Guns, Guns Guns

If memory serves, not one mass shooting in the US has been stopped by an intended target who was armed. If the% comment was in any way true you'd think there would be lots of them.

gcomeau wrote:Which is of course the reality we observe. The US has a very high percentage of gun ownership, it has a correspondingly very high rate of it's citizens getting shot and it does *not* have a lower crime rate than countries that have low gun ownership rates.

Widespread gun ownership does not deter crime, it just makes people more trigger happy and jumpy.

Too simplistic as well, Switzerland is number 4 on the guns per citizen ranking but societally rather similar to its neighbours.

gcomeau wrote:And that is up to and including trained professionals in law enforcement. There is a reason for this graph:

Those appear to be absolute numbers for countries with considerably different population sizes.

gcomeau wrote:The police in the US are fully aware of how much higher their odds of encountering an armed suspect are than those other police forces. So it is much harder or them to maintain the mindset that they are to protect and serve the community and much easier for them to slip into the mindset that they are under siege by / at war with said community. Or at least significant portions of it.

What's missing from your consideration are the odds of a suspect using a weapon even if armed.

Something that a LOT of folk seem to forget is that the US is not really homogenous when it comes to gun laws and crime. 50 different states, with wildly varying gun laws. Every state also has a different level of gun related violence. Saying that having more Legal guns is directly related to more gun violence only works if you can show that those individual states that have the more lax firearms codes are also the ones with the higher level of violent gun crime. Averaging out the US as a whole, you'll end up with the much higher than average violent crimes of, say, LA and Chicago, who have much stricter laws, with the ones from Arizona and Vermont.

Invictus wrote:Something that a LOT of folk seem to forget is that the US is not really homogenous when it comes to gun laws and crime. 50 different states, with wildly varying gun laws. Every state also has a different level of gun related violence. Saying that having more Legal guns is directly related to more gun violence only works if you can show that those individual states that have the more lax firearms codes are also the ones with the higher level of violent gun crime. Averaging out the US as a whole, you'll end up with the much higher than average violent crimes of, say, LA and Chicago, who have much stricter laws, with the ones from Arizona and Vermont.

Especially when places like FL the more CCWs issued and a decrease in violent crime in recent years. Which I have cited in the past as matter of fact I am pretty sure it was in this topic.

Not saying that is the only factor, it is not! But is it a significant factor? ... <shrug>

Like all statistics it can be read and compiled to say anything you want it to really. Like was also posted here Australia and New Zealand have similar numbers but very different laws.

Not worth much and won't convince anybody of anything they don't already believe,
T2M

Annachie wrote:If memory serves, not one mass shooting in the US has been stopped by an intended target who was armed. If the% comment was in any way true you'd think there would be lots of them.

So exactly stopped the man who shot Rep. Gabby Giffords. Must have been the police by your comment. Except it wasn't really.

A better question would be how many mass killers attacked carrying people? [Edit]Certainly hasn't been many as most mass killers go to candyland, Places that forbid firearms. Newtown, movie theatres and so forth.

Not that I think there are going to be much in the way of statistics one way or the other. I would think it would be very hard to compile or mantain.

Though there are numerous stories some have been posted here of thieves and the like being stopped by an armed victim. Like the one that happened ten miles from me. Stupid guy tried to steal a guys motorcycle (in a gated community). Result dead perp found with the stuff he stole that night in the back of the truck he also stole that night. Result a bunch crimes that the police didn't have to solve just had to do the paper work.

By the way this guy was justified in his shoot by "stand your ground" law. Did I mention that the guy was black. Just before our president decided to rail against "stand your ground" as related to race on national television. Actively supported by biased media outlets.

So somehow all that case never makes it big news. Of course I agree in that assessment as it isn't and shouldn't be big news. Guy takes responsibility for his property and his rights within the law.

Nope still not worth much,
T2M

gcomeau wrote:Widespread gun ownership does not deter crime, it just makes people more trigger happy and jumpy.

This is true, but I am arguing if the poeple who owned guns were allowed to carry them.

gcomeau wrote:And that is up to and including trained professionals in law enforcement. There is a reason for this graph:



Snip

It's all a big interconnected web of negative effects. And the irony is people will point at the result as justification for needing more of what caused it. "Look at all these shootings! It's dangerous out there! You know what that means... we need more guns! For everyone! That will make it better!"

As someone else said, We have more people shot by cops, but our population is vastly larger then those others. If you increase the sample size the absoulte numbers will always grow, the %'s will average out though.

People who want to hurt others will always find ways to do it. Take away guns they'll use bows, knifes, hammers and any of a 1000 household items (not to mention the guns they will obtain illegaly).
My argument is, in a world with guns legal, they will use guns, but they will think twice about mugging a person who may be carrying, or when someone near by may be carrying. The danger outwieghs the risk.
Sadly, the number of gun related incident will go up, significantly, until the criminals realize, hey its not works gettiing shot over a wallet with $100 and 2-4 CC's that will be canceled in hours.

Commodore Oakius wrote:

gcomeau wrote:Widespread gun ownership does not deter crime, it just makes people more trigger happy and jumpy.

This is true, but I am arguing if the poeple who owned guns were allowed to carry them.

Which in many places they are, with no corresponding drop in crime rates in those locations. So...?

gcomeau wrote:And that is up to and including trained professionals in law enforcement. There is a reason for this graph:



Snip

It's all a big interconnected web of negative effects. And the irony is people will point at the result as justification for needing more of what caused it. "Look at all these shootings! It's dangerous out there! You know what that means... we need more guns! For everyone! That will make it better!"

As someone else said, We have more people shot by cops, but our population is vastly larger then those others.

The population of England, Australia and Germany respectively are about 64 million, 23 million and 80 million.

There were 202 TIMES more people killed by police in the US than England over the course of that year and 67 TIMES more people killed by police in the US than in Australia or Germany over the course of the year.

In order to take seriously any argument that that was explained by the larger absolute number of people in the US you would have to believe the population of the US was...

To explain the England comparison: Population of the US = ~13 BILLION

To explain the Australia comparison: Population of the US = ~1.5 BILLION

To explain the German comparison: Population of the US = ~ 5.36 BILLION.


So, unless we are all supposed to think more people live in the US than live on earth to account for at least the England and Germany discrepancies, no, the population differences are not the explanation for those numbers and it is ridiculous to think so.

If you increase the sample size the absolute numbers will always grow, the %'s will average out though.

As demonstrated, they aren't even close. They don't live on the same continent as each other.

People who want to hurt others will always find ways to do it.

This claim is always made, in total disregard for the data.

Yes, they CAN find ways to do it but no they will not always do so. And for those that do find ways not all ways are created equal. Crazy guy wielding kitchen knife <<< dangerous than crazy guy wielding semi-automatic rifle.


There is a reason for this graph too:


http://imagizer-cv.imageshack.us/a/img5 ... susaus.jpg


That's mass shooting casualties in Australia and the US over time. The discreet points are people killed per individual event, the lines are the cumulative total.

My argument is, in a world with guns legal, they will use guns, but they will think twice about mugging a person who may be carrying, or when someone near by may be carrying. The danger outwieghs the risk.

And again, your theoretical argument is shot down by the real world data. The US has significantly higher percentage of people not just owning but also carrying guns than those other nations and it pretty much always has. It does not have a lower crime rate as a result.

aairfccha wrote:

gcomeau wrote:Which is of course the reality we observe. The US has a very high percentage of gun ownership, it has a correspondingly very high rate of it's citizens getting shot and it does *not* have a lower crime rate than countries that have low gun ownership rates.

Widespread gun ownership does not deter crime, it just makes people more trigger happy and jumpy.

Too simplistic as well, Switzerland is number 4 on the guns per citizen ranking but societally rather similar to its neighbours.

Switzerland doesn't just randomly allow guns to be dumped wholesale into the general population in order to achieve that number 4 ranking either. Those people all have guns because those people all have militia duties. They're put under discipline. Trained. They're held responsible for handling and securing those firearms. Etc...


If people in the US wanted to achieve high rates of gun ownership under *those* conditions that would be a very different thing. But that's pretty much never the argument that is made. They just want every random idiot to be able to freely procure an arsenal because "yay guns!!!"


Other comments addressed in previous reply to other poster.

gcomeau wrote:Widespread gun ownership does not deter crime, it just makes people more trigger happy and jumpy.

This is true, but I am arguing if the poeple who owned guns were allowed to carry them.[/quote]

Which in many places they are, with no corresponding drop in crime rates in those locations. So...?

[/quote]

Florida and Texas. Both have lower crime rates then a place like, say, Chicago.

I never said a person with a semi automatic is less dangerous then a person with a knife. I am saying another person armed with a semi-automatic is more likely to to cause a person with a semi-automatic to hesitate then a person with a knife is going to cause another person with a knife to hesitate.

Your claim about the disregard of data is interesting. Please tell me that they don't have the the desire to hurt people with out a gun in their hands. Or that the gun itself empowers them to hurt people.
If thats true we should outlaw forks knives and sppons since they empower obese people to become and remain obese. Or remove and ban muscle cars from the roads because it could cause a person to speed with a V-8.

Objects don't cause problems, people mentaliy and choices do. I am for better background checks. Other than that, if you make owning a gun illegal then all the people who own them legaly will have to give thim up. Who is going to remove the guns from the people who own them illeagely? How do you know if a person has an illegal gun, there is no record of them, the are illegal.
Don't disarm those who want to protect themselves and other from those who cant be disamred by a law on the books.

Hmm, More people are killed and maimed in Automobile accidents than guns, so why are we discussing banning guns and not automobiles?

Poker