Do guns protect you, or simply cause violence? (Page 10)
ghostgeek: In America, between the years 1994 and 2011, about 70% to 80% of firearm homicides and 90% of nonfatal victimizations were committed with a handgun. Also, in 2007-11, less than 1% of victims in all nonfatal violent crimes reported using a firearm to defend themselves during the incident. In instances where the victim was armed with a firearm, the offender was also armed with a gun in 32% of the victimizations, compared to 63% of victimizations where the offender was armed with a lesser weapon, such as a knife, or unarmed. A small number of property crime victims also used a firearm in self defense (103,000 victims or about 0.1% of all property victimizations); however, the majority of victims (86%) were not present during the incident.
The above statistics come from a U.S. Department of Justice special report: Firearm Violence, 1993-2011. You can find it at http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf
(Edited by ghostgeek)
ghostgeek: In America, in 2010, the second most frequent cause of death for people between the ages of 15 and 24 was homicide, and 83 percent of those homicides were committed with a gun. The third highest cause of death for this age group in 2010 was suicide, and again, guns played a large role, accounting for 45 percent of those deaths.
[ https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/CAP-Youth-Gun-Violence-report.pdf ]
ghostgeek: “In fact, guns remain the only consumer product not regulated at the federal level for health and safety, in keeping with the wishes of the gun industry and compliant lawmakers,” - Dorothy Samuels, New York Times.
ghostgeek: Federal data from the Centers for Disease Control indicate that between 2007 and 2011, an average of 62 children age 14 and under were accidentally shot and killed each year.
American children are sixteen times more likely to be killed in unintentional shootings than their peers in other high-income countries.
ghostgeek: A police officer shooting at a fleeing suspect during an undercover gun buy that went wrong killed a 61-year-old bystander in the New York City suburb of Mount Vernon - August 29, 2015.
ghostgeek: "This isn't about you having your opinions thrust onto all of society because you don't trust your fellow man. This is about personal choice on the issue of self-defense. Government doesn't exist to force your- and only your- opinion onto society. Other people have other opinions, and if you want to call it a free society, you got to accept that some people should be free to see things differently." - Lipton
A weak argument Lipton. No society on the planet allows people to do everything that they would like to do. People recognize that certain things need to be regulated for the common good.
SoulVIBE: Your opinion does not matter...not one bit...but feel free to keep talking to yourself, you have been doing it throughout this whole thread...there is much you will never see ghostgeek, because honestly, you keep yourself blind...the audacity to THINK you know whats best for a place and people you have very little understanding of is astounding, "i have a study..." yes, a study can be found for or against anything so...well done on that 1...but true knowledge will continue to escape you when all you are seeking is information to back up an opinion (that isnt even yours...thats right you have been conditioned too brother)...just wasting your energy trying to "win" an argument, but...there is nothing to win here man, sorry...and if there is, you already lost because brother Lipton showed you the truth...but you chose to ignore it and treat it as if it was invalid (due to your own personal criteria for what is acceptable evidence?..cmon now)...pretty cool of you bro...if you were half as smart as you THINK you are you would have recognized that you were wrong here...but hey, i understand its really hard for (some of) us to be honest with ourselves...i still Love you brother and i hope you had fun thinking something important was on the line here...take care, Peace and 1 Love to ALL
ghostgeek: Is that it SoulVIBE? You don't agree with me. Is that the best you can come up with? It really makes me wonder why you bothered.
LiptonCambell: Lol your responses are so random it's funny ghost....
First off, America and England are so far removed from one another that it's entirely unreasonable to directly compare them, and easy to disprove the comparison you've made. You're comparing violence in America and number of guns in America versus violence in England versus number of guns, and conclude that since they have alot of guns, and alot of violence, they must be related- but you haven't presented any evidence as to how or why they are related. We're just left to assume this association is real.
Lets take your comparison to a global sphere; Obviously America is #1 in guns per person(88.8 guns per 100 people)- but number two? Serbia. They have 69.7 guns per 100 people- and they rank the 180th country in homicides(2012 numbers)
Third place? Yemen, at 54.8 guns per 100, they rank at 109. Fourth is Switzerland, with 45.7 guns per 100, they rank at 208. Cyprus, at fifth, is ranked 158th in homicides, and has 36.1 guns per 100 people.
