CDZ Fear and guns....a discussion.

[Elvis Obama]

What is a political move? The CDC studying gun deaths? You just admitted that their preliminary study backs up some of your beliefs. Mass shootings have not been mentioned, and have nothing to do with this discussion. It's up to the CDC to determine where their efforts are best focused, not a bunch of know-it-alls on a forum board.

I believe that the CDC should be allowed to do their work unhindered by congressional interference. I'm not afraid of what they will find. Are you?

Just because it turned out in favor of the people instead of the government does not mean it was NOT politically motivated. Of course it was! Come on! If you can't be honest about that fact, then I'm sorry, I have to consider you to be a dishonest individual with an agenda that goes against the rights of we the people of the United States of America.

Politically motivated? Of course it was politically motivated. Unfortunately you have no idea what that means. Elected representative are responsible to their constituents. 30,000 gun deaths a year is a problem. Elected representative are responsible for addressing problems like that. What you mean when you say "politically motivated" is a vast conspiracy to violate your rights. That is paranoia . The CDC report was unbiased. Period. It was not the "ammunition" that the most rabid anti-gun people wanted. If the CDC were in their pocket, they would have produced the conclusions those people wanted. They did not.

How in the world can you cite the CDC findings as proof of what you believe, then claim they are not being honest?

Are CDC employees elected?

Yes, they are elected, by elves. Anti-gun elves. They plan to break into your home, steal your guns, and leave warm, chewy chocolate chip cookies in their place. Yum!

Weren't you just making fun of someone else earlier for not dealing with the substance of your blindingly awesome posts?

I'm sorry, was that intended to be a serious post? If so, try harder. Are CDC employees elected? That is not a serious question, and makes no sense in the context of this thread.

 

[Elvis Obama]

No, I don't have a thesaurus, I have an education. You want to engage in a worthless discussion about what a "disease" is. Why in the world would I care what you think about the CDC's mission? They fight obesity. Is that a disease? The study automotive deaths. Is that a disease? Their mission is the prevention of death. Period. They are qualified to determine what that mission requires. You are not. Neither am I. Get over yourself. You aren't as smart as all the doctors in the CDC. Not even close.

It is a political move and a political issue. Mass shootings are less than 0.1% of ALL deaths in the United States.

What is a political move? The CDC studying gun deaths? You just admitted that their preliminary study backs up some of your beliefs. Mass shootings have not been mentioned, and have nothing to do with this discussion. It's up to the CDC to determine where their efforts are best focused, not a bunch of know-it-alls on a forum board.

I believe that the CDC should be allowed to do their work unhindered by congressional interference. I'm not afraid of what they will find. Are you?

Just because it turned out in favor of the people instead of the government does not mean it was NOT politically motivated. Of course it was! Come on! If you can't be honest about that fact, then I'm sorry, I have to consider you to be a dishonest individual with an agenda that goes against the rights of we the people of the United States of America.

Politically motivated? Of course it was politically motivated. Unfortunately you have no idea what that means. Elected representative are responsible to their constituents. 30,000 gun deaths a year is a problem. Elected representative are responsible for addressing problems like that. What you mean when you say "politically motivated" is a vast conspiracy to violate your rights. That is paranoia . The CDC report was unbiased. Period. It was not the "ammunition" that the most rabid anti-gun people wanted. If the CDC were in their pocket, they would have produced the conclusions those people wanted. They did not.

How in the world can you cite the CDC findings as proof of what you believe, then claim they are not being honest?

Oh, so now you are back pedaling and admitting that it was politically motivated? Funny because earlier you scoffed at the idea. The CDC is not going to be unbiased of course. They get their funding through the federal government. They even lobby the government for grants. Did ya know that?

Didya know that their preliminary report was unbiased? Of course you do, you cited it. You are simply dishonest and duplicitous. When it serves your purposes the CDC is a source authority. When you want to fantasize about "evil government agencies", then they're not to be trusted. Why can't I claim that their findings about the use of guns for self-protection were untrue? That the CDC are, in fact, tools of the pro-gun lobby? Oh yeah, that's right, I can't, because I'm rational and honorable. I don't hide from the truth and I don't want to conduct a debate based on false information or self-serving assumptions. I just want to bring down the rate of gun deaths in the USA. Those statistics weaken us, internationally. They represent families torn apart. Me and the CDC, we're all about bringing those numbers down. What about you?

