Guns used in 67% of murders in US

Originally posted by magma
Like so many other threads, this one lacks purpose or clarity.

It is also lacking in providing the full picture. The SAME source the OP uses states the following:

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

So the OP os doing the same old cherry-picking of data that the anti-gun crowd loves to do. Only use data that makes guns seem bad, but leave out the data that proves that guns actually save lives.

reply to post by CJCrawley


The homicidal maniac with explosives.


Guns are not the problem.

reply to post by CB328

With all the arguments lately about gun control, it seems that people are purposely overlooking the fact that guns create a huge amount of suffering and death. 67% of murders in the US are caused by guns.

With freedom comes danger. It is as simple as that. If you want the government to protect you (instead of accepting your safety as YOUR responsibility) then please don't pull down the rest of us with you.

Why not ask the gov to set up comfy, Big Brother Compounds for the people like you who need to be coddled?

WOW... 67%?? Thats a lot of out of control criminals and murderers out there. I better go get a few more guns to make sure I can defend myself against those kinds of people. ( being facetious) I wonder if they will disarm and turn in their weapons too... since they cant be confiscated as no record exists for many of these firearms. I vote OP goes a town over from me and busts in each house asking for their weapons. One question, does a grenade launcher or a double barrel shotgun inherited from a grandfather count as a weapon? Which weapons will be confiscated.... who decides what Im not "good" or "civilized" enough to own?



You DO realize that the assault weapons ban didnt really ban them.. right???? If its reinstated .. big whoop. Pacify the whiners with bans and other assorted Stasi terms.


A firearm in my hands saved myself and my children TWICE just this year. Im not a coward as so many who want to keep their guns are called on ATS..... Im a older small female.. a whopping 5'4" and MAYBE 125 lbs. You wish to deny me the right to defend myself. Im starting to take some of your BS personally. I mean the police DID show up 45 min later... so I should just ask the guys kicking in my door to go away and wait for the police I guess. Some of you are very obviously sheltered delicate flowers who have NEVER made it out of your homes into the real world...

number of guns used in murders has nothing to do with number of murders caused by guns.

If you can't understand this then you are not qualified to use statistics in arguments.

The notion that guns make it easier, or that somehow without guns mass killers wouldn't be able to cause as much harm is not accurate. I find the argument tired and absurd.

Dnepropetrovsk maniacs (killed 21) without guns
Lazaro Obwara (killed 12) without guns
Gregorio Caceres (killed 11 injured 4) without guns
Shi Yuejun (killed 12 injured 5) without guns
Duong Van Mon (killed 12 injured 6) without guns
Qiu Xinghua (killed 11 injured 2) without guns
Wirjo (killed 20 wounded 12 injured 12) without guns
Arsenio Formenera (killed 17) without guns
Domingo Salazar (killed 16 injured 1) without guns
Florentino Basobas (killed 15 injured 4) without guns
Andrew Kehoe (killed 44 injured 58) without guns
Bai Ningyang (killed 12 injured 5) without guns
Li Xianliang (killed 17 injured 30) without guns
Gameel Al-Batouti (killed 216) without guns
Kim Dae-han (killed 198 injured 147) without guns
Robert Dale Segee (killed 169 injured 600+) without guns
Jin Ruchao (killed 108 injured 38) without guns
Tsu Way Ming (killed 103) without guns
Julio Gonzalez (killed 87) without guns
Alexander Keith (killed 83 injured 200) without guns
Ma Hongqing (killed 89 injured 98) without guns


This list is a fraction of the mass killers out there. These stories come from all over the world and from countries with no guns to countries with plenty of guns. None of the above used guns in their crimes.

How would taking away guns have stopped these incidents?

Originally posted by CB328
With all the arguments lately about gun control, it seems that people are purposely overlooking the fact that guns create a huge amount of suffering and death. 67% of murders in the US are caused by guns.
.

edit on 31-12-2012 by CB328 because: typo

See right there is the problem. Guns dont cause ANYTHING. a gun in an inanimate object. Like a book. A book does not cause you to be smart, or in other cases not smart. It is the actions of the criminal. So, I will grant you that guns allow criminals to more easily commit their crimes, however, the sole fact that they are criminals would indicate that they have no respect for the current laws. What makes you believe they will magically begin obeying a new law?

