Gun toting soccer mom dead.

The BBQ Pit
201

Could someone tell me if, in 1950, when you could order a rifle through the mail and have it shipped straight to your door, when there was no “assault weapons” ban, when you could buy ammunition at any hardware store, and when kids were allowed to put rifles in their lockers in school, and there were rifle and pistol teams in high schools - there was more or less gun crime than there is now?

Anyone? Bueller?

Was there more gun crime in 1950, when anti-gun legislation was practically nonexistent compared to today?

Could someone please answer this for me?

202

Maybe. But she was shot by her husband, who, as a Parole Officer, may very well have been issued, by his department, the very sidearm used to kill his wife.

203

If you will acknowledge that you were wrong in saying Switzerland has the highest gun ownership rate in the world, and acknowledge that Switzerland’s gun homicide to gun ownership ratio is roughly the same as the United States’ gun homicide to gun ownership ratio, then I will research and answer your questions in post 201.

Or, you know, you could provide citations for the statistics on which you are basing your questions.

204

There were fewer guns in the 50s. There are more guns now. The more guns, the more gun deaths.

205

There is no such thing as gun crime. A firearm cannot be a criminal. *People *commit crimes. It doesn’t matter if they do it with a gun, or a marshmallow, or a cocktail sword, or a Chinese fan.

India was the country with the highest banana production in 2007. Do you know how many Indians died that year due to blunt force trauma from a banana? I don’t either, and I bet it’ll take you a while to research it. Meanwhile I’m going to sit back in my chair with my arms folded and this very smug look on my face, thank you very much. pwnd!

206

Where again did the JFK rifle come from?

207

Your unsourced off-the-cuff statement which ignores per capita numbers is, how shall I put it, not very convincing? So I, a strongly pro-gun advocate, will do your legwork for you.


Year  Total Firearms  Handguns  Firearms/1,000 Persons  Handguns/1,000 Persons

1950   57,902,081     14,083,195     381.3               93.5

1960   77,501,065     18,951,219     430.6               105.4

1970   111,917,733     31,244,813     548.7               153.2

1980   167,681,587     51,707,269     737.9               227.5

1990   212,823,547     72,499,181      853.3               290.7

1999   258,322,465     93,742,357     925.8               336.0

From: Wellford, Charles F. et al. Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2004.

Your statement of “more guns, more gun deaths” I’ll leave to you to back up with a couple of unbiased sources; let’s make sure we’re comparing per capita numbers and not absolutes, and that we’re at least attempting to correct for economic, racial, and social-political factors over time.

208

But the per capita numbers that you cite are increasing. If no one had guns, there would be no gun related deaths. Obviously people would still kill each other, but it’s a great deal more messy, visceral and liable to go wrong using some other offensive weapon. All other things being equal, the number of murders is less without guns.

209

I could not help but notice that, in typical blind partisan SDMB style, you carefully tiptoed around the subject of turnip-based crimes. While this willful and deliberate Goebbels-esque omission could be due to your being a “glowering, brooding (turnip) psychopath”, to paraphrase one of the “bearded sages o’ mom’s basement” on the SDMB, it could also be due to your blind fruit-based hatred which veritably drips from each and every post you make on here. Your hand-waving like a Tennessee Williams heroine over the turnip-related deaths of hundreds of thousands of Catholic schoolgirls each and every day sickens me, and the only reason I don’t have you on Ignore is that I’ve been specifically charged by his Holiness the Pope to keep you under watch.

210

My point is in posting the facts whether or not they support one or another sub-component of the argument on either side. In short, pro-gun advocates should not be afraid of the facts, and anti-gun advocates shouldn’t be either.

If truly no one had guns, there would be no gun-related deaths. If truly no one had knives, there would be no knife-related deaths. But that’s a tautological argument.

How can all other things be equal? Crime, accidents, and suicide contain so many factors that it’s not possible to easily make all other things equal.

211

Remind me again of how many people in that incident were killed in the propane explosion vs being shot?

212

Pretty consistent correlation between your gun numbers figures and my homicide figures.

What interests me is the drop in homicides in the 50s and early 60s. Perhaps a reflection of unprecedented economic growth? Just a guess.

213

To show you one example of why this is wrong as an absolute statement with no qualifiers, let me show you an example, from my previous cite.

Households with Firearms
Australia: 15.1%
Brazil: 4.35%
UK: 4.4%
US: 39%

Firearms murders, per 100,000
Australia: 0.44
Brazil: 10.58
UK: 0.07
US: 7.07
Murders per 100,000
Australia: 1.79
Brazil: 19.04
UK: 0.55
US: 9.93

So what do those numbers tell us? If we want to cherry-pick them and not account for anything else, we can say “more households with guns means less murders and less firearms murders (if you compare Brazil and the US).” But that would be a dishonest thing for a pro-gun person (or anyone else) to claim.

I believe that our murder rate in the US per capita has continued to decline even after the Big Scary Ugly Gun Ban was allowed to expire.

So what conclusion do we draw from that? The answer - not much, because by itself it’s too limited and meaningless a statistic, even though I would love to be able to throw out a “see? The AWB didn’t do anything”, it wouldn’t be honest to do so in vacuo.

214

The fact that it’s inherently logical doesn’t detract from the argument itself. There’s obviously going to be an underlying, positive correlation with the number of people having guns available to them and the relative opportunity to shoot someone. The strength of this correlation can be affected by circumstance (and potentially measures can even reverse this historical trend), but it is an underlying truth. Compare this with the analogy of deaths caused by car accidents. Legislation, safety training and engineering improvements can mitigate these risks, but correcting for these factors, you are more likely to get run over with more cars on the road than less.

If you fail to see that statistically your likelihood of getting run over increases with the number of cars being driven, if you take away all other confounding factors, then you’re either being disingenuous or stupid.

215

The murder rate per capita has declined in recent years as well, even though the numbers of guns and handguns have increased. The reasons for this could be many things - one could be more law enforcement attention as a result of the “War on Terror”, another could be the rise of CCW holders (who as a population are much more law-abiding than the average person) purchasing weapons. It could be due to improved economics, reduction in racial tensions, or even changes in drug use and trafficking patterns.

All I know is that I do not know the reasons.

216

I’m trying to have a polite discussion with you about the danger of absolutist statements on this issue, and posting facts, and you resort to name calling like that? My second post to you gave an example which supported my claim, demonstrating what I was talking about with facts, and you still decided to just call me names and demean me. I don’t understand why you felt I deserved that abuse. :confused:

How unfortunate.

217

You’re right, I’m sorry. It was unkind and I apologise. It’s just illogical to deny the connection between guns and people getting killed by guns. Gun advocates who do so, sometimes get my pointy end.

218

Historically, the USA has had a homicide rate way out of whack when compared against other first world nations. That needs to be addressed.

The degree to which easy access to guns contributes to the homicide rate also needs to be addressed.

When looking at gun control as a mechanism to lower the homicide rate, I suggest looking at the firearm homicides to determine who is doing the killings under what circumstances.

For example, if there is a significantly higher homicide rate for handguns when compared to long guns, or for urban areas when compared against rural areas, or for impoverished areas when compared against wealthy areas, or for youth and young adults when compared against mature adults, or for domestic disputes and marital breakdowns when compared against stable relationships, or when combined with alcohol use as opposed to when alcohol is not uses, or as adjunct in crime when compared against no history of crime, then target these. Identify the problem areas, and deal with them.

219

Perhaps the gang bangers killed themselves off? (OK, that’s just wishful thinking on my part.)

220

I don’t think this story is funny or particularly ironic. I do think this woman was too irresponsible to have a cc permit.

How hard would it have been to take that gun from her? If I’m a bad guy, I pretend I’m just walking by and POW, just knock her ass out. Now I have that gun.

Concealed carry makes much more sense. If everyone were to walk around displaying guns, the assholes amongst us would have a field day appropriating them.