Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet
Larry Bell, Contributor
A couple of new studies reveal the gun-control hypesters’ worst nightmare…more people are buying firearms, while firearm-related homicides and suicides are steadily diminishing. What crackpots came up with these conclusions? One set of statistics was compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice. The other was reported by the Pew Research Center.
According to DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. gun-related homicides dropped 39 percent over the course of 18 years, from 18,253 during 1993, to 11,101 in 2011. During the same period, non-fatal firearm crimes decreased even more, a whopping 69 percent. The majority of those declines in both categories occurred during the first 10 years of that time frame. Firearm homicides declined from 1993 to 1999, rose through 2006, and then declined again through 2011. Non-fatal firearm violence declined from 1993 through 2004, then fluctuated in the mid-to-late 2000s.
And where did the bad people who did the shooting get most of their guns? Were those gun show “loopholes” responsible? Nope. According to surveys DOJ conducted of state prison inmates during 2004 (the most recent year of data available), only two percent who owned a gun at the time of their offense bought it at either a gun show or flea market. About 10 percent said they purchased their gun from a retail shop or pawnshop, 37 percent obtained it from family or friends, and another 40 percent obtained it from an illegal source.
While firearm violence accounted for about 70 percent of all homicides between 1993 and 2011, guns were used in less than 10 percent of all non-fatal violent crimes. Between 70 percent and 80 percent of those firearm homicides involved a handgun, and 90 percent of non-fatal firearm victimizations were committed with a handgun. Males, blacks, and persons aged 18-24 had the highest firearm homicide rates.
The March Pew study, drawn from numbers obtained from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, also found a dramatic drop in gun crime over the past two decades. Their accounting shows a 49 percent decline in the homicide rate, and a 75 percent decline of non-fatal violent crime victimization. More than 8 in 10 gun homicide victims in 2010 were men and boys. Fifty-five percent of the homicide victims were black, far beyond their 13 percent share of the population.
Pew researchers observed that the huge amount of attention devoted to gun violence incidents in the media has caused most Americans to be unaware that gun crime is “strikingly down” from 20 years ago. In fact, gun-related homicides in the late 2000s were “equal to those not seen since the early 1960s.” Yet their survey found that 56 percent believed gun-related crime is higher, 26 percent believed it stayed about the same, and 6 percent didn’t know. Only 12 percent of those polled thought it was lower.
The Pew survey found that while women and elderly were actually less likely to become crime victims, they were more likely to believe gun crime had increased in recent years. On the other hand, men, who were more likely to become victims, were more likely know that the gun rate had dropped.
Those gun crime rates certainly aren’t diminishing for lack of supply…at least not for law-abiding legal buyers. Last December, the FBI recorded a record number of 2.78 million background checks for purchases that month, surpassing a 2.01 million mark set the month before by about 39 percent. That December 2012 figure, in turn, was up 49 percent from a previous record on that month the year before. FBI checks for all of 2012 totaled 19.6 million, an annual record, and an increase of 19 percent over 2011.
Firearms sellers can thank the gun-control legislation lobbies for much of this business windfall. Marked demand increases have been witnessed over the past five years thanks to the 2008 and 2012 elections of U.S. history’s most successful, if unintentional, gun salesman as president. The firearms market got a huge added boost after the tragic shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Connecticut activated a renewed legislative frenzy.
If that gun-purchasing fervor has abated with the defeat of several congressional regulation proposals, as I’m sure it has, you surely wouldn’t have known it by witnessing the overwhelmingly enormous annual NRA convention in Houston earlier this month. Attendance was estimated to be more than 70,000 people from all over the country.
Those attendees weren’t all guys either…not by a long shot. Last year, the National Shooting Sports Foundation reported that participation by women increased both in target shooting (46.5%) and hunting (36.6%) over the past decade. Also, 61% of firearm retailers responding to a NSSF survey reported an increase in female customers. A 2009 NSSF survey indicated that the number of women purchasing guns for personal defense increased a whopping 83 percent.
Is John Lott, the author of “More Guns, Less Crime” right? Does the rapid growth of gun ownership and armed citizens have anything to do with a diminishing gun violence trend? His expansive research concludes that state “shall issue” laws which allow citizens to carry concealed weapons do produce a steady decrease in violent crime. He explains that this is logical because criminals are deterred by the risk of attacking an armed target, so as more citizens arm themselves, danger to the criminals increases.
Whether or not you buy that reasoning, and it does make sense to me, what about the notion that tougher gun laws have or would make any difference? With the toughest gun laws in the nation, Chicago saw homicides jump to 513 in 2012, a 15% hike in a single year. The city’s murder rate is 15.65 per 100,000 people, compared with 4.5 for the Midwest, and 5.6 for Illinois.
Up to 80 percent of Chicago murders and non-fatal shootings are gang- related, primarily young black and Hispanic men killed by other black and Hispanic men. Would tightening gun laws even more, or “requiring” background checks, change these conditions?
Gwainevere Catchings Hess, president of the Black Women’s Agenda (BWA), Inc., an organization that strongly advocates strict gun-control legislation, rightly points out that “In 2009, black males ages 15-19 were eight times as likely as white males the same age, and 2.5 times as likely as their Hispanic peers to be killed in a gun homicide.”
Those are terrible statistics, but here are some others. Today, 72% of black children are born out of wedlock, as are 53% of Hispanic children and 36% of white children. Back in 1965, 25% of black children were born out of wedlock, nearly one-third fewer. As a result, promiscuous rappers, prosperous dope peddlers and street gang leaders are becoming ever more influential role models. It’s probably no big stretch of imagination to correlate such grossly disproportionate crime and victimization rates with comparably staggering rates of single-parent families, those without fathers in particular.
Yet in the general population, and although the agenda-driven media hasn’t noticed, we can be grateful that gun violence has been trending downward since 1993 when it hit its last peak. Don’t want to credit a rise in gun ownership and concealed carry by law-abiding citizens for this good news? Fine. But then, don’t imagine that gun legislation is the reason or answer either. Leave that illusion to gun-control cheerleaders in the media.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Could it not be that crime itself is diminishing? Correlation des not equal causation
overall crime is diminishing, of all kinds, hence why the uber media hype is absurd and fear mongering.
the author simply quoted DOJ and pew research statistics.
He stated that the fact is gun crimes are going down, and more people have more guns then ever before. The author does not actually say more guns = less crime, he simply states those two facts and leaves that conclusion up to the reader.
It is also true that in this case there actually is a very solid case for causation if you want to get into that, but the article is mostly about the complete disconnect between reality (gun crime is much lower now, and is still decreasing) then the perceived reality (OMG rewrite the 2nd amendment and ban stuff cause gun crime is increasing)
where as all the talking heads on tv and gun control activist telling everyone that gun crime is rampart/increasing and that "more guns = more crime" as pure fact, fooling most people to the point where
Pew researchers observed that the huge amount of attention devoted to gun violence incidents in the media has caused most Americans to be unaware that gun crime is “strikingly down” from 20 years ago. In fact, gun-related homicides in the late 2000s were “equal to those not seen since the early 1960s.” Yet their survey found that 56 percent believed gun-related crime is higher, 26 percent believed it stayed about the same, and 6 percent didn’t know. Only 12 percent of those polled thought it was lower.
it about the media purposely misinforming the public, with an agenda, that should be obvious.
simply saying causation=/=correlation is a cop out catch all answer that sounds like you did not read to the end with an open mind. if you actually read the whole thing
Yet in the general population, and although the agenda-driven media hasn’t noticed, we can be grateful that gun violence has been trending downward since 1993 when it hit its last peak. Don’t want to credit a rise in gun ownership and concealed carry by law-abiding citizens for this good news? Fine. But then, don’t imagine that gun legislation is the reason or answer either. Leave that illusion to gun-control cheerleaders in the media.
because he ADMITS there is not definet causation, and uses that very point to point out there is 0 causation between more guncontrol and less gun crime.
Random semi-related trivia: Violent crimes peaked in 1993. In 1994 the first-person shooter game was born in the form of DOOM. Ever since then gun crimes have been decreasing.
Causation? Who knows. But it certainly makes the theory that violent video games CAUSE violent crimes to be highly suspect.
Vulcan wrote: Random semi-related trivia: Violent crimes peaked in 1993. In 1994 the first-person shooter game was born in the form of DOOM. Ever since then gun crimes have been decreasing.
