go to a gun shop and fill out the paperwork, pay the small fee, and is presented a certificate that must be presented to me (the seller) upon purchase. It would add a level of government bureaucracy and interference... but would essentially be the same process as buying a gun through a certified dealer/gunshop.
Will this stop the buying and selling of arms without the check? For people with criminal records... no. What it will do is give police and other authorities another tool to deny firearms to those who are proven to be unreliable. Stings and undercover sellers can be set up... luring those who are trying to buy a weapon "under the table". This process also protects the seller... who at the moment... might unknowingly sell to someone who should not have a weapon.
I agree that the Gun Show/secondary market problem needs to be addressed, as its one of the primary ways that "bad guys" obtain guns. Secondary market transactions should be subjected to the same background checks as new gun sales. I'd also like to see a requirement that all secondary market transactions be facilitated by a licensed dealer at their business location. As a gun owner I know I'd feel a lot more comfortable having that transaction take place in a gun shop instead of my living room, both for my security as well as the assurance that I'm not unwittingly transferring a firearm to a "bad guy".
I also think that we should institute tough penalties for legal gun owners who fail to secure their firearms in a gun safe when they're not in use.. There are huge numbers of firearms stolen during home burglaries. In my opinion anyone who reports a burglary in which unsecured firearms are stolen should face prosecution.
I also support attaching very stiff penalties to those who use a firearm in the commission of a crime. Long prison sentences with no chance of parole will deter some, and remove those who are not deterred from our society.
Quote from: Pinky on March 01, 2013, 12:14:51 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 01, 2013, 09:28:17 AM
Quote from: Intuition Ale Works on March 01, 2013, 07:48:13 AM
Close the Gun Show loopholes and start universal background checks.
See where that gets us.
I could get behind the Universal background check... depending on how it is implemented. As it stands now... if I wish to sell a gun, I find a buyer, we agree on a price... and the deal is done. With the universal background check... the potential buyer would have to go to a gun shop and fill out the paperwork, pay the small fee, and is presented a certificate that must be presented to me (the seller) upon purchase. It would add a level of government bureaucracy and interference... but would essentially be the same process as buying a gun through a certified dealer/gunshop.
Will this stop the buying and selling of arms without the check? For people with criminal records... no. What it will do is give police and other authorities another tool to deny firearms to those who are proven to be unreliable. Stings and undercover sellers can be set up... luring those who are trying to buy a weapon "under the table". This process also protects the seller... who at the moment... might unknowingly sell to someone who should not have a weapon.
I agree that the Gun Show/secondary market problem needs to be addressed, as its one of the primary ways that "bad guys" obtain guns. Secondary market transactions should be subjected to the same background checks as new gun sales. I'd also like to see a requirement that all secondary market transactions be facilitated by a licensed dealer at their business location. As a gun owner I know I'd feel a lot more comfortable having that transaction take place in a gun shop instead of my living room, both for my security as well as the assurance that I'm not unwittingly transferring a firearm to a "bad guy".
I also think that we should institute tough penalties for legal gun owners who fail to secure their firearms in a gun safe when they're not in use.. There are huge numbers of firearms stolen during home burglaries. In my opinion anyone who reports a burglary in which unsecured firearms are stolen should face prosecution.
I also support attaching very stiff penalties to those who use a firearm in the commission of a crime. Long prison sentences with no chance of parole will deter some, and remove those who are not deterred from our society.
Your posts (both BT's and yours) remind me of this guy's blog entry:
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2012/06/four-major-ways-criminals-get-guns.html (http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2012/06/four-major-ways-criminals-get-guns.html)
He proposes some interesting solutions to keeping guns out of criminal hands (in the hyperlinks). I don't know how many you guys will agree with - I understand a lot of gun owners may feel some of them go way too far. Others may feel they don't adequately address the problems.
I think Norway has tough laws on gun storage. I agree with that general idea. It obviously has two benefits - it can possibly reduce the likelihood of a gun being stolen and it can also reduce the likelihood of an accidental shooting. Of course, the most oft-quoted disadvantage is the difficulty it creates for the gun owner to get to his/her gun in a time of need.
