Do Guns Kill People or Do People Kill People?

That's why I included data from D.C. There are also studies showing the same effect in Detroit (another high-crime city), and others. There are 1,000's of articles to go through (and I just filtered for the one's with abstracts); but the trends that emerge from these studies speak for themselves.

 

yes they do speak for themselves they have repeatedly shown us that in Big Cities with lots regulations and requirements for firearms, there are more crime problems than in big cities with a pro-self defense approach like Miami.

Gun control simply won't work

Does anyone in the United States
smoke pot?
do cocaine?
work as a prostitute?
gamble?
make crystal meth?

 

Look to be honest, the problem isn't bad people with guns. Or guns. Or good people having guns to defend themselves.

"Americans with guns" = the problem.

It should never have been made a right in the first place. It's not a god-given, nor a nonsense natural right, and it's just lead to complacent abuses.

E_S

 

You know better. PPOR.

Except in those studies I cited. You know, actually *having* evidence really is a *****.

Irrelevant.
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant.

All five of these are completely different issues. Thanks for playing.

Be nice, please, Quix?

 

I agree with the first part, I don't agree with the second.

Such rights are what makes the US intrinsically the US. The Second Amendment, like all of the rest of the Bills of Rights, were borne out of America's experineces. Any such concept can be abused, but also brings a host of positives.

 

Even in the current tragedy in Virginia, the shooting spree record is still held by an Australian.


Honestly, the problem isn't even guns, the problem is, with a lot of the crime, that we have drugs illegal. Legalising drugs and the gangs, which are tied to a LOT of gun crime, especially in urban areas like L.A. will lose their power and source of income. Not to mention that many times the people committing crimes with guns weren't supposed to have them in the first place. A lot of crime would be gone because its assosciated with the drug trade.

 

Yes, by 2 people.

The laws changed, and it's been >10 yrs since that one.

Tell me, how many years since Columbine?

Or any number of massacres?

What's the gun crime rate per capita?

It's not that I find your post a combination of head-in-the-sand defensiveness and disingenuous obfuscation, it's just I think you lacked clear context.



E+S

 

Sorry, Ender. I do know better. I get frustrated when my interlocutor clearly doesn't actually read the evidence posted and draws conclusions that directly oppose what the data indicate.

EDIT:

Speaking of data, I reviewed the data presented on that "Just the Facts" page, and, unsurprisingly, it is heavy on NRA documents, newspaper articles, and advocacy documents, and rather weak on peer-reviewed studies.

 

Quix I have no clue what the DC study is claiming to show since DC's gun homicide rate peaked in 1991, which is 15 years after the ban.

In fact it looks like there was a peak in 1981 followed by a murder depression and then it peaks again.

I think your study there is taking care to very narrowly target numbers to reach a pre-designed conclusion.

 

The study itself notes that about 50 lives were saved each year following the introduction of gun control measures. I'd like to see a source on that gun homicide claim, farry. More specifically, I'd like to see it tomorrow, since I have a class to teach early tomorrow morning and I'm off to bed.

 

But Quix, I know you are a founding member of the "correlation does not equal causation" club around here, or at least accept the concept of "Entities must not be reduced to the point of inadequacy," especially as they relate to complicated social arrangements.

How does this study fit in with your data?

BBC

BBC Gun crimes shoot up

The number of crimes involving firearms in the West Midlands has risen significantly, according to new figures. During the year 2001-2002 offences involving firearms went up by 49% to a total of 2,260 compared to the previous 12 months.

or this one, which focuses on the reverse:

PALMBEACH

(since expanding Florida's concealed carry laws)...total homicides fell by 6.9%, and firearm homicides by 6.1%

Now, I'm not claiming that the UK's stricter gun control laws directly lead to an increase in crime, or that Florida's loosening of gun control laws directly lead to a decrease in firearm deaths, because the issue is complex. Many factors come into play here, and there are various sources of information that can be used.

 

Quix if you have a link to the full study go ahead, arguing based on the tl;dr version is pretty damn dumb.

In any case It specifically states it's covering to the period 1968 through 1987 which is before the massive increase in murders which gave it that murder capital of the US name you mentioned

So at least in your comment on the study, you're full of it.

Second, the study is idiotically comparing the number of gun related murders and suicides, not the rate per population.

This would make sense if the areas were stable, however the DC metro area started axploding population wise at this time period while DC's population shrank. DC's population in '68 was just over 800,000, by 1987 it was 622,000

Gee I wonder why they decided to compare total numbers instead of rates.

