More "freedom" going on - doesnt rate a mention

[Coyote]

Pew is a reputable source however - it isn't really supporting what you are claiming.

For example while homicides went down...suicides went up: Gun homicides steady after decline in ’90s; suicide rate edges up

It also noted this:

The July survey also found that Americans strongly support a variety of specific gun control measures, including expanded background checks (85%), laws to prevent people with mental illness from purchasing guns (79%) and creation of a federal database to track all gun sales (70%). A smaller majority (57%) support a ban on assault-style weapons.​

But more important - it draws no definitive causal conclusion between increased gun ownership and lower crime rates. Crime rates are affected by a complex array of factors but the gun lobby wants you to think the only factor is the increase or decrease in gun ownership. Pew notes here in this part of the report, that there are numerous factors at play.

What is Behind the Crime Decline?

Researchers continue to debate the key factors behind changing crime rates, which is part of a larger discussion about the predictors of crime.3 There is consensus that demographics played some role: The outsized post-World War II baby boom, which produced a large number of people in the high-crime ages of 15 to 20 in the 1960s and 1970s, helped drive crime up in those years.

A review by the National Academy of Sciences of factors driving recent crime trends (Blumstein and Rosenfeld, 2008) cited a decline in rates in the early 1980s as the young boomers got older, then a flare-up by mid-decade in conjunction with a rising street market for crack cocaine, especially in big cities. It noted recruitment of a younger cohort of drug seller with greater willingness to use guns. By the early 1990s, crack markets withered in part because of lessened demand, and the vibrant national economy made it easier for even low-skilled young people to find jobs rather than get involved in crime.

At the same time, a rising number of people ages 30 and older were incarcerated, due in part to stricter laws, which helped restrain violence among this age group. It is less clear, researchers say, that innovative policing strategies and police crackdowns on use of guns by younger adults played a significant role in reducing crime.

Some researchers have proposed additional explanations as to why crime levels plunged so suddenly, including increased access to abortion and lessened exposure to lead. According to one hypothesis, legalization of abortion after the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision resulted in fewer unwanted births, and unwanted children have an increased risk of growing up to become criminals. Another theory links reduced crime to 1970s-era reductions in lead in gasoline; children’s exposure to lead causes brain damage that could be associated with violent behavior. The National Academy of Sciences review said it was unlikely that either played a major role, but researchers continue to explore both factors.

The plateau in national violent crime rates has raised interest in the topic of how local differences might influence crime levels and trends. Crime reductions took place across the country in the 1990s, but since 2000, patterns have varied more by metropolitan area or city.4

One focus of interest is that gun ownership varies widely by region and locality. The National Academy of Sciences review of possible influences on crime trends said there is good evidence of a link between firearm ownership and firearm homicide at the local level; “the causal direction of this relationship remains in dispute, however, with some researchers maintaining that firearm violence elevates rates of gun ownership, but not the reverse.”

There is substantial variation within and across regions and localities in a number of other realms, which complicates any attempt to find a single cause for national trends. Among the variations of interest to researchers are policing techniques, punishment policies, culture, economics and residential segregation.​

Yes.....gun ownership went through the roof.....and gun crime went down...

There are studies that support the belief that guns in private hands helped lower the crime rate....I have linked to those in earlier posts....

But the real problem for you......moron.......is that the last 21 years have shown that the basic, the fundamental argument that you guys make......is wrong.....and has no basis in reality....

You guys claim that More Guns = More Gun Crime....that is your entire argument.....

And it has been proven wrong over 21 years ........as more Americans bought and carried guns....the gun crime rates went down, not up...showing that you have nothing....your arguments are based on false premises and a lack of understanding.......

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

More Guns......less crime.....you have nothing....

You are just spamming the same crap over and over again.

The source you yourself used - Pew even said that there were MANY factors involved in declining crime rates and that increased gun ownership was not necessarily causal in the rates going down.

Mobile phone ownership increased during that time. As mobile phone ownership went up - violent crime went down. Hmmm....according to your logic...it must be causal.

Yes.....you now have to run from the fact that the fundamental argument you guys make....

More Guns = More Gun Crime....

Is disproven by those 21 years of Americans buying more and more guns...and more and more Americans carrying those guns for self defense...showing for all the world to see that normal. law abiding people, owning and carrying guns does not increase the gun crime rate...at all.....and that the gun murder rate went down 49%....the gun crime rate went down 75%....and the violent crime rate went down 72%...

Which is the exact oppososite of what you anti gun extremists said would happen......

You have no argument....facts, research, and real world experience show you have no argument......you just want to ban guns because you are emotionally afraid of guns...

There is a direct correlation between the availability of guns (more guns) and increased gun crimes. I'm not emotionally afraid of guns. I have a gun. I just don't worship it and feel I need to drag it everywhere with me like a kid. It's a tool I use when my husband and I go target shooting. Otherwise, it's put away like my other tools.

And, speaking of "have no argument" - you're building a strawman. I don't want to ban guns. You make exactly the kind of argument that I was complaining about in my first post in this thread.

You present it as only two options: ban guns or no restrictions whatsoever on guns. Those are the only two positions you seem to see. Is there anything in between those extremes that you would consider reasonable?

Moron

There is a direct correlation between the availability of guns (more guns) and increased gun crimes.

Baltimore has all of the extrem gun control laws you want....fingerprinting, registering guns, assault weapon ban, magazine limits......every single one...

Houston....in a border state next to the drug cartel regions of Mexico......has gun stores on every corner, and people carry guns easily..........

Murder rate 2017
Baltimore......343
Population of cities 2016:



Houston........2.3 million

Baltimore......620,961


Murder rate 2016:


Houston .......301

Baltimore......318

Moron......you don't know what you are talking about......

Is that really comparable?

Cities with the worst rates of violent crimes try to solve that with greater restrictions on firearms - so it's a chicken and egg approach - which came first?

Crime rates among cities are affected by a number of factors - do you agree or disagree or do you think it's soley down to gun laws? Is it that simplistic?

Top 30 US Cities for murder rates (as of Nov 2017): The 30 cities with the highest murder rates in the US

St. Louis, MO
Baltimore MD
Detroit MI
New Orleans LA
Birmingham AL
Jackson MS
Baton Rouge LA
Hartford CT
Salinas CA
Milwaukee LA
Washington DC
Kansas City MO
Savannah GA
Cincinnatti OH
West Palm Beach FL
Memphis TN
Oakland CA
San Bernadino CA
Atlanta GA
Richmond VA
Kansas City KA
Pittsburgh, PA
Dayton OH
Philadelphia PA
Chicago, IL
North Charleston, SC
Miami, FL
Indianapolis, IN
South Bend, IN
Waco TX

They are spread across MO, IN, PA, IL, FL, TX, OH, KA, VA, GA, TN, SC, DC, LA, MS, MI, MD....

Most gun control laws are at the state level.

Among states with the least restrictive gun laws we have Kansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Louisiana....and 6 of the 30 most violent cities.

Among states with the most restrictive gun laws we have Illinois, Maryland, Connecticut, California....and another 6 of the 30 most violent cities.

Some of those cities have lost jobs and industries - all of which contribute to violent crime rates. Others have big problems in drugs and drug trafficking - which brings violence in with it. Another factor - poverty.

So given that the top most violent cities occur in states with strict gun laws and states with the least strict gun laws - and many inbetween - how can you claim causation?



(moron)

 

[Coyote]

Pew is a reputable source however - it isn't really supporting what you are claiming.

For example while homicides went down...suicides went up: Gun homicides steady after decline in ’90s; suicide rate edges up

It also noted this:

The July survey also found that Americans strongly support a variety of specific gun control measures, including expanded background checks (85%), laws to prevent people with mental illness from purchasing guns (79%) and creation of a federal database to track all gun sales (70%). A smaller majority (57%) support a ban on assault-style weapons.​

But more important - it draws no definitive causal conclusion between increased gun ownership and lower crime rates. Crime rates are affected by a complex array of factors but the gun lobby wants you to think the only factor is the increase or decrease in gun ownership. Pew notes here in this part of the report, that there are numerous factors at play.

What is Behind the Crime Decline?

Researchers continue to debate the key factors behind changing crime rates, which is part of a larger discussion about the predictors of crime.3 There is consensus that demographics played some role: The outsized post-World War II baby boom, which produced a large number of people in the high-crime ages of 15 to 20 in the 1960s and 1970s, helped drive crime up in those years.

A review by the National Academy of Sciences of factors driving recent crime trends (Blumstein and Rosenfeld, 2008) cited a decline in rates in the early 1980s as the young boomers got older, then a flare-up by mid-decade in conjunction with a rising street market for crack cocaine, especially in big cities. It noted recruitment of a younger cohort of drug seller with greater willingness to use guns. By the early 1990s, crack markets withered in part because of lessened demand, and the vibrant national economy made it easier for even low-skilled young people to find jobs rather than get involved in crime.

At the same time, a rising number of people ages 30 and older were incarcerated, due in part to stricter laws, which helped restrain violence among this age group. It is less clear, researchers say, that innovative policing strategies and police crackdowns on use of guns by younger adults played a significant role in reducing crime.

Some researchers have proposed additional explanations as to why crime levels plunged so suddenly, including increased access to abortion and lessened exposure to lead. According to one hypothesis, legalization of abortion after the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision resulted in fewer unwanted births, and unwanted children have an increased risk of growing up to become criminals. Another theory links reduced crime to 1970s-era reductions in lead in gasoline; children’s exposure to lead causes brain damage that could be associated with violent behavior. The National Academy of Sciences review said it was unlikely that either played a major role, but researchers continue to explore both factors.

The plateau in national violent crime rates has raised interest in the topic of how local differences might influence crime levels and trends. Crime reductions took place across the country in the 1990s, but since 2000, patterns have varied more by metropolitan area or city.4

One focus of interest is that gun ownership varies widely by region and locality. The National Academy of Sciences review of possible influences on crime trends said there is good evidence of a link between firearm ownership and firearm homicide at the local level; “the causal direction of this relationship remains in dispute, however, with some researchers maintaining that firearm violence elevates rates of gun ownership, but not the reverse.”

There is substantial variation within and across regions and localities in a number of other realms, which complicates any attempt to find a single cause for national trends. Among the variations of interest to researchers are policing techniques, punishment policies, culture, economics and residential segregation.​

Yes.....gun ownership went through the roof.....and gun crime went down...

There are studies that support the belief that guns in private hands helped lower the crime rate....I have linked to those in earlier posts....

But the real problem for you......moron.......is that the last 21 years have shown that the basic, the fundamental argument that you guys make......is wrong.....and has no basis in reality....

You guys claim that More Guns = More Gun Crime....that is your entire argument.....

And it has been proven wrong over 21 years ........as more Americans bought and carried guns....the gun crime rates went down, not up...showing that you have nothing....your arguments are based on false premises and a lack of understanding.......

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

More Guns......less crime.....you have nothing....

You are just spamming the same crap over and over again.

The source you yourself used - Pew even said that there were MANY factors involved in declining crime rates and that increased gun ownership was not necessarily causal in the rates going down.

Mobile phone ownership increased during that time. As mobile phone ownership went up - violent crime went down. Hmmm....according to your logic...it must be causal.

Yes.....you now have to run from the fact that the fundamental argument you guys make....

More Guns = More Gun Crime....

Is disproven by those 21 years of Americans buying more and more guns...and more and more Americans carrying those guns for self defense...showing for all the world to see that normal. law abiding people, owning and carrying guns does not increase the gun crime rate...at all.....and that the gun murder rate went down 49%....the gun crime rate went down 75%....and the violent crime rate went down 72%...

Which is the exact oppososite of what you anti gun extremists said would happen......

You have no argument....facts, research, and real world experience show you have no argument......you just want to ban guns because you are emotionally afraid of guns...

There is a direct correlation between the availability of guns (more guns) and increased gun crimes. I'm not emotionally afraid of guns. I have a gun. I just don't worship it and feel I need to drag it everywhere with me like a kid. It's a tool I use when my husband and I go target shooting. Otherwise, it's put away like my other tools.

And, speaking of "have no argument" - you're building a strawman. I don't want to ban guns. You make exactly the kind of argument that I was complaining about in my first post in this thread.

You present it as only two options: ban guns or no restrictions whatsoever on guns. Those are the only two positions you seem to see. Is there anything in between those extremes that you would consider reasonable?

This statement is factually incorrect Coyote.

Which one?

 

[Coyote]

Pew is a reputable source however - it isn't really supporting what you are claiming.

For example while homicides went down...suicides went up: Gun homicides steady after decline in ’90s; suicide rate edges up

It also noted this:

The July survey also found that Americans strongly support a variety of specific gun control measures, including expanded background checks (85%), laws to prevent people with mental illness from purchasing guns (79%) and creation of a federal database to track all gun sales (70%). A smaller majority (57%) support a ban on assault-style weapons.​

But more important - it draws no definitive causal conclusion between increased gun ownership and lower crime rates. Crime rates are affected by a complex array of factors but the gun lobby wants you to think the only factor is the increase or decrease in gun ownership. Pew notes here in this part of the report, that there are numerous factors at play.

What is Behind the Crime Decline?

Researchers continue to debate the key factors behind changing crime rates, which is part of a larger discussion about the predictors of crime.3 There is consensus that demographics played some role: The outsized post-World War II baby boom, which produced a large number of people in the high-crime ages of 15 to 20 in the 1960s and 1970s, helped drive crime up in those years.

A review by the National Academy of Sciences of factors driving recent crime trends (Blumstein and Rosenfeld, 2008) cited a decline in rates in the early 1980s as the young boomers got older, then a flare-up by mid-decade in conjunction with a rising street market for crack cocaine, especially in big cities. It noted recruitment of a younger cohort of drug seller with greater willingness to use guns. By the early 1990s, crack markets withered in part because of lessened demand, and the vibrant national economy made it easier for even low-skilled young people to find jobs rather than get involved in crime.

At the same time, a rising number of people ages 30 and older were incarcerated, due in part to stricter laws, which helped restrain violence among this age group. It is less clear, researchers say, that innovative policing strategies and police crackdowns on use of guns by younger adults played a significant role in reducing crime.

Some researchers have proposed additional explanations as to why crime levels plunged so suddenly, including increased access to abortion and lessened exposure to lead. According to one hypothesis, legalization of abortion after the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision resulted in fewer unwanted births, and unwanted children have an increased risk of growing up to become criminals. Another theory links reduced crime to 1970s-era reductions in lead in gasoline; children’s exposure to lead causes brain damage that could be associated with violent behavior. The National Academy of Sciences review said it was unlikely that either played a major role, but researchers continue to explore both factors.

The plateau in national violent crime rates has raised interest in the topic of how local differences might influence crime levels and trends. Crime reductions took place across the country in the 1990s, but since 2000, patterns have varied more by metropolitan area or city.4

One focus of interest is that gun ownership varies widely by region and locality. The National Academy of Sciences review of possible influences on crime trends said there is good evidence of a link between firearm ownership and firearm homicide at the local level; “the causal direction of this relationship remains in dispute, however, with some researchers maintaining that firearm violence elevates rates of gun ownership, but not the reverse.”

There is substantial variation within and across regions and localities in a number of other realms, which complicates any attempt to find a single cause for national trends. Among the variations of interest to researchers are policing techniques, punishment policies, culture, economics and residential segregation.​

Yes.....gun ownership went through the roof.....and gun crime went down...

There are studies that support the belief that guns in private hands helped lower the crime rate....I have linked to those in earlier posts....

But the real problem for you......moron.......is that the last 21 years have shown that the basic, the fundamental argument that you guys make......is wrong.....and has no basis in reality....

You guys claim that More Guns = More Gun Crime....that is your entire argument.....

And it has been proven wrong over 21 years ........as more Americans bought and carried guns....the gun crime rates went down, not up...showing that you have nothing....your arguments are based on false premises and a lack of understanding.......

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

More Guns......less crime.....you have nothing....

You are just spamming the same crap over and over again.

The source you yourself used - Pew even said that there were MANY factors involved in declining crime rates and that increased gun ownership was not necessarily causal in the rates going down.

Mobile phone ownership increased during that time. As mobile phone ownership went up - violent crime went down. Hmmm....according to your logic...it must be causal.

Yes.....you now have to run from the fact that the fundamental argument you guys make....

More Guns = More Gun Crime....

Is disproven by those 21 years of Americans buying more and more guns...and more and more Americans carrying those guns for self defense...showing for all the world to see that normal. law abiding people, owning and carrying guns does not increase the gun crime rate...at all.....and that the gun murder rate went down 49%....the gun crime rate went down 75%....and the violent crime rate went down 72%...

Which is the exact oppososite of what you anti gun extremists said would happen......

You have no argument....facts, research, and real world experience show you have no argument......you just want to ban guns because you are emotionally afraid of guns...

There is a direct correlation between the availability of guns (more guns) and increased gun crimes. I'm not emotionally afraid of guns. I have a gun. I just don't worship it and feel I need to drag it everywhere with me like a kid. It's a tool I use when my husband and I go target shooting. Otherwise, it's put away like my other tools.

And, speaking of "have no argument" - you're building a strawman. I don't want to ban guns. You make exactly the kind of argument that I was complaining about in my first post in this thread.

You present it as only two options: ban guns or no restrictions whatsoever on guns. Those are the only two positions you seem to see. Is there anything in between those extremes that you would consider reasonable?

You're delusional as ever.

Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet

The same Pew study also noted multiple causes for the decline in gun violence and it noted that increased gun ownership was not necessarily causal.

 

[Coyote]

So...now you are saying the SAME poll (Pew) you used to SUPPORT your claims is now based on "uninformed people" answering "unrefined questions" when it comes to that ONE paragraph?

No, dipshit....please keep up.....Pew showed that gun murder went down, gun crime went down, violent crime went down...those are facts....

You then went on to try to use opinion polls to push anti gun actions that do not work, and I showed you that those people responding to the opinion part of the Pew Research were not given accurate questions to respond to.......

You showed nothing of the sort. Dipshit.

You took Pew's facts and used them to claim it was caused by increased gun ownership when Pew made no such causal claim.

No...dipshit....I showed that Americans owning guns does not increase the gun crime rate....then I also linked to research that shows that Americans who own and also carry guns decrease the violent crime rate...

And I linked to research that showed no correlation between gun ownership and a decrease in violent crime and infact - research showing a correlation between an increase in gun ownership and an increase in gun related deaths (not necessarily violent crime - but deaths). But you claim it's from "rabid anti-gun nuts" while expecting me to accept research from "rabid pro gun nuts".

And again, you are running away and trying to avoid the fact....that the entire foundational argument of the anti gun extremism you follow........is wrong......and has no basis in facts, statistics or reality......

I'm not running away from anything dude. I'm here talking with you now.

As more Americans own and carry guns....our gun murder rate went down, our gun crime rate went down, our violent crime rate went down....

As more Americans own and carry cellphones....our gun murder rate went down, our gun crime rate went down, our violent crime rate went down....

As an additional point...as Britain did the exact opposite...banned and confiscated guns...their gun crime rate went up, their violent crime rate went up....

It's extremely difficult to compare crime statistics across countries....but answer this: Who has a hire rate of gun deaths per capita - the US or Britain?

As more Americans own and carry cellphones....our gun murder rate went down, our gun crime rate went down, our violent crime rate went down....

Nice try...that isn't the argument you anti gunners make.....you state over and over and you have done it here as well....

More guns = more gun crime......

And 21 years have shown this is not true...it isn't based in facts or reality....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

How many gun related homicides in the US?

How many in Britain?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Yes.....gun ownership went through the roof.....and gun crime went down...

There are studies that support the belief that guns in private hands helped lower the crime rate....I have linked to those in earlier posts....

But the real problem for you......moron.......is that the last 21 years have shown that the basic, the fundamental argument that you guys make......is wrong.....and has no basis in reality....

You guys claim that More Guns = More Gun Crime....that is your entire argument.....

And it has been proven wrong over 21 years ........as more Americans bought and carried guns....the gun crime rates went down, not up...showing that you have nothing....your arguments are based on false premises and a lack of understanding.......

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

More Guns......less crime.....you have nothing....

You are just spamming the same crap over and over again.

The source you yourself used - Pew even said that there were MANY factors involved in declining crime rates and that increased gun ownership was not necessarily causal in the rates going down.

Mobile phone ownership increased during that time. As mobile phone ownership went up - violent crime went down. Hmmm....according to your logic...it must be causal.

Yes.....you now have to run from the fact that the fundamental argument you guys make....

More Guns = More Gun Crime....

Is disproven by those 21 years of Americans buying more and more guns...and more and more Americans carrying those guns for self defense...showing for all the world to see that normal. law abiding people, owning and carrying guns does not increase the gun crime rate...at all.....and that the gun murder rate went down 49%....the gun crime rate went down 75%....and the violent crime rate went down 72%...

Which is the exact oppososite of what you anti gun extremists said would happen......

You have no argument....facts, research, and real world experience show you have no argument......you just want to ban guns because you are emotionally afraid of guns...

There is a direct correlation between the availability of guns (more guns) and increased gun crimes. I'm not emotionally afraid of guns. I have a gun. I just don't worship it and feel I need to drag it everywhere with me like a kid. It's a tool I use when my husband and I go target shooting. Otherwise, it's put away like my other tools.

And, speaking of "have no argument" - you're building a strawman. I don't want to ban guns. You make exactly the kind of argument that I was complaining about in my first post in this thread.

You present it as only two options: ban guns or no restrictions whatsoever on guns. Those are the only two positions you seem to see. Is there anything in between those extremes that you would consider reasonable?

You're delusional as ever.

Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet

The same Pew study also noted multiple causes for the decline in gun violence and it noted that increased gun ownership was not necessarily causal.

Mexico has strict gun control and is more violent than Iraq.

 

[westwall]

Yes.....gun ownership went through the roof.....and gun crime went down...

There are studies that support the belief that guns in private hands helped lower the crime rate....I have linked to those in earlier posts....

But the real problem for you......moron.......is that the last 21 years have shown that the basic, the fundamental argument that you guys make......is wrong.....and has no basis in reality....

You guys claim that More Guns = More Gun Crime....that is your entire argument.....

And it has been proven wrong over 21 years ........as more Americans bought and carried guns....the gun crime rates went down, not up...showing that you have nothing....your arguments are based on false premises and a lack of understanding.......

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

More Guns......less crime.....you have nothing....

You are just spamming the same crap over and over again.

The source you yourself used - Pew even said that there were MANY factors involved in declining crime rates and that increased gun ownership was not necessarily causal in the rates going down.

Mobile phone ownership increased during that time. As mobile phone ownership went up - violent crime went down. Hmmm....according to your logic...it must be causal.

Yes.....you now have to run from the fact that the fundamental argument you guys make....

More Guns = More Gun Crime....

Is disproven by those 21 years of Americans buying more and more guns...and more and more Americans carrying those guns for self defense...showing for all the world to see that normal. law abiding people, owning and carrying guns does not increase the gun crime rate...at all.....and that the gun murder rate went down 49%....the gun crime rate went down 75%....and the violent crime rate went down 72%...

Which is the exact oppososite of what you anti gun extremists said would happen......

You have no argument....facts, research, and real world experience show you have no argument......you just want to ban guns because you are emotionally afraid of guns...

There is a direct correlation between the availability of guns (more guns) and increased gun crimes. I'm not emotionally afraid of guns. I have a gun. I just don't worship it and feel I need to drag it everywhere with me like a kid. It's a tool I use when my husband and I go target shooting. Otherwise, it's put away like my other tools.

And, speaking of "have no argument" - you're building a strawman. I don't want to ban guns. You make exactly the kind of argument that I was complaining about in my first post in this thread.

You present it as only two options: ban guns or no restrictions whatsoever on guns. Those are the only two positions you seem to see. Is there anything in between those extremes that you would consider reasonable?

This statement is factually incorrect Coyote.

Which one?

You claim a correlation between easy access to guns and gun crime. This is not factual. The opposite is true. Those counties that have the easiest access to guns also enjoy the lowest rate of crime. Those counties that have the lowest rate of LEGAL gun ownership, have the highest rates of violent crime and murder. This has been the result of multiple criminology studies carried out over 25 years.

 

[Coyote]

You can stop murder...with a gun...this British family didn't have a gun...and were murdered by a homeless man with a knife....

Chilling CCTV shows homeless killer lurking in family's garden before murders

Chilling CCTV shows a homeless man 'dressed as a ninja' crawling through a family's garden before launching a brutal knife attack that left a mum and her son dead.

The footage shows Aaron Barley lurking outside the home and emerging as dad Peter Wilkinson took the family's dog for a walk.

Hmmmm...this same scenario...but in the U.S....

Attacker with knife flees after woman reveals her concealed carry gun, police say

A woman in Illinois was reportedly able to protect herself with her concealed carry firearm after a stranger with a knife jumped into her car.

Police said a woman who was parked near a shopping mall in Moline on Sunday was attacked by a man who fought his way into her car, according to WQAD 8.

During the fight, the man reportedly slashed the woman’s arm with a knife. He then ordered the woman to drive to Rock Island County, a rural area, according to police.



Fatal Lawndale shooting ruled self-defense, woman not charged

A woman who shot a man after he stabbed her multiple times Thursday afternoon in Lawndale acted in self-defense and will not be charged, police said.


Deputies: Mass Stabbing Suspect Stopped When Fourth Target Pulled a Gun - Breitbart

Deputies say a suspect who allegedly stabbed three people in Seminole, Florida, stopped when a fourth individual pulled a gun on him.
The incident occurred Sunday afternoon in broad daylight.
According to The Patch, the incident began when witnesses alleged they saw 49-year-old Bobby Martin Watson trying to rob a woman in a Publix parking lot. Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office deputies indicate that the woman–44-year-old Rosanna Lynn–struggled with Watson and he stabbed her.
Watson then ran and a witness–44-year-old Christopher McMann–approached, only to get stabbed as well.
Deputies said a second good Samaritan–31-year-old Travis Jones–then chased and tackled Watson, only to be “stabbed in the abdomen during the struggle that ensued.” Forty-year-old Donald Rush saw what was happening, grabbed his gun from his vehicle and ran at Watson. He was able to take away the knife “and held [Watson] at gunpoint until deputies arrived.”
Rush did not have to fire his gun. The sight of the brandished firearm was enough to stop the attack.
Watson was booked into the Pinellas County jail. He faces charges of “armed robbery and three counts of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon.”

For every murder that is stopped with a gun....many times that number are committed with a gun.

True.

And a gun owner is much more likely to be killed by his own gun than using that gun in self-defense.

But that’s an issue which has nothing to do with the Second Amendment or the appropriateness of its case law.

A person has much more of a chance of being killed by other things than firearms in this country. Fact

Depends on what things and where you are. Where I live - probably true. Just like a person has a more of a chance being struck by lightening than killed by a terrorist act.

Firearm violence is the least of our worries, We have much bigger fish to fry. See...
2018 Real Time Death Statistics in America

Spontaneous combustion is disappointingly low.

 

[Rustic]

No, dipshit....please keep up.....Pew showed that gun murder went down, gun crime went down, violent crime went down...those are facts....

You then went on to try to use opinion polls to push anti gun actions that do not work, and I showed you that those people responding to the opinion part of the Pew Research were not given accurate questions to respond to.......

You showed nothing of the sort. Dipshit.

You took Pew's facts and used them to claim it was caused by increased gun ownership when Pew made no such causal claim.

No...dipshit....I showed that Americans owning guns does not increase the gun crime rate....then I also linked to research that shows that Americans who own and also carry guns decrease the violent crime rate...

And I linked to research that showed no correlation between gun ownership and a decrease in violent crime and infact - research showing a correlation between an increase in gun ownership and an increase in gun related deaths (not necessarily violent crime - but deaths). But you claim it's from "rabid anti-gun nuts" while expecting me to accept research from "rabid pro gun nuts".

And again, you are running away and trying to avoid the fact....that the entire foundational argument of the anti gun extremism you follow........is wrong......and has no basis in facts, statistics or reality......

I'm not running away from anything dude. I'm here talking with you now.

As more Americans own and carry guns....our gun murder rate went down, our gun crime rate went down, our violent crime rate went down....

As more Americans own and carry cellphones....our gun murder rate went down, our gun crime rate went down, our violent crime rate went down....

As an additional point...as Britain did the exact opposite...banned and confiscated guns...their gun crime rate went up, their violent crime rate went up....

It's extremely difficult to compare crime statistics across countries....but answer this: Who has a hire rate of gun deaths per capita - the US or Britain?

As more Americans own and carry cellphones....our gun murder rate went down, our gun crime rate went down, our violent crime rate went down....

Nice try...that isn't the argument you anti gunners make.....you state over and over and you have done it here as well....

More guns = more gun crime......

And 21 years have shown this is not true...it isn't based in facts or reality....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

How many gun related homicides in the US?

How many in Britain?

More frivolous gun control laws will not save a single soul

 

[Coyote]

You are just spamming the same crap over and over again.

The source you yourself used - Pew even said that there were MANY factors involved in declining crime rates and that increased gun ownership was not necessarily causal in the rates going down.

Mobile phone ownership increased during that time. As mobile phone ownership went up - violent crime went down. Hmmm....according to your logic...it must be causal.

Yes.....you now have to run from the fact that the fundamental argument you guys make....

More Guns = More Gun Crime....

Is disproven by those 21 years of Americans buying more and more guns...and more and more Americans carrying those guns for self defense...showing for all the world to see that normal. law abiding people, owning and carrying guns does not increase the gun crime rate...at all.....and that the gun murder rate went down 49%....the gun crime rate went down 75%....and the violent crime rate went down 72%...

Which is the exact oppososite of what you anti gun extremists said would happen......

You have no argument....facts, research, and real world experience show you have no argument......you just want to ban guns because you are emotionally afraid of guns...

There is a direct correlation between the availability of guns (more guns) and increased gun crimes. I'm not emotionally afraid of guns. I have a gun. I just don't worship it and feel I need to drag it everywhere with me like a kid. It's a tool I use when my husband and I go target shooting. Otherwise, it's put away like my other tools.

And, speaking of "have no argument" - you're building a strawman. I don't want to ban guns. You make exactly the kind of argument that I was complaining about in my first post in this thread.

You present it as only two options: ban guns or no restrictions whatsoever on guns. Those are the only two positions you seem to see. Is there anything in between those extremes that you would consider reasonable?

This statement is factually incorrect Coyote.

Which one?

You claim a correlation between easy access to guns and gun crime. This is not factual. The opposite is true. Those counties that have the easiest access to guns also enjoy the lowest rate of crime. Those counties that have the lowest rate of LEGAL gun ownership, have the highest rates of violent crime and murder. This has been the result of multiple criminology studies carried out over 25 years.

It's a bit hard to compare what I said with what you said.

For example - these countries have strict gun regulations, and low rates of firearm related deaths:

Greece, Singapore, Japan, South Korea, Iceland, Britain, Germany....


This article shows gun ownership by country....(presumably legal...since it would be hard to get numbers on illegal guns?)
Mapped: The countries with the most guns (no prizes for guessing #1)

The 10 countries with the most guns

1. USA - 112.6 guns per 100 residents
2. Serbia - 75.6
3. Yemen - 54.8
4. Switzerland - 45.7
5. Cyprus - 36.4
6. Saudi Arabia - 35
7. Iraq - 34.2
8. Uruguay - 31.8
9. Sweden - 31.6
10. Norway - 31.3

It's kind of interesting. It's also important to note the gun cultures of these countries. Sweden and Norway have a VERY different culture than the US when it comes to guns. There is a permitting system, they have to take a test and training (pretty elemental) and maybe some other things. But guns are just a tool - they use them when it's hunting season, or sporting events then put them away. I was listening to an interview with and the Norwegian was shocked at our gun culture. He said people don't walk around in public wearing their guns - they have then to use for a particular event and put them away.

Iraq and Serbia aren't surprising - lots of guns from their wars. Serbia also has very liberal gun laws.

The 10 countries with the least guns

1. Tunisia - 0.1 guns per 100 residents
2. Timor-Leste - 0.3
3. Solomon Islands - 0.4
4. Ghana - 0.4
5. Ethiophia - 0.4
6. Singapore - 0.5
7. Indonesia - 0.5
8. Fiji - 0.5
9. Eritrea - 0.5
10. Bangladesh - 0.5

 

[Rustic]

Yes.....you now have to run from the fact that the fundamental argument you guys make....

More Guns = More Gun Crime....

Is disproven by those 21 years of Americans buying more and more guns...and more and more Americans carrying those guns for self defense...showing for all the world to see that normal. law abiding people, owning and carrying guns does not increase the gun crime rate...at all.....and that the gun murder rate went down 49%....the gun crime rate went down 75%....and the violent crime rate went down 72%...

Which is the exact oppososite of what you anti gun extremists said would happen......

You have no argument....facts, research, and real world experience show you have no argument......you just want to ban guns because you are emotionally afraid of guns...

There is a direct correlation between the availability of guns (more guns) and increased gun crimes. I'm not emotionally afraid of guns. I have a gun. I just don't worship it and feel I need to drag it everywhere with me like a kid. It's a tool I use when my husband and I go target shooting. Otherwise, it's put away like my other tools.

And, speaking of "have no argument" - you're building a strawman. I don't want to ban guns. You make exactly the kind of argument that I was complaining about in my first post in this thread.

You present it as only two options: ban guns or no restrictions whatsoever on guns. Those are the only two positions you seem to see. Is there anything in between those extremes that you would consider reasonable?

This statement is factually incorrect Coyote.

Which one?

You claim a correlation between easy access to guns and gun crime. This is not factual. The opposite is true. Those counties that have the easiest access to guns also enjoy the lowest rate of crime. Those counties that have the lowest rate of LEGAL gun ownership, have the highest rates of violent crime and murder. This has been the result of multiple criminology studies carried out over 25 years.

It's a bit hard to compare what I said with what you said.

For example - these countries have strict gun regulations, and low rates of firearm related deaths:

Greece, Singapore, Japan, South Korea, Iceland, Britain, Germany....


This article shows gun ownership by country....(presumably legal...since it would be hard to get numbers on illegal guns?)
Mapped: The countries with the most guns (no prizes for guessing #1)

The 10 countries with the most guns

1. USA - 112.6 guns per 100 residents
2. Serbia - 75.6
3. Yemen - 54.8
4. Switzerland - 45.7
5. Cyprus - 36.4
6. Saudi Arabia - 35
7. Iraq - 34.2
8. Uruguay - 31.8
9. Sweden - 31.6
10. Norway - 31.3

It's kind of interesting. It's also important to note the gun cultures of these countries. Sweden and Norway have a VERY different culture than the US when it comes to guns. There is a permitting system, they have to take a test and training (pretty elemental) and maybe some other things. But guns are just a tool - they use them when it's hunting season, or sporting events then put them away. I was listening to an interview with and the Norwegian was shocked at our gun culture. He said people don't walk around in public wearing their guns - they have then to use for a particular event and put them away.

Iraq and Serbia aren't surprising - lots of guns from their wars. Serbia also has very liberal gun laws.

The 10 countries with the least guns

1. Tunisia - 0.1 guns per 100 residents
2. Timor-Leste - 0.3
3. Solomon Islands - 0.4
4. Ghana - 0.4
5. Ethiophia - 0.4
6. Singapore - 0.5
7. Indonesia - 0.5
8. Fiji - 0.5
9. Eritrea - 0.5
10. Bangladesh - 0.5

First of all the US does not have enough, buy more guns and ammo...

Firearm ownership of others is not any of your business, Firearm violence is a non-issue in this country

 

[westwall]

Yes.....you now have to run from the fact that the fundamental argument you guys make....

More Guns = More Gun Crime....

Is disproven by those 21 years of Americans buying more and more guns...and more and more Americans carrying those guns for self defense...showing for all the world to see that normal. law abiding people, owning and carrying guns does not increase the gun crime rate...at all.....and that the gun murder rate went down 49%....the gun crime rate went down 75%....and the violent crime rate went down 72%...

Which is the exact oppososite of what you anti gun extremists said would happen......

You have no argument....facts, research, and real world experience show you have no argument......you just want to ban guns because you are emotionally afraid of guns...

There is a direct correlation between the availability of guns (more guns) and increased gun crimes. I'm not emotionally afraid of guns. I have a gun. I just don't worship it and feel I need to drag it everywhere with me like a kid. It's a tool I use when my husband and I go target shooting. Otherwise, it's put away like my other tools.

And, speaking of "have no argument" - you're building a strawman. I don't want to ban guns. You make exactly the kind of argument that I was complaining about in my first post in this thread.

You present it as only two options: ban guns or no restrictions whatsoever on guns. Those are the only two positions you seem to see. Is there anything in between those extremes that you would consider reasonable?

This statement is factually incorrect Coyote.

Which one?

You claim a correlation between easy access to guns and gun crime. This is not factual. The opposite is true. Those counties that have the easiest access to guns also enjoy the lowest rate of crime. Those counties that have the lowest rate of LEGAL gun ownership, have the highest rates of violent crime and murder. This has been the result of multiple criminology studies carried out over 25 years.

It's a bit hard to compare what I said with what you said.

For example - these countries have strict gun regulations, and low rates of firearm related deaths:

Greece, Singapore, Japan, South Korea, Iceland, Britain, Germany....


This article shows gun ownership by country....(presumably legal...since it would be hard to get numbers on illegal guns?)
Mapped: The countries with the most guns (no prizes for guessing #1)

The 10 countries with the most guns

1. USA - 112.6 guns per 100 residents
2. Serbia - 75.6
3. Yemen - 54.8
4. Switzerland - 45.7
5. Cyprus - 36.4
6. Saudi Arabia - 35
7. Iraq - 34.2
8. Uruguay - 31.8
9. Sweden - 31.6
10. Norway - 31.3

It's kind of interesting. It's also important to note the gun cultures of these countries. Sweden and Norway have a VERY different culture than the US when it comes to guns. There is a permitting system, they have to take a test and training (pretty elemental) and maybe some other things. But guns are just a tool - they use them when it's hunting season, or sporting events then put them away. I was listening to an interview with and the Norwegian was shocked at our gun culture. He said people don't walk around in public wearing their guns - they have then to use for a particular event and put them away.

Iraq and Serbia aren't surprising - lots of guns from their wars. Serbia also has very liberal gun laws.

The 10 countries with the least guns

1. Tunisia - 0.1 guns per 100 residents
2. Timor-Leste - 0.3
3. Solomon Islands - 0.4
4. Ghana - 0.4
5. Ethiophia - 0.4
6. Singapore - 0.5
7. Indonesia - 0.5
8. Fiji - 0.5
9. Eritrea - 0.5
10. Bangladesh - 0.5

Culture is the operative word as well. The overwhelming majority of violence occurs in third world countries that all have violent cultures. Life is cheap in the third world. The one aspect that the USA has that no other country in Europe has, until recently, is a large population of immigrants from the third world. Europe has opened her borders to third world refugees and what do you see? Violent crime is skyrocketing as is gun crime.

The two go hand in hand.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

5-year-old, 8-year-old among victims in triple murder, carjacking in north Nashville

What freedom did 5 year old Samaii Daniel have ?
How did the second amendment protect her ?
Another domestic situation that ends in a body count.

 

[EverCurious]

An alternate observation. IF someone gets to the point that they're going to murder someone they are close to, it can be assumed that they would do so regardless of having a gun or not. Personally, if my spouse goes whacko and decides to off me and mine, I should prefer to be shot in the head, than to have him rip me limb from limb (which he is more than capable of.) I would consider it a mercy from things I can imagine...

arsenic is so much more GENTEEL

Mary Ann Cotton, she's dead and she's rotten
Lying in bed with her eyes wide open.
Sing, sing, oh what should I sing?
Mary Ann Cotton, she's tied up with string.
Where, where? Up in the air.
Selling black puddings, a penny a pair.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Family of 4 dies in Texas hotel shooting

A family of 4 dead. Mom shot her kids aged 5 and 10 and her husband.Then killed herself.

I wonder if those kids would still be alive if this woman found it difficult to get a gun ?

Is it just possible ?

Stick your nose out of our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. She could have used a knife like they do in England.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Like many Euros, he is completely sold on the idea that only the government and criminals (same thing really) should have guns.

He needs to keep his fucking nose out of our business.

 

[EverCurious]

An alternate observation. IF someone gets to the point that they're going to murder someone they are close to, it can be assumed that they would do so regardless of having a gun or not. Personally, if my spouse goes whacko and decides to off me and mine, I should prefer to be shot in the head, than to have him rip me limb from limb (which he is more than capable of.) I would consider it a mercy from things I can imagine...

Or they may calm down and decide not to kill you.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Unlikely. This isn't like a good guy in a movie, some person who hesitates before killing anyone, this is someone who has for whatever reason has lost their mind to the point of enacting violence against someone he/she supposedly loves and cares for.

This is actually why women (and their children) need to leave if their man /ever/ hits them with intent to do harm (not spankings, not a "snap out of it" slap in the face, but an intent to do harm) - because it's a mind-set and once they cross that line there is no question that they have a deeply flawed understanding of their role in the family. This idea applies to women as well, though it's a bit more "individual case basis" and too hard to define in a quick paragraph. One someone crosses the line that it's "okay" to harm someone close to them, there really isn't a "recovery" - they've already made it okay in their heads, be that because he/she cheated, pissed him/her off, or whatever excuse they make up, the bottom line is they've made it "okay" in their mind and morals to inflict serious pain and harm upon their loved one(s).


Either way though, I'd rather not suffer the beating whilst my husband "changes his mind." In my situation, I have no doubt that he'd "go all the way," he knows better than to let me live if he ever gets even a little violent with me. (Not that I've ever worried about this, my husband isn't that kind of insane.)

 

[Tommy Tainant]

An alternate observation. IF someone gets to the point that they're going to murder someone they are close to, it can be assumed that they would do so regardless of having a gun or not. Personally, if my spouse goes whacko and decides to off me and mine, I should prefer to be shot in the head, than to have him rip me limb from limb (which he is more than capable of.) I would consider it a mercy from things I can imagine...

Or they may calm down and decide not to kill you.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Unlikely. This isn't like a good guy in a movie, some person who hesitates before killing anyone, this is someone who has for whatever reason has lost their mind to the point of enacting violence against someone he/she supposedly loves and cares for.

This is actually why women (and their children) need to leave if their man /ever/ hits them with intent to do harm (not spankings, not a "snap out of it" slap in the face, but an intent to do harm) - because it's a mind-set and once they cross that line there is no question that they have a deeply flawed understanding of their role in the family. This idea applies to women as well, though it's a bit more "individual case basis" and too hard to define in a quick paragraph. One someone crosses the line that it's "okay" to harm someone close to them, there really isn't a "recovery" - they've already made it okay in their heads, be that because he/she cheated, pissed him/her off, or whatever excuse they make up, the bottom line is they've made it "okay" in their mind and morals to inflict serious pain and harm upon their loved one(s).


Either way though, I'd rather not suffer the beating whilst my husband "changes his mind." In my situation, I have no doubt that he'd "go all the way," he knows better than to let me live if he ever gets even a little violent with me. (Not that I've ever worried about this, my husband isn't that kind of insane.)

Violence can take many different forms. I think that people who are abused are abused because they allow it. In my experience,which I will admit is limited. We know a couple where controlling behaviour is going on in front of us,its not violent but it is abusive.
What I am referring to here is that moment when somebody snaps. Everybody has a breaking point and of course there could be mental health issues. Guns make it too easy for people to kill in these circumstances and there doesnt appear to be any process in place to mitigate this.
Should there be restrictions,as an example, on men who have been convicted of domestic abuse ? Or road rage ? Or any other type of violence. There may already be some of these in place but there are so many guns out there it looks like a free for all.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Like many Euros, he is completely sold on the idea that only the government and criminals (same thing really) should have guns.

He needs to keep his fucking nose out of our business.

How can you type something so dumb ?

 

[EverCurious]

An alternate observation. IF someone gets to the point that they're going to murder someone they are close to, it can be assumed that they would do so regardless of having a gun or not. Personally, if my spouse goes whacko and decides to off me and mine, I should prefer to be shot in the head, than to have him rip me limb from limb (which he is more than capable of.) I would consider it a mercy from things I can imagine...

Or they may calm down and decide not to kill you.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Unlikely. This isn't like a good guy in a movie, some person who hesitates before killing anyone, this is someone who has for whatever reason has lost their mind to the point of enacting violence against someone he/she supposedly loves and cares for.

This is actually why women (and their children) need to leave if their man /ever/ hits them with intent to do harm (not spankings, not a "snap out of it" slap in the face, but an intent to do harm) - because it's a mind-set and once they cross that line there is no question that they have a deeply flawed understanding of their role in the family. This idea applies to women as well, though it's a bit more "individual case basis" and too hard to define in a quick paragraph. One someone crosses the line that it's "okay" to harm someone close to them, there really isn't a "recovery" - they've already made it okay in their heads, be that because he/she cheated, pissed him/her off, or whatever excuse they make up, the bottom line is they've made it "okay" in their mind and morals to inflict serious pain and harm upon their loved one(s).


Either way though, I'd rather not suffer the beating whilst my husband "changes his mind." In my situation, I have no doubt that he'd "go all the way," he knows better than to let me live if he ever gets even a little violent with me. (Not that I've ever worried about this, my husband isn't that kind of insane.)

Violence can take many different forms. I think that people who are abused are abused because they allow it. In my experience,which I will admit is limited. We know a couple where controlling behaviour is going on in front of us,its not violent but it is abusive.
What I am referring to here is that moment when somebody snaps. Everybody has a breaking point and of course there could be mental health issues. Guns make it too easy for people to kill in these circumstances and there doesnt appear to be any process in place to mitigate this.
Should there be restrictions,as an example, on men who have been convicted of domestic abuse ? Or road rage ? Or any other type of violence. There may already be some of these in place but there are so many guns out there it looks like a free for all.

Again, there is a mental failure occurring when someone gets to the point of "causing harm" to those who they supposedly love. They're /intending/ to do harm, willfully. There is zero recovery from that stage of "mental illness" because they have made it "okay" in their mind somehow.

Harming "strangers" is a completely different animal from harming your loved ones and people you know.

 

[gipper]

Like many Euros, he is completely sold on the idea that only the government and criminals (same thing really) should have guns.

He needs to keep his fucking nose out of our business.

Agreed, but we all know some Euros get a wonderful kick out of condemning the USA.