Gun Related Deaths In America 2012

Yes, let's blame the guns and not the people. Because no one would have been killed this year if guns were illegal.

I honestly can't believe anyone is still anti-gun. There just doesn't seem to be a single good argument for outlawing them. Plus it's ultra weird to me when people who live in countries where they are already outlawed have strong opinions about why other countries should outlaw them. Personally, I don't care that Australia doesn't have guns. I don't live there.

 

Its a summary of the results from the empirical analysis. Its a hypothesis that has to be tested as, hypothetically, we could see reductions in types of crime because of the deterrence effects from self-defence. However, the evidence clearly shows that these types of crime increase. You'd know this if you have bothered to review the literature...

 

Gun violence increases when you have no legal guns. Yes crimes increase but not just gun crime but all crime. HMMM? Wonder if there is a deterrent factor in there? A deterrent the anti-gunners of the world simply ignore. The statistics prove this out; however, everything but the lack of legally owned guns is blamed.

 

Deterrence effects aren't found to be substantial. We wouldn't have increases in crime types if they were. There's even evidence to show (see, for example, the work by Ludwig) that burglary rates increase because of guns becoming a valuable loot.

 

You don't like the idea??? Then don't be the one that trys to take my weapons. And a theft??? A person comes into my home I see it as they are there to do my family harm and that's not going happen. And if you don't like that idea, don't break into my home.

Murder??? ABSOLUTELY NOT, self defense!!! Firearms in private hands are a REAL deterrent for keeping the government in check. And Make, that was the whole idea behind the 2nd Amendment!!

 

Isnt the idea of a armed populace against the goverment fantasy when view the news.

In any country that is tried in, the goverment eventually uses the military to crush the rebellion. While the rest of the world watches and cries out "human rights abuses"

One of the moset recent attempts in egypt, the protesters outside the egyptian military headquaters. And what happens? The goverment sends in the military to fire live rounds killing scores of people.

I am not sure how many were armed, but the loss of life might have been greater if they were armed, vs professional soliders.

 

You can find isolated cases on anything if you try but the fact that there is ANY hand gun crime in England says it all.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/1060864277-post242.html

 

That depends on the composition of the military. In the US (and the rest of the free world) it would be a little different.

 

Why would it? As the military in any nation blindly follow orders. Under an obligation to do so. And most of the young minds of the soliders be told they be fighting 'terrorists' or other such nonsense. Instead of any political insight to the disturbances.

So it be like egypt or syria, etc.. with professional troops of all varieties protecting the goverments position.

 

A very poor example of spurious relationship. You won't find one published study that refers to the handgun ban and a structural break in the violent crime data.

 

On this subject of gun crime, A policy which does work in the uk with the anti gun laws is the view of the police.

The police, if gun crime is used have a over whelming policy of force. The criminal element knows this and if a gun is involved, armed police units, sharp shooters etc.. corner off where ever it is, to quickly subdue the situation.

This keeps the gun crime in check, although obviously it cant stop it all. Gangs will always use guns to boost their operations. But for the general population, not having guns is part of life. Which i live in. To which talks like this online with pro gun views, seem alien to me. Although i do appreciate the passion some have.

 

The data calls you a liar.

 

How do you explain the data? I understand what you are saying but if guns were legal in the home or on the range what would be the harm? A deterrent is a good thing.

 

I have no idea on the data. That view is from chatters like Reiver who i do respect with his dedication of research on the subjects involved with.

What i do know, as it stands in the uk anyway. Since guns are blanket banned. Home robbers, a slim chance of the attacker having a gun. And range shooting, can be done. Still use guns here, responbicle enthuaists attain licenses thru complex procedures.

 

There is no structural break in the data around the handgun ban. Of course we wouldn't expect one as handguns weren't a particularly prevalent choice.

You are making very crass error

 

So gun crime never went up? I did not pull numbers and conclusions out of my ass as you have.

 

As I said, there is no structural break caused by the handgun ban. You can't refer to one empirical study that supports your position. Your argument is obvious hogwash

 

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12715

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

Even those who want to find a link between gun control and reduced violence can not.

Like I said you are pulling things out of your ass.

 

You were referring to British crime data (wrongly of course) and, when asked for evidence of a structural break, you've given a secondary source referring to out-of-date info. Golly! For a properly conducted study into gun control effects see Kwon and Baack (2005, The Effectiveness of Legislation Controlling Gun Usage, American Journal of Economics & Sociology, Vol 64 Issue 2, pp 533-547):

This study posits that one of the reasons for these conflicting results is the use of individual laws as the major variable. Instead, this study uses a holistic and comprehensive measure of state gun control laws, grouping states into extreme and lax gun control states. A multivariate linear regression analysis is used to investigate the relationship between a set of determinants, including the holistic gun control measure, and firearm deaths per 100,000 inhabitants of each state. The results show that comprehensive gun control legislation indeed lowers the number of gun-related deaths anywhere between one to almost six per 100,000 individuals in those states that have the most extreme gun-related legislation.

 

If you can read the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing charts I gave and the information from the UK/AU I would not have to go elsewhere. I swear you are a Stupido cazzo.

 

You've got nothing. You can't refer to Australia as we've already referred to a gun control measure that was found to significantly reduce death rates. You can't refer to the UK as there is no structural break in the data. You cannot refer to the US given, as I've just realised, the latest empirical analysis shows that gun control does indeed reduce death rates. You're therefore reliant on bluster and nothing more

 

In 1990, being deeply concerned about the number of automobile fatalities, the country of SpotsCat implemented a nationwide policy that almost completely outlawed the use of automobiles as transportation by the citizens, with a few limited exceptions.

In the twenty-some years since the automobile ban took effect, the number of deaths in automobile accidents has declined.

However, in the twenty-some years since the automobile ban, the overall number of traffic fatalities has remained constant, and more of the citizens are being killed on motorcycles, bicycles, and as pedestrians then before the automobile ban took effect.

But, because we don't have a research study that uses systemic methodology to isolate the variables, we can't state that the one is related to the other.

This is the level of shallow inanity we're being peddled.

I just looked out my window and it's partly cloudy and 62F. But because I don't have a peer-reviewed research paper, I can't authoritatively state that...

 

Did I ever say there was no reduction in death rate? I said an increase in crime and an increase in gin crime and an increase in violent crime.

With the decline in death and the increase in crime I hypothesize that two things have happened.

1. Not enough criminals killing each other with guns
2. No deterrent

 

You said unsupportable nonsense. We know that the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis cannot be rejected. We know that the 'gun control=less crime' hypothesis cannot be rejected. We know that you have referred to Australian, British and American data inappropriately, deliberately ignoring the empirical evidence that doesn't support your bias