I think I have found a pdf version of the report - https://galileo.seas.harvard.edu/im...lerman_InjuriesDuetoFirearmsinThreeCities.pdf Again I haven't read it .. but hopefully it will give you the info you are looking for.
Sure---defense by guns even when the attacker wasn't killed---is relevant. This is the conclusions stated by the researchers, For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides. That statement isn't valid if part of the "self-defense" data is missing. I understand they are purely looking at injuries---but the study itself is useless if its conclusions are based on only partial data.
Cars are a bit more difficult an issue due to the state having close to a monopoly on roads. Where property rights are not assigned it's up in the air who should set policy. I favor one of two things when it comes to cars and roads: either we stay landlocked on our separate properties, or we negotiate passage voluntarily. Either fits my fancy fine. In the latter case, the owner of the road in question would set policy. Guns are similar in that we want open and concealed carry, but most land is public without assigned property rights. Its dissimilar in that we're generally talking about ownership rather than use in the public. So only licensing for carry in public fits with the car license analogy. And even then, I favor the abolition of public land and the assignment of property rights anyway. [Hr][/hr] Property rights solve the issue because the property owner gets to set policy for his own area. You can restrict the use or carry of guns/cars on your property, or regulate them however you like. I can do the same on mine - everyone's happy. Of course, it's not like the government actually gives you control of your property - try allowing people to smoke in your all fresco area. Armed thugs will be around to steal 50k off you before you can say "oi mate!" So instead we're locked into a one-size-fits-all system the Borg would be proud of. The only say individuals have in their lives is through their irrelevant vote in the collective - the ever more unrepresentative collective, as more and more government moves from individual, local, and state areas to the federal, regional, and international sort. Hobbes ruined this world, as far as politics goes at least.
That's true, the US as a whole has a higher firearm related homicide rate than other Western industrialized countries. That's a simplistic view, however. Crime data is compiled for the US by the FBI and is reported in the FBI Uniform Crime Reports http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats Crime in the US is very strongly correlated to city size, the larger the city, the higher the crime rate. For example, for cities of 1,000,000+ people the violent crime rate is 706 (per 100,000 people), cities under 10,000 people its 300, in rural areas its 179. This correlation applies for all types of crimes - homicide, rape, assault, with & without guns, with & without weapons. 30 cities in the US account for 17% of the population but 41% of all homicides (UCR Table 8 has all the crime data by city). Most of the US is extremely safe but unfortunately some of those high crime cities have high visibility - such as New York City, Chicago, Washington DC, Los Angeles - and the rest of the US gets tainted by those cities problems. And when you compare US crime to other nations, the US has lower rates of assault, rape, kidnapping, and robbery, and violent crime in general - and by a wide margin. So we have 2-3 more homicides per 100,000 people, but 100's fewer violent crime incidents. Its a common thought that guns will flow into heavily regulated cities from nearby lightly regulated areas, but its not correct. The DOJ and others have studied the flow of guns into and out of these areas and found it doesn't happen. Even in cities with heavy gun control, there are so many guns already in the city that "importing" isn't necessary, and the guns that are smuggled in are brought in by gangs and drug organizations (for their own use) that operate outside the law in every city they operate in. It gets back to motivation - honest people will follow the law, criminals will not. It is relative. I trust the average person to own and carry a firearm, but I've been around firearms and people with firearms my entire life, and that's typical of much of America. If I want the freedom to own and carry a firearm, then I have to extend that freedom to the people around me.
It does include the figures for when there was no death involved .. but I think you mean figures for where there was absolutely no injury .. but can that really be claimed as self-defense, Self-defense pretty much means causing an injury to another to avoid injury to yourself or your property.
I read both reports. I failed to find specific such as, gang related shooting, type of weapon used in such related cases. I also failed to find how many events included alcohol consumption. Both of these reports did not include police shootings, whether or not it was justified. As another poster pointed out, the number of attempted crimes that were met by firearms is not included (frightened off) While the report does go into many details, it does not relect detailed demographics that would show the back story. The issue I'm trying to get to is the actual number of gang shootings, deliberate or accidental. The ages of the gang members and number of each gangster shoot by one shooter. It might be a good resource to start such an investigation, but it isn't "clear," leaving a lot of wriggle room on the part of the study. Those of us who are familiar with Gary, Chicago, New York, Atlanta, LA, Miami, know that most of the shootings take place in such neighborhoods that are run by gangs. They almost account for 80% of those cities shootings. One fast gangster can shoot as many people as he wants before he is stopped. Hell, he doesn't have to use the same gun, but can still be responsible for as many as 5 or more deaths. One shooter.... Needless to say, I don't usually rad Harvard reports because the progressive Liberals rely upon paid for studies. I sure wih there was an actual objective study. I think it would show that most American gunowners are, in fact, well within the law. There are some people out there with issues (mental) that slip through the cracks, but not nearly as many that have not. What is it we can do about all of this? I still say education through trained personnel at an early enough age. Do not use fear and terror as a tool to educate. Use sound thinking, response instead of reaction. Be wise because the genie is out of the bottle and one must wish wisely. Most people don't even know what they are talking about when it comes to firearms, even in this forum, because they have never touched a firearm, much less fired one....heck, they might be surprises.... http://www.politicalforum.com/gun-c...ocates-shoot-guns-first-time-their-lives.html take a peek
I don't think guns are necessarily the problem. The problem are scared people. If the media (news-media primarily) creates the notion that you and your family are under sever danger and that nobody will ever help you - especially the government - then guns are a problem. Afraid or scared people don't react calm and rational. One of the highest gun-per-capita rates in the world is Switzerland with somewhere between 1.2 to 3 million guns in the private residences of its approximately 8 million citizens. In 2006 there were 34 recorded murders or attempted murders with a gun, representing a firearm homicide rate of 1 per 250,000. To compare this to the US: In metropolitan areas, the homicide rate in 2005 was 6.1 per 100,000 compared with 3.5 in non-metropolitan counties. In U.S. cities with populations greater than 250,000, the mean homicide rate was 12.1 per 100,000. And I don't believe that the people in the US are that much different from the people anywhere else on the planet. I just get the feeling that their media scares them and people arm themselves against unlikely threats. I cannot judge, but I get the feeling that Americans have no trust in the people around them or their own government.
Why don't you ask how the shop owners in Ferguson, MO feel about trusting their government to protect their businesses from crime? How many nights has this been going on? If some shop owners would start mowing down anybody who breaks into their private property, the looting would stop. They don't do it because of how the media and the governor are treating the cop who shot Brown after getting his face bashed in. The law says that they can defend themselves, but the governor is giving mixed signals.
Not sure how to reply really as your response doesn't really address what the report etc is saying which is that a person (or members of their family) in their own home is more at risk from gun injuries/death than a criminal. According to a report filed by the Washington State Department of Social Health Services, a child or teen is killed once every seven and a half hours with a gun, either by accident or by suicide. In 72 percent of these cases, the firearm used was housed in the victims own residence. Many of these weapons were locked away in a secure place, yet 48 percent of those who own guns do not equip them with child safety and trigger locks. Hidden guns may be found and used by children often, yet in a third of homes where firearms are present, that type of hide-and-seek discovery is not necessary. A full 30 percent of gun owners keep their weapons at the ready in an unlocked, loaded state. Ironically, in order for a home to be protected against an intruder, guns need to be easily and quickly accessible and it is this very accessibility which makes firearms in the home so deadly. - http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/05/...ing-to-happen/ and it does seem to make some sense - if the idea of owning a gun is protection then it being locked away defeats the object. I am not trying to say ban guns, but there has to be a way to, at least, cut the number of injuries and deaths to the gun owners own family .. perhaps finger or palm print recognition (is that possible?) in order to render the gun usable to the owner and unusable to any one else. Certainly I 100% believe that mandated professional training should be required by anyone wishing to own a gun with (and I know you won't like this) a checkable database in order to see that the person buying the gun has n fact already had the training. It is done with cars (not trying to compare cards to guns BTW) you cannot drive a car without first passing a driving test so why should you be able to own a gun before passing a gun test?
Again. There are a great many things out there that are equally unsettling. Comparable to almost everything; Pets, Autos, pools, household chemicals, just to name a few. These are the dangers some are willing to accept. We really know that driving and celling is not a really good idea, but we do it anyway. Used to be guilty of it myself until an event hit close to home. The point is, that like a firearm, a cell phone can be used properly and considerate of the public around us, but there are a lot of people out there who are inconsiderate with their phones to the point where families are destroyed and children taken from their parents al because of a piece of electronic equipment. It could have waited, it could have been ignored.... common sense utilization Guns are no different. They actually kill less children by accident than cell phone/driving. But we convince ourselves that kind of death is more acceptable than death by gun. How does one balance one against the other? How is it more important to remove guns than to curb cell phone use while driving? Do we trust that the genie is out of the bottle when it comes to celling and driving? Even then, should we try to control it we'll still have those people who would still drive and cell. Again, think of guns like cell phones. The more care you take while using it, the less likely you'll be to injure another person while using it. But you still going to have accidents, regardless. You are probably more likely to be involved in an accident with a celler/driver than you are to be shot with a gun.....and I'm a safe as you are with a cell phone, probably safer, lots safer and I'm not asking for your phones to be controlled or removed...........
Accidental injuries by guns is low. There were about 600 accidental gun deaths in 2011, and that number has been pretty close for the last few years. For kids 12 and under, that number was 56 accidental gun deaths (which is roughly 1 in a million kids). It's not an issue, except in the eyes of anti-gun folks. Data from CDC's WISQARS database. http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html
Not sure why you are alluding to me be anti-gun. 600 is still to many, and to say it is not a issue is quite disturbing. This knee-jerk reaction every time someone suggest that there needs to be some real thought into how to reduce unintended gun injuries and deaths doesn't adhere anyone to the gun lobby cause, all I would like to see is some sort of measures that could reduce that 600 .. perhaps the gun enthusiast should be the ones putting forward ideas on this, after all they are the ones with the most experience. Thank you for the link, really very interesting.
Again I'm not asking for guns to be removed or controlled, I am simply asking for ideas to ways to reduce those unintended injuries and deaths .. hence why I suggested professional training for anyone who wants to own a gun before they buy it or (if possible) some sort of palm print that enables the gun for only that person - now I have not really thought about in detail how that could work, it's just an idea thrown in. In the UK it is illegal to use a cell phone while driving, unless you have it set up for hands free .. texting while driving is certainly not legal, so yes as far as driving and cell phone usage is concerned there are already restrictions in place in the UK as there are in the US - in fact I believe the restrictions in the US are more so than the UK. Furthermore your cell phones are already part of databases that include your name, address etc. Of course there are lots of things around the home that can cause injury and death .. however the majority do not have the sole purpose of expelling a projectile aimed at a target in order to cause 'destruction' to that target, and I can bet, not prove, that items such as chemicals are kept more secure from children than guns . .especially as the ideology of a gun is for protection of the family and property, having it locked away some where defeats the object of that ideology. So in essence I in no way want to see a wholesale ban on guns or overtly restrictive regulations, I just feel that the gun lobby people could do themselves a whole heap of good if they were the ones to come up with ideas on how to cut unintended gun injuries and deaths instead of the knee-jerk reactions every time someone suggests something. For the most, gun owners, are the experts and as such should be the ones looking for ways to, at least, reduce unintended gun injuries and deaths.
Well you have to ask, why do we need guns? To protect us against people with guns? That's kinda stupid, don't ya think?
[MENTION=61087]Fugazi[/MENTION] I just went back and reread your reply and I pulled this out because I've been thinking about this. In life, there are certain risks. You cannot try to legislate risks no matter how you try. Life is about the risks. People climb mountains at a very great risk. Firefighters take risks all the time. The riskiest part of city living is trying to cross the street. More people are hit in the crosswalks than in the crosshairs. It has gotten to the point that you take a risk when interacting with the police. It is my belief that you cannot legislate risk out of life. It is also my belief that if you try to cap a volcano, it will explode, anyway, it could be worse than if you had just left it alone. Educate instead of legislate. Teach awareness, not fear and terror. thanks for your time in this.
I agree .. however, we do attempt to, at least, limit the risks involved. Mountain climbers for example have specialized equipment as do fire-fighters, crossing the street is helped by pedestrian crossings .. none of these things remove the risk entirely. I am not suggesting using fear and terror here.
It's not fear of losing the second amendment that drives us. It's being proactive about protecting the very thing that defines america as being different from our former masters in Europe. America is the greatest nation that has ever exsisted on earth. We are the new Rome but instead of enslaving people we have made them free. Do we make mistakes, absolutely. Have we done things that were not in the best interest for all? Absolutely. But our way have life has attracted people from all over the world to a place where you can live differently from the Africa, European, Asian status quo. And that is what makes America great. Diversity of people brought together protecting simple ideas enumerated in the Constitution.
Do you have a link to prove that unintended gun injuries and deaths are a huge problem in this country? Take into account there are over 300 million people in this country and about as many guns. I'm not sure that in the grand scheme of things that this is an overwhelming problem that exists. Figure out a way to deal with the massive numbers of gun violence stats from inner city youth and gangs.... then you got something.
http://everytown.org/documents/2014/10/innocents-lost.pdf Does it need to be a "huge" problem before it is addressed, surely the death of any innocent is something that should be looked at and ways found to help ensure it does not happen? As to the inner city youth and gang related gun violence then I did propose something that would be worth investing time and money in. Again I'm not asking for guns to be removed or controlled, I am simply asking for ideas to ways to reduce those unintended injuries and deaths .. hence why I suggested professional training for anyone who wants to own a gun before they buy it or (if possible) some sort of palm print that enables the gun for only that person - now I have not really thought about in detail how that could work, it's just an idea thrown in. There are companies who don't want gun control but do want to make them safer - http://www.wired.com/2014/05/sentinl-gun-lock/ - so far they have met nothing but road-blocks from the NRA, surely it owuld be in the interest of the NRA to put their expertise into such projects, at least it would show many gun control advocates that they take the concerns seriously. The above would not infringe on anyone's 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms in any way .. but.. it would make it far more difficult for inner city youths and gangs to get hold of firearms that they could use. BTW I am not saying that this is a solution, it is just an idea.
This is a report is from Everytown. Everytown is an antigun group funded by Michael Bloomberg along with moms demand action. So I am skeptical. In essence is says that there are an average of 62 children a year that are killed by someone leaving a gun around where they can be accessed by children. However, to address how ever many children are killed by family guns, they could begin by prosecuting those who leave firearms around so that children can access them. Then you need not legislate the country as a whole but only those who are violators. This would be much more palatable to the country as a whole. There are already smartguns that only authorized users with a wristband can operate. But until they are cost effective, they won't catch on. They also have gun safes that are opened with finger print technology. Any one can buy these now.
Thank you for reopening that topic. I had forgotten that I posed that question in the first place. First I would like to address the issue of the war in Yugoslavia. In a war, in which your fellow countrymen are fighting locally and not in some distant location, you see a couple of things. First of all that the government is the absolute cornerstone of any society. During the war the local government no longer worked. Everything was for the "war effort", and everything tolerated, which in some way aided the war effort. That includes the civilian population and the government. Because this might be vague, I will give you an example to what I mean: During the war soldiers were not arrested. Because they were young and they walked away to defend their country the people tolerated their misbehavior. They could walk into a bar, get drunk, and even start up shooting the place. If some civilian got shot, it was tolerated as "going to the front" was seen as enough of a punishment. This experience taught me, that random people shouldn't have guns. The people who shot up the bar, used to be nice and friendly, but when you're drunk, everything changes. I felt that they lost instantly the trust they once had, and I didn't like the idea of people I don't know owning and carrying guns, because I didn't trust them doing the right thing. To easily it appeared things could change and cause the gun owner to misbehave and do something stupid. This experience also showed to me that if the government doesn't enforce the laws they wrote, the whole community becomes like something you'd imagine to see in the wild west. Personal property and rights have no meaning anymore and for some stupid reason which may not even be your fault, you could end up getting shot. If you were local, you had to adapt. If you had the option, you left. And I think that for that reason so many people leave countries at war. It may not only be the bombs or foreign armies they fear, but that the system isn't working on any level anymore. It feels like you're back in the stone age, where the toughest ends up having right, and those who resist just get beat up or die. Therefore the alternative of a strict government I can rely on and which will protect my rights and property is preferable to me. The gun restriction for the same reason, because I find it harder to trust the local neighbor to handle the than anybody else. I prefer to know (which in Europe is true often) that nobody in my surrounding has the access to weapons, not even the criminals. I know if I get stabbed by a kitchen knife it will be easier to survive than being shot. Also it will be easier to spot the criminal and avoid the attack. But that is my view. ________________ The issue of the oath to the US constitution: While the constitution is very nice, it doesn't insure an uproar against a tyrant. Hitler got elected with only 33.1% of the votes. Another civil war may do the trick. By that I mean that only a few states or a particular group which might be the minority disapproves with the person elected strongly enough to start a new civil war. While this is really really unlikely, the same can be said for the tyrant. The argument I think therefore is, if the improbable tyrant coming to power, especially considering the technology advancements since the founding father decided to write that amendment, justifies the extremely high homicide rates which do not transfer into any other country which is as advanced as the US. ________________ I know in the US the civil war is considered a massive disaster of greater importance but the numbers on any scale are just negligible compared to what we went through. Yugoslavia prior to WW2 had roughly 16 million inhabitants, and lost from 1941 to 1945, nearly 1.7 million of its citizens, which represents 10.6% of the population. In addition over the following decades the communists executed an additional million (best estimates) people. If you therefore compare to the US civil war, Yugoslavia went through about five times the heartache the US went through. We had more civilian deaths (950,000) and more military casualties (740,000) than the US had total losses in the civil war. And I believe deep in my heart, that if nobody had a gun back then, it would have been impossible to reach these numbers. But back to topic though...
If you are skeptical then dispute the findings not the site or people who wrote the article. This is the case in less than 20 states despite lobbying to have it implemented nation wide. This is not about legislating the country as a whole it is about finding away to minimize the number of accidental gun injuries. My point exactly, if a body such as the NRA were to promote and invest in this type of technology it would, inevitably, reduce it's cost, instead they campaign against it saying that the problem is "relatively insignificant and the technology unneeded." Certainly a good thing .. but .. this in itself creates a problem, as guns are supposed to be part of defending the home, having them locked away in a gun safe defeats the object. I cannot see a criminal giving a home owner time to open the safe, can you?
Regarding these "smart guns".... The electronics are not very robust, so the caliber is limited to .22LR As these things came to market, various anti-gun lobbies got the laws they wanted, to make sure that every buyer was registered and entered into a national database. This tells us clearly that the agenda of the anti-gun lobby is to compile lists of gun owners, for later confiscation. It also announces that disarmament is far more important to them than public safety. That's exactly why we in the pro-gun camp remain wary of their agenda. The antis define themselves as the domestic enemies of the Constitution. We respond, as the defenders.
Are you saying that the NRA should subsidize firearm manufactures, so they can make this technology affordable to the public? That would be a never ending proposition. It is not the NRA's responsibility to pay for a technology that they dont believe in. In order for this to work the gun owner would have to wear a band on his wrist at all times, including the whole family who may need to access this firearm. I am skeptical of any website like Bloombergs that has a biased anti gun agenda. However I gave them the benefit of the doubt on thier numbers, and pointed out that we fail to enforce the laws that are in place. There are small nightstand safes that can recognize a fingerprint in just a few seconds. I personally wouldn't use one just because I like mine handy with no chance of a safe failure.
