What spins me up is that they are ignoring the common symptom in most all of the mass killings; mental illness. Instead, they (the politicians) are pushing their favorite anti gun agenda. What does this say about the politicians? Are they weak, feeble minded, incompetent fools or do they have a hidden agenda? Don't you find it strange when a politician says, "The common thread in the mass killings is mental illness, so lets ban ten round magazines." The anti gun politicians have a hidden agenda and public safety is not a factor in it.

I don't disagree, but what exactly would you do with the people you think are mentally ill?
What if I could say I think Les is a little off. Should they lock you up or send you to counseling?

 

Over a 24 hour period this past weekend, 7 people were gunned down in the gun-free city of angels, 5 more injured.

You never heard that?

Those incidents took place in Carson, Compton, Huntington paark, etc. Areas of the city, aka poor neighborhood.

Why is that no one talked about the uquival protection provision of the Constitution? Why is that no one talked about the irony where so many people died of so many gun crimes in a gun free city?

"Inconvenient truth", as a hero of mine would say.

I think @nsaspook covered at least some of it here. http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/t...ics-the-difference.125011/page-2#post-1009738
And here.
http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/t...ics-the-difference.125011/page-3#post-1009801

 

What did I miss?

The right for the individual to be responsible for their life, liberty, etc... instead of centralized government. There is a elitist condescending smell to gun-control where people are projecting their fears of some 'group' with guns into the general population. It's just as bad when pro-gun forces blame some other group for all the worlds evils. The good news is Hoplophobia can be cured.

 

This should be pretty good data from the FBI.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u...icide_by_weapon_private_citizen_2008-2012.xls
Best I can find on accidental deaths is about 2X the number of bad guys killed.
I have no problem with people fearing the government or terrorist. Both of which I think is a waste, but I don't want to see them rationalizing it with bad data.

 

This should be pretty good data from the FBI.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u...icide_by_weapon_private_citizen_2008-2012.xls
Best I can find on accidental deaths is about 2X the number of bad guys killed.
I have no problem with people fearing the government or terrorist. Both of which I think is a waste, but I don't want to see them rationalizing it with bad data.

It's impossible to try to correlate that with the number of defensive use of guns figures. All of the surveys agree that the overwhelming majority of the time that a firearm is used for defensive purposes it is never discharged. In a large fraction of cases in which it IS discharged, no one is injured (the intended victim fires one shot, often not even in the attacker's direction, and the attacker flees). In the overwhelming majority of cases that someone IS injured, they do not die. So the ~300 people that are killed each year in justifiable homicide cases represents a tiny (and unknown) fraction of instances in which a firearm was used defensively.

Let's pick a couple of hypothetical numbers.

The fraction of the time that a firearm is not discharged: 70% to 95% (from the survey data)
The fraction of time that no one is injured: (50% to 90%) (wild-ass guess)
The fraction of the time that the injured assailant survives: (50% to 90%) (wild-ass guess).

If we take the low end numbers, the it would take 4,000 defensive uses to produce 300 fatalities.
If we take the high end numbers, the it would take 600,000 defensive uses to produce 300 fatalities.

 

Why does there have to be some sort of parity between accidental deaths and bad guys actually killed? I don't see the connection between those numbers in the limited criteria of 'are guns effective in preventing crime'. If you want to expand that to private citizen deaths per criminal killed by citizen cost benefit ratio that's a OK but it's really a separate issue like more schools vs prisions.

 

It's impossible to try to correlate that with the number of defensive use of guns figures. All of the surveys agree that the overwhelming majority of the time that a firearm is used for defensive purposes it is never discharged. In a large fraction of cases in which it IS discharged, no one is injured (the intended victim fires one shot, often not even in the attacker's direction, and the attacker flees). In the overwhelming majority of cases that someone IS injured, they do not die. So the ~300 people that are killed each year in justifiable homicide cases represents a tiny (and unknown) fraction of instances in which a firearm was used defensively.

