CDZ Fear and guns....a discussion.

[ChrisL]

Obviously not. When you plan and commit murder, you are not law abiding. You are a criminal and a murderer.

I'm speaking about just before they did the shooting. Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Actual research into criminal behavior points out that you and many other people who are against gun ownership are wrong. Normal people do not murder other people simply because they own a gun....the people who use a gun, or any other tool, to commit murder are abnormal...and have long histories of violence and long criminal records.....

The Kate and Mauser study.......

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

I. VIOLENCE: THE DECISIVENESS OF SOCIAL FACTORS

One reason the extent of gun ownership in a society does not spur the murder rate is that murderers are not spread evenly throughout the population.

Analysis of perpetrator studies shows that violent criminals—especially murderers—“almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behav‐ ior.”37

So it would not appreciably raise violence if all law‐ abiding, responsible people had firearms because they are not the ones who rape, rob, or murder.38 By the same token, violent crime would not fall if guns were totally banned to civilians. As the respective examples of Luxembourg and Russia suggest,39 individuals who commit violent crimes will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons to use. 40

--------------------------

III. DO ORDINARY PEOPLE MURDER?

The “more guns equal more death” mantra seems plausible only when viewed through the rubric that murders mostly in‐ volve ordinary people who kill because they have access to a firearm when they get angry. If this were true, murder might well increase where people have ready access to firearms, but the available data provides no such correlation.

Nations and areas with more guns per capita do not have higher murder rates than those with fewer guns per capita.53

Nevertheless, critics of gun ownership often argue that a “gun in the closet to protect against burglars will most likely be used to shoot a spouse in a moment of rage . . . . The problem is you and me—law‐abiding folks;”54

that banning handgun posses‐ sion only for those with criminal records will “fail to protect us from the most likely source of handgun murder: ordinary citi‐ zens;”55 that “most gun‐related homicides . . . are the result of impulsive actions taken by individuals who have little or no criminal background or who are known to the victims;”56 that “the majority of firearm homicide[s occur] . . . not as the result of criminal activity, but because of arguments between people who know each other;”57 that each year there are thousands of gun murders “by law‐abiding citizens who might have stayed law‐abiding if they had not possessed firearms.”58

These comments appear to rest on no evidence and actually con‐ tradict facts that have so uniformly been established by homicide studies dating back to the 1890s that they have become “crimino‐ logical axioms.”59 Insofar as studies focus on perpetrators, they show that neither a majority, nor many, nor virtually any murder‐ ers are ordinary “law‐abiding citizens.”60

Rather, almost all mur‐ derers are extremely aberrant individuals with life histories of violence, psychopathology, substance abuse, and other dangerous behaviors. “The vast majority of persons involved in life‐ threatening violence have a long criminal record with many prior contacts with the justice system.”61 “Thus homicide—[whether] of a stranger or [of] someone known to the offender—‘is usually part of a pattern of violence, engaged in by people who are known . . . as violence prone.’”62



Though only 15% of Americans over the age of 15 have arrest records,63 approximately 90 percent of “adult mur‐ derers have adult records, with an average adult criminal career [involving crimes committed as an adult rather than a child] of six or more years, including four major adult felony arrests.”64

These national statistics dovetail with data from local nineteenth and twentieth century studies. For example: victims as well as offenders [in 1950s and 1960s Philadelphia murders] . . . tended to be people with prior police records, usually for violent crimes such as as‐ sault.”65


“The great majority of both perpetrators and victims of [1970s Harlem] assaults and murders had previous [adult] arrests, probably over 80% or more.”66 Boston police and probation officers in the 1990s agreed that of those juvenile‐perpetrated murders where all the facts were known, virtually all were committed by gang members, though the killing was not necessarily gang‐ directed. 67 One example would be a gang member who stabs his girlfriend to death in a fit of anger.68 Regardless of their arrests for other crimes, 80% of 1997 Atlanta murder arrestees had at least one earlier drug offense with 70% having 3 or more prior drug of‐ fenses.69

A New York Times study of the 1,662 murders committed in that city in the years 2003–2005 found that “[m]ore than 90 percent of the killers had criminal records.”70 Baltimore police figures show that “92 percent of murder suspects had [prior] criminal records in 2006.”71 Several of the more recent homicide studies just reviewed

Sorry not wrong. The first 3 I looked at had no prior convictions. If I had the time I'm sure many more would fit the bill. Especially the children involved in the shootings.

Obviously not. When you plan and commit murder, you are not law abiding. You are a criminal and a murderer.

I'm speaking about just before they did the shooting. Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Actual research into criminal behavior points out that you and many other people who are against gun ownership are wrong. Normal people do not murder other people simply because they own a gun....the people who use a gun, or any other tool, to commit murder are abnormal...and have long histories of violence and long criminal records.....

The Kate and Mauser study.......

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

I. VIOLENCE: THE DECISIVENESS OF SOCIAL FACTORS

One reason the extent of gun ownership in a society does not spur the murder rate is that murderers are not spread evenly throughout the population.

Analysis of perpetrator studies shows that violent criminals—especially murderers—“almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behav‐ ior.”37

So it would not appreciably raise violence if all law‐ abiding, responsible people had firearms because they are not the ones who rape, rob, or murder.38 By the same token, violent crime would not fall if guns were totally banned to civilians. As the respective examples of Luxembourg and Russia suggest,39 individuals who commit violent crimes will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons to use. 40

--------------------------

III. DO ORDINARY PEOPLE MURDER?

The “more guns equal more death” mantra seems plausible only when viewed through the rubric that murders mostly in‐ volve ordinary people who kill because they have access to a firearm when they get angry. If this were true, murder might well increase where people have ready access to firearms, but the available data provides no such correlation.

Nations and areas with more guns per capita do not have higher murder rates than those with fewer guns per capita.53

Nevertheless, critics of gun ownership often argue that a “gun in the closet to protect against burglars will most likely be used to shoot a spouse in a moment of rage . . . . The problem is you and me—law‐abiding folks;”54

that banning handgun posses‐ sion only for those with criminal records will “fail to protect us from the most likely source of handgun murder: ordinary citi‐ zens;”55 that “most gun‐related homicides . . . are the result of impulsive actions taken by individuals who have little or no criminal background or who are known to the victims;”56 that “the majority of firearm homicide[s occur] . . . not as the result of criminal activity, but because of arguments between people who know each other;”57 that each year there are thousands of gun murders “by law‐abiding citizens who might have stayed law‐abiding if they had not possessed firearms.”58

These comments appear to rest on no evidence and actually con‐ tradict facts that have so uniformly been established by homicide studies dating back to the 1890s that they have become “crimino‐ logical axioms.”59 Insofar as studies focus on perpetrators, they show that neither a majority, nor many, nor virtually any murder‐ ers are ordinary “law‐abiding citizens.”60

Rather, almost all mur‐ derers are extremely aberrant individuals with life histories of violence, psychopathology, substance abuse, and other dangerous behaviors. “The vast majority of persons involved in life‐ threatening violence have a long criminal record with many prior contacts with the justice system.”61 “Thus homicide—[whether] of a stranger or [of] someone known to the offender—‘is usually part of a pattern of violence, engaged in by people who are known . . . as violence prone.’”62



Though only 15% of Americans over the age of 15 have arrest records,63 approximately 90 percent of “adult mur‐ derers have adult records, with an average adult criminal career [involving crimes committed as an adult rather than a child] of six or more years, including four major adult felony arrests.”64

These national statistics dovetail with data from local nineteenth and twentieth century studies. For example: victims as well as offenders [in 1950s and 1960s Philadelphia murders] . . . tended to be people with prior police records, usually for violent crimes such as as‐ sault.”65


“The great majority of both perpetrators and victims of [1970s Harlem] assaults and murders had previous [adult] arrests, probably over 80% or more.”66 Boston police and probation officers in the 1990s agreed that of those juvenile‐perpetrated murders where all the facts were known, virtually all were committed by gang members, though the killing was not necessarily gang‐ directed. 67 One example would be a gang member who stabs his girlfriend to death in a fit of anger.68 Regardless of their arrests for other crimes, 80% of 1997 Atlanta murder arrestees had at least one earlier drug offense with 70% having 3 or more prior drug of‐ fenses.69

A New York Times study of the 1,662 murders committed in that city in the years 2003–2005 found that “[m]ore than 90 percent of the killers had criminal records.”70 Baltimore police figures show that “92 percent of murder suspects had [prior] criminal records in 2006.”71 Several of the more recent homicide studies just reviewed

Just pointing out that your study should have no bearing on ChrisL because it was done by a Canadian. Even though it argues for her side.

We have plenty of our own studies. Thanks. Like the most recent one that Obama had done which found that gun defense usage was at least as common as gun criminal usage.

The report you reference was produced by the CDC. The same CDC that so many people claim are part of a vast left wing conspiracy to "grab" people's guns. The subject of this thread is whether gun owners are reacting from fear, rather than rationality. Those so-called "gun rights advocates" who are afraid of what the CDC will find are reacting from fear, not rationality.

