Gun control debate (merged)

#17,351
#17,351
C-south said:
nline without a background check or go to a gun show and pick up whatever without a background check. All a total lie. Handgun crimes account for over 80% of all gun crimes and AR 15s account for less than 1% of gun crimes yet that’s all he’s concerned about. It’s not about safety it’s about control. It’s about making idiots believe you’re doing something when you’re not and haven’t in half a century. T
Click to expand...

That doesn't make any sense. If it was about control instead of safety, they'd be going after handguns because a lot more people own them then AR15s.

also you seem to be ranting about stuff I wasn't arguing with
 
#17,354
#17,354
hog88 said:
Why don't you post the violent crime rates and gun ownership rates?
Click to expand...
Here is a decent, comprehensive look:

http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/jpj_firearm_ownership.pdf

Here is an interesting excerpt in the meat of the paper:

“At the regional level, the researchers found that, regardless of the proxy, there was a significant and positive association between firearm prevalence and unintentional firearm deaths and suicides. Miller, Azrael, and Hemenway (2002, pg. 271) pointed out that children living in high firearm prevalent states were “16 times more likely to die from unintentional firearm injury, 7 times more likely to die from firearm suicide, 3 times more likely to die from firearm homicide, and overall, twice as likely to die from suicide and homicide” than children living in states with low firearm prevalence.
Siegel, Ross, and King III (2013) examined firearm prevalence and firearm homicides from 1981 to 2010. The authors collected information for the fifty states from 1981 to 2010 and used suicide by firearm as a proxy for firearm prevalence. Using a negative binomial regression model the researchers found that firearm prevalence was a significant predictor of firearm homicide. In fact, Siegel, Ross, and King III (2013) stated that a one standard deviation increase in firearm prevalence was associated with a 12.9% increase in the homicide rate.
Branas et al. (2009) explored whether having a firearm would reduce the risk of harm from an attack. They compared a sample of individuals in Philadelphia from 2003 – 2006 who were victims of assault, including those who had a firearm and those who did not have a firearm. Branas et al. (2009) matched the subjects on a number of factors, such as age. They found that victims who were in possession of a gun were 4.46 times more likely to be shot in an assault and 4.23 times more likely to be fatally shot in an assault. Further, in assaults where the victim had a chance to resist, individuals in possession of a firearm were 5.45 times more likely to be shot. Branas et al. (2009) stated that firearm possession may falsely empower individuals to think they can handle dangerous situations and that individuals who are in possession of a firearm may be more likely to enter a dangerous situation and be in harm’s way because of their overconfidence.

Other scholars have examined firearm prevalence and crime using a cross-national research design. Using the International Crime Survey, Killias (1993) found wide variation in firearm ownership. For instance, only 2% of households in the Netherlands owned a gun, while 48% of homes in the United States reported owning a gun. Killias (1993) was also interested in whether a lack of availability of firearms would lead individuals to compensate by using other means to commit suicide and homicide. He found that firearm prevalence was positively correlated with national homicide and suicide rates and positively correlated with homicide and suicides committed by a firearm. Killias (1993) demonstrated that there is no weapon substitution effect for countries with low firearm prevalence rates.
Individuals did not find other means to commit homicide and suicide when a firearm was not present.
Examining 26 high-income countries, Hemenway and Miller (2000) used the Cook’s Index and suicides by firearm as proxies for firearm prevalence. They found that, regardless of the proxy utilized, there was a significant and positive correlation between homicide rates and firearm prevalence. Killias, van Kesteren, and Rindlisbacher (2001) examined firearm prevalence and suicide and homicide. Using data from the International Crime Victimization Surveys for 1989, 1992, and 1996 for 21 countries, the researchers found that firearm prevalence increased rates of suicide by firearm, homicide by firearm for female victims, and firearm assault.”
 
