Black Homicide Victimization in the Great Lakes States

The work of David Hemenway. A discredited individual known for pushing the narrative that the legal presence of firearms causes individuals to engage in acts of violence that they would not otherwise commit simply if firearms did not exist, or otherwise were not accessible to the public.

 

Nope.

But dogs require special attention. Guard dogs especially, being trained for aggression, are just as dangerous to children if not properly cared for as guns. And unlike guns, dogs can maim and kill people all by themselves.

If someone cant keep a gun locked up around kids or prevent it from being stolen, what makes you think they'll keep a dog adequately fed, trained, vaccinated, attented and leashed/fenced?

 

Fail. In the US, for each dog bite fatality there are about 1,000 gun deaths. Owning a gun is clearly much more dangerous than owning a dog.

 

Strawman. There would still be violence but violence that does not involve firearms is a lot less likely to result in the death of the victim.

 

The tool is very relevant. The fatality rate of violence goes way up when the offender is armed with a gun.

 

And the fatality rate for the offenders goes way up when their would-be victims are also armed with guns.

 

Which has nothing to do with my question.

 

According to the work of Arthur Kellermann, living alone and engaging in criminal activities are more dangerous than legally owning a firearm.

 

Such a statement only applies if the one who is intent on initiating the violence against another has no actual desire to murder their victim, and intentionally refrains from following through. If the desire is actually to commit murder, violence committed with a hammer, brick, motor vehicle, or even container of water is no different than violence committed with a firearm, and will lead to the same result.

 

The annual number of non-fatal firearm-related injuries in the united states would suggest otherwise.

 

Not really, the fatality rate is only as relevant as the desire to murder, it all comes back to the root problem, that's folks wanting to kill other folks. At the moment it appears more blacks are willing to kill people than anyone else in America. You also ignore the fact law abiding citizens aren't murdering people with the guns you want to steal, but you have no plans to stop guns from getting into the hands of criminals nor actually getting people to not want to murder people. Instead you wuss out and try some irrelevant diversion like gun grabbing, its sad and totally un-American….

 

The tool does make a big difference. How do you explain the fact that the Sandy Hook tragedy resulted in 26 deaths while in China a man armed with a knife stabbed numerous people at a school but was unable to kill anyone? Guns are more lethal. Period.

"Here’s the rather obvious problem with such thinking: Firearms are more lethal than knives, machetes and hammers. Gunshot wounds frequently cause catastrophic damage. And the ability to maintain a quick and steady rate of fire allows a gunman to maximize casualties. There is a reason that American mass killers choose assault-style rifles to carry out their attacks, not knives or hammers.

"On Dec. 14, 2012, a man wielding a knife assaulted people at a school in Chempeng, China, stabbing 23 children and one adult. Hours later, a man armed with an AR-15 attacked an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., shooting 20 students and eight adults. At Sandy Hook, all 20 children and six of the eight adults died. In China, there wasn’t a single fatality. The gun made all the difference."
http://www.armedwithreason.com/five-arguments-against-gun-control-and-why-theyre-all-wrong/

 

In discussions about public safety or crime, suicides are irrelevant

 

A better and more useful question might be to ask why black people murder each other at such a high rate without linking the question to guns themselves.

Millions and millions of peaceful, law-abiding Americans own guns who do not want to harm anyone, nor will they harm anyone in their lifetimes. So the problem is a "people" problem, not a gun problem.

 

This sounds like a false dichotomy. Why can't it be both a people and a gun problem?

 

That's a fair question, and I'll give you a fair answer. The reason is that tens of millions of people own guns who will never harm anyone. And yet there is a demographic in our country whose murder rate is by far disproportionate to their percentage of the population. So it appears that the problem is not guns, but people. Touchy subject. No one wants to touch it. But it is the elephant in the room. This is the subject that our society should be trying to address, openly, without fear and without recrimination.

As Americans, we're all in this together. If one segment of our American family is struggling, then we are obligated, as fellow Americans, to seek out the reasons for that and then do something about it.

 

This particular incident?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-43921567

Nine students have been stabbed to death and 10 injured in a knife attack outside a school in northern China, officials say.

A man suspected of carrying out the attack is alleged to be a former student taking revenge for having been bullied at the school.

The assault took place near Mizhi County Number Three secondary school in Shaanxi province as the students were heading home for the day.

The suspect remains in custody.

Chinese police have given his surname as Zhao and say he is 28.

Their preliminary assessment is that he was motivated to take revenge because he was bullied in his third year (where students are typically aged 13-14).

And since firearms are not going to be removed from the equation, the above statement possesses no relevance or importance. Find some new argumentative standpoint besides firearms being lethal in nature.

The only thing that has been demonstrated on the part of yourself is that even if firearms were severely restricted, violence and murder would continue unabated, thus meaning there is no point in even attempting to restrict firearms, as it will not address the true underlying problems that plague society.

The organization, Mother Jones, known for pushing an anti-firearms narrative, admitted the majority of mass shootings in the united states were committed with handguns, not semi-automatic rifles. Therefore the above citation is factually incorrect.

 

Why do certain individuals use firearms for the express purpose of harming others, yet other individual do not use firearms for such purposes? Can such be explained or otherwise theorized on the part of yourself?