It's those on the left who don't like the CDC report. They "don't believe" the statistics. Instead they believe the hyped up media stories. Lol.

 

[ChrisL]

Obviously not. When you plan and commit murder, you are not law abiding. You are a criminal and a murderer.

I'm speaking about just before they did the shooting. Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Actual research into criminal behavior points out that you and many other people who are against gun ownership are wrong. Normal people do not murder other people simply because they own a gun....the people who use a gun, or any other tool, to commit murder are abnormal...and have long histories of violence and long criminal records.....

The Kate and Mauser study.......

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

I. VIOLENCE: THE DECISIVENESS OF SOCIAL FACTORS

One reason the extent of gun ownership in a society does not spur the murder rate is that murderers are not spread evenly throughout the population.

Analysis of perpetrator studies shows that violent criminals—especially murderers—“almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behav‐ ior.”37

So it would not appreciably raise violence if all law‐ abiding, responsible people had firearms because they are not the ones who rape, rob, or murder.38 By the same token, violent crime would not fall if guns were totally banned to civilians. As the respective examples of Luxembourg and Russia suggest,39 individuals who commit violent crimes will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons to use. 40

--------------------------

III. DO ORDINARY PEOPLE MURDER?

The “more guns equal more death” mantra seems plausible only when viewed through the rubric that murders mostly in‐ volve ordinary people who kill because they have access to a firearm when they get angry. If this were true, murder might well increase where people have ready access to firearms, but the available data provides no such correlation.

Nations and areas with more guns per capita do not have higher murder rates than those with fewer guns per capita.53

Nevertheless, critics of gun ownership often argue that a “gun in the closet to protect against burglars will most likely be used to shoot a spouse in a moment of rage . . . . The problem is you and me—law‐abiding folks;”54

that banning handgun posses‐ sion only for those with criminal records will “fail to protect us from the most likely source of handgun murder: ordinary citi‐ zens;”55 that “most gun‐related homicides . . . are the result of impulsive actions taken by individuals who have little or no criminal background or who are known to the victims;”56 that “the majority of firearm homicide[s occur] . . . not as the result of criminal activity, but because of arguments between people who know each other;”57 that each year there are thousands of gun murders “by law‐abiding citizens who might have stayed law‐abiding if they had not possessed firearms.”58

These comments appear to rest on no evidence and actually con‐ tradict facts that have so uniformly been established by homicide studies dating back to the 1890s that they have become “crimino‐ logical axioms.”59 Insofar as studies focus on perpetrators, they show that neither a majority, nor many, nor virtually any murder‐ ers are ordinary “law‐abiding citizens.”60

Rather, almost all mur‐ derers are extremely aberrant individuals with life histories of violence, psychopathology, substance abuse, and other dangerous behaviors. “The vast majority of persons involved in life‐ threatening violence have a long criminal record with many prior contacts with the justice system.”61 “Thus homicide—[whether] of a stranger or [of] someone known to the offender—‘is usually part of a pattern of violence, engaged in by people who are known . . . as violence prone.’”62



Though only 15% of Americans over the age of 15 have arrest records,63 approximately 90 percent of “adult mur‐ derers have adult records, with an average adult criminal career [involving crimes committed as an adult rather than a child] of six or more years, including four major adult felony arrests.”64

These national statistics dovetail with data from local nineteenth and twentieth century studies. For example: victims as well as offenders [in 1950s and 1960s Philadelphia murders] . . . tended to be people with prior police records, usually for violent crimes such as as‐ sault.”65


“The great majority of both perpetrators and victims of [1970s Harlem] assaults and murders had previous [adult] arrests, probably over 80% or more.”66 Boston police and probation officers in the 1990s agreed that of those juvenile‐perpetrated murders where all the facts were known, virtually all were committed by gang members, though the killing was not necessarily gang‐ directed. 67 One example would be a gang member who stabs his girlfriend to death in a fit of anger.68 Regardless of their arrests for other crimes, 80% of 1997 Atlanta murder arrestees had at least one earlier drug offense with 70% having 3 or more prior drug of‐ fenses.69

A New York Times study of the 1,662 murders committed in that city in the years 2003–2005 found that “[m]ore than 90 percent of the killers had criminal records.”70 Baltimore police figures show that “92 percent of murder suspects had [prior] criminal records in 2006.”71 Several of the more recent homicide studies just reviewed

Sorry not wrong. The first 3 I looked at had no prior convictions. If I had the time I'm sure many more would fit the bill. Especially the children involved in the shootings.

Obviously not. When you plan and commit murder, you are not law abiding. You are a criminal and a murderer.

I'm speaking about just before they did the shooting. Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Actual research into criminal behavior points out that you and many other people who are against gun ownership are wrong. Normal people do not murder other people simply because they own a gun....the people who use a gun, or any other tool, to commit murder are abnormal...and have long histories of violence and long criminal records.....

The Kate and Mauser study.......

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

I. VIOLENCE: THE DECISIVENESS OF SOCIAL FACTORS

One reason the extent of gun ownership in a society does not spur the murder rate is that murderers are not spread evenly throughout the population.

Analysis of perpetrator studies shows that violent criminals—especially murderers—“almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behav‐ ior.”37

So it would not appreciably raise violence if all law‐ abiding, responsible people had firearms because they are not the ones who rape, rob, or murder.38 By the same token, violent crime would not fall if guns were totally banned to civilians. As the respective examples of Luxembourg and Russia suggest,39 individuals who commit violent crimes will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons to use. 40

--------------------------

III. DO ORDINARY PEOPLE MURDER?

The “more guns equal more death” mantra seems plausible only when viewed through the rubric that murders mostly in‐ volve ordinary people who kill because they have access to a firearm when they get angry. If this were true, murder might well increase where people have ready access to firearms, but the available data provides no such correlation.

Nations and areas with more guns per capita do not have higher murder rates than those with fewer guns per capita.53

Nevertheless, critics of gun ownership often argue that a “gun in the closet to protect against burglars will most likely be used to shoot a spouse in a moment of rage . . . . The problem is you and me—law‐abiding folks;”54

that banning handgun posses‐ sion only for those with criminal records will “fail to protect us from the most likely source of handgun murder: ordinary citi‐ zens;”55 that “most gun‐related homicides . . . are the result of impulsive actions taken by individuals who have little or no criminal background or who are known to the victims;”56 that “the majority of firearm homicide[s occur] . . . not as the result of criminal activity, but because of arguments between people who know each other;”57 that each year there are thousands of gun murders “by law‐abiding citizens who might have stayed law‐abiding if they had not possessed firearms.”58

These comments appear to rest on no evidence and actually con‐ tradict facts that have so uniformly been established by homicide studies dating back to the 1890s that they have become “crimino‐ logical axioms.”59 Insofar as studies focus on perpetrators, they show that neither a majority, nor many, nor virtually any murder‐ ers are ordinary “law‐abiding citizens.”60

Rather, almost all mur‐ derers are extremely aberrant individuals with life histories of violence, psychopathology, substance abuse, and other dangerous behaviors. “The vast majority of persons involved in life‐ threatening violence have a long criminal record with many prior contacts with the justice system.”61 “Thus homicide—[whether] of a stranger or [of] someone known to the offender—‘is usually part of a pattern of violence, engaged in by people who are known . . . as violence prone.’”62



Though only 15% of Americans over the age of 15 have arrest records,63 approximately 90 percent of “adult mur‐ derers have adult records, with an average adult criminal career [involving crimes committed as an adult rather than a child] of six or more years, including four major adult felony arrests.”64

These national statistics dovetail with data from local nineteenth and twentieth century studies. For example: victims as well as offenders [in 1950s and 1960s Philadelphia murders] . . . tended to be people with prior police records, usually for violent crimes such as as‐ sault.”65


“The great majority of both perpetrators and victims of [1970s Harlem] assaults and murders had previous [adult] arrests, probably over 80% or more.”66 Boston police and probation officers in the 1990s agreed that of those juvenile‐perpetrated murders where all the facts were known, virtually all were committed by gang members, though the killing was not necessarily gang‐ directed. 67 One example would be a gang member who stabs his girlfriend to death in a fit of anger.68 Regardless of their arrests for other crimes, 80% of 1997 Atlanta murder arrestees had at least one earlier drug offense with 70% having 3 or more prior drug of‐ fenses.69

A New York Times study of the 1,662 murders committed in that city in the years 2003–2005 found that “[m]ore than 90 percent of the killers had criminal records.”70 Baltimore police figures show that “92 percent of murder suspects had [prior] criminal records in 2006.”71 Several of the more recent homicide studies just reviewed

Just pointing out that your study should have no bearing on ChrisL because it was done by a Canadian. Even though it argues for her side.

We have plenty of our own studies. Thanks. Like the most recent one that Obama had done which found that gun defense usage was at least as common as gun criminal usage.

The report you reference was produced by the CDC. The same CDC that so many people claim are part of a vast left wing conspiracy to "grab" people's guns. The subject of this thread is whether gun owners are reacting from fear, rather than rationality. Those so-called "gun rights advocates" who are afraid of what the CDC will find are reacting from fear, not rationality.

