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.
Exactly, and the vast majority of gun violence is not from law abiding citizens, but rather from those who illegally possess firearms (mostly gang violence). No gun laws will prevent criminals from illegally obtaining a firearm.
So the argument is if Hawai‘i allows law abiding citizens to be armed, will gun violence increase? Statiscally nope.
Hello officer and welcome back to the conversation. But you are mistaken in your assertions.
1. The vast majority of gun violence is suicide - which is mostly "law abiding citizens". I defy anyone to assert that suicide by firearm is not violence, by it's very definition.
2. Gun laws that have the effect of limiting the number of firearms in any state/communities does in fact reduce the number of guns obtained by criminals, as many guns used by criminals are obtained by theft: fewer guns: mean fewer gun thefts: mean fewer guns available to criminals. If you'd like, I can dig up my studies/stats on this exact dynamic?
3. As to increases in law abiding citizens owning guns having a correlation to increased gun violence:
Quote:
When economist Richard Florida took a look at gun deaths and other social indicators, he found that higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness didn’t correlate with more gun deaths. But he did find one telling correlation: States with tighter gun control laws have fewer gun-related deaths. (Read more at Florida’s “The Geography of Gun Deaths.”)
This is backed by other research: A 2016 review of 130 studies in 10 countries, published in Epidemiologic Reviews, found that new legal restrictions on owning and purchasing guns tended to be followed by a drop in gun violence — a strong indicator that restricting access to guns can save lives. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...cs-maps-charts
That's 130 studies in 10 countries ... if you'd like I can pull up many studies/examples specific to the US. I archive and bookmark them.
4. Being a police officer yourself, you and the poster you just applauded, who also claims a professional connection to law enforcement, might be particularly interested to learn:
Quote:
14) In states with more guns, more police officers are also killed on duty
Given that states with more guns tend to have more homicides, it isn’t too surprising that, as a study in the American Journal of Public Health found, states with more guns also have more cops die in the line of duty.
Researchers looked at federal data for firearm ownership and homicides of police officers across the US over 15 years. They found that states with more gun ownership had more cops killed in homicides: Every 10 percent increase in firearm ownership correlated with 10 additional officers killed in homicides over the 15-year study period..
So, in conclusion, your final assertion that an increase in gun ownership in Hawaii would not result in higher rates of gun violence - an assertion you have not backed up with any stats or studies - lacks any foundation in facts. Just the opposite.
I suppose I shouldn't be enjoying this conversation so much as I am. Deadly topic and all as it is. But, somehow, the notion that people who don't live in Hawaii, where guns are so restricted and gun violence the nation's lowest, would come to a forum to argue that this life affirming dynamic should be altered to favor a proven element of destruction - borders on hilarity.
Note: Hawaii doesn't allow importation of snakes either.
Hello officer and welcome back to the conversation. But you are mistaken in your assertions.
1. The vast majority of gun violence is suicide - which is mostly "law abiding citizens". I defy anyone to assert that suicide by firearm is not violence, by it's very definition.
2. Gun laws that have the effect of limiting the number of firearms in any state/communities does in fact reduce the number of guns obtained by criminals, as many guns used by criminals are obtained by theft: fewer guns: mean fewer gun thefts: mean fewer guns available to criminals. If you'd like, I can dig up my studies/stats on this exact dynamic?
3. As to increases in law abiding citizens owning guns having a correlation to increased gun violence:
That's 130 studies in 10 countries ... if you'd like I can pull up many studies/examples specific to the US. I archive and bookmark them.
4. Being a police officer yourself, you and the poster you just applauded, who also claims a professional connection to law enforcement, might be particularly interested to learn:
So, in conclusion, your final assertion that an increase in gun ownership in Hawaii would not result in higher rates of gun violence - an assertion you have not backed up with any stats or studies - lacks any foundation in facts. Just the opposite.
I suppose I shouldn't be enjoying this conversation so much as I am. Deadly topic and all as it is. But, somehow, the notion that people who don't live in Hawaii, where guns are so restricted and gun violence the nation's lowest, would come to a forum to argue that this life affirming dynamic should be altered to favor a proven element of destruction - borders on hilarity.
Note: Hawaii doesn't allow importation of snakes either.
1. It is true, the vast majority of gun deaths is from suicide, but is gun deaths from suicide a valid argument against guns? I say it is not for there are a million other ways for someone to commit suicide if a gun is not available.
2. 30% of guns that ended up at crime scenes had been stolen. Though 600,000 guns are stolen every year from law abiding citizens, most of the guns that are stolen do not show up at crime scenes. Without a doubt it is alarming that 600,000 guns are being stolen and most of these guns are not reported stolen until they do end up on a crime scene when owner is contacted by police. Gun laws that limit the number of guns in any given state or city does not limit the number of guns obtained by criminals. If a criminal wants a gun, they will obtain a gun no matter how strict the gun laws are. Gun laws mean nothing to a criminal, that is why they are a criminal. New York State has very strict gun laws, yet in NYC which gun laws are even stricter has high gun violence; other places include Chicago, D.C., Baltimore, and Detroit. Yes, It is common sense that if there were fewer guns then there would be fewer guns in the hands of criminals. What exactly are you advocating for? Will fewer guns stop criminals from being criminals? Even if all guns were removed from the United States where not even criminals can unlawfully obtain a gun, you are not going to change human nature, you are not going to remove evil from ones heart.
3. As increase to law abiding citizens operating motor vehicles having correlation to more deadly vehicle accidents, as correlation to unhealthy eating habits resulting in more deaths, as correlation to more people going outside to more deaths as a result from getting hit in the head by meteorites, and on and on. So yes, more law abiding citizens having guns will correlate to more accidental discharge deaths and more suicides by gunfire, and more homicides by gunfire rather than from stabbing your nagging wife to death. What is your solution then?
4. The stats are incomplete and way too much grey area. For use one the study doesn’t mention if these police related deaths is a result of an unlawful obtaining of firearm? Also doesn’t mention by what type of firearm. If the study was more in depth I would whole heartedly agree. Also you may have a Law abiding citizen that has a firearm whether hand gun or hunting rifle that got into a nasty fight with the wife and the spouse is all amped up. Rather than throwin the TV out the window, the spouse will grab his rifle and take shots at
The cop. Domestic calls is probably the most dangerous situation for a cop to get in the middle of. It’s volatile and heated. You have no idea what to expect walking in. It is in these situations where cops are often killed or
shot at. It is always very important for dispatch to obtain as much info as possible and find out if there are guns in the home. To be honest, my biggest fear is not being shot, but rather handleing an accident or car stop on the side of a highway. I couldn’t tell you how many times I came close to being run over. I could tell you how many times a gun was pulled on me and I work some of the worse neighborhoods in the US. There are a lot of armed bad guys where I work and that isn’t my worst fear.
I will agree with you that more guns in the hands of bad guys in Hawaii will result in more homicides and assaults, but as long as guns are not in the hands of bad guys and guns are only in the hands of good guys, assaults and homicides will not increase.
The facts are the more gun ownership there is the less assaults and homicides there are.
How do these statistics debunk my posted statistics?
What would the U.S. statistics look like if you were to take away gun violence that occur within gangs? Would you not feel safe walking around pretty much anywhere in the continental United States? How safe would you feel walking around the South Bronx or any high crime gang riddled area? Outside any of those areas you would be absolutely safe. I would even go as far as saying you would most likely not be a victim of gun violence within a high crime gang riddled area for gun violence is targeted to other gangs. You may become a victim of a crime, but most likely not gun violence.
Because of HR-218 I can carry conceal in all 50 states and as I write this right now my firearm is a good 300 miles away from me because I feel that safe not carrying. The only reason to carry is for a low probability high risk event here in the U.S.
The two arguments supporting gun "rights" for individuals both fail in modern times.
On the one part, every credible academic study evaluating the rates of gun violence - criminal, suicidal, and accidental - show a significant increase in the danger of lax gun control when it is associated with increases in gun ownership and carry options in any state. Despite individual potential for advantage in random, anecdotal situations, society at large becomes less safe. That's a dilemma of individual "rights" vs social "benefit".
On the second part, poster KaraBenNemsi nailed it two posts above. Except for relatively underdeveloped societies, e.g. Somalia, 'muskets', or any even advanced small arms, are a laughable absurdity with reference to overthrowing an "unjust" government. We live in a world of control by advanced technology, intelligence gathering and analysis, sophisticated communications systems, massive logistics and supply requirements and networks, intensive skills training, mind boggling warrior equipage, personally unattainable air power, etc etc etc ... the likes of which no rag-tag bunch of self annoited "patriots" could stand against for a minute. (To say nothing of how laughably diverse and divisive our various beliefs and ideologies drive us against each other to the point where we pit such extremes as the completely incompetently moronic Donald J. Chump against our perceived unjust system.)
Note: how this pertains to Hawaii specifically is demonstrated by the state's #1 rating for low gun violence in the environment of the nation's strictest gun ownership laws. Case in point proven. And Hawaii certainly isn't going to secede from its statehood by armed insurrection.
Yes. Vermont's a nice place, albeit too cold and nowhere near any salt water.
That said, if you go back and read the posts, you'll note we aren't talking about "violent crime rates". We are talking about "gun violence", specifically.
Vermont's death rate by firearm per 100,000 is 10.37 ... Hawaii's is 2.71.
How do these statistics debunk my posted statistics?
What would the U.S. statistics look like if you were to take away gun violence that occur within gangs? Would you not feel safe walking around pretty much anywhere in the continental United States? How safe would you feel walking around the South Bronx or any high crime gang riddled area?
Because the statistics compared to other countries make the US look ridiculous compared to Japan, Australia, Great Britain - and any other civilized country. Jeez, Look at the US compared to the world.
And by the way - I'm not walking around the South Bronx anytime soon or any other high crime area - feel free for them to shoot it out.
The officer from NY, like pretty much all gun rights advocates, is attracted to a river of opinion all traceable back to a single source: an economist by name of John Lott. Lott claims to have conducted research studies that demonstrate the proof of the title of his [in]famous book: 'More Guns, Less Crime’.
Lott has some pedigree that initially provided him appearance of credibility: a PhD in economics from UCLA, and “has held positions in law and economics at several institutions, including the Yale Law School, Stanford, UCLA, the Wharton Business School, Texas A&M University, and Rice University. Lott was the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission[5] (1988–1989). He spent five years as a visiting professor (1994–95) and as a fellow (1995–99) at the University of Chicago.“
Pretty cool, eh!?
Ah, but there’s a rub ... here’s the expose’ ... otherwise known as "the dog ate my homework" excuse:
Quote:
Disputed survey
In the course of a dispute with Otis Dudley Duncan in 1999–2000,[67][68] Lott claimed to have undertaken a national survey of 2,424 respondents in 1997, the results of which were the source for claims he had made beginning in 1997.[68] However, in 2000 Lott was unable to produce the data, or any records showing that the survey had been undertaken. He said the 1997 hard drive crash that had affected several projects with co-authors had destroyed his survey data set,[69] the original tally sheets had been abandoned with other personal property in his move from Chicago to Yale, and he could not recall the names of any of the students who he said had worked on it. Critics alleged that the survey had never taken place,[70] but Lott defends the survey's existence and accuracy, quoting on his website colleagues who lost data in the hard drive crash.[71]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott
... which ruse was followed by this Donald J. Chump move:
Quote:
Mary Rosh persona
In response to the dispute surrounding the missing survey, Lott created and used "Mary Rosh" as a sock puppet to defend his own works on Usenet and elsewhere. After investigative work by blogger Julian Sanchez, Lott admitted to use of the Mary Rosh persona.[70] Sanchez also pointed out that Lott, posing as Rosh, not only praised his own academic writing, but also called himself "the best professor I ever had".
Many commentators and academics accused Lott of violating academic integrity, noting that he praised himself while posing as one of his former students,[79][80] and that "Rosh" was used to post a favorable review of More Guns, Less Crime on Amazon.com. Lott has claimed that the "Rosh" review was written by his son and wife.[80]
"I probably shouldn't have done it—I know I shouldn't have done it—but it's hard to think of any big advantage I got except to be able to comment fictitiously," Lott told the Washington Post in 2003.[80]
Bottom line? Well, Lott's “studies and data” has ever since been quoted and expounded upon with vigor by the gun advocating communities ... even though it has never been replicated by any other researcher ... Meanwhile, hundreds of other, verifiable, academic studies all support the findings that demonstrate: More Guns = More Gun Violence.
The officer from NY, like pretty much all gun rights advocates, is attracted to a river of opinion all traceable back to a single source: an economist by name of John Lott. Lott claims to have conducted research studies that demonstrate the proof of the title of his [in]famous book: 'More Guns, Less Crime’.
Lott has some pedigree that initially provided him appearance of credibility: a PhD in economics from UCLA, and “has held positions in law and economics at several institutions, including the Yale Law School, Stanford, UCLA, the Wharton Business School, Texas A&M University, and Rice University. Lott was the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission[5] (1988–1989). He spent five years as a visiting professor (1994–95) and as a fellow (1995–99) at the University of Chicago.“
Pretty cool, eh!?
Ah, but there’s a rub ... here’s the expose’ ... otherwise known as "the dog ate my homework" excuse:
... which ruse was followed by this Donald J. Chump move:
Bottom line? Well, Lott's “studies and data” has ever since been quoted and expounded upon with vigor by the gun advocating communities ... even though it has never been replicated by any other researcher ... Meanwhile, hundreds of other, verifiable, academic studies all support the findings that demonstrate: More Guns = More Gun Violence.
Go figure.
You have stated that you are a multiple gun owner and support the Second Amendment, so what is your solution to gun related suicide, accidental discharge deaths, and gang gun violence?
Truth is the gun debate is a complicated one with no real solutions to prevent gun violence. You can dismiss the stats that homicide by firearm has decreased while gun ownership has increased, but I believe the stats you base your argument off of includes accidental discharges and suicide. You take away those two statistics and gang related gun violence, considering all the guns that are in America, we have a minimal gun violence issue.
The left can argue up and down all they like and fight all they want to remove the Second Amendment, but it is not happening. The people have the God given right to defend themselves, their family, and property. It is not the governments Constitutional obligation to provide each individual with private security. Police are not obligated to protect you.
Because the statistics compared to other countries make the US look ridiculous compared to Japan, Australia, Great Britain - and any other civilized country. Jeez, Look at the US compared to the world.
And by the way - I'm not walking around the South Bronx anytime soon or any other high crime area - feel free for them to shoot it out.
When you remove the small geographic area of all our major cities, I am pretty comfortable where the rest of the United States stack up to other nations in regards to violent crimes.
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.