#17,358
#17,358
OHvol40 said:
Here is a decent, comprehensive look:

http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/jpj_firearm_ownership.pdf

Here is an interesting excerpt in the meat of the paper:

“At the regional level, the researchers found that, regardless of the proxy, there was a significant and positive association between firearm prevalence and unintentional firearm deaths and suicides. Miller, Azrael, and Hemenway (2002, pg. 271) pointed out that children living in high firearm prevalent states were “16 times more likely to die from unintentional firearm injury, 7 times more likely to die from firearm suicide, 3 times more likely to die from firearm homicide, and overall, twice as likely to die from suicide and homicide” than children living in states with low firearm prevalence.
Siegel, Ross, and King III (2013) examined firearm prevalence and firearm homicides from 1981 to 2010. The authors collected information for the fifty states from 1981 to 2010 and used suicide by firearm as a proxy for firearm prevalence. Using a negative binomial regression model the researchers found that firearm prevalence was a significant predictor of firearm homicide. In fact, Siegel, Ross, and King III (2013) stated that a one standard deviation increase in firearm prevalence was associated with a 12.9% increase in the homicide rate.
Branas et al. (2009) explored whether having a firearm would reduce the risk of harm from an attack. They compared a sample of individuals in Philadelphia from 2003 – 2006 who were victims of assault, including those who had a firearm and those who did not have a firearm. Branas et al. (2009) matched the subjects on a number of factors, such as age. They found that victims who were in possession of a gun were 4.46 times more likely to be shot in an assault and 4.23 times more likely to be fatally shot in an assault. Further, in assaults where the victim had a chance to resist, individuals in possession of a firearm were 5.45 times more likely to be shot. Branas et al. (2009) stated that firearm possession may falsely empower individuals to think they can handle dangerous situations and that individuals who are in possession of a firearm may be more likely to enter a dangerous situation and be in harm’s way because of their overconfidence.

Other scholars have examined firearm prevalence and crime using a cross-national research design. Using the International Crime Survey, Killias (1993) found wide variation in firearm ownership. For instance, only 2% of households in the Netherlands owned a gun, while 48% of homes in the United States reported owning a gun. Killias (1993) was also interested in whether a lack of availability of firearms would lead individuals to compensate by using other means to commit suicide and homicide. He found that firearm prevalence was positively correlated with national homicide and suicide rates and positively correlated with homicide and suicides committed by a firearm. Killias (1993) demonstrated that there is no weapon substitution effect for countries with low firearm prevalence rates.
Individuals did not find other means to commit homicide and suicide when a firearm was not present.
Examining 26 high-income countries, Hemenway and Miller (2000) used the Cook’s Index and suicides by firearm as proxies for firearm prevalence. They found that, regardless of the proxy utilized, there was a significant and positive correlation between homicide rates and firearm prevalence. Killias, van Kesteren, and Rindlisbacher (2001) examined firearm prevalence and suicide and homicide. Using data from the International Crime Victimization Surveys for 1989, 1992, and 1996 for 21 countries, the researchers found that firearm prevalence increased rates of suicide by firearm, homicide by firearm for female victims, and firearm assault.”
Click to expand...

Lol. It’s like saying you’re more likely to die in a plane crash if you fly than if you don’t. It also doesn’t remotely answer his question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40, 0nelilreb and Rickyvol77
#17,360
#17,360
OHvol40 said:
Here is a decent, comprehensive look:

http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/jpj_firearm_ownership.pdf

Here is an interesting excerpt in the meat of the paper:

“At the regional level, the researchers found that, regardless of the proxy, there was a significant and positive association between firearm prevalence and unintentional firearm deaths and suicides. Miller, Azrael, and Hemenway (2002, pg. 271) pointed out that children living in high firearm prevalent states were “16 times more likely to die from unintentional firearm injury, 7 times more likely to die from firearm suicide, 3 times more likely to die from firearm homicide, and overall, twice as likely to die from suicide and homicide” than children living in states with low firearm prevalence.
Siegel, Ross, and King III (2013) examined firearm prevalence and firearm homicides from 1981 to 2010. The authors collected information for the fifty states from 1981 to 2010 and used suicide by firearm as a proxy for firearm prevalence. Using a negative binomial regression model the researchers found that firearm prevalence was a significant predictor of firearm homicide. In fact, Siegel, Ross, and King III (2013) stated that a one standard deviation increase in firearm prevalence was associated with a 12.9% increase in the homicide rate.
Branas et al. (2009) explored whether having a firearm would reduce the risk of harm from an attack. They compared a sample of individuals in Philadelphia from 2003 – 2006 who were victims of assault, including those who had a firearm and those who did not have a firearm. Branas et al. (2009) matched the subjects on a number of factors, such as age. They found that victims who were in possession of a gun were 4.46 times more likely to be shot in an assault and 4.23 times more likely to be fatally shot in an assault. Further, in assaults where the victim had a chance to resist, individuals in possession of a firearm were 5.45 times more likely to be shot. Branas et al. (2009) stated that firearm possession may falsely empower individuals to think they can handle dangerous situations and that individuals who are in possession of a firearm may be more likely to enter a dangerous situation and be in harm’s way because of their overconfidence.

Other scholars have examined firearm prevalence and crime using a cross-national research design. Using the International Crime Survey, Killias (1993) found wide variation in firearm ownership. For instance, only 2% of households in the Netherlands owned a gun, while 48% of homes in the United States reported owning a gun. Killias (1993) was also interested in whether a lack of availability of firearms would lead individuals to compensate by using other means to commit suicide and homicide. He found that firearm prevalence was positively correlated with national homicide and suicide rates and positively correlated with homicide and suicides committed by a firearm. Killias (1993) demonstrated that there is no weapon substitution effect for countries with low firearm prevalence rates.
Individuals did not find other means to commit homicide and suicide when a firearm was not present.
Examining 26 high-income countries, Hemenway and Miller (2000) used the Cook’s Index and suicides by firearm as proxies for firearm prevalence. They found that, regardless of the proxy utilized, there was a significant and positive correlation between homicide rates and firearm prevalence. Killias, van Kesteren, and Rindlisbacher (2001) examined firearm prevalence and suicide and homicide. Using data from the International Crime Victimization Surveys for 1989, 1992, and 1996 for 21 countries, the researchers found that firearm prevalence increased rates of suicide by firearm, homicide by firearm for female victims, and firearm assault.”
Click to expand...

TDLR and irrelevant

Here are the violent crime rates and gun ownership rates. It looks as if violent crime rates and gun ownership rates have no correlation as VC rates have dropped steadily while GO rates have seesawed over the years.

U.S.: violent crime rate graph 1990-2018 | Statista

Gun ownership in the U.S. 1972-2020 | Statista
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#17,361
#17,361
hog88 said:
TDLR and irrelevant

Here are the violent crime rates and gun ownership rates. It looks as if violent crime rates and gun ownership rates have no correlation as VC rates have dropped steadily while GO rates have seesawed over the years.

U.S.: violent crime rate graph 1990-2018 | Statista

Gun ownership in the U.S. 1972-2020 | Statista
Click to expand...
If you don’t want to read then you choose to ignore relevant information. Par for the course here, can’t educate the unwilling. Carry on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RockyTop85
#17,362
#17,362
OHvol40 said:
If you don’t want to read then you choose to ignore relevant information. Par for the course here, can’t educate the unwilling. Carry on.
Click to expand...

I asked a simple question. What are the gun ownership rates and what are the violent crime rates. The links I posted show the violent crime rates have steadily fallen while gun ownership has seesawed so there is no correlation.

I'll read your link but I'm going to guess that my first assessment was correct.
 
#17,363
#17,363
hog88 said:
I asked a simple question. What are the gun ownership rates and what are the violent crime rates. The links I posted show the violent crime rates have steadily fallen while gun ownership has seesawed so there is no correlation.

I'll read your link but I'm going to guess that my first assessment was correct.
Click to expand...

The Cliffs Notes is lots of accident/suicide, which is certainly tragic but an entirely separate conversation dealing with safety with inanimate objects and self-harm followed by a bunch of "What other countries blah blah" which due to enormous variances with populations, laws, customs, demographics, religions, etc makes a pretty dubious argument IMHO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77 and hog88
#17,364
#17,364
Tastylicks said:
That doesn't make any sense. If it was about control instead of safety, they'd be going after handguns because a lot more people own them then AR15s.

also you seem to be ranting about stuff I wasn't arguing with
Click to expand...
People understand handguns and are used to them. They go after the mean looking guns first as that's more palatable for much of America
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and Ttucke11
#17,365
#17,365
OHvol40 said:
Ok, so what is your solution to improve the relatively high violent and gun-related crime rates in the US?
Click to expand...

