Gun Homicide Statistics

Danielinthewolvesden, do you have a cite on this? HCI is keeping this stance well hidden from their own membership.

On another thread, someone quoted one officer of HCI who, in 1976, advocated banning all handguns. Needless to say, I would hope you’d be basing this claim on something a bit more substantive than that.

I am sorry I do not. They said this some years ago, as their “eventual” goal. Since then they have been very quiet about it. They do not say they do NOT work for this, but just do not discuss it. I suppose there may have been a policy change, but my guess the policy change was in their promo info. I guess that if they officially say that that is NOT their goal, as opposed to just saying very nothing about it, I will admit I am wrong. They outsmarted me. They really did used to say this. You have got me there, sorta. :smiley:

However, see this site:
There is a quote from a Director of HCI advocating the eventual banning of all civilian guns. There are MANY quotes proposing the banning of all handguns. So, I am vindicated, but I will agree that it is not ironclad.

OK, been there, read all the quotes.

From HCI, there was the same quote from Pete Shields from 1976, apparently not speaking on behalf of HCI. Split up and used twice, to add bulk to the list. Other than that: a couple of quotes from Sarah Brady about correcting misunderstandings of the Second Amendment in textbooks and whatnot. And one where she (gasp) proposes using the law to go after irresponsible gun dealers - exactly the sort of thing th pro-gun folks in the Million Mom March thread suggested should be done!

If that’s vindication, it’s a funny kind of vindication. It says that back before Clinton and Gore, before Bush, before Reagan - back when Ford and Carter were running for president, an officer of HCI, speaking for himself but not for HCI, said he was for banning all handguns. I’m not impressed.

RTF: NO, lots of people quoted there were in favor of banning all HANDGUNS. HCI is in favor of banning all handguns, they have always said this. What the HCI director said was he was in favor of banning ALL guns. True, they no longer say this, but they do not deny it, either.

Can you find a quote from them which says they ONLY want to ban handguns? Since they supported by $$ the passing of California’s Assault Weapon bill, which primaliry effects long-guns, they would be lying. They are still in favor of banning all guns, I believe, they just are not stupid enough to say it. And, he was speaking as a spokesperson for the group, not as an individual.

It’s amazing what one has to believe to believe in gun control:

That a punk wakes up one morning, and thinks, “Gee, instead of robbing, raping, sodomizing and killing a young woman, why don’t I turn my $400 gun in for $20 and a pizza and go work at McDonalds?”

That the more helpless you are, the safer you are from criminals.

That you should give a mugger your wallet, because he doesn’t really want to shoot you and he’ll let you go, but that you should give him your wallet, because he’ll shoot you if you don’t.

That Washington DC’s low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to gun control, and Indianapolis’ high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is attributable to the lack of gun control.

That despite all the outrage about Corporate America’s cavalier treatment of employees, Domino’s Pizza’s demand that employees be unarmed is an altruistic effort to stop them from hurting themselves, and not a calculated financial bid to avoid having a lawsuit filed by a dead robber’s family.

That one can sue a store for having a slick floor, falling ceilings, and sharp corners, but if they refuse to let you bring a gun in and you get shot, they aren’t liable for enforcing that rule with others.

That there is no right of self defense, but the police are not legally obligated to respond to my cries for help when disarmed, but you can sue them if they take too long to get to a traffic accident.

That assault rifles are far too powerful to hunt deer and elk, and too dangerous for private citizens to own, but are too impotent for modern warfare, too weak to reliably kill soldiers, and have no place in the concept of a citizen reserve.

That the preferred weapon of a drug dealer is a $25 .22 pocket pistol, and the preferred weapon of a drug dealer is a $2000 machinegun.

That any cheap weapon is a “Saturday night special,” and any expensive weapon is an “assault weapon.”

That “Cops” and other shows are edited to show the boring encounters with traffic stops and the occasional drunken fool with a revolver in his pocket, and never show the millions of cases where the cops are gunned down in droves by machinegun toting drug dealers.

That “NYPD Blue” and “Miami Vice” are documentaries.

That an intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .44 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

That firearms in the hands of private citizens are the gravest threat to world peace, and China, Pakistan and Korea can be trusted with nuclear weapons.

That Charlton Heston as president of the NRA is a shill who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

That ordinary people, in the presence of guns, turn into slaughtering butchers, and revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

That someone who fails to clear his weapon, fails to point it in a safe direction, and pulls the trigger without checking the chamber, and blows his foot off is an example of how even a “trained professional” can be a “victim” of a diabolical gun, but people in the military, who clean weapons millions of times a year without getting hurt, are “dumb grunts.”

That the New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns, just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

That one should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis, a computer programmer for Y2K problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

That the best thing our kids can do to bullies and drug dealers is “just say no,” and fight back, and the best thing we can do to bullies and drug dealers is to give them $50 and wait for them to go away.

That it’s outrageous that the Milwaukee police took 45 minutes to respond to reports of Jeffrey Dahmer’s last victim running around naked in the cold, then returned him to his attacker without checking ID, but the best thing a citizen can do in an emergency is dial 911.

That the “right of the people peaceably to assemble,” the “right of the people to be secure in their homes,” “enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,” “The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people,” refer to individuals, but “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” refers to the states.

That the 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, allows the states to have a National Guard, created by act of Congress in 1917.

That the National Guard, paid by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state agency.

That private citizens can’t have handguns, because they serve no militia purpose, even though the military has hundreds of thousands of them, and private citizens can’t have assault rifles, because they are military weapons.

That it is reasonable for California to have a minimum 2 year sentence for possessing but not using an assault rifle, and reasonable for California to have a 6 month minimum sentence for raping a female police officer. That it is reasonable to jail people for carrying but not using guns, but outrageous to jail people for possessing marijuana.

That minimum sentences violate civil rights, unless it’s for possessing a gun.

That door-to-door searches for drugs are a gross violation of civil rights and a sign of fascism, but door-to-door searches for guns are a reasonable solution to the “gun problem.”

That the first amendment absolutely allows child pornography and threats to kill cops, but doesn’t apply to manuals on gun repair.

That a woman in a microskirt, perfume, and a Wonderbra, without underwear, is a helpless victim, but someone getting paid $6 an hour to deliver the cash from a fast food place to the bank at the same time every night is, “asking for it.” And you won’t allow either of them to carry a gun.

That Illinois’ law that allows any government official from Governor to dogcatcher to carry a gun is reasonable, and the law that prohibits any private citizen, even one with 50 death threats on file and a million dollar jewelry business, is reasonable. And it isn’t a sign of police stateism.

That the 80 religious kooks in Waco were a threat to American security, but snipers killing them as they left the building, machinegunning children, hiding the video evidence, possibly torching the building on purpose, and having no case to present in federal court is good law enforcement. And it isn’t a sign of police stateism.

That free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self defense only justifies bare hands.

That with the above, a 90 lb woman attacked by a 300 lb rapist and his 300 lb buddy, has the “right” to kill them in self defense, provided she uses her bare hands.

That there’s nothing in the Constitution that specifically prohibits banning certain guns, but there is something in the Constitution that specifically prohibits banning certain sex acts.

That gun safety courses in school only encourage kids to commit violence, but sex education in school doesn’t encourage kids to have sex.

That the ready availability of guns today, with only a few government forms, waiting periods, checks, infringements, ID, and fingerprinting, is responsible for all the school shootings, compared to the lack of school shootings in the 1950’s and 1960’s, which was caused by the awkward availability of guns at any hardware store, gas station, and by mail order.

That we must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time, and anyone who owns a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

That there is too much explicit violence featuring guns on TV, and that cities can sue gun manufacturers because people aren’t aware of the dangers involved with guns.

That the gun lobby’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign is responsible social activity.

That the crime rate in America is decreasing because of gun control, and the increase in crime requires more gun control.

That 100 years after its founding, the NRA got into the politics of guns from purely selfish motives, and 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, the black civil rights movement was founded from purely noble motives.

That statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control, and statistics that show increasing murder rates after gun control are “just statistics.”

That we don’t need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, and we should ban and seize all guns, therefore violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments of that Constitution, thereby becoming an oppressive government.

That guns are an ineffective means of self defense for rational adults, but in the hands of an ignorant criminal become a threat to the fabric of society.

That guns are so complex to use that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

That guns contribute to high death rates and should be banned, but tobacco and alcohol are okay.

That guns cause crime, which is why there are so many mass slayings at gun shows.

That guns aren’t necessary to national defense, which is why the army only has 3 million of them.

That banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.

That the Constitution protects us, so we don’t need guns, and can confiscate them, thereby violating the 5th amendment of that constitution.

That women are just as intelligent and capable as men, and a woman with a gun is “an accident waiting to happen.”

That women are just as intelligent and capable as men, and gunmaker’s advertisements aimed at women are “preying on their fears.”

That a handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

That handguns are useful only for murder, which is why the police and military define them as defensive weapons.

That neighbors who carry guns against the occasional lunatic are paranoid, because of the perfectly justifiable fear that every single one of them is waiting to turn into a lunatic.

That a majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population used to support owning slaves.

That one should ignore as idiots politicians who confuse Wicca with Satanism and exaggerate the gay community as a threat to society, but listen sagely to politicians who can refer to a self-loading small arm as a “weapon of mass destruction” and an “assault weapon.”

That there is no absolute right to a weapon, documented historically because the British government used to prohibit Catholics from owning guns. And that wasn’t a sign of religious bigotry.

That rifles with pistol grips are assault weapons, just like vehicles with racing stripes are sports cars.

That you don’t need a gun against invaders, because the government will know in plenty of time to issue you whatever weapons you need.

That Massachussetts is safer with bans on guns, which is why Teddy Kennedy has machinegun toting guards.

That most people can’t be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by, because they can be trusted.

That a woman raped and strangled with her panties is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

That guns should be banned because of the danger involved, and live reporting from the battlefield, which can keep the enemy informed of troop deployments, getting thousands of troops killed and perhaps losing a war, is a protected act that CANNOT be compromised on.

That the right of online child pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is a constitutionally protected extension of the Bill of Rights, and the claim that handguns are for self defense is merely an excuse, and not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

That the ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

That a house with a gun is three times as likely to have a murder, just like a house with insulin is three times as likely to have a diabetic.

That police operate in groups with backup, which is why they need larger capacity magazines than civilians, who must face criminals alone, and therefore need less ammunition.

That we should ban “Saturday Night Specials” and other inexpensive guns because it’s not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

That guns have no legitimate use, but alcohol does, which is why we issue cops beer instead of guns.

That police and soldiers are the dregs of society who were unfit to get any real job, which perfectly qualifies them with the high moral standards and keen intellects to handle these complicated tools and be our guardians.

Copyright 1999, 2000 by Michael Z. Williamson. Permission is granted to copy in part or in toto for non-profit purposes, provided due credit is given.

Celt: good post, dude! :cool:

It’s also not arcane at all, since most I know who’ve taken History know that the soldiers DID in fact have that ability before the Revolution.


An interesting article about the second amendment.


Not arcane then, arcane now.


An interesting article about the second amendment.


Hey, Elthia? Since I’ve actually linked that essay twice in these discussions, I think I’m aware of it. And I think, by and large, that Levinson’s view is close to mine. What was your point?

Celt - since you believe we believe all this garbage that you guys go around telling each other, you’re believing the most amazing horseshit of all: you’re believing your own fairy tales.

You know, you’re too lazy to type up your own ignorant garbage; you’ve got to C&P it from somewhere else, which is about as sad a thing I can say about somebody.

The reason I’m not going to respond to individual items from your list is this: instead of C&Ping the answers, I’d have to take the time and energy to respond, one at a time, using my own brain, my own ability to research, and (above all) my own limited resources of time. Why should I take hours and hours to answer a piece of garbage that took you five seconds to insert in here?

C&Ping and linking is absolutely essential for citing factual material that supports your theses, and for linking to more detailed arguments, made by others, that you have summarized in your own words. But the key thing is, in your own words.

This is Great Debates. Not all the debates are great, of course, but I like to believe I’m debating with other people who are similarly situated. If I wanted to argue with a published piece, I’d write a letter to the editor. Here, I take a stand, and you try to shoot it down; I try to parry your attacks, and so forth. Or vice versa.

But if you’re going to C&P pages and pages of stuff (even high-quality stuff) from somewhere else, I don’t have the time or interest to respond. If you’re not going to at least take the other person’s arguments, and put them in your own words, why the hell should I treat the words that you’ve borrowed as your own, and reply to them as I would reply to you?

When you pull that sort of thing, it tells me that, rhetorically at least, you need a machine gun because you’re incapable of defending yourself with your bare hands.

I’m not real sure what the point of your post is. First, you C&P my C&P, then take me to task for C&P’ing it. You then proceed with a series of personal insults followed by instructions to me about how to post. Then you finish with another ad hominem attack!

I don’t know whether you deem such tactics beneficial to your point of view, or if you simply experienced a lapse of discipline in temperament.

In any event, I can assure you that defense of our Constitutional rights (including the 2nd Amendment) is neither ‘horseshit’ nor ‘fairy tales.’ ** “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a freestate, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”** Twenty-seven words that mean exactly what they say. The framers recognized the right to self-defense as a natural right inherent to a free people. They intended the right to “keep and bear arms” a check against an oppressive government. It’s not about ‘hunting or target shooting.’

I, for one, am not about to trade my freedoms for empty promises of security from any glib tongued politician. If you are in favor of more restrictive gun control laws, I suggest you think it through some more. Do you honestly believe you can eradicate the criminal use of firearms with laws? (if that is your intended reasoning.)

BTW, I just picked up a new firearm yesterday. It’s a 9mm Browning Hi Power with no magazine disconnect and about a 3.5# trigger pull. It came with a trigger lock and the 10 round limit magazines so fashionable these days. I’ll discard the former and trade the latter for the more appropriate 13 rounders the piece was intended to use. I actually purchased it around the time of the MMM, but had to wait the 10 day period. I consider it my “MMM Commemorative Semi-Automatic Close Quarters Defense Tool.”

RT, I’m certainly willing to discuss our differences on this issue, but must warn you that I’m of a ‘no compromise’ mindset when it comes to this. I think if you honestly and objectively examine the facts, you will agree that personal security cannot be increased with more gun laws.


  1. I was C&Ping your post to emphasize the length of your laundry list of statements, and the absurdity of your expecting anyone to respond to all 73 (yes, 73) of them, just because you saw some list somewhere and decided to C&P it in here.

  2. If any of what you C&Ped was in response to something that had arisen in the discussion, you certainly didn’t bother to point out the connection.

  3. There’s a lot of BS in that list. Examples: “any cheap weapon is a “Saturday night special,” and any expensive weapon is an “assault weapon.”” Yup, that’s it, alright. And the dividing line is $129.99. “That firearms in the hands of private citizens are the gravest threat to world peace, and China, Pakistan and Korea can be trusted with nuclear weapons.” Of course, all gun-control advocates are in favor of nuclear proliferation; I guess I forgot. “That ordinary people, in the presence of guns, turn into slaughtering butchers, and revert to normal when the weapon is removed.” That more people are shot to death by non-criminal types that got hot under the collar than are shot to death by criminals. “That the New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns, just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.” It may surprise you that the same statistical tools that are applied to the spread of epidemics might also apply to firearms deaths and injuries. “That “NYPD Blue” and “Miami Vice” are documentaries.” Whatever.

  4. It’s easier to make some ridiculous statement than it is to refute it. When you just dump in huge quantities of them in a way that doesn’t connect with the ongoing debate, it’s reasonable to assume that you’re just trying to keep your opponents busy. And of course, in responding to all those statements, they’re bound to say something, somewhere, that you can jump on. At which point you look great, without having actually done anything.

So I stand by my remarks. What you did was BS. Cheers.

In regard to the Celt/RTF skirmishing, I am not going to side with either, but it WOULD be nice to see it toned down on both sides. It has precious little to do with the actual debate at hand.

The point of the C&P was to point out the absurdity of gun control laws. Sometimes, the best way to illustrate adsurdity is by being absurd.

“BS” is a subjective term. One man’s ‘BS’ is another’s truth. For example, your personal religious beliefs would be considered “BS” by many posters to this board. Yet, in a free society, you have not only an absolute right to your beliefs, but an absolute right to practice them as well. You are under no obligation, to anyone, to support those beliefs to anyone else’s satisfaction.

The Bill of Rights, specifically the 2nd Amendment, endorse and guarantee individual rights as a matter of principle. I would hope that you would not attempt to argue, for example, that you have no right to your beliefs or the practice thereof; or that you have no right to self defense.