Jump to content
dairygirl4u2c

guns v murder rate

guns v murder rate  

11 members have voted

  1. 1. how much more likely do you think having a gun makes a person likely to murder someone?

    • a lot more likely
    • moderately more likely
      0
    • a little more likely
      0
    • not more likely


Recommended Posts

dairygirl4u2c    62
dairygirl4u2c

just curious what people think

Edited by dairygirl4u2c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
little2add    474
little2add

Leading causes of death in the US

- Heart disease: 614,348
-  Cancer: 591,699
- Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 147,101
- Accidents (unintentional injuries): 136,053
- Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 133,103
- Alzheimer's disease: 93,541
- Diabetes: 76,488
- Influenza and pneumonia: 55,227
- Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,146
- Intentional self-harm (suicide): 42,773
- murders by firearms 8,124

obesity kills, outlaw glunity 

Outlaw cancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quasar    245
Quasar

I don't think there is a causal link between owning a gun and committing murder.  But I do think a person who intends to commit murder is likely to try to acquire a gun.  The chain of cause and effect runs in the opposite direction from the one presupposed by the poll questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LittleWaySoul    1,009
LittleWaySoul

"Murder" may not be the best word. I think that personal gun ownership may increase the likelihood of a gun accident/death, but murder? Eh. If you buy a gun for recreational use, I don't think simply owning it will turn you into a murderer. :idontknow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anomaly    2,480
Anomaly

Gun death rate has declined almost 50% over the last 25 years according to CDC.   The number of new guns being purchased has continued to rise over the same period. 

Suicide rates have increased as well.  

Spend time and money in mental health, not disarmament. You will save more lives and do more to improve society. 

Edited by Anomaly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c    62
dairygirl4u2c

anomaly and socrates and anti gun control people in general ignore that science says more gun correlate to more gun death. i've cited it in the other thread and it goes unrebutted. if this fact is true, it's a function of the fact that a person will kill more likely with a gun, multiplied by millions of guns. 

a woman is five times more likely to be murdered in domestic violence if her partner has a gun. that fact alone should tell you that people are more likely to kill when they have a gun. a sudden temper tantrum doesn't turn deadly with the ease and efficiency of gun deaths. so simple it's stupid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anomaly    2,480
Anomaly

Dairy, 

You have only ignored the cold hard fact that gun quantity and gun deaths do not indicate causation.  If that were true, then the number of gun deaths would increase as the number of guns increase.   The exact opposite is the reality. 

Your "hypothesis is the same as saying thunder causes rain.  "It is known that you are 98% more likely to get wet if you're outside in thunder."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anselm    185
Anselm
9 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

Dairy, 

You have only ignored the cold hard fact that gun quantity and gun deaths do not indicate causation.  If that were true, then the number of gun deaths would increase as the number of guns increase.   The exact opposite is the reality. 

Your "hypothesis is the same as saying thunder causes rain.  "It is known that you are 98% more likely to get wet if you're outside in thunder."

Or, as actually happened, both increased through the 60s, 70s and 80s and the gun death rate only started to reduce when police numbers were increased in the 90s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c    62
dairygirl4u2c

so what about all those studies that show guns are correlated with violence? it looks like people just ignore em. i at least acknowledge that guns have gone up while deaths have gone down. but this can be true and the studies i offer too. what's happening with guns and murders in the USA on the whole is called an anomaly. you'd think someone who has that as there name would recognize one when they see it. 

and back to the thread, what about that women are five times more likely to die if her signifiant other has a gun? that's not even a controversial fact cause it's so easily measured. i pretty much proved the question of this poll without question.  some people are more likely to kill if they have a gun.
 i think there's something not right in the brains of those arguing against us anslem, and they've been putting your cognitive abilities down all this time. totally misplaced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anomaly    2,480
Anomaly

Dairy,

I'm all for directing societal resources at the root causes of violence and crime.   Poverty, poor mental health treatment, few social programs and support for drug and behavior problems.  