Causation? Who knows. But it certainly makes the theory that violent video games CAUSE violent crimes to be highly suspect.
Along the same vein that sex crimes are down... Pr0n is easily accessible ya know. Not that I would know!
Bottom line is that we are safer then we have ever been at any point in U.S. history crime wise. (as far back as we have records any way) so why in the world would people be freaking out and trying to push "crime control" bills constantly?
Vulcan wrote: Random semi-related trivia: Violent crimes peaked in 1993. In 1994 the first-person shooter game was born in the form of DOOM. Ever since then gun crimes have been decreasing.
Causation? Who knows. But it certainly makes the theory that violent video games CAUSE violent crimes to be highly suspect.
yes also very true, I think it was very silly to attribute any act of violence to a video game, nice factoid about doom there
where I am from,a serial killer literally copy cat-ed dexter down to a T, plastic wrap knifes, even the hair cut, so what?
dexter didnt cause the murder, some crazy guy did. blaming made up fantasies for peoples actions is just silly
KalashnikovMarine wrote: According to DOJ and the CDC the '94 AWB had no discernible impact on crime.
But gun crime went down since it was implemented, so it has just as much relationship and scholarship behind it as saying that people buying more guns lowered the crime rate. The only connection is the timing.
I personally don't think the AWB did anything, and was a bad bill, but the article above is a silly bit of agit-prop for the the more extreme gun advocates. The kind that confuse any regulation or even discussion of regulation as a total ban on all weapons with government round up.
Ahtman wrote: But gun crime went down since it was implemented, so it has just as much relationship and scholarship behind it as saying that people buying more guns lowered the crime rate. The only connection is the timing.
I personally don't think the AWB did anything, and was a bad bill, but the article above is a silly bit of agit-prop for the the more extreme gun advocates. The kind that confuse any regulation or even discussion of regulation as a total ban on all weapons with government round up.
Whether the conclusions drawn are correct or not, nobody's disputing the statistics. Gun crime is way down. The moral panic of the past six months has had as much basis as all other moral panics.
Valion wrote: Whether the conclusions drawn are correct or not, nobody's disputing the statistics. Gun crime is way down.
Except that really isn't what the thread is about; it is about drawing a conclusion and saying it is correct. Even the title of the thread says it is about saying that higher gun sales = lower crime.
Issue is though for that. The masses are not informed....nor keep track of.....or listen to 2rd sources. Look how strong the Ban Assualt weapons, high capacity mag, and new background check started. Emotions rode hard on that one and politicians jumped to lead it. Action first before thought. If they thought first before action then I'm sure something would have been passed as in enforcing the current laws on the book...finding the stop gap and fixing it. Or mental health records are available to clear someone to purchase a weapon...just throwing it out there....besides they're already covering those of us with PTSD to allowed to purchase weapons...well...easier for us.....now we need to get the ammo shortage squared away lol. I burnt up four boxes of .30 on my M1 Carbine teaching a kid how to shoot a weapon before he is shipped off to San Diego Recruit Depot. I though made sure he was able to burn out 120 rds on my M4 using iron sights. Of course I had quite a bit of people looking at us.....on one 30 round mag I had him wear my body armor and ACH hehe
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Bottom line is that we are safer then we have ever been at any point in U.S. history crime wise. (as far back as we have records any way) so why in the world would people be freaking out and trying to push "crime control" bills constantly?
Simple. Control. Not of crime, but of you.
Exactly.
Legal and responsible gun owners stop/prevent/mitigate crime all the time, but the only place you'll read about it is the local paper or newstation where the event happened. The MSM refuses to run those stories, huh, wonder why?
Jihadin wrote: Issue is though for that. The masses are not informed....nor keep track of.....or listen to 2rd sources. Look how strong the Ban Assualt weapons, high capacity mag, and new background check started. Emotions rode hard on that one and politicians jumped to lead it. Action first before thought. If they thought first before action then I'm sure something would have been passed as in enforcing the current laws on the book...finding the stop gap and fixing it. Or mental health records are available to clear someone to purchase a weapon...just throwing it out there....besides they're already covering those of us with PTSD to allowed to purchase weapons...well...easier for us.....now we need to get the ammo shortage squared away lol. I burnt up four boxes of .30 on my M1 Carbine teaching a kid how to shoot a weapon before he is shipped off to San Diego Recruit Depot. I though made sure he was able to burn out 120 rds on my M4 using iron sights. Of course I had quite a bit of people looking at us.....on one 30 round mag I had him wear my body armor and ACH hehe
Thats pretty Moto man, Oo Rah. I hope that young Devil Dog has a hell of a good time in service.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Bottom line is that we are safer then we have ever been at any point in U.S. history crime wise. (as far back as we have records any way) so why in the world would people be freaking out and trying to push "crime control" bills constantly?
Simple. Control. Not of crime, but of you.
Exactly.
Legal and responsible gun owners stop/prevent/mitigate crime all the time, but the only place you'll read about it is the local paper or newstation where the event happened. The MSM refuses to run those stories, huh, wonder why?
Valion wrote: Whether the conclusions drawn are correct or not, nobody's disputing the statistics. Gun crime is way down.
Except that really isn't what the thread is about; it is about drawing a conclusion and saying it is correct. Even the title of the thread says it is about saying that higher gun sales = lower crime.
exccept thats not what he is saying at all, he simply stated facts such as gun crime is down, and gun ownership is up, he has made his own conclusion but he does not assert it as some kind of "100% proven double blind study". unlike all the more guns = more crime crowds
simply saying causation=/=correlation is a cop out catch all answer that sounds like you did not read to the end with an open mind. if you actually read the whole thing
Yet in the general population, and although the agenda-driven media hasn’t noticed, we can be grateful that gun violence has been trending downward since 1993 when it hit its last peak. Don’t want to credit a rise in gun ownership and concealed carry by law-abiding citizens for this good news? Fine. But then, don’t imagine that gun legislation is the reason or answer either. Leave that illusion to gun-control cheerleaders in the media.
because he ADMITS there is not definet causation, and uses that very point to point out there is 0 causation between more guncontrol and less gun crime.
Valion wrote: Whether the conclusions drawn are correct or not, nobody's disputing the statistics. Gun crime is way down. The moral panic of the past six months has had as much basis as all other moral panics.
Yes, it's down, but it's still really, really high. I mean, 10,000 firearm related deaths a year isn't something to just write off as 'in decline'. It's a big fething number.
Now, whether a total ban on guns could resolve that is, frankly, a completely academic issue, because the basic political realities of the US mean that any legislation that gets across the line is going to be so compromised that it places not one useful control on the purchase of guns (does anyone think the 'gun show' exemption to background checks was an accidental oversight? - it was a deliberately included exemption that made the whole process completely useless).
sebster wrote: Yes, it's down, but it's still really, really high. I mean, 10,000 firearm related deaths a year isn't something to just write off as 'in decline'. It's a big fething number.
Now, whether a total ban on guns could resolve that is, frankly, a completely academic issue, because the basic political realities of the US mean that any legislation that gets across the line is going to be so compromised that it places not one useful control on the purchase of guns (does anyone think the 'gun show' exemption to background checks was an accidental oversight? - it was a deliberately included exemption that made the whole process completely useless).
Deliberately included or not, it's an exemption that provides a hilariously small amount of access to guns to criminals, according to statistics.
The bogeymen of the anti-gun movement simply aren't based in reality, is what these numbers show. It's not people getting around background checks through private sales, it's straw purchases and outright illegal acquisition. It's not AR-15s with high (or "standard," if you're using correct terminology) capacity magazines, it's cheap-ass Saturday night specials.
Yet in the general population, and although the agenda-driven media hasn’t noticed, we can be grateful that gun violence has been trending downward since 1993 when it hit its last peak. Don’t want to credit a rise in gun ownership and concealed carry by law-abiding citizens for this good news? Fine. But then, don’t imagine that gun legislation is the reason or answer either. Leave that illusion to gun-control cheerleaders in the media.
because he ADMITS there is not definet causation, and uses that very point to point out there is 0 causation between more guncontrol and less gun crime.
He wants there to be causation. Saying 'don't believe me? Fine!' Seems to show where his opinion lies, as does the continual juxtaposition of putting the cause and effect alongside each other in the text. Also I thought it would have been a bit better had he not wandered off topic and started blaming 'promiscuous rappers', declining marriage, or kids being born 'out of wedlock' for being the root of crime, and on the back not no real evidence at all. His argument is that it's not a 'big stretch' to link these two sets of 'terrible statistics'.
