Thanks to the NRA and many other Americans, the second amendment has been able to stand up to this same kind of onslaught before. This same attempted correlation of individual’s rights to have firearms, and the acts of criminals will be brushed away for the irrelevant idea it really is…again.
I have yet to see a viable explanation to how the acts of mad men have anything to do with gun laws. I’m sure I’ll hear the usual…it should be harder to get them, you don’t need a 30 round magazine, and innocent people die because of them…But let’s stick to the reality that we face.
things gun control advocates might consider:
1) Crime rates rise sharply in cities passing strict gun control laws. The murder rate in Chicago is off the charts. In DC, the murder rate went up 73% during its handgun ban.
2) As for “assault rifles,” in the Columbine & VA Tech shootings no such weapons were used. But both were places where firearm possession was prohibited & the victims defenseless.
3) On April 22nd, also in Aurora CO, Kiarron Parker shot and killed a pastor’s mother outside the New Destiny Church. Parker then tried to enter the church when Antonio Milow killed Parker before any further harm. As an off-duty cop, Milow legally had a gun. If only Milow had been in the theater that night.
I am genuinely curious here...
If gun-control advocates that favor regulations rather than flat-out banning would stand up and cheer your stats and links...would you be willing to do the same to the negative stats associated with guns? How many of you all are pure "Free unregulated access to unlimited numbers of any type of guns that exist" people?
Me. That is the position I'm arguing here.
If it is a Constitutional right, like voting, it cannot be denied to anyone.
If Joe down the streen can own a gun I should be able to own a gun, too.
Equal access for all.
Being mentally ill doesn't change my citizenship. It should not preclude me from having a gun. Or as many guns of whatever type I want.
I likewise believe that since the constitution puts no limits on the right in regards to age that the only restriction should be the physical ability of the child to lift the gun and pull the trigger...
But other than the above statement that I just couldn't resist I really am genuinely curious about if a middle ground could be found.
You know as well as I do.
There can be no middle ground on a plain as day, black and white, yes or no issue.
Either you're for guns.
Or you're against guns.
End of discussion.
If you are not for guns you are trying to take my right to guns away.
And I will NOT stand for that!
It's the same reductionist thinking that causes people to make Obamacare a B/W issue, when it's incredible broad-reaching and complex.
"They're going to make me buy health insurance I don't want!"
That's all too many people "know" about Obamacare.
I see that too... but I honestly think it is either a knee-jerk reaction or a fear of the dreaded slippery slope.
The biggest problem is that I think that everyone is trying to change another person's opinion rather than reach a compromise... as such no one will acknowledge ANY points because then it would "weaken" the pure uncompromising rightness of their opinion. Lord knows we wouldn't want to appear anything less than 100 percent right.
That goes for both sides.
Compromise is all any reasonable person can hope for, and is the only way we ever evolve into the future. I know I'm not 100% right, but urge you to see that stopping the average American from gun ownership is not the answer.
Why on Earth would you think I want to stop the average American from gun ownership? See that's the problem I was talking about before... You see a gun control advocate and immediately it becomes "she wants to take my guns". I'm genuinely curious why that is.
I've debated tons of people online, and the "pro-gun" brigade have been perhaps the most ideological, hyper-sensitive and stubborn of all of them, taken as a whole. Even more so than the staunchly religious. Perhaps "trigger-happy" is a fitting adjective
Compromising on public policy issues is for wusses.
Mighty mom strikes again-
Miiiigggty MOM. What a cool user name. Anyone who is off their rocker by the account of the average person should probably not be able to own a gun. If you have to take pharmaceuticals to live your life then I don’t want you to be packing in the local supermarket. I don’t want to be on the receiving end of an outbreak or laps in meds. Leave that to your husband, or if that’s not possible use a friend that isn’t on meds to pack.
The truth is that people can get a concealed permit even if they are on a cocktail of prescription meds, so yes we need to address this. The issue we are debating has nothing to do with these exceptions.
To your first comment. I'm not for total unregulated guns, and the point was never to endorse that.
Do you just say the most ridiculous things to get more traffic? Or a rise out of people? If so you should do something more productive. All that aside, hope today was a good day for the antagonist.
I don't need traffic from the forums... nor am I trying to get a rise. I am honestly trying to have a conversation in the hopes of understanding why opinions have gotten so polarized on this. It's not antagonistic nor is it ridiculous...
You answer however was a bit antagonistic.
I was like "holy crap, 73% rise during the ban" then I googled a chart of crimes in DC between 1960 and 2010 and murder dropped 50 after the ban, and didnt rise until 12 years later... Causation and correlation so badly thrashed I didnt even have to look up the rest.
My father who was a card carrying liberal until his death always said that you can never let the government take away any of your rights as they will never give them back. The problem is can you trust the government to not go to the next step in any legislation? If they denied the right to have certain high volume magazines would it be calibre restrictions next or number of weapons. I am usually on the fence about this but I still like the fact that the police still have to knock on your door when they come to see you and wait for a reply not knowing if there is a weapon on the other side to make them follow the letter of the law. The first thing any oppressor employs is to take away the weapons first. I do think that if you even have a gun in your car when you go to somebodys house looking for a fight you should get 5 years mandatory no deals. Any crime committed with a firearm should be enforced as it is already in many states prosecuting arsenals.
Wake up! Large clips and magazines have been involved in several killings of multiple victims by a single individual. They serve no non-military purpose and sale, ownership or possession should be illegal.
http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bio … CM9dQ.cspx
If people knew how often things like this happened...
You're absolutely right.
The real problem is in having no-carry zones.
Those are obviously unconstitutional.
The Second Amendment is intended to grant every American citizen the right to own and carry a gun wherever they go.
It's ridiculous that anyone should have to get a permit for something they have a RIGHT to have.
It's stupid to have any restrictions at all.
