Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United States Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: FYI- did u know 28 Americans die daily due to gun violence
Necromancer    3/31/2009 2:41:30 AM
Gun control overdue!!!
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26   NEXT
Aussiegunneragain    Rocky   4/4/2009 10:04:40 PM

We know that outlawing guns causes increases in crimes of murder, assault, and assault by firearm. Statistics in Australia, UK, Canada, and the USA all bear this out.

 

Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement ht***tp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=161637



John R. Lott Jr....

University of Maryland Foundation, University of Maryland



William M. Landes ...

University of Chicago Law School; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)





April 1999



University of Chicago Law Scho...




Abstract:     

Few events obtain the same instant worldwide news coverage as multiple victim public shootings. These crimes allow us to study the alternative methods used to kill a large number of people (e.g., shootings versus bombings), marginal deterrence and the severity of the crime, substitutability of penalties, private versus public methods of deterrence and incapacitation, and whether attacks produce copycats. Yet, economists have not studied this phenomenon. Our results are surprising and dramatic. While arrest or conviction rates and the death penalty reduce normal murder rates, our results find that the only policy factor to influence multiple victim public shootings is the passage of concealed handgun laws. We explain why public shootings are more sensitive than other violent crimes to concealed handguns, why the laws reduce both the number of shootings as well as their severity, and why other penalties like executions have differential deterrent effects depending upon the type of murder.


 

 

h***ttp://www.econjournalwatch.org/pdf/MoodyMarvellCommentSeptember2008.pdf


The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws



Econ Journal Watch,


Volume 5, Number 3,


September 2008, pp 269-293.



Editor?s Note: Professors Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue have been invited to reply to this


article. Their analysis will appear in the January 2009 issue of the journal.



Summ ary and Conclusion



Many articles have been published finding that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one article, by Ayres and Donohue who employ a model that combines a

 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    s   4/4/2009 10:28:34 PM
Well, I can see that from the personal attacks that are being thrown about by those who aren't interested in any pov but their own, that this conversation is going knowhere. With that in mind I'll make two points in case anybody who might have an open mind and leave it at that.
 
 1. The law of supply and demand say's that if you raise the price of something then less people will have them and by implication use them. Banning guns will raise the price of gun ownership to everybody by making them more difficult to acquire and will therefore reduce the opporunity to misuse of them. However, that has to be weighed against the loss of utility of  guns for self-defence, sport etc. My way of thinking is that if a country or state decides that this utility outweighs the the risks posed by guns, then the smart thing to minimise the risks to find a way to raise the cost of gun ownership to criminals and the mentally ill, while minimising it for law abiding, sane citizens. BB and I have discussed this on another thread and it seems to me that from his post here that he is thinking about it, which is encouraging.
 
2. To address this silly argument about cars and whatever else being more dangerous than guns, I'd point out that the proper way to regulate a dangerous good (dangerous to others I mean, goods that are just dangerous to the user are none of anybody elses business) in a manner that balances the utility of that good against the risks that it poses. That is why the regulation of cars is generally much looser than the regulation of guns, despite the fact that they kill more people. They have a much higher degree of utility.
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Rocky    4/4/2009 10:31:54 PM




We know that outlawing guns causes increases in crimes of murder, assault, and assault by firearm. Statistics in Australia, UK, Canada, and the USA all bear this out.



 



Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement ht***tp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=161637







John R. Lott Jr....



University of Maryland Foundation, University of Maryland







William M. Landes ...



University of Chicago Law School; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)











April 1999







University of Chicago Law Scho...









Abstract:     



Few events obtain the same instant worldwide news coverage as multiple victim public shootings. These crimes allow us to study the alternative methods used to kill a large number of people (e.g., shootings versus bombings), marginal deterrence and the severity of the crime, substitutability of penalties, private versus public methods of deterrence and incapacitation, and whether attacks produce copycats. Yet, economists have not studied this phenomenon. Our results are surprising and dramatic. While arrest or conviction rates and the death penalty reduce normal murder rates, our results find that the only policy factor to influence multiple victim public shootings is the passage of concealed handgun laws. We explain why public shootings are more sensitive than other violent crimes to concealed handguns, why the laws reduce both the number of shootings as well as their severity, and why other penalties like executions have differential deterrent effects depending upon the type of murder.






 



 



h***ttp://www.econjournalwatch.org/pdf/MoodyMarvellCommentSeptember2008.pdf





The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws






Econ Journal Watch,




Volume 5, Number 3,




September 2008, pp 269-293.






Editor?s Note: Professors Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue have been invited to reply to this




article. Their analysis will appear in the January 2009 issue of the journal.




 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    stbretnco   4/4/2009 11:11:05 PM
Having read your post on the other thread I can see that you are genuine in your desire for people to slow down on using the Birmingham incident to back their arguments, irrespective of what side of the argument they are on. I have to admit that I was projecting my distaste at the attitudes of some others on this thread onto you and that the lack of personal connection due to discussing this over the internet led me to not think about how it might make others feel. As such I apologise for calling your motives into question and for not giving it an appropriate period of time before raising the incident in this context.
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       4/4/2009 11:53:51 PM

---Aussiegunneragain--- Well, I can see that from the personal attacks that are being thrown about by those who aren't interested in any pov but their own, that this conversation is going knowhere.---

So instead of actually addressing my points (or the points made by any of the people made here, ya know, another point of view?) you decide instead to throw up some phony screen about being insulted and project your own short comings on others? Why?

