This is how we save lives from gun violence

Jump to Last Post 1-16 of 16 discussions (102 posts)
  1. promisem profile image96
    promisemposted 8 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

    1. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      An excellent example of just how pervasive the spin is, and how otherwise knowledgeable and intelligent people fall into the trap.  From the article:

      "the data we do have shows that lawmakers can act to save lives from gun violence"

      "banning these weapons probably won’t do too much to curb overall gun deaths"

      "Gun homicide rates declined during the ban, but they also fell after the ban expired in 2004"

      "But banning so-called assault weapons was never meant to reduce overall gun deaths. It was meant to reduce gun deaths from mass shootings — even if these represent a small portion of gun violence."

      "But even if this step reduced shootings by 1 percent"

      "One small study found that over seven years, 37 percent of gun deaths could have been prevented by smart guns."

      "The more guns there are, the more gun deaths there will be."

      "And across states. One 2013 study from Boston University found that for every percentage point increase in gun ownership at the state level, there was a 0.9 percent rise in the firearm homicide rate."

      " Harvard University researchers found that the gun homicide rate dropped 42 percent in the seven years following the law and the gun suicide rate fell 58 percent."

      I could go on, but the point should be clear: the article isn't about saving lives as you say it is - it's about not having bodies with bullet holes in them. There is almost nothing said in the article about saving lives; only in preventing gun deaths, with the reader left to infer and assume that if a gun was not present no one would have died.  A false premise that is seen from all over the world, including the experience of Australia in their gun buy-back program of 1996.

      If you want to show that gun controls, up to and including buy-backs or outright bans, save lives you're going to have to compare those controls (or ownership rates) to homicide rates instead of using gun homicide rates with  an implicit assumption that without guns killers won't kill.  Can you do that?

      1. promisem profile image96
        promisemposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        Nice cherry picking and taking phrases out of context.

        1. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          What's out of context?  And I CAN provide more if you think I've cherry picked.  Or can you point to anything in that article claiming lives were saved with gun controls?  Not, mind you, something limited to [b]gun[/i] deaths, but deaths from any and all causes?

          1. promisem profile image96
            promisemposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            I submit that a gun extremist who does nothing but spew NRA talking points and takes comments out of context is unfit to have a rational discussion about gun control.

            In your case, if you want to have a conversation about specific ideas and statistics raised in the article -- 1 by 1 -- I'm happy to oblige.

            1. wilderness profile image98
              wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              Can we start with your claim that gun controls save lives vs the article statement that "the data we do have shows that lawmakers can act to save lives from gun violence"?

              One is a open ended statement that lives will be saved, the other a statement that any bodies will not have bullets in them.  Your comment?  That it is not rational to question the assumption that killers require a gun to kill with?

              1. promisem profile image96
                promisemposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                I didn't make the claim. I simply posted the article headline.

                For the sake of progress, can we please start with a small idea?

                "Another study from the federal government shows that 68 percent of school shootings are perpetrated by shooters who obtain a gun from their homes or the homes of relatives.

                "In Massachusetts, which has the strictest safe-storage laws in the country, guns are used in just 9 percent of youth suicides, compared with 42 percent nationally. The suicide death rate among youth in the state is 38 percent below the national average."


                Do you believe that gun safes with tamper proof locks should be used in homes with children?

                1. wilderness profile image98
                  wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  OK - 2/3 thirds of school shooters obtain a gun from their homes.  Are you making the assumption that if they can't do that they won't kill?  THAT's the question, and one that is consistently overlooked and ignored.

                  Although I'm not prepared to agree that a large effort needs to be made by all gun owners to protect a handful from themselves, I DO support gun safes.  Or other means - trigger locks, gun biometrics, etc.  This is not nearly as much about suicide as it is theft as far as I'm concerned.  I find the topic of suicides to be nearly separate from that of gun control - I am not responsible for seeing that my neighbor does not suicide. I would very likely make an effort that it not happen but that does not mean that I should be forced to do so.

                  1. promisem profile image96
                    promisemposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    I'm glad we at least agree on gun safes, especially with children in the home.

                    I also agree you are not responsible for seeing your neighbor doesn't commit suicide.

                    I do think we are responsible for pushing laws that reduce easy access to guns for people who shouldn't have access to them, such as children / teens, felons and mentally ill people.

                2. Readmikenow profile image95
                  Readmikenowposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  Prosimen,

                  Guess there is common ground between us.  I know you don't like the NRA, but it is an organization with a long history of teaching gun safety. I am often shocked by what a non-NRA member doesn't know about gun safety.  It's an organization where gun owners can go and learn about the best gun safes, trigger locks, etc for the specific weapons they own.  I was taught at an early age to lock up guns.  I believe this is important.  The  problem is we're back to square one, how to get all gun owners to be responsible.  Should there be a law?  Many states currently have child access prevention laws in place.  A person once suggested the federal government offer a tax write off for gun storage and safety equipment.  That's an idea.  I just don't think there is an easy way to change people and their habits.  Here are a list of states with child access laws.
                  http://leg.wa.gov/Senate/Committees/LAW … onLaws.pdf

                  1. promisem profile image96
                    promisemposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    Mike, I respect the part of the NRA that focuses on gun safety. I oppose NRA leadership that fights every attempt at laws to limit gun violence.

                    I have read that even NRA rank and file don't agree with the leadership on their extreme opposition to finding a solution to gun violence.

                    I saw recently that the Republican Virginia legislature killed a law to make parents more responsible for locking up guns in their home. That's the kind of opposition I don't understand.

    2. dianetrotter profile image71
      dianetrotterposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Why is the US the only place where this recurrent problem continues to happen?

      1. promisem profile image96
        promisemposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        Because we have a powerful and wealthy organization that opposes any and all solutions. I don't know of any organization like it in other countries.

      2. Nathanville profile image93
        Nathanvilleposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        Dianetrotter, from the British shores American’s liberal and widespread ownership of guns with little control is seen as just sheer insanity.  Every other free democracy has far stricter gun controls than America, and correspondingly, less gun violence.

        Britain has the 2nd most stringent gun controls in the world, with Japan being the most stringent.  Therefore, it’s almost impossible to get hold of a gun in Britain; so much so that not only don’t our police carry guns in Britain but neither do the Criminals.

        Whenever I think of a robbery in a shop (Store) in the USA (rightly or wrongly) I have a vivid image of an armed robbery.  In contrast, when thieves try to rob a jewellery shop in England their choice of weapon is more likely to be a sledge hammer rather than a gun; as demonstrated in this video:- https://youtu.be/ySBxMMidbEg

        To me the figures speak for themselves:-

        •    In 2015 in the UK just 26 people were killed by gun violence; compared to 33,636 people killed in the USA by gun violence.

        •    In 2015 in the UK the police killed just 3 people; compared to 1,166 people being shot dead by the police in the USA.

        However, I know from previous, similar debates, that there are some who don’t accept the reality; demanding that it’s not gun deaths that count but total homicides (excluding suicides, accidents etc.) that’s important.

        In this respect, for a fair comparison e.g. per capita the Data published for 2014/2015 by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), given as deaths per 100,000 of population per year is as follows (for simplicity I’ve included just the data for the four countries quoted in these discussions e.g. USA, UK, Australia and Japan):

        •    USA:  3.5 gun homicides and 1.38 non gun related homicides = total 4.88 homicides per 100,000 of population per year.

        •    Australia: 0.18 gun homicides and 0.33 non gun related homicides = total 0.51 homicides per 100,000 of population per year.

        •    UK: 0.06 gun homicides and 0.86 non gun homicides = total 0.92 homicides per 100,000 of population per year.

        •    Japan: zero gun crime; and 0.31 homicides in total, per 100,000 of population.

        1. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Germany has about 5 times the gun ownership rate of England and Wales, but only 2/3 the homicide rate.  Greece has 3 times the guns ownership rate but about 2/3 the homicide rate.  Iceland has 6 times the gun ownership rate but only half the homicide rate of England and Wales.  Romania has 1/9 the gun ownership rate but nearly half again the homicide rate as England and Wales.

          Using your logic this definitively proves that more guns = fewer homicides.  Right?

        2. dianetrotter profile image71
          dianetrotterposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          0.#!  wow!!

        3. Nathanville profile image93
          Nathanvilleposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Wilderness, before answering, I wish to stress that coming from a country where we don’t have gun violence I have no invested interest in whether America comes to it senses and impose gun controls or not.

          However, I do find the sheer volume of senseless deaths from gun violence in America horrific and saddening.

          In answer to your response:  Firstly, I don’t think you meant Romania as its homicide per capita is actually much higher than the UK.  Secondly, no two countries are identical so you can’t make direct comparisons without taking into account other factors e.g. the inherent level of violence within a culture (for whatever reason) and the existing gun laws.

          For example, the two countries you quoted who do have a high levels of gun ownership, but low homicide rates i.e. Germany and Iceland; unlike America do have high levels of gun control: 

          Although 30.3% of Germans own guns, Germany's weapons laws are among the worlds’ strictest, and considered sufficient for safety.  Unlike America, in Germany, gun ownership is purely for recreational use only including the use of historical guns and weapons in festivals; and guns for private self-defence is restricted.

          Likewise, in Iceland, where gun ownership is also 30.3%, gun control laws are very tight.  Acquiring a gun in Iceland is not an easy process; steps to gun ownership includes a medical examination and a written test.

          As for Romania, although gun ownership is very low, there is an inherent high level of violent crime due to the socioeconomic problems of many parts of the countryside including high poverty, poor education, and high unemployment.

          Although there isn’t a direct correlation between the level of gun ownership and homicides, because of other factors including how tight gun control laws are, there is however a trend which can be charted.  In countries like Britain, Australia and Canada where gun controls were significantly tightened when gun control got out of hand, historical data always shows a peak in gun violence over the first few years after gun controls are tightened, but thereafter gun violence drops of significantly. 
          I’ve charted the relevant data for 2015/2016 for each of the eight countries mentioned in these discussions in Microsoft Excel and used Excel to automatically generate a flow chart comparing gun ownership with total homicides.   

          In the flow chart below (as any statistician will recognise), there is a distinctive trend between gun ownership and homicides e.g. a general decline in homicides corresponding with lower gun ownership.  The blip in the red line being that of Romania (for the reasons given above); otherwise, all the other countries on the chart (including the UK) have very low homicides rates per capita (less than 1 person in 100,000 people); except for Romania (as explained above) and the USA where homicides are extremely high.

          8 Countries is just a small sample; but I’m confident that if I spent the time and effort to plot all free democracies in the world to give a larger sample that you’d see a similar general trend.



          https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13978274.jpg

          1. wilderness profile image98
            wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            "Although there isn’t a direct correlation between the level of gun ownership and homicides, because of other factors including how tight gun control laws are, there is however a trend which can be charted."

            There is the first point of contention.  The statement there is no correlation between gun ownership and homicides is absolutely correct.  The statement that there is a trend which can be charted is belied by that statement, for if there is a trend there is a correlation.  As gun ownership rises, homicide rates rise, then falls, rises again, falls again, rises a third time and falls a third time.  There IS no "trend" there, and I'm not basing it on the experience of 8 countries but on that of several dozen.

            "In countries like Britain, Australia and Canada where gun controls were significantly tightened when gun control got out of hand, historical data always shows a peak in gun violence over the first few years after gun controls are tightened, but thereafter gun violence drops of significantly.  "

            True, at least for Australia (the country I investigated because of their specific time line on their buy-back).  What isn't being mentioned is that there was already a slow decline in the homicide rate before the buy-back; a decline which basically continued unchanged for another decade after taking the guns away.  It is thus not possible to credit the buy-back with the decline, for it was happening before taking guns from the people.  Or course I'm not interested in gun homicides, but in homicides from all causes; while you began speaking of homicides it deteriorated here into talking of gun violence and it is a no-brainer that if a killer cannot get a gun he won't shoot someone.  He can (and will) still kill, but the body will not have a bullet hole in it.

            "8 Countries is just a small sample; but I’m confident that if I spent the time and effort to plot all free democracies in the world to give a larger sample that you’d see a similar general trend."

            You may be confident, but until you do it, you will not know.  I did it (the results are on my profile) and I DO know.  You will not see a similar trend - instead (eliminating the tall spikes like Romania, Mexico, the middle east, etc.) the graph is a series of ups and downs with no trend at all.  I will add that the "trend" you mention is pretty much a straight line through points 2,3,4, split 5 and 6 and end halfway between 8 and 2.  Ignore point 1 and 7 (and possibly 8) as being from some anomaly that is not understood, or IS understood and makes the point invalid in a study of murders vs gun ownership.

            Finally, the social/cultural/environmental differences between countries is absolutely what causes the difference, not the number of guns in a society.  If it were different there would be a trend, but there isn't, so guns are not and can not be a causal effect on homicides.  Logic 101:
            If X then Y  (true statement)
            Not Y          (observation)
            Not X          (logical conclusion)

            1. Nathanville profile image93
              Nathanvilleposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              As I previously indicated; gun violence in America isn’t my problem.  If that’s the way Americans want to live then that’s your choice; I’m just grateful for living in a country where we don’t have such senseless violence.

              No there isn’t a direct linier correlation between gun ownership and homicide, especially when you try to compare different countries with each other without taking variables into account e.g. how tight the gun control laws are within different countries.

              For example, although both Germany and Iceland have a high gun ownership of 30.3%, both (unlike America) have very tight gun controls:

              •    In Germany, strict criteria and licencing laws, with strict restrictions on semi-automatics, and with fully automatics and pump-action shotguns being prohibited.
              •    In Iceland, not only are the gun laws very tight, but also to get a gun licence includes taking a medical examination and written test.

              If only gun controls were as tight in America as they are in Germany and Iceland then there is little doubt gun violence (and homicide in general ) in America would be significantly lower; and perhaps closer to what they are in the rest of the world.

              Your perception that if people didn’t have guns they would still kill as many people is flawed in that with a gun (especially a semi-automatic or pump action gun) a person can kill dozens of people within minutes; as frequently happens in America. 

              Whereas, armed with just a knife, a person can only kill one person at a time, and even then they have to be in close physical contact with that person to thrust the knife into them (rather than indiscriminately kill from a distance), plus a person being attacked by a knife stands a much better chance of fending off his or her attacker.

              The whole purpose of tight gun control laws is to reduce homicides, and in countries where tight gun controls have been introduced, although trends in homicides do fluctuate from year to year (as they do in any country) the levels of homicide never go back to what they were before the introduction of strict gun laws.

              I know you don’t like talking about all the suicides and accidental deaths resulting from gun ownership, but it is another factor that shouldn’t be swept under the carpet and ignored as tens of thousands of Americans kill themselves each year with a gun.  Many who attempt suicide can and are helped, with some going on to lead normal lives; guns are so decisive and quick that those picking up a gun (in a moment of desperation) never get a second chance.

              America is the only country in the world that has more guns than people.  I’m not suggesting that you go as far as Britain and Japan where it’s almost impossible to own a gun; but If America adopted stiff gun ownership laws like in Germany and Iceland then not only would the range of guns be limited to less lethal weapons e.g. by prohibiting semi-automatics, but also fewer people would qualify to hold a gun license which would make America a much safer place to live.

              1. The Harvest Music Festival: 58 killed on 1st October 2017
              2. Pulse night club: 49 killed on 12th June 2016
              3. Virginia Tech: 32 killed on 16th April 2007
              4. Sandy Hook: 27 killed on 14th December 2012
              5. First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs: 26 killed on 5th November in 2017
              6. Luby's Cafeteria: 23 killed on 16th October in 1991
              7. McDonald's in San Ysidro: 21 killed on 18th July 1984
              8. University of Texas: 18 killed on 1st August 1966
              9. High school in Parkland, Florida: At least 17 killed on 14th February 2018
              10. San Bernardino: 14 killed on 2nd December 2015
              11. Edmond, Oklahoma: 14 killed on 20th August 1986

              Above are 11 mass shooting in the USA of which 9 have been within the last ten years, where a total of 299 innocent people died; innocent people who would still be alive today if it wasn’t for the horrific gun violence that’s so prolific in American Society.

              1. promisem profile image96
                promisemposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                Gun violence in America is not the choice of rational, open-minded people.

                It's the choice of extremists who happen to have a lot of money that they use for propaganda and politician campaign contributions.

                We are becoming less of a democracy every day.

                1. dianetrotter profile image71
                  dianetrotterposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  President Pranky Spanky Pants in coming unhinged.  He is saying things that are blatantly untrue.  He is attempting to anger people.  Some idiots will respond with violence eventually.

                  1. promisem profile image96
                    promisemposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    LOL. He has said hundreds of things that are untrue. But some people love it.

              2. wilderness profile image98
                wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                "If only gun controls were as tight in America as they are in Germany and Iceland then there is little doubt gun violence (and homicide in general ) in America would be significantly lower; and perhaps closer to what they are in the rest of the world."

                And we know this because?  Because if we pick the right two countries to compare it works?  Go up a few posts and you will find absolute proof, using the identical logic, that more guns prevents homicides.

                "Your perception that if people didn’t have guns they would still kill as many people is flawed in that with a gun (especially a semi-automatic or pump action gun) a person can kill dozens of people within minutes..."

                And we know this because when the Aussies took semi-automatics away there was no change in the rate of decline in homicides?  That kind of thing is how we know it?  Because not a single country can show that taking guns has resulted in a lower homicide rate?

                "America is the only country in the world that has more guns than people.  "

                And also one of the highest homicide rates in the developed world.  Therefore guns are the cause of the homicide rate, right?.  It's a convenient method of rationalizing disarming a citizenry...except that correlation does not indicate causation - something that is commonly forgotten in a great many arguments. 

                "Above are 11 mass shooting in the USA of which 9 have been within the last ten years, where a total of 299 innocent people died; innocent people who would still be alive today if it wasn’t for the horrific gun violence that’s so prolific in American Society."

                That's what the Aussies thought, too...and watched as the number of people dying in mass murders (massacres in Australia) did not change when the killers turned to matches.  The assumption that an insane killer won't kill if they can't get a gun is alive and well even after being proven to be untrue.

                1. Nathanville profile image93
                  Nathanvilleposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  Hi Wilderness, the only reason I focused on Germany and Iceland is because you cited them as two countries where gun ownership is high, while homicide rates are low.  In response I pointed out that in these two countries (unlike America) ‘Gun Control Laws’ are extremely tight, and therefore a good reason why gun violence would be significantly less.

                  As regards Australia, the fact remains that following the stiffer gun laws in 1996 gun deaths dropped off significantly and have remained low since (as shown in the chart below). 

                  If you look at those figures closely you’ll note that gun deaths in Australia after falling back from the high of 1988 steadily rose over a four year period from 549 deaths in 1989 to 608 deaths in 1992, then stabilised at around 516 deaths a year for the next four yours.  However, within a year of the new stiff gun laws in Australia deaths plummeted to just 312 in 1998 and have since slowly declined; to me that is significant. 

                  In my view Japan is a ‘model’ country in that it has the tightest gun controls in the world, and consequently the lowest gun crimes.  In contrast America has the most relaxed gun controls in the world and consequent one of the highest homicides rates in the world.  I don’t think these two facts are just coincidence, as elaborated on in more detail in this article: - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-38365729

                  There have been just 14 massacres in Australia in the last 20 years (since gun laws tightened), ranging from just 3 deaths to 15 deaths in any one attack.  This pales into insignificance compared to the USA where in the last ten years the nine most significant massacres have ranged from 14 deaths to 58 deaths in a single incident; so your claim of massacres in Australia is somewhat overstated.

                  Besides, you’ve still avoided the main issues:-

                  1.    How many people can you kill with a semi-automatic, compared to a knife
                  2.    How far away can you be to kill someone with a gun, compared to a knife

                  In answer to both questions:  The massacre at the Harvest Music Festival in the USA, where 58 innocent people were killed in just one massacre using a gun from a distance, demonstrates how far more lethal and effective guns can be in killing people on mass.  There is no way a person wielding a knife could have killed so many people so quickly at such an event; at best just a handful of people at close range before he would either be overpowered or the crowed disperse to out of range, until the police intervenes.



                  https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13982808_f1024.jpg

                  1. wilderness profile image98
                    wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    "As regards Australia, the fact remains that following the stiffer gun laws in 1996 gun deaths dropped off significantly"

                    True.  Take guns away and gun deaths will drop some.  Homicides don't though - the number of bodies remains the same, they just don't have bullet holes in them.  It is always amazing, and somewhat disappointing, when a discussion of guns vs homicides suddenly becomes guns vs gun homicides, as if that point is relevant somehow.  It isn't; the whole discussion concerns "Do fewer guns (which is the point of gun laws) produce fewer homicides, and looking at a subset of homicides is not relevant.

                    "There have been just 14 massacres in Australia in the last 20 years (since gun laws tightened), ranging from just 3 deaths to 15 deaths in any one attack.  This pales into insignificance compared to the USA where in the last ten years the nine most significant massacres have ranged from 14 deaths to 58 deaths in a single incident; so your claim of massacres in Australia is somewhat overstated."

                    Wikipedia lists 18 "massacres", and that's the figure I used.  One more death and one more massacre than in the 20 years preceding the buy-back.  But again, what does that have to do with guns vs homicides?  The insinuation that more guns in the US is causal is unsupported and thus not relevant.  Plus, of course, we've already determined that different countries and cultures are quite likely to be the cause of different homicide rates while the difference in gun ownership is known to have no correlation to homicide rates anywhere in the world.

                    "1.    How many people can you kill with a semi-automatic, compared to a knife"

                    Who cares (although the biggest mass murder in Japans history was a knifing, killing 19)?  How many people can you kill with a semi-automatic compared to a bomb is a more relevant question.  Or maybe with an airplane.  Pretending that if no gun is available a killer will default to a knife is another red herring and again completely irrelevant.

                    "2.    How far away can you be to kill someone with a gun, compared to a knife"

                    Same thing.  A gun must be within a few hundred yards, while a bomb can be from the other side of the world.  Again, pretending that only knives will be used when there are no guns is a red herring.  The second biggest massacre in Japan was accomplished with Sarin gas - do you really want to encourage a shooter to use war gases instead of bullets?

                    "The massacre at the Harvest Music Festival in the USA, where 58 innocent people were killed in just one massacre using a gun from a distance, demonstrates how far more lethal and effective guns can be in killing people on mass."

                    The mass murder by Tim McVeigh killed 168 people...with just one bomb.  A handful of terrorists killed thousands with 2 airplanes.  Are you sure you want to drive killers to use more deadly tools rather than bullets?  Because a mass murderer is rather unlikely to default to a knife; far more effective to use a bomb, poison or other more deadly tool.

  2. JAKE Earthshine profile image78
    JAKE Earthshineposted 8 months ago

    I'm encouraged to see that the great mass of aggressive young adults who assembled in Washington DC, Seattle, Houston, Boston, Los Angeles, Paris France and all around the globe have serious attitudes. These patriots refuse to accept the same old stale, ludicrous and of course deadly arguments from Mr. Trump and his conservatives who just over one year ago, rescinded a law that prevented mentally ill individuals from buying guns, and they could care less about what the NRA, National Rifle Association says or does to continue to flood the streets with lethal guns, especially AR15's and the rest of semis and automatics.

    There is no reason for any individual private citizen to own weapons of war unless they have a specific purpose, like enlisted in the military to protect the United States and the 2nd amendment specifically articulates this restriction. Fewer autos on the road fewer accidents and pollution, fewer bicycles on the road fewer injuries, fewer bomb making material available to the public fewer bombs made, fewer guns in the public domain fewer fatal gun catastrophes. Just the simple facts.

    1. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Outside of a handful of collectors, there are no "individual private citizens" that legally own "weapons of war".  I understand, for instance, that the civil war Gatling gun is popular, although almost impossible to find, let alone purchase.

      As far as flooding the streets with lethal guns, you do understand that outside of plastic cap guns, BB guns, pellet guns, paint ball guns and the like that ALL guns are "lethal"?  You are aware that neither Trump, "his conservatives" or the NRA sells guns so can't be "flooding the streets" with anything, let alone automatic weapons (weapons of war)?

      1. promisem profile image96
        promisemposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        An assault rifle is a weapon of war. That's why it's called an "assault" rifle.

        1. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Quite true.  But having a coat of black paint does not make a "weapon of war".  No matter how it's spun that way, it is still a simple civilian rifle.

          1. promisem profile image96
            promisemposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            No, it is not. It's a military weapon that is sold to the general public.

      2. JAKE Earthshine profile image78
        JAKE Earthshineposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        Well actually Mr. Trump and conservatives lick the boots of the NRA which funnels cash toward wacko conservative politicians who advocate gun ownership with zero restrictions or conditions if they could get away with it so yes, Mr. Trump and his crazy right wingers are directly responsible for flooding the streets with guns including assault rifles.

  3. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 8 months ago

    Criminals , contrary to liberal identity politics , DO NOT pay attention to laws do they?
    Consider  the rise of knife attacks in England ;
    https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13980196.png

    1. Nathanville profile image93
      Nathanvilleposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Nice one; using percentages in that way without quoting the actual figures makes it look far more serious that it actually is.

      Yep, in the absence of guns, knife is the prime choice of weapon in the UK; and in 2017 there were:-

      •    A grand total of just 215 homicides in the UK where a knife was used

      •    Which is insignificant compared to the 15,549 homicides in America in 2017 where a gun was used.

      To put it in perspective in 2017; 72 times more people were killed in the USA by gun than in the UK by knife e.g. 15,549 divided by 215.

      Even taking the size difference in population e.g. UK population 65 million, USA population 325 million (the USA population is 5 times larger than the UK population); gun homicides in the USA far outstrips knife homicides in the UK.

      Therefore 72 divided by 5 still means that gun homicides in the USA is 14 times more prevalent (per head of population) than knife homicides in the UK.

      The reality is, is that more people are killed in homicides by gun in the USA every 5 days, than people killed in homicides by knife in the UK in a whole year.

      1. wilderness profile image98
        wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        Is there a conclusion to be drawn from this?  Maybe "Americans are violent"?

        1. Nathanville profile image93
          Nathanvilleposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          Good point Wilderness; what's your thoughts.

          I know a lot of Americans are peace loving people; but not living in America I can only form an opinion based on what I see on the News and on what Americans themselves say on Social Media.

          1. wilderness profile image98
            wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            Thoughts are all I have.  Just wandering, wondering considerations with no conclusions and nothing to back any of them.  Questions, but without answers.

            America is a young country, only 2 or 4 generations from the wild west where people administered their own justice and defense.  Does it matter?

            Although moving in that direction, Americans are still more free than most places and do not depend on the nanny state for nearly as much.  Does that make us more willing to become judge, jury and executioner?

            A huge majority of our violent death cases come from inner cities where people are crammed in like sardines.  Still looser than most other industrialized nations, is it too soon too soon to do that to people whose parents had a 1/2 mile walk to the nearest neighbor (see first thought)?

            Is the internet, social media, adding to the problem with the ability to rant and rave anonymously, without fear of (possibly physical) retribution? 

            America is, more than any other nation, a true melting pot of races and ideologies.  As most people are most comfortable with their "own kind" does that add to the insanity?

            1. Nathanville profile image93
              Nathanvilleposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              Thanks wilderness, some food for thought there.

      2. promisem profile image96
        promisemposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        Outstanding logic.

        1. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          I'm missing something here, for what I saw was a factual list of statistical information.  No logical progression or reasoning, no conclusions.  Just simple facts.

          What logic are you seeing?

  4. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 8 months ago

    It's ridiculous to assume that any new law or laws  is going to cure gun violence , One near exception being a total ban and absolute confiscation AND extraordinary punishments of all future violence related crimes,  yet in reality  even that would never end gun violence , Why ?, because none of the above is possible in America . Some number of holdouts are always going to be there . Some number of perhaps military or police firearms  will come into contact with the criminal element .

    Bans , buy backs , doubling down on the punishing of crimes is highly unlikely , In fact  extremely unlikely.  Liberal public opinion holds  that punishment for crimes of any kind doesn't work ,  incarceration doesn't work ,  policing of major crimes doesn't work . In the end , the fad of mass killings seems to be an American thing right ? Wrong !  Mass killings have and will continue to happen anywhere at any given time around the world, if not by civilian criminal elements then by military governments , dictators  or politically motivated thugs .

    It's fairly well proven that gun free zones only direct gun and assault  type crimes to those very area's , No matter how the leftist news media twists these  statistics  ,   criminal elements flock to "gun free zones " ,  The  two major ideologies in America had sooner except that crime itself is on a downward spiral in the last thirty or so years in America and  , however uncomfortably , live with that.

    The constitution isn't going to change ,the second amendment isn't going to change , the law enforcement community isn't going to keep up with it , the schools are never going to be much safer than they are now , the construct of a comprehensive mental health system is far , far to distant a dream.  The liberal control of our education system isn't likely to change . So what's next ?

  5. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 8 months ago

    So many here continually and unfairly compare America's crime and especially gun issues to other countries , which in itself is ridiculous . Canada although the same land mass has one tenth the population of America , Same with Australia , which has twenty four million people . Continually comparing apples to oranges  only shows us that the depth in understanding of crimes and their comparisons is ignored , Comparisons in stats from country to country with completely dissimilar characteristics is thus rendered useless.
    Just a few differences in your comparisons ;
    -Population densities
    -Policing standards
    -Criminal elements
    -News Media differences
    -Constitutional liberties

    1. profile image0
      ahorsebackposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13984044.jpg

      Save lives ;
      You guys are shooting at shadows comparing the three countries US,, Canada and Australia ,   What serious comparisons can be made where population densities vary by such percentage points ?  You could compare cities of like populations perhaps , even that isn't fair however when you consider political climates ,  constitutional DNA , criminal justice types  and media representation. It's too much of a "grey area" leading towards  facts to compare  a nation that has 10% of the US population.

      But I suppose anti-second amendment people know that and couldn't care less.

  6. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 8 months ago

    As usual mass killings, no matter what weapon used, will never end , why ? Because solutions based on popular opinion is as shallow as is the understanding of why these mass killings actually happen to begin with.  Forum pages everywhere can fill entire encyclopedias  with useless debate and all we do is jump from incident to incident , crime to crime , shooting to shooting .

    1-Mental health issues  -As the primary cause cannot not be recognized soon enough for serious interventions.
    2-Prevention - Apath of law enforcement ,mental health , education system, and the general public , cohesive communications between these entities is non existent.
    3-Media  -Too busy sensationalizing present day conflict to facilitate solution by and of  the importance of communication itself.
    4-The present day stigma of most mental health causes prevent  "see something ,say something" from ever being effective.
    5- Identity politics , while focusing on guns alone ; There are dozens of possible weapons for mass killings.

  7. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 8 months ago

    Fill volumes with anti-gun , anti-second amendment all the left wants ; The second amendment is part and parcel the actual DNA of the US constitution .    Why do anti-second amendment lovers think that when all gets sifted out , every single time , when a question of 2nd A gets to the SCOTUS - it always protects the original 27 basic  words of the 2nd  amendment ?

    Because the constitutional protections of the second amendment and so guns aren't  going anywhere !
    Who ever wrote this , intentionally made it so simple to understand .
    https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13985257_f1024.jpg

  8. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 8 months ago

    So I looked up who exactly wrote the second amendment and  apparently  James Madison didn't write it as some claimed , It came from the earliest recorded common law and state constitutions  , So , It isn't just mixed into all of the DNA of today's constitutional  law , it was in the earliest founders and settlers of this country before it was even called America .  NRA members today and constitutional lawyers and judges of all time know that it cannot be repealed and one of the the biggest and most important reasons , It would create an unsurvivable  civil revolution in America  , that's probably why  every single time it's brought before SCOTUS it's remained completely unhindered .

  9. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 8 months ago

    The above is the perfect example of why politics will never cure a social ailment .
    The courts , the legislators , local ,state or federal have never cured a social ailment , they spend too much time talking about it.  Mayor Giuliani significantly dropped gun crimes in 1990's  NYC in his terms by cracking down , doubling down on enabling law enforcement to stiffen EXISTING law enforcement procedures , his "Broken Windows " policies for one  cracking down on first time gun and other crimes thereby significantly limiting second third and fourth time criminal offences .

    Don't need new gun laws if we use the old ones.

  10. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 8 months ago

    https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13986104.jpg
    How to save lives ?
    Approximately 41 % of today's gun related crimes are plead down to lesser charges , in Delaware  70 %   ,often to no gun charges at all  ,  can we start there ?  Of course  that doesn't fit the anti-gun anti 2nd amendment  rhetoric.

  11. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 8 months ago

    One thing I enjoy about Wilderness responses , He doesn't debate with those who inject false truths into any political debate , from either party .

  12. JAKE Earthshine profile image78
    JAKE Earthshineposted 8 months ago

    Congratulations to Deerfield Illinois for taking their first step in curbing gun violence by banning assault weapons. Owners must forfeit their weapons of war by June or incur daily monetary penalties. This is how we begin to rid our streets of dangerous deadly firearms. Serious times call for serious action by we the people to make our communities safer.

    long live the young adults part of the massive resistance who are fed up with the NRA and republican politicians who are fostering a climate of gun violence with their radically insane policies:

      https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/05/us/deerf … index.html

    1. profile image0
      ahorsebackposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Oh great honorable Mayor of Deerfield ;
      Of course whatever Deerfield Ill.does , don't stop the criminal recidivism , don't limit  violent gang activity ,  don't stop plea bargaining  70-80% percent of arresting gun crimes down to misdemeanors or less ,  don't give prosecutors  more power to incarcerate repeat offenders ,   don't acknowledge  that most killings are by handguns , don't crack down on  second ,third or forth offence criminals.  Don't try punishing  an actual criminal for once and not the law abiding citizens ? No don't do that ,it might actually reduce gun crimes .

      Guess what sheepile , this will not reduce gun crimes in Deerfield , but the kiddies will be happy , a city that lets 15 year olds dictate crime legislation is going to continue downhill ,....... Just stating the facts .

      1. JAKE Earthshine profile image78
        JAKE Earthshineposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        I'm not going to respond to your comment in its entirety, but it's a pretty simple concept. The new ban on assault weapons in Deerfield IL will begin to reduce the number of guns on the streets which will in turn reduce the number of catastrophic gun crimes and that's a goal of the powerful young adults who have initiated this massive worldwide revolution against firearm violence, corrupt conservative politicians the NRA and Psycho 'Spanky'  Trump.

        "March For Our Lives" Massive Powerful & Strong Protests Continue Against the NRA, Corrupt Immoral Conservative Politicians, Republican Con Man Paul Ryan, Porn Actress Adulterer Mr. Trump & Phony Demonically Possessed Preachers like Jerry Falwell Junior who have sold their Souls to the DarkSide - VIVA Students & Young Adults !!

        https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13988335.jpg

        1. profile image0
          ahorsebackposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          You're not responding because you can't effectively defend the failures of your authorities one , and two Deerfield has a population of what 18,000 people . Probably a total of maybe twenty AR 15's in town ?    Yeaa Jake watch the numbers of mass killings change drastically there .......Not!
          Score ,Deerfield -0 ----NRA ----1

          1. JAKE Earthshine profile image78
            JAKE Earthshineposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            I'm not sure what you're getting at, but Deerfield IL is a good place to begin the long term removal of guns from our streets creating a safer environment for everyone including nut job NRA board members and some radical republicans who actually think they are entitled to own whatever firearm they wish which of course is nonsense, and it appears as if the young adults have just begun their rumbling revolution against the evils of our oval office stooge and his abominable charlatan preacher supporters like creep Jerry Falwell Junior.

            VIVA Students & Young Adults !!

            1. wilderness profile image98
              wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

              What real life data can you produce to show that removing guns from a society will result in fewer murders?  Not just your unsupported opinion, mind you, but historical data from the real world?

              1. JAKE Earthshine profile image78
                JAKE Earthshineposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                What real life data can you produce to show giving everyone an AR-15 will make us all safer? At this point, the students and young adults could care less about NRA talking points and the old boring stale fallacies they spew like all of  Spanky Trump's hate speeches, they demand action and they're getting it.

                Less guns on the streets, less crimes committed with guns that's just common sense. and the majority still believes in common sense.

                1. wilderness profile image98
                  wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  You're making the claim; it is not up to me to disprove. 

                  What real life data can you produce to show that removing guns from a society will result in fewer murders?  Not just your unsupported opinion, mind you, but historical data from the real world?

                  1. JAKE Earthshine profile image78
                    JAKE Earthshineposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                    Less guns on the streets means less murders committed with guns, it's simple common sense, but it doesn't really matter at this point, the debate is over and Americans are demanding action, not old wives fallacies that the NRA constantly spews.

                    Anyway, removing more guns from the streets sure ain't gonna' hurt society so it's worth a try. Then, if mass murders start using other items to commit  their crimes, we'll start working on making those items more difficult to obtain.

  13. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 8 months ago

    That's all true Wilderness .... how in the world they compare   Canada or Australia for instance , my two favorites, to America is beyond understanding . I mean the best anyone  can do is compare similar cities for statistics and even that is pretty sketchy  given differing legal systems , policing  , trials differences , etc.   For instance to compare Australia  with 10 % of America 's population is just plain wrong.

    Mass killings by other choices than firearms is far more  effective and less studied to date by statistics than firearms I'm sure no matter who says differently .
    -The Boston bombing
    -Oklahoma City
    -Explosive vests in the middle east
    -You mentioned bio weapons
    When insanity choses  to harm the great amounts of people possible it will succeed by almost whatever means chosen , You mention bio-chems. That is one choice we haven't even seriously seen yet and when we do it will make a firearm crime look like a  jay walking charge.

    1. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Problem is that NO country is really very similar to the US.  Not in population density (counts more than population, I think) or in culture. 

      The second biggest mass murder in Japan's history was done with Sarin gas.

  14. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 8 months ago

    Two things just announced !
    One South Carolina legislators just filed legislative bill  to secede  from the U.S. IF the federal government messes with the second Amendment .

    Two, Deerfield Ill. is Now being sued in courts by gun at least two rights groups to fight their illegal  assault weapon ban .  Ready to pay the attorneys bills residents ?

    1. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Unless I'm seriously mistaken the SCOTUS has already decreed that a ban on the AR-15, the most common rifle in the country, is unconstitutional.

  15. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image96
    Wesman Todd Shawposted 8 months ago

    "....and the overwhelming majority of Americans prefer...." Citation requested, and one from a legitimate source.

    "...which will make our schools and children much safer as they..." Citation requested, and from a legitimate source.

    "...after the number of firearms have decreased." What are you smoking, can I have some?

  16. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 8 months ago

    https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13990289.jpg

    The Gatling gun circa 1861 , more of an" dangerous assault weapon" than the AR -15 today !
    Gotta getcha one .

    1. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      "Pawn Stars" Rick tried to buy one once.  He didn't get it - as I remember the price was in the hundreds of thousands.

      But it was in great shape and they got to shoot it to boot.

      (I see one is for sale on the 'net for only $124,000, but it is only a .45 caliber, not the .58, and does not have the original stand. Looks kind of scarred and rusty, too.)

      1. profile image0
        ahorsebackposted 8 months agoin reply to this

        Can you imagine having one in grandpa's attic ?

        1. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

          They're legal, too, as they are considered antiques.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis 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.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe 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 PixelsWe 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.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)