http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/...s-chicago-ban/
Printable View
And what was that about gun control stopping crime? It seems that just the opposite happens to be true!!!
But Armageddon never arrived. Quite the contrary, murders in Washington plummeted by an astounding 25 percent in 2009, dropping from 186 murders in 2008 to 140. That translates to a murder rate that is now down to 23.5 per 100,000 people, Washinton’s lowest since 1967. While other cities have also fared well over the last year, D.C.'s drop was several times greater than that for other similar sized cities. According to preliminary estimates by the FBI, nationwide murders fell by a relatively more modest 10 percent last year and by about 8 percent in other similarly sized cities of half a million to one million people (D.C.'s population count is at about 590,000).
This shouldn't be surprising to anyone who has followed how crime rates change after gun bans have been imposed. Around the world, whenever guns are banned, murder rates rise. Washington’s murder rate soared after its handgun ban went into effect in early 1977 (there is only one year while the ban was in effect that the murder rate fell below the1976 number and that happened many years later -- in 1985). Its murder rate also rose relative to other cities. Washington’s murder rate rose from 12 percent above the average for the 50 most populous cities in 1976 to 35 percent above the average in 1986.
Violent crime rate are directly related to whether or not guns are allowed or banned, who can dispute this at all?
I wonder when the "State's Rights" people are going to be up in arms about the Fed trying to creep in on the right's of states and local governments to administer their own affairs :cool:
I believe every law abiding citizen should have the right to own a firearm for personal protection.
However, the DC statistics don't support the argument that less gun control leads to fewer murders. The report and its stats do not show a cause and effect relationship.
First, the Heller decision was handed down in late June of 2008, and the revision to the DC gun control laws din't take place until December of 2008.
But there were no reports of law abiding citizens repelling potential murders with newly acquired firearms during 2009 in DC. The only other possibility is that criminals suddenly concluded not to commit murders during 2009 because "law abiding citizens might have guns." Not likely, given that criminals rob banks with armed guards, shoot armed police officers in restaurants, and generally pay no attention to the risks involved with their criminal behavior. If they thought a law abiding citizen had a gun they'd just see it as an opportunity to steal the gun.
Of course, this could happen instead:
William Schater on gun control
Criminals rob banks with guns because their is an incentive to risk your life (much money). This is not the case when it comes to breaking in to a private residence where there is no guarantee of enough reward worth the risk. Criminals always go for the least risk and most gain. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by nogods
By the same logic, a burglar is not interested in murdering anyone, he justs wants some valuable stuff and to get the hell out without being caught. He will choose a house where it appears no one is home, further reducing the risks of an encounter.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikenold
If he thinks someone is home and is armed, he'll skip that house. If he thinks no one is home and there are guns in the house, he'll break in to get the guns.
But still, there are no reported instances of new gun owners under the revised DC law repelling potential murders during 2009. So there is still no cause and effect relationship shown.
Add to that the fact that gun ownership in DC is still extremely low. I believe less than 500 permits have been issued since the ruling went into effect.
Therefore just the idea that there are more guns deters violent crime. Kinda like the fake outdoor camera we used to have on a building on Sherman near Genessee.Quote:
Originally Posted by run4it
So why have real guns? Just put "proud member of the NRA" stickers on everyones house. no actual guns needed. Bad guy will see sticker and leave.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikenold
From the early reports of the oral argument it sounds like the 2nd is going to get incorporated but with open ended restriction language like that used in the Heller opinion.
So total bans will be unconstitutional. Will restrictions limiting possession to one's home be allowed? Will bans of firearms on public property be allowed? It is going to take a lot more cases to sort out the details.
The problem with your idea is that the criminals will know it is a sham too. When the criminal actual believes that the homeowner might have a gun he is reluctant to try to go in and steal.Quote:
Originally Posted by nogods
The criminals know it's a sham anyway. Like I said, less than 500 permits in DC. That's less than 1 gun for every 1,000 households (actually it's more like 1 gun for every 1,500 households), and probably the number of gun owners hasn't increased at all, but rather the number of LEGAL gun owners. And if you think that both the residents and criminals of DC don't know that nothing has really changed.....well, let's just say not everyone is as ignorant as you.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikenold
Point being, Mike, the Heller case had nothing to do with crime going up, down, or sideways in DC. The crime rate was down before and after the ruling.
The less weapons the less fatalities.
I live on the lower west side and have no use for a gun.
I don't lock my door.
I'm safe.
Posted a second time for those that did not read it the first time:Quote:
Originally Posted by run4it
Quite the contrary, murders in Washington plummeted by an astounding 25 percent in 2009, dropping from 186 murders in 2008 to 140.
I wander the east side with a wad of hundreds fanning my face! :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevenco
I am now dead! ;)
Tell Biker i say Hi:)Quote:
Originally Posted by mikenold
Gun laws don't work. They just keep law abiding citizens from having guns. Criminals don't pay them any homage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevenco
What do you think would have happened to Charles E. Gidney Sr if he did not have a firearm the day two thugs broke into his house? You think they would have given him a massage and left?
Homeowner kills burglar, wounds accomplice
Okay, get a gun. Keep it loaded and be ready.
Cgood would agree.
http://www.famaas.org/stats.html
Subscribe to the NRA and you will find thousands of similar stories of people defending their homes and family by having a gun on hand. Without the gun they very likely would not be able to tell any story. We would be reading the story in the obituaries.
how do you insert a jpeg here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevenco
Silly stats - suicide rate won't drop by outlawing guns. They'll just kill themselves with cars - which by the way kill way more people every year than both legal and illegal guns - so why doesn't the FAMASS advocate the outlawing of cars? Because they are silly hoplophobics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevenco
Because an automobile's sole purpose is not to destroy. Firearms, however, are created for no reason than to cause damage.Quote:
Originally Posted by nogods
I'll put it another way: automobiles have an intended and useful purpose that has nothing to do with any sort of violence.
inb4 "I want to hunt with my AR15 and Hand cannon, or shoot clays!"Quote:
Originally Posted by run4it
That is just more silly logic based on more misinformationQuote:
Originally Posted by run4it
According to the Center for disease control, the top ten causes of accidental death for children under 18 years old are as follows:
Number of accidental deaths of children age 1-17:
MV Traffic 3,845 (which represent 56.4% of all deaths from MV Traffic)
Drowning 883
Fire/burn 429
Poisoning 310
Suffocation 293
Other Land Tansport 191
Pedestrian Other 189
Fall 107
Firearm 102
Other Transport 93
A child is 37 times more likely to die from an auto accident than a firearm, 8 times more likely to drown, 4 times more likely to die from fire, 4 times more likely to burn, and 3 times more likely to be poisoned.
Overall, a child is 61 times more likely to die from accidental causes other than a firearm.
If FAMASS really wanted to save children from accidental deaths they would focus on the actual causes of accidental death in children instead of being blinded by their hoplophobia.
The problem with hoplophobics is that they can't recognize their disease or are in denial of it like alcoholics, so instead they come up with inane arguments to justify their disease.
The problem is compounded because hoplophobics want those of us not inflicted with their disease to be required to live as if were inflicted with disease.
BTW - get your facts straight - Firearms are used for recreation and hunting in addition to self defense and a host of other legit and important functions to individuals and society. They have served those functions way longer than automobiles have been around.
Shooting events have been in the Olympics since 1896.
You asked why a certain organization (and I would assume any organization) is more concerned with firearms than other potention causes of harm. Firearms are used for destruction, period. If you're shooting at a clay pigeon (and manage to hit it), you destroy it. If you fire at a paper target, you put large holes in it and destroy it. Again, the sole use and purpose of firearms is destruction. Period.
Just because there are bigger dangers doesn't mean the smaller ones shouldn't be addressed. A child is however many hundred times more likely to be just injured in a car accident than be molested by a pedophile...but we still have laws against molestation, don't we?
Talk about silly logic...
I disagree with you here. Haven't you been listening to the news in the past couple of years. Headlines like:Quote:
Originally Posted by run4it
SUV swerves off road and kills three.
SUV cuts of bus, 13 injured.
SUV careens down embankment and bursts in flames, one dead.
SUV drives off parking ramp, kills passerby.
Notice they never mention a driver. Ever wonder why these SUV's are causing damage for what seems like no reason? :rolleyes::D:p
You havent disagreed with my premise. You tried to deflect the argument (a frequent gambit for you).Quote:
Originally Posted by mikenold
The point remains: firearms are created solely for the purpose of destruction. Automobiles are not.
This obvious truism in response to a question of why groups are more focused on the danger of guns as opposed to the danger of cars.
On a side note, groups HAVE been focused on the danger of automobiles as well. We have seatbelt laws, higher vigilance for DWI, ongoing reviews of traffic laws/controls, etc.
Just a few facts about cars and guns:Quote:
Originally Posted by run4it
We don't use cars to defend our home from intruders. We do not use cars to stop a bank robber (although in the right circumstances...). We do not use cars to hunt deer. Far more people are killed by car's than guns. Guns do not waste gas and destroy our precious environment. Cars cause far more property damage than guns. Cars are not covered under the second amendment. The right to own a gun is guaranteed by the bill of rights. The right to own a car is a privilege.
A couple "little known" facts that prove guns are better than cars:
A car will not fit in my gun cabinet but my gun will fit in the garage. A gun can stop a car.
And yet you still fail to face the fact that guns are created solely for the purpose of destruction.
The question was, why are certain people fixated on the dangers of guns rather than the dangers of cars. I answered the question. You cannot deny that guns are made solely for the purpose of destruction...I see you haven't even TRIED to. Nor can you deny that cars are NOT made for the purpose of destruction AT ALL. I also argued that, just because the threat of guns are lesser in raw numbers than those of cars, doesn't mean that we should just ignore the lesser dangers. Again, you were wise enough to not argue (or maybe just trying to ignore the fact). Lastly, I pointed out that cars (which for some reason some of you seem to be fixated on) HAVE been regulated to be more safe for people. So the original premise is incorrect: various people and groups have NOT focused solely on firearms as objects of regulation due to safety issues.
Again, no one has in any way refuted these facts, nor can you.
On a side note, I still find wonderfully ironic that someone who professes to be a "Christian", and so would assumedly understand the beauty of God's full creation, gets such a hardon for things meant solely to destroy such creation. But then, we know you're not much of a "Christian" anyway.
More inane logic, by which one would have to conclude that sole purpose of a car is to burn fossil fuels and pollute the environment because every time a car is used fossil fuels are burned and the environment is polluted.Quote:
Originally Posted by run4it
We don't shoot at clay pigeons, paper targets,or game animals to destroy them. We shoot at targets to record skill, and game animals for food. Your silly notions lead to silly conclusions.
You know very well what the purpose of automobiles is...and you're being obtuse in trying to skew the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by nogods
How you do "record skill"? By how accurately you have DESTROYED the target.
There is no way around that.
To all of my fellow gun supporters who believe that all of us who are law abiding citizens have the right to bear arms if we choose to do so:
You have made an excellent and good faith effort by making the facts available as to why gun control is not only illogical but a violation of our constitution. Unfortunately there are those who are so afraid of firearms or have such a strong emotional feeling against guns that no amount of logical reasoning will at least allow for those of us who enjoy recreational shooting and hunting to participate in this enjoyable pastime or defend ourselves against the bad guys.
It's unfortunate that they have to start with personal attacks such as with mikenold's Christianity when they can't win by their own arguments. That usually shows a sign of desperation because they have run out of evidence to support their case.
No, the purpose of an automobile is to provide transportation, at a rate faster than walking.Quote:
Originally Posted by nogods
You shoot at targets to record skill of what? Being able to hit your target and destroy it.
Sure, you hunt game animals for food. Do you need an AR15 for that? Or, would a black powder muzzle loader do the trick?
End result: The gun is a weapon. Weapons are designed for one purpose: To kill or maim.
Or, are you saying I should be able to freely walk about with a rapier on my hip?
Playing Errol Flynn on your off days?Quote:
Originally Posted by NBuffaloResident
Quote:
Originally Posted by HisSon
Do me a favor, dissect the 2nd amendment for me.
Also, Mike's commitment (rather, lack thereof) to Christian values extends well beyond and prior to (and more presciently) this argument. It's just another example.
Do you always just make stuff up?Quote:
Originally Posted by run4it
According to the National Committee for Prevention of Child Abuse, approximately 900,000 children are abused each year. Of this number, 8.8 percent are sexually abused.
That's 79,640 children sexually abused per year.
A child is 20 times more likely to be sexually abused than die in a car accident.
I didn't say die in a car accident...I said injured.Quote:
Originally Posted by nogods
And the pedophile thing was an example, and you know it. I could say the same about levels of flouride in the water....or lead paint on toys, etc. All are far less likely to injur children than cars (or other implements), yet are still regulated. Again, you have failed to address the main point, mostly because you can't.
For your memory and edification, your question was:
I answered your question on multiple levels, multiple times, and even expanded.Quote:
Originally Posted by nogods
By the way, you really shouldn't paint me as completely anti-gun. My views are probably quite different than what you assume. I DO however understand the nuance and context of legal and philosophic arguments, which so many seem to miss (or rather ignore).
Rapier :) Now that was funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by NBuffaloResident
Hissy? You out there? This was an assignment for you (though anyone else is welcome to some extra credit)Quote:
Originally Posted by run4it
No you did not - every time you tried to respond you used faulty logic or inaccurate facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by run4it
Guns used by criminals are a problem that should be addressed.
Guns owned by law abiding citizens cause far fewer problems than other common items like cars and pools and household cleaning products. We can reduce accidents from guns owned by law abiding citizens the same way we reduce accidents from more hazardous items like cars and pools and household cleaning products - through education and safety laws, not through prohibition.
People who focus on gun control for law abiding citizens are missing the point in two ways: they are focusing on the wrong source and they are ignoring more dangerous instruments in their irrational phobia about guns.
another example: illegal use of prescriptions drugs is a societal problem. You don't solve that problem by outlawing prescription drugs.