Wanted: fact based arguments for gun control.

[hafr]

Originally Posted by Iscariot

I'm really not interested in the debate given that homicide is at one of the lowest points in the history of both the United States and the developed world, however your selection of "facts" is poor. The Harvard Law article is using Communist controlled Soviet Russia, previously USSR-controlled Eastern European nations, cites Gary Kleck (whose telephone survey should be dismissed out of hand on it's absurdity) and claims that France's gun ownership of 5.5% of households with handguns is comparable to the level of US ownership.

I'm not trying to make a case for gun control, just pointing out that your case against it could use some better sources.

Thank you for your comments. Do you have better reading material to offer me, maybe a proper reply to the Harvard Law article?

----------

Originally Posted by citizenzen

I believe you overlook where the study finds ...

• Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home
  
  
• They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death

This isn't just about suicide.

I know it's not just about suicide, as I wasn't mentioning only suicide.

[citizenzen]

The table below shows that the United States is #9 in per capita firearm-related deaths. This certainly helps to support that the presence of firearms contributes to the high number of deaths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

[Huntn]

For the OP, from a purely practical position if you look at the people who have conducted mass murder in the last 30 years in public locations, most of them used a firearm, most likely a semi automatic weapon. If they instead has used a knife, they would not have gotten nearly as far or in many cases it would not have happened. Fact: Guns make murder easy, Semi-automatic guns make it real easy. Fact: if there were no guns, there would be less murder, but I am not advocating that, just making an observation.

As a society we have to decide how we want to regulate weapons designed to kill people. There are a substantial group of people who want ZERO regulation of these dangerous devices. I'm sure they are the ones who believe the black helo, jackbooted government thugs will kick down their door at any moment. But ultimately advanced society should not rely on every citizen being armed. Remember, we are supposed to be civilized...

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by RKO

Way to go, use Wikipedia, to make a point in P.R.S.I.

Is the data incorrect?

Way to go ... focusing on that, while having nothing to say about the actual information.

[Ugg]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Given there are no border points between US states it is trivial to transport guns across state lines. Comparing different US states like this is ridiculous.

What you actually want to compare is different countries - it is obviously pretty hard to transport guns from the US to the UK.

Exactly, and all the OP needs to do is look at Central and parts of South America. For that matter, look at Mexico as well. High rates of gun ownership result in high levels of gun related death and when a country borders a country with lax gun ownership laws, like Mexico where guns are smuggled in easily both from the north and south, then gun ownership feeds the criminal classes.

[Huntn]

Originally Posted by RKO

Way to go, use Wikipedia, to make a point in P.R.S.I.

So Wikipedia is a disreputable source?

[Ugg]

Originally Posted by RKO

Way to go, use Wikipedia, to make a point in P.R.S.I.

The sources seem pretty solid. Would you care to refute them or are you only interested in being snarky?

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by RKO

You, me and anyone else can input information into Wikipedia. As for the data being incorrect is anyones guess. It's just not a reliable source and certainly not something to base research on.

It's not anybody's guess. There are sources provided for the data. If you doubt the accuracy, then check it against the cited source or provide your own.

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by RKO

Not a reliable source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use

So let me see if I follow you. Wikipedia is not a reliable source yet you cite a Wikipedia page to support your claim. Thanks for playing.

[skunk]

Originally Posted by Huntn

So Wikipedia is a disreputable source?

References do need checking, but it's certainly a good starting point.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by RKO

Not a reliable source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use

You're using a non reliable source to source the fact that it's a non reliable source?

Interesting....



Edit: Rdowns, you beat me to it!! But....great minds.

[elistan]

Originally Posted by Huntn

So Wikipedia is a disreputable source?

Wikipedia is not a source of any kind. It is an online encyclopedia which links to sources. A research paper on Topic X is a source, but just because Wikipedia then cites that paper when discussing Topic X does not make Wikipedia a srouce.

