Yes, people kill people. But guns make a huge difference in how many people get killed. The map is not without exceptions and outliers, but the general trend is clear: States with more gun regulations had lower rates of gun deaths, and states with less gun laws had higher gun death rates, both in terms of suicide and homicide. That's certainly not the message we get from the National Rifle Association.
src: http://goo.gl/x9x6sN
And if I were a culprit I'd believe this BS.
Unfortunately "Direct causation could not be determined" and that map is not a real good representation of the data to understand if there is a relationship. The scatter plot along with that graph shows a better picture. It looks like some better studies need to be funded.
http://cdn.theatlanticcities.com/img/upload/2013/03/07/chartlarge.jpg
Some of the marijuana taxes should be given to these doctors (scientists) to do a real study to solve this problem.
Isn't it precious how gun control activists always use "firearm mortality rates", which include suicides, defensive shootings including those by police, and gang violence. You know, because that way the "gun problem" seems so much worse.
We need Gun control, and we need it now!
The NRA's only interest is the gun manufacturers!
+Chris Marxen What other measure would you have? If you measured death by automobiles wouldn't you include those that were done in working zones, those by drunk drivers, purely accidental, etc? Of course you would. The difference with guns and automobiles is that one was created for transportation (but can certainly be used for other things) and one was created for… killing. Until you come to terms with that… fuck off. And I'm NOT anti-gun. My dad was a cop, I grew up in a family of hunters, and have known how to handle one my entire life. I don't keep one in the house because I don't hunt. If I want to shoot recreational I do so. But to say that more guns does not equal more gun violence (in whatever form you choose) is just ignorant.
I've seen maps that only include murder numbers. . .they don't look much different.
Despite the angry response to my comment, I still will not base an opinion on a map. Statistics can be twisted to suit an agenda. And respectfully, it does matter what numbers are included in that stat. Are you telling me that a police officer or an armed citizen defending themselves is the same as murder.
It's not the same as murder, but why are they defending themselves? Most likely it's because their assailant has a gun. . .
A. Disarming law abiding citizens will not take that gun out of the criminals hand. B. What if that criminal just has a knife, or a crow bar. Should I be limited to the same? Forgive me, but if I, or my family are being attacked, I'm not interested in a fair fight.
I'm not aware of a state that doesn't allow law abiding citizens to own a weapon. . .maybe you can fill us in on where, in this country, that is a problem.
So full of shit I don't hear you all yelling to stop abortion more babies are murdered every year then are killed by guns more people are killed by drunk drivers every year then by guns I can go on and on gun deaths are way down the list but just because the leader of the sheaple tells you guns are bad you follow along. Well I hate to tell all you gun haters out there and I know you will all say I am a nut and all this but I am telling you this . There will never be anyone in the office as president that will take our constitutional rights to bear arms away. Now granted it may pass and be law but as sure as I breath and type this it will start a civil war in this country. There are millions that feel the same way I do the only way you will get my guns is to kill me it's just that simple. There are lost of cops that will not in force any such law either will the military the real oath keepers III% so you all can talk all you want it will never happen.
This is very narrow and one sided. What is the impact of firearms ownership on the rate of other violent crimes? Of course when firearm ownership is higher there is likely a higher mortality rate. Is that a bad thing? As long as the bad guys are doing the dying I'm kind of OK with it.
If only it were only the bad guys dying. . .
I don't own a gun, nor do I ever want to own a gun. But any crazy son of a bitch who wants to go to a school or a mall or a theatre and kill a bunch of people can easily obtain a gun. Plain and simple, it's too easy! We need tighter gun laws in this country, people what don't you get?
So what "tighter gun law" would have prevented any of those events?
I wonder how many bullets a man needs to defend his home? Enough to go on a killing spree? We limit how much Sudafed you can buy, but talk of any limits on weapons of death are just crazy talk. . .
+Dale Scogin if these places you have mentioned were not gun free zones chances are someone with a gun would have stopped them so get rid of gun free zones in case you people have not noticed that's were all the shootings are !
A crow bar or knife is very personal. A bullet is a "stand off" weapon and very impersonal and unconnected (you can't see anything).
I don't mind guns. Don't mind what they're used for (collecting, target, hunting, etc). I do mind that guns don't have to be registered periodically.
It should be no more difficult to register a gun as it is a vehicle, and should be done as often. It should be no more difficult to register yourself as an owner as it is a driver's license. I don't think that the limitations on guns should be different than you would have with a vehicle (no F1 vehicles as daily drivers, eg). A license to own should be handled the same as a license to drive a vehicle. Both can be revoked.
It isn't special. It's very regular.
My source for what, exactly? Did I argue that people shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm? Did I suggest that you did? I'm not sure what you're arguing against me.
"I've seen maps that only include murder numbers. . .they don't look much different." I showed sources, you just said you've seen maps. So I said cite your sources that's all.
+Paul Spoerry not reaching facts. Your all sheaple
Exactly +Mme Amy. Exactly.
+john thacker I'll take your complete lack of any type of intellectual response as well as you resorting to name calling as what it is… a grade school response.
+Paul Spoerry I realize it's "city data" but it's based on FBI crime statistics.
http://www.city-data.com/forum/city-vs-city/1956994-map-us-states-murder-rate-2012-a.html#b
+Colin Fosgate I think this just shows per capita murder rates and doesn't distinguish guns or other types. (but totally open to you pointing our if I'm misreading or misunderstanding what this is pointing out)
Sure, and your map just shows gun related mortality rates and doesn't distinguish between types of mortality, it also just shows numbers of gun laws and doesn't distinguish between types of those either. That's the rub with maps like these. They show only what the creator would like to show. I don't have ready access to a computer today though, so I'm not going to scour the internet for the perfect map, nor create my own. There's no denying though, the states with more relaxed gun laws also have higher death rates, generally speaking, even when you're just pulling out numbers like murder, and/or suicide.
A map showing just murder rates without distinguishing between gun related homicide and non-gun related homicide is also useful in the argument though, because the pro-gun crowd inevitably try to say that guns laws must remain relaxed for protection. If that held true, the state's with more relaxed laws, and higher per capita gun ownership, should have lower murder rates, even in cases of murder by steak knife.
I don't think you can tell what it is. The NRA has prevented any laws or appropriations to just collect data. I think all of this is from newspaper reports.
Then again, I could be wrong…
+Colin Fosgate If you click through and read the article that was linked you see that it does in fact distinguish between the types of laws and contains a lot more data.
you aint getting our guns +Paul Spoerry
See this is the problem; nowhere did I (nor does either of the report cited in the article) say anything about taking away guns. NOWHERE does it say anything about not allowing people to own firearms. NOWHERE.
Both studies show that the 10 states with the weakest gun laws had over twice the rate of gun violence as the 10 states with the strongest gun laws.
Whatever +Paul Spoerry you aint getting our guns.
I'd like to see another layer that shows the level of education. Maybe that factor would indicate a better correlation.
I dont even understand the NRA. Having stricter gun laws doesn't necessarily mean less guns sold 😕
+David Weber You cant do better studies though, the NRA successfully lobbied to stop any studies that might ever show guns in a negative light.
Also, can we have statistics please on the number of people successfully shooting someone in self defense "to protect their home" or whatever? Its a line always used, I just wonder how statistically significant it is.
My hunch is guns are pretty useless defensively against other guns , as whoever has the element of supprise would always win surely? (and that would be the attacker)
I don't accept your position that "You can't do better studies…" +Thomas Wrobel Yes, both sides of the debate try to roadblock anything that doesn't support their position. That's why you need an independent organization to do the study.
