guns v murder rate

[dairygirl4u2c]

On 7/21/2017 at 5:07 PM, Mr Cameron said:

If anything, guns prevent more murder than cause it. Protection anyone?

the states and geographical areas with more guns have more murders. thats a fact. 

the states with more gun control laws have the least murders and those with less gun control laws have the most murders. 

women are five times more likely to die if her significant other has a gun in domestic violence situations. pare that with the fact that not all people who are denied a gun will run out and get one illegally, and you have a no nonsense common sense proof that gun control saves some lives. 

this is all based on science. if you have any reason other than your fantasy for thinking otherwise, please let us know. 

[Mr Cameron]

2 hours ago, dairygirl4u2c said:

the states and geographical areas with more guns have more murders. thats a fact. 

the states with more gun control laws have the least murders and those with less gun control laws have the most murders. 

women are five times more likely to die if her significant other has a gun in domestic violence situations. pare that with the fact that not all people who are denied a gun will run out and get one illegally, and you have a no nonsense common sense proof that gun control saves some lives. 

this is all based on science. if you have any reason other than your fantasy for thinking otherwise, please let us know. 

Unfortunately, it depends on your data and which one you choose to believe. We have gun control in Newfoundland, and here people still are murdered because we cannot protect ourselves with the strength of firearms. 

Imagine this. Someone busts into your home with a gun wanting to kill you. You're going to die, because none of us sleep with bulletproof doors or vests, and glass shatters from a fist, let alone a bullet. I know that I feel a lot safer knowing that we have hunting guns, but if we use them for protection? We're more likely to be put in gaol than the intruder. Therefore, if someone is coming at me with a gun, I'd appreciate having a gun to fight back. Especially when my four-year-old nephew is over with me. 

I don't think we can call many of the studies done, 'scientific.' Data depends on reports, and when politics are involved you be surprised how suddenly a study group will drop 'prevented murders' because we can't read the intentions of someone's mind. 

Now, I'm not afraid to be wrong and I will admit it when I'm proven to be, but a lot of studies also report that guns prevent more deaths than cause them. I encourage you to take a look at the three links I have supplied. Only this morning did I read another story about a gentleman in the States who shot two armed intruders, preventing any chance of injury toward his girlfriend and two-year-old child. 

[little2add]

A nice contrast to Chicago for a natural experiment is Houston. Houston is very similar to Chicago in terms of socioeconomic factors such as population, density, and segregation. Houston, like Chicago, is a major center for illegal activities such as the drug trade and human trafficking. Despite all this, Houston has a murder rate two-thirds that of Chicago. This is because the people of Houston are well armed, while innocents in Chicago have been condemned to be sitting ducks.

For those paying attention, the carnage–and the possibility for more carnage–in Chicago has been evident for quite some time. After all, Chicago is a gun control experiment gone wrong; a city which enacted a total handgun ban in 1982, thereby guaranteeing that the only people who had handguns were the criminals. Law-abiding citizens were reduced to using baseball bats, sticks, pitchforks, etc., for self-defense.  And the results were easy to predict–the Tribune reported the decade following the implementation of Chicago’s ban saw “murders [jump] by 41 percent, compared with an 18 percent rise in the entire United States.”

[dairygirl4u2c]

18 hours ago, Mr Cameron said:

Unfortunately, it depends on your data and which one you choose to believe. We have gun control in Newfoundland, and here people still are murdered because we cannot protect ourselves with the strength of firearms. 

Imagine this. Someone busts into your home with a gun wanting to kill you. You're going to die, because none of us sleep with bulletproof doors or vests, and glass shatters from a fist, let alone a bullet. I know that I feel a lot safer knowing that we have hunting guns, but if we use them for protection? We're more likely to be put in gaol than the intruder. Therefore, if someone is coming at me with a gun, I'd appreciate having a gun to fight back. Especially when my four-year-old nephew is over with me. 

I don't think we can call many of the studies done, 'scientific.' Data depends on reports, and when politics are involved you be surprised how suddenly a study group will drop 'prevented murders' because we can't read the intentions of someone's mind. 

Now, I'm not afraid to be wrong and I will admit it when I'm proven to be, but a lot of studies also report that guns prevent more deaths than cause them. I encourage you to take a look at the three links I have supplied. Only this morning did I read another story about a gentleman in the States who shot two armed intruders, preventing any chance of injury toward his girlfriend and two-year-old child. 

 

the one link shows simply that the guns in the US have increased but crime has decreased. that is just an anomoly. studies consistently show that where there are more guns there is more murder. you would be hard pressed if you actually did a literature review to find more than a few people who actually contest this. and the few people who you find to support your position are widely debunked. take your links constantly citing the debunked ideas of Kleck. i dont have all the details but these types of people usually dont control for other factors such as poverty when looking at murder rates. and for kleck's data to be correct there would be more uses of guns in defensive use than in perpetrater use when we know this isn't the case. here is a sample of some other of his problems... 

http://www.vacps.org/public-policy/the-contradictions-of-kleck

seriously do a literature review of the studies i provided. it's uncanny how often people will cite the scant and same old stuff despite the overwhelming volume of counter data. when you talk about factual info people's eyes glaze over and they often revert to 'it must be open for debate', but if you actually research it you'll find it's not really.

here is a harvard researcher who did such a literature review...

"Hemenway and coauthor Lisa M. Hepburn reviewed research from peer-reviewed journals and found that the evidence from studies of U.S. cities, states and regions “is quite consistent … where there are higher levels of gun prevalence, homicide rates are substantially higher, primarily due to higher firearm homicide rates.” "

trust me, i can cite you many links and papers supporting my assertions. i have them available i'm just to lazy to copy and paste. i'm sure i can predict the few people you would find if you tried to find counter data. that's proof your position is weak... your studies are predictable and few, i can find countless people who support me. 
 

[Mr Cameron]

10 minutes ago, dairygirl4u2c said:

 

the one link shows simply that the guns in the US have increased but crime has decreased. that is just an anomoly. studies consistently show that where there are more guns there is more murder. you would be hard pressed if you actually did a literature review to find more than a few people who actually contest this. and the few people who you find to support your position are widely debunked. take your links constantly citing the debunked ideas of Kleck. i dont have all the details but these types of people usually dont control for other factors such as poverty when looking at murder rates. and for kleck's data to be correct there would be more uses of guns in defensive use than in perpetrater use when we know this isn't the case. here is a sample of some other of his problems... 

http://www.vacps.org/public-policy/the-contradictions-of-kleck

seriously do a literature review of the studies i provided. it's uncanny how often people will cite the scant and same old stuff despite the overwhelming volume of counter data. when you talk about factual info people's eyes glaze over and they often revert to 'it must be open for debate', but if you actually research it you'll find it's not really.

here is a harvard researcher who did such a literature review...

"Hemenway and coauthor Lisa M. Hepburn reviewed research from peer-reviewed journals and found that the evidence from studies of U.S. cities, states and regions “is quite consistent … where there are higher levels of gun prevalence, homicide rates are substantially higher, primarily due to higher firearm homicide rates.” "

trust me, i can cite you many links and papers supporting my assertions. i have them available i'm just to lazy to copy and paste. i'm sure i can predict the few people you would find if you tried to find counter data. that's proof your position is weak... your studies are predictable and few, i can find countless people who support me. 
 

Your devotion to this argument is admirable, and thank you for your sources. All of our data, naturally, is going to support each of our individual opinions. Some of my links are independent studies, separated from any non-profit or agenda-oriented group, unlike yours. However, I assume you are an American and live in an American environment, for which you are very lucky. I don't know if homicide rates are higher, but you seem to be ignoring what I state and what my links confirm: where there are guns, it is easier to prevent said violence. 

One poster above relates the story of Chicago. This is the story of Newfoundland, of England, of Norway. Only criminals have access to guns, because what occurs underground, occurs below the gaze of our unfortunately ignorant governments. You are privileged to reside in a country that recognises the rights you have to protect yourself and your family. This is my theme here. Protection is the main thing. I'll repeat myself. If you are home, and an individual forced him/her self in your home and you have a family to protect, the chances are that they will have a gun or a knife. How do you want to protect yourself? In a moment like this, wouldn't you wish you had a gun? Or would you submit to being harmed in a potentially fatal way, and accept the grief and failure knowing you have a dead wife or husband, son or daughter? 

Prohibition of weapons also does not guarantee total unavailability of the same. If someone wants a gun, trust me: they can get one. 

[dairygirl4u2c]

4 hours ago, Mr Cameron said:

Your devotion to this argument is admirable, and thank you for your sources. All of our data, naturally, is going to support each of our individual opinions. Some of my links are independent studies, separated from any non-profit or agenda-oriented group, unlike yours. However, I assume you are an American and live in an American environment, for which you are very lucky. I don't know if homicide rates are higher, but you seem to be ignoring what I state and what my links confirm: where there are guns, it is easier to prevent said violence. 

One poster above relates the story of Chicago. This is the story of Newfoundland, of England, of Norway. Only criminals have access to guns, because what occurs underground, occurs below the gaze of our unfortunately ignorant governments. You are privileged to reside in a country that recognises the rights you have to protect yourself and your family. This is my theme here. Protection is the main thing. I'll repeat myself. If you are home, and an individual forced him/her self in your home and you have a family to protect, the chances are that they will have a gun or a knife. How do you want to protect yourself? In a moment like this, wouldn't you wish you had a gun? Or would you submit to being harmed in a potentially fatal way, and accept the grief and failure knowing you have a dead wife or husband, son or daughter? 

Prohibition of weapons also does not guarantee total unavailability of the same. If someone wants a gun, trust me: they can get one. 

i can sympathize with the desire to defend oneself but you have to recognize promoting guns will only promote more murder overall. you have an increased need for a gun to defend yourself, only because there's an increased level of guns. also criminals dont say to themselves 'gee there is a higher gun per capita situation here i better watch out'. there is some deterrence, but no one is trying to disarm the populace just trying to promote policies to reduce the number of guns out there... there will still be general deterrence even with most liberal gun views in effect. 

my sources if i were to put them here are from universities and academics mostly, and other independent. again, i dont see credible contrary evidence against the specific conclusions i posted about, namely where there are more guns, there is more murder, and where there is more gun control there is less murder. if you have any examples that are different than the norm then they are simply outliers. 
 

or you can look at gun researchers themselves. in a poll, ninety percent say more gun control means less death. 

 for every perpetrator who dies in self defense, another thirty people are murdered

i dont have the stat off hand but you're also more likely to die in an intruder situation if you have a gun yourself.

i can see a person who overlooks all ive posted just in hte name of self defense rights, but you can't deny it all comes at a cost?

[Mr Cameron]

29 minutes ago, dairygirl4u2c said:

i can sympathize with the desire to defend oneself but you have to recognize promoting guns will only promote more murder overall. you have an increased need for a gun to defend yourself, only because there's an increased level of guns. also criminals dont say to themselves 'gee there is a higher gun per capita situation here i better watch out'. there is some deterrence, but no one is trying to disarm the populace just trying to promote policies to reduce the number of guns out there... there will still be general deterrence even with most liberal gun views in effect. 

my sources if i were to put them here are from universities and academics mostly, and other independent. again, i dont see credible contrary evidence against the specific conclusions i posted about, namely where there are more guns, there is more murder, and where there is more gun control there is less murder. if you have any examples that are different than the norm then they are simply outliers. 
 

or you can look at gun researchers themselves. in a poll, ninety percent say more gun control means less death. 

 for every perpetrator who dies in self defense, another thirty people are murdered

i dont have the stat off hand but you're also more likely to die in an intruder situation if you have a gun yourself.

i can see a person who overlooks all ive posted just in hte name of self defense rights, but you can't deny it all comes at a cost?

It appears my words lack substance, but I'll explain another reason why I disagree with gun control. Your economy is basically dependent upon it. Or, it is a major factor. There are millions of family-run, company owned, independent and corporate gun manufacturers, shooting ranges, hunters. There's an NRA, Gun Unions, Catholic Gun Guilds. Guns are made from metal, and bullets as well. Go down the economic chain, and you can see how disruptive a gun ban would be on your economy, and therefore the rest of the world's. 

The government exists to be our slave, and not our master. Bans, in general, are bad when they're against a morally neutral machine. As pointed out by another user, prohibition never works. The user of the gun is the problem, not the gun itself. But your studies, I still can't believe because most of them are published by sociologists. Sociology is the Democrat's religion, because they twist the field to their own devices and agreement, especially when liberal Universities are concerned. I only know this because I am surrounded by academia 100% of the time. You can get a report to fit your agenda if you have the money, and know the right minds. 

What's this about being more likely to die in a home invasion, if you have a gun? Unless the shock of an intruder makes one instantly suicidal, I don't understand how it is a possible statistic? 

[dairygirl4u2c]

2 minutes ago, Mr Cameron said:

It appears my words lack substance, but I'll explain another reason why I disagree with gun control. Your economy is basically dependent upon it. Or, it is a major factor. There are millions of family-run, company owned, independent and corporate gun manufacturers, shooting ranges, hunters. There's an NRA, Gun Unions, Catholic Gun Guilds. Guns are made from metal, and bullets as well. Go down the economic chain, and you can see how disruptive a gun ban would be on your economy, and therefore the rest of the world's. 

The government exists to be our slave, and not our master. Bans, in general, are bad when they're against a morally neutral machine. As pointed out by another user, prohibition never works. The user of the gun is the problem, not the gun itself. But your studies, I still can't believe because most of them are published by sociologists. Sociology is the Democrat's religion, because they twist the field to their own devices and agreement, especially when liberal Universities are concerned. I only know this because I am surrounded by academia 100% of the time. You can get a report to fit your agenda if you have the money, and know the right minds. 

What's this about being more likely to die in a home invasion, if you have a gun? Unless the shock of an intruder makes one instantly suicidal, I don't understand how it is a possible statistic? 

you're more likely to die probably because you're more likely to engage the enemy. 

i dont think you can argue you can find a study to prove any position you want. the specific conclusions ive shown have not been debunked by you or anyone else that ive seen, and they show there is more consistency in the studies i promote. i acknowledge even if i quibble with your data that you can find evidence having guns can sometimes deter crime. 

i dont think you should worry your words are ringing hollow. we're both being kind of nebulous in what exactly our points are. you argue gun bans are bad. i dont try to tackle that, though i could give you evidnce to the contrary. i argued the specific points about gun v murder etc, and all you post is factoids about deterrence. a lot of what we're doing is talking past each other. 

except to say i still dont see how you could deny that having guns rights comes at the expense of more problems?

i guess you point out all hte defensive use of guns, and i point out the trend of guns v murders. it seems my stat trumps yours cause of course there will be more defensive use of guns where there are more guns but that doesn't say anything about hte number of murders. 

[Mr Cameron]

3 minutes ago, dairygirl4u2c said:

you're more likely to die probably because you're more likely to engage the enemy. 

i dont think you can argue you can find a study to prove any position you want. the specific conclusions ive shown have not been debunked by you or anyone else that ive seen, and they show there is more consistency in the studies i promote. i acknowledge even if i quibble with your data that you can find evidence having guns can sometimes deter crime. 

i dont think you should worry your words are ringing hollow. we're both being kind of nebulous in what exactly our points are. you argue gun bans are bad. i dont try to tackle that, though i could give you evidnce to the contrary. i argued the specific points about gun v murder etc, and all you post is factoids about deterrence. a lot of what we're doing is talking past each other. 

except to say i still dont see how you could deny that having guns rights comes at the expense of more problems?

i guess you point out all hte defensive use of guns, and i point out the trend of guns v murders. it seems my stat trumps yours cause of course there will be more defensive use of guns where there are more guns but that doesn't say anything about hte number of murders. 

I also understand your corollary, but I think and the American public tends to agree (look who is president) that gun control would be disastrous. 

[dairygirl4u2c]

3 minutes ago, Mr Cameron said:

I also understand your corollary, but I think and the American public tends to agree (look who is president) that gun control would be disastrous. 

i'm not sure about that. ninety percent of people support background checks for guns. i know people quibble about what exactly the public supports but that is a general statistic that is hard to deny. the main reason we dont see more progress on gun control is because there is a vocal minority and strong special interests like the NRA. i also would quibble with the idea that more gun control would be disasterous... the studies i show show the top ten states with more gun control have less death and vice versa and back that trend. all i see saying otherwise are outliers. we can quibble about what type of gun control is good or not but i can't see making blanket statements like you did. i might even be able to see if concealed carry might cause some more deterrence than without it. i dont claim to know it all and that's a reasonable prediction.

[Mr Cameron]

7 minutes ago, dairygirl4u2c said:

i'm not sure about that. ninety percent of people support background checks for guns. i know people quibble about what exactly the public supports but that is a general statistic that is hard to deny. the main reason we dont see more progress on gun control is because there is a vocal minority and strong special interests like the NRA. i also would quibble with the idea that more gun control would be disasterous... the studies i show show the top ten states with more gun control have less death and vice versa and back that trend. all i see saying otherwise are outliers. we can quibble about what type of gun control is good or not but i can't see making blanket statements like you did. i might even be able to see if concealed carry might cause some more deterrence than without it. i dont claim to know it all and that's a reasonable prediction.

With that said, most of the gun deaths in the US are suicides, followed by self defence. I assume many Americans see gun ownership as a right inalienable.

[dairygirl4u2c]

'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

 

im sure most people think of a gun as a right reglardless of what the second amendment says. 

but if you look at the historical usage of the phrase "bare arms', it almost always meant usage in a militia. given the second amendment starts out talking about a militia and ends that way too, it seems it's an amendment about militias. "people have a right to a gun in a militia' perhaps 'for a militia'. that is the fairest way of reading it in my mind. you could focus on the word 'keep', in the 'keep and bare arms', but you are going against the most straightforward interpretation and ignoring all hte militia context.

i have some great source on 'bare arms' in historical use if you are interested. 

[linate]

also if you look at the constitutional convention, you can try hard as you may, and squint really hard, but there is no mention of the right of individuals to have guns.... they talked emphatically only about the need for militias. 

[fides' Jack]

In response to Dairy, the right to "bare arms" is quite unfortunate, and has resulted in many becoming hicks without sleeves - which, I think we can all agree, is simply distasteful.  But that's a right that no one can take away except for dress codes in privately-owned establishments.

[DaveGrey]

Being the only one who voted "a little more likely," I think I should probably explain myself.

A gun won't necessarily motivate someone to commit murder. The desire to commit murder more often stems from out of control emotions, such as anger. A gun, however, may increase that person's chances of actually going through with a murder, because it can give that person a sense of power. I'm not particularly muscular or anything, so if I were really mad at someone (this is just an example, I wouldn't murder someone in the first place), and if I were unarmed, I would probably just go brood darkly about it. But if I owned a gun of some sort, I must say that the temptation to cause harm to/kill that person is that much stronger. (Again, I would never kill someone, this is just an example)

I still don't think that banning guns would help a thing, though. There are plenty of levelheaded people out there who are perfectly trustable with a firearm. But, there are also many people who are somewhat unstable. That's why I believe in medical and criminal background checks for weapons, because that will help keep at least some guns out of the wrong hands. Of course, there is the criminal underworld, where they can get guns regardless of their mental health or other status, but that is something that would have to be dealt with by use of law enforcement personnel.