Less guns, less murders--- Care to dispute that?

[trumad]

Yeah I know--- It's a people problem---or if guns were outlawed, only outlaw's will have them.

All catch phrases invented by slick spokesmen for the NRA----but none of it true.

I am tired of hearing gun lovers chirp this bullshit and from here out I'm going to call them on it.

I'm going to call them liars to their face or through print. They are lying--to you, me and---to themselves.

Look---I know this country is fucked. The gunsters have won the day for years to come. But I also know that for every upcoming slaughter that will most certainly occur, a piece of their soul will chip away every time they lie about this deadly menace.

Chip away!

[pipoman]

1. So you believe the desire of those killing people

wouldn't exist in the absence of guns, eh?

[trumad]

3. I believe there would be less murders without guns.

Nice try though.

[pipoman]

16. Maybe there would..

I see people proclaiming guns the cause of people murdering, wishing for impossible legislation, pretending gun control is the only answer, instead of looking at the multiple other problems in our society which are the actual cause of people wishing to kill others. Things like almost no access to mental health and addiction services thanks to Raygun. Things like exportation of nearly all hope of good paying jobs because of government policy. Guns are the symptom..the ultimate tool...mental health, addiction, hopelessness are the cause.

[trumad]

19. I can agree with most that you say...

Seriously---I do.

But-- the tool is what kills the human. I am simply saying that if we had less of this tool, there would be less murders.

Although--- I know that ain't gonna happen.

[pipoman]

35. Although

If this were true the gun lines would go up every single year, because every single year there are more guns in society than the previous year...so no, more guns does not equal more gun deaths...the stats don't support that assertion..

[DanTex]

44. You are badly in need of a statistics course...

First of all, gun ownership has dropped in the last 20 years -- there are more guns, yes, but fewer gun owners. But more to the point, there are a lot of factors that affect crime and homicide rates. Which is why in order to get at the statistical reality, you need to look at more data and control for confounding factors, etc. Kind of like this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023661481

[pipoman]

52. The statement was/is, "less guns = less murder"

that is demonstrably false.

[DanTex]

54. It's not demonstrably false. It's actually demonstrably true.

In the same way that "smoking causes cancer" is demonstrably true even though the deniers can always find one smoker who outlived his non-smoking sibling. Hence your need for a statistics course.

[pipoman]

57. Every single year there are more guns in society than the previous year...every year..

millions more...every year..

[DanTex]

58. As usual, faced with scientific evidence, the NRAer retreats to the safety of talking points.

I wonder if you really don't understand, or if you're just pretending not to?

[Eleanors38]

83. Sorry, Dan, the # of guns HAS gone up, and homicides have gone down.

Trying to graft on an "anti-science" BansaLot TalkingPoint™ to deny that basic fact does no credit to the profession of statistics.

Your way isn't the only way.

[DanTex]

84. Sigh. Try to pay attention.

In the same way that "smoking causes cancer" is demonstrably true even though the deniers can always find one smoker who outlived his non-smoking sibling. Hence your need for a statistics course.

Largest Gun Study Ever: More Guns, More Murder
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023661481

[DanTex]

13. They would be less effective in killing people.

Do you think people in the UK have less desire to kill people than Americans?

[pipoman]

17. The UK is no panacea of violence free living

pretending it is, is silly..

[DanTex]

18. Exactly. They have just as much violence, but far less murder.

Because they have fewer guns.

[pipoman]

30. The UK has always had

less murder and violence than the US, even when their gun laws were similar to ours..they also have access to mental health and addiction services for anyone who needs them..the US does not..

[DanTex]

33. They don't have "less violence" than us, just less murder.

The difference is that their violence is not committed with guns, so there is far less murder. And yes, it's been this way for a while -- less guns and less murder.

[Orrex]

38. That's only one partial solution

It has lately become fashionable for gun advocates to highlight the need for public access to mental healthcare. Indeed this may be helpful in reducing gun violence, so we should pursue it.

However, gun violence would also be reduced by restricting access to guns, yet gun advocates insist that this is the one thing that we can't possibly do. Why not?


Also, I would be interested to see your statistics on UK gun violence, especially how it is now versus how it was "when their gun laws were similar to ours." What's your source? I ask because it would be useful to see how the UK's level of gun violence was affected by the enacting of stricter laws. You suggest that their rate of murder was lower than ours, which I believe it was. But how does their current level of violence compare to the days when their gun laws were more permissive?

[X_Digger]

60. There's a paper I read a couple years ago..

.. but danged if I can find it, comparing London to NYC in the 1880's to 1920's.

The UK started implementing substantive gun control at the tail end of WWI, mostly in reaction to the Bolshevik revolution and fears that the great swathes of unemployed young men 'back from the war' might get riled up.

When neither country had substantive gun control, NYC still outnumbered London five to one re homicide rate.

This paper has a historical chart of the homicide rate over that time, though. Homicide rate is around 1.3 per 100,000 then.

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/history/postgraduate/ma_studies/mamodules/hi971/topics/interpersonal/long-term-historical-trends-of-violent-crime.pdf

Let's see.. NYC was at 6.7 per 100,000 for that time frame (1880-1890) (http://www.amazon.com/Murder-York-City-Eric-Monkkonen/dp/0520221885).

[trumad]

23. Only 800 for the UK

almost 9000 for the USA. Gun deaths that is.

[pipoman]

31. "Gun deaths" to the exclusion of all else is pretending..

[DanTex]

34. Well, I don't think that "cancer deaths" are particularly relevant in a gun debate...

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. The difference is actually far starker than trumad's figures

Number of Murders, United States, 2010: 12,996

Number of Murders by Firearms, US, 2010: 8,775

Number of Murders, Britain, 2011*: 638
(Since Britain’s population is 1/5 that of US, this is equivalent to 3,095 US murders)

Number of Murders by firearms, Britain, 2011*: 58
(equivalent to 290 US murders)

http://www.juancole.com/2012/07/58-murders-a-year-by-firearms-in-britain-8775-in-us.html

* - actually 'England and Wales', since Scotland reports figures separately. Therefore population about 56 million - about 18% of the USA in 2010.

I think trumad gave a total of all homicides, not just by gun, for a year. The non-gun murders in Britain were 580; that, scaled up for the USA, is about 3,222 - not far off the 4,221 non-gun US murders. The gun murder figure, scaled up to USA size, would be 322. Compared to 8,775 for what the US did suffer.

[hack89]

2. We have also seen more guns and fewer murders

so perhaps it is not as simple as you think.


And no, I do not think more guns are responsible for the 20 year decline in gun violence. It is much more complicated than that.

[trumad]

4. No it's not..

Very simple--- less guns, less murder.

Check for yourself.

http://www.top5ofanything.com/index.php?h=cd8296da

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004888.html

[hack89]

5. Yet we cut our murder rate in half even as gun ownership increased.

I think that is significant.

[trumad]

7. Nice try...

Les guns--- less murder... let's cut it even more ya think?

[hack89]

12. Sure. UBCs, Firearm ID cards, mandatory safety training.

all good ideas.

Couple that with a robust ATF cracking down on illegal gun trafficking and we could make a serious dent in criminal gun violence.

Since two thirds of gun deaths are suicides, it would also require single payer health care with full mental health coverage.

[DanTex]

43. You mean, as gun ownership has decreased.

That whole up/down thing can be tricky, I know...

[hack89]

62. OK. So things are on the right track then.

you should be happy. Fewer guns and lower levels of gun violence is good.

Add UBCs, Firearm IDs and mandatory safety training and things will be even better.

And since two thirds of gun deaths are suicides, single payer health care with full mental health coverage.

You and I have a lot more in common than you are willing to admit.

[DanTex]

63. What we don't have in common is your total disregard for facts.

[hack89]

65. The irony here

is that until you are willing to find common ground with gun owners, you , like the gun control movement as a whole, will continue to fail.

I understand that being a cultural warrior on the side of righteousness and good is fun. It is also very ineffective. That is why I enjoy having fun with you - I certainly don't view you as a threat.

Nice talking to you again.