Especially since they are only selectively enforced and on the wrong people.
Why should I not have a gun just because I take Prozac or Ritalin or Lithium or Depakote? That's my business!!
What in the Sam Hill does mental illness have to do with my rights as an American citizen to arm bears.
Oops. I mean bear arms.
You're right MM. No-carry zones are a big problem. Predators love being able to attack people who can't defend themselves.
How many gun-rights advocates do you think want clinically-insane/unstable individuals to have guns?
Every public school teacher should be issued a Glock and trained to use it.
Mighty Mom-I'm with you.
With so many loss of lives and I'm talking about in America school system though this is a horrendous as far as shooting go as it pertains to those who attend school. But there are those of us who ignorantly and arrogantly dismissed all of these deaths and talk like the shooting problem is merely a recent incident.
How can people feel safe anywhere at the kind of society we create are nothing more than a reenactment of the wild wild West?
Perhaps the answer would be for all liberals to immediately arm themselves whether they wanted to or not.
It might not do anything to help with the gun issue but I assure you that the protesters at gay-pride parades and the funerals of soldiers would likely be a lot more polite.
Hey... here's an idea. Let's find a way to shoot someone over the internet. Then forums wouldn't ever need to be moderated again
I would suggest the entrepeneurs of the oldest trade should learn from the nra and unite, form a national association, fund it , lobby and for sure they would be able to not only get prostitution legalized nationally but they would be admired and respected as their colleagues at the nra.
Yes, God bless the NRA, and I've been a proud member for many years. People who want to commit mass murder will find a way to do so, with or without the use of guns. It's not the responsible gun owners who commit these crimes, it's the nut jobs who, if guns were not available, would plan some other way to kill people. Timothy McVeigh used a truck bomb to kill hundreds of people in Oklahoma City. Seriously, you could turn almost anything into a weapon if you really thought about it.
One of the greatest supporters of bare arms in America!
And hers are some high caliber guns, indeed!
It's interesting that some of the most hard-on-crime conservatives, delighted to cede all kinds of powers to law enforcement, will suddenly turn 180 degrees when the discussion turns to the tools of the crime. That's ideology.
Apparently the guy in Colorado spent thousands of dollars on the tools of his trade in the weeks leading up to the shooting. He was able to order many of these things online. Would any of those "hard-on-crime" conservatives accept that law enforcement should investigate a host of paramilitary rounds and firearms all being sent to the same residential address? Or is that not suspicious enough?
It's all well and good to talk about a constitutional right. But unlike other constitutional rights, this right has the potential to infringe on others' rights/ freedoms. Thus it is reasonable to regulate and restrict the firearms industry. Unfortunately there is no constitutional right to common sense.
Secularist- Fortunately there is hundreds of regulations already in place. One more will not stop people from committing mass murder.
No one is saying that there should be NO regulations.
If the shooter bought his weapons of choice from the black market would laws still be an issue? If he blew up the theater would that be more acceptable? There would be no guns, and no pushing to shred my rights then….would there?
Other people’s right to vote infringes on my capability to have who I want in D.C., should I lobby to get only my vote to count?
People’s freedom of speech offends me from time to time; shall we do away with it?
Where does it end?
"Fortunately there is hundreds of regulations already in place."
There are plenty of laws that are weakly or not at all enforced. You also have many holes, such as the gun show loophole. Would you support closing the gun show loophole?
"No one is saying that there should be NO regulations."
The NRA actively lobbies against regulations in a general sense, and seeks to minimize or neuter regulations at every turn, it seems. So that's effectively the same thing. I think we can read between the lines.
"If the shooter bought his weapons of choice from the black market would laws still be an issue?"
It depends what you mean by black market. If a weapon is manufactured legally, but then sold illegally, that is one thing. If a weapon is illegally manufactured to begin with, that is another.
"If he blew up the theater would that be more acceptable?"
Of course! (That's sarcasm if it isn't obvious)
"Other people’s right to vote infringes on my capability to have who I want in D.C."
You don't have a constitutional right to have who you want in DC.
"People’s freedom of speech offends me from time to time; shall we do away with it?"
Unfortunately for you there is no constitutional right to not be offended. And someone's offensive speech does not reduce your rights. If I decide to shoot someone, that does restrict their rights (i.e. life/ liberty/ pursuit of happiness).
That’s a cute pic. Is it a golden or a lab? Just to note I’m sorry for being so sarcastic.
Of course the NRA lobbies “in general” against all new regulations.
I want to go off on a bit of a tangent here and compare this argument to the First Amendment.
Is it any wonder that the first and second amendments are the FIRST two of the bill of rights? They are the ones of most importance that would come under attack the most frequent, and drafters of them knew it.
The entire notion of a “Wall of Separation” was formed to prevent the “STATE” ie the federal government from instituting a universal religion. But activist for decades have interpreted this as not recognizing any referral to a greater power. Without a “greater power” or creator of unalienable rights there would be no constitution at all. The general knowledge that we are endowed by our “creator” loses all effect if we allow this to happen, and along with it the freedom of African Americans, the right of women to vote, and all the strides we have made over the past centuries. I compare Amendment two to one, because of the reasons they were created. They were created to never allow the federal government to overstep its boundaries. The right to bear arms was made with the knowledge that it would be highly possible that one day the federal government would need to be put in check. Thankfully we haven’t reached the point where American’s have to arm against their government, but that too is debatable. If you have lived your whole life in America you don’t understand the threat that a central government can have on the simplest aspects of life. Look to Syria to see the most recent example of what those that wish to keep power are willing to do. Would you want to have a have an AK-47 to protect your family, if you lived there? You can say that will never happen here all you want, but many of us prefer to be prepared if it ever does. No I don’t need a 30 round mag to protect my family. I only need a bolt action long gun with 5 in the slot, a shotgun, and pistol.
A necessity for the central government to tell us what we should do and not do was never meant to be the objective of the federal government. It is truly sad that so many have grown to depend on laws given to them by this same government to learn how to live their lives. Personal accountability has lost all meaning, and passing the buck to the next has become the standard.
These arguments are all on the road to completely dismantle the entire constitution. Take God and our Creator out of OUR founding documents, and you can say good bye to everything you hold dear.
You didn't really address some of my points. But anyway...
"Take God and our Creator out of OUR founding documents, and you can say good bye to everything you hold dear."
Nope. Most first world democracies do just fine without any reference to a God. France, which has been highly secular for over 200 years, is a classic example. On the other hand, you have plenty of countries where God/ religion features prominently in official documents, speeches and policy (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc), and yet these are tyrannies. So clearly that claim doesn't hold.
"They were created to never allow the federal government to overstep its boundaries. The right to bear arms was made with the knowledge that it would be highly possible that one day the federal government would need to be put in check."
Sure, that's a fair reading of why they were created, but times change. Nobody in 1776 could have ever imagined machine guns, rocket launchers or atom bombs. The constitution has been updated many times precisely because the norms of the original country do not apply to our modern world.
"Would you want to have a have an AK-47 to protect your family, if you lived there?"
Sure. And guess what? I would have to obtain it illegally. This is very interesting. The very fact that pro-gun people always cite that "criminals will get guns illegally anyway" suddenly vanishes in this dystopian scenario they are always going on about. Ironic.
"You can say that will never happen here all you want, but many of us prefer to be prepared if it ever does."
Anything is possible. But it's interesting, isn't it, that the threat of a federal tyranny, which has a low likelihood, nevertheless outweighs the threat of more violence and crime, which has a much higher likelihood.
And nobody's advocating abolishing the right to own a gun anyway. So this whole issue is irrelevant.
First of all I am talking about America, The beacon of light, and the keeper of freedom…at least as we were founded, not France or anywhere else.
The machine gun/atom bomb argument has been made and debunked, so I refuse to address it.
So you agree that citizens should be able to obtain firearms to protect themselves. "Sure. And guess what? I would have to obtain it illegally” That’s the point... legally. We have no control of what people do illegally, and the 99% that get/use firearms legally aren’t the problem in the first place.
I’m not sure how federal tyranny is a low likelihood, and further more I’m not sure where you stand on the right of lawful ownership of firearms…which is what is under attack. People want to stop citizens from owning firearms…that is relevant! I’m not saying you do, but many others think it will be a fix to these mass murders.
Sorry I didn’t quote you more than the one time.
So you consider that federal tyranny is likely ?
You really believe that you may be in the position of being at war with your own government ?
Tyranny is here!
The people of America do not have a chance in a confrontation of violence with the Federal government. Through lawful rebellion, using their own systems against them, the people can force the Federal government to redress our grievances. The unification of the population is the greatest fear of the elite, that is the reason that divisive rhetoric is pumped out daily by the propaganda machine we call our media!
Our firearms are to be used for self-defense, if any entity insists on violent confrontations, it is our Right and duty to resist!
Fact of the matter is, you said that without God/ religion in the founding documents, rights and freedom go out the window. In other countries, this has not happened. That is the fact. Since human beings are human beings everywhere, if what you say is true, we would not see these results. Ignore it all you want.
I don't know what "atom bomb argument" has been debunked, so you lost me there.
"So you agree that citizens should be able to obtain firearms to protect themselves."
I don't know where I said anything that would lead to any other conclusion.
"right of lawful ownership of firearms…which is what is under attack."
I don't know where you get that, lol. There's not a single major individual or group in the US that is calling for the wholesale abolition of firearms ownership. The gun lobby is one of the most powerful lobbies in the country. It's extraordinary how anybody can think basic gun ownership is "under attack." Gun ownership is extremely popular among the people and politicians, which every single mass shooting shows.
I'm not sure you understood my comment on Syria, lol. Read it again. Illegal gun ownership is always cited as a reason why restrictions on gun ownership don't work. And yet when it comes to a hypothetical dictatorship--when gun ownership actually would be illegal--suddenly it no longer plays a role. Well, it's either one or the other. Either illegal gun ownership is always a reality, or it is not. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
"and the 99% that get/use firearms legally aren’t the problem in the first place."
Not that simple. Studies have shown that states with higher rates of gun ownership have higher murder rates. Nobody is a criminal until they are.
If you believe for some reason tyranny in the US is very likely to happen, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that.
Untrue. Not true. False. Incorrect. Erroneous.
There is no statistical correlation between gun ownership and murder rates. Well, there is, but it's -1%(in favor of gun ownership).
That is the murder rate, by state, ordered by gun ownership. Can you tell which end of the graph has the low-ownership rates?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but after adjusting for unemployment, poverty, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and other factors, there is a positive correlation between gun availability and homicide rates.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hi … index.html
I agree for everything you said! When they start taking God out of the dollar bill and the court house. When I say the court house i mean when you swear on the bible. They don't even do that anymore. God is what makes this country... watch it tremble. I promise we will all suffer specially the rich.
It says in the Bible That in the end days It will take a weeks earnings to buy a loaf of bread, We are not far from that. I never thought I would pay for water but I do. If you look at the topics it say in Revelation and Daniels in the Bible in look at the Keyword even man Or Science even agrees look in Webster Dictionary.
Don't listen to what people tell you. Do your own research...
Do Not Let Them Take Are Gun Rights. You even said they don't even follow there own laws and restrictions.
Your argument that stopping unsuitable people from having guns (event A) will lead to a restriction of voting rights and freedom of speech (event Z) is a classic slippery slope fallacy. That's when someone assumes a small step (event A) will inevitably lead to something much more significant (event Z). In reality there is no hard evidence that event A will lead to event Z. There is only the assumption of the person making the argument, and their desire to make the connection.