Yup, the CDC report totally backfired, eh? Lefties hate when it's brought up. You would think that would make them feel better, but it doesn't seem to be the case, huh? Like they hate to find out that yes, plenty of people have and do actually use their guns for self defense and yes, it has actually worked on numerous occasions. Many, many, many more occasions than those on the left would like us to believe. Isn't that right?

 

[Elvis Obama]

I'm speaking about just before they did the shooting. Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Actual research into criminal behavior points out that you and many other people who are against gun ownership are wrong. Normal people do not murder other people simply because they own a gun....the people who use a gun, or any other tool, to commit murder are abnormal...and have long histories of violence and long criminal records.....

The Kate and Mauser study.......

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

I. VIOLENCE: THE DECISIVENESS OF SOCIAL FACTORS

One reason the extent of gun ownership in a society does not spur the murder rate is that murderers are not spread evenly throughout the population.

Analysis of perpetrator studies shows that violent criminals—especially murderers—“almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behav‐ ior.”37

So it would not appreciably raise violence if all law‐ abiding, responsible people had firearms because they are not the ones who rape, rob, or murder.38 By the same token, violent crime would not fall if guns were totally banned to civilians. As the respective examples of Luxembourg and Russia suggest,39 individuals who commit violent crimes will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons to use. 40

--------------------------

III. DO ORDINARY PEOPLE MURDER?

The “more guns equal more death” mantra seems plausible only when viewed through the rubric that murders mostly in‐ volve ordinary people who kill because they have access to a firearm when they get angry. If this were true, murder might well increase where people have ready access to firearms, but the available data provides no such correlation.

Nations and areas with more guns per capita do not have higher murder rates than those with fewer guns per capita.53

Nevertheless, critics of gun ownership often argue that a “gun in the closet to protect against burglars will most likely be used to shoot a spouse in a moment of rage . . . . The problem is you and me—law‐abiding folks;”54

that banning handgun posses‐ sion only for those with criminal records will “fail to protect us from the most likely source of handgun murder: ordinary citi‐ zens;”55 that “most gun‐related homicides . . . are the result of impulsive actions taken by individuals who have little or no criminal background or who are known to the victims;”56 that “the majority of firearm homicide[s occur] . . . not as the result of criminal activity, but because of arguments between people who know each other;”57 that each year there are thousands of gun murders “by law‐abiding citizens who might have stayed law‐abiding if they had not possessed firearms.”58

These comments appear to rest on no evidence and actually con‐ tradict facts that have so uniformly been established by homicide studies dating back to the 1890s that they have become “crimino‐ logical axioms.”59 Insofar as studies focus on perpetrators, they show that neither a majority, nor many, nor virtually any murder‐ ers are ordinary “law‐abiding citizens.”60

Rather, almost all mur‐ derers are extremely aberrant individuals with life histories of violence, psychopathology, substance abuse, and other dangerous behaviors. “The vast majority of persons involved in life‐ threatening violence have a long criminal record with many prior contacts with the justice system.”61 “Thus homicide—[whether] of a stranger or [of] someone known to the offender—‘is usually part of a pattern of violence, engaged in by people who are known . . . as violence prone.’”62



Though only 15% of Americans over the age of 15 have arrest records,63 approximately 90 percent of “adult mur‐ derers have adult records, with an average adult criminal career [involving crimes committed as an adult rather than a child] of six or more years, including four major adult felony arrests.”64

These national statistics dovetail with data from local nineteenth and twentieth century studies. For example: victims as well as offenders [in 1950s and 1960s Philadelphia murders] . . . tended to be people with prior police records, usually for violent crimes such as as‐ sault.”65


“The great majority of both perpetrators and victims of [1970s Harlem] assaults and murders had previous [adult] arrests, probably over 80% or more.”66 Boston police and probation officers in the 1990s agreed that of those juvenile‐perpetrated murders where all the facts were known, virtually all were committed by gang members, though the killing was not necessarily gang‐ directed. 67 One example would be a gang member who stabs his girlfriend to death in a fit of anger.68 Regardless of their arrests for other crimes, 80% of 1997 Atlanta murder arrestees had at least one earlier drug offense with 70% having 3 or more prior drug of‐ fenses.69

A New York Times study of the 1,662 murders committed in that city in the years 2003–2005 found that “[m]ore than 90 percent of the killers had criminal records.”70 Baltimore police figures show that “92 percent of murder suspects had [prior] criminal records in 2006.”71 Several of the more recent homicide studies just reviewed

Sorry not wrong. The first 3 I looked at had no prior convictions. If I had the time I'm sure many more would fit the bill. Especially the children involved in the shootings.

I'm speaking about just before they did the shooting. Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Actual research into criminal behavior points out that you and many other people who are against gun ownership are wrong. Normal people do not murder other people simply because they own a gun....the people who use a gun, or any other tool, to commit murder are abnormal...and have long histories of violence and long criminal records.....

The Kate and Mauser study.......

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

I. VIOLENCE: THE DECISIVENESS OF SOCIAL FACTORS

One reason the extent of gun ownership in a society does not spur the murder rate is that murderers are not spread evenly throughout the population.

Analysis of perpetrator studies shows that violent criminals—especially murderers—“almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behav‐ ior.”37

So it would not appreciably raise violence if all law‐ abiding, responsible people had firearms because they are not the ones who rape, rob, or murder.38 By the same token, violent crime would not fall if guns were totally banned to civilians. As the respective examples of Luxembourg and Russia suggest,39 individuals who commit violent crimes will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons to use. 40

--------------------------

III. DO ORDINARY PEOPLE MURDER?

The “more guns equal more death” mantra seems plausible only when viewed through the rubric that murders mostly in‐ volve ordinary people who kill because they have access to a firearm when they get angry. If this were true, murder might well increase where people have ready access to firearms, but the available data provides no such correlation.

Nations and areas with more guns per capita do not have higher murder rates than those with fewer guns per capita.53

Nevertheless, critics of gun ownership often argue that a “gun in the closet to protect against burglars will most likely be used to shoot a spouse in a moment of rage . . . . The problem is you and me—law‐abiding folks;”54

that banning handgun posses‐ sion only for those with criminal records will “fail to protect us from the most likely source of handgun murder: ordinary citi‐ zens;”55 that “most gun‐related homicides . . . are the result of impulsive actions taken by individuals who have little or no criminal background or who are known to the victims;”56 that “the majority of firearm homicide[s occur] . . . not as the result of criminal activity, but because of arguments between people who know each other;”57 that each year there are thousands of gun murders “by law‐abiding citizens who might have stayed law‐abiding if they had not possessed firearms.”58

These comments appear to rest on no evidence and actually con‐ tradict facts that have so uniformly been established by homicide studies dating back to the 1890s that they have become “crimino‐ logical axioms.”59 Insofar as studies focus on perpetrators, they show that neither a majority, nor many, nor virtually any murder‐ ers are ordinary “law‐abiding citizens.”60

Rather, almost all mur‐ derers are extremely aberrant individuals with life histories of violence, psychopathology, substance abuse, and other dangerous behaviors. “The vast majority of persons involved in life‐ threatening violence have a long criminal record with many prior contacts with the justice system.”61 “Thus homicide—[whether] of a stranger or [of] someone known to the offender—‘is usually part of a pattern of violence, engaged in by people who are known . . . as violence prone.’”62



Though only 15% of Americans over the age of 15 have arrest records,63 approximately 90 percent of “adult mur‐ derers have adult records, with an average adult criminal career [involving crimes committed as an adult rather than a child] of six or more years, including four major adult felony arrests.”64

These national statistics dovetail with data from local nineteenth and twentieth century studies. For example: victims as well as offenders [in 1950s and 1960s Philadelphia murders] . . . tended to be people with prior police records, usually for violent crimes such as as‐ sault.”65


“The great majority of both perpetrators and victims of [1970s Harlem] assaults and murders had previous [adult] arrests, probably over 80% or more.”66 Boston police and probation officers in the 1990s agreed that of those juvenile‐perpetrated murders where all the facts were known, virtually all were committed by gang members, though the killing was not necessarily gang‐ directed. 67 One example would be a gang member who stabs his girlfriend to death in a fit of anger.68 Regardless of their arrests for other crimes, 80% of 1997 Atlanta murder arrestees had at least one earlier drug offense with 70% having 3 or more prior drug of‐ fenses.69

A New York Times study of the 1,662 murders committed in that city in the years 2003–2005 found that “[m]ore than 90 percent of the killers had criminal records.”70 Baltimore police figures show that “92 percent of murder suspects had [prior] criminal records in 2006.”71 Several of the more recent homicide studies just reviewed

Just pointing out that your study should have no bearing on ChrisL because it was done by a Canadian. Even though it argues for her side.

We have plenty of our own studies. Thanks. Like the most recent one that Obama had done which found that gun defense usage was at least as common as gun criminal usage.

The report you reference was produced by the CDC. The same CDC that so many people claim are part of a vast left wing conspiracy to "grab" people's guns. The subject of this thread is whether gun owners are reacting from fear, rather than rationality. Those so-called "gun rights advocates" who are afraid of what the CDC will find are reacting from fear, not rationality.

