Ex-cop murders theatregoer....isn't it nice that we let people carry guns around? (Page 4)

davesdatahut: I still hear no alternative ideas on what to do about gun violence. All I hear is what not to do. Never anything about what to TO do. Unless the proper response is....nothing.
I write as a centrist in New York, for what it's worth.

Wild__: Wait... wait... by all mean allow me to copy and paste my own words from two hours ago as per timestamp.

How about if we use the national guard to invade and occupy the crime ridden ghettos of every major city, seizing guns from gang members and drug dealers?

davesdatahut: This is your idea, to have the military occupy bad neighborhoods? Assuming this is not a joke, how would this be carried out?

duncan124:
Just remember the Gay Army mutinies and the fact that the Gay army in Portugal has murdered thousands of people and is still there, while you are having so much fun together!!

dhasty1949: What to do? Enforce good laws already on the books ie it is against the law for convicted felons to be in possession of guns, this is a good law!!!!!!!! enforce it, enforce it ,enforce it, don't pass a bad law such as as some one under going counseling for any number of psychological problems not to be able to buy a gun.Would a fear of spiders or elevators make me a danger to society if i had a gun? If we were all examined closely enough by enough psychologist and psychiatrist we would all find some label put on us."Enforcement," make people accountable for their actions that they actually do. Don't deny people their rights for what they" might" do. If we are guilty until proven innocent then what are we before a crime has even been committed? Keep dangerous people locked up.About 5% of our population commit 90% of our crimes.They are called repeat offenders and career criminals. What does society need with repeated, habitual thuggers and muggers?

LiptonCambell: >>>But what I can and do know is that the rational members of the gun owning world have no problem with strong background checks because they understand that if they cut off gun ownership to unstable people, that is a GOOD thing,

But you've yet to establish if the gun control you are calling for even works. This shouldn't be a matter of "if you're rational, you would agree with me"- it should be matter of the facts- let them speak for themselves- not the assumptions, and how many people support this or that assumptions.

Are you actually suggesting further gun control if you have no idea if it even works?

Lets look at the fact's I've found;


A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."

~~So increased gun control means that over 150,000 people a year are put in danger~~

* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly
armed with a gun.

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.

~~Nearly a million times a year, dave.~~

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.

34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"

• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

In 1976, the Washington, D.C. City Council passed a law generally prohibiting residents from possessing handguns and requiring that all firearms in private homes be (1) kept unloaded and (2) rendered temporally inoperable via disassembly or installation of a trigger lock. The law became operative on Sept. 24, 1976.

Here's the statistics following that law;

liptoncambell's Picture

* During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower

In 1968, Britain made the 1920 law stricter by requiring civilians to obtain a certificate from their district police chief in order to purchase or possess a shotgun. This law also required that firearm certificates specify the identification numbers ("if known" of all firearms and shotguns owned by the applicant.[39]

* In 1997, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to surrender almost all privately owned handguns to the police. More than 162,000 handguns and 1.5 million pounds of ammunition were "compulsorily surrendered" by February 1998. Using "records of firearms held on firearms certificates," police accounted for all but fewer than eight of all legally owned handguns in England, Scotland, and Wales.

Here's the statistics following that law;

liptoncambell's Picture

In the 10-year period from November 30, 1998 to December 31, 2008, about 96 million background checks for gun purchases were processed through the federal background check system. Of these, approximately 681,000 or about 1% were denied.[74] [75]

* During 2002 and 2003, out of 17 million background checks resulting in 120,000 denials, the federal government prosecuted 154 people (about one-tenth of 1% of the denials).

* According to federal agents interviewed in a 2004 U.S. Justice Department investigation, the "vast majority" of denials under the federal background check system are issued to people who are not "a danger to the public because the prohibiting factors are often minor or based on incidents that occurred many years in the past." As examples of such, agents stated that denials have been issued due to a 1941 felony conviction for stealing a pig and a 1969 felony conviction for stealing hubcaps.

* As of 2010, federal law does not prohibit members of terrorist organizations from purchasing or possessing firearms or explosives

* Between February 2004 and February 2010, 1,225 firearm and three explosives background checks for people on terrorist watch lists were processed through the federal background check system. Of these, 91% of the firearm transactions and 100% of the explosives transactions were allowed

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

There's alot of info there.....


>>>It is presumed that such action will help reduce some gun violence because it simply makes sense that fewer guns in the hands of nuts

But that ignores illegally gained guns. The difference in that circumstance is innocent civilians, who would normally would protect themselves against such violence, because of excessive or tedious or intrusive laws, do not, and become the victims of those who don't bother to follow those laws to begin with.

For example, Suzanna Hupp, DC, (born September 28, 1959) is a former Republican member of the Texas House of Representatives. She was a gun owner and user, and a law against a concealed carry was passed, so she left her gun in her car when she went out to eat with her parents.

A gun wielding psycho came into the restaurant, and preceded to slowly shoot 50 people, killing 23, including her parents. Her father attempted to stop the bloodshed, going at the maniac, only to be shot down- her other went to her husbands body, and the psycho causally walked up to her, pointed the gun to her head, and killed her.

Hupp was convinced that controls that were legally mandated did NOT protect her, but victimized her and her family, and forced her to watch her family be murdered in front of her, when her gun was 100 feet away, sitting helplessly in her car.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanna_Hupp#Surviving_the_Luby.27s_massacre.2C_subsequent_activism



>>>good chance of fewer gun-related deaths.

But you don't have any facts to back you up? This is all guesswork?

And you want to turn innocent people into victims based on that guesswork?

>>>this fear that the ooga booga government is gonna swipe their weapons under the dark cloak of night

That is the historical reasons behind the right to bear arm, dave. During the revolution, the British would go around collecting guns- the guns they couldn't take with them, they would destroy, so as to leave the American citizens powerless against their oppressive regime.

I agree it's lost some of it's historical meaning, but the fact is clear- that law exists to prevent the government from disarming it's citizens, so the government cannot oppress it's people. I feel that's an important historical presidence, and certainly one that the founding fathers full supported.

>>>At the same time, the NRA and the like seem to have NO interest in doing anything but preserving the ability of citizens to be gunned down in public.

I feel the same way about your restrictions. By disarming good, safe, caring citizens, you only ensure that when a psycho gets a gun and decides to see how many people they can kill, that they will no find any resistance.

>>>Lipton, I am open to alternatives ideas that preserve the right of citizens to defend their homes, but also make the world a bit safer.

What alternatives have you been open to in this forum? You've clearly stuck to your guns(no pun intended) and haven't offered any suggestion that you like any other alternative, except for increased restrictions.

How about this alternative- give more individuals guns. make it so every women in the country, along with training, are given a gun. Even if 50% of the women in the country turns around and sells the gun, whenever a rapist, a mugger, a murderer turns to a woman, they have to deal with the fact that 50% of the women in the country didn't let go of that gun- that they have a 50% chance that they would be shot. I guarantee you- you will see a decrease in violence. You would see the world being alot safer with more people armed.

>>> I hear no other solutions. Just a refusal to compromise.

You realize you are doing the same, right? Where has your compromise been?

davesdatahut: Lipton, I don't claim to know the right answer, so I'm offering something to try. No one can know if something will work before giving it a try. I'm tossing out an idea, perhaps as a basis to start talking about solutions.
We do know that unhinged people have been responsible for a number of mass killings over the past decade.
So what to do? What I suggest would be an attempt to keep guns away from unstable people. I say give this a try. Then see what happens. If putting gun owners under regular background checks does nothing to check this issue, then it will be clear that such an idea doesn't work. And it can be undone. But if it does lead to guns being removed from the hands of people who are too unstable to have them, then we need to do that.
I understand the concerns about intrusions into people's lives. But we are dealing with deadly weapons. Along with society giving people the right to own same comes the obligation to try - at least try - to keep them away from people who would use them top cause mayhem.
I say it makes sense that this will reduce some gun violence because we have had lunatics doing mass shootings. Logic suggests that if you remove guns from their hands, you will make the situation better.
As for compromise, I'm totally interested. Come up with some alternatives. Then let various sides come together and work out a solution. If there is a better option to keeping guns away from nuts than stronger background checks, I'm totally open to that. As are other rational parties in this debate. Even bring in the NRA, despite its disgraceful record on this issue.
Let me be clear. Even though I personally have no interest in owning a gun, I do NOT advocate making gun ownership illegal. I do NOT advocate disarming responsible, sane people. If people feel they need them for self-defense, go for it. Have a gun. Have two. Have five. Have 10 if that makes you feel good.
But do NOT hide behind selfish claims that your right to own a weapon or an arsenal and carry it around with you trumps society's right to have some reasonable protections and controls. Do NOT refuse to come to the table and engage in discussion about solutions to gun violence. That is where it gets unacceptable, dangerously irresponsible and leads to nuts running around enforcing people's ability to be gunned down in public.
As an aside, one of my other strong beliefs is that if you legalize drugs, you will make huge strides toward eliminating gun violence, as a lot of gun violence is tied to the illegal drug trade. Make it legal and you take away the business from illegal dealers and, overnight, reduce the violence attendant to that.
I also strongly oppose the idea that more and more and more people should have guns and carry them around. This is a shuddering dystopian view of the world that says we can be safe only when everyone is packing and everyone fears everyone else/

LiptonCambell: >>>so I'm offering something to try.

Try? We've been trying it for over 45 years, since The Gun Control Act of 1968. You're not suggesting anything different- just "more" because of "reasons"

>>>We do know that unhinged people have been responsible for a number of mass killings over the past decade.

Yes, and they often happen in 'Gun Free Zones'

Like the recent tragedy this thread was created for, and the singular event that happened in a movie theatre in Aurora, Colorado- both were gun-free zones, so the only person able to protect themselves was the crazed gunman.

What about the school mass killings we've all heard about- Sandy Hook(December 14, 2012, 26 deaths) , Virginia Tech(April 16, 2007, 33 deaths), Columbine(April 20, 1999, 15 deaths)- all we're gun free zones!

Since the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, there was, between 1991 and 1999, 74 deaths as a result of school shootings in gun free zones between 38 schools, with 7 of those events leading to no deaths, only injuries. Between 2000 and 2009, there was 89 deaths as a result of school shootings- again, gun free zones- between 47 schools, with 18 schools having no deaths, only injuries. And so far, between 2010 and 2014, we've already had 90 deaths as a result of school shootings- all gun free zones- between 79 schools, with 42 schools having no deaths.

In the 80's, prior to the gun free school zone act, there was 35 deaths as a result of school shootings. This means, since the gun free school zone act, school shootings have gone up 47% between the 80's-90's, and 20% between the 90's-00's.

Clearly the problem isn't people have access to guns. Removing access to guns has increased gun violence, not decreased it. It's seen again, and again, and again- and yet, we have people who insist if we only "try"- we have tired- you just refuse to acknowledge the results!!

>>>So what to do? What I suggest would be an attempt to keep guns away from unstable people.

But that would require tens of millions of good, honest, rational and mentally sound people to have every aspect of their lives up for judgement and scrutiny- all so they can defend themselves?

There are between 70-80 million Americans owning gun's in the United States, and around 300 million guns legally registered in the United States. You want to psychoanalyze 22% of the population- and, should they fail, they aren't allowed to defend themselves?

What about the people who get rejected unfairly, or unlawfully? I posted data that said people were denied guns for stealing hubcaps 40 years ago.- over 20% of people who are rejected have appealed, and passed. How many more have been rejected for stupid reasons, but didn't appeal?

About 10,000 murders a year are caused by guns in the United States. With 70 million legal gun owners, that means 0.1% of all crimes are done by these people. You want to force every gun owner to psychoanalysis for the actions of 1/10 of 1%?

And what about the simple fact that, if a psycho wants a gun, a psycho's gunna get a gun. All that noise I made above about school zones- every single one of those events are people who broke the law by entering a gun-free zone with a gun, then broke the law again by killing.

You think that kind of person would be stopped by some bureaucracy? That they wouldn't care if they broke the law multiple times- but once they were told they cannot legally buy a gun, that they'd give up, move on with life, and make important decisions in life to improve their mental health? It's estimated that 275 million guns are unregistered- almost as many as there are registered.

>>> If putting gun owners under regular background checks does nothing to check this issue, then it will be clear that such an idea doesn't work.

Again- gun owners have been given background checks FOR OVER 45 YEARS.And there's more guns than gun owners- meaning many of these people HAVE had multiple background checks.

How long do we have to make the same mistakes over and over again, before you'll acknowledge it doesn't work?

>>>I say it makes sense that this will reduce some gun violence

But you cannot prove it? You haven't done any research? You just feel it's true?

Why can I prove that gun control has lead to increased gun violence, but you can only offer your feelings and guesses as a counter? Why do you think your guesswork is more valuable than cold hard facts?

>>>Logic suggests that if you remove guns from their hands, you will make the situation better.

Just because you make a law doesn't mean it's going to work the way you intended. You need to reflect on how effective the law is. And this law has been around for 45 years.

>>>As for compromise, I'm totally interested. Come up with some alternatives.

Huh? I....I presented one....didn't you read it? I said "How about this alternative", and then I presented it....

>>> I do NOT advocate disarming responsible, sane people. If people feel they need them for self-defense, go for it. Have a gun.

But these reforms will absolutely disarm people who are stable, capable of gun ownership, but are denied because of bureaucracy or overzealous judgement.

>>>As an aside, one of my other strong beliefs is that if you legalize drugs, you will make huge strides toward eliminating gun violence, as a lot of gun violence is died to the illegal drug trade.

Couldn't agree more.

davesdatahut: Lipton...a quicker response here as I am trying to actually satisfy my employer's desire that I work for my living ...
I did address your proposed solution at the end of my last blast.....
To flesh it out a bit more, I am very very troubled about the idea that we could all be walking around packing heat, with each person fearing the other and wondering is that guy there walking around drunk with his gun. That is extraordinarily unsettling and does not make me fee anything more than more in danger. It would rather freak me out knowing that, when I walk into a bar for a few beers, someone might get drunk, lost control and start blasting away.
Do you really want to walk around in a society where everyone is carrying guns - the calm and the quick-tempered, the nice and the obnoxious, the sober and the drunk?
This is exactly what the NRA and the like suggest, which preserves my right not to be safe, but to be gunned down in public if I talk to someone the wrong way - just like the guy in the movie theater.
more later....

LiptonCambell: >>> Lipton...a quicker response here as I am trying to actually satisfy my employer's desire that I work for my living

Haahha work actually have been cutting back on my hours because of slow orders.....so I got ALLLLL day....still, I hate it when people reply before I can proof-read/edit my posts, so i feel your pain lol

>>>I also strongly oppose the idea that more and more and more people should have guns and carry them around. This is a shuddering dystopian view of the world that says we can be safe only when everyone is packing

Why? The facts clearly supports such a suggestion. more people armed means less crime and less victims. Less people armed means more people will be victimized.

The only reason to reject such a solution is because your beliefs are not based on the facts. And the fact is, if people can protect themselves, they are better off.

>>> everyone fears everyone else/

Why would everyone fear everyone else? The only reason you would have to fear someone is if you intend to harm that person, and are worried they will defend themselves.

>>> with each person fearing the other and wondering is that guy there walking around drunk with his gun.

Lol then make it illegal to be drunk and packing heat.....aren't we going on the presumption that all laws work when we enact them?

>>>Do you really want to walk around in a society where everyone is carrying guns - the calm and the quick-tempered, the nice and the obnoxious

Yes. People will be safer.

Isn't your goal to make a safer world? You stated earlier; " but also make the world a bit safer. "

I don't know how many times I need to prove the same concept- if you have less guns, there will be increased gun violence. If you have more guns, there will be decreased gun violence. All the charts I posted, all the talk of gun-free zones, all the prohibitions and stats prove this fact.

Is it because I haven't posted enough proof? Here's some more;

liptoncambell's Picture

liptoncambell's Picture

liptoncambell's Picture

liptoncambell's Picture

liptoncambell's Picture

liptoncambell's Picture

liptoncambell's Picture

Is that enough proof? You want me to start presenting text proof again?

>>>the sober and the drunk?

Huh? Again? Dude, what doesn't become more dangerous when people are drunk?

>>>but to be gunned down in public if I talk to someone the wrong way - just like the guy in the movie theater.

The guy in the movie theatre broke the law many times over before he shot that man- do you honestly think he needed one more law, and that was the thing that would've stopped him?

duncan124:
"* In 1997, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to surrender almost all privately owned handguns to the police. More than 162,000 handguns and 1.5 million pounds of ammunition were "compulsorily surrendered" by February 1998. Using "records of firearms held on firearms certificates," police accounted for all but fewer than eight of all legally owned handguns in England, Scotland, and Wales."

It has been illegal to have " privately owned handguns " for many years so I doubt the law you describe would work!

davesdatahut: Lipton....another real quick note...doesn't England have very strict gun ownership laws AND very low gun violence? I am recalling studies on this, but I could be wrong...
back to work...