In the UK crime is also decreasing, but of that violent crime is an increasing proportion. You're safer than ever in the UK and we've made it harder to get guns. But of all crimes committed, they are more frequently likely to be violent. Would be interesting to see how this compares to the US. I think crime is decreasing largely because society is improving, if you have better and wiser accessibility to healthcare and education, you'll be less likely to want to steal and rob people. You can say that violent crime has decreased in the US, you can't say if that's due to or in spite of the proliferation of guns. I'd say there are better ways of turning parts of society away from violent crime than arming the rest.
Valion wrote: Whether the conclusions drawn are correct or not, nobody's disputing the statistics. Gun crime is way down. The moral panic of the past six months has had as much basis as all other moral panics.
Yes, it's down, but it's still really, really high. I mean, 10,000 firearm related deaths a year isn't something to just write off as 'in decline'. It's a big frakking number.
Now, whether a total ban on guns could resolve that is, frankly, a completely academic issue, because the basic political realities of the US mean that any legislation that gets across the line is going to be so compromised that it places not one useful control on the purchase of guns (does anyone think the 'gun show' exemption to background checks was an accidental oversight? - it was a deliberately included exemption that made the whole process completely useless).
It would help if useful ways to curb gun violence were brought up in the first place. Banning a certain model of handgun or rifle doesn't mean jack when we have literally hundreds of millions of firearms in the country. You also have to wonder how effective any major ban would "really" be. Places like England and Chicago have pretty serious bans in place already, and yet their police forces pull hundreds of firearms off the street every month, from the people that the bans are supposed to stop in the first place. If we want to curb gun violence in America, we have to treat the real problem of America, which is crime in general. Pulling random crap like the "War on Drugs" and gun bans is just avoiding the issue and is equivalent to slapping a bandaid on a gaping chest wound. You want to REALLY stomp out gun violence? Get better mental healthcare for people like the next would-be Newtown shooter. Clean up the slums that are rampant with crime in cities like Chicago. Figure out a way to actually recondition people to society while in prison instead of turning them into even worse offenders, where they're almost guaranteed to be back in a year. Figure out ways to help get families out of the ghettos, so that instead of resorting to prostitution, drug dealing, and other crime, they have an honest chance at living crime free lives like everyone else. Get people off of horrible substances like Heroin and Meth which can literally destroy your brain, etc. If you could figure out ways to fix these issues, America's gun violence issue would drop like a rock almost over night.
You also have to consider that the 10,000 deaths a year may not just be "illegal" homicides, but "legal" ones as well. Whether a gangbanger shoots a bum on the corner, a cop shoots an armed robber, a woman shoots an attempted rapist, a man shoots an intruder breaking into his home, a guy who blows his brains out after a bad divorce, or Dick Cheny mistakes his pal for a pheasant, if they're all showing up on that 10,000 homicides a year, it's going to skew things a bit. I'd have to check those statistics to find out for sure though, since the article quoted in the OP doesn't say, but if that is the case (where literally any death involving a firearm is counted as a homicide, which tends to be the case in America) instances where a gun was used in a "legal" way to kill someone would probably take up a decent percentage. I may be wrong there, I'd have to really dig into it to find out for sure.
Valion wrote: The bogeymen of the anti-gun movement simply aren't based in reality, is what these numbers show. It's not people getting around background checks through private sales, it's straw purchases and outright illegal acquisition.
Sort of. But keep in mind a lot of killings are also done with legally purchased, legally possessed guns. There's also something of a myth that gun violence is purely a scumbag, career criminal thing (to which the implied answer is having a gun of your own). Lots of gun deaths are the product of otherwise law abiding citizens having a gun on hand at the wrong time.
It's not AR-15s with high (or "standard," if you're using correct terminology) capacity magazines, it's cheap-ass Saturday night specials.
Absolutely. If the focus was on guns that killed people, they'd look to ban handguns. But instead the focus is on guns that look scary, and so they look to ban whatever the hell 'assault weapons' are.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrMoustaffa wrote: It would help if useful ways to curb gun violence were brought up in the first place. Banning a certain model of handgun or rifle doesn't mean jack when we have literally hundreds of millions of firearms in the country. You also have to wonder how effective any major ban would "really" be. Places like England and Chicago have pretty serious bans in place already, and yet their police forces pull hundreds of firearms off the street every month, from the people that the bans are supposed to stop in the first place.
If you look at the UK, their firearm death rate is much, much lower per capita than yours. It's also a bit screwy to talk about hundreds of guns being taken off the streets in England - there is a population there of more than 50 million - you think the guns taken from the streets is anywhere near a sixth of the guns taken off the streets in the UK? Point is, the plain and simple reality is that the US stands out as having a gun problem.
Once we accept that, well then it's a whole issue to ask if there's anything that can be done to solve the problem, and whether those solutions have a hope in hell of getting passed. I've not seen any really good proposals that sound like they'd actually limit the problem, so I kind of doubt there's a legislative fix to the issue. And then you look at the pathetic, do-nothing legislation that's actually put up and generally shot down, and I'm left to conclude that even if good, clear solutions existed, they'd have feth all chance of being passed .
Honestly, the issue is cultural. Guns are like drugs in a way - if enough people want them they're going to get them, no matter what laws you put in place.
Basically, if the gun culture ever changed and you saw an actual decline in the demand for guns, well then you'd likely see a decline in gun violence. But just banning weapons, or worse putting in half measures that sort of ban some weapons... well that's not going to change anything.
If we want to curb gun violence in America, we have to treat the real problem of America, which is crime in general.
Not really. The rest of the developed world has drug use, gangs and all that stuff. We have equal or greater rates of crime in all sorts of categories, except murder and gun violence and all that. There the US stands apart by like a factor of 10.
You also have to consider that the 10,000 deaths a year may not just be "illegal" homicides, but "legal" ones as well. Whether a gangbanger shoots a bum on the corner, a cop shoots an armed robber, a woman shoots an attempted rapist, a man shoots an intruder breaking into his home, a guy who blows his brains out after a bad divorce, or Dick Cheny mistakes his pal for a pheasant, if they're all showing up on that 10,000 homicides a year, it's going to skew things a bit.
A homicide isn't legal by definition. That's what it means - illegal killings. The deaths by guns rate is even higher (as there are a lot of suicides).
easysauce wrote:He stated that the fact is gun crimes are going down, and more people have more guns then ever before. The author does not actually say more guns = less crime, he simply states those two facts and leaves that conclusion up to the reader.
Yeah, Whembly makes disingenuous implied correlations like that all the time, too.
For example, since 1990, the level of religiousity in America has been steadily declining, just like the level of gun violence. Now, I'm not saying gun violence is caused by religion; I'm simply stating those two facts and will leave the conclusions up to the reader.
Kilkrazy wrote: Since gun sales aren't recorded, it's impossible to know the opening statement is factual.
Sales are actually meticulously documented by FFLs. Just not who they go to, at least not in permanent records like the FFL's bound book. So numbers would actually be obtainable.
sebster wrote: If the focus was on guns that killed people, they'd look to ban handguns. But instead the focus is on guns that can effectively fight tyranny, and so they look to ban whatever the hell 'assault weapons' are.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Bottom line is that we are safer then we have ever been at any point in U.S. history crime wise. (as far back as we have records any way) so why in the world would people be freaking out and trying to push "crime control" bills constantly?
Simple. Control. Not of crime, but of you.
Exactly.
Legal and responsible gun owners stop/prevent/mitigate crime all the time, but the only place you'll read about it is the local paper or newstation where the event happened. The MSM refuses to run those stories, huh, wonder why?
I dunno, it's probably because the headline "Interesting Crime Prevented from Happening Before it Even Started" isn't going to get as many clicks or newspaper sales as "Hideous Murder Occurs in Family of 12's Home, See Inside For All The Gory Details".
For all this talk of "OH MY GOD THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS POLITICISING EVERYTHING" It is also primarily a business, so headlines that seem vaguely boring (Crime isn't allowed to happen) aren't going to get anywhere near as much attention as "exciting" headlines (Crime Occurs that is horrifically violent, come and look at the gory details so that you can be outraged!)
sebster wrote: If the focus was on guns that killed people, they'd look to ban handguns. But instead the focus is on guns that can effectively fight tyranny, and so they look to ban whatever the hell 'assault weapons' are.
