Shooter Kills CNN Cameraman and Girl Live on TV
- Thread starter Nazaroo
- Start date
Of course. DC, Chicago, LA, where hand guns were "illegal" have by far the worst crime. Detroit and here in the StL rank with them.
Places with no gun control have very little crime.
States with the highest homicide rates:
The ten most restrictive states for guns are:
1. California
2. New Jersey
3. Massachusetts
4. New York
5. Connecticut
6. Hawaii
7. Maryland
8. Rhode Island
9. Illinois
10. Pennsylvania
It seems there's only a weak correlation between ready access to guns, and violence. But most states with stiff gun control laws have lower rates of homicides. If Nick's claim is correct, it would indicate that cities will have very little luck with stiff gun laws, if the state does not have them. Neither Chicago nor Los Angeles made the top 30 this year:
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/top-lists/highest-murder-rate-cities/
The ten most restrictive states for guns are:
1. California
2. New Jersey
3. Massachusetts
4. New York
5. Connecticut
6. Hawaii
7. Maryland
8. Rhode Island
9. Illinois
10. Pennsylvania
It seems there's only a weak correlation between ready access to guns, and violence. But most states with stiff gun control laws have lower rates of homicides. If Nick's claim is correct, it would indicate that cities will have very little luck with stiff gun laws, if the state does not have them. Neither Chicago nor Los Angeles made the top 30 this year:
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/top-lists/highest-murder-rate-cities/
Unfortunately I am a little colour blind and can't see the diagram. However I was indeed guessing that there was a possible correlation between gun crime and popuation density. I mean I was thinking that there might be a higher gun crime rate per head in lower density areas. If there are any trends to be observed, it is a sign of hope that there may be concrete pointers towards improvement.
But is it the worst crime rate per head or is it the total crime?
By the way, here is an example of what I mean by executing violent criminals without allowing lengthy appeals.
Another thing your country should do is get rid of locally elected judges. It's a disgrace.
Yes, those are crime rates, not total crimes. If we went with total crimes, all we have to do is pick out the largest states. Not a very accurate way of determining risk or causation.
The issue with rapid executions is pretty simple. In Texas, over the last 30 years, we have seen over twenty people sentence to death, who played the appeals game long enough for evidence to turn up that showed them to be unquestionably innocent of the crime.
And those are just the ones for which evidence was found. If the appeals process was shortened, there would be a lot more innocent people killed by the state.
And yes, elected judges are a major corruption issue in the United States.
The issue with rapid executions is pretty simple. In Texas, over the last 30 years, we have seen over twenty people sentence to death, who played the appeals game long enough for evidence to turn up that showed them to be unquestionably innocent of the crime.
And those are just the ones for which evidence was found. If the appeals process was shortened, there would be a lot more innocent people killed by the state.
And yes, elected judges are a major corruption issue in the United States.
PureX
Well-known member
Yes. But I'm just pointing out that it's all 'stories'. Ours, theirs, whomever. Reality is a story we've assembled in our heads. There's no getting around it. And the story itself is a kind of bias. Honestly would dictate that we keep that in mind.
Where are all the stats on how many peoples lives were saved because they had a gun, and how many homes protected from intruders, etc..
PureX
Well-known member
We hear those stories occasionally, but they are very rare. I suspect the NRA has the stats, but they aren't going to do anything to draw attention to them, because the number is so low compared to the humber of innocent people killed by guns every year.
Good question, though.
They aren't rare, its just rare that they make it to the news.
Ill bet more homes and people are defended by guns, then by those who get killed by them, in fact most deaths by guns are suicides.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/13/24-7-wall-st-states-most-gun-violence/71003050/
PureX
Well-known member
I lived for many years in inner-city Chicago. And most of the years I lived there hardly a week would go by that at least one innocent citizen was shot and killed by some idiot with a gun. Usually it was more. And maybe once or twice a year someone would successfully thwart a killing by a gunman, with a gun. A store owner might pull a gun out and chase away a thief, but only if the thief was unarmed, or under-armed, or scared. Which wasn't often. And almost never was there an instance of a citizen protecting himself with a gun, from a thief with a gun on the street. The sad truth was that the people who were doing all the killing were mostly gangbangers and drug addicts who didn't care much about their own lives, such that they could be scared away by a victim with a gun. And in an altercation involving guns, a gun fight, it's usually the more aggressive and careless that comes out alive, because they don't rattle or hesitate.
I know you and many others absolutely love the righteous fantasy of shooting the bad guy, but when the moment comes, most of you will end up dead. Because the criminals are more aggressive, they're younger, and faster, and wilder, and they just don't care.
My Father kept a man from robbing and harming us when i was a child with his shotgun, im not wrong about this, local news is at best the only places youll see where people held off a crime with a gun, because loonies like you, want them out of our hands.
Ask some cops about how often it happens sometime.
Why would it make it to the news unless it was on video and or someone was killed?
PureX
Well-known member
I only want them out of the hands of criminals, drunks, dope heads, ragers, stalkers, lunatics, and blind people. Everyone else can have all the guns they want. So long as they are licensed, educated, trained and tested for the guns that they own and use.
Most cops want gun control and regulation. By an overwhelming majority. They know exactly how guns effect society.
In Chicago there was a weekly free paper called the Reader. It had a section that listed crimes by neighborhood. So each week you could see what crimes happened and where. It's true that the smaller crimes didn't make the bigger papers. But nearly every killing did, and certainly every defended potential killing did, because those are popular news.
Your assumptions are wrong. Far more people are killed with guns than defend themselves against being killed with them. But I have every confidence that you will not accept this fact of reality, because you are one of those people who must defend your beliefs no matter what.
Great!
Ive already given the evidence that the vast majority - overwhelming in fact- of gun deaths are suicides.
Where is your evidence that more gun violence happens than guns save lives and where is your evidence that "most" cops think we shouldn't have guns?
Oh and here is a reality check for you, when the guy was breaking into our house in the middle of the night - my mom had to call the cops 4 times, it took nearly an hour and they finally came when my mom said if this guy makes it into the house, my husband is going to kill him.
Thats what it took to finally get them there. So, say he did have to kill him, do you think it better that one or all of us were dead, or the criminal, and do you think criminals give a hoot about gun laws?
Do you think if he made it in, my dad and all of us in the dark, should wait to see what he wanted before shooting?
Also since most gun deaths are suicides, do you think no one can kill themselves without a gun?
PureX
Well-known member
Which, of course, is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand: the ratio of people defending themselves with guns, against gunmen, to the number of people killed by gunmen.
You do this all the time - making everyone else look up the stats, which you will then ignore and dismiss, anyway. So I'm not going to bother, because it's a waste of my time. You can look them up yourself if you actually want to know what they are … which you don't, or you already would have.
Well, as interesting an anecdote as that is, it sheds no light whatever on the question at hand.
So again, where is your evidence?
of course you need to look up the stats to support your claims, its not my job to look them up for you.
Which of course you whine about and never produce because you know there arent any that support what you said.
Rethinking Gun Control
Surprising findings from a comprehensive report on gun violence.
"7. Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively. “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.” But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, “because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” Furthermore, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”
Surprising findings from a comprehensive report on gun violence.
"7. Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively. “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.” But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, “because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” Furthermore, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”
PureX
Well-known member
Most cops go their whole career without ever having to draw their sidearm. And those are cops: people who's job it is to rush to any potential violent altercation. So the idea that people are successfully defending themselves with guns all over America, and that somehow these instances are magically not being reported on by anyone but paid NRA mouthpieces, is absurd, just on the face of it.
All those years I spent in Chicago, the vast majority of people killed by gunmen were either rival gunmen, themselves, or were bystanders caught in the hail of bullets between two or more rival gunmen. And neither of these qualify as even being possible candidates for this supposed hoard of self-defenders. In the first case it's criminals killing other criminals, and in the second case it's just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Babies shot in their cribs, in their homes, by bullets that passed right through the walls of their house.
Another popular way to be killed in the city by gunfire was to be drinking heavily with your idiot buddies, until one of them gets enraged over some complete nonsense, and in a moment of drunken stupidity grabs his gun and pulls the trigger. Or if it's not the alcohol, maybe it's a rager on the expressway who thinks you cut him off, and shoots at you from his car. That's happened a number of times in Chicago. Or there's always the perennial rejected boyfriend who decides in a moment of grandiose despair that if he can't have the girl, no one can.
These were the things that got people shot and killed while I was living in Chicago, and hardly any of these instances were defensible by having more guns in the hands of more people. Which is exactly why most cops, especially in big cities, support gun registration and control. They know that having a gun rarely stops anyone from being shot by one. And in fact, only makes it more likely.
All those years I spent in Chicago, the vast majority of people killed by gunmen were either rival gunmen, themselves, or were bystanders caught in the hail of bullets between two or more rival gunmen. And neither of these qualify as even being possible candidates for this supposed hoard of self-defenders. In the first case it's criminals killing other criminals, and in the second case it's just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Babies shot in their cribs, in their homes, by bullets that passed right through the walls of their house.
Another popular way to be killed in the city by gunfire was to be drinking heavily with your idiot buddies, until one of them gets enraged over some complete nonsense, and in a moment of drunken stupidity grabs his gun and pulls the trigger. Or if it's not the alcohol, maybe it's a rager on the expressway who thinks you cut him off, and shoots at you from his car. That's happened a number of times in Chicago. Or there's always the perennial rejected boyfriend who decides in a moment of grandiose despair that if he can't have the girl, no one can.
These were the things that got people shot and killed while I was living in Chicago, and hardly any of these instances were defensible by having more guns in the hands of more people. Which is exactly why most cops, especially in big cities, support gun registration and control. They know that having a gun rarely stops anyone from being shot by one. And in fact, only makes it more likely.
lain: Pot...kettle....Tell us more of your anecdotes.