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.
The FBI says there are about 8000 firearm murders a year. At least 50 per cent are gang related.
Most of these are not legally owned or carried.
As a legal firearm owner and instructor, I'm tired of being lumped in with these criminals.
Your correct, my two family members that were murdered in their own homes. Were at the hands, of one gang member, the other a drug crazed criminal.
And let me tell you all something, the one, had no problem telling my family, that criminals and gang members, have no problem at all getting their hands on guns. As if murdering my cousin was not enough, he then tells us that it is so easy to get a hold of a gun.
It's a poll not a study.
This sample represents 1 in 233,000 Americans. Put a quarter million people in a stadium and ask one person their opinion. I sure it represents the opinions of everyone in the stadium.
Not to mention, gun owners are not forthcoming about their gun ownership.
Our government is on record stating that there is no accurate way to track gun ownership.
There seems to be a conflict here. Obama is urging gun control - which from a conservative stand point is not a bad idea. But while he's working on getting a grip, the rest of us are urging impeachment.
Ideally there would be no firearms to sell. Also, not everyone who commits a crime is already a felon. Even gun stores sell guns to people with priors. Like that kid who killed 9 people in SC.
So, in your ideal world nobody would have firearms. Does this include police and military?
So my argument, which cites acclaimed research from some of the most celebrated political scientists and sociologists in the world employed by universities such as Boston University and Harvard University, is specious, while your argument, which cites no sources, is completely arbitrary, and simply just throws two numbers from Ireland out there is "proof" of the validity of your argument?
First, let's take your Ireland argument at face value (Though to have a complete data set one must study multiple countries of comparable socio-economic status).
When the fire arms ban begin? You don't tell us that, but then you proceed to tell us that at that time violent crime per capita was .4 then in 2005 it was 1.4. First, a foremost a rise in per capita crime of 1% very likely may not be statistically significant. You do not discuss whether this was a constant trend upward, allowing you to cherry pick your data. We have no way of knowing if violence in Ireland oscillates or rather it is a constant trend. A violence increase of 1% over ten years is highly unlikely to be statistically significant thus rendering your point moot.
Furthermore, you fail to take in any other sociological or socio-economic factors that even the most green political scientist would take into account. First and foremost is the established correlation between economic issues and an increase in crime. At this time the global economy was in a downturn and in particular, Ireland, was well on its way to financial disaster. This narrative is supported in academic literature as having a positive correlation to gun violence and violence in general. It is much more likely that economic problems in Ireland, rather than "a negative correlation vis a vis stricter gun laws" is the likely culprit. When you look at crime data from all comparable European countries during this time, most have slight crime increases that mirror the onset of the recession and general economic woes of the 2000's. Thus it is reasonable to conclude that this nascent rise in gun violence in Ireland is attributable to economic woes rather than legislation.
So we've put that to rest.
Let's now debate your deterrent theory. The deterrent theory you have advanced argues that in countries or areas with more guns, there are 1. less gun deaths and 2. less violent crime in general. Your theory rests on the psychological premise that those who perpetrate crimes are less likely to do so if the target has a greater probability of being armed. A deterrent.
Unfortunately for you, academic literature does not corroborate your claim. While you advance the deterrent theory, you fail to mention the corresponding accelerant theory. This theory would argue that in a country with easier access to firearms, more criminals would have access to firearms, giving them psychological confidence that they can both 1. commit their crime successfully and 2. remain safe in the process. Just as gun can defend anyone it can conversely give criminals of all stripes the ability to commit crimes against those who may be more physically fit than they are or perhaps better protected. It also gives criminals increased confidence in the probability of success. If criminals have ease of access of guns, it does not matter whether or not the good guys have guns, as the deterrent and accelerant factors nullify each other.
What does the data say, however? It is unequivocal and highly significant statistically. Among 1st world countries, countries with low gun ownership rates and stricter gun control laws will always have lower rates of both violent and crime and gun deaths. This is why Denmark, which has incredibly low gun ownership, has far less gun violence, gun deaths, and violent crime than an American state like Texas.
Even comparing American states to themselves your deterrent argument falls flat. States with household gun ownership rates above 45% (most of the South, parts of the West, and Alaska) have the highest per capita gun death rates according to a 2013 study by the Violence Policy Center in Washington DC. Conversely states with gun ownership rates below 20% have per capita gun death rates more in line with the rest of the 1st world countries. Hawaii, where less than 10% of households own firearms, has the lowest per capita rate at 2.71 per 100,000.
I found and checked the numbers in under 10 minutes on Google. Since you're a self proclaimed statistical guru, I assumed that you could do the same.
And you still failed to address why firearms crimes are going down while ownership and ccw permits are going up. That simple statistical fact negates every statistic you have posted in this thread.
NICS checks have been record setting in recent years. Approx 20 million a year.
CCW licenses have grown by over 3 million since 2012. From 8 million to over 11 million.
Ammo manufacturers report making ammo at record numbers and still can't keep up.
The shooting sports are reporting record participation and growing exponentially each year.
Hunting licenses are holding steady at about 14 million licenses issued each year.
Long lines and long wait times are being reported at many many gun ranges.
I attend a firearms safety/CCW instructors national annual conference. Each year we fill out a survey about our class attendance. Of the approximately 1000 instructors, it was very apparent that nationally, firearm safety, CCW, and advanced classes were at unheard of levels. Virtually everyone said their business was way up.
All this points to a huge increase in gun ownership. This makes sense. The 1500 person poll you are asking us to believe makes no sense in light of all other reports.
About the survey...
"The analysis in this report is based on telephone interviews conducted February 13-18, 2013 among a national sample of 1,504 adults, 18 years of age or older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia (752 respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone, and 752 were interviewed on a cell phone, including 364 who had no landline telephone)."
"In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls."
About the Survey | Pew Research Center
"There is no definitive data source from the government or elsewhere on how many Americans own guns or how gun ownership rates have changed over time. Also, public opinion surveys provide conflicting results: Some show a decline in the number of households with guns, but another does not."
So how do we stop a bad guy from buying a gun a killing someone with it if they do not not have a felony?
I also have a RIGHT to life and I'd rather that not be infringed by some right-wing lunatic
Well intention-ed I'm sure, but not quite correct, in regards to the RIGHT you claim. Nowhere are you given that RIGHT in greater measure than is humanly possible. Once born your right to life ends. You now have the RIGHT die and the obligation to do so. It is the preservation of your life that is the issue of gun control and how best to achieve it. That is the essence of discussion that divides into two camps.
Camp 1)
Ban the public ownership of guns. It's the elephant in the room that causes me to reject this camp. The only ones that would have guns is the government and they are the ones that have throughout history killed more innocent people than any other group. Given that kind of power, to such a group, with that history, and history will replete itself. Add to that there is not the political will to get it done.
Camp 2)
End these gun free zones. Encourage responsible gun ownership and carry permits and allow the people an opportunity to defend themselves, family, friends and their communities.
Those who will not lift a little finger in their own defense and want to pass it off to someone else will never find safety in any society.
Just a side note : The total number of people dying every day in the USA from all causes is approximately 6,600.
That puts the mass shooting death rate, a very small %, more in perspective. Jelly donuts are killing people faster than guns by two to one.
Last edited by phma; 06-19-2015 at 08:30 PM..
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.