Quote from: Adam W on March 01, 2013, 12:53:44 PM
Your posts (both BT's and yours) remind me of this guy's blog entry:
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2012/06/four-major-ways-criminals-get-guns.html (http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2012/06/four-major-ways-criminals-get-guns.html)
He proposes some interesting solutions to keeping guns out of criminal hands (in the hyperlinks). I don't know how many you guys will agree with - I understand a lot of gun owners may feel some of them go way too far. Others may feel they don't adequately address the problems.
I think Norway has tough laws on gun storage. I agree with that general idea. It obviously has two benefits - it can possibly reduce the likelihood of a gun being stolen and it can also reduce the likelihood of an accidental shooting. Of course, the most oft-quoted disadvantage is the difficulty it creates for the gun owner to get to his/her gun in a time of need.
I'd have no problem with most of what the above blog is suggesting, although #4 seems to be a bit intrusive. I would think that most people who might possibly "go off" would have displayed that tendency already, and consequently would not pass the required background check. The same holds true for those with drug problems.
With regard to securing stored firearms, and it's possible effect on access to those firearms in time of need, I can only offer my own experience. I am a Concealed Weapons Permit holder, and always carry when out in public, with the exception of prohibited locations such as bars, airports, government facilities and such, at which time I secure my firearm in a locked compartment in my locked vehicle. When at home I usually keep one firearm (whichever I've been carrying) in my briefcase, and overnight it stays in a touch-sensor lockbox designed for fast access that is very close to my bed thats at hand should a need arise. All the rest of my firearms stay in my gun safe at all times. I might add that the law already requires such measures even though many owners don't take it seriously, hence my above suggestion that stiff penalties be put in place to discourage that sort of irresponsibility.
Quote from: I-10east on February 28, 2013, 04:40:41 PM
^^^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.
No, just any kind of automatic weapon, uzis, certain shotguns and possibly even handguns. Thank you for bringing this up because this is what I feel needs to be heavily debated and considered. Here’s the thing, I totally understand wanting to feel like you can defend your home against an armed assailant, but you can’t you still do that with a rifle? Especially you’re well trained with it? We need to acknowledge and accept a line in the sand for what constitutes as excessive fire power/deadliness. There’s a reason civilians aren’t allowed to carry machine guns, M16s, grenade launchers, or flame throwers. They are simply too powerful. They are more likely to cause larger scale devastation in the event of an incident or a tragic accident than what would happen with a knife or a bat. To think otherwise would be inane. I mean why stop there? How about a mini-nuke in every house? You know… for protection. After all, nukes don’t kill people, loose hands on the detonate button kills people.
Now I’m sure a ban on hand guns would be met with huge opposition. So why do I include it on the list? The same reason sawed off shotguns are already illegal. Concealment. And Pinky I just read your post so maybe you can answer this question for me. Why do you need to conceal your weapon if it’s for defense?
Quote from: KenFSU on February 28, 2013, 10:48:57 AM
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?
Do you really think armed civilians currently have any chance against the most powerful military in the world? Even if every one of us were armed (in this entirely unlikely event) we would stand absolutely no chance against tanks, jets, drones and guided missiles.
Quote from: KenFSU on February 28, 2013, 10:48:57 AM
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.
Ok but do we really need to walk around armed all the time waiting for this to happen? In the event that this occurs, THEN we can start handing out the guns and forming militias.
Quote from: Bewler on March 01, 2013, 02:46:10 PM
<snip>
Now I’m sure a ban on hand guns would be met with huge opposition. So why do I include it on the list? The same reason sawed off shotguns are already illegal. Concealment. And Pinky I just read your post so maybe you can answer this question for me. Why do you need to conceal your weapon if it’s for defense?
Because the law requires me to. If Florida was an open carry state I'd carry openly. I'd prefer that actually; SOB (small of the back) and Ankle rigs aren't as comfortable or accessible as a hip or shoulder holster.
Quote from: Bewler on March 01, 2013, 02:46:10 PM
Ok but do we really need to walk around armed all the time waiting for this to happen? In the event that this occurs, THEN we can start handing out the guns and forming militias.
The flip side of this is to have the criminals sign an appointment sheet so you'd know when their coming in and thus making sure your carrying. So yes, if you are carrying for self defense, you carry all of the time. Secondly, if we suddenly find ourselves in a shooting war especially one with another power such as China or Russia or even the combined militaries of the Islamic world, it is far too late to 'start handing out the guns and forming militias.'
Remember the anti-military crowd in 1936-40 were fond of telling us that all Japanese were 'bucktooth', 'nearsighted,' as well as 'physically and mentally' deficient. We had absolutely nothing to fear from the Empire of Japan... except that along with their friends, they very nearly kicked our asses.
Quote from: Ocklawaha on March 01, 2013, 08:42:00 PM
The flip side of this is to have the criminals sign an appointment sheet so you'd know when their coming in and thus making sure your carrying. So yes, if you are carrying for self defense, you carry all of the time. Secondly, if we suddenly find ourselves in a shooting war especially one with another power such as China or Russia or even the combined militaries of the Islamic world, it is far too late to 'start handing out the guns and forming militias.'
Remember the anti-military crowd in 1936-40 were fond of telling us that all Japanese were 'bucktooth', 'nearsighted,' as well as 'physically and mentally' deficient. We had absolutely nothing to fear from the Empire of Japan... except that along with their friends, they very nearly kicked our asses.
Why would it be far too late? We could easily anticipate an actual ground invasion well in advance of it happening. There's no way any one could secretly mobilize a large scale amphibious assault on US shores. Not to mention all of our current gun owners would already be prepared because as I said, I don't think we should completely ban firearms entirely. So then it would just be a matter of training everyone else.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-gun-crimes-pew-report-20130507,0,3022693.story
QuoteGun crime has plunged, but Americans think it's up, says study
By Emily Alpert
May 7, 2013, 12:46 p.m.
Gun crime has plunged in the United States since its peak in the middle of the 1990s, including gun killings, assaults, robberies and other crimes, two new studies of government data show.
Yet few Americans are aware of the dramatic drop, and more than half believe gun crime has risen, according to a newly released survey by the Pew Research Center.
In less than two decades, the gun murder rate has been nearly cut in half. Other gun crimes fell even more sharply, paralleling a broader drop in violent crimes committed with or without guns. Violent crime dropped steeply during the 1990s and has fallen less dramatically since the turn of the millennium.
The number of gun killings dropped 39% between 1993 and 2011, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported in a separate report released Tuesday. Gun crimes that weren’t fatal fell by 69%. However, guns still remain the most common murder weapon in the United States, the report noted. Between 1993 and 2011, more than two out of three murders in the U.S. were carried out with guns, the Bureau of Justice Statistics found.
The bureau also looked into non-fatal violent crimes. Few victims of such crimes -- less than 1% -- reported using a firearm to defend themselves.
Despite the remarkable drop in gun crime, only 12% of Americans surveyed said gun crime had declined compared with two decades ago, according to Pew, which surveyed more than 900 adults this spring. Twenty-six percent said it had stayed the same, and 56% thought it had increased.
It’s unclear whether media coverage is driving the misconception that such violence is up. The mass shootings in Newtown, Conn., and Aurora, Colo., were among the news stories most closely watched by Americans last year, Pew found. Crime has also been a growing focus for national newscasts and morning network shows in the past five years but has become less common on local television news.
“It’s hard to know what’s going on there,†said D’Vera Cohn, senior writer at the Pew Research Center. Women, people of color and the elderly were more likely to believe that gun crime was up than men, younger adults or white people. The center plans to examine crime issues more closely later this year.
Though violence has dropped, the United States still has a higher murder rate than most other developed countries, though not the highest in the world, the Pew study noted. A Swiss research group, the Small Arms Survey, says that the U.S. has more guns per capita than any other country.
Experts debate why overall crime has fallen, attributing the drop to all manner of causes, such as the withering of the crack cocaine market and surging incarceration rates.
Some researchers have even linked dropping crime to reduced lead in gasoline, pointing out that lead can cause increased aggression and impulsive behavior in exposed children.
The victims of gun killings are overwhelmingly male and disproportionately black, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data. Compared with other parts of the country, the South had the highest rates of gun violence, including both murders and other violent gun crimes.
[For the record, 5:13 p.m. May 7: The original version of this post stated that the Bureau of Justice Statistics report was released Wednesday. It was released Tuesday.]
(http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2013/05/SDT-2013-05-gun-crime-1-1.png)
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on May 08, 2013, 03:09:33 PM
BT tell this study to the families that have someone killed by a Gun? I bet they wouldn't give a darn about this study. >:(
???
Perhaps those families blame whoever shot their relative. You are demonizing the tool and trying to place emotion on an inanimate object. Homocide, by any means, is a human behavior problem just like drunk driving and burglary. The firearm, which is a tool, has saved many more lives than it has taken in our modern American society IMHO.
Quote from: stephendare on May 08, 2013, 07:32:31 PM
Quote from: NotNow on May 08, 2013, 07:29:08 PM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on May 08, 2013, 03:09:33 PM
BT tell this study to the families that have someone killed by a Gun? I bet they wouldn't give a darn about this study. >:(
???
Perhaps those families blame whoever shot their relative. You are demonizing the tool and trying to place emotion on an inanimate object. Homocide, by any means, is a human behavior problem just like drunk driving and burglary. The firearm, which is a tool, has saved many more lives than it has taken in our modern American society IMHO.
This is such a bizarre statement that I really don't know how to respond.
Then don't.
https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm
http://www.cato.org/guns-and-self-defense
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense
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.
3Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 173, 185.
4Kleck 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.
6Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, (1991):111-116, 148.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be sure to read the Business Week article. It is a very reasonable examination of the facts written for the public. The other two are aimed at a more involved audience.
Can I guess the next response?
-Discredit the sources as unreliable
-Discredit the poster as unable to acquire quality information
-Put it in political terms so as to make the information seem immaterial
-Use some reference to how some other past political entity did it worse than the other
Maybe I should start a poll?
Say this on the news feed this morning, and to me it was scary. I remember watching a movie that had something like this, trying to assassinate the president and he shot this guys arm off and then it was almost sci-fi ... now it is here. My concern is, can it be hacked? Can someone with a wifi connection over ride it? Can it track and shoot anything that moves?
Let me say, I feel every one has the constitutional American right to bear arms. However, I also think there should be a limit to the type of firepower they carry. I know, straddling the fence, but just personal feeling.
My co-worker's first response was, well with that price no one can afford it. But let us remember, flat screen TV's were over $10k when I first heard of them.
Quote
$27,500 Gun Hits Targets at 1,000 Yards
By Aaron Smith | CNNMoney.com â€" Tue, Jun 11, 2013 2:07 PM EDT
AUSTIN, Texas â€" A new company in Texas is selling a precision rifle with a unique technology that allows even an inexperienced shooter to hit a target 10 football fields away. The price tag is a staggering $27,500.
Tracking Point describes the weapon as a smartgun, with a trigger wired to the scope so that the gun won't fire until it's locked on the target that's been tagged.
"There are a number of people who say the gun shoots itself," said Chief Executive Officer Jason Schauble, a former Marine captain who was wounded in Iraq. "It doesn't. The shooter is always in the loop."
The TrackingPoint rifles, which are Wi-Fi enabled and have a color display so users can post videos of their shots on Facebook or YouTube, started shipping in May. Schauble said his company is on track to sell as many as 500 of them this year, to clients that he describes as "high net worth hunters" who want to kill big game at long range.
TrackingPoint claims that the gun took down a South African wildebeest at 1,103 yards, a company record.
The company also has a deal to sell about 1,000 of the guns to Remington, which is Schauble's former employer. But the Remington model will be less expensive, running about $5,000 each. TrackingPoint's total sales for the year are expected to be about $10 million.
Schauble is well aware of the damage that guns can do. His right hand is partially paralyzed after he was shot with an AK-47 during combat in Iraq. He wears black "kill bracelets" commemorating dead friends. He admitted that TrackingPoint's technology is "controversial."
Government agencies contacted the company last year for a demonstration of the weapon at a shooting range at the Quantico Marine Corps Base in Virginia. But Schauble says that the Department of Homeland Security didn't express any concerns that TrackingPoint's weapon is more of a threat than existing firearm systems.
The FBI, Homeland Security and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives all declined to comment to CNNMoney.
But the weapon has some "scary implications from a security perspective," said Rommel Dionisio, a gun industry analyst for Wedbush Securities.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/-27-500-gun-hits-targets-at-1-000-yards-180751722.html (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/-27-500-gun-hits-targets-at-1-000-yards-180751722.html)