Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
Plain and simple: No assault rifles means potentially more people survive when a crazy person pulls out a gun. The
No (or fewer) undiagnosed crazy people means potentially more people survive regardless of what dangerous items are accessible.
So, in one broad stroke, if we do something to help with the healthcare side of things, we could actually fix all KINDS of violence, instead of just gun violence.
Seems like the better option to me.
First, what I said was true. Assault rifles are more efficient weapons than most other firearms in most circumstances (otherwise they would not be the preferred firearm for infantry in armies!), so if there wasn't an assault rifle involved in any given shooting, the number of victims likely goes down.
The features that make an "assault weapon" (the difference exists, stop calling them assault rifles), are not the features that make it more efficient for killing. In fact, the typical civilian AR is better than an Army issue M4, but that's just bad defense procurement. A bayonet lug is irrelevant in a shooting, otherwise it would be a school bayonetting. High cap mags are a convenience, nothing stops you from carrying more magazines, and a lot of drums actually have misfeeding trouble.
Actually, if I wanted to do a lot of damage, I'd pick a scoped bolt action, like a Remington 700, which is most definitely not going to fit the arbitrary definition of "assault weapon". It's actually a popular sniper platform for military and paramilitary organizations. I'd likely net more victims that way. And, as has been pointed out multiple times, handguns tend to be a rather common platform for shootings, due to being easily concealed, banning "assault weapons" for cosmetic and convenience features wouldn't stop those in the slightest.
Third, how you do we suggest we diagnose the mentally ill? We round up everyone and test them and diagnose for mental illness, then forcibly treat those who are ill, or deny them access to firearms and this idea somehow tramples on our rights less than banning assault rifles? Is that a joke?
Or we fix the process of buying a gun. I've never said it isn't too easy.
Did you not know that Newtown shooter got his rifle from his mother who got it legally? And the Auora shooter got his rifle legally too? So they were perfectly fine mentally until the shooting... how are we supposed to know without testing people rigorously before they purchase a weapon? And what if the test is biased or flawed, and people are denied their right to own a weapon due to error, does that not trample someone's rights?
See above. Fixing the system is good. I do enjoy how you seem to be putting ridiculous rhetoric in my mouth. Part of fixing the system is avoiding corruption by either side.
Bud, I work in a psychiatric hospital 5 days a week. I work with the mentally ill. There are plenty of people with issues, diagnosed who don't take their meds or undiagnosed who perform perfectly find in society. Mental illness is not necessarily a precursor to violence. When I said crazy, I just meant their ideas were crazy, not that they were mentally ill. There are plenty of people who are not mentally ill who have ideas that go against the mainstream. Heck, take the South 50 years ago (or even today in some places).
'Gun violence and drug abuse are often presumed to go together, but we found no association between illegal drug use and death from gun violence at the state level. While it is commonly assumed that mental illness or stress levels trigger gun violence, we found no association between gun violence and the proportion of neurotic personalities in any given state."
Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).
Just look at the map in the above link. Guess what states have the strictest gun control? CT, CA, HI, NY, NJ, MA and RI. Most of those states have the lowest gun violence, despite many being states where people think the "gangs" are.
So you have no clue what you're saying at all. I think you should think before you type next time. I work the mentally ill and what you're suggesting is offensive.
Cookie? I was in the Army, and I'm telling you I don't need a bayonet lug or a 30 round mag to kill people efficiently, so you're clearly not hitting the mark. And I don't just mean we should treat the mentally ill, we should generally try to fix societal issues that increase the likelihood of people trying to kill people.
Also, you're really just coming off as an arrogant prick trying to bully me around with your "superior knowledge" right now, when, in fact, you (if you're telling the truth) only have superior knowledge of PART of the picture, which has always been part of the problem in the gun control debate. Partisanship and a refusal to compromise.
You want to really help if you think mental health is the underlying issue here? Then vote for people who support mental health funding. And guess who that is generally? Democrats! The same people who stand against gun control have been vehemently against mental health funding for years. The Conservative doctrine has been crystal clear on those issues for years. Did they not just try and stand up against basic healthcare for everyone when the ACA was passed? What makes you think they'll ever approve mental health funding, which is usually even more expensive and time consuming...
Don't ever forget that, funding is often the sole reason that some people who need help can't get it. I see it all the time, we are all one phone call away from being on our knees.
Again with ridiculous assumptions. You think that just because I believe guns aren't the problem I must be some hardcore right-wing fanatic, I would never vote for a democrat, and I can't think for myself and pick based on multiple issues.
Basically, overall, you've just filled a post with a lot of judgmental (and inaccurate) bilge, tried to cover it up with a little bit of data, and thrown around ad homs to try and make me look bad for being ok with guns and gun ownership.
People like you who take these sorts of stances (on both sides of the debate) are the main problem, it's why there's no rational reform, and no functional compromise. It's why we get useless measures or no measures.
What?
I never said you were a hardcore right-wing fanatic, that would never vote for a democrat, and that can't think and pick based on multiple issues. You just told me that I "filled a post with a lot of judgmental (and inaccurate) bilge" yet that is exactly what you just did. Re-read my post.
I was simply pointing out that conservative politicians have resisted funding mental health care for years, and if you believe that is the issue then I would suggest getting them out of office. It says nothing regarding whether or not you are a Democrat or Republican.
Now of course getting Republicans out of office means you'll incidentally vote for people who are more likely to support gun control. So that unfortunately leaves you with no good choice if you want to fund mental health, but don't want gun restrictions (and I am not saying anything about your personal preferences).
Let me start again and move more slowly... now your original post went after mental health as the issue and disregarded assault rifles... you can see that here:
Plain and simple: No assault rifles means potentially more people survive when a crazy person pulls out a gun. The
No (or fewer) undiagnosed crazy people means potentially more people survive regardless of what dangerous items are accessible.
So, in one broad stroke, if we do something to help with the healthcare side of things, we could actually fix all KINDS of violence, instead of just gun violence.
Seems like the better option to me.
So you said "no" to my statement regarding assault rifles and claimed that fewer undiagnosed crazy people means more survive a mass shooting, and that if we fixed mental health, we'd fix all kinds of violence "in one broad stroke."
So I countered with actual evidence that shows that while " it is commonly assumed that mental illness or stress levels trigger gun violence, we found no association between gun violence and the proportion of neurotic personalities in any given state" and that "we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45)"
And your counter is...
"Cookie? I was in the Army, and I'm telling you I don't need a bayonet lug or a 30 round mag to kill people efficiently, so you're clearly not hitting the mark. And I don't just mean we should treat the mentally ill, we should generally try to fix societal issues that increase the likelihood of people trying to kill people.
Also, you're really just coming off as an arrogant prick trying to bully me around with your "superior knowledge" right now"
I am a Cookie now? Well Milk, you're getting colored beige because I am dunking all over you. When you lose a game of SC2, you gg, thank your opponent for the lesson and leave. When you lose an argument, you should do the same the thing. If you don't, then your just being ignorant. And what you said above, is just ignorant. The fact you can kill people efficiently changes nothing, there is solid evidence of substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45)" There is no factual evidence that supports your claim, facts supports my claim.
And the final problem with your beliefs is that there is no good way to diagnose people with undiagnosed mental health issues, even if mental health issues were the problem. I gave a semi-serious attempt to resolve this issue by saying we could test people before they bought a gun, but there are a lot of issues with that too. And I reminded you the Newtown and Aurora shootings would not have been prevented at all with that kind of change. However if assault rifles were not available to the public, then it is possible not as many people would have died because less efficient weapons (handguns) would have been used.
Your response...
"See above (fix the buying process). Fixing the system is good. I do enjoy how you seem to be putting ridiculous rhetoric in my mouth. Part of fixing the system is avoiding corruption by either side."
So my response is think about this:
“I predict that people who are hunters and people who shoot guns for sport will be very anxious about identifying themselves as having sought any kind of mental health services for fear their guns will be taken away from them and they will no longer have that legal right,” Dr. Larry Gelman of Northern Illinois Counseling Associates in Crystal Lake said.
"While sometimes failing to keep violent people from obtaining the firearms, these laws also unfairly tar people with mental illnesses as dangerous", said Ronald Honberg, national director for policy and legal affairs at the National Alliance on Mental Illness. "Fear of putting their names into an FBI database might have a 'chilling effect' that would discourage individuals from seeking mental health services and would perpetuate the stigma that society needs to be protected from people with mental illnesses," he said.
Plain and simple: No assault rifles means potentially more people survive when a crazy person pulls out a gun. The
No (or fewer) undiagnosed crazy people means potentially more people survive regardless of what dangerous items are accessible.
So, in one broad stroke, if we do something to help with the healthcare side of things, we could actually fix all KINDS of violence, instead of just gun violence.
Seems like the better option to me.
I have a couple of thoughts on this.
-Historically, Republicans are not nearly as willing to fund mental health care initiatives as democrats. The same people who say 'don't regulate guns, improve mental health care' are the same people who often block improvements in mental health care.
-Gun violence is a problem with many causes. Mental health is one approach to reduce violence. Even if you were able to erase all mental health issues with government initiatives (which is impossible), you would not solve the problem of gun violence.
On January 19 2013 17:53 Introvert wrote: Please tell me how ANYONE would be safer when they don't have a gun. You would keep a gun out of the hands of 100 good people for the sake of maybe keeping it from 1. Also, if we were all armed, we would be safer. Is a criminal going to attack a meeting of the NRA or of a school? (history already speaks to that one). When a place has heavy gun laws, the criminals will go there since they have a better chance of success.
1) Acting as though ordinary citizens can react to crisis situations with level heads and perfect aim is extremely naive.
2) A gun pointed at you will always be faster than a gun you have to draw. Having a pistol in a holster will not stop a mugger from pointing a gun to your head and taking all of your money.
3) People who go on mass-shootings do not care about which is the "safest target", they do it for personal reasons. If the people in an NRA meeting sufficiently pissed off someone that's mentally unstable, they will attack the meeting.
4) Criminals will have success regardless of where they live. They also don't migrate to new areas because "pickings are slim". And other than the career criminals who go in and out of jails on a regular basis, most are not weighing the risk/reward factors of a crime...they commit a crime with no intent of being caught.
5) The safest way, on average, of handling a burglary or robbery is compliance. This is why major businesses have standing policy for regular employees not to confront shoplifters, and why banks are essentially told to hand over all the money to armed robbers. If you put a potentially dangerous individual in a corner, it greatly increases the chances that they become violent and hurt someone. If you follow their demands, the vast majority of times they will take the money and run.
On January 19 2013 16:58 v3chr0 wrote: Well, whether you like guns or dislike guns, he's right.
Most gun laws are excessive, and have little to no effect on criminals who DO NOT obey the laws. They pass these laws on gun control, which like I i said - do hardly nothing to stop criminals - it happens again - they do the same thing, except stricter regulations, and it'll keep continuing until you don't own a firearm, yet criminals will. I can guarantee you that wherever there is poverty there will be crime, and guns.
Yes, criminals own guns, and yes, criminals will continue to use guns regardless of the state of gun laws. However, arming every citizen in the country will not deter criminals either. Even in nations with completely lax gun restrictions, with massive military involvement in local security, gun related crimes, gang activity, etc. still exist in large numbers.
Of course, while you won't stop career criminals, you can prevent plenty of one-time criminals from causing a large amount of harm by restricting the resources they have immediate access to.
On January 19 2013 17:29 Introvert wrote: So basically you are saying that it is better to be a guaranteed victim then have a small chance of collateral damage.
This is a rather ignorant and amusing statement. The United States has a higher crime rate than many other 1st World nations that have much stricter gun laws. In other words, the "guarantee" of being a victim is higher in the US than nations like...Japan, where guns are completely illegal.
Care to respond to the rest of what I said? The only data point gun control advocates use is that of other countries, while ignoring cases like the UK and OUR VERY OWN COUNTRY.
Different counties are.. different. Like the UK. Massive gun control passes. Crime goes up. For the U.S., a lot of these crimes are committed in places like Chicago, where guns are heavily controlled. It all depends on where you live. For instance, I live in one the safest areas in the nation, but big cities will cancel out the stats of where I live. In the U.S., gun control has, at the very best, a neutral effect. The crime rate has regular fluctuations, no matter what. The gun crime rate is has gone down in the last decade since the expiration of the AWB. So you can point to Japan (where, if I recall, the police don't like to report or follow up on crime anyway, as the real numbers make the government look worse. I could be mis-remembering something tho).
Please tell me how ANYONE would be safer when they don't have a gun. You would keep a gun out of the hands of 100 good people for the sake of maybe keeping it from 1. Also, if we were all armed, we would be safer. Is a criminal going to attack a meeting of the NRA or of a school? (history already speaks to that one). When a place has heavy gun laws, the criminals will go there since they have a better chance of success.
I am not so convinced about many ideas you seem to take at face value. The biggest one being that guns make gun owners safer on average than unarmed people. I have tried looking up data but it seems to swing so heavily both ways that you need to spend ages looking into the background of each organization but in the end the data seemed to suggest something close to what I have always assumed (for Americans).
Guns raise stakes. There is some evidence that overall violent crime against strangers is reduced but when it does happen it is far more deadly (much higher homicide rates). This creates an interesting question in my mind regarding gun control. Which is the better world, one with 100 robberies and 10 murders or one with 20 robberies and 20 murders?
Did you look up how the stats on how many people are saved by guns? I'm fairly certain it's high as well. Again, I'm not sure how a gun increases the homicide rate (you have to compare within countries, remember). Can you show me what stats you are referencing? If you would like mine (like the one above), I can can provide them as well, just be specific. (or you can Google them, the evidence is everywhere).
As to your question, it's not that simple. I would ask the question: 100 murders prevented with more regulation vs 150 prevented with less regulation, for instance. The more guns in an area, the less likely criminals will try (just a guess of mine. if I was a criminal, that's how I would think). Also, I say if you want someone dead, a gun is just one way to do it (I believe more murders are committed with knives). So less guns=less gun crime, but maybe not less murder. I would like to see your (even muddled) research. You take one avenue away, there are more. For instance, you take away many guns (let's say you even manage to get them from criminals), now it's knife on knife instead of gun on gun. Great, nothing changed (well, you empowered the criminal).
There is just no good reason to punish the millions of good gun owners because of the nut jobs.
This is our problem, you have somehow established a causation relationship that I have seen NO evidence of. I am not saying that firearms make you less safe, if anything I am saying they are safety neutral. Just because the evidence isn't compelling enough to say guns make you less safe is not strong enough evidence to say they make you more safe.
