What is the incidence of crime against gun-owners vs. non gun-owners? (weapons, abortions)

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by swagger

Go back to the PoC forum, jtur. Your posts in this thread are embarrassingly juvenile and have no place in a "Great Debates" thread.

Wow, did I hit a nerve. Not even the usual feeble flag-waving attempt to rebut. Never even got to the crybaby wiimper that they're taking all our pwecious wittle guns away.

What did I say that was not true?

Excuse me, but "Shut up and go away" also has no place in a debates thread. So go and back your truck up to the door and unload all your guns at a town meeting, or something, so everybody can see what a big strong brave man you are.

[NVplumber]

Originally Posted by jtur88

I never listen to Linbaugh. My main source of news and opinion is the postes here who listen to Limbaugh.

Knowing which people have guns is not one of the minimum criteria of "well-regulated". If the gun nuts have worked out a chain of command in their well-regulated militia, they are keeping that a secret, too.



According to the gun nuts, nobody "illegally" carries firearms, because it would be unconstitutional to establish any laws at all respecting the bearing of arms. Since arms are personal property, the only thing that can be illegal about firearms would be if somebody stole one from somebody else, the way taxes are stolen from hard working pesonally responsible law abiding citizens. As long as you do not steal your gun, it is legal. Gang members have an inviolable constitutional right to bear arms.



You have a friend who had tons of guns? For self defense? Gun nuts tell us that we never need to worry about any guns ever being stolen from gun nuts, because gun nuts are responsible law-abiding citrizens who keep their guns secured. How come the well-organized militia wasn't defending their armory in your friend's house?

Indeed. Same old tired drivel. It would be truly interesting to see some actual data on armed vs unarmed people being victimized and in what type of crimes. I own quite a few firearms. None of them are intended to be specifically used for self defense. That is a secondary role. Unless dropping yotes and feral dogs in the back 40 is considered 'self defense'. I have to examine JT's statement that gang members have the right to bear arms. Huh? The second amendment does not provide a right to use weapons for criminal activity any more than the first allows for yelling fire in a crowded theatre. Get real. Seems to me that these 'discussions' have a way of shaking the real nuts out of the tree, so to speak. Quoted post, case in point

[swagger]

Originally Posted by jtur88

Wow, did I hit a nerve. Not even the usual feeble flag-waving attempt to rebut. Never even got to the crybaby wiimper that they're taking all our pwecious wittle guns away.

What did I say that was not true?

Excuse me, but "Shut up and go away" also has no place in a debates thread. So go and back your truck up to the door and unload all your guns at a town meeting, or something, so everybody can see what a big strong brave man you are.

No, no nerve was hit. I was just taken aback at how childish your responses in this thread are. You're not usually so petty, and your arguments are generally well reasoned, even if we disagree. In this thread, you're acting like an eight year old.

If you really need an example, look at the bold portion of your quote above. I believe you're older than I am - act your age.

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by NVplumber

I The second amendment does not provide a right to use weapons for criminal activity any more than the first allows for yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

So, tell me exactly what the second amendment does say about the restrictions and limitations on the right to bear arms. If the government has no right to ask "Do you have a gun?", then how are your suddenly-discovered restrictions and limitations enforced? To uise your own arguments, if a gangbanger has a gun, he is presumed to have the 2nd Amendment right to have it, unless and until, through due process, it is proven that that right is to be denied.

[1984vt]

There is absolutely no way to answer this question because there are no statistics on victim of crimes and gun ownership. Someone may own a firearm legally and yet leave it at home because of an un-registered status or something and then get mugged or car stolen etc.

We can only draw conclusions based on complete - gun availability vs non availability and look at the crime rates. This is an except from an article on a Harvard study that debunks the idea that gun ownership and availability leads to high crime.

The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.
The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:
Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).
For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study's authors write in the report:

If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)

Finally, and as if to prove the bumper sticker correct - that "gun don't kill people, people do" - the study also shows that Russia's murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns.

[NVplumber]

Originally Posted by jtur88

So, tell me exactly what the second amendment does say about the restrictions and limitations on the right to bear arms. If the government has no right to ask "Do you have a gun?", then how are your suddenly-discovered restrictions and limitations enforced? To uise your own arguments, if a gangbanger has a gun, he is presumed to have the 2nd Amendment right to have it, unless and until, through due process, it is proven that that right is to be denied.

Excercising ones rights under the Constitution, and abusing those rights in the commission of crimes ( drug dealing bangers protecting their 'inventory for example) are quite different matters. Granted, any person LEGALLY able to do so may have firearms, but, just because said person has not been caught does not make illegal use of a firearm any more legal. You can't catch all the lawbreakers though. Ain't gonna happen. At any rate , this is not intended to be a second amendment debate, or a soap box for insulting , rabid, anti firearms rights drivel. The focus is on how many armed people are victimized, successfuly, as opposed to unarmed ones. I would say that when faced with a violent criminal, an armed person certainly has an advantage, and goblins don't like the idea of facing an armed citizen much. I have actually never seen any stats on this specific topic. I must look into this further.

[Rakin]

According to the gun nuts, nobody "illegally" carries firearms, because it would be unconstitutional to establish any laws at all respecting the bearing of arms. Since arms are personal property, the only thing that can be illegal about firearms would be if somebody stole one from somebody else, the way taxes are stolen from hard working pesonally responsible law abiding citizens. As long as you do not steal your gun, it is legal. Gang members have an inviolable constitutional right to bear arms.

i don't believe that there is a gun owner around that would agree with this statement. Any person convicted of a felony should not be allowed to carry a gun.

Your argument is invalid but I'm glad to see you think our tax dollars are wasted in many cases.

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by Rakin

Any person convicted of a felony should not be allowed to carry a gun.

.

So you agree that the state has a right to restrict gun ownership. Then you must also agree that the state can restrict gun ownership for ANY reason that we the people advise and consent to. The 2nd Amendment is mute on that distinction. and won't help you wiggle of the hook. If the 2nd Amendment allows for restrictions for criminals, it can allow for any other restrictions, as well, provided the restrictions are lawfully enacted.

Back to the main point, the topic is crime victims, not murder victims. Homicides account for a very tiny proportion of felonies in the USA. Owning a gun affords no advantage whatsoever against a huge majority of the crimes committed in this country, like auto theft, burglary, breaking and entering, vandalism, identiry theft, fraud. I just grabbed one city at random, Hartford CT, last year 8,700 crimes. Only 30 were homicides. One out of 300. The number of people victimized by false, abusive and arbitrary police activity was probably larger than the number of people murdered, if you wanna talk about the real threat where a gun won't help much.

Only a very small number of murder victims are unknown to their assailant. Which means that not hanging out with murderers will give you a great deal more protection than carrying a gun, and taking both precautions gains you a very slight statistical advantage over just the first one.

[chirack]

Originally Posted by migee

I was just sitting here reading these forums, and noticed the number of gun issues on these forums.

And, I wonder if there are any good statistics about the incidence of crime against gun-owners versus those that do not have guns.

I'm talking about overall crime - not specific incidences where a gun owner was able to successfully defend themself against a crime. I am asking about the total of all crimes perpertrated against everyone (in each category).

I have nothing at all against gun-ownership. I sometimes think about getting one - Though I've lived for more than 50 years without one - And, really survived quite well simply from using common sense (avoiding walking into bad situations when something seemed suspicious, using simple, common sense practices, like locking windows and doors, sufficient lighting, parking in well lit areas, etc. etc...).

Does a gun make you safer simply from possessing it? Or, do people survive quite well without them, using common sense?

Are there any statistics that would study this?

Hunting, of course, is another matter. I lived for years in a poorer rural area, and people hunted to supplement their food. Getting a deer, some fish, fowl...meant much to these people. And, their rifles and shotguns, they handled much like the hand tools they used to do their own repairs (on everything). They certainly did not flaunt them - they were simply other tools in their lives.

Here is my take. A gun is a tool. I don't think that criminals target non gun owners because it is impossible to know who owns or does not own a gun. Also criminals can be gun owner or otherwise can have the jump on you. I am not totally against gun ownership, but what scares me are gun nuts that think that having a gun is protection.

If there is a specific threat against you then I would own a gun. If you own a store then the odds of you being robbed are high enough to own a gun. If you live out in the country where calling the police can take a long time and you may have to deal with country type things(bears, rattle snakes, etc.) then own a gun. Otherwise think twice about it.

For instance my family once got robbed by three men holding guns, despite having a pistol there was nothing we could do. And as a kid I once got hold that pistol and nearly shoot my mom with it. Don't fall into the trap of gun=safety. It depends on the situation. Right now I live across the street from a school in a crowded neighborhood. If I were to try to shoot someone in my living room odds are I could hit someone outside or even in the school itself.

I know of some stories of people defending themselves with guns, but what seems to happen far more often is that people get caught in the crossfire between gangbangers.

[temptation001]

Originally Posted by jtur88

You have a friend who had tons of guns? For self defense? Gun nuts tell us that we never need to worry about any guns ever being stolen from gun nuts, because gun nuts are responsible law-abiding citrizens who keep their guns secured. How come the well-organized militia wasn't defending their armory in your friend's house?

I don't think he had guns for self defense, since he is a gun enthusiast who likes buying guns and browsing the gun shows every weekend or so. I am the one who is saying, that guns protect a vulnerable person when vandals strike a home and you are unfortunate enough to still be inside. The fact that he had many guns in his home does not make him a security enthusiast, only a gun lover. However, since this unfortunate incident, he has tightened security and actually was mocking the vandals who left behind a few very expensive guns that they didn't distinguish as such. And is glad, that instead of the vandals going through his whole house and turning it upside down looking for valuables, they were entertained with the gun selection and only hit the garage.