Connecticut (et al)

[Seth]

But there is a big difference between a violent crime, like being beaten up, and a murder. In NZ we get a lot of beatings due to the drug industry, but few murders. The difference is that our criminals do not have hand guns. The reason they do not have hand guns is that we have made hand guns almost impossible to access, for everyone

Generally there isnt a lot you can do to stop people trying to kill each other, thats our nature but there is a hell of a lot you can do to stop then succeeding.
It is far far easier to regulate inanimate objects than people and sensible countries target these tools rather than try to predict (and fail) who will misuse them

There's a hell of a lot I can do to stop people trying to kill ME, and I'll use my handgun to do so whenever it's legally appropriate to do so.

You can fend of attackers with a wooden spoon if you like. I prefer more decisive and effective tools.

[Jason]

Wooden spoon? I'll grant you a plastic cutlery set from KFC with original napkin and wetwipe.

[JimC]

After all, Ted Bundy, Dr. Shipman, John Wayne Gacy and their buddies weren't bad, they were just having an extended run of bad days.

Maybe. But none of them was stopped by a vigilante with a gun.

If some were, would it change your opinion?

The argument should be statistical, rather than based on particular examples.

The contention of BG et al in this thread would be that the occasional example of a private citizen using a gun to thwart a crime or protect themselves or others from harm is far outweighed by the litany of deaths that accrue as a result of the widespread availability of hand guns in US society.

[aspire1670]

After all, Ted Bundy, Dr. Shipman, John Wayne Gacy and their buddies weren't bad, they were just having an extended run of bad days.

Maybe. But none of them was stopped by a vigilante with a gun.

If some were, would it change your opinion?

LOLWUT
I didn't offer an opinion. I simply pointed out the fact that none of them were stopped by a vigilante with a gun. In your opinion, would it be a good thing If I could magic away all guns?

[aspire1670]

But there is a big difference between a violent crime, like being beaten up, and a murder. In NZ we get a lot of beatings due to the drug industry, but few murders. The difference is that our criminals do not have hand guns. The reason they do not have hand guns is that we have made hand guns almost impossible to access, for everyone

Generally there isnt a lot you can do to stop people trying to kill each other, thats our nature but there is a hell of a lot you can do to stop then succeeding.
It is far far easier to regulate inanimate objects than people and sensible countries target these tools rather than try to predict (and fail) who will misuse them

There's a hell of a lot I can do to stop people trying to kill ME, and I'll use my handgun to do so whenever it's legally appropriate to do so.

You can fend of attackers with a wooden spoon if you like. I prefer more decisive and effective tools.

But what will you do if you're attacked by someone with a gun disguised as a wooden spoon?

[Jason]

Or a wooden spoon disguised as a gun?

[Blind groper]

But the fact remains that your primary claim, which is that more handguns in society will inevitably lead to more murders is demonstrably not true because the number of handguns in our society has been increasing for more than 20 years and yet all violent crime, including murder, continues to drop. No other evidence is needed to disprove your claim.

I have already dealt with this claim, but you do not appear to have registered the point.

What has increased in the past 20 years is applications for background checks for guns. But over the same period, surveys of gun ownership has shown the opposite. There are now fewer gun owners.

The two data points do not really contradict, because there is an easy explanation. It is not more people owning guns, but the smaller number of gun owners buying more guns. This reflects an increase in paranoia among gun owners, which you, Seth, epitomise. A different trend entirely. Since one gun is enough for a murder, gun owners having more guns will not increase the murder rate. It is the first gun, especially if it is a hand gun, that contributes to a higher murder rate.

But fewer people own guns, meaning a drop in murder rate.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ip-us-data

[Blind groper]

Most gun violence is preplanned or is at least rational and non-impulsive, as most of it involves the drug trade. Eliminate homicides from the drug trade, and we'd have a far different landscape to talk about.

This is only true for murders among criminals. That is not what the gun owners here are arguing about. We have fearful people who claim to be law abiding, demanding the right to have guns for self defense.

But among 'law abiding' gun owners, murders using their guns still happen. This category, which is what is relevant to the people on this forum, is characterised by impulse.

So we get a husband returning home drunk and angry. His wife inadvertently says or does something to make him even more irate, and he picks up his gun and shoots her. An impulse murder. 60% of all murders of women in the home are of this nature.

The bulk of murders of law abiding people are done by male or female partner, friend, acquaintance, or someone known to the victim. Murder by stranger is a minority. And those murders are almost always on impulse.

Murder by one criminal or another criminal may be premeditated, especially in the drug trade, but that rarely affects the law abiding.

Murders of law abiding people in the USA are mostly done with a gun, often the gun belonging to the murder victim.

[Jason]

[pErvinalia]

He isn't calling one side good and the other side bad. He says there are good people on both sides of the equation.

Missing the point, good and bad don't exist as concepts much of the time for human beings. Is a person who comes up to find his wife in bed with another man and then proceeds to murder both a bad person?. It's a bad act but one that I think much of the population including 'law abiding citizens' are quite capable of.

Now I see why it is you want guns banned. You yourself can't be trusted with one, and you extrapolate that to the rest of society. I happen to agree in general with the points you make, but this proclamation from you is quite scary. I wouldn't for a second even want to do something like that, and I don't think most of society would either. A better example for me would be killing a person who has just seriously harmed or killed my child, but is no longer a danger. I wouldn't hesitate for a second, and I think a chunk of society wouldn't either.

[Seth]

But the fact remains that your primary claim, which is that more handguns in society will inevitably lead to more murders is demonstrably not true because the number of handguns in our society has been increasing for more than 20 years and yet all violent crime, including murder, continues to drop. No other evidence is needed to disprove your claim.

I have already dealt with this claim, but you do not appear to have registered the point.

What has increased in the past 20 years is applications for background checks for guns. But over the same period, surveys of gun ownership has shown the opposite. There are now fewer gun owners.

Really? Where did you get this silly idea? You pulled it out of your ass didn't you?

The two data points do not really contradict, because there is an easy explanation. It is not more people owning guns, but the smaller number of gun owners buying more guns. This reflects an increase in paranoia among gun owners, which you, Seth, epitomise. A different trend entirely. Since one gun is enough for a murder, gun owners having more guns will not increase the murder rate. It is the first gun, especially if it is a hand gun, that contributes to a higher murder rate.

And yet the fact remains that there are more handguns in society than ever, and less crime. Your claim is just totally fucked by that simple fact.

And then there's this from the very source YOU cited as supporting your claim of fewer individuals with guns despite a burgeoning number of guns in society:

Conclusion: There are still many guns in America, and the rate is not dropping any more.

We don't know the exact percentage of gun households in America, but the number of guns per capita is higher than anywhere else in the world. The percentage of Americans who live in a household with a gun is probably near its lowest level in decades since the mid-1980s, but that rate has not dropped in the past 15 years.

Derp.

Did you even bother to read your source material?

So, even if you're right (which you're not) that the number of gun owners in the US is declining, so is the crime rate, while at the same time the number of guns in circulation is up dramatically. So, your argument is still completely fucked.

[Blind groper]

Seth

I was debunking your statement which was that guns were increasing. The reference shows you were talking shit.

Also, note the time scale. You said gun numbers had increased over 20 years, and the survey graphs have showed they dropped over 20 years. Over 15, they have not changed much, but over the longer time scale, numbers dropped. Your earlier statement was simply wrong.

We know that, when two factors are linked by a cause and effect relationship, the factor that is the cause will change first, and the effect will follow after a time delay. If gun ownership is a cause, and murder rate is an effect, a drop in gun ownership will precede a drop in murder rate.

According to the more reliable GSS survey in the earlier graph, gun ownership peaked in 1990, and has been dropping since. Homicide rate in the USA peaked in 1991 and has been dropping since.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

This is fully consistent with my statement that gun ownership is a major factor causing homicides.

[Blind groper]

Sorry. Accidental doubling.

[Blind groper]

The big drop in gun ownership was during the 1990's, and has fallen only a small amount since. The big drop in murder rate was in the 1990's and has fallen only a small amount since.

This is also fully consistent with my statement that gun ownership is a major factor causing homicides.

[Warren Dew]

Australia banned a whole lot of gun types in about 1996 after our worst massacre - Port Arthur where about 25 or so were killed - and since that point there have been no massacres.

Texas passed a "shall issue" concealed carry law after their worst massacre in 1991 - Luby's where 24 were killed - and since then there have been no massacres.