But to stay constructive, can you give 3 ideas that you think will reduce the risk of mass shootings like the one in Colorado, that don't involve everyone owning a gun?
A to Z is a trip involving many small steps. Every major event is brought about by”small steps/A”, and only the slow to understand think that one event or piece of legislation is what the people are fearful of.
3 idea’s that will reduce the risk of mass shootings….There are none, and the sooner people get that through their thick lala land living skulls, the sooner we can focus on the things that we can solve.
There are many issues to address that all of us can come together on, but so many are set on arguing the same “go nowhere” issues as always. Guns are here to stay. Mass murder is here to stay. Suffering is here to stay. Suck it up and drive on.
Lets get this clear no Gun has ever killed anyone! Its the one who owns the gun. In most cases people who kill with a gun is premeditated.
I don't fall for the BS! I stand by the right to bare arms. However if someone or a group proves to be unstable in are involved in drugs and violent activity they should be banned from ever using a firearm. Wamo Simple.
Think about this for a minute. How many mass killing vs single killings. Besides War!
Even if I didn't have a gun. I could easily use a wrist rocket sling shot to kill a man without a gun.
You can kill someone using knowledge and strategy. How do you think it was done before guns was invented?
What you should be worried about is "who" can see you and know every move you make and track you. That is what you should worry about a weapon of any sort cannot hurt you. Think about it.
You’re on point with the truth that so many refuse to see. I'm glad that you can break it down so simple, but even still....good luck getting the pushers of those against guns to budge. They seem set on wishing we return to the ice age of slinging rocks, and killing with spears….since that makes killing so much more humane.
Sounds like you and several others here could use a headband with a rear view mirror.
I don't like headbands, but I would like to thank you and all others that have been citizens in this country for much longer than me for passing down such an epic mess…hopefully we can do a better job of being watchmen than you and your generation did, if it’s not too late.
I'm well aware of every major study done on the issue. Studies like that one focus on the highest areas of crime rates, usually low-income urban areas. In those areas, there is a correlation, but not a causation. Higher crime rates lead to higher gun ownership rates.
That study doesn't support your claim that states with higher gun ownership have higher crime rates, it's simply not true.
In total, looking at gun ownership rates doesn't correlate to homicide rates. As gun ownership rates have been increasing, and conceal carry permits increasing, homicide rates have fallen.
By your logic the more people who own guns of all kinds the fewer the number of people will be shot in murders, suicides, accidents, gang wars, drive by shootings, etc. You cite studies about as biased as the lung cancer studies funded by American Tobacco. I'll stick with the Harvard study. If you bothered to read it tell us why you disagree. You have a mood command of the NRA and GOP party lines, but you show no interest in a sensible discussion.
If you support any changes in our gun laws and procedures, please enlighten us. I don't recall a single constructive proposal from you on this or any other topic.
I show no interest in a sensible discussion? Coming from you?
I've presented sources to you before about guns. Kleck is far from a right-wing gun nut. His study was peer reviewed by one of the biggest anti-gun criminologists in the country, who said the methodology was as near to flawless as he had ever seen.
I linked you to the Department of Justice study, do you think that is a biased source?
The Harvard study looks at low-income, urban areas, with high crime rates. Then they compare the gun ownership rate among crime victims in those areas, to other areas. There is a correlation, but no causation. That study, and many more, were peer reviewed and found to not have any causal determination. Correlation =/= causation. People who live in high-crime areas are more likely to purchase a gun for self defense.
My claim was about what secularist said, that states with high gun ownership have higher homicide rates, and that's simply not true.
Ralph, you have shown time and time again that you aren't interested in a sensible discussion. You write off my sources, whether it's the Department of Justice, or the SEC. Nobody who claims the NYTimes is a better source for a company's financial information than their own SEC filings is interested in sensible discussion. As far as I'm aware, you still hold the stance that the NYTimes article, which analyzed a non-financial, pre-tax statement by GE, holds more weight than GE's financial statements.
Can you think of a single improvement in gun laws? I haven't seen a single constructive proposal from you on any issue. If I missed one I stand to be corrected. You seem to get OSS on nitpicking other people without making a positive contribution. We have a word for that.
Are you trying to have a sensible discussion Ralph? I've provided proposals on all sorts of issues, you obviously aren't reading my posts if you don't think I have been.
I want to see nationwide shall-issue laws, with knowledge, safety, and practical tests. It's a step, but it won't do much to change the overall crime rate in the nation.
Stopping the war on drugs would reduce violent crime rates quite a bit, and stop putting people in a lifelong disadvantage financially and socially.
I agree with you on drugs. Not on shall issue laws. Sounds like you're parroting NRA.
I think you may be a victim of the "Tea Party Syndrome". If you're worried check my hub "Tea Party Syndrpome Do You Have It?"
Yeah. Like you said, sensible discussion. Are you capable of having a discussion Ralph?
I'm not a member of the NRA, nor do I know their views. Pretty much the same thing with the Tea Party.
I'm for shall issue laws for three reasons. First, the quality studies show that guns are used to stop crimes and save lives. Criminals have guns, it does no good for civilians not to have them too. That would just give them more power.
Second, states that have changed to shall issue have seen reductions in the homicide rate. Not necessarily because of that, but it shows that shall-carry laws don't cause crime to skyrocket, as it is often claimed.
Third, I have personally seen the good a gun can do in the hands of a law-abiding civilian on a few occasions.
This is a nice balanced report I think...
http://www.thecommunityguide.org/violen … ms-law.pdf
Unfortunately for all it basically shows that in some cases some gun-control laws work and in other cases some gun-control laws don't. It also shows that sometimes Shall issue laws help and sometimes they don't.
In short neither side has the conclusive evidence that they seem to think they do and often "better" on both sides of the coin is statistically insignificant.
It does appear that banning certain makes of guns... ones that are deemed especially dangerous for one reason or another... does seem to be effective to prevent specific problems. Also waiting periods seem to be marginally effective in reducing violent crime and somewhat more effective in preventing suicides.
There's not a whole lot of difference between "may issue" and "shall issue" laws in reduction of violent crimes so I don't see a viable reason to curtail 2nd amendment rights in that case. In short you might as well give them freely to those individuals who meet criteria because it doesn't seem to matter anyway.
If I could find it (and I know it exists but google isn't loving me right now) I know I received a copy of a study during domestic violence training showing the effectiveness of reducing fatal domestic violence by confiscating firearms of those who have been found guilty of domestic violence and/or are under a restraining order. I remember it being significantly effective... The study would have been at least 7 or 8 years old by now. So yeah I think that one is a pretty good gun-control law.
Surprisingly results are mixed about whether a general restriction on those who have been deemed inappropriate to carry (mentally defective-drug addicted-and for some reason illegal alien) is effective. Although it's kind of hard to quantify effectiveness in those kind of cases. In addition those seem to be the least likely laws to be enforced as availability of mental illness/addiction information is spotty unless there has been court intervention.
Yes,that site exists I was on it a few months ago. My husband wanted to buy a gun a few months ago they rolled on the ground laughing at him. When they saw his track record. Plus he has PTSD and he's on all kinds of anger management drugs and arrested twice for domestic violence.
My husband thinks that since he fought for this country he should be able to buy a gun.
Personally I am glad he can never get a gun legally and none of his friends are stupid enough to sell him a gun.
He can't get a drivers license either. Now I know why? We rented a bad a** convertible for a week even though he has no lic. I let him drive. He scared me so bad and that wasn't even the worst of it a cop pulled along side of us and said turn your lights on!
So I agree some people should not own a gun or have a drivers lic.
There doesn’t need to be any new proposals…period. If the countless laws and regulations haven’t stopped the issues you have yet, what makes you think anymore will do the job.
Who would enforce any new laws or policies in the first place? Has more “proposals” helped the war on poverty or drugs succeed? Do you really think our government will be effective in instituting ANYTHING to stop violence with guns?
Now I see your little response to me down here. Unfortunately for me, I've been shut out of the conversation for a week as a result, since I was expecting a reply to my comment further up. Very sneaky of you.
"Studies like that one focus on the highest areas of crime rates, usually low-income urban areas."
If you read the page I linked to, you would see it says:
"Across states, more guns = more homicide
Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997)."
Across 50 states.
"In those areas, there is a correlation, but not a causation. "
Nobody is talking about causation. Causation is usually very difficult if not impossible to establish empirically in these kinds of matters because social dynamics are so complex. The point is correlation.
"That study doesn't support your claim that states with higher gun ownership have higher crime rates"
"We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide."
Ok so that's settled. I do however believe that the relationship is complex and not as simple as either side typically makes it out to be.
A quick comment on the way conservatives think about "criminals." Conservatives view criminals as these dark shadowy entities that are "lurking amongst us." Lurking among the normal people in society. The way they talk about "criminals vs law-abiding citizens" indicates they think they can neatly delineate the two.
The reality is that before every criminal committed his first crime, he was a law-abiding citizen. And a criminal who is undiscovered (as in an unsolved murder) is still considered a law-abiding citizen by law enforcement.
So it stands to reason that with more guns available, a person who is thinking of killing someone, and who has never killed anyone before, will have an easier time of it. They will be more likely to act on their impulse and pull that trigger. These are impulses and emotions that we all have, law-abiding or not. Despite the fact that conservatives think the law-abiding are pure as the driven snow.
In that study, they only had firearm ownership rates for 21 states, so they used a proxy for the other states.
Then what they do is look at areas by homicide, and compare firearm ownership(where they have the data). The 'results' they post on your link are wrong according to the study. It should read "Across states, more homicide = more guns". People are more likely to buy a gun if they live in a dangerous area.
Further, they don't actually compare the direct relationship between firearm ownership and homicide incidence. With their methodology, you could have an area with lots of homicides, but no homicides that occured in the house of someone with a firearm, and they would still find a high correlation.
So yes, I agree that areas of high crime tend to have more guns. No, I don't agree that areas with more guns have higher crime.
Again, their conclusion is wrong. States with high homicide rates had higher rates of firearm ownership, not the other way around.
Have you ever heard of panic buying. With the Aurora shooting, gun sales skyrocketed in the area. More crime causes more people to buy guns. When this study looks at homicide rates, it is looking at whether areas with high homicide rates also have high gun ownership, and they do.
It's not looking at areas of high gun ownership, and then looking to see if there are high homicide rates.
If someone has the impulse to kill somebody, they can figure out a way to do it. Anybody can go online and buy a gun illegally. The black market is ridiculously easy to access.
The more guns citizens have, the more difficult it is for someone to use a gun to get the upper hand on that person.
"If someone has the impulse to kill somebody, they can figure out a way to do it. Anybody can go online and buy a gun illegally. The black market is ridiculously easy to access."
Very true. Current laws are inadequate and poorly enforced. Gun fanatics recently invaded our local town library with no purpose other than taking their rights to carry out for a "walk around the block." The library employees and users are petitioning their representatives to have libraries included with court houses as excluded venues for guns.
"It should read "Across states, more homicide = more guns". People are more likely to buy a gun if they live in a dangerous area."
That's simply your interpretation of the correlation in the data. It's your take on the causation. Believable, but not necessarily the whole story. Just as believable is the idea that with more weapons of death available, there will be more death.
"With their methodology, you could have an area with lots of homicides, but no homicides that occured in the house of someone with a firearm, and they would still find a high correlation."
The homicide does not have to occur in that person's home. Perhaps someone took that firearm (either the owner of the firearm or someone who broke in and stole it) and used it to kill someone elsewhere.
So how should someone measure the relationship between firearm ownership and homicide in a region? There is no other way than to just measure them and see the trends, for the entire city or state.
"It's not looking at areas of high gun ownership, and then looking to see if there are high homicide rates."
Lol. Jaxson, there's two independent sets of numbers: gun ownership and homicide. Whether you say "gun ownership vs homicide" or "homicide vs gun ownership" it's the same thing, lol!
It's like expecting 1+2 to give a different result than 2+1. Order it however you want in a sentence. It's the same two sets of numbers.
It's a correlation. That causation is your interpretation, which again, is reasonable, but you have a long way to go to conclusively establish such a causal relationship. And you have certainly not dispelled the possibility that the existence of more guns in and of itself contributes to more homicide.
One of the reasons the black market is so easy to access is because of the loose gun laws in this country. The black market overlaps and merges into the legal market. Anybody who thinks the two are discrete and unrelated to each other, like two islands, doesn't understand how crime works.
"The more guns citizens have, the more difficult it is for someone to use a gun to get the upper hand on that person."
This fantasy of the "heroic citizen" is all too common. Look at all the mistakes that trained law enforcement make day in and day out in the moment when the pressure is on and there is no time to think. These are men who train constantly, every day, and they still make mistakes in the real world. What on earth makes you think an average person who, to that point in their life, has never seen real combat or a life-threatening situation, will suddenly miraculously rise to the occasion and, amidst the screams, smoke and chaos, land that one perfect shot to kill the bad guy. Only in Hollywood.
+++That's a thoughtful, nuanced comment on the effect of inadequate gun laws and enforcement.
When it comes to the spoon poster I don't see an issue here. If this person constantly used the spoon to shovel the food into his mouth then that spoon was definitely a contributing factor to this person's weight.
I suggest you reread the words around the poster in order to understand the point being made.
One is a tool for eating and the other is a tool for human destruction. Palin equated them—one has to recognize that she is morally bankrupt—her bias prevented her from understanding the difference.
Worse, however, is that she posted that image on her blog while people had recently been slain by a terrorist and the families who mourn them were all grieving and in shock.
It was a tasteless act of political propaganda and a person in her position shouldn't exploit the situation and make matters worse for ideological gains.
Wiz of whim-
Isn’t the whole argument of gun control a gross political game being played before anyone from Colorado has had a chance to grieve? I am guilty as much as anyone else, but I brought up the topic after the second amendment came under attack…yet again.
Actually, another way to interpret it would be: the spoon was designed to put food in someone's mouth; a machine gun (for instance) was designed to kill in war conditions. That's what it was designed for. By that standard, if there are no war conditions, using machine guns cannot be justified.
And similar arguments could be made for other highly destructive weapons.
Thank you for the suggestion of rereading the article, however I have read it no rereading is required. You however are welcome to reread this article is many times as you like since your comments specifically are focused towards your point of view.
What I take from the poster and the comments is that a comparison of instrumentation is utilized to develop cause and effect.
Ah, that old canard of cause and effect—well I can see where you would think that my bias of wanting more public control over weaponry that can kill hundreds in seconds needs more regulation than spoons, but that point aside, can't you see the limitations of your own logic, SpanStar?
If it is in the nature of a food addict to overeat, then providing him or her with a spoon for doing so will only make the food addict obese and increase the cost of healthcare for that person.
Providing a deranged or deluded individual with an semi-automatic assault-weapon with a 100 round magazine does not cause the same effect as the spoon in terms of human lives and healthcare costs or in terms of public safety—especially for innocent children at a public venue—Aurora or Gabby Giffords in Arizona. (See charts below)
So do you still think my bias is influencing my logic? And please address my points rather than my bias or point of view—as I have yours.
Read this if you want to be better informed: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc … ths/69354/
Your argument is plausible. It would appear a bevy of firearms is spread across these United States. Graphically speaking it appears to be a limitation on the number of affective gun laws in place.
Even with your graphics and information I have to say I'm not really clear as to what issue you are presenting. Having firearms is OK or not OK.
If your position is firearms are not OK meaning there is a better solution, that is certainly the position I take.
Well I think America has lots of problems because of the proliferation of guns, gun worship and gun fanaticism which has been stoked by the gun industry (and their propaganda arm, the NRA) which is profiting mightily.
I'm a vet and I know what an assault weapon can do. It's really not about hunting or defending oneself, it's about a fascination with destruction and acting out one's fantasies. As America declines in comity and hope the unhinged and the fearfully misinformed immediately go to an Armageddon mentality.
I am in full agreement with all that you have said for I too am a Vietnam vet. America has been very lucky that we have not had to live with the horrors of war daily with in our territories barring those few incidents such as Pearl Harbor, Civil War, 9/11.
It is my belief that people truly do not understand the power behind the weapons used today. Like the bullet from an AK-47 can pass through a vehicle like it was cardboard.
Thanks for your service and keep the faith!
Wizard of whim
First off God Bless America…Hundreds in seconds…they must be the best marksman in the world. Again I ask when has more regulation for guns EVER equated to less crime/violence? By the way, the only thing that can kill hundreds in seconds is a bomb.
A fat a#$ will be fat with or without a spoon, actually they would probably prefer to eat with their fingers… Criminals prefer to do their “business” in areas where there is “high” gun control. Let’s try and be objective here for a change….If you wanted to rob someone, would you go for a target you thought had a gun, or one that didn’t? It truly is as simple as that…maybe not for you, if you’re a normal law abiding citizen, that has never seen the rest of the world, but that’s how it works. If I’m open carrying, and the guy next to me isn’t…I’m more of a threat to a criminal than the guy next to me. FACT!
According to your sources less than half a friggin percent (.01%) of deaths are caused by firearms, including suicides, accidental shootings, and all other shootings, in America. Your own facts point to the irrelevance that the whole idea of more gun control really is! The American citizen is bathed in the protection provided by men with guns…fact two!
