Gun violence in the world

[Redfish]

Yes, but there should be limits.

All classes of firearms fall within these limits.

Sorry, but I do not think that the average citizen should be able to buy an M16.

Upon what moral authority do you make such decisions for others?

What can you hunt with that besides other humans?

Any thing but humans, for example. Do you not know what "hunt" means?

Besides, "hunting" isn't he issue. The issue is "legal use." Are you saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the average citizen to use an M16 in a legal manner?

If protection is the reason, a shotgun is much more effective.

Protection is a fine reason, and you are obviously wrong. The police don't prefer shotguns, why should the rest of us?

merely stating my opinions, as are you.

Police have use of force policies, one concern for them is innocent bystanders, something "the rest of" you don't consider.

'you have obviously never taken the concealed carry permit course or any kind of firearms training. You are talking out of ignorance as usual.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Let's just agree to disagree, I tired of this "yes, but" bullshit. You love your gun and don't give a damn about other people - it's the badge of honor of callous conservatives.

This is, of course, either abject ignorance, or a lie.
Typical of an anti-gun loon.

it's a fact, you and others like you immediately come on this message board defending the Second Amendment, soon after a mass murder is broadcast. Or will you lie about this fact too?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yours is a minority opinion (for good reason)

According to the FBI:
12253 murders in the US (2013)
6261 involved a black victim
5376 involved a black perpetrator
2245 involved a black civtim and a black perpetrator
FBI Expanded Offense Data
This significant over-representation of blacks in homicide data supports the position that we have a minority problem.

 

[Missourian]

No, it's not the"End of story". Even if the statement above is true, why are Americans more prone to murder each other? Clearly a broad question, but one that needs to be explored.

Guns aren't the problem...cities are the problem.

Let's take my state as an example.

2010, total murders in Missouri...419.

2010, total murders in St. Louis...219.

2010, total murders in Kansas City (Missouri only)...102.

2010 population St. Louis Missouri...319,000.

2010 Population of Kansas City (Missouri only) ...460,000.

2010 population of Missouri...SIX MILLION.

Some simple arithmetic.

The two major metropolitan with a combined population of less than a million are the geographical location of over three quarters of the homicides in my state.

The other FIVE MILLION citizens own FOUR TIMES MORE of the legal firearms in the state, yet accounted for less that 100 homicides total in 2010.

Guns aren't the problem; some societal factor in the fabric of urban America is the problem.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Let's just agree to disagree, I tired of this "yes, but" bullshit. You love your gun and don't give a damn about other people - it's the badge of honor of callous conservatives.

This is, of course, either abject ignorance, or a lie.
Typical of an anti-gun loon.

it's a fact, you and others like you immediately come on this message board defending the Second Amendment, soon after a mass murder is broadcast. Or will you lie about this fact too?

Your statement:
You love your gun and don't give a damn about other people - it's the badge of honor of callous conservatives
Noting in your response changes the fact that your statement is either abject ignorance, or a lie, typical of an anti-gun loon.

 

[candycorn]

So, according to the gun nuts, there is nothing we can do about guns and the US, alone, is destined to have these mass murders about once every other month. Is that the deal?

 

[LOki]

1. no average citizen needs an assault rifle
2. Chicago has the most strict gun laws in the nation, and the highest rate of gun deaths
3. the 2nd amendment will never be repealed, and never should be
4. the Japanese were scared to invade the USA because "every american has a gun"
5. If guns were banned only criminals and the government would have guns
6. mentally ill people should not be allowed to buy, own, or posses guns
7. OJ murdered two people with a knife
8 McVeay murdered hundreds with a bomb
9. the 9/11 terrorists murdered thousands with airplanes
10. Cars kill more people than guns.

1. Correct

It is impossible to demonstrate this assertion is categorically true. And it's not your decision to make.

2. Correlation does not prove causation

Sure it does. It does all the time. ONE correlation does not prove causation.

3. The Second Amendment is not sacrosanct

The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental political right, and it preserves a fundamental natural right. Sacrosanct enough for me.

4. One persons' apocryphal opinion does not reflect a nations'

I think this was bullshit from the beginning anyway.

5. Talking point and ridiculous - there is no effort to ban guns

A lie.

6. Mentally ill? A normal guy who drank too many shots of whiskey?

Seriously. "Mentally ill"--a person who questions authority? "Mentally ill"--a person who does not toe the party line? "Mentally ill"--a person who denies the divinity of our glorious leader?

7. Talking point, two dozen killed at Sandy Hook with a gun

Talking point--nobody shot back in defense of anybody in either case.

8. bombs are made to kill, and bombs are strictly regulated

And such regulation failed, for OBVIOUS reasons. And you know what? You can still buy fuel oil and fertilizer without even showing ID.

9. Talking point, planes are not made to kill

Contentious premise. False dichotomy.

10. Guns are made to kill, cars are not

Contentious premise. False dichotomy.

In re PTs 9 and 10:

Premise/Evidence Acceptability
"When it comes to value-based arguments (e.g., political, moral, and religious) we will often not be able to achieve 100% certainty of truth of the premises. Even something as intuitively obvious like "it's wrong to kill innocent people" will have counter-examples. However, simply because a premise cannot be 100% true in all cases, it doesn't necessarily mean that we should reject it or that the argument of which it is a part is poor. Instead, it means we need to be subtle in our evaluations and consider carefully what the logical consequences are of accepting certain premises."

Wrestling with Philosophy formerly Mission to Transition Critical Thinking Premise and Evidence Acceptability Unacceptability and Uncertainty Revisited

Good. "Guns are made to kill..." lacks subtlety and consideration. Maybe you'd like to refine or rephrase your premise.

8, The exception proves the rule.

Not in any way, what-so-ever.

7. Six and seven year old children don't commonly shoot back, K and first grade teachers are not trained in college to use deadly force.

Come on. Six and seven year olds? Are you so committed to just being obtuse?

I'm going to ask you to choose one of two positions regarding training: gun use is so difficult to master that it is rendered ineffective without rigorous training; or effective gun use is achievable with little to no training.

It seems to me that those who oppose the private possession of guns tend to disingenuously pick BOTH according to the way it serves their argument.

6. Mentally ill refers to a wide range of mental health conditions — disorders that affect your mood, thinking and behavior. Alcohol fits this defintion.

I don't disagree. Yet "mentally ill" is also applied capriciously and abusively. While nobody wants Chuck Manson to own a gun, neither do they want their rights violated because they had trouble sleeping.

5. There are those who want to ban all guns, I'm not one of them. There is no concerted effort to repeal the Second Amendment as there is to repeal Roe v. Wade, and Sec. 1 of the 14th, the 16th & the 17th.

Every gun registration and gun ban attempt is an attempt at confiscation. There is OBVIOUSLY a concerted effort to repeal the Second Amendment as there is to repeal Roe v. Wade, and Sec. 1 of the 14th, the 16th & the 17th.

4. Okay

Yeah. It helps no one to submit such bullshit.

3. The right of the people is infringed, and thus it has been ruled as not too valuable or important as you and others may wish

And you said there's no concerted effort to repeal the 2nd...tsk.

Infringing upon a right, doesn't change it's value. A thief steals a $100 worth of X, and that X has not been diminished in value. The right enumerated in the 2nd has been "infringed" under false pretenses... the reasonable and morally correct thing to do is end such infringement.

2. Correlation does not imply causation is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other.

Statistics is it's own thing...in science, however, correlation certainly implies causation. It's not even arguable. If correlation did not imply causation, there would be ZERO reason to investigate correlations.

And do you know what generations of scientists from around the world, and in every single discipline have discovered? Effects are directly correlated to causes. Every. Single. Time.

1. okay

Good. The argument from "does not need" is prima facie bullshit.

Let's just agree to disagree, I tired of this "yes, but" bullshit. You love your gun and don't give a damn about other people - it's the badge of honor of callous conservatives.

This is the lie you tell. I'm no "conservative", and I certainly care more for the well being, safety, and human dignity of other people than you do. OBVIOUSLY.

Your concern for other people extends only to telling them what to do--at gunpoint if necessary. Nothing else.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, according to the gun nuts, there is nothing we can do about guns and the US, alone, is destined to have these mass murders about once every other month. Is that the deal?

If you have a suggestion that prevents criminals from getting guns and does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears.
Please proceed.

 

[LOki]

So, according to the gun nuts, there is nothing we can do about guns and the US, alone, is destined to have these mass murders about once every other month. Is that the deal?

Strawman.

If you anti-rights folks didn't have fallacious arguments, you'd have no arguments at all.

 

[candycorn]

Guns aren't the problem; some societal factor in the fabric of urban America is the problem.

Yeah, it's called being able to drive out into the suburbs and buy supply an army to get even with someone who did you wrong; just like you did in the video games or read about in a book or saw on TV. If you live in Chicago, you (or someone you know in the 'hood) can get a gun easily outside of Chicago so guess what...you're able to settle your score using violence without consequence...just like in the movies.

If you're in London and you want to settle your score, you're about a billion times less likely to know some one who has access to guns (or have access yourself) and guess what, you don't have gun violence.

The problem isn't the cities (gee we've always had cities), it's the 2nd Amendment. The framers of the Constitution had a lot of great ideas. This wasn't one of them.

As long as we have it, we're destined to have this predictable cycle of violence.

 

[2aguy]

Let's just agree to disagree, I tired of this "yes, but" bullshit. You love your gun and don't give a damn about other people - it's the badge of honor of callous conservatives.

This is, of course, either abject ignorance, or a lie.
Typical of an anti-gun loon.

it's a fact, you and others like you immediately come on this message board defending the Second Amendment, soon after a mass murder is broadcast. Or will you lie about this fact too?

Well, asshole....I used to wait....to discuss the issue out of respect for the dead....but as I posted in another thread a study shows that the left has less self control than conservatives do.......so left wing/ democrat anti gun extremists would walk over the dead bodies and start yelling to ban guns and create more stupid laws...

After all, the propaganda usefulness of a dead shooting victim, especially a child, cools faster than the victims blood on the ground....

So in reaction to the left, and realizing that allowing you anti gun extremists days of free media attention and free spewing on the internet was dumb....

I stopped complying with your bullshit and began to post right away.....since you assholes can't control yourselves and let the dead and their families have a little peace......

look at the asshole obama....couldn't help himself could he...or hilary, or o'malley.....

And yet we are supposed to let them spew their poison without commenting...

No more....

 

[LOki]

Yes, but there should be limits.

All classes of firearms fall within these limits.

Sorry, but I do not think that the average citizen should be able to buy an M16.

Upon what moral authority do you make such decisions for others?

What can you hunt with that besides other humans?

Any thing but humans, for example. Do you not know what "hunt" means?

Besides, "hunting" isn't he issue. The issue is "legal use." Are you saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the average citizen to use an M16 in a legal manner?

If protection is the reason, a shotgun is much more effective.

Protection is a fine reason, and you are obviously wrong. The police don't prefer shotguns, why should the rest of us?

merely stating my opinions, as are you.

Police have use of force policies, one concern for them is innocent bystanders, something "the rest of" you don't consider.

Ipse dixit.

 

[2aguy]

Guns aren't the problem; some societal factor in the fabric of urban America is the problem.

Yeah, it's called being able to drive out into the suburbs and buy supply an army to get even with someone who did you wrong; just like you did in the video games or read about in a book or saw on TV. If you live in Chicago, you (or someone you know in the 'hood) can get a gun easily outside of Chicago so guess what...you're able to settle your score using violence without consequence...just like in the movies.

If you're in London and you want to settle your score, you're about a billion times less likely to know some one who has access to guns (or have access yourself) and guess what, you don't have gun violence.

The problem isn't the cities (gee we've always had cities), it's the 2nd Amendment. The framers of the Constitution had a lot of great ideas. This wasn't one of them.

As long as we have it, we're destined to have this predictable cycle of violence.

You do realize that you are importing more and more immigrants from countries far more violent than the already violent Britain...right......and that most of Britain's current gun violence is in those communities...right? You should actually do some research...

 

[2aguy]

So, according to the gun nuts, there is nothing we can do about guns and the US, alone, is destined to have these mass murders about once every other month. Is that the deal?

No...we can get rid of gun free zones like that church...where only the mass shooters have guns and the victims can be killed at will with no one stopping it.....that would go a long way to stopping these killers....

 

[candycorn]

​

In the next panel, the guy in the brown sweater gets shot between the eyes.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In the next panel, the guy in the brown sweater gets shot between the eyes.

If you have a suggestion that prevents criminals from getting guns and does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears.
Please proceed.

 

[LOki]

230! Wow, that must be impossible. Of course...

Well, because it is.

There were 9,795,658 crimes committed in 2013. This is a fact easily verified:
United States Crime Rates1960 - 2013
Given there are 365 days in a year, that means there are 26,837 per day are prevented or about 1,118 an hour....1,118 an hour every hour of every day of the year.

Huh? You're taking the number of crimes and dividing by 365 and claiming that they are prevented. Nothing supports that.

230 certainly is not impossible or even all that high considering that there are almost 5 times that number of crimes actually successfully committed AND reported.

Brought to you by the same folks who said Iraq would cost less than a billion and Reagan-nomics.

2 million is likely an over estimate but if it is even half that you are dealing with a SIGNIFICANT numbers of defensive uses.

It's nowhere near 2,000,000 or even half that.

Even you can do the math and see that it is not all that unreasonable at all.

Given that 2,000,000 fantasy, it translates into 230 preventions due to guns per hour....every single hour of every single day.

Pick a day in the future...lets say July 7...if you can show me 50 news stories on 7/7/15 detailing such preventions that occurred on 7/6/15...I'll buy the statistic.

Surely if there are 230 every hour of every day, 25% of them +/- get reported by the local newspapers/radio/tv...don't they?

Accept the challenge?

Given that that number comes from actual research, done over 40 years by both private and public researchers in economics and criminology it isn't fantasy....fantasy is when you anti gun extremists pull a number out of the air and say...that is the number.....

Here is the actual research and this isn't even all of it........

I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)
DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)
Kleck...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

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


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
-------------------------------------------
Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

So the vast majority of studies are under 2 million. The much more accurate NCVS survey is 108k.

The CDC did not estimate DGUs. Please link to the department of justice study. La times and field are very high please link those also.

The NCVS survey didn't ask about DGUs. How do you figure it's the most accurate... besides your obvious bias against the notion of valid DGUs.

It asks about crimes and what happened during the crime.

But not DGUs. Correct? I mean, NOT AT ALL. Right? So what's your point?

You need a crime for a dgu.

The conclusion necessarily follows from the premise. Your point?

Gun studies go right into guns which leads to many false positives.

Because you say so? I say otherwise. I say it gets to the subject in question.

Many people claim a DGU when it was really intimidating someone.

You don't have to kill or even shoot someone to use the gun defensively, Mr. Kellerman.

The ncvs also surveys 95k households. No gun study is anywhere close to that. Larger sample equals more accurate results.

Larger studies of things that are not DGUs, do not yield more accurate data about DGUs. I don't care how big the sample is.

The real world is biased against millions of DGUs.

The consensus of studied on DGUs strongly asserts otherwise.

Only about 50 make the news each year.

Lack of anecdotal evidence does not mean lack of verifiable evidence.

People who claim to have one are very rare.

So?

Most people don't know anyone who has had one.

Maybe because people don't run around to news agencies and everyone else to announce that they have a gun? Maybe?

Only about 230 justifiable homicides each year.

You don't have to kill someone to use the gun defensively, Mr. Kellerman.

Nothing from the real world supports millions of DGUs each year.

This is just obtuse denial of reality.

 

[there4eyeM]

So, of course there are limits to what arms can be in general circulation.
The radical insistence on no reasonable limit only leads to over reaction and repression for those (of us) who are not afraid of firearms, like having the choice (because we are pro-choice in everything human) and aren't compensating for other short-comings.

 

[The Rabbi]

So, of course there are limits to what arms can be in general circulation.
The radical insistence on no reasonable limit only leads to over reaction and repression for those (of us) who are not afraid of firearms, like having the choice (because we are pro-choice in everything human) and aren't compensating for other short-comings.

Who is insisting there is no limit? Scalia told us what "bear arms" includes.

 

[LOki]

So, of course there are limits to what arms can be in general circulation.
The radical insistence on no reasonable limit only leads to over reaction and repression for those (of us) who are not afraid of firearms, like having the choice (because we are pro-choice in everything human) and aren't compensating for other short-comings.

Strawman. There is no "radical insistence on no reasonable limit" on gun possession. There is plenty of radical insistence on irrational limits on gun possession, though.