In fact, looking at the crime statistics for DC it looks like there was a bottoming out in crime during that period. While I'm sure banning hand guns somehow made the property crimes rate drop I've yet to see a compelling argument as to how.

Numbers from here DC crime data

So Quix if you want to start some ***** please tell me you have more then just abstracts to go on or I'm going to laugh you right out of this thread.

 

That number is from the CDC for 2004. It covers the unintended fatalities from firearms.

Kimball Kinnison

 

There's one other limiting factor that you are neglecting, and that I forgot to mention.

The statistics only deal with deaths from firearms in general (meaning handguns and rifles/shotguns). That means that hunting accidents are included in those totals, which distorts the figures. For example, this paper (admittedly dated 1989) discusses the fact that the majority of firearm accidents outside of urban areas (both fatal and non-fatal).

Well first of all yes -- that paper is from 1989. That's not SO major though; I'm not sure the behaviors have changed so much since then. But you have a HUGE missing link here: what proportion of these numbers are coming from rural areas, and what proportion are from urban? The south in 2004 is no longer a mostly predominantly rural area like the MidWest is. It's become crawling with people especially in Florida, Texas, Georgia, Virginia and Tennessee.

Well, what two regions of the country support the most hunting? The South and the West. Unfortunately, we don't have the information available to us to separate out the handgun-related accidental deaths (which are relevant to this discussion) from the rifle/shotgun-related accidental deaths (which wouldn't fall under a CCP in any case).

I wouldn't say this is as big a deal as you think. There's plenty of hunting in both the NorthEast and Canada, for instance. Out of my depertment of 25 people, there's what... at least 2 avid hunters and 3 others who dabble -- there may in fact be more than that but it's not something I tend to ask about. Considering that the department has 7 women in it (who as a rule tend not to be into hunting), that's pretty high. And this is a tech department, mind you. Also my own stepfather himself, along with his friends, dabbled in hunting themselves before getting a little long in the tooth and we owned a rifle in the basement.

Now, of course, personal experience can't substitute for real figures. Certainly, hunting is PROMOTED more in the south and MidWest. But I think the assertion that these regions, in the end, actually HAVE more hunting is about as justified as my assertion that the south has more lenient gun laws. Even if the rates of hunting are higher, they may not be by a significant amount.

And also there deserves to be a fair word on the regularions themselves. It may be in the case of some of the smaller New England states that the reason for more lax gun laws is the fact that reasoning for better ones has never come up. If you're in an area where you can, say, buy a handgun very easily but few people ever actually do for whatever reason, it stands to reason that legislators won't push for tougher gun laws because they've simply got other things to do.

It's true, tougher gun laws won't solve the gun problem. But surely there's a reason why accidental firearm deaths are 0.15 higher than in the West in 2004, and 0.21 higher than the NorthEast. And I hardly, HARDLY think it's because of hunting to the degree of 0.12 versus 0.33. Trust me, plenty of people go hunting up here.


Because of that, the breakdown (which I did do) is really irrelevant. There's too much noise in the data to draw any conclusions (you don't hunt with handguns, and you don't concealed carry a rifle/shotgun).

If there's too much noise in the data, why did you use it to begin with? You state your reason as the following straight after:

My main point was to demonstrate the extremely low number of accidental firearm deaths as opposed to the intentional ones. Think of it this way: including the hunting accidents, there are only about twice as many accidental deaths from firearms than there are law enforcement-related deaths due to firearms.

Well I really don't see the point in what you're making. This is like taking all the car accidents that happen in the US and comparing them to every single time a car is used by someone without an accident happening. Of COURSE the number is going to be lower. Much lower. What's that got to do with it? Cars are much more of a necessity in e

 

Even in the current tragedy in Virginia, the shooting spree record is still held by an Australian.

Actually I thought it was held by another South Korean. Although that spree was actually in South Korea and killed some 35 people.

 

You completely missed the point, again.

My point was that the accident rate, even including hunting accidents (which are irrelevant to this discussion, as we were discussing handguns) is extremely small. We know that not all accidental firearm deaths are due to handguns, but even with that noise added in there, it is still an incredibly low rate of accidental deaths. It was in response to your argument that "But over the long term this ends up killing more people than not because even the most responsible end up more likely of getting themselves accidentally killed than ever flouting a mass murderer."

My point is that you are talking about an infinitesimal portion of the whole, and even with the all of the noise that is added in from inflating the numbers (including the hunting accidents), the chance of accidental death due to firearms is virtually insignificant.