Fixed that for you.
Yeah, how DARE they ban SAMs, anti-tank rockets and anti-personel mines from private ownership?
Oh wait, you're just spouting macho drivel about how guns are the only things between you and tyrrany. Carry on then. Don't mind me.
sebster wrote: Sort of. But keep in mind a lot of killings are also done with legally purchased, legally possessed guns. There's also something of a myth that gun violence is purely a scumbag, career criminal thing (to which the implied answer is having a gun of your own). Lots of gun deaths are the product of otherwise law abiding citizens having a gun on hand at the wrong time.
The overwhelming majority is violence involving criminal enterprise, committed by disadvantaged minorities. We have statistics on that. We don't on the "crime of passion" angle, but I suspect it's probably nowhere near what people think it is. You're around tools that can easily kill your fellow man all day.
Absolutely. If the focus was on guns that killed people, they'd look to ban handguns. But instead the focus is on guns that look scary, and so they look to ban whatever the hell 'assault weapons' are.
They can't ban handguns. The Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional.
Kilkrazy wrote: Since gun sales aren't recorded, it's impossible to know the opening statement is factual.
Sales are actually meticulously documented by FFLs.
My pistol purchase sure as heck was. Federal forms, state forms, a phone call for the background check, not to mention the fact that the FFL I purchased my pistol from is going to have that paperwork on file for as long as he holds his FFL at the minimum.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Oh wait, you're just spouting macho drivel about how guns are the only things between you and tyrrany. Carry on then. Don't mind me.
Maybe the threat of tyranny is overstated but guns as self defense is not.
That was heart wrenching listening to that poor lady on the phone to 9/11 as someone is breaking into her house. A few minutes seems like forever listening to the call, I'd hate to be in her shoes
Valion wrote: Whether the conclusions drawn are correct or not, nobody's disputing the statistics. Gun crime is way down.
Except that really isn't what the thread is about; it is about drawing a conclusion and saying it is correct. Even the title of the thread says it is about saying that higher gun sales = lower crime.
exccept thats not what he is saying at all, he simply stated facts such as gun crime is down, and gun ownership is up, he has made his own conclusion but he does not assert it as some kind of "100% proven double blind study". unlike all the more guns = more crime crowds
simply saying causation=/=correlation is a cop out catch all answer that sounds like you did not read to the end with an open mind. if you actually read the whole thing.
The author dismisses the gun law argument with his ending statement calling it an illusion, so I don't know where you get the idea that he's not making an argument for causation. He just passive aggressively dismisses debate against his point of view.
Further more, he does not provide sufficient statistics of gun purchases during the same time period that he quotes homicide statistics. He gives two years worth of gun purchase and background checks compared to the 18 year decrease he compares it against. He quotes statistics that are diluted such as non-fatal violent crimes, which means that bar fights, domestic abuse and any number of other crimes fall under this. As goes the old phrase, "lies, damn lies and statistics."
Overall, it's a terribly slanted editorial that is wrapped up in his point of view and makes no attempt to be detached from the issue. It can hardly be considered good journalism.
Seriously, that crazypants nonsense has to go away.
Owning a rifle doesn't make you an effective freedom fighter. Buying a gun and pretending that now you can fight your government is just a more expensive, more silly version of playing with GI Joe figures.
Effective anti-government work requires highly disciplined, highly sophisticated cell strucutures, so that elements of the resistance can work in support of each other while at the same time remaining independant, so that compromising one cell won't compromise any others. If you have that in place then getting your hands on some guns is a piece of cake.
Effective anti-government work requires highly disciplined, highly sophisticated cell strucutures, so that elements of the resistance can work in support of each other while at the same time remaining independant, so that compromising one cell won't compromise any others. If you have that in place then getting your hands on some guns is a piece of cake.
sebster wrote: Effective anti-government work requires highly disciplined, highly sophisticated cell strucutures, so that elements of the resistance can work in support of each other while at the same time remaining independant, so that compromising one cell won't compromise any others. If you have that in place then getting your hands on some guns is a piece of cake.
I thought communism was ended in Europe through riots?
Valion wrote: The overwhelming majority is violence involving criminal enterprise, committed by disadvantaged minorities. We have statistics on that. We don't on the "crime of passion" angle, but I suspect it's probably nowhere near what people think it is. You're around tools that can easily kill your fellow man all day.
Of the 12,664 killings in the US, a whopping 673 of them were gangland killings. Now, to that you can add the felony crimes committed against strangers and acquaintances (we'll just assume those were all criminal enterprises run by 'disadvantaged minorities' to help out your case as much as we can), and you're up to 1,564, or 12.3% of murders. To put that in perspective - arguments (over romance, money, fueld by drugs etc) caused 3,633 murders or 28.7% of the yearly total, more than double the number you claimed was the 'overwhelming majority'.
Seriously, this myth in the US that gun murders are all due to gang problems and drugs is just wrong. The most likely way you'll die by gunshot (other than shooting yourself) is if you piss off someone you know.
And then we get on to the idea that there's murder weapons everywhere, so guns don't change that. Well yeah, you can kill someone with a kitchen knife, it's a lot harder but it's do-able. But the simple, plain fact of the matter is how hard it is matters. We know this because we can look at murder rates in developed countries, as per this table; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
And then we can see all the developed countries track at around 1 intentional murder per 100,000, and then we see the US, at 4.8 murders per hundred thousand. From there we can argue one of two things, that the US is just inherently a more murderous, insane group of people, or that just maybe having a lot more tools designed to kill people around means that when someone has that instinct to kill, they're more likely to do it.
They can't ban handguns. The Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional.
First up, that wouldn't make a ban impossible, it just gives it a much harder political hurdle.
Second up, you could still limit and control them without outright ban, if there was popular support and the political will to do so. But there isn't, and it's a useful exercise to think about why that might be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breotan wrote: I thought communism was ended in Europe through riots?
Effective violent resistance, obviously.
Non-violent public protest is kind of outside of the context on a discussion on the needs for guns to resistance guns, obviously.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Or a bunch of states not going with the Fed gov't
Umm, the South lost. When attempting armed resistance, the point is to not lose.
Jihadin wrote: Your not current with state gov's concerning gun laws and Obamacare there Sebster
No, you're just not following my argument.
The basic, plain simple and undeniable reality is that a population gets the society it wants. As an example, you had in multiple states both formal and informal processes that produced racial segregation. Eventually, as a nation as a whole you got to a point where that wasn't what you wanted. And so you changed things, through a variety of measures, and if those measures had proved insufficient then you would have driven through more changes.
As such, it becomes a nonsense to claim that you couldn't change the laws on guns. There are government processes, both formal and informal, that make such change harder, but not impossible. The plain reality is that if there was a real, genuine groundswell of support for removing guns from society, it could be done.
It isn't because, while you might get strong majority support for specific pieces of gun reform the US population as a whole is in favour of people being able to buy a gun if they want to.
The point, ultimately, is just to be honest enough to own that fact, for both sides to stop dreaming about a ban on guns (in that I'm not sure who's sillier, the anti-gun folk who dream of a total ban that will never happen at the expense of developing legislation that might actually pass and be useful, or the pro-gun folk who like to scare each other with stories of government coming to take their guns). Just accept that you a gun owning culture, and then to be honest about all the good and all the bad that comes from it.
Off the racial kick Sebster. I see where your going
Where I was going was example Washington and COlorado legalizing weed. Notice the federal gov't not really getting involved?
Multiple states......Kansas...being one...Kentucky....a slew of states passing state laws praticuly ignoring what ever federal laws that might come out from the federal gov't. Yes I know Fed law trumps state laws. Fed enforcement officers need support of state LEO to do their job. See the hang up there
A whole slew of states republican and democrat gov's are not implementing Obamacare and some states passing laws to make implementing Obamacare illegal.
So basically.IMO...we in the US are protesting at state level. Not MLK protest but paperwork protest. Then states go to courts with the Feds and then everyone gets really mad at the federal government. Basically a battle of court and taxs payer money.
Whew.....chemo, pollen allergies, and pain meds are goooddd but I try to hang in here for this
easysauce wrote: right on brother, those DOJ nut jobs dont know what they are talking about,
im just gonna leave those there, not like more correlation for the last 20 years or so could hurt.