Your sources are totally unbiased right? Nope, but they are good at hiding their biases to the average person.
If we get rid of guns hundreds of thousands still die each year. Go live somewhere else that isn’t bathed in the security you are now enjoying, and then tell me you feel the same way about guns. Let your 10 month old daughter be slain by two armed men, and tell me you didn’t wish you had a gun to protect her. The real world is a figure of speech to most Americans, but the truth doesn’t change. Guns are a necessity in the world we live in…final fact!
It’s really easy to speak from an ignorant and secure point of view. It makes me sick that so many are so biased by things that they have never had to experience.
Are you a vet that never went to war? It has nothing to do with a friggin fascination! It’s about necessity! What were you air force, or coast guard? You really threw me for a loop when I saw you where a vet, and I’m sorry for the confrontational tone, but after having to go native in war zones…I have a bit different outlook on guns.
Your logic escapes me. People die as a result of many reasons, and nearly everyone agrees with efforts to reduce the deaths--by medical research and treatment, driver training, licensing and traffic rules enforcement, smoking cessation programs and so forth. And the majority of Americans support sensible gun regulations, but most of the politicians including Obama and Romney cower in fear of the NRA.
Well Ralph this is an example of something called selective outrage. People, (usually liberals), who wish to build up large invasive government control in America are generally inclined to be against the rights of common citizens to possess firearms. Under the guise of concern for the safety of the general populace they tend to use isolated incidents as extreme examples in order to spark outrage and thus push forward their individual right revoking agenda.
It is another classical example of rampant liberal hypocrisy.
There is no such thing as 'sensible gun regulations'. It's all subjective. What's sensible to you is outrageous to others.
It's why so much misunderstanding happens. The assumption is(I'm guilty of this) that anyone talking about gun-control wants to ban them, and anyone talking about gun-rights wants to give a gun to every man, woman, child, psychopath, and criminal.
It's also a pity that we can't protect ourselves from imbeciles with cars and weapons . . . who always vote for other imbeciles!
Perrrrfect display of what they will never admit. Guns kill less than Honey Badgers!!
I find that image to be insulting. The purpose of a car is not to kill. The purpose of a gun is to kill. Cars are heavily regulated: you need a license to drive, must meet certain vision and hearing requirements, have every car you own registered, and every car that is on the streets is heavily regulated for safety.
If you want to regulate guns as closely as cars, I say go for it!
We really need to ban pointed sticks, knives, bows & arrows, axes, swords, slingshots, slings, hatchets, clubs, and many other things that have 'no other purpose than killing humans'.
A bow and arrow is nothing more than a semi-automatic weapon that propels assault shafts at people.
Hey, Wiz...you are missing the point of the statement. The point is that the standing militia of the nation is well-regulated and balanced when the citizens have the right to bear arms. It is an acknowledgement that a regulated and standing militia is necessary to the security of the free state but that necessity does not preclude the people of the free state from bearing arms as well. WB
Lol Wizard. You make me laugh almost every time you post.
Yuppers. Never fails.
Although, probably not the result you intended.
I guess gun control has helped Japan and other "civilized" countries live peacefully. Murder rates aren't going up there. The NRA is just capitalism. This country loves war and conflict. there is no real reason to own 10 or 20 guns. Living with excess weapons cannot make you feel better. You simply raise the odds of a lethal event happening. I can tell you for sure that God never put his blessing on guns!!
Hmmm...I am praying for the destruction of the NRA. May my prayers be answered.
When mankind advances 1000s of years from now, guns will not be used.
1000s of years from now, the population will not be what it is today.
It is quite obvious a major cataclysmic event will happen to rid the world of the evil that it lives in now. All of this greed & power will be gone.
Secularist, it's not the same, it is absolutely different depending on which you use as a base.
Area A - High Crime, High Ownership
Area B - Low Crime, Low Ownership
Area C - Low Crime, High Ownership
If you look at areas of high crime rates, you will find a strong correlation to high ownership.
If you look at areas of high ownership, you won't find a strong correlation to high crime rates.
See why that doesn't work?
As for the 'heroic citizen'... you need to understand a few things. When citizens use a gun to stop a crime, they only fire a bullet between 2% and 8% of the time. Generally the presence of a gun is enough to stop a criminal. Also, civilians with guns have shown themselves to be very responsible. John Lott found that gun-carrying civilians only killed 30 innocent civilians due to error, where the police killed 330, even though there were more people with guns than police. Gary Kleck as well as the Department of Justice found that civilians use guns millions of times a year to stop crimes.
So the 'heroic citizen' thing happens. It's just that most of the time the 'heroic citizen' doesn't consider himself heroic, or act heroic, or brag about it to the media. And most of the time, a shot is never even fired.
Which is fine and reasonable but you might have a tough time convincing the family of one of these thirty innocents minding their own business shot to death that it's all together a positive thing.
Yeah, life really sucks that way. There probably isn't a single thing that has done only good for humanity, and not done anything bad.
Cody, I'm not going to play the 'Oh yeah? What about X? What about Y? What about Z?' game with you.
That being said, why don't you think a little before you post. There are people allergic to milk. There are people with lactose intolerance. It is not a good thing for those people to drink milk.
It was a joke...calm down.
By the way, there are special diary products for those who are lactose intolerant.
in hindsight . war is the act of men gone mad.
holster your weapons!
you trying to defend gun play!?
people these days buy guns to potentially kill men more than game.
there's the difference
Aware are you~
War isn’t the act of men gone mad, war is something that you will never know because others have volunteered to take up the ranks for the life in which you live.
When your country sends men and women to combat, it isn’t by their choosing…they aren’t “men gone mad”…they are father’s, mother’s, sister’s and brother’s, friends and family, hero’s and patriots! All willing to do what you wouldn’t. Sacrifice. What have you done for the greater good of the world lately?
