This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
  • CaryEngineer Jan 24, 2013

    Yes, I agree that gun deaths would go to zero if guns magically disappeared. But to state that homicide/suicide rate would immediately and permanently drop by the amount currently attributed to firearms today is naive...where there is a will, there is a way.

    Hence my continuation as to what other "ways" you suggest we outlaw. We saw how well the 21st amendment worked...you cannot legislate social behavior.

    Instead, how about we focus on parenting and personal responsibility.

    Should there be more oversight into the sale and ownership of guns?...probably. I would go so far as to state you must have appropriate training, licensing and proof that your have the means to adequately protect a firearm to legally operate/own one (similar to vehicles and CCP).

    Here's my "thought experiment"...Apply the same requirements on becoming a parent...appropriate training and proof of means to care and support for said children. Criminalize having children without meeting these requirements....hmmm

  • junk999 Jan 24, 2013

    "Your conclusion is that if we could (magically) remove every firearm from every person that 10's of thousands of lives will be spared? Sorry, but the data is not there"

    Let's do a little thought experiment, shall we? Imagine that for one day there were zero guns in America. How many gun deaths would there be that day? We know what the rate is at 300,000,000 guns. Do you think the rate goes down if we add more guns to what we have now? What's the ideal number of guns for the fewest number of gun deaths?

    And regarding "past tense" on the engineering thing - retired, is that a problem?

  • junk999 Jan 24, 2013

    "the conclusion is that these restrictions did nothing (statistically) to improve the situation. So more laws will improve the situation because...why?"

    You appear to have a significant reading comprehension problem. The CDC paper allows no such conclusion. It allows no conclusion at all on anything, since it could only say there was insufficient evidence for a conclusion. How is that unclear?

    "Obviously your "presumption" was wrong...no, you cannot "follow a link" to the source papers"

    You can follow the links to the titles and authors of the referenced papers, and with a little effort find the papers. Are you sure you're an engineer?

    "Stop living in fear"

    I actually don't have enough fear to feel that I need a gun to feel safe. You should be giving that advice to gun owners. If we could lessen the fear in our society the feeling of a need for guns for protection would diminish, and everyone would win.

  • junk999 Jan 24, 2013

    "At the very least it puts the lie to the claim of your study that all the evidence clearly points in one direction"

    Uh, no, it does no such thing. The CDC paper was a review of gun laws. The studies I linked looked at gun ownership versus violence. At the very most the CDC paper reaches no conclusion, so how does it "put the lie" to anything, let alone relationships that it didn't even consider? Your statement is utter nonsense.

  • CaryEngineer Jan 24, 2013

    junk999- "past tense" on the engineering thing...yeah we have to be pragmatic.
    Umm...the conclusion is that these restrictions did nothing (statistically) to improve the situation. So more laws will improve the situation because...why? You are advocating to create laws that don't exist...so yes, YOU are trying to push your beliefs on ME.

    Obviously your "presumption" was wrong...no, you cannot "follow a link" to the source papers (very convenient).

    Your conclusion is that if we could (magically) remove every firearm from every person that 10's of thousands of lives will be spared? Sorry, but the data is not there...and I can point to as many legitimate studies as you can.

    Should we remove knives? Should we remove ANFO and it's components from availability? Should we prevent personal ownership of aircraft? Cars? Hammers?
    A firearm is a tool, and like any tool can be misused.

    Stop living in fear, parent your children, hold people responsible and punish those that commit the crime.

  • junkmail5 Jan 24, 2013

    "In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws"

    Is that your idea of a useful conclusion?
    junk999

    At the very least it puts the lie to the claim of your study that all the evidence clearly points in one direction

  • junk999 Jan 24, 2013

    "Can you explain why your original harvard link claims there's no evidence on the other side" - junkmail5

    You would need to ask Mr. Hemenway why he made observation that there's no evidence that more guns equals less crime. You linked a study that you claimed answered all the questions, and I offered links to studies that provide evidence for a different conclusion. It's never the case that one study answers all the questions of a complex topic.

  • junk999 Jan 24, 2013

    CaryEngineer - Yeah, I have a science degree and worked as an engineer. So I'm pretty clear on the difference.

    I did presume you can follow a link to the source publications, and your free to evaluate their data and conclusions. Perhaps you could do your own research and present your findings. Let's hope it would be in your 10% that's not made up.

    "The difference is YOU are trying push your beliefs upon me." Really? So interpretations of the 2nd Amendment leaving out the militia clause and thus "justifying" universal, personal gun ownership, at the cost of 10's of thousands of lives per year, is not pushing your belief on others? The NRA is not pushing it's beliefs on others?

    Here's the summary of the CDC review paper you linked:

    "In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws"

    Is that your idea of a useful conclusion?

  • CaryEngineer Jan 24, 2013

    junk999-Global Warming? Evolution? Wow!
    So do you know the difference between an engineer and a scientist?
    Engineers can't bend reality to fit the data points.

    All your links are are snippets and personal interpretations to publications that are not even presented (let alone the data set the publications are based on). You can choose to believe whatever you wish to...personally I choose not to let someone else do my thinking for me...present the data, I will make my own conclusions.

    You can choose to wear Birkenstocks, Live in a commune, Let the Village raise your children, Not eat anything with DNA...I don't care. The difference is YOU are trying push your beliefs upon me.
    More laws and restrictions are apparently your answer to societies ills (as opposed to personal responsibility and effective parenting).
    Here is an evaluation by the CDC noting the effectiveness of gun laws.
    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
    ...Obviously NRA funded because you do not agree.

  • junkmail5 Jan 24, 2013

    CaryEngineer - 90% of statistics might be made up by the NRA, but that's not the way science is done. Published scientific studies are peer reviewed. Data fraud is a huge deal, and will absolutely kill a career. If you think 90% of the data published in Harvard studies is fabricated then we have nothing more to discuss. Clearly the NRA has a huge monetary interest in "proving" that guns do not increase deaths. Why would Harvard have such a bias?- junk999

    Can you explain why your original harvard link claims there's no evidence on the other side.... but my own harvard link explicitly IS evidence showing murder is as low or lower in many western nations with high gun ownership rates than in ones with low rates?

  • junk999 Jan 23, 2013

    CaryEngineer - 90% of statistics might be made up by the NRA, but that's not the way science is done. Published scientific studies are peer reviewed. Data fraud is a huge deal, and will absolutely kill a career. If you think 90% of the data published in Harvard studies is fabricated then we have nothing more to discuss. Clearly the NRA has a huge monetary interest in "proving" that guns do not increase deaths. Why would Harvard have such a bias? Harvard itself has published studies on both sides of the issue. The problem I have with the right is they are perfectly willing to ignore science if it does not support their preferred view. Global warming and evolution are key examples. Why would guns be any different? If we can't use science to determine facts then what method should we use? Opinion? A vote? Profit? Reality is not a democracy, or a game. Lives are at stake. For some owning guns is more important than lives. I have a different priority.

  • Lovey Jan 23, 2013

    I think charges should be filed. If this is not an irresponsible gun owner, then what is? This should be a warning to others. I call this irresponsible.

  • CaryEngineer Jan 23, 2013

    junk999...And I suppose you would argue that that site is presenting an unbiased point of view?

    Not saying they don't have "data", but I'm sure the NRA has a different database that would have different results.

    After all "90% of statistics are made up"
    http://hallcountytruth.com/90-of-quoted-statistics-are-made-up/

    :)

  • CaryEngineer Jan 23, 2013

    jjsmith1973- Huh?

    The statistic was presented by someone else...all I did was present more information on a statistic.
    My point is IT IS A STATISTIC...so if we were to present a statistic that 80% of gun homicide was committed by some minority...what would it PROVE? Does it define CAUSE AND EFFECT?

    If it only were so easy.
    ...here is a statistic for you:
    11,101 people died by gun homicide in US in 2011.
    2,513,171 people died in US in 2011.
    99.6% of the people that died did not die from a gun homicide.

    What did that statistic prove? I don't know...be happy.

  • junk999 Jan 23, 2013

    junkmail5 - It's the duel of studies. I linked a page to multiple studies that show more guns = more homicide and suicide in the US and other 1st world countries.

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-possession-storage-and-use/

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-carrying/

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/misperceptions/

  • jjsmith1973 Jan 23, 2013

    @ Cary engineer but you compare car deaths to gun deaths and you want to remove facts of the stats of motor vehicle deaths and use total numbers to prove your point and cherry pick the number for gun deaths as in just homicide and not any other death caused by guns. Homicide by definition with intent to harm there are more gun homicide then car homicides. Any day of the week and twice on Sundays

  • CaryEngineer Jan 23, 2013

    -junkmail5
    http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

    junk999-
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/sunday-review/more-guns-more-killing.html?_r=0

    Let's face the "facts"...we can all produce data that appears to prove our point.

    How about we just get back to complaining about the economy? Can we all agree on that? :)

  • jjsmith1973 Jan 23, 2013

    Junkmail which countries are your saying show more gun ownership equals less crime? The countries name specifically please. Now that you throw our country out as the exception in your reply to my previous question

  • CaryEngineer Jan 23, 2013

    "corgimom06 - You are trying to sugar coat."...and you are trying to obfuscate.

    Gun control advocates are not citing suicide statistics for a reason for attacking the 2nd amendment. Nobody is hyping scenarios where somebody is going to shove a gun in your hand and force you to commit suicide.

    If you are afraid that if you have access to a gun that you will commit suicide...please don't purchase one. But don't tell me that I should not have the right to purchase one because maybe I will commit suicide, you're not my mother.

    I just chose to present a little background on your statistic...facts are our friends.

  • junkmail5 Jan 23, 2013

    junkmail5 - You didn't provide a link. -junk999

    Sure I did. From my earlier post-
    "
    Speaking of harvard- http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
    "

    That's a link

  • junk999 Jan 23, 2013

    junkmail5 - You didn't provide a link.

    What would Japan's suicide rate be if they had the same rate of gun ownership at in the US? And what would our gun death rates (homicide and suicide) be if we had their gun ownership rate?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/sunday-review/more-guns-more-killing.html?_r=0

    cientific studies have consistently found that places with more guns have more violent deaths, both homicides and suicides. Women and children are more likely to die if there’s a gun in the house. The more guns in an area, the higher the local suicide rates. “Generally, if you live in a civilized society, more guns mean more death,” said David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. “There is no evidence that having more guns reduces crime. None at all.”

  • junkmail5 Jan 23, 2013

    @ junkmail nice spin and of those nine how many are considered global world leading countries and how many are poor countries of the former USSR?
    jjsmith1973

    I gave you a link to the entire study, all your questions are answered therein :)

    Given your theory more guns less crime. Why isn't crime barely existent at all in America?
    jjsmith1973

    That's sorta the point. All those other high-gun nations have low crime, often lower than the low gun nations.

    The US is an exception.

    Which tells us it's something OTHER than the guns.

    Something at a social/society level.

    Given most of the gun murders are drug/gang related that's a decent clue right there.

    End the war on drugs, dry up the black market for it, and a ton of crime goes away. Same thing happened with prohibition.

  • jjsmith1973 Jan 23, 2013

    @junkmail 1 and 3 Americans own guns. 350 million Americans, 310 million guns. Given your theory more guns less crime. Why isn't crime barely existent at all in America?

  • jjsmith1973 Jan 23, 2013

    @ junkmail nice spin and of those nine how many are considered global world leading countries and how many are poor countries of the former USSR?

  • jjsmith1973 Jan 23, 2013

    People comparing driving, @lady justice are you serious no one is convicted go to court your name shouldn't be lady justice. Second I have no problem lets regulate guns like driving no seat belt ticket. No safety glasses while shooting ticket. Speeding ticket, shooting at items instead of a certified target, or animal after taking a hunting course ticket. Neglect in driving and proper precautions with children ticket or jail, guns same thing. Licenses, taxes, safety inspections yearly, eye evaluations, test, renewal fees, revocation for neglect. Etc

  • junkmail5 Jan 23, 2013

    Funny that Japan is used as an example here, since it's also an example of very strict gun control, and very low rates of crime and violence.- junk999

    The japanese suicide rate is much higher than the US, ditto gun-controlling russia.

    How do you relate that to your claim that more guns=more suicide?

    Also, more guns = more homicide -junk999

    Speaking of harvard-
    http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

    Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership.

    If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death.

    Quite the opposite though.

  • junk999 Jan 23, 2013

    More gun suicide data:

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/

    Essentially, more guns = more suicide

    Also, more guns = more homicide

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

  • junk999 Jan 23, 2013

    Good article on guns and suicide.
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0805923
    Here's a hint, the presence of a gun in the house has a major influence of the rate of suicides. It's not so simple to just say they would do it some other way. That's often not true. Funny that Japan is used as an example here, since it's also an example of very strict gun control, and very low rates of crime and violence. So the argument that more guns makes us safer is not supported by Japan.

  • junkmail5 Jan 23, 2013

    Cary Engineer-suicide by gun is not a gun death? -Corgimom06

    It's not a death you can attribute to the GUN really. Because they'd do it another way.

    See Japan, where the gun ownership rate is near 0, but suicide rate is far higher than the US.

    So it's not very useful when comparing statistics on 'gun death'

    That's why using the murder figure, which is around 8000/yr, is the one that makes sense to use.

  • joeBob Jan 23, 2013

    Evidently "they" do think it is dangerous now since "they" decided not to allow patrons to bring guns into the show. Remains to be seen whether this change in rules will stand. GRNC says this is in violation of the rules/regs governing the events held at the fairgrounds and what those rules say about patrons being able to sell their own property or concessions. "They" may have over stepped their authority.

  • corgimom06 Jan 23, 2013

    Cary Engineer-suicide by gun is not a gun death? I never said anything about homocide. I was talking about gun deaths, plain and simple. You are trying to sugar coat.

  • Lady Justice Jan 23, 2013

    "Lady Justice, yes we train and license people to drive cars, and we also hold them responsible for their "accidents". Apparently, we don't feel the need to hold this guy responsible?"

    IF a person is charged with a criminal offense for an accident, then it is because they violated a law. But, in my experience, there are almost no convictions for law violations that were related to a motor vehicle accident.

  • ThePhwner Jan 23, 2013

    and regarding the supposed Jefferson quote, two things:

    1. There's no proof Jefferson ever said this.

    2. Let's pretend he did. If so, the reverse is true; those who do not hammer their guns into plows will defend the farmers. You need both sides of that coin.

  • ThePhwner Jan 23, 2013

    @jjsmith

    Yes. Yes. YES.

  • junkmail5 Jan 23, 2013

    Note to self: If I ever lose it and go get a gun and walk into a crowded public place like a gun show and discharge my weapon in the general direction of various innocent people, I'll just say it was an accident. No laws broken. Yep, I'll bet they don't even detain me at the scene. Uh huh.
    jcthai

    If this was an intentional shooting it was arguably the least effective one ever.

    Someone shows no signs of impaired driving pulls up to a checkpoint blows .08 gets arrested charged with a misdemeanor losses their job, tons of fines, can't drive for a year, hurt no one damaged zero property. Man transports firearm neglects safety discharges firearm injures people and he doesn't even get a ticket.- jjsmith

    yes, because the first guy broke a law. The second one didn't.

  • CaryEngineer Jan 23, 2013

    corgimom06..."And finally these 10 states do have more gun deaths than car deaths: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Virginia, and Washington."

    Please don't subvert the statistics...or at least present them completely. Your statistics includes "suicide" in "gun deaths"...as a matter of fact suicide is the overwhelming majority of "gun deaths".

    And yes, I understand that a gun related suicide is more likely to "get the job done" then other methods.
    How about you separate the homicide side of that statistic and present it...let everyone judge for themselves how much of an issue it is.
    I would do it myself, but I can't readily find the exact numbers. But for example, given that the TOTAL Michigan homicide rate is 6.2/100K and (maybe 60% of that is gun related) and the TOTAL gun deaths are 10.9/100K, you're looking about 70% suicide/ 30 % homicide.

    ...just saying.

  • jcthai Jan 23, 2013

    Lady Justice, yes we train and license people to drive cars, and we also hold them responsible for their "accidents". Apparently, we don't feel the need to hold this guy responsible?

  • jcthai Jan 23, 2013

    Note to self: If I ever lose it and go get a gun and walk into a crowded public place like a gun show and discharge my weapon in the general direction of various innocent people, I'll just say it was an accident. No laws broken. Yep, I'll bet they don't even detain me at the scene. Uh huh.

  • jjsmith1973 Jan 23, 2013

    Everyone loves to bring up DWI when talking gun control time to turn it around on gun advocates that bring it up. Someone shows no signs of impaired driving pulls up to a checkpoint blows .08 gets arrested charged with a misdemeanor losses their job, tons of fines, can't drive for a year, hurt no one damaged zero property. Man transports firearm neglects safety discharges firearm injures people and he doesn't even get a ticket. I say foul on the play, he show neglect for public safety which resulted in injury and could have resulted in death only difference between him and the DWI he wasn't under an impaired substance which in my opinion makes it worst

  • jcthai Jan 23, 2013

    countryboyz, there is no evidence that Thomas Jefferson ever said that. It appears nowhere in print and multiple Jefferson sources show no occurrence of it. Or did you read that on Facebook?

  • Lady Justice Jan 23, 2013

    You know, I don't disagree that a person carrying a firearm should receive some level of training on how to operate it and handle it safely. But think about it.........we train and test people to drive. We even require a license. But that does not stop death and injury that results from actions related to the use of a motor vehicle.

  • Lady Justice Jan 23, 2013

    "Lady Justice, reckless endangerment, read it, its a law it was broken. Discharging a firearm in an occupied building is also a law that was broken. There were a number of laws that were broken, someone just made the decision not to charge them based on those laws.

    Answer this, if he had killed someone, would a law have been broken?"
    pstroud2

    Just read the elements, and nope, not seeing a crime there. Just carrying a loaded firearm is not reckless. There has to be more.

  • junkmail5 Jan 23, 2013

    You are not taking into account that there are a lot more car owners than gun owners therefore it makes sense that right now there would be more deaths from cars.- Corgimom

    There's more _guns_ than cars though....

    And if you remove suicides (because they'll do that without a gun too- Japan has almost no gun ownership and a higher suicide rate than the US does) the total number of gun deaths is many times smaller than car deaths.

  • samjwebb Jan 23, 2013

    Well the gun owner should be. We left one hour before the incident. There were too many private owners wandering around with ar-15 type weapons that were not attempting to sale them, but were standing, posed like soldiers, making a political statement. They were standing behind building out of deputies and HP sight. I hope that in the future, private gun sales are prohibited so that no one can bring weapons on the state owned fairgrounds. Then the gun show can continue with less fear of incidents.

  • Shiver me timbers Jan 23, 2013

    "Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who do not."
    -- Thomas Jefferson

  • corgimom06 Jan 23, 2013

    there were a LOT more injuries and deaths by motor vehicle.

    So according to your logic we should take those away from people too.
    junkmail5

    You are not taking into account that there are a lot more car owners than gun owners therefore it makes sense that right now there would be more deaths from cars. Also,there have been studies to show that at the rate we are going gun deaths will outpace car deaths by the year 2015. And finally these 10 states do have more gun deaths than car deaths:
    Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Virginia, and Washington.

  • bill0 Jan 23, 2013

    "It's PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to fire a modern gun without pulling the trigger."

    Not exactly. Modern guns are designed not to fire without engaging the trigger. No safety feature is foolproof though, especially if the weapon wasn't well maintained.

  • CaryEngineer Jan 23, 2013

    Amazing the amount of mis-informed and assumed information about firearms...I'm assuming mostly by people that have never (responsibly) owned one.
    Absolutely a modern correctly operating firearm should not discharge on a fall (but never rely on ANY safety mechanism because they can fail).

    Remember the fundamental firearm safety rules.

    1. ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
    - Never Point The Gun At Something You Are Not Prepared To Destroy!
    - Always Be Sure Of Your Target And What Is Behind It!

    2. ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.

    3. ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.
    - But always assume "The Gun Is Loaded!"

    At least #3 and likely #1 were violated in this case...and unfortunately people were hurt...Please learn a lesson from this.

  • junkmail5 Jan 23, 2013

    There's actually long list of safetys that make a gun drop safe.

    firing pin blocks, hammer blocks, safety notches, transfer bars, trigger disconnects, integrated trigger safeties, etc...

    Since many large states like CA _require_ all new firearms to be drop safe the manufacturers built this stuff into their guns many years ago.

    The first drop-safety rules came in the 1968 gun control act FYI, so not like this is a last week thing either.

    Shame you know absolutely nothing about guns and weren't aware of this.

  • junkmail5 Jan 23, 2013

    Thanks for showing you know little about guns. The mass of the trigger alone could cause it to move in a fall so that a gun fires.- Grand Union

    I think you that backward.

    Because no, it couldn't.

    It's PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to fire a modern gun without pulling the trigger.

    because there's physically something in the way of the firing pin that can only be moved by pulling the trigger.

    If you knew the slightest thing about guns you'd know that.

    Drop all the modern guns you want, they won't, and CAN'T fire.

Oldest First