We can't Prohibition our way out of alcohol, drug, or gun use.   It's already failed for alcohol and drugs.  Eliminating one tool or weapon used for violence is a poor and short sighted strategy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c    62
dairygirl4u2c

"Eliminating one tool or weapon used for violence is a poor and short sighted strategy. "

the studies i cited show people are more likely to die, not just by guns, but in gneral, when people have a gun. that means eliminating a gun is more than just eliminating a choice of weaopons someone will inevitabilly use. you've lowered the chance of death. 

i keep repeating the science but people seem to ignore or not comprehend. that's the only reason i was giving up on this debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c    62
dairygirl4u2c
On 7/21/2017 at 5:07 PM, Mr Cameron said:

If anything, guns prevent more murder than cause it. Protection anyone?

the states and geographical areas with more guns have more murders. thats a fact. 

the states with more gun control laws have the least murders and those with less gun control laws have the most murders. 

women are five times more likely to die if her significant other has a gun in domestic violence situations. pare that with the fact that not all people who are denied a gun will run out and get one illegally, and you have a no nonsense common sense proof that gun control saves some lives. 

this is all based on science. if you have any reason other than your fantasy for thinking otherwise, please let us know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Cameron    50
Mr Cameron
2 hours ago, dairygirl4u2c said:

the states and geographical areas with more guns have more murders. thats a fact. 

the states with more gun control laws have the least murders and those with less gun control laws have the most murders. 

women are five times more likely to die if her significant other has a gun in domestic violence situations. pare that with the fact that not all people who are denied a gun will run out and get one illegally, and you have a no nonsense common sense proof that gun control saves some lives. 

this is all based on science. if you have any reason other than your fantasy for thinking otherwise, please let us know. 

Unfortunately, it depends on your data and which one you choose to believe. We have gun control in Newfoundland, and here people still are murdered because we cannot protect ourselves with the strength of firearms. 

Imagine this. Someone busts into your home with a gun wanting to kill you. You're going to die, because none of us sleep with bulletproof doors or vests, and glass shatters from a fist, let alone a bullet. I know that I feel a lot safer knowing that we have hunting guns, but if we use them for protection? We're more likely to be put in gaol than the intruder. Therefore, if someone is coming at me with a gun, I'd appreciate having a gun to fight back. Especially when my four-year-old nephew is over with me. 

I don't think we can call many of the studies done, 'scientific.' Data depends on reports, and when politics are involved you be surprised how suddenly a study group will drop 'prevented murders' because we can't read the intentions of someone's mind. 

Now, I'm not afraid to be wrong and I will admit it when I'm proven to be, but a lot of studies also report that guns prevent more deaths than cause them. I encourage you to take a look at the three links I have supplied. Only this morning did I read another story about a gentleman in the States who shot two armed intruders, preventing any chance of injury toward his girlfriend and two-year-old child. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
little2add    474
little2add

A nice contrast to Chicago for a natural experiment is Houston. Houston is very similar to Chicago in terms of socioeconomic factors such as population, density, and segregation. Houston, like Chicago, is a major center for illegal activities such as the drug trade and human trafficking. Despite all this, Houston has a murder rate two-thirds that of Chicago. This is because the people of Houston are well armed, while innocents in Chicago have been condemned to be sitting ducks.

For those paying attention, the carnage–and the possibility for more carnage–in Chicago has been evident for quite some time. After all, Chicago is a gun control experiment gone wrong; a city which enacted a total handgun ban in 1982, thereby guaranteeing that the only people who had handguns were the criminals. Law-abiding citizens were reduced to using baseball bats, sticks, pitchforks, etc., for self-defense.  And the results were easy to predict–the Tribune reported the decade following the implementation of Chicago’s ban saw “murders [jump] by 41 percent, compared with an 18 percent rise in the entire United States.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c    62
dairygirl4u2c
18 hours ago, Mr Cameron said:

Unfortunately, it depends on your data and which one you choose to believe. We have gun control in Newfoundland, and here people still are murdered because we cannot protect ourselves with the strength of firearms. 

Imagine this. Someone busts into your home with a gun wanting to kill you. You're going to die, because none of us sleep with bulletproof doors or vests, and glass shatters from a fist, let alone a bullet. I know that I feel a lot safer knowing that we have hunting guns, but if we use them for protection? We're more likely to be put in gaol than the intruder. Therefore, if someone is coming at me with a gun, I'd appreciate having a gun to fight back. Especially when my four-year-old nephew is over with me. 

I don't think we can call many of the studies done, 'scientific.' Data depends on reports, and when politics are involved you be surprised how suddenly a study group will drop 'prevented murders' because we can't read the intentions of someone's mind. 

