Will more guns create a safer society?

[Derideo_Te]

I already posted showing how wrong the FBI study is....do I need to do it again....?

Your paranoid gun fetish sites have zero credibility.

 

[2aguy]

This is why you lack all credibility.

Your link was from November 22, 2010!

That's also why I posted the new link for the Gallup poll from 2014....

You should read all my posts before you respond....because the most recent poll is post Sandy Hook and post all the spending by bloomberg....

 

[2aguy]

Here you go again...


Support For New Gun Control Laws Plummets Especially Among Women - Katie Pavlich

"Since the 2012 Newtown school shooting, major anti-gun groups like Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action (both funded by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg) have been pushing for more legal requirements during gun sales, better known as "universal background checks." But a new survey fromGallup shows those efforts haven't paid off and that the majority of the country does not support an increase in gun control laws. The survey also shows support for new legislation has plummeted since 2012.

Less than half of Americans, 47%, say they favor stricter laws covering the sale of firearms, similar to views found last year. But this percentage is significantly below the 58% recorded in 2012 after the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, spurred a nationwide debate about the possibility of more stringent gun control laws. Thirty-eight percent of Americans say these laws should be kept as they are now, and 14% say they should be made less strict.

A Gallup notes, these numbers aren't the lowest they've ever been. In 2011, support for new gun control measures were at an all-time low of just 43 percent.

The 47% who favor stricter laws is just above the historical low of 43% measured in 2011.

Ten years ago, three in five Americans (60%) said they favored stricter laws regulating the sale of firearms, but support fell to 44% in 2009 and remained at that level in polls conducted in the next two years. Days after the Newtown shooting, support for stricter gun sale laws swelled. Since 2012, however, Americans have retreated from those stronger attitudes about the need for more gun control, and the percentage of Americans who say the laws should be less strict -- although still low -- has edged up.

One of the biggest drops in support for more gun control comes from women, who coincidentally are the fastest growing demographic of gun owners in America. In 2012 69 percent of women supported measures like universal background checks. In 2014, it's just 55 percent. Since 2005, personal gun ownership among women has increased by nearly 80 percent."

 

[BlackSand]

As I have said before you are a responsible and well trained gun owner. The same is not true for all of the other 80 million. So the problem is what happens when one of their CC weapons goes off accidentally while they are walking down the street?

Walking down a public street and accidental discharge ... Still meets the unlawful discharge of a firearm charge ... And the irresponsible gun owner is liable for that charge and any injury they may have caused in accordance with criminal and civil charges.

Criminal charges can be all kinds of things like Negligent Homicide etc ... Liability for injuries can be demanded but in the Untied States everyone is required to have personal health insurance. So there is no question as to whether or not the injured is covered even if it is by their insurance. If they aren't covered, they are breaking the law and shit out of luck.

Edit:
More importantly Derideo ... I think we just disagree like we always have concerning the liability the responsible law abiding citizens have to cover in order to satisfy opposing views of people who don't value and honor personal responsibility. I accept that we cannot punish the law abiding people enough to alter the desires of the irresponsible and criminal.

If we chose to adjust all activities towards legislating irresponsibility out of existence ... Then we are in a sense forcing irresponsibility as the accepted norm ... It isn't. There are consequences for behavior that can and will occur when we allow people the liberty to live their lives.

.

 

[westwall]

I already posted showing how wrong the FBI study is....do I need to do it again....?

Your paranoid gun fetish sites have zero credibility.

The FBI has no credibility?

 

[westwall]

So yes - guns DO prevent crime. Absolutely. However, statistics show clearly and repeatedly that where there are guns, there are also deaths. They also show that any decrease in crime related to guns is massively overshadowed by the death toll.

Saigon...you are wrong....incredibly wrong....just for you....

...this time is just for you...the statistics on how many times guns are used to save lives and stop violent crime...keeping in mind, according to the FBI, there are about 8-9,000 gun murders a year....and about 80% of those occur in small, multi block areas in inner city areas of our major cities...usually controlled by democrats...having been controlled by democrats for decades....

again....the bottom column of the chart never wants to post so I give the name of the people or group doing the study, the year of the study and number of times they found guns were used to save lives and stop violent crime each year....

Okay...again...here are all the studies that actually give numbers for guns used to save lives and stop crimes taken from the table I provided from guncite.com...