+Paul Spoerry dude you think what you want to I could not give a flying fuck what you sheeple think about me. Just follow your dictator to the bottom of the ocean on his sinking ship. As for my education just because you showed your an ass by assuming. I am that guy that cuts you out of your car or brings you out of your burning home or does cpr to try and bring your loved one back. I am the one that puts all his own concerns and fears aside to save your ass. Don't assume you know me or anything about because you don't !! III%
That was very intelligent, John. Insult first then try to prove you're better than the rest of humanity and therefor we should all bow down to you….
+Mme Amy no I am no better not at all I am also no king neither is the jack ass in the white house
Hey I have a brilliant idea for you assholes who seem determined, To cram you point of view and lifestyle down everyone's throats… If you don't like guns then make the world a better place by "YOU" not owning them… If you have some sort of opinion on social, political or religious views the good for you!!! Cary on with your life knowing you have the freedom to choose that path. But leave my mindset and my social, political and religious beliefs ALONE!!! The cultural diversity is what made this country what it is! And those of you who consider yourselves liberal or progressives. You like to portray this idea that your all about choice and the freedom to pursue your lifestyle. But increasingly you attempt to force your ideology on the rest of us!!!! Don't think for one second that your narrowed, boxed in point of view is for everyone! Just like I don't assume my lifestyle and my choices are right for you!!!
+David Weber You cant do any studies with tax-payers money, put it that way. And thats due to the NRA. Your not going to easily find an "independent organisation" when you cant have government funding for something.
Everyone else will be trying to sale you something.
Also, while both sides will, of course, selectively pick statistics to favor their view – only the NRA is powerful enough to do serious lobbying. There is essentially no money in "anti-guns". The NRA, on the other hand ;
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/15/gun-lobbyists-nra-newtown-shootings-figures
$Millions in just a few months.
+David Weber is right. Because of NRA lobbying efforts the CDC isn't allowed to pursue many kinds of gun research; because of this governmental research into gun mortality has shrunk by 96 percent since the mid-1990s. src: http://goo.gl/k2s0BC
+Thomas Wrobel "A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." src: http://goo.gl/x4lzov
"…The V.P.C. also found that in 2010 “there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm” reported to the F.B.I.’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Compare that with the number of criminal gun homicides in the same year: 8,275. (That’s not counting gun suicides or unintentional shootings.) Or compare it with the number of Americans killed by guns since Newtown: 3,458" src: http://goo.gl/kwmKGP
+Gary Peck I'm sure education plays a role. I'd be interested in seeing that as well.
+john thacker You're an asshat and getting blocked.
+ShooterSD72 . I do not own a firearm. And please allow me to roll my eyes as you claim liberals are the ones who try to force their belief system on others: gay marriage, abortion, female medical coverage, and on and on and on and on….
+Paul Spoerry So your pro choice on everything right up to the point to where " I choose a lifestyle where I exercise a Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms" Ok well just continue to roll your eyes. I'll fight to keep my rights! Along with fighting to keep your right to choose whatever lifestyle you wish for as well. Because I believe in having the right to CHOOSE is the basis of liberty!
+ShooterSD72 . Why do you assume "gun control" = "no one can have guns" ? Why is every single restriction, background check, or proposed cap on rounds automatically equated with "no guns" ?
Responsible gun owners should be against the NRAs shit just as much as everyone else. 80% of Americans wanted background checks, and even that couldn't get passed. In short; No one is taking your guns.
As for liberty, its a balance – the right to bare arms. the right to feel safe. the right not to worry your children will be mascaraed with the latest nutter. Liberty is about choice, but there's never just one side to that. Its always a balance.
We take freedoms away often to protect others – you cant drive a car without a license, for example. Children cant drink alcohol. You cant vote if your a felon. etc.
The question is where the balance of liberty should lie with guns.
Well said +Thomas Wrobel.
And +ShooterSD72 . I never said.. and if you read the comments this is the second time I'm saying this… I never said anything about taking away firearms or someones right to own a gun.
+Thomas Wrobel Your right no one under age has ever gotten their hands on alcohol, No one has ever driven a car without a license. And no one has ever participated in voter fraud…. The NRA is not your enemy! I'm not on board with all of their ideas but… Like any other civil liberty groups they fight for a RIGHT! One you may not deem worthy of fighting for but millions of people do! Gun restrictions or further gun laws will simply not make you safer. You can't legislate stupid, crazy or evil out of existence! You will only make it more difficult for the law abiding to own firearms and defend themselves.
"Like any other civil liberty groups they fight for a RIGHT! One you may not deem worthy of fighting for but millions of people do! " As +Thomas Wrobel already pointed out, over 80% of American's wanted background checks. So whom is the NRA fighting for +ShooterSD72 .? Clearly not the overwhelming majority of American citizens.
+Paul Spoerry Really… That 80% was a doctored number. "Background check" is pretty vague. While some of those statistics thought we should keep the instant back ground check system that we have in place! Some thought it should be a more through screening into your life to see if your worthy or mentally stable enough to own a firearm. So look at it this way 20% of the people think we should remove the background check system that we already have. And guess what? Criminals don't go through background checks! And unfortunately those who lawfully purchase firearms can turn into a criminal at the blink of an eye. So again we are left to decide how to legislate keeping our citizens safe. And I know what side you stand on… You prefer to limit a Constitutionally Guaranteed Right!And you know what side I stand on… The side to "CHOOSE" if a gun has any room in my lifestyle or household. And more importantly our Constitution was created to prevent mob rule from creating law! It has lead to Civil Rights, ended Women's sufferage leading the way to Gay rights. You want to think of this as a left vs right thing. It's easy to bash the NRA because they're all old white crumudgeoned racist republican homophobes. Your wrong! This is a group of people unwilling to allow the Government to strip us of our rights! By passing restrictions here or there making things more complicated and more difficult to "KNOW our Rights"!
"Criminals don't go through background checks" Good point. Lets get rid of ALL laws because criminals don't obey them anyway. 😉
Nothing is absolute. The idea is to make it harder for people that are irresponsible to get them.
The Constitution was also designed to change with the times. Its an idea of principles. If the idea that guns are to protect us from criminals; why do we need firepower far far in access of needed for that?
If its to protect us from government…then surely we need our own drones, tanks and bombs too? I assume you would want some limits no? or are you in favor of personal nukes?
You have to argue from logic and evidence…you cant just keep saying "constitutional right" when;
a) We have already established that some people shouldn't have weapons anyway.
b) It was written in completely different circumstances with different weapons in mind. We need thus to look at the intention behind the principle.
Its not "yes" or "no" its "where do we draw the lines on who" and "where do we draw the lines on what".
" It has lead to Civil Rights, ended Women's sufferage "
Only by it changing to suit the times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
"That 80% was a doctored number." uh… cite your source +ShooterSD72 ..
Here… I'll cite sources that range from 86% to 91% showing American's favored more background checks. The CNN poll specifically delves into different methods of acquisition and how people felt about checks in those scenarios.
• Washington Post-ABC News poll, April 11-14, 2013 (http://goo.gl/Ns7dt2): "Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online?" Support: 86 percent. Oppose: 13 percent.
• CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, April 5-7, 2013 (http://goo.gl/F4mWh4): "Some proposals would require a background check on anyone attempting to purchase a gun in order to determine whether the prospective buyer has been convicted of a felony or has a mental health problem. Please tell me whether you would favor or oppose a background check for a prospective gun buyer under each of the following circumstances. … If the buyer is trying to purchase a gun at a gun show." Favor: 83 percent. Oppose: 17 percent.
"If the buyer is trying to purchase a gun from another person who is not a gun dealer but owns one or more guns and wants to sell one of them." Favor: 70 percent. Oppose: 29 percent.
"If the buyer is purchasing a gun from a family member or receiving it as a gift." Favor: 54 percent. Oppose: 45 percent.
"Please tell me whether you would favor or oppose a background check for anyone who wants to buy ammunition for a gun." Favor: 55 percent. Oppose: 44 percent.
• Quinnipiac University poll, March 26-April 1, 2013 (http://goo.gl/jfxu24). "Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?" Support: 91 percent. Oppose: 8 percent.
• CBS News poll, March 20-24, 2013(http://goo.gl/RPK5to). "Would you favor or oppose background checks on all potential gun buyers?" Favor: 90 percent. Oppose: 8 percent.
"that 80% was a doctored number. "Background check" is pretty vague"
Your right that background check is pretty vague.
However, if you want the specific questions asked in various surveys though, by all means take a look;
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/gabrielle-giffords/gabby-giffords-says-americans-overwhelmingly-suppo/
The only ambiguity there is within family sales. Every other gun sale a clear majority wanted checks for.
Frankly, when I said 80% it was a conservative number.
+Paul Spoerry wheee….cross posting the same thing 😛
+Paul Spoerry Like I said we have a background check system in place! Yet guns still fall into the hand of criminals! So you can continue to blame the instrument used in a crime. Rather than the individual who committed that crime. So go ahead a jump onboard with the idea that giving up your rights will make you safer. Or imposing a more comprehensive background check system will weed out those who mean to do you harm. And I'll continue to live in my imperfect world called "reality" where maybe just maybe I'll be able to protect my self or loved ones in the very "rare" instance I can get to a gun. Before a police officer can get to my attacker. 15-25mins later. Because no matter how many believe that background checks will work. It still won't change the human condition. There are predators amongst us! And as much as you want to believe we have evolved into a society where firearms are a thing of the past. Your simply a idealist willing to throw away the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in order to further that idea. There's a ugliness in the human animal that won't be stopped by laws, restrictions or outright bans and confiscations. So you and I will have to agree to disagree. I will not willingly disarm myself. And you can keep yourself disarmed. And we both had the right to choose our fate.
+ShooterSD72 . You're clearly hear just to beat your chest, ignore all the stats and statements made by those who don't agree with you, and to thump your chest with some sort of national pride or… something-er-other.
NOBODY HAS SAID NOT TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO HAVE FIREARMS OR THAT THEY WOULD DISARM YOU. You keep coming back to that and I have no idea why.
Nobody has said don't blame the shooter in an instance of gun violence. That's be like not blaming a drunk driver for killing someone with a car. Here's the major difference: A car is primarily made for transportation. A gun is primarily made for killing things. A car has to be licensed and re-registered with the state that it's used in on a periodic basis but a firearm does not. That's fucking lunacy.
Most states do not require background checks for firearms purchased at gun shows from private individuals — federal law only requires licensed dealers to conduct checks. This is because the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act lifted that restriction and loosely defined private sellers as people who do not rely on gun sales as the principal way of obtaining their livelihood. This allows firearms to change hands easily.
I'll say again, nobody here has ever said to storm houses and take away peoples guns; only that sensible legislation can prevent unintended consequences surrounding firearms. There are more stats backing that up in this thread than you can shake a stick at. I'll also re-iterate that I'm not ANTI-gun. I grew up with firearms. My father was a cop; every time we were out to dinner there was at least one firearm on him. I grew up around hunters.
I do not own a gun… that's because (as stats have shown) the likelihood of actually defending yourself with it is extraordinarily slim, but the odds of someone in the home intentionally or unintentionally hurting themselves with one goes up when you have one in the home. You so much as admitted that just having one doesnt make you safer by saying "…maybe just maybe I'll be able to protect my self or loved ones in the very "rare" instance I can get to a gun."
"So you and I will have to agree to disagree. I will not willingly disarm myself. And you can keep yourself disarmed." Clearly, you've not read anything posted here as NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON HAS SAID TO DISARM OR TAKE AWAY THE ABILITY FOR PEOPLE TO OWN FIREARMS. The only thing that's been said in this thread, and that's been backed up by numerous statistics, is that stronger legislation around firearms leads to less deaths by firearms. You love to throw out the Constitution… as if I'm somehow trying to strip it of it's power or what it provides to us. But just because the Second Amendment says we can keep and bear arms that doesn't imply it's not without restrictions… just like the First Amendment protect all speech. It does not, for example, protect speech that leads to illegal activity and/or imminent violence, obscenity, defamation, and libel.
The First Amendment also does not protect speakers from liability for the foreseeable consequences of their speech. In cases where speakers encourage their audience to commit certain illegal or inherently dangerous acts, liability may rest with speakers and the forums that they use.
So just like how we have laws that provide the framework for Free Speech, those same laws help protect un-checked free speech. So just because people want additional legislation around firearms (NOT TAKING THEM AWAY FOR FUCK SAKE) doesn't mean your Second Amendment rights are being ripped out of your hands.
+Paul Spoerry Who's pounding who's chest here?? Your post was clearly anti gun at the very least anti NRA. I presented my argument as non confrontational as possible. More guns simply don't lead to more violence or death…. Statistics on both sides of this argument can be swayed to fit into parameters that suit the result you want. After a National tragedy you preach about mental health and the relationship is has with violence. Then you ask if everyone wants background checks? But the question is vague…. Does that mean they want the check system that is in place that maybe most are not even aware of? Or does this mean something much more complex? Like a through screening of your medical history? I continue to throw out the Constitution and the Bill of Rights because they protect us from government intrusion in our lives. Theres a law called the HIPPA law that prevents the Government looking into your medical history such as your mental health history….
So at the very least your background check is mute! And stands for nothing more than a road block for those who have a legal and legitimate need for a firearm. You say your not calling for a outright ban or confiscation. But you continue to throw out these go nowhere concepts and policies that are only a step in that direction. Theres a over used saying "the slippery slope" And this applies to this fight! Your advocating for Government intrusion in to the medical history of every American. For the determination of wether to grant a Constitutionally Guaranteed Right. If this applies to one facet, Then How many rights can be overwritten or denied based the further and continual government intrusion into our daily lives?
While you and I can continue to but heads over this one issue. Be aware that your advocating opening the flood gates to a whole new shit storm! Once we allow our politicians to strip away our privacy and rights. Where will it end? It WON'T! And thats where and why our debate began. Now like I said in an earlier post. I don't agree with everything the NRA does. But it's an advocacy group that began with the fight to protect the 2nd Amendment. But it fights for much more than guns. As do most Advocacy groups they fight for many of the rights that we all take for granted. And some are still fighting tooth and nail to get the representation they deserve!
So while you and I don't agree on this issue. Don't think for a second this as simple as a argument over firearms. Because its not!
Obviously you chest thumping. "Your post was clearly anti gun at the very least anti NRA." Uh… the title of the post is anti-NRA, and yet I've said MANY TIMES I'm not anti-gun.
"Then you ask if everyone wants background checks? But the question is vague" Actually, if you read the quotes I posted along with the links they lead to you'd see that it wasn't questioned broadly and was asked in specific ways, particularly the CNN poll. In fact it would say a lot that 80+% of American's advocated for background checks WITHOUT it being broken down into specifics.
"So at the very least your background check is mute! " I think you mean "moot"; like this discussion with you.
Oh and I develop health insurance software… HIPAA isn't to protect you from the government; in fact schools, state agencies, law enforcement, etc are exempt: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/consumers/index.html (section "Who Is Not Required to Follow These Laws"), and gunshot wounds are specifically cited as a reason your personal information would be allowed to be shared. "…to the police, such as reporting gunshot wounds" (Section: Who Can Look at and Receive Your Health Information)
+Paul Spoerry
CNN/ORC Poll. Nov. 18-20, 2013. N=843 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.5.
"Do you favor or oppose stricter gun control laws?"
favor…49%
oppose…50%
unsure…1%
So there is some data that you chose to ignore I guess? Possibly because it does not help further your cause? Does not appear to be a vast majority…. But like so many other debates it appears we're pretty equally divided. There is not nor has there ever been a point where a vast majority of Americans were calling for stricter gun control laws! It has not "EVER" happened!