Then why do they have categories called “gang disputes” and “drug deals”? Are the police THAT inept?
I don’t see where a gun was involved.
yawn Cite?
I disagree. The number one cause for murder in this country is “argument” followed by “gang dispute.” The third is very far behind those two. 76% of those murderes happened with guns.
I think that is very important to take those numbers into account when discussing guns and public health, don’t you?
Pointing it at him made the warning all the more effective.
Nice try getting someone else to do your crime statistic homework. You started the discussion of numbers, so put 'em up.
As you’re so fond of saying. <ahem> Cite?
Marc
No problem.
If’n anyone’s still interested in Hemenway’s public health approach to gun control, there’s a substantial discussion of it in this thread (although Zagadka makes a pretty good attempt to hijack that one with emotional rhetoric, too):
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=255731&highlight=Hemenway
In any case, Hemenway is first and foremost, a gun banner. This new work by him is simply a not-so-new angle at achieving that end. See the reviews of Guns and the Constitution: The Myth of Second Amendment Protection for Firearms in America; Hemenway is one of the authors. His bias and reasons for promoting this new scheme are exposed by his contributions here.
You might also wish to take a peek at the “links of interest” you’ll find on the University of Michigan review of Hemenway’s book. It is quite enlightening. There’s a list of about 10 organizations which all work for gun control and even outright gun bans. Not a single disssenting opinion to be found. And this is supposed to be scholarship? I think not. It’s propaganda advancing a wholly pre-formed conclusion.
And more evidence of Hemenway’s bias. He’s a past director of Harvard’s Injury Control Research Center. An organization that spend about half of its resources on firearms injuries.
catsix I am not too interested in getting into another full fledged gun control debate. This is more to illustrate to hazel that the gun control side is NOT generally advocating banning all guns, but that any public health approach is met as if it is.
To the specifics. You are wrong here - although you will dismiss my source as “biased” - the Brady Campaign which documents that unregulated unlicensed sales of handguns are allowed in many states:
The last bit is what preventing immunity from prosecution is about.
I understand your desire to have the perception of safety that having a loaded handgun under your pillow gives you. I’ll leave the debate about how much safety versus how much increased risk it is to you personally alone for today. Been there in past threads, no need to rehash. But the bottom line is that the benefit to society of preventing handguns from getting into the hands of criminals is significant and perhaps worth the cost of requiring secure storage and that all gun sales be regulated and subject to background checks.
I live in New York City, which has incredibly stringent laws that amount to nearly a blanket ban on the carrying of concealed weapons, and pretty close to that on the possession of guns in one’s home. Still, people seem to be shooting each other all the time around here.
I wonder if we can hold the firearms manufacturers somewhat responsible here. If they’re making and selling more guns than they know the LEGAL gun market can absorb, they’re knowingly selling to the illegal market. And if they’re not vetting the retailers they sell to (i.e., selling guns to retailers who then engage in “straw man” sales in states with lax laws, which guns are then brough into places like NYC and sold on the illegal market), they’re doing the same thing.
Note that I don’t present what I said above as fact, so please, don’t jump down my throat. But I do think there is a legitimate question (and I’m asking it) as whether the gun manufacturers bear some responsibility for some deaths caused by guns.
Quote QTS: " I would argue that Dunblane and Hungerford were made worse by there not being an armed citizenry. Had nearby citizens had firearms, they would have been able to engage Hamilton at an early stage or whoever thus saving the lives of some of the children."
What an absolute load of bollocks - i am actually gobsmacked that this particular statement has not been picked up any anyone else from Britain.
1st off :bet you cant name 1 more random shooting spree in the last 20 years ( exluding the Irish troubles ). I certainly cant think of any more massacres involving innocent bystanders. Thats probably coz there are very few guns in the hands of the local population in Britain. Where do the nutters come from - ummm, that’d be the population of Britain.
Now then, lets look at the US. Everyone and his dog has a selection of guns and other weapons. How many gun deaths per capita? Cant be arsed to look it up , but im betting its approximatly FUCKING LOADS.
Does America have a greater % of nutters in the general population? Well, thats for another thread, but to say that Dunblane or Hungerford would have been better had everyone else had guns, is fucking maddness. What about tha small fact that there would be shit loads MORE massacres like Dunblane and Hungerford if we all had guns.
QTS: it is better to have many “well handled” massacres than it is to have few "poorly handled(?)) massacres?
Poo poo ca ca !!!
Sin
To bring some statistics that everyone can use into this discussion, I’m using the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report fro 2002.
Total murders in 2002: 14,054
Murders Using Firearms: 9,369 (66.7%)
Next, there is a table entitled “Murder Circumstances.”
Murders committed in the course of a felony: 2,314
Murders committed other than felonies: 7,097
Unknown: 4,576
The first category is broken down into:
Rape: 43
Robbery: 1,092
Burglary: 96
Larceny: 15
Motor Vehicle Theft: 16
Arson: 59
Prostitution and Other Vice: 8
Other Sex Offenses: 8
Narcotic Drug Laws: 657
Gambling: 5
Other: 315
The second category (non-felonies) is"
Romantic Triangle: 130
Child Killed by Babysitter: 38
Drunken Brawl: 153
Drugged Up Brawl: 84
Money/Property Argument: 203
Other Argument: 3,527
Gangland Killings: 73
Juvenile Gang Killings: 911
Institutional Killings: 12
Sniper Attack: 11
Other: 1,955
The deaths as a result of 9/11 have not been included by the FBI because they would skew what they’re trying to do.
If you combine the narcotic drug laws and the juvenile gang killings you come out to 1,568. I’m not sure what “other arguments” entails (murders not over money, property, love, or bar fights), however, and how many of those can actually be linked to drugs and gangs.
Now then as to relationships (just acquaintance vs. stranger vs. unkown relationship):
Acquaintance: 3,217
Stranger: 1,963
Unknown: 6,015
LLM: Several cases have been tried making that very argument (“gun dumping”); a supposed “industry insider” (Robert Ricker) came forward and testified to “closed door meetings” of gun industry executives where they allegedly secretly stratagized a nation-wide gun-dumping campaign.
A Brooklyn jury found for the defendants in about two hours of deliberation; the city of Boston withdrew their lawsuit against the gun industry(s) after comparing Ricker’s testimony to that of leading gun industry executives, finding that the industry overall is comitted to producing and distributing safe, legal products.
How could one of the five boroughs and Boston come to that conclusion? Possibly, they were presented with facts: Firearms manufacturers do not sell directly to the public; they sell to nationwide and regional distributors; quite often these distributors sell again to wholesalers before they get to the local dealers.
Only one manufacturer has, to my knowledge, been culpably linked to some form of “gun dumping:” Intratec, the maker of the infamous “Tec-9.”
Holding manufaturers liable for the actions of distributors and wholesalers is like holding Ford liable because one particualr dealership sells to a disproportionate number of recidivist drunk drivers; or holding Craftsman Tools liable because one Sears outlet sells to a disproportionate number of people who injure themselves with power tools.
sinical brit: this sounds like another variant that putting guns in the public’s hands leads to a “wild west” environment. Query: if America has soooo many guns and gun owners, how come more mass shootings haven’t been aborted by armed citizens?
Could it be that most of America’s guns are sitting at home in drawers and shoeboxes in closets? That carry, open or concealed, is nowhere near as prevalent as some people think?
To my knowledge, only two “mass shooting” has been aborted by an armed citizen; one, by a school administrator and another by a student at a college. In both cases, they were in violation of either the law or of administrative policies, but intervened nonetheless, stopping the shooters without firing a shot themselves (the school administrator may have fired a warning shot; I don’t recollect completely there).
Dunblane could’ve played out many different ways if an armed citizen had been present; the shooter could’ve surrendered when confronted; he could’ve “gone out in a blaze of gory,” injuring or killing himself, the confronter, and/or innocent bystanders; he could’ve suicided; he could’ve vacilated until police arrived with lethal or non-lethal means of taking him out. Only a time machine could tell us for certain.
What is certain is that in the two known cases in the U.S. where mass shooters were confronted with lethal force before they could act, they surrendered without firing a shot.
Thanks, Neurotik. Those are some good numbers.
But, to my way of thinking, as good as that data is, it illustrates pretty well a CDC finding published last year, to the effect that they (CDC) have no credible evidence that gun control laws have worked as they intended (no evidence that they haven’t, either).
The FBI’s data also has several gaping holes: after the fairly complete “committed in the course of a felony” category, we have several huge “unknowns” all over the place.
There are plenty of people who will not care to realize that those big numbers represent total murders, not just firearms murders.
These people would also feel perfectly justified crafting nation-wide gun legislation based upon a whole raft of “unknowns.”
I would feel loathe to allow such legislation to pass unchallenged; somehow, this position (which is the NRA’s) is attributed to feeling that no gun control legislation is effective, or beneficial, and therefore there should be no legislation. This is false.
We simply feel that any legislation, current and proposed, should have practical implementation plans, have defined and practical goals, and should balance individual rights against societal benefits in a fair manner.
DSeid’s mandatory storage proposals only meets one of those criteria (defined practical goal); how is it checked? Will police have carte blanche powers to search gun owners homes? Will gun owners have to have a “gun safe owner’s certificate” that must be presented to purchase a firearm?
IOW: How do you make gun owners actually keep their guns locked up?
If the law is proactvie, how do you square that with “right to privacy?” If you can’t, then the law, like most others, is reactive, punishing gun owners after their guns have been stolen (assuming the thieves didn’t cart the whole gun safe away, or “crack it” somehow).
Yeah, they have the crimes by circumstance broken down by weapon even more, but they all follow about the same curve and I didn’t feel like listing them.
Handgun Control Inc, headed by Sarah Brady who wishes to ban all firearms, is hardly an unbiased source of information.
Refers to all sales from private citizen to private citizen. This has nothing whatsoever to do with gun shows, and in order to have a booth selling firearms at a gun show the proprieter must be an FFL holding dealer already. It is also already illegal to sell a firearm to someone who cannot legally possess one, and not knowing that the person was prohibited is no excuse. All sales of handguns, whether from dealer to private owner or private owner to private owner, or private owner to dealer must be accompanied by an approval number from NICS.
It’s far more rare than the Brady Bunch believes to see these private sales going to criminals or juveniles. The mentally ill are not legally prohibited from owning firearms unless they have been involuntarily committed to a mental instutition. Law abiding gun owners by and large do not want to risk the jail time that comes with selling a firearm to someone who cannot legally possess it.
I like how the Brady Bunch includes the illegal purchase of stolen firearms in with the legitimate secondary sales such as my father selling me his old hunting rifle. They are masters of deceit.
They are already criminally liable if they sell a firearm to someone who cannot legally possess it. It’s a felony to do so.
And we’ll tackle that one as soon as we ask whether or not automobile manufacturers are liable for the deaths caused by cars when someone gets drunk and misuses one. The manufacturer is not repsonsible for the criminal misuse of the product.
Wow ExTank! You and I are on the same page. (Although I suspect that we are still on different paragraphs.:)) Still. Who’d have thunk it?
Me:
You:
Your willingness to rise above the negativistic naysaying bunker down and don’t budge NRA position raises the level of debate far above catsix’s silly ad hominem approach.* Now we can discuss how much benefit is worth how much cost (again including, especially including, the cost of limiting legitimate gun owners rightful freedoms to collect and use firearms.)
First off, I agree that enforcement of such a law would be spotty at best. Obviously privacy laws take precedence. Still, I think that most law abiding legitimate gun owners are, well, law abiding. They will in large numbers follow the law just because it is the law. Just like most of us do not run red lights even when we are sure that there is no police there to catch us. Sure there will be scofflaws. Perhaps they open themselves to prosecution or civil liability for negligence if harm results from their ignoring the law, and perhaps such would be enough.
Secondly, unless it is shown to me that theft from private homes is a major source of lillegal weapons (and I do not believe it is), then I care less about this than the rest. While I, as a pediatrician, am concerned over the accidental shooting deaths of children, my public health hat recognizes that such are an extremely small percentage of all gun deaths. The cost of unsecured guns in private homes is, from this perspective, relatively small, compared to the deaths from the illegal handgun market. This, hazel is why your op is a bit wrongheaded. The public health perspective has to go for, excuse the expression, getting the biggest bang for the buck. The focus must be on keeping handguns out of the hands of criminals. On interrupting the flow of guns to them and changing the circumstances that lead to their increased use. And it must do so in a manner that is least costly to the rights of legitimate gun owners.
catsix: What other industries besides the gun industry are asking for special immunity from negligence lawsuits? If a knife manufacturer is somehow found to have been producing a negligent product, or marketing it in a negligent manner, then they would be open to a lawsuit. Why should the gun industry be granted specific and special exemption? This is a different question that deciding what constitutes negligence. I would agree that production of weapons is not per se negligence and would think that it would be difficult to make a case of negligence unless you could show a clear intention to market to an illegal trade. Which I doubt is present. But some resellers are clearly negligent without committing an actual felony.
*Sources are always biased; the question is “is it true?” Michael Moore for example is very biased in F9/11. But his facts are in the main, accurate (with only very few misrepresentations.) The information from the Brady cite is true. Read the information in the cite. Your perception of what is required at gun shows is not accurate for all states. If what they present isn’t the whole story then present the rest of it but argue against what is proposed not what you believe to be their “agenda.”
Of course, outlawing guns reduced murders in England and Australia. Oh wait, it didn’t.
And the “Assault Rifle Ban” sure kept all those illegal firearms out of the hands of criminals. Oh wait, it didn’t.
Personally, I don’t think any private citizens group has any business telling me what I can or can’t own. Period.
And I don’t even own any firearms right now.
No other industry is under attack from those who would like to use civil lawsuits to make their product disappear when that product is not defective,. The firearms industry should be entirely exempt from lawsuits regarding the criminal misuse of their product.
Firearms are not defective merely because they are firearms, which is what this whole ‘sue them out of business’ bullshit is supposedly based on, the idea that a firearm is a defective product because a criminal can use one to cause death and that the maker is negligent for creating such a product.
The manufacturers sell to wholesalers who sell to either retailers or other wholesalers, and th retailers all hold FFLs and are culpable to the federal and state government for every sale they make. Where the hell is the ‘clear negligence’ other than in Brady & Ilk’s imagination?
As for what you refer to as my ‘ad hominem’ attack against the reposted Brady material, I’ve read Brady & Co’s crap many times before. It is always a distortion of fact, and the only difference among different pieces is how honest they are about their real objective. Sarah Brady has already stated that she is on a mission to ban firearms. She has changed the name of her organization from Handgun Control Inc to the Brady Campaign because there wasn’t enough public support for her real platform. This is an organization that twists and manipulates data to fit with its own agenda, uses blatantly wrong terminology like ‘gun show loophole’ in order to scare the public to their side, and has as much relationship with facts as I have with Mickey Mouse.
None of what you posted can be remotely corroborated by an unbiased source, none of it squares with my experience (which involves going to firearms shows in multiple states), and since it appears as the original work of a Brady member or employee, I’m going to call it ‘bullshit.’
Here is another problem. Let us compare handguns to a bacteria in the human boby. And we’ll say that about half of Americans have this bacteria. In most cases, the bacteria is entirely harmless- does nor harm nor help. It is just there. In a few very rare cases, the bacteria becomes sybiotic- it actually helps the body fight off attacks by other infections, and saves the life of the host. In another few very rare cases, it is deadly. And, the most important thing there is almost no way to tell if the bacteria will be deadly, benficial, or in 99.9% of the cases- sit there doing nothing. There are a few rare carriers who it can be shown are far more likely to be a deadly carrier- and there are laws in place that require them to be treated- which are pretty much ignored. So far, it has been shown that any drug that kills this bacteria has some serious side effects.
Would any sane epidemiologist suggest that we apply the “cure” (reducing or banning handguns) to the entire population? The only population in which it has been shown that a handgun is statistically dangerous is violent felons- and they are already enjoined from owning them- a law which they ignore.
Not that the gene-spliceing food industry has asked for (and i think recieved) immunity from certain lawsuits also.