LiptonCambell: Compared to the states, ALL countries have low gun violence lol- but their number of has increased since the law, and according to this handy graph, has never gone lower than what it was prior to the ban

liptoncambell's Picture

Homicide data is published according to the years in which the police initially reported the offenses as homicides, which are not always the same years in which the incidents took place.
‡ Large anomalies unrelated to guns:
2000: 58 Chinese people suffocated to death in a shipping container en route to the UK
2002: 172 homicides reported when Dr. Harold Shipman was exposed for killing his patients
2003: 20 cockle pickers drowned resulting in manslaughter charges
2005: 52 people were killed in the July 7th London subway/bus bombings

* Not counting the above-listed anomalies, the homicide rate in England and
Wales has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.

LiptonCambell: Lol I guess I proved my point

davesdatahut: Not so fast!
I've been on to a few other threads here and tied up with too much other shit, including heaving new piles of snow over growing piles of old snow! Oi.
Back to the matter at hand, I'm not sure what the homicides not related to guns have to do with the subject at hand here, which is homicides that ARE related to guns.
Aside from that, you cleverly invoke a circular-reasoning argument - i.e. where there is gun control, homicides have risen, or vice versa, as if this is the overarching reason why they have risen or fallen. It's like tying a decrease in car crashes to stronger rules for driver licensing or vice versa. It might be a major factor. It might not. It also could be a function of a places where there are simply more drivers passing through that in prior years. Homicides and homicide rates are complex things. One factor is guns. There are many many more, so I'm not buying the connection you are pitching, and I'm certainly not buying the converse that says if more guns then more safety. It's the same kind of circular reasoning. To wit, one factor exists. Another factor exists. Therefore, there is a direct connection the overrides others. It's the oldest ruse in the book.
Stats and circular reasoning aside, the idea that every Tom, Dick and Harry is tooling around town packing is utterly horrifying. And the reason is that there are lots of unstable people out there - like the guy who murdered the theatregoer. I cannot imagine a society where you have to worry that the next person you encounter could be an unhinged drunk with a gun or someone enraged over something in his or her life, with a gun in their vest.
Lipton, do those scenarios simply not scare you at all? Is there no better way of creating a safe society than to have everyone armed to the teeth?
As a coda to this post, New York City is a place with strong gun control laws. It also is a place where the murder and gun violence rates have gone through the floor. A connection? Maybe. By your logic, definitely.

LiptonCambell: >>>It might be a major factor. It might not.

A fair comment, but we mustn't ignore the evidence because it doesn't match your preconceived conclusions.

We mustn't get to a point where we allow our bia's to lead us to ignore the evidence.

How much proof is needed, dave?

>>>One factor is guns. There are many many more

In the United States? Yes. But the number of gun's isn't always the answer.

For example, the United States has 89 guns for every 100 persons, ranking number 1 for guns per capitia- while Switzerland, ranking in number 4, is 45.7 per 100 people- and their homicide rate per 100,000 population was 0.70, making it one of the lowest in the world. Interestingly, the swiss do not have a standing army- rather, the citizens are required to be part of the national militia, meaning they are all heavily trained, and very little gun control exists.

>>>Stats and circular reasoning aside

I suppose the only way you could continue to believe we need increased gun regulation is to throw out the facts haha....

>>>r. I cannot imagine a society where you have to worry that the next person you encounter could be an unhinged drunk with a gun

Again- you're focused on people who are intoxicated. What's that about? What ISN'T dangerous when operated by intoxicated people?

>>>Lipton, do those scenarios simply not scare you at all?

No. Having a society that victimizes you to "protect" you, despite all evidence showing that you are NOT safer with less guns- that level of myopic fanaticism scares me.

davesdatahut, is there any evidence I could present that would prove you wrong? You seemed to have shrugged off all the research I've done on the subject- it all looks rather pointless if it's simply a matter of your mind being made up before looking at the data.

>>>Is there no better way of creating a safe society than to have everyone armed to the teeth?

Perhaps, but there is no safer society than having people protecting themselves.

>>>As a coda to this post, New York City is a place with strong gun control laws. It also is a place where the murder and gun violence rates have gone through the floor. A connection?

Again, if we look at the issue in the original post;

-The murder took place in a gun-free zone- so already the existing gun regulation failed in that regard. The murderer didn't care about the law, and the law didn't have any preventative effect.

-The murder took place in Florida- Florida requires persons who have a concealed weapon have a permit- which the murderer, Reeves, had. So the existing gun regulation failed in that regard. The law did not have any preventative effect.

-The murderer had a legal gun- again, the existing gun regulation failed in that regard, and the law did not have any preventative effect.

