A question for those who want more gun control

[dannyboys]

Given history, why should anyone believe that those who want to further limit the right to arms for the law abiding will cease their efforts to do so with universal background checks?

You mean just like women's right too choose.

When a woman chooses to murder a living being she is committing murder. Period!

Dude, you're nasty.

Tell that to the ten week old baby girl about get her head crushed in her mother's womb. Who's being "nasty"?

 

[dannyboys]

I'm sorry you don't like the fact that you get called out on your lies.
if you stopped lying, that wouldn't happen.

And.... I again thank you for your continued demonstration that you cannot give anyone a reason to believe those who seek to further limit the rights of the law abiding will stop at universal background checks

No one can 'prove' what hasn't happened yet, which is what you're asking. And you're right, by the way; a lot of people want a lot less guns in the closets of Americans, however it can be managed. Outlaw violent shoot-em-up video games and movies as if they were child pornography. Make it illegal to manufacture or sell certain assault rifles in the United States. Violate everyone's right to privacy and hunt out illegally held guns, or buy them off the streets. Any zany shit you can think of, I'm ready for. There are way too many guns in this country, allowing too many folks to grab a gun and kill anyone they want from a safe distance, like the cowards they are. And there are too many people who think that's ultra cool. It's sick. Guns kill. Period. Get rid of 'em.

Make it illegal to manufacture or sell certain assault rifles in the United States.

Why…….the rifles you mention murder and injure fewer people than knives, blunt objects or bare hands. There are over 3 million of them in private hands and at most 2-3 are used each year for crime……..so what is the problem with them?

You realize there are over 357 million guns in private hands….and that fewer than 8,124 of them are used to murder people…the rest over 356,991,876 million are used for lawful purposes and are never, ever used to commit one crime…right?

And it is a fact that mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing only happen to people who do not have guns to stop it.

Guns save lives. Guns have allowed the weak to free themselves from the strong…..without guns the weak would be the slaves of the strong…just like they were all throughout human history before the first gun was ever invented.

You need to actually think about this topic….it is obvious that you haven't.

I've thought about it a lot. You and I have had this discussion and others before and I have actually given it a great deal of thought, done some research, etc. I acknowledge your points, and I guess I can't disagree with statistics. But darn it, putting more and more guns in the hands of Americans is NOT the answer to out of control gun violence and death in this country. I'm pretty sure we'll never know if I'm right, because I'm on the losing side of this and I know it. I was just honestly answering the OP's question.

But darn it, putting more and more guns in the hands of Americans is NOT the answer to out of control gun violence and death in this country.

Then how do you explain the fact that as more Americans now own and actually carry guns…the gun murder rate has continuously gone down, and not up. That there are 357 million guns in private hands and that the majority of actual gun murder is committed by people who cannot legally own guns…..so of the 8,124 gun murders, the majority are committed by violent criminals who cannot own or carry a gun murdering other violent criminals who cannot own or carry a gun.

So normal, law abiding gun owners can own and carry guns all day long and they will not shoot people or commit crimes with those guns. So do you see how your sentence makes little sense….when the reality shows that the act of owning guns is not the problem……violent criminals are the problem, and that none of the proposed gun restrictions actually address criminals. That all the proposed gun control laws target people who are not the problem…who will not use guns to commit crime?

So the answer to out of control gun violence is not arming everyone, it is just that arming normal gun owners isn't a part of the problem or the equation.

The answer is to target criminals…with long sentences and prosecutions for gun crime….which we do not have.

In my dream world, going down hard on the criminals and on the suppliers who sell them the guns, is part of the plan; the first step before making it harder for Average Joe to purchase a hunting rifle. I'd be all for it.
I agree it would be insane to take guns from law abiding citizens before making serious progress in taking guns from criminals. But then assault type weapons and large capacity magazines would go bye-bye. No need for them in the law abiding world you present.

You see, a lot of the crimes commited with guns aren't done by gang members or mafia types. They're done by nut jobs who were quietly crazy and flew beneath the radar and have guns in the house legally. Or by abusers who flip when girlfriend tries to break up. Or by kids in the 'hood carrying for self protection that get into a situation where they act like, well, kids. The less guns in circulation, the less risk of one being used. Does that make sense to you at all?
The problem with your argument is that if a good percentage of violent criminals haven't got a gun in the house to begin with, during that moment of crisis when they want to kill someone, a lot of shootings won't occur. Kids in gangs carry guns for self protection from other kids carrying guns. If guns hadn't been in the house, Newtown wouldn't have occurred. If the Aurora shooter hadn't been able to legally purchase all his guns and ammunition, there would be more innocent theater goers alive today.
The problem with your argument is that if a good percentage of violent criminals haven't got a gun in the house to begin with, during that moment of crisis when they want to kill someone, a lot of shootings won't occur. Kids in gangs carry guns for self protection from other kids carrying guns. If guns hadn't been in the house, Newtown wouldn't have occurred. If the Aurora shooter hadn't been able to legally purchase all his guns and ammunition, there would be more innocent theater goers alive today.

No doubt you are in a "dream world" dear.
The vast majority of crimes committed using a gun are by gang members. That dear little innocent boy of twelve who has a gun got it from the gang he belongs to. THINK!!!!!!
A twelve year old negro boy wants a gun to protect himself from, as you admit from another gang.
You think he can go to the local gang and say "I don't want to be part of your gang but I want you to sell me a gun"? THINK!!!!!!!!!
Violent criminals AKA 100% gang members buy their guns from Mexican cartels who also sell the gangs heroin. Heroin is the only drug that can't be grown or synthesized in the US.
The gangs front the dope to street corner sellers. They sell the cheap shit knock-off guns to the gangs. The gangs sell the shit guns to the street corner sellers and twelve year old budding gang bangers.
These 'violent criminals' don't give a shit about 'gun laws' or 'background checks'. You are living in a fantasy world if you think anyone will ever be able to reduce the number of guns in the possession of violent street gangs.
The statistically extremely very rare event were some crazy person goes on a shooting spree is just that.
More people die from just eating dog shit then from being killed by some mentally ill person with access to a gun. The LIB myth that 'straw purchases' are the reason violent criminals get guns is just that. A decade ago before the Mexican cartels took over the illegal gun business and the heroin market straw purchases did happen. Not anymore.
Legitimate gun dealers turn in any illegal gun dealer they know of.

 

[toxicmedia]

Given history, why should anyone believe that those who want to further limit the right to arms for the law abiding will cease their efforts to do so with universal background checks?

They'll not cease their efforts....

Where do their efforts cease?

They'll never cease.

They'll never gain traction

Any proposed legislation will not pass through even a Democratic controlled Congress.

They'll never come for our guns

I think you are wrong. They know the court system is the way to get the guns. They are passing anti gun legislation in blue states. The federal judges obama has appointed are upholding these laws, and if hilary replaces one of the 3 conservatives on the court those laws will become Constitutional, and the anti gunners will go nuts to pass them all over the country.

That is possible, but they're not proposing any legislation I know of that will cause law enforcement to come take guns away from people

 

[2aguy]

I'm sorry you don't like the fact that you get called out on your lies.
if you stopped lying, that wouldn't happen.

And.... I again thank you for your continued demonstration that you cannot give anyone a reason to believe those who seek to further limit the rights of the law abiding will stop at universal background checks

No one can 'prove' what hasn't happened yet, which is what you're asking. And you're right, by the way; a lot of people want a lot less guns in the closets of Americans, however it can be managed. Outlaw violent shoot-em-up video games and movies as if they were child pornography. Make it illegal to manufacture or sell certain assault rifles in the United States. Violate everyone's right to privacy and hunt out illegally held guns, or buy them off the streets. Any zany shit you can think of, I'm ready for. There are way too many guns in this country, allowing too many folks to grab a gun and kill anyone they want from a safe distance, like the cowards they are. And there are too many people who think that's ultra cool. It's sick. Guns kill. Period. Get rid of 'em.

Make it illegal to manufacture or sell certain assault rifles in the United States.

Why…….the rifles you mention murder and injure fewer people than knives, blunt objects or bare hands. There are over 3 million of them in private hands and at most 2-3 are used each year for crime……..so what is the problem with them?

You realize there are over 357 million guns in private hands….and that fewer than 8,124 of them are used to murder people…the rest over 356,991,876 million are used for lawful purposes and are never, ever used to commit one crime…right?

And it is a fact that mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing only happen to people who do not have guns to stop it.

Guns save lives. Guns have allowed the weak to free themselves from the strong…..without guns the weak would be the slaves of the strong…just like they were all throughout human history before the first gun was ever invented.

You need to actually think about this topic….it is obvious that you haven't.

I've thought about it a lot. You and I have had this discussion and others before and I have actually given it a great deal of thought, done some research, etc. I acknowledge your points, and I guess I can't disagree with statistics. But darn it, putting more and more guns in the hands of Americans is NOT the answer to out of control gun violence and death in this country. I'm pretty sure we'll never know if I'm right, because I'm on the losing side of this and I know it. I was just honestly answering the OP's question.

But darn it, putting more and more guns in the hands of Americans is NOT the answer to out of control gun violence and death in this country.

Then how do you explain the fact that as more Americans now own and actually carry guns…the gun murder rate has continuously gone down, and not up. That there are 357 million guns in private hands and that the majority of actual gun murder is committed by people who cannot legally own guns…..so of the 8,124 gun murders, the majority are committed by violent criminals who cannot own or carry a gun murdering other violent criminals who cannot own or carry a gun.

So normal, law abiding gun owners can own and carry guns all day long and they will not shoot people or commit crimes with those guns. So do you see how your sentence makes little sense….when the reality shows that the act of owning guns is not the problem……violent criminals are the problem, and that none of the proposed gun restrictions actually address criminals. That all the proposed gun control laws target people who are not the problem…who will not use guns to commit crime?

So the answer to out of control gun violence is not arming everyone, it is just that arming normal gun owners isn't a part of the problem or the equation.

The answer is to target criminals…with long sentences and prosecutions for gun crime….which we do not have.

In my dream world, going down hard on the criminals and on the suppliers who sell them the guns, is part of the plan; the first step before making it harder for Average Joe to purchase a hunting rifle. I'd be all for it.
I agree it would be insane to take guns from law abiding citizens before making serious progress in taking guns from criminals. But then assault type weapons and large capacity magazines would go bye-bye. No need for them in the law abiding world you present.

You see, a lot of the crimes commited with guns aren't done by gang members or mafia types. They're done by nut jobs who were quietly crazy and flew beneath the radar and have guns in the house legally. Or by abusers who flip when girlfriend tries to break up. Or by kids in the 'hood carrying for self protection that get into a situation where they act like, well, kids. The less guns in circulation, the less risk of one being used. Does that make sense to you at all?
The problem with your argument is that if a good percentage of violent criminals haven't got a gun in the house to begin with, during that moment of crisis when they want to kill someone, a lot of shootings won't occur. Kids in gangs carry guns for self protection from other kids carrying guns. If guns hadn't been in the house, Newtown wouldn't have occurred. If the Aurora shooter hadn't been able to legally purchase all his guns and ammunition, there would be more innocent theater goers alive today.
The problem with your argument is that if a good percentage of violent criminals haven't got a gun in the house to begin with, during that moment of crisis when they want to kill someone, a lot of shootings won't occur. Kids in gangs carry guns for self protection from other kids carrying guns. If guns hadn't been in the house, Newtown wouldn't have occurred. If the Aurora shooter hadn't been able to legally purchase all his guns and ammunition, there would be more innocent theater goers alive today.

But then assault type weapons and large capacity magazines would go bye-bye. No need for them in the law abiding world you present.

There is no reason to get rid of them. standard capacity magazines help the good guy have enough ammo. And a bad guy can murder people with revolvers.

And alleged Assault rifles…there is no reason to get rid of them either….there are over 3 million in private hands….law abiding, responsible hands, and only 2-3 a year are used for any type of crime. Also……they are good weapons for self defense….especially when there is a breakdown in civil authority…as was seen during the riots….in Ferguson, and Rodney king……

Newton would have happened…the shooter had been planning it for 2 years and if you don't think he would have secured a gun with that much planning you don't understand their mentality.

You see, a lot of the crimes commited with guns aren't done by gang members or mafia types.

Have you looked at the research…….that statement is untrue…the majority of all gun murders and crimes are committed by violent career criminals with long criminal histories……I'll find it..

 

[2aguy]

I'm sorry you don't like the fact that you get called out on your lies.
if you stopped lying, that wouldn't happen.

And.... I again thank you for your continued demonstration that you cannot give anyone a reason to believe those who seek to further limit the rights of the law abiding will stop at universal background checks

No one can 'prove' what hasn't happened yet, which is what you're asking. And you're right, by the way; a lot of people want a lot less guns in the closets of Americans, however it can be managed. Outlaw violent shoot-em-up video games and movies as if they were child pornography. Make it illegal to manufacture or sell certain assault rifles in the United States. Violate everyone's right to privacy and hunt out illegally held guns, or buy them off the streets. Any zany shit you can think of, I'm ready for. There are way too many guns in this country, allowing too many folks to grab a gun and kill anyone they want from a safe distance, like the cowards they are. And there are too many people who think that's ultra cool. It's sick. Guns kill. Period. Get rid of 'em.

Make it illegal to manufacture or sell certain assault rifles in the United States.

Why…….the rifles you mention murder and injure fewer people than knives, blunt objects or bare hands. There are over 3 million of them in private hands and at most 2-3 are used each year for crime……..so what is the problem with them?

You realize there are over 357 million guns in private hands….and that fewer than 8,124 of them are used to murder people…the rest over 356,991,876 million are used for lawful purposes and are never, ever used to commit one crime…right?

And it is a fact that mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing only happen to people who do not have guns to stop it.

Guns save lives. Guns have allowed the weak to free themselves from the strong…..without guns the weak would be the slaves of the strong…just like they were all throughout human history before the first gun was ever invented.

You need to actually think about this topic….it is obvious that you haven't.

I've thought about it a lot. You and I have had this discussion and others before and I have actually given it a great deal of thought, done some research, etc. I acknowledge your points, and I guess I can't disagree with statistics. But darn it, putting more and more guns in the hands of Americans is NOT the answer to out of control gun violence and death in this country. I'm pretty sure we'll never know if I'm right, because I'm on the losing side of this and I know it. I was just honestly answering the OP's question.

But darn it, putting more and more guns in the hands of Americans is NOT the answer to out of control gun violence and death in this country.

Then how do you explain the fact that as more Americans now own and actually carry guns…the gun murder rate has continuously gone down, and not up. That there are 357 million guns in private hands and that the majority of actual gun murder is committed by people who cannot legally own guns…..so of the 8,124 gun murders, the majority are committed by violent criminals who cannot own or carry a gun murdering other violent criminals who cannot own or carry a gun.

So normal, law abiding gun owners can own and carry guns all day long and they will not shoot people or commit crimes with those guns. So do you see how your sentence makes little sense….when the reality shows that the act of owning guns is not the problem……violent criminals are the problem, and that none of the proposed gun restrictions actually address criminals. That all the proposed gun control laws target people who are not the problem…who will not use guns to commit crime?

So the answer to out of control gun violence is not arming everyone, it is just that arming normal gun owners isn't a part of the problem or the equation.

The answer is to target criminals…with long sentences and prosecutions for gun crime….which we do not have.

In my dream world, going down hard on the criminals and on the suppliers who sell them the guns, is part of the plan; the first step before making it harder for Average Joe to purchase a hunting rifle. I'd be all for it.
I agree it would be insane to take guns from law abiding citizens before making serious progress in taking guns from criminals. But then assault type weapons and large capacity magazines would go bye-bye. No need for them in the law abiding world you present.

You see, a lot of the crimes commited with guns aren't done by gang members or mafia types. They're done by nut jobs who were quietly crazy and flew beneath the radar and have guns in the house legally. Or by abusers who flip when girlfriend tries to break up. Or by kids in the 'hood carrying for self protection that get into a situation where they act like, well, kids. The less guns in circulation, the less risk of one being used. Does that make sense to you at all?
The problem with your argument is that if a good percentage of violent criminals haven't got a gun in the house to begin with, during that moment of crisis when they want to kill someone, a lot of shootings won't occur. Kids in gangs carry guns for self protection from other kids carrying guns. If guns hadn't been in the house, Newtown wouldn't have occurred. If the Aurora shooter hadn't been able to legally purchase all his guns and ammunition, there would be more innocent theater goers alive today.
The problem with your argument is that if a good percentage of violent criminals haven't got a gun in the house to begin with, during that moment of crisis when they want to kill someone, a lot of shootings won't occur. Kids in gangs carry guns for self protection from other kids carrying guns. If guns hadn't been in the house, Newtown wouldn't have occurred. If the Aurora shooter hadn't been able to legally purchase all his guns and ammunition, there would be more innocent theater goers alive today.

Here you go…research into who the shooters actually are….

You see, a lot of the crimes commited with guns aren't done by gang members or mafia types.

Houston.....most shooters criminals

http://www.click2houston.com/news/houston-murder-rate-skyrockets-in-early-2015_20151125214501203

McClelland said the majority of murders in the city are committed by people with criminal records against people with criminal records.

-----
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/25/us/cdc-gun-violence-wilmington.html?_r=0



When epidemiologists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention came to this city, they were not here to track an outbreak of meningitis or study the effectiveness of a particular vaccine.

They were here to examine gun violence.

This city of about 70,000 had a 45 percent jump in shootings from 2011 to 2013, and the violence has remained stubbornly high; 25 shooting deaths have been reported this year, slightly more than last year, according to the mayor’s office
.-------



The final report, which has been submitted to the state, reached a conclusion that many here said they already knew: that there are certain patterns in the lives of many who commit gun violence.

“The majority of individuals involved in urban firearm violence are young men with substantial violence involvement preceding the more serious offense of a firearm crime,”


the report said. “Our findings suggest that integrating data systems could help these individuals better receive the early, comprehensive help that they need to prevent violence involvement.”

Researchers analyzed data on 569 people charged with firearm crimes from 2009 to May 21, 2014, and looked for certain risk factors in their lives, such as whether they had been unemployed, had received help from assistance programs, had been possible victims of child abuse, or had been shot or stabbed. The idea was to show that linking such data could create a better understanding of who might need help before becoming involved in violence.

http://www.guns.com/2015/12/16/nearly-half-of-nycs-shootings-gang-related/

Of the more than 300 homicides so far this year in New York City, almost half of those – 40 percent – were determined to be gang-related, with 49 percent of the city’s nearly 1,100 shootings tied to gangs as well.
-----
Data obtained by the Daily News from the NYPD’s Gang and Juvenile Justice divisions indicate that gang members may be as young as 10 years old, with most members in their teens and early twenties. Those who survive the lifestyle long enough often have extensive criminal records by their 30s.


----
---From an article on Operation Ceasefire...it cites the number of criminals in Oakland California who actually shoot people and who get shot, and there criminal backgrounds...

Beyond Gun Control

Lost in the debate is that even in high-crime cities, the risk of gun violence is mostly concentrated among a small number of men. In Oakland, for instance, crime experts working with the police department a few years ago found that about 1,000 active members of a few dozen street groups drove most homicides. That’s .3 percent of Oakland’s population. And even within this subgroup, risk fluctuated according to feuds and other beefs. In practical terms, the experts found that over a given stretch of several months only about 50 to 100 men are at the highest risk of shooting someone or getting shot.

Most of these men have criminal records. But it’s not drug deals or turf wars that drives most of the shootings.

Instead, the violence often starts with what seems to outsiders like trivial stuff—“a fight over a girlfriend, a couple of words, a dispute over a dice game,” said Vaughn Crandall, a senior strategist at the California Partnership for Safe Communities, which did the homicide analysis for Oakland.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/most-murder-victims-in-big-cities-have-criminal-record/

A review of murder statistics across America shows that in many large cities, up to 90 percent of the victims have criminal records.
-------
The report concludes that “of the 2011 homicide victims, 77 percent (66) had a least one prior arrest and of the known 2011 homicide suspects 90 percent (74) had at least one prior arrest.”
----------
In early 2012, after pressure put on the police by murder victims’ families in New Orleans, the police department stopped revealing whether or not the murder victim had a prior record.
---------------
Though data is no longer published in Baltimore, USA Today reported in 2007 that 91 percent of the then-205 murder victims in the city between Jan. 1 and Aug. 31, 2007, had criminal records.
---------
A WND review of the Philadelphia Police Department Murder and Shooting Analysis for 2011 shows a similar pattern to that of other large cities in America – a majority of the murder victims have prior records.
--------
In Philadelphia in 2011, of 324 murders, 81 percent (263) of the victims had at least one prior arrest; 62 percent (164) had been arrested for a violent crime prior to their murder.
----------
In Newark, N.J., long considered one of America’s most dangerous cities, 85 percent of the 165 murder victims between 2009 and 2010 had serious arrest histories.
Anthony Braga, a professor with the Rutgers-Newark School of Criminal Justice, told the Newark Star-Ledger that 85 percent of 165 murder victims in Newark between 2009 and 2010 had been arrested at least once before they were killed.
Those victims, he said, had, on average, 10 prior arrests on their criminal records.
A WND review of the Chicago Police Department Murder Analysis reports from 2003 to 2011 provides a statistical breakdown of the demographics of both the victims and offenders in the 4,265 murders in Chicago over that time period.
Of the victims of murder in Chicago from 2003 to 2011, an average of 77 percent had a prior arrest history, with a high of 79 percent of the 436 murdered in Chicago in 2010 having arrest histories.

***************
*****************

http://reason.com/archives/1997/04/01/public-health-pot-shots

this article goes at kellerman extensively and his crap research.....and here is some work on who actually kills people...


These and other studies funded by the CDC focus on the presence or absence of guns, rather than the characteristics of the people who use them. Indeed, the CDC's Rosenberg claims in the journalEducational Horizons that murderers are "ourselves--ordinary citizens, professionals, even health care workers": people who kill only because a gun happens to be available. Yet if there is one fact that has been incontestably established by homicide studies, it's that murderers are not ordinary gun owners but extreme aberrants whose life histories include drug abuse, serious accidents, felonies, and irrational violence.

Unlike "ourselves," roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have significant criminal records, averaging an adult criminal career of six or more years with four major felonies.
Access to juvenile records would almost certainly show that the criminal careers of murderers stretch back into their adolescence. In Murder in America (1994), the criminologists Ronald W. Holmes and Stephen T. Holmes report that murderers generally "have histories of committing personal violence in childhood, against other children, siblings, and small animals." Murderers who don't have criminal records usually have histories of psychiatric treatment or domestic violence that did not lead to arrest.
Contrary to the impression fostered by Rosenberg and other opponents of gun ownership, the term "acquaintance homicide" does not mean killings that stem from ordinary family or neighborhood arguments. Typical acquaintance homicides include: an abusive man eventually killing a woman he has repeatedly assaulted; a drug user killing a dealer (or vice versa) in a robbery attempt; and gang members, drug dealers, and other criminals killing each other for reasons of economic rivalry or personal pique.

According to a 1993 article in the Journal of Trauma, 80 percent of murders in Washington, D.C., are related to the drug trade, while "84% of [Philadelphia murder] victims in 1990 had antemortem drug use or criminal history."
A 1994 article in The New England Journal of Medicinereported that 71 percent of Los Angeles children and adolescents injured in drive-by shootings "were documented members of violent street gangs." And University of North Carolina-Charlotte criminal justice scholars Richard Lumb and Paul C. Friday report that 71 percent of adult gunshot wound victims in Charlotte have criminal records.

Gangs in Fort Meyers Florida...

http://www.nbc-2.com/story/22079660/nbc2-investigates-southwest-florida-gangs#.ViPdQrQRakg

The City of Fort Myers has been plagued with violence and murder. NBC2 Investigator Dave Elias dug deeper and found that drugs, crime and gangs are the common elements between those killings.
Lee County Sheriff Mike Scott says the three go hand-in-hand and all appear to be playing a big role in the city's crime problem.
"They're punks. They're criminals. And in most cases – cowards," said Sheriff Scott.

He also explained that gang members live by a much different set of rules.
"We're at a more violent time right now than at any time I recall," said Sheriff Scott. "You're talking about an area that - per capita - is on par with Detroit Michigan, in terms of homicides."
There were 25 murders in Fort Myers alone last year. And Sheriff Scott says all of the killings have those three things in common – drugs, crime and gangs.
"In most every case this is criminal killing criminal. This is bad guy on bad guy," he said.

********************************
The Kate and Mauser study.......

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

I. VIOLENCE: THE DECISIVENESS OF SOCIAL FACTORS

One reason the extent of gun ownership in a society does not spur the murder rate is that murderers are not spread evenly throughout the population. Analysis of perpetrator studies shows that violent criminals—especially murderers—“almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behav‐ ior.”37 So it would not appreciably raise violence if all law‐ abiding, responsible people had firearms because they are not the ones who rape, rob, or murder.38 By the same token, violent crime would not fall if guns were totally banned to civilians. As the respective examples of Luxembourg and Russia suggest,39 individuals who commit violent crimes will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons to use. 40

--------------------------

III. DO ORDINARY PEOPLE MURDER?

The “more guns equal more death” mantra seems plausible only when viewed through the rubric that murders mostly in‐ volve ordinary people who kill because they have access to a firearm when they get angry. If this were true, murder might well increase where people have ready access to firearms, but the available data provides no such correlation. Nations and


areas with more guns per capita do not have higher murder rates than those with fewer guns per capita.53

Nevertheless, critics of gun ownership often argue that a “gun in the closet to protect against burglars will most likely be used to shoot a spouse in a moment of rage . . . . The problem is you and me—law‐abiding folks;”54 that banning handgun posses‐ sion only for those with criminal records will “fail to protect us from the most likely source of handgun murder: ordinary citi‐ zens;”55 that “most gun‐related homicides . . . are the result of impulsive actions taken by individuals who have little or no criminal background or who are known to the victims;”56 that “the majority of firearm homicide[s occur] . . . not as the result of criminal activity, but because of arguments between people who know each other;”57 that each year there are thousands of gun murders “by law‐abiding citizens who might have stayed law‐abiding if they had not possessed firearms.”58

These comments appear to rest on no evidence and actually con‐ tradict facts that have so uniformly been established by homicide studies dating back to the 1890s that they have become “crimino‐ logical axioms.”59 Insofar as studies focus on perpetrators, they show that neither a majority, nor many, nor virtually any murder‐ ers are ordinary “law‐abiding citizens.”60

Rather, almost all mur‐ derers are extremely aberrant individuals with life histories of violence, psychopathology, substance abuse, and other dangerous behaviors. “The vast majority of persons involved in life‐ threatening violence have a long criminal record with many prior contacts with the justice system.”61 “Thus homicide—[whether] of a

stranger or [of] someone known to the offender—‘is usually part of a pattern of violence, engaged in by people who are known . . . as violence prone.’”62

Though only 15% of Americans over the age of 15 have arrest records,63 approximately 90 percent of “adult mur‐ derers have adult records, with an average adult criminal career [involving crimes committed as an adult rather than a child] of six or more years, including four major adult felony arrests.”64

These national statistics dovetail with data from local nineteenth and twentieth century studies. For example: victims as well as offenders [in 1950s and 1960s Philadelphia murders] . . . tended to be people with prior police records, usually for violent crimes such as as‐ sault.”65


“The great majority of both perpetrators and victims of [1970s Harlem] assaults and murders had previous [adult] arrests, probably over 80% or more.”66 Boston police and probation officers in the 1990s agreed that of those juvenile‐perpetrated murders where all the facts were known, virtually all were committed by gang members, though the killing was not necessarily gang‐ directed. 67 One example would be a gang member who stabs his girlfriend to death in a fit of anger.68 Regardless of their arrests for other crimes, 80% of 1997 Atlanta murder arrestees had at least one earlier drug offense with 70% having 3 or more prior drug of‐ fenses.69

A New York Times study of the 1,662 murders committed in that city in the years 2003–2005 found that “[m]ore than 90 percent of the killers had criminal records.”70 Baltimore police figures show that “92 percent of murder suspects had [prior] criminal records in 2006.”71 Several of the more recent homicide studies just reviewed

 

[2aguy]

I'm sorry you don't like the fact that you get called out on your lies.
if you stopped lying, that wouldn't happen.

And.... I again thank you for your continued demonstration that you cannot give anyone a reason to believe those who seek to further limit the rights of the law abiding will stop at universal background checks

No one can 'prove' what hasn't happened yet, which is what you're asking. And you're right, by the way; a lot of people want a lot less guns in the closets of Americans, however it can be managed. Outlaw violent shoot-em-up video games and movies as if they were child pornography. Make it illegal to manufacture or sell certain assault rifles in the United States. Violate everyone's right to privacy and hunt out illegally held guns, or buy them off the streets. Any zany shit you can think of, I'm ready for. There are way too many guns in this country, allowing too many folks to grab a gun and kill anyone they want from a safe distance, like the cowards they are. And there are too many people who think that's ultra cool. It's sick. Guns kill. Period. Get rid of 'em.

Make it illegal to manufacture or sell certain assault rifles in the United States.

Why…….the rifles you mention murder and injure fewer people than knives, blunt objects or bare hands. There are over 3 million of them in private hands and at most 2-3 are used each year for crime……..so what is the problem with them?

You realize there are over 357 million guns in private hands….and that fewer than 8,124 of them are used to murder people…the rest over 356,991,876 million are used for lawful purposes and are never, ever used to commit one crime…right?

And it is a fact that mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing only happen to people who do not have guns to stop it.

Guns save lives. Guns have allowed the weak to free themselves from the strong…..without guns the weak would be the slaves of the strong…just like they were all throughout human history before the first gun was ever invented.

You need to actually think about this topic….it is obvious that you haven't.

I've thought about it a lot. You and I have had this discussion and others before and I have actually given it a great deal of thought, done some research, etc. I acknowledge your points, and I guess I can't disagree with statistics. But darn it, putting more and more guns in the hands of Americans is NOT the answer to out of control gun violence and death in this country. I'm pretty sure we'll never know if I'm right, because I'm on the losing side of this and I know it. I was just honestly answering the OP's question.

But darn it, putting more and more guns in the hands of Americans is NOT the answer to out of control gun violence and death in this country.

Then how do you explain the fact that as more Americans now own and actually carry guns…the gun murder rate has continuously gone down, and not up. That there are 357 million guns in private hands and that the majority of actual gun murder is committed by people who cannot legally own guns…..so of the 8,124 gun murders, the majority are committed by violent criminals who cannot own or carry a gun murdering other violent criminals who cannot own or carry a gun.

So normal, law abiding gun owners can own and carry guns all day long and they will not shoot people or commit crimes with those guns. So do you see how your sentence makes little sense….when the reality shows that the act of owning guns is not the problem……violent criminals are the problem, and that none of the proposed gun restrictions actually address criminals. That all the proposed gun control laws target people who are not the problem…who will not use guns to commit crime?

So the answer to out of control gun violence is not arming everyone, it is just that arming normal gun owners isn't a part of the problem or the equation.

The answer is to target criminals…with long sentences and prosecutions for gun crime….which we do not have.

In my dream world, going down hard on the criminals and on the suppliers who sell them the guns, is part of the plan; the first step before making it harder for Average Joe to purchase a hunting rifle. I'd be all for it.
I agree it would be insane to take guns from law abiding citizens before making serious progress in taking guns from criminals. But then assault type weapons and large capacity magazines would go bye-bye. No need for them in the law abiding world you present.

You see, a lot of the crimes commited with guns aren't done by gang members or mafia types. They're done by nut jobs who were quietly crazy and flew beneath the radar and have guns in the house legally. Or by abusers who flip when girlfriend tries to break up. Or by kids in the 'hood carrying for self protection that get into a situation where they act like, well, kids. The less guns in circulation, the less risk of one being used. Does that make sense to you at all?
The problem with your argument is that if a good percentage of violent criminals haven't got a gun in the house to begin with, during that moment of crisis when they want to kill someone, a lot of shootings won't occur. Kids in gangs carry guns for self protection from other kids carrying guns. If guns hadn't been in the house, Newtown wouldn't have occurred. If the Aurora shooter hadn't been able to legally purchase all his guns and ammunition, there would be more innocent theater goers alive today.
The problem with your argument is that if a good percentage of violent criminals haven't got a gun in the house to begin with, during that moment of crisis when they want to kill someone, a lot of shootings won't occur. Kids in gangs carry guns for self protection from other kids carrying guns. If guns hadn't been in the house, Newtown wouldn't have occurred. If the Aurora shooter hadn't been able to legally purchase all his guns and ammunition, there would be more innocent theater goers alive today.

A more focused answer……

Nevertheless, critics of gun ownership often argue that a “gun in the closet to protect against burglars will most likely be used to shoot a spouse in a moment of rage . . . . The problem is you and me—law‐abiding folks;”54 that banning handgun posses‐ sion only for those with criminal records will “fail to protect us from the most likely source of handgun murder: ordinary citi‐ zens;”55 that “most gun‐related homicides . . . are the result of impulsive actions taken by individuals who have little or no criminal background or who are known to the victims;”56 that “the majority of firearm homicide[s occur] . . . not as the result of criminal activity, but because of arguments between people who know each other;”57 that each year there are thousands of gun murders “by law‐abiding citizens who might have stayed law‐abiding if they had not possessed firearms.”58

These comments appear to rest on no evidence and actually con‐ tradict facts that have so uniformly been established by homicide studies dating back to the 1890s that they have become “crimino‐ logical axioms.”59 Insofar as studies focus on perpetrators, they show that neither a majority, nor many, nor virtually any murder‐ ers are ordinary “law‐abiding citizens.”60

Rather, almost all mur‐ derers are extremely aberrant individuals with life histories of violence, psychopathology, substance abuse, and other dangerous behaviors. “The vast majority of persons involved in life‐ threatening violence have a long criminal record with many prior contacts with the justice system.”61 “Thus homicide—[whether] of a

stranger or [of] someone known to the offender—‘is usually part of a pattern of violence, engaged in by people who are known . . . as violence prone.’”62

Though only 15% of Americans over the age of 15 have arrest records,63 approximately 90 percent of “adult mur‐ derers have adult records, with an average adult criminal career [involving crimes committed as an adult rather than a child] of six or more years, including four major adult felony arrests.”64

These national statistics dovetail with data from local nineteenth and twentieth century studies. For example: victims as well as offenders [in 1950s and 1960s Philadelphia murders] . . . tended to be people with prior police records, usually for violent crimes such as as‐ sault.”65


“The great majority of both perpetrators and victims of [1970s Harlem] assaults and murders had previous [adult] arrests, probably over 80% or more.”66 Boston police and probation officers in the 1990s agreed that of those juvenile‐perpetrated murders where all the facts were known, virtually all were committed by gang members, though the killing was not necessarily gang‐ directed. 67 One example would be a gang member who stabs his girlfriend to death in a fit of anger.68 Regardless of their arrests for other crimes, 80% of 1997 Atlanta murder arrestees had at least one earlier drug offense with 70% having 3 or more prior drug of‐ fenses.69

A New York Times study of the 1,662 murders committed in that city in the years 2003–2005 found that “[m]ore than 90 percent of the killers had criminal records.”70 Baltimore police figures show that “92 percent of murder suspects had [prior] criminal records in 2006.”71 Several of the more recent homicide studies just reviewed

 

[2aguy]

I'm sorry you don't like the fact that you get called out on your lies.
if you stopped lying, that wouldn't happen.

And.... I again thank you for your continued demonstration that you cannot give anyone a reason to believe those who seek to further limit the rights of the law abiding will stop at universal background checks

No one can 'prove' what hasn't happened yet, which is what you're asking. And you're right, by the way; a lot of people want a lot less guns in the closets of Americans, however it can be managed. Outlaw violent shoot-em-up video games and movies as if they were child pornography. Make it illegal to manufacture or sell certain assault rifles in the United States. Violate everyone's right to privacy and hunt out illegally held guns, or buy them off the streets. Any zany shit you can think of, I'm ready for. There are way too many guns in this country, allowing too many folks to grab a gun and kill anyone they want from a safe distance, like the cowards they are. And there are too many people who think that's ultra cool. It's sick. Guns kill. Period. Get rid of 'em.

Make it illegal to manufacture or sell certain assault rifles in the United States.

Why…….the rifles you mention murder and injure fewer people than knives, blunt objects or bare hands. There are over 3 million of them in private hands and at most 2-3 are used each year for crime……..so what is the problem with them?

You realize there are over 357 million guns in private hands….and that fewer than 8,124 of them are used to murder people…the rest over 356,991,876 million are used for lawful purposes and are never, ever used to commit one crime…right?

And it is a fact that mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing only happen to people who do not have guns to stop it.

Guns save lives. Guns have allowed the weak to free themselves from the strong…..without guns the weak would be the slaves of the strong…just like they were all throughout human history before the first gun was ever invented.

You need to actually think about this topic….it is obvious that you haven't.

I've thought about it a lot. You and I have had this discussion and others before and I have actually given it a great deal of thought, done some research, etc. I acknowledge your points, and I guess I can't disagree with statistics. But darn it, putting more and more guns in the hands of Americans is NOT the answer to out of control gun violence and death in this country. I'm pretty sure we'll never know if I'm right, because I'm on the losing side of this and I know it. I was just honestly answering the OP's question.

But darn it, putting more and more guns in the hands of Americans is NOT the answer to out of control gun violence and death in this country.

Then how do you explain the fact that as more Americans now own and actually carry guns…the gun murder rate has continuously gone down, and not up. That there are 357 million guns in private hands and that the majority of actual gun murder is committed by people who cannot legally own guns…..so of the 8,124 gun murders, the majority are committed by violent criminals who cannot own or carry a gun murdering other violent criminals who cannot own or carry a gun.

So normal, law abiding gun owners can own and carry guns all day long and they will not shoot people or commit crimes with those guns. So do you see how your sentence makes little sense….when the reality shows that the act of owning guns is not the problem……violent criminals are the problem, and that none of the proposed gun restrictions actually address criminals. That all the proposed gun control laws target people who are not the problem…who will not use guns to commit crime?

So the answer to out of control gun violence is not arming everyone, it is just that arming normal gun owners isn't a part of the problem or the equation.

The answer is to target criminals…with long sentences and prosecutions for gun crime….which we do not have.

In my dream world, going down hard on the criminals and on the suppliers who sell them the guns, is part of the plan; the first step before making it harder for Average Joe to purchase a hunting rifle. I'd be all for it.
I agree it would be insane to take guns from law abiding citizens before making serious progress in taking guns from criminals. But then assault type weapons and large capacity magazines would go bye-bye. No need for them in the law abiding world you present.

You see, a lot of the crimes commited with guns aren't done by gang members or mafia types. They're done by nut jobs who were quietly crazy and flew beneath the radar and have guns in the house legally. Or by abusers who flip when girlfriend tries to break up. Or by kids in the 'hood carrying for self protection that get into a situation where they act like, well, kids. The less guns in circulation, the less risk of one being used. Does that make sense to you at all?
The problem with your argument is that if a good percentage of violent criminals haven't got a gun in the house to begin with, during that moment of crisis when they want to kill someone, a lot of shootings won't occur. Kids in gangs carry guns for self protection from other kids carrying guns. If guns hadn't been in the house, Newtown wouldn't have occurred. If the Aurora shooter hadn't been able to legally purchase all his guns and ammunition, there would be more innocent theater goers alive today.
The problem with your argument is that if a good percentage of violent criminals haven't got a gun in the house to begin with, during that moment of crisis when they want to kill someone, a lot of shootings won't occur. Kids in gangs carry guns for self protection from other kids carrying guns. If guns hadn't been in the house, Newtown wouldn't have occurred. If the Aurora shooter hadn't been able to legally purchase all his guns and ammunition, there would be more innocent theater goers alive today.

The less guns in circulation, the less risk of one being used.

Sorry, that doesn't fit reality. There are countries with absolute gun control that have higher murder rates than we do…and don't forget….France has absolute bans on military style weapons….and their criminals and their terrorists get them easily. The only ones who can't get them are law abiding citizens in France…and the criminals prefer fully automatic rifles.

Guns are tools that give the user power….normal people do not abuse that power, but criminals use that power to take what they want….you can ban guns completely and for a large part of human history there were no guns at all…..none on the planet, for anyone…and what did you have. The strong controlled the weak. The raped the weak, enlsaved the weak and killed the weak whenever they wanted……guns changed that. Women could resist men, the old could fight the young….and the weak no longer had to just take it anymore. Freedom of the kind we have experienced is only possible because of guns.

If the Aurora shooter hadn't been able to legally purchase all his guns and ammunition, there would be more innocent theater goers alive today.

Fully automatic rifles are illegal in France, you can't go to a gun show, you can't go to a gun store, you can't buy them from an individual because they are completely illegal….and yet they are easily acquired by criminals and terrorists there.

And the shooting in Paris was worse than the Aurora shooting.

And no, your argument doesn't make any sense to me…..there are now over 357 million guns in private hands…..normal, law abiding people have almost all of those weapons and only a tiny, tiny number misuse them. And on average 1.5 million of them are used to stop violent crime and save lives. You can't disarm good people because a tiny number of violent sociopaths use guns to kill. That just makes it easier for them to kill the weak, the old, and women…..

 

[OldLady]

No one can 'prove' what hasn't happened yet, which is what you're asking. And you're right, by the way; a lot of people want a lot less guns in the closets of Americans, however it can be managed. Outlaw violent shoot-em-up video games and movies as if they were child pornography. Make it illegal to manufacture or sell certain assault rifles in the United States. Violate everyone's right to privacy and hunt out illegally held guns, or buy them off the streets. Any zany shit you can think of, I'm ready for. There are way too many guns in this country, allowing too many folks to grab a gun and kill anyone they want from a safe distance, like the cowards they are. And there are too many people who think that's ultra cool. It's sick. Guns kill. Period. Get rid of 'em.

Make it illegal to manufacture or sell certain assault rifles in the United States.

Why…….the rifles you mention murder and injure fewer people than knives, blunt objects or bare hands. There are over 3 million of them in private hands and at most 2-3 are used each year for crime……..so what is the problem with them?

You realize there are over 357 million guns in private hands….and that fewer than 8,124 of them are used to murder people…the rest over 356,991,876 million are used for lawful purposes and are never, ever used to commit one crime…right?

And it is a fact that mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing only happen to people who do not have guns to stop it.

Guns save lives. Guns have allowed the weak to free themselves from the strong…..without guns the weak would be the slaves of the strong…just like they were all throughout human history before the first gun was ever invented.

You need to actually think about this topic….it is obvious that you haven't.

I've thought about it a lot. You and I have had this discussion and others before and I have actually given it a great deal of thought, done some research, etc. I acknowledge your points, and I guess I can't disagree with statistics. But darn it, putting more and more guns in the hands of Americans is NOT the answer to out of control gun violence and death in this country. I'm pretty sure we'll never know if I'm right, because I'm on the losing side of this and I know it. I was just honestly answering the OP's question.

But darn it, putting more and more guns in the hands of Americans is NOT the answer to out of control gun violence and death in this country.

Then how do you explain the fact that as more Americans now own and actually carry guns…the gun murder rate has continuously gone down, and not up. That there are 357 million guns in private hands and that the majority of actual gun murder is committed by people who cannot legally own guns…..so of the 8,124 gun murders, the majority are committed by violent criminals who cannot own or carry a gun murdering other violent criminals who cannot own or carry a gun.

So normal, law abiding gun owners can own and carry guns all day long and they will not shoot people or commit crimes with those guns. So do you see how your sentence makes little sense….when the reality shows that the act of owning guns is not the problem……violent criminals are the problem, and that none of the proposed gun restrictions actually address criminals. That all the proposed gun control laws target people who are not the problem…who will not use guns to commit crime?

So the answer to out of control gun violence is not arming everyone, it is just that arming normal gun owners isn't a part of the problem or the equation.

The answer is to target criminals…with long sentences and prosecutions for gun crime….which we do not have.

In my dream world, going down hard on the criminals and on the suppliers who sell them the guns, is part of the plan; the first step before making it harder for Average Joe to purchase a hunting rifle. I'd be all for it.
I agree it would be insane to take guns from law abiding citizens before making serious progress in taking guns from criminals. But then assault type weapons and large capacity magazines would go bye-bye. No need for them in the law abiding world you present.

You see, a lot of the crimes commited with guns aren't done by gang members or mafia types. They're done by nut jobs who were quietly crazy and flew beneath the radar and have guns in the house legally. Or by abusers who flip when girlfriend tries to break up. Or by kids in the 'hood carrying for self protection that get into a situation where they act like, well, kids. The less guns in circulation, the less risk of one being used. Does that make sense to you at all?
The problem with your argument is that if a good percentage of violent criminals haven't got a gun in the house to begin with, during that moment of crisis when they want to kill someone, a lot of shootings won't occur. Kids in gangs carry guns for self protection from other kids carrying guns. If guns hadn't been in the house, Newtown wouldn't have occurred. If the Aurora shooter hadn't been able to legally purchase all his guns and ammunition, there would be more innocent theater goers alive today.
The problem with your argument is that if a good percentage of violent criminals haven't got a gun in the house to begin with, during that moment of crisis when they want to kill someone, a lot of shootings won't occur. Kids in gangs carry guns for self protection from other kids carrying guns. If guns hadn't been in the house, Newtown wouldn't have occurred. If the Aurora shooter hadn't been able to legally purchase all his guns and ammunition, there would be more innocent theater goers alive today.

The less guns in circulation, the less risk of one being used.

Sorry, that doesn't fit reality. There are countries with absolute gun control that have higher murder rates than we do…and don't forget….France has absolute bans on military style weapons….and their criminals and their terrorists get them easily. The only ones who can't get them are law abiding citizens in France…and the criminals prefer fully automatic rifles.

Guns are tools that give the user power….normal people do not abuse that power, but criminals use that power to take what they want….you can ban guns completely and for a large part of human history there were no guns at all…..none on the planet, for anyone…and what did you have. The strong controlled the weak. The raped the weak, enlsaved the weak and killed the weak whenever they wanted……guns changed that. Women could resist men, the old could fight the young….and the weak no longer had to just take it anymore. Freedom of the kind we have experienced is only possible because of guns.

If the Aurora shooter hadn't been able to legally purchase all his guns and ammunition, there would be more innocent theater goers alive today.

Fully automatic rifles are illegal in France, you can't go to a gun show, you can't go to a gun store, you can't buy them from an individual because they are completely illegal….and yet they are easily acquired by criminals and terrorists there.

And the shooting in Paris was worse than the Aurora shooting.

And no, your argument doesn't make any sense to me…..there are now over 357 million guns in private hands…..normal, law abiding people have almost all of those weapons and only a tiny, tiny number misuse them. And on average 1.5 million of them are used to stop violent crime and save lives. You can't disarm good people because a tiny number of violent sociopaths use guns to kill. That just makes it easier for them to kill the weak, the old, and women…..

I appreciate your efforts here; I do understand your arguments but it's highly uncomfortable sitting on the fence so I jumped off on the side that makes the most sense to me. And do I sense you are trying to persuade me by pointing out how bad guys target women and the old, such as me? I don't scare that easily, Guy.

 

[pwjohn]

Given history, why should anyone believe that those who want to further limit the right to arms for the law abiding will cease their efforts to do so with universal background checks?

You mean just like women's right too choose.

When a woman chooses to murder a living being she is committing murder. Period!

Dude, you're nasty.

Tell that to the ten week old baby girl about get her head crushed in her mother's womb. Who's being "nasty"?

You are






Bernie Sanders for president