[DanTex]

68. So now you're a culture warrior? Well, that certainly explains the indifference towards facts.

My concern is about gun violence and homicide rates, but the whole "culture war" thing definitely clears up why NRAers are so resistant to science.

[hack89]

69. No - you are.

it is more important to you to demonize guns and gun owners even though you need their support. People like you are the reason why I don't worry about my gun rights.

[DanTex]

71. And again with the false statements. The only people who ever talk about "culture wars"

are the NRAers, whereas gun control advocates tend to deal in statistics and peer reviewed studies. Why do you think that is?

[hack89]

72. ok

nice talking to you. See you around.

[Hoyt]

21. How low would it be without so many gunz, and gun lovers?

Crime is down for a lot of reasons, yet yahoos keep arming up and promoting more guns in more places.

[hack89]

25. Hi Hoyt. How you doing this fine morning? nt

[RC]

79. You are assuming more guns = more people having guns.

Not true. More people that have guns are acquiring yet more guns.
The percentage of people without guns is going up, while the percentage of people with guns is decreasing, even though the number of guns out there in circulation is going up.

[hack89]

80. So then the focus should be on people, not guns

because having one gun instead of 10 guns does not make a dangerous person less dangerous.

UBCs, Firearm ID cards, mandatory safety training are all needed.

Couple that with a robust ATF cracking down on illegal gun trafficking and we could make a serious dent in criminal gun violence.

Since two thirds of gun deaths are suicides, we also need single payer health care with full mental health coverage.

[RC]

81. The focus needs to be on people that think they need guns. All of them.

They are the ones involved in the gun deaths, both on purpose and accidental.
If they have an arsenal, Why do they think they need so many guns? Why the paranoia?
Two thirds of gun deaths are suicides is a questionable statement. Kansas City is a city heavy in "If it Bleeds, It Leads" news stories. Not many suicides from gun shots, but many stories of people getting shot by someone else, almost every evening. From small kids to people sitting in their living rooms watching TV, being shot from out in the street.
Except for paranoia, why do people think they needs a gun, or worse yet many guns, in the first place. If you are paranoid, you should be the last to be having a gun. Yeah, I know someone may really be after you. But if guns were harder to get and keep, everyone would be safer.

[hack89]

82. There are many reason to own a gun besides self defense

hunting and recreation being the main ones. I enjoy competitive target shooting with my family - that is why I have a safe full of guns.

As for gun suicides:

Suicides by gun accounted for about six of every 10 firearm deaths in 2010 and just over half of all suicides, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Since the CDC began publishing data in 1981, gun suicides have outnumbered gun homicides. But as gun homicides have declined sharply in recent years, suicides have become a greater share of all firearm deaths: the 61% share in 2010 was the highest on record. That year there were 19,392 suicides by firearm compared to 11,078 homicides by gun (35% of all firearm deaths). The rest were accidents, police shootings and unknown causes.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/24/suicides-account-for-most-gun-deaths/

[onehandle]

6. Less instruments, less music...

Less cars, less driving.
Less food, less eating.
Etc...

Yep. Less of something tends to decrease occurrences of it's primary purpose.

See ---> Most Every Other Country On Earth

[trumad]

8. Straw man on Steroids

I listen to less music---I'm still alive

[onehandle]

9. I'm agreeing with you. Less guns, less murders.

Less of a gun's primary purpose.

The numbers are there in almost every other country on earth.

More guns = More murders

[trumad]

10. Sorry--thanks

[onehandle]

11. It's early.

I just rolled out of bed and probably rambled on a bit much.

[Boom Sound 416]

14. Gunsters?

Nice. Is that an original?

Much preferred to other more colorful metaphors

[trumad]

15. I think Gun Nuts is overused.

[Heidi]

46. I disagree.

[oldhippie]

77. The correct term on this forum is .....

... gun-humpers. Jeeeezzzz, get with the program, will ya?

[tjwash]

20. The NRA'ers are blaming Bill Clinton for the Navy-base shooting.

And I wish I was kidding. They are spamming facebook with a new meme of "Bill Clinton disarmed open carry on military bases so the blood from all of this is on his hands."

Why address the issue of hyper-access to automatic weapons, weak criminal background and mental health checks, etc. when you can blame the clenis for it I guess.