It's those on the left who don't like the CDC report. They "don't believe" the statistics. Instead they believe the hyped up media stories. Lol.

Yup, the CDC report produced surprises for both the pro and anti-gun forces. So? The main conclusion the report reached is that further research is required. That research will not be conducted, because of NRA induced paranoia. Cowardice, plain and simple. That's the subject of this thread.

 

[ChrisL]

Actual research into criminal behavior points out that you and many other people who are against gun ownership are wrong. Normal people do not murder other people simply because they own a gun....the people who use a gun, or any other tool, to commit murder are abnormal...and have long histories of violence and long criminal records.....

The Kate and Mauser study.......

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

I. VIOLENCE: THE DECISIVENESS OF SOCIAL FACTORS

One reason the extent of gun ownership in a society does not spur the murder rate is that murderers are not spread evenly throughout the population.

Analysis of perpetrator studies shows that violent criminals—especially murderers—“almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behav‐ ior.”37

So it would not appreciably raise violence if all law‐ abiding, responsible people had firearms because they are not the ones who rape, rob, or murder.38 By the same token, violent crime would not fall if guns were totally banned to civilians. As the respective examples of Luxembourg and Russia suggest,39 individuals who commit violent crimes will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons to use. 40

--------------------------

III. DO ORDINARY PEOPLE MURDER?

The “more guns equal more death” mantra seems plausible only when viewed through the rubric that murders mostly in‐ volve ordinary people who kill because they have access to a firearm when they get angry. If this were true, murder might well increase where people have ready access to firearms, but the available data provides no such correlation.

Nations and areas with more guns per capita do not have higher murder rates than those with fewer guns per capita.53

Nevertheless, critics of gun ownership often argue that a “gun in the closet to protect against burglars will most likely be used to shoot a spouse in a moment of rage . . . . The problem is you and me—law‐abiding folks;”54

that banning handgun posses‐ sion only for those with criminal records will “fail to protect us from the most likely source of handgun murder: ordinary citi‐ zens;”55 that “most gun‐related homicides . . . are the result of impulsive actions taken by individuals who have little or no criminal background or who are known to the victims;”56 that “the majority of firearm homicide[s occur] . . . not as the result of criminal activity, but because of arguments between people who know each other;”57 that each year there are thousands of gun murders “by law‐abiding citizens who might have stayed law‐abiding if they had not possessed firearms.”58

These comments appear to rest on no evidence and actually con‐ tradict facts that have so uniformly been established by homicide studies dating back to the 1890s that they have become “crimino‐ logical axioms.”59 Insofar as studies focus on perpetrators, they show that neither a majority, nor many, nor virtually any murder‐ ers are ordinary “law‐abiding citizens.”60

Rather, almost all mur‐ derers are extremely aberrant individuals with life histories of violence, psychopathology, substance abuse, and other dangerous behaviors. “The vast majority of persons involved in life‐ threatening violence have a long criminal record with many prior contacts with the justice system.”61 “Thus homicide—[whether] of a stranger or [of] someone known to the offender—‘is usually part of a pattern of violence, engaged in by people who are known . . . as violence prone.’”62



Though only 15% of Americans over the age of 15 have arrest records,63 approximately 90 percent of “adult mur‐ derers have adult records, with an average adult criminal career [involving crimes committed as an adult rather than a child] of six or more years, including four major adult felony arrests.”64

These national statistics dovetail with data from local nineteenth and twentieth century studies. For example: victims as well as offenders [in 1950s and 1960s Philadelphia murders] . . . tended to be people with prior police records, usually for violent crimes such as as‐ sault.”65


“The great majority of both perpetrators and victims of [1970s Harlem] assaults and murders had previous [adult] arrests, probably over 80% or more.”66 Boston police and probation officers in the 1990s agreed that of those juvenile‐perpetrated murders where all the facts were known, virtually all were committed by gang members, though the killing was not necessarily gang‐ directed. 67 One example would be a gang member who stabs his girlfriend to death in a fit of anger.68 Regardless of their arrests for other crimes, 80% of 1997 Atlanta murder arrestees had at least one earlier drug offense with 70% having 3 or more prior drug of‐ fenses.69

A New York Times study of the 1,662 murders committed in that city in the years 2003–2005 found that “[m]ore than 90 percent of the killers had criminal records.”70 Baltimore police figures show that “92 percent of murder suspects had [prior] criminal records in 2006.”71 Several of the more recent homicide studies just reviewed

Sorry not wrong. The first 3 I looked at had no prior convictions. If I had the time I'm sure many more would fit the bill. Especially the children involved in the shootings.

Actual research into criminal behavior points out that you and many other people who are against gun ownership are wrong. Normal people do not murder other people simply because they own a gun....the people who use a gun, or any other tool, to commit murder are abnormal...and have long histories of violence and long criminal records.....

The Kate and Mauser study.......

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

I. VIOLENCE: THE DECISIVENESS OF SOCIAL FACTORS

One reason the extent of gun ownership in a society does not spur the murder rate is that murderers are not spread evenly throughout the population.

Analysis of perpetrator studies shows that violent criminals—especially murderers—“almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behav‐ ior.”37

So it would not appreciably raise violence if all law‐ abiding, responsible people had firearms because they are not the ones who rape, rob, or murder.38 By the same token, violent crime would not fall if guns were totally banned to civilians. As the respective examples of Luxembourg and Russia suggest,39 individuals who commit violent crimes will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons to use. 40

--------------------------

III. DO ORDINARY PEOPLE MURDER?

The “more guns equal more death” mantra seems plausible only when viewed through the rubric that murders mostly in‐ volve ordinary people who kill because they have access to a firearm when they get angry. If this were true, murder might well increase where people have ready access to firearms, but the available data provides no such correlation.

Nations and areas with more guns per capita do not have higher murder rates than those with fewer guns per capita.53

Nevertheless, critics of gun ownership often argue that a “gun in the closet to protect against burglars will most likely be used to shoot a spouse in a moment of rage . . . . The problem is you and me—law‐abiding folks;”54

that banning handgun posses‐ sion only for those with criminal records will “fail to protect us from the most likely source of handgun murder: ordinary citi‐ zens;”55 that “most gun‐related homicides . . . are the result of impulsive actions taken by individuals who have little or no criminal background or who are known to the victims;”56 that “the majority of firearm homicide[s occur] . . . not as the result of criminal activity, but because of arguments between people who know each other;”57 that each year there are thousands of gun murders “by law‐abiding citizens who might have stayed law‐abiding if they had not possessed firearms.”58

These comments appear to rest on no evidence and actually con‐ tradict facts that have so uniformly been established by homicide studies dating back to the 1890s that they have become “crimino‐ logical axioms.”59 Insofar as studies focus on perpetrators, they show that neither a majority, nor many, nor virtually any murder‐ ers are ordinary “law‐abiding citizens.”60

Rather, almost all mur‐ derers are extremely aberrant individuals with life histories of violence, psychopathology, substance abuse, and other dangerous behaviors. “The vast majority of persons involved in life‐ threatening violence have a long criminal record with many prior contacts with the justice system.”61 “Thus homicide—[whether] of a stranger or [of] someone known to the offender—‘is usually part of a pattern of violence, engaged in by people who are known . . . as violence prone.’”62



Though only 15% of Americans over the age of 15 have arrest records,63 approximately 90 percent of “adult mur‐ derers have adult records, with an average adult criminal career [involving crimes committed as an adult rather than a child] of six or more years, including four major adult felony arrests.”64

These national statistics dovetail with data from local nineteenth and twentieth century studies. For example: victims as well as offenders [in 1950s and 1960s Philadelphia murders] . . . tended to be people with prior police records, usually for violent crimes such as as‐ sault.”65


“The great majority of both perpetrators and victims of [1970s Harlem] assaults and murders had previous [adult] arrests, probably over 80% or more.”66 Boston police and probation officers in the 1990s agreed that of those juvenile‐perpetrated murders where all the facts were known, virtually all were committed by gang members, though the killing was not necessarily gang‐ directed. 67 One example would be a gang member who stabs his girlfriend to death in a fit of anger.68 Regardless of their arrests for other crimes, 80% of 1997 Atlanta murder arrestees had at least one earlier drug offense with 70% having 3 or more prior drug of‐ fenses.69

A New York Times study of the 1,662 murders committed in that city in the years 2003–2005 found that “[m]ore than 90 percent of the killers had criminal records.”70 Baltimore police figures show that “92 percent of murder suspects had [prior] criminal records in 2006.”71 Several of the more recent homicide studies just reviewed

Just pointing out that your study should have no bearing on ChrisL because it was done by a Canadian. Even though it argues for her side.

We have plenty of our own studies. Thanks. Like the most recent one that Obama had done which found that gun defense usage was at least as common as gun criminal usage.

The report you reference was produced by the CDC. The same CDC that so many people claim are part of a vast left wing conspiracy to "grab" people's guns. The subject of this thread is whether gun owners are reacting from fear, rather than rationality. Those so-called "gun rights advocates" who are afraid of what the CDC will find are reacting from fear, not rationality.

