http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/0 ... lent-crime

So who owns the vast majority of those firearms? Well if you have spent any time reading the RKBA diaries and following the comments you could be under the impression that those guns are owned by the unreasonable or the unstable, delusional miscreants, the mentally ill, drunken bullies or those suffering from Freudian feelings of inadequacy who living in their parents basement, stand in front of a mirror “fondling” their “gun” quoting “Taxi Driver”.

What I don’t understand is, with so many firearms in the hands of civilians, who could snap at any moment and go on a shooting spree, why we don’t see hundreds of thousands or millions of people dying from gun violence every year? With all those guns out there shouldn’t the number of violent acts committed with a gun be significantly higher than it is?

Seeing that we don’t have hundreds of thousands or millions of people dying from gun violence each year, the only reality based conclusion I can come to is that the vast majority of those hundreds of millions of firearms can't be owned by the unreasonable or the unstable. Hundreds of millions of firearms can't be in the hands of delusional miscreants, the mentally ill, drunken bullies or those suffering from Freudian feelings of inadequacy who living in their parents basement, stand in front of a mirror “fondling” their “gun” quoting “Taxi Driver”. Unfortunately this conclusion is either lost on, missed or completely disregarded by many, seemingly having to have bought into the meme that guns are bad and make people do things that they wouldn’t have done if it wasn't for the gun. Shocking isn’t it.

What I don’t understand is, with so many firearms in the hands of civilians, who could snap at any moment and go on a shooting spree, why we don’t see hundreds of thousands or millions of people dying from gun violence every year? With all those guns out there shouldn’t the number of violent acts committed with a gun be significantly higher than it is?

Know what happens when you make guns illegal for civillians? Criminals have defenseless targets? Know what happens when you take every last gun in existance and destroy them and all knowledge of how to make them? .... People kill each other with long knives and sharp pointy sticks.

owning a gun doesn't make you want to go out and kill anyone, being a douchbag violent sorry excuse for a homo sapien makes you want to go out and kill someone. A gun is a tool, no more than a drill or hammer, and you don't give credit to the drills and hammers for building your house do you?

gendoikari87 wrote:owning a gun doesn't make you want to go out and kill anyone, being a douchbag violent sorry excuse for a homo sapien makes you want to go out and kill someone. A gun is a tool, no more than a drill or hammer, and you don't give credit to the drills and hammers for building your house do you?

Too simplistic. Firearms make killing other people a whole lot easier, in greater numbers, than knives or hammers, because that is the sole purpose of their design. That's indisputable. A gun may not make a sane person go out and shoot others, but a person predisposed to violence will have his misdeeds very much easier to carry out because of guns.

You can't eradicate violence from society, but you can reduce the magnitude and efficiency by which violence is carried out, by looking at the tools used and regulating their availability.

I don't understand why it seems that for many gun owners, condition for firearms ownership should be an all or nothing proposition.

AdAstra wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:owning a gun doesn't make you want to go out and kill anyone, being a douchbag violent sorry excuse for a homo sapien makes you want to go out and kill someone. A gun is a tool, no more than a drill or hammer, and you don't give credit to the drills and hammers for building your house do you?

Too simplistic. Firearms make killing other people a whole lot easier, in greater numbers, than knives or hammers, because that is the sole purpose of their design. That's indisputable. A gun may not make a sane person go out and shoot others, but a person predisposed to violence will have his misdeeds very much easier to carry out because of guns.

You can't eradicate violence from society, but you can reduce the magnitude and efficiency by which violence is carried out, by looking at the tools used and regulating their availability.

I don't understand why it seems that for many gun owners, condition for firearms ownership should be an all or nothing proposition.

elucidate on what supply side gun controls you think would have an impact on the firearm related violent crime in this country.

AdAstra wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:owning a gun doesn't make you want to go out and kill anyone, being a douchbag violent sorry excuse for a homo sapien makes you want to go out and kill someone. A gun is a tool, no more than a drill or hammer, and you don't give credit to the drills and hammers for building your house do you?

Too simplistic. Firearms make killing other people a whole lot easier, in greater numbers, than knives or hammers, because that is the sole purpose of their design. That's indisputable. A gun may not make a sane person go out and shoot others, but a person predisposed to violence will have his misdeeds very much easier to carry out because of guns.

You can't eradicate violence from society, but you can reduce the magnitude and efficiency by which violence is carried out, by looking at the tools used and regulating their availability.

I don't understand why it seems that for many gun owners, condition for firearms ownership should be an all or nothing proposition.

Entirely untrue, firearms make all men equal, a man with a sword who is trained in it's use like most ciminals are/would be is FAR more dangerous than the commoner with a sword. But the same is less true for two individuals with firearms. A criminal with a sword in a world without firearms can even defeat the police if he's trained all his life. So someone with a predispoition to violence is much more dangerous in a world without firearms.

The simple idea of regulating firearms, is a falsity, you can take them from those that obey the law, but they aren't the dangerous ones. The dangerous ones are the ones who don't obey the law, and they aren't about to obey any gun control laws and in the real world making them isn't that hard to to do, at least not simple flintlocks, stealing them is much easier than making them, and the black market will always have them. So regulating them will do nothing but unarm law abiding citizens and give the criminals free reign over the citizens. You don't make the tool illegal, you make it's impropter use illegal.

Entirely untrue, firearms make all men equal

Only if they are equally good shots. A chump with a gun is still a chump. Haven't you ever watched the movie Shane?

yeah but at less than 7 foot, you really have to be a really bad shot to not get a chest cavity hit. Firearms need minimal training to use, but the alternative which is hand to hand, is entirely a different beast. A little training isn't enough against a well trained professional, you still have an extremely low chance of survival. The same is not true for the common Self defense case involving firearms. The more trained does have a better chance of coming out better, but it's a far cry from being safe for the attacker.

Lets stay on topic

KVoimakas wrote:
elucidate on what supply side gun controls you think would have an impact on the firearm related violent crime in this country.

For real regulation and impact:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-co ... australia/

Australia doesn't have a 2A equivalent, so this may have a hard time flying here.

Deducing what controls do and don't is difficult to determine due to the nature of the data and the inter-relationships, but one thing is for sure: gun controls have not been proven conclusively to be either effective or ineffective.
http://www.policyalmanac.org/crime/arch ... trol.shtml

However, there are some methods which show positive effects:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/world ... 77785.html

Quote: "Asked what sorts of gun control laws seem to work, Kleck mentioned two.
'Background checks in general at the state level did show lower homicide rates,' he said, adding: 'I'd improve the enforcement of laws against unlicensed carrying of guns in public places.'"

yeah there are serious problems with using statistics and comparing firearms ownership and crime , on the one hand you have cities like chicago and DC which (well had) have handgun BAN's and also some of the highest rates of crime in the country, you've got I think it's norway where they have manditory military service for young males, and after they get out they are required to keep their rifle, in anycase All I can dig up on norway at the moment is they have a high % firearms ownership and a VERY low Crime rate. Then you have countries like austrialia who show slight decreases in crime after bans.

My point is that there are several other factors that go into the crime rate and the number one that comes to mind is surprise, poverty. But the real question is: does the government have the right to take them away in the first place? They are the peoples only real defense against a government turned tyrannical. Look at Libya, it's erupted into flames and gadhafi isn't giving up like mubarak. Now I know the libyans have guns, but I don't know if they are "allowed" to have them. What I do know, is over in Iran if they really want to get rid of the tick, they're going to have to rise up in arms, not just in protest like egypt. Which is not something you can do, if the government has effectively disarmed the law abiding public.

gendoikari87 wrote: Entirely untrue, firearms make all men equal, a man with a sword who is trained in it's use like most ciminals are/would be is FAR more dangerous than the commoner with a sword. But the same is less true for two individuals with firearms. A criminal with a sword in a world without firearms can even defeat the police if he's trained all his life. So someone with a predispoition to violence is much more dangerous in a world without firearms.

I can't find anything reasonable in this statement.

gendoikari87 wrote:The simple idea of regulating firearms, is a falsity,

How can an act that is, and has been physically achievable be a falsity? Firearms are already regulated successfully. When was the last time you heard of an anti-tank weapon being used in a bank robbery in this country?

gendoikari87 wrote: you can take them from those that obey the law, but they aren't the dangerous ones. The dangerous ones are the ones who don't obey the law, and they aren't about to obey any gun control laws and in the real world making them isn't that hard to to do, at least not simple flintlocks, stealing them is much easier than making them, and the black market will always have them. So regulating them will do nothing but unarm law abiding citizens and give the criminals free reign over the citizens.

There are too many cliches here to tackle, but I'll just ask this - because you think criminals will always get guns, might as well make it easy for them to do so by eliminating any and all regulations? And why do you think law-abiding citizens will be "unarmed" by regulations? It's a contradiction in terms.

gendoikari87 wrote:yeah there are serious problems with using statistics and comparing firearms ownership and crime ,

I read this as "this doesn't fit my narrative, so I'll ignore it".

And for the Norway comparison - wingnuts love to use the Scandinavian examples of high firearms ownership and low crime as the model to aspire to in the US, but conveniently ignore all the other factors that provide this result in those countries: things like high taxation, free health care, comprehensive social services, free education, etc, all contributing to their high standard of living. Ask the wingnuts why those aren't taken up here as well as the firearms thing, and you see apoplexy set in.

gendoikari87 wrote: does the government have the right to take them away in the first place?

The advocacy we're talking about is for regulation, not total bans.

gendoikari87 wrote: They are the peoples only real defense against a government turned tyrannical.

The topic is community crime and violence, not government vs citizenry.

gendoikari87 wrote: Look at Libya, it's erupted into flames ...

Stick to the US situation - cultural differences are major factors in invalid comparisons of popular revolutions, as well as historical precedents. Saying that Libya is a perfect example of why RKBA in the US is justified is just too nonsensical.

How can an act that is, and has been physically achievable be a falsity? Firearms are already regulated successfully. When was the last time you heard of an anti-aircraft gun being used in a bank robbery in this country?

A) Even in england criminals have guns, fewer maybe Because they're unnecessary when the populace is unarmed, but that just means they also have more knife crime.
B) When was the last time you saw someone who could afford an anti-aircraft cannon, AND carry it? Let alone have the desire to use it for harm? Unless your talking about a .50bmg barret, which are legal... and with no instances of being used in a crime as far as I know.

There are too many cliches here to tackle, but I'll just ask this - because you think criminals will always get guns, might as well make it easy for them to do so by eliminating any and all regulations? .

never said you should make it easier for them to get them, if they have a history of violent crime, yeah sure, don't let them have them. That does not mean however, they can't get them. Half the guns we've bought in the last few years were backdoor, no background checks. However, there are several people who have commited minor felonies who are by no means violent individuals proven to be peacefull, who are barred from owning them.

And why do you think law-abiding citizens will be "unarmed" by regulations? It's a contradiction in terms

Because if you ban them and they have them, then they are no longer law abiding are they? doesn't make them violent criminals, but they are still criminals none the less.

I read this as "this doesn't fit my narrative, so I'll ignore it".

read it as what you will, I can still pull two instances of harsh gun control laws increasing crime for every one you pull out that shows the opposite.

The advocacy we're talking about is for regulation, not total bans.

The background checks and preventing violent offenders from owning them is all that is needed, anything beyond that is an infringement on individual rights to self defense.

Stick to the US situation - cultural differences are major factors in invalid comparisons of popular revolutions, as well as historical precedents. Saying that Libya is a perfect example of why RKBA in the US is justified is just too nonsensical.

if you want to stick to america, there are very clear trends that say more gun control laws = more crime, and less gun control = less crime. California, chicago, DC.... the list goes on.

And for the Norway comparison - wingnuts love to use the Scandinavian examples of high firearms ownership and low crime as the model to aspire to in the US, but conveniently ignore all the other factors that provide this result in those countries: things like high taxation, free health care, comprehensive social services, free education, etc, all contributing to their high standard of living. Ask the wingnuts why those aren't taken up here as well as the firearms thing, and you see apoplexy set in.

I believe I already said that poverty was a major contributing factor in crime and possibly the most prevalent cause. The fact that they DO have a high rate of FA ownership and low crime, just goes to show how little effect gun ownership has on crime, compared to poverty.

AdAstra wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote: Entirely untrue, firearms make all men equal, a man with a sword who is trained in it's use like most ciminals are/would be is FAR more dangerous than the commoner with a sword. But the same is less true for two individuals with firearms. A criminal with a sword in a world without firearms can even defeat the police if he's trained all his life. So someone with a predispoition to violence is much more dangerous in a world without firearms.

I can't find anything reasonable in this statement.

Nothing reasonable?

It's a statement on the comparative learning and skill curves of a long blade versus a pistol. A long blade requires long practice of many different physical moves in order to achieve bare adequacy. But just a few hours twice a year is enough to achieve adequate ability for the same amount of distance from the wielder: swordlength is pretty short range. Firearms make people equally able to defend themselves without steep requirements on constant practice.

It's a statement on the comparative physical requirements to wield a heavy long blade versus a two-pound pistol. That sort of exercise takes time, regular dedicated time to keeping that level of physical ability up. Firearms make people equally able to defend themselves without regard to whether they are weak, or strong. Without regard to whether they are physically intact, or physically injured. Without regard to whether they have all their parts or whether they have lost a limb.

It's a statement on the comparative physical traits required to use a long blade versus a pistol. This introduces a discrimination effect, as the average female is shorter in height with a shorter arm reach, thus even with equal strength and skill a female's shorter reach puts the male opponent at an advantage. Pistols... NO DISADVANTAGE due to arm length. Firearms make people equally able to defend themselves irrespective of physical traits.

Nothing reasonable? You should read it again.

JayFromPA wrote:

AdAstra wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote: Entirely untrue, firearms make all men equal, a man with a sword who is trained in it's use like most ciminals are/would be is FAR more dangerous than the commoner with a sword. But the same is less true for two individuals with firearms. A criminal with a sword in a world without firearms can even defeat the police if he's trained all his life. So someone with a predispoition to violence is much more dangerous in a world without firearms.

I can't find anything reasonable in this statement.

Nothing reasonable?

It's a statement on the comparative learning and skill curves of a long blade versus a pistol. A long blade requires long practice of many different physical moves in order to achieve bare adequacy. But just a few hours twice a year is enough to achieve adequate ability for the same amount of distance from the wielder: swordlength is pretty short range. Firearms make people equally able to defend themselves without steep requirements on constant practice.

It's a statement on the comparative physical requirements to wield a heavy long blade versus a two-pound pistol. That sort of exercise takes time, regular dedicated time to keeping that level of physical ability up. Firearms make people equally able to defend themselves without regard to whether they are weak, or strong. Without regard to whether they are physically intact, or physically injured. Without regard to whether they have all their parts or whether they have lost a limb.

It's a statement on the comparative physical traits required to use a long blade versus a pistol. This introduces a discrimination effect, as the average female is shorter in height with a shorter arm reach, thus even with equal strength and skill a female's shorter reach puts the male opponent at an advantage. Pistols... NO DISADVANTAGE due to arm length. Firearms make people equally able to defend themselves irrespective of physical traits.

Nothing reasonable? You should read it again.

Thanks, I couldn't have explained it better my self. kinda reminds me of something I said over on that.....*shudders* right wing forum i was at before I found this heaven:

This was the Gun Control Network nutjob that attacked the site

You're telling me that you would honestly shoot someone stealing your car? And then go to jail for manslaughter.. what you all are failing to understand is that you have the wrong approach. The man attacks you physically? Run. Claim he's faster? It's your own fault for not being in shape enough to outrun him.

and this was my response:

I'm sorry i'm too busy being a physicist deriving the laws of the universe and studying quantum mechanics so we can build a better society to go on a two hour run every morning. besides, what makes you think he's going to stop at stealing a car, he might stop at that, but he might also graduate to armed robbery, he might also panic and kill someone. God forbid he's a gang member and shoots first before politely asking for your car keys.

and this was another's absolutely beautiful response.

Old Paratroopers don't run lady.....


Gunshot wound by enemy fire, left thigh, Feb. 21st 1968.

Shrapnel wound by enemy fire, left hand, April 15. 1968

Shrapnel wound by enemy fire, left ankle, Aug. 23, 1968

Go find a gay knitting forum to promote your stupid agenda....

gendoikari87 wrote:

Stick to the US situation - cultural differences are major factors in invalid comparisons of popular revolutions, as well as historical precedents. Saying that Libya is a perfect example of why RKBA in the US is justified is just too nonsensical.

if you want to stick to america, there are very clear trends that say more gun control laws = more crime, and less gun control = less crime. California, chicago, DC.... the list goes on.

And for the Norway comparison - wingnuts love to use the Scandinavian examples of high firearms ownership and low crime as the model to aspire to in the US, but conveniently ignore all the other factors that provide this result in those countries: things like high taxation, free health care, comprehensive social services, free education, etc, all contributing to their high standard of living. Ask the wingnuts why those aren't taken up here as well as the firearms thing, and you see apoplexy set in.

I believe I already said that poverty was a major contributing factor in crime and possibly the most prevalent cause. The fact that they DO have a high rate of FA ownership and low crime, just goes to show how little effect gun ownership has on crime, compared to poverty.

I think this sums up the issue here. You can't trot out DC and Compton without bringing out the high crime rates and gangs in areas like Atlanta, Miami, Houston, any border town, New Orleans, etc. These areas have some of the highest crime rates in the country, but the most relaxed gun laws. I think you were more correct when you stated that its very complicated and that factors other than possession of guns are larger contributing factors in determining crime rates.

And this holds true for places like Norway, as was pointed out. You can't point to Norway as a comparison with Chicago and say "See what gun ownership does? It lowers crime!" I would say that guns have very little to do with it. I have yet to see any convincing proof that guns increase the rate of crime or decrease the rate of crime. But, as was pointed out earlier, what guns do, in the hands of criminals, is to make it easier to carry out your objectives and take a lot of innocent people along with you.

I can't speak for miami and houston, but i know of very few firearms owners in atlanta. And though it does have a high crime rate, the surrounding area that is more rural, does have a high ownership rate, literally where I grew up, there were multiple per household. 0 crime in my area.... except for drugs, but none of that was violent.

gendoikari87 wrote:I can't speak for miami and houston, but i know of very few firearms owners in atlanta. And though it does have a high crime rate, the surrounding area that is more rural, does have a high ownership rate, literally where I grew up, there were multiple per household. 0 crime in my area.... except for drugs, but none of that was violent.

Gang crime in Atlanta is a serious problem. I have been to downtown Atlanta many times. Was there for the Olympics as well. Left the scene of the bomb blast 3 minutes before it went off. But Atlanta, particularly around the GaTech area, where I have many friends, is a very clean, upscale, low crime neighborhood. I would also agree with you that there are probably fewer gun owners there than in the outlying rural areas. But are you suggesting that a place can be low crime AND low gun? Regardless..... now go out to Carter Hills, Bankhead, Bolton, and Vine City... those places are not safe. They are impoverished and with high crime.

The same is true of Chicago. I have been there twice. I have never felt more safe in a large city in my life. Downtown, from Pizzeria Uno and Pizzeria Due over to the Navy Pier and the surrounding area was clean and safe. I never once felt any sense of anything other than having fun. Hanging out at the Field Museum, and the Shedd Aquarium was a blast. Now go south. Southside is poor and high crime.

In fact, Atlanta has one of the highest crime rates in the country and a major problem with gangs. A quick google search turns up tons of easy information:


Atlanta Police launch anti-gang website to help combat over 100 known gangs:
http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/At ... ite_042109

A 4 page 'oral history' of gangs in Atlanta:
http://clatl.com/atlanta/gang-mentality ... id=1524413

In 2008, Forbes had an article on drug cartels in America. One of the hubs of gun cartels in the country? Atlanta.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/1222/073_4.html


two random sites tracking street gangs in Atlanta:
http://www.angelfire.com/planet/atlantastreetgangs/
http://www.angelfire.com/ga4/atlantagangs/


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Street_Gangs

Some fun from Bankhead:


If you look up crime rates in general, Atlanta is pretty bad. First example that popped up, a real estate site, gives Atlanta a "1". "100" is the best. It indicates that Atlanta has a lower crime rate than only 1% of cities. Chicago got a "9"

My point is.... Atlanta is not represented necessarily by the place *you* live. And neither is Chicago represented by South Side. The common denominator in all of these is poverty. Guns are sometimes found in high crime areas (eg., bankhead) and sometimes not found in low crime areas (Buckhead).

As far as Miami goes.... the first day my brother moved there he saw a shooting. He drove back home, and borrowed one of my dad's .38s.

But are you suggesting that a place can be low crime AND low gun?

Actually yes, Hog mountain, or as they call it now, Hamilton mill is a very safe place to be. (for those who aren't getting it, hamilton mill is the upscale neighborhood just outside atlanta) Though I still feel safer in my old nighborhood, and I lived in a VERY poverty stricken area.