Well congratulations, I think you completely ignored what my post actually said and replied to the post you wanted me to write. FYI, being snarky doesn't make you win an argument, it just makes you look like an ass.
You claim that absolutely nothing else impacted crime between those time periods is your claim. An increase in right to carry by 600% of the population resulted in a 30% drop in violent crime rate and handguns alone reduced property crime. It couldn't be better police methods, harsher sentencing, economic factors or anything else, just guns. You've taken two graphs completely out of context of what ever report they may have been in and presented them alone to support a claim on a complex issue. This is why correlation =/= causality is an argumentative fallacy, as it ignores all other factors that may be involved. You failed to even refute anything I said about the article itself and how poorly written it is. Instead, you attacked a position I never stated, you assumed I had taken a position, and attacked it in the least convincing manner and demeaning tone you could have possibly conceived. Good day.
Jihadin wrote: Off the racial kick Sebster. I see where your going
Sorry, not sure what you mean by racial kick?
Where I was going was example Washington and COlorado legalizing weed. Notice the federal gov't not really getting involved?
Meh, state opposition is fundamentally limited. The issue is not so much that Fed law trumps state law, but that the Fed raises income tax, and sends it out to the states. What the states collect in sales taxes and the like is just a fraction of what they need to keep their programs and institutions running.
Basic fact is if you want healthcare that amounts to much more than a guy with a rifle out behind the woodshed, then you need Fed dollars.
Now sure, there's scope in the short term to make some grandstanding claims about rejecting this thing or that, or even passing goofball laws that make enforcement of those laws illegal. And maybe, if you're smart, you can use that showmanship to bargain for the eventual practice of programs to be a bit more like what you'd like.
And the Feds know this. Plain fact is Obamacare was built with it very firmly in mind - Obamacare is a great deal for the states.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Sebs the states raise a pretty fair amount of their budgets from state sources, sales, property tax, state income tax, the list goes on.
Yes, they raise their own money. I already stated that. I then went on to state that they can't do without the money coming from the Federal Government.
And that can be established quite easily - just by looking at any State government budget. We can pick out Virginia if you'd like, where just a tick under 14% of state revenue is federal grants. That's basically how the states fund their entitlement programs.
And before you ask, no, a state can't just ignore 14% of its income. That cashflow from the Federal government to the states is real, serious power.
Actually that money is spread to hell and yonder, national level funding for LEOs, roads, etc, I wouldn't count the majority of it off as being earmarked for entitlement programs. Also I'd say with a little reorganization, I have absolutely no doubt that most of the states could get by without the federal government in all it's "beneficent" and "magnanimous" "glory". Some gak holes are only riding everyone else's coat tails for help, but that's any group.
Either way I think you're underestimating state power, especially when large numbers of states are operating in concert to oppose federal action, it's part of the system and it's designed to be that way.
I'd also say I fail to see how Obamacare is a great deal for any one, much less the states, and considering the large amounts of resistance to it on the state level, I'd say plenty of states agree with me. If any one can actually tell what exactly is all IN it's 600+ pages of legalese drivel, it's a useless cluster feth of a bill that while it does do a FEW useful things (no discrimination, extending the time span students/dependents can be covered by their parents, etc) for the most part it's an over costly wheezing mutant monstrosity that needs to be dragged out behind the wood shed and mercifully shot in the head by that guy with the rifle you were talking about.
A freaking nationalized health care program would cost us LESS then Obamacare. That's not just a failure, it's a MASSIVE failure. As a nation we need to pony up and make a choice, either a full socialized Canadian (and therefore rationed) healthcare system, or go full capitalist with appropriate protections and watchdogs installed to ensure fair play and access. Half donkey measures benefit no one and hurt everyone.
Side note: I think we need to make a law where ANY bill proposed by a senator that cannot be effectively summarized in one paragraph and oh I'll be generous ten bullet points is immediately thrown out and the Senator is fined a percentage of his or her pay for the year.
sebster wrote: Of the 12,664 killings in the US, a whopping 673 of them were gangland killings. Now, to that you can add the felony crimes committed against strangers and acquaintances (we'll just assume those were all criminal enterprises run by 'disadvantaged minorities' to help out your case as much as we can), and you're up to 1,564, or 12.3% of murders. To put that in perspective - arguments (over romance, money, fueld by drugs etc) caused 3,633 murders or 28.7% of the yearly total, more than double the number you claimed was the 'overwhelming majority'.
Fair enough. Now out of those 3,633 murders due to arguments, what percentage of them involve someone with an existing criminal record? Gang-bangers don't just come into existance in the 'gang-banger's hangout'; they have parents and siblings and friends and accquaintances and coworkers and lovers and spouses and kids. And discounting violent crimes committed by people with criminal records as 'not committed by a known criminal' just because the crime was committed against someone the criminal knows is cooking the numbers to support a conclusion.
I really don't worry about guns since according to statistics I'm more likely to be killed by a drunk driver.
The CDC statistics put the number of alcohol related deaths per year between 80-100,000.
Alcohol ruins and ends three times more lives per year than gun violence, yet there is far less control on that than guns.
Jihadin wrote: I mean...it seems so one sided for sea pirates.......bandits could be pirates...
From Webster:
pi·ra·cy
noun \ˈpī-rə-sē\
plural pi·ra·cies
Definition of PIRACY
1
: an act of robbery on the high seas; also : an act resembling such robbery
2
: robbery on the high seas
So no. However is we include definitions 3A/3B in our "pool" of pirates...
3
a : the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright
b : the illicit accessing of broadcast signals
There's probably more pirates in the modern age then there was in the age of sail, and if you listen to the RIAA they (modern copyright pirates) cause for more damage and are much more morally blackened then a pack of degenerate seaborne rapists, murderers, cutthroats and assorted robbers.
easysauce wrote: According to surveys DOJ conducted of state prison inmates during 2004 (the most recent year of data available), only two percent who owned a gun at the time of their offense bought it at either a gun show or flea market. About 10 percent said they purchased their gun from a retail shop or pawnshop, 37 percent obtained it from family or friends, and another 40 percent obtained it from an illegal source.
Because convicted criminals are renowned for their honest answers to questions about their offenses...
Racking my brains if Iever saw weapons fo sale at a flea market.....compound bows yes....knives yes....ninja toys yes....fire arms no.....if so....one thing that would hold me back from buying it......would the dang thing explode if I put a round through it......would you trust a fire arm to work right and proper for 20 dollars?
easysauce wrote: According to surveys DOJ conducted of state prison inmates during 2004 (the most recent year of data available), only two percent who owned a gun at the time of their offense bought it at either a gun show or flea market. About 10 percent said they purchased their gun from a retail shop or pawnshop, 37 percent obtained it from family or friends, and another 40 percent obtained it from an illegal source.
Because convicted criminals are renowned for their honest answers to questions about their offenses...
because the DOJ would be better off asking someone else about where they got the guns they commit crimes with?
not like their answers change anything, why would they lie? why would most admit to an illegal source, and therefore a possible additional charge?
easysauce wrote: because the DOJ would be better off asking someone else about where they got the guns they commit crimes with?
Not having anywhere else to get reliable answers doesn't make the answers they got any more reliable...
not like their answers change anything, why would they lie? why would most admit to an illegal source, and therefore a possible additional charge?
Because "I took it off the body of the last guy who asked me stupid questions" sounds more badass than "I bought it at a gun show thanks to a loophole in the law?"
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Actually that money is spread to hell and yonder, national level funding for LEOs, roads, etc, I wouldn't count the majority of it off as being earmarked for entitlement programs.
That doesn't mean two gaks, really. You can't just wipe off 14% of revenue and expect anything other than disaster.
Also I'd say with a little reorganization, I have absolutely no doubt that most of the states could get by without the federal government in all it's "beneficent" and "magnanimous" "glory".
That's just using imaginary 'efficiency' to ignore how the world works.
I mean, yes, there are efficiencies in the world, the modern economy is built on improving efficiencies by a few percent each year, but this idea that some broad, sweeping idea could just magically produce the same results for less on a massive scale is fantasy.
We've been doing this 'economy' and 'government' stuff for a long time now - the easy solutions are all taken up. The progress now is small, incremental, year on year stuff.