States with Median Populations of Gun Owners 26. Oregon - 39.8% 27. Indiana - 39.1% 28. Nebraska - 38.6% 29. Michigan - 38.4% 30. Texas - 35.9% 31. Virginia - 35.1% 32. New Mexico - 34.8% 33. Colorado - 34.7% 33. Pennsylvania - 34.7% 35. Nevada - 33.8% 36. Washington - 33.1% 37. Ohio - 32.4% 38. Arizona - 31.1% 39. New Hampshire - 30.0%
States with Below Median Populations of Gun Owners 40. Delaware - 25.5% 41. Florida - 24.5% 42. California - 21.3% 42. Maryland - 21.3% 44. Illinois - 20.2% 45. New York - 18% - Violent Crimes Rank 22 - Murder Rank 29 46. Connecticut - 16.7% - Violent Crimes Rank 37 - Murder Rank 37 47. Rhode Island - 12.8% - Violent Crimes Rank 44 - Murder Rank 36 48. Massachusetts - 12.6% - Violent Crimes Rank 20 - Murder Rank 38 49. New Jersey - 12.3% - Violent Crimes Rank 47 - Murder Rank 27 50. Hawaii - 6.7% - Violent Crimes Rank 36 - Murder Rank 47
*Violent Crimes Rank comes from Census Bureau and Murder Rates are taken from the same year (2006)
Average Violent Crimes/Murder Ranks of Top Gun Ownership States = 33.13/31.25 Average Violent Crimes/Murder Ranks of Lowest Gun Ownership States = 34.3/35.67
This show a slight correlation between more guns and more violence but not enough to draw any real conclusion from and a far more significant correlation between more guns and more murder. This is where my original conclusion came from that since violent crime is essentially equal but murder is down in relatively gun free states then other violent crimes, such as robbery, are filling the void.
This is all data comparing Americans to Americans. The bottom of the chart even has states with huge urban centers which, for other reasons, we would expect to have significantly increased murder rates (NY, MA, NJ) so if anything this mitigates the impact guns have on murder rates.
At the end of the day if gun control is just trading murder for rape or whatever then we have to find a better way, but I disagree with your reasons for disagreeing
Edit: miscalculation fixed
Fair enough. Do you have the gun crime rate? And what are these ranks of? Violent crime per person or total number? I would like to see your source Also, why leave out Illinois? Murder rate there is most likely worth looking at just due to Chicago alone. But you include Hawaii, which being such a heavy tourist state is in a little bit of a different place. I would also love to know some stats on crime prevented with guns. (i am just so demanding!)
Further more, I would expect the differences to be small, for a simple reason. Crimes with "assault weapons" is very small. So when you have heavy gun laws that allow you to get the most commonly used weapon (handguns) while banning ones that hardly ever sees a crime scene, the change is going to be minimal.
So, since controlling AW doesn't do anything (as the AWB showed), it must be asked if banning handguns and the like would be ok. And that is where everything else I said comes into play (I didn't separate them originally, sorry). By everything else I mean: Americans right to firearms, to be as well armed as any potential attacker, situations where you might want more than 7 rounds in a magazine, the abstract "preparation to resist tyranny" (silly or not, this is one of the main reasons the founders wanted wrote the second amendment), if you ban all guns (and magically take them from the bad guys) then they all just use knives or something else (Timothy McVeigh).
As to the reasoning, I have already said gun control is neutral at best. I was making a theoretical argument (since that is basically what this thread has become). But my point is to show control ineffective with the stats anyone can find (though granted they are so common I haven't bothered adding them here) and show it to be a a bad idea in concept as well. The problem with crime stats is that they don't have a crime prevented stat next to them (though I think such stats exist).
I didn't get to say more of what I wanted to say, but I need to leave for a couple hours+. I shall return!
On January 19 2013 16:58 v3chr0 wrote: Well, whether you like guns or dislike guns, he's right.
Most gun laws are excessive, and have little to no effect on criminals who DO NOT obey the laws. They pass these laws on gun control, which like I i said - do hardly nothing to stop criminals - it happens again - they do the same thing, except stricter regulations, and it'll keep continuing until you don't own a firearm, yet criminals will. I can guarantee you that wherever there is poverty there will be crime, and guns.
Yes, criminals own guns, and yes, criminals will continue to use guns regardless of the state of gun laws. However, arming every citizen in the country will not deter criminals either. Even in nations with completely lax gun restrictions, with massive military involvement in local security, gun related crimes, gang activity, etc. still exist in large numbers.
Of course, while you won't stop career criminals, you can prevent plenty of one-time criminals from causing a large amount of harm by restricting the resources they have immediate access to.
On January 19 2013 17:29 Introvert wrote: So basically you are saying that it is better to be a guaranteed victim then have a small chance of collateral damage.
This is a rather ignorant and amusing statement. The United States has a higher crime rate than many other 1st World nations that have much stricter gun laws. In other words, the "guarantee" of being a victim is higher in the US than nations like...Japan, where guns are completely illegal.
Care to respond to the rest of what I said? The only data point gun control advocates use is that of other countries, while ignoring cases like the UK and OUR VERY OWN COUNTRY.
Different counties are.. different. Like the UK. Massive gun control passes. Crime goes up. For the U.S., a lot of these crimes are committed in places like Chicago, where guns are heavily controlled. It all depends on where you live. For instance, I live in one the safest areas in the nation, but big cities will cancel out the stats of where I live. In the U.S., gun control has, at the very best, a neutral effect. The crime rate has regular fluctuations, no matter what. The gun crime rate is has gone down in the last decade since the expiration of the AWB. So you can point to Japan (where, if I recall, the police don't like to report or follow up on crime anyway, as the real numbers make the government look worse. I could be mis-remembering something tho).
Please tell me how ANYONE would be safer when they don't have a gun. You would keep a gun out of the hands of 100 good people for the sake of maybe keeping it from 1. Also, if we were all armed, we would be safer. Is a criminal going to attack a meeting of the NRA or of a school? (history already speaks to that one). When a place has heavy gun laws, the criminals will go there since they have a better chance of success.
I am not so convinced about many ideas you seem to take at face value. The biggest one being that guns make gun owners safer on average than unarmed people. I have tried looking up data but it seems to swing so heavily both ways that you need to spend ages looking into the background of each organization but in the end the data seemed to suggest something close to what I have always assumed (for Americans).
Guns raise stakes. There is some evidence that overall violent crime against strangers is reduced but when it does happen it is far more deadly (much higher homicide rates). This creates an interesting question in my mind regarding gun control. Which is the better world, one with 100 robberies and 10 murders or one with 20 robberies and 20 murders?
Did you look up how the stats on how many people are saved by guns? I'm fairly certain it's high as well. Again, I'm not sure how a gun increases the homicide rate (you have to compare within countries, remember). Can you show me what stats you are referencing? If you would like mine (like the one above), I can can provide them as well, just be specific. (or you can Google them, the evidence is everywhere).
As to your question, it's not that simple. I would ask the question: 100 murders prevented with more regulation vs 150 prevented with less regulation, for instance. The more guns in an area, the less likely criminals will try (just a guess of mine. if I was a criminal, that's how I would think). Also, I say if you want someone dead, a gun is just one way to do it (I believe more murders are committed with knives). So less guns=less gun crime, but maybe not less murder. I would like to see your (even muddled) research. You take one avenue away, there are more. For instance, you take away many guns (let's say you even manage to get them from criminals), now it's knife on knife instead of gun on gun. Great, nothing changed (well, you empowered the criminal).
There is just no good reason to punish the millions of good gun owners because of the nut jobs.
This is our problem, you have somehow established a causation relationship that I have seen NO evidence of. I am not saying that firearms make you less safe, if anything I am saying they are safety neutral. Just because the evidence isn't compelling enough to say guns make you less safe is not strong enough evidence to say they make you more safe.
States with Median Populations of Gun Owners 26. Oregon - 39.8% 27. Indiana - 39.1% 28. Nebraska - 38.6% 29. Michigan - 38.4% 30. Texas - 35.9% 31. Virginia - 35.1% 32. New Mexico - 34.8% 33. Colorado - 34.7% 33. Pennsylvania - 34.7% 35. Nevada - 33.8% 36. Washington - 33.1% 37. Ohio - 32.4% 38. Arizona - 31.1% 39. New Hampshire - 30.0%
States with Below Median Populations of Gun Owners 40. Delaware - 25.5% 41. Florida - 24.5% 42. California - 21.3% 42. Maryland - 21.3% 44. Illinois - 20.2% 45. New York - 18% - Violent Crimes Rank 22 - Murder Rank 29 46. Connecticut - 16.7% - Violent Crimes Rank 37 - Murder Rank 37 47. Rhode Island - 12.8% - Violent Crimes Rank 44 - Murder Rank 36 48. Massachusetts - 12.6% - Violent Crimes Rank 20 - Murder Rank 38 49. New Jersey - 12.3% - Violent Crimes Rank 47 - Murder Rank 27 50. Hawaii - 6.7% - Violent Crimes Rank 36 - Murder Rank 47
*Violent Crimes Rank comes from Census Bureau and Murder Rates are taken from the same year (2006)
Average Violent Crimes/Murder Ranks of Top Gun Ownership States = 33.13/31.25 Average Violent Crimes/Murder Ranks of Lowest Gun Ownership States = 34.3/35.67
This show a slight correlation between more guns and more violence but not enough to draw any real conclusion from and a far more significant correlation between more guns and more murder. This is where my original conclusion came from that since violent crime is essentially equal but murder is down in relatively gun free states then other violent crimes, such as robbery, are filling the void.
This is all data comparing Americans to Americans. The bottom of the chart even has states with huge urban centers which, for other reasons, we would expect to have significantly increased murder rates (NY, MA, NJ) so if anything this mitigates the impact guns have on murder rates.
At the end of the day if gun control is just trading murder for rape or whatever then we have to find a better way, but I disagree with your reasons for disagreeing
Edit: miscalculation fixed
Fair enough. Do you have the gun crime rate? And what are these ranks of? Violent crime per person or total number? I would like to see your source Also, why leave out Illinois? Murder rate there is most likely worth looking at just due to Chicago alone. But you include Hawaii, which being such a heavy tourist state is in a little bit of a different place. I would also love to know some stats on crime prevented with guns. (i am just so demanding!)
Further more, I would expect the differences to be small, for a simple reason. Crimes with "assault weapons" is very small. So when you have heavy gun laws that allow you to get the most commonly used weapon (handguns) while banning ones that hardly ever sees a crime scene, the change is going to be minimal.
So, since controlling AW doesn't do anything (as the AWB showed), it must be asked if banning handguns and the like would be ok. And that is where everything else I said comes into play (I didn't separate them originally, sorry). By everything else I mean: Americans right to firearms, to be as well armed as any potential attacker, situations where you might want more than 7 rounds in a magazine, the abstract "preparation to resist tyranny" (silly or not, this is one of the main reasons the founders wanted wrote the second amendment), if you ban all guns (and magically take them from the bad guys) then they all just use knives or something else (Timothy McVeigh).
As to the reasoning, I have already said gun control is neutral at best. I was making a theoretical argument (since that is basically what this thread has become). But my point is to show control ineffective with the stats anyone can find (though granted they are so common I haven't bothered adding them here) and show it to be a a bad idea in concept as well. The problem with crime stats is that they don't have a crime prevented stat next to them (though I think such stats exist).
I didn't get to say more of what I wanted to say, but I need to leave for a couple hours+. I shall return!
All stats are done on a per-capita basis of course otherwise it would be impossible to create a meaningful rank. I left out Illinois for the same reason I didnt include Alabama, you need a sample big enough to drown out local phenomena but the greater the difference in firearm proliferation the stronger the correlation that can be derived. Hawaii was actually a surprise to me when I saw it since the islands have such a dramatic and well documented crystal meth problem. Anyways, with New York City and Boston on the bottom it has a MUCH greater urban population than the top states.
The gun violence rates and gun related civilian murder/violent crime prevention are largely irrelevant for reasons you keep stating in your posts. If guns are preventing a significant percentage of homicides while the homicide rates do not reflect this impact then this means that states with guns have a proportionately greater number of attempted murders which we would see in the violent crimes numbers. This tells us nothing about how many minor crimes guns prevent but that the reduction in serious crime is negligible.
Gun violence values also don't matter since it is outcomes we seek to prevent. The numbers say the same thing whether the gun violence statistic is 100% or 0%. That is that guns do not make us safer or in more danger of violent crime. Murder appears more likely with more guns but other violent crimes seem more likely with less.
It's a judgement call and as far as I can tell the data you asked for doesn't add to this deductive process.
1) Acting as though ordinary citizens can react to crisis situations with level heads and perfect aim is extremely naive.
Examples of ordinary citizens reacting to a crisis situation by randomly spraying bullets?
Oh wait, that's the police who routinely spray bullets around and hit innocent bystanders, or fill 1 suspect full of 20 holes while firing 100+ rounds...
Not "ordinary citizens."
2) A gun pointed at you will always be faster than a gun you have to draw. Having a pistol in a holster will not stop a mugger from pointing a gun to your head and taking all of your money.
This is not an argument against having guns.
3) People who go on mass-shootings do not care about which is the "safest target", they do it for personal reasons. If the people in an NRA meeting sufficiently pissed off someone that's mentally unstable, they will attack the meeting.
*snort*
Yeah, that's why they keep picking schools and restaurants and shopping malls. The fact that they never pick an NRA meeting, or a police station, or a shooting range, or a federal or state building, or any other place where there is a high likelihood of lots of people with guns around, that doesn't mean anything, because you say so.
4) Criminals will have success regardless of where they live. They also don't migrate to new areas because "pickings are slim". And other than the career criminals who go in and out of jails on a regular basis, most are not weighing the risk/reward factors of a crime...they commit a crime with no intent of being caught.
So far you're 4 for 4 on saying things that aren't true or are meaningless. Criminals do move around to new areas based on the economic health of an area, particularly professional criminals. Low-level, unorganized criminals don't move around much, but they will hit different areas in their hometown region based on intensity of police patrols, wealth of an area, etc.
5) The safest way, on average, of handling a burglary or robbery is compliance. This is why major businesses have standing policy for regular employees not to confront shoplifters, and why banks are essentially told to hand over all the money to armed robbers. If you put a potentially dangerous individual in a corner, it greatly increases the chances that they become violent and hurt someone. If you follow their demands, the vast majority of times they will take the money and run.
*snort*
The safest way, on average... you got a study there?
The reason businesses say to not fight back is because of fear of lawsuits and nothing else. Not because it's "safer." Safer from liability, maybe.
The safest way to deal with a burglary or robbery is dependent on the circumstances when you confront/are confronted by the burglar/robber. The biggest factor is that the criminal is usually more willing to try to inflict physical harm and gets an advantage by using force first.
"Joseph Kelley, Utah Man, Takes Rifle To J.C. Penney To Show Guns Can Be Safe"
A Utah man brought a rifle and a pistol with him to a J.C. Penney department store to demonstrate that guns can be safe in the hands of law-abiding citizens.
On Wednesday, Cindy Yorgason was shopping at the J.C. Penney in Riverdale when she saw a man with a rifle slung across his chest, extra ammunition and a sidearm in a holster on his right hip, according to KSL 5 TV. She took some photos and posted them to Facebook, where images quickly went viral.
"He was in the wrong place and shouldn't be doing this at this location," Yorgason told KSL, adding that she didn't feel threatened at the time.
The rifle-toting shopper was later identified as 22-year-old Joseph Kelley. He revealed that he was carrying an unloaded AR-15 and the handgun was a loaded Glock 19C, according to The Salt Lake Tribune, adding that he is a firm believer in the Second Amendment.
He said he brought the guns to J.C. Penney to show that firearms are not dangerous in the hands of law-abiding citizens.
"I felt no negative vibes from anyone," Kelley told the Tribune. "I think it went rather surprisingly well."
He said he carries weapons with him in order to protect children and others from "criminals, cartels, drug lords" and other "evil men."
Kelley is not the only one to openly carry firearms in a pro-Second Amendment demonstration -- a move gun advocates have made since President Barack Obama's push for stricter gun control legislation in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
Earlier this month, Warren Drouin and Steven Boyce of Portland, Ore., walked down a main street in the northwest city carrying their assault rifles. They said they were exercising the Second Amendment and hoped to educate the public on gun rights.
Drouin said he wanted bystanders to talk to them, not call the police.
"What they really should do is observe the person to determine if the person is aggressive. We're not doing anything threatening to anyone," he said.
Carrying firearms in public is legal in Oregon and carrying a concealed handgun is also legal with a valid license, according to KPTV.
If Kelley had walked into the store with no firearms on him, no one would even remember that he was there. But since he happened to walk in that day with an AR-15, Glock, and ammo on him visible to the public, he's suddenly someone to be feared and labeled as insane. From what I can tell, he did nothing differently at the store than every other peace-loving citizen would do, and he committed no crime. Carrying a firearm openly suddenly turned their portrayal of this man from an ordinary citizen into a terrifying, "unstable" monster.
Plain and simple: No assault rifles means potentially more people survive when a crazy person pulls out a gun. The
No (or fewer) undiagnosed crazy people means potentially more people survive regardless of what dangerous items are accessible.
So, in one broad stroke, if we do something to help with the healthcare side of things, we could actually fix all KINDS of violence, instead of just gun violence.
Seems like the better option to me.
First, what I said was true. Assault rifles are more efficient weapons than most other firearms in most circumstances (otherwise they would not be the preferred firearm for infantry in armies!), so if there wasn't an assault rifle involved in any given shooting, the number of victims likely goes down.
The features that make an "assault weapon" (the difference exists, stop calling them assault rifles), are not the features that make it more efficient for killing. In fact, the typical civilian AR is better than an Army issue M4, but that's just bad defense procurement. A bayonet lug is irrelevant in a shooting, otherwise it would be a school bayonetting. High cap mags are a convenience, nothing stops you from carrying more magazines, and a lot of drums actually have misfeeding trouble.
Actually, if I wanted to do a lot of damage, I'd pick a scoped bolt action, like a Remington 700, which is most definitely not going to fit the arbitrary definition of "assault weapon". It's actually a popular sniper platform for military and paramilitary organizations. I'd likely net more victims that way. And, as has been pointed out multiple times, handguns tend to be a rather common platform for shootings, due to being easily concealed, banning "assault weapons" for cosmetic and convenience features wouldn't stop those in the slightest.
Second, there will always be mass shootings, we can't avoid that. What we can avoid is giving mass shooters assault rifles.
So you advocate treating symptoms. With arbitrary restrictions.
Third, how you do we suggest we diagnose the mentally ill? We round up everyone and test them and diagnose for mental illness, then forcibly treat those who are ill, or deny them access to firearms and this idea somehow tramples on our rights less than banning assault rifles? Is that a joke?
Or we fix the process of buying a gun. I've never said it isn't too easy.
Did you not know that Newtown shooter got his rifle from his mother who got it legally? And the Auora shooter got his rifle legally too? So they were perfectly fine mentally until the shooting... how are we supposed to know without testing people rigorously before they purchase a weapon? And what if the test is biased or flawed, and people are denied their right to own a weapon due to error, does that not trample someone's rights?
See above. Fixing the system is good. I do enjoy how you seem to be putting ridiculous rhetoric in my mouth. Part of fixing the system is avoiding corruption by either side.
Bud, I work in a psychiatric hospital 5 days a week. I work with the mentally ill. There are plenty of people with issues, diagnosed who don't take their meds or undiagnosed who perform perfectly find in society. Mental illness is not necessarily a precursor to violence. When I said crazy, I just meant their ideas were crazy, not that they were mentally ill. There are plenty of people who are not mentally ill who have ideas that go against the mainstream. Heck, take the South 50 years ago (or even today in some places).
'Gun violence and drug abuse are often presumed to go together, but we found no association between illegal drug use and death from gun violence at the state level. While it is commonly assumed that mental illness or stress levels trigger gun violence, we found no association between gun violence and the proportion of neurotic personalities in any given state."
Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).
Just look at the map in the above link. Guess what states have the strictest gun control? CT, CA, HI, NY, NJ, MA and RI. Most of those states have the lowest gun violence, despite many being states where people think the "gangs" are.
So you have no clue what you're saying at all. I think you should think before you type next time. I work the mentally ill and what you're suggesting is offensive.
Cookie? I was in the Army, and I'm telling you I don't need a bayonet lug or a 30 round mag to kill people efficiently, so you're clearly not hitting the mark. And I don't just mean we should treat the mentally ill, we should generally try to fix societal issues that increase the likelihood of people trying to kill people.
Also, you're really just coming off as an arrogant prick trying to bully me around with your "superior knowledge" right now, when, in fact, you (if you're telling the truth) only have superior knowledge of PART of the picture, which has always been part of the problem in the gun control debate. Partisanship and a refusal to compromise.
You want to really help if you think mental health is the underlying issue here? Then vote for people who support mental health funding. And guess who that is generally? Democrats! The same people who stand against gun control have been vehemently against mental health funding for years. The Conservative doctrine has been crystal clear on those issues for years. Did they not just try and stand up against basic healthcare for everyone when the ACA was passed? What makes you think they'll ever approve mental health funding, which is usually even more expensive and time consuming...
Don't ever forget that, funding is often the sole reason that some people who need help can't get it. I see it all the time, we are all one phone call away from being on our knees.
Again with ridiculous assumptions. You think that just because I believe guns aren't the problem I must be some hardcore right-wing fanatic, I would never vote for a democrat, and I can't think for myself and pick based on multiple issues.
Basically, overall, you've just filled a post with a lot of judgmental (and inaccurate) bilge, tried to cover it up with a little bit of data, and thrown around ad homs to try and make me look bad for being ok with guns and gun ownership.
People like you who take these sorts of stances (on both sides of the debate) are the main problem, it's why there's no rational reform, and no functional compromise. It's why we get useless measures or no measures.
What?
I never said you were a hardcore right-wing fanatic, that would never vote for a democrat, and that can't think and pick based on multiple issues. You just told me that I "filled a post with a lot of judgmental (and inaccurate) bilge" yet that is exactly what you just did. Re-read my post.
It was implicit, don't try to say now it wasn't intended to be exactly that. I fully doubt a person who works in mental health would fail to consider their words.
I was simply pointing out that conservative politicians have resisted funding mental health care for years, and if you believe that is the issue then I would suggest getting them out of office. It says nothing regarding whether or not you are a Democrat or Republican.
Now of course getting Republicans out of office means you'll incidentally vote for people who are more likely to support gun control. So that unfortunately leaves you with no good choice if you want to fund mental health, but don't want gun restrictions (and I am not saying anything about your personal preferences).
Let me start again and move more slowly... now your original post went after mental health as the issue and disregarded assault rifles... you can see that here:
Plain and simple: No assault rifles means potentially more people survive when a crazy person pulls out a gun. The
No (or fewer) undiagnosed crazy people means potentially more people survive regardless of what dangerous items are accessible.
So, in one broad stroke, if we do something to help with the healthcare side of things, we could actually fix all KINDS of violence, instead of just gun violence.
Seems like the better option to me.
So you said "no" to my statement regarding assault rifles and claimed that fewer undiagnosed crazy people means more survive a mass shooting, and that if we fixed mental health, we'd fix all kinds of violence "in one broad stroke."
Actually, no, I said that it will reduce random acts of violence. Since most people accept that "real" criminals would still have access to guns if guns were illegal, banning any form of firearm would be to reduce the "random" actions. And those would, likely, be reduced by a better system.
So I countered with actual evidence that shows that while " it is commonly assumed that mental illness or stress levels trigger gun violence, we found no association between gun violence and the proportion of neurotic personalities in any given state" and that "we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45)"
And your counter is...
"Cookie? I was in the Army, and I'm telling you I don't need a bayonet lug or a 30 round mag to kill people efficiently, so you're clearly not hitting the mark. And I don't just mean we should treat the mentally ill, we should generally try to fix societal issues that increase the likelihood of people trying to kill people.
Also, you're really just coming off as an arrogant prick trying to bully me around with your "superior knowledge" right now"
Why is it about gun violence, rather than violence? Let's call a spade a spade, violence is bad. And I quite frankly am not going to step into a war of "who can find a source that says what" on the internet, in a highly politicized debate. If you need to try and prevent a debate on the actual merits of gun control from happening in a thread to debate the merits of gun control, you might want to make a thread dedicated to the destigmatization of mental illness.
You calling shooters crazy spurred this whole bit to begin with, so the base assumption that we were discussing crazy people committing acts of violence isn't particularly far-fetched.
I am a Cookie now? Well Milk, you're getting colored beige because I am dunking all over you. When you lose a game of SC2, you gg, thank your opponent for the lesson and leave. When you lose an argument, you should do the same the thing. If you don't, then your just being ignorant. And what you said above, is just ignorant. The fact you can kill people efficiently changes nothing, there is solid evidence of substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45)" There is no factual evidence that supports your claim, facts supports my claim.
It's common shorthand for "do you want a cookie?" It's intended to suggest that you have not, in fact, impressed me with your claim, because you're trying to use knowledge in one area to avoid needing knowledge in the area actually under discussion.
I explained to you that the arbitrarily defined "assault weapons" (again, assault rifles are already banned nearly completely) aren't as relevant or vital to mass killing as you seem to believe. Based on actual knowledge and experience. Something you seem to expect people to instantly defer to, and thus, shouldn't debate yourself.
The ability to affix a bayonet does NOT make a rifle shoot people more effectively. Pretty uncomplicated concept.
And the final problem with your beliefs is that there is no good way to diagnose people with undiagnosed mental health issues, even if mental health issues were the problem. I gave a semi-serious attempt to resolve this issue by saying we could test people before they bought a gun, but there are a lot of issues with that too. And I reminded you the Newtown and Aurora shootings would not have been prevented at all with that kind of change. However if assault rifles were not available to the public, then it is possible not as many people would have died because less efficient weapons (handguns) would have been used.
Your response...
"See above (fix the buying process). Fixing the system is good. I do enjoy how you seem to be putting ridiculous rhetoric in my mouth. Part of fixing the system is avoiding corruption by either side."
So my response is think about this:
“I predict that people who are hunters and people who shoot guns for sport will be very anxious about identifying themselves as having sought any kind of mental health services for fear their guns will be taken away from them and they will no longer have that legal right,” Dr. Larry Gelman of Northern Illinois Counseling Associates in Crystal Lake said.
"While sometimes failing to keep violent people from obtaining the firearms, these laws also unfairly tar people with mental illnesses as dangerous", said Ronald Honberg, national director for policy and legal affairs at the National Alliance on Mental Illness. "Fear of putting their names into an FBI database might have a 'chilling effect' that would discourage individuals from seeking mental health services and would perpetuate the stigma that society needs to be protected from people with mental illnesses," he said.
What else is there to say?
And see, this is actually a valid sort of point. Finally. But it doesn't automatically mean anything. (Except that you still insist on calling anything black an assault rifle). Newtown could have been prevented (or mitigated), potentially, if Lanza's mother had considered the fact that her firearms weren't sufficiently secured to prevent someone who was not deemed legally fit to own a gun, hence not being permitted to purchase one from getting ahold of them.
That, then, is just one example of one of the places laws could be fixed without trying to instantly make hundreds of thousands, or millions, of Americans into felons overnight.
Is it possible to fix things to stop all gun violence without getting 100% of guns out of circulation (including government circulation) in all countries? No.
Now, here's a real question. Why do we focus on gun violence? Shouldn't we focus on recognizing and mitigating risk factors for any source of violence? But no, we focus on guns, because it's easy to polarize people on it. If I get beat to death with a baseball bat, or stabbed to death, am I less dead because I wasn't shot?
I don't expect us to be able to fix all of society's problems. And that is why I own a gun. For all the "what if" situations I can't anticipate, and that nobody can fix.
On January 19 2013 16:58 v3chr0 wrote: Well, whether you like guns or dislike guns, he's right.
Most gun laws are excessive, and have little to no effect on criminals who DO NOT obey the laws. They pass these laws on gun control, which like I i said - do hardly nothing to stop criminals - it happens again - they do the same thing, except stricter regulations, and it'll keep continuing until you don't own a firearm, yet criminals will. I can guarantee you that wherever there is poverty there will be crime, and guns.
Yes, criminals own guns, and yes, criminals will continue to use guns regardless of the state of gun laws. However, arming every citizen in the country will not deter criminals either. Even in nations with completely lax gun restrictions, with massive military involvement in local security, gun related crimes, gang activity, etc. still exist in large numbers.
Of course, while you won't stop career criminals, you can prevent plenty of one-time criminals from causing a large amount of harm by restricting the resources they have immediate access to.
On January 19 2013 17:29 Introvert wrote: So basically you are saying that it is better to be a guaranteed victim then have a small chance of collateral damage.
This is a rather ignorant and amusing statement. The United States has a higher crime rate than many other 1st World nations that have much stricter gun laws. In other words, the "guarantee" of being a victim is higher in the US than nations like...Japan, where guns are completely illegal.
Care to respond to the rest of what I said? The only data point gun control advocates use is that of other countries, while ignoring cases like the UK and OUR VERY OWN COUNTRY.
Different counties are.. different. Like the UK. Massive gun control passes. Crime goes up. For the U.S., a lot of these crimes are committed in places like Chicago, where guns are heavily controlled. It all depends on where you live. For instance, I live in one the safest areas in the nation, but big cities will cancel out the stats of where I live. In the U.S., gun control has, at the very best, a neutral effect. The crime rate has regular fluctuations, no matter what. The gun crime rate is has gone down in the last decade since the expiration of the AWB. So you can point to Japan (where, if I recall, the police don't like to report or follow up on crime anyway, as the real numbers make the government look worse. I could be mis-remembering something tho).
Please tell me how ANYONE would be safer when they don't have a gun. You would keep a gun out of the hands of 100 good people for the sake of maybe keeping it from 1. Also, if we were all armed, we would be safer. Is a criminal going to attack a meeting of the NRA or of a school? (history already speaks to that one). When a place has heavy gun laws, the criminals will go there since they have a better chance of success.
I am not so convinced about many ideas you seem to take at face value. The biggest one being that guns make gun owners safer on average than unarmed people. I have tried looking up data but it seems to swing so heavily both ways that you need to spend ages looking into the background of each organization but in the end the data seemed to suggest something close to what I have always assumed (for Americans).
Guns raise stakes. There is some evidence that overall violent crime against strangers is reduced but when it does happen it is far more deadly (much higher homicide rates). This creates an interesting question in my mind regarding gun control. Which is the better world, one with 100 robberies and 10 murders or one with 20 robberies and 20 murders?
Did you look up how the stats on how many people are saved by guns? I'm fairly certain it's high as well. Again, I'm not sure how a gun increases the homicide rate (you have to compare within countries, remember). Can you show me what stats you are referencing? If you would like mine (like the one above), I can can provide them as well, just be specific. (or you can Google them, the evidence is everywhere).
As to your question, it's not that simple. I would ask the question: 100 murders prevented with more regulation vs 150 prevented with less regulation, for instance. The more guns in an area, the less likely criminals will try (just a guess of mine. if I was a criminal, that's how I would think). Also, I say if you want someone dead, a gun is just one way to do it (I believe more murders are committed with knives). So less guns=less gun crime, but maybe not less murder. I would like to see your (even muddled) research. You take one avenue away, there are more. For instance, you take away many guns (let's say you even manage to get them from criminals), now it's knife on knife instead of gun on gun. Great, nothing changed (well, you empowered the criminal).
There is just no good reason to punish the millions of good gun owners because of the nut jobs.
This is our problem, you have somehow established a causation relationship that I have seen NO evidence of. I am not saying that firearms make you less safe, if anything I am saying they are safety neutral. Just because the evidence isn't compelling enough to say guns make you less safe is not strong enough evidence to say they make you more safe.
States with Median Populations of Gun Owners 26. Oregon - 39.8% 27. Indiana - 39.1% 28. Nebraska - 38.6% 29. Michigan - 38.4% 30. Texas - 35.9% 31. Virginia - 35.1% 32. New Mexico - 34.8% 33. Colorado - 34.7% 33. Pennsylvania - 34.7% 35. Nevada - 33.8% 36. Washington - 33.1% 37. Ohio - 32.4% 38. Arizona - 31.1% 39. New Hampshire - 30.0%
States with Below Median Populations of Gun Owners 40. Delaware - 25.5% 41. Florida - 24.5% 42. California - 21.3% 42. Maryland - 21.3% 44. Illinois - 20.2% 45. New York - 18% - Violent Crimes Rank 22 - Murder Rank 29 46. Connecticut - 16.7% - Violent Crimes Rank 37 - Murder Rank 37 47. Rhode Island - 12.8% - Violent Crimes Rank 44 - Murder Rank 36 48. Massachusetts - 12.6% - Violent Crimes Rank 20 - Murder Rank 38 49. New Jersey - 12.3% - Violent Crimes Rank 47 - Murder Rank 27 50. Hawaii - 6.7% - Violent Crimes Rank 36 - Murder Rank 47
*Violent Crimes Rank comes from Census Bureau and Murder Rates are taken from the same year (2006)
Average Violent Crimes/Murder Ranks of Top Gun Ownership States = 33.13/31.25 Average Violent Crimes/Murder Ranks of Lowest Gun Ownership States = 34.3/35.67
This show a slight correlation between more guns and more violence but not enough to draw any real conclusion from and a far more significant correlation between more guns and more murder. This is where my original conclusion came from that since violent crime is essentially equal but murder is down in relatively gun free states then other violent crimes, such as robbery, are filling the void.
This is all data comparing Americans to Americans. The bottom of the chart even has states with huge urban centers which, for other reasons, we would expect to have significantly increased murder rates (NY, MA, NJ) so if anything this mitigates the impact guns have on murder rates.
At the end of the day if gun control is just trading murder for rape or whatever then we have to find a better way, but I disagree with your reasons for disagreeing
Edit: miscalculation fixed
Fair enough. Do you have the gun crime rate? And what are these ranks of? Violent crime per person or total number? I would like to see your source Also, why leave out Illinois? Murder rate there is most likely worth looking at just due to Chicago alone. But you include Hawaii, which being such a heavy tourist state is in a little bit of a different place. I would also love to know some stats on crime prevented with guns. (i am just so demanding!)
Further more, I would expect the differences to be small, for a simple reason. Crimes with "assault weapons" is very small. So when you have heavy gun laws that allow you to get the most commonly used weapon (handguns) while banning ones that hardly ever sees a crime scene, the change is going to be minimal.
So, since controlling AW doesn't do anything (as the AWB showed), it must be asked if banning handguns and the like would be ok. And that is where everything else I said comes into play (I didn't separate them originally, sorry). By everything else I mean: Americans right to firearms, to be as well armed as any potential attacker, situations where you might want more than 7 rounds in a magazine, the abstract "preparation to resist tyranny" (silly or not, this is one of the main reasons the founders wanted wrote the second amendment), if you ban all guns (and magically take them from the bad guys) then they all just use knives or something else (Timothy McVeigh).
As to the reasoning, I have already said gun control is neutral at best. I was making a theoretical argument (since that is basically what this thread has become). But my point is to show control ineffective with the stats anyone can find (though granted they are so common I haven't bothered adding them here) and show it to be a a bad idea in concept as well. The problem with crime stats is that they don't have a crime prevented stat next to them (though I think such stats exist).
I didn't get to say more of what I wanted to say, but I need to leave for a couple hours+. I shall return!
All stats are done on a per-capita basis of course otherwise it would be impossible to create a meaningful rank. I left out Illinois for the same reason I didnt include Alabama, you need a sample big enough to drown out local phenomena but the greater the difference in firearm proliferation the stronger the correlation that can be derived. Hawaii was actually a surprise to me when I saw it since the islands have such a dramatic and well documented crystal meth problem. Anyways, with New York City and Boston on the bottom it has a MUCH greater urban population than the top states.
The gun violence rates and gun related civilian murder/violent crime prevention are largely irrelevant for reasons you keep stating in your posts. If guns are preventing a significant percentage of homicides while the homicide rates do not reflect this impact then this means that states with guns have a proportionately greater number of attempted murders which we would see in the violent crimes numbers. This tells us nothing about how many minor crimes guns prevent but that the reduction in serious crime is negligible.
Gun violence values also don't matter since it is outcomes we seek to prevent. The numbers say the same thing whether the gun violence statistic is 100% or 0%. That is that guns do not make us safer or in more danger of violent crime. Murder appears more likely with more guns but other violent crimes seem more likely with less.
It's a judgement call and as far as I can tell the data you asked for doesn't add to this deductive process.
Thought it was per capita, it would be the only way that makes sense. Do you have the link for this info, however? I would like to look at it. I admit, I don't know, for instance, if the violent crime stat you mentioned counts attempts or just successes. I think the most scientifically interesting thing to do would be to change the laws for a set amount of time for every state (in a meaningful way) and compare it to the state's stats from before.
Now I have a little more time, so let me explain this. 1. Banning AW will have no effect on the crime/murder rate. 2. State by state comparisons are not helpful with limited data (for instance, if minorities or black areas have higher rates and a state has more of these areas, the numbers change then as well). More research needs to be done on this topic. Your comparison of the numbers, for what it is worth, is well taken. 3. Comparison's across countries are not useful. Though I would still contend the example of the UK is helpful just because of the scope of what they changed and the fact that the laws didn't really vary area by area (to my knowledge). But because it is not the US, this needs to be taken with a grain of salt. 4. There are many instances of self-defense, not reported for obvious reasons. Even the homicide rate is falling almost everywhere, despite no new, large laws (that I am aware of). Interesting to note that the number of guns owned per capita has increased, as well. http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/kleckandgertz1.htm http://www.ocregister.com/articles/gun-366250-guns-ice.html http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2013/0103/A-look-at-America-s-gun-industry
(Please note: 1995. Finding stats on these types of things is a little harder. These were found with just a quick Google search) Statistical Conclusion: Gun control is, at the very best, negligible, at the worst, a bad thing. Cannot be said to have any sort of meaningful (or even otherwise) positive impact. Things are very complex, and trying to tie violence down to guns and access to them alone is dangerous.
So, now on to theory. 1. Americans do use them for self-defense. Why take guns from the good guys when it hurts them more than the bad guys? 2. It is no one's business to decide what gun or how many I am allowed to have (though there are restrictions, as it is almost impossible to get a "real" assault rifle. Still possible, however.) 3. You ban the guns, then they use something else. If they use anything else, the good person is at a disadvantage. Think a trained gunman in a 1v3 compared to a guy with a kitchen knife vs 3 kitchen knives. (we must remember, we can't all be Neo ) 4. There is an article in the Constitution that allows Americans to own arms for a multitude of reasons: Self-defense, protection against government, hunting, and sport. This is part of the Right to Life (Liberty and pursuit of Happiness...). This must first be changed to outright outlaw anything (any restriction should be debated on very carefully.)
This is my basic argument. My interest in the this thread is failing, as I feel this response summary is plenty good enough for a thread on a Starcraft forum.
On January 19 2013 15:41 gDubS91 wrote: There is no reason why citizens should not be able to possess FIREARMS. Guns dont kill people, its the person that pulls the trigger that is the culprit in trying to end anothers' life.
This quote is like EVERYWHERE. But it dosnt really make sense to me. Same could be said about nuclear weapons.. nuclear weapons dont kill people... (its the people who lunch the nuclear weapons)... so.. Nuclear weapons should be legal !!?!
On January 19 2013 15:41 gDubS91 wrote: There is no reason why citizens should not be able to possess FIREARMS. Guns dont kill people, its the person that pulls the trigger that is the culprit in trying to end anothers' life.
This quote is like EVERYWHERE. But it dosnt really make sense to me. Same logic could be be used on nuclear weapons.. nuclear weapons dont kill people... (its the people who lunch the nuclear weapons)... so.. Nuclear weapons should be legal !!?
The legality of nuclear weapons is a moot point... it's so difficult to obtain one, and if you do pull off getting one, you've basically made it legal, because even the warmongering United States would rather use diplomacy rather than military action to take it away from you. Hence why everyone in America's crosshairs is so eager to obtain one, even though it's against international law for them to develop one. It's a guarantee that you'll be left alone.
Same principle stands when you own a gun. If you're a criminal, you'd rather attack an unarmed target, and think twice about attacking a gunowner. That's why all the massacres occur at so called "gun-free" zones. You see way more mass shootings at "gun-free zones" and rarely see see them at gun ranges, gun shows or police stations, even though there is a high concentration of guns there. Coincidence?
What is clear, control of gun proliferation in a developed country is possible. There seems to be an identifiable trend line between gun proliferation and deaths by gun shots. Of course, correlation is not causation, but a causal relationship is suggested here.
Of course, all deaths due to gun violence in the US are relatively insignificant next to deaths due to heart disease, malnutrition, and vehicle accidents.
I dislike how so many posts here come armed with whatever talking point that resonated with a person. I would prefer that people try to apply facts and figures and dig into the complexity. Moreover, I don't hear solutions for general gun violence from gun proponents. For school shootings, the notion of armed guards in schools is a laughable expense that may or may not save less than 100 lives a year, when that very same money could save tens of thousands of lives a year in malnutrition or health care.
On January 21 2013 01:48 agitprop wrote: Moreover, I don't hear solutions for general gun violence from gun proponents. For school shootings, the notion of armed guards in schools is a laughable expense that may or may not save less than 100 lives a year, when that very same money could save tens of thousands of lives a year in malnutrition or health care.
Agit
Most gun owners don't know how to make people not want to do bad things. We can stop them in the act, but we can't prevent them. Why? The same reason people who don't own guns can't prevent them from trying.
If you don't find and mitigate the actual triggers, removing the tools isn't going to stop anything, it will just change the tools.
Your point I bolded, I sort of agree with. However, let's just generally expand it to gun control. Gun control measures certainly wouldn't be free, the more extreme, the more expensive. Focusing all the time, money, and energy on just guns is ridiculous when there's still people out there who want to do bad things.
Now, does this mean that I think that we should just ignore gun violence? No. It means that I think we should seek to curb violent crime as a whole.
Now, people can sit there and argue "oh, but more dead is worse than less dead with more injured", but that doesn't even begin to account for emotional trauma, and frankly, I doubt parents of stabbed children (or stabbed children for that matter) just instantly get their mental and physical well-being back because they were "only" stabbed.
Sure, less dead, laudable goal. But less violence and crime in general seems like a better goal to me. What if we could get less dead, less stabbed, less raped, less robbed, for the same budget and energy that we could otherwise dedicate to a couple hundred fewer people shot each year?
I'm not saying this to marginalize the victims of tragedy. I'm pointing to the absolute reality of the situation. The fact of the matter is, gun violence is a symptom, along with rape, burglary, assault, stabbings, muggings, and dozens of other crimes. The disease isn't "Gun ownership", it's "Fucked up people".
If we can fix our fucked up people, guns will just be another expensive hobby.
What is clear, control of gun proliferation in a developed country is possible. There seems to be an identifiable trend line between gun proliferation and deaths by gun shots. Of course, correlation is not causation, but a causal relationship is suggested here.
Of course, all deaths due to gun violence in the US are relatively insignificant next to deaths due to heart disease, malnutrition, and vehicle accidents.
I dislike how so many posts here come armed with whatever talking point that resonated with a person. I would prefer that people try to apply facts and figures and dig into the complexity. Moreover, I don't hear solutions for general gun violence from gun proponents. For school shootings, the notion of armed guards in schools is a laughable expense that may or may not save less than 100 lives a year, when that very same money could save tens of thousands of lives a year in malnutrition or health care.
Agit
I'd be curious to see the same chart with "gun murders" on the y-axis rather than "gun deaths." If you were to remove suicides and self defense related gun deaths from the US tally, I think you'd see that graph move closer to the x-axis for the US data point. I'd also like to see a graph of the ratio of deaths to ownership vs ownership, and I'm curious to see why a country like Yemen isn't on this chart, even though it comes second to the United States in gun ownership per capita. I'd also like to see a version of this graph regarding automobile related deaths vs ownership, and see what sort of conclusions we can come up with based on that.
TBH I think the best way to reduce gun violence while preserving the right to self defense is to rethink our culture in general, and not just gun culture. I don't believe that if you doubled gun ownership in Japan that violence would suddenly double, nor do I believe that if you halved gun ownership in the United States that violence would be cut in half as well. Unfortunately, our society does teach that violence solves problems, so it's non wonder we see so much violence. I think parents should actually raise their children, rather than having an electronic box or an overpaid babysitter do it. Of course, no one likes this solution because it actually involves people taking responsibility, rather than placing the blame on inanimate objects.
EPT
Also, why leave out Illinois? Murder rate there is most likely worth looking at just due to Chicago alone. But you include Hawaii, which being such a heavy tourist state is in a little bit of a different place. I would also love to know some stats on crime prevented with guns. (i am just so demanding!)
