Tinkerhell

I think not.

Before you make your decision about this (or before you refuse to discuss & debate the issue in an intelligent manner) download the following study & then see what you have to say. I'll forewarn you, it's big. About 120 pages. But it's well footnoted, contains ref's regarding other studies world wide and is one of the least biased reports I've seen.

[COLOR=#006699]http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/1564/[/COLOR]


No link between legal firearms, crime

Suburban Chicago News
April 27, 2007
As the ban guns furor mounts, another study was released which clearly indicates there is no correlation between legal firearms ownership and the increase in crime.

The Second Amendment Foundation applauded a new report by a pair of criminologists, Prof. Don Kates of the United States and Prof. Gary Mauser of Canada, which contends that the rate of firearms ownership is irrelevant to the homicide and violent crime rate. The report should be required reading, SAF founder Alan Gottlieb emphasized, "... especially by reporters, editorial writers and elected representatives."

According to Gottlieb, "Appearing in the current issue of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pages 649-694), the Kates/Mauser report entitled 'Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence' is a detailed look at gun ownership and how it does not relate to the incidence of murder and violence. They conclude that nations with very stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those which allow guns."

__________________
Stupidity should be painful if not terminal.
Darwin for Sainthood!!

Maddogg6

Larry the Cable Guy:
'If its the 'guns' that kill people.... then I get to blame wrong test answers on my pencil'.

Ok hes a redneck - but hes a redneck with a point you can't argue any more intelligently.

cozumel

I don't think I can be bothered to read such a long paper, though I commend you for your research. I will definitely scan the paper when I have the time.

I work closely with various law enforcement and intelligence gathering agencies and therefore I can say something prior looking at this paper.

From my experience I would say that guns definitely does not lead to an increase in violent crime as there are so many ways in which violence can be carried out if one has the intention to do so. I would say that guns are one of most efficient methods with which to kill and therefore lead to more fatal injuries.

Tinkerhell - a question: Is there anything showing the likelihood (in percentage) of a fatal injury arising from a firearm discharge? And are there any similar type figures gathered when looking at the use of knives, beatings, attempted strangulation etc etc etc.? I am very interested to know which is officially the most efficient or whether my theories are pure rubbish.

__________________

Maddogg6

your theories must be wrong... the most efficient method (for non-military) of killing people is running a commercial airliner into a crowded building.

However, A gun is the most convenient method for an honest citizen to protect them self.

Thank you for carring so much about our constitution.

cozumel

Yes I agree that for your average psychopathic terrorist a suicide plot can be very effective but I thought we were talking about average crime. To take your point a stage further you could argue that an atomic weapon with multiple warheads are probably the most destructive of all devices. But are we talking about crime or what?

I have to correct you. A gun is the not the most convenient method. It is the most efficient because it kills so easily and you don't necessarily have to be in close contact with your enemy.

And thank you for taking what I said out of context. I did also say it is a matter of time. I do have other things in my life to do. When I'm dealing most days working with violent offenders, registered sex offenders and peadophiles I prefer to leave my work in the office. Chilling out with my family and friends is something I hold dear.

__________________

Sandok

Please guys, stop making more than one thread about this subject. Three threads is MORE than enough to debate the topic of Guns = Great vs Guns = Horrible (with noone caring what the other posts).

Anyways, just a reminder to keep the forum a bit tidy.

Maddogg6

So - is it your position an 'average murderer' is of 'sound mind'?
9/11 took ZERO guns to commit that horrendous crime.
9/11 was the 'most effective' mass murder to date. (it was a CRIME - no? - it was NOT a military operation)
9/11 DOES demonstrate just how much killing that *can* be done with out a single firearm. It serves to prove the point that - its PEOPLE that kill people - Not the gun.

No were talking guns, *violent crimes* and *DEATH*. 9/11 certainly fits into the latter 2 categories.

No problems - Its the least I could do. Do you think your the only one with a life?

At the moment this is strictly theoretical. As it has not happened. If/when it happens - you will most likely be correct - until then - its speculation. 9/11 on the other hand is NOT speculation.

edit:
Consider this 'theory'...
Joe Blow - gets really pissed off at his boss.
But because joe cant get a gun and kill 1 person - he feels forced into killing him in other ways - like flying a plane into his office and burning everyone in it alive... or commandeers the bus/train he may commute on and kills everyone on it....

So - theoretically - a single murder has turned into multiple.
If were gonna use theoretical situations.
/edit

cozumel

It impossible for me to argue that 9/11 is not the most efficient mass murder siucide plots every carried out. But if you are arguing that we should all carry guns as a deterent how will that stop an airliner? Does this mean that guns are not a good deterent or should we all start keeping surface-air missiles just in case?

@ Sandok - Tinkerhell started it - Maddogg and I are merely inncocent bystanders who got sucked into his little game. We must be so naive!!

__________________

Maddogg6

Theres NO such thing as an 'object' thats considered a 'good deterant' when it comes to someones mental illness and them desiring to kill others. Thus, the ONLY 'good deterrent' is psychological help. But I digress- people have been killing people since walking the earth - NOTHING will change this fact.

We did have SAMS - but didn't use them.

Which parallels our current gun laws - they are there - just not used/enforced.

And... You keep saying 9/11 was a murder suicide - well, so was the Virgina tech incident. So I dont understand why you are trying to differentiate.

@Sandok - resurecting *old threads* gets flames.

cozumel

I did say in my first post in this thread So we are agreed then.

I'm just saying apart from airliners, car-bombs, any other sort of bomb, hijacked trains and ships that guns are the next most efficient method of killing.

@Sandok - I was thinking about starting another gun thread just to wind you up . I had to keep the child within me in check.

__________________

Judas

Anyone that's skilled at anything specific, specially when it's designed to kill or is designed for something that could be very easily made lethal, will be very efficient, so debating about if a gun/carbomb/nuke/pen/finger more efficient then the other is kinda self defeating.

However, for the average joe, what is MORE readily available, more familare in how to effectively use it, learn how to handle it, how easy it is to operate and run it, the skills needed and training needed to effectively use it.

You could have someone that knows several defensive and offensive martial arts skills that are far more dangerous then just anyone with a gun. Or a knife, or pen, or whatever weapon they show choose to use and how well they know how to use it for, IF the case is murder, for that task.

Once again, Guns may/do not kill people, but people seem to prefer it for the task as it's both easy to use, easy to point, and easy to fire, and it's a short and long range. And depending what states you live in, or what place in the world for that matter, guns are extremely easy to get your hands on, OR they aren't, and in the places that they aren't "easily accessable", getting them from an "underground" source can be extremely easy.

__________________

Maddogg6

My whole 9/11 example was a point to show/prove that one does NOT need a gun to commit horrendous multiple murders like the incidents such as virginia tech (that usually get 'gun control' debates started)

This is also true for someone wishing to protect them self.
ONLY with too strict of gun control means - a thug is less likely to worry about a victim having a gun/means to protect them self.

edit: carbombs and airliners are not convenient means of personal protection. /edit

Part of the arguments against guns include; that they can also be used 'effectively' at a distance - which DOES require skill. Even at close range (even with your typical '38 special') - its not necessarily a guaranteed kill - unless you; 1) know what to aim at - 2) are able (gun 'kick', know how to clean a weapon for maximum effectiveness as dirty guns tend to jam/reduce accuracy etc)

Judas

I agree maddogg6,

The more strict the gun control is, the most likely they'll be readily available to those that know where to look through the blackmarket/unground. Not everyone that is involved in that market is going to be a huge threat, but it just limits those that could effectively defend themselves and have it for a deterent increases the risk that they could be mugged/raped/whatever.

It's a catch 22 any logical way you look at it, you increase the ability to get guns, you also increase the chance that lunitics and mentally unstable people can more readily get one. If you limit it more, those that are REALLY looking for a gun can oventually get one anyways, and then also cause for a more risky enviroment to move about anyways.

You could also do this as a theoretical statistic.

if everyone is aloud guns

out of 100 people,

5 are possible mental cases that could be considered serious theats and 3 are armed (but still well aware that other people are armed making them less likely to do something stupid)
80 other random people are also armed, 15 other don't care are willing to risk it.

And in the case of strict laws,

the 5 that are possible mental cases that could be considered threats, 2 are armed due to finding ways to get a gun (and now have a higher sense of security due to knowing that the law has removed a significant amount of the population as being a thread against them)
only 15 normal people are armed due to finding methods to get a weapon as well
another 15 people still don't care and take the risk
65 people are totally unarmed and worried about the risk

__________________

GutterPunk

Whether it is men with knives, guns, fists, swords, or whatever... its going to be violent lethal and leave a big mess. Guns just make it easier than the others.

__________________
Rock On \m/ Thank you Mousey for the Sig!
---------------

Intel Core2Duo E6660 (3.4GHZ) ~ Tuniq Tower 120 ~ Enermax Galaxy 1000W ~ Corsair Dominator @ 1090MHZ 5-5-5-15 (OCZ XTC Modded Cooler)~ EVGA 8800GTX W/ HR-03 Plus 120MM ~ Asus DVD-RW LiteScribe ~ LG DVD-RW ~ Corsair Voyager 2GB ReadyBoost Drive ~ Vantec Nexus Fan Controller ~ ThermalTake Armor 25CM fan ~
Personal Finance Blog: Dent Your Debt

Tinkerhell

Hey Coz, I do not recall any specific %'s for what you are talking about. However this is a thesis type research paper. It has about 10,000 footnotes to references. It would not surprise me if one of those references is something similar to what you are asking. There are many comparisons to firearm injuries compared to non-firearm injuries.

Sorry you don't have time to read this. I had to make time. I consider it a very important issue for my life and the life of those I love so i feel it worth the time.

Sorry Sandok.

__________________
Stupidity should be painful if not terminal.
Darwin for Sainthood!!

Judas

hey.. lets not make a stereotypical/sexist statement..

fixed.....

__________________

Dowaco

It would seem obvious that simply owning a gun does not automatically turn one into a violent criminal. I own two hand guns and I have never so much as gotten a parking ticket in 35 years of owning a car, including the last 15 years since I have owned these weapons.
I do have the potential to kill someone as we all do, but I would not use a gun to do so if I somehow decided that one or more people needed to die (with the exception of defending my home and family). With several degrees in chemistry, I would probably use some method of poisoning my victims. It would be harder to trace cause of death and might be made to look like natural causes. Guns and knives are messy.

People who are alreay violent criminals should not have access to guns, but a violent person will always find a way to carry out his nefarious plans weather it is bowling over a group of people with an automobile or running a truck with fertilizer into an office building, or stabbing people on a crowded subway platform.

A good person without a gun is simply an unarmed citizen.
A good person with a gun does not make them bad, it makes them armed and defended.
A bad person without a gun does not make them good, they are still bad and can do bad things.
A bad person with a gun is dangerous and we should have laws to prevent that. Oh wait, we do have laws.

Gun education will not stop violent crime, but it could help reduce accidents.

__________________
The above is my opinion and in no way reflects the views of this website.

Judas

my father owns probably 10 guns..... from simple hand guns ranging from the .22 to the 44/45's, right up to the i think a 277 and even larger, a double barrel 12 gauge as well.

__________________

Maddogg6

This is how current laws are... part of the problem is that - 'underground' dealers - don't do the background checks...
And of course - even honest people may purchase from such dealers (to avoid the paper trail IN CASE a ban is enacted - I know people who have done this) - which in turn 'boosts' underground sales (in other words - gun bans will cause honest people to 'support' dishonest dealers' - helping them stay 'in business' to supply guns to thugs)
Just like with marijuana and 'prescribed' use of it by doctors... a 'patient' is inadvertently supporting illegal drug trade - giving the 'thugs' more $$$ and power - because of the ban/law against. Where if they had a place to buy it legally..1) would pay taxes on the purchase and can help someone other than unlawful elements 2) make the transaction more safe (ie - avoid 'drug deals' gone bad.)

cozumel

I wish my doctor would prescribe me marijuana. Does anyone know the symptoms that I would need to display to fool the man?

__________________

Maddogg6

cancer AFAIK - but I assume no such 'official' information exists due to the fact that the feds don't recognize any legalization any states may enact.

back OT...
Consider how simple it is to make effective homemade weapons - a little metal shop skills and there are several deadly weapons that can be made that are even more difficult to detect and regulate than firearms - as the components have a ton of legit use.

So - even if we could magically make all firearms disappear - these construction plans are wide spread and proven effective as well. I know Id have a few myself.

Id rather a thug carry a firearm - than can be found during a routine traffic stop.

Unr3a1

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. A gun is just something that can be used to kill a person. A tool if you may.

ChaosMinionX

An armed society, is a polite society

__________________

Falstaff

it isnt guns, rather it is our gun culture...
it isnt cars, rather it is our car culture....
pointed sticks, rocks, knives, guns, etc....
humans are violent creatures, capable of great love and gentleness
or rather gentle creatures capable of performing visceral, horrendous and terrible crimes without a concious or regret..
we as a society must teach our children to embrace values and learn the difference between right or wrong.
legislate, pontificate, litigate as much as possible.
create prisons and harsh fines, take all the guns away, but one way or another those that wish to break the laws and destroy life and take power away from our society will find a way.
Its about our culture, our values and our decisions..
Guns dont kill.....people do.
It is easier to harnass the will to kill, than it is to find a gun so I dont think it matters what weapon we choose.
Whether we are protecting what we have, projecting power or eliminating the competiton in territorial disputes we have to accept the fact that we need a weapon that is capable of taking life, whether it is a gun, or a rock, or a pointed stick, etc.
That is just the way we humans are....

__________________

ChaosMinionX

I believe it is Human nature to have to find something to blame for something bad happening....

People would like to believe alot of things, in this case...

Violence in VideoGames, and other media cause kids/people to be violent themselves....
Allowing citizens to own weapons be it guns knives whatever causes people to be violent, and causes kids to be violent and kill people and whatever else happens.

In all of that, where is parental responsibility and a persons own responsibility for knowing right from wrong, and telling your kids guns are not toys, and video games are not life.

__________________

Falstaff

True Dat!!
its about taking responsibility, not legislation and putting the government in your pocket all the time.

__________________

Senor_Mota

From wikipedia.com(Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

It seems that more people are concerned with hurting themselves before others with a gun. I personally don't like guns due to their ballistic nature of propulsion and the mostly accidental destructive power they leave in their wake, but I do own a Colt .40 Autopistol with a 13 round clip, because hey, my daughter and my girlfriend mean a great deal more to me than some random vagrant who decided to invade my privacy, then leave with half a head.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

__________________

Ryguy786

Japan has the lowest crime rate.
Guns are illegal in Japan.

Nuff said.

The cableguy quote doesn't work at all. Take the pencil away, and we don't have to fail the test, or even take the test. Take the gun away, and don't give people the option of using one against another.

In my opinion, noone needs a concealed weapon, a hand gun, a semi, or fully automatic gun. The only things guns should be used for are hunting, and I think the crime rate would take a hit if you had to rob a bank with a .243 rifle which you had to obtain through a well thought out process, and a good waiting period.

cozumel

What do they do with the other half lol. Do they eat it and take the rest as a takeaway?

Anyhow, since this thread has been resurrected. Guns are bad. Should not be legal. Just means that it is easier to kill. But hell. If I lived in the US or any other country where it is legal to bear arms then I too would carry a gun for defense. I just wish the gun lobby was criminalised or its CEO lined up against a wall and shot.

__________________

Tinkerhell

Well since it's been res'ed I'll put my side's rhetoric out again too.
(I say rhetoric because the short below is just catch phrases & slogans, not fact. I've got the facts to support it but that takes lots longer to post & has alreayd been done by me & others.)

Guns save lives.
Guns are the only thing that lets the good guys be on even playing grounds with the bad guys. When you make guns illegal then only the criminals will have guns & they will be that much more brazen about doing what they want when they want.
As soon as the people are deprived of their innate, God given right to protect and defend themselves they are simply victims waiting to happen. Victims of bad guys and victims of their government.

__________________
Stupidity should be painful if not terminal.
Darwin for Sainthood!!