The Great Gun Control Debate

[Lumber]

The idea that banning guns will reduce homicide is a fallacy which is illustrated in study after study....violent crime and murder is unaffected or increases when this happens.

Guns being the popular tool might actually be reducing the number of fatalities in these events. There are many ways someone could create massive casualties with common household goods or even a pickup truck.

....What guns do is transform crimes or incidents where you wouldn't expect a fatality, and dramatically increase the likelihood of a fatality/serious injury.

A gun in the home (legal or not) exponentially raises the chance of suicide, homicide and accidental death. I agree that guns don't kill people, people kill people. But in a well armed society, you turn a domestic spat into a murder, a moment of severe depression into a suicide, and a firing into a potential mass shooting.

Quoting you both because I believe you have opposing views on how guns affect the nature of a given crime.

Have fun.

 

[Kilo_302]

Why do you keep making up stuff?  The US murder rate is very low on a world scale.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Right so if we sort this list by murder rate, the US is 110th on the list with 4.7 per 100,000. Its immediate neighbours on the list are Yemen and Niger. In contrast, Canada is 170th, with 1.6/100,000. Australia is 185th with 1.1/100,000.  Amongst so-called advanced countries, the US has a very high murder rate indeed. No serious person is going to compare the US with Somalia for example, or Honduras. But if that's the bar you want to use, go right ahead. This thread IS about Canada, but it definitely helps looking at how other countries are doing. Australia for example passed very stringent gun laws under John Howard ( a Conservative!) and that has a lot to do with where they are on the list.

 

[Kilo_302]

Quoting you both because I believe you have opposing views on how guns affect the nature of a given crime.

Have fun.

Well I would just again point to the report I posted yesterday that shows a clear correlation between gun ownership and gun crime. It specifically addresses c_canuk's point about guns REDUCING violence. Neither of us are specialists, but the most comprehensive study on the issue so far shows that gun ownership is linked to a higher rate of firearm related deaths. I don't see how one can argue against that until they pull out a report that shows different.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

And I'll just bet if we did a study of countries with lots of cars and countries with very few cars we'd be horrified to find out that we're barbarians...........I'm a gun-hater and you can't even convince me,...in fact you do the opposite.

 

[Rocky Mountains]

Or maybe using Australia as an example is so much bullstuff.  The US did better and gun ownership got freer during the period.

Australia 1991 - 1.9  2007 - 1.3    31.5 % drop

US 1991 - 9.8  2007 - 5.9    39.7 % drop

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873729.html

 

[Lumber]

People don't kill because they have a gun, they kill because they have intent to kill. This is also a fact, and is not disputable.

Everything is disputable. Proximity. Capability. Intent.

People are coward; people are lazy. People get scarred and nervous.

I'm no expert, and I won't pretend to bed; I have no studies to back me up.

But take two people who are suffering from some extreme level of trauma and depression. Both are nervous, jittery type of people, and both have a very low tolerance for pain. Put one in a room with a knife, and put the other in a room with a gun. Is one more likely to committ suicide than the other?

Take two people who both of short fuses, who are jealous, vain and quick to blame others. Both are insulted, shamed, and disrespected publically in front of their peers. One has a gun in his pocket, and one doesn't. Is one more likely to kill the person who insults them?

Just points of discussion, I'm not claiming one way or the other.

 

[Kilo_302]

Or maybe using Australia as an example is so much bullstuff.  The US did better and gun ownership got freer during the period.

Australia 1991 - 1.9  2007 - 1.3    31.5 % drop

US 1991 - 9.8  2007 - 5.9    39.7 % drop

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873729.html

What other countries can I use then? Saying the US "did better" is a bit of a misnomer, because the rates of murder there are so high to begin with. A starting rate of 9.8 means you have a LOT of policy tools you can use to get your homicide rate down.

We've already discussed that crime rates are going down across the board in developed countries. Whatever decreases you've cited, the fact remains that among advanced countries, the US has by far a higher rate of violent crime, but more importantly a higher rate of gun crime. I fail to understand why the link between gun ownership and gun violence seems to be so controversial.

 

[Rocky Mountains]

Canada 1.6

Maine  1.8
Idaho  1.7
New Hampshire  1.7
Utah  1.7
Vermont  1.6
Hawaii  1.5
Iowa  1.4

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord

States with few inner city non-Asian visible minorities have rates not unlike Canada.  Most of the states with low rates have concealed carry available to anyone without a criminal record.  Amazing how they resist the urge to kill each other.

 

[cld617]

I never buy into the suicide argument. Sure people may be more inclined to kill themselves if they have a more expedient, "pain free" option at their disposal, but why should the rest of society be limited in their freedoms because of the choices of few? This notion that we need to coddle a few mentally ill individuals in a manner which restricts the actions of the overwhelming majority is bullshit to me. The stats are also misrepresented. You don't limit the amount of suicide attempts by removing firearms, you simply push them to other less successful methods like poisoning though medications etc.

 

[George Wallace]

I never buy into the suicide argument. Sure people may be more inclined to kill themselves if they have a more expedient, "pain free" option at their disposal, but why should the rest of society be limited in their freedoms because of the choices of few? This notion that we need to coddle a few mentally ill individuals in a manner which restricts the actions of the overwhelming majority is bullshit to me. The stats are also misrepresented. You don't limit the amount of suicide attempts by removing firearms, you simply push them to other less successful methods like poisoning though medications etc.

Exactly.  Remove guns, then we will then have to remove razor blades and knives, rope, cars, drugs, and so many other items that the list would be endless.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I disagree. The falling crime rate affects all kinds of crimes, not just violent ones. What guns do is transform crimes or incidents where you wouldn't expect a fatality, and dramatically increase the likelihood of a fatality/serious injury.

The broader trends you're referring would by definition have to be included in this latest data, or any data on crime. And the falling crime rates have been explained (as I mentioned above) by a series of other variables.

Sheesh, you claim "more guns , more crime" There are 300-350 MILLION guns in the US, roughly 15-33 MILLION in Canada, with roughly 300+ rds sold each year, each possible gun. So when does the number of guns tip the scales to lead to this long awaited massacre that has been predicated again and again?

Admit it, guns are not the issue. Gun control is lazy bandaid pap that politicians blurt out to appease certain voting groups so as to avoid dealing with other messy issues.

 

[Rocky Mountains]

But take two people who are suffering from some extreme level of trauma and depression. Both are nervous, jittery type of people, and both have a very low tolerance for pain. Put one in a room with a knife, and put the other in a room with a gun. Is one more likely to committ suicide than the other?

Or take a handful of probably the commonest non-prescription drug.  A bit slow but just as sure.  Should we outlaw those also?

Only half of US suicides are with firearms. 

Suicide rates per 100,000

US 12.1
Australia 10.6
Canada 9.8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

Australians may not have many guns but they are pretty much on par with the US.

 

[Lumber]

Exactly.  Remove guns, then we will then have to remove razor blades and knives, rope, cars, drugs, and so many other items that the list would be endless.

I don't disagree with your point, just your arguement. Those things have purposes other than killing. They weren't designed with lethality in mind.

 

[Lumber]

Only half of US suicides are with firearms. 

So if they got rid of firearms, would suicides drop by a large portion? (Obviously not half, people will find other ways, just as Geroge said.)

 

[cld617]

So if they got rid of firearms, would suicides drop by a large portion? (Obviously not half, people will find other ways, just as Geroge said.)

Successful ones possibly, attempts absolutely not. IMO the greater threat is the fact that our young people are being pushed to these extremes to begin with, not simply that lives are being lost. If a 75 year old man decides to check out by himself in his basement with a shotgun, I'm certainly not about to support any sort of legislation to keep him from doing so.

http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/Suicide_DataSheet-a.pdf

1 in 25 attempts is successful, so roughly 1 in 50 suicide attempts is done with a firearm and carried out successfully. To me, that is an indicator of a much larger problem that needs to be addressed, removing firearms is a poorly administered bandaid solution.

 

[Rocky Mountains]

So if they got rid of firearms, would suicides drop by a large portion? (Obviously not half, people will find other ways, just as Geroge said.)

Or not at all?  Most actions labeled suicide attempts are pleas for attention.  Committed individuals do not have failed suicides.

 

[Lumber]

Successful ones possibly, attempts absolutely not.

http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/Suicide_DataSheet-a.pdf

1 in 25 attempts is successful, so roughly 1 in 50 suicide attempts is done with a firearm and carried out successfully. To me, that is an indicator of a much larger problem that needs to be addressed, removing firearms is a poorly administered bandaid solution.

:goodpost:

Ok, so suicides are out. What about 2nd-degree murder? Using a gun in a moment of anger.

 

[Lumber]

Or not at all?  Most actions labeled suicide attempts are pleas for attention.  Committed individuals do not have failed suicides.

Some suicide methods have higher rates of lethality than others. The use of firearms results in death 90% of the time.   Wrist-slashing has a much lower lethality rate, comparatively. 75% of all suicide attempts are by self-poisoning, a method that is often thwarted because the drug is nonlethal or is used at a nonlethal dosage. These people survive 97% of the time.[4]

Also, on what authority/expertise do you purpose that "most suicide attempts are please for attention."?

 

[George Wallace]

I don't disagree with your point, just your arguement. Those things have purposes other than killing. They weren't designed with lethality in mind.

Seriously?  What difference does the purpose of an object have, that would make it less lethal?  People have dove head first into industrial shredders or wood chippers.  People have jumped off bridges, cliffs, tall buildings.  Lethality is not determined by what something was designed to do, but by what it can be used for (limited only by one's imagination). 
Don't forget, before we had black powder, we lived by the sword.  Seppuku known as Hara-Kiri was practiced.  Other civilizations used sharp blades of different types to commit suicide, even if those blades may not have been designed for killing, but for woodwork or culinary uses. 


[Edit to add]

Now you have turned it around to talk about murder.  No problem.....Change the discussion from taking one's life to taking the life of another.  Same rules apply.  No change.  What an object is designed for, and what it is used for, are two different things.  A candlestick is designed to hold candles, but a murderer can use it to bash in a victim's head.  Again, the candlestick was not designed with lethality in mind.

 

[cld617]

:goodpost:

Ok, so suicides are out. What about 2nd-degree murder? Using a gun in a moment of anger.

Are you implying that one is more likely than the other, or are you simply assuming such because one is "easier" than the other?

Stabbing deaths occur as frequently, or depending on the year, more frequently than shooting deaths. People are going to kill each other, again the issue is the root cause not the outcome.