phnxfrhwk
Member
+14|6691|Just outside of baltimore, Md.

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

phnxfrhwk wrote:

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

Neither do meaningless sound bites like "guns don't kill people do" if you don't actually explain what you mean by that. I can say "guns don't kill, people do" to argue that guns should be banned in the US because the average US citizen is a moron/psycho who can't be trusted with a keyboard and an internet connection let alone a weapon.
Simple place a loaded gun on the floor. next to a baseball bat, a katana and any other weapon. and have several people stand in a circle arond them. Without any person touching these weapons, how many people were killed?...0. Guns wont kill a person unless the trigger is pulled by another person(yes you could go on about acidental killings by guns being dropped, but there are measures that have been put in place on modern guns for just that reason.)
The people all died of starvation. They were forced to stand in a circle by a guy trying to prove some point about guns, but he forgot to feed them.

Seriously though, what's your point? I learned nothing.

Perhaps statistics or novel arguments would suppot whatever point you're trying to get across better than "what if" and "let's all imagine a scenario where..." stories.
I shouldn't have to report statistics. Its common sense that an inanimate object made from a peice of metal can't kill someone unless acted upon by an individual. Does a gun in a show case or a museum just randomly go off and kill someone. No. unless someone actually physically picks it up and pulls the trigger the gun will not fire a round. its a cause/reaction thing. If someone doesn't cause the gun to fire then it will not fire.
But if you want to get really technical the only way somebody is killed by a gun, is if they are beaten to death by one.

Last edited by phnxfrhwk (2006-09-05 19:36:53)

AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6662|Seattle, WA

oug wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

I don't know why people care so much about these silly gun topics).
It's not that I care so much whether guns are legal in the US or not... It's just that gun supporters' opinion is so far from mine I feel it as a challenge to respond and maybe even convince some of them to see this from a different angle. Clearly I have failed
I can easily see it from different angles, there are many angles, you have to have an open mind as well.
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6662|Seattle, WA

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

moron/psycho who can't be trusted with a keyboard and an internet connection let alone a weapon.

Can anyone find any gun ownership statistics? Maybe registered American gun owners?
First of all unless your talking about Class III, CCW(CPL,CHL,CWL,etc),etc, than there is no such thing as "registered" gun owners.  Thats a myth. 

Edit: By taking the number of guns and the rough estimate that 1/11 Americans is a gun owner, which is an official estimate, don't remember from where, that puts approximately 24-25 million gun owners in the U.S. + or - 1-2 million (adjusted for error).

Guns.

The number of privately owned guns in the U.S. is at an all-time high. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) estimates that there were about 215 million guns in 1999,1 when the number of new guns was averaging about 4.5 million (about 2%) annually.2 A report for the National Academy of Sciences put the 1999 figure at 258 million.3 According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were 60.4 million approved (new and used) NICS firearm transactions between 1994 2004.4 The number of NICS checks for firearm purchases or permits increased 3.2% between 2003-2004.

Gun Owners.

The number of gun owners is also at an all-time high. The U.S. population is at an all-time high (294 million), and rises about 1% annually.5 Numerous surveys over the last 40+ years have found that almost half of all households have at least one gun owner.6 Some surveys since the late 1990s have indicated a smaller incidence of gun ownership,7 probably because of some respondents` concerns about "gun control," residually due, perhaps, to the anti-gun policies of the Clinton Administration.

Right-to-Carry.

The number of RTC states is at an all-time high, up from 10 in 1987 to 38 today.8 In 2004, states with RTC laws, compared to other states, had lower violent crime rates on average. Total violent crime was lower by 21%, murder by 28%, robbery by 43%, and aggravated assault by 13%.9

"Less Gun Control."

Violent crime has declined while many "gun control" laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive. Many states have eliminated prohibitory or restrictive carry laws, in favor of Right-to-Carry laws. The federal Brady Act`s waiting period on handgun sales ended in 1998, in favor of the NRA-supported National Instant Check, and some states thereafter eliminated waiting periods, purchase permit requirements, or other laws delaying gun sales. The federal "assault weapon" ban expired in 2004. All states now have hunter protection laws, 46 have range protection laws, 46 prohibit local jurisdictions from imposing gun laws more restrictive than state law, 44 protect the right to arms in their constitutions, and 33 prohibit frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry.10

Studies by and for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and even researchers who support "gun control," have found no evidence that "gun control" reduces crime.11

Crime.

The FBI reports that the nation`s total violent crime rate declined every year between 1991 2004.12 In 2004, the violent crime rate fell to a 30-year low, lower than any time since 1974. The murder rate fell to a 39-year low, lower than any time since 1965. The 2004 robbery and aggravated assault rates were lower than any time since 1968 and 1984, respectively. Since 1991, total violent crime has decreased 39%; murder and non-negligent manslaughter, 44%; rape, 24%; robbery, 50%; and aggravated assault, 33%.13 Between 2003-2004, the violent crime rate declined 2.2%.14 Concurrently, the most recent Bureau of Justice Statistics crime victimization survey found that violent crime is lower than anytime since 1973, when the first such survey was conducted.15
Notes

1. BATF, "Crime Gun Trace Reports (1999) National Report," Nov. 2000, p. ix (www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/1999/index.htm).
2. BATF, "Firearms Commerce in the United States 2001/2002" (www.atf.gov/pub/index.htm#Firearms).
3. National Research Council, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review, National Academies Press, 2005.
4. BJS, "Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 2004" (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov./bjs/pub/pdf/bcft04.pdf).
5. Bureau of the Census (http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html).
6. Gary Kleck, Targeting Firearms, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997, pp. 94, 98-100.
7. E.g., BJS Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 2002, Table 2.58, (www.albany.edu/sourcebook/).
8. See NRA RTC fact sheet (within www.nraila.org/Issues/Filter.aspx?ID=003).
9. See FBI, Crime in the United States 2004 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius) for state crime statistics.
10. See NRA-ILA Compendium of State Firearms Laws (www.nraila.org/media/misc/compendium.htm). Also, note that in October 2005, federal legislation prohibiting such lawsuits was signed into law.
11. Federal "assault weapon" ban: Roth, Koper, et al., Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994, March 13, 1997 (www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=406797); Reedy and Koper, "Impact of handgun types on gun assault outcomes: a comparison of gun assaults involving semiautomatic pistols and revolvers," Injury Prevention 2003, (http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/9/2/151); Koper et al., Report to the National Institute of Justice, An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003, June 2004 (www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/jlc-new/Rese … _final.pdf); Wm. J. Krouse, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, "Semiautomatic Assault Weapons Ban," Dec. 16, 2004. "Gun control," generally: Library of Congress, Report for Congress: Firearms Regulations in Various Foreign Countries, May 1998, LL98-3, 97-2010; Task Force on Community Preventive Service, "First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws," Morbidity and Mortaility Weekly Report, Oct. 3, 2003 (www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm); National Research Council, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review, National Academies Press, 2005 (http://books.nap.edu/books/0309091241/html/index.html).
12. Note 9 and BJS (http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/). See also FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel05/ … 101705.htm).
13. Note 10. Condensed at www.nraila.org, click on "Research," then "Crime Statistics."
14. Note 12.
15. BJS (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov./bjs/pub/press/cv04pr.htm).

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-09-05 20:21:54)

AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6662|Seattle, WA

jonsimon wrote:

But if you remove the gun, and the person simply curls their index finger, no one is killed. Guns ENABLE people to kill people.
Well than by that logic, than you have to start banning a lot other stuff first, cigarrettes, cars, alcohol, fatty foods......
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6662|Seattle, WA

jonsimon wrote:

oug wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

I don't know why people care so much about these silly gun topics).
It's not that I care so much whether guns are legal in the US or not... It's just that gun supporters' opinion is so far from mine I feel it as a challenge to respond and maybe even convince some of them to see this from a different angle. Clearly I have failed
I say we shoot them all. The irony would be beautiful.
Your attempt at humor is disrespectful at best.
Windrider_Melb
Pwned so often there's an IPO.
+29|6523|Melbourne, Australia

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Windrider_Melb wrote:

Because the economy is on the mend after the crash of 2000?