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

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

DMIa 1978...2,141,512

DMIb...1978...1,098,409

Hart...1981...1.797,461

Ohio...1982...771,043

Mauser...1990...1,487,342

Gallup...1991...777,153

Gallup...1993...1,621,377

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,682

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036

And this from the clinton justice department...

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million
(Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text,PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
.(Lawrence Southwick, Jr.,Guns and Justifiable Homicide: Deterrence and Defense-concludes there are at least 400,000 "fewer violent crimes due to civilian self-defense use of guns" and at least "800,000 violent crimes are deterred each year because of gun ownership and use by civilians.")


From Obama's CDC...they spent 10 million dollars in 2013 for this study...

from slate.com an article on CDC obama's era...500-3 million defensive gun uses

Handguns suicides mass shootings deaths and self-defense Findings from a research report on gun violence.
7. Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively. “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.”
--------------------

"Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year."

As shown in the previous footnote, this study did not use a nationally representative population. To correct for this, Just Facts used the following equation:


As Kleck points out in his paper...



....can you answer the question...since none of these studies is lower than about 700,000 times a year....



I re ran the numbers with all of the studies and the average number of times guns are used to save lives and stop violent crime each year in the United States is 1.6 million....

8-9,000 gun murders a year vs. 1.6 million times, on average that a non law enforcement, non military, law abiding citizen stops a violent criminal attack or saves a life....

8-9,000 vs. 1.6 million....

Guns save far more lives than they take....even using the lowest numbers from anti gun biased studies.....

This simply makes no sense - IF guns were saving lives in the US, then your crime rates and death tolls would be low. They are not - they are sky high.

Hence, it is fairly obvious that guns are NOT discouraging crime or criminals.

Another analogy - your point seems to be that new US-only technology is pushing car prices down - and yet you live in a country with the highest car prices on earth. You cannot build a case on that. No one will buy that.

Here is a statistic for you:

Murders with firearms:

UK 14

USA 9,369

United Kingdom vs United States Crime Stats Compared

So, it's fairly obvious that the UK has more effective laws, isn't it.

That's funny. The UK Telegraph reports different statistics than your source....

"The Tories said Labour had presided over a decade of spiralling violence.
In the decade following the party's election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million - or more than two every minute.
The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:

• The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
• It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
• The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.
• It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.

But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.
In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677."

The most violent country in Europe Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. Daily Mail Online

 

[Derideo_Te]

I already posted showing how wrong the FBI study is....do I need to do it again....?

Your paranoid gun fetish sites have zero credibility.

The FBI has no credibility?

The FBI is credible, Billc has no credibility.

 

[cultsmasher]

As studies show:

Guns don t offer protection whatever the National Rifle Association says Science The Guardian
Indeed, the evidence suggests the very act of being armed changes one's perception of others to a decidedly more paranoid one. Other studies have shown an element of racial priming too, where a black subject is more likely to be assumed to be carrying a weapon. Guns have a curious psychological effect beyond this: a 2006 study by Dr Jennifer Klinesmith and colleagues showed men exposed to firearms before an experiment had much higher testosterone levels and were three times more likely to engage in aggressive behaviour relative to the subjects not primed with a weapon.

Gun aficionados often frame the debate in terms of protection, but it is vital to realise that the vast majority of rape and murder victims are not harmed by nefarious strangers, but by people they know, and often love – friends, family members, lovers. Far from protecting people and keeping families safe, the sad truth is that firearms are often used in episodes of domestic violence. The John Hopkins centre for gun policy research has some sobering facts on this; women living in a home with one or more guns were three times more likely to be murdered; for women who had been abused by their partner, their risk of being murdered rose fivefold if the partner owned a gun

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates

If you have a gun in the home, you are automatically at greater risk for homicide in your own home by a gun.

Same reason I don't keep dynamite in my garage, I don't need it.

Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home Findings from a National Study
Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

figaro,
Only if it is White people using them on negroes and Mexicans.

 

[ChrisL]

As I have said before you are a responsible and well trained gun owner. The same is not true for all of the other 80 million. So the problem is what happens when one of their CC weapons goes off accidentally while they are walking down the street?

Walking down a public street and accidental discharge ... Still meets the unlawful discharge of a firearm charge ... And the irresponsible gun owner is liable for that charge and any injury they may have caused in accordance with criminal and civil charges.

