|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|
1. The US has a very high homicide rate.
2. It is possible that killers that can't find a gun will use a different method.
3. Some other countries, with low gun ownership rates, have a lower gun homicide rate but a much higher murder rate using other methods.
4. If gun homicides fall without killers using other methods, the general homicide will necessarily fall as well.
The question becomes why we look at stats showing gun ownership (gun controls) rates vs gun homicide rates? Would it not make far more sense to look at gun ownership rates vs general homicide rates?
Is it merely political, a desire to control others? Is it a simply fear of guns? A desire to come to a predetermined conclusion that removing guns will save lives without regard as to the truth of that conclusion? Can we possible think that the dead will care whether their death was by gun or something else? Are we of the opinion that #2 is impossible without ever checking? Is #4 patently false?
Why do we look at only a subset of the murder rate when trying to show that gun controls will save lives?
Because it pushes their agenda.
Same reason why people cite studies that say a house with a gun is more likely to be involved with a gun homicide. Really? Wow! Can you believe it's easier to have a gun homicide when there is a gun around?
Just find a statistic you like, and don't question it. That's how it works.
Those pushing an agenda, absolutely.
But listeners? Why do listeners accept such faulty reasoning?
Same agenda? Don't care, just want the problem solved at any cost (as long as it doesn't affect them personally)? Don't catch the spin and fraud inherent in the statement? It's on the internet and so true (from another thread )?
1. It is a fear of the unknown.
2. It is a fear of guns.
3. It is an attempt to simplify the problem and solve it with one legislative act.
4. It is a knee-jerk reaction.
5. It is biased legislation against people who "are paranoid, ignorant gun-owning, government-hating rednecks who feel that they need to own a tank to protect themselves against the government." These people like to refer to us as absolutists or extremists.
As for me, I simply don't want to lose freedom. I love my country. I like to hunt. I like to shoot for sport. I am an educated gun owner who feels like I have been attacked and marginalized because of my belief in the second amendment. Don't other gun owners feel the same way?
The government never stops taking away once it starts. Today, it will be "assault weapons" and high-capacity guns. Tomorrow, what will it be?
I feel the same. I might support some loss of freedom but I want that loss to have at least a good chance of producing the result desired; in this case to save lives.
I therefore investigated the likely results - something I've not seen any gun control advocate do. Instead we see fake claims that have nothing to do with actually saving lives and are expected to believe wholeheartedly and give up our rights. And far too many people voluntarily swallow that spin without ever bothering to think about it.
yes you are right alauh the gun there is much methods to murder
I agree, wholeheartedly. On a news feature today, they said something about the Bat mobile helping to fight crime. My son said, "That's crazy. The Batmobile didn't fight crime - Batman did." Smart kid!
I think a lot of the problem is just willful ignorance. It's been my experience that many of the people pushing so hard for gun control are the same people who still believe that the US government is looking out for the best interest of it's people. They want an easy answer to the problem. They want to live in a perfect world where nothing bad ever happens to anyone. They want to believe that getting rid of guns will accomplish that, so they simply ignore any evidence to the contrary.
Willful ignorance. You may be right; there are lots of people that can't be bothered to actually consider things but will swallow whatever they're told without reasoning it through. This particular one, however, seems almost too obvious to ignore.
There's also the fact that ant-gun sentiment has been around in this country for a long time. Everybody going around saying "guns are bad" and "guns are evil." There are a lot of people that would hear those things and think, "Well, if that many people believe it, then it must be true."
Personally I have a problem labeling an inanimate object with no thoughts of its own as "evil." Seems contrary to all sense.
Society is all about no accountability. How many times have you heard of people being hurt when "their car veered off the road". No, they veered off the road. Where is the sympathy for the poor car they are blaming?
Cars are evil!!! They make people wreck and die!!! Outlaw all cars!!!
No. Only those with more than 53.6 HP, or that will go more than 65 MPH.
Ironically I know many people who agreed folks should be able to have guns if they want, but never were interested enough to buy one for themselves, who are now buying them. Obama is the best gun salesman ever! Telling me you don't want me to have a gun is telling me I better arm myself.
Understandable. Missouri is now considering a bill that would confiscate any semi-automatic rifles that have any of the following:
" a. A pistol grip or thumbhole stock;
b. Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;
c. A folding or telescoping stock; or
d. A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel."
(It would seem that a thumbhole stock makes an ordinary rifle into a dangerous killing machine; one used only to murder with, and the reason that guns kill people.)
Current owners will have 90 days to either get the gun out of state or turn it in. Not "sell" it to the state - turn it in. As in "gift" it to the state. As in "confiscate".
Again, is it possible that there is even a single person in the country that could possible believe that equipping a rifle with a thumbhole stock turns it the reason for murders being committed? That illegally confiscating them will cause the murder rate in Missouri to drop?
No? Why discuss banning them, then?
This one may actually make sense. I could see where a gun so equipped would be much more dangerous. Once you ran out of ammo you could grab the barrel and swing the gun, without danger of burning yourself. Guns like this pose a double threat, being a potential bludgeoning tool as well. These people are smart. They've thought of everything!
You know, I'll bet you're right. If he misses, he can still chase you down and beat you to death by swinging it like crazy, ending up on your head.
Gotta be careful of those thumbhole stocks!
I do note, however, that my hunting rifle violates #d - the shroud that partially encloses the barrel, allowing the second had to hold on. I always considered it a part of the "stock", but I guess it's a "shroud" now.
It completely boggles the mind wilderness. A lot of this potential legislation getting thrown around right now looks to me like doing something just for the sake of doing something. It's almost as if they know it isn't going to help anything but they have to do SOMETHING to pacify gun control proponents.
The major problem with this scenario is that it isn't going to help anything. So a couple years down the road, people will be saying that it wasn't enough and more has to be done. Before you know it, the 2nd amendment will be a thing of the past and any civilian that owns a gun will be a dangerous criminal.
According to the article,
http://www.examiner.com/article/missour … rn-weapons
it is primarily intended to "test the water" so to speak; to see how far they think they can go. The Republicans hold a super majority there, so it can't pass, but the gun control nuts need some idea of just what rights they can maybe take.
Personally, I think you're right - the ultimate goal is removal of all guns. It won't be in my lifetime (I hope) but it will happen.
I hope it doesn't happen in my lifetime either. It worries me that the government is beginning to make a habit of legislating our rights away. But what worries me even more is the vast number of people who either don't realize it or simply don't care.
Hard to see the handwriting on the wall when your eyes are glued to your iPhone.
I agree - losing guns isn't the end of America. The erosion of rights IS and there are far, far too many that are only too happy to see it happen or don't care as long as it doesn't affect them personally.
It's a part of why I think we'll lose our guns, and a large part. We've given up too many rights in the last couple of decades and the trend is accelerating as government grows beyond any bounds ever conceived of by the founding fathers.
Here's a scary thought. If King George III had drones we'd be English.
And its frightening how clever they are about it. They always hide it under the guise of keeping America "safe." Give up your rights to privacy, and a trial by jury so you can be safe from terrorists. Give up your right to own a gun to keep children safe. Any time I hear something like that, I'm reminded of the Benjamin Franklin quote. "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
And we shall have neither liberty NOR safety.
Just the forlorn hope that Nanny Sam, over there in Washington, will take care of us. A great many people look forward to that day, both on the master side as well as the serf side of the equation and that's what makes it scary.
AlliOop, that is the whole point. Getting a foot in the door toward confiscating all guns. Consider what New York has done. They passed a law limiting clips to 7 rounds. Now almost all pistols, if fully loaded, are illegal. Very smooth. All of this nonsense about it being the lethalness of the guns, being able to kill X# of people in Y amount of time, is a red herring. The current record for shots fired consecutively by a revolver, (the least effective serious gun), is something like 12 shots in 4 seconds with a speedloader. So much for saying an "assault" rifle is needed for mass killing quickly. This is a point the anti gun lobby will bring up once they have started the ball rolling. "If we banned these, we better ban those."
Scary thought. Call me paranoid, but if someone wants to take my gun away, it makes me wonder why they don't want me to have it.
Nothing actually personal. Rather a fear of guns, coupled with a false (very false) feeling of security in that thinking that when guns are gone they'll be safer.
That goes right back to the OP, too. Does it actually make them safer? Don't know, don't care to know - just assume it will and take the guns. Perception is what counts, not truth or experience.
I've never understood why people are afraid of guns. A gun isn't going to get up and shoot you all on its own. And call me crazy, but if someone is bound and determined to kill me, I'd much rather them put a bullet in my brain than beat me to death with a baseball bat. Seems like a less painful way to go.
Any gun control advocates out there? Anyone that can answer, from personal example, the OP?
I know the other threads of full of control advocates; how about an answer or two?
If guns are bad then ban them in the video games. I want the same ban on guns in the video games. There is no need for that to be in the video games. I see little boy cartoons as I'm channel surfing and it's all geared toward violence as I pass all that to get to my daughter's ponies and princess cartoons.
I used to work in research psychology and one of my jobs was to review studies before they went to the board or proposed studies before they went for approval. It is amazing how bias studies are. I took an entire college course on how to weed through bad research. Yes, you can find anything to support your thoughts and personal agenda.People accept what they read at a glance because they don't have time or take the time to carefully consider, fact check and review what they're reading.
The gun control issue? Here's all we need to know: It is our right. We do not foresee America suddenly being overtaken, but it could happen. We've been wrong before. It is our right to protect ouselves against tyranny. Unless you would like to wait around for the government to protect you with some legislation. We also have issues with young white men- they are another common denominator in many of these scenarios involving gun massacres.
"If guns are bad then ban them in the video games. I want the same ban on guns in the video games. There is no need for that to be in the video games. I see little boy cartoons as I'm channel surfing and it's all geared toward violence"
Guess what? In Japan, they have even more gun-centric video games! And their cartoons have even more guns and violence! They're practically loaded with weapons and violence and blood and death!
Oh, and it's universally illegal to own a gun in Japan unless you're with the police or the Defense Force, and homicide rates in Japan are practically nonexistent. Whoops?
It may be illegal in Japan to own a gun, but Denmark, with 20 times the guns, has just 1/7 the homicide rate. Interesting tidbit, there, and you can find that same thing repeated all over the developed countries; reducing gun ownership rates has no correlation at all to the homicide rate.
Interesting about the video games though - I had theorized that that could be a possible cause of the US fascination with murder. A small indication that that may be a dead end investigation.
20x almost nothing and 1/7th of almost nothing is still almost nothing. ;D
I doubt very much that the survivors of the slain people view it as nothing.
In any case, the population of Japan is around 130,000,000; at a homicide rate of .5 per 100,000 that's around 650 people murdered each year. Not very "nothing".
As I recall as well, there are about .6 guns per 100 people in Japan, or nearly a million guns in the country. Again, not "nothing" except perhaps relative to the US.
If you don't like seeing the low numbers, South Africa, with half the guns of Denmark has over 500 times the homicide rate. Or, putting it another way, with 1/7 the guns has 6 times the murder rate of Japan.
Switzerland, with 75 times the guns of Japan, has a murder rate just very slightly higher. Finland, with 5 times the guns of Brazil. has a murder rate 1/10 that of Brazil.
Of course, I can also choose countries that show just the opposite. Bottom line - there is no correlation between gun ownership and murder rate.
Inconsistent correlation and outliers aren't exactly proof of the absence of correlation. You can still say that, given a few anomalies, it's likely that the fewer guns per capita than average a country possesses, the fewer homicides per capita than average there will be.
Incorrect. Inconsistent correlation denies any causal relationship. You most definitely cannot say that fewer guns = fewer homicides.
You see, it's not a "few" anomalies; it's about half the data. There is simply no correlation at all; even removing those anomalies like South Africa, Brazil and the US still produces no correlation. You would have to very carefully cherry pick appropriate countries, leaving out about half the developed world, to produce even a weak correlation.
Rather surprising, I thought, but it is what it is.
You're comparing apples and oranges here. For one thing Japan is vastly different from the US culturally. For another, the government and police have far more authority there. There is no protection against illegal search and seizure, no such thing as the right to privacy. Under the current legal system in the US, Japanese gun control laws would simply not be effective. Here is an excerpt from an article published in the Asia Pacific Law Review:
"In Japan, the legal system is, in effect, an omnipotent and unitary state authority. All law enforcement administrators in Japan are appointed by the National Police Agency and receive their funding from the NPA. Hence, the police are insulated from complaints from politicians or other citizens. There is hardly any check on the power of the state, save its own conscience.
What does the breadth of police powers have to do with gun controls? Japanese gun controls exist in a society where there is little need for guns for self-defense. Police powers make it difficult for owners of illegal guns to hide them. Most importantly, the Japanese criminal justice system is based on the Government possessing the inherent authority to do whatever it wishes. In a society where almost everyone accepts nearly limitless, unchecked Government power, people do not wish to own guns to resist oppression or to protect themselves in case the criminal justice system fails."
The full article can be found here: http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html
In order for Japanese gun control laws to work in the US, the American people would have to essentially live in a police state, and give up many of the rights and freedoms guaranteed them in the Constitution.
Implying that Japan is a police state. Which is hilarious.
In comparison to the US, it probably is. Not necessarily in the number of cops per capita (I have no idea what either country is) but in the control a cop can and often does legally exert.
Well, the police force there is pretty much the exact same as ours, only with fewer cases of brutality and a LOT more desk work (because Japan is a boring place to be a cop).
Here, I would tend to agree; there is less crime and certainly less violent crime than in the US.
Is it due to guns? All available information says no - there is no causal relationship there. Correlation, particularly between two isolated points, is not indication of cause and when many points are considered there is not even a correlation. Ergo, no causal relationship.
I will admit that the term "police state" is a bit of an exaggeration, but that doesn't change the fact that the Japanese legal system is very different from here in the US. There is no need for a search warrant, there is no guarantee of a speedy trial, detainees in Japanese jails are allowed no visitors other than defense attorneys (and even those on a limited basis). These things must be considered when discussing crime rates. Gun control laws aren't the only factor.
by Tim Lajoie2 years ago
I am curious about what the public thinks about militarized police. As a police chaplain I hear mainly one side of the discussion. I would like to hear some general perceptions of police officers and police...
by Scott S Bateman2 months ago
If you want a factual and research-based explanation of how to reduce gun violence, please read the informative article below.https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics … c24213c694
by M. T. Dremer5 years ago
Why are guns so violently defended?I know why gun manufacturers defend guns (it's their business) but why do gun owners defend it more vehemently than any other topic? People that are completely silent on other hot...
by IslandBites4 years ago
George Zimmerman was arrested after a domestic altercation. Allegedly, he threatened his wife and father-in-law with a gun. His wife filed divorce papers a few days ago.Is this going to prove (not legally of course)...
by emrldphx6 years ago
This is one I haven't seen before. A study done by Florida State University professors of criminology Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz.LINK: http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htmREVIEW:...
by ahorseback4 years ago
Eric Holder seems to think we need an ankle bracelet to even use a gun and be able to stop crime in America ? And yet , he can't even control his ! He, is the one that needs an ankle bracelet !
Copyright © 2018 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.