Let's pick a couple of hypothetical numbers.

The fraction of the time that a firearm is not discharged: 70% to 95% (from the survey data)
The fraction of time that no one is injured: (50% to 90%) (wild-ass guess)
The fraction of the time that the injured assailant survives: (50% to 90%) (wild-ass guess).

If we take the low end numbers, the it would take 4,000 defensive uses to produce 300 fatalities.
If we take the high end numbers, the it would take 600,000 defensive uses to produce 300 fatalities.

Because that is all it is - a hypothetical number vs a supportable number.
I don't know about you, but I was taught never to point a gun at someone I wasn't going to shoot.

 

Why does there have to be some sort of parity between accidental deaths and bad guys actually killed? I don't see the connection between those numbers in the limited criteria of 'are guns effective in preventing crime'. If you want to expand that to private citizen deaths per criminal killed by citizen cost benefit ratio that's a OK but it's really a separate issue like more schools vs prisions.

OK. Take that part out.

 

Why does there have to be some sort of parity between accidental deaths and bad guys actually killed? I don't see the connection between those numbers in the limited criteria of 'are guns effective in preventing crime'. If you want to expand that to private citizen deaths per criminal killed by citizen cost benefit ratio that's a OK but it's really a separate issue like more schools vs prisions.

Agree. But even something like private citizen deaths per criminal killed by citizen is not very telling at all. What you REALLY want is the ratio of accidental deaths by legally owned firearms to number of people NOT killed by criminals as a result of legally owned firearms. Unfortunately, that last number only exists in some parallel universe.

Another area that anti-gun supporters always fail to recognize is that they assume that if some criminal used a legally purchased weapon in a crime that they wouldn't have had that weapon if it was illegal to purchase it. That has ALWAYS struck be as super naïve. If you are a criminal and you have a choice of getting something legally or illegally, then there is a good chance you will do it legally without a good reason to accept the risk of getting it illegally. But if you don't have the choice of getting it legally, then you will simply get it illegally. The fact that it's illegal to get it doesn't bother you -- you're a criminal! If it weren't so dangerous and pathetic, I would laugh everytime someone says that the solution to gun violence associated with illegal drug dealing is to pass more gun laws. Hello!!!! If that were going to work, why not just make the drugs and the drug dealing illegal? Oh, wait, there's a reason why it's called "illegal" drug dealing!

As another example, look at marijuana sales here in Colorado (and the few other places that legalized it). Are we really supposed to believe that all of the people buying pot never used it until it was made legal? Or that if it were made illegal again that they would stop using it? Interestingly, in fact, the number of large illegal marijuana grows that have been busted has been skyrocketing since it was legalized -- exactly the opposite of what the proponents claimed would happen. I can think of a few different possible explanations that span the map, but I have no idea what the real reason is.

 

Because that is all it is - a hypothetical number vs a supportable number.
I don't know about you, but I was taught never to point a gun at someone I wasn't going to shoot.

I was told to never point a gun at anything I wasn't WILLING to shoot. I was NEVER told that I HAD to shoot anything that I pointed a gun at.

And that supportable number has very little relevance to the discussion at hand -- unless you are proposing that anyone that ever uses a firearm in a defensive manner must actually fire it with the intent of killing the other person.

 

a friend of mine lives in south africa. his lawyer told him two things for the use of weapons:

1) shoot to kill;
2) afterwards, fire a shot into the ceiling.

 

I don't know about you, but I was taught never to point a gun at someone I wasn't going to shoot.

You might want to rethink that. I'm glad the police and military don't operate that way.

 

Agree. But even something like private citizen deaths per criminal killed by citizen is not very telling at all. What you REALLY want is the ratio of accidental deaths by legally owned firearms to number of people NOT killed by criminals as a result of legally owned firearms. Unfortunately, that last number only exists in some parallel universe.

Another area that anti-gun supporters always fail to recognize is that they assume that if some criminal used a legally purchased weapon in a crime that they wouldn't have had that weapon if it was illegal to purchase it. That has ALWAYS struck be as super naïve. If you are a criminal and you have a choice of getting something legally or illegally, then there is a good chance you will do it legally without a good reason to accept the risk of getting it illegally. But if you don't have the choice of getting it legally, then you will simply get it illegally. The fact that it's illegal to get it doesn't bother you -- you're a criminal! If it weren't so dangerous and pathetic, I would laugh everytime someone says that the solution to gun violence associated with illegal drug dealing is to pass more gun laws. Hello!!!! If that were going to work, why not just make the drugs and the drug dealing illegal? Oh, wait, there's a reason why it's called "illegal" drug dealing!

As another example, look at marijuana sales here in Colorado (and the few other places that legalized it). Are we really supposed to believe that all of the people buying pot never used it until it was made legal? Or that if it were made illegal again that they would stop using it? Interestingly, in fact, the number of large illegal marijuana grows that have been busted has been skyrocketing since it was legalized -- exactly the opposite of what the proponents claimed would happen. I can think of a few different possible explanations that span the map, but I have no idea what the real reason is.

Yes, a poor choice of words (willing is a better word)
Yes, I have some legal and some illegal (straw purchase)and there is a counter argument that some of those illegal guns are stolen from gun owners.
If you stopped a guy with a gun by waving a gun in the air your lucky to be alive. Now if you ran him off and he didn't have a gun that's a different story.

 

Yes, a poor chose of words (willing is a better word)
Yes, I have some legal and some illegal (straw purchase)and there is a counter argument that some of those illegal guns are stolen from gun owners.
If you stopped a guy with a gun by waving a gun in the air your lucky to be alive. Now if you ran him off and he didn't have a gun that's a different story.

Yes, many of the illegal guns were stolen from legal gun owners. But, then again, most of the stolen cars used in crimes were stolen from legal car owners -- and legally owned cars account for a lot more accidental deaths than legally owned guns.

As for the number of times that an attacker (who may or may not have been armed) have been driven off by brandishing a weapon, the weapons was often never removed from the holster. When it was, it wasn't just "waved in the air," either. But the real key is that we have to look at who the overwhelming majority of criminals are -- they want the sure thing at minimum risk. If they approach someone with the intent to rob them and they see that the person is armed, they simply go away (quickly) and look for less dangerous prey. It doesn't matter whether they have a gun or not -- they are fully capable of figuring out that robbing someone that is armed, even at gunpoint, is a far more dicey situation that going a couple blocks away and robbing someone that is NOT armed.

 

Yes, many of the illegal guns were stolen from legal gun owners. But, then again, most of the stolen cars used in crimes were stolen from legal car owners -- and legally owned cars account for a lot more accidental deaths than legally owned guns.

As for the number of times that an attacker (who may or may not have been armed) have been driven off by brandishing a weapon, the weapons was often never removed from the holster. When it was, it wasn't just "waved in the air," either. But the real key is that we have to look at who the overwhelming majority of criminals are -- they want the sure thing at minimum risk. If they approach someone with the intent to rob them and they see that the person is armed, they simply go away (quickly) and look for less dangerous prey. It doesn't matter whether they have a gun or not -- they are fully capable of figuring out that robbing someone that is armed, even at gunpoint, is a far more dicey situation that going a couple blocks away and robbing someone that is NOT armed.

Ahh, I see the only way to stop a bad guy is a good guy with a gun.
But please explain this.

Edit:With 300,000,000 guns we should be at the bottom of the list. Right?

 

Ahh, I see the only way to stop a bad guy is a good guy with a gun.
But please explain this.

Edit:With 300,000,000 guns we should be at the bottom of the list. Right?

It looks like were are a pretty safe place to live when compared to the last three "developed' countries on your list.

Another view of the US & guns vs the world in crime.
https://mises.org/blog/mistake-only-comparing-us-murder-rates-developed-countries

IMO gun control is inherently racist. Who do you think will be given the 'good seal' of approval and who will be getting the profiling, racist stop and frisk and/or some other evil procedure we can't even think of yet?
http://www.salon.com/2015/06/24/gun...al_argument_against_giving_police_more_power/

There is an unrecognized gap between the justification for gun control and its most likely effect. There is no reason to expect fair enforcement of gun control laws, or even that they will mainly be used to someone prevent these massacres. That is because how our society polices depends not on the laws themselves but on how the police – and prosecutors and courts – decide to enforce the law. Especially given how many guns there are in the U.S., gun law enforcement will be selective. That is to say, they will be unfairly enforced, only deepening the injustices daily committed against poor minorities in the name of law and order.

 

I most certainly never said that the ONLY way to stop a bad guy is with a good guy with a gun. How does talking about common scenarios that occur WHEN a bad guy encounters a good guy with a gun equate to saying that the ONLY way to stop a bad guy is with a good guy with a gun?

If you were a robber and had a choice of two houses and you knew the one of the left was occupied by someone that was armed and the one of the right was occupied by someone that wasn't, are you saying that you would flip a coin to pick which house you were going to rob?

As for the graph, if it is all about guns, the how do YOU explain why Russia is so high when the number of firearms in Russia is estimated to be less than 7 million legally owned and about 12 million illegally owned? Is it just possible that there are many, many, many factors at play that have absolutely nothing to do with guns? There are tons of cultural factors. Most of those countries have populations that pale in comparison to the U.S. and the populations they do have are very homogenous. Most of those countries are no where near the magnet for foreign criminals that the U.S. is. Most of those countries are old by comparison to the United States. Population densities and distributions of those densities are very different among those countries. How it is possible to even think that a chart like that can be correlated to the number of guns legally owned by private citizens?

And if gun laws are so effective at preventing mass shootings, why have most of the deadliest mass shootings taken place in countries with strict gun laws? In the U.S., why are the highest homicide rates in the counties with the among the strictest gun control laws and the lowest homicide rates in counties with among the most lenient?

 

What spins me up is that they are ignoring the common symptom in most all of the mass killings; mental illness.

One step more, and it turns out a lot of mass shootings are performed by people taking psychiatric drugs, specifically SSRI. See here, for instance.

Instead, they (the politicians) are pushing their favorite anti gun agenda. What does this say about the politicians?

It says they are committed to an agenda above all else and are willing to use slaughtered Americans to help push it. The agenda is anti-GUN, not anti-mass-murder. That would be a tougher agenda, and would be bi-partisan. It therefore holds no appeal to them. No advantage, no edge. The left is always against individuals holding power (bearing arms), in favor of the state taking over all powers and functions. Disarming the general population is always high on their agenda, since it shifts a balance of power towards the state.

Are they weak, feeble minded, incompetent fools or do they have a hidden agenda? Don't you find it strange when a politician says, "The common thread in the mass killings is mental illness, so lets ban ten round magazines."

All of the above, but mostly they are partisans protecting their power and positions. In other words they're human. Leftist, statist humans maybe, but merely humans.

The anti gun politicians have a hidden agenda and public safety is not a factor in it.

It's pretty much out in the open and not secret, but yeah, public safety is merely a pawn to be advanced. I think it's also a very good tool for deflecting responsibility. It's the quick "go look somewhere else" solution.

There's a lot of goofiness going on behind the scenes in our law enforcement community right now.

And, this.
http://www.npr.org/2016/06/17/48252...es-sign-memo-objecting-to-u-s-policy-in-syria

 

Captain Obvious here.

 

What spins me up is that they are ignoring the common symptom in most all of the mass killings; mental illness.

And what spins me up is the same politicians that are pro gun, are the same ones that always want to reduce any money used for "mental illness" treatment.