Jump to content
dairygirl4u2c

guns v murder rate

guns v murder rate  

17 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
    • not more likely


Recommended Posts

dairygirl4u2c
4 hours ago, Mr Cameron said:

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. 

i can sympathize with the desire to defend oneself but you have to recognize promoting guns will only promote more murder overall. you have an increased need for a gun to defend yourself, only because there's an increased level of guns. also criminals dont say to themselves 'gee there is a higher gun per capita situation here i better watch out'. there is some deterrence, but no one is trying to disarm the populace just trying to promote policies to reduce the number of guns out there... there will still be general deterrence even with most liberal gun views in effect. 

my sources if i were to put them here are from universities and academics mostly, and other independent. again, i dont see credible contrary evidence against the specific conclusions i posted about, namely where there are more guns, there is more murder, and where there is more gun control there is less murder. if you have any examples that are different than the norm then they are simply outliers. 
 

or you can look at gun researchers themselves. in a poll, ninety percent say more gun control means less death. 

 for every perpetrator who dies in self defense, another thirty people are murdered

i dont have the stat off hand but you're also more likely to die in an intruder situation if you have a gun yourself.

i can see a person who overlooks all ive posted just in hte name of self defense rights, but you can't deny it all comes at a cost?

Share this post


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

i can sympathize with the desire to defend oneself but you have to recognize promoting guns will only promote more murder overall. you have an increased need for a gun to defend yourself, only because there's an increased level of guns. also criminals dont say to themselves 'gee there is a higher gun per capita situation here i better watch out'. there is some deterrence, but no one is trying to disarm the populace just trying to promote policies to reduce the number of guns out there... there will still be general deterrence even with most liberal gun views in effect. 

my sources if i were to put them here are from universities and academics mostly, and other independent. again, i dont see credible contrary evidence against the specific conclusions i posted about, namely where there are more guns, there is more murder, and where there is more gun control there is less murder. if you have any examples that are different than the norm then they are simply outliers. 
 

or you can look at gun researchers themselves. in a poll, ninety percent say more gun control means less death. 

 for every perpetrator who dies in self defense, another thirty people are murdered

i dont have the stat off hand but you're also more likely to die in an intruder situation if you have a gun yourself.

i can see a person who overlooks all ive posted just in hte name of self defense rights, but you can't deny it all comes at a cost?

It appears my words lack substance, but I'll explain another reason why I disagree with gun control. Your economy is basically dependent upon it. Or, it is a major factor. There are millions of family-run, company owned, independent and corporate gun manufacturers, shooting ranges, hunters. There's an NRA, Gun Unions, Catholic Gun Guilds. Guns are made from metal, and bullets as well. Go down the economic chain, and you can see how disruptive a gun ban would be on your economy, and therefore the rest of the world's. 

The government exists to be our slave, and not our master. Bans, in general, are bad when they're against a morally neutral machine. As pointed out by another user, prohibition never works. The user of the gun is the problem, not the gun itself. But your studies, I still can't believe because most of them are published by sociologists. Sociology is the Democrat's religion, because they twist the field to their own devices and agreement, especially when liberal Universities are concerned. I only know this because I am surrounded by academia 100% of the time. You can get a report to fit your agenda if you have the money, and know the right minds. 

What's this about being more likely to die in a home invasion, if you have a gun? Unless the shock of an intruder makes one instantly suicidal, I don't understand how it is a possible statistic? 

Share this post


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

It appears my words lack substance, but I'll explain another reason why I disagree with gun control. Your economy is basically dependent upon it. Or, it is a major factor. There are millions of family-run, company owned, independent and corporate gun manufacturers, shooting ranges, hunters. There's an NRA, Gun Unions, Catholic Gun Guilds. Guns are made from metal, and bullets as well. Go down the economic chain, and you can see how disruptive a gun ban would be on your economy, and therefore the rest of the world's. 

The government exists to be our slave, and not our master. Bans, in general, are bad when they're against a morally neutral machine. As pointed out by another user, prohibition never works. The user of the gun is the problem, not the gun itself. But your studies, I still can't believe because most of them are published by sociologists. Sociology is the Democrat's religion, because they twist the field to their own devices and agreement, especially when liberal Universities are concerned. I only know this because I am surrounded by academia 100% of the time. You can get a report to fit your agenda if you have the money, and know the right minds. 

What's this about being more likely to die in a home invasion, if you have a gun? Unless the shock of an intruder makes one instantly suicidal, I don't understand how it is a possible statistic? 

you're more likely to die probably because you're more likely to engage the enemy. 

i dont think you can argue you can find a study to prove any position you want. the specific conclusions ive shown have not been debunked by you or anyone else that ive seen, and they show there is more consistency in the studies i promote. i acknowledge even if i quibble with your data that you can find evidence having guns can sometimes deter crime. 

i dont think you should worry your words are ringing hollow. we're both being kind of nebulous in what exactly our points are. you argue gun bans are bad. i dont try to tackle that, though i could give you evidnce to the contrary. i argued the specific points about gun v murder etc, and all you post is factoids about deterrence. a lot of what we're doing is talking past each other. 

except to say i still dont see how you could deny that having guns rights comes at the expense of more problems?

i guess you point out all hte defensive use of guns, and i point out the trend of guns v murders. it seems my stat trumps yours cause of course there will be more defensive use of guns where there are more guns but that doesn't say anything about hte number of murders. 

Share this post


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

you're more likely to die probably because you're more likely to engage the enemy. 

i dont think you can argue you can find a study to prove any position you want. the specific conclusions ive shown have not been debunked by you or anyone else that ive seen, and they show there is more consistency in the studies i promote. i acknowledge even if i quibble with your data that you can find evidence having guns can sometimes deter crime. 

i dont think you should worry your words are ringing hollow. we're both being kind of nebulous in what exactly our points are. you argue gun bans are bad. i dont try to tackle that, though i could give you evidnce to the contrary. i argued the specific points about gun v murder etc, and all you post is factoids about deterrence. a lot of what we're doing is talking past each other. 

except to say i still dont see how you could deny that having guns rights comes at the expense of more problems?

i guess you point out all hte defensive use of guns, and i point out the trend of guns v murders. it seems my stat trumps yours cause of course there will be more defensive use of guns where there are more guns but that doesn't say anything about hte number of murders. 

I also understand your corollary, but I think and the American public tends to agree (look who is president) that gun control would be disastrous. 

Share this post


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

I also understand your corollary, but I think and the American public tends to agree (look who is president) that gun control would be disastrous. 

i'm not sure about that. ninety percent of people support background checks for guns. i know people quibble about what exactly the public supports but that is a general statistic that is hard to deny. the main reason we dont see more progress on gun control is because there is a vocal minority and strong special interests like the NRA. i also would quibble with the idea that more gun control would be disasterous... the studies i show show the top ten states with more gun control have less death and vice versa and back that trend. all i see saying otherwise are outliers. we can quibble about what type of gun control is good or not but i can't see making blanket statements like you did. i might even be able to see if concealed carry might cause some more deterrence than without it. i dont claim to know it all and that's a reasonable prediction.

Share this post


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

i'm not sure about that. ninety percent of people support background checks for guns. i know people quibble about what exactly the public supports but that is a general statistic that is hard to deny. the main reason we dont see more progress on gun control is because there is a vocal minority and strong special interests like the NRA. i also would quibble with the idea that more gun control would be disasterous... the studies i show show the top ten states with more gun control have less death and vice versa and back that trend. all i see saying otherwise are outliers. we can quibble about what type of gun control is good or not but i can't see making blanket statements like you did. i might even be able to see if concealed carry might cause some more deterrence than without it. i dont claim to know it all and that's a reasonable prediction.

With that said, most of the gun deaths in the US are suicides, followed by self defence. I assume many Americans see gun ownership as a right inalienable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c

'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

 

im sure most people think of a gun as a right reglardless of what the second amendment says. 

but if you look at the historical usage of the phrase "bare arms', it almost always meant usage in a militia. given the second amendment starts out talking about a militia and ends that way too, it seems it's an amendment about militias. "people have a right to a gun in a militia' perhaps 'for a militia'. that is the fairest way of reading it in my mind. you could focus on the word 'keep', in the 'keep and bare arms', but you are going against the most straightforward interpretation and ignoring all hte militia context.

i have some great source on 'bare arms' in historical use if you are interested. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
linate

also if you look at the constitutional convention, you can try hard as you may, and squint really hard, but there is no mention of the right of individuals to have guns.... they talked emphatically only about the need for militias. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fides' Jack

In response to Dairy, the right to "bare arms" is quite unfortunate, and has resulted in many becoming hicks without sleeves - which, I think we can all agree, is simply distasteful.  But that's a right that no one can take away except for dress codes in privately-owned establishments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DaveGrey

Being the only one who voted "a little more likely," I think I should probably explain myself.

A gun won't necessarily motivate someone to commit murder. The desire to commit murder more often stems from out of control emotions, such as anger. A gun, however, may increase that person's chances of actually going through with a murder, because it can give that person a sense of power. I'm not particularly muscular or anything, so if I were really mad at someone (this is just an example, I wouldn't murder someone in the first place), and if I were unarmed, I would probably just go brood darkly about it. But if I owned a gun of some sort, I must say that the temptation to cause harm to/kill that person is that much stronger. (Again, I would never kill someone, this is just an example)

I still don't think that banning guns would help a thing, though. There are plenty of levelheaded people out there who are perfectly trustable with a firearm. But, there are also many people who are somewhat unstable. That's why I believe in medical and criminal background checks for weapons, because that will help keep at least some guns out of the wrong hands. Of course, there is the criminal underworld, where they can get guns regardless of their mental health or other status, but that is something that would have to be dealt with by use of law enforcement personnel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Didacus
Quote

Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows?