 

[Rouge Rover]

Just because it turned out in favor of the people instead of the government does not mean it was NOT politically motivated. Of course it was! Come on! If you can't be honest about that fact, then I'm sorry, I have to consider you to be a dishonest individual with an agenda that goes against the rights of we the people of the United States of America.

Politically motivated? Of course it was politically motivated. Unfortunately you have no idea what that means. Elected representative are responsible to their constituents. 30,000 gun deaths a year is a problem. Elected representative are responsible for addressing problems like that. What you mean when you say "politically motivated" is a vast conspiracy to violate your rights. That is paranoia . The CDC report was unbiased. Period. It was not the "ammunition" that the most rabid anti-gun people wanted. If the CDC were in their pocket, they would have produced the conclusions those people wanted. They did not.

How in the world can you cite the CDC findings as proof of what you believe, then claim they are not being honest?

Are CDC employees elected?

Yes, they are elected, by elves. Anti-gun elves. They plan to break into your home, steal your guns, and leave warm, chewy chocolate chip cookies in their place. Yum!

Weren't you just making fun of someone else earlier for not dealing with the substance of your blindingly awesome posts?

I'm sorry, was that intended to be a serious post? If so, try harder. Are CDC employees elected? That is not a serious question, and makes no sense in the context of this thread.

It's relevant because you mentioned "elected" officials many times in a response to a post about the CDC. You don't like answering questions about your opinions...that's OK, I've dealt with progressives before.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Politically motivated? Of course it was politically motivated. Unfortunately you have no idea what that means. Elected representative are responsible to their constituents. 30,000 gun deaths a year is a problem. Elected representative are responsible for addressing problems like that. What you mean when you say "politically motivated" is a vast conspiracy to violate your rights. That is paranoia . The CDC report was unbiased. Period. It was not the "ammunition" that the most rabid anti-gun people wanted. If the CDC were in their pocket, they would have produced the conclusions those people wanted. They did not.

How in the world can you cite the CDC findings as proof of what you believe, then claim they are not being honest?

Are CDC employees elected?

Yes, they are elected, by elves. Anti-gun elves. They plan to break into your home, steal your guns, and leave warm, chewy chocolate chip cookies in their place. Yum!

Weren't you just making fun of someone else earlier for not dealing with the substance of your blindingly awesome posts?

I'm sorry, was that intended to be a serious post? If so, try harder. Are CDC employees elected? That is not a serious question, and makes no sense in the context of this thread.

It's relevant because you mentioned "elected" officials many times in a response to a post about the CDC. You don't like answering questions about your opinions...that's OK, I've dealt with progressives before.

Nope, it isn't. It's silly, off-topic obfuscation. You can provide nothing to support your position that the CDC is in the pocket of anti-gun forces, because they aren't. They're doctors. They will study the problem and report on it honestly. Their preliminary study proved that, to rational people. To people consumed by fear (which is the subject of this thread) nothing can be proved. They will cling, terrified, to their assumptions and their guns.

 

[charwin95]

I am very familiar with this case. You and I went over this before. You did not mentioned here that she was caught by surprised from behind to fit your agenda....... A rapist or thugs will NEVER make an announcement I'm going to rape you in 15 minutes..... I think you don't know that.....
Even if she carried her gun with her. Where do you think her gun was tucked or carry with her? In her vagina? Walking around with a gun in her hand? Have you seen anyone walking to parking lot with a gun in their hand? For you to make this kind of example to fit your propaganda is pathetic.
I also told you maybe this is the third time that I got rob by 2 thugs in Atlantic city casino parking lots.
If I had my gun with me in my waist. My chances of pulling my gun unlock the safety then fire..... is zero.... none...... no chance........ But 100% they could have killed me.

What's pathetic is you wanting to leave women unarmed and defenseless because you are afraid of guns. THAT is pathetic.

What in the world are you talking about woman?
Read my hips...... Where in the world I say women should stop protecting themselves? You are way off and pathetic and dumb.

Read your hips?

My point stands, you have no say in my decision. It's a personal decision that each person makes, as is their right to do so.

Bringing up criminals does not a point make. Criminals do not follow laws. That is why they are criminals. The fact that this has to be explained over and over again is very tiresome.

Tiresome? People like me and other people here do not live in fear. We have more other things to enjoy than you are trying to advocate. Fear.... Who are you to tell me that I should arm myself because of your fear? .... As I previously mentioned in my neighborhood we do not close or lock our gates since I was born. We leave our doors unlock.
If your decision to arm yourself I'm not stopping you. I could care less....

Who is telling you to arm yourself? Nobody is. Stop being a drama queen. AND it is "I could NOT care less."

You are a dishonest person.

 

[westwall]

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...?

ALL GUNS ARE WRONG IN A CIVILIZED SOCIETY

Let us know when society gets civilized.

 

[oldsoul]

I guess I am coming to this debate a little late. However, consider this:
If carrying a gun at all times makes me a fearful person, then I guess wearing my seat belt every time I ride in a car makes me just as fearfull. I mean really, we wear seatbelts all the time because we don't know when something will happen, and we know we will not have time to put it on once an accident is imminent. Likewise, one may carry a gun every time they leave their home because one never knows when or where a criminal may attack us, and we also know that the criminal will not allow us the time to run home to get our gun so we can defend ourselves. Someone, anyone, please explain to me and the rest of the rational world what the difference is.


Note: I do not expect a rational response to this, suprise me, and shock the world with one.....

 

[Muhammed]

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...?

ALL GUNS ARE WRONG IN A CIVILIZED SOCIETY

Wrong. Writing in all caps does not make your attempted point valid.

 

[Hossfly]

I know

You do??? So are you from our Great Country, The United States where we have constitutionally guaranteed rights?

I live in the Great Country of Australia

Well, nobody cares about Australia, I understand, but I'm sure you could find somebody to talk to you.

The US are very happy to have our support when things go Tits Up

Your military??? Hilarious!

The truth is that Australia is always the first or among the first to take up arms with the U.S. They are one of our most loyal allies and I can personally attest to the bang-up job they did in Vietnam. Nothing slack about he Diggers.

 

[PredFan]

I do have some fear. There is a rational and justifiable reason to be afraid. It's violent out there. I fear for my family and my property.

The gun grabbers also fear, but they will try to pretend that our fear is unwarranted. They can't do it if we don't allow them to.

 

[PredFan]

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...?

Carrying a gun when going into a situation that could be dangerous is rational. Carrying a gun every moment you are outside your door... that is fear.

If you don't carry it with you, how will you have it when you find yourself in a dangerous situation? Are you going to ask the bad guys to wait for you to go home? Are you going to be called at home and asked to get your gun and come to this dangerous situation?

It is not fear, that is just what you people say to marginalize gun owners.

 

[regent]

As the burden of making automobiles safe has been turned over to the auto manufacturers so the gun safety issue should first be turned over to the gun manufacturers.
One of the problems with gun deaths is the "spur of the moment" shooting by normally reasonable people.

 

[Arianrhod]

As the burden of making automobiles safe has been turned over to the auto manufacturers so the gun safety issue should first be turned over to the gun manufacturers.
One of the problems with gun deaths is the "spur of the moment" shooting by normally reasonable people.

And unsecured guns that end up in the hands of children.

 

[2aguy]

As the burden of making automobiles safe has been turned over to the auto manufacturers so the gun safety issue should first be turned over to the gun manufacturers.
One of the problems with gun deaths is the "spur of the moment" shooting by normally reasonable people.

And unsecured guns that end up in the hands of children.

there are 74.2 million children in the country...how many died from accidental gun deaths....69. Ban cars...cars are the leading cause of death for children.

 

[2aguy]

As the burden of making automobiles safe has been turned over to the auto manufacturers so the gun safety issue should first be turned over to the gun manufacturers.
One of the problems with gun deaths is the "spur of the moment" shooting by normally reasonable people.

spur of the moment shootings are only done by already abnormal people...people with histories of violence and crime. the normal gun owner does not shoot his wife......the spur of the moment argument comes from a lack of knowledge of actual gun ownership statistics....

 

[2aguy]

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

No, I don't have a thesaurus, I have an education. You want to engage in a worthless discussion about what a "disease" is. Why in the world would I care what you think about the CDC's mission? They fight obesity. Is that a disease? The study automotive deaths. Is that a disease? Their mission is the prevention of death. Period. They are qualified to determine what that mission requires. You are not. Neither am I. Get over yourself. You aren't as smart as all the doctors in the CDC. Not even close.

It is a political move and a political issue. Mass shootings are less than 0.1% of ALL deaths in the United States.

What is a political move? The CDC studying gun deaths? You just admitted that their preliminary study backs up some of your beliefs. Mass shootings have not been mentioned, and have nothing to do with this discussion. It's up to the CDC to determine where their efforts are best focused, not a bunch of know-it-alls on a forum board.

I believe that the CDC should be allowed to do their work unhindered by congressional interference. I'm not afraid of what they will find. Are you?

Just because it turned out in favor of the people instead of the government does not mean it was NOT politically motivated. Of course it was! Come on! If you can't be honest about that fact, then I'm sorry, I have to consider you to be a dishonest individual with an agenda that goes against the rights of we the people of the United States of America.

Politically motivated? Of course it was politically motivated. Unfortunately you have no idea what that means. Elected representative are responsible to their constituents. 30,000 gun deaths a year is a problem. Elected representative are responsible for addressing problems like that. What you mean when you say "politically motivated" is a vast conspiracy to violate your rights. That is paranoia . The CDC report was unbiased. Period. It was not the "ammunition" that the most rabid anti-gun people wanted. If the CDC were in their pocket, they would have produced the conclusions those people wanted. They did not.

How in the world can you cite the CDC findings as proof of what you believe, then claim they are not being honest?

the CDC is not unbiased....they only report research that supports anti gun positions.....that is why they are not allowed to propagandize with their research.

 

[2aguy]

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?

No, I don't have a thesaurus, I have an education. You want to engage in a worthless discussion about what a "disease" is. Why in the world would I care what you think about the CDC's mission? They fight obesity. Is that a disease? The study automotive deaths. Is that a disease? Their mission is the prevention of death. Period. They are qualified to determine what that mission requires. You are not. Neither am I. Get over yourself. You aren't as smart as all the doctors in the CDC. Not even close.

The study was requested by a sitting POTUS to further an agenda. If the CDC was serious about preventing deaths, they would be looking at our psychiatric/mental health status. THAT is the reason why people kill. It's not because of the tool they chose to carry out their murders. The tool is not the cause of the violence. It doesn't take a doctor or a CDC employee (who a lot are just BUREAUCRATS anyways), or a genius to know this.

Again, why do you think you're the smartest person in the world? I don't know what the CDC will find, and neither do you. I don't know what recommendations they will come up with and neither do you. I am not afraid of letting them do their research, but you are.

Mental health and suicide prevention are well within the CDC's bailiwick. I would suspect that their studies will concentrate mostly on suicide prevention. That's the cause of 2/3 of gun deaths.

we know what they have done in the past...they can't be trusted they specifically said what they were doing at the time........they were proud of it.

 

[2aguy]

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?

No, I don't have a thesaurus, I have an education. You want to engage in a worthless discussion about what a "disease" is. Why in the world would I care what you think about the CDC's mission? They fight obesity. Is that a disease? The study automotive deaths. Is that a disease? Their mission is the prevention of death. Period. They are qualified to determine what that mission requires. You are not. Neither am I. Get over yourself. You aren't as smart as all the doctors in the CDC. Not even close.

It is a political move and a political issue. Mass shootings are less than 0.1% of ALL deaths in the United States.

What is a political move? The CDC studying gun deaths? You just admitted that their preliminary study backs up some of your beliefs. Mass shootings have not been mentioned, and have nothing to do with this discussion. It's up to the CDC to determine where their efforts are best focused, not a bunch of know-it-alls on a forum board.

I believe that the CDC should be allowed to do their work unhindered by congressional interference. I'm not afraid of what they will find. Are you?

You realize that gun research increased...right......and that they got their funding back...they just can't push gun control.

 

[Arianrhod]

As the burden of making automobiles safe has been turned over to the auto manufacturers so the gun safety issue should first be turned over to the gun manufacturers.
One of the problems with gun deaths is the "spur of the moment" shooting by normally reasonable people.

And unsecured guns that end up in the hands of children.

there are 74.2 million children in the country...how many died from accidental gun deaths....69. Ban cars...cars are the leading cause of death for children.

One is too many. Get back to us when you can ditch your car and drive your gun(s) to work, church, and Walmart.

 

[2aguy]

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.

no..the CDc in the 90s was an advocate for gun control...that created the backlash....they left the neutral position and took up a cause.......they ignored research that didn't support the gun control agenda...and pushed shoddy research that pushed gun control...that started the problem.