Teenager and 20 year old shot Friday night....in Britain, where they have gun control...

[2aguy]

OP problem is that he uses a very short period of time to discuss UK numbers without context to the 24 year period of time he uses for the USA numbers.

In other words, OP has created a fallacy of false equivalency for analysis.

The OP is worthless.

Wrong......the stats show what they show...we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people legally carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to 357-400 million guns in private hands and over 15 million people legally carrying guns in 2016.....and gun murder dropped 49%.....and gun crime in general dropped 75%....and violent crime dropped 72%....

None of that is supposed to happen according to you guys..who tell us more guns in more hands will lead to more gun murder and more gun crime.....and it did not happen.....nothing that you believe about guns is based in truth, facts or reality.

 

[2aguy]

OP problem is that he uses a very short period of time to discuss UK numbers without context to the 24 year period of time he uses for the USA numbers.

In other words, OP has created a fallacy of false equivalency for analysis.

The OP is worthless.

Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950

The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago

You're a player, but not a very good one. I really don't care what the murder rate is for bloody old England because I don't live there. I certainly feel bad for their people needlessly losing their lives over there for sure but my primary concern is for the tens of thousands of people needlessly gunned down over here every year. The carnage is unacceptable and the cost to our society in terms of life saving medical care delievered through our nations trauma centers alone is unimaginable. And than there's the cost of tens of thousands of the severely wounded that do survive but require very expensive lifelong healthcare for as long as they live. And again, this is every single year. This is all on your dime chief. And my dime. I don't like it. How bout you chief? Do you like needlessly handing out all that free care on your dime?

And you are wrong.....there were 9,616 gun murders in 2015....of those 70-80% of the victims are other criminals, and many of the rest are family and friends of the criminals....

Americans use guns each year to stop violent criminal attack 1,500,000 times....according to bill clinton and barak obama....that is rapes, robberies, beatings, murders and hospitilizatons that do not occur because armed citizens stopped them....

If you morons would support locking up violent criminals who use guns in crimes for 30 years...those costs would come down even more....

The cost saved by stopping those crimes far outweighs the damage done by the criminals...

Here is just one look at the other side......

Annual Defensive Gun Use Savings Dwarf Study's "Gun Violence" Costs - The Truth About Guns

Our man Bruce Krafft — whose posts we dearly miss — did the math back in 2012. Here it is:
Our fearless leader suggested that I take a look at the flip side of the anti’s latest attack on our freedoms (a recycled strategy from the Clinton-era Public Health model of gun control): the monetary cost of gun violence.
For example, the Center for American Progress touted the “fact” that the Virginia Tech massacre cost taxpayers $48.2 million (including autopsy costs and a fine against Virginia Tech for failing to get their skates on when the killer started shooting).
It’s one of the antis’ favorite tricks: cost benefit analysis omitting the benefit side of the equation. So what are the financial benefits of firearm ownership to society? Read on . . .
In my post Dennis Henigan on Chardon: Clockwork Edition, I did an analysis of how many lives were saved annually in Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs). I used extremely conservative numbers. Now I am going to use some less conservative ones.
The Kleck-Gertz DGU study estimated that there are between 2.1 and 2.5 million DGUs a year in the U.S. The Ludwig-Cook study came up with 1.46 million. So let’s split the difference and call it 1.88 million DGUs per year.
In the K-G article Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun, 15.7 percent of people who had a DGU reckoned they almost certainly saved a life. Ignoring the ‘probably’ and ‘might have’ saved a life categories for simplicity, 15.7 percent of 1.88 million gives us 295,160 lives saved annually.
[NB: A number of people have questioned the 15.7 percent stat. Remember: many states regard the mere act of pulling a gun on someone a form of deadly force. In addition, virtually every jurisdiction in the nation requires that an armed self-defender must be in “reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm” before using (or in some places even threatening to use) deadly force.]
How can we get a dollar figure from 1.88 million defensive gun uses per year? Never fear, faithful reader, we can count on the .gov to calculate everything.
According to the AZ state government, in February of 2008 a human life was worth $6.5 million. Going to the Inflation Calculator and punching in the numbers gives us a present value of $6.93 million.
So figuring that the average DGU saves one half of a person’s life—as “gun violence” predominantly affects younger demographics—that gives us $3.465 million per half life.
Putting this all together, we find that the monetary benefit of guns (by way of DGUs) is roughly $1.02 trillion per year. That’s trillion. With a ‘T’.
I was going to go on and calculate the costs of incarceration ($50K/year) saved by people killing 1527 criminals annually, and then look at the lifetime cost to society of an average criminal (something in excess of $1 million). But all of that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the $1,000,000,000,000 ($1T) annual benefit of gun ownership.
When compared to the (inflation adjusted from 2002) $127.5 billion ‘cost’ of gun violence calculated by by our Ludwig-Cook buddies, guns save a little more than eight times what they “cost.”
Which, I might add, is completely irrelevant since “the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.”
So even taking Motherboard’s own total and multiplying it by 100, the benefits to society of civilian gun ownership dwarf the associated costs.

 

[Meane]

OP problem is that he uses a very short period of time to discuss UK numbers without context to the 24 year period of time he uses for the USA numbers.

In other words, OP has created a fallacy of false equivalency for analysis.

The OP is worthless.

Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950

The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago

You haven't shown anything. You just say. And most importantly going back all the way to 1950's and not dwelling more on the in between time does not constitute a good argument on the development of the situation in both countries.

But if you have this year 1950 story in writing from some official source, I think we'd all like to see that as well. There must be more to the story.

These aren't the kind of statistics the common people invent for past time, but there are and have been professionals who have a way of counting them as well as analyzing the reasons behind the changes and the differences.

Homicide Rate (per 100,000), 1950–2014

so you see our murder rate is what it was in 1950

the same is true on England

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DJ-KA2Whh...-12-22+at++Saturday,+December+22,+9.26+PM.png

so tell me if England passed all kinds of strict gun laws and they can't get the murder rate below what it was before all those laws were passed and our murder rate has fallen to the same 1950 level without all the draconian gun laws how can you say gun laws reduce murder rates?

But you don't know how many people were shot. There are many ways to kill a man.

And the statistics there still don't convince me. Why does it say something about homicides, firearm offences and intimate violence? It says nowhere they were shot.

As someone mentioned UK has a much stricter way of classifying violent crimes. And they may also have different ways of classifying different killings.

 

[2aguy]

Does the UK or any other developed country have the toddler problem like we have? Perhaps it takes one good toddler with a gun to stop a bad toddler with a gun.
People are getting shot by toddlers on a weekly basis this year

still trying to push that one toddler a week bullshit

more kids die from drowning than by accidental shootings so if you're going to get all "outraged" about accidental child deaths why don't you start with the worst offenders?

Firearms aren't even in the top 10

Yes. One toddler shooting a week. Kids need swimming pools more than they need guns dumbass. If you want to talk about swimming pools start your own thread Empty Skull.

Now, you might say the accidental gun death rate for toddlers doesn't take into account gun murder of toddlers.......since the accidental death number for toddlers...from the CDC ...was a total of 25....for 2015......

Total number of murders......vs. other types of murder...for a country with 74.2 million kids....

And do you care about the other ways children are murdered..since more are murdered without guns...moron....?

Leading Causes of Death | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC
Kids murdered by guns....

under 1: 12
age 1-4: 39

age 5-14: 142

total gun murder of children.....193



Kids murdered by other means...

under 1: 270
age 1-4: 298
age 5-14: 135



murder of children by other means.....703

Aren`t there some kind of rules here about spamming the board with the same nonsense every day? Without 1,500,000 police reports per year reporting the use of a gun to prevent a crime, 2asimpleton has nothing but yet he posts the same shit several times a day. He/she is not a serious person.

First.....When I quote that number it is in response to another poster making up a false claim about gun use in the United States...if is a fact taken from two studies...one done by bill clinton's Department of Justice, the other by obama's CDC....

And here are the studies that show all of the research into defensive gun use going back decades....

I just averaged the studies at the bottom......I took only studies that exluded military and police gun use.....notice, theses studies which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

Self defense with a gun:

Self defense with a gun......40 years of actual research...first is the name of the group that conducted the research, then the year, then the number of defensive gun uses and finally wether the research contained police or military defensive gun uses....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

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


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


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

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

And if you expect individual stories...you will have to give individual police reports for all 9,616 gun murders reported in 2015....just to be fair, according to your standard...

 

[2aguy]

OP problem is that he uses a very short period of time to discuss UK numbers without context to the 24 year period of time he uses for the USA numbers.

In other words, OP has created a fallacy of false equivalency for analysis.

The OP is worthless.

Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950

The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago

You're a player, but not a very good one. I really don't care what the murder rate is for bloody old England because I don't live there. I certainly feel bad for their people needlessly losing their lives over there for sure but my primary concern is for the tens of thousands of people needlessly gunned down over here every year. The carnage is unacceptable and the cost to our society in terms of life saving medical care delievered through our nations trauma centers alone is unimaginable. And than there's the cost of tens of thousands of the severely wounded that do survive but require very expensive lifelong healthcare for as long as they live. And again, this is every single year. This is all on your dime chief. And my dime. I don't like it. How bout you chief? Do you like needlessly handing out all that free care on your dime?

And you are wrong.....

200 million guns in the U.S in the 1990s.....357-400 million guns in the U.S. in 2016

--gun crime went down 75%

--gun murder went down 49%

--violent crime went down 72%

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[2aguy]

Yep....when you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have them...as Britain keeps finding out....

Murder probe launched after teenage boy shot dead in east London

A murder investigation has been launched after a teenage boy was shot dead in east London.

Scotland Yard said a boy in his “mid-teens” was killed and another man in his early 20s was injured after the pair were shot in Newham on Friday night.

The boy was pronounced dead at the scene after suffering a gunshot wound, police said. The other victim is not thought to have suffered life-threatening injuries, and it is not yet clear whether the two shootings are linked.

Terrified witnesses told how they heard gunshots being fired just before 11pm before police descended on the scene in North Woolwich.

One said: "I went to the area to get some Chinese. Whilst I was there I heard a couple of shots, sudden bangs.

"Suddenly there was a tonne of police cars and squad cars in the area, lots of blue lights. Spoke to my former neighbour, she said she heard the same thing as me... sounded like gun shots."

You sure you wanna go there?

In a population of 56 million, that adds up to about 50 to 60 gun killings annually. In the USA, by contrast, there are about 160 times as many gun homicides in a country that is roughly six times larger in population. There were 8,124 gun homicides in 2014, according to the latest FBI figures.

Gun violence rare in U.K. compared to U.S.​

Yes...let's go there.....

Violent crime is up in the U.K. and gun crime is as high as it was before the ban in 1996....they had a low gun murder rate before the ban..then it went up, then it returned to the same level......

it is now up 10% in major cities, like London.....

in the U.S. same time...our gun murder rate went down 49% as we went from 200 million guns to 357-400 million guns...our gun crime rate went down 75% and our violent crime rate went down 72%.....

British criminals tend not to commit murder....they have guns, they don't use them to kill....our cirminals kill each other, a lot....70-80% of gun murder victims in the U.S. are other criminals..not law abiding citizens.....

So with an increase...a massive increase in gun ownership and carrying guns..our gun violence rate went down 75% the gun crime rate in Britain...decades after the ban...is going up...

 

[2aguy]

OP problem is that he uses a very short period of time to discuss UK numbers without context to the 24 year period of time he uses for the USA numbers.

In other words, OP has created a fallacy of false equivalency for analysis.

The OP is worthless.

Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950

The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago

You're a player, but not a very good one. I really don't care what the murder rate is for bloody old England because I don't live there. I certainly feel bad for their people needlessly losing their lives over there for sure but my primary concern is for the tens of thousands of people needlessly gunned down over here every year. The carnage is unacceptable and the cost to our society in terms of life saving medical care delievered through our nations trauma centers alone is unimaginable. And than there's the cost of tens of thousands of the severely wounded that do survive but require very expensive lifelong healthcare for as long as they live. And again, this is every single year. This is all on your dime chief. And my dime. I don't like it. How bout you chief? Do you like needlessly handing out all that free care on your dime?

for one "tens of thousands" are not "gunned down" every year

the actual number of people murdered with firearms is under 10,000 in 2014 it was 8124

with a large percentage of that being people with criminal history

If the cops won't arrest them and the courts won't send violent pieces of shit to jail for long sentences it's not my problem so for the few cents it costs for hospital services I'll keep my guns

Like I said, you're not a very good player. Tens of thousands are gunned down & killed every year. Tens of thousands more are wounded. You just want to ignore the facts. Slice & dice the numbers so you don't have to discuss the true horror created by the possession of firearms, both legally and illegally.

You're in denial.

You don't know what you are talking about..........I slice and dice those numbers all day long, and they don't support you......

gun murders in 2015....9,616

defensive gun use each year....1,500,000 ( according to bill clinton's Dept. of Justice and barak obama's CDC)

Those are lives saved, rapes and beatings stopped........

As more AMericans own and carry guns...our gun murder rate went down 49%....our gun crime rate went down 75%, our violent crime rate went down 72%......

So it is you who don't understand the numbers.....

 

[pwjohn]

OP problem is that he uses a very short period of time to discuss UK numbers without context to the 24 year period of time he uses for the USA numbers.

In other words, OP has created a fallacy of false equivalency for analysis.

The OP is worthless.

Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950

The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago

You're a player, but not a very good one. I really don't care what the murder rate is for bloody old England because I don't live there. I certainly feel bad for their people needlessly losing their lives over there for sure but my primary concern is for the tens of thousands of people needlessly gunned down over here every year. The carnage is unacceptable and the cost to our society in terms of life saving medical care delievered through our nations trauma centers alone is unimaginable. And than there's the cost of tens of thousands of the severely wounded that do survive but require very expensive lifelong healthcare for as long as they live. And again, this is every single year. This is all on your dime chief. And my dime. I don't like it. How bout you chief? Do you like needlessly handing out all that free care on your dime?

And you are wrong.....there were 9,616 gun murders in 2015....of those 70-80% of the victims are other criminals, and many of the rest are family and friends of the criminals....

Americans use guns each year to stop violent criminal attack 1,500,000 times....according to bill clinton and barak obama....that is rapes, robberies, beatings, murders and hospitilizatons that do not occur because armed citizens stopped them....

If you morons would support locking up violent criminals who use guns in crimes for 30 years...those costs would come down even more....

The cost saved by stopping those crimes far outweighs the damage done by the criminals...

Here is just one look at the other side......

Annual Defensive Gun Use Savings Dwarf Study's "Gun Violence" Costs - The Truth About Guns

Our man Bruce Krafft — whose posts we dearly miss — did the math back in 2012. Here it is:
Our fearless leader suggested that I take a look at the flip side of the anti’s latest attack on our freedoms (a recycled strategy from the Clinton-era Public Health model of gun control): the monetary cost of gun violence.
For example, the Center for American Progress touted the “fact” that the Virginia Tech massacre cost taxpayers $48.2 million (including autopsy costs and a fine against Virginia Tech for failing to get their skates on when the killer started shooting).
It’s one of the antis’ favorite tricks: cost benefit analysis omitting the benefit side of the equation. So what are the financial benefits of firearm ownership to society? Read on . . .
In my post Dennis Henigan on Chardon: Clockwork Edition, I did an analysis of how many lives were saved annually in Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs). I used extremely conservative numbers. Now I am going to use some less conservative ones.
The Kleck-Gertz DGU study estimated that there are between 2.1 and 2.5 million DGUs a year in the U.S. The Ludwig-Cook study came up with 1.46 million. So let’s split the difference and call it 1.88 million DGUs per year.
In the K-G article Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun, 15.7 percent of people who had a DGU reckoned they almost certainly saved a life. Ignoring the ‘probably’ and ‘might have’ saved a life categories for simplicity, 15.7 percent of 1.88 million gives us 295,160 lives saved annually.
[NB: A number of people have questioned the 15.7 percent stat. Remember: many states regard the mere act of pulling a gun on someone a form of deadly force. In addition, virtually every jurisdiction in the nation requires that an armed self-defender must be in “reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm” before using (or in some places even threatening to use) deadly force.]
How can we get a dollar figure from 1.88 million defensive gun uses per year? Never fear, faithful reader, we can count on the .gov to calculate everything.
According to the AZ state government, in February of 2008 a human life was worth $6.5 million. Going to the Inflation Calculator and punching in the numbers gives us a present value of $6.93 million.
So figuring that the average DGU saves one half of a person’s life—as “gun violence” predominantly affects younger demographics—that gives us $3.465 million per half life.
Putting this all together, we find that the monetary benefit of guns (by way of DGUs) is roughly $1.02 trillion per year. That’s trillion. With a ‘T’.
I was going to go on and calculate the costs of incarceration ($50K/year) saved by people killing 1527 criminals annually, and then look at the lifetime cost to society of an average criminal (something in excess of $1 million). But all of that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the $1,000,000,000,000 ($1T) annual benefit of gun ownership.
When compared to the (inflation adjusted from 2002) $127.5 billion ‘cost’ of gun violence calculated by by our Ludwig-Cook buddies, guns save a little more than eight times what they “cost.”
Which, I might add, is completely irrelevant since “the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.”
So even taking Motherboard’s own total and multiplying it by 100, the benefits to society of civilian gun ownership dwarf the associated costs.

Just throwing shit up against the wall and hoping for the best is not a strategy to win debates. You cannot dispute my facts because my facts tare indisputable. As for the rest you're a dreamer.

 

[2aguy]

OP problem is that he uses a very short period of time to discuss UK numbers without context to the 24 year period of time he uses for the USA numbers.

In other words, OP has created a fallacy of false equivalency for analysis.

The OP is worthless.

Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950

The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago

You're a player, but not a very good one. I really don't care what the murder rate is for bloody old England because I don't live there. I certainly feel bad for their people needlessly losing their lives over there for sure but my primary concern is for the tens of thousands of people needlessly gunned down over here every year. The carnage is unacceptable and the cost to our society in terms of life saving medical care delievered through our nations trauma centers alone is unimaginable. And than there's the cost of tens of thousands of the severely wounded that do survive but require very expensive lifelong healthcare for as long as they live. And again, this is every single year. This is all on your dime chief. And my dime. I don't like it. How bout you chief? Do you like needlessly handing out all that free care on your dime?

And you are wrong.....there were 9,616 gun murders in 2015....of those 70-80% of the victims are other criminals, and many of the rest are family and friends of the criminals....

Americans use guns each year to stop violent criminal attack 1,500,000 times....according to bill clinton and barak obama....that is rapes, robberies, beatings, murders and hospitilizatons that do not occur because armed citizens stopped them....

If you morons would support locking up violent criminals who use guns in crimes for 30 years...those costs would come down even more....

The cost saved by stopping those crimes far outweighs the damage done by the criminals...

Here is just one look at the other side......

Annual Defensive Gun Use Savings Dwarf Study's "Gun Violence" Costs - The Truth About Guns

Our man Bruce Krafft — whose posts we dearly miss — did the math back in 2012. Here it is:
Our fearless leader suggested that I take a look at the flip side of the anti’s latest attack on our freedoms (a recycled strategy from the Clinton-era Public Health model of gun control): the monetary cost of gun violence.
For example, the Center for American Progress touted the “fact” that the Virginia Tech massacre cost taxpayers $48.2 million (including autopsy costs and a fine against Virginia Tech for failing to get their skates on when the killer started shooting).
It’s one of the antis’ favorite tricks: cost benefit analysis omitting the benefit side of the equation. So what are the financial benefits of firearm ownership to society? Read on . . .
In my post Dennis Henigan on Chardon: Clockwork Edition, I did an analysis of how many lives were saved annually in Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs). I used extremely conservative numbers. Now I am going to use some less conservative ones.
The Kleck-Gertz DGU study estimated that there are between 2.1 and 2.5 million DGUs a year in the U.S. The Ludwig-Cook study came up with 1.46 million. So let’s split the difference and call it 1.88 million DGUs per year.
In the K-G article Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun, 15.7 percent of people who had a DGU reckoned they almost certainly saved a life. Ignoring the ‘probably’ and ‘might have’ saved a life categories for simplicity, 15.7 percent of 1.88 million gives us 295,160 lives saved annually.
[NB: A number of people have questioned the 15.7 percent stat. Remember: many states regard the mere act of pulling a gun on someone a form of deadly force. In addition, virtually every jurisdiction in the nation requires that an armed self-defender must be in “reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm” before using (or in some places even threatening to use) deadly force.]
How can we get a dollar figure from 1.88 million defensive gun uses per year? Never fear, faithful reader, we can count on the .gov to calculate everything.
According to the AZ state government, in February of 2008 a human life was worth $6.5 million. Going to the Inflation Calculator and punching in the numbers gives us a present value of $6.93 million.
So figuring that the average DGU saves one half of a person’s life—as “gun violence” predominantly affects younger demographics—that gives us $3.465 million per half life.
Putting this all together, we find that the monetary benefit of guns (by way of DGUs) is roughly $1.02 trillion per year. That’s trillion. With a ‘T’.
I was going to go on and calculate the costs of incarceration ($50K/year) saved by people killing 1527 criminals annually, and then look at the lifetime cost to society of an average criminal (something in excess of $1 million). But all of that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the $1,000,000,000,000 ($1T) annual benefit of gun ownership.
When compared to the (inflation adjusted from 2002) $127.5 billion ‘cost’ of gun violence calculated by by our Ludwig-Cook buddies, guns save a little more than eight times what they “cost.”
Which, I might add, is completely irrelevant since “the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.”
So even taking Motherboard’s own total and multiplying it by 100, the benefits to society of civilian gun ownership dwarf the associated costs.

Just throwing shit up against the wall and hoping for the best is not a strategy to win debates. You cannot dispute my facts because my facts tare indisputable. As for the rest you're a dreamer.

Nothing is being thrown against the wall.....I am citing research from the FBI, the CDC, economists....you are debating from emotion.....

Guns in the hands of normal, law abiding people does not increase the crime rate......gun laws do not stop gun crime if criminals decide to use guns.........

you are just wrong....

 

[MrShangles]

The only little problem AS ALWAYS with jimbo's OP is that in America where we have so many states with incredibly loose laws on guns, 128 people were shot in the same time.

Since it is about 1/5 per capita ratio, the OP does not tell you that based on his single incident in the UK that you are more than 12 TIMES LIKELY to get shot here than there.

He scours the net for gun crime abroad and totally ignores the slaughter in his own back yard.

As do you and yours. The reality is if you compare the USA with Europe....ALL of Europe we actually have less overall crime, less violent crime, and the gun murder rate for Europe is rising as you get ever more third world refugees into your country who bring their culture and their violent ways with them. Think about this, two mass shootings in Europe, Norway and Paris, killed more people than all of our mass shootings COMBINED over the last 25 years.

So no, your gun control doesn't seem to work too well..

You can stick your gun nut lies up your arse you sad fuck. None of it is true. You also forget in your racist diatribe that the Norwegian killer was actually a norwegian.
Its a European country you thick inbred fucker.

Why dont you go and shoot some squirrels you piece of shit.

Just because someone has a different idea than you doesn't make them a racist does it. That one has got to be old, can't y'all find a different go to insult when someone has a different opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Meane]

You haven't shown anything. You just say. And most importantly going back all the way to 1950's and not dwelling more on the in between time does not constitute a good argument on the development of the situation in both countries.

But if you have this year 1950 story in writing from some official source, I think we'd all like to see that as well. There must be more to the story.

These aren't the kind of statistics the common people invent for past time, but there are and have been professionals who have a way of counting them as well as analyzing the reasons behind the changes and the differences.

Homicide Rate (per 100,000), 1950–2014

so you see our murder rate is what it was in 1950

the same is true on England

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DJ-KA2Whh...-12-22+at++Saturday,+December+22,+9.26+PM.png

so tell me if England passed all kinds of strict gun laws and they can't get the murder rate below what it was before all those laws were passed and our murder rate has fallen to the same 1950 level without all the draconian gun laws how can you say gun laws reduce murder rates?

Starting from just a few years after the ban went into effect, looks like a significant drop to me. Although graphs like that don't speak to reasons for the drop.

so explain the spike

Why on Earth would I waste my time researching your claims??



You posted that chart. It shows a significant decline in homicides since a few years after the gun ban started. Way to make your point.

And it shows that the gun band didn't reduce murder rate to below pre-ban levels
the same thing happened with the 1960's gun laws in the UK

I bet there is more shooting in US than UK. You have to separate murder and shooting.

 

[westwall]

Homicide Rate (per 100,000), 1950–2014

so you see our murder rate is what it was in 1950

the same is true on England

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DJ-KA2Whh...-12-22+at++Saturday,+December+22,+9.26+PM.png

so tell me if England passed all kinds of strict gun laws and they can't get the murder rate below what it was before all those laws were passed and our murder rate has fallen to the same 1950 level without all the draconian gun laws how can you say gun laws reduce murder rates?

Starting from just a few years after the ban went into effect, looks like a significant drop to me. Although graphs like that don't speak to reasons for the drop.

so explain the spike

Why on Earth would I waste my time researching your claims??



You posted that chart. It shows a significant decline in homicides since a few years after the gun ban started. Way to make your point.

And it shows that the gun band didn't reduce murder rate to below pre-ban levels
the same thing happened with the 1960's gun laws in the UK

I bet there is more shooting in US than UK. You have to separate murder and shooting.

Of course there is. We have nearly five times the population that the UK has.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

The only little problem AS ALWAYS with jimbo's OP is that in America where we have so many states with incredibly loose laws on guns, 128 people were shot in the same time.

Since it is about 1/5 per capita ratio, the OP does not tell you that based on his single incident in the UK that you are more than 12 TIMES LIKELY to get shot here than there.

He scours the net for gun crime abroad and totally ignores the slaughter in his own back yard.

As do you and yours. The reality is if you compare the USA with Europe....ALL of Europe we actually have less overall crime, less violent crime, and the gun murder rate for Europe is rising as you get ever more third world refugees into your country who bring their culture and their violent ways with them. Think about this, two mass shootings in Europe, Norway and Paris, killed more people than all of our mass shootings COMBINED over the last 25 years.

So no, your gun control doesn't seem to work too well..

You can stick your gun nut lies up your arse you sad fuck. None of it is true. You also forget in your racist diatribe that the Norwegian killer was actually a norwegian.
Its a European country you thick inbred fucker.

Why dont you go and shoot some squirrels you piece of shit.

Just because someone has a different idea than you doesn't make them a racist does it. That one has got to be old, can't y'all find a different go to insult when someone has a different opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Disagreeing with me is a national past time. He is a racist though. He points the finger at immigrants with no proof other than his prejudice and then deflects from Americas issues by pointing out that the perps are all black. As if that makes hem a different class of American.
They probably are in his twisted mind.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

OP problem is that he uses a very short period of time to discuss UK numbers without context to the 24 year period of time he uses for the USA numbers.

In other words, OP has created a fallacy of false equivalency for analysis.

The OP is worthless.

Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950

The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago

Well I looked into your claim and I cant see anything that could be described as "draconian".

1968 Firearms Act[edit]
The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, it did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, with ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.

The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[72]

The Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[73]

Have I missed anything ? The above measures just look like common sense.

 

[Skull Pilot]

for one "tens of thousands" are not "gunned down" every year

the actual number of people murdered with firearms is under 10,000 in 2014 it was 8124

with a large percentage of that being people with criminal history

If the cops won't arrest them and the courts won't send violent pieces of shit to jail for long sentences it's not my problem so for the few cents it costs for hospital services I'll keep my guns

Like I said, you're not a very good player. Tens of thousands are gunned down & killed every year. Tens of thousands more are wounded. You just want to ignore the facts. Slice & dice the numbers so you don't have to discuss the true horror created by the possession of firearms, both legally and illegally.

You're in denial.

gunned down means killed

since 76% of all murder suspects have criminal records we can safely say that illegal not legal guns are the problem

Who says the problem is one or the other?

The vast majority of legal gun owners will never commit any crime with their firearms
Those that obtain guns illegally are the problem

So the problem is both then. Thanks for confirming the obvious.

the problem is ILLEGAL guns

 

[Skull Pilot]

OP problem is that he uses a very short period of time to discuss UK numbers without context to the 24 year period of time he uses for the USA numbers.

In other words, OP has created a fallacy of false equivalency for analysis.

The OP is worthless.

Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950

The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago

Well I looked into your claim and I cant see anything that could be described as "draconian".

1968 Firearms Act[edit]
The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, it did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, with ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.

The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[72]

The Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[73]

Have I missed anything ? The above measures just look like common sense.

common sense to a Brit maybe

 

[Skull Pilot]

OP problem is that he uses a very short period of time to discuss UK numbers without context to the 24 year period of time he uses for the USA numbers.

In other words, OP has created a fallacy of false equivalency for analysis.

The OP is worthless.

Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950

The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago

You haven't shown anything. You just say. And most importantly going back all the way to 1950's and not dwelling more on the in between time does not constitute a good argument on the development of the situation in both countries.

But if you have this year 1950 story in writing from some official source, I think we'd all like to see that as well. There must be more to the story.

These aren't the kind of statistics the common people invent for past time, but there are and have been professionals who have a way of counting them as well as analyzing the reasons behind the changes and the differences.

Homicide Rate (per 100,000), 1950–2014

so you see our murder rate is what it was in 1950

the same is true on England

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DJ-KA2Whh...-12-22+at++Saturday,+December+22,+9.26+PM.png

so tell me if England passed all kinds of strict gun laws and they can't get the murder rate below what it was before all those laws were passed and our murder rate has fallen to the same 1950 level without all the draconian gun laws how can you say gun laws reduce murder rates?

But you don't know how many people were shot. There are many ways to kill a man.

And the statistics there still don't convince me. Why does it say something about homicides, firearm offences and intimate violence? It says nowhere they were shot.

As someone mentioned UK has a much stricter way of classifying violent crimes. And they may also have different ways of classifying different killings.

doesn't matter you people always say more guns more murder or is a murder with a gun somehow worse?

and The UK doesn't call a murder a murder unless there is a conviction we call murder murder even if it's unsolved and no one gets convicted

 

[Skull Pilot]

Homicide Rate (per 100,000), 1950–2014

so you see our murder rate is what it was in 1950

the same is true on England

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DJ-KA2Whh...-12-22+at++Saturday,+December+22,+9.26+PM.png

so tell me if England passed all kinds of strict gun laws and they can't get the murder rate below what it was before all those laws were passed and our murder rate has fallen to the same 1950 level without all the draconian gun laws how can you say gun laws reduce murder rates?

Starting from just a few years after the ban went into effect, looks like a significant drop to me. Although graphs like that don't speak to reasons for the drop.

so explain the spike

Why on Earth would I waste my time researching your claims??



You posted that chart. It shows a significant decline in homicides since a few years after the gun ban started. Way to make your point.

And it shows that the gun band didn't reduce murder rate to below pre-ban levels
the same thing happened with the 1960's gun laws in the UK

I bet there is more shooting in US than UK. You have to separate murder and shooting.

No I don't.

Murder is murder it matters not how it was committed

 

[Tommy Tainant]

OP problem is that he uses a very short period of time to discuss UK numbers without context to the 24 year period of time he uses for the USA numbers.

In other words, OP has created a fallacy of false equivalency for analysis.

The OP is worthless.

Well I went back 60 years to compare murder rates and have shown that both the US and the UK have current murder rates that are virtually the same as 1950

The UK passed draconian gun laws in the 60's we didn't yet our respective murder rates are what they were 60 years ago

Well I looked into your claim and I cant see anything that could be described as "draconian".

1968 Firearms Act[edit]
The Firearms Act 1968 brought together all existing firearms legislation in a single statute. Disregarding minor changes, it formed the legal basis for British firearms control policy until the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was put through Parliament in the aftermath of the 1987 Hungerford massacre. For the first time, it introduced controls for long-barrelled shotguns, in the form of Shotgun Certificates that, like Firearm Certificates, were issued by an area's chief constable in England, Scotland, and Wales. While applicants for Firearms Certificates had to show a good reason for possessing the firearm or ammunition, it did not apply to Shotgun Certificates. Firearms had to be locked up, with ammunition stored and locked in a different cabinet. This was introduced after the 1973 Green Paper, which advocated more controls on firearms.

The Act also prohibited the possession of firearms or ammunition by criminals who had been sentenced to imprisonment; those sentenced to three months to three years imprisonment were banned from possessing firearms or ammunition for five years, while those sentenced to longer terms were banned for life. However, an application could be made to have the prohibition removed.[72]

The Act was accompanied by an amnesty; many older weapons were handed into the police. It has remained a feature of British policing that from time-to-time a brief firearms amnesty is declared.[73]

Have I missed anything ? The above measures just look like common sense.

common sense to a Brit maybe

I cant see anything which would prevent you owning a shotgun. You need a license and a safe place to keep it. Perhaps it explains the zero deaths of toddlers from gun injuries in the UK ?
But you cited this "draconian " legislation. Explain it.

 

[2aguy]

Homicide Rate (per 100,000), 1950–2014

so you see our murder rate is what it was in 1950

the same is true on England

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DJ-KA2Whh...-12-22+at++Saturday,+December+22,+9.26+PM.png

so tell me if England passed all kinds of strict gun laws and they can't get the murder rate below what it was before all those laws were passed and our murder rate has fallen to the same 1950 level without all the draconian gun laws how can you say gun laws reduce murder rates?

Starting from just a few years after the ban went into effect, looks like a significant drop to me. Although graphs like that don't speak to reasons for the drop.

so explain the spike

Why on Earth would I waste my time researching your claims??



You posted that chart. It shows a significant decline in homicides since a few years after the gun ban started. Way to make your point.

And it shows that the gun band didn't reduce murder rate to below pre-ban levels
the same thing happened with the 1960's gun laws in the UK

I bet there is more shooting in US than UK. You have to separate murder and shooting.

No..you have to separate shootings and gun control laws. You think gun control laws lower shootings...the facts show this isn't accurate......gun crime and gun murder in Britain didn't go down after they passed their gun ban......our gun crime went down as more people bought and carried guns......gun control laws don't effect shootings...criminal culture does...British criminals have guns...they just don't use them to commit murder......our criminals use them to shoot each other.....different cultures.....

And as we have shown...British criminals are getting more comfortable with shooting people...