Archie Bunker

 

:smile2:

 

If you have aspirin in your bathroom - are you more likely to have a headache?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
havok579257

bans on guns do work no matter what people claim.  look at japan.  it is one of the strictest countries in the world for gun control and their gun deaths are nothing compared to ours.  even most criminals won't use guns due to how severe the punishment is for even having a gun without a license.  i mean if you fire a gun you have illegally you could get life in prison.  i mean you know the laws are strict when the yakuza (the crime element in japan) are afraid to use guns for their killings. to get a gun over their is an extreme amount of work and you need to  pass so many checks.

 

so for anyone who says gun control will not work because the criminals will get guns anyway, just look at japan.  the criminals are afraid to use the guns.  now you could argue gun deaths are worth it to have the right to bear arms but you cant claim stricter gun laws would not drastically reduce the number of gun deaths in america.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Didacus
2 hours ago, havok579257 said:

(snip)...i mean if you fire a gun you have illegally you could get life in prison.  i mean you know the laws are strict when the yakuza (the crime element in japan) are afraid to use guns for their killings. ... (snip)

(snip)

So what methods do they use?  Throw people out of windows?

Is Japan considering banning windows now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
havok579257
40 minutes ago, Didacus said:

So what methods do they use?  Throw people out of windows?

Is Japan considering banning windows now?

the criminals?  knives and swords?  so your rationale is since we can't stop all murders using anything for a weapon, why try to stop any.  should we have the same mindset for abortion?  since we can't stop all abortions in this country why even try changing the laws?

 

please don't try to argue someone can commit mass murder with a knife comparable to a gun.  do you really believe the vegas or texas church shootings would have happened if the criminals only had a knife?  would they even have attempted it?  or that your more likely to die from from someone attacking you with a knife compared to a gun.

Edited by havok579257

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
little2add
16 hours ago, havok579257 said:

please don't try to argue someone can commit mass murder with a knife comparable to a gun

 The Oklahoma City bombing did not involve a gun.   Timothy McVeigh and his brother Terry Nichols, killed 168 people, injured more than 680 others, and destroyed one-third of the building

2011.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
havok579257
3 hours ago, little2add said:

 The Oklahoma City bombing did not involve a gun.   Timothy McVeigh and his brother Terry Nichols, killed 168 people, injured more than 680 others, and destroyed one-third of the building

2011.jpg

So is your point that because someone could make a bomb that could kill people we should do nothing about gun deaths?  

 

Also you comparing an incident that killed so many but happens so rarely to gun deaths which happen every single day.

 

The fact is, at the end of the day so many innocent people are killed in gun related deaths such as stray blet's from drive bys or accidental deaths of children because people left rhein gun out or heat of the moment gun deaths because someone got mad and pulled the trigger.  Something needs to be done about gun deaths in this country.  I can't imagine any good Catholic saying nothing needs to be done about all these gun deaths that do not involve self defense.  Although people who refuse any gun restrictions don't seem to have a solution to reduce innocents killed by guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
havok579257
18 minutes ago, little2add said:

22366382_848720615297629_360059209220244

I don't advocate taking away peoples guns.  I propose way stricter gun laws to get a gun and way stricter punishments for gun deaths.  Something similar to Japan for gun owners. 

 

You must show that you know how to use a gun. You must have a real thorough background check.  You must have a psych evaluation. You must renew your gun license every 2 years.  All guns must be registared.   If you don't comply you lose your license and have to wait a number of years to reapply.   Also having a gun illegally carries a harsh punishment of jail time.  Even firing of a gun without a license or a legal gun warrants jail time.  Making the penalties severe enough people won't want to use guns illegally. 

 

I am all for people having guns but I am not for incompetent people or people with mental health issues or crimin also having guns.  What I don't understand is why something like this is so taboo to gun rights advocates. Unfettered access to guns is not the solution unless you are the Nra or gun manufactures. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
little2add
2 hours ago, havok579257 said:

people with mental health issues

 

 

let law abiding citizens defend themselves as they see fix, with firearms but there should be age limits.   You have to pass a drivers test before getting behind a wheel, you have to be sober, etc. 

 Mental illness is the crux of the matter  in most if not all of the recent mass killings.  

There should be drug testing before be allowed a carry firearms, too.  Such requirements are long overdue.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
little2add

Dec 4, 2017

WASHINGTON— Federal authorities sought to take back guns from thousands of people the background check system should have blocked from buying weapons because they had criminal records, mental health issues or other problems that would disqualify them. 

A USA TODAY review found that the FBI issued more than 4,000 requests last year for agents from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives to retrieve guns from prohibited buyers.

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


×