The violent crime rate isn't very high in the U.S. Is a violent crime committed with a knife any better?

You are 2 times more likely to be a victim of a violent crime in Britain and Wales than the U.S. This is all just BS from the Dems to encourage some gun grabbing. People assault people with whatever they can get their hands on.

Violent Crime: The US and Abroad - Criminal Justice Degree Hub
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and hog88
#17,366
#17,366
hndog609 said:
The Cliffs Notes is lots of accident/suicide, which is certainly tragic but an entirely separate conversation dealing with safety with inanimate objects and self-harm followed by a bunch of "What other countries blah blah" which due to enormous variances with populations, laws, customs, demographics, religions, etc makes a pretty dubious argument IMHO.
Click to expand...

My first assessment was correct. Getting these guys to have relevant conversations is like trying to reach around your ass to scratch your elbow
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#17,367
#17,367
hndog609 said:
The Cliffs Notes is lots of accident/suicide, which is certainly tragic but an entirely separate conversation dealing with safety with inanimate objects and self-harm followed by a bunch of "What other countries blah blah" which due to enormous variances with populations, laws, customs, demographics, religions, etc makes a pretty dubious argument IMHO.
Click to expand...
It also notes that’s those carrying are the victims of assault more than abstainers. It doesn’t say how many of these victims were carrying illegal firearms ie. criminal on criminal assault. They just “speculate” that folks carrying might feel like cowboys taking risks, which is the exact opposite behavior of those I know who CC. You can prove just about anything in a “study”, especially those activities that are basic human rights in which the prevailing powers would prefer you to abdicate to their “good graces”.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol, Rickyvol77, DEFENDTHISHOUSE and 1 other person
#17,368
#17,368
hog88 said:
My first assessment was correct. Getting these guys to have relevant conversations is like trying to reach around your ass to scratch your elbow
Click to expand...

The middle three paragraphs in his post seem directly relevant. Did you really read and understand them?
 
#17,369
#17,369
midnight orange said:
It also notes that’s those carrying are the victims of assault more than abstainers. It doesn’t say how many of these victims were carrying illegal firearms ie. criminal on criminal assault. They just “speculate” that folks carrying might feel like cowboys taking risks, which is the exact opposite behavior of those I know who CC. You can prove just about anything in a “study”, especially those activities that are basic human rights in which the prevailing powers would prefer you to abdicate to their “good graces”.
Click to expand...

It's personally anecdotal of course but if anything when armed I'm absolutely more likely to avoid confrontation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DEFENDTHISHOUSE and hog88
#17,371
#17,371
RockyTop85 said:
The middle three paragraphs in his post seem directly relevant. Did you really read and understand them?
Click to expand...

No, they are not relevant in the least when discussing a correlation between gun ownership and violent crime. First they include suicide in their firearm suicide statistics, suicide is not a violent crime. Second they go into the statistics of being shot while in possession of a firearm vs not being in possession while being being assaulted. That is nonsense since the assault is a violent crime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, NorthDallas40, midnight orange and 1 other person
#17,372
#17,372
OHvol40 said:
You missed the third scenario that many Americans would explain to you (and many people on here have expressed the exact same sentiment about covid): I prefer not to live my life in fear crippling enough that I constantly carry weaponry.
Click to expand...
Again, carrying a firearm for protection has nothing to do with "fear", any more than having a fire extinguisher in your house or car means you are "afraid" of fires
 
#17,374
#17,374
Ttucke11 said:
The violent crime rate isn't very high in the U.S. Is a violent crime committed with a knife any better?

You are 2 times more likely to be a victim of a violent crime in Britain and Wales than the U.S. This is all just BS from the Dems to encourage some gun grabbing. People assault people with whatever they can get their hands on.

Violent Crime: The US and Abroad - Criminal Justice Degree Hub
Click to expand...
From the research paper I posted earlier:

“Other scholars have examined firearm prevalence and crime using a cross-national research design. Using the International Crime Survey, Killias (1993) found wide variation in firearm ownership. For instance, only 2% of households in the Netherlands owned a gun, while 48% of homes in the United States reported owning a gun. Killias (1993) was also interested in whether a lack of availability of firearms would lead individuals to compensate by using other means to commit suicide and homicide. He found that firearm prevalence was positively correlated with national homicide and suicide rates and positively correlated with homicide and suicides committed by a firearm. Killias (1993) demonstrated that there is no weapon substitution effect for countries with low firearm prevalence rates.
Individuals did not find other means to commit homicide and suicide when a firearm was not present.”
 
#17,375
#17,375
OHvol40 said:
Here is a decent, comprehensive look:

http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/jpj_firearm_ownership.pdf

Here is an interesting excerpt in the meat of the paper:

“At the regional level, the researchers found that, regardless of the proxy, there was a significant and positive association between firearm prevalence and unintentional firearm deaths and suicides. Miller, Azrael, and Hemenway (2002, pg. 271) pointed out that children living in high firearm prevalent states were “16 times more likely to die from unintentional firearm injury, 7 times more likely to die from firearm suicide, 3 times more likely to die from firearm homicide, and overall, twice as likely to die from suicide and homicide” than children living in states with low firearm prevalence.
Siegel, Ross, and King III (2013) examined firearm prevalence and firearm homicides from 1981 to 2010. The authors collected information for the fifty states from 1981 to 2010 and used suicide by firearm as a proxy for firearm prevalence. Using a negative binomial regression model the researchers found that firearm prevalence was a significant predictor of firearm homicide. In fact, Siegel, Ross, and King III (2013) stated that a one standard deviation increase in firearm prevalence was associated with a 12.9% increase in the homicide rate.
Branas et al. (2009) explored whether having a firearm would reduce the risk of harm from an attack. They compared a sample of individuals in Philadelphia from 2003 – 2006 who were victims of assault, including those who had a firearm and those who did not have a firearm. Branas et al. (2009) matched the subjects on a number of factors, such as age. They found that victims who were in possession of a gun were 4.46 times more likely to be shot in an assault and 4.23 times more likely to be fatally shot in an assault. Further, in assaults where the victim had a chance to resist, individuals in possession of a firearm were 5.45 times more likely to be shot. Branas et al. (2009) stated that firearm possession may falsely empower individuals to think they can handle dangerous situations and that individuals who are in possession of a firearm may be more likely to enter a dangerous situation and be in harm’s way because of their overconfidence.

Other scholars have examined firearm prevalence and crime using a cross-national research design. Using the International Crime Survey, Killias (1993) found wide variation in firearm ownership. For instance, only 2% of households in the Netherlands owned a gun, while 48% of homes in the United States reported owning a gun. Killias (1993) was also interested in whether a lack of availability of firearms would lead individuals to compensate by using other means to commit suicide and homicide. He found that firearm prevalence was positively correlated with national homicide and suicide rates and positively correlated with homicide and suicides committed by a firearm. Killias (1993) demonstrated that there is no weapon substitution effect for countries with low firearm prevalence rates.
Individuals did not find other means to commit homicide and suicide when a firearm was not present.
Examining 26 high-income countries, Hemenway and Miller (2000) used the Cook’s Index and suicides by firearm as proxies for firearm prevalence. They found that, regardless of the proxy utilized, there was a significant and positive correlation between homicide rates and firearm prevalence. Killias, van Kesteren, and Rindlisbacher (2001) examined firearm prevalence and suicide and homicide. Using data from the International Crime Victimization Surveys for 1989, 1992, and 1996 for 21 countries, the researchers found that firearm prevalence increased rates of suicide by firearm, homicide by firearm for female victims, and firearm assault.”
Click to expand...
Might want to check the gang population of Philadelphia vs the Netherlands as well, which has to do with the "high" rate of juveniles shot.

Once you remove suicides and gang/criminals shooting at each other, the gun violence rate drops almost 75% lower in the US...
nearly 400 million firearms and only .00001% are used in criminal gun violence
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top