The most common reasons for people to get a concealed carry permit are either that they have been given a reason to possibly need to defend themselves (i.e. a threat against their life), or needing it in the course of their work (such as private security). Most CCP holders do not get a gun and permit just to carry around in order to play hero.

Personally, a few months ago I was informed of serious threats made against me (PM if you want details, I won't post them here), and I seriously considered getting a handgun and CCP. I could have done it fairly easily (I live in Virginia and would easily pass the NICS check required to get a gun that same day, and Virginia is a "shall issue" state where I could have had a CCP in under a month). The major consideration that kept me from doing that for my own defense was the fact that my job often takes me into DC to several federal buildings, where I would be unable to take a firearm even with the permit. Because I have no place in my office where I could reasonably secure a gun while visiting DC, it would have been almost useless for me.

I did quite a bit of research on CCPs and the associated laws at that time, as well as researched a lot about why people get them and whether it would be an appropriate solution for me. If I ever get my own handgun (which I may still do, because I do enjoy target shooting with my brother, and the NRA's range is only a quarter mile from my apartment), I do intend to take the appropriate class for a CCP and get the permit, if only to have that option available to me in the future. (Not to mention make transporting the gun to the range easier. With a CCP I could easily walk to the range carrying the gun, not matter what the weather is like. Without it, I would need to lock it into the trunk of my car and drive to the range.)

Under the criteria by which the CDC separates them out, the law-enforcement related deaths are those that are intentional uses of a firearm by a law enforcement official during the conduct of his duties, resulting in the death of the person shot. It separates out the people shot by police in the course of their duties from those shot by civilians (including criminals).

Kimball Kinnison

 

The largest spree killing was in South Korea, but that had grenades involved to get up to 57 people. The largest with just a gun was Australian.

 

oh really???

two words
Organized Crime
(I sure hope i spelled that right)
Who smuggles the drugs into the country?
Who runs the underground casino's?
Who is in charge of the illegal brothels?

When there is a demand it will be met illegally, it is completely relevant,
Prohibition was the proof.(pardon the pun)
here we are in the 21st century with the world wide web, and high calibration metal shops.
all an "outfit" needs is the basic Schematics for a weapon and they can make them from scratch. As long as the military and police use firearms, bullets will be easy to illegally obtain.

 

I heard some guy from the US on the radio this morning saying that if all the kids had been armed the tragedy might not have happened, because they could have shot the gun man themselves!

 

I heard some guy from the US on the radio this morning saying that if all the kids had been armed the tragedy might not have happened, because they could have shot the gun man themselves!

Well, there is some logic there. And before anyone reacts to the statement by itself, allow me to clarify. Let's set aside the focus on the gun for a moment.

Traditionally, the US has been founded on principles of rugged individualism and self determination. The country was founded by those tenets, and the very reason why the Bill of Rights exists is to protect individual freedom from the tyranny of government.

What the "guy on the radio" meant was more in line with that idea of self determination, and in that regard, the firearm is just a tool.

 

something I was just thinking about, though, was just how many people would be eligible to have a gun on a campus to begin with? I've not the familiarity to know if there's an age restriction on the permits, but at least there would be, I'd think, a restriction on getting the handgun before a certain age. I know its 21 in california, but I don't know if it's less in VA or not, and by how much.

 

Federal law sets the minimum age to buy a handgun at 21. This also applies to handgun ammunition, which makes sense.

 

ok, so thats federal law.
So in a sense, that does limit how prevalant guns could be on a school campus to begin with.


I was going to get a handgun on my 21st birthday to mark it, but I opted not to because I figured I'd not have the time to adequately maintain it or be able to store it safely for time being.

 

Slightly off topic, but modern firearms require very little maintance to store. As an example, your standard Smith&Wesson stainless steel revolver can be keep loaded indefinately without undue wear and tear. A pistol from any of the major companies would fare just as well. (In other handguns, things like magazine springs have to be cared for, but this takes years of use)

A good cleaning after shooting at the range is all that is required.

Secondly, there are many companies that make both effective and safe storage options:

The basic one is called the "lifejacket:"

[image=http://www.copsplus.com/products/medium/lj-1.jpg]

and probably costs $20.00 or so..

Next level is the "instant access" safe:

[image=http://www.gunaccessories.com/HandgunSafes/imagewrap.jpg]

which is opened by finger manipulation slides on the top. It's still only about $95.00

 

and has a "tattle-tale" alarm to let parents know if there has been an attempted access by someone who doesn't know the code.

just on my lunch break need to be going now..off to the pharmacy