You have not addressed any of the points I have made (especially in light of your LIE regarding what I said) nor have you addressed the points others have made where you have used the tragedy of a CRIMINAL to cheapen the lives of those who were killed just because you appear to wet yourself at the thought of a responsible, law abiding citizen owning firearms.

---Aussiegunneragain--- 1. The law of supply and demand say's that if you raise the price of something then less people will have them and by implication use them.---

Well that is obviously bovine excrement as you can buy firearms cheaply in the United States and yet the supply of firearms, in the TENS OF MILLIONS does not even begin to approach the limited number of criminal offenses committed with firearms annually.

50 - 100 million firearms in a nation of 300 million and we have what, a few thousand criminal acts per year and you want to deprive law abiding citizens of their property?

How do you rationalize the fact that EVER YEAR legal firearm ownership increases and EVERY YEAR violent crimes DROP in America? How?!

Quote: ---Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day.65 Often the gun is never fired and no blood (including the criminal?s) is shed.---

Quote: ---Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented just by showing a gun. In less than 0.9% of these instances is the gun ever actually fired.---

Quote: ---Washington D.C. has essentially banned gun ownership since 1976and has a murder rate of 56.9 per 100,000. Across the river in Arlington, Virginia, gun ownership is less restricted. There, the murder rate is just 1.6 per 100,000, less than three percent of the Washington, D.C. rate.---

Quote: ---90% of all violent crimes in the U.S. do not involve firearms of any type.---

 Quote: --- Less than 1% of firearms will ever be used in the commission of a crime.---

Quote: ---Most crime guns are either bought off the street from illegal sources (39.2%) or through family members or friends (39.6%).---

Quote: ---In 83.5% (2,087,500) of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first, proving that guns are very well suited for self-defense. ---

Quote: ---Of the 2,500,000 times citizens use guns to defend themselves, 92% merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. ---

Quote: ---For every accidental death, suicide, or homicide with a firearm, 10 lives are saved through defensive use.---

Quote: --In 1966, the city of Orlando responded to a wave of sexual assaults by offering firearms training classes to women. Rapes dropped by nearly 90% the following year. ---

Quote: Quote    Reply


Necromancer    Question#1   4/5/2009 2:31:15 AM
Lets ban the 44 Magnum within city limits in all states that do not have Elk. Would you agree to that? I see that Evil Fishy likes the Beretta 92- bad choice - I would take a CZ anyday or Desert Eagle but then for 9mm most are ok. So lets say I agree with gun ownership for self defence. Now If I use a 44 Mag I could with my bullet not only kill an intruder but someone behind 3 walls in an average California home? SO can I take your 44 Mag away??
 
Quote    Reply

smitty237    Aussie   4/5/2009 2:49:38 AM
You are fighting a losing battle here, mate.  You have been a longtime contributor to this site, and I usually find myself agreeing with you, but rather than explain why I disagree with your points I'll try to explain why you stand a snowballs chance in hell of winning this argument.
 
First of all, you feel that you're arguing from what you consider a logical point of view, i.e. that if there fewer guns available in general society there would be less gun violence.  I will concede that if all of the guns in the world ceased to exist overnight there would be no gun deaths tomorrow (at least until they started making them again), but since we know that won't happen the only other way to remove guns from society is to take them away from people who own them, including those of us that currently own them in compliance with the laws in place (which is most of us).  This is where your argument hits a brick wall, because those of us that favor guns rights are being asked to concede that the right to own firearms and protect yourself with those firearms is a right that they should surrender to the government.  Would you give up your freedom of speech just because the government decided they didn't think that you were responsible enough to exercise it?  This may seem like an apple and oranges comparison to you, but it isn't at all to us.  A lot of people in the U.S. consider the right to keep and bear arms just as valuable as the right to free speech and the excercise of religion.  I'm sorry it has gotten a little personal, but when you tell someone that they should give up what they consider a fundamental right they tend to become angry and defensive. 
 
You cited a lot of statistics supporting your point of view, but as you saw, we pro-gunners have a lot of statics as well.  Mark Twain once said that "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics."  The gun rights argument has been going on for well over forty years, and both sides have been lobbing crime statistics back and forth from the beginning. 
 
My advice to you is to simply let this one go.  There is an old saying in America:  "Don't wrestle in the mud with a pig.  You'll only get dirty and the pig likes it." 
 
Quote    Reply

Necromancer    Smitty - AG is not fighting a losing argument!!!   4/5/2009 3:19:17 AM
Obama and crew are even going to stop the amount of ammo u can own, the various police associations across the entire US
save perhaps ?W. Virg support severe gun control. Whats ur explaination to the 11month year old kids who got shot in Santa Clara this week? Frankly historically the Swiss are the only nation that handled guns appropriately.
 
Quote    Reply

stbretnco       4/5/2009 3:33:51 AM
Herc, at least back up your bullshit with supporting links.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Necromancer    Fine line here- I am not against guns- I said gun control to prevent gun control 99.999% of the time   4/5/2009 3:41:11 AM
 
Very very interesting cases as none of these locos would be able to buy guns in their countries of birth.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy