Calls for gun control stir little support [W:265]

[Arbo]

wanna see real fast

I shot next to this guy at Nationals one year

Obviously that guys finger should be banned.

 

[TurtleDude]

another guy I have shot with

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Obviously that guys finger should be banned.

That guy needs to accept some "reasonable restrictions" and only fire using his feet.

 

[TurtleDude]

That guy needs to accept some "reasonable restrictions" and only fire using his feet.

speaking of another guy I have seen

 

[Jerry]

You make allegations without evidence.
You make claims without links.
You shoot off your mouth about me but offer nothing to support it in the way of ammunition.

Attacking me with silly grade school tactics does NOT supply you with evidence to back up your claims. And that is what debate is all about.

Your idea of 'being served all over this thread' is right wing speak for 'all the right here disagrees with you". No more and no less.

That is a time honored tactic employed by the gun fanatics in discussions such as these. Thank you for exposing it by your own usage.


Mutual support of your fellow True Believers is not evidence.

You mean you've never seen me post this:

Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive
Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?
A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence.
Din B. Kates* and Gary Mauser**

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).

EDITORIAL: Guns decrease murder rates
In Washington, the best defense is self-defense
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

More guns in law-abiding hands mean less crime. The District of Columbia proves the point.

<snip>

Few who lived in Washington during the 1970s can forget the upswing in crime that started right after the ban was originally passed. In the five years before the 1977 ban, the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 murders per 100,000. In the five years after the gun ban went into effect, the murder rate rose back up to 35. One fact is particularly hard to ignore: D.C.'s murder rate fluctuated after 1976 but only once fell below what it was in 1976 before the ban. That aberration happened years later, in 1985.

This correlation between the D.C. gun ban and diminished safety was not a coincidence. Look at the Windy City. Immediately after Chicago banned handguns in 1982, the murder rate, which had been falling almost continually for a decade, started to rise. Chicago's murder rate rose relative to other large cities as well. The phenomenon of higher murder rates after gun bans are passed is not just limited to the United States. Every single time a country has passed a gun ban, its murder rate soared.

<snip>

Two Little Square Black Dogs: I do not have a gun... I am not a murderer

....The LA Times had an article about the The European disdain for America violence but shouldn't spend too much time congratulating themselves. In 2000 the rate at which people where assaulted was higher in England, Scotland, Finland, Denmark and Sweden than in The United States. In the decade since England banned all private possessions of gun the number of gun crimes has gone up.Some of the worst examples of mass gun violence has occurred in Europe from students and teachers killed in Germany, 14 legislators shot in Switzerland to 8 city council members being shot outside of Paris.
Just recently a taxi driver in Cumbria, England killed 12 people and wounded 11.

UK is violent crime capital of Europe - Telegraph

Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offenses in the UK since Labour came to power.

The total number of violent offenses recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa.

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By James Slack

Last updated at 12:14 AM on 3rd July 2009

In the decade following the party's election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million - or more than two every minute.

The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:

• The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
• It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
• The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.
• It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.

But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.

In the UK, there are 2,034 offenses per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.

The intentional homicide rate shows North America is lower than Eastern Europe, and also lower than the world average, and FAR lower than MANY other regions in the world.

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf

The homicide rate (per capita) in England and Wales was 9.1 in the year 1900, a time when gun control laws were relatively lax. In 2009, when gun laws are of draconian strictness, the homicide rate is 14.1
This is from an official parliament report.

GunCite-Gun Accidents

Fatal gun accidents declined by almost sixty percent from 1975 to 1995, even though the number of guns per capita increased by almost forty percent.

Fatal gun accidents involving children (aged 0-14) also fell significantly, from 495 in 1975, to under 250 in 1995. More children die from accidental drowning’s or burns than from gun accidents.

(Gun supply statistics are from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, gun accident rates from the National Safety Council).

***
.....or this:

WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE? A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND SOME DOMESTIC EVIDENCE
Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy

View attachment 67129742

Guns are just one among numerous available deadly instruments. Thus, banning guns cannot reduce the amount of suicides. Such measures only reduce the number of suicides by firearms. Suicides committed in other ways increase to make up the difference. People do not commit suicide because they have guns available. They kill themselves for reasons they deem sufficient, and in the absence of firearms they just kill themselves in some other way.

*****
...or this:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
~snip~

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."

~snip~

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service--M-16 rifles and the like--may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Pistol: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
Rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
Automatic rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
Grenade launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
Patriot missile battery: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
Nuclear warheads: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.

Rocket launchers: In common use at the time, Yes. Are 'dangerous and unusual: Yes.

OK. SO the only need required for owning crack is that I wish to own it? The only need for owning a meth lab is that I want to own it? The only need for me wanting a nuke is that I want to own it? A tank? A missile launcher? There are no lines, right?

Crack Cocaine: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
Methamphetamine: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
Meth-lab: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
Nuclear weapon: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.

Tanks are not weapons. Tanks are vehicles weapons can be mounted on, but anyone with enough money to buy one can own a tank. That does not mean you can have a functioning cannon, 50cal machine gun, 2 saw machine guns, or grenades...it means you can have the tank and the tank only.

You can own a black hawk helicopter, also...doesn't mean you can have the twin mini-guns.

Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Criminals generally want easy targets. Having a gun makes you a harder target. When you're in a population which carries, you are safer even if you don't carry a gun yourself, because a criminal has no way of knowing if you're carrying concealed or not and doesn't want to risk finding out the hard way.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

I never get tired of seeing that post Jerry.

 

[Jerry]

...or this:


Diseases of heart...........................652,091
2. Malignant neoplasms (Cancer)................559,312
Cerebrovascular diseases (Strokes)..........143,579
Chronic lower respiratory diseases..........130,933
Accidents (unintentional injuries)..........117,809
Diabetes mellitus ...........................75,119
Alzheimer’s disease .........................71,599
Influenza and pneumonia .....................63,001
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis..43,901
Septicemia..................................34,136
Intentional self-harm (suicide).............32,637
Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis.........27,530
Hypertension and hypertensive renal disease.24,902
Parkinson’s disease ........................19,544
Pneumonitis due to solids and liquids ......16,959

Simple Falling Down.............................19,656
Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms.....12,352
Accidental discharge of Firearm....................789
Suicide by Discharge of Firearms................17,002
Accidental Drowning and Submersion...............3,582
Accidental Poisoning............................23,618
Motor Vehicle Accidents.........................45,343
Non-Transport Accidents.........................69,368

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_10.pdf


*****
.....or this:

The present media wave about the tragic death of Trayvon Martin is for me, an outsider, a fascinating lesson in race, politics, and media perversity in America.

The impression is being generated that young black men are continuously hunted by white men, and killed.
So I wanted to know the exact figures. The most recent, those of 2009, I could find are on the site of the Department of Justice.
About 13% of the population is black. About 80% is white (this number includes Hispanics).

In 2009, 2,963 white individuals were killed by white offenders. White offenders killed 209 black individuals.
In that same year, 2,604 black individuals were killed by black offenders. And 454 white individuals were killed by black offenders.
As we see, there is cross-racial deadly violence, but offenders mainly cause victims within their own race; it is so-called intra-racial.
What about recent decades? Murders surveyed between 1974 and 2004 show that 52% of the offenders were black, 48% were white. Of the victims, 51% were white, 47% were black.

In that period, 86% of white murders had whites offenders, and 94% of black murders had black offenders.
There may be a hunt by white vigilantes for innocent young black men in Florida — if it exists, the figures show this is a limited phenomenon. Trayvon Martin’s death should be thoroughly investigated and the vigilante should be brought to trial in case he broke the law. But such a crime is an exception.
The main problem for young black men is not violent white men chasing them. It is black on black violence.
The number of net cross-racial violence in 2009 shows that blacks killed more whites than whites killed blacks. To be exact: 245 more.

The PJ Tatler » Does Trayvon Martin Killing Reveal Epidemic of Racial Violence?


*****
.....or this:

What can be done about guns and violent crime?

Taking all guns away from the entire U.S. population would be:

• Unconstitutional under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and under many state constitutions
• Unfeasible (too many guns owned by too many people; guns are easily hidden or smuggled; guns last a very long time)
• Politically impossible (almost half the households own guns)
• Futile (crime rates don’t show correlation to the gun supply)

The practical answer is to try to keep guns away from criminals and children:

• Instant background check at gun dealer for all gun sales.
• Permit to carry handgun (background check and safety course required) outside home or place of business.
• Instant background check for private sales of guns (between friends, neighbors, etc.)
• Laws requiring guns be stored inaccessible to children.

What doesn’t work:
~~Ban certain types of guns (e.g., "assault weapons")
Doesn't work, because:

• "Assault weapons" are about 1 percent of the guns used in crime.
• Criminals want the same guns as law-abiding people—handguns that are small, concealable, reliable, and affordable.
• Criminals use whatever guns are available; if one type is banned, criminals will switch to whatever they can get.

~~Ban inexpensive handguns:
Doesn't work, because:

• Criminals prefer reliable, middle-priced guns; 80 percent of the handguns used in crime do NOT fall under the government definition of "Saturday night special" (BATF definition of "Saturday Night Special"; statistic from Kleck's Targeting Guns)
• Criminals use whatever guns are available; if one type is banned, criminals switch to whatever they can get.
• This type of ban merely keeps poor people from buying guns for self protection.
• This type of ban dates to the post-Civil War "Black Codes," laws intended to keep blacks down after they were freed from slavery.

~~"Smart" guns:
Doesn't work, because:

• If computer inside gun mechanism "crashes," gun may not work when needed; for this reason police don’t want "smart" guns.
• "Smart" gun is likely to tempt owner to leave gun accessible to children on the assumption that the internal computer is foolproof and will prevent children from firing gun; "smart" gun is not a substitute for standard safety practices (like safe storage).

~~Suing gun manufacturers:
Doesn't work, because:

• Increases in gun supply don’t cause increases in crime.
• Lawsuits ask courts to ban products that are made legally under laws passed by Congress and state legislatures.
• Lawsuits ask courts to blame manufacturers for behavior of criminals who misuse the products.
• If gun lawsuits succeed, the next targets may be producers of cars, prescription drugs, alcoholic beverages, and red meat; all these products may be misused by a few but are actually used correctly and safely by millions of people every day.

Gunsafe fact sheet


*****
....or any of the other sources I and others reulerly link to? You've never seen them, ever?

If not, then you don't pay attention.

 

[Jerry]

Those are sources I have to post so often than I saved them on a word doc for easy copy/paste. It boggles the mind that someone who's been on the site for so long and is allegedly an active user that they haven't seen these sources.

 

[American]

Those are sources I have to post so often than I saved them on a word doc for easy copy/paste. It boggles the mind that someone who's been on the site for so long and is allegedly an active user that they haven't seen these sources.

You can't fix stupid.