Time to start weeding my friends list again.

[madokie]

22. I'm a proud non gun owner

Shortly after I came home from 'nam in oct of '70 I bought a used 22 automatic rifle. Kept it about a week took it back to my friend who I bought it from and sold it back to him. Best damn thing I've ever done, for my psyche that is. I have no problem with people owning guns for home protection if they feel they need it or for the hunters to hunt with but war weapons I have a problem with. Simple as that.

[Duckhunter935]

26. So you have a

Problem with my bolt action Mosin. War weapon it is. Remington 700, war weapon also. Shotguns, yes they are also war weapons.

[madokie]

27. What ever

You know what I was referring to or should have.

[krispos42]

67. The fundamental problem is that...

... "war weapons" and "self-defense" weapons are really the same thing. I'm talking small-arms here.



Any gun that is good for defense is also good for offense.


And the characteristics that make a gun good for "war" are also, generally, just good things for guns to have in general.

Such as: reliability, accuracy, comfortable weight, fast handling, modest recoil, ease of use, non-glaring finish, corrosion-resistant finish, etc.

Protruding pistol grips and quick-adjusting stocks and flash-hiders also fall into that category.

Remember, despite the bells and whistles of an AR-15, it's still just a rifle. It's a platform for shooting .223 ammunition. And I think it's a little ridiculous to say "it's okay to have a rifle that can shoot .223, but it can't have certain secondary features".


The argument can be made, I suppose, to ban semi-automatic rifles as a class. But the 20-plus year battle on the issue has been to outlaw semi-automatic rifles ONLY IF they have too many secondary features. And that's just political pandering.

Of course, we have to remember that 60% or so of murders are done with handguns, while only about 5% are done with rifles of all kinds.

[Robb]

24. "Fewer."

I also dispute that it's an unsolvable problem.

[safeinOhio]

28. I think the answer is right there in the 2nd Amendment in 2 words.

WELL REGULATED.

[99Forever]

29. Truth to insanity.

Time to take the asylum back from the crazies.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

45. 80 million people in the US own guns. 1 disturbed man committed a mass shooting.

Instead of wasting scarce resources of time, money and personnel trying to recreate the War on Drugs for 80 million law-abiding people why not just intervene against the 1?

[el_bryanto]

32. There are nations with a higher per capita gun ownership

that have less murders than the US.

But I think the United States has a unique psychological connection to the Gun for some reason - the desire to have a gun does seem tied in with desires to exert power or control, which often leads to violence.

It's not just Hollywood; our movies go all over. I'm not saying that Hollywood isn't a factor in glamorizing guns, just that the message that Guns are cool seems to have found particularly fecund soil in the American soul.

Bryant

[DanTex]

37. No, there aren't. The US has the highest per capita gun ownership.

[el_bryanto]

41. You are right; must have had some out of date information

I had the impression that Canada and Switzerland had more gun ownership.

I'd also wonder about gun coverage - not sure how to phrase this - how many Americans own guns vs. how many guns are there per person. Certainly it seems like the gun owners that I know aren't satisfied with just one gun, but need several.

Bryant

[DanTex]

42. Your suspicion is correct.

The data shows that over the last decade or two, the number of guns per capita has increased, while the number of gun owners per capita has dropped -- there are less people who own guns, but the ones who do own more guns than ever.

[X_Digger]

61. You can probably thank Michael Moore's 'Bowling' for that spurious fact. n/t

[AlinPA]

88. USA: Guns 'R Us.....and we use them.

[aikoaiko]

36. How does one go about reducing the overall number of guns with a 2nd Amendment?

[safeinOhio]

39. If they were "well regulated" there would be fewer guns.

[aikoaiko]

40. How so?

The term "well-regulated" modifies militia, not the people or arms in the 2nd A.

But regardless how does regulation reduce numbers per see in a meaningful way to reduce overall guns that would impact events like this or most murders involving guns?

All it takes is one gun per person.

[safeinOhio]

48. One person

that can be regulated by background checks. Regulated the types and number an individual may keep in the home. Fewer guns would be sold if they had to be kept in the local armory and checked out.

Your interpretation of the first would allow the unregulated possession of nukes, full autos and nerve gas and if so, it'd be the death of the 2nd.

Please continue.

[aikoaiko]

70. Again, the topic is overall number of guns

Ok, but background checks won't reduce the number of overall guns although it may help keep some guns out of the hands of some people.

Minimizing the number and type is fine, but like I said it really only takes one gun, even a revolver, to do lots killing.

I don't know what my interpretation of the first has to do with anything. If mean the second amendment, I'm not sure what nukes, specifically full autos, and nerve gas has to do with overall number of guns that is the topic of the OP.

[safeinOhio]

85. Seems the current regulations on full autos

has made the sale and possession of those types of weapons rare in the public hands. Do you think if they had the same rules for full autos as they do for revolvers there would be more or less overall full autos in the publics hands? Same thing would happen with limits on rounds and registration of hand guns and semi rifles.

A semi auto AR or AK with a 30 round mag can do lots more killing, in a much shorter time than any revolver.

[LWolf]

47. Sure.

It's "fewer guns, fewer murders."



The whole gun culture encourages the real and/or imagined disenfranchised to make statements with guns. It's sick.

[cali]

49. That is the bottom line

This country is awash in guns.

[Jeneral2885]

51. Comparison to other countries?

Everytime there's a shooting, there's a comparison to other countries and the results go either way

[DanTex]

55. The results don't go "either way".

The US has a much higher homicide rate than any other wealthy nation.

[rrneck]

53. Not really.,..

[pintobean]

73. That was well worth my time

Thank you for posting it.

[rrneck]

74. You're welcome.

I found it quite an eye opener.

[gopiscrap]

76. Welcome to DU

[krispos42]

59. Might be true

But of course, such an assumption does not explain the 50% drop in murders during the 90's, and the fact that it's stayed level since the 2000's, while gun ownership has gone up.

The problem is that there are also a whole bunch of progressive goals we can accomplish that would also lower the murder rate... while at the same time increasing the standard of living of everybody in the country.

Outlawing guns will not address things like chronic poverty, malnutrition, environmental poisoning, union-busting, free-trade, insane drug laws, private prisons, broken schools, broken elections, political corruption, the economic stranglehold of Wall Street, and the continuing growth of the oligarchy.

Or you can continue to treat it as a hardware problem. You can embark on a campaign that will polarize and energize the Right on a continuous and long-term basis while garnering only a small and temporary bump from the Left.

So, how low should our gun-ownership rate, currently at about 900 guns per 1,000 people, be? And how do you propose the government forcibly lower this rate?

[Eleanors38]

87. Thank you for setting things straight, Krispos42.

[Romulox]

64. Our society is toxic and dying. Their is no simple solution, and NO--inanimate objects aren't

the primary cause.

[NV Whino]

66. Aside from the bad grammar, no

Fewer guns, fewer murders.

[Lizzie Poppet]

75. That's almost certainly true.

It would have to be significantly fewer guns (in order for the overall reduction to begin impacting criminal possession proportionately), but yes, I'd say your premise is valid. Guns are the most lethal of readily available weapons, so it stands to reason.

[gopiscrap]

78. I fully agree!

[EX500rider]

86. "Care to dispute that?"

Yes....

[img/][img]

[Eleanors38]

89. Thanks for that post. Clears up a lot of misconceptions.

[krispos42]

90. I think our homicide rate is about 4.8...

...and we own 90,000 guns per 100,000 people, or thereabouts.

[BainsBane]

91. Which is precisely why we have the highest homicide rate of any

wealthy nation. It's even higher than MANY very poor countries, higher than Pakistan, higher than Palestine, including Gaza.

[EX500rider]

92. No it's not..

...higher then Pakistan.

US homicide rate: 4.8 (per 100,000)

Pakistan: 7.8

About 100 countries have a higher homicide rate then the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

[krispos42]

94. LOL

Yeah, so only having 30,000 guns per 100,000 people is the cure for what ails America?


And how are you going to achieve that?

[devils chaplain]

93. I will dispute that -- it's "fewer," dammit! Fewer guns, fewer murders! Dx n/t