The United Kingdom has 6.6 guns per 100 people, and is ranked 188th in homicides- sounds good, but what completely destroys your argument is the country with the second most guns in the world, Serbia, is only 8 ranks behind you.
France has 31.2 guns per person(over 5 times as many), but shares your rank of homicides- Italy has 11.9 guns per person, nearly twice as many as the UK, and has less homicides. Germany has over 5 times as many guns, but has less homicides.
In short, there are MORE examples of countries have increased guns, and decreased violence, than there are examples of increased guns and increased violence.
You take the worst example, compare it to one country, and call it a victory- but clearly there's alot more going on than you want us to believe. Because there are plenty examples of guns being more available, and there being less homicides. Hell, there are --MORE-- examples of it.
You just have a preconceived conclusion and don't want to look at anything that doesn't support your preconceived beliefs.
ghostgeek: For every 1 million Americans, there are 29.7 homicides by firearm each year, the Human Development Index reported. Now compare that to Australia, which saw its gun death rate plunge by more than half since 1996 when it tightened gun laws, and now has just 1.4 firearm homicides per million.
ghostgeek: According to the Mass Shooting Tracker, there have so far been 248 mass shootings in the U.S. in 2015.
ghostgeek: Walmart, the world's largest retailer, is no longer going to stock semi-automatic weapons.
LiptonCambell: >>>Also, in 2007-11, less than 1% of victims in all nonfatal violent crimes reported using a firearm to defend themselves during the incident.
So you're arguing that 99% of incidences happened where the victim was unarmed. And you think this 1% is enough to draw conclusions?
Just to put the numbers out there, you're arguing that of 58,483 non-fatal violent crimes reported using a firearm, and were armed, we should take the experiences of 585 people, and use that to deny everyone from having firearms? That 1% is good enough to draw any kinds of conclusions?
Think carefully about this, cause I'm going to be collecting data that happens to 1% of people, and see if you think we should change our laws based on that
>>> “In fact, guns remain the only consumer product not regulated at the federal level for health and safety, in keeping with the wishes of the gun industry and compliant lawmakers,” - Dorothy Samuels, New York Times.
What the fuck are you talking about? Not regulated? Do you HONESTLY believe guns are not regulated??!
>>>an average of 62 children age 14 and under were accidentally shot and killed each year.
All the more reason to keep guns legal, and encourage gun education, training, and safety.
Jesus Christ you keep tip-toeing around the issue- do you honestly think that guns will disappear once they're illegal? Because I say they'll still be around- but without the proper training, people will simply continue to use them- only they won't be required to prove they're capable using them, and accidents will increase.
>>>A police officer shooting at a fleeing suspect during an undercover gun buy that went wrong killed a 61-year-old bystander in the New York City suburb of Mount Vernon
Are you suggesting police officers should be unarmed?
>>> No society on the planet allows people to do everything that they would like to do.
I'm not suggesting that. I never did suggest that.
I'm saying the government doesn't exist to enforce your whims. People have rights, and you cannot gloss over it with imaginary situations and stats so low they're insignificant.
>>>People recognize that certain things need to be regulated for the common good.
YOU'RE NOT CALLING FOR REGULATION! YOU'RE CALLING FOR PROHIBITION!
LiptonCambell: >>>For every 1 million Americans, there are 29.7 homicides by firearm each year, the Human Development Index reported. Now compare that to Australia, which saw its gun death rate plunge by more than half since 1996 when it tightened gun laws, and now has just 1.4 firearm homicides per million.
But what about Switzerland? Fourth in the world for guns per person, but the UK has nearly 6 times as many homicides!
ghostgeek: In December 2012, a gunman walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and killed 20 children, six adults, and himself. Since then, there have been at least 885 mass shootings, with shooters killing at least 1,144 people and wounding 3,180 more.
"In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn, noted that the level of legal gun ownership in NSW increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on violence. ......"The fact is that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide.
In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide.
In 2009 a paper from the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention at Griffith University concluded:
The implemented restrictions may not be responsible for the observed reductions in firearms suicide. Data suggest that a change in social and cultural attitudes could have contributed to the shift in method preference.
A 2010 study on the effects of the firearm buybacks by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi of The Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research at the University of Melbourne studied the data and concluded, "Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates."