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 flip-flop on their usual arguments about gun control.
The Left usually wants to restrict gun ownership with the idea that if there are fewer guns, there will be less gun-related violence. (Let's leave the merits of this logic aside as well for now.)
The Right usually argues that it's not the gun that's to blame, but rather the person who uses the gun, and that a violent person will be just as violent with a hockey stick as with Heckler&Koch. (Again, leaving the merits of this argument aside for now.)
Some folks on the Left have even filed suit against gun manufacturers and sellers--a product liability suit no less--not because the guns failed to function properly but because the gun companies supposedly sell them irresponsibly, and they end up in the hands of criminals. (again, merits of the argument aside.)
Folks on the Right have scoffed at this idea, saying that once the gun leaves the hands of the manufacturer or seller, that person bears no responsibility for what use the gun may be put to, since they can't possibly control it.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
Given the above, I find it amazing that a pro-gun-control liberal could possibly think that it's a good idea to arrange for guns to find their way into the hands of known criminals. I mean, if guns kill people, how the heck can you excuse supplying known killers with a killing tool?
But as absurd as that may be, isn't it equally absurd for pro-gun-rights Conservatives to argue that the people behind fast-and-furious should be held responsible for the death of a Border Patrol agent? I mean, if guns kill people, and someone who isn't holding the gun can't be held liable for what the gun is used for, how can you blame anybody but the shooter for the agent's death?
If the whole thing weren't so tragically absurd, it'd be almost funny.
Gun control advocates? If you really believe that more guns=more violence, you must conclude that Eric Holder's justice department bears a share of the blame for Agent Brian Terry.
Gun rights advocates? If you really believe that guns don't kill people, you must conclude that Eric Holder's justice department bears no blame for Agent Terry's death.
Balanced argument - good idea to leave teh particulars of the debate out of this line of inquiry that would just polute it with extraneous conflict. I think two important things are the details of a stupid program, its haphazard execution and the resultant cover up, and that a warrant for the killers of Border Patrol Agent Brian A. Terry waited until now, in the heart of political conflict, to be issued.
If you will remember the vitriol about Pat Tillman's death in Afghanistan in the fog of war, the palpable anger from liberals was at least as heated as from conservatives now.
The gun sellers were ordered to make the transactions. With Law Enforcement agents watching the transactions! The Justice department enabled these criminals to possess these weapons, they engaged in a conspiracy to traffic weapons to convicted felons!
They broke the very Laws which their oath compels them to uphold!
Breaking a Law to uphold a Law is ludicrous, although a daily occurrence with Law Enforcement.
You know, this is one of the topics I despise the most.
Gun Control? Who is talking about Gun Control? Politicians talk about it as brownie points for votes, other than that they really don't give a damn.
The fact that Gun Control laws are made to stem the trafficking of Guns into America and hasn't worked yet, is part and parcel the problem.
Controlling Gun Distribution within America's borders is like trying to stop child kidnappings. It's absurd to think the government has any power whatsoever, unless you bring down Martial Law, lock up all border towns coming into the U.S. and drop at least several hundred bombs at or along the Texas-Mexico line, hopefully causing a cave in on hundreds of different tunnels that come from Mexico into Texas.
As a Rights Advocate, Government shouldn't be spending taxpayer revenue to buy Guns, Ammo and other various weapons, then deal the equipment to other people. It's a poor use of taxpayer revenue and unethical. I don't approve of the U.S. arming other Nations to the teeth while many people are suffering in poverty or homeless. I find it an atrocity. I'm sick of hearing how the U.S. polices the world.
A job it shouldn't have.
Yes, guns kill people but only after a person has pulled the trigger. A gun by itself is meaningless, dormant and not powerful in any manner. Once it's picked up is a different story.
I see the title question as a pretty rediculous question. Quite obviously "No Gun" by itself is able to simply fire itself and kill someone. It takes a person holding the gun to pull the trigger to fire the weapon.
People kill people, but the gun helps. Here's a potential solution that allows the gun rights lobby to keep their guns, and the gun control lobby to reduce fatalities. Ban all types of ammunition. Problem solved. Win-win.
Like what Chris Rock said in one of his stand up gigs. Forget gun control, there should be bullet control. Each bullet should cost $5000! If each bullet costs $5000, I guarantee that they'll be no more innocent bystanders and you'll definitely think before pulling the trigger! LOL
Yet that would accomplish the same thing as banning Guns themselves. Only the thieves, gangs, drug dealers and the assorted kinds of people who DO like to kill people without a worry would have guns.
The bullets they would get wouldn't be priced that much because the ammo, like their gun, is illegal.
Yup, let's create yet another gigantic black market that is controlled by people who have no qualms over murdering people.
Why didn't we learn our lesson from prohibition?
Whatever the truth about "fast and furious" I have a hard time getting excited because one AFT agent was killed with a gun that came as a result of the alleged program because there is obviously no shortage of guns in Mexico. If the American agent hadn't been killed by one of the guns allegedly allowed to go to Mexico, he would have been killed by another gun in the hands of Mexican drug lords. If the allegations are true the fault lies with the Congress in not passing effective gun control laws and the Justice Department's reluctance to proceed against illicit drug sales headed for Mexico.
Look at what you started - gun discussions always, always, disintegrate into this.
The answer is quite simple and is law but the courts have a hard time implementing it. Commit a felony while using a handgun you automatically get five years without parole. This is the first thing that States Attourney's plead away. The laws are there yet they are not enforced. I say if you even show up to an argument with a gun you should get five years automatically.
But what does one do with an Attorney General of the United States who covers up gun running to Mexican cartels?
I guess the irony is that most people don't worry about whether or not the government sell weapons to anyone else, unless they are told to care about it.
Ask the average person is they give a damn? Some might say yes. Some might say no. And some might say that they are unsure what to think about it.
You will get so many different answers, it won't matter in the end.
Many do wait to hear from others what they should think - one reason why so many get the facts wrong. Just look at the lies surrounding the Valerie Plame dust up.
I don't know who that is and it doesn't matter.
Some people need to be led, some people don't need to be led. It's obvious from history up to now.
However, there's an upside and downside, which the upside will eventually outweigh the downside, which isn't presently doing.
The upside- humanity is transitioning through a new level of individual awareness. It will continue to grow regardless of what government or the power and wealthy does. It cannot be stopped.
The downside- humanity isn't transitioning fast enough to that new level of individual awareness because of individual self-inflated ego, which requires to be recognized by a higher level of awareness, which we are NOT at yet. But, until we(humanity) is abuse, poverty, starvation, homeless and greed will be used as tools to keep people under a matter of control.
People kill people, but guns make it a hell of a lot easier. Yeah, you could beat or stab someone to death, but you could also walk from NYC to LA.
The biggest part of the problem is that gun rights advocates are unwilling to discuss the issuein a rational fashion. They make arguments like gun owners are the only ones protecting us from the government "taking over," despite the fact that most other industrialized nations have more restrictive gun laws yet aren't under martial law. The arguments they don't want to make, but which are more valid, is that owning firearms gives them a sense of power they might otherwise lack. I'll leave the details of that to your imagination.
But all that aside, whether gun ownership is the cause or cure for gun violence is an empirical question that should have a definitive answer. In Ohio, where I live, they passed a concealed-carry law a couple years ago. I'd like to see a study (done by a reputable organization, NOT the NRA!) that examines whether concealed-carry laws reduce gun violence. Everyone, regardless of their views on gun conrol, wants gun violence reducing (assuming you're not insane), so the question remains: does the prevalence of guns increase or decrease gun violence?
Comparing the number of guns owned per capita vs. the number of gun homicides suggests a correlation, but not necessarily a causal relationship.
What about a study by the Department of Justice? That's not the NRA.
John R. Lott's comprehensive and exhaustive "More Guns, Less Crime" is dismissed without examination by those who claim some kind of objectivity but outright reject gun ownership as compensating for some personal short fall. The mere idea that gun ownership, enshrined in the Constitution for a reason, is so repugnant that reason checks out. If presented with empirical data it will be dismissed because it comes from some organization not on some approved list of liberal sources.
As long as liberals believe conservatives to be lying, evil, manipulative, atavistic, warmongering troglodytes any rational discussion at all is impossible. The NRA is evil, John Lott is a tool of the NRA, gun owners are arrested in their development - how can any conversation occur. It is impossible until liberals acknowledge that they could be wrong. The lack of objectivity by liberals is the problem. But that is what is required of a belief system - rabid dedication.
What's worst is people being unwilling to even consider a thought-experiment.
Let's say you wake up in the middle of the night to the sound of a window being broken in your house. Some guy is hoping to make off with your TV for a couple hundred bucks.
Situation 1 - You walk in on the burglar, unarmed. He might run. He might attack you. If he attacks you, he might hurt or kill you.
Situation 2 - You walk in on the burglar with a gun drawn. He might run. He might attack you. He might freeze. The situation is much less likely to end with you losing your property, being hurt, or being killed, as you can control the situation. Who would you rather control the situation, the criminal, or the citizen?
An even better thought experiment is: You are a woman walking to your car in a parking garage when a man grabs you what would you rather have in your purse, pepper spray, a knife, a pair of brass knuckles, your cell phone with 911 on speed dial or a loaded and ready .38 revolver. Which one do you think would be the most reliable way to stop a rape?
Its a trick question - its the pistol. Showing a potential rapist a pistol prevents rape - calling 911 doesn't work well since it takes more time to dial 911 than to pull the trigger. There are equally valid reasons for the others inferiority to the pistol. Women who are armed and resist are the ones most likely to survive an attack. Women who do not are the ones least likely to survive.
You know you're actually making the argument for self defense training...and not possession of a Gun, right?
Hardly - self defense classes are all well and good but survival rates for women with fire arms is greater than women trained in unarmed self defense. A 5'2" 120 pound black belt in judo is still not a match for a man who is 6" 200 lbs and ready to beat her to death.
Then I would suggest those women go get better instructors and/or arm themselves.
I was just meaning that self defense isn't an offensive thing. It's called self defense for a reason and that reason is to be able to flee the attacker, but hindering their ability to move at the same time, to grant a head start. Any women who is foolish enough to stand their ground with the dimensions you've specified, deserves to get her ass kicked just for being stupid.
Self defense isn't for a lengthy battle. That would be Martial Arts training.
I seriously doubt the accuracy of your statement about survival rates. Do you have proof? As a woman, I'd love to know whether or not it is true.
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend … _rape1.htm
You have to read down about a third of the way but there are some interesting sources.
Sorry, but your conclusion is not reality-based. If a woman is grabbed by a man, unless she has some self-defense training or is just lucky, she will likely not be able to reach into her purse to grab a gun and get off a shot. If she has self-defense training, then the most likely scenario is that she would elude his grasp just long enough to run or, alternatively, strike and run. Unless she already has a gun in her hands, and is also an excellent shot, then having a gun is one of the least effective ways of escaping an attacker who is likely to be stronger and faster.
If a woman is grabbed by a man, unless she has some self-defense training or is just lucky, she will likely not be able to reach into her purse to grab a gun and get off a shot.
Indeed. If someone confronts you, then sure, you might be able to pull that gun. But considering that it takes some women I know like five minutes to find their dang wallet in the checkout line, there just might be a bit of a time lag while they dig through their purse to find their revolver.
Also, your self-defense training can't be taken from you.
A lot of people think your self-defense training is to enable you to win a fight with a predator. This is not the case. Self defense training (and even most martial arts training) is less about winning fights and more about you not being hurt, violated, or killed.
Most defense teachers tell you that if a guy pulls a knife on you and says "Gimme your wallet," you give him the damn wallet, 'cos there's nothing in your wallet that's more valuable than your life.
But they also teach that if the guy pulls a knife on you and says "Keep quiet and come with me," then you should raise all the ruckus you can while trying to get away, because he's probably intending to kill you.
That said, producing a gun can make a would-be mugger/rapist/whatever run away without offering any further violence, if you can produce it quickly enough. But it can also be taken from you. Training can't.
Finally, most rapes are committed by someone the victim knows rather than an unknown assailant in a parking garage. It's harder to decide when to pull a gun in such a situation, I'd imagine.
Actually the women who DON'T resist are the ones most likely to survive the rape. Although they are also the most likely to be raped.
That is totally untrue - all stats point to fighting back as the key to surviving a rape attempt.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles … -not-fight
http://www.utmedicalcenter.org/center-f … sues/rape/
Your first article is actually an admission that a previous study was incorrect because rape/murders were classified as murders instead of rape... it also quoted...
"With a physically violent assailant, it's probably not going to make much difference whether you resist or not. But with an assailant who uses verbal tactics, resistance is definitely the appropriate strategy."
Which is stated as advice... not proof.
Your second article states:
"Fight back. There is no guarantee that fighting back will work, and it may increase your chances of becoming seriously injured – so you may decide not to, especially if he’s threatening you with a weapon. If you do choose to fight, fight dirty and decisively with improvised weapons like car keys, a fork, pen or book. Your attacker may be much bigger than you – but everyone has sensitive areas, including the groin, eyes and the instep of the foot. According to the Nashville Police Department, 55 percent of rape victims who choose not to fight back get injured anyway – so fighting back may be a good option."
Which admits that fighting back might increase your chances of getting injured... and that one police department takes the view "you are going to get injured anyway so why not" It doesn't take into consideration the extent of those injuries.
The third article talks about the prevention of rape through fighting back. I fully admit that you are more likely to prevent RAPE by fighting back. However you are more likely to prevent being killed during a rape by not resisting. You were talking about surviving rape not preventing it.
You must remember that rape isn't about sex it's about control... Once the rapist has control over you that is generally enough to keep his rage from boiling over... thwarting his attempts throws the whole issue back onto his inherent level of violence... which is generally quite high. In short you are going to piss the unstable violent guy off more.
That being said I would fight. However I am better equipped than many women to do so... If he had a gun I would likely die. If we both had guns I would likely die. If I alone had a gun then it would likely not help me a damn bit unless I spent my time walking around brandishing it loaded with the safety off...
http://www.crime-safety-security.com/ra … ntion.html
By now anyone who does not know that rape is about power not sex is intentionally uninformed.
Actually , I am talking about preventing any assault - man or woman - vigilance and a pistol tip the scale in the favor of the intended victim.
I know this is going to sound flippant but wouldn't the scale be tipped a bit more if NOBODY involved had a gun?
How do you think that would ever happen? It is not just guns, knives, swords, hatchets, kitchen knifes - the gun helps trump these also. How do you get all weapons out of the hands of criminals? Again, the name suggests a basic disregard for law but not only the law but all social expectations for civilized conduct.
Taking the guns out of the hands of the law abiding does absolutely nothing but empower the criminal.
A lot of people make arguments along the lines of 'Well, if nobody had guns we wouldn't have gun-related deaths'.
But not one of them can explain how we could, even if we wanted to, get rid of guns.
Oh I don't think it would happen. Guns are here and there's really nothing we can do about it. It's just the basic argument of "Guns don't kill people...etc" that I have a problem with. It's tripe. It's like saying that vibrators don't cause orgasms or refrigerators don't make food cold.
A gun is a machine with no other purpose in the world but to shoot projectiles at other living things. Everyone can argue that they are God's gift to the world but they were designed to kill people and animals. Period.
As they are here the argument now becomes is everyone safer...relatively...if we all have the ability to kill each other more easily. That argument is essentially the same as the old chestnut of "If every country has nuclear weapons then no one will use them for fear of retaliation". Same thing just on a bigger scale. Which really amuses me on a political scope since we go to war to prevent countries we deem "unstable" (Which generally means either communist or Muslim) from acquiring them. Yet the same people who support these wars (see Bush's WMD fiasco) cry foul when any gun regulations are put into play. Apparently individual Americans should have unrestricted rights to bear arms but nations that we are trying to "convert" to Democracy are not to be given the same rights.
But I digress... My point is that I have accepted the fact that anyone, regardless of IQ, psychological stability, responsibility or common sense, has the right to be equipped with weapons that can kill dozens of people per minute if they so get the inclination. However, I am certainly not going to be standing around with pom-poms cheering the prospect. Nor will I ever be convinced that having a society armed to the teeth somehow makes it safer. It simply puts all gun owners on a level playing field. SAFER would be if no one had guns.
In addition the whole "If guns are outlawed then only criminals would have guns" cliche serves only to remind me personally that a large portion of society seems to be content with equality with the worst members of said society. There is something about that that just seems sad and pathetic to me.
That being said... I'm not trying to take anyone's guns. However, I also think that there should be laws in effect to make sure that the craziest and least responsible members of our society should not be able to legally obtain unlimited amounts of firearms. I think that the individuals that are the most lacking in common sense should be forced to pass a basic competency test on gun safety with 100 percent accuracy before they are given machines capable of causing grievous bodily harm to themselves and others. I mean we expect more from someone applying for a driver's licence than those applying for a concealed carry. I also believe that NO ONE needs an automatic weapon for self-defense or hunting. 14 in a clip should be sufficient for anyone trying to protect themselves from anything less than a bloody swat team.
Maybe this would be better Melissa?
When Golda Meir was Prime Minster of Israel she was asked to place a curfew on women to end a series of rapes. However, she refused, saying, "But it is the men who are attacking the women. If there is to be a curfew, let the men stay at home.
LOL! Actually mandated chemical castration of all rapists would make me feel better... and mandatory housing in general population in prison...oh and a big old R branded on their forehead would help just so we could see them coming.
I'm joking about one. You guess which one.
Kleck and Sales, Rape and Resistance, Social Problems 1990
Data pulled from the National Crime Victim Survey showed that women who resisted with knife or gun had drastically lower rates of being raped and being injured.
1. Show me a study from this century. This decade would be nice.
2. Show me a study from a person who is not biased towards gun ownership.
3. Find me a study on how many would be rapists actually rape the woman after they have killed her for pulling a gun or a knife on them.
Bah... nevermind. Any study/statistic you throw up won't change the fact that if there were no guns then no one would die or be injured from them. Everything else is just prattle and justification.
What changed in 20 years? Sure, it's getting old for a study, but if pulling a gun on someone was effective back then, why not today?
Saying 'from this century' is just a pathetic attempt to try and enlarge the age of the study.
Kleck is a respected criminologist. Just because someone has found, through study, that guns save lives, doesn't mean their studies are biased. Why don't you tell me where his study went wrong?
Attacking the source of the study instead of the study is a cop-out.
That study said it basically brought down the incidence of being hurt or killed to statistically insignificant. BTW, the data came from the government, he just analyzed it.
If there were no guns? That's not going to happen. There are two possible scenarios in the US.
1 - Ban guns, only criminals will have them.
2 - Allow citizens to have guns, and they can defend themselves.
The Department of Justice did a study, you never responded to that one. They found that guns were used up to 4.5 million times a year to stop a crime. Is that a biased source?
Oh, I forgot. Rapists became bulletproof as a side effect of Y2K.
Actually it probably was a cop out... mostly because it is completely useless to post anything that disagrees with you. Just as it useless for YOU to post anything that disagrees with me.
Statistics are like the bible... any verse you find you can find another to disagree with. And much like most quote-mined bible verses I don't care about your statistics or your arguments.
I'll go ahead and stick to what my I learned about rape during 1. My actual rape. 2. The 105 hours of CEU's per year that were required of me to do social work 3. What I learned in college (sociology minor.. not a biggie really but slightly better than an internet google) and 4. What every single rape and domestic councilor I have ever met in my life knows to be true.
But... you go ahead and keep throwing out your agenda-based arguments to convince women that guns are great wonderful things. Maybe someone will actually read it... believe you... and get shot. Then you can say if she had TWO guns that wouldn't have happened.
1. The majority of rape victims are too young to legally own a gun.
2. Most women are raped in situations that they wouldn't have their gun.
3. The use of firearms by an attacker during a rape is actually very very rare. As Cags said... you are arguing for a self-defense class not gun ownership... but I'm pretty sure with the fanaticism of some of your arguments you would advocate pulling a gun to defend yourself from a jaywalker.
I see. If I provide a study by Kleck, it's no good because he's biased. If I provide a study by the DoJ, it's no good, because all studies are just crap.
That's another cop out. Not all statistics are worthless, and not all statistics are debatable.
1 - Ok... what does that have to do with what I said? I said that in cases where a woman resisted with knife or gun. That obviously doesn't apply to women who don't have either.
2 - Again, I said when. When it is possible to resist with a weapon, it is better. Moreso if you actually train with the weapon instead of just going out and buying a gun and hoping for the best.
3 - I'm not talking about the use of firearms by the attacker. I'm talking about the use of firearms by the victim. I think self-defence is great, as is having a weapon and being trained with it. I would never advocate using a gun irresponsibly.
Defend yourself from a jaywalker? Do you really have to make stupid statements like that? I didn't say that, and you acting like I would is just... meh.
Melissa, thank you for your candor. It takes a lot of guts to admit in a public forum that you were raped.
Jaxson, do you have a link to that DoJ study? 4.5 million crimes stopped with guns seems like an awful lot.
Yeah, I have the link. I always have a link. I just get tired of posting them because liberals have a tendency to ignore anything they don't agree with.
4.5 million is their upper figure if they count multiple uses. 1.5 million is their lower figure.
As long as liberals believe conservatives to be lying, evil, manipulative, atavistic, warmongering troglodytes any rational discussion at all is impossible.
Very true. And as long as conservatives believe liberals to be lying, evil, manipulative, traitorous, hoplophobic elitists, the same thing is true. Broad brushes are always bad, no matter who the painter.
It is impossible until liberals [and conservatives alike] acknowledge that they could be wrong. The lack of objectivity by [ideologues] is the problem. But that is what is required of a belief system - rabid dedication.
There, that looks better to me.
The talking heads on both ends of the spectrum bear rather a lot of the blame for this polarization.
Interestingly, once upon a time, the idea that any Tom, Dick, or Harry should be allowed to carry around a weapon if they want to was a liberal idea. The establishment was really frightened of the idea of an armed peasantry. I mean, if just anybody had the ability to shoot an oppressive overlord, then were would we be? No, we need to make sure that only the upper classes will be able to hold the power of life and death in their hands.
How on Earth did liberals abandon this equalizing idea? I think it must have been hard for the anti-war movement of the 60s and early 70s to reconcile being against making war while being in favor of gun rights, and foolishly decided that the two ideas were incompatible, because, guns.
An anti-war stance is not incompatible with gun rights, if you allow for using the army to defend against an invasion, or come to the aid of an ally who has been invaded, or strike back at a nation that has attacked ours.
I usually end up on the left side of a given political question (sometimes closer to the center than others), but on this one I'm squarely on the side of gun rights, with reasonable regulations.
I don't think badly of liberals, I do believe the position is one expressed out of ignorance. We are all ignorant of some things but willful ignorance is, put simply, wrong. I had to look up hoplophobic - thanks for that. What did happen to liberals regarding firearms? Perhaps adopting the pet in the federal preserve mentality finally trumped reason.
You accusing one side of it shows that the other side is included.
Unfortunately, willful ignorance is the same as chosen ignorance. Some people simply choose to not get involved at all at any level.
It's been quieted down because other issues are being pushed to the forefront.
I'm not sure I understand this statement.
When your pet asserts his right to carry perhaps you will understand. A pet in a preserve is housed, fed, clothed, sheltered, protected, receives medical attention and rewards. To live as too many liberals would have Americans live is to be a pet in a preserve.
My pets don't assert anything. It's ignorant people who think I'm incapable of handling a pet who assert they know what's best.
People have pets for a reason. And there's a reason for "pets" to be sold, such as dogs and cats. If you're unaware of why the domestication of these two animals has happened, it is because it has tremendous good side effects.
And, apparently you cannot see straight due to your egotistical bias.
Well, I had to double-check on "atavistic," so, right back atcha.
I suspect the liberal shift away from 2nd Amendment rights has to do with the peace movement.
It's hard for some people to say they won't go to war but have no problem going hunting. And some other people would argue that if someone has no problem going hunting, then why should they have a problem going to war?
It can take time and thought to explain the difference between using a gun to hunt for food and using a gun to kill another human being, especially to someone who either genuinely doesn't see the difference or else has a vested interest in trying to muddy the difference.
Far easier to paint with the hated broad brush, and say that guns are always bad, whether used in war, or in home defense, or in hunting, or whatever.
How many guns do you think are legally owned in the United States?
An exact number is hard to find but the number is somewhere between 238 million and 300 million.
How many illegally held fire arms are there in the United States?
Nearly impossible to know since Americas borders are wide open
How many crimes are committed with legally owned and carried firearms?
There are some localities where the crime rate among those who are legally permitted to carry is lower than the crime rate among police officers.
Most gun-rights advocates are in favor of some gun control. Not many people think we should allow criminals, clinically insane individuals, drug cartels, and small children have unfettered access to guns.
Both sides tend to get carried away. I'm 100% about gun rights, but that doesn't mean I'm 100% against gun control. I think the government shouldn't get in the way of a responsible, law-abiding citizen to obtain guns. I don't think the government should allow people to sell guns (or give them to) criminals or drug cartels.
Most gun-rights advocates are in favor of some gun control.
That's true, and most gun control advocates don't want an outright ban, too.
I find the requirement for trigger-locks to be sold with all firearms about as controversial as the requirement that seat belts should be installed on all cars. I can't imagine why anyone would be against this, but some people are.
And as you point out, both sides get carried away, and then you get demonization, and so on.
I'm right with you. I love gun rights, and see no reason to prevent law-abiding citizens from buying guns. I do, however, see value in preventing firearms from being sold to felons, children, etc. (that being said, the gang bangers, etc. will get guns illegally anyway, so this wouldn't really accomplish much)
The thing is, those guns have to enter circulation at some point, and stemming that tide might hinder gun acquisition in the future. Ban all guns today and you wouldn't see a reduction in crime for years, I suspect.
Banning guns in the US won't keep new guns from coming to the US. We absolutely cannot control illegal imports. Just look at the drug trade.
Yes, a small number of people who have guns would have a harder time getting them, but 100% of the law-abiding population would be without them.
You'll note that I was speaking hypothetically. Also, the borders aren't wide open as others have stated, but regardless, illegal gun importation isn't an argument against gun control, it's an argument for tighter border restrictions, because it also hurts sales of legitimately imported guns as well as domestically-produced ones.
BTW, people use guns to kill other people.
Guns are inanimate objects, they are incapable of performing an action on their own.
If you knowingly give guns to drug cartels, you are absolutely responsible for the use that gun is put to. There is no benefit of the doubt.
One time I called a gun a dirty word, and it got so mad at me that I cried out in terror for Obama to protect me from guns.
You're over thinking the issue to much. Politicians have a tendency to wrap things up so people get compelled to argue about issues for DECADES. =-P
"Do guns kill people, or do people kill people? Or does it depend?"
My observations through a Q&A scenario...
Q: Do cars kill people, or do people kill people? Or does it depend?
A: No, cars don't kill people, etc.
Q: Do nuclear bombs kill people, or do people kill people? Or does it depend?
A: Yes, nuclear bombs kill people, etc.
Q: Do guns kill people, or do people kill people? Or does it depend?
A: Yes and no. It is in-between the other two. And therein lies the problem and resulting controversy.
Just my thoughts on the matter...
Lets sight two facts.
1.Guns are designed to kill.
2.Humans are violent as a species.
Can you place the blame on a inanimate object for killing someone? No.The fact of the matter is every time someone has died from being shot by a gun, they has been a second party pulling the trigger. Guns are just a means to an end.
and threatening... don't forget threatening...
And saving lives. Don't forget saving lives.
Yeah... you're right. Who cares if leading researchers, criminologists, and the Department of Justice all agree that guns are used millions of times a year defensively.
I'm sure you know better than they do. I'm sure you have a better overall picture of the total effect of gun usage across the entire United States.
Speaking of using guns for defense. (Shameless self promotion =-D ) I actually post reviews on best home defense weapons if anyone needs one they can follow my profile link. =-P
Oh yes, definitely threatening, must have threatening.
Is this using a gun to 'threaten' somebody?
John comes up to Jack while Jack is loading his stuff into his trunk. John pulls out a knife and starts running at Jack. Jack pulls out a gun, and John turns around and runs away.
That poor John got threatened by Jack, right?
Hey Jaxson, back off man. Chill out.
A Gun is threatening, all by itself. Many people are deathly scare of Guns. That fear is because they only know they kill people and lose fact that someone has to pull the trigger.
Absolutely. Guns prevent people from hurting you. Usually without needing to fire/wound/kill.
I live in the Detroit area, and I read every day about gun killings, but I don't recall ever reading about a single prevented killing by a non-police gun carrier. I'm sure it happens occasionally, but very seldom compared to drug gang shootings, drive by shootings, suicides, accidental shootings, cold blooded murders, killings by demented grandmothers of their grandsons, and so forth. A man with a concealed carry permit in my home town recently shot himself in the penis when removing his handgun before beginning to work on a home repair job in my home town.
http://www.freep.com/article/20120615/N … Birmingham
A couple of things.
If someone comes up to me in the parking lot to rob me and I pull a gun on them, then they run away, I'm not going to report it to the media. The media rarely reports defensive gun uses(DGU), even when something prominent happens. I've seen stories covered by minor papers where a civilian stopped a burglary or rape in progress with a gun and kept the bad guy on the ground until the police came, but they almost never get picked up by the big news outlets. It's not 'good' enough news, or doesn't fit their agenda, or whatever.
In cases of DGU, the gun usually isn't fired. According to criminologists Kleck and Gertz, 92% of the time the criminal doesn't get shot and just runs away or stops.
In cases where the criminal is hit, things get tricky. Anywhere from 3% to 80% of gunshot wounds are fatal. These figures vary widely based on type of weapon and experience of shooter, as well as intention. Most people who are less-trained and defending themselves have a tendency to use less-lethal weapons(small-calibre handguns, and if they use a shotgun they often use birdshot), probably because they just don't want to kill somebody.
I saw a similar story where a guy shot himself, with his girlfriend's pink gun, in Phoenix. People should be careful with guns. You don't have to treat them like eggs, but keep the safety on, or don't keep a bullet in the chamber, or get a 1911 where you have the grip safety.
If someone carries they should use a holster. Any holster, outside-belt, inside-belt, pouch, or pocket will prevent the trigger from activating.
"Any holster, outside-belt, inside-belt, pouch, or pocket will prevent the trigger from activating."
Here's one from last week where the trigger wasn't prevented from activating:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti … 2207090367
That is a freak accident - cars kill people all the time with their seatbelts buckled and their airbags in good working order - those evil cars. When will the carnage stop and cars come with manditory locks - oops they do and yet....
I'll wait until the investigations find out what happened. Of course, there is always a possibility of an accident. People get so picky over semantics.
So, because you can't argue the actual points, let me fix my statement.
Any holster, outside-belt, inside-belt, pouch, or pocket will preven the trigger from activating in 99.999% of cases.
Can we stop being so picky now?
Killing is not a bad thing. We kill when we hunt. We kill when we fight a war. We kill when another has commited a heinous and egregious crime. All fit within the realm of God's law and man's law. Murder, however, is the bad thing, and murder can be committed just as easily with a knive, rope, aluminum bat, hands and many other things. Murder is against God's and man's laws. Killing and murder is too different things.
hmmmm....i recall something about 'thou shall not kill' - my interpretation of that is about killing another person whether it is via war, seeking justice, etc.....don't recall the word 'murder'
There are as many translations of the Bible as there are people that will dispute it. You are entitle to YOUR interpretation. I am entitled to mine, which comes from have two Baptist preacher grandfathers, a father that started Baptist seminary college twice, attending Lutheran catechism classes as a teenager, attending Catholic catechism study groups as an adult, going to a plethora of different churches with various demoninations and reading more religious books than I can count over the past 41 years. So, my opinionated interpretation is well-educated. No one is right or wrong.
Kill is a poor translation into English.
Do some research on it, you will find that the original Hebrew clearly indicates murder.
Why? He is right.
If you kill someone who is attempting to take your life, then it's considered justified murder(killing).
Killing someone who isn't imminently putting someone else's life at stake is murder(planned or unplanned). If you think that because the Law makes a distinction between "murder" and "manslaughter", doesn't mean a "murder"(killing) wasn't committed. That's just BS. Semantics.
US homicide rates are many times higher(2-8 times) than any of our european counterparts. Again, we rank with developing countries in this measure. The reason? Guns are readily available here. Watch Bowling for Columbine again...
In 2011 in the UK there were 200 murders with knives. That's 0.32 per 100,000.
In 2007 in the US there were 1,981 murders with knives. That's 0.66 per 100,000.
The US is a more violent country. A good portion of that has to do with the border with Mexico and the war on drugs. You can't compare country to country, guns aren't the reason for high homicide rates in the US.
Every state that has relaxed its laws to allow citizens to carry has seen a decrease in homicides.
So, if we're a more violent country, why are we allowing people to carry guns? I agree, that we are more violent country and it's not just about gun availability, but guns make it quite easy to kill people.
I'd like to see legitimate data on your assertion that relaxed gun control = decreased homicides
"More Guns, Less Crime" by Dr. John R. Lott
Hmmm... I gave this guy a quick look. I am open to this idea, but I would need a source that is not from an extreme conservative to look at it with a more open mind. I will give it a closer look, but a more balanced report or article would certainly help me give a more balanced review.
One of the saddest sounds in the world is that of a mind slamming shut.
Wow- that's quite a statement. I'm being open - I'm intrigued by your statement. But, if you can't see that this guy is promoting a very right wing agenda, then I think your mind is already shut. I'm sure I could dig up a zillion articles saying the opposite and this could go on forever. You can write the stats however you want... I would just like a non-extremist review of the issue.
I thought gun ownership was covered in the Constitution - right behind the guarantee to free speech. Perhaps actually reading the book and checking the data would help.
How can it be an extreme right wing conservative view if he is not espousing the extermination of women, Jews, homosexuals, blacks, hispanics, etc.... Aren't extremist right wing conservatives bigot, racist, homophobic, sexist, agist, ethnocentirc facist warmongers? After all Rick Perry once stood near a rock that someone else had spray painted the "n" word on years before and David Duke once ran as a Republicna and isn't Mitt Romney white, rich and married to a woman?
To dismiss an idea based on who offered it is as much a logical fallacy as accepting an idea just because of who offered it.
That is true for an IDEA an idea can be analyzed on it's own merits when explained, not so for DATA if the person compiling the data has an agenda then that is reason to be suspect of their data, that is why scientists are supposed to be impartial and use double blinds to collect their data.
unless discussing global warming, racial inequality in hiring, economics, etc... there is nothing that is subject to political policy that is objective and if one reads widely enough, not even science is objective - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Struct … evolutions
Gun crime and violence is a statistical affair and there is real unmoderated data, we have to be suspicious of findings if they are made by someone looking for certain results.
Global warming is a statistical affair and there is real unmoderated data, we have to be suspicious of findings if they are made by someone looking for certain results.
I completely agree and it is completely irrelevant to this conversation.
That's especially true about NRA and libertarian Second Amendment anti-gun control propaganda.
What is gun ownership like in Switzerland? Israel? Vermont?
What is gun ownership like in Detroit? Chicago?
It isn't firearms that are the problem it is culture. Vermont is not a hot bed of gun violence but has some of the loosest gun laws in the country. Switzerland has nearly universal gun ownership and is not the hot bed of European crime. Israel has nearly universal gun ownership, even in the Muslim population and is not the hot bed of gun crime.