Either way I think you're underestimating state power, especially when large numbers of states are operating in concert to oppose federal action, it's part of the system and it's designed to be that way.
Yeah, we all know the theory. But the point is that when you spend the time to observe how it really works, well power rests with the guy with the cheque book. You can pick out the odd exception, but they're extremely rare.
I'd also say I fail to see how Obamacare is a great deal for any one, much less the states, and considering the large amounts of resistance to it on the state level, I'd say plenty of states agree with me.
Yes, plenty of states are mounting resistance to it, but taking that as evidence that it is a bad deal for the states is very simplistic politics. Instead, you look at the very healthy levels of money being offered to the states and it simply is impossible to argue that Obamacare is a bad deal for state governments. Instead it becomes clear that resistance is the product of some combination of principle for more than just the state (one can believe it is bad for the nation while understanding it is beneficial for the state a person is representing) and political opportunism.
If you have trouble getting your head around that - look at the opposition to the stimulus money. Free money for infrastructure projects cannot be argued as harmful to a state... and yet some governors refused that money. Once again it comes back to some combination of principal and political opportunism to explain why.
A freaking nationalized health care program would cost us LESS then Obamacare.
A nationalised healthcare program would be cheaper than any other system. That's the total mindfeth of the whole debate - national healthcare is the cheap option.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vulcan wrote: Fair enough. Now out of those 3,633 murders due to arguments, what percentage of them involve someone with an existing criminal record? Gang-bangers don't just come into existance in the 'gang-banger's hangout'; they have parents and siblings and friends and accquaintances and coworkers and lovers and spouses and kids. And discounting violent crimes committed by people with criminal records as 'not committed by a known criminal' just because the crime was committed against someone the criminal knows is cooking the numbers to support a conclusion.
But then I'm not really sure where you're going with this. Because if you look at the numbers, the US doesn't have greater than average figures in other forms of violent crime, you're about par for break-ins, muggings, assaults and all the rest. So I don't know what your line of thinking above is, there doesn't seem to be a vast underclass of violent criminals that could be driving the astronomical murder and murder by firearm rate.
Vulcan wrote: Fair enough. Now out of those 3,633 murders due to arguments, what percentage of them involve someone with an existing criminal record? Gang-bangers don't just come into existance in the 'gang-banger's hangout'; they have parents and siblings and friends and accquaintances and coworkers and lovers and spouses and kids. And discounting violent crimes committed by people with criminal records as 'not committed by a known criminal' just because the crime was committed against someone the criminal knows is cooking the numbers to support a conclusion.
But then I'm not really sure where you're going with this. Because if you look at the numbers, the US doesn't have greater than average figures in other forms of violent crime, you're about par for break-ins, muggings, assaults and all the rest. So I don't know what your line of thinking above is, there doesn't seem to be a vast underclass of violent criminals that could be driving the astronomical murder and murder by firearm rate.
Just pointing out that just because a crime is committed by an acquaintance doesn't mean that acquaintance isn't in a gang. So I ask again: do you know what percentage of those 'acquaintance shootings' were done by a gang member shooting an acquaintance?
I want to emphasize this because gang members are, by nature of being criminal already, are far more ready to use violence to achieve their goal than the law-abiding gun owner - be that goal earning a living or winning an argument.
Vulcan wrote:I want to emphasize this because gang members are, by nature of being criminal already, are far more ready to use violence to achieve their goal than the law-abiding gun owner - be that goal earning a living or winning an argument.
Vulcan wrote:I want to emphasize this because gang members are, by nature of being criminal already, are far more ready to use violence to achieve their goal than the law-abiding gun owner - be that goal earning a living or winning an argument.
Citation needed. That is a bold claim.
Not sure why you need a citation. A law abiding gun owner, by any reasonable definition of law abiding, isn't resorting to violence to solve most of his/her issues. Gang violence on the other hand is pretty well established as a problem...
Vulcan wrote:I want to emphasize this because gang members are, by nature of being criminal already, are far more ready to use violence to achieve their goal than the law-abiding gun owner - be that goal earning a living or winning an argument.
Citation needed. That is a bold claim.
Not sure why you need a citation. A law abiding gun owner, by any reasonable definition of law abiding, isn't resorting to violence to solve most of his/her issues. Gang violence on the other hand is pretty well established as a problem...
Gun owners are only law-abiding until they aren't.
The claim that "gang members are, by nature of being criminal already, far more ready to use violence" is begging the question.
It's because they dont have guns to defend themselves with from all the hardened criminals who make up 100% of all people who kill others with guns once you factor out the brave patriots who kill to defend their flat sceen tv from theft by those same hardened criminals.
SilverMK2 wrote: It's because they dont have guns to defend themselves with from all the hardened criminals who make up 100% of all people who kill others with guns once you factor out the brave patriots who kill to defend their flat sceen tv from theft by those same hardened criminals.
I'd like to point out that it's not the flat screen that I'm worried about! It's the potential injury to my senior citizen parents (any my cat) that might happen should someone try to walk off with the flat screen.
Vulcan wrote:I want to emphasize this because gang members are, by nature of being criminal already, are far more ready to use violence to achieve their goal than the law-abiding gun owner - be that goal earning a living or winning an argument.
Citation needed. That is a bold claim.
Not sure why you need a citation. A law abiding gun owner, by any reasonable definition of law abiding, isn't resorting to violence to solve most of his/her issues. Gang violence on the other hand is pretty well established as a problem...
Gun owners are only law-abiding until they aren't.
The claim that "gang members are, by nature of being criminal already, far more ready to use violence" is begging the question.
Fair enough. I can't prove it... but it is a logcal inferance that someone whose living is provided by use or threat of violence (i.e armed robbery and extortion) will be more prone to use violence to solve personal conflicts than someone who works in, say, accounting, manufacturing, or delivery...
But then I'm still waiting on your citation proving that 100% of those 'associate shootings' are done by people with NO previous criminal records.
SilverMK2 wrote: It's because they dont have guns to defend themselves with from all the hardened criminals who make up 100% of all people who kill others with guns once you factor out the brave patriots who kill to defend their flat sceen tv from theft by those same hardened criminals.
They do have guns, but really, muzzle loading muskets and pistols versus semi automatics? Then again, the pirates also have magic and leviathans.
It's not gonna end well.
I of course base my understanding of pirates on a certain series of films.
Vulcan wrote:I want to emphasize this because gang members are, by nature of being criminal already, are far more ready to use violence to achieve their goal than the law-abiding gun owner - be that goal earning a living or winning an argument.
Citation needed. That is a bold claim.
Not sure why you need a citation. A law abiding gun owner, by any reasonable definition of law abiding, isn't resorting to violence to solve most of his/her issues. Gang violence on the other hand is pretty well established as a problem...
Gun owners are only law-abiding until they aren't.
The claim that "gang members are, by nature of being criminal already, far more ready to use violence" is begging the question.
Fair enough. I can't prove it... but it is a logcal inferance that someone whose living is provided by use or threat of violence (i.e armed robbery and extortion) will be more prone to use violence to solve personal conflicts than someone who works in, say, accounting, manufacturing, or delivery...
But then I'm still waiting on your citation proving that 100% of those 'associate shootings' are done by people with NO previous criminal records.
I'm really tired right now, so maybe I missed something... but I think you may have me confused with someone else on that claim. I'm not actually even certain to what exactly 'associate shootings' refers at the moment.
Vulcan wrote: Fair enough. I can't prove it... but it is a logcal inferance that someone whose living is provided by use or threat of violence (i.e armed robbery and extortion) will be more prone to use violence to solve personal conflicts than someone who works in, say, accounting, manufacturing, or delivery...
Yes, but it's a logical inference that just doesn't explain the scale of the issue, nor does it line up with the other figures we know about the US and other developed countries.
If you had home non-lethal violent crime rates that were four or more times the rate of other developed countries, and property crime rates that were four or more times the rate of other developed countries, well then it would make sense to say 'well the reason our murder rate is four times the rate elsewhere in the world is because we have a much larger criminal underclass'.
But you don't have rates that much bigger than us. In fact, your rates are pretty much on par with the rest of us, and slowly declining like the rest of us. Then you see the US murder rate and the deaths by firearms numbers sticking out so far and it's impossible to pretend it's a result of hoodlums shooting each other.
