Gun Control won't stop mass shootings

If I'm not at work, yes. Even if it's just a .380 pocket pistol.

 

most ccw's do............so it is split seconds away while cops are still minutes to hours away
What's the sense in having one if you don't use it. I actually had a cop dress me down for not having my pistol on me while in possession of a ccw.

 

The UCR is at http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats

Select the year you want, I used 2012 for the previous post, which sends you to http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012

Select "Violent Crime", then Table 8 for crime data by city & state. All data I provided comes from the 2012 Table 8.

Yes, I had a good idea of the crime in Detroit, and other places. I have spent a great deal of time over the past few years working with the FBI UCR & CDC crime reports and databases.

Detroit matters because, as Iwrote in the previous post, its all about location. Crime rates are very closely correlated to city size (glance at Violent Crime Table 12), the larger the city, the higher the crime rate. National crime rates are driven by the largest cities in the nation.

****

For my area (city of about 200,000 people), the violent crime rate is 239 per 100,000 people (national avg is 387). The total homicide rate was 1.0, rape was 19.

People like to compare the US to Australia, the stats for my area are far superior (safer) than the AUS national stats. And where I live, there is a very high rate of gun ownership, 24% of adults have a concealed carry permit, a "NRA Life Member" on a car is almost a standard feature.

****

You live in NY, look up your specific area in Table 8 and see the crime rates.

The number of defensive uses of guns per year is debatable because many of these uses are not reported. The gun banners tend to downplay the number and put it in the 150,000-200,000 range. On the other political side - gun rights - Dr. Gary Kleck of Florida State University puts the number at 2.1 to 2.5 million.

See the red highlight below for a CDC statement of defensive uses of guns.

Its a major item, the use of firearms for self-defense is a major factor in the legal foundation for allowing private ownership of firearms.

Under direction of obama's executive order after Sandy Hook, the CDC performed a study "“Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence". You probably have not heard about it because it did not result in a conclusion that obama - a notorious gun banner - wanted to hear. In fact, the report is not even available free - even though our tax money paid for it - you have to buy it for $38.

But the results are in the media, so I will stick to what you can access.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent
http://www.gunsandammo.com/2013/08/27/cdc-gun-research-backfires-on-obama/

Here are the major conclusions relevant to this thread:

Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

Defensive uses of guns are common
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining
“The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.”

“Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results
“Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”

This is incorrect and has been debunked repeatedly.

Even the CDC report mentioned above states>

“Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

From the CDC WISQARS database, in 2011 there were a total of 591 accidental firearm deaths. Compare that to the 16,730 deaths due to homicide. Accidental firearm deaths are rare. (Your link to CDC FASSTATS are top level numbers frequently abused by gun banners, you have to go a little deeper to get the truth).

 

You seem to be worried over peoples attitudes not their actions.

As more people carry a concealed firearm, has crime gone up or down? Down, and by a lot (see UCR table 1).

So you think people are afraid, again, so what? Have these people manifested their fear in criminal acts? No, they have not, just the opposite.

And you assume that fear is irrational and results in negative consequences. No, that is not true. People are concerned, they are cautious and taking precautions, and for good reason.

If you don't want people being afraid, then do something about the cause of their concerns. An out of control govt, a militarized police which is immune to public oversight, a poor economy, a national and global financial system which rests on a house of cards. Most people in the US believe the govt is going in the wrong direction, ineffective, and antagonistic towards its own people.

 

Wouldn't you rather live somewhere where that was not necessary?

 

Where would that be, the moon? Certainly not Australia.

There have been 39 people shot in Sydney this year, most related to an ongoing bikie war.

* Conservative estimates say there are more than a quarter-of-a-million illegal firearms in Australia.

* Gun ownership in Australia is back at pre-Port Arthur massacre levels.

* Carrying a gun is becoming more common and ingrained in outlaw culture.

* Gun amnesties barely put a dent in the number of weapons.

* Innocent people are being caught up in gun battles.

* There has been a steady increase in gun-related crimes over the past seven years.

http://www.news.com.au/national/is-...-of-a-gun-crisis/story-fncynjr2-1226690018325

 

That is the purpose of the CHL, yes. The only place I can't and don't carry is the courthouse and schools. Oddly the latter is the place most mass shootings occur.

 

I'd also rather live in a world where when I came home my fiance had brought home scarlett johansson in her black widow outfit to "play around" with. But that's about as likely to happen as a world where there is no crime.

 

You know, insulting is usually a sign that one person no longer has an argument to make. You don't trust your neighbors, and thanks to you, I'm going to figure out how accurate what I said is. So I guess, thank you. I think I've figured out why gun control in this country is going to happen just yet.

 

You see, here's the problem. You're not going to be robbed, assaulted, raped, or murdered. But you fear it. Why not? They're scary and on TV all the time. But let go of that fear. See the world not as something that's being ruined, see it for all the beauty it has. Walk outside without a gun, and you're not going to get hurt.

 

Speaking as someone who has been robbed and speaking as someone who has been assaulted, and speaking as someone related to someone who has been robbed, raped, assaulted, and an attempted murder victim through family violence, I can clearly state you don't know a thing of which you speak. The world can be a dangerous place. It helps to have your own danger to employ judiciously. If YOU don't want to do that, if you want to "depend upon society" or "your neighbors" or gun free zone signs, or magical unicorns from the rainbowverse where it rains puppies and blowjobs as your only defenses then do so. Do not attempt to force me to do so however, Rousseau (< which is a pretty strong word coming from me. ).

 

Wow, finally a crime-free utopia! When did this happen?

 

Bingo. Here's the thing: the front line in your personal safety and security is YOU. The average violent assault is less than 90 seconds in duration, yet the fastest response time for 911 calls is 4 to 5 minutes. Personally, I do not outsource my security to police. The wonderful thing about this country is that everyone can make these decisions for themselves, without government dictates.

 

Lib or Con makes no difference: Each group just wants to use the club of government to take one right or the other. The libs want your money and your freedom to opt out of things (which is why FDR got rid of liberty of contract) and the Cons want your individual liberties (your freedom to opt out/in of/to things) and your money..... the only things they disagree on is what liberties and what they spend the money on. Its like watching a lion and a jackal argue about who gets to eat which bits.

 

But Aussies and Brits do not feel they have to go armed everywhere, Crap - travelled in SE Asia and did not feel the need to be armed. Tell me - if you were to visit another country, one that did not allow CCW would you carry illegally?

 

You lot complain when I quote Mojo and yet post from an obviously biased site like that? What database did they use for "assault"? Did they include pub brawls? Someone spitting on another person?

Because here is the thing - we Aussies, Brits, most of the rest of the developed world, seem to manage OK without CCW

 

Seeing yall's stats on violent crime, after changing several (*)(*)(*)(*)ty laws (my opinion) you guys should follow suit (my opinion. I would not force you.).

Would I illegally carry a weapon onto an aircraft and then proceed to illegally secrete it about my person whilst in a foreign country, then repeat the process coming back to the states? Absolutely not, as I've never been quite drunk enough to be that retarded.
Was there a point to your question other than the obvious answer of "no I would not do that, are you on acid right now?" or what?

- - - Updated - - -

Yall don't do so hot actually, but whatever yall need to keep telling yourselves.

 

Don't confuse poor journalism with good science

36 people killed sounds like a lot - now tell me what is the firearm death rate for a similar sized city in the USA??

Yes, over the last year we have seen some drug wars, which proves we DO have the same issues as the USA but even with this our firearm death rate is a fraction of yours

 

We have different laws to you and include things in serious assault such as spitting on or near a cop - that was one new law that added a significant increase in charges (at least until the message gets through)

But given the givens - which would you rather punched in the face or shot in the face?

And the point to the question about guns outside America is that it is the culture of the place - you state you would not feel safe here because of the assault stats and yet if you came here you would not wear a gun

 

You're not the only one with funny laws and reporting factors.

