US factory worker in gun rampage

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: shawmutt And yet more availability heuristic and appeal to emotion nonsense?!?!?! GunCite-Gun Accidents

I'm looking for those corresponding statistics. You know, the ones that explain how this drop in death rates you cite is NOT related to any laws that might have increased the restrictions on how guns can be stored in the home (which your side fights tooth and nail) but instead were the result of the parents "freedom" to not be restricted in anyway in their right to sleep with a fully loaded handgun under their pillow. That might make this a pertinent fact is this debate. Otherwise, I am left with the conclusion that easy access to guns is still pretty damn dangerous for too many children. And what has happened since 1995...things can change a lot in 13 years. Tell you what, I'll do a little lookin' myself and get back to you.

[lsbskins1]

Ok, so...this is what I found: Gun deaths among children have declined. They have continued to decline since '95. But, this decline is mostly attributed to the fact that more and more people have begun to store guns more safely. Guess which side of the debate would be advocating those kind of measures. Guess which side pushed for laws that hold gun owners responsible under the law when they do NOT store their guns safely? And even though it is true that less children die this way than died this way 25 years ago, it does not mean that each and every time it happens again is not tragic and useless. It still happens too much. If you want to find what I found, Google - gun deaths children. I went to multiple sites.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Lot's of things are tragic and useless, and I'd imagine that many proponents of gun rights would encourage safety laws (useless as they are, short of going into someone's home unannounced, there's no way to make sure.)

[shawmutt]

I'm looking for those corresponding statistics. You know, the ones that explain how this drop in death rates you cite is NOT related to any laws that might have increased the restrictions on how guns can be stored in the home (which your side fights tooth and nail) but instead were the result of the parents "freedom" to not be restricted in anyway in their right to sleep with a fully loaded handgun under their pillow. That might make this a pertinent fact is this debate. Otherwise, I am left with the conclusion that easy access to guns is still pretty damn dangerous for too many children. And what has happened since 1995...things can change a lot in 13 years. Tell you what, I'll do a little lookin' myself and get back to you.

Ok, so...this is what I found: Gun deaths among children have declined. They have continued to decline since '95. But, this decline is mostly attributed to the fact that more and more people have begun to store guns more safely. Guess which side of the debate would be advocating those kind of measures. Guess which side pushed for laws that hold gun owners responsible under the law when they do NOT store their guns safely? And even though it is true that less children die this way than died this way 25 years ago, it does not mean that each and every time it happens again is not tragic and useless. It still happens too much. If you want to find what I found, Google - gun deaths children. I went to multiple sites.

Yes, I agree, children dying is tragic and useless. Now, back to our regularly scheduled debate about the guy who shot up his coworkers and the guns he loves.

[lsbskins1]

It goes directly to the assertion that is made constantly that guns have no relation to death toll, that guns "don't kill people, people kill people" and that, as you yourself stated, the problem isn't the "gun" but the "criminal". If you do not want these issues addressed by rational refutation, don't introduce them. If you want the assertion that kids die needlessly because of the easy availability of guns to be left out of the conversation, don't insist that we accept some silly notion that guns don't make it easier to kill people. So, we are either already IN the regularly scheduled debate, or YOU derailed it with illogical assertions that need to be addressed. Which is it?

[shawmutt]

It goes directly to the assertion that is made constantly that guns have no relation to death toll,

They do seem to have a relation to death toll. As shown in the graph in post #48, handgun supply has gone up while violence (and accidents involving children) have gone down.

If you want the assertion that kids die needlessly because of the easy availability of guns to be left out of the conversation

It's silly appeal to emotion nonsense and exaggeration. We go from "200,000 people" to "but the poor children!". Are you seeking to legislate out of existence everything that kills under 250 kids, in the entire United States, in one year? You had better be prepared to ban everything from backyard pools to booze. You can't legislate anomalies out of existence.

don't insist that we accept some silly notion that guns don't make it easier to kill people.

Don't try and remove the human aspect out of killing. A gun may be the current weapon of choice for someone wanting to commit homicide in this country by a larger percent, but it doesn't make it "easier to kill". Someone like the worker in the OP has already decided to take people out, and legislating firearms out of law-abiding citizen's hands won't stop that. The fact remains that if a wacko wants to take out a bunch of people, he will find a way, be it knife, airliner, car, poison, bomb, or gun.

It can be argued that the proliferation of guns prevents many more from dying, as the wacko doesn't need to resort to more destructive measures.

And to address a prior point you made:

But, this decline is mostly attributed to the fact that more and more people have begun to store guns more safely.

And why is this? Because the NRA et al have recognized the need for safety training for these firearms! However, Mr. Sonart does not seem to think that way--to him these classes are lessons for would-be assassins.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: shawmutt They do seem to have a relation to death toll. As shown in the graph in post #48, handgun supply has gone up while violence (and accidents involving children) have gone down.

Both of these issues have been addressed before. As Sonart has pointed out, violence rates have gone down, but have also begun to creep back up again. This is not related to gun ownership, but to economic conditions. You want to separate out cuasation factors here. Remember, there can be more than one factor involved in any issue you address. If you have 100 people who "might" commit a crime, if 75 of them have access to more resouces in better economic times, 50 of those 75 will not commit a crime because of that fact. Take away the resources or add to them and crime rates fluctuate accordingly. Availability of guns impacts the violent potential of those who, to varing degrees, based on some level on economic conditions, are willing to commit crimes.

Quote by: shawmutt It's silly appeal to emotion nonsense and exaggeration. We go from "200,000 people" to "but the poor children!". Are you seeking to legislate out of existence everything that kills under 250 kids, in the entire United States, in one year? You had better be prepared to ban everything from backyard pools to booze. You can't legislate anomalies out of existence.

First of all, guns kill more kids than 250. That number is the number of kids who are "accidentally shot". It does not cover those who are shot in the commission of a crime, or those who commit suicide. That number was important, and addressed, because of the assertion that guns don't "make it easier" to kill. Put the right numbers with the right problem, please.

Quote by: shawmutt Don't try and remove the human aspect out of killing. A gun may be the current weapon of choice for someone wanting to commit homicide in this country by a larger percent, but it doesn't make it "easier to kill". Someone like the worker in the OP has already decided to take people out, and legislating firearms out of law-abiding citizen's hands won't stop that. The fact remains that if a wacko wants to take out a bunch of people, he will find a way, be it knife, airliner, car, poison, bomb, or gun.

I dismiss what is easily dismissable. It would be much easier for me to kill a 220 pound man I wanted to kill with a gun than with a knife. That is just plain, irrefutable fact. Nobody is claiming that by limiting access to guns that murder would be erradicated. What they are claiming is that it would be less easy.

Quote by: shawmutt It can be argued that the proliferation of guns prevents many more from dying, as the wacko doesn't need to resort to more destructive measures.;

So, what you are saying here is...keep the guns, that way he isn't forced to blow up the whole building.

Quote by: shawmutt And to address a prior point you made: And why is this? Because the NRA et al have recognized the need for safety training for these firearms! However, Mr. Sonart does not seem to think that way--to him these classes are lessons for would-be assassins.

Right, it is the NRA that was behind the movement to make people be safer with guns. I do not deny that they have come on board, and do offer safety training, but only because not doing so makes them look like incompetent asses. It ain't like it would have ever happened had not people who saw the problem with guns in general gotten out on the front lines, demanding more accountablity.

[shawmutt]

What do you consider "kids"? What age group are we talking about here?

or those who commit suicide.

As noted in a previous post, we are talking about acts of violence against other people. If you want to bring suicide into this discussion, note that the suicide rate in Japan is higher than in the US, and Japan has stringent gun laws and very low gun ownership. They also just had a murderous rampage involving one crazy dude, a knife, and seven dead people.

I dismiss what is easily dismissible. It would be much easier for me to kill a 220 pound man I wanted to kill with a gun than with a knife. That is just plain, irrefutable fact. Nobody is claiming that by limiting access to guns that murder would be eradicated. What they are claiming is that it would be less easy.

If you wanted to kill a 220 pound man, you would use the tools at your disposal.

As Sonart has pointed out, violence rates have gone down, but have also begun to creep back up again. This is not related to gun ownership, but to economic conditions.

It’s due to more than just economics, as I explained in post #48:

• population density and degree of urbanization
• variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration
• stability of population with respect to residents' mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors
• modes of transportation and highway system
• economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability
• cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics
• family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness; climate; effective strength of law enforcement agencies
• administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement
• policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational)
• citizens' attitudes toward crime
• crime reporting practices of the citizenry

Sonart likes to talk about how we’re “developed”. Most of this country is “developed”, but that development breaks down in our inner cities. I lived in New Haven, CT and spend a lot of time in and around Manhattan and the Bronx. I’ve also spent time in DC and Baltimore. It’s not too developed there. While it’s not “third world”, it ain’t Kansas baby--it’s like a different world. There’s plenty of gun owners there, but it wouldn’t reflect in any polls or be “fixed” by any laws, if you catch my drift.
In any case, as shown in my chart, violence rates fluctuate, but the trend is currently downward. Crime will exist regardless of availability of guns or lack thereof. Legislating the hardware will not stop the criminals. While the shooting rampages and “crimes of passion” make great headlines, these events are not the norm. For the most part, criminals are killing criminals out there. According to the USDOJ, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fdluc98.pdf, 81% of all homicide defendants have at least one arrest on their record. 66% have two or more arrests, 67% have at least one felony arrest, 56% have two or more felony arrests, 70% have at least one conviction, and 54% have at least one felony conviction. Most homicide victims knew their killers.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: shawmutt What do you consider "kids"? What age group are we talking about here? As noted in a previous post, we are talking about acts of violence against other people. If you want to bring suicide into this discussion, note that the suicide rate in Japan is higher than in the US, and Japan has stringent gun laws and very low gun ownership. They also just had a murderous rampage involving one crazy dude, a knife, and seven dead people. It’s due to more than just economics, as I explained in post #48: • population density and degree of urbanization • variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration • stability of population with respect to residents' mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors • modes of transportation and highway system • economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability • cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics • family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness; climate; effective strength of law enforcement agencies • administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement • policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational) • citizens' attitudes toward crime • crime reporting practices of the citizenry Sonart likes to talk about how we’re “developed”. Most of this country is “developed”, but that development breaks down in our inner cities. I lived in New Haven, CT and spend a lot of time in and around Manhattan and the Bronx. I’ve also spent time in DC and Baltimore. It’s not too developed there. While it’s not “third world”, it ain’t Kansas baby--it’s like a different world. There’s plenty of gun owners there, but it wouldn’t reflect in any polls or be “fixed” by any laws, if you catch my drift. In any case, as shown in my chart, violence rates fluctuate, but the trend is currently downward. Crime will exist regardless of availability of guns or lack thereof. Legislating the hardware will not stop the criminals. While the shooting rampages and “crimes of passion” make great headlines, these events are not the norm. For the most part, criminals are killing criminals out there. According to the USDOJ, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fdluc98.pdf, 81% of all homicide defendants have at least one arrest on their record. 66% have two or more arrests, 67% have at least one felony arrest, 56% have two or more felony arrests, 70% have at least one conviction, and 54% have at least one felony conviction. Most homicide victims knew their killers.

I would invite you to follow your logic to it's natural conclusion. As I said before, nobody believes homicide or crime can be eradicated. But consider this - if drug turf wars were fought with clubs and fists, how many would die? How many collateral deaths would occur? And your points about other variables do not mean that the gun variable does not exist. These have all been addressed before as well. The point is, with our urbanization rates, mobility and the transient nature of some of our population, guns become even more deadly. Your points do not argue for, they argue against continuing the current attitude towards gun ownership and it's overall effectiveness in lessoning crime. If you live in a small town, Billy Bob, the local meth head, may know you keep a handgun and knowing you, might avoid your home for a mutitude of reasons. When crime is about protecting drug turf, or theft from strangers, those same "deterant" factors do not apply. Follow your own logic to it's natural conclusion. And remember, though rural areas may cover more of our land mass, they do not hold the majority of the citizens effected by these policies.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: lsbskins1 I would invite you to follow your logic to it's natural conclusion. As I said before, nobody believes homicide or crime can be eradicated. But consider this - if drug turf wars were fought with clubs and fists, how many would die? How many collateral deaths would occur? And your points about other variables do not mean that the gun variable does not exist. These have all been addressed before as well. The point is, with our urbanization rates, mobility and the transient nature of some of our population, guns become even more deadly. Your points do not argue for, they argue against continuing the current attitude towards gun ownership and it's overall effectiveness in lessoning crime. If you live in a small town, Billy Bob, the local meth head, may know you keep a handgun and knowing you, might avoid your home for a mutitude of reasons. When crime is about protecting drug turf, or theft from strangers, those same "deterant" factors do not apply. Follow your own logic to it's natural conclusion. And remember, though rural areas may cover more of our land mass, they do not hold the majority of the citizens effected by these policies.

These are excellent points. If I might add one, I would point out that efforts to ensure that only the law-abiding have guns have proven futile. The obvious issue is that criminals have the means to buy guns illegally. Of course, much of this comes from people buying guns legally in bulk from states with permissive gun laws and shipping them north to cities. Tighter controls on legal gun ownership, particularly with regard to these sort of middleman arrangements, would therefore have some impact on illegal guns.

The deeper issue is that people who aren't criminals buy guns and keep them with the presumed intent to eventually defend themselves, but statistics do not necessarily support this. In other words, the guns tend to wind up being used in accidental discharges, domestic disputes and assorted crimes of passion.

It seems that having a gun is an enabler for murder, simply because it makes killing so much easier and impersonal. Even when violence is inevitable, it shrinks the gap between force and deadly force, in that a single shot, even if made in error or in a momentary loss of control, is more likely to kill than a single punch, bash or stab.

In short, if want to lower criminal use of guns, making sure everyone has a gun in their homes is not the answer. Rather than escalating the standard of violence, we need to disarm as a nation.

TC

[shawmutt]

Quote by: lsbskins1 But consider this - if drug turf wars were fought with clubs and fists, how many would die? How many collateral deaths would occur?

Abstracts, October 2001 - Canadian Journal of Criminology

Interestingly, no significant correlations with [total] suicide or homicide rates were found, leaving open the question of possible substitution effects. It is concluded that guns in the home are an important risk factor in suicide with guns, as well as a threat to women (especially female partners), whereas their role in homicide of male victims and street crime (such as robbery) may be much less prominent.

Quote by: TC The deeper issue is that people who aren't criminals buy guns and keep them with the presumed intent to eventually defend themselves, but statistics do not necessarily support this. In other words, the guns tend to wind up being used in accidental discharges, domestic disputes and assorted crimes of passion.

GunCite: Gun Control - Gun Homicides

Contrary to myth and misrepresentation, most murders are not committed by previously law-abiding citizens either going berserk, or because a gun was handy during a moment of uncontrollable rage: suddenly "blow-away" their spouse, friend, neighbor, acquaintance, or all four. Studies conducted at both the local and national level indicate the overwhelming majority of murders are committed by people with previous criminal records. Even a significant percentage of homicide victims themselves have criminal records. Domestic homicides as well are preceded by a long history of violence. The "crime of passion" homicide is much more the exception rather than the rule.

we need to disarm as a nation.

And sing kumbaya while holding hands and smoking lots of dope. What we need is better enforcement of the laws currently in place, not more laws to be broken and more lawful citizens disarmed based on availability heuristic and appeal to emotion b.s.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: shawmutt Abstracts, October 2001 - Canadian Journal of Criminology GunCite: Gun Control - Gun Homicides And sing kumbaya while holding hands and smoking lots of dope. What we need is better enforcement of the laws currently in place, not more laws to be broken and more lawful citizens disarmed based on availability heuristic and appeal to emotion b.s.

Again, nobody ever said that "most" crimes were committed by previously law abiding citizens who go "crazy". They simply pointed out that in the cases where this does happen, a gun makes it infinitley more likely that the situation will turn murderous. Just as it is infinitely more likely that someone who carries a gun to a burgulary will choose fight over flight if confronted. The point is, has been and remains; our love affair with guns does not make us safer when viewed in totality. If 100 citizens "successfully defend themselves with guns" it is a reflection of the fact that 200 more criminals were emboldened because they has easy access to a gun. If nobody had easy access, there would be less need for "law abiding citizens" to have easy access. If nobody had easy access, less people would commit suicide (remember, Americans have no tradition of honorable death by suicide, so comparing the US to Japan is an example of one of those cultural differences - American's tend to make rash, desperation suicidal choices, not reasoned, honor bound ones). If nobody had easy access, death tolls over all areas, accident, crime, suicide - would drop because the fact you can not refute and never try to refute is that guns MAKE IT EASIER TO KILL HUMANS.

Now, lets all sit around the camp fire and sing "Copperhead Road", cause I really like that song.

"Well my name's John Lee Pettimore
Same as my daddy and his daddy before
You hardly ever saw Grandaddy down here
He only came to town about twice a year
He'd buy a hundred pounds of yeast and some copper line
Everybody knew that he made moonshine
Now the revenue man wanted Grandaddy bad
He headed up the holler with everything he had
It's before my time but I've been told
He never came back from Copperhead Road"