What will taking the little .380 from a soccer mom do to stop a gang banger from from doing a drive by on rival gang bangers because he lost a game of madden on the xbox? What does the gun have to do with that instance? To me and anyone reasonable human using a shred of intelligence and common sense, not much really. He also used a car to drive to the scene. The xbox had more to do with this instance then the gun. Had he not lost that game of madden, he would not have felt the urge to "roll out". So by the faulty logic of the frightened gun grabbers, That car caused the drive by, or was it the xbox? I think we should ban cars and xboxes. Why does one inanimate object get the blame over all of the others that played a role in the fictional case? Because you are scared of the gun. Thats all it is. You are scared of an object. You can shout all of the stats you want, but we all know stats can say whatever we want them to say, and most of them are nowhere near correct.

Originally posted by CB328

So, if the US had no guns these people would not have been murdered? Is that your argument?

A lot of them would not have been, obviously. Guns are easier to kill people with, and most other weapons don't have the long range that guns do. Besides, a lot of people wouldn't be brave enough to attack people without their guns.

When TSHTF and you are defenseless and cowering in a corner somewhere wondering when it's going to be "your turn", you're going to wish to God you had any sort of firearm.

That is reality.

reply to post by tpsreporter


I would also like to point out that the Dnepropetrovsk maniacs purposely sought out victims who they could overpower. Basically people who wouldn't/couldn't fight back.

Take away peoples guns and you basically emboldened people like the Dnepropetrovsk maniacs.

I have seen the video 3 guys and 1 hammer. If that victim had been armed and trained the outcome would have been very different.

Originally posted by LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by tpsreporter

 

I would also like to point out that the Dnepropetrovsk maniacs purposely sought out victims who they could overpower. Basically people who wouldn't/couldn't fight back.

Take away peoples guns and you basically emboldened people like the Dnepropetrovsk maniacs.

I have seen the video 3 guys and 1 hammer. If that victim had been armed and trained the outcome would have been very different.

edit on 31-12-2012 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)

You have a stronger stomach than me. Simply reading about what that video contained was enough to ruin my whole week.

I did think "what would have happened had the man had a gun?"

Guns are not the problem, and the politicians know it. The gun owners know it. Only those who are easily duped by the media seem to not know this.

So far, every anti gun person i have met and debated has seemed to know the least amount regarding what the Constitution is and contains, what the real numbers are, what real gun owners are like ect.

Originally posted by SM2

Originally posted by CB328
With all the arguments lately about gun control, it seems that people are purposely overlooking the fact that guns create a huge amount of suffering and death. 67% of murders in the US are caused by guns.
.

edit on 31-12-2012 by CB328 because: typo

See right there is the problem. Guns dont cause ANYTHING. a gun in an inanimate object. Like a book. A book does not cause you to be smart, or in other cases not smart. It is the actions of the criminal. So, I will grant you that guns allow criminals to more easily commit their crimes, however, the sole fact that they are criminals would indicate that they have no respect for the current laws. What makes you believe they will magically begin obeying a new law?

What will taking the little .380 from a soccer mom do to stop a gang banger from from doing a drive by on rival gang bangers because he lost a game of madden on the xbox? What does the gun have to do with that instance? To me and anyone reasonable human using a shred of intelligence and common sense, not much really. He also used a car to drive to the scene. The xbox had more to do with this instance then the gun. Had he not lost that game of madden, he would not have felt the urge to "roll out". So by the faulty logic of the frightened gun grabbers, That car caused the drive by, or was it the xbox? I think we should ban cars and xboxes. Why does one inanimate object get the blame over all of the others that played a role in the fictional case? Because you are scared of the gun. Thats all it is. You are scared of an object. You can shout all of the stats you want, but we all know stats can say whatever we want them to say, and most of them are nowhere near correct.

A book doesn't fire a projectile or multiple projectiles. A book also serves as a source of learning.
I have no issue with the soccer mom having a .380 to protect her, however, I do have an issue with semi-automatic firearms being available to anyone and everyone that wants one. This isn't about banning all firearms, it's about limiting what firearms are available to the general public.

A gun makes it quick and easy. Too easy. Too quick. You get peeved off? Grab a gun and go shoot them like the video games let you do. They won't peeve you off again! Have a bad day? Grab a gun and go take your frustation out on other people like you see in the movies. The guy in the movie got away with it, you will too. Society has been permeated with using the guns to solve their anger issues and it's a growing problem. Something has to be done, a lot of somethings have to be done. They don't have to be permanent, but they do need to be put into action.

The bill, as written doesn't stand a chance, but it is a starting point for concessions on each side that may prove helpful to us as a whole. It's not the answer in and of itself, but it is a step that has to be taken into consideration while working toward the solution.

The general public should not be able to have any firearm they want the moment they want it. They just shouldn't. The general public is not capable of being responsible at this time in our lives. Individuals yes, the population as a whole, no. We can't address it at an individual level due to the sheer numbers involved so we have to address it as a whole society.

