CDZ Fear and guns....a discussion.

[Tuatara]

If only it were true....the Discredited NRA,want everyone and anyone to have Guns in the USA,be you a gentle soul or Terrorist...it's simple they can all buy Guns........with NO Control because Americans cannot Control themselves, let alone others...Hoss it's just a shameful fact of American life......had your forefathers realised what a lot of Loboes some Americans would turn out to be generations later,they would Never have given you the 4th....they must be spinning in their Graves ...may they R.I.P..........................steve

So you realize that there are 357 million guns in private hands......and only 8,124 gun murders, which means less than 8,124 guns are used to commit murder in this country.

Actual research shows that the majority of those who use guns to commit murder are violent career criminals murdering other career criminals...which means your entire post is wrong....you do not know what you are talking about.

356,991,876 million guns in private hands are not used to commit crime or murder anyone.....

356,991,876 vs. less than 8,124 which number is bigger and by how much?

Do you see how wrong you are?

And the cherished Europe with their gun control laws.....in the 1940s the countries of Europe marched 12 million unarmed people into gas chambers....after they disarmed them. And then after the war...they allowed themselves to be disarmed again...thinking that there is no way it could ever happen again....

Who is the more foolish, us or them?

Just responding to the bolded part. The gun debate usually comes up after a mass shooting. In many of the cases of these mass shootings the perpertator was a law abiding citizen just before they committed these acts. You can't have a debate where you divide people up as either law abiding or criminal. Many law abiding citizens have killed people.

Obviously not. When you plan and commit murder, you are not law abiding. You are a criminal and a murderer.

I'm speaking about just before they did the shooting. Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Actually, that is not true.....90% of gun murderers have long criminal records.....it is a myth that normal people use guns to commit crimes. And the other interesting fact...the majority of victims of gun crime also have long histories of crime and violence.

It is certainly not true for the mass shootings perpertators and I actually don't believe that stat.

 

[Tuatara]

Too bad. You should be open to all ideas and opinions.

Ha-ha! Sorry, but that is too funny! Seriously???

Quite serious. Dismissing someone's opinion because they are from a different country is ridiculous. Counter their argument by all means but to dismisss it because they are from another country shows you're not open to debate the actual issue.

It's really not any of your business though! Not only that, but you wouldn't understand what it is to be an American. K? Your opinions are really quite irrelevant and hold no power here.

It is my business. As a Canadian who has friends and relatives in the US and who has travelled to the US, the safety of the country as a whole is my business. Also as a decent human being stopping other people from being killed regardless of what country they live in is called compassion. Telling people their opinions don't matter because they live in another country is not.

You can have your opinions, but they don't matter here. Also, they are wrong. Lol. We don't really care about what you do up there in Canada either. We would rather you leave us alone instead of sticking your nose into citizen rights. Thanks.

Sounds like someone can't defend their arguments.

 

[ChrisL]

Ha-ha! Sorry, but that is too funny! Seriously???

Quite serious. Dismissing someone's opinion because they are from a different country is ridiculous. Counter their argument by all means but to dismisss it because they are from another country shows you're not open to debate the actual issue.

It's really not any of your business though! Not only that, but you wouldn't understand what it is to be an American. K? Your opinions are really quite irrelevant and hold no power here.

It is my business. As a Canadian who has friends and relatives in the US and who has travelled to the US, the safety of the country as a whole is my business. Also as a decent human being stopping other people from being killed regardless of what country they live in is called compassion. Telling people their opinions don't matter because they live in another country is not.

You can have your opinions, but they don't matter here. Also, they are wrong. Lol. We don't really care about what you do up there in Canada either. We would rather you leave us alone instead of sticking your nose into citizen rights. Thanks.

Sounds like someone can't defend their arguments.

What do I need to defend?

 

[ChrisL]

So you realize that there are 357 million guns in private hands......and only 8,124 gun murders, which means less than 8,124 guns are used to commit murder in this country.

Actual research shows that the majority of those who use guns to commit murder are violent career criminals murdering other career criminals...which means your entire post is wrong....you do not know what you are talking about.

356,991,876 million guns in private hands are not used to commit crime or murder anyone.....

356,991,876 vs. less than 8,124 which number is bigger and by how much?

Do you see how wrong you are?

And the cherished Europe with their gun control laws.....in the 1940s the countries of Europe marched 12 million unarmed people into gas chambers....after they disarmed them. And then after the war...they allowed themselves to be disarmed again...thinking that there is no way it could ever happen again....

Who is the more foolish, us or them?

Just responding to the bolded part. The gun debate usually comes up after a mass shooting. In many of the cases of these mass shootings the perpertator was a law abiding citizen just before they committed these acts. You can't have a debate where you divide people up as either law abiding or criminal. Many law abiding citizens have killed people.

Obviously not. When you plan and commit murder, you are not law abiding. You are a criminal and a murderer.

I'm speaking about just before they did the shooting. Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Actually, that is not true.....90% of gun murderers have long criminal records.....it is a myth that normal people use guns to commit crimes. And the other interesting fact...the majority of victims of gun crime also have long histories of crime and violence.

It is certainly not true for the mass shootings perpertators and I actually don't believe that stat.

Mass shootings make up less than 0.1 percent of ALL shootings in the US. ??? Like I said, there are going to be certain people who will abuse their rights (criminals/murderers), but that is no reason why the rest of us who are law abiding should have to give an inch! Right?

 

[Tuatara]

Too bad. You should be open to all ideas and opinions.

Ha-ha! Sorry, but that is too funny! Seriously???

Quite serious. Dismissing someone's opinion because they are from a different country is ridiculous. Counter their argument by all means but to dismisss it because they are from another country shows you're not open to debate the actual issue.

It's really not any of your business though! Not only that, but you wouldn't understand what it is to be an American. K? Your opinions are really quite irrelevant and hold no power here.

It is my business. As a Canadian who has friends and relatives in the US and who has travelled to the US, the safety of the country as a whole is my business. Also as a decent human being stopping other people from being killed regardless of what country they live in is called compassion. Telling people their opinions don't matter because they live in another country is not.

So, your argument is that we should give up our constitutionally guaranteed second amendment right to bear arms because you fear for your relatives and friends? Is that your argument? Well, let me just tell you, unless your friends and relatives are involved in criminal activity, they have just as good a chance of being struck by lightning as being shot. K? Feel better now?

No, my argument was that I have every right to be in this discussion as anyone else. I don't think I ever said giving up your 2nd ammendmant right. Can you point out where I said that.

 

[ChrisL]

So you realize that there are 357 million guns in private hands......and only 8,124 gun murders, which means less than 8,124 guns are used to commit murder in this country.

Actual research shows that the majority of those who use guns to commit murder are violent career criminals murdering other career criminals...which means your entire post is wrong....you do not know what you are talking about.

356,991,876 million guns in private hands are not used to commit crime or murder anyone.....

356,991,876 vs. less than 8,124 which number is bigger and by how much?

Do you see how wrong you are?

And the cherished Europe with their gun control laws.....in the 1940s the countries of Europe marched 12 million unarmed people into gas chambers....after they disarmed them. And then after the war...they allowed themselves to be disarmed again...thinking that there is no way it could ever happen again....

Who is the more foolish, us or them?

Just responding to the bolded part. The gun debate usually comes up after a mass shooting. In many of the cases of these mass shootings the perpertator was a law abiding citizen just before they committed these acts. You can't have a debate where you divide people up as either law abiding or criminal. Many law abiding citizens have killed people.

Obviously not. When you plan and commit murder, you are not law abiding. You are a criminal and a murderer.

I'm speaking about just before they did the shooting. Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Actually, that is not true.....90% of gun murderers have long criminal records.....it is a myth that normal people use guns to commit crimes. And the other interesting fact...the majority of victims of gun crime also have long histories of crime and violence.

It is certainly not true for the mass shootings perpertators and I actually don't believe that stat.

And why should anyone else have to pay by giving up an important right for what some psychopath does?

 

[ChrisL]

Ha-ha! Sorry, but that is too funny! Seriously???

Quite serious. Dismissing someone's opinion because they are from a different country is ridiculous. Counter their argument by all means but to dismisss it because they are from another country shows you're not open to debate the actual issue.

It's really not any of your business though! Not only that, but you wouldn't understand what it is to be an American. K? Your opinions are really quite irrelevant and hold no power here.

It is my business. As a Canadian who has friends and relatives in the US and who has travelled to the US, the safety of the country as a whole is my business. Also as a decent human being stopping other people from being killed regardless of what country they live in is called compassion. Telling people their opinions don't matter because they live in another country is not.

So, your argument is that we should give up our constitutionally guaranteed second amendment right to bear arms because you fear for your relatives and friends? Is that your argument? Well, let me just tell you, unless your friends and relatives are involved in criminal activity, they have just as good a chance of being struck by lightning as being shot. K? Feel better now?

No, my argument was that I have every right to be in this discussion as anyone else. I don't think I ever said giving up your 2nd ammendmant right. Can you point out where I said that.

That is second AMENDMENT.

Okay, then what is it that you are arguing for? What?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Christopher Sean Harper-Mercer
Adam Lanza
Andrew Engeldinger

All were law abiding citizens before their mass killings.

Yes... and...?
How do you propose we prevent people who legally own a legal gun from committing a crime with it?

I just pointed out that we need to stop the fallacy of "law abiding citizens" in these debates.

How do you propose we prevent people who legally own a legal gun from committing a crime with it?

 

[Tuatara]

If only it were true....the Discredited NRA,want everyone and anyone to have Guns in the USA,be you a gentle soul or Terrorist...it's simple they can all buy Guns........with NO Control because Americans cannot Control themselves, let alone others...Hoss it's just a shameful fact of American life......had your forefathers realised what a lot of Loboes some Americans would turn out to be generations later,they would Never have given you the 4th....they must be spinning in their Graves ...may they R.I.P..........................steve

So you realize that there are 357 million guns in private hands......and only 8,124 gun murders, which means less than 8,124 guns are used to commit murder in this country.

Actual research shows that the majority of those who use guns to commit murder are violent career criminals murdering other career criminals...which means your entire post is wrong....you do not know what you are talking about.

356,991,876 million guns in private hands are not used to commit crime or murder anyone.....

356,991,876 vs. less than 8,124 which number is bigger and by how much?

Do you see how wrong you are?

And the cherished Europe with their gun control laws.....in the 1940s the countries of Europe marched 12 million unarmed people into gas chambers....after they disarmed them. And then after the war...they allowed themselves to be disarmed again...thinking that there is no way it could ever happen again....

Who is the more foolish, us or them?

Just responding to the bolded part. The gun debate usually comes up after a mass shooting. In many of the cases of these mass shootings the perpertator was a law abiding citizen just before they committed these acts. You can't have a debate where you divide people up as either law abiding or criminal. Many law abiding citizens have killed people.

Obviously not. When you plan and commit murder, you are not law abiding. You are a criminal and a murderer.

I'm speaking about just before they did the shooting. Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Actual research into criminal behavior points out that you and many other people who are against gun ownership are wrong. Normal people do not murder other people simply because they own a gun....the people who use a gun, or any other tool, to commit murder are abnormal...and have long histories of violence and long criminal records.....

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

Sorry not wrong. The first 3 I looked at had no prior convictions. If I had the time I'm sure many more would fit the bill. Especially the children involved in the shootings.

If only it were true....the Discredited NRA,want everyone and anyone to have Guns in the USA,be you a gentle soul or Terrorist...it's simple they can all buy Guns........with NO Control because Americans cannot Control themselves, let alone others...Hoss it's just a shameful fact of American life......had your forefathers realised what a lot of Loboes some Americans would turn out to be generations later,they would Never have given you the 4th....they must be spinning in their Graves ...may they R.I.P..........................steve

So you realize that there are 357 million guns in private hands......and only 8,124 gun murders, which means less than 8,124 guns are used to commit murder in this country.

Actual research shows that the majority of those who use guns to commit murder are violent career criminals murdering other career criminals...which means your entire post is wrong....you do not know what you are talking about.

356,991,876 million guns in private hands are not used to commit crime or murder anyone.....

356,991,876 vs. less than 8,124 which number is bigger and by how much?

Do you see how wrong you are?

And the cherished Europe with their gun control laws.....in the 1940s the countries of Europe marched 12 million unarmed people into gas chambers....after they disarmed them. And then after the war...they allowed themselves to be disarmed again...thinking that there is no way it could ever happen again....

Who is the more foolish, us or them?

Just responding to the bolded part. The gun debate usually comes up after a mass shooting. In many of the cases of these mass shootings the perpertator was a law abiding citizen just before they committed these acts. You can't have a debate where you divide people up as either law abiding or criminal. Many law abiding citizens have killed people.

Obviously not. When you plan and commit murder, you are not law abiding. You are a criminal and a murderer.

I'm speaking about just before they did the shooting. Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Actual research into criminal behavior points out that you and many other people who are against gun ownership are wrong. Normal people do not murder other people simply because they own a gun....the people who use a gun, or any other tool, to commit murder are abnormal...and have long histories of violence and long criminal records.....

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

Just pointing out that your study should have no bearing on ChrisL because it was done by a Canadian. Even though it argues for her side.

 

[ChrisL]

So you realize that there are 357 million guns in private hands......and only 8,124 gun murders, which means less than 8,124 guns are used to commit murder in this country.

Actual research shows that the majority of those who use guns to commit murder are violent career criminals murdering other career criminals...which means your entire post is wrong....you do not know what you are talking about.

356,991,876 million guns in private hands are not used to commit crime or murder anyone.....

356,991,876 vs. less than 8,124 which number is bigger and by how much?

Do you see how wrong you are?

And the cherished Europe with their gun control laws.....in the 1940s the countries of Europe marched 12 million unarmed people into gas chambers....after they disarmed them. And then after the war...they allowed themselves to be disarmed again...thinking that there is no way it could ever happen again....

Who is the more foolish, us or them?

Just responding to the bolded part. The gun debate usually comes up after a mass shooting. In many of the cases of these mass shootings the perpertator was a law abiding citizen just before they committed these acts. You can't have a debate where you divide people up as either law abiding or criminal. Many law abiding citizens have killed people.

Obviously not. When you plan and commit murder, you are not law abiding. You are a criminal and a murderer.

I'm speaking about just before they did the shooting. Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Actual research into criminal behavior points out that you and many other people who are against gun ownership are wrong. Normal people do not murder other people simply because they own a gun....the people who use a gun, or any other tool, to commit murder are abnormal...and have long histories of violence and long criminal records.....

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

Sorry not wrong. The first 3 I looked at had no prior convictions. If I had the time I'm sure many more would fit the bill. Especially the children involved in the shootings.

So you realize that there are 357 million guns in private hands......and only 8,124 gun murders, which means less than 8,124 guns are used to commit murder in this country.

Actual research shows that the majority of those who use guns to commit murder are violent career criminals murdering other career criminals...which means your entire post is wrong....you do not know what you are talking about.

356,991,876 million guns in private hands are not used to commit crime or murder anyone.....

356,991,876 vs. less than 8,124 which number is bigger and by how much?

Do you see how wrong you are?

And the cherished Europe with their gun control laws.....in the 1940s the countries of Europe marched 12 million unarmed people into gas chambers....after they disarmed them. And then after the war...they allowed themselves to be disarmed again...thinking that there is no way it could ever happen again....

Who is the more foolish, us or them?

Just responding to the bolded part. The gun debate usually comes up after a mass shooting. In many of the cases of these mass shootings the perpertator was a law abiding citizen just before they committed these acts. You can't have a debate where you divide people up as either law abiding or criminal. Many law abiding citizens have killed people.

Obviously not. When you plan and commit murder, you are not law abiding. You are a criminal and a murderer.

I'm speaking about just before they did the shooting. Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Actual research into criminal behavior points out that you and many other people who are against gun ownership are wrong. Normal people do not murder other people simply because they own a gun....the people who use a gun, or any other tool, to commit murder are abnormal...and have long histories of violence and long criminal records.....

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

Just pointing out that your study should have no bearing on ChrisL because it was done by a Canadian. Even though it argues for her side.

We have plenty of our own studies. Thanks. Like the most recent one that Obama had done which found that gun defense usage was at least as common as gun criminal usage.

 

[ChrisL]

So you realize that there are 357 million guns in private hands......and only 8,124 gun murders, which means less than 8,124 guns are used to commit murder in this country.

Actual research shows that the majority of those who use guns to commit murder are violent career criminals murdering other career criminals...which means your entire post is wrong....you do not know what you are talking about.

356,991,876 million guns in private hands are not used to commit crime or murder anyone.....

356,991,876 vs. less than 8,124 which number is bigger and by how much?

Do you see how wrong you are?

And the cherished Europe with their gun control laws.....in the 1940s the countries of Europe marched 12 million unarmed people into gas chambers....after they disarmed them. And then after the war...they allowed themselves to be disarmed again...thinking that there is no way it could ever happen again....

Who is the more foolish, us or them?

Just responding to the bolded part. The gun debate usually comes up after a mass shooting. In many of the cases of these mass shootings the perpertator was a law abiding citizen just before they committed these acts. You can't have a debate where you divide people up as either law abiding or criminal. Many law abiding citizens have killed people.

Obviously not. When you plan and commit murder, you are not law abiding. You are a criminal and a murderer.

I'm speaking about just before they did the shooting. Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Actual research into criminal behavior points out that you and many other people who are against gun ownership are wrong. Normal people do not murder other people simply because they own a gun....the people who use a gun, or any other tool, to commit murder are abnormal...and have long histories of violence and long criminal records.....

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

Sorry not wrong. The first 3 I looked at had no prior convictions. If I had the time I'm sure many more would fit the bill. Especially the children involved in the shootings.

So you realize that there are 357 million guns in private hands......and only 8,124 gun murders, which means less than 8,124 guns are used to commit murder in this country.

Actual research shows that the majority of those who use guns to commit murder are violent career criminals murdering other career criminals...which means your entire post is wrong....you do not know what you are talking about.

356,991,876 million guns in private hands are not used to commit crime or murder anyone.....

356,991,876 vs. less than 8,124 which number is bigger and by how much?

Do you see how wrong you are?

And the cherished Europe with their gun control laws.....in the 1940s the countries of Europe marched 12 million unarmed people into gas chambers....after they disarmed them. And then after the war...they allowed themselves to be disarmed again...thinking that there is no way it could ever happen again....

Who is the more foolish, us or them?

Just responding to the bolded part. The gun debate usually comes up after a mass shooting. In many of the cases of these mass shootings the perpertator was a law abiding citizen just before they committed these acts. You can't have a debate where you divide people up as either law abiding or criminal. Many law abiding citizens have killed people.

Obviously not. When you plan and commit murder, you are not law abiding. You are a criminal and a murderer.

I'm speaking about just before they did the shooting. Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Actual research into criminal behavior points out that you and many other people who are against gun ownership are wrong. Normal people do not murder other people simply because they own a gun....the people who use a gun, or any other tool, to commit murder are abnormal...and have long histories of violence and long criminal records.....

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

Just pointing out that your study should have no bearing on ChrisL because it was done by a Canadian. Even though it argues for her side.

And are you familiar with any of these studies? OR is your position purely ideological?

 

[ChrisL]

So you realize that there are 357 million guns in private hands......and only 8,124 gun murders, which means less than 8,124 guns are used to commit murder in this country.

Actual research shows that the majority of those who use guns to commit murder are violent career criminals murdering other career criminals...which means your entire post is wrong....you do not know what you are talking about.

356,991,876 million guns in private hands are not used to commit crime or murder anyone.....

356,991,876 vs. less than 8,124 which number is bigger and by how much?

Do you see how wrong you are?

And the cherished Europe with their gun control laws.....in the 1940s the countries of Europe marched 12 million unarmed people into gas chambers....after they disarmed them. And then after the war...they allowed themselves to be disarmed again...thinking that there is no way it could ever happen again....

Who is the more foolish, us or them?

Just responding to the bolded part. The gun debate usually comes up after a mass shooting. In many of the cases of these mass shootings the perpertator was a law abiding citizen just before they committed these acts. You can't have a debate where you divide people up as either law abiding or criminal. Many law abiding citizens have killed people.

Obviously not. When you plan and commit murder, you are not law abiding. You are a criminal and a murderer.

I'm speaking about just before they did the shooting. Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Actual research into criminal behavior points out that you and many other people who are against gun ownership are wrong. Normal people do not murder other people simply because they own a gun....the people who use a gun, or any other tool, to commit murder are abnormal...and have long histories of violence and long criminal records.....

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

Sorry not wrong. The first 3 I looked at had no prior convictions. If I had the time I'm sure many more would fit the bill. Especially the children involved in the shootings.

So you realize that there are 357 million guns in private hands......and only 8,124 gun murders, which means less than 8,124 guns are used to commit murder in this country.

Actual research shows that the majority of those who use guns to commit murder are violent career criminals murdering other career criminals...which means your entire post is wrong....you do not know what you are talking about.

356,991,876 million guns in private hands are not used to commit crime or murder anyone.....

356,991,876 vs. less than 8,124 which number is bigger and by how much?

Do you see how wrong you are?

And the cherished Europe with their gun control laws.....in the 1940s the countries of Europe marched 12 million unarmed people into gas chambers....after they disarmed them. And then after the war...they allowed themselves to be disarmed again...thinking that there is no way it could ever happen again....

Who is the more foolish, us or them?

Just responding to the bolded part. The gun debate usually comes up after a mass shooting. In many of the cases of these mass shootings the perpertator was a law abiding citizen just before they committed these acts. You can't have a debate where you divide people up as either law abiding or criminal. Many law abiding citizens have killed people.

Obviously not. When you plan and commit murder, you are not law abiding. You are a criminal and a murderer.

I'm speaking about just before they did the shooting. Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Actual research into criminal behavior points out that you and many other people who are against gun ownership are wrong. Normal people do not murder other people simply because they own a gun....the people who use a gun, or any other tool, to commit murder are abnormal...and have long histories of violence and long criminal records.....

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

Just pointing out that your study should have no bearing on ChrisL because it was done by a Canadian. Even though it argues for her side.

So??? What is your argument? Please elaborate. You say you don't want to put restrictions on OUR rights? You say that some people have murdered without prior convictions? Does that mean they have not ever committed a crime though? Or just that they have never been caught?

 

[Tuatara]

Christopher Sean Harper-Mercer
Adam Lanza
Andrew Engeldinger

All were law abiding citizens before their mass killings.

Yes... and...?
How do you propose we prevent people who legally own a legal gun from committing a crime with it?

I just pointed out that we need to stop the fallacy of "law abiding citizens" in these debates.

How do you propose we prevent people who legally own a legal gun from committing a crime with it?

It's a loaded question because you already put them in ownership of a gun.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Christopher Sean Harper-Mercer
Adam Lanza
Andrew Engeldinger

All were law abiding citizens before their mass killings.

Yes... and...?
How do you propose we prevent people who legally own a legal gun from committing a crime with it?

I just pointed out that we need to stop the fallacy of "law abiding citizens" in these debates.

How do you propose we prevent people who legally own a legal gun from committing a crime with it?

It's a loaded question because you already put them in ownership of a gun.

Its a question you want to avoid, you mean.
How do you propose we prevent people who are legally able to own a gun from buying one?
How do you propose we prevent people who legally own a legal gun from committing a crime with it?
Please do try to be honest.

 

[Tuatara]

Just responding to the bolded part. The gun debate usually comes up after a mass shooting. In many of the cases of these mass shootings the perpertator was a law abiding citizen just before they committed these acts. You can't have a debate where you divide people up as either law abiding or criminal. Many law abiding citizens have killed people.

Obviously not. When you plan and commit murder, you are not law abiding. You are a criminal and a murderer.

I'm speaking about just before they did the shooting. Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Actual research into criminal behavior points out that you and many other people who are against gun ownership are wrong. Normal people do not murder other people simply because they own a gun....the people who use a gun, or any other tool, to commit murder are abnormal...and have long histories of violence and long criminal records.....

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

Sorry not wrong. The first 3 I looked at had no prior convictions. If I had the time I'm sure many more would fit the bill. Especially the children involved in the shootings.

Just responding to the bolded part. The gun debate usually comes up after a mass shooting. In many of the cases of these mass shootings the perpertator was a law abiding citizen just before they committed these acts. You can't have a debate where you divide people up as either law abiding or criminal. Many law abiding citizens have killed people.

Obviously not. When you plan and commit murder, you are not law abiding. You are a criminal and a murderer.

I'm speaking about just before they did the shooting. Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Actual research into criminal behavior points out that you and many other people who are against gun ownership are wrong. Normal people do not murder other people simply because they own a gun....the people who use a gun, or any other tool, to commit murder are abnormal...and have long histories of violence and long criminal records.....

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

Just pointing out that your study should have no bearing on ChrisL because it was done by a Canadian. Even though it argues for her side.

So??? What is your argument? Please elaborate. You say you don't want to put restrictions on OUR rights? You say that some people have murdered without prior convictions? Does that mean they have not ever committed a crime though? Or just that they have never been caught?

You have come to the conclusion that I (or anyone) is either on one side. In my first post I declared that I understand both sides want an end to the violence and both sides have stats to back up their position. I have not disclosed any position but I'm arguing what I consider to be holes or fallacies.

 

[ChrisL]

Obviously not. When you plan and commit murder, you are not law abiding. You are a criminal and a murderer.

I'm speaking about just before they did the shooting. Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Actual research into criminal behavior points out that you and many other people who are against gun ownership are wrong. Normal people do not murder other people simply because they own a gun....the people who use a gun, or any other tool, to commit murder are abnormal...and have long histories of violence and long criminal records.....

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

Sorry not wrong. The first 3 I looked at had no prior convictions. If I had the time I'm sure many more would fit the bill. Especially the children involved in the shootings.

Obviously not. When you plan and commit murder, you are not law abiding. You are a criminal and a murderer.

I'm speaking about just before they did the shooting. Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Actual research into criminal behavior points out that you and many other people who are against gun ownership are wrong. Normal people do not murder other people simply because they own a gun....the people who use a gun, or any other tool, to commit murder are abnormal...and have long histories of violence and long criminal records.....

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

Just pointing out that your study should have no bearing on ChrisL because it was done by a Canadian. Even though it argues for her side.

So??? What is your argument? Please elaborate. You say you don't want to put restrictions on OUR rights? You say that some people have murdered without prior convictions? Does that mean they have not ever committed a crime though? Or just that they have never been caught?

You have come to the conclusion that I (or anyone) is either on one side. In my first post I declared that I understand both sides want an end to the violence and both sides have stats to back up their position. I have not disclosed any position but I'm arguing what I consider to be holes or fallacies.

Well if you are going to argue, then you are choosing a side, whether you are aware of that or not. Lol.

Now, since you seem to find it fit to be so evasive, I am confronting you directly about where you stand on this issue.

 

[ChrisL]

Christopher Sean Harper-Mercer
Adam Lanza
Andrew Engeldinger

All were law abiding citizens before their mass killings.

Yes... and...?
How do you propose we prevent people who legally own a legal gun from committing a crime with it?

I just pointed out that we need to stop the fallacy of "law abiding citizens" in these debates.

How do you propose we prevent people who legally own a legal gun from committing a crime with it?

It's a loaded question because you already put them in ownership of a gun.

Its a question you want to avoid, you mean.
How do you propose we prevent people who are legally able to own a gun from buying one?
How do you propose we prevent people who legally own a legal gun from committing a crime with it?
Please do try to be honest.

This is so typical of the anti rights crowd. They are always evasive and shady and completely lacking in honesty and integrity. They try to compare law abiding people with criminals and murderers, and they cannot understand why we find that insulting? Good grief!

 

[Tuatara]

Christopher Sean Harper-Mercer
Adam Lanza
Andrew Engeldinger

All were law abiding citizens before their mass killings.

Yes... and...?
How do you propose we prevent people who legally own a legal gun from committing a crime with it?

I just pointed out that we need to stop the fallacy of "law abiding citizens" in these debates.

How do you propose we prevent people who legally own a legal gun from committing a crime with it?

It's a loaded question because you already put them in ownership of a gun.

Its a question you want to avoid, you mean.
How do you propose we prevent people who are legally able to own a gun from buying one?

I don't think I want to prevent them from buying a gun.

How do you propose we prevent people who legally own a legal gun from committing a crime with it?
Please do try to be honest.

Well you can't. We can take steps to help reduce it. For one I was reading about one of the Mass shooters who had several mental issues and yet he was able to obatain many firearms legally. But that doesn't answer your question because it's a discussion that takes place before this individual legally owns a gun. That is why I feel your question is loaded. There is no discussion before the ownership of the gun.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Its a question you want to avoid, you mean.
How do you propose we prevent people who are legally able to own a gun from buying one?

I don't think I want to prevent them from buying a gun.

How do you propose we prevent people who legally own a legal gun from committing a crime with it?
Please do try to be honest.

Well you can't. We can take steps to help reduce it. For one I was reading about one of the Mass shooters who had several mental issues and yet he was able to obatain many firearms legally.

Key: obtained the firearms legally - that is, it was legal for him to buy a gun.
obatain many firearms legally.
You said you do not want to prevent people who are able to legally buy a gun from buying a gun.
So... what's your point?

But that doesn't answer your question because...

You already aid that you cannot prevent people who legally own a legal gun from commuting a crime with it.

And so, in stating stating the obvious, the law abiding are law abiding until they commit a crime -- what's your point?

 

[Elvis Obama]

Just responding to the bolded part. The gun debate usually comes up after a mass shooting. In many of the cases of these mass shootings the perpertator was a law abiding citizen just before they committed these acts. You can't have a debate where you divide people up as either law abiding or criminal. Many law abiding citizens have killed people.

Obviously not. When you plan and commit murder, you are not law abiding. You are a criminal and a murderer.

I'm speaking about just before they did the shooting. Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Actual research into criminal behavior points out that you and many other people who are against gun ownership are wrong. Normal people do not murder other people simply because they own a gun....the people who use a gun, or any other tool, to commit murder are abnormal...and have long histories of violence and long criminal records.....

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

Sorry not wrong. The first 3 I looked at had no prior convictions. If I had the time I'm sure many more would fit the bill. Especially the children involved in the shootings.

Just responding to the bolded part. The gun debate usually comes up after a mass shooting. In many of the cases of these mass shootings the perpertator was a law abiding citizen just before they committed these acts. You can't have a debate where you divide people up as either law abiding or criminal. Many law abiding citizens have killed people.

Obviously not. When you plan and commit murder, you are not law abiding. You are a criminal and a murderer.

I'm speaking about just before they did the shooting. Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Many people who have killed someone were a law abiding citizen before they pulled the trigger.

Actual research into criminal behavior points out that you and many other people who are against gun ownership are wrong. Normal people do not murder other people simply because they own a gun....the people who use a gun, or any other tool, to commit murder are abnormal...and have long histories of violence and long criminal records.....

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

Just pointing out that your study should have no bearing on ChrisL because it was done by a Canadian. Even though it argues for her side.

We have plenty of our own studies. Thanks. Like the most recent one that Obama had done which found that gun defense usage was at least as common as gun criminal usage.

The report you reference was produced by the CDC. The same CDC that so many people claim are part of a vast left wing conspiracy to "grab" people's guns. The subject of this thread is whether gun owners are reacting from fear, rather than rationality. Those so-called "gun rights advocates" who are afraid of what the CDC will find are reacting from fear, not rationality.