Mall Killing and Other Mass Killings

[M14 Shooter]

No one is able to prove being armed prevents needless gun deaths.

Sure we can. Ancedotal evidence abounds.

The facts all seems to point in the other direction.

Really.
Prove that more guns = more gun deaths.

 

[Larkinn]

Sure we can. Ancedotal evidence abounds.


Really.
Prove that more guns = more gun deaths.

0 guns=0 gun deaths.

200 million guns=some number of gun deaths. Which according to RGS is "insignificant". Which by the way, you should tell to their children, and wives RGS. That their deaths were insginificant and irrelevant.

 

[Lookout]

Based on what? Your opinion? Most people aren't as stupid as you. And I suspect I will do a lot more to help the world than you will, cowering in your basement afraid of anarchy.

By the way...good luck when that comes. Just to reassure you I'd like to remind you of one of the best trained fighting forces in the world is in a vaguely anarchistic situation in Iraq with significantly superior firepower than you and no women/children to look after. So far over 3800 of them have died.

Good luck when the anarchy comes. You'll need it.



Wow...this is the third little rant you've gone on. Going to respond to anything I say or just continue on with the verbal diahrea?



Right Actually my foreign policy would likely be a lot more militaristic than yours.



Ahh, so now its the other side of your schizophrendic personality coming out. Buy a gun, don't buy a gun, whatever will I do?



Lmfao...right. I'm planning on dedicating my life to HR work, but I don't care about my life or anyone elses because I don't own something designed to kill people.

Man when I said you were barely literate I think I was overstating it.



Right...gun ownership=soul.



Really, you aren't qualified to tell me what my soul or my beingness are worth. But thanks for trying.

You are right. you are untouchable. You have all the answers. You know everything...All bow before GOD Larkin!!! You are so full of yourself you don't even know it...You? HR? God help us all!@

 

[ScreamingEagle]

0 guns=0 gun deaths.

200 million guns=some number of gun deaths. Which according to RGS is "insignificant". Which by the way, you should tell to their children, and wives RGS. That their deaths were insginificant and irrelevant.

What an airy-fairy statement.

Let's have some real argument from you Larkinn. Provide proof that your in-lockstep-with-leftists belief that to disarm people will actually result in less crime.

If you can't (and I know you can't because the opposite is true*) then tell me why you really support an anti-gun policy…given that you are such an "intellectual"…(and please don't give me that syrupy liberal lie that it's "because of the chirrun" because you know that is not true either).

* http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

 

[M14 Shooter]

What an airy-fairy statement.
Let's have some real argument from you Larkinn. Provide proof that your in-lockstep-with-leftists belief that to disarm people will actually result in less crime.

Here's how this is proven:
If More guns = more gun deaths, then as the number of guns increases, the number of gun deaths will increase.

Show that the number of gun deaths has kept pace with the number of guns.

(You'll find that the number of guns increases by several million every year, and yet the number of gun deaths rises and falls within a narrow range, being 13% lower in 2004 (29569) than in 1981 (34050) and 25% lower than in 1993 (39595))

 

[ReillyT]

Here's how this is proven:
If More guns = more gun deaths, then as the number of guns increases, the number of gun deaths will increase.

Show that the number of gun deaths has kept pace with the number of guns.

(You'll find that the number of guns increases by several million every year, and yet the number of gun deaths rises and falls within a narrow range, being 13% lower in 2004 (29569) than in 1981 (34050) and 25% lower than in 1993 (39595))

That need not be true. Gun ownership could be correlated with gun deaths, but it may not be a purely direct correlation. There could be several reasons for this. At a certain saturation point, guns may be so easy to obtain that additional increases in the amount of guns may not result in an increase in gun deaths. Further, many additional guns may just mean that many gun owners are buying multiple guns, which may have little effect on the number of gun deaths.

There is some evidence that gun ownership is correlated to the number of gun deaths. If you look internationally at those countries that have outlawed handguns for instance, most of them have dramatically lower incidents of gun deaths (these kinds of studies are easy to find on the web).

 

[M14 Shooter]

That need not be true.

Then it is encumbent upon the person making the claim to empirically illustrate -- as aopposed to simply suggesting -- the reasons why the number of guns goes up and yet the number of gun deaths goes down.

Gun ownership could be correlated with gun deaths, but it may not be a purely direct correlation. There could be several reasons for this. At a certain saturation point, guns may be so easy to obtain that additional increases in the amount of guns may not result in an increase in gun deaths.

Then more guns arent going to make the situation worse, thereby removing any need to make sure there are no more guns.

Further, many additional guns may just mean that many gun owners are buying multiple guns, which may have little effect on the number of gun deaths.

The arugment is more guns = more deaths. It doesnt allow for particulars like that.

There is some evidence that gun ownership is correlated to the number of gun deaths.

Guns have to exist, which is a given.
Other than that, the correlation must show that as the number of guns increases, the number of deaths increases as well.

If you look internationally at those countries that have outlawed handguns for instance, most of them have dramatically lower incidents of gun deaths (these kinds of studies are easy to find on the web).

Handguns? The agrument isnt handguns, its all guns.
And, there are countries with widespread gun ownership where guns deaths are low.

Long and short:
If you believe that more guns = more deaths, you will have to do a lot of work to prove it.

 

[ReillyT]

Then it is encumbent upon the person making the claim to empirically illustrate -- as aopposed to simply suggesting -- the reasons why the number of guns goes up and yet the number of gun deaths goes down.


Then more guns arent going to make the situation worse, thereby removing any need to make sure there are no more guns.


The arugment is more guns = more deaths. It doesnt allow for particulars like that.


Guns have to exist, which is a given.
Other than that, the correlation must show that as the number of guns increases, the number of deaths increases as well.


Handguns? The agrument isnt handguns, its all guns.
And, there are countries with widespread gun ownership where guns deaths are low.

Long and short:
If you believe that more guns = more deaths, you will have to do a lot of work to prove it.

If Larkin's argument is that gun ownership should be outlawed or significantly restricted, then the evidence from other countries is telling. If his argument is merely that no additional guns should be allowed to be sold, then it is unlikely this would have any short-term effects. However, this should (but not necessarily) result in an eventual reduction in the number of guns available per capita over time (as guns are destroyed, become worn out, etc. & population expands), which might have positive effects. I only brought up handguns because they are often the instruments targeted when discussing gun restrictions.

If the argument is simply, more guns will equal more deaths, then in the short term, this may not be borne out. If the argument is fewer guns, fewer deaths, then comparative studies of other countries where guns have been restricted appears to support this view.

Also, even in the short term, there could be other factors that account for a decrease in gun deaths despite an increase in guns. An increase in gun ownership may (I don't know) generally yield an increase in gun deaths, but other factors such as improving economic conditions in the country, cultural changes, etc. may offset the potential increase from increased gun prevalence.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If Larkin's argument is that gun ownership should be outlawed or significantly restricted, then the evidence from other countries is telling.

Only if he can show causation, not correlation.

And, whatever correlation there may be elsewhere, there is evidecne HERE that where guns are tightly restricted, there are more guns used in crime; where they are less restricted, there are fewer guns used in crime.

If the argument is simply, more guns will equal more deaths, then in the short term, this may not be borne out.

Defne 'short term' and 'long term'.
The level of gun deaths today compares favorably to those in the early 70s -- when there were far fewer people and far fewer guns.

Also, even in the short term, there could be other factors that account for a decrease in gun deaths despite an increase in guns.

Sure. But these must be quantified, not just suggested.

 

[ReillyT]

Only if he can show causation, not correlation.

Well, I think demonstrating absolute causation in each of these countries would be difficult statistically (because you would have to account for any other variable), but if gun deaths are significantly lower per capita in nearly every other country that outlaws guns and enforces the law (outside perhaps those in the throes of civil war), then one would expect other variables to cancel out some, and this seems like it would be pretty strong evidence of causation. But really, in a case like this, correlation by itself is pretty strong evidence. Hypothetical Country A outlaws guns in 2000 and gun deaths have dropped 75% in 7 years - that is pretty telling.

And, whatever correlation there may be elsewhere, there is evidecne HERE that where guns are tightly restricted, there are more guns used in crime; where they are less restricted, there are fewer guns used in crime.

That may be because if only certain locales in the country enforce such laws, it remains very easy for criminals to get guns from another locale. If something like this were to be effective, it would have to be implemented nationwide and enforced strongly.

Defne 'short term' and 'long term'.
The level of gun deaths today compares favorably to those in the early 70s -- when there were far fewer people and far fewer guns.

In the hypothetical we were talking about? Long term effects of outlawing future gun sales but allowing continued gun ownership of previously bought guns? I have no idea what the long term would be. Many years I would suspect. Maybe 10-20 years before any reduction in gun deaths would be seen, and that is just my wild guess. Short term would be just as much of a guess on my part.

Sure. But these must be quantified, not just suggested.

Absolutely. I would think it is very difficult to do. I imagine some sociologists and statisticians must have tried it, but I wouldn't begin to know where to look.

However, I think it is probably non-contentious to suggest that gun prevalence is just one of several factors that go into the number of gun fatalities or injuries that occur each year. The economy, increased police presence, weather, the number of kids in school, etc. probably also make a difference.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, I think demonstrating absolute causation in each of these countries would be difficult statistically (because you would have to account for any other variable), but if gun deaths are significantly lower per capita in nearly every other country that outlaws guns and enforces the law (outside perhaps those in the throes of civil war), then one would expect other variables to cancel out some, and this seems like it would be pretty strong evidence of causation.

You cannot prove causation w/o correlation, but correlation -never- proves causation. Further, any instanes of high gun ownership/low number of crimes (of which there are many) must be explained.

You must also relate the number of crimes to the number of guns as well -- while a country with few gun crimes might have few guns, in many cases the % of guns used in crimes will be higher than here.

That may be because if only certain locales in the country enforce such laws, it remains very easy for criminals to get guns from another locale.

That doesnt in any way change the fact that the locale in question has tight controls, and yet high crime. If tight controlls worked, then it wouldnt matter what else is in place, gun use in crime would be lower than where the controls are loose.

It also doesnt explain why the areas with loose controls have less gun crime.

In the hypothetical we were talking about? Long term effects of outlawing future gun sales but allowing continued gun ownership of previously bought guns? I have no idea what the long term would be. Many years I would suspect. Maybe 10-20 years before any reduction in gun deaths would be seen, and that is just my wild guess. Short term would be just as much of a guess on my part.

Over the last ~40 years, there has been a vast increase of the number of guns (and population), and yet a decrease in the number of gun deaths. IMHO, that's a long term trend.

However, I think it is probably non-contentious to suggest that gun prevalence is just one of several factors that go into the number of gun fatalities or injuries that occur each year. The economy, increased police presence, weather, the number of kids in school, etc. probably also make a difference.

The people who so very happily argue agaisnt guns will not agree.

 

[ReillyT]

You cannot prove causation w/o correlation, but correlation -never- proves causation. Further, any instanes of high gun ownership/low number of crimes (of which there are many) must be explained.

True, correlation does not prove causation, but correlation can be evidence for causation, and correlation with other potential variables discounted is strong evidence for causation. Yes, those other instances must be explained. I wasn't aware that there were many. What kinds of countries exhibit this, and are they similar in any regard or is it across the board.

You must also relate the number of crimes to the number of guns as well -- while a country with few gun crimes might have few guns, in many cases the % of guns used in crimes will be higher than here.

Well, you would want to find the connection between guns and gun deaths. I don't know if it is necessary to focus on crimes. That discounts accidental gun deaths. If what we are most concerned about are gun deaths (acknowledging that guns play a role in other crimes), I think gun deaths is a fine measure. If you want to expand it, that would be fine with me, but for me, gun deaths is the most important factor.

That doesnt in any way change the fact that the locale in question has tight controls, and yet high crime. If tight controlls worked, then it wouldnt matter what else is in place, gun use in crime would be lower than where the controls are loose.

I don't think this is significant if we are talking about crime (may be significant to accidental shootings). If criminals have easy access to guns from the next locale, I don't think any gun restrictions will be sufficient to deter criminals from using guns. It only makes sense as a nationwide measure, unless we are talking about a large locale.

Over the last ~40 years, there has been a vast increase of the number of guns (and population), and yet a decrease in the number of gun deaths. IMHO, that's a long term trend.

It is a trend, but it is not clear what it is indicative of. Gun restrictions (waiting periods, etc.) are also more prevalent today than 40 years ago, but I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that they are the reason for the reduction in the number of gun deaths. Gun prevalence is just one factor, although if it were possible to outlaw gun ownership effectively, this factor would probably jump in significance to others. I am not suggesting that we do this, but as one factor changes very significantly, it will have a greater effect.

The people who so very happily argue agaisnt guns will not agree.

Well, then I think they are wrong.

 

[M14 Shooter]

True, correlation does not prove causation, but correlation can be evidence for causation, and correlation with other potential variables discounted is strong evidence for causation.

Yes -- there cannot be causation w/o correlation.
But, at this point, all we have in terms of argument is 'every time that switch is thrown, that light comes on (except for a few places, where it goes off). This proves nothing regarding the relationship between the switch and the light.

Yes, those other instances must be explained. I wasn't aware that there were many. What kinds of countries exhibit this, and are they similar in any regard or is it across the board.

Off the top of my head: Switzerland, Norway, Finnland, Israel.

Well, you would want to find the connection between guns and gun deaths. I don't know if it is necessary to focus on crimes. That discounts accidental gun deaths.

I think you will find that in all instances, accitendal gun deaths are rather small compared to the total number of gun deaths -- but I suppose you are right.

I don't think this is significant if we are talking about crime (may be significant to accidental shootings). If criminals have easy access to guns from the next locale, I don't think any gun restrictions will be sufficient to deter criminals from using guns.

So... making guns illegal, in and of itself, will not deter criminals from committing crimes with them.

And... this also doesnt explain why the areas with loose controls have less gun crime.

It only makes sense as a nationwide measure, unless we are talking about a large locale.

Ok, but... when the 'problem' is only exhibited in a certain locale, what argument is there that the 'solution' should be implemented where the 'problem' doesnt exist?

It is a trend, but it is not clear what it is indicative of.

Aside from the fact that the argument that 'as the number of guns goes up, so will the number of deaths' is not sound.

Gun prevalence is just one factor...

Maybe. But that's not the argument.
The argument is more = more. Period.

 

[ReillyT]

Maybe. But that's not the argument.
The argument is more = more. Period.

I agree with some of what you say. I just wanted to point out that there is evidence that fewer guns results in fewer gun deaths. You may not think the evidence is compelling (and I am not inclined to try to persuade you that it is), but it does exist. As for the simple argument that more=more, I agree that this need not be the case, and appears not to be.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I agree with some of what you say. I just wanted to point out that there is evidence that fewer guns results in fewer gun deaths. You may not think the evidence is compelling (and I am not inclined to try to persuade you that it is), but it does exist. As for the simple argument that more=more, I agree that this need not be the case, and appears not to be.

Roger

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Well, I think demonstrating absolute causation in each of these countries would be difficult statistically (because you would have to account for any other variable), but if gun deaths are significantly lower per capita in nearly every other country that outlaws guns and enforces the law (outside perhaps those in the throes of civil war), then one would expect other variables to cancel out some, and this seems like it would be pretty strong evidence of causation. But really, in a case like this, correlation by itself is pretty strong evidence. Hypothetical Country A outlaws guns in 2000 and gun deaths have dropped 75% in 7 years - that is pretty telling.

"Hypothetical" countries aside - here's a few actual countries:

England -- Licenses have been required for rifles and handguns since 1920, and for shotguns since 1967. A decade ago semi-automatic and pump-action center-fire rifles, and all handguns except single- shot .22s, were prohibited. The .22s were banned in 1997. Shotguns must be registered and semi-automatic shotguns that can hold more than two shells must be licensed. Despite a near ban on private ownership of firearms, "English crime rates as measured in both victim surveys and police statistics have all risen since 1981. . . . In 1995 the English robbery rate was 1.4 times higher than America`s. . . . the English assault rate was more than double America`s." All told, "Whether measured by surveys of crime victims or by police statistics, serious crime rates are not generally higher in the United States than England." (Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and in Wales, 1981-1996," 10/98.) An English doctor is suspected of murdering more than 200 people, many times the number killed in the gun-related crimes used to justify the most recent restrictions.
"A June 2000 CBS News report proclaimed Great Britain `one of the most violent urban societies in the Western world.` Declared Dan Rather: `This summer, thousands of Americans will travel to Britain expecting a civilized island free from crime and ugliness. . . (But now) the U.K. has a crime problem . . . worse than ours.`" (David Kopel, Paul Gallant, and Joanne Eisen, "Britain: From Bad to Worse," America`s First Freedom, 3/01, p. 26.) Street crime increased 47% between 1999 and 2000 (John Steele, "Crime on streets of London doubles," London Daily Telegraph, Feb. 29, 2000.) See also www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/okslip.html, www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment071800c.html, and www.nraila.org/research/19990716-BillofRightsCivilRights-030.html.

Australia -- Licensing of gun owners was imposed in 1973, each handgun requires a separate license, and self-defense is not considered a legitimate reason to have a firearm. Registration of firearms was imposed in 1985. In May 1996 semi-automatic center-fire rifles and many semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns were prohibited. As of Oct. 2000, about 660,000 privately owned firearms had been confiscated and destroyed. However, according to the Australian Institute of Criminology, between 1996-1998 assaults rose 16 percent, armed robberies rose 73 percent, and unlawful entries rose eight percent. Murders increased slightly in 1997 and decreased slightly in 1998. (Jacob Sullum, "Guns down under," Reason, Australia, p. 10, 10/1/00) For more information on Australian crime trends, see www.nraila.org/research/20000329-BanningGuns-001.shtml.

Canada -- A 1934 law required registration of handguns. A 1977 law (Bill C-51) required a "Firearms Acquisition Certificate" for acquiring a firearm, eliminated protection of property as a reason for acquiring a handgun, and required registration of "restricted weapons," defined to include semi- automatic rifles legislatively attacked in this country under the slang and confusing misnomer, "assault weapon." The 1995 Canadian Firearms Act (C-68) prohibited compact handguns and all handguns in .32 or .25 caliber -- half of privately owned handguns. It required all gun owners to be licensed by Jan. 1, 2000, and to register all rifles and shotguns by Jan. 1, 2003. C-68 broadened the police powers of "search and seizure" and allowed the police to enter homes without search warrants, to "inspect" gun storage and look for unregistered guns. Canada has no American "Fifth Amendment;" C-68 requires suspected gun owners to testify against themselves. Because armed self-defense is considered inappropriate by the government, "Prohibited Weapons Orders" have prohibited private possession and use of Mace and similar, non-firearm means of protection. (For more information, see www.cfc- ccaf.gc.ca and www.nraila.org/research/20010215-InternationalGunControl-001.shtml.
From 1978 to 1988, Canada`s burglary rate increased 25%, surpassing the U.S. rate. Half of burglaries in Canada are of occupied homes, compared to only 10% in the U.S. From 1976 to 1980, ethnically and economically similar areas of the U.S. and Canada had virtually identical homicide rates, despite significantly different firearm laws. See also www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120700.shtml

Germany -- Described in the Library of Congress report as "among the most stringent in Europe," Germany`s laws are almost as restrictive as those which HCI wants imposed in the U.S. Licenses are required to buy or own a firearm, and to get a license a German must prove his or her "need" and pass a government test. Different licenses are required for hunters, recreational shooters, and collectors. As is the case in Washington, D.C., it is illegal to have a gun ready for defensive use in your own home. Before being allowed to have a firearm for protection, a German must again prove "need." Yet the annual number of firearm-related murders in Germany rose 76% between 1992-1995. (Library of Congress, p. 69.) It should be noted, HCI goes further than the Germans, believing "there is no constitutional right to self-defense" (HCI Chair Sarah Brady, quoted in Tom Jackson, "Keeping the Battle Alive," Tampa Tribune, 10/21/93) and "the only reason for guns in civilian hands is sporting purposes" (HCI`s Center to Prevent Handgun Violence Director, Dennis Henigan, quoted in USA Today, 11/20/91).

Italy -- There are limits on the number of firearms and the quantity of ammunition a person may own. To be issued a permit to carry a firearm, a person must prove an established need, such as a dangerous occupation. Firearms which use the same ammunition as firearms used by the military -- which in America would include countless millions of rifles, shotguns, and handguns -- and ammunition for them are prohibited. Yet, "Italy`s gun law, `the most restrictive in Europe,` had left her southern provinces alone with a thousand firearm murders a year, thirty times Switzerland`s total." (Richard A. I. Munday, Most Armed & Most Free?, Brightlingsea, Essex: Piedmont Publishing, 1996.)

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Are you really this retarded ?

http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=51657

I can not see this, I don't know why but when ever anyone links to another part of this board and I click on it it tells me I am not logged on or have not got permission to see that thread.

So maybe you could tell me what you linked to?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

0 guns=0 gun deaths.

200 million guns=some number of gun deaths. Which according to RGS is "insignificant". Which by the way, you should tell to their children, and wives RGS. That their deaths were insginificant and irrelevant.

As soon as you tell the families of car accident deaths they died for the good of us all.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

0 guns=0 gun deaths.

200 million guns=some number of gun deaths. Which according to RGS is "insignificant". Which by the way, you should tell to their children, and wives RGS. That their deaths were insginificant and irrelevant.

Hey dumb shit we already went over this. NO law you pass will keep guns out of the hands of criminals unless you know some way to magically eliminate every gun on the planet and the knowledge and ability to make more.

Using your logic we damn better eliminate cars, no cars and 50000 people in this country alone, every year will be alive. not to mention ALL over the world. Last I checked people die in car accidents over 3 times as often as are killed by all manner of weapons in this country, including cop use and self defense and accidents.

And as my statistics and Kaths show MORE people die or attacked using NON Firearms at a staggering level. When ya gonna ban all knives, all bats, all sticks, all hammers, all what ever weapon is used? Go ahead now and explain how those are needed items so the 90 percent of all violent crime victims should just suck it up for the good of the rest of us.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If Larkin's argument is that gun ownership should be outlawed or significantly restricted, then the evidence from other countries is telling. If his argument is merely that no additional guns should be allowed to be sold, then it is unlikely this would have any short-term effects. However, this should (but not necessarily) result in an eventual reduction in the number of guns available per capita over time (as guns are destroyed, become worn out, etc. & population expands), which might have positive effects. I only brought up handguns because they are often the instruments targeted when discussing gun restrictions.

If the argument is simply, more guns will equal more deaths, then in the short term, this may not be borne out. If the argument is fewer guns, fewer deaths, then comparative studies of other countries where guns have been restricted appears to support this view.

Also, even in the short term, there could be other factors that account for a decrease in gun deaths despite an increase in guns. An increase in gun ownership may (I don't know) generally yield an increase in gun deaths, but other factors such as improving economic conditions in the country, cultural changes, etc. may offset the potential increase from increased gun prevalence.

Explain England. They banned almost all guns and have had since then a dramatic increase in gun violence. This is an Island that can more easily restrict illegal import then the US. I won't hold my breath for your explaination.