74 school shootings since Sandy Hook. More dead today.

I can also show several countries that have a HIGHER per capita murder rate (with guns) than the United States. Countries that have strict gun control. We all know (or should) that some countries where gun ownership is required have LOWER per capita murder rates than the United States. So what does it mean? Gun ownership is not the driving factor when it comes to murder. So what is it? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Please show me a country with similar demographics to the U.S. (e.g. Canada, Europe, Japan, etc.) that have higher per capita murder rates. The U.S. has more guns per capita (88.8 per 100 people) than any other country in the world and the highest homicide rate among countries with similar demographics. I would say there is a VERY high correlation between gun ownership and homicides. And then tell me the country where gun ownership is REQUIRED. Please don't say Switzerland because you will be WRONG.

I NEVER said that those countries had similar demographics. How astute of you. We are unique in the world with our demographics but you did touch on something without actually saying it. The United States has not one but at least two different racial minority populations with very large numbers. So what you bumped into but didn't want to say was that maybe racial problems have something to do with the crime rate? No thanks necessary for me to clarify what you tried to say.

(Krug 1998) EG Krug, KE Powell and LL Dahlberg. "Firearm-related deaths in the United States and 35 other high- and upper-middle-income countries.", International Journal of Epidemiology 1998. Statistics among 36 countries between 1990 and 1995.

As posted on Wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

There are at least 12 other countries with a higher firearm death rate. Most of them in South and Central America.

As for your statistics....we have more guns than anyone else in the world per capita and we have more people per capita that have not committed any sort of gun crime. You want to look at the 1% but I'm looking at the 99%. You have to ask yourself what does that 1% have in common. The actual number is really much smaller than 1% but I'm trying to make a point here about your concerns. I would bet that those people involved with gun deaths have had run ins with the law before.

Maybe saying that gun ownership is required it technically inaccurate but what would you call the exact opposite of countries that have strict prohibitions against ownership? Highly recommended that they own guns? I suppose we could look at Kennesaw, GA where gun ownership is required but not enforced. Isn't that an interesting difference? Where guns are banned they enforce the law with prison but guns are required they don't care whether you own one or not.

Please show me a country with similar demographics to the U.S. (e.g. Canada, Europe, Japan, etc.) that have higher per capita murder rates. The U.S. has more guns per capita (88.8 per 100 people) than any other country in the world and the highest homicide rate among countries with similar demographics. I would say there is a VERY high correlation between gun ownership and homicides. And then tell me the country where gun ownership is REQUIRED. Please don't say Switzerland because you will be WRONG. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

All those stats you're reading, first you have to consider we are a very large country to begin with, 300 plus million people that's a lot of folks. The next unfortunate fact is America is chock full of total unbridled assholes. We are a multi cultural country and not everyone is on the same page in terms of ethnicity, race and religious background. Now if the driving force in reducing gun violence is gun control or banning a particular type of weapon or restricting it's fire power unfortunately that won't help. The only way to significantly reduce gun violence is to dismantle the Constitution and abolish the second amendment and confiscate and destroy all firearms from every citizen in the country and to decree the sale, possession and ownership of any firearm by a U.S. citizen a criminal offense. That's a tall order and would be the only way. In the initial process of it all there would be without a doubt many civilians, Military and Law Enforcement personnel killed. Only to give American citizens a false sense of security.

Jim

It's really misleading to compare the us murder rate to any other country. Wether your using the stats for or against guns. In America when ever a city has over 250k population the murder rate is almost always double that of the national average. That's how a state like New Hampshire can have no laws regarding carrying guns and Chicago where it was absolutely banned untill a year or two ago can be so completely different in murder stats. Chicago is a war zone yet n.h. Is one of the safest places to live. America has more large cities than the u.k. So comparing the two is basically useless for any side of the argument. If availability of guns were the problem why doesn't the places criminals go to get the guns not look like the place where the criminals use the guns? That's why a state like Texas with loose gun laws have cities like Huston with a very high murder rate and Illinois with perhaps the tightest gun laws have Chicago with very high murder rates. It's the amount of gangs that make a city bad not the amount of guns. The availability and type of weapons available have no effect on crimes committed with firearms. Otherwise there would be a notable difference between Huston and Chicago but there's not. Permits and licensing laws target the people who are not responsible for the murders we need laws that actually target criminals and we need to stop letting violent gang members out of jail early because of "good behavior". And yssup you do a lot of name calling without putting forward any intelligent arguements and your making yourself look pretty ignorant.

It's really misleading to compare the us murder rate to any other country. Wether your using the stats for or against guns. In America when ever a city has over 250k population the murder rate is almost always double that of the national average. That's how a state like New Hampshire can have no laws regarding carrying guns and Chicago where it was absolutely banned untill a year or two ago can be so completely different in murder stats. Chicago is a war zone yet n.h. Is one of the safest places to live. America has more large cities than the u.k. So comparing the two is basically useless for any side of the argument. If availability of guns were the problem why doesn't the places criminals go to get the guns not look like the place where the criminals use the guns? That's why a state like Texas with loose gun laws have cities like Huston with a very high murder rate and Illinois with perhaps the tightest gun laws have Chicago with very high murder rates. It's the amount of gangs that make a city bad not the amount of guns. The availability and type of weapons available have no effect on crimes committed with firearms. Otherwise there would be a notable difference between Huston and Chicago but there's not. Permits and licensing laws target the people who are not responsible for the murders we need laws that actually target criminals and we need to stop letting violent gang members out of jail early because of "good behavior". And yssup you do a lot of name calling without putting forward any intelligent arguements and your making yourself look pretty ignorant. Originally Posted by Allup-init

Yes, Illinois has initiated a Concealed Weapons Permit rather recently probably less than two years ago and Chicago's Murder rate has dropped since. Of course the Liberals in Illinois probably won't admit that the onset of a CCW permit has anything to do with their drop in gun related crime.


Jim

All those stats you're reading, first you have to consider we are a very large country to begin with, 300 plus million people that's a lot of folks. The next unfortunate fact is America is chock full of total unbridled assholes. We are a multi cultural country and not everyone is on the same page in terms of ethnicity, race and religious background. Now if the driving force in reducing gun violence is gun control or banning a particular type of weapon or restricting it's fire power unfortunately that won't help. The only way to significantly reduce gun violence is to dismantle the Constitution and abolish the second amendment and confiscate and destroy all firearms from every citizen in the country and to decree the sale, possession and ownership of any firearm by a U.S. citizen a criminal offense. That's a tall order and would be the only way. In the initial process of it all there would be without a doubt many civilians, Military and Law Enforcement personnel killed. Only to give American citizens a false sense of security.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

I don't disagree with what you are saying and I also understand the impossibility of doing so. We have to accept the system we have with the understanding that 10,000+ individuals will die from guns each year in this country. I don't like it anymore than you.

From JD Barleycorn;1055448576] I NEVER said that those countries had similar demographics. How astute of you. We are unique in the world with our demographics but you did touch on something without actually saying it. The United States has not one but at least two different racial minority populations with very large numbers. So what you bumped into but didn't want to say was that maybe racial problems have something to do with the crime rate? No thanks necessary for me to clarify what you tried to say.

Comparing the U.S. to countries like South Africa, El Salvador, Guatamala, Honduras, etc. is just stupid.

Yes and no to your racial point. Blacks have a disproportionate share of homicide deaths -- 13% of the population in 2010 and 55% of homicide victims. Whites were 65% of the population but only 25% of homicide victims. For Hispanics, it was 17% and 16%, so no difference.

Source: http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-num...micide-deaths/

So what difference does that make? It does not change the statistics. 10,000 homicides in the U.S. What is interesting to me is that the homicide rate of blacks has gone from 30 per 100,000 people to 15 from 1993 to 2010. The homicide rate for whites has remained the same. The actual deaths of blacks and whites from homicides in total is fairly equal.

