Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To your Step 1...there is no zero evidence that any mass shooter chose their target based on it being a "gun free zone". The targets were chosen based on a myriad of other factors. While I agree that the general concept of a "gun free zone" preventing anything is stupid, calling them "slaughterzones" or "death traps" is hyperbole.
You are joking right ? Every mass shooting with 1 exception has occurred in gun free zones. The CO theater shooter drove past several theaters because he knew that they allowed concealed weapons.
You are joking right ? Every mass shooting with 1 exception has occurred in gun free zones. The CO theater shooter drove past several theaters because he knew that they allowed concealed weapons.
try again.
Our CIA and FBI must be seriously incompetent to let these experts slip through the cracks. They could solve anything.
I said pages ago in this meandering thead that you can't make a correlation between violent crime indexes and gun ownership, because there are examples supporting/refuting both 'sides' of the argument. In this case, you asked me why WV didn't have issues like the cities I mentioned, well, they kind of do and a lot of it has to do with poverty and easy access to guns.
I am not obfuscating anything, because I also said that the real driving factors are poverty and density. The more poor people you have living in high density areas, the higher the crime rates. That condition exists in many majority minority areas which also leads to the illusion that it is a racial problem.
I also 100% stand begind my assertion that the guns flowing into urban areas are coming from states with lax gun controls. This is a proven fact and I have provided several articles to support that. I am not blaming the people of West Virginia for what people in Chicago do. I am simply saying that if we want to "take guns out of criminals hands" then we need to go after the source where those guns are coming from.
If we look at gun deaths per capita, the following states rank the highest:
Those are all states with high gun ownership rates and easy access to firearms. That sort of counters your point regarding murder rates, but I do agree with the salient point you are trying to make which is, if someone wants to kill someone they are going to do it. Guns just happen to be a really good tool for that job.
I know where you are going. "guns don't kill people, people kill people". I agree with you in concept. That however, does not change my belief that we can do a better job keeping guns out of the hands of people who are predisposed to using them to kill.
No it doesn't. You keep ignoring FBI Murder stats.
If you look at homicides, two of the states (Montana and Wyoming) have low levels of homicides, comparable with Western Europe, and two (Louisiana and Mississippi) have the right demographics to justify their higher murder rates. Alaska is kind of special in this regard, probably because of the nature of life there, it's the last frontier state.
If Wyoming and Montana really have low murder rates yet high gun death rates (I don't have time to look for FBI stats on this, and honestly I don't really trust either pro or anti gun sites who twist their numbers to support their agendas), then the difference must be suicide ?
And I've already posted that the US has low suicide rates compared to many developed countries.
So, again, what does this prove ? That there's almost half as many people who commit suicide in the US than in say Belgium (per 100k), but when they do they prefer guns ? And that's the reason to forbid guns ? Let's be more like Belgium ? By the way Belgium's homicide rate is higher than Idaho, Iowa and New Hampshire.
This whole argument is going in circles.
So, let's summarize my points, all backed with statistics (and not from NRA or Brady campaign):
- statistically, there's no correlation between % of legal gun ownership and state murder rate. Most of the 5 states with lowest murder rates have high gun ownership, including the state with highest % of gun ownership in the nation. The states with highest murder rates range from nearly total legal gun control (DC) to moderately high (some southern states)
- there's however very clear correlation between demographics and murder rates. All of the states with highest murder rates have ghetto problem. None of the states with lowest murder rates do.
- the US has low suicide rates compared to most of the developed world. In the list of 26 countries developed by Washington Post it was in the 18th place. So bringing the question of suicides into the gun debate when we don't have the same suicide problem as much of the developed world is silly.
- in gun controlled Europe, the number and severity of school shootings in the past 20 years is eerily similar to the US.
- According to FBI stats, in a significant number of states between 30 - 40% of all homicides do not involve guns (e.g California). Astonishingly, in some states with high legal gun ownership but low murder rates, there was more murders committed without use of guns.
- If you take the average national murder rate and subtract the murders involving blacks, the murder rate will fall to about the level of Norway. Does anyone think Norway has a gun problem * ?
- So, the problem isn't guns. It's ghettos. Shouldn't getting rid of the ghetto problem be a higher priority ?
(*) the majority of blacks are not of course criminals, but they don't end up in the murder stats as a perpetrator, either.
I spent some time, this afternoon, searching stats on stolen guns, in the US. I specifically searched for the numbers on how many came up missing from government arsenals. Nothing. Not a thing. No information. Now, I didn't expect to find any numbers on that, but it was worth a shot. It would be very interesting to know just how many weapons , in criminal hands, came from good old Uncle Sams collection. I know its gotta be a LOT.
So, if Mr. Obama is so mightily concerned about criminal misuse or arms, why do we civilian owners have to shoulder the whole burden? Civilian owners are not near the problem the government, itself is, as how bad guys get their hands on weapons. Take away every, single gun , from every single private owner, close down every gun store, and criminals will still have an endless supply of guns, available only to them.
Good stuff to. Federal agencies issue top shelf stuff. Glocks, Sigs, S&W, Springfield Armory, H&K, in all the calibers of the rainbow. Thousands of acres of warehouses full, and ammo as well. LOTS of it. And not just handguns either. Some really cool long arms as well. What should we do about that source? Truthfully, most criminals would much rather have that stuff, than anything I have. Oh I have some nice hardware, but the government has more and gooder stuff.
So, since there is no, possible way, to dry up guns available to criminals, why should we citizens agree to be disarmed? Won't effect public safety, in the least.
@dpm1 - The murder/violent crime rates were posted earlier. I agree those are better. Wyoming and Montana fall off of the list, but plenty of other states with lax gun control are still in the top 10.
@West Phx Native - That some of them have occurred in "gun free zones" is not what I was arguing. What I was arguing was that per all of the information, the target was not specifically chosen because it was a "gun free zone" and that was the case in Aurora, CO as well:
…the particular theater he selected had an exit into a rear parking lot that was isolated and had limited visibility. That theater also had easy access from the outside, and a minimal number of exits (2). The killer noted that the doors could easily be locked or chained to prevent escape. He rejected theaters that were in the front of the complex, those that were more visible, and those that had numerous exits.
All of us who are gun rights advocates want to believe that this was yet another example where restrictive carry policies made a particular target very palatable for the killer. That wasn’t the case. It’s important not to let our personal feelings or hunches replace the facts in cases like these. In the ever-present debate against the anti-gunners, we have the facts on our side. We must stick to the truth and the facts we know so that we retain credibility in the debate.
@Ummagumma - You know what...I agree with you. All of your points are well made and we have both been, to an extent, arguing the same data from different points. Here is the only place we differ in our arguments. I feel that more can be done to prevent guns from getting into the ghettos and doing so does not in anyway infringe upon the rights of legal gun owners. I have not suggested bans, restrictions, anything. I have argued for universal 50 state CCW. I also argued for a 50-state license that included training and the need for guns to be registred to their owners. I still fail to see how licensing and registration (already happens in several states) impacts the rights of gun owners. Those measures would, without question, impact the flow of guns into the ghetto and may just keep a gun out of the hands of someone who has a criminal record or mental issues do to the fact all states will be working from the same standards and databases. Seriously, how many anti-gun people do you talk to that argue FOR 50-state CCW?
@NVplumber I don't see anyone here (or even Obama) arguing for a ban on guns. What I have been arguing for is outlined above, yet licensing and registration is somehow a gross infringement on gun owners rights in some peoples opinions. You were looking for statistics on guns stolen from federal armories. I am sure some are and I would also be fairly confident that it's not the "end user" who is stealing them. I have posted several links with extensive facts about where guns used to commit crimes come from. The truth is that 85%-90% of guns used to commit crimes start as legally purchased firearms that make their way through private sellers, gun shows, corrupt FFL's, etc. until they end up in criminals hands.
I can drive to West Virginia today, attend a gun show and purchase a dozen handguns from private sellers without any background checks or questions. I can then get in my car and drive to Camden or Newark and sell them to whomever I want. Heck, even if one of the guys in West Virginia wanted to run a background check, I'd come back clean and could still buy whatever I wanted and go sell them in the ghetto because none of those guns are tied to me even though I bought them. That's the loophole that needs to be shut down.
I spent some time, this afternoon, searching stats on stolen guns, in the US. I specifically searched for the numbers on how many came up missing from government arsenals. Nothing. Not a thing. No information. Now, I didn't expect to find any numbers on that, but it was worth a shot. It would be very interesting to know just how many weapons , in criminal hands, came from good old Uncle Sams collection. I know its gotta be a LOT.
So, if Mr. Obama is so mightily concerned about criminal misuse or arms, why do we civilian owners have to shoulder the whole burden? Civilian owners are not near the problem the government, itself is, as how bad guys get their hands on weapons. Take away every, single gun , from every single private owner, close down every gun store, and criminals will still have an endless supply of guns, available only to them.
Good stuff to. Federal agencies issue top shelf stuff. Glocks, Sigs, S&W, Springfield Armory, H&K, in all the calibers of the rainbow. Thousands of acres of warehouses full, and ammo as well. LOTS of it. And not just handguns either. Some really cool long arms as well. What should we do about that source? Truthfully, most criminals would much rather have that stuff, than anything I have. Oh I have some nice hardware, but the government has more and gooder stuff.
So, since there is no, possible way, to dry up guns available to criminals, why should we citizens agree to be disarmed? Won't effect public safety, in the least.
The woman shot by an illegal immigrant in San Francisco involved a stolen handgun, it came from a "federal agent". Bureau of Land Management no less.
The woman shot by an illegal immigrant in San Francisco involved a stolen handgun, it came from a "federal agent". Bureau of Land Management no less.
Yes. No way to shush that one up. Cat got outa the bag. The big gangs, with cartel ties, get their guns from those same ties. A LOT of guns get recovered in arrests involving those big gangs, but there's no information available as to where those guns came from. Nothing solid. Because someone doesn't want us to know. Could prove...embarrassing.
CRATES , PALLETS, of weapons come up missing from government supplies. I know that, first hand. But that information doesn't become public knowledge. Its more ...convenient...to blame Cabelas, and civilian owners, for all the weapons criminals have access to.
..........
@Ummagumma - You know what...I agree with you. All of your points are well made and we have both been, to an extent, arguing the same data from different points. Here is the only place we differ in our arguments. I feel that more can be done to prevent guns from getting into the ghettos and doing so does not in anyway infringe upon the rights of legal gun owners. I have not suggested bans, restrictions, anything. I have argued for universal 50 state CCW. I also argued for a 50-state license that included training and the need for guns to be registred to their owners. I still fail to see how licensing and registration (already happens in several states) impacts the rights of gun owners. Those measures would, without question, impact the flow of guns into the ghetto and may just keep a gun out of the hands of someone who has a criminal record or mental issues do to the fact all states will be working from the same standards and databases. Seriously, how many anti-gun people do you talk to that argue FOR 50-state CCW?.......
Well, two things, as I said. First of all, we don't trust the people in power to have that kind of power and use it only for what is stated. We don't trust "them", be it the ones who put it in power or the ones afterwards, to keep it only to that. The examples are numerous and across the board, be it the closing of the machine gun registry, how social security changed over the decades, flight recorder transcripts, changing of magazine sizes (NY) so then only one kind of pistol is legal, and so forth. Laws are not simple; that's why we have lawyers. Laws change depending on who is in power and there are many cases where they change for the worse.....assuming they were written correctly in the first place.
Even if one says, but wait, it will be federal, legal in 50 states.....how many states do we have now telling the Feds to stick it? They may be wrong, they may be right, but to the individual, the citizen is in a very poor position.
You are talking about an idealistic approach.....and history has shown far too often that the ideal seldom works, at least on the freedom side.
Secondly, the time to argue when a right is regulated is when they are regulating it, not when it is down the road and they then change the regulation and it no longer agrees with you. Such as the machine gun registry. They changed the regulation but then, there was no standing left to argue it since it had been accepted in decades before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
..........
@NVplumber I don't see anyone here (or even Obama) arguing for a ban on guns.......
Then you haven't been paying attention, either directly to the subject or how things are approached in the US. In reverse order, direct attacks on a subject are not as often done as much as whittling something down is. Roe vs. Wade, for example, should have, in theory anyway, been the end answer to it all. Yet, over the decades, its effectiveness has been reduced by this or that case that attacks a small aspect of it, takes away some of its power a little at a time.
Ie, someone saying, "Well, maybe we can't go against that because it is against the Constitution......but the Constitution says nothing about THIS!".
Sound familiar? We have had people going after ammunition in one way or another for decades. Those who want to tax it out of existence, those who write laws requiring you can have your gun but the ammo has to be someplace else, those who want to restrict how much you can buy at a time, those want to serialize it, those who want to have only a certain kind of bullets available, and so forth.
Then, of course, our laws and regulations are in constant flux to who can have guns. Two examples are no guns if one has a domestic against them and one now underway, no guns if mentally feeble as defined by social security.
So to say, "no one has called for a ban on guns" or "where is this gun grabbing" is either, at best, being narrow minded to the point of being oblivious or quibbling (what Clinton did in questioning). The latter is unworthy. The former, well to be diplomatic, I hope one has others looking out for them.
Second, we already have regulation, a massive patchwork of random regulation that is ineffectual. The regulation cat is out of the bag...that regulation ship has sailed...etc. The conversation now is not about whether or not regulation is acceptable, but what shape that regulation should take.
Third, I stand by statement which was made against those decrying that the government was going to come and take all of their guns. That is not going to happen. Are some people trying to legislate against certain types of guns and ammunition, yes. Have they been defeated in doing that, sometimes yes, sometimes no. I'm sorry but I am not running out and arguing in the extreme as some are wont to do. As for the ownership in constant flux, am I to take it that you are in favor of people in domestic abuse situations or those declared mentally incompetent, being able to have guns?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