It's those on the left who don't like the CDC report. They "don't believe" the statistics. Instead they believe the hyped up media stories. Lol.

Yup, the CDC report produced surprises for both the pro and anti-gun forces. So? The main conclusion the report reached is that further research is required. That research will not be conducted, because of NRA induced paranoia. Cowardice, plain and simple. That's the subject of this thread.

What further research do you think is required? Please be specific.

 

[BULLDOG]

this is in the CDZ because it gets a little old when some start talking sex organs and guns.....

soooo....

We are constantly told that if you carry a gun you are afraid.

Is this true.

No.

Carrying a gun for self defense is a rational response to the reality that even though I know where I live is ver safe, there are still criminals out there and that you never know when one will target you. These things happen every day, in every state, in every country.

How much fear goes into carrying a gun...for me....there is about as much emotion to carrying a gun as there is carrying my cell phone.

Now....the other side...the one that is constantly accusing my side of being afraid.....I believe that fear is what they feel....especially about guns. The don't like people, but they hate guns in the hands of people.

For example.

There are over 3,700,000 AR-15s in private hands in this country.

Each year maybe, maybe, 2-3 are used in any type of crime or even a mass shooting.

With those numbers, those who I believe fear guns want all AR-15s banned from private hands. To me, that is real fear. The numbers show that the odds of being a victim of a violent attack by an attacker with an AR-15 are so remote...you would actually have more of a chance of running into Big Foot and Elvis having Lunch with Aliens.....

And yet, they call for all AR-15s and other rifles like it to be completely banned.

And yet even if AR-15s are completely banned, there is not one crime that is committed on those rare occasions where an AR-15 is used that cannot be done to the same effect with a pistol, shot gun or other rifle or a combination of those......

Yet we are called scaredy cats for wearing a gun like we wear a cell phone or buckle our seat belts.

To a rational person....who sounds more afraid of guns...who sounds more filled with actual fear...?

If you have a fire extinguisher, does that mean you're afraid of fires? No, it means you are prepared.

If you want to strap a fire extinguisher to your leg and prance through Walmart, I don't care.

 

[ChrisL]

Actual research into criminal behavior points out that you and many other people who are against gun ownership are wrong. Normal people do not murder other people simply because they own a gun....the people who use a gun, or any other tool, to commit murder are abnormal...and have long histories of violence and long criminal records.....

The Kate and Mauser study.......

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

I. VIOLENCE: THE DECISIVENESS OF SOCIAL FACTORS

One reason the extent of gun ownership in a society does not spur the murder rate is that murderers are not spread evenly throughout the population.

Analysis of perpetrator studies shows that violent criminals—especially murderers—“almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behav‐ ior.”37

So it would not appreciably raise violence if all law‐ abiding, responsible people had firearms because they are not the ones who rape, rob, or murder.38 By the same token, violent crime would not fall if guns were totally banned to civilians. As the respective examples of Luxembourg and Russia suggest,39 individuals who commit violent crimes will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons to use. 40

--------------------------

III. DO ORDINARY PEOPLE MURDER?

The “more guns equal more death” mantra seems plausible only when viewed through the rubric that murders mostly in‐ volve ordinary people who kill because they have access to a firearm when they get angry. If this were true, murder might well increase where people have ready access to firearms, but the available data provides no such correlation.

Nations and areas with more guns per capita do not have higher murder rates than those with fewer guns per capita.53

Nevertheless, critics of gun ownership often argue that a “gun in the closet to protect against burglars will most likely be used to shoot a spouse in a moment of rage . . . . The problem is you and me—law‐abiding folks;”54

that banning handgun posses‐ sion only for those with criminal records will “fail to protect us from the most likely source of handgun murder: ordinary citi‐ zens;”55 that “most gun‐related homicides . . . are the result of impulsive actions taken by individuals who have little or no criminal background or who are known to the victims;”56 that “the majority of firearm homicide[s occur] . . . not as the result of criminal activity, but because of arguments between people who know each other;”57 that each year there are thousands of gun murders “by law‐abiding citizens who might have stayed law‐abiding if they had not possessed firearms.”58

These comments appear to rest on no evidence and actually con‐ tradict facts that have so uniformly been established by homicide studies dating back to the 1890s that they have become “crimino‐ logical axioms.”59 Insofar as studies focus on perpetrators, they show that neither a majority, nor many, nor virtually any murder‐ ers are ordinary “law‐abiding citizens.”60

Rather, almost all mur‐ derers are extremely aberrant individuals with life histories of violence, psychopathology, substance abuse, and other dangerous behaviors. “The vast majority of persons involved in life‐ threatening violence have a long criminal record with many prior contacts with the justice system.”61 “Thus homicide—[whether] of a stranger or [of] someone known to the offender—‘is usually part of a pattern of violence, engaged in by people who are known . . . as violence prone.’”62



Though only 15% of Americans over the age of 15 have arrest records,63 approximately 90 percent of “adult mur‐ derers have adult records, with an average adult criminal career [involving crimes committed as an adult rather than a child] of six or more years, including four major adult felony arrests.”64

These national statistics dovetail with data from local nineteenth and twentieth century studies. For example: victims as well as offenders [in 1950s and 1960s Philadelphia murders] . . . tended to be people with prior police records, usually for violent crimes such as as‐ sault.”65


“The great majority of both perpetrators and victims of [1970s Harlem] assaults and murders had previous [adult] arrests, probably over 80% or more.”66 Boston police and probation officers in the 1990s agreed that of those juvenile‐perpetrated murders where all the facts were known, virtually all were committed by gang members, though the killing was not necessarily gang‐ directed. 67 One example would be a gang member who stabs his girlfriend to death in a fit of anger.68 Regardless of their arrests for other crimes, 80% of 1997 Atlanta murder arrestees had at least one earlier drug offense with 70% having 3 or more prior drug of‐ fenses.69

A New York Times study of the 1,662 murders committed in that city in the years 2003–2005 found that “[m]ore than 90 percent of the killers had criminal records.”70 Baltimore police figures show that “92 percent of murder suspects had [prior] criminal records in 2006.”71 Several of the more recent homicide studies just reviewed

Sorry not wrong. The first 3 I looked at had no prior convictions. If I had the time I'm sure many more would fit the bill. Especially the children involved in the shootings.

Actual research into criminal behavior points out that you and many other people who are against gun ownership are wrong. Normal people do not murder other people simply because they own a gun....the people who use a gun, or any other tool, to commit murder are abnormal...and have long histories of violence and long criminal records.....

The Kate and Mauser study.......

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

I. VIOLENCE: THE DECISIVENESS OF SOCIAL FACTORS

One reason the extent of gun ownership in a society does not spur the murder rate is that murderers are not spread evenly throughout the population.

Analysis of perpetrator studies shows that violent criminals—especially murderers—“almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behav‐ ior.”37

So it would not appreciably raise violence if all law‐ abiding, responsible people had firearms because they are not the ones who rape, rob, or murder.38 By the same token, violent crime would not fall if guns were totally banned to civilians. As the respective examples of Luxembourg and Russia suggest,39 individuals who commit violent crimes will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons to use. 40

--------------------------

III. DO ORDINARY PEOPLE MURDER?

The “more guns equal more death” mantra seems plausible only when viewed through the rubric that murders mostly in‐ volve ordinary people who kill because they have access to a firearm when they get angry. If this were true, murder might well increase where people have ready access to firearms, but the available data provides no such correlation.

Nations and areas with more guns per capita do not have higher murder rates than those with fewer guns per capita.53

Nevertheless, critics of gun ownership often argue that a “gun in the closet to protect against burglars will most likely be used to shoot a spouse in a moment of rage . . . . The problem is you and me—law‐abiding folks;”54

that banning handgun posses‐ sion only for those with criminal records will “fail to protect us from the most likely source of handgun murder: ordinary citi‐ zens;”55 that “most gun‐related homicides . . . are the result of impulsive actions taken by individuals who have little or no criminal background or who are known to the victims;”56 that “the majority of firearm homicide[s occur] . . . not as the result of criminal activity, but because of arguments between people who know each other;”57 that each year there are thousands of gun murders “by law‐abiding citizens who might have stayed law‐abiding if they had not possessed firearms.”58

These comments appear to rest on no evidence and actually con‐ tradict facts that have so uniformly been established by homicide studies dating back to the 1890s that they have become “crimino‐ logical axioms.”59 Insofar as studies focus on perpetrators, they show that neither a majority, nor many, nor virtually any murder‐ ers are ordinary “law‐abiding citizens.”60

Rather, almost all mur‐ derers are extremely aberrant individuals with life histories of violence, psychopathology, substance abuse, and other dangerous behaviors. “The vast majority of persons involved in life‐ threatening violence have a long criminal record with many prior contacts with the justice system.”61 “Thus homicide—[whether] of a stranger or [of] someone known to the offender—‘is usually part of a pattern of violence, engaged in by people who are known . . . as violence prone.’”62



Though only 15% of Americans over the age of 15 have arrest records,63 approximately 90 percent of “adult mur‐ derers have adult records, with an average adult criminal career [involving crimes committed as an adult rather than a child] of six or more years, including four major adult felony arrests.”64

These national statistics dovetail with data from local nineteenth and twentieth century studies. For example: victims as well as offenders [in 1950s and 1960s Philadelphia murders] . . . tended to be people with prior police records, usually for violent crimes such as as‐ sault.”65


“The great majority of both perpetrators and victims of [1970s Harlem] assaults and murders had previous [adult] arrests, probably over 80% or more.”66 Boston police and probation officers in the 1990s agreed that of those juvenile‐perpetrated murders where all the facts were known, virtually all were committed by gang members, though the killing was not necessarily gang‐ directed. 67 One example would be a gang member who stabs his girlfriend to death in a fit of anger.68 Regardless of their arrests for other crimes, 80% of 1997 Atlanta murder arrestees had at least one earlier drug offense with 70% having 3 or more prior drug of‐ fenses.69

A New York Times study of the 1,662 murders committed in that city in the years 2003–2005 found that “[m]ore than 90 percent of the killers had criminal records.”70 Baltimore police figures show that “92 percent of murder suspects had [prior] criminal records in 2006.”71 Several of the more recent homicide studies just reviewed

Just pointing out that your study should have no bearing on ChrisL because it was done by a Canadian. Even though it argues for her side.

We have plenty of our own studies. Thanks. Like the most recent one that Obama had done which found that gun defense usage was at least as common as gun criminal usage.

The report you reference was produced by the CDC. The same CDC that so many people claim are part of a vast left wing conspiracy to "grab" people's guns. The subject of this thread is whether gun owners are reacting from fear, rather than rationality. Those so-called "gun rights advocates" who are afraid of what the CDC will find are reacting from fear, not rationality.

It's those on the left who don't like the CDC report. They "don't believe" the statistics. Instead they believe the hyped up media stories. Lol.

Yup, the CDC report produced surprises for both the pro and anti-gun forces. So? The main conclusion the report reached is that further research is required. That research will not be conducted, because of NRA induced paranoia. Cowardice, plain and simple. That's the subject of this thread.

The fact of the matter is . . . guns do in fact save lives. You don't have to like it, but there it is. Do you think criminals are going to give up their guns because of . . . . well any reason the government gives? That's a laugh. Lol.

 

[Rouge Rover]

Actual research into criminal behavior points out that you and many other people who are against gun ownership are wrong. Normal people do not murder other people simply because they own a gun....the people who use a gun, or any other tool, to commit murder are abnormal...and have long histories of violence and long criminal records.....

The Kate and Mauser study.......

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

I. VIOLENCE: THE DECISIVENESS OF SOCIAL FACTORS

One reason the extent of gun ownership in a society does not spur the murder rate is that murderers are not spread evenly throughout the population.

Analysis of perpetrator studies shows that violent criminals—especially murderers—“almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behav‐ ior.”37

So it would not appreciably raise violence if all law‐ abiding, responsible people had firearms because they are not the ones who rape, rob, or murder.38 By the same token, violent crime would not fall if guns were totally banned to civilians. As the respective examples of Luxembourg and Russia suggest,39 individuals who commit violent crimes will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons to use. 40

--------------------------

III. DO ORDINARY PEOPLE MURDER?

The “more guns equal more death” mantra seems plausible only when viewed through the rubric that murders mostly in‐ volve ordinary people who kill because they have access to a firearm when they get angry. If this were true, murder might well increase where people have ready access to firearms, but the available data provides no such correlation.

Nations and areas with more guns per capita do not have higher murder rates than those with fewer guns per capita.53

Nevertheless, critics of gun ownership often argue that a “gun in the closet to protect against burglars will most likely be used to shoot a spouse in a moment of rage . . . . The problem is you and me—law‐abiding folks;”54

that banning handgun posses‐ sion only for those with criminal records will “fail to protect us from the most likely source of handgun murder: ordinary citi‐ zens;”55 that “most gun‐related homicides . . . are the result of impulsive actions taken by individuals who have little or no criminal background or who are known to the victims;”56 that “the majority of firearm homicide[s occur] . . . not as the result of criminal activity, but because of arguments between people who know each other;”57 that each year there are thousands of gun murders “by law‐abiding citizens who might have stayed law‐abiding if they had not possessed firearms.”58

These comments appear to rest on no evidence and actually con‐ tradict facts that have so uniformly been established by homicide studies dating back to the 1890s that they have become “crimino‐ logical axioms.”59 Insofar as studies focus on perpetrators, they show that neither a majority, nor many, nor virtually any murder‐ ers are ordinary “law‐abiding citizens.”60

Rather, almost all mur‐ derers are extremely aberrant individuals with life histories of violence, psychopathology, substance abuse, and other dangerous behaviors. “The vast majority of persons involved in life‐ threatening violence have a long criminal record with many prior contacts with the justice system.”61 “Thus homicide—[whether] of a stranger or [of] someone known to the offender—‘is usually part of a pattern of violence, engaged in by people who are known . . . as violence prone.’”62



Though only 15% of Americans over the age of 15 have arrest records,63 approximately 90 percent of “adult mur‐ derers have adult records, with an average adult criminal career [involving crimes committed as an adult rather than a child] of six or more years, including four major adult felony arrests.”64

These national statistics dovetail with data from local nineteenth and twentieth century studies. For example: victims as well as offenders [in 1950s and 1960s Philadelphia murders] . . . tended to be people with prior police records, usually for violent crimes such as as‐ sault.”65


“The great majority of both perpetrators and victims of [1970s Harlem] assaults and murders had previous [adult] arrests, probably over 80% or more.”66 Boston police and probation officers in the 1990s agreed that of those juvenile‐perpetrated murders where all the facts were known, virtually all were committed by gang members, though the killing was not necessarily gang‐ directed. 67 One example would be a gang member who stabs his girlfriend to death in a fit of anger.68 Regardless of their arrests for other crimes, 80% of 1997 Atlanta murder arrestees had at least one earlier drug offense with 70% having 3 or more prior drug of‐ fenses.69

A New York Times study of the 1,662 murders committed in that city in the years 2003–2005 found that “[m]ore than 90 percent of the killers had criminal records.”70 Baltimore police figures show that “92 percent of murder suspects had [prior] criminal records in 2006.”71 Several of the more recent homicide studies just reviewed

Sorry not wrong. The first 3 I looked at had no prior convictions. If I had the time I'm sure many more would fit the bill. Especially the children involved in the shootings.

Actual research into criminal behavior points out that you and many other people who are against gun ownership are wrong. Normal people do not murder other people simply because they own a gun....the people who use a gun, or any other tool, to commit murder are abnormal...and have long histories of violence and long criminal records.....

The Kate and Mauser study.......

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

I. VIOLENCE: THE DECISIVENESS OF SOCIAL FACTORS

One reason the extent of gun ownership in a society does not spur the murder rate is that murderers are not spread evenly throughout the population.

Analysis of perpetrator studies shows that violent criminals—especially murderers—“almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behav‐ ior.”37

So it would not appreciably raise violence if all law‐ abiding, responsible people had firearms because they are not the ones who rape, rob, or murder.38 By the same token, violent crime would not fall if guns were totally banned to civilians. As the respective examples of Luxembourg and Russia suggest,39 individuals who commit violent crimes will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons to use. 40

--------------------------

III. DO ORDINARY PEOPLE MURDER?

The “more guns equal more death” mantra seems plausible only when viewed through the rubric that murders mostly in‐ volve ordinary people who kill because they have access to a firearm when they get angry. If this were true, murder might well increase where people have ready access to firearms, but the available data provides no such correlation.

Nations and areas with more guns per capita do not have higher murder rates than those with fewer guns per capita.53

Nevertheless, critics of gun ownership often argue that a “gun in the closet to protect against burglars will most likely be used to shoot a spouse in a moment of rage . . . . The problem is you and me—law‐abiding folks;”54

that banning handgun posses‐ sion only for those with criminal records will “fail to protect us from the most likely source of handgun murder: ordinary citi‐ zens;”55 that “most gun‐related homicides . . . are the result of impulsive actions taken by individuals who have little or no criminal background or who are known to the victims;”56 that “the majority of firearm homicide[s occur] . . . not as the result of criminal activity, but because of arguments between people who know each other;”57 that each year there are thousands of gun murders “by law‐abiding citizens who might have stayed law‐abiding if they had not possessed firearms.”58

These comments appear to rest on no evidence and actually con‐ tradict facts that have so uniformly been established by homicide studies dating back to the 1890s that they have become “crimino‐ logical axioms.”59 Insofar as studies focus on perpetrators, they show that neither a majority, nor many, nor virtually any murder‐ ers are ordinary “law‐abiding citizens.”60

Rather, almost all mur‐ derers are extremely aberrant individuals with life histories of violence, psychopathology, substance abuse, and other dangerous behaviors. “The vast majority of persons involved in life‐ threatening violence have a long criminal record with many prior contacts with the justice system.”61 “Thus homicide—[whether] of a stranger or [of] someone known to the offender—‘is usually part of a pattern of violence, engaged in by people who are known . . . as violence prone.’”62



Though only 15% of Americans over the age of 15 have arrest records,63 approximately 90 percent of “adult mur‐ derers have adult records, with an average adult criminal career [involving crimes committed as an adult rather than a child] of six or more years, including four major adult felony arrests.”64

These national statistics dovetail with data from local nineteenth and twentieth century studies. For example: victims as well as offenders [in 1950s and 1960s Philadelphia murders] . . . tended to be people with prior police records, usually for violent crimes such as as‐ sault.”65


“The great majority of both perpetrators and victims of [1970s Harlem] assaults and murders had previous [adult] arrests, probably over 80% or more.”66 Boston police and probation officers in the 1990s agreed that of those juvenile‐perpetrated murders where all the facts were known, virtually all were committed by gang members, though the killing was not necessarily gang‐ directed. 67 One example would be a gang member who stabs his girlfriend to death in a fit of anger.68 Regardless of their arrests for other crimes, 80% of 1997 Atlanta murder arrestees had at least one earlier drug offense with 70% having 3 or more prior drug of‐ fenses.69

A New York Times study of the 1,662 murders committed in that city in the years 2003–2005 found that “[m]ore than 90 percent of the killers had criminal records.”70 Baltimore police figures show that “92 percent of murder suspects had [prior] criminal records in 2006.”71 Several of the more recent homicide studies just reviewed

Just pointing out that your study should have no bearing on ChrisL because it was done by a Canadian. Even though it argues for her side.

We have plenty of our own studies. Thanks. Like the most recent one that Obama had done which found that gun defense usage was at least as common as gun criminal usage.

The report you reference was produced by the CDC. The same CDC that so many people claim are part of a vast left wing conspiracy to "grab" people's guns. The subject of this thread is whether gun owners are reacting from fear, rather than rationality. Those so-called "gun rights advocates" who are afraid of what the CDC will find are reacting from fear, not rationality.

It's those on the left who don't like the CDC report. They "don't believe" the statistics. Instead they believe the hyped up media stories. Lol.

Yup, the CDC report produced surprises for both the pro and anti-gun forces. So? The main conclusion the report reached is that further research is required. That research will not be conducted, because of NRA induced paranoia. Cowardice, plain and simple. That's the subject of this thread.

So scientists who make their money by conducting research concluded that more research is required? Knock me over with a feather.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Sorry not wrong. The first 3 I looked at had no prior convictions. If I had the time I'm sure many more would fit the bill. Especially the children involved in the shootings.
Just pointing out that your study should have no bearing on ChrisL because it was done by a Canadian. Even though it argues for her side.

We have plenty of our own studies. Thanks. Like the most recent one that Obama had done which found that gun defense usage was at least as common as gun criminal usage.

The report you reference was produced by the CDC. The same CDC that so many people claim are part of a vast left wing conspiracy to "grab" people's guns. The subject of this thread is whether gun owners are reacting from fear, rather than rationality. Those so-called "gun rights advocates" who are afraid of what the CDC will find are reacting from fear, not rationality.

It's those on the left who don't like the CDC report. They "don't believe" the statistics. Instead they believe the hyped up media stories. Lol.

Yup, the CDC report produced surprises for both the pro and anti-gun forces. So? The main conclusion the report reached is that further research is required. That research will not be conducted, because of NRA induced paranoia. Cowardice, plain and simple. That's the subject of this thread.

What further research do you think is required? Please be specific.

I'm not the CDC. I don't think further research is required, they do. I believe that they should be allowed to do their work unhindered by congressional interference. I'm not afraid of what they will find. Are you?

 

[Rouge Rover]

We have plenty of our own studies. Thanks. Like the most recent one that Obama had done which found that gun defense usage was at least as common as gun criminal usage.

The report you reference was produced by the CDC. The same CDC that so many people claim are part of a vast left wing conspiracy to "grab" people's guns. The subject of this thread is whether gun owners are reacting from fear, rather than rationality. Those so-called "gun rights advocates" who are afraid of what the CDC will find are reacting from fear, not rationality.

It's those on the left who don't like the CDC report. They "don't believe" the statistics. Instead they believe the hyped up media stories. Lol.

Yup, the CDC report produced surprises for both the pro and anti-gun forces. So? The main conclusion the report reached is that further research is required. That research will not be conducted, because of NRA induced paranoia. Cowardice, plain and simple. That's the subject of this thread.

What further research do you think is required? Please be specific.

I'm not the CDC. I don't think further research is required, they do. I believe that they should be allowed to do their work unhindered by congressional interference. I'm not afraid of what they will find. Are you?

I think it's silly and very political for the CDC to conduct research on gun violence. I'd rather have them working on the Zika virus.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Sorry not wrong. The first 3 I looked at had no prior convictions. If I had the time I'm sure many more would fit the bill. Especially the children involved in the shootings.
Just pointing out that your study should have no bearing on ChrisL because it was done by a Canadian. Even though it argues for her side.

We have plenty of our own studies. Thanks. Like the most recent one that Obama had done which found that gun defense usage was at least as common as gun criminal usage.

The report you reference was produced by the CDC. The same CDC that so many people claim are part of a vast left wing conspiracy to "grab" people's guns. The subject of this thread is whether gun owners are reacting from fear, rather than rationality. Those so-called "gun rights advocates" who are afraid of what the CDC will find are reacting from fear, not rationality.

It's those on the left who don't like the CDC report. They "don't believe" the statistics. Instead they believe the hyped up media stories. Lol.

Yup, the CDC report produced surprises for both the pro and anti-gun forces. So? The main conclusion the report reached is that further research is required. That research will not be conducted, because of NRA induced paranoia. Cowardice, plain and simple. That's the subject of this thread.

The fact of the matter is . . . guns do in fact save lives. You don't have to like it, but there it is. Do you think criminals are going to give up their guns because of . . . . well any reason the government gives? That's a laugh. Lol.

Do you believe yourself to be the smartest person on earth? Worse, do you believe yourself to be smarter than the entire brain trust of the US? I don't. I think there are a lot of smart people who, if allowed to study the problem, could save lives.

The CDC is prevented from doing their job by cowardice. Anyone who supports maintaining the current ban on CDC research is paranoid.

 

[ChrisL]

We have plenty of our own studies. Thanks. Like the most recent one that Obama had done which found that gun defense usage was at least as common as gun criminal usage.

The report you reference was produced by the CDC. The same CDC that so many people claim are part of a vast left wing conspiracy to "grab" people's guns. The subject of this thread is whether gun owners are reacting from fear, rather than rationality. Those so-called "gun rights advocates" who are afraid of what the CDC will find are reacting from fear, not rationality.

It's those on the left who don't like the CDC report. They "don't believe" the statistics. Instead they believe the hyped up media stories. Lol.

Yup, the CDC report produced surprises for both the pro and anti-gun forces. So? The main conclusion the report reached is that further research is required. That research will not be conducted, because of NRA induced paranoia. Cowardice, plain and simple. That's the subject of this thread.

What further research do you think is required? Please be specific.

I'm not the CDC. I don't think further research is required, they do. I believe that they should be allowed to do their work unhindered by congressional interference. I'm not afraid of what they will find. Are you?

They just added that to please Obama, I'm sure. Lol. The fact of the matter is, the second amendment is a right and has been since the United States was founded.

Guns don't make people into criminals. You and others have no right to restrict any ONE of rights because of what criminals and murderers might do.

 

[ChrisL]

We have plenty of our own studies. Thanks. Like the most recent one that Obama had done which found that gun defense usage was at least as common as gun criminal usage.

The report you reference was produced by the CDC. The same CDC that so many people claim are part of a vast left wing conspiracy to "grab" people's guns. The subject of this thread is whether gun owners are reacting from fear, rather than rationality. Those so-called "gun rights advocates" who are afraid of what the CDC will find are reacting from fear, not rationality.

It's those on the left who don't like the CDC report. They "don't believe" the statistics. Instead they believe the hyped up media stories. Lol.

Yup, the CDC report produced surprises for both the pro and anti-gun forces. So? The main conclusion the report reached is that further research is required. That research will not be conducted, because of NRA induced paranoia. Cowardice, plain and simple. That's the subject of this thread.

The fact of the matter is . . . guns do in fact save lives. You don't have to like it, but there it is. Do you think criminals are going to give up their guns because of . . . . well any reason the government gives? That's a laugh. Lol.

Do you believe yourself to be the smartest person on earth? Worse, do you believe yourself to be smarter than the entire brain trust of the US? I don't. I think there are a lot of smart people who, if allowed to study the problem, could save lives.

The CDC is prevented from doing their job by cowardice. Anyone who supports maintaining the current ban on CDC research is paranoid.

Maybe they should do some research in voting rights instead? Maybe the government should spend some time investigating itself? Leave us people alone with our rights. K? If you are fearful, then wall yourself up in your home and don't go out in the public. I've known plenty of people who owned and who do own guns, and I do not fear them.

Criminals and murderers are not adequate representations of the law abiding population of the United States, and if you are not involved with criminal activity, your chances are better of drowning in your backyard pool than of being shot.

 

[Elvis Obama]

The report you reference was produced by the CDC. The same CDC that so many people claim are part of a vast left wing conspiracy to "grab" people's guns. The subject of this thread is whether gun owners are reacting from fear, rather than rationality. Those so-called "gun rights advocates" who are afraid of what the CDC will find are reacting from fear, not rationality.

It's those on the left who don't like the CDC report. They "don't believe" the statistics. Instead they believe the hyped up media stories. Lol.

Yup, the CDC report produced surprises for both the pro and anti-gun forces. So? The main conclusion the report reached is that further research is required. That research will not be conducted, because of NRA induced paranoia. Cowardice, plain and simple. That's the subject of this thread.

What further research do you think is required? Please be specific.

I'm not the CDC. I don't think further research is required, they do. I believe that they should be allowed to do their work unhindered by congressional interference. I'm not afraid of what they will find. Are you?

I think it's silly and very political for the CDC to conduct research on gun violence. I'd rather have them working on the Zika virus.

Who cares what a dilettante thinks about medical research? You think you're qualified to determine what the CDC should and should not study? This is not the point, though. Their job is to prevent death. Period. That's not political and it's not rational to stand in their way.

 

[ChrisL]

It's those on the left who don't like the CDC report. They "don't believe" the statistics. Instead they believe the hyped up media stories. Lol.

Yup, the CDC report produced surprises for both the pro and anti-gun forces. So? The main conclusion the report reached is that further research is required. That research will not be conducted, because of NRA induced paranoia. Cowardice, plain and simple. That's the subject of this thread.

What further research do you think is required? Please be specific.

I'm not the CDC. I don't think further research is required, they do. I believe that they should be allowed to do their work unhindered by congressional interference. I'm not afraid of what they will find. Are you?

I think it's silly and very political for the CDC to conduct research on gun violence. I'd rather have them working on the Zika virus.

Who cares what a dilettante thinks about medical research? You think you're qualified to determine what the CDC should and should not study? This is not the point, though. Their job is to prevent death. Period. That's not political and it's not rational to stand in their way.

When it comes to one of our rights, it most certainly IS political. Sorry but it is.

 

[ChrisL]

It's those on the left who don't like the CDC report. They "don't believe" the statistics. Instead they believe the hyped up media stories. Lol.

Yup, the CDC report produced surprises for both the pro and anti-gun forces. So? The main conclusion the report reached is that further research is required. That research will not be conducted, because of NRA induced paranoia. Cowardice, plain and simple. That's the subject of this thread.

What further research do you think is required? Please be specific.

I'm not the CDC. I don't think further research is required, they do. I believe that they should be allowed to do their work unhindered by congressional interference. I'm not afraid of what they will find. Are you?

I think it's silly and very political for the CDC to conduct research on gun violence. I'd rather have them working on the Zika virus.

Who cares what a dilettante thinks about medical research? You think you're qualified to determine what the CDC should and should not study? This is not the point, though. Their job is to prevent death. Period. That's not political and it's not rational to stand in their way.

And are you one of those people who goes around ranting about the police being racists and "institutionalized racism?"

 

[Rouge Rover]

It's those on the left who don't like the CDC report. They "don't believe" the statistics. Instead they believe the hyped up media stories. Lol.

Yup, the CDC report produced surprises for both the pro and anti-gun forces. So? The main conclusion the report reached is that further research is required. That research will not be conducted, because of NRA induced paranoia. Cowardice, plain and simple. That's the subject of this thread.

What further research do you think is required? Please be specific.

I'm not the CDC. I don't think further research is required, they do. I believe that they should be allowed to do their work unhindered by congressional interference. I'm not afraid of what they will find. Are you?

I think it's silly and very political for the CDC to conduct research on gun violence. I'd rather have them working on the Zika virus.

Who cares what a dilettante thinks about medical research? You think you're qualified to determine what the CDC should and should not study? This is not the point, though. Their job is to prevent death. Period. That's not political and it's not rational to stand in their way.

I see you have a thesaurus, nice. What does CDC stand for you anti-dilettante you?

 

[Elvis Obama]

The report you reference was produced by the CDC. The same CDC that so many people claim are part of a vast left wing conspiracy to "grab" people's guns. The subject of this thread is whether gun owners are reacting from fear, rather than rationality. Those so-called "gun rights advocates" who are afraid of what the CDC will find are reacting from fear, not rationality.

It's those on the left who don't like the CDC report. They "don't believe" the statistics. Instead they believe the hyped up media stories. Lol.

Yup, the CDC report produced surprises for both the pro and anti-gun forces. So? The main conclusion the report reached is that further research is required. That research will not be conducted, because of NRA induced paranoia. Cowardice, plain and simple. That's the subject of this thread.

What further research do you think is required? Please be specific.

I'm not the CDC. I don't think further research is required, they do. I believe that they should be allowed to do their work unhindered by congressional interference. I'm not afraid of what they will find. Are you?

They just added that to please Obama, I'm sure. Lol. The fact of the matter is, the second amendment is a right and has been since the United States was founded.

Guns don't make people into criminals. You and others have no right to restrict any ONE of rights because of what criminals and murderers might do.

That reply is utterly without thought. I made no mention of criminals or the second amendment. My point, which you consistently refuse to address, is that the congressional blockage of CDC research is absolute proof of the cowardice of the pro-gun people. Are you afraid of what the CDC will find? Yes or no.

 

[Rouge Rover]

It's those on the left who don't like the CDC report. They "don't believe" the statistics. Instead they believe the hyped up media stories. Lol.

Yup, the CDC report produced surprises for both the pro and anti-gun forces. So? The main conclusion the report reached is that further research is required. That research will not be conducted, because of NRA induced paranoia. Cowardice, plain and simple. That's the subject of this thread.

What further research do you think is required? Please be specific.

I'm not the CDC. I don't think further research is required, they do. I believe that they should be allowed to do their work unhindered by congressional interference. I'm not afraid of what they will find. Are you?

They just added that to please Obama, I'm sure. Lol. The fact of the matter is, the second amendment is a right and has been since the United States was founded.

Guns don't make people into criminals. You and others have no right to restrict any ONE of rights because of what criminals and murderers might do.

That reply is utterly without thought. I made no mention of criminals or the second amendment. My point, which you consistently refuse to address, is that the congressional blockage of CDC research is absolute proof of the cowardice of the pro-gun people. Are you afraid of what the CDC will find? Yes or no.

And I think you are being thoroughly dishonest. You want the Centers for Disease Control to conduct research on guns and you claim it has nothing to do with impacting gun usage?

 

[ChrisL]

It's those on the left who don't like the CDC report. They "don't believe" the statistics. Instead they believe the hyped up media stories. Lol.

Yup, the CDC report produced surprises for both the pro and anti-gun forces. So? The main conclusion the report reached is that further research is required. That research will not be conducted, because of NRA induced paranoia. Cowardice, plain and simple. That's the subject of this thread.

What further research do you think is required? Please be specific.

I'm not the CDC. I don't think further research is required, they do. I believe that they should be allowed to do their work unhindered by congressional interference. I'm not afraid of what they will find. Are you?

They just added that to please Obama, I'm sure. Lol. The fact of the matter is, the second amendment is a right and has been since the United States was founded.

Guns don't make people into criminals. You and others have no right to restrict any ONE of rights because of what criminals and murderers might do.

That reply is utterly without thought. I made no mention of criminals or the second amendment. My point, which you consistently refuse to address, is that the congressional blockage of CDC research is absolute proof of the cowardice of the pro-gun people. Are you afraid of what the CDC will find? Yes or no.

They already did their research. Right? What else would you like them to research? Is it not enough that perhaps up to a million people have reported to have defended themselves against criminal threats with a firearm?

No? You'd rather concentrate on the few psychopaths who commit mass shootings, or those who are involved in criminal activity of some sort? There are always going to be criminals and murderers and psychopaths. Removing one tool is not going to stop that. The most PROLIFIC murders in our country with the most mass casualties were not committed with guns. One was committed with jets and another with a bomb.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Yup, the CDC report produced surprises for both the pro and anti-gun forces. So? The main conclusion the report reached is that further research is required. That research will not be conducted, because of NRA induced paranoia. Cowardice, plain and simple. That's the subject of this thread.

What further research do you think is required? Please be specific.

I'm not the CDC. I don't think further research is required, they do. I believe that they should be allowed to do their work unhindered by congressional interference. I'm not afraid of what they will find. Are you?

I think it's silly and very political for the CDC to conduct research on gun violence. I'd rather have them working on the Zika virus.

Who cares what a dilettante thinks about medical research? You think you're qualified to determine what the CDC should and should not study? This is not the point, though. Their job is to prevent death. Period. That's not political and it's not rational to stand in their way.

And are you one of those people who goes around ranting about the police being racists and "institutionalized racism?"

Are you utterly incapable of focusing on a single subject. Or are you simply incapable of admitting when anyone makes a point you disagree with? For the record, no, I don't complain about police racism or institutional racism. See? I answered you question. Now answer mine. Are you afraid of what the CDC will find if they conduct further research? Yes or no.