Depends: Am I me and that's all that matters? Or do I consider those not as physically able as myself, and their rights as well? I'm perfectly willing to do either. Here: Selfish: No one will be punching or shooting me, I'll take every precaution to defend myself, and under the laws of my state may do so when someone commits a felony against my person or property, or my fellow citizen's person's or property. Which means yes I can and will shoot a thief absconding with stolen property in the back and be acquitted in a court of law.
Cares about the rights of others: I'd not prefer to be assaulted in any fashion and would prefer to have the ability (and therefore the tools) to defend myself from naked aggression and violation of my rights. Being a person who believes in the golden rule of treating others as you would be treated, obviously other people need this same right that I have.

See? I can do both. Which do you prefer? O they're both the same answer? oops.

Point out where I said I would like to travel to straya or the uk then? Go on. I'll wait. I wouldn't go there because of the restrictions involved for one, for another because of the rate of crime against its own citizens, to say nothing of tourists, and still more because I don't find rainy old england (or wales or ireland or scotland despite my descent from all 3 such places) to be a place I'd like to visit. Straya either (sorry guys and gals). I'd sort of like to visit italy (machiavelli is my favorite philosopher and I'd like to visit florence) but honestly I don't have the money to go, nor will I for many years, and its not a burning need to go and see the place. This may strike you as odd, but I've got an entire continent to explore where I live already. Why would I bite off another?

 

Yeah, that site is pro-self defense, but they posted their non-biased sources for the data, had you cared to read.

As I've said before, this is not Australia, this is the USA, I am not interested in countries I do not live in. Our CCW rate is skyrocketing, and our violent crime rate is plummeting. I think we're doing quite well.

 

I fail to see where I insulted you. I was merely pointing out the abstract nature of your posts. Who cares what somebody's favorite color is? How is that an indicator of how much I trust my neighbors?

I trust my neighbors, but my neighbors aren't going to guard my house if I leave it unlocked. I live 20 minutes from South Dallas. How many low lifes do you think can drive 20 minutes to my neighborhood? They are the people I don't trust. I didn't say I dislike anybody in South Dallas, but that is where the crime is and where the criminals come from in my area more than not.

What kind of neighborhood do you live in? Do you lock your doors? I really don't care as long as you are happy doing what you are doing and you let me do the same. You can say I'm desperate, don't have an argument, or that I'm scared all you want. I'm happy with my life and I will not trust the police to protect me. They will not be here to protect my family. They will show up after the crime and maybe find the bad guy if they can find the right clues to bring him to justice. Meanwhile I would be cleaning up the mess and filing a claim on my insurance. That may be fine for you, but I do not want to be a victim.

What do the police do where you live? Are they watching over you 24/7? Do they always catch the bad guys before they do damage? Do you trust them with your safety? Is that wise?

 

Good post. You know lots of people who have trusted the gubbermint to protect them or who believe because they live in a low crime area "it won't happen to them" Well the cemetery has many remains of those who foolishly believed that. My entire county has approximately 10,000 people, we have had several deaths cause by criminals who proved, you just never know!

 

It's not necessary here. I am exercising my Constitutional right in a safe and legal manor. Do you have a problem with someone safely and legally taking measures to protect themselves and those around them? Texas law says that I am responsible for every round that leaves my gun. I accept responsibility for my actions and will pay the consequences if I fail.

I knew someone who was shot and killed in a church just because they were in church? I wasn't there that night, but if I had been, I might could have saved her and some of the other 6 people he killed that night. I might have been killed myself, but the people in that church didn't have a way to stop him. You would like to keep them that way. If you disarm the law abiding, you put a target on their backs.

 

You are still on that ridiculous and incorrect example? The choice is not between a punch in the face and going home with a simple black eye, or getting shot in the face? If someone is mad enough to shoot a person, do you think without the gun they will just settle for a little punch in the face? Or will they grab a pipe, bottle, bat, or get their buddies, and beat the victim so badly they end up in the hospital, possibly suffer surgeries, and are possibly disabled?

And you always excuse the increase in crime after the gun bans as a sudden explosion of people "spitting at a cop" or some other equally ridiculous suggestion. There are about 16,000 assaults per month in Australia, up 50% since the gun bans went into effect. You want us all to believe its because 8,000 people a month run around spitting at cops. Ridiculous the lengths you go to excuse the gun ban failure.