Better economy = more jobs.

More jobs = less crime.

Its a very well known phenomenon.

Simply saying crime is down and gun ownership is up, ergo there is a correlation isn't statisitcally robust.

There's also a positive statistical correlation between the drop in crime and the rise in global ocean temperatures, but that doesn't mean that there is a genuine causal relationship.

An improvement in the economy would also mean more wealth available to legally purchase firearms. Just a thought.

\\'
I agree with you, but this doesn't pertain to my question,
my question is only for people who think that GUNS CAUSE CRIME.......which there seemed to be a lot of last thread.  I'm not saying that just because crime down and gun ownership up means there is a correlation there, when did I say that.......I'm just asking if CRIME is down and GUNS are up, how can GUNS cause the CRIME???? Not saying that GUNS decrease crime, learn how to read folks.


Actually the first line of my comment was a direct answer to your original question!

Look at the mechanics of my comment; statistically you can NOT say that guns cause crime if crime is DOWN and gun ownership is UP.

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

I'm just asking if CRIME is down and GUNS are up, how can GUNS cause the CRIME?
Through some other mechanism.

A simple example:
Let Total = the number of guns manufactured in the USA
Let Rego = the number of guns registered in the USA
Let Export = the number of guns exported from the USA

If Rego + Export <> Total then you have an estimate of illegal guns. If the yearly estimate of illegal guns is going DOWN, then you have a possible correlation with a crime rate going DOWN.

Just a thought.

\\'
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6662|Seattle, WA

Windrider_Melb wrote:

Look at the mechanics of my comment; statistically you can NOT say that guns cause crime if crime is DOWN and gun ownership is UP.


If Rego + Export <> Total then you have an estimate of illegal guns. If the yearly estimate of illegal guns is going DOWN, then you have a possible correlation with a crime rate going DOWN.


\\'
Very smart, I commend you for your level headed response!!!  Good ideas m8.

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-09-05 20:48:18)

Windrider_Melb
Pwned so often there's an IPO.
+29|6523|Melbourne, Australia

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Windrider_Melb wrote:

Look at the mechanics of my comment; statistically you can NOT say that guns cause crime if crime is DOWN and gun ownership is UP.


If Rego + Export <> Total then you have an estimate of illegal guns. If the yearly estimate of illegal guns is going DOWN, then you have a possible correlation with a crime rate going DOWN.


\\'
Very smart, I commend you for your level headed response!!!  Good ideas m8.
Thanks You caught me on a "high patience" day

Thanks for such a good question.
The_Shipbuilder
Stay the corpse
+261|6519|Los Angeles

phnxfrhwk wrote:

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

phnxfrhwk wrote:


Simple place a loaded gun on the floor. next to a baseball bat, a katana and any other weapon. and have several people stand in a circle arond them. Without any person touching these weapons, how many people were killed?...0. Guns wont kill a person unless the trigger is pulled by another person(yes you could go on about acidental killings by guns being dropped, but there are measures that have been put in place on modern guns for just that reason.)
The people all died of starvation. They were forced to stand in a circle by a guy trying to prove some point about guns, but he forgot to feed them.

Seriously though, what's your point? I learned nothing.

Perhaps statistics or novel arguments would suppot whatever point you're trying to get across better than "what if" and "let's all imagine a scenario where..." stories.
I shouldn't have to report statistics. Its common sense that an inanimate object made from a peice of metal can't kill someone unless acted upon by an individual. Does a gun in a show case or a museum just randomly go off and kill someone. No. unless someone actually physically picks it up and pulls the trigger the gun will not fire a round. its a cause/reaction thing. If someone doesn't cause the gun to fire then it will not fire.
But if you want to get really technical the only way somebody is killed by a gun, is if they are beaten to death by one.
If your point is that a gun is an inanimate object, then you are preaching to the choir here, friend.

Was there another point you were trying to prove as well?
SonofASniper
Pump It Baby, Pump it!
+34|6555|Oregon

Spark wrote:

That's a good question.

However, you don't need a gun to do crime (what about random burglary?). Now give me the GUN crime figures - and the figures of people accidentally shot by guns.
First, you would find that gun crime figures would be lower than the overall crime figures simply because not all crimes are committed with the USE of firearms.  I highlight USE, because it is not the gun committing the crime, but the criminal who chose to use it.

Second, to make a correlation that crimes are committed more often when there is a higher ownership of guns would also be a misinterpretation.  There is a high correlation between ice cream sales and crime rates.  When ice cream sales increase, the rate of crime magically increases (does anyone no the answer to why this is true?).

Third, the figures of people accidentally shot by guns is completely irrelavent to the question that was asked and to the topic of gunownership and gun control laws.  It belongs in the category of firearm safety.  I would be delighted if our Federal government would mandate firearms safety and marksmanship training in all public schools.  Firearm education, IMO, would help to greatly reduce the number of firearms accidents that due occur. 

And for those of you who will laugh at, flame, sneer, or whatever at number three, you need to consider this.  Automobile accidents are responsible for far more deaths each year in the USA than firearms.  Instead of campaining to ban the use of automobiles we instead have successfully placed more education and safety mandates to help reduce the number of accidents and to make them less severe.  We could have just as easily gone the other way and outlawed all private ownership of vehicles except for authorities and forced everyone to rely on public transportation for their means of getting around.  Goods and services requiring specialized vehicles would still be allowed, but only under heavy regulation which would be astronomically expensive and, of course, that would just be passed on to the consumer. 

But think of all the people we would save! /sarcasm
imortal
Member
+240|6683|Austin, TX

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

First of all unless your talking about Class III, CCW(CPL,CHL,CWL,etc),etc, than there is no such thing as "registered" gun owners.  Thats a myth.
Actually, some local jurisdictions require gun owners to register their firearms.  This is only at a local level, however.  Great work on the resources, however.

In every state in which a concealed carry law was enacted, violent crime has decreased.
.:XDR:.PureFodder
Member
+105|6847
One thing I just noticed, The number of violent crimes is going down in the US, but the number of crimes committed with a firearm is remaining approximately the same.

Here's something to think about. Roughly speaking the number of guns stolen increases with the number of guns that are legally owned. Criminals are more effective at committing crimes when armed with a gun. (20% more likely to succeed in a robbery)

In that respect, guns do increase the number of successful crimes.
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6537|Πάϊ
A good guy once told an ugly bloke:

"There's two kinds of people in this world... those with guns and those who dig. You dig."

Hope this clarifies things a bit for all you gun-loving dudes.
ƒ³
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6662|Seattle, WA

.:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:

One thing I just noticed, The number of violent crimes is going down in the US, but the number of crimes committed with a firearm is remaining approximately the same.

Here's something to think about. Roughly speaking the number of guns stolen increases with the number of guns that are legally owned. Criminals are more effective at committing crimes when armed with a gun. (20% more likely to succeed in a robbery)

In that respect, guns do increase the number of successful crimes.
Right but that would mean that violent crime would be going up, violent crime is a broad category that includes crimes with firearms............
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6662|Seattle, WA

oug wrote:

A good guy once told an ugly bloke:

"There's two kinds of people in this world... those with guns and those who dig. You dig."

Hope this clarifies things a bit for all you gun-loving dudes.
Ok take the extreme view if you want......whatever, I don't see myself mass murdering anyone dude, take a chill pill.
ts-pulsar
Member
+54|6521

'AlbertWesker[RE wrote:

First of all unless your talking about Class III, CCW(CPL,CHL,CWL,etc),etc, than there is no such thing as "registered" gun owners.  Thats a myth.
You must not be stuck in "The Peoples Socialist Republik Of Kahlifornistan"  AW's and anything .50BMG has been banned, though if you owned one before the ban you could have registered it and still be legal, but if you didn't register, your going to jail if your caught with an AW or .50BMG (not the ammo, but a gun that fires it).


But to get back on topic, gun's don't cause crime, gun's may give a criminal more confidence, but for most criminals, not having a gun isn't going to prevent them from trying to commit a crime like robbery or rape, though it might stop succesful murder a little bit.


And just cause it seems relavent.

HOLY THREADJACK BATMAN!
imortal
Member
+240|6683|Austin, TX

.:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:

One thing I just noticed, The number of violent crimes is going down in the US, but the number of crimes committed with a firearm is remaining approximately the same.

Here's something to think about. Roughly speaking the number of guns stolen increases with the number of guns that are legally owned. Criminals are more effective at committing crimes when armed with a gun. (20% more likely to succeed in a robbery)

In that respect, guns do increase the number of successful crimes.
Of course, you are presupposing that an increase in gun ownership will show a corrisponding rise in gun thefts.  That is not a proven fact, but is an assumption I can live with.  You also assume that criminals are more effective when armed with a gun.  This is also an assumption, not a fact; but again, I suppose I can go along with it.

However, you do not have anything to indicate that more stolen guns will corrispond to an increase in the use of firearms in crimes.   You do not have anything to show that an increase in stolen guns raises the crime rate at all.  So, even with your nebulous assumptions, your conclusion is unsupportable.
Buckles
Cheeky Keen
+329|6574|Kent, UK
@OP
Dude, you're fighting a losing battle, i think the mods should put this one to rest
BUDFORCE
Moderator Emeritus
+76|6790|London UK

^KoB^Buckles wrote:

@OP
Dude, you're fighting a losing battle, i think the mods should put this one to rest
I dont
l41e
Member
+677|6666

I've seen this statistic before: Claw hammers (the ones with nail removers on the back) killed 2x as many people in [some year, don't remember which one] than assault rifles.

Should we ban hammers too? Should I beat the nail into the wall with my fist? Wait, what if I get hurt doing that? Should we ban nails too?
jonsimon
Member
+224|6513

k30dxedle wrote:

I've seen this statistic before: Claw hammers (the ones with nail removers on the back) killed 2x as many people in [some year, don't remember which one] than assault rifles.

Should we ban hammers too? Should I beat the nail into the wall with my fist? Wait, what if I get hurt doing that? Should we ban nails too?
And assault rifles are banned in the US.
phnxfrhwk
Member
+14|6691|Just outside of baltimore, Md.

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

If your point is that a gun is an inanimate object, then you are preaching to the choir here, friend.

Was there another point you were trying to prove as well?
How does an inanimate object kill people?
jonsimon
Member
+224|6513

phnxfrhwk wrote:

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

If your point is that a gun is an inanimate object, then you are preaching to the choir here, friend.

Was there another point you were trying to prove as well?
How does an inanimate object kill people?
By piercing the skin, leading to profuse bleeding and eventual oxygen depravation to the brain. A task bullets are commonly found purpetrating.
iNeedUrFace4Soup
fuck it
+348|6564
Because you don't need a gun to commit a crime. What is the % for crimes committed involving a gun? Has it gone up or down? That is the real question.
https://i.imgur.com/jM2Yp.gif
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6662|Seattle, WA

ts-pulsar wrote:

You must not be stuck in "The Peoples Socialist Republik Of Kahlifornistan"

But to get back on topic, gun's don't cause crime, gun's may give a criminal more confidence, but for most criminals, not having a gun isn't going to prevent them from trying to commit a crime like robbery or rape, though it might stop succesful murder a little bit.
LOL sorry I forgot about California, I usually don't try to think about that place, I'm glad I left.  You damn right it gives them more confidence, but contrary to belief the majority of criminals have firearms not to commit crimes (which they usually do anyway) but they usually INTEND to use them for protection against other thugs and homeowners during a robbery, etc, etc.  Thats a proven fact from a NCVS survey from the FBI....but anyway nice comment!

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard