# Some facts about guns in the US

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by James R, Dec 17, 2012.

Messages:
16,420

3. ### pjdude1219The biscuit has risenValued Senior Member

Messages:
16,420
you seem to be confused of what per capita means. your example to defend the cherished weapon fails. your trying, it seems, to claim that multiple person house holds is the reason per capita gun ownership is rising which if I'm reading correctly shows a rather galling lack of understanding of the issue. the number of people owning guns is going down your ancedotal evidence is just that. the us is see a smaller number of people buying guns but buying increasing numbers of them.

Messages:
16,420

7. ### TiassaLet us not launch the boat ...Staff Member

Messages:
36,966
Too Bad We Can't Pass Laws to Prevent These Things

Because ... America!

On Tuesday, Justin and Jessica Ayers arrived home, greeted by extended family anxious to welcome the latest addition to the family. The proud couple brought home their new baby, born three days earlier.

Shortly thereafter, the youngest Ayers, unnamed in the press, lost its father when a stray bullet struck Justin in the head.

BCSO Deputies believe the shot was fired from Shisler’s home and traveled about 150 feet before it came into contact with the victim.

"The bullet traveled from within his residence, through his yard, through a wooded area that was probably 20 feet, through the back yard of the victim’s residence, through the sliding glass and across that residence," said [BCSO Maj. Tommy] Ford ....

.... Shisler was arrested and charged with Manslaughter and Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon. He was booked into the Bay County Jail.

He had his first appearance Wednesday morning. Judge Campbell ordered $150,000 bond on the manslaughter charge and$25,000 on the felon in possession of a firearm charge. As of Wednesday evening, Shisler had not posted bail.

(Blei)

The only real question I have at this point is how he obtained this gun. Whoever transferred it to his possession should serve every day of his sentence right alongside him.
____________________

Notes:

Blei, Sarah. "Man Charged in Michigan Court Fatal Shooting". WMBB. June 18, 2014. WMBB.co. June 19, 2014. http://www.wmbb.com/story/25808489/man-charged-in-michigan-court-shooting-death

8. ### KittamaruAshes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
13,938
I still maintain that the best method of control for guns is us... the people.

If we buy a rifle, shotgun, assault rifle, machine gun, whatever you wish, when it is not in use, it should have a trigger lock on it and be in a gun safe that is also locked AND bolted to either a supporting pillar or the floor, with the key somewhere else (I know a few people who had great gun safes, bolted to a structural member in the house... but they kept the damn keys to the safe ON TOP of the safe and left the keys for the trigger locks IN the safe... d'oh!)

If you want a handgun for protection? Okay, easy solution - keep a trigger lock on it, and keep the key for that on your housekeys or in a deskside drawer.

Personally, I would LOVE to see more handguns with a biometric trigger lock on it - that way, even IF someone steals it and cuts the trigger lock off, they still can't fire it without some SERIOUS tinkering.

Problem is, that would cut into the gun industry's profits and OH LAWDY we can't have that in this country...

Additionally, if you are on some kind of psychoactive medications (SSRI's, SNRI's, MAOI's, Neuroleptics, etc) then perhaps... just perhaps... additional background gathering should be done before issuing you a gun. If you are found to have had any kind of serious aggressive/depressive/suicidal activity in the last few years (2-3?) then sorry, you shouldn't own a gun right now. If you are on heavy anti-psychotics or anxiolytic drugs... then no gun, period. Light anti-depressants or stimulants, like those used for ADHD/ADD or mild depression? Again, look into the background - if the person seems stable, cool.

But now we delve into "invasion of privacy" and people get all pissy about it... even though it would help keep guns out of the hands of those who just might be mentally unstable enough to do something they shouldn't with them... ranging from homicidal rampages to suicide.

9. ### iceauraValued Senior Member

Messages:
30,994
Funny how that works - people getting pissy about random agents of the government going through their medicine cabinets, listening in on their phone calls, confiscating anything they have around the house some city dwelling ignoramus thinks they might use to commit suicide.

A gun owner in my area recently suggested we age restrict handguns. No handguns in reach until 21, say - onus on the responsible adults to see to it, means of their choice but outcome their responsibility.

The observation was that the peak for handgun violence against others was 17 - 21, and the source for the guns involved was almost always a nearby adult.

The major voices in opposition were anti-gun activists - not far enough, did not force removal of the gun from the home, etc.

This well is poisoned by authoritarians. Guns are simply not enough of a danger to most people (they are about the same threat to the regular citizen as aspirin is) to justify the level of government intrusion that would be necessary to satisfy the authoritarian agenda.

10. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
36,974
Sounds like you need to read the opening post of this thread again, iceaura.

11. ### iceauraValued Senior Member

Messages:
30,994
Because there are clues in it that will allow me to guess your point, or make it for you?

12. ### KittamaruAshes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
13,938
http://www.easybakegunclub.com/news/4994/Who-says-it-never-happens?-Concealed-carrier-stops.html

Obviously the article is heavily biased, but it does bring up a simple point - this guy, without firing a shot, was able to intervene on behalf of the person being robbed, because he was A) Armed and B) Trained. He knew how to act (and how NOT to act)

13. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
36,974
Yup. Pretty obvious clues.

It's ok. I don't need your help when it comes to guns.

14. ### TiassaLet us not launch the boat ...Staff Member

Messages:
36,966
Do What Thou Wilt, for Data is Naught But Noise

Numbers

Derived from Thomas C. Frolich for 24/7 Wall Street:

As mass shootings continue to appear in the news, many Americans and state leaders are asking how to address the problem without restricting constitutional rights.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) tracks the number of gun-related fatalities — including homicides, suicides, and accidents — in each state. The frequency of firearm-related deaths varies widely across the U.S. Firearms were associated with just 3.0 deaths per 100,000 residents in Rhode Island in 2011, the lowest gun-related fatality rate of any state. Louisiana, on the other hand, reported 18.8 firearm-related deaths per 100,000 residents, the most of any state. 24/7 Wall St. examined the 10 states with the highest gun-related death rates.

And there is plenty to pick through in the analysis; there are plenty of notes to attend when reading through their numbers and summaries, but above is the short form. Have fun with the rest.
____________________

Notes:

Frolich, Thomas C. "States With the Most Gun Violence". 24/7 Wall Street. June 26, 2014. 247WallSt.com. June 29, 2014. http://247wallst.com/special-report/2014/06/26/231958/

15. ### KittamaruAshes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
13,938
Seems to me that most violent crimes occur without firearms then... or am I misreading that?

16. ### sculptorValued Senior Member

Messages:
8,267
Lets break out suicides:

Suicide is a right, not a privilege, and should not be considered a crime, nor lumped in with violent crimes.

17. ### BellsStaff Member

Messages:
24,111
One of the most bizarre things about this debate is the culture of guns in the US. More to the point, the level of acceptability of gun violence and its defense when the subject matter is brought up. It's almost second nature. And this is not to poke a stick at anyone, but it is merely an observation from someone across the wide pond.. I don't quite understand the need or desire for guns. I understand the Constitutional rights argument, but that still does not explain what gun ownership has come to mean for so many people. A friend of mine, who lives in Arizona, boasted to me how his 8 year old daughter got a gun for a present last Christmas. And I thought, why in the hell would you give a gun to a child that young? My response to him was to ask if he was planning on moving the family to Afghanistan or Iraq.. Suffice to say, it didn't go down well. But apparently she needs a gun, because it is her Constitutional right to own one. It's even hot pink. And that's the crux of this issue. People need one because it is their right to own one.

Self defense? Err okay. From what and whom? You are more likely to be attacked and killed by someone you know.

In 2009, 24.2 percent of victims were slain by family members; 53.8 percent were killed by someone they knew (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.). The relationship of murder victims and offenders was unknown in 43.9 percent of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter incidents in 2009. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 10.)

Of the female murder victims for whom their relationships to the offenders were known, 34.6 percent were murdered by their husbands or boyfriends. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Tables 2 and 10.)

Of the murders for which the circumstance surrounding the murder was known, 41.2 percent of victims were murdered during arguments (including romantic triangles) in 2009. Felony circumstances (rape, robbery, burglary, etc.) accounted for 22.9 percent of murders. Circumstances were unknown for 35.4 percent of reported homicides. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 12.)

So I think to myself, is it wise to bring a gun into a household where one partner is abusive? For self defense?

According to federal data collected from police departments, in 2005 approximately 40% of female homicide victims ages 15 – 50 were killed by either a current or former intimate partner. In over half (55%) of these cases, the perpetrator used a gun.
Among male victims 15 – 50 years of age, 2% were killed by either a current or former intimate partner. About 37% of the male intimate partner homicides involved a gun.

[HR][/HR]

Compared to homes without guns, the presence of guns in the home is associated with a 3 - fold increased homicide risk within the home. The risk connected to gun ownership increases to 8 - fold when the offender is an intimate partner or relative of the victim and is 20 times higher when previous domestic violence exists.

A study of risk factors for violent death of women in the home found that women living in homes with 1 or more guns were more than 3 times more likely to be killed in their homes. The same study concluded that women killed by a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative were 7 times more likely to live in homes with 1 or more guns and 14 times more likely to have a history of prior domestic violence compared to women killed by non-intimate acquaintances.

Family and intimate assaults with firearms are 12 times more likely to result in death than non-firearm assaults. This research suggests that limiting access to guns will result in less lethal family and intimate assaults. A study of women physically abused by current or former intimate partners revealed a 5-fold increased risk of the partner murdering the woman when the partner owned a firearm. In fact,

Homicide risks were found to be 50% higher for female handgun purchasers in California compared with licensed drivers matched by sex, race, and age group. Among the women handgun purchasers who were murdered, 45% were killed by an intimate partner using a gun. In contrast, 20% of all women murdered in California during the study period were killed with a gun by an intimate partner.

Obviously not.

Pay particular attention to the second paragraph:

The total prevalence of violent crime in America in 2010, according to the National Crime Victimisation Survey, was 10.8 per 1,000 people; that is, you had about a 1.1% chance of being a victim of a violent crime. In England and Wales, according to the British Crime Survey, it was 3.1%. This makes England's violent crime rate three times as high as America's, not five times. That's still a striking difference. But counterintuitively, "violent crime", in both America and Britain does not include homicide. (Violent-crime stats are usually based on survey data rather than police reports, since many crimes are never reported to the police; but homicide victims tend not to respond to surveys.) Homicide is a separate category, and here the difference is startling: as we reported this summer, the homicide rate in America is four times as high as that in England and Wales. There were 622 homicides in England and Wales in 2011. In America, with a population 5.5 times as large, there were 14,022.

How much of that difference should be chalked up to the presence of guns? Well, gun-rights advocates often argue that there's no point taking away people's guns, because you can kill someone with a knife. This is true, but in practice people are nowhere near as likely to get killed with a knife. In America, of those 14,022 homicides in 2011, 11,101 were committed with firearms. In England and Wales, where guns are far harder to come by, criminals didn't simply go out and equip themselves with other tools and commit just as many murders; there were 32,714 offences involving a knife or other sharp instrument (whether used or just threatened), but they led to only 214 homicides, a rate of 1 homicide per 150 incidents. Meanwhile, in America, there were 478,400 incidents of firearm-related violence (whether used or just threatened) and 11,101 homicides, for a rate of 1 homicide per 43 incidents. That nearly four-times-higher rate of fatality when the criminal uses a gun rather than a knife closely matches the overall difference in homicide rates between America and England.

There are links to the studies mentioned embedded in the actual article if you wish to read them (just click on the link to the article to access them).

But in other words, you are more likely to die if a firearm is involved in a violent crime than if a knife is involved, for example. Of course there are other violent crimes. But you are more likely to die if there is a firearm involved.

18. ### sculptorValued Senior Member

Messages:
8,267
It seems that weapons(rifles, guns, pistols) and religion have at-least this one thing in common.
Those who have none seem to want no-body to have them.

19. ### kx000Valued Senior Member

Messages:
5,072
Banning guns will only go so far rid the world of violence, but if someone comes to harm us with something else we will be helpless.i am a pacifist, as I ponder how to be one. Is passive a martyr? Or is passive all powerful like he has to be? Passive man must be influential, and be our leader. Even if we pick up a gun to put them down.

20. ### BellsStaff Member

Messages:
24,111
Interesting analogy.. In that regard, I don't understand why you feel that you need to own firearms?

Let's look at the current brouhaha in Texas as a prime example. Groups of people, sometimes numbering in the dozens, are converging on businesses while armed with assault rifles and other types of long-guns. They are disturbing so many people that these businesses are banning firearms from their premises. It is apparently in protest against the laws that prevent them from openly carrying a handgun. So you see mother's with small babies in their arms or strollers or shopping carts, with presumably loaded assault rifles on their backs.. Because this is normal? Is it for self protection? Umm.. Why do people need an assault rifle for protection while shopping or eating in a restaurant?

Their latest protest was to walk through a predominantly black neighbourhood openly carrying these assault rifles to educate the residents of such neighbourhoods.. Ermm okay, again, this is normal? Thankfully it was cancelled.. I have to wonder how they would react if they saw a bunch of black guys with assault rifles walking through their predominantly white neighbourhoods.. I would imagine it would be very very negative. Yet the general public is expected to allow these buffoons to openly carry supposedly loaded assault rifles into eateries and stores and neighbourhood in large numbers?

See, it's not so much that I think you should not have them. It's that I don't quite understand why people feel it is their god given right to have them and why they feel the need to flaunt them in people's faces and to the other, why so many feel that there should be no restricted on who or what kind of guns you can own.

I mean what the hell kind of self defense do people feel they need that an assault rifle or a semi-automatic is required?

Well, it can't really be for self defense since you are more likely to be killed by your own gun..

It's like the Darwin Awards waiting to happen.

21. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
20,585
Well, no, you said it yourself - they are doing it in protest against the laws that prevent them from openly carrying a handgun, not for self protection. That's their right. And businesses are banning them - which is THEIR right.

22. ### BellsStaff Member

Messages:
24,111
Yes.. And?

No, really, and?

Why do they need to openly carry guns? To the point where carrying an assault rifle becomes necessary as a protest. I get the obvious point that they are protesting as is their right, blah blah, but no one has been able to explain why they need to carry guns, or carry them openly? What part of their psyche leads them to believe that they need to own such weapons?

23. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
20,585
Because we have laws against carrying them and concealing them.

Are you asking why people feel the need to carry guns at all?