Criminal charges can be all kinds of things like Negligent Homicide etc ... Liability for injuries can be demanded but in the Untied States everyone is required to have personal health insurance. So there is no question as to whether or not the injured is covered even if it is by their insurance. If they aren't covered, they are breaking the law and shit out of luck.

Edit:
More importantly Derideo ... I think we just disagree like we always have concerning the liability the responsible law abiding citizens have to cover in order to satisfy opposing views of people who don't value and honor personal responsibility. I accept that we cannot punish the law abiding people enough to alter the desires of the irresponsible and criminal.

If we chose to adjust all activities towards legislating irresponsibility out of existence ... Then we are in a sense forcing irresponsibility as the accepted norm ... It isn't. There are consequences for behavior that can and will occur when we allow people the liberty to live their lives.

.

There are plenty of accidents caused by plenty of things, like vehicles for example. We don't make it more difficult to obtain a vehicle though, and driving is not even a constitutional right!

 

[Ellipsis]

" Each day in the U.S., firearms kill an average of 10 children and teens"

People kill people, not firearms. Firearms are just the tool used. Like banning abortion, banning firearms will just change the way murders are carried out, not reduce the number of murders which occure.

 

[Ellipsis]

That is an interesting assertion though ...

Not saying that government does or doesn't want to confiscate weapons ... Why would a registry be necessary? If they just wanted a list ... What would they do with the list ... What is the reason they need a list?

.

If anti-gunners were smart they would say registration is to fund ATF enforcment since car registration is for funding traffic enforcement and maintain roads.

An appeal to conservatives would include the notion that registration and UBC fees are to keep taxes low in genorating the funding for said ATF enforcement.

But anti-gun is driven by emotional illness, not intellectual sincerity.

 

[MaryL]

No. Guns hurt us all and we would be better off without them.

 

[Geaux4it]

No. Guns hurt us all and we would be better off without them.

Good grief

-Geaux

 

[Saigon]

" Each day in the U.S., firearms kill an average of 10 children and teens"

People kill people, not firearms. Firearms are just the tool used. Like banning abortion, banning firearms will just change the way murders are carried out, not reduce the number of murders which occure.

So if abortion is banned, people use other tools, do they?

Are you sure?

 

[Saigon]

There are plenty of accidents caused by plenty of things, like vehicles for example. We don't make it more difficult to obtain a vehicle though, and driving is not even a constitutional right!

Have you heard of drivers' licenses laws on using headlights, safety belts, emissions or mandatory car safety inspections?

Are cars in the US registered when bought or sold?

If guns had the same level of safety laws as cars, I expect everyone would be quite happy.

 

[Geaux4it]

" Each day in the U.S., firearms kill an average of 10 children and teens"

People kill people, not firearms. Firearms are just the tool used. Like banning abortion, banning firearms will just change the way murders are carried out, not reduce the number of murders which occure.

So if abortion is banned, people use other tools, do they?

Are you sure?

Anatomy of a coat hanger abortion
POSTED BY DR. JEN GUNTER ⋅ JULY 13, 2013 ⋅ 52 COMMENTS
FILED UNDER ABORTION, WAR ON WOMEN
The coat hanger isn’t sterile. It isn’t even clean.

If the woman, or girl, is alone she thrusts it blindly upwards into the vagina. She’s hoping it will get into her uterus and do something. She may or may not know that to get into the uterus the coat hanger has to navigate the small opening in the cervix called the os.

A coat hanger is technically narrow enough to get through a pregnant cervical os, but the end is sharp not tapered so it can lacerate and perforate. Getting any instrument through the cervix safely also requires visualization and knowledge of the correct amount of force.

If she’s lucky enough to get the coat hanger through her cervix it could easily sail right through the back or side walls of the uterus. The uterine wall is soft and easily perforated with the wrong instrument or unskilled hands. If the uterus is perforated on one of the sides there is a high risk of lacerating a uterine artery, as that is where they are located. If this happens a woman who is by herself could easily bleed to death before she gets appropriate medical care. These arteries pump a lot of blood.



Anatomy of a coat hanger abortion Dr. Jen Gunter

 

[Saigon]

Here you go again...


Support For New Gun Control Laws Plummets Especially Among Women - Katie Pavlich

"Since the 2012 Newtown school shooting, major anti-gun groups like Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action (both funded by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg) have been pushing for more legal requirements during gun sales, better known as "universal background checks." But a new survey fromGallup shows those efforts haven't paid off and that the majority of the country does not support an increase in gun control laws. The survey also shows support for new legislation has plummeted since 2012.

Less than half of Americans, 47%, say they favor stricter laws covering the sale of firearms, similar to views found last year. But this percentage is significantly below the 58% recorded in 2012 after the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, spurred a nationwide debate about the possibility of more stringent gun control laws. Thirty-eight percent of Americans say these laws should be kept as they are now, and 14% say they should be made less strict.

A Gallup notes, these numbers aren't the lowest they've ever been. In 2011, support for new gun control measures were at an all-time low of just 43 percent.

The 47% who favor stricter laws is just above the historical low of 43% measured in 2011.

Ten years ago, three in five Americans (60%) said they favored stricter laws regulating the sale of firearms, but support fell to 44% in 2009 and remained at that level in polls conducted in the next two years. Days after the Newtown shooting, support for stricter gun sale laws swelled. Since 2012, however, Americans have retreated from those stronger attitudes about the need for more gun control, and the percentage of Americans who say the laws should be less strict -- although still low -- has edged up.

One of the biggest drops in support for more gun control comes from women, who coincidentally are the fastest growing demographic of gun owners in America. In 2012 69 percent of women supported measures like universal background checks. In 2014, it's just 55 percent. Since 2005, personal gun ownership among women has increased by nearly 80 percent."

It's really pleasing to see that only 14% of Americans want lighter gun laws. That is great news.

 

[Geaux4it]

There are plenty of accidents caused by plenty of things, like vehicles for example. We don't make it more difficult to obtain a vehicle though, and driving is not even a constitutional right!

Have you heard of drivers' licenses laws on using headlights, safety belts, emissions or mandatory car safety inspections?

Are cars in the US registered when bought or sold?

If guns had the same level of safety laws as cars, I expect everyone would be quite happy.

No they wouldn't

-Geaux

 

[Saigon]

" Each day in the U.S., firearms kill an average of 10 children and teens"

People kill people, not firearms. Firearms are just the tool used. Like banning abortion, banning firearms will just change the way murders are carried out, not reduce the number of murders which occure.

So if abortion is banned, people use other tools, do they?

Are you sure?

Anatomy of a coat hanger abortion
POSTED BY DR. JEN GUNTER ⋅ JULY 13, 2013 ⋅ 52 COMMENTS
FILED UNDER ABORTION, WAR ON WOMEN
The coat hanger isn’t sterile. It isn’t even clean.

If the woman, or girl, is alone she thrusts it blindly upwards into the vagina. She’s hoping it will get into her uterus and do something. She may or may not know that to get into the uterus the coat hanger has to navigate the small opening in the cervix called the os.

A coat hanger is technically narrow enough to get through a pregnant cervical os, but the end is sharp not tapered so it can lacerate and perforate. Getting any instrument through the cervix safely also requires visualization and knowledge of the correct amount of force.

If she’s lucky enough to get the coat hanger through her cervix it could easily sail right through the back or side walls of the uterus. The uterine wall is soft and easily perforated with the wrong instrument or unskilled hands. If the uterus is perforated on one of the sides there is a high risk of lacerating a uterine artery, as that is where they are located. If this happens a woman who is by herself could easily bleed to death before she gets appropriate medical care. These arteries pump a lot of blood.



Anatomy of a coat hanger abortion Dr. Jen Gunter

Ha! And what was someone saying earlier posters lacking intellectual sincerity?!

By all means post the stats on this, Geaux - I'd love to know how many of these coathanger abortions we see in countries where abortion is banned - then we can compare that to per capita abortions in countries where abortion is legal, and establish whether Pezz's claim is correct.

 

[Saigon]

There are plenty of accidents caused by plenty of things, like vehicles for example. We don't make it more difficult to obtain a vehicle though, and driving is not even a constitutional right!

Have you heard of drivers' licenses laws on using headlights, safety belts, emissions or mandatory car safety inspections?

Are cars in the US registered when bought or sold?

If guns had the same level of safety laws as cars, I expect everyone would be quite happy.

No they wouldn't

-Geaux

No they wouldn't have heard of all of the laws we have for cars?

Probably you are right.