“People these days”…I get the feeling that you haven’t lived enough to know what days “these days” even means…. That, or you have lived a far too sheltered life like the majority of American’s. A rude awakening is in the future for you. I will pray as always for those who refuse to see life on earth for what it is.
Yes I have guns…not to kill game, but to protect my family. What will you do when you are faced with an armed gunmen?…do exactly what he/she says? Or just hope you never get put into that situation? My wife has a cc too, because the world we live in rapes, robs, and kills without reason.
Don’t worry when the shhhhh really hits the fan there will be plenty of us to defend all of you who hated guns for so long….just hope you have something to contribute to the cause when it happens... Until then stop trying to convince those of us that don’t see eye to eye with you that the world will be better off if only the military and bad guys have guns. Trust that the military and “bad guys” will always have guns.
Only blind sheep think they are safe from the wolf.
"What will you do when you are faced with an armed gunmen?"
I wonder what the odds are of being "faced with an armed gunmen," probably about the same as being struck by lightning. More than a hint of paranoia here, except for those who live in the, drug, gang and gun infested ghettos of major cities. They are the unfortunate victims of our failure to enact and enforce sensible gun control laws consistent with Second Amendment rights.
LOL! Gun control is antithetical to the second amendment. Of course government officials going to extremes to forward their agenda is always going to spark a little paranoia.
That's not correct. Gun control can be consistent with the Supreme Court's Second Amendment decisions. Even Scalia recently opened the door a crack recently on the need for laws banning certain kinds of weapons and large magazines:
From your favorite TV channel, FOX NEWS:
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Sunday the Second Amendment leaves open the possibility of gun-control legislation, adding to what has become a slow-boiling debate on the issue since the Colorado movie theater massacre earlier this month.
Scalia, one of the high court’s most conservative justices, said on “Fox News Sunday” that the majority opinion in the landmark 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller stated the extent of gun ownership “will have to be decided in future cases.”
“We’ll see,” he said.
Scalia’s comments follow the July 20 massacre at the Aurora, Colo., movie theater in which the alleged gunman, with the help of a semi-automatic weapon and an ammunition clip that could hold as many as 100 rounds, killed 12 and wounded 59 others.
His comments also follow those of lawmakers who have called for tougher gun-related laws in the wake of the shootings – most recently New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg and New York Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, Democrats who said Sunday they will introduce legislation this week to “make it harder for criminals to anonymously stockpile ammunition through the Internet, as was done before the recent tragic shooting in Aurora, Colorado.”
They are scheduled to announce the bill to the public Monday outside City Hall in New York City.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a Republican turned independent, has been among the most vocal on the issue since the mass shooting.
On Friday, Bloomberg in an editorial for his Bloomberg News, suggested the problem in Washington is that lawmakers do not want to vote for tougher gun laws out of fear of retribution from the powerful National Rifle Association.
The editorial was titled “How to Break NRA’s Grip on Politics” and suggested the political impact of the group might be exaggerated.
“In Congress, the NRA threatens lawmakers who fail to do its ideological bidding, although its record in defeating candidates is much more myth than reality,” the editorial stated.
Just hours after the shooting, Bloomberg, co-founder of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, called on President Obama and Mitt Romney to address the issue from the campaign trail.
“Soothing words are nice, but maybe it’s time that the two people who want to be president of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about (gun violence) because this is obviously a problem across the country,” Bloomberg said.
Then late last week he suggests police officers go on strike until additional laws are passed. He backed off that statement but has continued to press the presidential candidates and others in Washington to make changes.
Congress passed a 10-year ban on assault-style weapons that expired in 2004, but there has since been no real interest among Capitol Hill lawmakers to reinstitute a ban.
Also, we accept reasonable restrictions on free speech (can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater), religion (no polygamy or human sacrifices. Darn!), press (libel, though prior restraint is not allowed) and assembly (have to have a permit, etc.), yet we can't bear restrictions on the 2nd amendment. Why is that? And why does the gun lobby not even allow us (as a society) to have this conversation?
It's interesting how gun control is such a big topic when the most destructive weapon on earth is free and most of us use it every day...without regulation.I'm using it right now though not to destroy.
It confuses me to hear guns must be regulated because they are used in crime and cause deaths...But,language is free,unregulated[in this context],and even encouraged while it is responsible for uncountable deaths.
Our society seems to be full of regulate"This" but not"That"?
Why must you have a"Licence"to drive a car but anyone can have a baby...regardless of their ability[emotional and monetarily]to raise that child?
Why do alcohol and tobacco get the OK while killing half a million people a year...but weed which has never killed anyone remains out of bounds?
Why...why...why...so many others.Sorry y'all,lust had my coffee and my GF is at her sisters Ha!
by Susie Lehto12 months ago
The majority of American people believe the right to own a firearm for self-defense is their choice to make, not the governments. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ … _own_a_gunThe U.S. Supreme Court said...
by SpanStar3 years ago
A 1-year-old baby girl shot to death by a Gunman who was shooting at a babysitter carrying the child running away.http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08 … lence?liteI wonder what other countries think of a...
by Jeff Berndt5 years ago
I just noticed something about the Fast and Furious controversy.Leaving aside the question of whether the operation was a good idea or not (I think not), I noticed that the Left and the Right have both seemed to...
by egiv6 years ago
There are too many guns in the United States. How many more shootings need to happen for people to realize that the second amendment is outdated. I'm not trying to say that nobody should be allowed to have one, I have...
by My Esoteric15 months ago
The NRA leadership (not most of NRA members) currently sees Gun Control as a stark Black and White issue. The NRA et al think that ANY step to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them is ipso...
by WTucker8 years ago
What does the second amendment mean to you? Please include historical precedence and logical deduction for your meaning. I would discourage what you wish the gun policy would be for the US but rather what...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.