So when law after law fails, your solution is if we had --more-- of the same, then this would have been prevented? Absolutely not.

As for New York- Haha Wiki both agrees with you and disagrees with you- they agree with your earlier comment that the issue of homicide is complex, and not met by gun control alone- but they disagree with your belief that gun control inspired lower crime(wait- why are you saying that lax gun control isn't the only cause of lowered crime, since homicide is a complex issue, when presented with evidence that is against your stance- but when presenting evidence that supports your stance, suddenly the homicide is simply an issue of "more gun control=safer", and no other factors matter?)

Wiki offers many suggestions- some sound silly to me, but still;

"Many commentators have suggested that the New York City Police Department's adoption of CompStat, broken windows policing, and other strategies during the administration of Rudolph Giuliani were responsible for the drop in crime, some studies argued that the dramatic reduction in crime was strongly correlated with the increases in the number of police officers that started under Mayor Dinkins and continued through the Giuliani administration.

Freakonomics authors Steven Levitt and Steven Dubner attribute the drop in crime to the legalization of abortion in the 1970s, as they suggest that many would-be neglected children and criminals were never born. On the other hand Malcolm Gladwell in his book The Tipping Point provides a different explanation - he argues that crime was an "epidemic" and a small reduction by the police was enough to "tip" the balance.

Starting in 2005, New York City achieved the lowest crime rate among the ten largest cities in the United States.[12] Since 1991, the city has seen a continuous fifteen-year trend of decreasing crime. Neighborhoods that were once considered dangerous are now much safer. Violent crime in the city has dropped by three quarters in the twelve years ending in 2005 with the murder rate at its lowest then level since 1963 with 539 murders that year, for a murder rate of 6.58 per 100,000 people, compared to 2,245 murders in 1990.[13] The murder rate continued to drop each year since then. In 2012, there were 414 murders, mainly occurring in the outlying, low income areas of NYC. Among the 182 U.S. cities with populations of more than 100,000, New York City ranked 136th in overall crime.[14]

In 2006, as part of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's gun control efforts, the city approved new legislation regulating handgun possession and sales. The new laws established a gun offender registry, required city gun dealers to inspect their inventories and file reports to the police twice a year, and limited individual handgun purchases to once every 90 days. The regulations also banned the use and sale of kits used to paint guns in bright or fluorescent colors, on the grounds that such kits could be used to disguise real guns as toys."

...

"he city's dramatic drop in crime has been attributed by criminologists to policing tactics, the end of the crack epidemic, and some have speculated more controversial ideas such as the legalization of abortion approximately 18 years previous[4][5] and the decline of lead poisoning of children"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_New_York_City

Wait- so New York had already achieved in reducing it's homicide rate by 3/4 BEFORE any additional gun regulation?

davesdatahut: A fast comment here...my point in citing New York is to counter your logic. If what you say is so, NYC's gun violence rate should be sky high, but it's not. You say more gun control, more gun violence. Clearly NYC counters that logic.
My point most certainly is NOT that strict gun control laws ipso factor produce low gun violence and lax laws make society safer. My point is that the connection is tenuous. It's one factor in a big mix. And NYC's plumetting crime rate is an example of that. I pointed out the NYC situation to counter you assertion that there is a strong connection between gun laws and gun violence.
The one thing I DO believe is strong is the connection between unstable gun owners and mass shootings and shootings like the Florida theater case. This is why I advocate stronger background checks. Again, this is not to take away people's guns and their right to defend their territory. But to assure that people who a product designed to kill and maim are not nuts.
More later on the idea of more guns = more safety. I remain utterly horrified by that idea.

LiptonCambell: >>>If what you say is so, NYC's gun violence rate should be sky high, but it's not.

Well, as I already pointed out, it's homicide rate was already down 75% by the time anyone altered it's gun laws. So it's not that the gun violence went down 75% as a result of these laws- it just continued it's trend, at a slower pace than previous years. Not to mention that these homicide rates are based on just that- homicide- not gun violence. Not all of those crimes were done with guns, and thus, gun control had no effect on it.

>>>You say more gun control, more gun violence. Clearly NYC counters that logic.

Haha I present statistics from dozens of states and multiple countries on how gun control effects their crime over decades- you look at one city, over a period of 7 years, when prior to these changes there was a declining crime rate in both that city and the entire country- and you think that 'counters' my argument?

Why is the study so short, being far shorter than ANY evidence I presented? Why is the study ignoring 99% of the country? Why is the study ignoring the fact that the crime rate was lowering prior to any changes to gun laws, and that the homicide rate has see-sawed between increased rate and decreased rate over the years?

That's not really astounding proof, dave.

>>>My point most certainly is NOT that strict gun control laws ipso factor produce low gun violence and lax laws make society safer. My point is that the connection is tenuous.

I agree completely! The connection between gun control and gun violence is very weak, because these laws have very little effect. Asking for more of these laws is a exercise in futility.

>>>The one thing I DO believe is strong is the connection between unstable gun owners and mass shootings and shootings like the Florida theater case.

I disagree. Again, returning to the gun control concept of a "Gun Free Zone"- are you aware of how many mass shootings have occurred in a "Gun Free Zone"? Damn near 100%.

Can you at least agree that those thing need to be abolished? They only create more violence, and leave people defenseless.

>>>This is why I advocate stronger background checks.

But people who intend to break the law will not be stopped by these checks.

I don't know how many times I need to repeat this, but apparently I do- the man who murdered someone in the Florida theatre BROKE THE LAW. It didn't matter how many laws they broke- they broke the law when they murdered that guy, the broke the law when they smuggled that gun into the theatre- why do you think that they would have been stopped had they failed to pass a background check, assuming they would have?

This is an important issue you have been side-stepping- WHY, if someone intends to break the law, would they be hindered by it being illegal for them to possess a weapon? They already broke multiple laws, dave- why would one more make the difference?

>>> Again, this is not to take away people's guns and their right to defend their territory.

But it DOES HAPPEN, dave. Nearly 20% of people who are rejected appeal, and still get a gun- that's 200,000 people! Some for petty things, like stealing hub caps 50 years ago! How many more people should have been legitimately able to get a gun, but failed for unfair reasons, and didn't appeal?

davesdatahut: Lipton, might it have been possible that with some stronger background checks, the Florida guy may have been stripped of his license to own a gun? Or the shooter in Arizona? Or the movie theater shooter in Colorado? Or the Virginia Tech killer? Or other such cases? Might it just be possible?
You incongruously note that the Florida guy BROKE THE LAW by committing murder. Well, yeh, he broke the law, with a gun that he owned legall - perhaps a gun he might have had to turn in if there was some regular review of his stability.
You say people who break the law will not be stopped by these checks. I say we need to do more to prevent people who commit these very public, and often mass, murders from having guns. Because they are generally nuts, unstable, wacked out. And there is no logic that says such a person should be licensed to own a gun.
You ask if someone intends to break the law, why would they be hindered by it being illegal to possess a weapon. I say make it harder to own that weapon legally, so that perhaps, when they intend to break the law, they just might not have that gun. Just maybe.
On your last point, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying - that some people are unfairly rejected, then appeal and win? Ok, so fine. They appealed and won. I don't follow your point there.
And on the matter of the connection between strong gun control laws and gun violence rates, NYC had strong gun laws before the most recent increase in the strength of those laws. And if you need another case of strict laws and low gun violence rates, see San Francisco. Strict laws. Low gun violence. So some places the trend goes one way. Some places it goes another way. There are too many other factors involved in the broader issue of gun violence.
Finally, on gun free zones, they are meaningless. Some legislators' dopey idea to make the public feel good, like drug free zones. I agree with you fully on that point.

LiptonCambell: >>>Lipton, might it have been possible that with some stronger background checks, the Florida guy may have been stripped of his license to own a gun? Or the shooter in Arizona? Or the movie theater shooter in Colorado? Or the Virginia Tech killer? Or other such cases? Might it just be possible?

Yes, he may have. But that wouldn't have stopped those mass murders. Those people would not have been deterred by bureaucracy. Every one of those examples you presented not only broke the law by committing murder, but broke the minor, gun control oriented law of a "gun free zone", and kept their guns on them.

I cannot express this strongly enough- you CANNOT prevent crime with bureaucracy.

Want an easy example? You already presented it, though I'd bet, like many things on this topic, you haven't done the research. Cho, the mass murderer of the Virginia Tech massacre, already received psychiatric treatment, after her had been caught stalking his classmates. And in his state, he should have been unable to obtain a gun in his condition.

Did the law STOP Cho from arming himself? Nope. He proceeded to murder 32 people, all of which were unarmed, before killing the only person on campus who was armed- himself.

>>>You incongruously note that the Florida guy BROKE THE LAW by committing murder. Well, yeh, he broke the law, with a gun that he owned legall - perhaps a gun he might have had to turn in if there was some regular review of his stability.

