Gun Control

[BigRedBuster]

I never said they did and I am not against laws and pressure that will decrease violent crimes.

 

However, I am against laws that just make us feel good and what sounds good instead of laws based on actually what will make us safer.

 

Look at the graph I posted. It shows that at least in 2010, we are at pretty much the low for murders per 100,000 people since 1900. Always room for improvement though. I'm very interested in the question I posed in that post.

 

Did gun ownership drop in the mid 30s only to rise again in the mid 60s and then drop off again in the mid 90s? I doubt it.

[Junior]

I never said they did and I am not against laws and pressure that will decrease violent crimes.

 

However, I am against laws that just make us feel good and what sounds good instead of laws based on actually what will make us safer.

 

Look at the graph I posted. It shows that at least in 2010, we are at pretty much the low for murders per 100,000 people since 1900. Always room for improvement though. I'm very interested in the question I posed in that post.

 

Did gun ownership drop in the mid 30s only to rise again in the mid 60s and then drop off again in the mid 90s? I doubt it.

 

I don't know the gun ownership stats, and before you go making any grand assumptions, you should find those to support your theory.

 

I wouldn't be horribly surprised if gun ownership dropped as people started to move to the cities more and needed it less for hunting and other things, then rose again in response to the McCarthy era claims of communism being everywhere. But I don't know those numbers at all, and I'm guessing neither do you.

[BigRedBuster]

What theory do I have? I'm asking questions that I think need to be asked. Obviously from your post you don't have the answers to very important questions either.

[carlfense]

I'm not belittling the importance of controlling gun violence. But, from that graph, it appears that that is more of an issue that cars have become much more safe than an issue that a lot more people are dieing from guns.

 

Good job to the auto industry.

I didn't post it for the comparison to automobile deaths but rather because it shows firearm deaths over time instead of murders over time.

[BigRedBuster]

I'm not belittling the importance of controlling gun violence. But, from that graph, it appears that that is more of an issue that cars have become much more safe than an issue that a lot more people are dieing from guns.

 

Good job to the auto industry.

I didn't post it for the comparison to automobile deaths but rather because it shows firearm deaths over time instead of murders over time.

 

 

Understand.

 

Look at both your graph and my graph together. Firearm deaths (total number) are slowly increasing and murders in general are decreasing on a per capita basis. The population is obviously growing. So, even if the per capita murder rate stayed constant, the total number would increase.

 

Again, I'm not pointing out this claiming there isn't room for improvement. But, at least from the info in this tread, it appears that it's not an alarming statistic that all hell is breaking loose.

[carlfense]

Look at both your graph and my graph together. Firearm deaths (total number) are slowly increasing and murders in general are decreasing on a per capita basis. The population is obviously growing. So, even if the per capita murder rate stayed constant, the total number would increase.

I agree that it's all in how you frame the statistics. IIRC, violent crime in general is decreasing in the United States and has been for some time.

 

But, at least from the info in this tread, it appears that it's not an alarming statistic that all hell is breaking loose.

In general, I agree but there have recently been some particularly horrific mass shootings committed with assault rifles. Those tend to attract more attention than the latest drive by at 30th and Ames in Omaha.

[The Dude]

If access to guns is the problem, what makes one American city more violent than another? Why does a city like New Orleans have a murder rate which rivals a lot of cities in third world countries, yet Lincoln's murder rate is virtually non-existent by comparison? Is it just that much easier to buy a gun in those cities?

 

Ah, well, you bring up an excellent point about poverty rates. Certainly higher poverty areas are more prone to violence. You can find any one of thousands of studies that prove this point. Do you have a different theory in mind?

 

Just spitballing of course, but obviously poverty plays a role, yes . Distrust of police due to police corruption probably doesn't help. Gangs aren't really big and organized, so they're more difficult to track and combat. Not that their corrupt law enforcement would do much good anyway.

[walksalone]

 

Thats an alarming chart, but those that did commit the gun crimes, were they thug gang bangers, guys that came home to early finding somebody else nailing their old lady? That doesn't really show much other than numbers, that yes aren't good, but thats painting with a broad brush...

[74Hunter]

Japan and the Netherlands have the highest rates of purchase of violent video games in the world. Now go look at their murder rates. Not even close to the US. So try again.

 

http://www.washingto...nd-gun-murders/

 

It’s true that Americans spend billions of dollars on video games every year and that the United States has the highest firearm murder rate in the developed world. But other countries where video games are popular have much lower firearm-related murder rates. In fact, countries where video game consumption is highest tend to be some of the safest countries in the world, likely a product of the fact that developed or rich countries, where consumers can afford expensive games, have on average much less violent crime.

There is a huge difference in the cultures between the USA and those of the Netherlands and Japan. Its not even comparable.

 

I'm curious to hear the racial issues, because you throw around a lot of theories (with no evidence, mind you) about why Americans have more gun violence.

As I clearly stated before, I don't know the answer, I was just throwing out some possible theories. And, I have yet to see any evidence that can prove either one of us right or wrong. It's all theoretical.

 

But the one that is smacking you in the face, you ignore. The US has the most guns per capita of the entire world and lower rates of violent video game purchase than several countries that have far lower murder rates. So are American people inherently more violent than the rest of the world? Or is it the access to guns that causes the massive difference in gun related homicides. I'll give you a hint, I bolded the answer.

Fine. We have more guns. That is a good thing. The access isn't the problem, criminal activity is the problem. You should do a search on countries that have implemented strict gun control and see what happens to the violent crime rates.

 

Do you have evidence that the 2nd amendment "keeps us safe" to this day? Keep you safe from what, exactly? What sort of evidence are you using to support that statement? Keeps you safe from invading armies? Great, if all we need are guns in every home, we can slash military spending and put that money to other things. Keeps you safe from robberies? Well, I have lots of rocks in my driveway and I've never had anyone rob me, so I guess have some robbery preventing rocks I can sell you.

You need to take that weaksauce elsewhere, dude. As for the 2nd Amendment, you should study the historical meaning of it, it would serve you well.

 

Also, for the 1000th time, there is no regulated border between Chicago and the rest of the US. Local gun control laws are meaningless when you can drive less than 30 minutes and go purchase a gun in a neighboring city. Stop bringing up Chicago, it is a ridiculous argument.

So this (and DC) are perfect examples are why strict gun control laws won't work here. Thanks.

[74Hunter]

It's all about the timing. You were saying that shootings generally happen where people other than the shooter don't have guns . . . and that very same day there was a double murder on a military base.

So you linked an article that had nothing to do with mass murders. That's typical. Let's stay on topic. Oh, and as was mentioned earlier in this thread, military installations normally have very restrictive regulations when it comes to guns. Again, witness the mass murder on the Texas base a little while back.

 

How about mass shootings where armed guards are on duty?

I would like to see one that was. I'm sure there has been, but none that I can think of. And, at Columbine, from the reports I read, the armed guard was not present when the cowards pulled off their twisted plan.

 

Do you think that concealed carry is more of a deterrent than armed guards? If so, why?

Either can be a deterrent, but if you are going to carry out an act such as this, are you willing to do so in a place where you have no idea who is armed and who is not and you could be stopped, or will you slip by an armed guard and open fire a couple of minutes of out his sight? From reports I have seen, the mall shooting in Portland last year was thwarted by a CCP holder. And we have yet to see one of these shootings occur in Walmart, where they welcome CCP holders to legally carry.

 

Is there any evidence backing this belief?

You may not understand this, but its called common sense and real-life. Well, other than the evidence that most of these shootings (if not all) occur in gun free zones.

 

Also, your graph is excellent. Not only is it projected numbers that may or may not be proven in a couple of years, it only goes to show that automobiles are historically much more dangerous than firearms.

 

Whar faux outrage and calls to ban cars????

[Enhance]

So this (and DC) are perfect examples are why strict gun control laws won't work here. Thanks.

It's better than maintaining the status quo. Outside of strict gun control laws, what other options do we have? We have high gun violence because of severe socio-economic problems and relatively lax gun laws. And it's far easier to take the guns out of a situation than to take years of developed socio-economic problems out. That's not to say I wouldn't love to see a place like North Omaha shape up, but it's just not realistic in a short amount of time. Gun control laws can be effective from get-go.

[74Hunter]

So this (and DC) are perfect bexamples are why strict gun control laws won't work here. Thanks.

It's better than maintaining the status quo. Outside of strict gun control laws, what other options do we have? We have high gun violence because of severe socio-economic problems and relatively lax gun laws. And it's far easier to take the guns out of a situation than to take years of developed socio-economic problems out. That's not to say I wouldn't love to see a place like North Omaha shape up, but it's just not realistic in a short amount of time. Gun control laws can be effective from get-go.

Incorrect. What does disarming law abiding citizens due, besides putting them more at the mercy of criminals? Why not deal with the problem instead of looking for feel good answers that don't solve the problem. As we see, criminals don't care about the laws, do you really expect them to give a damn about another touchy feely law?

 

How many of these crimes are perpetrated by normal, decent, law abiding citizens? Few, if any. So why are we discussing punishing those people? Because you want to make more innocent victims? That is the only answer.

[Junior]

So this (and DC) are perfect bexamples are why strict gun control laws won't work here. Thanks.

It's better than maintaining the status quo. Outside of strict gun control laws, what other options do we have? We have high gun violence because of severe socio-economic problems and relatively lax gun laws. And it's far easier to take the guns out of a situation than to take years of developed socio-economic problems out. That's not to say I wouldn't love to see a place like North Omaha shape up, but it's just not realistic in a short amount of time. Gun control laws can be effective from get-go.

Incorrect. What does disarming law abiding citizens due, besides putting them more at the mercy of criminals? Why not deal with the problem instead of looking for feel good answers that don't solve the problem. As we see, criminals don't care about the laws, do you really expect them to give a damn about another touchy feely law?

 

How many of these crimes are perpetrated by normal, decent, law abiding citizens? Few, if any. So why are we discussing punishing those people? Because you want to make more innocent victims? That is the only answer.

 

No one is suggesting we take away all of the guns. No one has EVER suggested that. What people suggest are restrictions on magazine sizes, universal background checks on gun purchases, banning guns that are specifically designed to shred enemy armies. You know, that sort of thing. No one wants to take away your deer rifle (assuming you aren't using an assault rifle for deer hunting). This all or nothing mindset is the biggest hurdle that has to change.

 

And yes, I know the 2nd amendment and it's historical context. The problem is that military weaponry has advanced since the 18th century. I'm not sure what military you are planning to take on with your AR15, but good luck shooting down a fighter jet with it. The other issue is that everyone seems to skip the "well regulated militia" part. But if you want to talk about historical context, at the time the 2nd amendment was written, people had muskets. That's it. There were no assault weapons that shot hundreds of rounds a minute. Or semi-automatics that shot as fast as you could pull the trigger.

[carlfense]

 

Thats an alarming chart, but those that did commit the gun crimes, were they thug gang bangers, guys that came home to early finding somebody else nailing their old lady? That doesn't really show much other than numbers, that yes aren't good, but thats painting with a broad brush...

No arguments . . . but it's still a more precise brush than a chart showing all murders.

[carlfense]

So you linked an article that had nothing to do with mass murders. That's typical. Let's stay on topic. Oh, and as was mentioned earlier in this thread, military installations normally have very restrictive regulations when it comes to guns. Again, witness the mass murder on the Texas base a little while back.

I deal with the facts as they appear. If a multiple murder at a heavily guarded facility doesn’t seem relevant to you because two people were murdered and not four or more . . . well . . . that’s fine. What should I be witnessing regarding the Fort Hood shooting? Should I be witnessing a mass murderer not being deterred by the presence of armed security or should I be witnessing something else?

 

I would like to see one that was. I'm sure there has been, but none that I can think of. And, at Columbine, from the reports I read, the armed guard was not present when the cowards pulled off their twisted plan.

You are wrong and those reports were wrong.

 

Either can be a deterrent, but if you are going to carry out an act such as this, are you willing to do so in a place where you have no idea who is armed and who is not and you could be stopped, or will you slip by an armed guard and open fire a couple of minutes of out his sight? From reports I have seen, the mall shooting in Portland last year was thwarted by a CCP holder. And we have yet to see one of these shootings occur in Walmart, where they welcome CCP holders to legally carry.

Ah. No shootings at Wal-Mart.

 

Similarly (to my knowledge) there haven't been any shootings at the Douglas County Courthouse since firearms were prohibited. Using your logic, this proves that gun bans work.

 

Is there any evidence backing this belief?

You may not understand this, but its called common sense and real-life. Well, other than the evidence that most of these shootings (if not all) occur in gun free zones.

Common sense and real life. Well, then.