Now, that doesn't mean that therefore guns have to be banned. It just means you have to be honest about what effect guns have. Relapse mentioned earlier that the CDC calculates that alcohol kills 80,000 or more a year, making it eight times worse that firearms, and therefore a bigger problem. But it'd be crazy nonsense to say 'therefore ban alcohol' and don't do anything about guns. Instead, what people have to do is accept that 80,000 number as the basic reality of the situation, and use that to inform what we will and won't do about the situation.
Vulcan wrote:I want to emphasize this because gang members are, by nature of being criminal already, are far more ready to use violence to achieve their goal than the law-abiding gun owner - be that goal earning a living or winning an argument.
Citation needed. That is a bold claim.
Not sure why you need a citation. A law abiding gun owner, by any reasonable definition of law abiding, isn't resorting to violence to solve most of his/her issues. Gang violence on the other hand is pretty well established as a problem...
Gun owners are only law-abiding until they aren't.
The claim that "gang members are, by nature of being criminal already, far more ready to use violence" is begging the question.
all lawful people are only law abiding till they are not, thats not really fair or proving of any valid point.
the best predictor we have of future actions are past actions,
hence why people who have had violent pasts tend to have violent futures, and why those without continue to lack violence.
all lawful people are only law abiding till they are not, thats not really fair or proving of any valid point.
the best predictor we have of future actions are past actions,
hence why people who have had violent pasts tend to have violent futures, and why those without continue to lack violence.
Not a flame. I have a violent pass. I'm capable of violence. I own weapons. I've use weapons to do harm. I though have high values and standards. Do you think I will become violent in the civilian world?
Not a flame. I have a violent past. I'm capable of violence. I own weapons. I've use weapons to do harm. I though have high values and standards. Do you think I will become violent in the civilian world?
The initial 'White Tea Party Type' speculation about the Boston Marathon bombers leads me to suspect some hope you do so they can use you as a "I TOLD YOU SO!!!!" example.
I don't blame people for stocking up on guns these days. I've just been reading that the Pentagon has 'allowed' itself the ability to intervene in domestic disturbances without local or state consent... hmm
I seem to recall a few hundred years ago, a bunch of guys wearing red coats took it upon themselves to march through the countryside to seize some weapons. The locals were not happy.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I don't blame people for stocking up on guns these days. I've just been reading that the Pentagon has 'allowed' itself the ability to intervene in domestic disturbances without local or state consent... hmm
May want to check your sources. If it is what I saw, it is a bunch of crap. The DoD cannot add to or change US Code which is what the very poorly written articles are saying. DoD can't 'allow itself' to do any of that, and I would bet a paycheck didn't even lobby for any changes that were actually made.
all lawful people are only law abiding till they are not, thats not really fair or proving of any valid point.
the best predictor we have of future actions are past actions,
hence why people who have had violent pasts tend to have violent futures, and why those without continue to lack violence.
Not a flame. I have a violent pass. I'm capable of violence. I own weapons. I've use weapons to do harm. I though have high values and standards. Do you think I will become violent in the civilian world?
I did say "tended", and "best" predictor, I OBS wasn't trying to be claiming that it was really that black and white, just that the statement "law abiding gun owners are only law abiding till they are not" by az earlier is not really saying anything, let alone refuting my earlier point.
I know there are some exceptions, and heck, I have had to be "violent" in myself too, but just as in your case it was justified/part of the job/had to be done and all that.
but having a history being violent in a combat situation, when violence is appropriate, is not the same as having a past of randomly or otherwise unjustifiable violence in situations where it is not warranted.
but having a history being violent in a combat situation, when violence is appropriate, is not the same as having a past of randomly or otherwise unjustifiable violence in situations where it is not warranted.
I know Easysauce. Wasn't.....throwing you under the bus. We are ask repeatedly these questions. I just used you to open this "door" Military is really keeping tabs on us while serving and no longer active.
1. Have I had suicidal thoughts
2. Have I thought to harm others
3. Have I thoughts to harm myself
I did have one soldier that kept refusing to go mental health. Fearing it would damage his carreer potential. I slammed him with a negative counseling statement and for corrective action he was to set his appt's behind the 1st SGT or PLT SGT's. Problem solved....two more neg's then UCMJ.
I believe that HIPPA needs to take a backseat when a military S/M purchase a weapon. I believe also that same action be applied to the civilians. I also believe that one cannot use combat vets mental health records as a establish guideline to determined if civilians are eligible to own a fire arm
all lawful people are only law abiding till they are not, thats not really fair or proving of any valid point.
the best predictor we have of future actions are past actions,
hence why people who have had violent pasts tend to have violent futures, and why those without continue to lack violence.
Not a flame. I have a violent pass. I'm capable of violence. I own weapons. I've use weapons to do harm. I though have high values and standards. Do you think I will become violent in the civilian world?
I did say "tended", and "best" predictor, I OBS wasn't trying to be claiming that it was really that black and white, just that the statement "law abiding gun owners are only law abiding till they are not" by az earlier is not really saying anything, let alone refuting my earlier point.
I know there are some exceptions, and heck, I have had to be "violent" in myself too, but just as in your case it was justified/part of the job/had to be done and all that.
but having a history being violent in a combat situation, when violence is appropriate, is not the same as having a past of randomly or otherwise unjustifiable violence in situations where it is not warranted.
I'm just throwing the obvious wrench into your mechanism of using the mythical boogeyman of the villainous inner-city minority to represent the cause of all gun crime, when a significant chunk of gun violence is domestic. Hence, my statement that firearm owners are only law-abiding until they aren't.
gangs, organized criminals, and repeat offenders are not "mythical boogeymen"
or maybe they are just mythical boogey men until they are not,
either way, I did NOT attribute all gun crime to some villianous minority, dont put that kind of racist rhetoric in my mouth, its just trolling at that point and is neither polite, factual, or a real debate method.
if I quote an article, where the DOJ finds that 80% of gun crime in chicago is due miniority gang activities,
that is the findings of the DOJ, not me, and it is no less true just because you dont want to accept that.
instead of simply saying "the results of the DOJ survey are a lie"
maybe we should be tackling the root issues, like why are there so many gang members?
why is organized crime flourishing in certain cities?
beasides that, the whole point of this article is that anti gun lobbiests constantly say that it is an undisputed FACT that more guns causes more crime.
so get on topic and discuss,
why is gun crime going DOWN despite the # of owners, and guns going UP?
azazel the cat wrote: I'm just throwing the obvious wrench into your mechanism of using the mythical boogeyman of the villainous inner-city minority to represent the cause of all gun crime, when a significant chunk of gun violence is domestic. Hence, my statement that firearm owners are only law-abiding until they aren't.
And again, you ignore that those inner-city minorities criminals ALSO have families...
Hordini wrote: I'm curious as to why gun crime is so high in American cities that have some of the strictest gun control laws.
Because, logically... the bad guys knows that the odds are in their favor that their target would not be armed
Erm... that is logical...right?
You posted a picture a little while ago that showed where gun crime was centrally located, I believe. And it lined up almost perfectly with how regions in the U.S. tended to vote. I think there is a lot more correlation there then people would like to admit.
Hordini wrote: I'm curious as to why gun crime is so high in American cities that have some of the strictest gun control laws.
Because, logically... the bad guys knows that the odds are in their favor that their target would not be armed
Erm... that is logical...right?
You posted a picture a little while ago that showed where gun crime was centrally located, I believe. And it lined up almost perfectly with how regions in the U.S. tended to vote. I think there is a lot more correlation there then people would like to admit.
Hordini wrote: I'm curious as to why gun crime is so high in American cities that have some of the strictest gun control laws.
Many reasons. Cities tend to have a more dense population and in many cities (especially high crime areas) a very high proportion of poor folks. There is also somewhat of a breakdown of family structure in many of these areas (many single parent households). Gang activity (which in some ways compensates for the breakdown of the family structure, or at least takes advantage of it) and the associated narcotic activity contribute to violence amongst a group of people who could care less about gun laws.
Plenty of other factors involved too. An unarmed pool of victims doesn't hurt.
I've seen the FBI one by itself in the FBI site...
The 2012 one looks right though.
Yep, thats the one I was talking about.
I'm not a sociologist, but I bet if people were interested in really discovering the cause of rates of gun violence, that chart would be where to start.
I've seen the FBI one by itself in the FBI site...
The 2012 one looks right though.
Yep, thats the one I was talking about.
