65% of all murders in the USA are committed with firearms! Why is that?

[KansasVoter]

I am curious what you Gun "Enthusiasts" think of that.

We are only third in the world, behind Colombia (85%) and Guatemala (75%). But we could still reach #1, I have no doubt!

Other places like the USA, Canada (34%), Australia (17%) and England (7%) are extremely low. Less than 1/2 of our percentage! I find that interesting.

Will more guns carried on people (CCW) lower or raise this number based on your opinion?

And if you think it will lower the percent, then you must think if England allowed CCW, then their percent will go from a ridiculous 7% to even lower?

I look forward to your interesting answers!

[Parche]

1. guns dont kill people, people kill people

:sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm:

i am curious also to hear from them....

good post :hi:

[hlthe2b]

3. Ok, now, Parche... time for some vintage airliners!

;) Ya, know, from back in the "good ole days" of air flight.

[KansasVoter]

9. Apparently Guns don't kill people in England! :-)

[AtheistCrusader]

33. Right, their boogeyman is pointed knives.

[TPaine7]

36. I can imagine the scene at an English funeral now...

Mother: *Crying* Oh God, my child is dead!

Pastor: But look on the bright side.

Mother: *Sniffing* there is no bright side.

Pastor: He didn't die from a gunshot, he was stabbed.

Mother: *Smiling and drying face* Yeah, you're right! I feel so much better. I feel so happy. And superior to those Americans. *Starts humming a tune.*

[KansasVoter]

68. At least the murder rate is 1/2 of ours. God Bless America!

[Statistical]

78. With rape rate nearly double, violent crime rate nearly triple, and burglary rate double ours.

Yup it is just peachy.

Despite the availability of guns our non-firearm homicide rate is still higher than most nations. We tend to kill a lot of people with or without firearms.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Statistical]

86. Murder is very rare.

You are far more likely to be a victim of violent crime than of murder by a magnitude.

US rate is roughly 5 per 100,000 that means 99,995 out of every 100,000 will not be a victim of murder. In any country the violent crime rate is a couple orders of magnitude higher.

Violent crime in UK is higher than South Africa and rising and homicides by knives is going up. The nanny state isn't quite working out so well.

[KansasVoter]

Come on, The UK is 1/3 of USA in murders....how is that bad for the UK?

I find your handle ironic after the rape stat. :-)

[Statistical]

106. Murder is very rare.

UK has highest violent crime rate in Europe. Higher than South Africa and roughly 10x the United States.

I was mistaken about rape rate. UK classifies rape very narrowly thus only has 11,067 rapes but had 43,028 violent sexual assaults. Also UK govt admits they may be massively underreporting rape due to the fact that reporting is done face to face. Their own report indicates they may be underreporting rapes by a factor of 5.

The issue of willingness to disclose incidents is very important for intimate violence (the collective term used to describe domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking). Respondents may not wish to disclose such sensitive information face-to-face and so interviews since 2004/05 (and prior to this in 1996 and 2001) have included self-completion modules on intimate violence asked of those aged 16 to 59 years. Domestic violence figures published in this report relate only to incidents reported in face-toface BCS interviews, so any changes should be treated with caution. Prevalence rates for domestic violence derived from the 2005/06 self-completion module were around five times higher for adults than those obtained from the face-to-face interviews. Due to the small numbers of sexual offences identified by the main BCS, findings are published solely from the self-completion module. The self-completion figures are published separately from the annual volume (Mirrlees- Black, 1999; Walby and Allen, 2004; Finney, 2006; Coleman et al., 2007; and Povey et al., 2008). Analysis of self-completion data from the 2007/08 BCS is planned for publication
early in 2009.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0708chap3.pdf

Going off the more comprehensive survey UK given UK admits that the UK has serious reporting issue in the official number has a rape rate of around 112 per 100,000 roughly triple the United States. Still if you think women in the self-completion survey are lying that is fine lets exclude rape. Excluding rape UK is still much more violent than US.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_01.html
US Violent Crime Rates (2008)
Total Violent Crime: 454 per 100,000 citizens
Robbery: 145 per 100,000
Burglary: 730 per 100,000
Aggravated Assault: 274 per 100,000

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0708chap2.xls
UK Violent Crime Rates (2008):
Total Violent Crime: 4933 per 100,000 citizens
Robbery: 710 per 100,000
Burglary: 3090 per 100,000
Assault: 1070 per 100,000 (technically assault resulting in a serious injury called "wounding" in UK overall assault rate is even higher)

So that is
Violent Crime Rate: 11x the United States
Robbery Rate: 5x the United States
Burglary Rate: 4x the United States
Assault: 4x the United States

I was wrong it wasn't 3x it was 10x. Wow things are going downhill over there.

[eqfan592]

135. Well, KansasVoter? Where's your response?

Do you not see, now, that in nations where guns are not as easily available, violent criminals are still violent? That attempting to attack the implement criminals happen to be using at any given time is an ass-backwards way to try and stop violent crime?

[knownothing]

198. He's pondering

whether or not banning automobiles will prevent 40,000+ deaths per year. He'll get back to us in a bit.

[Euromutt]

127. What's your source for that?

See, the International Criminal Victims Survey is widely regarded as the best (which is a comparative term) comparison of international crime rates, because it uses the same criteria for all countries surveyed. If you check out Table 12 (page 78) in the most recent version (http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/pdffiles/ICVS2004_05.pdf), you'll note that the question of which country has the higher rate of violent sexual assault, the UK or the U.S., depends very greatly on which year you look at, because the American rate fluctuates heavily.

Accusing someone of lying when they may simply be using a different set of data from yours is pretty churlish.

[ncguy]

141. stats

Be carefull comparing statistics. England counts crime when the conviction occurs. The US (FBI) counts arrests.

Comparison. A man attackes a woman. Is arrest for 1st degree rape. Pleads down to some lesser sex assault. FBI report counts this as forcible rape.

In England, the same crime goes into the statistics as the lesser sex assault.

Obviously homicide is homicide anywhere. But with the lower crimes there is a lot more plea bargins and lot more variety in the way they are reported.

[TPaine7]

109. Assuming that your data is correct, the rate is the real concern.

I wouldn't feel happier if the US rate was the same but American murderers were using something else.

[krispos42]

139. one-third, actually. But it used to be about one-eleventh or so

They've accomplished their goal: virtually nobody killed by gunfire. I just wish their goal had be simply "nobody killed".

[gravity556]

122. If only someone would pass a law making murder illegal! (nt)

[eqfan592]

138. You got the response.

Now that it's been shown that using ONLY gun violence as your metric for violent crime in a nation is ridiculous, what do you have to say?

[safeinOhio]

2. You mean

"with firearms" not "by firearms".

:popcorn:

[KansasVoter]

5. Thanks!!!!

[Travis Coates]

4. Just curious what percentage of that

is young black males killing other young black males over drugs?

Yup, guns are clearly the problem

[KansasVoter]

6. Yes, and the GOP/NRA work hard to help young black males!

[Travis Coates]

11. Again, I asked a very specific question

and you ignored it. Nice duck and cover

[TPaine7]

15. Duck, cover, make up statistics, promise to defraud others... a class act. n/t

[KansasVoter]

22. LOL...then you are welcome to find that stat Einstein!

I look forward to your detailed analysis of it.

[TPaine7]

41. You made the claim, you back it up if you can. Asking me to disprove your claim is feeble,

especially given your track record.

[TPaine7]

48. You don't have to be Einstein

to make cogent arguments, to back up your claims, to be honest and to avoid publicly bragging about your plan to practice mail fraud.

Honesty and integrity may seem like impossible attainments, but they actually aren't. Lots of ordinary people do all of those things.

Really.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

55. There might actually be a base IQ to attain honesty & integrity while making cogent arguments...

that might be the root cause here.

Although I'm positive you don't need einstein's IQ to have either honesty or integrity or coherent arguments with supporting facts - so luckily most of us should be good-to-go. :)

[TPaine7]

61. Point taken n/t

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TPaine7]

84. No, I have no issues with valid, sourced data. No issues at all.

I respect facts and logic. Thank you for the citation.

67. Here you go little tiny enthusiast.

I was wrong, it is 71%, the 65% was from 2004. So it went WENT UP. Wonder why?? LOL.

I bet you complainers still have some issue with this.

And you complainers will be happy with the source......THE FBI!!! LOL.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_infor...

"Of the homicides for which the type of weapon was specified, 71.9 percent involved the use of firearms. Of the identified firearms used, handguns comprised 88.3 percent."

I still believe that the NET effect of guns on society is positive. Also, we have a right to keep and bear arms. You might not like concealed carry, but the alternative is open carry, which the Constitution protects.

Because of the protections against self-incrimination, tortured confessions, unreasonable searches and seizures and double jeopardy many criminals are walking the street. I still believe that the net effect of these protections on society is positive. We have rights, though conservatives may not like it.

I do agree with you, however, that the insane and convicted violent criminals should not be able to carry concealed (or openly).

Thanks for backing up your claim; I have to respect that, even if it still doesn't mean concealed carry should be banned.

[KansasVoter]

91. Thanks for the nice note........

I have long guns and trap shoot on a friends farm monthly.

I really am opposed to handguns being carried at all. Open or closed. I know I have lost that battle and more. The "stand your ground" laws are crazy to me. The right to carry into a business who do not want guns there is crazy to me. But I know I am in a minority here, maybe everywhere.

Shotgun in the gun rack on the truck, no problem.

Guns at home to fight a corrupt government, no problem.

If anyone tried to ban guns at home, I would fight it tooth and nail.

[X_Digger]

94. "The right to carry into a business who do not want guns there" -- huh?

I consider myself pretty well read on the subject, and I know of no state that says a business may not exclude those who carry concealed. Care to enlighten?

[KansasVoter]

98. I know I read that some people want to stop a business from preventing.....

CCW on their property.

So if they have a sign that says "No Weapons Allowed", there is a movement to make it so the sign does not apply.

Do you think that is not being contested, if not I might be wrong.

[TPaine7]

100. I don't think it's CCW that's being fought. It's no weapons in locked cars in the parking lot.

Sometimes backed up with "all employees must allow their cars to be searched on demand or be fired."

[KansasVoter]

104. OK, thanks. Misinformed I guess.

[X_Digger]

102. Never heard of that one.

Closest thing that might be what your thinking is guns in your car- a couple of states have laws that say an employer can't prohibit a person from having a firearm in their vehicle on company property if it's securely locked up.

But that has nothing to do with concealed carry.

[KansasVoter]

105. Thanks!!

[Statistical]

118. Delete

Delete

[krispos42]

140. Minnesota has the option for businesses...

...to post "No guns" signs. If you carry into the business, you can get a ticket.

There's some discussion/debate about whether a private business that's open to the public can do that, in a similar fashion to the post-Rand-Paul-election debate about the Civil Rights Act and whether a business owner has the right to discriminate against a group of people.

On the one had, it's a private business... on the other hand, it's open to the public.

[X_Digger]

142. Well, the prevailing law on the subject is Title II of the 1964 CRA

http://www.justice.gov/crt/housing/title2.php

All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
...
Each of the following establishments is a place of public accommodation within this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

Any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence.

Any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment, or any gasoline station;

Any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

Any establishment which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment and which holds itself out as serving patrons of any such covered establishment. internal citations omitted

I can't imagine anything in Title II that would apply to concealed carry.

[KansasVoter]

144. But if they can pass no-smoking laws why could they not pass no preventing guns laws?

[X_Digger]

148. Which amendment protects one's right to smoke?

Those pesky "if this then that" analogies only work with things that are similar.

[KansasVoter]

150. ??? Which amendment says a private business can ban guns??? You got defensive too soon......

I was arguing FOR guns in private businesses......

If you can order a private business (bar, etc) to not allow smoking why could you also not order then to let CCW in their business?

Wow

[Callisto32]

168. Why not look at it the other way.

Telling private businesses they may not allow smoking is wrong.

[Callisto32]

167. I have to disagree with the "open to the public" part.

A private business, is open to whomever the proprietor wishes. Typically, this is all comers who will interact on an honest level. While this makes the most business sense, I don't think it is outside the rights of a proprietor to keep any person he wishes out of his business for any reason he wishes.

[krispos42]

173. Any individual person

The issue is people as a class. You can say to *a* black person "Get out of my store". You can't put up a sign that says "No black people allowed" or make it effective policy that no black people are welcomed into your business.


This is the issue that Rand Paul got hammered on after winning the primary a couple of months ago.

[Callisto32]

175. Again I disagree.

A store owner can keep a class out, as a matter of right.

I don't think it is RIGHT, morally, just that the ability to keep anybody off of your property for ANY reason, including asinine ones, is part of basic property rights.

Can a racist say "no black people in my house?" Yes. The same goes for his store-front.

[krispos42]

176. That is what the Civil Rights Act said you can't do.

You can decide who does and does not go into your private home, of course, but you can't put up a "no blacks" sign on your 7-Eleven, nor can you put "no blacks need apply" in a help-wanted ad, or refuse to sell your home to a person simply because they are black.

[Callisto32]

196. I know it isn't legal.

I am speaking in normative terms.

I believe that private property owners should be able to keep anybody off of that property for ANY reason.

If they cannot, they don't really own the property, do they?

[SteveM]

181. I think you are wrong on this one, but not in another sense...

IIRC, the '64 Act made exceptions for very small boarding house-type operations, some mom & pop-size businesses employing fewer people than the average indy cafe. Otherwise, they can't bar the classes listed in the Act.

I think you are correct that public accommodations (leaving aside the exceptions above) can discriminate on other grounds, and the possession of firearms is probably one of them. To protect the firearm owner, proper signage is/should be posted, and no penalties/convictions should occur if a gun-carrying patron is told to leave and DOES so.

[GreenStormCloud]

145. Texas, and some other states, have specific signage laws.

In Texas, for a NO-Guns sign to have the force of law, it must meet certain very specific requirements. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/signposting.htm

If the sign is different from that, such as the Gunbusters type sign, then it does not carry the weight of law. If a person is discovered to be armed, then the owner can ask them to leave. If the person doesn't leave, then they are trespassing, and can be arrested for that.

When we go to a movie, the theatre has a gunbusters sign, and I always ignore it. Since my gun is concealed, they never know.

[KansasVoter]

151. So you are fine ignoring the business owners request? So you are ok...

with someone CCW in state where it is illegal also?

[Hoopla Phil]

152. It is not a matter of ignoring the business owners request. It is a matter

of the business owner making the proper LEGAL request. I missed the part where he said he is OK with CCW in a state where it is illegal. Did he say that somewhere?

I also have a CHL in Texas and will obey all LEGAL requests to not go into a private business armed.

[KansasVoter]

155. OK...this is funny........

So a sign saying "No Firearms Allowed" is not clear enough for you?

If it does not meets the "specific" requirement then you ignore the sign?

You know good and well that people so not want guns in the business and still carry because the sign is not perfect.

Classy! But not a surprise for me.

[Hoopla Phil]

156. I obey the law. I ask the same of the business owner. Why don't you?

[Name removed]

157. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hoopla Phil]

158. I obey the law. I expect the business owner to do the same. Why don't you?

[KansasVoter]

159. Then you are one. Not a shock.

[GreenStormCloud]

160. You don't know the verbal game.

Businesses put up those gunbusters signs knowing that the sign carries no weight, and that CHL holders can and will legally ignore them. So they have the chance that if they get held up there is a possibility that a CHL holder will intervene. At the same time, the sign make the I'm-afraid-of-guns-people happy, as they think that guns are prohibited. So that business gets to have it both ways.

The business that put up the 30.06 signs (That is the section of the law that describes the signs.)are the fools. Their lawyers think that criminals will obey the signs. Instead only CHL holders will obey it.

[X_Digger]

163. Actually, a lot of places use them to placate the public

A friend of mine is the manager of a chain restaurant here in Texas. The owner came in one day, and they were talking about the 'gun busters' sign that corporate had sent for them to use (they send all kinds of signage / corporate material).

My friend commented that he thought they'd lose business if he put them up- he carries concealed as does the owner (both can carry regardless of the posting of signs as the owner / representative.) The owner reminded him that the signs have no force of law, and that the only ones who'd pay any attention to them are the public who don't know any better.

It's a win-win from his perspective- the public thinks guns are not allowed, and concealed carriers know it has no force of law.

[oneshooter]

172. The State of Texas CHL law has a very

specific sign that carries the weight of law. If a business owner is too lazy to obey the law,then he can not complain. It is the law.

It is also my right not to spend my hard earned money in a business that has a "gun buster" sign.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[SteveM]

182. Calm down, now. There are towing signs for parking violations...

Those signs must have specific details as to form and content; otherwise, drivers can park in those spaces and in effect must be TOLD to leave. If the sign is proper, and a car is parked there nonetheless, then a contracted tow truck operator can remove the car to a compound at the car owner's expense, and the business/institution's owner can sleep through the whole affair. As I type this at a cafe, many of its patrons are parked across the street in the spaces of someone else's privately-held and vacant store. Why? There is no signage warning of a violation or of towing consequences.

Not a perfectly analogous example, but such are the legal connections referencing signage dos & don'ts. Incidentally, just as many drivers don't want to be inconvenienced circling the block and walking three more, they will park on what is clearly someone's else's property. (Have you done this?) Similarly, a concealed-carry person does not want to be inconvenienced (or ready to risk gun storage in a car with its wonderful door locks) by going to another place when the sign is a stinker or is non-existent.

[SteveM]

180. Here's how it usually works:

You can post signs saying that guns are not allowed on a premises, there is variation in local/state law as to posting requirements (in Texas it is a form 30.06 -- they numbered it that way). If someone is asked to vacate the premises because he/she has a gun, he/she must do so OR face violation of trespass.

[TPaine7]

112. Please elaborate.

I really am opposed to handguns being carried at all. Open or closed. I know I have lost that battle and more.

Why do you oppose handguns being carried by sane adults with no violent felonies or legitimate other disqualifiers? Is your opposition based in statistics, experience, intuition or something else?

How can you say you respect the right to bear arms and be against people bearing arms outside their homes? Do you mean they can bear arms from the family room to the bedroom?!

The "stand your ground" laws are crazy to me.

Why? How do you understand them? To me, they say that if a man is minding his business and someone changes him with a tire iron, he doesn't have to turn his back and hope he can outrun him. If he can easily escape, he can still choose to. But he is not required by law to risk his life in order to protect the life of a deadly assailant.

To me that's quite sane.

I know I am in a minority here, maybe everywhere.

Minority, sminority. It doesn't matter if we outnumber you millions to one. What matters is how your points stack up against ours. I enjoy being in the minority, or at least not the overwhelming majority with no opposition. (That, and not my sole interest in gun rights, is a major reason I post almost exclusively here. If I bash Bush on DU, everyone will agree. Preaching to the choir is nauseatingly boring, I'd rather take my chance at making--or being--a convert.)

You should have seen me on that other site bashing Bush during his presidency. I waxed poetic. I compared him to the first King George and applied the Declaration of Independence to him. I described Scalia and Cheney meeting with Satan to plan strategy. It was fun, telling that to Bush supporters. It would not have been so much fun here.

[Remmah2]

149. Elmer J Fudd.

Amoungst second amendment discussion circles your point of view lables you as a "Fudd". Gun owner that opposes ownership of firearms specifically not owned by themself.

BTW "Stand Your Ground" laws can be effectively enforced with a shotgun. A shotgun wound with #6 shot is a whole lot messier than a .45/.38/9mm..............

[SteveM]

179. Who is advocating "...a right to carry into a business who do not want guns...?"

"The right to carry into a business who do not want guns there is crazy to me."

Where does this right exist and/or who is advocating for it?

[SteveM]

178. Ah, he plays his Ace so early. Crappy hand, heh? nt

[KansasVoter]

8. Wait, the UK has NO Drug problems. Damn, how do they do that?

[rrneck]

7. Link? Please show where you got your data. Thanks. nt

[TPaine7]

10. What matters is the numbers of murders, not the percentage commited by any particular method.

Your thinking is muddled.

If you eliminated method X, the percentage of murders due to method X would go to zero. So what? The way you frame the question shows your bias.

Will more guns carried on people (CCW) lower or raise this number based on your opinion?

Will more guns carried on people (CCW) lower or raise this number based on your opinion?

Misguided as your question is, I think it would lower the number of murders, at least if the rise in concealed carry was due to concealed carry by sane people with spotless criminal records.

And if you think it will lower the percent, then you must think if England allowed CCW, then their percent will go from a ridiculous 7% to even lower?

You don't get to do my thinking, but somewhat nice try. England and the US don't start from the same position. Before guns, the percentage of gun murders was exactly zero, but I am almost certain that crime in the middle ages in Europe was higher than in the US today. It's murders that matter, not the percentage due to any method.

[KansasVoter]

20. I love it when arrogant people try to counter people by making...

statements like 'Your thinking is muddled.' like that is going to make anyone say....well darn I must be wrong.

If 100% of people were liked in the US by arsenic, then that would be helpful information. Maybe to anyone but you. I bet the police would like to know that stat. It tells you something about methods of murder. Maybe addressing the method would help reduce it.

Same if it was bows and arrows or guns.

That is like saying "it does not matter what drugs are killing people just that people are dying".

You lost me with your first way off base logic. I ignored the rest.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

44. People kill other people. They are motivated to commit a crime - the gun is only their tool.

You cannot demotivate that crime by eliminating the tool because the tool is not the driving motive behind the crime. The motive may be money, harassment, theft, drugs, retaliation, ... etc. The phrase, "Where there's a will, there's a way" comes to mind. Remove the tool from a motivated person's hand and they will simply use a different tool.

Example: Children now days primarily use texting to communicate remotely. For whatever reasons, you decide peer-peer remote communication is unacceptable for children... so you ban texting. However, that will not stop peer-peer communication because, despite being the most ubiquitous method, texting was just one of many tools teens use to communicate - it was not the motive behind communication but merely the means. Teens will still call, write letters, AIM, facebook, homing pigeons, smoke signals... whatever. Motivated individuals find means.

So ask yourself, Do you want to lower crime-rates or simply "gun-crime" (all other types/methods of crime ignored)? Because if you want to lower gun-crime then ban guns, like England. I would then have to question if, realistically, you feel it's any worse when someone is raped or killed at gunpoint versus knifepoint - because in the end a violent crime is a violent crime with both being equally traumatic for a victim. Don't be surprised when other types of crime proportionally rise to pick up the slack dropped when guns were banned.

And that's the statistics your OP conveniently glosses over... Sure the US has more "gun crime" compared to many other nations but the stat that actually matters is crime-rates and violent crime overall. What's better, having a "lower crime rate" or having a "lower percentage of crimes committed by gun".

[eqfan592]

136. Well said!

Your post hit every single point I was hoping somebody would cover with KansasVoter.

[TPaine7]

57. You are wrong.

1) You count only the harm done by guns and ignore the good
2) You make up stats and expect them to be taken seriously

The point, which I am sure I am arrogant to make, is that considering the harm that is done by criminals misusing guns apart from the good done by decent people carrying guns is a biased approach. What matters in a cost-benefit analysis is the NET effect of guns.

If you got rid of guns tomorrow, or at least the LEGAL carrying of guns, what would happen? Would criminals feel more or less safe in attacking normal people in public places? A simple guns are used in X% of murders argument is a false approach, especially when X still has fecal matter hanging off of it.

You lost me with your first way off base logic. I ignored the rest.

You keep ignoring. My comment are actually mostly for honest readers, people who don't practice mail fraud and make up statistics to back their positions. You can read, too. Or not. It's no skin off my back.

Oh, and if it's arrogant to not accept your "arguments" and "data" as legitimate, if it's arrogant to see that your thinking is muddled and to say so, I plan on staying arrogant. I not only claim that it's muddled, I can tell you why in detail. It's called backing up your claims.

You should try it sometimes, instead of making crap up.

[TPaine7]

12. Can you provide some evidence that your allegation is even true.

Or did this come from the same place as your 90% number--your imagination?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

17. He knows his statement is true

because he's the one that made it up... duh!

[Hoopla Phil]

19. Ha Ha Ha. Funny post!!!

[Hoopla Phil]

35. LMAO Here it is

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzFWRPiNXOI

[TPaine7]

51. A better (and less smelly) source than I thought he had. LOL. n/t

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Statistical]

13. If the majority of speeding was in red cars would banning red cars reducing speeding?

Or would the people who were speeding in red cars now speed in blue cars?

The majority of murders in UK are by knife so logically the solution is to ban knives. Of course then the majority of murders will then be committed with "abc" thus they should ban "abc". After your ban "abc" the majority of murders will be be committed with xyz thus they should ban xyz.

Firearms are an effective tool. Given the availability of tools people will choose the most effective one. That includes law abiding and criminals. Police use firearms more often than swords to stop criminals however if firearms didn't exist they likely would still use swords. Likewise both criminals and law abiding use firearms because they are the most effective available tool. If firearms weren't available (which is unlikely even if you banned guns) criminals would simply choose the next most effective tool (likely a knife).

[theoldman]

14. In China they use knives to kill people.

In Africa they use machetes. People use whatever is available and in the US it is guns.

[Hoopla Phil]

16. What an odd post for someone that claims to support the 2A

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x326645#326738

I don't see a citation for your claim. Could you please provide a link? Thanks.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hoopla Phil]

18. Per capita murder rate by country. US ranks 24th

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

See how I cite my information?

[KansasVoter]

24. Way above Japan, UK, France, Canada, Australia......the list goes on.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. Way below Russia, a developed, modern country with tight gun control.

[KansasVoter]

69. Yes, Russia is like Canada and the UK. LOL.

[AtheistCrusader]

119. In a lot of ways, it is very much like 'the west', as it is commonly understood.

Other than the murder rate, can you cite some material differences?

[Callisto32]

169. I know plenty of Russians.

They experience very little culture shock in the U.S.

[Euromutt]

171. Where gun laws are concerned, yes, it is

You can't have it both ways: either gun laws are the all-overriding determining factor in explaining the differences between homicide rates from country to country, or gun laws are at most one of many socio-economic, cultural and legal factors that influence homicide rates, and possibly a minor one at that.

You can't point at western European homicide rates and say "they're lower because those countries have tighter gun laws," and then, when it's pointed out that Russia has a much higher homicide rate than the U.S. despite having gun laws comparable to the UK's, say "well, that's different."

[eqfan592]

162. Switzerland is well below all of those except Japan...

...yet they have a very high gun ownership rate. In fact, Canada has a fairly high gun ownership rate as well, as does France (both coming in at 32 guns per 100 people). Columbia, on the other hand, has a very low gun ownership rate, but the highest number of murders per capita.

The simple fact is that the statistics do NOT show that a high gun ownership rate automatically equates to a high murder or violent crime rate. if this were true, the US would be most certainly be the most violent nation on the planet by several orders of magnitude. This is not the case. The US isn't even the most violent nation in the western world. It is clear that there are many factors involved in violent crime, and that guns and their legal availability does not appear to be one of them.

[stray cat]

21. 100% are committed by people - we should get rid of people

[virgogal]

23. So the lucky 93% in England are stabbed,strangled,or beaten to death?

Hmmmm !

[KansasVoter]

26. So you would rather I come after you with a Gun than a rope? Wow, you must be one tough dude!

[Statistical]

43. I would rather you not infringe upon civil rights because of the actions of criminals.

How about you make coming after someone with a gun illegal? That should stop it.

[one-eyed fat man]

53. Pretty good guess why you prefer a rope. NT

[Euromutt]

126. Since we're talking murder victims (i.e. corpses), it didn't make any difference in their cases

"Murder victim," by definition, means someone who has been murdered (and is therefore dead). You can't say "these 93% were less likely to be murdered because their assailants didn't use guns" because the one thing we can say with absolute certainty about these people is that each and every one of them had a 100% chance of being murdered; because they were.

I get the impression that you don't quite understand what these statistics mean. You seem to be under the impression that there's a non-firearm homicide rate which is the same for every country, and the firearm homicide rate comes on top of that "baseline," so that the higher the percentage of homicides committed with a firearm, the higher the homicide rate. That's just plain wrong.

[SteveM]

183. Some old guy, facing a young strong thug with a rope, may give pause. nt

[sfwriter]

28. They've had more practice...

Actually, I think beheading is the chosen way, in lieu of divorce.

[sfwriter]

25. It is well known that British guns are crap...

We make better weapons.