Okay, you have been offering the vaguest of solutions- that we should do the same, only "more"- no clear differences, just "more"

Well, now you've offered a slight glimpse into what, exactly, you are suggesting- perhaps the first time you've done that in this discussion.

You want gun owners- all 43-55 million- to undergo mental analysis on a regular basis? How regular? How would you control the panel from being too zealous, or not zealous enough, or corrupt? And you cannot even be sure if this would have any effect other than a gut feeling? These kinds of things have clearly failed in the past...

You don't find that's a recipe for disaster? To force 1/4 of the country to constant psychological tests? If all the guns are spread out evenly(which they are not, but whatever), and there's one board for each state, that means there are 860,000 people who need to be reviewed by each state in a year- that comes up to 2,356 people a DAY they would need to analyze. And that's only if you expect them to be tested only once- Twice a year, that's 4712 a day.

And you don't think some people will fall through the cracks? All you're doing is subjecting the mass majority of people to humiliation, invading their personal life, and wasting their time and tax payers money on a exercise that cannot work- and has proven to fail us in the past.

>>>Just maybe.

HAhaha you want to subject 43-55 million people to constant observation and study- and you can't even prove it'll have any effect? Just a gut feeling that you feel should be forced on all of society?

>>>On your last point, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying - that some people are unfairly rejected, then appeal and win? Ok, so fine. They appealed and won. I don't follow your point there.

I'm saying that 1/5th of all background checks that fail are later found that they should've passed- that they were held back from gun ownership for no reason, other than over-zealousness, and possibly corruption.

And you want more of that.

>>>NYC had strong gun laws before the most recent increase in the strength of those laws

...you talking about during the crime wave of the 90's? Which laws are you referring to?

>>>So some places the trend goes one way. Some places it goes another way. There are too many other factors involved in the broader issue of gun violence.

So then why are you calling for more gun control everywhere, if you think it's a broader issue?

davesdatahut: Lipton, I understand the potential intrusion into gun owners' lives by requiring more regular and stricter background checks. I don't take that lightly and I am not sure how far that should go. But, yes, I do think that in exchange for the right to own a product made mainly for the purpose of killing or maiming, people should submit to these kinds of background checks, with some set of reasonably rules to define stability. I am not sure what they are. I pose this in general terms. I would leave that to people who are smarter than me.
Here are a couple of anecdotal reasons why. These are anecdotal, but illustrative:
I have a relative with a hair-trigger temper and a history of mental instability. He recently got into a dispute with someone on the street over some bullshit dispute over a car. After a couple of punches, the cops were called. It got resolved in court. I shudder to think how it would have been resolved if he was carrying a gun.
I also have a neighbor who is not afraid to voice his views on "the niggers" and other crazy shit. The guy is unstable. I do not know if he has a gun. I sure hope not.
Do you think either of these two people should be able to buy a gun without some time of mental fitness test? How would you deal with this?
Also, what is your view on the latest Stand Your Ground Law case in Florida?

Wild__: As it stands right now people submit to a background check when they purchase a firearm. So perhaps if firearm owners should be required to purchase a new gun every two years in order to trigger a new back ground check.

But who defines "stable?" Do you have any confidence in our elected idiots?

LiptonCambell: It seems a large portion of your insistence of having gun control stems from your belief that you cannot trust your fellow man, and that they're all potential murderers.

Let me ask you this- do you think your neighbour shouldn't be able to defend himself when presented with a situation that his life is in danger, because he is racist?

davesdatahut: Lipton, let's not exaggerate what I'm saying. At no point did I suggest that people are all potential murderers. But I have grave concerns about those who are irrational and unstable.
Answer my question about the two anecdotes, and then I'll answer yours.

LiptonCambell: Haha I don't have confidence in psychiatrists....you could potentially be ruining peoples lives because of an over-zealous psychiatrist....Like I said earlier- background checks prevent people who should legitimately get guns 1 in 5 instances, that we know of.

What if this is extended to the analysis of a persons mental health? 1 in 5 people deemed a danger to society, when they're really not? Imagine the consequences these people would have to face for an over-zealous psychiatrist- they might lose their job, their kids, their family might fall apart- all because a psychiatrist would rather be safe than sorry, and has 2000 more people to review that day...

And this isn't some imaginary fear- like I said, that 1 in 5 number is what the research shows...