(Krug 1998) EG Krug, KE Powell and LL Dahlberg. "Firearm-related deaths in the United States and 35 other high- and upper-middle-income countries.", International Journal of Epidemiology 1998. Statistics among 36 countries between 1990 and 1995.

As posted on Wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

There are at least 12 other countries with a higher firearm death rate. Most of them in South and Central America.

As for your statistics....we have more guns than anyone else in the world per capita and we have more people per capita that have not committed any sort of gun crime. You want to look at the 1% but I'm looking at the 99%. You have to ask yourself what does that 1% have in common. The actual number is really much smaller than 1% but I'm trying to make a point here about your concerns. I would bet that those people involved with gun deaths have had run ins with the law before.

Probably an incorrect assumption on your part, although I am finding it difficult to find information on gun homicides and whether or not the killer had committed a prior violent crime. As I've said MANY times before, it is most likely that if you are a victim of homicide, the killer will be someone you know.
To me, the fact that only 1% maximum of the population commits a homicide is meaningless. The fact we lead similar countries, BY FAR, in homicides per capita is the important statistic.

Source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...-homicide-data

In 2011, in incidents of murder for which the relationships of murder victims and offenders were known, 54.3 percent were killed by someone they knew (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.); 24.8 percent of victims were slain by family members. The relationship of murder victims and offenders was unknown in 44.1 percent of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter incidents in 2011.

Maybe saying that gun ownership is required is technically inaccurate but what would you call the exact opposite of countries that have strict prohibitions against ownership? Highly recommended that they own guns? I suppose we could look at Kennesaw, GA where gun ownership is required but not enforced. Isn't that an interesting difference? Where guns are banned they enforce the law with prison but guns are required they don't care whether you own one or not.

First, gun ownership is not "required" in Kennesaw, Ga households. That would be as unconstitutional as banning guns from households.

"There are many outs," he ( Kenneth Jones)said. "When you look at it, almost anyone could fit into one of the exempted groups." Among those exempt are residents "who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine." So it's basically impossible to prosecute a non gun owner there since the homeowner simply has to say it is against his/her beliefs.

Yes, Illinois has initiated a Concealed Weapons Permit rather recently probably less than two years ago and Chicago's Murder rate has dropped since. Of course the Liberals in Illinois probably won't admit that the onset of a CCW permit has anything to do with their drop in gun related crime.


Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

I have to ask you whether you think a handful of people carrying concealed handguns is going to stop criminal activity? I know in Texas less than 3% of ELIGIBLE people have CHLs. Doubtful that in Illinois, with the CHL law so new, that many people have signed up. Plus the requirements in Illinois are probably tougher than in Texas. For example, 16 hours of firearm training. And I'd be willing to bet that since Illinois is a blue state, other requirements to obtain a CHL will tend to be similar to those in N.Y. and N.J. Tough.

I sincerely doubt that the average criminal is even aware that more people might have a concealed handgun than in prior years.

Source: http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccap...tory/11204311/

"The tools that we have show a long-term, steady decline in violent crime and property crime both nationally," said James Brunet, an associate professor and crime expert at N.C. State's Department of Public Administration. "We really don't exactly know why. We've had so many different crime policies over the past 20 years which may have contributed to the drop, but we can't disentangle them."


Brunet said it's unlikely that any one policy is the "magic bullet" that has lowered crime.



"There's no firm, solid evidence that the growth in concealed weapons permits has contributed to a drop in crime rates," said James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University in Boston.


Among the reasons most criminologists think crime is dropping, he said, are better policing strategies, an end to the crack cocaine epidemic and high rates of incarceration. Even the fact that more Americans have cameras in their phones, and are able to capture crime as it happens, may have contributed.
Fox notes that crime rates have dropped even in states like Massachusetts, which have very restrictive gun laws.

I have to ask you whether you think a handful of people carrying concealed handguns is going to stop criminal activity? I know in Texas less than 3% of ELIGIBLE people have CHLs. Doubtful that in Illinois, with the CHL law so new, that many people have signed up. Plus the requirements in Illinois are probably tougher than in Texas. For example, 16 hours of firearm training. And I'd be willing to bet that since Illinois is a blue state, other requirements to obtain a CHL will tend to be similar to those in N.Y. and N.J. Tough.

I sincerely doubt that the average criminal is even aware that more people might have a concealed handgun than in prior years.

Source: http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccap...tory/11204311/

"The tools that we have show a long-term, steady decline in violent crime and property crime both nationally," said James Brunet, an associate professor and crime expert at N.C. State's Department of Public Administration. "We really don't exactly know why. We've had so many different crime policies over the past 20 years which may have contributed to the drop, but we can't disentangle them."


Brunet said it's unlikely that any one policy is the "magic bullet" that has lowered crime.



"There's no firm, solid evidence that the growth in concealed weapons permits has contributed to a drop in crime rates," said James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University in Boston.


Among the reasons most criminologists think crime is dropping, he said, are better policing strategies, an end to the crack cocaine epidemic and high rates of incarceration. Even the fact that more Americans have cameras in their phones, and are able to capture crime as it happens, may have contributed.
Fox notes that crime rates have dropped even in states like Massachusetts, which have very restrictive gun laws. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

That's always been a great debate, whether a CHL will drop violent crime. Unfortunately there probably isn't any real hard evidence to approve or disprove it. I think most debates on the subjects are a matter of opinion. I might add this. Articles like the one you posted written by Criminologist are sometimes a little one sided, for one thing Criminologist study crime in a general statistical sense in terms of locations, ethnics, environment things like that. On the other hand people in the field of Forensic psychology study the criminal mind. They study how criminals behave and how they function in society. I guess we have to ask ourselves this question, how would a criminal who would be prone to violent acts view others of society who are law abiding and generally non violent carrying concealed hand guns? The possibility of a criminal not knowing who's armed and who isn't could be a deterrent and would other citizens who might be armed assist the victim. So these elements of uncertainty could cause criminals to be less engaging on the general public. I'll leave you with this. Do you think an armed robber would go into a convenience store and hold up the place if two cops were in there drinking coffee and shooting the shit? I would have to guess a big hell no. It's not because they are cops and have radios, pressed uniforms or drive pretty cars with lights on top, no. It's because they have guns and it's a dam good chance they know how to use them, lol. The same thing may hold true for private citizens. If a criminal knows you're armed or even thinks you might be armed they may just move on. Opposition isn't their thing.

Jim

I never said anything like that. Making something legal in one state makes it easier for people in nearby states to obtain it. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

So.. years ago when Colorado and Washington had not passed laws making it legal, when marijuana was ILLEGAL in all 50 states, by your reasoning, it should have been impossible to acquire, since you and the other anti-gun folks seem to believe that if you could just make all the guns illegal, the problems would stop. So.. do you remember marijuana being impossible to procure when it was illegal in all 50 states? Then why do you believe that guns will be impossible to procure if they were made illegal in all 50 states?

That's always been a great debate, whether a CHL will drop violent crime. Unfortunately there probably isn't any real hard evidence to approve or disprove it. I think most debates on the subjects are a matter of opinion. I might add this. Articles like the one you posted written by Criminologist are sometimes a little one sided, for one thing Criminologist study crime in a general statistical sense in terms of locations, ethnics, environment things like that. On the other hand people in the field of Forensic psychology study the criminal mind. They study how criminals behave and how they function in society. I guess we have to ask ourselves this question, how would a criminal who would be prone to violent acts view others of society who are law abiding and generally non violent carrying concealed hand guns? The possibility of a criminal not knowing who's armed and who isn't could be a deterrent and would other citizens who might be armed assist the victim. So these elements of uncertainty could cause criminals to be less engaging on the general public. I'll leave you with this. Do you think an armed robber would go into a convenience store and hold up the place if two cops were in there drinking coffee and shooting the shit? I would have to guess a big hell no. It's not because they are cops and have radios, pressed uniforms or drive pretty cars with lights on top, no. It's because they have guns and it's a dam good chance they know how to use them, lol. The same thing may hold true for private citizens. If a criminal knows you're armed or even thinks you might be armed they may just move on. Opposition isn't their thing.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

I agree for the most part with you. Criminals are not idiots. Most are going to commit crimes when the odds are in their favor that they will get away with it and not get caught. What I don't believe is that criminals have any idea what the CHL laws are in the city in which they live. If they knew that less than 3% of eligible people in Texas have CHLs would they or would they not increase or decrease their activity? I have no idea.

BTW, I enjoy discussing issues with you. Unlike certain other individuals, your statements are well thought out and expressed.

So.. years ago when Colorado and Washington had not passed laws making it legal, when marijuana was ILLEGAL in all 50 states, by your reasoning, it should have been impossible to acquire, since you and the other anti-gun folks seem to believe that if you could just make all the guns illegal, the problems would stop. So.. do you remember marijuana being impossible to procure when it was illegal in all 50 states? Then why do you believe that guns will be impossible to procure if they were made illegal in all 50 states? Originally Posted by RedLeg505

You have a way to twist statements to your liking. I never said that anything, whether it be marijuana or guns, could not be obtained if it were illegal. NY has made it VERY difficult for people, whether law-abiding or criminals, to obtain guns. THAT IS A FACT.

The following text in blue is about 8 police offers shot in NYC from then-Mayor
Michael Bloomberg.

Source: http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/...of-state-guns/

He (Blomberg) added: “All the shootings have a disgraceful fact in common: all were committed with illegal guns that came from out of state. And that is the case with nearly every shooting in our city.”

Those who oppose restrictions on gun ownership might argue that New York’s strict laws don’t seem to stop this sort of crime. Others, including me, see it as a national problem when someone can buy a firearm in a state that’s soft on guns, carry it into another state and shoot four cops. It’s a national problem that requires national standards.

So criminals in NYC are unable to obtain guns in NY state. Therefore they head to other states where it is obviously easier to purchase handguns and bring them back to NY. So the question is, what if other states enacted gun control laws that were similar to NY's? First, I know this won't happen. But is impossible to say whether of not it would work. I'm sure you would disagree.

BTW. I dislike being termed "anti-gun". I support your right to have a handgun, or any other LEGAL weapon, in your home. I support your right to have a handgun in your car. I support your right to carry a concealed handgun as long as you follow the CHL laws in your state. I would hardly call wanting measures taken to try to decrease the 10,000+ handgun homicides in this country makes me "anti-gun". Hopefully you would be in favor or lowering that number too. We probably disagree on how to do it.

"the God-given right to defend yourself with weapons, and to protect yourself and your country from tyranny..."


http://www.chuckhawks.com/we_are_wrong_gun_rights.htm






.

We have to accept the system we have with the understanding that 10,000+ individuals will die from guns each year in this country. I don't like it anymore than you. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Ah yes, the often trotted out 10,000+ gun deaths each year number. Funny how the FBI data doesn't support that:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004888.html

From those numbers, our "high water mark" for murders of all types peaked in 1993 at 23,189, with 69.6% caused by guns (total 16,136).. and that the numbers have been DROPPING since then to the most recent year of 2011 where a total of 12,664 murders, but only 8,583 or 67.7 percent caused by guns of all types. Some have tried to argue that the drop was due to the Assault Weapon Ban that went into effect in 1994. If that were true, then when the ban expired in 2004, the numbers should have gone back up... and as you can see from the data, it didn't.

Now.. for the real quiz winner. What happened about 1993 and has increased exponentially since then until today? Here's a hint. Go look up the number of people licensed to carry concealed in their state(s). What's your guess? Has the number increased or decreased? Have you heard the "Fox Butterfield" argument? "I have no idea why so many more people are getting licenses to carry guns, since the murder rate is dropping". Gee, why in the world would that be happening?