Guns
- Thread starter Talentless
- 5,167 comments
- 247,128 views
- 410
- Wisconsin
- hogger129
Tell me, how have strict laws helped reduce violent crime committed with firearms? In places like New York, New Jersey, Chicago, most of California, Seattle - all of these places have strict controls. But take Chicago for example, crimes committed with firearms are out of control. Go 100 miles north into Wisconsin, violent crime committed with firearms is very low here despite our state having very lenient firearm laws.
All those people killing each other in Chicago, did they go out and get their FOID card, background check, two week waiting period to "cool off," another background check, their concealed carry permits...
Passing more laws against me, the person who wants to protect my home and follows the law, isn't stopping the people who already don't care about the law.
- 174
- Milwaukee
Easy, there have been crimes in Chicago linked to purchased firearms here in my city (deaths by gunfire in Milwaukee have already met last years total, crime is down overall), but keep thinking more strict gun laws = to laws against you (which would be banning). Not all gun owners like myself think like that.
- 410
- Wisconsin
- hogger129
- 31,679
- Buckwheat City
- Dennisch
We have strict laws, and about 110-130 homicides per year, on 17 million people.
Roughly 4 out of 10 murders are firearm related. Since 2011*, all of those lead related deaths were done with illegally purchased weapons. Pretty much all of those deaths were criminals known by the authorities.
Non criminals are killed by knives, hands or a blunt object.
*last known deaths with legal firearms.
Roughly 4 out of 10 murders are firearm related. Since 2011*, all of those lead related deaths were done with illegally purchased weapons. Pretty much all of those deaths were criminals known by the authorities.
Non criminals are killed by knives, hands or a blunt object.
*last known deaths with legal firearms.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
- 31,679
- Buckwheat City
- Dennisch
Yes.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
- 31,679
- Buckwheat City
- Dennisch
No. But if someone enters my house without my permission I should be able to defend myself and the missus by any means necessary, and pointing a gun at someone is about as powerful as a deterrent can be. Now I have a machete and a baseball bat. Both things that aren't ideal weapons in a confined space.
We're allowed to have weapons in our house, as long as it's not modified or automatic, but you're not allowed to use them for self defence.
If someone takes the time and effort to get a weapon here, they're as trained as they can possibly be, and still they're not allowed to use them. Pretty dumb reasoning.
What is the point of owning a .45 if you can't stop someone from being a criminal?
- 5,051
- Netherlands
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Given that your country has crime (according to the statistics I found women are more than twice as likely to have been raped as Americans for example)imagine for a moment that you are able to introduce private gun ownership for self defence purposes into your country but with all the rules and regulations you are proposing for Americans revolving around mental health examinations, permits, training, storage etc. In other words you could keep the guns out of the hands of people with mental health issues and they would only be owned by well trained people in secure storage. Much like the Swiss example you provided earlier where there is wide gun ownership but very little gun crime. You say it works there so it could work for you too. Would that be acceptable to you? Do you think some people would have avoided being victims of crime, rape etc. because of that gun ownership? Or do you perhaps think that for the greater good it's better to just leave people to their own devices short of guns to defend themselves against criminals in their own homes?
- 5,051
- Netherlands
that percentage, although double, is still very small. I also noticed in those statistics there are more marihuana users in ths USA per capita then in the Netherlands. But to answer your question, personally I dont believe guns will make my life any safer.
However I do would like to own weapons for a number of reasons:
- collecting , I like 19th century revolvers
- target shooting as a sport/hobby
- For when a war/invasion/zombie apocalypse breaks out
- 5,588
- Dahlonega, GA
- ryzno
I don't know what that has to do with anything but guess what? It's still not legal in a majority of states.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
- 31,679
- Buckwheat City
- Dennisch
Tolerated. Not legal.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
- 31,679
- Buckwheat City
- Dennisch
Allowed/Tolerated.
As far as the law goes, it's still an illegal drug.
But that's for another thread.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Based on what? I just posted to you on another thread in regards to this.
- 410
- Wisconsin
- hogger129
It is never the criminals who are disarmed by these "gun control" laws. Do you think a victim of a rape should be able to have a gun to defend herself from the rapist? Or do you think they should have one of those rape sirens like they have in the UK where no one is allowed to have a gun?
- 5,051
- Netherlands
Not sure if you are trolling, but I posted multiple links about exactly about this too.
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/thre...-in-jacksonville.381215/page-11#post-12464163
- 24,627
- Anoka, MN
The problem with all of those links, is that you can't measure things that never happen. We'll never know how many rapes, robberies, carjackings etc. have never even been attempted because the intended target may have had a gun.
Prevention is the best form of protection. It's why people will put signs saying their home has a full-fledged security system in their front lawn even if they have little more than a deadbolt.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
What conclusions have you drawn?
- 24,627
- Anoka, MN
The gun is the prevention. Really not sure how to make things clearer to you and frankly I should have just stayed out of it since it's obvious you're not interested in an actual debate.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
The conclusions that were made in those articles. Owning guns does not make you safer.
Unless you display your gun in the window or have a sticker that you own one it hardly prevents someone from breaking in. Especially if you arent home. Having a gun wont prevent them from entering your house.
Putting away valuables, dont have cash laying around, investing in security system, more secure windows etc. help a lot more.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
I don't see how that conclusion can be properly drawn from those articles. Can you explain?
I remember seeing statistics about how overall crime didn't seem to change for a town when 50% of the people owned guns versus before (where presumably gun ownership was roughly similar). I remember seeing some statistics about how often guns are used by people within the household, but of course it's very difficult to figure out what would have happened in those circumstances if there weren't guns. It is quite possible (for example) that there is a correlation between people who were going to be involved in a violent altercation at home, and gun ownership. I've seen country-to-country statistics, which of course can't really be applied to the current state of the US (as there is no country I know of that has a similar profile to the US when it comes to crime and gun ownership).
So on the one hand we have a LOT of sloppy statistics, and especially statistics that we can remove ourselves from. For example, if you remove all people with a prior history of criminal activity from the statistics, how does it change? If you adjust for how the guns are stored, how does it change? If you adjust for gun training, how does it change? If you adjust for mental health, how does it change?
All of that makes it pretty difficult for me to conclude that my guns do not make me safer. I know my wife and I have no criminal history. I know that I have no mental health issues and that my wife has no mental health issues. I know that I keep my guns stored securely. I know how to use them safely and have practiced with them.
What is the scenario here where they do not make me safer, because I can give you scenarios where they do.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
So I read through the first link. Here's something that stands out.
First, assume it's true that 65,000 Americans used guns in self defence and not 2.5 million as earlier research suggested. Explain how 65,000 defending themselves against possible murder, rape, assault, robbery and theft is an insignficant number. Because if 65,000 is insignificant, how insignificant is the 15,000 number of homicides or the far, far, far fewer numbers of people killed in mass shootings? And if it's not insignificant, why would it not be at least under consideration as possible justification for private ownership of firearms for self defence?
Second, if it's true that 65,000 Americans used guns for self defence then the second set of figures from Kellerman cannot used in conjunction with the first conclusion. For every gun used in self defence there are four unintentional shootings? So there are 260,000 unintentional shootings in the U.S.? 11 attempted or completed suicides? So there are 725,000 attempted or completed suicides? Whatever methodology was used, either one or both sets of conclusions are not extrapolatable to the general population because they are measuring different things which would bring into question their value in any conversation about gun use.
Third if you look at the actual study from Scientific American this stands out:
Highlights
Data come from the National Crime Victimization Survey 2007–2011.
Self-defense gun use (SDGU) occurs in fewer than 1% of contact crimes.
Males and rural dwellers are most likely to use a gun in self-defense.
SDGU is not associated with a reduced risk of victim injury.
Self-defense with any weapon is associated with a reduced risk of property loss.
And this:
Of over 14,000 incidents in which the victim was present, 127 (0.9%) involved a SDGU. SDGU was more common among males, in rural areas, away from home, against male offenders and against offenders with a gun. After any protective action, 4.2% of victims were injured; after SDGU, 4.1% of victims were injured. In property crimes, 55.9% of victims who took protective action lost property, 38.5 of SDGU victims lost property, and 34.9% of victims who used a weapon other than a gun lost property.
SDGU is not associated with a reduced risk of injury. The corollary is of course that it's not associated with a greater risk of injury either, indicated that using a gun for self defence doesn't increase your risk of being harmed. But wait, SDGU was more common if the offender had a gun. Obviously if the offender has a gun the risk of injury or death is much higher, but in spite of that higher risk SDGU was has the same risk of injury as not using a gun. In other words, those who use guns for self defense had a tendency to use them more often when the criminal also had a gun and posed a higher risk, and through that use of a gun for self defense they were able to lower their risk of injury to the same level as the average risk of all victims of crime suffering injury. This would indicate that using a gun lowers your risk of loss or injury in a crime situation.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
So I read through the first link. Here's something that stands out.
First, assume it's true that 65,000 Americans used guns in self defence and not 2.5 million as earlier research suggested. Explain how 65,000 defending themselves against possible murder, rape, assault, robbery and theft is an insignficant number. Because if 65,000 is insignificant, how insignificant is the 15,000 number of homicides or the far, far, far fewer numbers of people killed in mass shootings? And if it's not insignificant, why would it not be at least under consideration as possible justification for private ownership of firearms for self defence?
Second, if it's true that 65,000 Americans used guns for self defence then the second set of figures from Kellerman cannot used in conjunction with the first conclusion. For every gun used in self defence there are four unintentional shootings? So there are 260,000 unintentional shootings in the U.S.? 11 attempted or completed suicides? So there are 725,000 attempted or completed suicides? Whatever methodology was used, either one or both sets of conclusions are not extrapolatable to the general population because they are measuring different things which would bring into question their value in any conversation about gun use.
Third if you look at the actual study from Scientific American this stands out:
Highlights
Data come from the National Crime Victimization Survey 2007–2011.
Self-defense gun use (SDGU) occurs in fewer than 1% of contact crimes.
Males and rural dwellers are most likely to use a gun in self-defense.
SDGU is not associated with a reduced risk of victim injury.
Self-defense with any weapon is associated with a reduced risk of property loss.
And this:
Of over 14,000 incidents in which the victim was present, 127 (0.9%) involved a SDGU. SDGU was more common among males, in rural areas, away from home, against male offenders and against offenders with a gun. After any protective action, 4.2% of victims were injured; after SDGU, 4.1% of victims were injured. In property crimes, 55.9% of victims who took protective action lost property, 38.5 of SDGU victims lost property, and 34.9% of victims who used a weapon other than a gun lost property.
SDGU is not associated with a reduced risk of injury. The corollary is of course that it's not associated with a greater risk of injury either, indicated that using a gun for self defence doesn't increase your risk of being harmed. But wait, SDGU was more common if the offender had a gun. Obviously if the offender has a gun the risk of injury or death is much higher, but in spite of that higher risk SDGU was has the same risk of injury as not using a gun. In other words, those who use guns for self defense had a tendency to use them more often when the criminal also had a gun and posed a higher risk, and through that use of a gun for self defense they were able to lower their risk of injury to the same level as the average risk of all victims of crime suffering injury. This would indicate that using a gun lowers your risk of loss or injury in a crime situation.
I dont understand how you get to that conclusion. The last line of the highlights clearly states sef defense with any weapon and does not specify Guns.
The article itself comes to another conclusion:
"Conclusions
Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that SDGU is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss."
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Because the conclusion is overly simplistic and does not take into account the facts that they themselves provided. I explained it in detail. Did you not read it?
Similar threads
- Poll