Yes, it stinks. No, we shouldn't have to resort to this. Yes, we have to. Some of the concessions that can be made are a time limit in addition to other actions to improve the general population. It's a growing issue and an issue that has to be addressed. Neither side is going to be fully satisfied but both sides need to work together to get the best possible solution we can for now. It will have to be addressed over and over as time goes by and different concessions will have to be made each time.

This is what we have now due to what happens in the world now. It will change either for the better or for the worse, but that's up to us and how we move forward and how we compromise.

It would be great, absolutely wonderful if there were no bans on anything because people had enough sense to treat things in a responsible manner, but they don't. Until we can get to that point, there will have to be restrictions. I don't like it either, but I like it even less when innocent people are killed when that doesn't have to happen.

Originally posted by CB328
With all the arguments lately about gun control, it seems that people are purposely overlooking the fact that guns create a huge amount of suffering and death. 67% of murders in the US are caused by guns.

www.justfacts.com...

That is a staggering figure, over 2/3rds. Then you have to add in the thousands of accidental gun deaths that happen each year, many of which include children. You would think that people concerned about protecting peoples' lives would come to the obvious conclusion that getting rid of guns (or at least cheap and easy access to guns) would do a lot of good and save tons of lives.

edit on 31-12-2012 by CB328 because: typo

Sure and guess what slick, even a greater percentage is GANG RELATED. Gang related homicides in the United States is about 74 percent. Think these guys are not going to have weapons.

www.disastercenter.com...

For various reasons the total number of gang related homicides appears to be about 11,500; while the total for the rest of us is about 3,000. Essentially, then; the percentage of gang related homicides in the United States is about 74 percent – and rising as the number of murders among the general population declines.

For those of an analytical turn of mind, that means the homicide rate among non-gang related Americans is about 1.0 to 1.1 per 100,000 population.

www.nationalgangcenter.gov...
health.usnews.com...

Let's go down the current list as you really may not know the facts:

1) We border a narco state. After decades and billions we cannot secure our borders and there is Zero political will to do so. Drugs and People flow into the US like the Mississippi River. Anyone can find illegal dope here, same with weapons. Ban weapons and we the citizens are screwed. You are not banning anything from the bad guys because they don't care about the law!

2) Your on an Island as the always used examples of Japan, Australia, and New Zealand - we are not as stated in #1.

3) We also have massive, massive gang problems (25,000 gangs nationally - that is gangs not gang members) and they are armed to the teeth violent thugs. Estimated Number of Gang Members is 750-800 thousand a couple of years ago. 74% of murders in the US is gang related.

4) Criminals will have weapons period, especially here. They do not follow the laws so laws will do nothing except disarm US the law-abiding citizens. In other words... OPEN SEASON!

5) I heard the idea of "long sentences" or "life sentences" for possession of a firearm. Your own police in the UK are against that because the criminal has nothing to gain by surrendering (they will go down shooting) and it will cost cops and bystanders lives.

6) Armed populace reduces overall crime period.


25 years murder-free in 'Gun Town USA'
www.wnd.com...

The El Paso Miracle
reason.com...

7) I don't care what people in other countries "want" us to do. We have to live here. I always amazes me WHY the Europeans, Aussies, Chinese, Russians and other disarmed victim peoples are so interested in disarming the US citizen, why, do you guys plan on relocating here? Hell, why don't we adopt Mexico's strict gun policy... there are no gun murders or gang violence there at all! Great idea! See how that is working out (and by the way you guys talk on the boards, aforementioned seem to have a zealousness in their wish to see us disarmed victims in my opinion, as though they can't wait to get some joy as our crime rates, rape victims, and body counts skyrocket and we cannot fight back), under the boot of criminals and corruption... No thank you. It is kind of like the "Chamberlain appeasement" where they think it is OK if you are looted, raped, mugged, burglarized, and trodden upon as long as someone doesn't die get shot and die (usually worried about the criminal !). Here, we would rather chance death than live "safer from death but trodden upon" like you do. We shoot back. The Brit argument usually is "There is nothing in my house worth taking a human life" (The victim helpless mentality) while the US reality is "There is nothing in my house worth loosing your life for criminal scum" and if you really want to chance that by endangering my family you will be met with force.

8) The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly and consistently held police have no constitutional obligation or any other legal obligation to prevent citizens from being victims of violent crime. This alone speaks volumes... and they are chopping police roles everywhere to boot.

Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
www.nytimes.com...

I wonder: When a SWAT team breaks into the wrong house in the middle of the night and kills people with their automatic assault weapons, is that considered an accident or a homocide? I guess either way, banning SWAT teams from carrying firearms would go a long way towards reducing gun related deaths.

Originally posted by kthxbai

A book doesn't fire a projectile or multiple projectiles. A book also serves as a source of learning.
I have no issue with the soccer mom having a .380 to protect her, however, I do have an issue with semi-automatic firearms being available to anyone and everyone that wants one. This isn't about banning all firearms, it's about limiting what firearms are available to the general public.

There are several books that have been the source of significant levels of death and murder.

I'll give just one example. It's called "Mein Kampf"

reply to post by kthxbai

I have no issue with the soccer mom having a .380 to protect her, however, I do have an issue with semi-automatic firearms being available to anyone and everyone that wants one. This isn't about banning all firearms, it's about limiting what firearms are available to the general public.

The American people are the rightful militia of the several States. We are the military. There was not supposed to be a distinction between soldier and citizen because they were supposed to be one and the same.

How else could a people have the ability to tear down governments that have become tyrannical?

And in the case if natural rights, why do your feelings matter?

Originally posted by kthxbai

A book doesn't fire a projectile or multiple projectiles. A book also serves as a source of learning.
I have no issue with the soccer mom having a .380 to protect her, however, I do have an issue with semi-automatic firearms being available to anyone and everyone that wants one. This isn't about banning all firearms, it's about limiting what firearms are available to the general public.

Also, just so you know, Semi-Auto guns represent almost 95% of all guns
Also, Semi-Auto guns are NOT available to "anyone and everyone" considering felons, and those convicted of domestic violence, and those who are fugitives, those who are adjudicated as mentally defective, non US citizens, illegal aliens, minors ect cannot legally own guns.


I said this in another thread but it's relevant here....

Assault weapons are guns, an assault weapons ban is a "gun ban". Thats the whole point.

""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.""

A gun ban is clearly an infringement of the right to bear arms.

The supreme court has already ruled this Amendment is referring to the individuals right as defined by the phrase "the right of the people"
The term "bear arms" means weapons being carried and thus, it refers to assault weapons since those are weapons meant to be carried by people.
"To Infringe" means to actively break the terms of a law. The law here states the people have a right to bear arms, a gun ban of ANY sort is an active attempt to break the terms of the law (2nd Amendment) and thus a complete violation of said Amendment.

Regardless of what one thinks about guns, this whole pursuit is an attack on the 2nd Amendment and the integrity of the Bill of Rights as a whole. The issue here is far bigger than "guns" but rather an issue of freedom being under attack by those who wish to take it away.

Originally posted by tpsreporter

Originally posted by kthxbai

A book doesn't fire a projectile or multiple projectiles. A book also serves as a source of learning.
I have no issue with the soccer mom having a .380 to protect her, however, I do have an issue with semi-automatic firearms being available to anyone and everyone that wants one. This isn't about banning all firearms, it's about limiting what firearms are available to the general public.

There are several books that have been the source of significant levels of death and murder.

I'll give just one example. It's called "Mein Kampf"

It still didn't fire projectiles

There is no logic or reason to your post.

Simple question:

How can other's illegal acts possibly be used to infringe upon my right to protect myself?

Originally posted by kthxbai

Originally posted by tpsreporter

Originally posted by kthxbai

A book doesn't fire a projectile or multiple projectiles. A book also serves as a source of learning.
I have no issue with the soccer mom having a .380 to protect her, however, I do have an issue with semi-automatic firearms being available to anyone and everyone that wants one. This isn't about banning all firearms, it's about limiting what firearms are available to the general public.

There are several books that have been the source of significant levels of death and murder.

I'll give just one example. It's called "Mein Kampf"

It still didn't fire projectiles

Still killed millions of people.

Originally posted by LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by kthxbai

 

I have no issue with the soccer mom having a .380 to protect her, however, I do have an issue with semi-automatic firearms being available to anyone and everyone that wants one. This isn't about banning all firearms, it's about limiting what firearms are available to the general public.

The American people are the rightful militia of the several States. We are the military. There was not supposed to be a distinction between soldier and citizen because they were supposed to be one and the same.

How else could a people have the ability to tear down governments that have become tyrannical?

And in the case if natural rights, why do your feelings matter?

Upon the formation of the country they were but that's no longer the case. You're not on active duty, you are a civilian and not considered military at this time. Furthermore, the POTUS is the Commander in Chief and if we are going to look at all citizens as the military, it is our duty to obey the orders given by our commander in chief. That's not the type of government we have at this time so your argument is flawed.