Now, I'm not afraid to be wrong and I will admit it when I'm proven to be, but a lot of studies also report that guns prevent more deaths than cause them. I encourage you to take a look at the three links I have supplied. Only this morning did I read another story about a gentleman in the States who shot two armed intruders, preventing any chance of injury toward his girlfriend and two-year-old child. 

 

the one link shows simply that the guns in the US have increased but crime has decreased. that is just an anomoly. studies consistently show that where there are more guns there is more murder. you would be hard pressed if you actually did a literature review to find more than a few people who actually contest this. and the few people who you find to support your position are widely debunked. take your links constantly citing the debunked ideas of Kleck. i dont have all the details but these types of people usually dont control for other factors such as poverty when looking at murder rates. and for kleck's data to be correct there would be more uses of guns in defensive use than in perpetrater use when we know this isn't the case. here is a sample of some other of his problems... 

http://www.vacps.org/public-policy/the-contradictions-of-kleck

seriously do a literature review of the studies i provided. it's uncanny how often people will cite the scant and same old stuff despite the overwhelming volume of counter data. when you talk about factual info people's eyes glaze over and they often revert to 'it must be open for debate', but if you actually research it you'll find it's not really.

here is a harvard researcher who did such a literature review...

"Hemenway and coauthor Lisa M. Hepburn reviewed research from peer-reviewed journals and found that the evidence from studies of U.S. cities, states and regions “is quite consistent … where there are higher levels of gun prevalence, homicide rates are substantially higher, primarily due to higher firearm homicide rates.” "

trust me, i can cite you many links and papers supporting my assertions. i have them available i'm just to lazy to copy and paste. i'm sure i can predict the few people you would find if you tried to find counter data. that's proof your position is weak... your studies are predictable and few, i can find countless people who support me. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Cameron    50
Mr Cameron
10 minutes ago, dairygirl4u2c said:

 

the one link shows simply that the guns in the US have increased but crime has decreased. that is just an anomoly. studies consistently show that where there are more guns there is more murder. you would be hard pressed if you actually did a literature review to find more than a few people who actually contest this. and the few people who you find to support your position are widely debunked. take your links constantly citing the debunked ideas of Kleck. i dont have all the details but these types of people usually dont control for other factors such as poverty when looking at murder rates. and for kleck's data to be correct there would be more uses of guns in defensive use than in perpetrater use when we know this isn't the case. here is a sample of some other of his problems... 

http://www.vacps.org/public-policy/the-contradictions-of-kleck

seriously do a literature review of the studies i provided. it's uncanny how often people will cite the scant and same old stuff despite the overwhelming volume of counter data. when you talk about factual info people's eyes glaze over and they often revert to 'it must be open for debate', but if you actually research it you'll find it's not really.

here is a harvard researcher who did such a literature review...

"Hemenway and coauthor Lisa M. Hepburn reviewed research from peer-reviewed journals and found that the evidence from studies of U.S. cities, states and regions “is quite consistent … where there are higher levels of gun prevalence, homicide rates are substantially higher, primarily due to higher firearm homicide rates.” "

trust me, i can cite you many links and papers supporting my assertions. i have them available i'm just to lazy to copy and paste. i'm sure i can predict the few people you would find if you tried to find counter data. that's proof your position is weak... your studies are predictable and few, i can find countless people who support me. 
 

Your devotion to this argument is admirable, and thank you for your sources. All of our data, naturally, is going to support each of our individual opinions. Some of my links are independent studies, separated from any non-profit or agenda-oriented group, unlike yours. However, I assume you are an American and live in an American environment, for which you are very lucky. I don't know if homicide rates are higher, but you seem to be ignoring what I state and what my links confirm: where there are guns, it is easier to prevent said violence. 

One poster above relates the story of Chicago. This is the story of Newfoundland, of England, of Norway. Only criminals have access to guns, because what occurs underground, occurs below the gaze of our unfortunately ignorant governments. You are privileged to reside in a country that recognises the rights you have to protect yourself and your family. This is my theme here. Protection is the main thing. I'll repeat myself. If you are home, and an individual forced him/her self in your home and you have a family to protect, the chances are that they will have a gun or a knife. How do you want to protect yourself? In a moment like this, wouldn't you wish you had a gun? Or would you submit to being harmed in a potentially fatal way, and accept the grief and failure knowing you have a dead wife or husband, son or daughter? 

Prohibition of weapons also does not guarantee total unavailability of the same. If someone wants a gun, trust me: they can get one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×