Violent crime down, while gun sales are up

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
In case I missed it, why do you take this stance?

Quote:
There are PLENTY of perfectly sensible arguments in favor of regular people having access to guns. "Killers will kill either way" ain't one of them

I don't think in terms of what "will" or "won't" happen. I think in terms of what is more or less likely to happen.

A would-be killer with a gun is more likely to succeed than a would-be killer without a gun. Not certain; just more likely.

Unarmed criminals are less likely to succeed at killing people. Not unable; just less likely.



Originally Posted By: The_Eric
If you don't believe that having access to firearms is important for self defense, what do you propose people do to protect themselves in the unlikely case of an attack?

I very much DO believe that having access to firearms is important for self defense. That's partly BECAUSE I think criminals might have guns, and criminals with guns are more dangerous than criminals without guns.
 
Criminals are not more dangerous with guns. They're plenty dangerous with kitchen knives or any other weapon they acquire. Criminal get to choose the time and place to launch their attacks. Weapon choice is irrelevant when you have this advantage. Just look at how effective the "knockout game" is. Good ol fists. I'd actually rather deal with a criminal with a handgun than a knife. Knives are devastating and very hard to defend against. Handguns make little holes and are easier to grab, maybe malfunction, or run out of ammo.
 
Last edited:
And the guy out in California killed his first three victims with one or more knives. Somebody with a knife can potentially defeat a person armed with a gun.

It is silly to be anti-gun. It is sensible to be pro-mental health. Most of these mass killers (except for terrorists) have mental health issues. What we really need is much better mental health and less attempts to try to disarm every law abiding citizen who owns a gun.
 
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
In case I missed it, why do you take this stance?

Quote:
There are PLENTY of perfectly sensible arguments in favor of regular people having access to guns. "Killers will kill either way" ain't one of them

I don't think in terms of what "will" or "won't" happen. I think in terms of what is more or less likely to happen.

A would-be killer with a gun is more likely to succeed than a would-be killer without a gun. Not certain; just more likely.

Unarmed criminals are less likely to succeed at killing people. Not unable; just less likely.



Originally Posted By: The_Eric
If you don't believe that having access to firearms is important for self defense, what do you propose people do to protect themselves in the unlikely case of an attack?

I very much DO believe that having access to firearms is important for self defense. That's partly BECAUSE I think criminals might have guns, and criminals with guns are more dangerous than criminals without guns.


Can you quantify "less likely"? I'll agree that they are "less likely" to succeed, but that's not a chance I'm willing to take- because "less likely" is near impossible to quantify/define. Along those lines, realize that a very effective force multiplier is simply bad guys in numbers. Two or three people bent on harming you can very easily get the job done!



Also criminals with guns are not more dangerous than those without. That is merely your perception. What makes a criminal dangerous is their mindset. How desperate or how deranged he/she is. That is what will determine how far they will go to get/do what they want. After working with a Sons of Silence motorcycle gang member and a couple of ex druggie tough guys, I know that weapons, in the sense that we're discussing aren't needed to inflict SERIOUS injury.
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Not that I encourage deviant or insane behavior, but the topic boils down to this ... Murder is murder. The methodolgy to achieve it is only a preferred means by the actor.

Take away guns, and other implements will be used. Guns are tools; how they are used or misused is only a choice by a human, and nothing more.

I am VERY pro-gun. As most of you know, I am also a senior statistical process quality engineer. I live my life by facts, not rhetoric and mythology. And I try my best to spread it to others. Why guess when we can know?

Here is a compilation of FACTS that I've put together, and I print them off and carry in my wallet, so I can not only share this info, but I don't have to rely on my memory (as I age). My credibility is my livelihood. So I base my shared info on FACTS. Some of these are infamous and you've certainly heard of them. Some you likely have never heard before. You are welcome to copy/paste this list, as it is simply a reading of historical facts; I don't own this info, the world does. This list is meant as a talking-point tool when you confront a "non-believer", so to speak. I use this list all the time. When you talk to an anti-gun person, ask them to read the list out loud. (Hand it to them and tell them to read it aloud - doing this forces them into ownership of the reality of the info; it's an interview technique from my detective days). The intent of this list is to show how various methods will have the same result. Different inputs; same output.



Seung-Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people at Virginia Tech. There is massive protest; people called for more gun control.
Haiyang Zhu decapitated a fellow female student, in a public café on the campus at Virginia Tech (more than a year after the famous Cho shootings). No outcry echoes in the campus halls for the confiscation of kitchen knives, or the cessation of manufacture of such instruments.

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold commit atrocities with guns and pipe bombs at Columbine in CO. There is a major outcry for gun control, but not pipes.
(Juvenile Female) savagely attacked fellow students at Columbine High School 13 years later, with a hammer. No outcry for tool control?

Michael Carneal kills three students at school in Paducah KY by shooting them. Gun control now! shouts the public ...
Darlie Routier stabs her children to death with a kitchen knife. No demands for sharp steel objects to be licensed, or controlled.

Jeffrey Wiese goes on a rampage in Red Lake, MN, killing several by shooting them. “Give us gun control!” is heard everywhere.
Clayton Ellington bludgeons his entire family to death with a hammer. There are no protests at ACE hardware for selling the offensive tools. No lawsuits are filed against Stanley or Craftsman for making them.

Steven Kazmierczak shoots 24 people at the University of Northern Illinois; 6 die. Resounding calls are heard for tighter gun laws and fewer firearms.
Andrea Yates murders her five children by drowning them, successively one at a time, in the family home. There is no backlash against bathtubs, faucets, or the plumbers that install them. Manufacturers like Koehler and Delta fear no litigation or retribution.

“Kip” Kinkle shot and killed his parents, two students at school, and wounded twenty more. Oregon tightens gun control.
Lashanda Armstrong killed herself and three children by driving her minivan into the Hudson River. Did anyone sue the mini-van maker for negligence or culpability? Did NY tighten driver’s license requirements due to her actions? Should one need to pass a criminal background check just to drive?

Charles Roberts shot several Amish children at one-room school house in PA. Yet more demands are heard for more gun laws.
Chris Coleman strangled his entire family to death with hay bailing twine, in Illinois. There are no threats of lawsuits for makers of twine, nor protests at farm-supply stores. No calls are heard for twine to be kept under lock and key around the farm.

Scott Roeder shoots George Tiller (the infamous abortion doctor) to death in Kansas. How can we NOT have more gun laws?
Susan Smith of North Carolina drowned her children in her car by strapping them in, and driving it into a small lake. No one calls for the elimination of motor vehicles or restricted lake access.

Mark Barton shoots 20 people (9 of which die) at stock trading firm in Georgia. “We must have more laws and fewer handguns!”
Mark Barton (yes, the very same person) kills his entire family by viciously beating them to death with a hammer, only a few hours before his shooting spree. Yet, no outcry is heard for increased hand-tool laws, registration, confiscation, or elimination.

Devan Kalathat, 42, shot and killed his two children and three other relatives, then killed himself in an upscale neighborhood of Santa Clara, California. There was yet more outrage; more calls for gun control.
Terri Robinson burned her 3 year old child to death in her electric oven in Mississippi. Where were the riots in front of Sears, or Best Buy or other appliance stores? Why did legislators not decry the open use and ownership of convection ovens?

Amy Bishop shot 6; 3 died, at the University of Alabama. She was mad because of her denial of tenure. She had shot her brother to death many years before, but was never charged. People called for restrictions on guns.
Carmela Dela Rosa killed her two-year-old granddaughter by throwing her from a 5 story parking garage walkway, while her whole family walked in front of her. Where is the movement for the elimination of all buildings more than one story high or enclosed canopies on all elevated structures?

Jared L. Loughner killed federal judge Roll, and 9 year old girl; he shot US Rep. Giffords in AZ, and wounded more. We need gun control!
Andrew J. Stack III flew his small personal plane into the Austin, TX IRS building, killing two and injuring several more. Yet no one demands that all private pilot licenses be rescinded. Private planes are not collected and destroyed in community “buy-back” programs.

Robert A. Hawkins killed eight people, wounded four more, and took his own life, all with the same rifle at a mall in Omaha, NE. There we many who renewed the call for “assault rifle” restrictions.
Christopher Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania purposely killed his newborn daughter by dropping a cinder-block on her – twice – because he and his girlfriend “could not afford her”. Should we call for restrictions on sales of construction materials at Lowes, Home Depot and Menards?

John A. Muhammad and Lee B. Malvo killed 10 people, shot 3 more, and terrorized the Washington, DC area for weeks; they were referred to as the “Beltway Snipers”. There was a large outcry for stricter control over firearms.
Cameron Willingham killed his three young daughters by the means of arson of his family home in TX. Are we to eliminate matches and lighters, or call for their strict registration and licensing? Should we not live in homes that could catch fire?

Nadia Braxton shot her three children in the forehead, and then herself, in a murder-suicide in LA. Do we need guns in the home?
Nina Holbrook burned her father to death in IN, by setting him ablaze with a candle and camp-stove fuel. Should we confiscate all matches from the home, and only sell camp-stove fuel at federally licensed outlets, requiring background checks?

Faleh Almaleki killed his daughter in Phoenix, AZ by running her over, in a Muslim “honor killing”. Is Jeep to blame for her death?

Jeremiah Wright killed his 7 year old disabled son Jori Lirette by beheading him over the kitchen sink in LA. Was the knife at fault?
Jerome Isaac killed Deloris Gillespie, spraying her with gasoline and igniting her with a Molotov cocktail in a NY elevator. Blame Shell Oil?
Naim Muhammad drowned his two young sons in a creek in TX. Should all creeks have fences with gates and locks?
Arthur Morgan III killed his two-year old daughter by strapping her into her child-car-seat, and throwing her into a river in NJ.

Justin Carter shot and killed the parents of his friend, during an armed robbery in IN. There is outcry heard for more gun control.
Tyler Hadley killed his parents in FL when he was 17, by bludgeoning them to death with a hammer, because they would not allow him to have a party. He killed them mercilessly, then posted the party on face-book, and then hosted the party while their bodies lay locked in the master bedroom. Should we require a license to purchase or use a hammer?

David Laffer killed four people by indiscriminately shooting them in a NY pharmacy on Father’s Day. Gun Control needed!
Jeovanni Rosaria and Raymond Hernandez dropped a shopping cart on Marion Hedges from 4 stories above; is the cart at fault?
Janie Lou Gibbs poisoned her husband, three sons, and grandson to an untimely end over a period of years. No outcry is heard about the possession of arsenic.

James Byrd Jr., Jerid Sturman, Anthony Hill and Allen Rose all were dragged to death by vehicles, in separate incidents. Are the cars and trucks at fault?

Ka Yang, of Sacramento, CA killed her 6-week-old daughter by burning her to death in a microwave oven.
China Arnold killed her 1-month-old daughter in the microwave oven in Dayton, OH.
Elizabeth Otte killed her infant son by placing him in the microwave oven in New Kent, VA.
Tyler Deutsch killed his girlfriend’s 6-week-old infant by placing her in the freezer to silence her, in Tacoma, WA.
Ariel Smith killed the 5-month-old boy she was babysitting when she became frustrated, and placed him in the clothes dryer and turning it on, and then left.
Lakeisha Adams killed her 3-month-old son by placing him in the dryer in Louisiana; he was tumbled and burned so badly he was nearly unrecognizable.
Do we hear any calls for the removal of all these appliances from the home? Are they to have door locks on them? Should we see Whirlpool, Kenmore, GE and others held accountable for providing the instrument of death? Do we need a waiting period to buy an appliance, a license to own one, or a permit to operate one?

Jarrod Rudder killed two-year old Michael Pulliam by grabbing his wrist, and repeatedly flailing him against a wall until his brain bled out. What weapon or object would you place blame upon? Is the wall at fault?

Charlotte Schilling killed her 10 year old son (and herself) by strangulation with zip-ties. Should these be restricted items at the hardware store?

Josh Powell savagely attacked his two young sons with a hatchet by slashing their heads and throats. He then burned them and himself to death in a house fire in WA by dousing the interior with 10 gallons of gasoline and setting it ablaze. (Powell was the “person of interest” in his wife’s disappearance two years prior). If given a choice, would you federally regulate the purchase of camping hatchets with a mandatory 7-day waiting period? Or, just as some people support a firearm magazine capacity ban by limiting the number of rounds that they can hold, would you also support a “can ban” limiting fuel containers to 2 gallons instead of 5?

Kelli Murphy of Colorado killed her two young children by asphyxiation; she smothered them to death. Is a pillow to blame for the deaths?

Ana Lilia killed her boyfriend by stabbing him in the head, multiple times, with her Stiletto heel, near Houston, TX. Should women need permits to own shoes?

Lois A. Goodman, 70 years old, killed her 80 year old husband by repeatedly striking him on the head with a coffee mug. Should we outlaw porcelain drinking cups? Perhaps we should limit the size of mugs to 6 ounces, because no one “needs” a high-capacity mug …

Adam Lanza killed his mother at home, then 6 adults and 20 young children at an elementary school in CT. He used semi-auto rifles and handguns.
Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols killed 168 people and injured 800 more by exploding a home-crafted explosive from commonly available diesel fuel and fertilizer in OK. Are farm supply stores to blame? Should farmers need licenses and permits to operate their businesses with these items?

Jasper Smiddie, at 19 years old, killed his grandmother in FL, merely to spite his uncle, by hitting her with a wrench, and shooting her with a cross-bow and stabbing her 93 (ninety-three!) times. Which weapon do you think killed her? Should we take away rights to buy and use kitchen knives and hand tools, as well as the hunting weapon? Should Craftsman, Cutco and Barnett all fear legal actions for making such implements?

Elliot Rodger, 22, stabbed to death three people at his apartment, shot to death three more on the Santa Barbara campus, and critically injured others with his car. Calls rang out soon after for an assault weapons ban, ... which CA already has. However, Rodger never used a rifle; he only used a legally purchased handgun. And a sharp instrument. And a BMW.

James Earl Ray assassinated Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. outside his hotel room in Memphis with a rifle-shot across the parking lot. As a white male, Ray is labeled as racist, and this event starts one of the earliest public calls for gun control.
Izola Curry attempted to kill Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. at a book signing, (10 years before he was shot by Ray). Curry stabbed King deep into the chest with a letter opener, and narrowly missed his aorta. No one called for the elimination of household desk items. (Curry vehemently hated Dr. King, and the NAACP; Curry was never called a racist because Curry was a black female …)



Spread the word by relating facts. Use the websites I've given you and the events above to show others how to analyze data and make clear-headed decisions.

When people intend to kill others, they will use the tool they prefer. That should not make the crime any more or less palatable.

My name is David Newton, and I approved this message.


.


What I'm seeing is that someone who wants to kill many people in the public at random, is more likely to use a gun and kill more people than someone who wants to kill certain people.

Those knives and hammer/etc attacks kill one person or one family (not multiple people randomly). Your examples of gun use directly above them involve multiple deaths and guns each time. Not some random implement. Guns are the common denominator most often presented. Guns make it easier to kill more people. It seems like your facts point to this also.


How many [mass or public shootings] will it take for people to change their minds? Daily shootings? Other civilized country's citizens truly have a fear of being shot while visiting the USA. They believe it is THAT common.
 
Some people have used bombs to kill many people. And there was a guy who used an automobile to assault several people.

And it keeps coming back to mental health. For most of these mass killers, there were plenty of warning signs in advance. Many of these mass killings could have been prevented if something could have been done before the killings took place.

And if guns were taken away from all law abiding citizens, how many additional law abiding citizens would be killed by criminals? After all, crime goes up in areas where there is strict gun control.
 
Originally Posted By: surfstar
What I'm seeing is that someone who wants to kill many people in the public at random, is more likely to use a gun and kill more people than someone who wants to kill certain people.

Those knives and hammer/etc attacks kill one person or one family (not multiple people randomly). Your examples of gun use directly above them involve multiple deaths and guns each time. Not some random implement. Guns are the common denominator most often presented. Guns make it easier to kill more people. It seems like your facts point to this also.


How many [mass or public shootings] will it take for people to change their minds? Daily shootings? Other civilized country's citizens truly have a fear of being shot while visiting the USA. They believe it is THAT common.




I presented the listing as a means to do a "ying/yang" approach on purpose; for every gun act, there is a non-gun act. While it is true that a high-capacity firearm is capable of making much happen in a short time, terror can also happen such as the examples of Boston and Oklahoma City. And there are LOTS of people that are murdered where no gun was ever present, and instead the method a common house-hold item or appliance. In many of those other examples I put forth NO gun was involved, and yet multiple people died. Some die over years, some in minutes, some a fraction of a second. There are LOTS of stabbings of random meetings that result in death from bar fights, armed robberies, burglary, etc. People are beaten to death with baseball bats and golf clubs upon their first meeting. Arson kills many sleeping people all at once. Mothers smother or drown their multiple children at the same time, whereas others cook them in the microwave. Many times these events never make national news, and often only make a quick peek into local news. I made out that list to exemplify the facts that guns are no more or less lethal than other means. When Mark Barton bludgeoned his family with the hammer, does it seem more acceptable to you that his own kids suffered crushed skulls more so than the folks he shot to death at the stock trading firm shortly thereafter? Do you think his wife, just before she was beaten to death, thought "Gosh - I'm really glad he's not shooting us; that would be horrible ...." ?

To focus on the method is to focus on emotion and not fact. There are as many people who die from other means as they do firearms, but firearms are what the media (and therefore the general public) views as inherently evil. But FACTS suggest otherwise. Do NOT forget that 60% of ALL firearm deaths are self-inflicted by elderly white males; suicide is the leading motive in firearm deaths and the VAST majority of those have only the single victim (self). Consider newsworthy events like the most recent one in Las Vegas where the married couple killed two officers and a civilian, and then she did her husband in before herself; five dead, but one by suicide. That makes immediate news nationwide. And yet statistically, that event is an anomaly. BY FAR, most suicides are by old white guys, and they make up the majority of ALL gun deaths. Despite what we hear in the social media about the horrors of Chicago black-on-black male murder, as a total series it is white men will kill themselves more often. You can "yabut" (yeah, but ...) this all you want; it won't change FACTS. Don't take my word for it, look at the links I provide and see all the raw and tabulated data.

I have shown with EXTREME CLARITY the FACTS that boil this topic down to two simple consumable points:
1) INTENTIONAL death (murder) with a firearm is a downward trend for decades, and does not outpace other means of taking someone's life
2) UNINTENTION death (accidents) by a firearm is grossly overblown, and you are FAR, FAR (9000+ times greater) more likely to die from interaction with the medical profession
Those who cannot see those two points are either not capable of processing reality, or not willing to see reality. I do not say that to be mean, cruel or rude, but that would be the only two conditional statements that could exist. One either cannot understand facts, or does not want to accept them as true.

But neither of those conditions of perception make my two points untrue. Firearms are not the problem; misinformation and social bias are the problem. Both intentional and unintentional death by firearms is an ever decreasing risk, and yet the risk from other acts remains constant or increases. I fear my doctor much more than the random person I'd meet in the mall; that is based upon FACT and not emotion.

Sufstar, I'm not trying to single you out, but your viewpoint is exactly the type I'm trying to educate. You are seeing things the way you want to, not the way they are.

Simply put, guns don't kill people; people kill people. Those that do not agree are either ignorant (uninformed) or arrogant (unwilling to accept) of the facts.

If anyone disagrees, then by all means bring up the credible proof that supports your position. I have data mined this to the "n-th" degree, and I seriously doubt anyone here can find more supporting evidence than I present.
 
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: Trajan
http://news.yahoo.com/us-school-shootings-list-134025238.html

...there has been, on average, a school shooting every 7.35 days since the tragedy in Newtown...

Did you check out the incidents? Most are not what we consider a "school shooting."

http://reason.com/blog/2014/06/11/are-school-homicides-becoming-the-norm


Agreed. By including college campuses, accidental discharges, incidents where there were no injuries, and incidents which occured in school parking lots at night among individuals not associated with the school in question, the Yahoo report is attempting to be alarmist rather than presenting the facts.

Rather than focusing on the guns, why not focus on the series of events leading up to the violence? By all accounts, school (meaning k-12) is perhaps the most emotionally taxing and psychologically difficult time in many people's lives. It is completely involuntary (you are forced to be there), you have no control over the other students around you (whether they feel like bullying you or not), and school administrations face ever reducing ability to correct or punish actions such as verbal or psychological, even physical bullying. Whether or not it is the initial aggressor or bullied kid who escalates to the level of shooting someone is beside the point - the point is that school is already a stressed environment, violence is constantly presented to these kids in the form of TV, movies, & news, and school administrators are facing increased pressure to do nothing about many events that could lead up to violence. (Think I'm joking? Go talk to a teacher or principal with 20 years experience, ask them about their ability to suspend or expel problem students 20 years ago compared with today).

This formula is a recipe for disaster.
 
Originally Posted By: surfstar
....

(truncated for brevity)


How many [mass or public shootings] will it take for people to change their minds?



About what? Institutionalizing crazy people as used to be done, instead of the more progressive approach of turning a blind eye to them until a horrific tragedy ensues?

The worst mass murderer in my state killed as many people with his bare hands as he did with a gun. Your point is somewhat well taken, though - he preferred killing his family members up and close and personal with his bare hands, while more elusive targets got the gun.

Interestingly, for all you guys that think a .22 is useless for self defense, this wack job took eight people with one:

http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/simmons131.htm
 
Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: surfstar
....

(truncated for brevity)


How many [mass or public shootings] will it take for people to change their minds?



About what? Institutionalizing crazy people as used to be done, instead of the more progressive approach of turning a blind eye to them until a horrific tragedy ensues?

The worst mass murderer in my state killed as many people with his bare hands as he did with a gun. Your point is somewhat well taken, though - he preferred killing his family members up and close and personal with his bare hands, while more elusive targets got the gun.

Interestingly, for all you guys that think a .22 is useless for self defense, this wack job took eight people with one:

http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/simmons131.htm


That is exactly what is happening. Society will not put the dangerous people who need to be away from other people into institutions like state mental facilities. They let even the most dangerous people roam the streets until there is a mass killing some where. And then all of the anti-gun people come out of the woodwork. It gets really, really, old.
 
The US doesn't have a monopoly on crazy people - they exist in other developed countries. Crazy people with access to guns is much more prevalent here, though. That's the difference.

The constant reports of public shootings also get really, really old. Its so commonplace that most don't even make the national news anymore.


I get it - we're a gun culture. I know that its not going to change very easily. Its a difference of opinion. Like religion or politics. In the same vein, just because you believe a certain way, that doesn't mean you are correct and vice versa. But because we live in America, I accept that we may have differing opinions and am fine with that. I don't expect anyone to change their views based on mine and would assume you feel the same way.
 
Originally Posted By: Trajan
http://news.yahoo.com/us-school-shootings-list-134025238.html

...there has been, on average, a school shooting every 7.35 days since the tragedy in Newtown...



I have yet to fact check the "Everytown" data. I always view polictically charged websites with a jaundiced eye ... which is why my links are to solid data sources such as the FBI, BJS, CDC, AMA, etc. I will note that the data collection is VERY loosely defined in the Everytown survey; a "shooting" would imply someone was dead or injured, but it can also be a shot that never hit a human being. So they drive the count up by using "potential" hits that never cause injury.

However, in that same approximate 75 weeks of "school shootings" there have been approximately 4330 people wo DIED from mistakes in the medical profession. That is DEAD people, and does NOT include those who simply became sick, ill, or otherwise adveresly effected by a doctor or nurse, but didn't make the list because they lived. If we broadened out the medical mistake list to include those people, it would likely be many fold larger. So when someone tells you that there's a school shooting every week, tell them that 4300 people die in that same time frame from the very medical profession that is being counted on to "help" those shooting victims.

Look at the data this way, and remember that a "shooting" does not automatically mean someone was killed or injured:
2014 week 1: one shooting at school, but 4300 people die from medical mistakes.
2014 week 2: one shooting at school, but 4300 more die from medical mistakes.
2014 week 3: one shooting at school, but 4300 more die from medical mistakes.
2014 week 4: one shooting at school, but 4300 more die from medical mistakes.
2014 week 5: one shooting at school, but 4300 more die from medical mistakes.
Etc ....

Are you seeing a disparity in the pattern here? That is why poltically charged bovine manure should be rooted out and exposed for the brain-washing it is. If those activist folks REALLY wanted to stop people from dying, they'd have a really big rally in front of the hospital or out-patient center. Why focus efforts on the trivial? Why not focus revolt where your bang-for-the-buck is most warranted? (Yes, it was a bad pun.) We know the answer; it's emotional to them and not factual.
- Factual analysis leads to rational conclusions which instills reasonable caution resulting in effective actions.
- Emotional analysis leads to irrational conclusions which instills unwarranted fear resulting in ineffective actions.

Don't fear the random school shooting; it's the doctor and nurse in the school office you ought to fear!

FACTS DON'T LIE!
 
dnewton3 - if I am not sick, I have a near 0% chance of being killed by a medical mistake. Going about my daily life, there is a very small chance of being randomly shot, but it still is there.

I believe that modern medicine saves quite a few more lives than gun ownership does.
 
I think gun ownership saves a lot of lives. There seems to be pretty good evidence that criminals become more hesitate to break into a home where there may be people who own guns.

It is not gun ownership that is the problem. Most of these mass killers have mental health issues and nothing is being done about that because much of the news media and certain very wealthy people are promoting strict gun control laws.

Strict gun control laws do not seem to be the answer according to the available statistics. Maybe we should focus on mental health.
 
Originally Posted By: surfstar
dnewton3 - if I am not sick, I have a near 0% chance of being killed by a medical mistake. Going about my daily life, there is a very small chance of being randomly shot, but it still is there.

I believe that modern medicine saves quite a few more lives than gun ownership does.

If you're not shot you have 0% chance of dying from a gunshot wound. Using your logic.
 
Im sorry, but while facts are facts, the medical mistake argument is as weak/poor as the automobiles killing people argument.

Im all for ccw, though Im not so sure that Id prefer open carry for a number of reasons.

But to compare something that is so commonplace and critically essential for everybodys' function, e.g. medical or autos, both of which are licensed activities, one of which requires substantial schooling and certification, and both of which require insurance on the activity to be able to perform it, is a very slippery slope in my view as it provides a basis for licensure, insurance, granting of a privilege, training, etc. Many of which the strongly pro-2A folks see as absolute unacceptable things in the interest of protecting freedoms...

Now some of those items I think may be valuable. While the 2nd amendment is critical, I fully believe that not everyone should own a firearm. Primarily because I think that a good portion of the population is incompetent, and unable to properly secure the weapon in a way that would at least make it slightly difficult for it to be stolen.

Want other facts? I come back to how many guns are stolen each year from people. Like, hundreds of thousands. Yes, those are crimes too... And the guns automatically fall into the hands of criminals. Not a good scenario. Not all of those are caused by gross incompetence, but I suspect a good number of them are.

And then the problem propagates... Which is the issue.

So lets go back to other facts. Intentional homicide rate in the USA is 4.8/100k people. In the UK it is 1.0, Germany 0.8 and Switzerland is 0.6.

Gun deaths in the USA that are actually characterized as homicides were 3.6/100k people (with the total gun deaths at 10.3/100k). In the UK, it was 0.04/100k for homicides, and 0.25/100k for overall. In Switzerland it was 0.52 for homicides and 3.84 overall.

Let's keep in mind that BOTH the US and UK have incredibly low death rates from homicide. But obviously the USA is far higher than countries with more gun control. Yes, the UK may be more violent... NationMaster says that the UK has ~110 events per 1000 people, while Canada has 80, Germany has 79, Switzerland has 42 and the USA has 41! So youre more likely to be a victim in those countries... where only Switzerland could be said to perhaps have a gun culture similar to the USA.

So arming people is safer, but arming people is truly a double-edged sword. It CAN be implemented well, like in Switzerland, where people appear to be more stable (the gun-related suicide rate is half what it is in the USA, despite decent gun ownership), and more careful (the unintentional rate is 1/3 of the USA).

It can also create many more deaths, due to the force multiplier status, which is why in Switzerland as in the USA, it appears that the gun death fraction (gun homicides / all intentional homicides) is so much higher than in the other nations mentioned. In other words, violent crime does not equal deaths, until proliferation of guns comes into play.

Still, it is obvious that the armed societies of Switzerland and the USA are far less violent overall than other less armed, more controlled first-world nations (e.g. UK, Germany, etc).

So its finding that balance that is key. And without having to go clean your child's blood from a school because of another shooting (which is the emotional response many anti-gun types try to invoke). Whatever that means in terms of implementation, it means. But that is the most emotional thing that sets most people off, IMO. And, there is no good solution to that risk.
 
I agree that some people should not own guns and I agree that a lot of guns get stolen.

But there is no changing the fact that typically in areas where there is very strict gun control there are more murders and firearm related crimes than in areas where there is less strict gun control. The only thing I can think about that is that the criminals know people in a house or an apartment might have guns.

And we simply have to have better mental health in this country. Somebody who is potentially dangerous needs to be confined to a mental facility and somebody, the police or whoever, have to be allowed to put, on a temporary basis, dangerous, mentally unstable people into these mental facilities. In case after case of these mass killings people were well aware that the eventual shooter had mental health issues.

There also has to be better discipline in the schools.
 
Yet your point on firearm related deaths in areas with strict control only pertains to the usa.

There may be a higher chance of being a victim of violent crime in Germany, uk, Canada, etc., but the rate of death by any means (gun included) is far lower elsewhere.

The thing with the strict gun control areas is that it's also typically areas where the demographics are such that the population is much more prone to violence and crime. And, look at the rates in some states vs others.

I'm always intrigued by these facts regarding gun violence by state, given where I live, with it's strict controls, vs., say, SC or FL. As for safety, by the numbers, Im a bit safer in NJ than in PA, which has far more lax rules.

1000px-US_Violent_Crime_2004.svg.png

Map of violent crime per 100,000 people in the USA by state in 2004.

From here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

What's interesting to me is that many southern states with lax laws are also less safe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top