And despite what liberals say they ignore the benefits of gun ownership by the ordinary, moral, law abiding Americans.
Yeah Josak. Like you looking for results showing DGUs to be rare. That's what makes you end up quoting a reference from Wikipedia that appears to be reliable, without realizing that it's data that's 20 years old and has been clearly shown to be wrong.
By 1990 the vast majority of states were shall issue or may issue. As for GDU's I just used the research I found I am pro guns I just don't like things being overly misrepresented. As for the clearly proven to be wrong I would really like a source.
May issue doesn't mean people are allowed to carry guns, especially in liberal states. You can look at individual state records, although some states leave it up to the counties, so you actually have to call and fax in a request for public information, to see how many permits were issued.
Go through FL's records, on how many people have carry permits each year since they changed their law. It takes about a decade for a significant number of people to start carrying.
I've provided sources already. Kleck and Gertz addresses it quite clearly, start there.
""More Guns, Less Crime" by Dr. John R. Lott"
Dr. John R. Lott is a hack libertarian blogger. His book is obviously biased as is most of the NRA and CATO libertarian propaganda.
I'm with Laura on that. It's such a politically charged issue on both sides that reliable data is hard too find.
So would I. I read in my Detroit newspaper every day of one or two gun killings, but I don't recall ever reading about one where a gun carried by a citizen (not a policeman) averted a killing or crime. I don't doubt that it happens occasionally, but I'm very skeptical of Jaxon's claim. It sounds as if it came straight from the NRA.
The FBI compiles data often reporting that crimes are frequently thwarted by brandished firearms. How many shootings in Detroit are with leagally owned firearms? How many years will Democrats run Detroit into the ground before residents switch party - the answer is all of them. Detroit is shutting down the street lights in whole neighborhoods - expect the crime rate to climb.
I don't know the numbers, but I'm sure that people who have legally acquired guns and who carry permits, in general, use them safely. The problem is that our laws are lax, and too easily allow many too many guns to be acquired illegally and get into the wrong hands. This is a huge problem in our country. As with many problems here, it has become highly politicized and polarized, and people are unwilling to look at the full picture.
Since criminals are undetered by the law - hence the name "criminal" - tightened gun laws tend to disarm those who obey the lae -"non-criminals." This results in an increasingly easy target for the criminal. in Great Britain "hot" burglaries - those where the home owner is not known to be out - are far more common than in the US where firearms make such activities risky.
The open borders of the United States makes gun running much easier than it would be in most other countries - as recently demonstrated by the Obama administration.
Well according to the American journal of public health 0.83% of gun use is in self defense (whether the gun is fired or not)
As for when the people will change their votes it will be about the same time that Republicans learn to relate to minorities and stop hanging them out to dry whenever they take power and when the Republican party stops increasing the wealth gap every time it takes power.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/1 … 19008.html
And by "hanging them out to dry" do you mean keeping the hand outs flowing and keeping the cots in the federal preserve filled? Obama has been very successful filling the food stamp rolls with women and minorities. I suppose increased minority unemployment isn't hanging them out to dry.
The benefit of Democrats to minorities is mythological. Considering how long Democrats controlled Congress before 1994, the longevity of New Deal and Great Society programs and the Obama administrations expansion of the federal preserve - why do differences persist?
Hanging them out to dry means cutting measures designed to aid low income earners, imposing greater tax burden on the poor and telling them to get a job without providing any for them to get.
The link you posted is a perfect example of what i am talking about, a recession (ocuring under a Republican) increases the wealth gap enormously but talk about progressive taxation to reduce that wealth gap and it is horrible horrible socialism.
I am not a democrat or even a liberal but that is as clear cut as can be. There is no better demonstration than the Regan era, Regan was president during a very profitable time in the US economy, lots of people got rich and the GDP grew but the number of poor grew too (it's called the trickle down theory and it obviously does not work and that is the simple reason why the very poor do not vote Republican).
Also way to ignore the data on how rare self defense gun use is.
First, that study gets its data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, which has been shown to be deeply flawed. Even the DoJ found that the DGU incidence reported by NCVS is completely wrong.
Secondly, that information comes from 1987-1990, when most states didn't allow private citizens to carry guns. When you aren't allowed to carry a gun, it's harder to use it to defend yourself. Try to use data that isn't over 20 years old.
"How many shootings in Detroit are with leagally owned firearms?"
I don't know. However, a demented grandmother recently went out and bought a Glock pistol and shot her own grandson who was living with her. And she shot him a couple of more times while he was calling 911. Perhaps the majority of shootings are done with illegal guns. However that's the point--we need stronger gun control laws and more effective enforcement designed to reduce the number of illegal weapons.
How is the gun homocide rate in Chicago doing? Isn't it already illegal to own a firearm there? Illinois has some strong fun laws. Again, criminals are undetered by laws taht is why they are called criminals.
Reading about something in the paper really isn't a good measure of a trend. Yeah, a granny shot her grandson, but that was reported because it was unusual. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying that anecdotal evidence isn't really useful.
The question I would ask is, at what point does a gun become "illegal?" All guns were "legal" at some point (except for homemade guns, presumably, but how many of those are there?), so at what point have they ceased being legal? Many crimes are committed with guns that were stolen from law-abiding owners. Example: last week in my suburb (pauses to check police blotter in paper) three guns were stolen in burglaries. Those guns I strongly suspect will be sold to someone who intends to use it for a crime.
So the question remains: how do we prevent gun violence in this scenario? I think we all know that if the owner hadn't had the gun, it wouldn't have gotten stolen, and so on, but then, presumably, the criminal would have gotten a gun elsewhere.
To me, the issue seems to be a problem of educating gun owners on proper storage and things like that. The NRA-member, multi-gun-owning person generally isn't the problem, they store their guns correctly. It's the casual gun owner who keeps one under the bed or on the closet shelf and has it stolen in a break-in that causes the problem. How do we correct that without restricting access to the law-abiding?
I should write a hub.
Haha Ralph. I know that there's no point in presenting arguments or data to you. I can show you a fact in print, tell you what webpage it's on, what line, and you'll squirm out of it.
Is the Department of Justice a reliable source? If they say that guns are used between 1.5 and 4.5 million times a year to stop crimes, would you believe them?
If you seriously think that the news is going to care as much about DGU scenarios as stories where people get shot, you don't understand the media. Do you really expect every person who uses a gun(not even firing, just pulling it out) to stop from being robbed is going to end up on the news?
Ralph you do not read about guns used to prevent crime because the topic violates the “if it bleeds it leads” media rule. There is very little for the media to sensationalize when a criminal is forced to run away.
If you do happen to read about self-defensive use, it is usually because a gun was fired to defend, usually killing a perpetrator. Such a story usually focuses on gun critics attacking the defender and current gun laws, laced with the family of the deceased perpetrator lamenting the incident, upholding the virtues the dead and threatening civil lawsuits because the poor criminal shouldn’t have been killed.
Here is a video of the defensive use of a gun
http://cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/cri … .wkmg.html
I have put out data showing the effects of relaxed gun control time and time again. Start by looking at the study done by Kleck and Gertz. There was actually a peer-review done by a well-known statistician, and in his conclusion he stated that the study changed his mind on his stance on gun control.
Then you can look at the Department of Justice's study of Guns in America. It found that guns are used between 1.5 and 4.5 million times every year to stop a crime by private citizens.
Then compare states homicide rates before and after changing right-to-carry laws.
That will get you started. I specifically refrained from posting any 'pro gun' sites, but you can find links to a lot more studies from some good resources.
Guns definitely don't kill people, people do. I have yet to see a gun pull its own trigger- it's simply a means to an end that people use.
The concept that gun control will reduce gun crime is absurd. People who commit gun related murders, robberies, and abductions won't give up their guns if gun control laws are passed! Gun bans aren't going to prevent people from acquiring guns to commit crime, it'll only prevent law-abiding citizens from acquiring a means to protect themselves against those law-disregarding people that will continue to have guns anyway.
And I've never known anyone able to throw a bullet hard enough to kill someone... My can opener has never shot anyone either.
Allow me to lead by saying that I actually oppose gun legislation and that I often open carry, having said that both sides are biased on this in a way that misrepresents the truth.
For starters gun legislation absolutely does reduce gun crime, we can see the gun crime difference in countries with restrictions.
Second guns can kill people without people intending to kill people, hundreds of people are killed by accidental gun incidents.
Guns do reduce the incidence of certain crimes and often also prevent crimes, particularly in open carry, I own a shipping business on the docks and was robbed a few timed going there late at night, since I have started open carrying nothing like that has happened.
This is not a clear cut issue like people keep trying to make it out to be. I honestly don't see why we allow concealed carry when people can make it clear they have a weapon by open carrying.
I agree. Both sides tend to exaggerate the position of the other side as well.
You simply cannot compare country to country. The only real effective data you can gather is comparing an area's statistics before and after a change in gun laws.
Yeah, we still need more education about guns, but things have been getting better. Yes, a few hundred are accidentally killed, but at a rate of 0.2 per 100,000, we've gotten the figure down very low. For perspective, there are 10 times as many people who are accidentally suffocated, and 50 times as many people who are die from accidental poisoning.
Every accidental death is tragic, but with 300 million +, there are always going to be all kinds of accidents.
Yeah, most people don't want to get shot trying to make a few bucks by taking your wallet
Well, for one, there is the stigma attached to it. If I walk past someone on the street, they'll notice(barely) a well-dressed(very ), clean-cut man. If I have a .45 on my hip, people stare. I like to blend in, not stand out. And, I would always be more worried that someone was going to make a grab for my gun.
Second, there are so many businesses that have policies that guns aren't allowed. In all honesty, I could carry concealed with nobody knowing any better. The only time anyone is going to find out is if I have to use the gun to save someone's life, and I'd rather do that than leave my gun in the car. Not too long ago there was a guy who stopped two armed robbers in a restaurant. He was carrying concealed, and one of the baddies had shot one of the staff that ran for help. The good guy killed one and stopped the other. They had a no guns policy, but I'd rather he had the gun than not.
The last point I would make, off the top of my head, is that if everyone is forced to open carry, then a burglar would know who wasn't carrying, and be able to target them more confidently than if they have to worry about whether or not they have a gun.
Straw man argument. No one is calling for a full gun ban with confiscation of all legally-owned firearms. If you want to say that you fear gun control legislation will start us on a slippery slope towards that, please do, but save the logical fallacies for another time.
But people do say that. People have said that here.
Of course people kill people but their ability to form this act is enhanced by firearms-(Note I said Firearms). A person can commit a homicide with a knife, a baseball bat, an ice pick, a hatchet but nothing conveniently outperforms the convenience of a firearm.
http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-vio … elcome.htm
This website talks about in year 2005 11,326 people were killed by firearms. The article goes on to say 477,040 persons were victims of crimes committed with a firearms.
Is it just me or why isn't it that these numbers aren't alarming to more people? There are some towns whose population isn't as large as the death and injuries by firearms.
This murderer named "Anders Behring Breivik" responsible for 77 people's lives being taken does anyone think he could've performed this act using a hatchet, pocket knife etc.?
A counterfeiter cannot counterfeit if they don't have the tools to do it. A computer hacker cannot hack a system if he has no access to the tools needed. A person who makes bombs cannot make bombs if they are denied the elements necessary to build a bomb.
Deny a gunman a gun and they are no longer a gunman.
How do you deny a gunman a gun, in the US?
Please don't say by banning them.
Did you know that, even though marijuana is banned, the federal government finds that 85% of high-school students have easy access to it? Some 400-600 metric tons of cocaine are smuggled into the US each year.
Why is it that I hear from some people often-now that we've created this mess there's nothing we can do to fix it?
Someone here said some to the effect that someone needs to pull the trigger on a gun to kill But if there were no guns there wouldn't be a trigger to pull.
This is all as always an interesting debate until it hits home-a stray bullit from the street goes into the house and a baby child dies.
Granted crimmals are not going to follow any laws so the people still need to protect themselves. We have the technology to now make powerful but non-lethal weapons. We can have citizens trade their guns for these new kinds of weapons- this is one idea.
Well honestly, being in the military and all, I can tell you from a first hand experience that the more weapons are available, the violence rates will obviously be higher. However, at the end of the day, it's the individual who has the ultimate say on the subject. If a person is violent by nature, he will find a way to cause problems and create violence, even if no means of modern day weaponry are available.
And, I'll disagree. Violence rates do not increase because more weapons are available. Violence rates increase regardless of Guns, period. Even if Guns didn't exist, people would kill people in other methods. Guns help people protect themselves against those who choose to do harm.
Agreed. It is a person's choice how they protect themselves. The manner is completely up to themselves.
Violent by nature? Really? Babies are violent? Hmmm....interesting thought.
I have met some pretty evil toddlers. My second ex-wife and I used to run a day-care in our home. Some afternoons, with the after school kids and my step-kids, we could have up to 14 kids at one time.
This leads me to a paper my cousin wrote which obtaining her Psychology degree. Violent crime rates go up with population density. Less people per square mile means less crime overall. More people, more crime.
But I do believe that "just plain mean-ness and evil" can exist in a small child. Hell, even my sister broke another girl's ankle while in 7th grade PE just because "it seems like the thing to do at the time".
I guess you both brought it on yourselves.
Actually, there are a lot of factors which contribute. More people is just that more people. What leads one to crime? Is another story altogether.
Where was it learned? What did the child see? If a child learns "violence" then yes. It might become ingrained.
Now, that's demented.
Could be the animal nature in us. We are mammals in the animal kingdom. Therefore, we have instinctual natures just like other animals. When a perceived valuable resource is considered low in supply but high in demand, which could be more prevalent in high-density areas, crime will ensue. Ingrained or not. It's more innate. Some criminals have even used the excuse that they were "just trying to survive".
However, there are people that actually try to act evolved and look to find more legal alternatives to resolving their problems.
Ever heard of self control?
Yes, but that doesn't mean we must act like it.
Yes, but violence isn't one of those instincts unless actual survival of life is the issue.
I guess that only shows the flaw of perception.
Not buying it.
Of course they do. It's their rationalized justification for their actions which comes from a lack of perception and blatant ignorance of thought out planned actions.
Don't be so quick to dismiss 'nature'. It's been proven that among foxes, there is an aggression gene. The gene can be bred out of a population, and you end up with a non-aggressive population. It can also be bred into a population, and you end up with an aggressive population.
Aggressive animals have a higher percentage of naturally aggressive offspring(even if the offspring are removed from the parents, aka no learned aggression), and vice versa.
Don't you think the same is possible with humans?
I think almost anything is possible about humans. I'm not dismissing anything. Everything I speak to is all about consciousness more so than anything else.
I don't dispute animals will act a specific way and I won't dismiss the fact that an aggressive gene could be passed on. But, in the end, nurturing from a beginning of existence is internal as much as it is external. And self control is a huge part of it.
Yes, self-control is key. However, some either don't have it at all, or they honestly feel that they are justified in committing a crime, especially a non-violent one, for example - check bouncing. What they don't realize is that the cost of that crime is passed onto those law-abiding customers that do exercise self-control and restraint. Then again, they may not care. I think it might be the capacity to feel empathy. Those that are incapable of feeling empathy may be more prone to commit crime. I'm not sure. It's just a theory.
This to me is a person who doesn't understand their own life. Their actions prove it.
And, I attribute this again to not understanding one's own life and the world around them. They fail to see how each of their actions can have an affect and effect on humanity, no matter the action.
And that would tell me that their actions have no love in them.
Again, I'll attribute it to them not understanding their own life because if they did, then they would have a greater capacity for empathy.
I'll still attribute it to the above.
Agreed. And I have met people that are this way. They have no capacity to love anyone or anything. They want when they do not need. They take just because they can, and they don't care about the consequences or who they hurt. They barely care about actually living. These are the type of people that are not evolved far past amoeba. They are animals. They do exist. You can't reason with them, because they think you're stupid for not taking whatever you want whenever you want it. They have no concept of "code".
I just want you to know that I do not disagree with you on your opinions. They match many of mine. I'm just kinda playing "devil's advocate" a bit. Sorry.
These people are completely confused. Most likely irrationally rationalizing their actions without paying any attention to the consequences or reaction which will come from their actions.
I presently live with one.
Yes, ego is dominate in them so much so.
I know. And I'm playing along.
Listen there Cagsll, no one ever mentioned babies here. You're the one who brought that up. One's personality is not even formed yet by that age. However, for your information, I've some pretty disturbed children who have violent tendencies. Self control works for certain few only.
Yes, I know I brought it up. And I brought it for good reason.
And you know that how exactly? Who are you to say what a baby has learned(absorbed) from it's mother and father through genes passed on. The brain creates consciousness- subconscious mind and conscious mind. The subconsciousness learns while in the womb once it's been developed enough. And, that's before birth.
I am not doubting that. But, for the most part, humans, as an individual are not inherently evil or violent.
Thank you for your service. I have one in the Navy and his best friend is a Marine in Afghanistan, now. I think you would agree that if someone else is armed and you are disarmed you are at a disadvantage. Criminals will always be armed - even if it means knives, zip-guns or bows and arrows - criminals do not repsect laws.
Guns don't kill people. It takes someone to pull the trigger.
MY best friend's girlfriend's dad's second cousin's bosses daughter's 1st grade teacher's husband's preacher set a Magnum on his kitchen counter and his wife's cat's kitten knocked the handgun off to the floor and it triggered a ballistic projectile into her mouth from the linoleum, killing her.
While it was a mistake to leave the loaded gun on the counter, he swears that he did not do it. Fortunately for him, their house has security cameras which record and store all footage for 72 hours.
Thinking fast, he ejected the disc with but seconds remaining before it could be deleted by the computer and its programming to make that so!
Which tells us that at times, people kill people, but for all of you cat haters out there -- know that you are justified in your contempt of felines.
FOR IT HAS BEEN SHOWN FORTH IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN THE GREATEST NATION IN WORLD OF THE UNIVERSE THAT MORE OFTEN THAN YOU COULD IMAGINE THAT KITTENS KILL PEOPLE, AND THEIR PREFERRED CONCEALED WEAPON IS A 45 MAGNUM IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
People kill people and they don't need guns to do it either. I have a house full of guns and there hasn't been a one of them yet that's misbehaved and gone off and killed anything or anyone all by itself.
same here - in fact, even though I ask them too they don't like hitting a target exactly where I want. I guess they need more training.
You're all wrong. Death kills people. In fact Death is the leading cause of death. Look it up. =-P
Actually, you have that a bit wrong.
Dying is the number one cause of death.
Nope, forum thread over. Close it up. =-P
I use to work for a doctor (his field was emergency medicine) who had a similar attitude to that of house. One of the things he made sure I always remembered was that all bleeding stops eventually. So hey, no worries people.
The police can't stop an intruder, mugger or stalker from hurting you. They can pursue him only after he has hurt or killed you. Protecting yourself from harm is your responsibility,. and you are far less likely to be hurt in a neighborhood of gun-owners than in one of disarmed citizens, even if you don't own a gun yourself- Harry Browne
This just came to me as I signed in and saw the notification...
It is a interesting thing, and I am not sure if it is a fact or not, that many, if not most killers, are above average intelligence.
Now, I would not go so far as to say it is the rule, and pardon the jocular insertion to this thread earlier, as it is a serious question, but it frightens me to consider that intelligence is behind many murders - from the Pentagon into the CIA, NSA, DOD ETC, ETC....
On a domestic note, where I feel that this question is most apropos, because many of us who carry concealed firearms may only have them for protection, it is no rarity that the ego flares up to defend itself from time to time. Incidentally, I have been face to face with an opportunity to have let my ego direct my hands at another mortal soul, yet as the time came, the lights grew dim and tunnel-vision took over (not television), my hands found their way to inanimate objects and preceded to bring upon them, their very annihilation. Were I to have had a gun nearby, I don't think that it would have even came to my mind. Based on the aforementioned scenario, I would have been inclined to unload a magazine into the floor before I considered taking one's life. How stupid intelligence can be.
In that moment, I do believe that my ego (perhaps more truly spoken if I say, my Super-ego, to be correct) deserved to have honor over the situate, never-the-less, the only blood that was spilled was indeed my very own. The other left the scene. Strangely, I look back to see that it was that individual who saw the agony that welled up in me, and determined that the wrong was in fact hers. The inanimate objects did, too, belong to her. My bleeding hand a representation of my bleeding heart. Could it have turned into a crime of passion? Perhaps, but according to my previous assertions, I would have to be a great deal smarter than I am - that is of course, another joke!
If, on the other hand, the gun were in her hand, I feel fairly certain that she would not have bothered to have pointed it at me...the moment when people kill people...it is however my belief that she would have turned the firearm upon herself...because guns don't kill people - animals do!
And who knows how intelligent animals are, unless you are the one that trained them to either roll over and play dead, or consider that shitting where you eat is not only stupid, but the behavior of pigs. Whether it is a coincidence or not is out of the question here, it just so happens that her Chinese Zodiac was the pig... which, she, and only she gave credence to. I guess you are what you believe.
But allow me to digress from my rant, and get back to how many crimes are committed by intelligent, upstanding citizens. We all have it in us, I believe, provided that the circumstances stroke our ego due to the fact that we were never brought up in a way that would grant us a super-ego.
"Shoot"... what's wrong with pumping rounds into the air to just make some noise.... "hollah" .... whut, whut! Where are my dogs at??? Blastin' a cap into someone...Maybe...maybe???
This is, of course, really just a way of saying how ridiculous guns can be. It is just me being creative. Violence is intolerable. Guns or not, hands or no hands - the point is, why be violent at all.... when enraged, RUN AWAY!
Btw... just got done reading one of the reports from the DOJ coincidentally co-authored by Gary Kleck in 2005 that came to the conclusion that the "self protective" action of calling the police reduced the risk of injury from rape by 90 percent. Screw the gun... give me a cell phone.
I find it ironic that apparently calling the police is included in self-protective actions as is running-locking the doors-driving away- turning on the lights etc.
So yeah... as compared to feigning death then "self protective actions" are way better...
The Impact of Victim Self Protection on Rape Completion and Injury
Author(s): Gary Kleck and Jongyeon Tark
Btw... according to this study...attacking without a weapon reduces the risk of rape by 66 percent as opposed to the 90 percent of calling the police... AND the study also found that physically resisting raises the chances of serious injury during rapes. They try HARD to downplay it but they admit that it does statistically raise the odds.
Maybe you should read it again.
1 - It's not a study by the DoJ. It's an analysis of NCVS data submitted to the DoJ.
2 - When sequence of events was taken into account, the risk of serious injury was no greater after resisting than before. More women who resist are seriously injured, and the conclusion is that when a rape attempt turns violent women are more likely to resist.
3 - The authors specifically state "It may currently be impossible to find statistically significant effects of SP actions on nonsexual injury in rape because the sample sizes are so small and injury inflicted after SP is so rare, even in the largest available body of survey data." When you only have some 30-40 cases to consider, you can't get accurate statistical results.
4 - In their conclusion, did you notice where they say they can't get great results because of the sample size of data, the way the data is gathered, and underreporting of incidents and actions taken?
5 - Calling the police, as an action, infers that the victim had time to call the police. Obviously that wouldn't be a viable option if one is unable to reach a phone and doesn't have time to call. The authors' jobs was to analyze the data, and the data had 0 instances of a woman being seriously injured after calling the police.
You clearly didn't fully understand the report.
I own a gun and I know how to use it, but if I am physically jumped by a man I'll take my 7 years of self-defense training over a gun any day. Unless I already have the gun in my hand (not likely), my knowledge of how to escape, strike and run would be much more useful.
Isn't it interesting that it's men who are arguing with women about the best way to escape an attacker?
I never said anything against self-defense training. I think it's great.
A gun won't always be useful, but if you have enough training to get away for a couple of seconds, you can virtually guarantee that you won't be caught or injured by controlling the situation.
guns in the hand of law enforcement do not kill people by accident unless you are in the line of fire, (or richochets?)
guns in the hand of bad guys do kill people; Ultimately they will get there anyway due to greed.
People kill people with guns. If there's no human, there's no kill, it's very simple.
Jose Guerena Killed: Arizona Cops Shoot Former Marine In Botched Pot Raid
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/2 … 67020.html
Oscar Grant III, Fatally Shot By Police Officer On Subway Train
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/0 … 55462.html
DETROIT – A woman celebrating the weekend before her 25th birthday was fatally shot Sunday when she hugged an off-duty police officer while dancing at a party, causing the officer's service weapon to fire, according to police and her mother...
According to Stephens, the woman "embraced the officer from behind, causing the holstered weapon to accidently discharge." The bullet punctured Miller's lung and hit her heart, and she died at a hospital.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/08/de … z216E6RC5U
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/08/de … olice-say/
Sure sounds like someone manipulated the gun Ralph. Like I said before though, you should wait until they find out what happened.
The gun was in a soft holster, which means it's possible, but difficult, to move the trigger.
Also, the victim was hugging the officer from behind, and got shot in the heart, by a gun on the officer's waist. Holsters don't hold guns with the barrel pointing up and back.
Something is off with that story.
Seems pretty dumb to me for a police officer to be carrying a loaded gun without a mechanical safety at a party.
S&W M&P .40's do have a safety. I haven't seen a pic of the officer's gun, I believe there are two or three options for how the safety on that model is set up.
Like I said, the story doesn't make sense. A gun in a holster points down, but the bullet hit the victim in the heart.
As I recall the newspaper report said that it had an 8 pound trigger and no safety. The idiot was carrying the gun at a private party at someone's house. The police department said that Detroit policemen are NOT REQUIRED to carry their weapons when off duty although they are allowed to do so (perhaps encouraged).
niether of the copy paste articles stated what kind or type of gun it was, or weather or not the safety was working propperly,.... niether article mentioned an 8lb trigger pull,.... btw,.... 8 lbs is a monstreous trigger pull,.... would take MAN hands to fire a hand gun with an 8lb trigger pull,...
if the man was carrying in a shoulder rig that would explain the angle of the shot,... understandable if he were wishing to conceal his off duty weapon because he could be one of those officers that never goes off duty,... i like those kind myself,...
freekishly bizare things happen,.... theres probably far more to this story than was contained in these stunted copy paste articles.
One of the links, fox I believe, sources a local report which lists the weapon type. It says it was worn on the waist.i didn't see anything about the safety.
there are some waist worn holsters that rotate on a fixed button, it swivels so that it is more comfortable for the wearer,.... as to it going off because he got a hug from behind,..... it just baffles me. only an automatic with an exposed sear comes to mind,... and no one has been stupid enough to manufacture one of those since the jap imperial government during WW1 & 2.
for heavens sake, post the weapon type here,... my curiosity is on fire and i live on dial up,... help a friend put here! ha!
Detroit PD-issued Smith&Wesson M&P .40.
While they didn't show the holster, there is a video of a 'gun expert'(not sure what his credentials are) showing the same model gun in the same model holster. IWB belt holster, so no swivel, and it appears to be too stiff for the trigger to be manipulated through the holster.
It's a sad story, but what we've been told doesn't seem to make sense.
Here's another article which says the gun had a 6.5 ounce trigger pull and no external safety.
http://www.freep.com/article/20120709/N … gh-holster
Off-duty Detroit Police Officer Isaac Parrish was carrying his department-issued pistol in a soft holster on the right side of his waist while hosting a fish fry at his house on Detroit's west side over the weekend when a woman was fatally shot by his gun in what police say appears to have been an accident.
Adaisha Miller, who would have turned 25 today, was killed early Sunday morning when Parrish's department-issued gun accidentally discharged while she was dancing behind him and touching his waist, Detroit Police Chief Ralph Godbee Jr. said.
Police are investigating the incident and say preliminary findings show the holster may have allowed the trigger to be "manipulated" while the Smith & Wesson M&P 40 was stored, Godbee said.
In most incidents, he said, a weapon “does not go off without the trigger being engaged in some manner.”
Godbee said the department does not have a policy regarding what holsters officers should use for their guns when off duty.
The shooting is being investigated by the department’s internal affairs unit, but, in the preliminary investigation, it appears the shooting was accidental and the officer did not touch his gun, Godbee said.
Based on the preliminary investigation and witness accounts, Godbee said, the shooting occurred after Miller was dancing with Parrish, embraced him from behind and touched his waist.
The Wayne County Medical Examiner’s Office performed an autopsy and determined Miller died from a single gunshot wound to the chest, county spokeswoman Brooke Blackwell said. Her death was ruled a homicide.
The gun is a Smith & Wesson M&P 40-caliber semi-automatic. Police said the gun does not have an external safety, but does have an internal safety in the trigger.
Matt Rice, with Blue Heron Communications -- a public relations agency that represents Smith & Wesson -- said M&Ps can be made with or without an external safety. According to a news release from Smith & Wesson, the weapon has a trigger system that features a 6.5-pound trigger pull and is designed to prevent the gun from firing if it is dropped.
During the news conference, Godbee did not answer a question about whether Parrish, a 16-year veteran of the department, was given a Breathalyzer test.
The shooting is tragic, "but not intentional at all, Godbee said, adding that his condolences go out to Miller's family.
He said the officer is “very remorseful of the incident and the tragic nature of this young lady losing her life in the manner that she did.”
Contact Gina Damron: 313-223-4526 or firstname.lastname@example.org
6.5 pound trigger, with an internal safety. Meaning the trigger must be pulled for the gun to fire.
It's possible the gun malfunctioned. Out of hundreds of millions of samples, it's definitely possible for some malfunctions.
But we certainly don't know that to be the case at this point(well, you do).
30 second google search...
Three cases in Clark County Washington alone where the child of a police officer was shot with a gun owned by their father.
Two of them involved the actual service gun... the third was another gun owned by the officer.
Once again... one county in one state... three separate children of police officers. Aren't they the prime example of "responsible" gun owners?
http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/dec/ … gun-safes/
http://www.q13fox.com/news/kcpq-child-o … 6454.story
http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/apr/ … h-his-gun/
The newspapers are full of all kinds of gun mischief, intentional and accidental. Only once in a blue moon is there a report of an incident where someone carrying a gun legally uses it successfully to protect himself or stop a crime.
I was responding to the police officer comment...
Although I am quite sure that a legal gun owner occasionally uses a gun to scare away a bad guy there is also the questions of 1. Would a lesser force sufficed? 2. How often does it escalate the level of violence rather than decrease it? and 3. Are guns worth the self-protection... societally speaking... for the increase danger/risks that come with them?
I think the more fundamental question here (I am not trying to be prejudicial) is do we have the right to tell people that even though a gun might save their lives they can't legally carry one thus taking away their choice to be able to protect themselves?
Apparently no. However we do have the right to regulate the hell out of the industry and punish those who misuse guns harshly. Under certain circumstance we do have the right to limit who owns guns and which guns they can own.
Fair enough but I should have phrased that differently.
SHOULD we have the right to be tell people that even though a gun might save their lives they can't legally carry one thus taking away their choice to be able to protect themselves?
I mean inevitably what you are saying to some people is you are going to die because you aren't legally allowed to carry a gun.
*nods* Sucks eh? Unfortunately allowing legal gun ownership also says that there are children women and petty criminals who are going to die because someone else is legally allowed to carry a gun...Not to mention a certain number of those legal gun owners...
There is not really an easy answer... but guns aren't the holy grail that the gun lobby makes them out to be.
That should depend on who they are and why they believe they need to carry a concealed gun for their protection. Carrying a handgun for self protection is over-rated and may well result in more problems than it solves. Especially in urban areas there are too many people running around with concealed weapons, guns under the front seat of their cars, etc. The country, in my opinion, needs additional laws covering the manufacture, sale and use of handguns and military type weapons as well as more effective enforcement.
If it's over-rated, then why do so many people defend themselves and others with handguns every year?
Just having a gun doesn't make a situation more dangerous. A bad person with a gun makes a situation more dangerous. A good person with a gun is more likely to stop a bad person with a gun, compared to a good person without a gun.
Just because it works sometimes does not mean it's not overrated now does it? I think it does work occasionally but that it is overall overrated, many people who carry seem to believe it will protect them from all evils and gain a certain perspective of invincibility.
"If it's over-rated, then why do so many people defend themselves and others with handguns every year?"
I haven't seen any data on how many people defend themselves and others with handguns. However, I see reports of all kinds of shootings in my morning paper every day--drive byes, accidents involving children and adults, drug wars, robberies, murders of husbands by wives and vice versa. Allowing everyone who wants a gun to have one exacts a high price on urban societies.
BTW, I'm not opposed to guns for hunting and target shooting. I got my first gun for my 12th birthday, and I currently own two long guns. And I'm not opposed to permits for people to carry handguns if there are special circumstances justifying their need. When I worked in industry at a major company the plant security guards were not armed. My understanding is that the company didn't arm them because of the cost of training them and the fear of inappropriate use leading to shootings and lawsuits. Likewise there was a strict policy prohibiting guns or weapons of any kind in the workplace including cars in company parking lots.
Ralph, I've posted the data for you several times.
1.5-4.5 million times a year.
Sorry, I don't trust your data. Refresh my memory. Where did those figures come from.
Plenty of data are available comparing gun deaths by country which show that the United States doesn't compare very favorably to many other countries with more sensible gun control laws.
I don't expect you to respect the website from which this comes, the links contained in the article are to various sources, most notably, the FBI.
Comparing different countries is comparing apples to apples. Some countries have high gun ownership and high crime rates, some have high gun ownership and low crime rates, and vice versa. If you want to do comparisons, compare individual states before and after RTC laws change.
My data mainly comes from two sources. First is Kleck and Gertz. 2.5 million instances per year.
Next is a Department of Justice study. 1.5-4.5 million instances per year.
Sorry, I don't trust your data. Refresh my memory, where did those figures come from?
Here are some from the American Bar Association:
In 2003, there were 30,136 firearm-related deaths in the United States; 16,907 (56%) suicides, 11,920 (40%) homicides (including 347 deaths due to legal intervention/war), and 962 (3%) undetermined/unintentional firearm deaths.
CDC/National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports 1999-2003 http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars
The rate of death from firearms in the United States is eight times higher than that in its economic counterparts in other parts of the world.
Kellermann AL and Waeckerle JF. Preventing Firearm Injuries. Ann Emerg Med July 1998; 32:77-79.
The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children younger than 15 years of age is nearly 12 times higher than among children in 25 other industrialized countries combined.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 1997;46:101-105.
The United States has the highest rate of youth homicides and suicides among the 26 wealthiest nations.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Rates of homicide, suicide, and firearm-related death among children: 26 industrialized countries.
Krug EG, Dahlberg LL, Powell KE. Childhood homicide, suicide, and firearm deaths: an international comparison. World Health Stat Q. 1996;49:230-235.
ABA/LPM Annual Meeting 2012
Facts About Gun Violence
The U.S. Compared with Other Nations
Kids and Guns
Firearms and Family Violence
Firearms and Public Health
Gun Violence in Schools
Guns and Suicide
And here are some data from Wikipedia comparing the U.S. with a long list of other countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … death_rate
Country Total firearm-related death rate Homicides Suicides Unintentional deaths Self Defense Year Sources and notes
South Africa 74.57 74.57 NA NA NA 2000 UNODC 2000
Colombia 51.77 51.77 NA NA NA 2000 UNODC 2000
El Salvador 50.36 50.36 NA NA NA 2009 OAS 2011
Jamaica 47.44 47.44 NA NA NA 2009 OAS 2011
Honduras 46.70 46.70 NA NA NA 2007 OAS 2011
Guatemala 38.52 38.52 NA NA NA 2009 OAS 2011
Swaziland 37.16 37.16 NA NA NA 2004 UNODC 2006
Brazil 14.15 10.58 0.73 0.28 NA 1993 Krug 1998
Estonia 12.74 8.07 3.13 0.93 NA 1994 Krug 1998
Panama 12.92 12.92 NA NA NA 2010 OAS 2011
Mexico 12.07 9.88 0.91 1.27 NA 1994 Krug 1998
United States 10.27 4.14 5.71 0.23 NA 2004-2006 CDC
Philippines 9.46 9.46 NA NA NA 2002 UNODC 2002
Argentina 9.19 2.11 3.05 0.32 NA 1994 Krug 1998
Paraguay 7.35 7.35 NA NA NA 2000 UNODC 2000
Nicaragua 7.14 7.14 NA NA NA 2007 OAS 2011
Finland 6.86 0.86 5.78 0.12 NA 1994 Krug 1998
Northern Ireland 6.82 5.24 1.34 0.12 NA 1994 Krug 1998
Switzerland 6.4 0.58 5.61 0.13 NA 1994 Krug 1998
France 6.35 0.44 5.14 0.11 NA 1994 Krug 1998
Canada 4.78 0.76 3.72 0.22 NA 1992 Krug 1998
Zimbabwe 4.75 4.75 NA NA NA 2000 UNODC 2000
Austria 4.56 0.42 4.06 0.05 NA 1994 Krug 1998
Norway 4.39 0.3 3.95 0.12 NA 1993 Krug 1998
Portugal 3.72 1.28 1.28 0.21 NA 1994 Krug 1998
Belgium 3.48 0.6 2.56 0.06 NA 1990 Krug 1998
Costa Rica 3.32 3.32 NA NA NA 2002 UNODC 2002
Uruguay 3.24 3.24 NA NA NA 2002 UNODC 2002
Slovenia 3.07 0.35 2.51 0.2 NA 1994 Krug 1998
Barbados 3 3 NA NA NA 2000 UNODC 2000
Israel 3 0.72 1.84 0.13 NA 1993 Krug 1998
Italy 2.95 1.66 1.11 0.11 NA 1992 Krug 1998
Australia 2.94 0.44 2.35 0.11 NA 1994 Krug 1998
New Zealand 2.66 0.17 2.14 0.09 NA 1993 Krug 1998
Denmark 2.6 0.23 2.25 0.04 NA 1993 Krug 1998
Sweden 2.36 0.18 2.09 0.03 NA 1993 Krug 1998
Slovakia 2.17 2.17 NA NA NA 2000 UNODC 2000
Peru 1.87 1.87 NA NA NA 2009 OAS 2011
Czech Republic 1.77 1.77 NA NA NA 2002 UNODC 2002
Germany 1.57 0.22 1.17 0.04 NA 1994 Krug 1998
Greece 1.5 0.59 0.84 0.04 NA 1994 Krug 1998
Azerbaijan 2.38 1.47 NA NA NA 2002 UNODC 2002
Republic of Macedonia 1.28 1.28 NA NA NA 2000 UNODC 2000
Kuwait 1.25 0.36 0.06 0 NA 1995 Krug 1998
Hungary 1.21 0.23 0.88 0.09 NA 1994 Krug 1998
Ireland 1.21 0.03 0.94 0.11 NA 1991 Krug 1998
Latvia 1.2 1.2 NA NA NA 2002 UNODC 2002
India 0.93 0.93 NA NA NA 2000 UNODC 2000
Spain 0.9 0.21 0.43 0.25 NA 1993 Krug 1998
Bulgaria 0.77 0.77 NA NA NA 2000 UNODC 2000
Netherlands 0.7 0.36 0.31 0.01 NA 1994 Krug 1998
Scotland 0.58 0.19 0.33 0.02 NA 1994 Krug 1998
Moldova 0.47 0.47 NA NA NA 2002 UNODC 2002
Lithuania 0.46 0.46 NA NA NA 2002 UNODC 2002
Taiwan 0.42 0.15 0.12 0.11 NA 1994 Krug 1998
Belarus 0.38 0.38 NA NA NA 2002 UNODC 2002
Ukraine 0.35 0.35 NA NA NA 2000 UNODC 2000
Poland 0.29 0.29 NA NA NA 2002 UNODC 2002
England/ Wales 0.46 0.07 0.33 0.01 NA 2002 Krug 1998
Singapore 0.24 0.07 0.17 0 NA 1994 Krug 1998
Hong Kong 0.19 0.12 0.07 0 NA 1993 Krug 1998
Mauritius 0.19 0 0.09 0.09 NA 1993 Krug 1998
Qatar 0.18 0.18 NA NA NA 2000 UNODC 2000
South Korea 0.13 0.04 0.02 0.05 NA 1994 Krug 1998
Japan 0.07 0.02 0.04 0 NA 1994 Krug 1998
Chile 0.06 0.06 NA NA NA 2002 UNODC 2002
Perhaps this is worth comparing - Gun Ownership Rates
United States 88.8 1
Serbia 58.2 2 
Yemen 54.8 3
Switzerland 45.7 4
Cyprus 36.4 5
Saudi Arabia 35.0 6
Iraq 34.2 7
Finland 32.0 8 
Uruguay 31.8 9
Sweden 31.6 10
Norway 31.3 11
France 31.2 12
Canada 30.8 13
Austria 30.4 14
Iceland 30.3 15
Germany 30.3 15
New Zealand 22.6 22 1993: 26.8.
Greece 22.5 23
Northern Ireland 21.9 25
Angola 17.3 34
Thailand 15.6 39
Australia 15.0 42
Mexico 15.0 42
South Africa 12.7 50
Turkey 12.5 52
Italy 11.9 55
Pakistan 11.6 57
Spain 10.4 61
Argentina 10.2 62
Russia 8.9 68
Iran 7.3 79
England and Wales (England and Wales) 6.2 88
Scotland 5.5 93
China 4.9 102
India 4.2 110
Tunisia 0.1 178
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_ … by_country
The United States, Serbia and Switzerland are in the top 4 gun owning nations and yet are not in the top 4 nations for gun crime.
Country Year Population Total Homicide Firearm Homicide Non-Gun Homicide % Households With Guns
South Africa 1995 41,465,000 75.30 26.60 48.70 n/a
Colombia1 2005 43,000,000 36.53 29.59 6.94 n/a
Estonia 1994 1,499,257 28.21 8.07 20.14 n/a
Brazil 1993 160,737,000 19.04 10.58 8.46 n/a
Mexico 1994 90,011,259 17.58 9.88 7.70 n/a
Philippines 1996 72,000,000 16.20 3.50 12.70 n/a
Taiwan2 1996 21,979,444 8.12 0.97 7.15 n/a
N. Ireland 1994 1,641,711 6.09 5.24 0.85 8.4
United States3 1999 272,691,000 5.70 3.72 1.98 39.0
Argentina 1994 34,179,000 4.51 2.11 2.40 n/a
Hungary 1994 10,245,677 3.53 0.23 3.30 n/a
Finland4 1994 5,088,333 3.24 0.86 2.38 23.2
Portugal 1994 5,138,600 2.98 1.28 1.70 n/a
Mauritius 1993 1,062,810 2.35 0 2.35 n/a
Israel 1993 5,261,700 2.32 0.72 1.60 n/a
Italy 1992 56,764,854 2.25 1.66 0.59 16.0
Scotland 1994 5,132,400 2.24 0.19 2.05 4.7
Canada 1992 28,120,065 2.16 0.76 1.40 29.1
Slovenia 1994 1,989,477 2.01 0.35 1.66 n/a
Australia 1994 17,838,401 1.86 0.44 1.42 19.4
Singapore 1994 2,930,200 1.71 0.07 1.64 n/a
South Korea 1994 44,453,179 1.62 0.04 1.58 n/a
New Zealand 1993 3,458,850 1.47 0.17 1.30 22.3
Belgium 1990 9,967,387 1.41 0.60 0.81 16.6
England/Wales5 1997 51,429,000 1.41 0.11 1.30 4.7
Switzerland6 1994 7,021,000 1.32 0.58 0.74 27.2
Sweden 1993 8,718,571 1.30 0.18 1.12 15.1
Denmark 1993 5,189,378 1.21 0.23 0.98 n/a
Austria 1994 8,029,717 1.17 0.42 0.75 n/a
Germany7 1994 81,338,093 1.17 0.22 0.95 8.9
Greece 1994 10,426,289 1.14 0.59 0.55 n/a
France 1994 57,915,450 1.12 0.44 0.68 22.6
Netherlands 1994 15,382,830 1.11 0.36 0.75 1.9
Kuwait 1995 1,684,529 1.01 0.36 0.65 n/a
Norway 1993 4,324,815 0.97 0.30 0.67 32.0
Spain 1993 39,086,079 0.95 0.21 0.74 13.1
Japan 1994 124,069,000 0.62 0.02 0.60 n/a
Ireland 1991 3,525,719 0.62 0.03 0.59 n/a
Country Year Population Total Homicide Firearm Homicide Non-Gun Homicide % Households With Guns
Let's compare similar gun ownership rates Norway and the US. The difference is more likely to be something other than guns - perhaps it is climate, population density, culture, diet - it would appear to not be gun ownership.
I think it is also interesting that England/Wales has 1/8th the gun ownership but 1/5th the murder rate - that is an interesting and not insignificant difference.
And just for fun, because I know Melissa discredits Kleck, for no reason, and others likely will as well.
Kleck wasn't a gun-advocate(not really sure he is now) before he did his studies. He was a member of many liberal-groups, and nobody has accused him of having an agenda(not a member of the NRA).
Further, "Marvin Wolfgang, a noted criminologist who was on record favoring a ban on all firearms, even those carried by law enforcement officers, was quoted as saying that the Kleck survey was nearly foolproof, saying: “What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator…I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology."
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/profil … graphy.htm
If there were fewer handguns in the hands of the public there would be little or no need for anyone to feel the need to carry a gun. Kleck has a strong viewpoint supporting liberal 2nd amendment interpretations.
If there were fewer guns in the hands of the public, there would be a higher ratio of armed criminals to armed law-abiding citizens.
The police are not a personal protection force. Though the police are a deterrent to crime they are incapable of stopping a significant amount of crime. Police are primarily tasked with public relations, investigations, interventions and apprehensions. To expect that a police officer will be able to intervene in every personal attack is fantasy. But that is where the liberal dwells, in fantasy.
That may be true under current weak laws and lax enforcement. Other civilized countries are able to enforce much stricter gun control laws. Of course they aren't blessed with a National Rifle Association funded by handgun manufacturers.
Come on, you know better Ralph. We have millions of pounds of drugs smuggled into the US every year. No matter what we do, criminals will always be able to get their hands on guns. We can require background checks, and a few other things, but beyond that, you're only going to affect the people who respect the law, not the people who break it.
If we stopped the war on drugs, that would do wonders for our crime rates. If we worked to help the poorest areas to develop more, that would do wonders as well.
Other civilized countries are also able to have low crime rates with large amounts of gun ownership. It's apples to oranges.
Seems to me we are smart enough to figure out how to keep guns out of the hands homicidal psychopaths, criminals, drug gangs and children without compromising the rights of hunters and other sportsmen. The NRA/GOP are opposing more effective laws and enforcement.
14 shot dead at 'Dark Knight Rises' screening in Aurora, Colorado
"Updated at 7:45 a.m. ET: Fourteen people were killed and at least 50 others wounded early Friday when a gunman opened fire at a midnight screening of the summer blockbuster "The Dark Knight Rises" near Denver, authorities and witnesses said.
"Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates told reporters that 10 people died at the scene and four others died after being taken to local hospitals. A three-month-old and a six-year-old girl were among those treated, according to reports.
"Police said the gunman had appeared at the front of the theatre during the movie and released a canister which let out a hissing sound at the movie theater, located in a mall.
