Domestic Guns and Mass Murder

[SecularMotion]

The notion that peace can be achieved, and maintained nationally or internationally through the constant threat and repeated exercise of force, as America seems to believe is a false one. Violence begets violence. Peace is realised through removing the causes of conflict and division, to make war in the name of peace as America has repeatedly done and continues to do, is to cloak ones actions in a fabricated nobility.

It is logical is it not, that where there is the greatest concentration of gun ownership there will be the highest number of gun related crimes and murders. A childlike logic borne out by statistics, a study by the Harvard Injury Research Center found unsurprisingly, that “a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide,“ and “we found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide.” This last finding was calculated from studies in over 50 states.

Beyond the spurious argument for gun ownership based on the ‘right to bear arms’, there is the idea that guns ensure personal safety, that weapons are an aid to and are primarily used in self-defence, and that bearing arms generates psychological security. Views that are completely false as indeed the Harvard team discovered, “Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defence” and “Most purported self-defence gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both socially undesirable and illegal… firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defence.” They also found that almost half of all gun owners have a small arsenal of weapons, with four or more guns in their bedside cabinets, kitchen cupboards and office drawers.

Gun ownership creates physiological and more importantly, psychological fear. The self same paranoia that drives gun ownership, justifies drone attacks in Pakistan, and false imprisonment, torture and abuse in Guantanamo, and is a required factor in controlling any society, by any regime. The Harvard study on gun ownership revealed that, “By a margin of more than 3 to 1, Americans would feel less safe, not safer, as others in their community acquire guns.” Mostly guns are kept within the home, and are used more often to frighten and intimidate partners, family members, ‘friends’ and so on than to “thwart crime; other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders.” The same pattern applies to teenagers, 12 -17 year old gun-packing adolescents, who report being more likely to threaten and be threatened by a peer carrying a gun than to use a weapon in self-defence.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/10/05/domestic-guns-and-mass-murder/

[ileus]

1. I'll keep my safety devices...they can give theirs up.

As I always say; Safety first victim later.

[gejohnston]

2. not very well written

nor was it well researched

The domestic firearm industry in America is a huge business, since 1999 it has been worth The Guardian (16/04/2012) reports “on average, about $3.5bn every year.” Guns are relatively inexpensive, an AK-47 pattern assault weapon e.g. is around $500 and a low-calibre handgun can be bought in a supermarket for as little as $75. Not only is it big business but also, “it is recession-proof, rising and falling less with the economic tide than the electoral one. When Democrats are elected the sales go up.” When Obama was elected (in 2008), sales of firearms increased by 50% compared with the same time the previous year. In nervous anticipation perhaps of expected reforms to gun laws. Stock up before the legal purge, the mentality. A purge that never came, and so the killing goes on.

Supermarket? Pick up a vintage RG or Clerk at Costco? The gun sales trend actually started after Katrina and peaked after the election.

The Harvard study, done by an economist named David Hemenway, was funded by the same foundation that bankrolls Brady and VPC. While Hemenway is has done interesting studies linking sodas with juvenile violence, he is not very well respected in criminology circles.

[glacierbay]

3. There is so much fail in this article

Just reading the article led me to believe that the 2 authors are nothing more than Brady and VPC shills who want nothing more than a ban and confiscation. Luckily, they don't set policy and even they admit that support for more gun control is not very well received by the American public.

[Atypical Liberal]

4. Man, this is a soft pitch to hit.

Let's take a look at some of the easier points of this article to address:

"In 2010 over a third of American adults owned a gun and there were a staggering 310,000,000 non-military guns (known to the authorities) in the country. It is a number one can barely register. One thing is certain; it’s far too many firearms for any one country. A series of mass killings have recently shaken a gun complacent America into debating the issue of arms within society, gun controls, regulations and enforcement."

And yet in spite of this "staggering" number of firearms, the number of which has been steadily increasing every year particularly since 2008, violent crime is continuing its decades-long decline.

Why would one think this is too many firearms for any one country?

"Surprisingly though a current Gallup report found that “Americans have shifted to a more pro-gun view on gun laws… with record-low support for a ban on handguns, an assault rifle ban, and stricter gun laws in general.” In fact only 11% support tighter gun laws at all. What will it take one asks, for common sense to prevail and for this fear driven tryst with firearms to come to a timely end."

Clearly the "common" sense, that is, the sense of 89% of the population, is that we don't need tighter gun laws.

"There are The Guardian (9/08/12) reports “an average of 32 people killed by guns in this country every day – the equivalent of five Wisconsin massacres per day.“ That equates to (an average) 11,680 domestic murders per year. To establish some perspective, in Afghanistan – a war zone, there have been, according to United Nations figures over 12,793 deaths in the past six years."

Let's establish another perspective. There are some 40 to 80 million firearm owners in this country. That means that every year, 99.97% - 99.98% of firearm owners are not involved in murdering people every year.

"The police carry guns of course, they are forced to some might say, in order to meet ‘fire with fire’, killing with killing."

Now wait a minute. If we might say the police are forced to carry guns in order to "meet fire with fire, killing with killing", what are civilians supposed to do when presented with fire and killing?

Here's a nice, telling nugget from the article that is absolutely true:

"Strengthening legal filters is unlikely to find the psychopath in the human haystack, the criminal shopping off line on the black market or the unstable ‘regular Joe’ who flips out when he is made redundant."

He's right about that. Strengthening legal filters is unlikely to make any real dent in crime rates. It's one reason why I support opt-out universal firearm licensing. All the law-abiding people will get licenses, and the criminals and concessional crazy person will continue to do what they have always done, and we will look back and say, "See? I told you the problem wasn't with the law-abiding people."

"When Democrats are elected the sales go up.” When Obama was elected (in 2008), sales of firearms increased by 50% compared with the same time the previous year. In nervous anticipation perhaps of expected reforms to gun laws."

This should be a big clue to Democrats.

"Stock up before the legal purge, the mentality. A purge that never came, and so the killing goes on."

But a purge that still wants to come, just look at the current Party Platform.

"There are various interpretations of the cherished second amendment. The first based on the absence of an 18th century civilian militia, (the US army of the time) a ‘well regulated militia, composed of the Body of the People trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state’, seems the most logical and appropriate and would appear to restrict gun ownership and the right to bear arms to the personnel of a militia."

And just who are those personnel? The people. And where are the state-controlled militias that the Constitution was written about?

Here's another nugget of unintentional truth in the article:

"Peace is realised through removing the causes of conflict and division, to make war in the name of peace as America has repeatedly done and continues to do, is to cloak ones actions in a fabricated nobility."

Yes, peace is realized by removing the causes of conflict and division. It is not realized, however, by removing the tools of violence. Especially when these same tools are the very tools people can use to protect themselves from violence without resorting to physical strength.

"The ‘common-sense approach to reducing gun crime would seem to be to stop selling the weapons, call for all guns to be handed into designated offices and make holding firearms, unless for sport illegal. "

Too bad the second amendment is not about sport.

[Eleanors38]

8. You're no fun, hogged all the points. I can only point out disingenuous...

"Strengthening legal filters is unlikely to find the psychopath in the human haystack, the criminal shopping off line on the black market or the unstable ‘regular Joe’ who flips out when he is made redundant."

They say. Yet, the title includes "...Mass Murder." Since this article already acknowledges "legal filters [are] unlikely to find the psychopath, the criminal shopping off line...or the unstable 'regular joe'...," then we can only conclude that the title was the gun-banners attempt to flash boobies at Mardi Gras.

And there's that "common sense" thing again: blanket W.O.D.-type prohibition, including "handing into designated offices and make holding firearms, unless for sport (sic) illegal."

Repeat: their "common sense" is blanket W.O.D.-type prohibition.

To the OP: Do you agree with this?

[bongbong]

5. Love the Talking Points

being posted on this thread.

My favorite one, "more guns didn't cause more crime" is here. It's like the Greatest Hits Of The NRA!

[Atypical Liberal]

10. No one claimed that "more guns didn't cause more crime".

My favorite one, "more guns didn't cause more crime" is here. It's like the Greatest Hits Of The NRA!

No one claimed that "more guns didn't cause more crime" (or more syntactically correct, that more guns did cause less crime).

All we are noting is that in spite of record numbers of firearms in circulation, violent crime continues its decades-long decline.

This is not a talking point, it's just a plain old fact. The number of firearms in circulation spiked in 2008 when President Obama got elected. Yet violent crime has been declining since the 1990s.

More guns may have had nothing to do with it. In fact, they probably had nothing to do with it. But you cannot claim, as the anti-gun folks are wont to do, that more guns cause more crime.

[bongbong]

11. Facts

> But you cannot claim, as the anti-gun folks are wont to do, that more guns cause more crime.

I never claim that. But the implied "fact" is clear from Delicate Flowers every time they repeat that tired old Talking Point.

Maybe I should adopt the tactics of Delicate Flowers, and add the fact that "gun ownership has no proven correlation with reducing crime, but it does have the proven correlation of making it more likely that you will die" to all my posts.

[Atypical Liberal]

23. Sure, add it to your sig.

Maybe I should adopt the tactics of Delicate Flowers, and add the fact that "gun ownership has no proven correlation with reducing crime, but it does have the proven correlation of making it more likely that you will die" to all my posts.

Sure, add it to your sig.

I have no problem with your statement.

Yes, if you own a firearm, then your odds of dying from it are higher than if you didn't have one. Clearly you cannot accidentally shoot yourself with a firearm or commit suicide with it or have it used against you if you don't own one.

And your odds of any of the above things happening might even be higher than the odds of you needing a firearm for self-defense.

I for one am willing to accept those risks as part of the responsibility that comes with owning a firearm in case I need one. Everyone should be free to make that decision for themselves.

Just like some people elect to have swimming pools in spite of the risk of drowning, or drive cars in spite of the risk of car accidents, or go sky diving in spite of the risk of splattering on the ground.

Everyone should be free to assess the risks and make their own decisions when it comes to keeping and bearing arms. Firearms are dangerous tools, and are not for everyone.

[rrneck]

6. Chances are...

My fellow Americans, gun violence has become a national disgrace and we must no longer tolerate the horrible loss of life because this country is awash in guns. Therefore, I am proposing legislation to control the proliferation of guns in our country because I view you, the citizens of this great country, as fungible assets that can only be viewed as a collection of votes and not as individual human beings. My legislative proposals depend on the possibility that more people will die for the wrong reasons and with the wrong tools than will be saved for the right reasons and the same tools. Plus, since all the people that die for the wrong reasons will be dead, they won't vote anyway and we can assuage the grief of their living friends and relatives (voters) by blaming the evil objects that caused their pain and associate it with that evil bunch that seems to like the damn things. When it comes to partisan politics, it's a win win.

Vote for me, a bloodless technocrat who doesn't view you as human, but as a calculation in a legislative crap shoot.

[rl6214]

7. Peace through superior firearms

"It is logical is it not, that where there is the greatest concentration of gun ownership there will be the highest number of gun related crimes and murders."

NO, it is NOT logical. EVERY mass shooting, EVERYONE OF THEM is at a location that is void of firearms, except for the one that the criminal brought it.

[bongbong]

12. Nope

> EVERY mass shooting, EVERYONE OF THEM is at a location that is void of firearms, except for the one that the criminal brought it.

That is a falsehood. When Gabby got shot by that crazed gun-nut in Arizona, there was another gun-nut in the area who almost opened fire to add to the deaths.

[4th law of robotics]

14. By grabber logic that other "gun nut"

opened fired and multiplied the death toll by a factor of ten at the very least.



Grabbers never have been very good with numbers.

[bongbong]

15. Nice goal post shift

Obvious FAIL on your part, and my facts are still true.

My post pointing out another falsehood by another Delicate Flower stands.

[4th law of robotics]

17. I set no goalpost here. You are, as usual, confused

and my facts are still true

Yes it is undeniable that a concealed weapon holder was there and did nothing to contribute to the carnage.

My post pointing out another falsehood by another Delicate Flower stands.

I hope all your posts stand. They are hilarious. Like old monty python skits. Entirely surreal and operating under their own rules of logic.

Of course while I would laugh at their antics I'd be hesitant to take policy advice from them . . .

[bongbong]

19. LOL

Talk about confusion. Here was my post:
----------------------------------------------
> EVERY mass shooting, EVERYONE OF THEM is at a location that is void of firearms, except for the one that the criminal brought it.

That is a falsehood. When Gabby got shot by that crazed gun-nut in Arizona, there was another gun-nut in the area who almost opened fire to add to the deaths.
----------------------------------------------

You responded to that completely out of left field. You Delicate Flowers are breathtakingly illogical!

[rl6214]

24. Aren't you good, you found one out of how many...

out of all of them. (just for you)

Almost to you = what, hundreds or thousand of people came within mere seconds of death by this "gun-nut" that DIDN'T OPEN FIRE you deserve a second one) cuz your arguement is such a joke.

[Reasonable_Argument]

9. Not even our ancestors agree with you

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

[4th law of robotics]

13. Judging by other countries that have effectively banned guns I would say peace is not possible

not at a 100% success rate anyway.

/also your entire argument is based on appeal to emotion, one of the basic logical fallacies. You may want to see to that.

[bongbong]

16. You're right!

> your entire argument is based on appeal to emotion

I'm glad you caught that! Especially this part of his post:

The Harvard study on gun ownership revealed that, “By a margin of more than 3 to 1, Americans would feel less safe, not safer, as others in their community acquire guns.” Mostly guns are kept within the home, and are used more often to frighten and intimidate partners, family members, ‘friends’ and so on than to “thwart crime; other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders.” The same pattern applies to teenagers, 12 -17 year old gun-packing adolescents, who report being more likely to threaten and be threatened by a peer carrying a gun than to use a weapon in self-defence.


You're right! Trying to increase the chances of staying alive by using the proven strategy of not having a gun is an "appeal to emotion"

[4th law of robotics]

18. The word "feel" is right there in the study

how is that not an appeal to emotion?

You're right! Trying to increase the chances of staying alive by using the proven strategy of not having a gun is an "appeal to emotion"

I'd agree if the definition of "proven" was "you repeated it many many times followed by smilies".

However I do not believe that is the correct definition.

[bongbong]

20. MEGA laughs

> how is that not an appeal to emotion?

Oh, so having the word "feel" in a post makes it "your entire argument is based on appeal to emotion"

> 'd agree if the definition of "proven"

I forgot I can't mention the Harvard study because the NRA doesn't like it.


You Delicate Flowers are H-I-L-A-R-I-O-U-S!

[aikoaiko]

21. The best part of watching you laugh away is realizing how badly you're failing

at promoting your agenda and creating more gun control.

Poor Bongbong.

[trouble.smith]

22. So what you're saying is that if I give up my guns, there will be world peace?

isn't that cute? How old are you little boy? 6 or 7?