[KansasVoter]

27. Great. I thought I would get one of you with that comment. Thanks!!!

[sfwriter]

29. My tongue is firmly in cheek...

[Hoopla Phil]

30. I FOUND THE SOURCE. LMAO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzFWRPiNXOI

[TPaine7]

42. That's actually a better (and less smelly) source than I thought he had. n/t

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[spin]

131. Damn, how did you find that? I'm impressed. (n/t)

[AtheistCrusader]

31. Dead is dead. What difference does the tool make?

Per capita murder overall: 0.042802 per 1,000 people

A fraction of Colombia at 0.617847 per 1,000 people, and Russia 0.201534 per 1,000 people, the latter having tough gun control we don't have.


"It took me several days to obtain a gun license from the Interior Ministry. I had to collect documents from the psychiatric and narcotics dispensaries confirming that I am not on their records. I also had to pay a modest state tax: 110 rubles (a little less than $4) for a hunting rifle, and 30 rubles for a gas pistol (slightly over $1). Then I had to undergo check-ups at several doctors: GP, surgeon, ophthalmologist, and ear-nose-and-throat doctor (a nice woman who ran to the corner of her office and whispered, trying not to move her lips: "Why do you need a pistol?" I passed the test.)

After that I had to submit a request to a regional police licensing department. Several days later a district police officer came to see me in order to check whether I had a metal case to keep the weapons. I had bought it in advance and screwed on to the wall, as it ought to be. After a month-long inquiry into whether I had any previous convictions - and, I believe, my civic loyalty - I eventually received a license allowing me to buy a gun.

However, it transpired that I could buy and keep it, but not carry it. To be able to carry a gun, I had to be a member of a hunting-and-fishing club. To join, I had to pay another 1,000 rubles ($35), and pass a test. In order to pass this test I had to know, among other things, the differences between hunting hare and hunting bear. An obvious answer that the consequences for the hunter may be different did not go down well with my strict examiners.

In the end I bought a smoothbore, 10-cartridge, Saiga semi-automatic rifle, a clone of the famous Kalashnikov, for 12,000 rubles (about $430). The only difference between the two is that Kalashnikov is failsafe, whereas the Saiga, as it transpired later, sometimes gets jammed because of the poor quality of "civilian" cartridges. This year, 15,000 Muscovites bought guns like mine.

In total, the number of legal owners of guns in Russia has gone up 10 times over compared with the Soviet era. But this has not reduced the crime rate. Every year criminals still kill an average of 65,000 people a year, the same number as before.

Successful use of long-stemmed guns is depressingly rare. Burglars have already broken in while you're still fiddling with the key to the case to get hold of your favorite gun. It is not allowed to carry such guns, or have them assembled and uncovered in a car. As for a "rubber" pistol, an attempt to use it for self-defense often only infuriates the attacker."

[rrneck]

32. Let's assume for a moment

that you didn't make up the stats. That means that 35% of all murders are committed by without guns. What self defense solution do you propose for those people who are assaulted by another not using a gun, but rather a knife, club, fists or feet?

Or are you just trolling flamebait?

[Glassunion]

38. I vote B.

[rrneck]

47. There might be a third option.

The OP is really pro gun, maybe even on the payroll of the NRA or at least an intern, and is acting like a caricature of an obtuse anti gun proponent. What's the term? A "false flag" agent or sort of an agent provocateur?

[Callisto32]

170. This would firmly be an agent provocateur.

A false flag would be if he was pretending to represent the Brady folks, or something.

[SteveM]

184. Jesus, these guys come out of a factory...

have to look for that micro-engraving to tell the diff.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

46. hurr... durrr... "natural fighting skillz"... yup!

[glinda]

34. Was it Vonnegut that said guns were made to put holes through people?

[SteveM]

185. And?

[Katya Mullethov]

39. And 100% of gun crimes are committed by gun owners

I would use that statistic a lot more often if I were you . And don't just let it ooze from every pore as you do now . Shout it from the rooftops !

[TPaine7]

54. A quibble: 100% of gun crimes are committed by gun *possessors* not by gun *owners.* n/t

[Katya Mullethov]

59. Quibbler !

The statistics will prove me right ! Now , go look it up !

[TPaine7]

60. Oh no!

It's contagious! Now reasonable folks are refusing to back their claims and insisting that I do the research.

:wow:

[SteveM]

186. Research? Better you than me. nt

[rrneck]

40. Unrec for missing documentation. nt

[KansasVoter]

66. Then you should rec now. LOL.....you whine a lot.

I was wrong, it is 71%, the 65% was from 2004. So it went WENT UP. Wonder why?? LOL.

I bet you complainers still have some issue with this.

And you complainers will be happy with the source......THE FBI!!! LOL.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_information/homicide.html

"Of the homicides for which the type of weapon was specified, 71.9 percent involved the use of firearms. Of the identified firearms used, handguns comprised 88.3 percent."

[rrneck]

81. So that means

that 28% of homicides were committed with something other than a firearm. What self defense solution do you offer for those who are assaulted by another using a knife, club, fists or feet.

That's the second time I've asked that question in your thread.

[KansasVoter]

82. No, first off apologize for doubting my source.

[rrneck]

117. LOL!

You're stalling. Do you have a solution or don't you?

:rofl:

[rrneck]

137. Made good your escape I see. nt

[rrneck]

134. Oops. Wrong spot. nt

[SteveM]

187. "Whining," "panties-in-knot," "insecure," "so sensitive," Christ, the manufacture.

[msongs]

45. guns don't kill people, gun OWNERS do nt

[SteveM]

188. Economical, but wrong...

Gun users kill people; many guns are not owned by some of the killers, but stolen, smuggled.

Of course, you are aware that the VAST majority of gun-owners AND users do not kill people.

Did you know that virtually all heroin addicts first used marijuana? What is the implication? That's for demagogues in the W.O.D. to titillate the public with. It tells me that I, among tens of millions of pot-users, have never even had a desire to ride the white horse. Similarly, I, along with tens of millions of others, have a safe full of guns, and have never killed another, or had the desire to.

[jody]

49. You are responsible for your own self-defense, not LEO. The arms you choose are your choice so

you'll obviously hug them with your two arms and love them as defense.

Have you hugged a criminal today?

[Glassunion]

50. Some thoughts from an old post of mine. It's topical.

Our murder rates are quite significant when compared to other countries. However, I personally believe that we should focus our efforts on the cause and not so much the tools. As I have stated in posts in other topics, I am listening on how we can do that. I do not believe in the mantra that “less guns = less crime”, nor do I believe in the mantra "more guns = less crime". The statistics do not prove, nor do they disprove either statement. Crime in America has been on a steady decline for quite some time now, however the number of guns has increased. I will not be so bold as to state that the increase in firearms has anything to do with the decline in crime, as I have found nothing that is 100% conclusive to back that statement at all.

I do however feel that our murder rates will still be as high as they currently are even with a full gun ban. The tools may change, the methods may change and the criminal may change. I feel this way because a full ban does not address at all the root cause of why people are murdering each other.

It was mentioned recently in another post about three countries; England, Canada and Japan. All of these countries have incredibly tight gun controls, or a complete outright ban on all defensive firearms. It was stated at how they seem to be getting along without handguns. The statement was correct, they are getting along. The statement made me think. So I started to do some research on the crime rates in those countries.

England and Canada are getting along with higher crime rates, suicides, more assaults, more assault victims and more rape victims per capita than the United States (based on what these countries report to the UN). But I would not blame that on the lack of guns. Just as I would not tribute our lower numbers in these areas to the possession of guns.

Japan sees less overall crime (based on what is reported to the UN)and they are on par in suicides. So is it the lack of guns that keeps Japan civil? Again, this is a statement that I would not make.

There has to be something that Canada, England and the United States seem to have in common that Japan does share?

Japan is more educated, wealthier, more competitive and far more literate in math and sciences as per UN data. Their gross national income per capita is higher than the other three nations. They also have incredibly low unemployment. Could it be from their lack of poverty that we (US, Can and UK) do not have? Now I think we are getting a little closer. As I do believe in the mantra “more poverty = more crime”. But that is just my opinion. But not all crime is driven by poverty. What about rape and assaults? Now I know that sometimes there is assault during the execution of a robbery, however not all assaults are robberies. This is where I get stuck. Why do three countries, one with an off the chart murder rate and another two with off the chart rapes and assaults have so many problems that the fourth does not? I do not know.

Let’s go back to where I started. Would the elimination of guns address the root cause of assault or rape or even murder for that fact? I doubt it. Taking guns away, does not address the issue of why. Does it?

Japan to me does not seem to be such a bad place with the exception of a “deep and profound” amount of racism in that country. That was a quote from the UN Commission on Human Rights. I think that my wife and I would have issues let’s say getting a job, or maybe even walking home at night. We would stick out a little.

I think that there are other factors that we cannot see in numbers on a page that points out the differences between these countries. Culture I think is a huge factor. If anyone here has visited any of these countries, one thing can be noted. There is a marked contrast between the cultures of these nations. It is not a bad thing. In fact I think it is something that should be celebrated. I’m the outdoorsy type, and I have had the opportunity to visit all of these countries. I loved each of these countries in turn for what they were, just as I love America for what it is.

So my point of all of this, is that maybe we can discuss ways of addressing the root cause of the problem and not so much on the periphery. Sure working on the periphery is quicker, easier and sometimes makes our politicians look like they are actually accomplishing something. But it never seems to take us that one inch forward. Instead, we sit here and spin our wheels.

What else can we do?

[rrneck]

58. Yep.

There has been some loose talk around here about who is and isn't a true progressive. Progressives help people. They use government to find real solutions for real problems to help real people.

The more extreme elements of the anti gun faithful are ideologues with more interest in developing an a priori system of social organization without any consideration of how it will effect people's lives. Less guns = Less crime is completely nonsensical to anyone who is not an acolyte of anti gun ideology.

Here's one measure (and I even included a link to the source) of why we are such violent people. We're right up there with Mexico and China. Woo Hoo!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gini_since_WWII.svg

[safeinOhio]

93. I saw an article about

the relationship between violent crime and income disparity by country. They go up together. Therefore, I would guess that reducing that disparity might lower gun crime, which brings me to question anyones support for a group like the NRA that supports so many Republican politicians that are shills for corporations and the wealthy. I would think also, since it is brought up, that economic progressives deserve our support and that might be more important to crime statistics than gun laws. That is why many think of guns, abortion and religion as wedge issues and deflect voters from voting in their own economic interest.

[Glassunion]

115. Maybe we should just give everyone free money...

That should work right?

Lol :sarcasm:

[Caliman73]

123. The NRA support a single issue, gun ownership.

Unfortunately the Republicans tend to support more liberal laws for gun ownership than Democrats do. Perhaps the NRA would support more Democratic candidates if they would stop calling for further restrictions on ownership. It would be a win-win. Individual freedoms would win in terms of the 2nd amendment, and Democrats/Progressives elected with the assistance of the NRA could work on closing the income disparity, further reducing the crime rate. See, the argument works both ways. People vote certain ways for a great many reasons. I am not a fan nor a supporter of the NRA because of their rhetoric and tactics. They support whoever they think will advance their cause best. My question is, If you know that further restriction of firearms has had no significant effects on crime rates over the last several decades and that the increase in the amount of guns has not translated into an increase in crime, why as a supporter of civil liberties like free speech, freedom from illegal search, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, equal protection, etc...why would one as a progressive politician choose to not recognize the right of legal ownership of firearms?

[safeinOhio]

133. Most politicians do

support the legal right of ownership.
Just like most liberals support aspects of a market economy. The problem comes from unfettered capitalism as an ideology. The same is true for gun ownership. Just as many on the radical gun ownership side want no state or community laws that restrict gun carry laws or regulations on who and where guns are allowed. Just as ALL civil liberties come with some restrictions, groups like the NRA demand little or no restrictions, just as many ideologues want no restriction on a free market. No where in the 2nd is there a prohibition on rules, regulations or any reasonable restrictions on weapons. You can't fire a highpower rifle or any gun for that matter within the city limits. Some groups, felons and insane are not allowed to own or possess any fire arm. It is state law in several states that require a permit to purchase or registering handguns. Open carry is not allowed in many cities and states. None of these laws have been deemed unconstitutional by the Federal Courts. I agree that gun ownership and possession by law abiding citizens is of little risk to the population. Yet all gun crime is because of the illegal possession or illegal use of guns and there are laws that can reduce these crimes with no major hassles for those that are legally permitted to own and possess firearms. Laws that ban gun ownership are not supported by the majority of Americans. However, most current restrictions on who may purchase or where guns are allowed by each state or local are supported by the majority of Americans. Just as reasonable laws on banking and oil companies cause screams of "socialism", any law that restricts anyone from carrying a gun anywhere are meet with cries of "gun grabbing" by the radical ideologues on one side of the issue.
While crime statistics are moving in a good direction, that may not always be true in the future. If there is ever a spike in crime, the argument that more guns are correlated to less crime will be turned around and used against those that use that correlation. There are many demographics involved in crime rates. It is a slippery slope to attribute only one aspect to it.

[Caliman73]

146. I disagree.

The NRA has backed and continues to back the current restrictions on fully automatic weapons. The NRA backed and actually strengthened the NICS database law. They support the prohibition against felons and the adjudicated mentally ill possessing firearms as well. Their rhetoric is stupid, just like the Brady Organization's rhetoric is stupid. To say that they are radical however is an opinion just like the one I gave about my personal feelings about the rhetoric. To say that they want little or no restrictions on firearms is factually incorrect. Come on safeinOhio, I have seen some of your posts and I think you are reasonable. To argue down this path is however not reasonable in my opinion. There is a difference between the issues of financial reform and firearm ownership. Any regulation on the financial industry is met with cries of oppression by the industry because they exist solely to make money for themselves and their shareholders. There are radicals on both sides of the firearm debate. There is a tiny fringe of people who think that the should be able to open carry fully automatic rifles and handguns anywhere. That is true. There are also those who think that all gun owners are disgusting killers and want all firearms melted down, except for the police and military. They are a vocal by tiny fringe. Many firearm owners feel they are doing no harm by responsibly carrying firearms concealed from others according to the laws. When other people tell them that they are by the very nature of carrying a firearm, "endangering" their lives, that is cause for a reaction. Kind of like people saying, "by you driving your car, you are killing the planet." It is a discussion about "reasonable" which is being argued.

That "most Americans" support or do not support this policy or that policy is notoriously difficult to predict with accuracy. I can formulate questions that will influence results according to what I am being asked to promote or oppose. The NRA focuses on such silly questions as, "Do you think it is okay for the government to restrict your right to own a firearm." As you said, a majority of responders will think, "No, the government should probably not restrict my rights". The Brady Organization also has winners like, "Do you support the policy to keep deadly assault weapons that spray bullets out of people's hands?" Who would answer no to that? The reaction of many people on either side of the issue is emotional. That is why we see words like "assault weapon" and phrases like, "coming to get your guns". Educated, rational decision making does not seem to be highly valued by organizations that make their money from promoting a cause. Unfortunately, knowledge and education seem to be most important in mitigating knee jerk reactions. I live in California where the assault weapon ban still exists. That is to say that semi-automatic rifles of a certain configuration are banned. The same exact rifle in a different configuration is legal. Now I am not into or arguing to support putting a bayonet on any rifle. I am talking about things like a pistol grip. Because of hand injuries from sports, the conventional rifle stock tends to hurt my hand after a while. A pistol grip makes it easier for me to shoot. Tell me, if I have a Ruger Mini-14 with a traditional stock or one with a pistol grip, does that fundamentally change the firearm? Does it make it deadlier? What is reasonable about the law? What is reasonable about the ban of handguns in Chicago? It was in place for 28 years and had little effect on the crime rate. It is still backed strongly by the current leadership in Chicago even as Reverend Sharpton expressed his surprise that the residents he spoke to seemed to overwhelmingly favor that the ban was overturned.

Crime statistics are only loosely correlated to gun ownership. As you said, there are many complex factors that attempt to predict and explain crime. I am certainly not a proponent of more guns = less crime. More guns = more guns...period. Less guns does not equal more crime either. What people choose to do with those guns and which factors influence the decision to commit crimes and violence are much more important to study and intervene in than the amount or types of guns that are available for lawful purchase. As I said in my previous post, the NRA does back Democratic candidates. They would most likely back the progressive candidate over the conservative if that progressive candidate supported the NRA's policy agenda on firearms. The issue is what specific aspects of the NRA's firearm policies do you disagree with and can you defend your stance logically?

[safeinOhio]

161. Sure, there view on NICS checks

Yes they support them on commercial sales, but not on private sales. They have come up with a new classification for selling more than one gun at a time. I can see no reason for them to be against a back ground check on the private sale of a handgun. As the law stands in many states one can sell a pistol to anyone thru want ads, out of the trunk of a car or at a garage sale. Anyone, criminal or insane can purchase the handgun with no background ground check. To me that makes no sense at all if the goal is to keep handguns out of the hands of criminals. It is required in 4 or 5 states. I lived in one and found no problem in purchasing a handgun from a private source. Yet the NRA is against that restriction. It has been confused by calling it the gunshow loop hole, which it would not be. How about calling it the private sales to criminals loophole? My biggest problem with the NRA is that if a politician that supported closing the "sale to criminal" loophole" that person would lose their A+ rating.

Other than that, I think we agree on most issues.

[Caliman73]

164. Actually we don't disagree on that either.

There is actually support for extending NICS to private sales. I live in California so basically, enough said. I have no major problem with purchases having to go through FFL even in private sales. It has not stopped me from being able to purchase firearms either.

The problem that we seem to be dancing around though is not one issue. Again, calling it the "sale to criminal loophole" is hyperbole and is not needed. Private sales of items typically do not have to go through federal background checks if they are done within state boundaries. I can sell items like my computer, or potentially deadly weapons a bat, or a knife, or a bottle of bleach, a sword, etc...to another person without having to do do a background check on the buyer. I can rent a room to a serial killer and not be liable for the danger. I have no obligation to check the background of individuals on private transactions. It is not a loophole in the law, it is just the way private sales of certain items are handled. As I said, that to me is a non-issue and I disagree with the NRA's stance on that too. We are not however talking about this one issue. We are talking about politicians who continue to call for re-instating the AWB, people who tend to vote for any restriction that is proposed. Those are the people who get the low grades from the NRA not a person who disagrees on one issue.

[Statistical]

177. The NICS system would need to be changed to allow private person usage.

In the 5 states that require NICS checks on private transactions you can't do the NICS check yourself. It requires a 3rd party, a firearm dealer (FFL) and thus you are subject to any arbitrary fee he/she decides to charge.

Say I have a firearm I wish to transfer to my son. I shouldn't have to pay some dealer $35 as a transfer agent to officially transfer the firearm to my son who has already been using it. I don't mind NICS checks for person to person transactions but the check should be done (at no cost) by the person doing the transaction.

Of course that would require some modification of NICS system to avoid issues like identity theft.

If such a system were devised I am sure the NRA would come around. The goal as of now is to close the "gunshow loophole" thus private persons can't sell firearms. They must do NICS check but they don't have access to NICS system a defacto ban on person to person transactions.

That is unacceptable. One doesn't need to go to a dealer to sell a car to another person. No problem with requiring a background check on each transfer (buy, sell, trade, gift) but it should be accomplished without the need for an FFL (and FFL "tax") everytime a firearm changes hands.

[SteveM]

189. I'm not a fan of the NRA, but I understand why some here are members...

I agree with you about the effective result of joining the NRA: to some degree, it makes their quest to defeat "anti-2A" politicians easier. I choose to not be a member for this reason. But if one supports 2A, they are looking for a way to both defend 2A from encroachments and to perhaps broaden the NRA culture (though a conservative organization, it never posed a threat to liberals and progressives 40 years ago).

Sure, they are wedge issues. What is your point? "Wedge" issues do not cheapen or lessen the impact they have on politics, and they certainly point up how poorly, in the case of gun-control, how little the Democratic Party and many "liberals/progressives" seem to have learned from wedge issues. There is a curious and frustrating dynamic here: The gun-controller labors loudly and angrily in meager orchards, yet dismisses the Second Amendment as a "wedge" issue or one which is based on paranoia; like we REALLY don't want to take away your precious guns. Surely you see this dynamic in this forum.

The NRA, the GOPers, the anti-liberals out there know this dynamic, and they show much more acumen and intelligence when they exploit the "gun issue" with relative ease.

Gun-controllers made/make the modern NRA.

[HockeyMom]

56. Most people are murdered by people they KNOW

Not some stranger breaking into your home, etc.

We had a very sad instance of this not long ago in our school district. Man with 5 children, out of work for over a year, one night while his family was sleeping, shot (legal handgun) his sleeping wife in the head. He then went to the bedrooms of all his sleeping children, including the 9 month old, and shot them too. None survived.

[bossy22]

62. ahh the kellenberg study rears its ugly head again

the conclusion that most people are murdered by someone they know "may" be true; but is often misleading. To know someone just means to recognize that person- it doesnt mean that you are acquantinces or even friends. For example, rival gang leaders may know each other- but that doesnt necessarily mean they are friends. The study is used to mislead people into the false belief that the majority of people killed are killed by friends/family.

[HockeyMom]

64. Ah, yes

He didn't "know" his wife and all his children. If his wife and woken up and saw here husband walking around the bedroom, do you think she would have gotten out a gun to defend herself?

[Euromutt]

128. Failure of elementary logic

Ah, yes. He didn't "know" his wife and all his children.

In the words of John Cleese, "Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted; for instance, all of Alma Cogan is dead, but only part of the class of dead people is Alma Cogan."

Similarly, all the members of your household are known to you, but only some of the people known to you are members of your household.

It is therefore by no means impossible that murders of household members do not form a large segment of homicides in which the murdered and victim were "known to each other," since people do not know only members of their own household.

It should also be pointed out that in the United States, 75% of intimate partner homicides are known to occur after the woman leaves, or threatens to leave, and over 50% are known to occur after the man has stalked the (former) partner (source: Gavin de Becker, The Gift of Fear). Note that "not known to have occurred" is not synonymous with "did not occur"; quite a few others occur after the man is served with a restraining order, for instance. The idea that people (usually men) murder their spouses or their entire families merely on a whim, and because they have a firearm available (the implication being that if he hadn't had a gun, he wouldn't have murdered anyone) is simply not founded on any empirical evidence.

It's also worth noting that a larger percentage of male victims of intimate partner homicides die from gunshot wounds than do female ones.

[KansasVoter]

73. Wow, not according to the FBI. Wish to backtrack?

[Statistical]

77. Intersting to read into the family relationships.

Husbands kill wives about 5x the rate that wives kill husbands.
Children are equally opportunity killers of their parents however parents kill Sons more often then daughters.
More striking is siblings kill their brothers at a rate almost 7x as often as they kill their sisters.

However the most common relationship is "acquaintance" that could be anything from coworker to fellow gang member, to mailman, to neighbor, to neighborhood dealer.

[X_Digger]

96. Neighbor is specified in the UCR table this is derived from.

There's also much more data about the concomitant crime @ http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_10.html

[Statistical]

111. Interesting roughly 2000 of murders occured durring another felony.

Imagine that violent criminals are dangerous tend to target stranger and sometimes kill their victims during the crime.

Sounds like a good reason for allowing CCW laws.

[X_Digger]

95. You do realize that the biggest slice is 'unknown', correct? n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

147. Over half of all murder victims are themselves involved in a criminal enterprise.

In the last two years, our little town of 2,000 has had 4 murders. All four of the victims were involved with the drug trade.

[X_Digger]

89. Actually, that's not true anymore

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_10.html

The single largest classification is 'unknown'- no relationship could be determined.

The next largest classification is 'acquaintance', which is distinguished from all other familial and close relationships (aka neighbor, employer, friend- those are spelled out separately.)

What relationship with people do you have that is neither husband, wife, mother, father, son, daughter, sister, brother, 'other family', friend, boyfriend, girlfriend, neighbor, employer, employee..?

Hint, think 'rival drug dealer', 'junkie', 'dealer'.

eta: the 'unknown / stranger' columns add up to 8010. The rest, 6170.

[quickesst]

63. Uh,,, could it be.....

....that the gun is the most efficient way to achieve the goal? You wouldn't use a moped to traverse the Sahara, although it could be done. It always amazes me how anti-gun people try to use shit like this to demonize responsible, liberal, democratic, progressive, family loving, humanity loving people who own and enjoy guns for a blatantly deceptive purpose. We, responsible gun owners, do not approve of murder, whether by guns, knives, poison, or any other means, so why the fuck just quit twisting shit out of context for willfully ignorant purposes and just admit that there are good people and there are bad people, and the inanimate objects we surround ourselves with do not define who we are. Generally, we are as good as you are, we are as liberal as you are, we are as giving as you are, and we are as caring as you are, but we are not as deceptive in our defense as you are in your offense. Thanks.
quickesst

[KansasVoter]

70. So it makes killing easy is your defense? LOL.

[Katya Mullethov]

75. It isnt a defense it is merely the correct answer

To a rhetorical question .

[TPaine7]

97. The purpose of a self-defense weapon in the hands of a law-abiding person

is not to kill, but to stop a deadly or felonious assault.

Yes, it should be easy for them to stop the assault, even if it could result in the death of someone who would otherwise kill, maim, rape or kidnap them.

"Easy to kill" is a distortion of the actual intent of legitimate self-defense. though it is accurate for murderers.

I say keep violent felons from carrying arms.

[SteveM]

190. Tin Man to Straw Man: "Oh, that's you all over."

[SteveM]

191. You got it. Liberals are so-o-o-o majorly bad at culture war. nt

[KansasVoter]

65. Here is my source you doubters. Wow, you guys get really paranoid and upset easy don't you.....

I was wrong, it is 71%, the 65% was from 2004. So it went WENT UP. Wonder why?? LOL.

I bet you complainers still have some issue with this.

And you complainers will be happy with the source......THE FBI!!! LOL.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_information/homicide.html

"Of the homicides for which the type of weapon was specified, 71.9 percent involved the use of firearms. Of the identified firearms used, handguns comprised 88.3 percent."

[TPaine7]

87. Given your admissions of fraudulent intent and making things up,

I think you can see why we doubted.

If you behave honorably for long enough, many will come to trust. But on this forum, we like sources. We sometimes request them of people we agree with.

[KansasVoter]

108. Agree. Will remember that!

[SteveM]

192. "...you guys get really paranoid and upset easy..." No. 4 on all-time...

over-used remarks by trolls.

[Glassunion]

71. Let me fix that for you...

Murders in the USA are committed! Why is that?

There you go...

Idle curiosity, what do you suggest as a solution to the problem? Or are you just here to bait the flame?

[KansasVoter]

72. LOL...only in this forum is providing stats and a valid question is flamebait.

[Katya Mullethov]

74. The question was "Why is that ? "

Why do people kill people with guns ? Because it works quite well , and while few may share your acumen and rapier wit , they ain't stupid . They may lack even the most basic problem solving , interpersonal , and job skills . But they aint THAT dumb .

We could do a little bit of the why , if youre up to it .

[KansasVoter]

80. Why? Because they want someone dead and have an easy means to do it.

[AtheistCrusader]

120. So, you already seemed to know the answer when you asked the question. That's bait.

But you knew that.

[Glassunion]

76. No...

Your snide remarks, insults, lies, fabricated scenarios, refusal to answer any questions (what do you suggest we do about the problem), overall confrontational attitude with the rest of us here, that equates to flame bait.

[KansasVoter]

79. Details......

What insults? I was called a baby today and stupid today. Both posts deleted. And a anti-gun fanatic.
What lie? Please provide it.
Fabricated scenarios? Wow, like asking potential "what if" questions is a DU violation?
This forum is not a Pro-Gun forum. It is a gun discussion forum. I just listed a FBI stat and asked a questions about it. It was more detail providing than 50% of the stuff posted here.
Don't be mad because someone here is opposing the NRA love fest.

[Glassunion]

85. Ok, quick examples...

1. One of your very own posts in reply to me was deleted. So enough about your insults.
2. 90%. enough said.
3. Making the statement that one cannot possibly support both the NRA and be a progressive. Also stating that if we agree with a pro 2nd stance we obviously are one issue voters.
4. Yes it is a gun discussion forum, and when you post stats I might recommend that you not call the others you are spurring "discussion" with "paranoid".
5. I would also like to point out that making demands of others you are trying to have a discussion with is also rather rude.
6. I would also like you to keep in mind that this is a Democratic and Progressive discussion forum. One that you do not own. Telling others to leave when they have an opposing viewpoint and questioning others conviction as a Democrat/Progressive is quite insulting and rather uncalled for.
7. I'm not mad at all. I'm calling it like I see it.

Again, my question. What is your suggestion as a solution to the problem?

[KansasVoter]

88. OK.....

1. No proof, still waiting.
2. 90% is low. I have actually requested the NRA to send me their 2008 election scorecard in excel format and they agreed. Will post soon.
3. I 100% agree that progressives cannot rationally support the NRA without working against the democratic party and listed my reasons why. And are not sorry for those.
4. It was more than a request. People automatically assuming the stat was wrong. And crickets when I posted the stats. And it seemed paranoid. Paranoid is not an insulting term.
5. What demands? Please provide one. Like for proof?
6. I never told anyone to leave. I said "how can you support a group who wants John Boehner elected and still be a DU mmember." If you love the NRA and support their stance of wanting Dem tolose elections then you should leave. I think the admins would agree.
7. You sound mad, sorry if I misunderstood.

[TPaine7]

90. "And crickets when I posted the stats."

BS. I answered TWICE.

[KansasVoter]

92. Posted before I read your note. Sorry! A lot of notes to read.

[TPaine7]

103. Makes sense. n/t

[X_Digger]

99. You can look at the 2008 scorecards.. right now.. I provided you the link last night.

https://www.nrapvf.org/ELECTIONS/Archive.aspx?y=2008

Why wait? Go look for yourself.

[KansasVoter]

101. Because it asks for a userid and password. For members only. Thanks though.

[X_Digger]

107. Even the # on your temporary card will let you in.

If you provided a valid email address, they should have sent you an email with your member number, if you didn't get one of those generic cards.

[KansasVoter]

110. Daughters packet did not arrive yet. I'll ask her about email. Thanks!

[Glassunion]

113. K.

1. Yes you do insult and yes your reply to me was deleted.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=325680&mesg_id=325997
2. Ok, in that thread you willingly admitted that the 90% was fabricated. A lie. Plain an simple. Look at it this way... Let's say I have a friend and they ask me if I have ever been to the DU before, and I reply... Don't go there, 90% of the people over there are racist. Now I'm sure there are racists, they are everywhere. But 90%? An absolute lie. I could speculate all day long, but no matter how you slice it, it was a lie to further a point. It totally negates the point no matter how "sure" you are that the numbers are higher. I'll say it again, it's a lie.
Not to mention, once you get the spreadsheet from the NRA, you may be surprised to find that that 90% will be quite a bit lower than you anticipated.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=325680&mesg_id=326847
3. I think progressives can support civil rights groups, even the NRA. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=325680&mesg_id=326500
4. Calling someone paranoid is an insult. Do me a favor and define the word paranoid and you may see how it is insulting.
5. Here is proof of you making demands. This was NOT a request, a demand. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=325680&mesg_id=325739
6.Yes you did ask people to leave the DU. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=326645&mesg_id=326724. Also "If you love the NRA and support their stance of wanting Dem tolose elections then you should leave. I think the admins would agree." Whole statement is a false dichotomy. I support the NRA and their stance on the protection of a civil right. Your statement is like saying that as a member of the NAACP that I support anti-semitism because of the former board member. No I support it because of their stance on the protection of a different civil right. However, if you feel that the admins would agree with you, please do tell them that I do fully support the NRA. I'll be right here if they wish to ban me.
7. Not mad... Calling em like I see em..

Again... What would you suggest as a solution to the problem?

[Statistical]

114. 6. I never told anyone to leave.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=326645&mesg_id=326724

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=326645&mesg_id=326715

:hi:

[SteveM]

194. Heh. Always looking for a fight in an empty barroom. nt

[SteveM]

193. And dull, too. How many times can we fill in the _______ with this dynamic? nt

[proteus_lives]

116. And you ignore the human factor.

What a surprise.

To bad that most Americans don't want to be treated like potential criminals and value their 2nd Amendment rights.

I know, you'll never understand because of your quest for "safety" at any cost.

[SteveM]

195. Who needs the human factor when you have oceans of compassion. And snideness.

[MisterBill45]

121. Typical anti civil rights question meant to cast FUD

Did you know that black men are responsible for a disproportionate amount of violent crime? WE SHOULD BAN BLACK PEOPLE!

Every time i see this crap I just laugh, especially having lived in the UK, Germany, Mexico. I actually know these countries and know them a lot better than someone who's been to London once on a vacation.

The English have ALWAYS had lower crime rates, of all types, than the U.S. Feeking Charles Dickens wrote about it! This is the U.S. Not the UK, not any other country. There are a gazillion different factors that go into why we're more violent than other countries, from our insane drug wars to simply having a completely heterogeneous society which makes for all kinds of tensions that Europe has never had to deal with in the numbers we have. Canada has way more guns per capita than we do for God's sake! Why isn't their murder rate sky high? Maybe because guns aren't the reason.

Criminals use guns because guns are the best tool for the job and are available because there's at least 250 million of them in this country. That's not going to change. Not ever.

In order for gun control to work at effectively reducing crime, rather than just making the weapons of choice change, you'd have to remove the vast majority of the guns in the country which is so NOT going to be possible no matter how much you might wish it to. You can repeal the second amendment tomorrow morning and you won't get rid of more than a small fraction of the guns in this country.

And if you did that, especially in the form of a simple court ruling reversing Heller and McDonald, you'd have a genuine revolution on your hands. Not Tea-Baggers screaming stupidity, or some jackasses dressing in camo and pretending to be rambo, I'm talking about the real thing. And the distinct possibility of states doing more than just talking about secession.

It doesn't even matter who would ultimately prevail. The damage to the country would be so much worse than the 14000ish people murdered every year it's hard to even comprehend.

Stupid people vote. How many people are dead because Americans voted that clown Bush into office twice? Gueess what? It's a lot higher number than the total of murders we'd see in decades.

The absolute f***ing hypocrisy of people who call themselves liberals who deny the human right of self defense has always amazed me.

Hey genius. If you don't have the right to self defense AND THE MEANS OF THAT DEFENSE you are at the mercy of anyone stronger than you or more powerful than you and you have ZERO ability to resist. Once the right of self defense is gone, all your other rights hang on the good will of the people in power. If you don't like it, too bad. So pray to whatever power you may believe in that your government stays accountable and relatively benign. Because it can sieze total power and the people would be helpless to resist.

Every stinkin bit of history shows that the right of individualsto keep and bear arms was an assumed right. NO ONE questioned it. We'd just fought a damned war where gun confiscation was one of the triggers that started it all. The militia portion of 2a is about resolving the issue of the states' ability to have control over it's own militia, which was to keep off a power grab by the federal government. Several states, among them NH and MA wanted to include a separate provision, but instead were content with the 2nd as is. That's the only reason the militia clause is even there. Read the Fderalist Papers and try to read some other material that's been exhaustively researched by historians. The primary issue about the constitution in the first place was fear of an overreaching federal government. It's what everyone, even Federalists, knew was a very real threat. So they put in what amounts to a right to revolution. Ok, we settled the right to revolution part part in 1865. But the principle still hasn't changed.

It's not til you get to Cruikshank, post-reconstruction, that this whole fiction of collective rights started re guns. Now go read the bloody ninth amendment. You know, the one that helped to solidify the arguments in Roe v Wade. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

I don't HAVE to have a specifically enumerated right in the constitution to retain the damned right! That's the whole point of the system for God's sake. It gives all the rights to the people EXCEPT for the specifically enumerated powers of government. The right to pass laws, spend money, tax, declare war etc. The point was ALWAYS that if there was a question over rights, by default the individual wins absent compelling interest or a specifically enumerated government duty. And some rights, like the right to keep and bear arms, were set out because it was so important that they wanted to underline those specifics and say "We really mean it on these things!" It was never intended to be the final word on individual rights.


Just admit it. You're afraid of firearms and project your own homicidal daydreams onto others. The rest of us, the people who actually think about this stuff and actually care about ALL civil rights, don't have this problem. Go see a shrink already and stop trying to pawn off your phobias as laws.

[shadowrider]

124. I disagree

In order for gun control to work at effectively reducing crime, rather than just making the weapons of choice change, you'd have to remove the vast majority of the guns in the country

Removing guns will not do anything to stop a criminal, a thug, whatever you want to call them, from killing. They'll simply change their manner of death.

Remove the criminals and leave the guns, you'll see a huge drop in violent crime.

[spin]

130. Fighting crime is and imprisoning criminals is very expensive ...

Politicians hoping to convince voters that they are "crime fighters" have used their support of gun control as evidence. "Feel good" laws impress voters that some serious action is finally happening. After time, the voters wake up and realize that such laws accomplish little.

[shadowrider]

153. I agree it's expensive

But a leopard doesn't change it's spots. I don't know what the answer is, only that gun control isn't it.

[MisterBill45]

143. I'm as close to a total absolutinst on 2a as you're likely to find

but I find the argument that if you magically disappeared all firearms in the U.S. the crime rates wouldn't change at all, to be a far from convincing argument.

It would deter stupid, lazy people from getting a gun. And reduce to some extent, particularly crime that would be extremely difficult to achieve with clubs and knives. Drive-by shootings for example. However, since disappearing all firearms in this country is literally impossible, the entire argument for gun control in this country falls on it's head. Rather than argue a hypothetical that's completely impossible to achieve, I'll happily cede the point. I mean seriously, if people by and large weren't the way they are, things would be different by definition. But it's a fruitless enterprise to debate yes or no on the question since it's predicated on an impossibility.

Reducing the numbers of guns held by lawful citizens would have and HAS had, a barely measurable effect on crime rates. There is some correlation between numbers of guns and volume of crime. But that correlation is very weak and far from being anywhere near causation. You can easily make as powerful, if not a more powerful case that more guns in the hands of lawful citizens actually <i>reduces</i> crime.

None of this can be said definitively. There are simply too many things you cannot possibly control for that make it nigh on impossible to prove the case one way or the other. The best you can do on the anti side is make magical what-if arguments. The counter is very simple: We don't eliminate a fundamental human right based on a hypothetical. Period.

Even if you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that we have more murders due to guns being legal, and you could also prove, beyond any doubt, that reducing the number of guns held by law-abiding citizens would reduce crime, it wouldn't be remotely powerful enough an argument to justify eliminating the right of self-defense.

No right comes without costs. EVERY right will be abused by someone. You don't eliminate a fundamental human right because some will abuse it. If that's the liberal position then where are the calls to eliminate the first amendment and thereby shut down Fox News? God knows they abuse the holy Hell out of free speach and cause immense harm to the entire world. -An effect that is far more damaging than a few more deaths due to firearms being legal could possibly hope to produce.

The right to be free of self incrimination or unreasonable search and seizure quite literally lets thousands of criminals evade punishment every year. But I don't see liberals on some holy crusade to ban the 4th and fifth amendments. Why? because Liberals grasp that these rights are so important they are not to be messed with <i>at all.</i> Why is it only the right of self-defense that these hypocrites hate so much and are willing to entirely ignore?

Phobic responses to the second amendment and guns in general are the byproduct of letting that nasty virus pacifism get hold of liberal thought.
It's a poisonous, evil disease that only encourages the strong to prey upon the weak. I had the privilege of growing up in a household of ACTUAL liberals. My relatives mostly went to Spain in 1936. Virtually all of my father's older friends were Spanish civil war veterans. They knew damned well that pacifism was a stupid and self-destructive philosophy. I know for a fact that every one of them had guns at home.

Emma Goldman would spit in the eye of these self-identified Liberals who argue for disarmament of private citizens. I don't recall the left calling for gun control when the Miners in WV marched in defense of their rights. Our forefathers, and not just the founders, would be ashamed of us. We're the people who are supposed to care about civil rights; not be on some kind of jihad to eliminate the most fundamental of all of them.

[shadowrider]

154. Agreed (AFTER I cleaned my glasses and adjusted my bifocals)

To read all of that.

[Euromutt]

125. I believe I pointed out in another thread, it's a meaningless statistic

At some point in the early 1990s, Switzerland had the highest percentage of homicides committed with firearms in Europe. At the same time, it had one of the lowest homicide rates--possibly the lowest--in Europe. This illustrates that you can't suggest that a high percentage of firearm homicides is correlated with a high homicide rate.

Consider, moreover, that the U.S. rate of non-firearm homicides (that remaining 35%) is higher than the overall homicide rates of quite a few western European countries, and again we're forced to conclude that levels of private firearm ownership are not the primary causal factor in homicide levels.

In the extremely unlikely event that the UK were to legalize licensed concealed carry (they'd have to re-legalize handguns first, of course), I doubt it would have much effect on any aspect of the homicide figures. Where it might make a difference is in non-fatal violent crime, particularly assaults and robberies.

[spin]

129. People who have concealed carry permits are not running around committing numerous murders ...

criminals who often ILLEGALLY carry concealed are.

I personally don't believe that legal concealed carry has a tremendous impact on violent crime. It does allow a license holder to have a means of self defense from an attacker on the street. Frequently no shots are fired. It may change the nature of crime in a state that allows it. There may be fewer muggings for example. Statistics on the subject vary.


source: http://www.gunpundit.com/539.php

First, what are "liberalized" concealed carry laws? They are a set of requirements, when met by an applicant, require the issuance of a concealed carry permit, which allows a permit holder to carry a gun (concealed) in public places. These requirements may consist of a license fee, a safety training program or exam, fingerprinting, a "clean" record, no history of mental illness, etc. In other words it is not left to the discretion of local authorities to decide whether or not to issue a permit. Liberalized concealed carry laws are more often referred to as "shall-issue concealed carry weapons" laws.

In 1987, when Florida enacted such legislation, critics warned that the "Sunshine State" would become the "Gunshine State." Contrary to their predictions, homicide rates dropped faster than the national average. Further, through 1997, only one permit holder out of the over 350,000 permits issued, was convicted of homicide. (Source: Kleck, Gary Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, p 370. Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.) If the rest of the country behaved as Florida's permit holders did, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate in the world.

David Kopel, Research Director at the Independence Institute comments on Florida's concealed carry experience:

"What we can say with some confidence is that allowing more people to carry guns does not cause an increase in crime. In Florida, where 315,000 permits have been issued, there are only five known instances of violent gun crime by a person with a permit. This makes a permit-holding Floridian the cream of the crop of law-abiding citizens, 840 times less likely to commit a violent firearm crime than a randomly selected Floridian without a permit." ("More Permits Mean Less Crime..." Los Angeles Times, Feb. 19, 1996, Monday, p. B-5)

***snip***

John Lott and David Mustard, in connection with the University of Chicago Law School, examining crime statistics from 1977 to 1992 for all U.S. counties, concluded that the thirty-one states allowing their residents to carry concealed, had significant reductions in violent crime. Lott writes, "Our most conservative estimates show that by adopting shall-issue laws, states reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%. If those states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them back then, citizens might have been spared approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies. To put it even more simply criminals, we found, respond rationally to deterrence threats... While support for strict gun-control laws usually has been strongest in large cities, where crime rates are highest, that's precisely where right-to-carry laws have produced the largest drops in violent crimes."
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html

The above info has been interpreted to show that CCW caused the decrease in crime, however there are far more factors than allowing honest citizens to carry concealed.

Those who manage to get permits are not angels but they are amazing responsible in handling their privilege to carry a concealed firearm. They rarely commit any crimes with their weapons, or unnecessarily shoot or murder others.

But they are not cops. They don't don capes and play Batman. They practice situational awareness and attempt to avoid situations where they might find themselves in a situation that would justify the use of their weapon. Often they are willing to walk away from an argument even if it makes them look like a coward. Because they have a carry permit, they often become better citizens.

My daughter recently attracted the attentions of a unstable individual who stalked her. My son in law considered simply confronting this fool and beating the shit out of him. (Something he is quite capable of.) Instead she filed a restraining order. The stalker ignored the order and my daughter filed numerous complaints and documented his actions. In an hearing before a judge, the judge mentioned to the stalker that continuing to violate the order might lead to a violent confrontation with my daughter's husband. But he persisted.

Restraining orders have a purpose. If the man would have physically attacked my daughter and she would have shot him, the legal system would have had fewer questions about the incident. The stalker was aware that she had a carry permit and attempted to get the judge to revoke it. A paperwork mistake happened and she was asked to turn in her permit. A call to the judge corrected the situation quickly.

Eventually the stalker pushed the limits too far. I had to appear in court as a witness. He received several weekends in jail with a warning that another such incident could lead to a year behind bars.

My son in law kept his temper under control and decided to let the system work despite all the exasperation. His reason was that a violent fight with the stalker might lead to his losing his carry permit.

The last time my daughter had any problems with the man was a year ago. He appears to have learned a lesson. All is well that ends well, especially if violence is avoided.

[slackmaster]

132. Because the criminal justice system fails to keep violent criminals locked up long enough

N&U

:nuke:

[ZombieHorde]

165. Because firearms are extremely effective tools for killing. Duh! nt

[Callisto32]

166. Those numbers mean NOTHING.

Per capita murder rates would be far more useful.

[gravity556]

174. A more accurate statement would be

"100% of crime is committed by criminals who are defined by their refusal to obey the law".

Again, if someone would just make murder/robbery/assault/rape/etc. illegal, everything would be puppies, rainbows and sunflowers. Except those things are already illegal, and for some reason, some folks are absolutely shocked when criminals commit crimes, and those folks tend to astound other folks when they think that the answer is to impose even MORE laws.

There are greater core societal issues at play than just the presence of fireams in society. Demands for instant gratification, an overall lack of respect for others, poverty, education, selfishness, and an overwhelming culture of "I'm going to get mine, even if I have to beat you down to take it" and lack of personal responsibility.

Figure out how to negate those contributing factors, and maybe then you'll figure out how to reduce violent crime.

"Only a Lad" (oingo boingo)

Johnny was bad, even as a child everybody could tell
Everyone said if you don't get straight
You'll surely go to hell

But Johnny didn't care
He was an outlaw by the time that he was
Ten years old
He didn't wanna do what he was told
Just a prankster, juvenile gangster

His teachers didn't understand
They kicked him out of school
At a tender early age
Just because he didn't want to learn things
(Had other interests)
He liked to burn things

The lady down the block
She had a radio that Johnny wanted oh so bad
So he took it the first chance he had
Then he shot her in the leg
And this is what she said
Only a lad
You really can't blame him
Only a lad
Society made him
Only a lad
He's our responsibility
Only a lad
He really couldn't help it
Only a lad
He didn't want to do it
Only a lad
He's underprivileged and abused
Perhaps a little bit confused

His parents gave up they couldn't influence his attitude
Nobody could help
The little man had no gratitude

And when he stole the care
Nobody dreamed that he would
Try to take it so far
He didn't mean to hit the poor man
Who had to go and die
It made the judge cry

Only a lad
He really couldn't help it
Only a lad
He didn't want to do it
Only a lad
He's underprivileged and abused
Perhaps a little bit confused

It's not his fault that he can't believe
It's not his fault that he can't behave
Society made him go astray
Perhaps if we're nice he'll go away
Perhaps he'll go away
He'll go away

(Repeat chorus)

Hey there Johnny you really don't fool me
You get away with murder
And you think it's funny
You don't give a damn if we live or if we die
Hey there Johnny boy
I hope you fry!

[knownothing]

197. 43000 automobile deaths annually

Let's ban cars too.

By the way, what are the raw numbers on violent crimes for those countries, as far as percentages of population? I mean, of course if guns are available they are the most convenient method to kill people. But what I want to know is, what is the rate per 100,000 people of all murders (not just gun murders) for these nations? What about rapes? What about burglary? Your post means absolutely nothing, as a murder with a gun is the same as one without it.