Guns don't kill?

Originally posted by semperfortis
It has been tried...... And Failed.....

The John R. Lott Study

The benefit of concealed handguns are not limited to just those who carry them or use them in self-defense. The very fact that these weapons are concealed keeps criminals uncertain as to whether a potential victim will be able to defend himself with lethal force. The possibility that anyone might be carrying a gun makes attacking everyone less attractive; unarmed citizens in effect "free-ride" on their pistol packing fellows. Our study further found that while some criminals avoid potentially violent crimes after concealed-handgun laws were passed, they do not necessarily give up the criminal life altogether. Some switch to crimes in which the rise of confronting an armed victim is much lower. Indeed, the downside of concealed-weapons laws is that while Violent crime rates fall, property offenses like larceny (e.g. stealing from unattended automobiles or vending machines) and auto theft rise. This is certainly a substitution that the country can live with.
...
While support for strict gun-control laws usually bas 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. For example, in counties with populations of more than 200,000 people, concealed handgun laws produced an average drop in murder rates of more than 13%. The half of the counties with the highest rape rates saw that crime drop by more than 7%.

Granted, this is from firearm proponents, but the numbers (with sources) are hard to argue...

GOA Fact Sheet

This means that each year, firearms are used more than 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.
...
If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.
...
In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee... or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for seven years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the safest states in the union -- having twice received the "Safest State Award."

Like I said, the information is out there for anyone to find. You're not going to hear about it on CNN, though... All you're going to hear about is the devastated lives of the 32 families (for which I DO have a great deal of compassion) coupled with big pictures of guns splashed across the entire screen. They won't mention that more children die playing high school football, than they do by firearms at school.

Big Picture...

As a Brit who has never owned fired or even held a gun in my life, (so that clears up my lack of qualifications to start with...), I would say this.

There is a huge difference to security and the perception of security.

Example. If I was in a crowd of people I didn't know and had some concerns about their mood I would probably feel a lot safer if I was carrying a firearm which I knew how to use properly.

I would probably feel a hell of a lot less secure if I knew that, say, one in ten of the rest of that crowd were also carrying firearms especially if I didn't know what their level of proficiency was.

[edit on 18-4-2007 by timeless test]

People love blaming inanimate pieces of milled steel for the actions of others.
They wouldnt have killed those kids if guns were banned!
And pedophiles wouldnt rape kids if that was banned?
And addicts wouldnt use if drugs were banned?
And drivers wouldnt speed if that was banned?
Kids wouldnt get drunk if that was banned?
Nobody would break into my house and smash my family with baseball bats while they slept if only that was banned?

People are lazy and generally very stupid and impressionable. Put a face on the crime and suddenly the masses fall in line to pull the switch. It used to be black people, then it was Germans, then Russians, then hippies, then black people again, then homosexuals and black people, now we have Muslims.

Blame guns then you have to blame knives, rocks, cars, pools, bats, nails, fists, canes, and the blaming never stops.

The only thing they get accomplished is the handing over of rights and libertys. Both of which the government is all too happy to take. If they can somehow work in an extra tax all the better for them.

So anyone who's actually paying attention or practicing the slightest bit of common sense gets shouted down by all of the sheep forming the "ban it" bandwagon and in the long run absolutely nothing about human behavior is understood or changed.

They dont know any better. They honestly believe banning me from carrying a pistol will make the world a better place. Im not a murderer and nothing will set me off on a spree. If by chance something happens and I become a murderer I guarantee not having a gun isnt going to keep me or anyone else from murdering.

You might as just well ban murder! Oh wait, you did. Then I guess this whole mass murder thing never even happened then, huh?

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
People love blaming inanimate pieces of milled steel for the actions of others.
They wouldnt have killed those kids if guns were banned!
And pedophiles wouldnt rape kids if that was banned?
And addicts wouldnt use if drugs were banned?
And drivers wouldnt speed if that was banned?
Kids wouldnt get drunk if that was banned?
Nobody would break into my house and smash my family with baseball bats while they slept if only that was banned?

People are lazy and generally very stupid and impressionable. Put a face on the crime and suddenly the masses fall in line to pull the switch. It used to be black people, then it was Germans, then Russians, then hippies, then black people again, then homosexuals and black people, now we have Muslims.

Blame guns then you have to blame knives, rocks, cars, pools, bats, nails, fists, canes, and the blaming never stops.

The only thing they get accomplished is the handing over of rights and libertys. Both of which the government is all too happy to take. If they can somehow work in an extra tax all the better for them.

So anyone who's actually paying attention or practicing the slightest bit of common sense gets shouted down by all of the sheep forming the "ban it" bandwagon and in the long run absolutely nothing about human behavior is understood or changed.

They dont know any better. They honestly believe banning me from carrying a pistol will make the world a better place. Im not a murderer and nothing will set me off on a spree. If by chance something happens and I become a murderer I guarantee not having a gun isnt going to keep me or anyone else from murdering.

You might as just well ban murder! Oh wait, you did. Then I guess this whole mass murder thing never even happened then, huh?

So anyone who disagrees about guns is a mindless sheep following a bandwagon? or is lazy, stupid and impressionable?
OK, you talk about banning rocks, clubs etc - this is not the point - GUNS WERE INVENTED FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF KILLING ANOTHER HUMAN. And this is wrong - there are nearly 30,000 reported deaths DIRECTLY related to firearms in the US each year.
How many of these dead people could be saved by proper firearms control? I don't know, but figures from Australia would suggest that a lot of lives could be saved - banning things will not stop EVERY fatality but would greatly reduce them. All the stats show this.

Your argument is not about NEEDING a gun - nobody NEEDS a gun (except the criminals, and if they really want them, they'll get them) - your argument is about WANTING a gun. This WANT of a weapon has grown out of a false perception perpetuated by the popular media (films) and urban mythology, where you are supposedly safer if you carry one - and stats show that this is not the case.
I have posted lots of stats on this thread, and the only thing proven so far, is that gun supporters will ignore them because they don't want to believe them.

You could also try taking a less aggressive approach, and actually use reason. You don't have to insult, you don't have to ATTEMPT to ridicule. Or do you do it because you have a gun and I don't, and therefore think you have a greater right to speak.

In Europe, and indeed in various nations around the world, there is a perception of americans being trigger happy, I don't agree with this, but you don't really help your case with such naked aggression.

Originally posted by budski

So anyone who disagrees about guns is a mindless sheep following a bandwagon? or is lazy, stupid and impressionable?

The concept of the bandwagon depends on this.

OK, you talk about banning rocks, clubs etc - this is not the point - GUNS WERE INVENTED FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF KILLING ANOTHER HUMAN.

I dont know that. Do you? Black powder most likely came about accidentally. Explosives were used as entertainment and deterrents. Cannons were most likely invented to aid in siege warfare. Maybe the gun was invented as a dterrent? It certainly helped with hunting and the gathering of food. The gun offered humanity the same momentum then as computer tech does today.
Did the inventor/designer snicker and tent his fingers all to the grand cause of destruction? I dont know. I dont think you do either.

And this is wrong - there are nearly 30,000 reported deaths DIRECTLY related to firearms in the US each year.
How many of these dead people could be saved by proper firearms control? I don't know, but figures from Australia would suggest that a lot of lives could be saved - banning things will not stop EVERY fatality but would greatly reduce them. All the stats show this.

This is all completely assinine. Look at the rest of your "deaths caused by" list and you should be able to notice how far down firearms deaths is on it.
Figures from Austrailia? Well, figures from Switzerland show us an assault rifle in every home is a good thing.

Your argument is not about NEEDING a gun - nobody NEEDS a gun (except the criminals, and if they really want them, they'll get them) - your argument is about WANTING a gun. This WANT of a weapon has grown out of a false perception perpetuated by the popular media (films) and urban mythology, where you are supposedly safer if you carry one - and stats show that this is not the case.

Sorry if I WANT things. I dont suppose we NEED cars, planes, boats, computers, knives, plastics, medicine or anything else either. All we really NEED is some food and water.

I have posted lots of stats on this thread, and the only thing proven so far, is that gun supporters will ignore them because they don't want to believe them.

Ive noticed alot of posted stats. If you look closely you'll see stats opposing your view in this thread and others. But of course only your stats are the accurate ones? Statistics are inherintly skewed and largely useless. Remember Switzerland?

You could also try taking a less aggressive approach, and actually use reason. You don't have to insult, you don't have to ATTEMPT to ridicule. Or do you do it because you have a gun and I don't, and therefore think you have a greater right to speak.

A screaming retarded drg addict in the center of town has no less a right to speak than I or any of us. I dont recall filling my post with exclamation marks or raging insults. I cannot be held responsable for your interpretation and/or hurt feelings.

In Europe, and indeed in various nations around the world, there is a perception of americans being trigger happy, I don't agree with this, but you don't really help your case with such naked aggression.

Im sorry, am I not supposed to enjoy increasing my accuracy, taking the deer, or just the smell of burnt powder? Is the biathlete not supposed to enjoy his marksmanship? Is the victim not supposed to enjoy stopping his attacker?

more stats

thegreenman.net.au...

Kids and Guns: Key Facts

*
For every child killed with a gun, four are wounded.[2]
*

According to the Centers for Disease Control, the rate of firearm death of children 0-14 years old is nearly twelve times higher in the U.S. than in 25 other industrialized nations combined. The firearm-related homicide rate is nearly 16 times higher for children in the U.S. than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. The suicide rate of children 0-14 years old is twice as high in the U.S. as it is in those same 25 other industrialized countries combined. Interestingly, there is no difference in the non-firearm suicide rate between the U.S. and these other countries. Virtually all the difference is attributable to suicides committed with guns in the U.S.[3]
*

Over 3,500 students were expelled in 1998-99 for bringing guns to school. Of these, 43% were in elementary or junior high school. This means that, in a 40-week school year, an average of 88 children per week nationwide are expelled for bringing a gun in school. And these figures include only the children who get caught.[4]
*

During 1999, 52% of all murder victims under 18 in the U.S. were killed by guns. In 1986, guns were used in 38% of such murders. In 1999, 82% of murder victims aged 13 to 19 years old were killed with a firearm.[5]
*

In 1998, more than 1200 children aged 10-19 committed suicide with firearms. Unlike suicide attempts using other methods, suicide attempts with guns are nearly always fatal, meaning a temporarily depressed teenager will never get a second chance at life. Nearly two-thirds of all completed teenage suicides involve a firearm.[6]
*

In 1998, 3,792 American children and teens (19 and under) died by gunfire in murders, suicides and unintentional shootings.[7] That's more than 10 young people a day.

The History of The Second Amendment: Original Meaning And Intent

The Second Amendment states: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The NRA tends to omit the first, crucial, half of the Second Amendment - the words referring to a "well-regulated militia."

When the U.S. Constitution was adopted, each of the states had its own "militia" - a military force comprised of ordinary citizens serving as part-time soldiers. The militia was "well-regulated" in the sense that its members were subject to various requirements such as training, supplying their own firearms, and engaging in military exercises away from home. It was a form of compulsory military service intended to protect the fledgling nation from outside forces and from internal rebellions.

The "militia" was not, as the gun lobby will often claim, simply another word for the populace at large. Indeed, membership in the 18th century militia was generally limited to able-bodied white males between the ages of 18 and 45 - hardly encompassing the entire population of the nation.

The U.S. Constitution established a permanent professional army, controlled by the federal government. With the memory of King George III's troops fresh in their minds, many of the "anti-Federalists" feared a standing army as an instrument of oppression. State militias were viewed as a counterbalance to the federal army and the Second Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from disarming the state militias.

The Second Amendment Today

In the 20th century, the Second Amendment has become an anachronism, largely because of drastic changes in the militia it was designed to protect. We no longer have the citizen militia like that of the 18th century.

Today's equivalent of a "well-regulated" militia - the National Guard - has more limited membership than its early counterpart and depends on government-supplied, not privately owned, firearms. Gun control laws have no effect on the arming of today's militia, since those laws invariably do not apply to arms used in the context of military service and law enforcement. Therefore, they raise no serious Second Amendment issues.

Does a Gun in the Home Make You Safer?

No. Despite claims by the National Rifle Association (NRA) that you need a gun in your home to protect yourself and your family, public health research demonstrates that the person most likely to shoot you or a family member with a gun already has the keys to your house. Simply put: guns kept in the home for self-protection are more often used to kill somebody you know than to kill in self-defense; 22 times more likely, according to a 1998 study by the Journal of Trauma.[1] More kids, teenagers and adult family members are dying from firearms in their own home than criminal intruders. When someone is home, a gun is used for protection in fewer than two percent of home invasion crimes.[2] You may be surprised to know that, in 1999, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, there were only 154 justifiable homicides committed by private citizens with a firearm compared with a total of 8,259 firearm murders in the United States. Once a bullet leaves a gun, who is to say that it will stop only a criminal and not a family member? Yet at every opportunity the NRA uses the fear of crime to promote the need for ordinary citizens to keep guns in their home for self-protection. Furthermore, the NRA continues to oppose life-saving measures that require safe-storage of guns in the home.

Keeping a Gun in the Home Can Be Deadly

Because handguns and other firearms are so easily accessible to many children, adolescents and other family members in their homes, the risk of gun violence in the home increases dramatically. Consider this: The risk of homicide in the home is three times greater in households with guns.[3] The risk of suicide is five times greater in households with guns.[4] What's more, tragic stories of accidental or unintentional shootings from the careless storage of guns at home are all too common. The statistic noted above bears repeating: a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a criminal, unintentional, or suicide-related shooting than to be used in a self-defense shooting. [5]

A Gun in the Home: Key Facts

* From 1990-1998, two-thirds of spouse and ex-spouse murder victims were killed with guns.[6]

A Gun in the Home: Key Facts

* From 1990-1998, two-thirds of spouse and ex-spouse murder victims were killed with guns.[6]
* Guns are the weapon of choice for troubled individuals who commit suicide. In 1999, firearms were used in 16,599 suicide deaths in America. Among young people under 20, one committed suicide with a gun every eight hours.[7]
* A gun in the home also increases the likelihood of an unintentional shooting, particularly among children. Unintentional shootings commonly occur when children find an adult's loaded handgun in a drawer or closet, and while playing with it shoot themselves, a sibling or a friend. The unintentional firearm-related death rate for children 0-14 years old is NINE times higher in the U.S. than in the 25 other countries combined.[8]

CCW: Why or Why Not?

*

The number of crime victims who successfully use firearms to defend themselves is quite small. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports and the Centers for Disease Control, out of 30,708 Americans who died by gunfire in 1998, only 316 were shot in justifiable homicides by private citizens with firearms.
*

More guns = more crime - or at least a much smaller reduction in the crime rate. A 1999 study by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence), using FBI crime statistics, demonstrated that liberalizing CCW laws may have an adverse effect on a state's crime rate. Between 1992 and 1998, the violent crime rate in states which kept strict CCW laws fell by an average of 30%. The violent crime rate for the states that had weak CCW laws during this same time saw their violent crime rates drop by only 15%. Nationally, violent crime declined by 25% during that same period. (Click here to see the study, Concealed Truth.) Clearly, states with stricter CCW laws have found more effective ways to reduce their crime rates than letting more people carry hidden handguns.
*

The gun lobby claims that only law-abiding citizens get CCW permits. But an August 2000 study by the Violence Policy Center revealed that, from January 1996 through April 2000, the arrest rate for weapon-related offenses among Texas concealed handgun license holders was 66% higher than that of the general adult population of Texas. CCW license holders are committing crimes - including murder, rape, assault and burglary - but because the gun lobby makes it difficult if not impossible for the public to determine if a shooter has a CCW license in most states, the full story has not yet been told.
*

Law-abiding citizens with the best intentions underestimate how hard it is to use a gun for self-defense successfully. Even highly-trained police officers lose control of their handguns; according to the FBI, 5 out of 41 law enforcement officers (12%) killed by gunfire in the line of duty in 1999 were killed by an adversary with the officer's own service weapon. And police officers know that the very sight of a gun can escalate a situation, so that instead of simply losing your wallet, you can lose your life. That's why almost every major law enforcement organization - including the International Brotherhood of Police Officers and the International Association of Chiefs of Police - opposes the weakening of CCW laws. (See Law Enforcement Relations)
*

An armed society is an at-risk society. Many permit holders have been stripped of their permits for criminal behavior - and even law-abiding people get angry, drunk, careless or confused, make mistakes, and escalate minor arguments into deadly gun-play. (For more information, see The Incident File.)

www.bradycampaign.org...

[edit on 18-4-2007 by budski]

the fact is,sir,that many people,even in the u.k. are killed by knives,clubs,hammers,or even fists.and yes,guns and the second amendment are designed for self defense against those who would use such things to kill law abiding citizens. you can certainly kill many people with aknife or other such instrument,as it only takes one thrust. if a violent,convicted felon comes into our house at night with a butcher knife to kill our family,then what the hell would you have us do, chat politely with him as we wait for the police to arrive? what we need is psychological evaluations, training, and background checks for gun purchases,so that we can RESPONSIBLY defend ourselves. if i had been in that building with my pistol, then i certainly would have blown him away and then nobody else would have gotten killed. but none of the students were armed,were they? they had no means of defense, and had to rely on law enforcement,who weren"t there in time. and that is just exactly what happened,because only the criminal was armed.

guns and the second amendment are designed for self defense against those who would use such things to kill law abiding citizens.

please read the post regarding the 2nd amendment, and tell me where it says this

Originally posted by NJE777
Your right! Guns don't kill... bullets do.

Perhaps if bullets were so readily available... ?

No, the asshole who unilaterally decides to use a gun for deviant purposes is who kills. You see, it's easy to blame everything under the sun. All of the excuses are nothing more than an attempt to circumvent personal responsibility. PERIOD!!

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by NJE777
Your right! Guns don't kill... bullets do.

Perhaps if bullets were so readily available... ?

No, the asshole who unilaterally decides to use a gun for deviant purposes is who kills. You see, it's easy to blame everything under the sun. All of the excuses are nothing more than an attempt to circumvent personal responsibility. PERIOD!!

geez speaker - you're a real bleeding heart liberal aren't you

Originally posted by budski
geez speaker - you're a real bleeding heart liberal aren't you

Yeah, it just shows through and through. Doesn't it? In some respects I am, yes. In most, absolutely not.

Originally posted by budski


Your argument is not about NEEDING a gun - nobody NEEDS a gun (except the criminals, and if they really want them, they'll get them) - your argument is about WANTING a gun. This WANT of a weapon has grown out of a false perception perpetuated by the popular media (films) and urban mythology,

I added the bold face to highlight that part........now if I'm understanding you correctly you are pro gun control, but you have used the very statement that gun owner use to support their side of the argument........

Criminals can and will always get guns, reguardless of gun laws......the only people the law will prevent from having guns are law abiding citizens. That would be disarming the good guys and leaving the criminals a wide open door.

The US may seem 'trigger happy' to the rest of the world.......and I could say that is just the urban myth perpetuated by films and media.

The Mayor of Nagasaki was recently killed, in spite of the strict gun controls that they have in Japan.

Sorry,
you may have misunderstood - I am not pro gun control, I am against guns, and violence in any form. Yes, I know it is necessary sometimes, but I think that guns and gun-culture promote violence.
In the UK we have very strict gun laws (comparatively) but we also have criminals with guns (who will always get them, barring total abolition of non-military weapons), and yet we have a far lower level of gun crime per capita.
Stats show that more guns mean more gun crime.
I am not talking about unilateral gun control, I am talking about NO GUNS at all.
Multilateral gun control if you will, with a zero tolerance on guns.
This may seem a tad restrictive to the land of the free, but it has been shown to work, at least to some degree, and if we can save just one life by taking active measures, then it's worth it.

Originally posted by budski
if guns were not so freely available, then this sort of crime would happen less frequently.

No. If guns were less available then our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS to bear arms would be violated AND the only people who would have guns would be the criminals.

To say that guns don't kill people, people kill people is a fallacy.

Actually, saying 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' is completely accurate.

During the course of this thread, I have come to understand a few of the issues surrounding this subject, especially to the US where it is a very emotive subject.

I would like to say that due to posts from Benevolent Heretic, and SpeakerOfTruth, I have been shown a different perspective.

This is not to say that I've changed my mind, rather it is an admission that there are 2 sides to every story.

None of us are omniscient, and I'd like to say that I now hold a slightly different view.

I find it quite disturbing that people have used this extremely random and very tragic gun related incident to spawn an 'internet seeding' campaign to promote a gun control political agenda.

I seriously question whether it is merely a 'we should do something!' knee-jerk reaction to the horror that has taken place or if this was just the key for certain groups to flood the media to instill fear and ultimately reach a goal of altering the 2nd amendment of the US constitution.

Sorry, but I completely disagree with any talk of "guns" being the problem.

-Scott

Originally posted by Nemithesis
I seriously question whether it is merely a 'we should do something!' knee-jerk reaction to the horror that has taken place or if this was just the key for certain groups to flood the media to instill fear and ultimately reach a goal of altering the 2nd amendment of the US constitution.

Whenever anything terrible like this happens and the media goes whack-o with showing guns across the full TV screen, it's easy to want to do SOMETHING about it and the most logical thing is to believe the media's fear campaign and want to talk about gun control. It's normal and natural. I don't think anyone is "seeding" here... It's just important that we talk it out and come to the logical conclusion instead of the emotional one.

I think.

As a brit who has weapon training and has fired weapons since he was 12 I would say I dont feel safer without one. The chances of me getting stabbed are much higher and since police are so few and far between these days that its more likely you'll die of blood loss before they get the 999 call. If I carried a fire arm I would feel safer, I would seriosly feel much safer and though I might not actually buy a gun I would feel safer knowing that I could.

Originally posted by budski

During the course of this thread, I have come to understand a few of the issues surrounding this subject, especially to the US where it is a very emotive subject.

I would like to say that due to posts from Benevolent Heretic, and SpeakerOfTruth, I have been shown a different perspective.

This is not to say that I've changed my mind, rather it is an admission that there are 2 sides to every story.

None of us are omniscient, and I'd like to say that I now hold a slightly different view.

Budski, well, there are always two sides to every coin. I do appreciate your recognition. One thing that I try not to do is degrade anyone else's point of view. I may say outrightly that I disagree, but then I try and explain why I disagree.

Budski, also, I suspect that people may not be of violent temperaments in the U.K like they are here in the U.S. There are some neighborhoods in the United States, that you had better have a gun on you before you even consider entering them. Things are not as "heavenly" over here as many from other nations suppose.