Specifically regarding the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate page, the sources are:

(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. [13] Statistics among 36 countries between 1990 and 1995.
(UNODC 2002)The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (2001–2002). United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime 2005.[7] This report provides more updated information on homicide by firearms, but not on suicide by firearms.
(UNODC 2000)The Seventh United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (1998–2000). United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime 2002.[11] This report provides more updated information on homicide by firearms, but not on suicide by firearms.
(Barrow 2000) Greg Barrow. "SA gun deaths rise", BBC, 2000-02-15.[16]
(Kaiser 2004) Deaths Due to Injury by Firearms per 100,000 Population, 2004. StateHealthFacts.org, 2008-04-08 [17]
(GunCite 2008) International Homicide Comparisons. GunCite.com, 2008-04-08 [18]
(CDC 2012) Fatal Injury Mapping (2004–2006). CDC.gov, 2012-02-05 [19]
(GunPolicy 2012) Global Impacts of Gun Violence. GunPolicy.org, 2012-02-10 [1]
(UNODC 2012) UNODC Homicide Statistics 2012 [8]
(Victims of crime survey 2011) Victims of crime survey 2011 – 9.7 The use of weapons when crime is committed [9]
(WHO 2012) European Detailed Mortality Database [10] ICD-10: W32-W34,X72-X74,X93-X95,Y22-Y24
GunPolicy.org. 2011. ‘Calculated Rates – Australia.’ UN World Population Prospects – Total Population (both sexes combined)

The figures are based mainly on surveys and reports by government agencies and subject to their reliability. In addition, the figures may vary significantly over the years due to changes in crime rate trend. The death rate is also sensitive to fluctuation if the absolute number of incidents is small and for countries with relatively small population such as Mauritius and Singapore

and

References

1.^ a b c d e f g h i j "Global Impacts of Gun Violence". gunpolicy.org. 2012-02-10.
2.^ "Guns in Colombia: Facts, Figures and Firearm Law". Gunpolicy.org. Retrieved 2012-12-31.
3.^ "Guns in Brazil: Facts, Figures and Firearm Law". Gunpolicy.org. Retrieved 2012-12-31.
4.^ "Guns in Mexico: Facts, Figures and Firearm Law". Gunpolicy.org. Retrieved 2012-12-31.
5.^ "FASTSTATS – Homicide". Cdc.gov. Retrieved 2012-12-31.
6.^ http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf
7.^ a b c d e f "The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (2001–2002)". United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Retrieved 2008-05-09.
8.^ a b "UNODC Homicide Statistics 2012". unodc.org.
9.^ a b "Victims of crime survey 2011". statssa.gov.za.
10.^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am "European Detailed Mortality Database". data.euro.who.int.
11.^ a b c d e f g "The Seventh United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (1998–2000)". United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Archived from the original on 2006-11-04. Retrieved 2006-11-08.
12.^ "Guns in Argentina: Facts, Figures and Firearm Law". Gunpolicy.org. Retrieved 2012-12-31.
13.^ a b c d e f g h i j 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 1998:27:214-221.
14.^ "2011 Global Study on Homicide". UNODC.org. Retrieved 2012-12-31.
15.^ "Guns in Australia: Facts, Figures and Firearm Law". Gunpolicy.org. Retrieved 2012-12-31.
16.^ Greg Barrow (2000-02-15). "SA gun deaths rise". BBC.
17.^ Kaiser Family Foundation / statehealthfacts.org "Deaths Due to Injury by Firearms per 100,000 Population". StateHealthFacts.org. 2008-04-08.
18.^ "International Homicide Comparisons". GunCite.com. 2008-04-08.
19.^ "Fatal Injury Mapping". CDC.gov. 2012-02-05.

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

Edit: Rdowns, you beat me to it!! But....great minds.

I never tire of fact based debate.

[PracticalMac]

Originally Posted by hafr

there is a very loud group of people saying "banning guns means less guns and less gun violence" and another very loud group saying "don't you dare touch our guns, they're protected by the constitution".

That right there clearly illustrates the raw emotional knee jerk and REFUSAL to THINK about the situation.

The overwhelming facts of mass shootings show over half are caused by mentally unstable, crazy people.

In those mass shootings, the weapon of choice is Hand Guns. In the Newtown attack while the killer had an "assualt weapon", it was not with him when he was found.

Ever look at stats of killings by blade in UK (guns are highly regulated)? A few years ago a person was killed by a katana. Guess what, UK make illegal all katana's, but that did not stop other being killed by blades.

I do agree a national requirement for gun education, even if people never touch a gun, with follow up mental screenings for those that do.

But the current "ban guns" attitude is a fools errand. Easier to outlaw all abortions.

----------

Originally Posted by Huntn

For the OP, from a purely practical position if you look at the people who have conducted mass murder in the last 30 years in public locations, most of them used a firearm, most likely a semi automatic weapon. If they instead has used a knife, they would not have gotten nearly as far or in many cases it would not have happened. Fact: Guns make murder easy, Semi-automatic guns make it real easy. Fact: if there were no guns, there would be less murder, but I am not advocating that, just making an observation.

As a society we have to decide how we want to regulate weapons designed to kill people. There are a substantial group of people who want ZERO regulation of these dangerous devices. I'm sure they are the ones who believe the black helo, jackbooted government thugs will kick down their door at any moment. But ultimately advanced society should not rely on every citizen being armed. Remember, we are supposed to be civilized...

Speed loaders for revolvers can make loading of such almost as fast as magazine style.
And if you think about it, double action revolvers are "semi-auto" as well becuase all you do is pull the trigger.

We do need regulation, just as we do for cars.
Education for all, and ability to deny if person does not show proper respect.

----------

Originally Posted by citizenzen

The table below shows that the United States is #9 in per capita firearm-related deaths. This certainly helps to support that the presence of firearms contributes to the high number of deaths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics!

Please provide breakdown of those stats, becuase some causes, such as suicide and domestic would like have happened by alternate means anyway.

A solution has to be found with careful study if we truly want to deal with this.

----------

Originally Posted by citizenzen

But let's take a moment to look at suicide.

Red Herring if you only look at US.

Take a look at Japan.
I am talking about plain simple suicide (Hara kiki), not the Bushido Honor type (Sepuuku).

A country of 2/5 the population has 2.5x the suicide rate, yet guns are extremely rare in all of Japan.

Guns are just a means to an unfortunate end, but will not stop the end (needs intervention).

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Red Herring if you only look at US.

You should contact the Harvard School of Public Health.

I'm sure they'd appreciate learning that the "Twelve or more U.S. case control studies ... " are red herrings.

Once you tell them about the Japan thing, it will probably change everything.

[Blue Velvet]

So many of you are in utter denial. It’s pathetically transparent to observe.

Know why US-specific research on public health and firearm safety is scarce? Because:

…in 1996, pro-gun members of Congress mounted an all-out effort to eliminate the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Although they failed to defund the center, the House of Representatives removed $2.6 million from the CDC's budget—precisely the amount the agency had spent on firearm injury research the previous year. Funding was restored in joint conference committee, but the money was earmarked for traumatic brain injury. The effect was sharply reduced support for firearm injury research.

To ensure that the CDC and its grantees got the message, the following language was added to the final appropriation: “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

Precisely what was or was not permitted under the clause was unclear. But no federal employee was willing to risk his or her career or the agency's funding to find out. Extramural support for firearm injury prevention research quickly dried up. Even today, 17 years after this legislative action, the CDC's website lacks specific links to information about preventing firearm-related violence.

When other agencies funded high-quality research, similar action was taken. In 2009, Branas et al5 published the results of a case-control study that examined whether carrying a gun increases or decreases the risk of firearm assault. In contrast to earlier research, this particular study was funded by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Two years later, Congress extended the restrictive language it had previously applied to the CDC to all Department of Health and Human Services agencies, including the National Institutes of Health.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article....12%2F21%2F2012

In other words, NRA-backed polticians recklessly suppressed medical research to assist with public safety, lest the results become inconvenient. And don’t bother arguing with the source unless you have the credentials to take on the American Medical Association.

Injury prevention research can have real and lasting effects. Over the last 20 years, the number of Americans dying in motor vehicle crashes has decreased by 31%. Deaths from fires and drowning have been reduced even more, by 38% and 52%, respectively. This progress was achieved without banning automobiles, swimming pools, or matches. Instead, it came from translating research findings into effective interventions.

Given the chance, could researchers achieve similar progress with firearm violence? It will not be possible to find out unless Congress rescinds its moratorium on firearm injury prevention research. Since Congress took this action in 1997, at least 427 000 people have died of gunshot wounds in the United States, including more than 165 000 who were victims of homicide. To put these numbers in context, during the same time period, 4586 Americans lost their lives in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

My emphasis.

Congress: bought and sold like cheap whores. You get the government (and society) you deserve.

[miloblithe]

Originally Posted by Blue Velvet

Know why US-specific research on public health and firearm safety is scarce?...NRA-backed polticians recklessly suppressed medical research to assist with public safety, lest the results become inconvenient. And don’t bother arguing with the source unless you have the credentials to take on the American Medical Association.

Thank you for this post. Very informative.

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Originally Posted by hafr

It's impossible to miss the discussion following the latest shootings in the states, and there is a very loud group of people saying "banning guns means less guns and less gun violence" and another very loud group saying "don't you dare touch our guns, they're protected by the constitution".

I have heard from very few people offering such a simplistic view of banning guns, but, plenty from the "constitution" side (that, in itself, is another debate -- the *radical* step the SCOTUS took a few years ago).

Now, as a person who's not the least bit interested in owning weapons (my time in the army was enough) and as an economist - I'm mostly interested in numbers, correlations and such.

Then, as an economist, I'm surprised that you seem to be making the Kates/Mauser article your centerpiece, since it opens with a straw-man argument. Here:

It may be useful to begin with a few examples. There is a compound
assertion that (a) guns are uniquely available in the United
States compared with other modern developed nations, which is
why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate.
Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement
(b) is, in fact, false and statement (a) is substantially so.
Since at least 1965, the false assertion that the United States has
the industrialized world’s highest murder rate has been an artifact
of politically motivated Soviet minimization designed to hide the
true homicide rates. Since well before that date, the Soviet Union
possessed extremely stringent gun controls that were effectuated
by a police state apparatus providing stringent enforcement. So
successful was that regime that few Russian civilians now have
firearms and very few murders involve them. Yet, manifest success
in keeping its people disarmed did not prevent the Soviet
Union from having far and away the highest murder rate in the
developed world.

I don't know any gun-control advocate who believes that gun control operates in a vacuum. Comparing what used to be "Western" industrialized nations to the Soviet Union is completely bizarre. The story of the brutalization of the Russian people under communism has been written - e.g. see "The Gulag Archipelago" to get started (numerous sources abound). That the authors think this is a relevant comparison is bizarre. But, in any case, no one believes that gun-control operates in a vacuum. In fact, no one believes that anything in sociology, economics, criminology, or any other social science breaks down to a bunch of independent linear correlations. People do what they can in a world where you can't ever carry out the kind of controlled experiments that you can in the physical sciences.

Here is another gem from that article:

The Middle Ages were a time of notoriously brutal and endemic
warfare. They also experienced rates of ordinary murder
almost double the highest recorded U.S. murder rate.100
But Middle Age homicide “cannot be explained in terms of
the availability of firearms, which had not yet been invented.”
101 The invention provides some test of the mantra. If
it is true that more guns equal more murder and fewer guns
equal less death, murder should have risen with the invention,
increased efficiency, and greater availability of firearms
across the population.

People have gone back and tried to determine the probably murder rate in the London of Shakespeare's day. Not surprisingly, it compares much better to high-crime third-world cities of today than Singapore. So what? Again, nobody that I know has ever claimed that all crime flows out of the barrel of a gun. It is a ridiculous straw-man argument. In this case it detracts from the point the paper's authors seem to be trying to make, which is that this is a complex problem.

I just can't seem to find any kind of evidence that imposing tougher gun laws would in fact make society safer. When saying this I usually get to hear that I'm a scary man, that I'm stupid for not being able to understand the concept of "less guns = less crime" and other argumenta ad passiones.

