Media's Anti-gun Narrative Destroyed By Justice Dept. Report

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6
 

Nikolaz72:

Ultratwinkie:

Nikolaz72:

If by 'Destroying argument' you mean. Post no sources to support your argument and switch the entire debate off topic from guns to drugs, I concur.

I did, all by the FBI and how drugs cause the high crime in America.

You didn't care and went off about guns. Because you are fearful and refuse to acknowledge anything else.

You don't care about facts, only to try to rationalize your fear of something that isn't the true blight on American society.

In my eyes you are the one that ignores facts, early on I posted plenty of sources, you just utterly disregarded it and threw the entire debate off-rails. I do not quite see the reason for doing that still, as for you posting sources to debate how much drug is trafficking through the west, and that pot is more prevail-ant than cocaine. It shows that if you legalize drugs you might stop some violence, aye. But before the drug trade the violence was still higher, as a lot of people said themselves, it's been higher than Europe for as long as people in America has had freer access to guns than in Europe.

Ofcourse Drugcartels are gonna settle down in places where its easier to fight the authorities. And with America having hundreds of guns per head there is no lack of means to fight 'back'.

Those graphs mean nothing. Its a bunch of color used to create fear.

Graphs don't tell shit, nor do they explain anything.

I posted full studies which provide context, explanation, and back drop. There is a difference. You posted pretty pictures with no actual back ground, I posted real studies.

And the debate over gun crime is tied into the drug trade. Anyone who knows even a bit about America knows that.

Its a common theme in anything the FBI has been saying for years.

Its a common theme in any justice system related department.

America has a gang problem, and its tied to gun crime, drug trades, and American history during the Cold War.

And before the drug trade? Do you know how long the drug trade has been around? Over a damn century.

A century of prohibition, all of which failed to do anything. Before the 1900s? The Wild West was a very real thing, and government control was minimal.

The 1900s was also century of progress over crime prevention.

Before the drug trade kicked in, cops had no actual way to discover anything. DNA testing? Fiction at the time, reliable tests didn't come until the 1980s. Finger prints? system was under developed. Security cameras? The best you got was a witness who could easily be unreliable, and that's it. The police had very little in the way of doing anything.

Drug cartels didn't settle because of guns, they sttled because America wanted drugs. A lot of it.

America is the biggest consumer of drugs, way more than any other country. Do you know where drugs can be grown reliably? Mexico and south America.

The same impoverished places, rife with rebellion that America had a hand in during the cold war. Unstable governments, under developed countryside, easy to hide and smuggle in.

Fighting against the United states? Gangs are not armies, they didn't start that mentality until very recently, when they figured out they can corrupt a government with the 321 billion dollars they get every year.

They don't need guns, they have money. The only thing guns can do is protect you from other cartels. Cartels and gangs do not wish to wage war on a government, for that is a stupid tactic that draws attention to yourself.

Corruption is undetectable, loading up and murdering cops is easy to see. Only done in unstable countries like Mexico.

Guns caused nothing, its America's hard on for moralistic prohibition that caused all this. A CENTURY of prohibition, with the cold war being the crescendo effect on South American economies that allowed the drug cartels to explode.

Is it any coincidence that the drug wars started in the 1960s? When the cold war became more about cloak and dagger? Is it any coincidence that it exploded again in the 1980s? Going on into the 1990s?

Before the cold war? The drug trade was tiny. After the cold war and the collapse of many South American countries in that time frame? Cartels become a huge force.

Do you even know how crime operates? Do you even know basic American history or history of South America?

I am guessing you don't, otherwise I wouldn't need to explain this to you. If you're going to criticize a country and its problem, at least know a portion of its damn history and the history of countries that effect that country.

Nikolaz72:

psijac:
Snip

Gunbans in the US caused a massive fall in homocides (From 8 to 4.5 per 100.000), but due to the ammount of guns and the liberal gun laws in the country, it still has two times, and in some cases three times the amount of murders than the comparison across the atlantic (0 to 2.2 per 100.000).

Despite all the single examples you point out, fact is that many more die in the U.S than need to, because of the guns. Already posted plenty of sources that you have just chosen to ignore so I will leave it at this. Gonna dig some of them up again for your convenience though...

image

There we go, interested in more. Open your eyes, other than that I have little advice to give. Because you aren't gonna change your opinion nomatter what evidence is stacked against you, and I certainly aint willing to change mine unless you find something more convincing.

Certainly something else than Tabloids and Singular cases. I think theres a fallacy somewhere in that. I'd prefer to see a statistic showing how the U.S has half/a third of the total murders in all homocide than the West-European average.

There is simply the fact that gunbans have decreased the deaths in the U.S, upon removal we see them increase. And in equal economies where they are completely banned we see a dramatic lower rate of homocide.

uh...no...gun bans have not in fact reduced homicides. You cant say something is fact when the evidence states the complete opposite. If you want evidence linking declining homicides to gun control/bans, you are going to have to look OUTSIDE of the US because every attempt by the US has either done nothing or made the situation (slightly) worse.

The Federal Assault weapon Ban, for example. Homicide rate was going down at the same rate before, during, and after the ban. Homicides are going down regardless of gun control across the nation, and will in all likelihood continue to go down for the next decade or so (especially if our economy recovers)

Chicago, the homicide capital of the US, has an estimated 80,000 (some figures as high as 100,000) gang members and police estimate makes up about 60% of the homicides.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-10-03/news/ct-met-street-gang-bloodshed-20121003_1_gang-violence-gangster-disciples-black-p-stones
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/fullpage/chicago-gang-violence-numbers-17509042

You want to actually save lives? Then go after the gangs who make up the majority of homicides across the country.. Going after guns does nothing at best.

Ultratwinkie:
[Snip

I posted sources, studies and newsarticles to support the graphs, but you choose to continuously ignore them. Not to mention the facts that ignoring graphs to begin with is pretty damn bad. Not to mention that you state the problems of old U.S police as if it wasn't anything other nations had to deal with, other nations with fewer deaths. I mean, I don't 'think' Sweden had DNA-testing in the 19th Century.

Ryotknife:
Snip

Escalating the drug-war to save lives? Brilliant idea, wonder that nobody thought of that before.

Nikolaz72:

Ultratwinkie:
[Snip

I posted sources, studies and newsarticles to support the graphs, but you choose to continuously ignore them. Not to mention the facts that ignoring graphs to begin with is pretty damn bad.

Ryotknife:
Snip

Escalating the drug-war to save lives? Brilliant idea, wonder that nobody thought of that before.

So, ignore what is causing crimes, and concentrate on something that looks scary but has very little to with crime?

makes perfect sense to me!

Also, I never said anything about drugs. I mentioned gangs.

Ryotknife:
Snip

Ignoring the drug war? You've been fighting it with fire since Nixon. It's not really done much to deter it has it? Free access to firearms is too attractive, As Twinkie said, legalization of the drugs is the only solution. And by very little you mean an additional 2 deaths per 100.000 (Excluding gangwar), well... I don't know what rock you've been living under, but that's a huge amount of lives you are considering 'very little'

Nikolaz72:

Ultratwinkie:
[Snip

I posted sources, studies and newsarticles to support the graphs, but you choose to continuously ignore them. Not to mention the facts that ignoring graphs to begin with is pretty damn bad.

Ryotknife:
Snip

Escalating the drug-war to save lives? Brilliant idea, wonder that nobody thought of that before.

All of them did nothing. You painted a picture that only seems scary to anyone who isn't familiar with anything, or even basic American society.

It was cherry picked information that tries to paint guns as the ONLY reason crime exists. It isn't.

Then you go off and ignore my history lesson, which shows there is no "settling" because of guns. If it was true, the cartels would be over a century old.

They are only 50 years old. Started in the Cold War. With alcohol bootleggers being older, and only because of prohibition.

Yet we don't see an instance of this huge criminal element outside prohibition. Even the wild west wasn't that bloody.

1900s-1950s was a time when police can do nothing, and America was barely out of the frontier mindset from before 1900s. Pot was made illegal in the early 1900s, but cartels didn't explode then. South America wasn't that bad, and the American excess didn't come until later and had crescendo post WWII. It was when alcohol was banned did gang violence see an uptick. Alcohol was very popular, and when something lucrative becomes criminalized then people start to fight over it.

Here's a fun fact, Mexico has only one gun store. Cartels don't really base themselves in America. They stick to Mexico. Yet they are able to steal guns from the government's own armories.

An ability that they can DO NOW.

You don't need a gun show or gun shop. You just need a gang member in the military who wants extra cash.

Soldiers get paid peanuts, do you really think they can say no to 321 billion dollars? Does ANYONE have principles when they can murder you or pay you a lot of money?

Gun availability isn't an issue, and won't be an issue even if you ban guns. The very nature of the drug trade allows them to get guns where ever they please.

America likes it drugs, so much that it gives money to criminals who can easily corrupt anyone into doing what they want.

Nikolaz72:

Ryotknife:
Snip

Ignoring the drug war? You've been fighting it with fire since Nixon. It's not really done much to deter it has it? As Twinkie said, legalization of the drugs is the only solution. And by very little you mean an additional 2 deaths per 100.000, well... I don't know what rock you've been living under, but that's a huge amount of lives you are considering 'very little'

Yes...because the Cartels will just pack up their bags and go home. The vast network of bribed or intimidated officials they have in their pocket across both borders will just disappear. No, they wont find another way to make their money.

And no, we haven't been fighting it with fire. We have been treating it with kids gloves. Nothing short of a full blown war (like with tanks) will even put a dent in them.

Also, I KNOW you are not implying that all non-gang related deaths will disappear if guns were banned right? Im being nice here and giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Ryotknife:
Yes...because the Cartels will just pack up their bags and go home. The vast network of bribed or intimidated officials they have in their pocket across both borders will just disappear. No, they wont find another way to make their money.

And no, we haven't been fighting it with fire. We have been treating it with kids gloves. Nothing short of a full blown war (like with tanks) will even put a dent in them.

Also, I KNOW you are not implying that all non-gang related deaths will disappear if guns were banned right? Im being nice here and giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Whose talking about banning guns? I favor stricter gun-control. Don't take it to the extremes. But aye, I believe the amount of firearms deaths outside the gang-war would decrease were there stricter regulations.

Ultratwinkie:

Nikolaz72:

Ultratwinkie:
[Snip

I posted sources, studies and newsarticles to support the graphs, but you choose to continuously ignore them. Not to mention the facts that ignoring graphs to begin with is pretty damn bad.

Ryotknife:
Snip

Escalating the drug-war to save lives? Brilliant idea, wonder that nobody thought of that before.

All of them did nothing. You painted a picture that only seems scary to anyone who isn't familiar with anything, or even basic American society.

It was cherry picked information that tries to paint guns as the ONLY reason crime exists. It isn't.

Then you go off and ignore my history lesson, which shows there is no "settling" because of guns. If it was true, the cartels would be over a century old.

They are only 50 years old. Started in the Cold War. With alcohol bootleggers being older, and only because of prohibition.

Yet we don't see an instance of this huge criminal element outside prohibition. Even the wild west wasn't that bloody.

1900s-1950s was a time when police can do nothing, and America was barely out of the frontier mindset from before 1900s. Pot was made illegal in the early 1900s, but cartels didn't explode then. South America wasn't that bad, and the American excess didn't come until later and had crescendo post WWII. It was when alcohol was banned did gang violence see an uptick. Alcohol was very popular, and when something lucrative becomes criminalized then people start to fight over it.

Here's a fun fact, Mexico has only one gun store. Cartels don't really base themselves in America. They stick to Mexico. Yet they are able to steal guns from the government's own armories.

An ability that they can DO NOW.

You don't need a gun show or gun shop. You just need a gang member in the military who wants extra cash.

Soldiers get paid peanuts, do you really think they can say no to 321 billion dollars? Does ANYONE have principles when they can murder you or pay you a lot of money?

Gun availability isn't an issue, and won't be an issue even if you ban guns. The very nature of the drug trade allows them to get guns where ever they please.

America likes it drugs, so much that it gives money to criminals who can easily corrupt anyone into doing what they want.

This debate is now about drugs. I vote taking it to the PM's or starting a thread related to this. It's hard keeping it to 'guns' when you keep wanting to take it in this direction, not that I don't find such a discussion interesting but I find that it does not fit within the incredibly broad scope of "Media's Anti-gun Narrative Destroyed By Justice Dept. Report" as such would suggest we were discussing the merrits of said Justice Dept. Report. Which we haven't been at since never. So yea.

thaluikhain:

JSF01:

This poster is completely false.
For Cars
Title and tag at point of sale: Not Required
Driving Training: Not Required
Written Test: Not Required
Practical Test: Not Required
Heath Requirements: Not Required
Liability Insurance on each Vehicle: Not Required
Renewals and Inspections at Intervals: Not Required

What, really? In what jurisdiction is that?

In the US it is true for all jurisdictions. The belief that is required is a very common misconception. Those things are only required to drive on public roads and even than the individual items are not all universal in the united states. For example in New Hampshire there is no car insurance requirement, Florida there is no driving training requirement, Montana there are no vehicle inspections (actually in just about if not all states that do have inspections they are not universal required of all vehicles) and no registration renewals depending on the vehicle. I can not think of one state that requires a title and tag at the point of sale. Every case where I bought a car the sale happens and afterwords you go get the title and tag. which might not be for a couple of days if it's a weekend+holiday or even weeks if not years if you are not planning on using it right away, if ever. It usually does not happen at the point of sale.

psijac:
And what exactly in your mind happened in 1992? Nothing! because that hurts your stance on this subject

Straw man argument.

You stated; "The murder trend began going down before the 1994 assault weapons ban."

I proved you wrong with data.

So now you are arguing that a dip between 1991 and 1993 is a trend downwards...

psijac:
According to your logic it should have shot back up through the roof. I will take a decline in murders no matter how small any day of the week

More straw men..

My 'logic' said nothing of the sort.

You appear unable to understand that the rate of change is important, and that by using statistical analysis tools (such as instrumental variables) you can establish why and by how much.

psijac:
here are the two handguns that were banned by name in 1994
The TEC-9
and the MAC-10/MAC-11

Holy shit I feel safer already! And those two any guns account for what exactly, especially considering the Glock is the most popular handgun out there

No link? No wonder you got it wrong!

You think that those listed by name are the only firearms banned. Where do you get your information?
Or do you just not bother to research your opinion before claiming it is fact?

You missed all the Uzis, the other TECs and MACs.

You missed all the copies of any banned by name firearm.

You missed handguns which were banned because they had 2 or more of the banned features, which is the largest category.

You missed the other things that banned many firearms, like LCMs, that are not specific to rifles.

psijac:
I am not sure why number that support your line of thinking are "completely fact based and grounded in realizty", and any number that support mine are dumped in the "Well all numbers are bullshit anyway" category.

The only numbers provided by you have been incorrect.

Some quick examples;
homicide was not trending down prior to 1994 (FBI and CDC show the opposite),
the only firearms banned by the AWB were rifles,
not knowing that the AWB and Brady Act were introduced during your data set (claiming to prove firearm controls were not required)
and there were not only 2 handguns models banned in the AWB 1993.

psijac:
Secondly I am not arguing that less gun control leads to less crime. I am arguing that more gun control does not lead to less crime.

Then find some credible scientific studies and present them as part of your argument. All you have provided so far has been either incorrect, straw men arguments or raw data with no analysis to determine the validity of your hypothesis.

Here are some examples of peer reviewed scientific studies that disagree with your opinion;

"In 1997, Australia implemented a gun buyback program that reduced the stock of firearms by around one-fifth. Using differences across states in the number of firearms withdrawn, we test whether the reduction in firearms availability affected firearm homicide and suicide rates. We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80 per cent, with no statistically significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The estimated effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude, but is less precise. The results are robust to a variety of specification checks, and to instrumenting the state-level buyback rate."

http://people.anu.edu.au/andrew.leigh/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf

"Substantial correlations were found between gun ownership and gun-related as well as total suicide and homicide rates. Widespread gun ownership has not been found to reduce the likelihood of fatal events committed with other means. Thus, people do not turn to knives and other potentially lethal instruments less often when more guns are available, but more guns usually means more victims of suicide and homicide."

http://www.unicri.eu/documentation_centre/publications/series/understanding/19_GUN_OWNERSHIP.pdf

Ryotknife:
The Federal Assault weapon Ban, for example. Homicide rate was going down at the same rate before, during, and after the ban. Homicides are going down regardless of gun control across the nation, and will in all likelihood continue to go down for the next decade or so (especially if our economy recovers)

Citation required!

That would mean a graph of homicide rate in the US 1983 - 2013 would be a straight line.

This is demonstrably false.

You can see both homicide rate and volume data from the FBI UCR graphed on page 2 and you statement is not correct.

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

TechNoFear:

Ryotknife:
The Federal Assault weapon Ban, for example. Homicide rate was going down at the same rate before, during, and after the ban. Homicides are going down regardless of gun control across the nation, and will in all likelihood continue to go down for the next decade or so (especially if our economy recovers)

Citation required!

That would mean a graph of homicide rate in the US 1983 - 2013 would be a straight line.

This is demonstrably false.

You can see both homicide rate and volume data from the FBI UCR graphed on page 2 and you statement is not correct.

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban and other gun control attempts, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence," noting "that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness."[8] A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."[9]"

seeing how assault weapons were only use in about 2% of homicides to begin with, even if all assault weapon homicides disappear (and keep in mind, laws cannot apply retroactively so any assault weapon before 1993 is still legal), the impact on crime would be statistically insignificant. most experts attribute to the decrease in homicides to things such as:

1.legalization of abortion
2.removing lead from gasoline (which led to brain damage and violent behavior)

and more importantly

3. the decline of the crack epidemic, which single handedly caused a massive increase in crime which lasted from 1984-1990. As you will note, this decline started BEFORE the Ban in 1993. During 1990-1993, the homicide rate was decreasing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_epidemic

Nikolaz72:

Whose talking about banning guns? I favor stricter gun-control. Don't take it to the extremes. But aye, I believe the amount of firearms deaths outside the gang-war would decrease were there stricter regulations.

.....

There is simply the fact that gunbans have decreased the deaths in the U.S, upon removal we see them increase. And in equal economies where they are completely banned we see a dramatic lower rate of homocide.

so...you were the one talking about gun bans. Unless you have an evil twin brother (goatee required!)

While we are on the subject, I too support things like background checks. I do not know what the big deal is against a federal registry (so long as the information is not accessible to the public).

However I oppose things like the Federal Assault Weapon Ban as it seriously infringes on people's rights to little to no benefit. I supported the background check bill until the Dems tried to sneak in the assault weapon ban into the bill.

oh, and I don't own a gun, nor will I own a gun in all likelihood.

Ryotknife:
Snip

I favor gunbans in my own country, but realize that it would be too much trouble banning them all-together for the U.S, as such I argue that in countries where they are banned there is less death, however I also argue that the U.S should have stricter control, as the country will never reach numbers that low with it's current culture.

And it's not about to loose that culture.

thaluikhain:

JSF01:

This poster is completely false.
For Cars
Title and tag at point of sale: Not Required
Driving Training: Not Required
Written Test: Not Required
Practical Test: Not Required
Heath Requirements: Not Required
Liability Insurance on each Vehicle: Not Required
Renewals and Inspections at Intervals: Not Required

What, really? In what jurisdiction is that?

The farm. Or to be more clear on any large property where it is financially beneficial to do so.

Nikolaz72:

image

I'm pro-gun, but I actually agree with this 100%. I think we need tighter gun control, not less guns.

Regardless of the falling amount of deaths, the reduction of a problem does not necessarily mean it Isn't a problem. US Gunviolence has fallen like this before, only to be expected to rise again. Which it is, by 2015 it's predicted that the amount of homicides in the US will surpass that of,

wait for it.

Deaths caused by automobiles.
image
If as many people actively KILL others with guns, as are killed by car-accidents. It's logical that it would be the least the Government could do to enforce the same restrictions. Either that or remove restrictions from automobiles until the numbers even out a bit more.

Also, Isn't it funny They picked 1993 for a reason, you can see on that list. And they released the numbers now, while firearms related homicides are on a quick rise once again. Because wait a couple of years, and these numbers wont mean jack fucking shit.

Rather than say Gun Homocides have risen 22% from 2000 due to say, the George Bush administration, 9/11, less restrictions on guns.

They say it's fallen 33% from 1993 due to... What exactly? Because it's most certainly not falling. It's going up, and fast. It fell during the Democratic Administration of the 90's then went on the rise again under Bush. Only to further steadily rise under Obama as little is done to restrict guns.

One can also point out that the previous increase in gun violence (in fact a much faster rise in gun violence) is in the 80s when they did the first round of weapon bans. So the trend doesn't show anything to do with laws, but how violent gun owning criminals are.

TechNoFear:
snip

So now we are arguing the difference between a dip and a trend so for you 1992 was not trendy enough? Though that is technically correct fuck 1992 and Eric Clapton. Is it a bad thing or good thing that murders dropped significantly in 1992? Can you even acknowledge that there was a significant drop? Or are you so blinded by your own rhetoric.

What should the rate of change be now that the 1994 ban has expired? If a new ban were put in place why won't it (and it won't) match the rate of decrease that happened in mid 90s

image

The vertical white lines show various guns law passage. Notice the peak in 2003 well after the most strict gun laws passing.

Why did murder go up? Whatever your answer happens to be can also be translated into: the guns laws were ineffective at stopping all murders and that also equals to my main statement: more gun control does not lead to less crime.

psijac:
Snip

Can you prove causation is linked to the availability of guns: Yes, and I have. With Graphs and Statistics aswell as with Sources, not my fault certain extremists on this forum ignores even the most trustworthy of sources, then again. When you don't trust a single organization outside the sacred U.S of Fucking A, it's pretty much a given you'd never accept any source which went against 'your' truth.

Can you promise that if guns are taken away nothing bad will happen to anyone ever: Now, I was arguing for stricter guncontrol, but if you wanna talk about bans. Let's talk about bans, I can promise less bad things will happened than is currently.

Can you logistically confiscate all 300 millions guns from the USA: 300 Million? Far more, but aye. You can confiscate the majority. Key is stopping the influx., although certain people. Like yourself, would most likely bury an arsenal in their backyard. Although it'd be worth it just to see such people get arrested when found out.

What an enlightened post, I certainly feel more inclined to agree with your position now that you have shown me how wrong I was, let me just go get my.....

One question though, as you are one whhom agrees with Two people whom have both said that Graphs and Statistics are useless as sources and cannot be used for anything but fear, why do you have a graph in yours?

psijac:
snip

The vertical white lines show various guns law passage. Notice the peak in 2003 well after the most strict gun laws passing.

Why did murder go up? Whatever your answer happens to be can also be translated into: the guns laws were ineffective at stopping all murders and that also equals to my main statement: more gun control does not lead to less crime.

We did this remember, it was in this very thread. Harold Shipman killed over 240 people over a long period of time, most the deaths were registered as homicides in 2003.

Link

Semes:

psijac:
snip

The vertical white lines show various guns law passage. Notice the peak in 2003 well after the most strict gun laws passing.

Why did murder go up? Whatever your answer happens to be can also be translated into: the guns laws were ineffective at stopping all murders and that also equals to my main statement: more gun control does not lead to less crime.

We did this remember, it was in this very thread. Harold Shipman killed over 240 people over a long period of time, most the deaths were registered as homicides in 2003.

Link

While what he said is wrong his point he is trying to make is still valid. When those factors are taking out, homicides peek in 2002 instead of 2003 and stay quite high through through 2005.

Alright, I'm chiming in on this. (Though I know I'm gonna regret it.)

Let's start by busting a few myths.

1. The US supplies most Cartel weapons.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth

Since only a very small percentage of firearms seized by Mexico were submitted to the ATF for testing, and because the Mexican government has a strong incentive to not share guns that the cartels could get from their military or South America, I conclude this to be an irrelevant point due to lack of credible evidence.

2. Having a Gun in the house in more dangerous than not having one.

Since the one researcher that has been cited constantly in this debate is David Hemenway, I find it odd how no one has yet brought up his clear association with the Center for the Prevention of Handgun Violence through his research associate, Douglas Weil.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz2.htm

(Note about the above link, although it's to the Second Amendment Foundation, the original article first appeared in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology in 1997.)

Because of this, I would urge caution in citing his research on the grounds of having a conflict of interest.

As it stands, this is about all that can be honestly said about having a gun in the home according to the National Research Council

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881

"higher rates of household firearms ownership are associated with higher rates of gun suicide, that illegal diversions from legitimate commerce are important sources of crime guns and guns used in suicide, that firearms are used defensively many times per day, and that some types of targeted police interventions may effectively lower gun crime and violence."

(I'll get to the suicide part a little later in this post.)

3. Defensive firearm use is very low.

This is usually claimed by citing FBI statistics. What most people fail to realize however is that the the states don't often report such incidents to the FBI, if they even keep records of them in the first place.

Also worth looking at:

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Wolfgang1.html

Marvin E. Wolfgang's thoughts on the Gary Kleck firearm survey.

Now on to the meat of this post.

When measuring homicide rates by firearms, I find odd how people use the CDC records without first looking at how the CDC defines homicide. Which often combines homicide's traditional definition and the definition for suicide, as was pointed out earlier in this thread. If you look a little more in depth you'll find the exact number of homicides. which was somewhere in the 16,000-17,000 range IIRC.

At this point, people would start pointing that Europe and Japan have infinitely lower rates of homicide. However, as argued in the book, "The Samurai, the Mountie and the Cowboy," (Which won the American Society of Criminology book of the year in 1992) other factors such as how these countries legal systems operate and differences of culture are more likely explanations for their low murder rates.

(For the purposes of this post, we shall only really consider murder as it's the least likely crime to be effected by statical collection problems and because the connection between gun ownership and other crime rates hasn't really be studied effectively.)

For the last part, we shall look at the claim that guns lead to higher rates of successful suicide, I think I only need to bring up this:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/reading-between-the-headlines/201302/the-gun-suicide-myth-0

In Japan, while the raw number of suicides is lower than America, if compared in an "X out of 100,00 people" type deal, the rate of Japan is about 24 out of 100,000, compared to America's 12 out of 100,000 or the UK's* 9 out of 100,000

*IIRC

In conclusion, I find the evidence for gun control to be fairly lacking as convincing evidence for reducing problems with guns.

As a final note, none of this ever discusses rural areas, speaking as someone who needs to defend his little farm from attacks by skunks, coyotes, bobcats, and other dangerous animals, a gun is the most effective means to defend my farm.

Templar_Gamer:
For the last part, we shall look at the claim that guns lead to higher rates of successful suicide, I think I only need to bring up this:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/reading-between-the-headlines/201302/the-gun-suicide-myth-0

In Japan, while the raw number of suicides is lower than America, if compared in an "X out of 100,00 people" type deal, the rate of Japan is about 24 out of 100,000, compared to America's 12 out of 100,000 or the UK's* 9 out of 100,000

Um...no. Guns lead to higher rates of successful suicides in that more attempted suicides are successful. Talking about the number of successful suicides per capita is meaningless, it should be compared to the number of unsuccessful ones.

thaluikhain:

Talking about the number of successful suicides per capita is meaningless, it should be compared to the number of unsuccessful ones.

http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html

According to this, the US has about 750,000 attempted suicides a year. Now the number may vary from year to year, but using this as a baseline, It would indicate that only 4% of all suicides are ever successful in the US. If we assume a 90% successful suicide rate by firearms, that would indicate only about 2% of suicides involve firearms. Furthermore, the studies I've often seen cited to support your assertion don't seem to look at whether or not these firearm suicides are attempted cries for help or whether they were done by people dead set on offing themselves.

It is further worth noting that the number one cause of death for people under the age of 30 in Japan is in fact, suicide.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18800195

Where as if you look at the US. This is what the top 4 causes for death for people under 34:

Road Traffic Accident = 14023

Suicide = 10335

Poisonings = 9950

Homicide = 9893

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa-cause-of-death-by-age-and-gender

So that leads to a question that I haven't really found an answer for, What motivates the particular choice of suicide method?

At the end of the day however, you really haven't provided any evidence that removal of firearms would have prevented those deaths, if they were dead set on killing themselves, they could just as easily did it by Overdose, hanging, or other methods.

Templar_Gamer:

At the end of the day however, you really haven't provided any evidence that removal of firearms would have prevented those deaths, if they were dead set on killing themselves, they could just as easily did it by Overdose, hanging, or other methods.

Well.. Maybe I can.

I'll be the first to admit that the U.S does not hold a leg to most other countries when it comes to suicides, so having guns does not necessarily mean a country is gonna have a whole lot more self-killed people on their hands. Afterall, guns make it more convenient to kill others, shooting yourself with them is so messy and awkward.

image

Now, as we can see here the U.S is the country with the most firearms related suicides, makes sense considering that the country is basically swimming in the damn things, but what we wanted here was evidence whether 'controlling' something would lower the amount of suicide.

Well first, we'll see if controlling guns will lower the amount of suicides 'by' guns. This is kind of a given but we have to check anyway, just in case.

image

Alright, well. That much seems to stick, now 'will' controlling guns lower suicide in general? That's a tougher question...

First we have this, to go together with the Australian Gun Control, we will get to that later. (Note: It gets even lower as time goes, but I found no graph with all information in one)
image

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92319314

Well, I think that concludes it. There is no solid evidence that controlling 'guns' lower suicides in the U.S, however from the evidence presented, at least to me it is very clear that hindering or creating inconveniences for those whom would commit suicide, prevents the suicide all-together, and as such we can, from that conclude that gun-control would lower suicide-rates. Without raising that of the others to a meaningful degree.

This exact thing has little to do with 'guns' as per say, just easy suicide methods in general. Hope this would satisfy your need for evidence :P

Templar_Gamer:

thaluikhain:

Talking about the number of successful suicides per capita is meaningless, it should be compared to the number of unsuccessful ones.

http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html

According to this, the US has about 750,000 attempted suicides a year. Now the number may vary from year to year, but using this as a baseline, It would indicate that only 4% of all suicides are ever successful in the US. If we assume a 90% successful suicide rate by firearms, that would indicate only about 2% of suicides involve firearms. Furthermore, the studies I've often seen cited to support your assertion don't seem to look at whether or not these firearm suicides are attempted cries for help or whether they were done by people dead set on offing themselves.

It is further worth noting that the number one cause of death for people under the age of 30 in Japan is in fact, suicide.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18800195

Where as if you look at the US. This is what the top 4 causes for death for people under 34:

Road Traffic Accident = 14023

Suicide = 10335

Poisonings = 9950

Homicide = 9893

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa-cause-of-death-by-age-and-gender

So that leads to a question that I haven't really found an answer for, What motivates the particular choice of suicide method?

At the end of the day however, you really haven't provided any evidence that removal of firearms would have prevented those deaths, if they were dead set on killing themselves, they could just as easily did it by Overdose, hanging, or other methods.

Vanity.

Women go for poison, over doses, the indirect stuff that leaves a clean body.

Men go for guns, knives, the direct stuff. No regard for the body's beauty.

Men however are MORE serious in their attempts, and more likely to complete them regardless of method. Women aren't that focused.

So gun restrictions would do nothing to either gender. Men are still bent on death, and the women don't use guns in the first place.

Man... That's almost pure comedy. Hypocrisy is strong with this one.

Nikolaz72:

Templar_Gamer:

At the end of the day however, you really haven't provided any evidence that removal of firearms would have prevented those deaths, if they were dead set on killing themselves, they could just as easily did it by Overdose, hanging, or other methods.

Well.. Maybe I can.

I'll be the first to admit that the U.S does not hold a leg to most other countries when it comes to suicides, so having guns does not necessarily mean a country is gonna have a whole lot more self-killed people on their hands. Afterall, guns make it more convenient to kill others, shooting yourself with them is so messy and awkward.

image

Now, as we can see here the U.S is the country with the most firearms related suicides, makes sense considering that the country is basically swimming in the damn things, but what we wanted here was evidence whether 'controlling' something would lower the amount of suicide.

Well first, we'll see if controlling guns will lower the amount of suicides 'by' guns. This is kind of a given but we have to check anyway, just in case.

image

Alright, well. That much seems to stick, now 'will' controlling guns lower suicide in general? That's a tougher question...

First we have this, to go together with the Australian Gun Control, we will get to that later. (Note: It gets even lower as time goes, but I found no graph with all information in one)
image

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92319314

Well, I think that concludes it. There is no solid evidence that controlling 'guns' lower suicides in the U.S, however from the evidence presented, at least to me it is very clear that hindering or creating inconveniences for those whom would commit suicide, prevents the suicide all-together, and as such we can, from that conclude that gun-control would lower suicide-rates. Without raising that of the others to a meaningful degree.

This exact thing has little to do with 'guns' as per say, just easy suicide methods in general. Hope this would satisfy your need for evidence :P

At least in these charts you were honest about things and included Japan, which is at the top of the suicide chart. Unfortunately Canada flows against this pattern

http://www.outdoorhub.com/opinions/the-sad-strange-and-ineffective-story-of-the-canadian-firearms-registry/

"Violent crime and suicide rates remain virtually unchanged despite the nearly unlimited annual budgets during the first seven years of the firearms registry. Despite the drop in firearm-related suicides since the registry began, an increase in suicides involving hanging has nearly cancelled out the drop in firearm suicides."

Nikolaz72:

psijac:
Snip

Can you prove causation is linked to the availability of guns: Yes, and I have. With Graphs and Statistics aswell as with Sources, not my fault certain extremists on this forum ignores even the most trustworthy of sources, then again. When you don't trust a single organization outside the sacred U.S of Fucking A, it's pretty much a given you'd never accept any source which went against 'your' truth.

Can you promise that if guns are taken away nothing bad will happen to anyone ever: Now, I was arguing for stricter guncontrol, but if you wanna talk about bans. Let's talk about bans, I can promise less bad things will happened than is currently.

Can you logistically confiscate all 300 millions guns from the USA: 300 Million? Far more, but aye. You can confiscate the majority. Key is stopping the influx., although certain people. Like yourself, would most likely bury an arsenal in their backyard. Although it'd be worth it just to see such people get arrested when found out.

What an enlightened post, I certainly feel more inclined to agree with your position now that you have shown me how wrong I was, let me just go get my.....

One question though, as you are one whhom agrees with Two people whom have both said that Graphs and Statistics are useless as sources and cannot be used for anything but fear, why do you have a graph in yours?

You haven't stopped using charts so why should I?
image

The USA has more guns per capita than any other nation. But some nations have more murder, violent crime and suicides. Some nations have less. If less guns = less crime than the USA should be rocking at the top of every chart. Why do we have more guns than mexico and japan but less homicide and suicide respectively? Why have so many guns fail to actualize their intended purpose? After gun college did they move back in with their parents and just play Warcraft all day?

WE have the most Nukes if you showed me a chart saying US had the most cancer patients I would could be convinced that there was a direct correlation that needed to be looked into.

We have the most guns. period. case closed. why don't we have the most strife?

Don't make promises you cannot keep. Bush promised us if we Invaded Iraq we would be greeted as liberators. I didn't believe him then and a certainly don't believe you now.
An analogy for You: A ban on abortions won't stop women from getting an abortion. A ban on guns won't stop mad men from murdering. Both Democrats and Republicans think laws are somehow magic and will stop all people from doing the things they don't want them to. Sorry to burst your bubble.

A lot of sheriffs have already refused to follow through with a gun ban. Believe or not digging a hole in the ground is more manual labor than I want to do and there are people even further right than me that would just start shooting if the "Gubmint came for dem guns"

If police won't take away the guns who will? Are you going to? That would not be amusing to see it would just be down right pathetic. Maybe the ATF or FBI regardless of who will be point man on a ban and confiscation scheme that group will have to go through the Meat grinder. And I honestly hope it never comes to that.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked