Summations Only

Well you're wrong. Artillery existed at that time.Arms were meant to be a firearm that a single individual could use. Ah, the ol' Godwin's Law of guns...As an online discussion on the 2nd amendment grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving individuals owning nuclear weapons approaches 1.

Whereas if people say and do nothing, gun safety laws will fall as though by magic from a cloudless sky.The reason nothing happens, Faith, is not because of anti-gun rhetoric. It's because the pro-gun people don't want guns to be safe, and they have enough political power to get their way.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But that isn't what we are discussing is it? This is what would be a classic muddying of the waters. There are many significant reasons why increase of black population shows an increase of violence. There are problems we have in our society due to poverty, lack of educational opportunities and others. If you want to discuss issues in the black community start a thread. If you want to discuss this topic then lets discuss it without muddying the waters with side issues separate from the topic.Do you care to rebut the studies conclusions that a 1% increase in gun ownership results in a .9% increase in the homicide rate? Thought not.

To respond to a few points you've made in different posts:First, the fifteen year old girl SAID Harvard offers shooting scholarships, along with other colleges she's interested in. Do you know more than she does? She says that in THIS INTERVIEW starting at about 1:35. And here she is testifying about PROPOSED GUN LAWS, and she refers to statistics.Second, you claim that the distinction between good guys and bad guys is useless because we can't tell who is who. But you are completely missing the point by making it a matter of identifying individuals as the one or the other. The point is a statistical point. If you lump high crime areas with low crime areas to get a picture of gun deaths in the entire nation you are getting a false picture, and if you propose gun reforms based on such statistics you will be penalizing the good guys for the crimes of the bad guys. If you need a definition, a bad guy is one who has committed a crime that has gotten into the statistics, that's all, and a good guy has simply not committed a crime. It really doesn't matter if either could change roles, the point is the statistics. Allowing crime statistics to skew the definition of the safety of gun ownership across the nation is a misuse of statistics. If you want to talk about accidents, that's another subject though it may also break down by geographical area or culture, which is also not reflected in your statistics, different groups of people being more or less educated on gun safety and that sort of thing -- in which case the solution could be educating the people in those areas about gun safety. But I'm only commenting on crime here.Third, related to this, you accuse me of avoiding statistics because they don't say what I want them to say, but the problem for me is that the statistical analyses you've provided here don't distinguish between relevant categories, such as between high crime and low crime areas, or in other words "the good guys and the bad guys." When you say there is such and such a correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths for the entire nation you are lumping all the different kinds of incidents and all the different areas with their different causes of gun deaths together and that makes your statistics untrustworthy for the purpose of assessing the safety of gun ownership in the nation as a whole. And any laws based on such statistics penalize the good guys and do nothing whatever to restrain the bad guys.Fourth, you then suppose that defending gun rights by making such distinctions shows a lack of caring about people dying from guns, and HBD adds particularly those in the high crime areas. But if restricting guns on the basis of such false statistics only restricts the good guys -- gun owners with a clean criminal record -- and doesn't affect the bad guys who possess guns illegally, or gun crimes in the high crime areas, what lives are you saving with your statistics and laws? Zip. And you may be enabling some murders too by keeping the good guys out of public areas. The bad guys can go freely into those supposedly gun-safe areas.Fifth, you insist that I need to produce statistics to support my arguments. If the available data doesn't make the necessary distinctions I'm talking about here, where am I going to get such statistics? Also, if I get into analyzing statistics, which I've said I don't want to do, all I'm going to be doing is showing where they lump all the wrong things together. Save me the trouble and admit this is the case.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Hi Percy,Why are you still spouting the same old statements that is not born out by the facts? In the past decade there have been 100 million NICS checks with 700,000 denials. That is a lot of legal gun sales. Meaning there is 99 million more guns today than there was 10 years ago.
SourceIn 2006 there were 10,225 murders by firearms.
In 2007 there were 10,129 murders by firearms.
In 2008 there were 9,528 murders by firearms.
In 2009 there were 9,199 murders by firearms.
In 2010 there were 8,775 murders by firearms. SourceAccording to these numbers homicides are decreasing per 100,000 people.2012: 2.833
2011: 3.618
2010: 3.5919 21
2009: 3.7519 22 21
2008: 4.01
2007: 4.19
2006: 4.29
2005: 4.18
2004: 3.97
2003: 4.11
2002: 4.1119 27
2001: 3.98
2000: 3.8419
1999: 3.8819 23
1998: 3.3723
1993: 7.0728 SourceIn 2011 there were 19,766 suicides by gun.
In 2011 there were a total of 38,285 suicides.There were 18,519 suicides by other means. That tells me a person who is determined to commit suicide will find a way whether they have access to a gun or not. SourceSo where are your stats to back up your claims?God Bless

Taking a different tack:
Trying to understand your reasoning, I get that you are concerned about the deaths, period. The fact that the vast majority of gun owners commit no crimes, have not had accidents, have killed nobody, doesn't interest you as long as guns do get used to kill people, by anybody anywhere for any reason.You aren't interested in comparing gun deaths to say automobile deaths or other causes of death because guns are a weapon and have no other use than killing or harming people or other living things. Apart from recreational purposes of course. This is why guns as such are the focus of efforts to deal with the shooting tragedies.You don't really get the distinction between good guys and bad guys because a death is a death to you irrespective of the person who causes it, the motivation behind it, etc. etc. etc. Guns are simply going to cause deaths because that's what guns do, and the job of analyzing their safety is really aimed only at discovering how many gun deaths occur for whatever reason.So the mass shootings are caused by the availability of guns and wouldn't have happened without that, and the suggestion that laws that have deprived gun owners of carrying them into schools and other public places might have been the real cause is actually outrageous to you.Would I be wrong to suppose that you would really like to see ALL guns taken out of the hands of the average American? The fact that crimes would continue with illegal guns doesn't bother you for some reason, maybe because those good guys that turn into bad guys wouldn't have them at least and that would cut down on that statistic? Or, certainly, the accidents with guns would stop. I can appreciate that.I think it also has to be factored in here that people who support gun control do for the most part feel safe in America, more or less safe from crime though that depends on where you live* and safe from anything like the government turning into a replica of Nazi Germany. The loss of gun rights seems trivial in such a context.Or, in a nutshell, you're used to living without guns and don't see any truly rational reason for anyone to own one.Am I close?===============-
*I did see another You Tube video I think I'll mention. A New York girl goes to Alabama and is freaked out by the gun culture there, but after some months there begins to understand it and feel safe around guns and even learns to shoot, so that when she returns to New York she now wants to own a gun herself. New York being fairly high crime she's educated herself in martial arts types of self defense, but now she wants to use a gun for that purpose.I was going to delete the above because I just spent the last half hour trying to find that video again and couldn't. But I think I'll leave the information up anyway.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So, NCIS checks were introduced over a decade ago, with 700,000 denials.
As mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998. i.e. 700,000 Less people have guns than would otherwise have had without NCIS checks.As a result of this, firearm related homicides are down. Conclusion: less guns in circulation than there would otherwise have been results in less homicides.congratuations! you have provided a good case for further gun control as a way of reducing homicides.Edited by Heathen, : No reason given.Edited by Heathen, : No reason given.

Traditionally crime rates of all kinds have fallen throughout the Western world for the last 20 years. There's a lot of interesting ideas on why this has happened which is worthy of a thread of its own, but it does not affect the fact that the more guns there are in a society the more deaths are caused by them - even if those deaths are in decline.There's plenty of evidence shown here of that being true and none brought here to contradict it.Plus there is the difficulty in suggesting a possible mechanism where the more guns there are in a society the fewer deaths there are from them. What possible reason could be imagined for that? What evidence can you bring for such an effect?Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

And you believe what she says, which is why I described you as being duped. That's what happens when your primary acceptance criteria is agreement with you: you get duped.Harvard doesn't offer athletic scholarships. Harvard is a member of the Ivy League, and the Ivy League does not offer athletic scholarships. Read about it yourself: The Ivy League. Under "Financial Aid Criteria" is this sentence: "There are no academic or athletic scholarships in the Ivy League." That doesn't mean there are *no* scholarships at Harvard. They do offer scholarships based upon financial need.Maybe the girl actually meant some third-party scholarship, or maybe her entire story is fiction, or maybe it's somewhere in between. How would you know? Given that the one verifiable fact she stated didn't check out, skepticism is appropriate.About good guys and bad guys, as I said before, we already agree that bad guys with guns are dangerous. The point of contention is good guys with guns. You think arming good guys makes us safer, but statistics say the opposite, that increased gun prevalence leads to more homicides.These are the studies cited earlier, twice, and about which you still haven't commented. You keep oscillating between disparaging statistics and expressing a desire for them, so while you're still in a receptive mood perhaps you'd like to comment:

• International correlations between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide
  
• Firearm Availability and Homicide Rates across 26 High-Income Countries

There's also the comparison of western-style democracies that HBD and I did using the data from the website you yourself cited (Guns in Other Countries). It shows a positive correlation between guns and gun deaths.There's also just plain old common sense. How could one expect anything but a positive correlation between guns and gun deaths? Guns are the *cause* of gun deaths, not the remedy. If we were talking about some death preventative like bulletproof vests then we should expect a negative correlation between bulletproof vests and gun deaths, but it's crazy to expect a negative correlation of gun deaths with the cause of gun deaths.You only think guns make you safer because of your fantasy that when people face a gunman fewer will be hurt or killed if one of them pulls a gun, and because you choose to ignore the carnage that results when guns are an available option for someone overcome by life's inevitable problems.About your concerns about mixing statistics from rural and urban areas, we all know cities are magnets for crime, no one disputes it, but it simply isn't relevant. More guns translating into more gun deaths is true in both rural and urban contexts.Guns make people less safe, not more. If human life is more important than gun rights (something most would consider beyond question) then we must find ways to reduce gun prevalence.--Percy

I'm pretty sure this graph has been quoted before but here it is again: Same pattern, more guns, more deaths from guns.And before we get the 'if they didn't have guns, they'd use something else' argument. No they wouldn't it's the opportunity presented by guns that is the majority lethal component here. Guns are just too bloody efficient at killing - they're a force-magnifyier.Once opportunity is reduced, crime reduces - there's stacks of evidence for that effect.

Sure, I'll do that when I get a chance. Tangle has posted a very similar chart, with pretty much the same countries in Message 2115. I'll see how that compares as well.One thing I have point out is that one of the answers to gun violence is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Illegal duns amount to a large share of gun deaths (I think I read 80% but I would need to go back and verify that). However, I was mistaken as to the source of illegal guns. I thought most came from thefts, but it turns out it is corrupt gun dealers and lax gun laws that permit the illegal gun trade. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...of-illegal-g_b_2440791.html

quote:

---

In fact, according to the Mayor's office, 85 percent of the guns used in gun crimes in New York City come from out-of-state, and at least 90 percent of these guns are illegal.

---

Here is an interactive site that relates illegal gun export/import to state gun laws. You can click on a state to see which laws that have and have not enacted and whether they are a net importer or exporter of guns. You can also click on the laws to see which states have and have not enacted the law and what the effects are on illegal gun trade.You will find that states with the highest gun deaths are net importers from states who have the most lax gun laws. I think it provides a clear picture of how gun laws are directly related to gun deaths.HBD

Faith, check out this website http://www.tracetheguns.org/#It is an interactive site that traces illegal guns used in gun murders and relates them to gun laws. You can click on a state to see whether they are a net importer or exporter and where the guns come from. It also shows which gun laws each state has enacted. You can also click on a law and see which states have enacted that law and its effect on illegal gun trade.So here is the list of laws: Allows Criminal Penalties for Buying a Gun for Someone who Can't
Allows Criminal Penalties for Buying a Gun with False Information
Allows Criminal Penalties for Selling a Gun without a Proper Background Check
Requires Background Checks for all Handgun Sales at Gun Shows
Requires Purchase Permit for All Handgun Sales
Grants Law Enforcement Discretion in Issuing Concealed Carry Permits
Prohibits Violent Misdemeanor Criminals from Possessing Guns
Requires Reporting Lost or Stolen Guns to Law Enforcement
Allows Local Communities to Enact Gun Laws
Allows Inspections of Gun DealersThese are the types of laws that gun control "fanatics" want to enact. These are the common sense loopholes and work-arounds that honest, law-biding gun owners SHOULD want enacted. Which of these laws do you feel unfairly restrict legal, honest gun owners? Why is there so much resistance to these laws?HBD

No, I'm evidence driven. Speaking just for me personally, if the evidence said I and my family and friends were safer with a gun then I'd own a gun, because I'd want to maximize all our chances for a long and happy life.But the evidence says I and my family and friends are safer without a gun, so to maximize all our chances for a long and happy life I do not own a gun.By logical extension what I just said about myself applies to everyone. The fewer the guns the safer the world. I assume we're talking about the civilized world, of course, not regions of war or unrest full of armed combatants. I've brought up automobile deaths on several occasions in this thread. Fortunately there's no 2nd Amendment for automobiles, otherwise we'd have people arguing, "I've never had an accident, I'm a good guy, so I don't need any airbags or crash bumpers or even a state registration, and forcing me to have them is an intrusion on my constitutional right to own and drive cars."As I said back in Message 2911, if gun safety had improved as much as automobile safety since the early 20th century then guns would be far safer than they are today. For example, it doesn't seem like a particularly difficult technological challenge (possibly using motion sensor technology) to make guns that won't fire when pointed at people. Of course I do. It's you who doesn't get it. The problem isn't the bad guys, because we already all agree that bad guys are a danger, and that's why we have law enforcement and judicial systems.The problem is the good guys, because too many people don't recognize that even though a good guy is a far lesser risk than a bad guy, there are many times more good guys than bad guys. The tiny risk represented by each armed good guy gun adds up across all the many armed good guys and becomes much greater than the armed bad guys. It's the armed good guys we have to worry about. And as the recent news makes clear, we even have to worry about the armed good guys who are policemen. Britain's policemen don't carry firearms, an eminently prudent approach. This is just another expression of your fantasy that more guns mean fewer gun deaths. All the evidence says your fantasy has no reality. The more guns you add to a situation the more deadly it becomes.--Percy

If the girl had lied somebody would have pointed it out by now. She's been on too many high profile TV shows for it to have been ignored. I did find one person mentioning that Harvard doesn't give a shooting scholarship so that confirms your point. She must have misspoken or been confused about something. She may have lumped together a number of different schools she was interested in. Harvard has a shooting club and that is one thing she mentioned. If I could ask her what she meant I would.I would make a big effort to read those articles if I had any reason to think it would be worth it, but my eyes suffer from that much reading of a white sheet, and I'm too low tech to figure out how to turn down the brightness on my fancy monitor. I spent hours getting it to a tolerable level and I'm not touching it again. It was a gift but even the giver took a long time to figure it out and his explanations are gobbledygook to me. WAY too many functions, buttons. Sorry, I'm very low tech.HOWEVER, I did look at the graphs in both papers and guess what, just as I keep saying your statistics are applied to the entire nation and do not discriminate between high crime and low crime areas. I would guess that the US has a lot more crime in a lot more densely populated high crime areas than the countries we are being compared with. Most countries are more and more diverse these days but America has always been most diverse, with big differences between high and low income areas, ethnic differences, the works, and by contrast many other countries still look tribal. This should be taken into account but it's not.If by comparison with the other countries we have an enormous number of homicides per hundred thousand population, wouldn't it be important to know if some places are contributing a much bigger part of that statistic than others? If where I live the number is 5 in a hundred thousand but it's 100 in some other parts of the country, why should their number affect my gun rights? It IS relevant that different areas have different crime rates. It's relevant to how and where you apply gun control laws. Again, if your effort is to stop crime, laws don't work in high crime areas, and again, all you do is penalize the people who are not committing the crimes.As for my fantasies, I KNOW that being armed makes us safer in the sense that the founders had in mind, and as long as you keep lumping the statistics from high and low crime areas together how could we ever find out if they make us safer in the sense you have in mind?

Those laws look fine, I don't know of any gun owner who should object to them.But there are laws that cause problems, such as the kind of laws that restrict where a person can go with a legal gun. Those are unnecessary restrictions and don't do anything about crime. Perhaps there are exceptions but we're talking legal guns here that nobody is trying to hide. Can't take them into schools, no matter whether concealed or totally safe, can't take them into the caf or the theater in some areas and so on, places where there have been shootings and hostage situations. Percy keeps saying it's a fantasy that being armed in such places would make a difference. Since I usually jump into these discussions on some particular point and then get dragged into areas I don't know a lot about, I don't have the information available about where guns have made a difference, and how could I possibly know for sure if they would anyway? It just seems like it would be a lot better if someone had a gun and could confront a criminal. No fantasy, just logical.
'
Anyway, some laws are worse than useless. Truck drivers for instance are not allowed to have a gun in the truck, at least in some places. Why not? Who's protected by such a law? Trucks could be robbed and the driver have no means of protecting himself or the cargo. What sense does that kind of law make? But that IS one kind of law we get from gun control mindedness. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.