"It was mass chaos," witness Jennifer Seeger told TODAY. The gunman began to shoot at people who were trying to leave, she said, adding, "He pointed the gun at me."
"A 24-year-old male suspect was apprehended in the shopping center's parking lot, Oates said.
"The incident occurred in the Century 16 Movie Theaters at the Aurora Town Center, police told NBC News. Aurora is a suburb less than 10 miles east of downtown Denver."
Ralph you need to learn to look beyond shallow statistics picked up from wikipedia and news articles. You should have learned your lesson after backing the NYTimes so fervently about GE's tax rate.
I trust the NYTimes and Politifacts more than your interpretation of a GE SEC? report.
Here's what Politifact had to say about corporate laws which nobody but you denies are riddled with loopholes:
Between 1998 to 2005, GAO found that about 72 percent of large foreign controlled companies and 55 percent of large U.S. controlled companies reported zero tax liability for at least one year. About 57 percent of foreign controlled large companies and 42 percent of U.S. large companies paid no taxes in two or more years, and a third of the foreign companies and one quarter of their U.S. counterparts paid no taxes for at least four of those years. Just 45 percent of large U.S. companies and 28 percent of foreign companies reported a tax liability for each of the eight years. The report defined large companies as those with at least $250 million in assets, or at least $50 million in receipts
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statemen … ations-pa/
Regardless of GE, just about everybody accepts the fact that the corporate tax laws are riddled with loopholes which should be closed, possibly coupled with a reduction in rates. GE has been one of the most aggressive tax avoiders of all international companies.
Here's what Fortune Magazine had to say
"After repeated conversations with GE -- remember, we've been working on this story too -- we can finally give you reasonably definitive answers.
"The company says that it's not getting any refund for 2010 -- validating Outslay's analysis. Its 2010 tax situation? "We expect to have a small U.S. income tax liability for 2010," GE chief spokesman Gary Sheffer told us. How big is small? GE declined to say. The number is unlikely to ever be disclosed unless GE goes public with it, or is forced to do so."
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2 … -tax-bill/
Why are corporate laws, tax laws, any laws riddled with loop holes? Is it the product of some dark conspiracy? Some wicked cabal of rich white business men and their Republican lackeys in Congress and state legislatures? Is it Jesus? Is it space aliens? Is it Madonna - oops sorry already said space aliens....
NO, regulation and laws are riddled with loop holes because they over reach. A net stretched too broadly and too far will rip and break. The government wants to corral a dynamic, wildly adaptive, innovative, intelligent species into a machine where it can be regulated and controlled. Idiots.
Humanity is natural. Nature is WILD, Chaotic, crazy, hell on earth wild, wild, wild. How stupid is it to believe that government can control nature. The natural inclination of humanity is to create more, more food, more wealth, more babies, more cars, more roads, more security, more internet capacity, MORE.
What the hell is the reason for going to the MOON if not for more. More accomplishment, more knowledge, more. Regulation tells humanity it must accept LESS. No wonder liberalism gets its comeuppance every few generations. Too bad no one really learns how stupid liberalism is.
Yes, you do. You admitted that you would believe what you read in the news over the SEC report. I told you the page and line number to look at, and you said it was too complicated.
100% complete strawman. YOU claim that GE got a tax refund in a specific year. I prove that they didn't. You ignore primary source data, in favor of secondary data which was published before GE filed their taxes. You also claim that I'm saying all corporations pay the same rate and there are no tax loopholes. I have never claimed that there aren't loopholes. I have never claimed that our system is perfect. I have never claimed that everybody pays the same rates. I have often made the argument that we need to clean up and simplify our tax code(more things like how Romney closed loopholes that banks used).
Go look, I've advocated for simplifying our tax code, closing loopholes, and having a competitive corporate tax rate.
Obviously, some people with guns kill people.
Very sad and disturbing about the mass shooting in Colorado.
People use guns to:
intimidate, (same as below)
threaten, (brandish a firearm)
rob (steal money)
self-defense (kill an intruder in your home or if you are about to be seriously hurt),
so it serves its purpose for common citizens in 1 out of 6 cases.
It was a dark and bloody night last night for sure in Aurora, CO
this idiot probably had a permit to carry, if he had a gas mask and ammo.
Frankly I don't understand where this bloodlust is coming from having listened to the murdering of 14 people in Aurora Colorado.
As people in this great nation we call the United States what is wrong with too many of our citizens that they are willing to kill anyone, anywhere at any time including absolutely defenseless baby?
What kind of creature can kill absolute strangers for no good reason?
Somebody who is mentally ill who legally purchased several weapons and other paraphenalia thanks to our inadequate gun control laws and lax enforcement of the ones on the books. Republicans generally oppose more effective gun control laws which would identify gun buyers, but they are gung ho to pass discriminatory voter I.D. laws.
Ralph I have no doubt you are correct. It bothers me however that those who we claim are mentally disturbed they always know exactly what to do when it comes to committing a crime, causing injury and in a lot of cases concealing their actions. For those mentally ill people they are pretty smart.
True, and devious. They are not easy to detect because they are devious and because of medical privacy rules. This guy was in a PhD program at the University of Denver? and a graduate of University of California. Yet there must have been some clues in his background.
Ralph, you can't just say 'gun control would have prevented this'. Unless you are talking about a ban, the only information about him was that he didn't have a criminal record and was considered a top academic student in a distinguished field.
Tragedies happen, you can't just turn them into gun-control talking points, especially when you don't have any information. Just like the other story, you jump to conclusions before you have the information.
When a bad person with a mental disorder or criminal record obtains a gun from a store, that's a problem we can address with gun control laws and regulations.
When a bad person obtains a gun illegally, that's not something we can really address with laws and regulations.
When a person with no history obtains a gun and does something bad, the only way you can stop that would be a complete gun ban.
I didn't claim "gun control would have prevented this." But it's just another example of gun mayhem that's going on all over the country. We don't know yet whether there were clues in his past to his horrific crime. I find it hard to believe that there were none. At least one of the guns he used should be illegal--AK 47 assault weapon which has zero use for hunting or self protection unless you live in Syria. What I am convinced of is that the answer isn't more people walking around with concealed or open carry handguns. It will be a big, long job to get the guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, but it could be done. You are one of the GOPers who are salivating to pass discriminatory voter I.D. laws but who are opposed to quick, effective identification and checking of gun sellers and buyers and sensible limitations on the types of weapons that are legal to sell and own (assault weapons, large magazine hand and long guns). The current laws are ineffective and they are not well enforced. Our neighbor to the north somehow manages to have fewer guns and fewer gun deaths.
Yeah, you actually did.
"...thanks to our inadequate gun control laws..."
Yet, nobody has come out with any information like that. You just assume, because if there were flags, you could say gun control might have helped.
I wouldn't say it has zero use, however I do agree that its use is limited.
1 - Who are the people who shouldn't have them?
2 - How are you going to keep guns out of their hands?
Criminals who obtain guns do so illegally, not by buying them at stores or gun shows. People who just do bad things out of the blue, how do you tell who is going to do that and who isnt? Minority Report?
Funny, I actually have a moderate problem with dry-mouth, and as far as I'm aware I haven't registered GOP, voted GOP, or pushed for any voter I.D. laws. But... The almighty Ralph, with his perfect assumptions, can't be contradicted.
Again, I am?
Last time I checked, I hadn't formed an opinion on where the 'line' should be drawn for what should be and what shouldn't be allowed to be sold. Hmmm, maybe you just made up my mind for me?
Again, Ralph, comparing countries is ineffective. There are vast social/economic/political/geographical factors that go into crime rates in countries, they aren't driven by gun-laws.
I'm not sure if gun control which would mean a ban on guns could have prevented this situation I do however know that doing nothing isn't preventing these situations.
I'm also significantly tired of these so-called mentally disturbed people, number one in knowing more about how to commit a crime than someone who is not mentally disturbed.
If bad people cannot be stopped from murdering citizens senselessly then it would appear that we who are in charge with protecting the public isn't doing the job. How is it that we (societal people) know how to create tragedy but are dumbfounded as to how to correct it?
There are 20 different models of S&W MP 40s. The safety is optional on some of the models. I think I recall that the police officer's handgun did not have a safety and that the holster was soft. I agree it's hard to imagine how the gun went off accidentally and shot the woman in the heart. I don't claim to be a handgun expert, although many years ago I fired Expert with an army .45 when I was in Army Reserves summer camp.
Guns kill people...when they are used improperly, or for a few other reasons which seem obvious. Sometimes, a gun will blow up in your face, killing you, then your wife can sue the company that made the firearm. Generally, far more people kill people. If someone really wants to kill a person, not having a gun won't stop them...but, if the other person has a gun, that will stop them! It is far easier to rid the world of guns...quite another to rid the world of people...unless you have all the guns! Infallable logic.
"Dump all the people, to the bottom of the sea, before some fool come around here, wanna shoot either you or me.!" Lynerd Skynerd
Why does a non-military civilian need an assault weapon, if not to kill many? An assault weapon has one purpose.
You can fire how many rounds in succession as well. Mass killing.
True. Assault weapons serve no useful non-military pupose. They should be illegal to sell or own as they were for a brief period after Clinton signed a bill outlawing them. I don't recall the history, but I guess the law was repealed.
Some states, like NJ, have banned civilians from owning such weapons. Other states, like KS, repealed their own laws restricting such ownership, making it legal for civilians to possess assault rifles plus "other fully automatic weapons, sawed-off shotguns and silencers".
In Colorado there is no such ban on assault weapons, only some municipal restrictions. Section 38-130 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code bans assault weapons, but it only applies to weapons with magazines that hold more than 20 rounds. So it is legal to possess an assault weapon like the AR-15 in the city of Denver, as long as you don't insert a magazine with more than 20 rounds of ammunition.
If such weapons do serve a useful non-military purpose, I really don't know what it is. Perhaps someone could enlighten us both.
To legally possess a fully automatic weapon one must first have a Federal license. What the idiots in the press and liberal demagogs call "assault weapons" are not military combat rifles.
ps. to own a fully automatic weapon requires a criminal background check that Presidents don't have to endure.
Gun advocated will say that the reason assault weapons should remain legal is because well-armed citizens are the only bulwark against a runaway tyrannical gov't "taking over" and declaring martial law. I always ask such people what the gov't would achieve by doing so, and they are never able to answer me.
Part of the problem is the term "assault weapon" is difficult to define, and difficult to police. Rifles such as the AK47 cannot be sold if they are capable of full-auto (i.e., like a machine gun) fire, yet full-auto modifications are easily available online or in publications like The Shotgun News. Also, semi-automatic shotguns with large-capacity magazines are easily available. Would that fall under the definition of an assault weapon?
The real problem, as I see it, is that the gun lobby has effectively shut down any meaningful debate on gun legislation.
It was a lie to call them "assault weapons." The rifles banned were not combat rifles.
Assault weapon is a media distortion - a semiautomatic rifle was used in the Aurora shooting not a combat rifle.
by VC L Veasey 4 years ago
Some Say:" Guns Don't Kill People do" But Aren't Guns Weapons Created To Kill?
by keioncseals 5 years ago
In my opinion on guns is that guns don't kill people people using the gun for the wrong reasons that's what kills people because if you think about it when You put the gun on a table its not going to fire but when you pick the gun up off the table and pull the trigger it will fire What do you think
by Scott Belford 2 years 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 facto an attempt to keep guns out of the hands of ALL citizens; this is the...
by strengthcourageme 4 years ago
I was just wondering everyone's thoughts on gun control, are you for or against?
by Marian L 6 years ago
Why do Americans think their right to bear arms is more important than people's lives?
by Cagsil 8 years ago
Hey Hubbers,If you're an American, then please weigh in on this topic. I'm considering writing a Hub on the topic and wondering what people have to say on it.As for me- Gun Control is a myth. It's kinda like the "War on Drugs", just a horrible idea, when completely thought out.Now, we all...
Copyright © 2019 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.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|