I'm not a sociologist, but I bet if people were interested in really discovering the cause of rates of gun violence, that chart would be where to start.
CptJake's already brought up most of them. Large cities having higher rates of crime than smaller cities/towns is nothing surprising or really new.
I would love to see the actual metrics behind what was "low incidents of gun violence" v. "high incidents of gun violence".
Um, in regards to that map...looks like gun violence is higher in places with big cities, like the coasts or around Chicago. I think there was another statistic somewhere that big cities also tend to vote slightly more in the democratic direction than republican. So maybe this is really more about lots of people in one place = more gun violence, not democrats = more gun violence?
Witzkatz wrote: Um, in regards to that map...looks like gun violence is higher in places with big cities, like the coasts or around Chicago. I think there was another statistic somewhere that big cities also tend to vote slightly more in the democratic direction than republican. So maybe this is really more about lots of people in one place = more gun violence, not democrats = more gun violence?
You tend to get more liberal views in places where people mix and exchange ideas, such as cities, while you tend to get more conservative views where people don't tend to mix and interact with people who are different from themselves, such as rural areas.
Kanluwen wrote: So now you're saying that the people voting for Obama are murderers?
Nope. I'm saying statistically areas with higher level of democrats voting for Obama are also areas with higher crime rates. I'm, making no inferences whatsoever.
Kanluwen wrote: So now you're saying that the people voting for Obama are murderers?
Nope. I'm saying statistically areas with higher level of democrats voting for Obama are also areas with higher crime rates. I'm, making no inferences whatsoever.
That is true, you aren't inferring it, you are directly stating it.
Kanluwen wrote: So now you're saying that the people voting for Obama are murderers?
Nope. I'm saying statistically areas with higher level of democrats voting for Obama are also areas with higher crime rates. I'm, making no inferences whatsoever.
That is true, you aren't inferring it, you are directly stating it.
total bollox, he is simply providing a two maps, one with areas of higher gun crime vs lower gun crime
one with democrat voters vs conservative voters
the inferences are your own, and your blatent accusations of anyone stating that the voters themselves are the murderers is just silly, wrong, and trolling.
Kanluwen wrote: So now you're saying that the people voting for Obama are murderers?
Nope. I'm saying statistically areas with higher level of democrats voting for Obama are also areas with higher crime rates. I'm, making no inferences whatsoever.
That is true, you aren't inferring it, you are directly stating it.
total bollox, he is simply providing a two maps, one with areas of higher gun crime vs lower gun crime
one with democrat voters vs conservative voters
the inferences are your own, and your blatent accusations of anyone stating that the voters themselves are the murderers is just silly, wrong, and trolling.
There's no inferences.
Frazzled actually posted:
Or technically more democratic voters for Obama equals more murderers?
Kanluwen wrote: So now you're saying that the people voting for Obama are murderers?
Nope. I'm saying statistically areas with higher level of democrats voting for Obama are also areas with higher crime rates. I'm, making no inferences whatsoever.
That is true, you aren't inferring it, you are directly stating it.
total bollox, he is simply providing a two maps, one with areas of higher gun crime vs lower gun crime
one with democrat voters vs conservative voters
the inferences are your own, and your blatent accusations of anyone stating that the voters themselves are the murderers is just silly, wrong, and trolling.
There's no inferences.
Frazzled actually posted:
Or technically more democratic voters for Obama equals more murderers?
notice the ? at the end of that sentence, that means its a question, not a declaration. From the rest of his post its also obvious he is doing it specifically to justapose the democrat mantra of "more guns causes more violence" with a similar statement, made in obvious jest, and said as a question, not a statement of fact or belief.
easysauce wrote: gangs, organized criminals, and repeat offenders are not "mythical boogeymen"
No, but they aren't an explanation to the high rate of murder, and really high rate of death by firearm in the US.
if I quote an article, where the DOJ finds that 80% of gun crime in chicago is due miniority gang activities,
Sure, but gun crime isn't deaths by gun.
Of course armed robberies are going to have a high correlation to gang activity. But the simple fact is deaths by gun don't correlate to gang activity.
maybe we should be tackling the root issues, like why are there so many gang members?
why is organized crime flourishing in certain cities?
Only if we accept that the cause of the 10,000 deaths every year is through gang issues. Which, of course, isn't fething true, as I established a couple of pages back in this thread.
And once we accept that isn't true. we kind of need to stop fething pretending otherwise.
why is gun crime going DOWN despite the # of owners, and guns going UP?
Actually, the number of gun owners is on a long term decline. It's just the absolute number of guns that is on the increase, driven by the average number of guns owned by each gun owner growing steadily.
And as for why gun crime is down... it's because crime is down. Not just in the US, but everywhere. Steady improvements in material wealth, and more effective policing, year on year, decade on decade, has produced a steady decline in crime rates. Sure in some countries, for a medium period you might see a flattening of rates or even a slight increase, but that's a specific local factor fighting against the overall, long term trend.
Guns... having them or not having them doesn't affect this. What it does affect, as you can see by the one stat where the US actually stands alone, is in gun murder. Because, whether you're a gang banger or some just some regular guy, the murder you commit is, purely statistically speaking, likely to be made in the heat of the moment, and not an action planned beforehand. And a person is far, far more likely to act on a stupid, spur of the moment decision when they have on hand a tool that makes killing a person much easier.
Now that doesn't automatically mean that guns have to be banned. But it is a thing that is simply fething true, and people need to stop pretending otherwise.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hordini wrote: I'm curious as to why gun crime is so high in American cities that have some of the strictest gun control laws.
Reverse correlation. The cities with the worst levels of gun violence are the ones that are most likely to try and put some control on guns.
You can tell this by noting that before bringing in these laws those cities were already the ones with the worst rates of gun violence.
Is this really telling anyone something they didn't already know?
I mean, note that it's gun violence, so the rate is going to be dominated by muggings, armed hold ups and the like. And is anyone out there really going to claim shock and surprise that major urban areas have higher rates of gun violence?!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Nope. I'm saying statistically areas with higher level of democrats voting for Obama are also areas with higher crime rates. I'm, making no inferences whatsoever.
While this joke didn't really work at all, I've gotta say it's good to see you're in one of your 'making attacks at Democrats' phases. They're typically a lot more interesting than your 'complain about government in a vaguely libertarian way, while insisting that you're totally not a Republican' phase.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote: notice the ? at the end of that sentence, that means its a question, not a declaration. From the rest of his post its also obvious he is doing it specifically to justapose the democrat mantra of "more guns causes more violence" with a similar statement, made in obvious jest, and said as a question, not a statement of fact or belief.
I've never really understood this thing people do... this argument by illiteracy thing. Where they attempt to make their point by straight up refusing to read a person's statement as everyone knows it is supposed to be read.
Just... fething don't pretend, because you know, and we all know fraz was trying to have a fun little dig at Democrats.
And if you really, really can't see what fraz was doing, maybe English isn't the language for you.
Kanluwen wrote: So now you're saying that the people voting for Obama are murderers?
Nope. I'm saying statistically areas with higher level of democrats voting for Obama are also areas with higher crime rates. I'm, making no inferences whatsoever.
That is true, you aren't inferring it, you are directly stating it.
Am I? I'm not trying to infer a connection. I will infer a connection between democrats and gun stealers though...
You are.
An inference would be: areas of higher democratic voters have areas of higher police oppression. Fight the Power! Free Huey!
(now I'm starting to sound like letters to the editor to the Berkeley East rag that is the Austin Statesman).
Here's an article about police not being able to respond to a 911 call due to budget cuts. Government decided to not fund the Sherriff's department and now people are being victimized as a result.
Breotan wrote: Here's an article about police not being able to respond to a 911 call due to budget cuts. Government decided to not fund the Sherriff's department and now people are being victimized as a result.
If she had had a gun, that would have only made the situation worse. When the police showed up on Monday to take her report, they might have mistaken her for the bad guy.
Breotan wrote: Here's an article about police not being able to respond to a 911 call due to budget cuts. Government decided to not fund the Sherriff's department and now people are being victimized as a result.
Breotan wrote: Here's an article about police not being able to respond to a 911 call due to budget cuts. Government decided to not fund the Sherriff's department and now people are being victimized as a result.
If she had had a gun, that would have only made the situation worse. When the police showed up on Monday to take her report, they might have mistaken her for the bad guy.
Military is really keeping tabs on us while serving and no longer active.
