No one's talking gun control.
No one.
And I'm not, either.
What I would be talking about would be a 30-day waiting period for gun purchases. I'd be talking about background checks for criminal and mental health records of the purchaser. Then, put back into law the assault weapons ban. Automatic weapons aren't for hunting. They're only for mowing down large quantities of people at a rapid rate. That's all.
That's not "gun control."
It's common sense.
And today is a damned fine day to start discussing it, at least.
It won't happen but it should.
And until it does, we'll continue to have mass shootings in this crazy nation.
If you'd care to join the effort to reduce or stop this insanity, go to one of these two links and join, please:
http://www.bradycenter.org/
http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/home/home.shtml
Thank you in advance.
Link: http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/in-china-22-school-students-stabbed_816680.html
Posts
43 comments:
You don't really want to treat guns and cars the same--that's way too pro-gun. All the regulations that you are talking about only apply to cars operated on public streets--there are almost no restrictions on vehicles used on private property.
Titles and tags--only for guns/cars used in public
Driver training--only necessary for guns/cars used or carried in public, starting at age 16 and taught in high school.
Written/practical test: only necessary for guns or cars used in public.
Health requirements: Only one I'm aware of for cars is vision, and possibly seizures--and seizures aren't as significant with guns.
Liability insurance--with similar limits and restrictions, would cost almost nothing, based on the actuarial data from people with carry licenses. And only needed if the gun/car is operated in public...
Renewals and inspections for guns/cars used in public.
How about similar penalties for gun and car misuse--Minor gun accident that injures someone, covered by insurance and a small fine, you would have to carry a gun while drunk several times before permanently losing your license to carry?
Publicly subsidized options for those who don't want to carry their own gun/drive their own car?
No limits to the power or speed of a gun/car that isn't used on public streets?
And there are LOTS of people talking gun control...including controls on the gun that the school shooter left in his car and didn't use.
You don't really want to treat guns and cars the same--that's way too pro-gun. All the regulations that you are talking about only apply to cars operated on public streets--there are almost no restrictions on vehicles used on private property.
Titles and tags--only for guns/cars used in public
Driver training--only necessary for guns/cars used or carried in public, starting at age 16 and taught in high school.
Written/practical test: only necessary for guns or cars used in public.
Health requirements: Only one I'm aware of for cars is vision, and possibly seizures--and seizures aren't as significant with guns.
Liability insurance--with similar limits and restrictions, would cost almost nothing, based on the actuarial data from people with carry licenses. And only needed if the gun/car is operated in public...
Renewals and inspections for guns/cars used in public.
How about similar penalties for gun and car misuse--Minor gun accident that injures someone, covered by insurance and a small fine, you would have to carry a gun while drunk several times before permanently losing your license to carry?
Publicly subsidized options for those who don't want to carry their own gun/drive their own car?
No limits to the power or speed of a gun/car that isn't used on public streets?
And there are LOTS of people talking gun control...including controls on the gun that the school shooter left in his car and didn't use.
I'm sure you won't post this. Here's your basic error. A vehicle ownership and a driver's license are A PRIVILEGE granted to you by the State in which you reside. Firearms' ownership IS A RIGHT. Comparing the two is like comparing apples to oranges. Just because someone abuses the rights we are all entitled you, the government does NOT have a right to revoke the rights of all others because of what someone else MAY DO in the future. Examine the political affiliations and sympathies of every one of these despicable psychopathic shooters, from Malvo, Boyd, Cho, Holmes, Lanza and the latest Officer Dorner of the LAPD. The USA has been AWASH in firearms for a very long time. Apart from the Texas Tower Shooter, who was found to have a LARGE TUMOR in his brain, all of these mass shootings have been in the age of unprecedented graphic violence on movies and TV, and interactive video games also featuring unprecedented levels of graphic violence. The breakdown of the family unit and widespread divorce/single parent families/DRUGS/and inner city gangs are also major factors. There's a reason there is a BAN on firearms research now: The statistics do NOT support the arguments of those supporting more restricted gun controls. See http://assaultweaponsbanof2013.blogspot.com for US Department of Justice Reports you can download free in their original format, size and even color. When the statistics don't support the gun-banners, and the US Department of Justice cannot be forced to knuckle under and cook their books, the next best thing is to dry up their funding so that you are not contradicted and confounded with INCONVENIENT TRUTHS. A retired Criminal Justice Professional and Researcher. Let's see if you also don't believe in the 1st Amendment-although here, you as the moderator, are entitled to either grant the privilege of posting here or deny it.
Vehicle ownership and driving it upon public roads IS A PRIVILEGE granted on you by the State.
Firearms ownership and the owning weapons comparable to what a criminal might use on you IS A RIGHT.
You're comparing apples to oranges.
http://assaultweaponsbanof2013.blogspot.com. If you really wanted folks to leave a comment, you wouldn't wipe out their comments the first time they posted even after signing in. Let's see how this comment is handled and whether or not you also do not believe in the 1st Amendment as well. Surprise me.
BTW, I just read your excellent post on the massacre at Tulsa, OK, in 1921. And after THAT you still want to disarm the public? I am a TRUE Liberal- for equal rights for all, yes, even gay rights to marriage, a woman's right to choose termination of an unwanted pregnancy AND Americans' rights to own weapons. The 2nd Amendment doesn't detail that Americans could own bows, spears, swords, crossbows, pikes, slingshots, etc. but not muskets, the "weapons of mass destruction of the day". The Founders meant us to have firepower EQUAL to any would be tyrant's. When you are A TRUE LIBERAL you stubbornly Believe in the Bill of Rights applying to ALL men, women, boys and girls, and its application to MAXIMIZE the freedoms we all enjoy. True Liberals don't believe in narrowly interpreting the Bill of Rights in order to MAXIMIZE the government's rights and diminish those of The People.
Okay, first things, first, Mr. Taylor--you're mistaken. Why you would assume I wouldn't post your diatribe, I can't imagine unless it was some challenge to "make me" post it, which it likely was, on your part.
Whatever.
And here's your basic error in your thinking with weapons: even rights must have limits, like speech or whatever. Assault weapons were expressly made for battlefields and for places of war. They have no place in an intelligent society. It's not as though those who want weapons won't have them just because we outlaw the manufacture and sales of new assault weapons.
Rest assured, Mr. Taylor, you and your friends will still have plenty, plenty of weapons. No one's coming to get them, heaven forbid. This is America, after all.
Eliminating assault weapons, having background checks for mental stability and criminal backgrounds and having a waiting period of some sort for weapons purchases are just 3 easy, again, intelligent, workable and practical things we need in the US and as soon as possible.
Don't get your knickers in a twist. We'll still have weapons--and plenty of them--here in the good old USA.
And the "reason there is a BAN on firearms research now" is because the NRA bought and paid for our government representatives to quash it all. It's one more clear reason why we need to kill "campaign contributions" so we can get our government back for the people, instead of for the weallthy and corporations.
As for your claim that "The statistics do NOT support the arguments of those supporting more restricted gun controls", clearly you haven't seen the many studies done at and by Harvard scientists:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
Not that you'll a) read any or b) have an open mind, far from it, I'm sure.
I don't know what you're ranting on about in that 2nd note, saying "If you really wanted folks to leave a comment, you wouldn't wipe out their comments the first time they posted even after signing in."
An emotional one, clearly.
If you think, Mr. Taylor, that you're going to somehow be able to protect your family from some very imaginary attack from the federal government or, bigger yet, save the nation from same, you watch far too many movies. "Red Dawn" I and II, no doubt.
And the government--we, the people--do, in fact, have a right to limit rights, like we do with speech and other rights, as I said here earlier. Rights are not unlimited, like it or not.
I'm glad you enjoyed my post on the Tulsa massacre.
That said, if you think all those black Americans in the Tulsa area back in 1921 could have, with more weapons, stopped the attack on them, outnumbered as they were, you are sorely mistaken. The NRA's mantra of "MORE GUNS" rarely, very rarely works or helps, as we're witnessing here in America, nearly every day.
even rights must have limits, like speech or whatever.
Almost every gun nut would be very, very happy if the second amendment were treated the same as the first amendment, with similar limits on both our gun rights, and the ability of governemnt to restrict those rights.
Assault weapons were expressly made for battlefields and for places of war.
Assault RIFLES were expressly made for battlefields, but those are already almost banned, since unlike assault wepaons they are fully automatic machine guns. Almost every American policeman carries an assault weapon in his holster, most of those have not been used by a major military.
Going back, bolt action hunting rifles are almost all based on the Mauser military rifle, designed expressly for the battlefield. Most rifles through history were originally battlefield weapons, expressly designed for the military, only later adapted for civilian use.
They have no place in an intelligent society.
I'd love to live in a society where guns were not and never would be necessary. By definition it would be a society where there was almost no violence, and therefore no reason to ban guns. But gun violence isn't the only reason guns are needed, and banning guns (even if fully successful) would not eliminate the need for guns.
It's not as though those who want weapons won't have them just because we outlaw the manufacture and sales of new assault weapons.
You've called for a ban on assault weapons, semiautomatic weapons, and the caliber of bullet that Barney Fife carried in his pocket. Logic would assume that if you want to ban Barney's bullet, you would want to ban anything stronger. You leave almost nothing--How do you feel about Saturday Night Specials?
You say:
"Almost every gun nut would be very, very happy if the second amendment were treated the same as the first amendment, with similar limits on both our gun rights, and the ability of governemnt to restrict those rights."
Oh, please. The NRA and all their followers, members or no, over-react hugely, any time gov't even suggests we need to do something about the deaths in the country.
I stick by what I say. It makes sense. Assault weapons have no place in our society. They make no sense. They have no place here. We need to first reduce their availability, then rid the nation of them, however long that takes. You and I will never agree but I--and a lot of us out here--want far fewer shootings and killings in America and know there are a few, simple, again, intelligent things we can and should do to get there.
I actually only called for a ban on assault weapons, based on lethality, that's all. I said nothing, ever, here or otherwise, about a ban on a bullet, Barney Fife's or anyone else's. You clearly must have me confused with someone else.
I would, however, call for a ban on armor piercing bullets, I will give you that. That, too, makes eminent sense.
Now that you asked, "Saturday Night Specials" have only been used in shootings and killings and, prior to assault weapons, were the big problem on the street. Right now, I think it's important to focus on assault weapons. It's "lower hanging fruit", so to speak.
Almost all communication and religion is protected, with a very few very narrow exceptions. Maybe banning grenades and full auto machine guns would be an equivalent exception--but banning the majority of guns invented after 1900 is considerably more restrictive than laws on libel.
You have called for banning .38 specials here:
I think it's only important to ban the 38 special, which kills, it's estimated 10,000 Americans each year and is almost solely designed for this purpose
http://moravings.blogspot.com/2010/01/here-we-go-again-this-time-with-another.html
That's the type of bullet and gun Barney used--possibly the most common police handgun of all time (certainly the most common back then), and second most common handgun after the .22 rimfire.
Based on your answer to that same post, I'll assume you are still talking about semiautomatic rifles when you say "assault weapon". The media sensationalizes "assault weapons", but based on FBI statistics, rifles of all kinds are relatively rarely used in murders--Hammers and clubs are more common murder weapons than rifles.
The "Saturday night special" has more commonly been known, even though slang, as what killed more people in the Unted States, from hand guns than any other. but many were banned in the Gun Control Act of 1968, back when we used to be capable of reacting to negative forces in the country.
And as, yes, "almost all communication and religion is protected", not all communication is protected, to say again. There are limits, as there should be.
When I speak of assault weapons, I mean weapons with a great deal of lethality that, for that reason alone, has no place in the country. They aren't good for hunting at all. They are only good for shooting many people, quickly, and that's what they were designed for.
And your claiming "Hammers and clubs are more common murder weapons than rifles" is just absurd nonsense. You're usually far more responsible in your counter-points than to say something silly and mistaken as that.
Assault weapons, based on lethality and not looks or certain models, need to be banned for manufacture and sale in the country, period.
And before you ask, no, I cannot and will not define it. As I also said here before, I'm not a weapons expert nor am I an attorney. If you want a definition, go find one or both of those.
Based on the statistics here:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
Between 2007 and 2011, rifles of all types, including both assault weapons and traditional hunting rifles were used in an average of 375 murders per year. If my spreadsheet is right, that winds up being 2.7% of all murders. Less than knives, less than blunt objects (hammers and clubs), even less than bare hands and feet. That's not some NRA site, that's the federal government.
The legal criteria for 'Saturday Night Special' is almost as convoluted as "Assault Weapon". It might sound just as absurd as only 375 rifle murders per year, but the Glock pistols as carried by more police than any other brand legally qualify as both assault weapons and Saturday Night Specials at the same time. Glocks are NOT low quality guns by any rational measurement, nor are they particularly lethal. Glocks aren't the only examples of this absurdity.
Assault weapons, based on lethality and not looks or certain models, need to be banned for manufacture and sale in the country, period.
And before you ask, no, I cannot and will not define it. As I also said here before, I'm not a weapons expert nor am I an attorney. If you want a definition, go find one or both of those.
The reason you cannot define it is because assault weapons are so similar to 'ordinary' guns that Congress with all its resources could not define them in a realistic way--they were reduced to banning certain combinations of handles and covers.
No, the reason I can't define it is, as I said, I'm not a weapons expert or attorney. Seriously, don't be tedious.
You think congress couldn't find a gun expert? That they didn't have enough lawyers? You really want to argue that the 1994 ban was so silly because there weren't enough lawyers in congress to come up with the right definition?
Are the FBI's statistics on rifle murders absurd nonsense? What source would you prefer?
Were you the one writing this blog when you said that .38's were so lethal they should be banned?
And what did I get wrong in my initial response to your post back in December?
So you don't know even vaguely what an assault weapon is, how often they are misused, but you are still certain that whatever they are should be banned. Along with Barney Fife's .38 special revolver. And banning every gun invented in the last 110 years is a minor restriction, similar to a ban on falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater.
And I keep trying to have a sensible discussion...I guess I am the ibex. Spit...BLAAAAA
Wait.
Who said Congress can't find an expert?
I certainly didn't.
In fact, that's my point. And I said it. I'm no weapons expert.
There are weapons experts in Washington, DC and people who can and would work this out but it's not me. That's all I'm saying.
And all of a sudden you interpret that as me saying there's no experts in Washington? Seriously?
I didn't climb down off my statement on 38s.
I have my opinions on what assault weapons are but again--my opinions are irrelevant as, frankly, yours are. What I said was the lethality of assualt weapons need to be outlawed for new manufacture and/or sale.
You don't believe the FBI statistics on rifle murders?
Sure, I believe the FBI statistics.
But I also believe the many Harvard studies on weapons, too.
Rifles including Assault Weapons are responsible for a tiny fraction of murders, but assault weapons should still be banned. The .38 special is one of the weakest cartridges in common use, but anything that deadly should be banned. Saturday Night Specials are too puny for any legitimate use (or something...) so they should be banned.
I'm guessing that because more people die from .22 rimfire than any other round, it should be banned as well.
Leaving....no guns at all. But nobody is talking about banning all guns.
Sounds like your or the NRA's paranoia speaking.
Weapons with large and/or fast lethality like "assault weapons" need to be banned, yes, as should .38 specials.
The lists of weapons left is huge.
The list of weapons left is huge
Not if there is any logic to the bans.
The 9mm is slightly more powerful than the .38 special, and designed specifically for semiautomatic handguns. Should it be banned? Why or why not?
The 9mm doesn't have the small size problem for society the .38 does. It's why the .38 is so frequently the tool of choice for these crimes.
So your claim is, then, that we, the US, the American people should do nothing, nothing after the Newtown shooting and the Tuscon shooting and the Aurora, CO shooting, etc., etc., except maybe, possibly treat more people for mental illness, is that it? We have no solutions? We are to do nothing?
There are many 9mm pistols smaller than any .38 special. I own one of the smallest .38's, but the one I carry daily is a 9mm--smaller, lighter, and 7 shots instead of 5. Its only advantages to a criminal are wide availability and the ability to function when not cared for.
"We must do something, this is something, therefore we must do it". Banning particular types of guns is as useless as banning the type of car the shooter used to get there--they will merely switch to whatever is available. You would need to reduce the availability of every class of gun to make a difference.
Mass shooters always stop when someone shoots back, with no more innocent lives lost. Mass shooters disproportionately pick places where the victims will have to wait for police to arrive before anyone can shoot back. We can't afford full time armed guards in every school, (and it would be a bad idea for other reasons) but we could announce and implement a program of randomly assigned plainclothes armed guards. With the proper background checks, some of these armed guards could be volunteers, costing little or nothing.
To repeat, then, we'll go after lethality and the problems that arise from the .38 "Saturday Night Special."
Your description of our or my idea(s) as "We must do something, this is something, therefore we must do it" is weak, misguided and plainly wrong but you and the NRA and weapons supporters will refuse to describe it as anything else.
Lots of Americans were extremely heartened last evening by the fact that the President's State of the Union's most compelling and moving moments were from his push for these some, few weapons restrictions. That must hurt for you all. So it goes.
So again, still, you claim we are to do nothing as a nation when so many of us have been slaughtered innocents and it continues to this day.
Y'all are a sad lot.
You seem like a nice guy and I know you're discriminating and thoughtful and even rather eloquent. It's just extremely unfortunate that you're so intent on having "all guns, all the time" in America.
.38 special and "Saturday Night Special" are two different things.
As far as I can tell, you don't have a clue about guns and are proud of it and don't care to learn--but you are quite willing to tell me which ones I should be allowed to have. If I point out that you aren't consistent, you change the criteria. "I'm not a gun expert" but you label anyone with some expertise a gun nut and dismiss them.
Murders with assault weapons are sensational, but rare. Mass shootings are sensational but rare. Instead of devoting resources and giving up rights for these rare, sensational occurrences, we need to work on reducing mundane deaths and murders, places where far less effort will have far greater results. Eliminating the drug war will save more lives every year in the US than all mass shootings in the last century-and will save even more lives in central and south America. Reining in the TSA will get more people to fly instead of drive, and since flying is much safer, will save lives. Let the drug users and nonviolent dealers, gamblers, prostitutes out of jail, make room to keep murderers in for their full term.
On the contrary, I do not "... label anyone with some expertise a gun nut and dismiss them." Not you nor anyone else. Not here, not anywhere else.
You seem to be getting more desperate in your efforts to both discredit me and/or my points and further your own and that of the gun lobby, honestly. Your claims are more wild and extreme with each post.
You and too many like you here in the US seem so strong-headed in your attempts and desires to keep these assault weapons at any and every cost, even at the cost of innocent Americans lives. You must be threatened. I certainly hope so.
Great, let's eliminate the drug war, as you suggest, but let's also do away with weapons with huge lethality (read: assault weapons) and have background checks and waiting periods for all weapons purchases, all of these.
Let's reduce--greatly--the numbers of innocent Americans who are killed in America because we have far too much firepower.
You'll still have weapons, and plenty of them, heaven knows.
Which of my claims are wild and extreme?
You labeled my claim that blunt objects were more common murder weapons than rifles as absurd--How does the FBI data I pointed to fail to support that claim?
This is how--your claim that blunt objects are more common murder weapons than rifles--how many times were oh, say, 10 or 15 or 20 or, in the case of Newtown, Ct., 26 people killed with one blunt object, all at once, quickly?
Answer: None. Never. Not once.
Okay, blunt objects do kill people. Fine. Statistically.
But they aren't used, repeatedly, as guns are, to kill many innocent people in the country, time and again.
Get real.
This talking point of yours--or attempt at one--is beneath you.
Or it should be beneath you, anyway.
But they aren't used, repeatedly, as guns are, to kill many innocent people in the country, time and again.
Replace "guns' with "Muslims" here. Wouldn't it make sense to have some minor restrictions on religious freedom--Muslims won't be banned, but they will be registered and the most radical will be barred from particularly sensitive locations. Different sects of Muslims will have different restrictions, largely based on news reports and the public perception of how radical that sect is.
No.
That wouldn't reduce terrorism any more than eliminating malt liquor will reduce alcoholism, or eliminating one or two minor variations of guns will reduce murder. We have a constitution to prevent restrictions like this--and if the second amendment allows banning entire classes of guns, why wouldn't the first allow banning entire classes of religious worship? After all, you would still have plenty of religions to choose from...
You are obviously basing your views on guns almost entirely on irrational fears and sensational news stories, with no apparent interest in learning actual facts that might refute your views. A rational person could expect a ban on all guns to reduce violence, but a ban on certain calibers or features while leaving others freely available does nothing but harass legitimate gun owners. It is like banning hood scoops, spoilers and fancy wheels to combat dangerous driving.
Reducing unnecessary deaths of innocents is a worthy goal--but the first ones we should do are the ones that add freedom, not the ones that remove it. "Lets see how restrictive we can be before running into the constitution' isn't a plan I'll support.
At least we agree about banning Muslims.
And no, you're quite mistaken--I'm not "obviously basing your views on guns almost entirely on irrational fears and sensational news stories, with no apparent interest in learning actual facts that might refute your views."
I'm basing conclusions on scientific studies, actually, a great deal of them from Harvard, as I linked earlier (and will again if you need it) as well as on other studies and then on other nation's direct results of having far less weapons in their societies.
It's not fear at all. Not remotely.
I googled "Harvard Gun Study". Not even cherry picking, the top results pointed to one that said gun laws don't affect overall murder or suicide rates. I don't doubt you found a study whose headline results say that guns are bad, they exist. However, when you look past the conclusions you usually find severe errors in the methods. (I've got a slight professional background in statistics)
I didn't "find a study that said guns are bad" and that's certainly not what the Harvard study found or concentrated on. You belittle the scientific work and, likely, me in order to try to make points.
Among many other things, they found that more weapons equals more shootings, more killings, more suicides and on.
That link:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
It confirms what virtually the rest of the world has found, that is, more guns, more killings, period.
Not that you'll believe any of it--the world's findings or Harvard's or anyone else's.
And I strongly doubt "a slight professional background in statistics" go up against an internationally-renowned university and their studies.
The very first link on Google that I found:
Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.
I have no idea if this study is a good one, I haven't read it--I'm mostly saying that an appeal to authority, "Harvard says" isn't a great argument.
So if you've got multiple studies showing vastly different results, sometimes from the same institution--how do you decide which ones are accurate?
I read a lot. Not just the headline sound bite part of the study, but the conclusions, the methods and sometimes even the raw data. I've done my own studies based on publicly available data. In one case I did a correlation analysis on Brady Campaign scores for state gun laws compared to FBI murder and violent crime data. The results weren't as I expected--I found no correlation at all. (my version also had flaws, I did not control for population density or local city or county level variations in laws) The more I can verify myself, the more weight I'll give to a particular claim.
Sometimes it turns out that the claims aren't measuring anything meaningful, even if the data was collected accurately. "Relative child poverty" is a non-gun related example. Another is the famous Kellerman study, the basis for most of the claims that a gun is 20+ times more likely to harm a family member than an intruder. What the study really said was essentially 'justifiable homicide against complete strangers who are in the process of a home invasion is less common than all other types of gun deaths added together, including suicide, criminal activity and legitimate self defense against someone you've met even once'.
If there is no explanation of how the conclusions were reached, I'm not likely to give it much weight. Another issue is when studies emphasizing criminal misuse are used to justify more restrictions on the law abiding.
1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).
Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.
Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.
2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.
We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.
Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.
3. Across states, more guns = more homicide
Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).
After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.
Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.
4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)
Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.
Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.
And that's just for starters.
So it shows itself in the scientific studies, it shows itself in everyday life, all across America, year after year, no less, yet you deny that more guns equal more shootings, woundings, killings and suicides.
That is some pretty magnificent closed-mindedness and outright stubborness.
Once again, you entirely miss the point. I can come up with just as many studies that say either guns don't increase crime and violence, or that they decrease it.
Have you read any of the actual studies you cite, or only the headline?
Do you have a method of deciding which studies to accept, and which to reject?
And calling me stubborn and closed minded takes the cake. You call for bans, but refuse to learn what it is you want to ban. I still don't know if you understand what .38 special is, for example. I don't know if you have any idea what the 1994 Assault Weapons ban covered.
I initially set an email alert hoping you would respond to my original comment here, which you never did. The alert was triggered by Jim Taylor's comments, but I should have stuck with my original plan of only responding to things directly related to my comments.
...which is what I'll do from here out.
First things, first.
I always--ALWAYS--post anything and everything you send, to be clear.
After that, once again, you miss--totally miss--my two points.
My first one is that scientific studies, like these, posted from Harvard, many that they are, show that more guns gets us more shootings, and woundings and killings and slaughters and that, secondly, in the scientific lab that is the world, in most countries around the world, both before and after laws are passed, it is shown, time and again, be it Australia or wherever, that fewer weapons result in far fewer of those same shootings and woundings and killings and slaughters.
Yes, I call for a ban of weapons with the lethality of assault weapons and the "Saturday Night Specials" because... I've given the reasons many times, here and otherwise, mostly to you.
We're calling for the end of the sale and manufacture of new assault weapons--by lethality, not brand or feature--we want full background checks, coast to coast, for mental stability and/or criminal history and finally, a waiting period for purchases.
It's 3 things and they aren't that much to ask, certainly.
And you and all who want them will still have weapons.
And plenty of them.
I'm not accusing you of not posting comments, I'm accusing you of not reading, or at least ignoring anything you read that doesn't support your view.
Based on your switching the subject from .38 special to Saturday Night Special, you either don't understand that they are distinctly different things, or you can't be bothered to read what I actually wrote. (Saturday Night Special is a derogatory term for guns cheap enough for poor people to afford, .38 Special is a specific handgun cartridge, part of a family that includes the weaker .38 Long Colt and the stronger .357 Magnum)
You've completely ignored (again) the main point of my comment, which was 'if different scientific studies show opposite results, how do you decide which one to believe?'.
Agreed and acknowledged. I merely went right over that point about the .38s.
If different scientific studies show opposite results, how to decide which to believe?
I'd go with the easy and logical path--the Harvard studies, and they are extensive, show more guns equal more shootings and killings and again, not only is that logical but it plays out on the streets of the world daily. Complicating it, especially for the benefit of weapons enthusiasts who will still, after all, have weapons and plenty, plenty of them, seems not just silly but irresponsible.
Which Harvard studies--The Harvard study that shows up first on a Google Search?
Never mind, I know the answer to that.
Maybe I'll be back in 2014, but that's enough for this year.
This one:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
And all its links. There are many, many studies and results there.
In 2014, then, every time there is a shooting and/or killing of innocents, I'll think of you--and all who would and do support our current system of the NRA's "all guns, all the time."
For instance, there is this one, today:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57570039-504083/los-angeles-freeway-shooting-at-least-3-dead-others-wounded-in-shooting-spree-police-say/
And thanks to the NRA and all weapons supporters.
Enablers, all.
Post a Comment