This is what the gun lobby wants you to believe that gun control advocates are saying.

Another argument is comparisons between Japan and the US. Which is a comparison that lacks any importance when looking at comparisons between the states in the US or comparisons between more countries. Using only two examples when comparing only two factors is just ridiculous.

So, I'm not out to disprove anyone, I have no interest in protecting anything, I just want to know if there is anything fact based to support the claim that tougher gun control makes for a safer society - and if so, please show it to me.

WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE? A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND SOME DOMESTIC EVIDENCE: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf

Just Facts: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#crime

No Correlation Between Gun Control Laws and Violent Crime Rates: http://inmalafide.com/no-correlation...t-crime-rates/

Gun Laws and Crime: A Complex Relationship: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/we...anted=all&_r=0

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Given there are no border points between US states it is trivial to transport guns across state lines. Comparing different US states like this is ridiculous.

What you actually want to compare is different countries - it is obviously pretty hard to transport guns from the US to the UK.

Absolutely. Most of these sources look at attempts to control guns in cities surrounded by a sea of guns. Not surprisingly, it is difficult to pull off.

Originally Posted by hafr

Are you proposing it's common enough that guns are stolen or moved across state lines without it being reported to authorities that it would offset a positive correlation between gun ownership and violent crime into this mishmash? Do you have anything to support that claim?


WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE? A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND SOME DOMESTIC EVIDENCE: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf

What's your take on this one then?

Did you have any fact based arguments to share by the way?

Originally Posted by RKO

Perhaps these stats from UNODC might be of interest to the OP.
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-a.../homicide.html

Edit: You can clearly see if you look at the statistics for Australia when gun control was introduced, after the Port Arthur (Martin Bryant) Massacre in Tasmania in 1996 to 2009 that there is a reduction of homicides by firearms. What works in Australia(nanny state) may not necessarily work in another country such as the U.S or elsewhere.

Originally Posted by rdowns

According to this report from Mayors Against Illegal Guns, it happens often.

Originally Posted by hafr

Okay. So the argument is that a single state's gun control laws are ineffective due to other state's more relaxed gun laws, and that gun laws should be federal?

I buy that. Still not really an argument that states tougher gun laws makes for a safer society though...

Attempts to control guns at the city/state level have generally not been effective. And, as has been shown, criminal gangs have no difficulty importing guns across city and state boundaries. Advocates for such city/state legislation generally do so as part of a broader program for the reduction of violence.

Originally Posted by hafr

I don't know, and I'm not very interested in fallacies of distraction. Please keep to the subject: fact based arguments for gun control.

It is a fact-- lots of sources later -- that industrialized, urbanized countries with strict gun controls are able to achieve low homicide rates -- much lower than the U.S. It is also a fact that most/all of these countries also are some sense (depends on definition) "nanny states"-- I have to mention/admit this, because, however stupidly the pro-gun arguments are sometimes stated, the "nanny state" issue is a factor behind many/most of the arguments.

Originally Posted by RKO

There is no arguing for me regarding the trends and the latest stats from the UNODC to 2009 I posted earlier, continue to show a trend of decline that go further than the graphs I posted. I am less concerned myself for little dips and rises but I can't see the larger peaks/spikes and dips before 1996. When ever there is a huge spike in the graphs indicates some major event like in Port Arthur. For me less variation in the downward trend can only be a positive i.e less mass killings. I can accept that I may be wrong in my assumptions of the trends but I only care to see that it doesn't spike as much again like it did prior to 1996.

In general, licensed gun owners in Australia do not keep guns under their pillows or laying around the house. Firearms are to be kept secured in a secure and suitable gun receptacle and the ammunition is kept separate and secured by law. That is to safeguard children and anyone else not responsible for them. There will be always instances where breaches of these laws do occur and people get hurt. Nothing is perfect but can be made better i.e education.

Something that I didn't mention is that Australia has had many changes to it's mental health acts over the years which may play a part along with identifying and making treatment available i.e counselling/support for those who may want to self harm or harm others?.

I'll say again Australia is a "nanny state" and what works in one country will not necessarily will work in another.

Most industrialized countries are more of a "nanny state" than the U.S., and that is a significant difference in possible approaches.

Originally Posted by Iscariot

I'm really not interested in the debate given that homicide is at one of the lowest points in the history of both the United States and the developed world, however your selection of "facts" is poor. The Harvard Law article is using Communist controlled Soviet Russia, previously USSR-controlled Eastern European nations, cites Gary Kleck (whose telephone survey should be dismissed out of hand on it's absurdity) and claims that France's gun ownership of 5.5% of households with handguns is comparable to the level of US ownership.

I'm not trying to make a case for gun control, just pointing out that your case against it could use some better sources.

Agreed. That article has some absurdities in it as pointed out above.

Originally Posted by citizenzen

The table below shows that the United States is #9 in per capita firearm-related deaths. This certainly helps to support that the presence of firearms contributes to the high number of deaths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

I have previously checked some of the Wikipedia data sources on homicide to see if they match what is in Wikipedia. As far as I have checked, they do. Unfortunately, some of the historical data was edited out of the Wikipedia article that makes the case even more clearly.

Originally Posted by RKO

Way to go, use Wikipedia, to make a point in P.R.S.I.

As is pointed out, there are lots of sources to check there. My checking in the past of the Wikipedia homicide data has uncovered on discrepancies. Efforts are always welcome to improve Wikipedia articles.

Originally Posted by elistan

Wikipedia is not a source of any kind. It is an online encyclopedia which links to sources. A research paper on Topic X is a source, but just because Wikipedia then cites that paper when discussing Topic X does not make Wikipedia a srouce.

Specifically regarding the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate page, the sources are:


and

(Absolutely correct about Wikipedia. My old printed encyclopedia was not an original source either.)

Firearm death rate is one part of the picture, but, overall homicide rates are significantly lower in "nanny states" with strict gun controls. Just check the data on homicide by country in your favorite source.

But, sociologists have known for a long time that crime is a complex subject, that levels of violent crime are dependent upon demographics-- things like family size, how much time and attention young men get from their elders, the overall proportion of young men in society, employment, and so on. A concerted effort to suppress violence does actually work, as has been shown in some countries.

The mass-murders that stimulated the latest gun debates are a kind of thing unto themselves, though. While gun control, along with other nanny-state initiatives, can demonstrably reduce overall homicide rates, I don't think it is clear how they affect the Andres Breivik type of mass-murder. If there is one thing about the gun-control debates that are ongoing, it is that while ordinary measures can reduce ordinary homicides by ordinary psychopaths, I don't think it is known what measures can prevent most of these mass killings. I think gun-control advocates need to be very careful in distinguishing these very different issues.

I would still like to know, though, why anyone requires more than a bolt-action .30-06 to hunt, or to protect their rural domicile from an intruder?

[leekohler]

Originally Posted by miloblithe

Thank you for this post. Very informative.

But not if people don't read it. Have you noticed how it has been largely ignored?

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by Blue Velvet

So many of you are in utter denial. It’s pathetically transparent to observe.

Know why US-specific research on public health and firearm safety is scarce? Because:

Thanks for doing my homework, luv.

----------

Originally Posted by leekohler

But not if people don't read it. Have you noticed how it has been largely ignored?

Of course it doesn't, it doesn't fit the talking points.

[Blue Velvet]

Originally Posted by miloblithe

Thank you for this post. Very informative.

And right on cue, just minutes later:

At a brief appearance Thursday ahead of his day of meetings with gun rights advocates, Biden previewed what those recommendations might be, saying he has had “a lot of discussion” about closing the so-called “gun show loophole” and saying “I’ve never heard so much talk about high-capacity magazines” as he has during the meetings of his task force.

Biden went beyond the gun show loophole, saying he had heard a lot about “universal background checks during private sales.” Should that and the magazine ban make it into a final White House package, expect both to garner serious opposition from gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association.

Biden also said he’s held discussions on “the whole question of the ability of any federal agency to do any research on the issue of gun violence.” According to the White House pool report of the appearance, Biden “compared the current limits on federal data gathering with the 1970s restrictions on federal research over the cause of traffic fatalities” and said here was a need to gather information on ‘what kind of weapons are used most to kill people’ and ‘what kind of weapons are trafficked weapons.’”

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2....php?ref=fpblg

Bringing you the future before you even know it.

More seriously, though is how this perfectly illustrates the disingenuous crocodile tears and lies of those who stand with the NRA and and yet claim they want to get to the real root cause of these appalling firearm incidents, because the research is blocked from being funded in the first place.

All these claims to want to get to the bottom of the issue are, are worthless gestures: self-serving futile crap to make yourself feel good, as effective as lighting a candle, praying, marching, petitions, posting on a forum, tweeting or changing your avatar to show your concern for there are only three things that matter to politicians in Western democracies: the press, money and votes.

But I'll tell you what the root cause is: humanity, on the whole and despite our better natures, is irresponsible, impulsive, greedy and foolish. You don't need a barrage of peer-reviewed studies to illustrate that putting lethal weapons in the hands of almost anyone with as few barriers as possible is asking for trouble.

Originally Posted by rdowns

Thanks for doing my homework, luv.

Make the check out to cash, wouldya?

[hafr]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

The table below shows that the United States is #9 in per capita firearm-related deaths. This certainly helps to support that the presence of firearms contributes to the high number of deaths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

Thank you. If you could find comparisons regarding gun ownership and gun control in these countries, that would be great.

Also, if you look at countries with less firearm-related deaths, it's not like they're automatically less violent, just that the killings are performed with other means... Take Russia for instance, where private (legal) gun ownership is close to zero, the number of gun related murders are very low, but they have more than three times the number of homicides per capita in comparison to the US...

----------

Originally Posted by Huntn

For the OP, from a purely practical position if you look at the people who have conducted mass murder in the last 30 years in public locations, most of them used a firearm, most likely a semi automatic weapon. If they instead has used a knife, they would not have gotten nearly as far or in many cases it would not have happened. Fact: Guns make murder easy, Semi-automatic guns make it real easy. Fact: if there were no guns, there would be less murder, but I am not advocating that, just making an observation.

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

Mainly machetes. The presence of more weapons amongst private citizens might have evened out the odds and stopped the massacre far earlier, it might have made it worse. There's no way of knowing. Just as there is no way of knowing if your assumption that no guns would mean less murder.

Unless, of course, you are basing it on facts and not the kind of deductive reasoning I'm trying to avoid?

----------

Originally Posted by Ugg

Exactly, and all the OP needs to do is look at Central and parts of South America. For that matter, look at Mexico as well. High rates of gun ownership result in high levels of gun related death and when a country borders a country with lax gun ownership laws, like Mexico where guns are smuggled in easily both from the north and south, then gun ownership feeds the criminal classes.

So lax gun regulations isn't bad because it causes increased violence in that country, but in the neighbouring countries? (Both Canada and Mexico have higher gun murder to gun ownership ratios than the US.)

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by hafr

Thank you. If you could find comparisons regarding gun ownership and gun control in these countries, that would be great.

Or you could find comparisons regarding gun ownership and gun control in these countries.

That would be great as well.

[hafr]

Originally Posted by Blue Velvet

So many of you are in utter denial. It’s pathetically transparent to observe.

Know why US-specific research on public health and firearm safety is scarce? Because:

In other words, NRA-backed polticians recklessly suppressed medical research to assist with public safety, lest the results become inconvenient. And don’t bother arguing with the source unless you have the credentials to take on the American Medical Association.

My emphasis.

Congress: bought and sold like cheap whores. You get the government (and society) you deserve.

Well, the fact based arguments for stricter gun control are lacking all over the world - not only in the US.

[skunk]

Originally Posted by hafr

Well, the fact based arguments for stricter gun control are lacking all over the world - not only in the US.

Wouldn't you even want to find out if the evidence points the other way? You'll never know unless you have some solid research you can trust.