Since Sandy Hook, 1,000 kids under age 12 have died from guns

[MaryG12]

The following Harvard study is ten years old but still contains some interesting information:

[FONT=&quot]Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence[/FONT]


It would require some digging online to find some actual unbiased stats regarding gun safety.

Sadly, most of what I have come across is agenda-driven from both sides of the argument and not truly unbiased.

Just worth mentioning.

 

[K_Z]

Thank you, MaryG12, for the link to the Harvard study. Absolutely packed full of highly relevant statistics (both domestic and international), as well as a thoughtful and accurate discussion of historical facts about gun ownership in the early U.S. colonies and states-- and the connections to gun crimes and violence (or lack thereof).

More restrictions on lawful gun owners simply do not equal less violent crime-- which is true anywhere in the world. Those individuals and groups who commit criminal behavior and violence don't "cease" those actions simply because law abiding citizens have more gun ownership restrictions, or fewer guns. In modern times, all we have to do is look at urban municipalities with the most stringent gun ownership and CC requirements-- and what we see over and over is MUCH higher rates of violent crime and murder. Chicago is a depressing, but obvious example.

From the study:

Particularly corrosive to the mantra are the facts as to rural
African‐Americans gun ownership. Per capita, rural African‐
Americans are much more likely to own firearms than are ur‐
ban African‐Americans.94 Yet, despite their greater access to
guns, the firearm murder rate of young rural black males is a
small fraction of the firearm murder rate of young urban black
males.95

These facts are only anomalous in relation to the mantra that
more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death.
In contrast, these facts accord with the earlier point regarding
the aberrance of murderers. Whatever their race, ordinary peo‐
ple simply do not murder. Thus preventing law‐abiding, re‐
sponsible African‐Americans from owning guns does nothing
at all to reduce murderers, because they are not the ones who
are doing the killing. The murderers are a small minority of
extreme antisocial aberrants who manage to obtain guns whatever
the level of gun ownership in the African American community.
Indeed, murderers generally fall into a group some crimi‐
nologists have called “violent predators,” sharply differentiat‐
ing them not only from the overall population but from other
criminals as well.96 Surveys of imprisoned felons indicate that
when not imprisoned the ordinary felon averages perhaps 12
crimes per year.97 In contrast, “violent predators” spend much
or most of their time committing crimes, averaging at least 5
assaults, 63 robberies, and 172 burglaries annually.98 A Na‐
tional Institute of Justice survey of 2,000 felons in 10 state pris‐
ons, which focused on gun crime, said of these types of
respondents:**

[T]he men we have labeled Predators were clearly omnibus
felons . . .**[committing] more or less any crime they had the
opportunity to commit . . . . The Predators (handgun and
shotgun combined) . . . amounted to about 22% of the sam‐
ple and yet accounted for 51% of the total crime [admitted
by the 2,000 felons] . . . . Thus, when we talk about “control‐
ling crime” in the United States today, we are talking largely
about controlling the behavior of these men.99

The point is not just that demographic patterns of homicide
and gun ownership in the African‐American community do
not support the more guns equal more death mantra. More im‐
portantly, those patterns refute the logic of fewer guns equal
less death. The reason fewer guns among ordinary African‐
Americans does not lead to fewer murders is because that pau‐
city does not translate to fewer guns for the aberrant minority
who do murder. The correlation of very high murder rates with
low gun ownership in African‐American communities simply
does not bear out the notion that disarming the populace as a
whole will disarm and prevent murder by potential murderers.

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


The overall point is that violent crime will continue, no matter the restrictions on gun ownership, because the problem that causes the violent crime are the aberrant violent individuals, not the guns. We see this from terrorist mass murders now as they utilize vehicles-- easier to acquire, and easier to blend into society.

The problems of violent behavior are PEOPLE who are aberrant. Criminally inclined, mentally ill, irresponsible, ignorant, or making colossally bad decisions from a place of denial-- like Nancy Lanza. NL, and only NL, is responsible for the SH massacre, IMO, which was 20 years in the making.

The one and only area where we CAN make a difference for kids, IMO, is in public service education about safe gun storage, safe gun handling, and educating kids on what to do when they encounter an unsecured firearm. We don't need "outcome" studies to "prove" age appropriate gun safety education is a good thing. I will be the first to admit that the Eddie Eagle program probably can never be the program in schools-- not because it isn't "good", but because the NRA is so hated politically. The fight isn't worth it-- let's design new guidelines and take the NRA out of it.

To say that we can't or won't educate kids because there aren't enough "outcome" studies on the safety educational program is lame in the extreme. Excuse mongering and whining. It's too bad that we have to do *any* of this social education in schools at all-- that is simply not the proper role of educators, IMO. But gradually the "mission creep" of substitute parenting has fallen on the shoulders of K-12 educators because ADULTS have abdicated this role, and thrust it on teachers who are ill-positioned to do it for such a "diverse" population of kids that they only have a few hours a day. We ask FAR too much of our teachers, who should be focused on just a few educational things in those 6-7 hours a day. So if we insist on forcing teachers to present a whole lot of social topics that don't belong in schools, then life saving and health enhancing topics should top the list. Far ahead of "alternative lifestyle" topics, IMO. Or let's bring in other educators to do this, and relieve teachers of this obligation.

On my wish list is also regulation that would prohibit "candy colored" REAL firearms, and REQUIRE all so called "toy", airsoft, and pellet guns to be a specific color or shape so as to be instantly identifiable in light or darkness.

 

[Jennifer17]

Thank you, MaryG12, for the link to the Harvard study. Absolutely packed full of highly relevant statistics (both domestic and international), as well as a thoughtful and accurate discussion of historical facts about gun ownership in the early U.S. colonies and states-- and the connections to gun crimes and violence (or lack thereof).

More restrictions on lawful gun owners simply do not equal less violent crime-- which is true anywhere in the world. Those individuals and groups who commit criminal behavior and violence don't "cease" those actions simply because law abiding citizens have more gun ownership restrictions, or fewer guns. In modern times, all we have to do is look at urban municipalities with the most stringent gun ownership and CC requirements-- and what we see over and over is MUCH higher rates of violent crime and murder. Chicago is a depressing, but obvious example.

From the study:


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


The overall point is that violent crime will continue, no matter the restrictions on gun ownership, because the problem that causes the violent crime are the aberrant violent individuals, not the guns. We see this from terrorist mass murders now as they utilize vehicles-- easier to acquire, and easier to blend into society.

The problems of violent behavior are PEOPLE who are aberrant. Criminally inclined, mentally ill, irresponsible, ignorant, or making colossally bad decisions from a place of denial-- like Nancy Lanza. NL, and only NL, is responsible for the SH massacre, IMO, which was 20 years in the making.

The one and only area where we CAN make a difference for kids, IMO, is in public service education about safe gun storage, safe gun handling, and educating kids on what to do when they encounter an unsecured firearm. We don't need "outcome" studies to "prove" age appropriate gun safety education is a good thing. I will be the first to admit that the Eddie Eagle program probably can never be the program in schools-- not because it isn't "good", but because the NRA is so hated politically. The fight isn't worth it-- let's design new guidelines and take the NRA out of it.

To say that we can't or won't educate kids because there aren't enough "outcome" studies on the safety educational program is lame in the extreme. Excuse mongering and whining. It's too bad that we have to do *any* of this social education in schools at all-- that is simply not the proper role of educators, IMO. But gradually the "mission creep" of substitute parenting has fallen on the shoulders of K-12 educators because ADULTS have abdicated this role, and thrust it on teachers who are ill-positioned to do it for such a "diverse" population of kids that they only have a few hours a day. We ask FAR too much of our teachers, who should be focused on just a few educational things in those 6-7 hours a day. So if we insist on forcing teachers to present a whole lot of social topics that don't belong in schools, then life saving and health enhancing topics should top the list. Far ahead of "alternative lifestyle" topics, IMO. Or let's bring in other educators to do this, and relieve teachers of this obligation.

On my wish list is also regulation that would prohibit "candy colored" REAL firearms, and REQUIRE all so called "toy", airsoft, and pellet guns to be a specific color or shape so as to be instantly identifiable in light or darkness.

,
BBM. That is simply not true. Per capita the all the western industrialised countries have much lower rates of homicide.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

,
BBM. That is simply not true. Per capita the all the western industrialised countries have much lower rates of homicide.

Yep, mountains of legitimate data in this thread show gun homicides in America are dramatically higher than in any other industrialized Western country. Facts iz facts.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Should The U.S. Adopt Australia's Gun Laws? Here's Why That Would Never Work.

Australia's gun confiscation was only successful because of its large scale. The government took at least 650,000 guns, or about one-fifth of all guns in the country; higher estimates put the numbers at 1 million and one-third. There are over 300 millions firearms in the U.S. To implement the "buyback" program on the same scale in America would require the forced confiscation of 60 to 100 million guns from tens of millions of Americans.

So, would tens of millions of gun-owning Americans, many of whom specifically own those guns for self-defense — including, if not particularly, self-defense against a tyrannical state — voluntarily hand over those guns to a government they believed was violating their constitutionally enshrined rights? Not a chance. What would inevitably have to happen is a militarized police force knocking on doors, searching houses, and forcefully taking those guns from tens of millions of "bitter clingers."
In short, implementing Australia's gun laws would result in massive civil upheaval, violence, arrests, even civil war.
In a must-read piece for The Federalist, historian Varad Mehta outlined several reasons why Australia's gun laws would not just fail in America but result in the criminalization of millions of Americans and ultimately revolt; he underscores the central difference between the United States and Australia when it comes to guns: The U.S. has a Bill of Rights; Australia does not. Australian citizens simply do not have rights as unequivocally and solidly enshrined as Americans, not to mention a right to bear arms.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/21884/should-us-adopt-australias-gun-laws-heres-why-james-barrett#

 

[Jennifer17]

Should The U.S. Adopt Australia's Gun Laws? Here's Why That Would Never Work.



https://www.dailywire.com/news/21884/should-us-adopt-australias-gun-laws-heres-why-james-barrett#

You are correct that we do not have a Bill of Rights, but we do have a constitution which sets out citizens rights and the reach and limits of government.

 

[Woodland]

Should The U.S. Adopt Australia's Gun Laws? Here's Why That Would Never Work.



https://www.dailywire.com/news/21884/should-us-adopt-australias-gun-laws-heres-why-james-barrett#

Imo, this attitude by a majority of Americans is exactly why there are thousands of children shot every year in the US. Seems much of the empathy for the children comes from outside the US, not within.

 

[Woodland]

Thank you, MaryG12, for the link to the Harvard study. Absolutely packed full of highly relevant statistics (both domestic and international), as well as a thoughtful and accurate discussion of historical facts about gun ownership in the early U.S. colonies and states-- and the connections to gun crimes and violence (or lack thereof).

More restrictions on lawful gun owners simply do not equal less violent crime-- which is true anywhere in the world. Those individuals and groups who commit criminal behavior and violence don't "cease" those actions simply because law abiding citizens have more gun ownership restrictions, or fewer guns. In modern times, all we have to do is look at urban municipalities with the most stringent gun ownership and CC requirements-- and what we see over and over is MUCH higher rates of violent crime and murder. Chicago is a depressing, but obvious example.

From the study:


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


The overall point is that violent crime will continue, no matter the restrictions on gun ownership, because the problem that causes the violent crime are the aberrant violent individuals, not the guns. We see this from terrorist mass murders now as they utilize vehicles-- easier to acquire, and easier to blend into society.

The problems of violent behavior are PEOPLE who are aberrant. Criminally inclined, mentally ill, irresponsible, ignorant, or making colossally bad decisions from a place of denial-- like Nancy Lanza. NL, and only NL, is responsible for the SH massacre, IMO, which was 20 years in the making.

The one and only area where we CAN make a difference for kids, IMO, is in public service education about safe gun storage, safe gun handling, and educating kids on what to do when they encounter an unsecured firearm. We don't need "outcome" studies to "prove" age appropriate gun safety education is a good thing. I will be the first to admit that the Eddie Eagle program probably can never be the program in schools-- not because it isn't "good", but because the NRA is so hated politically. The fight isn't worth it-- let's design new guidelines and take the NRA out of it.

To say that we can't or won't educate kids because there aren't enough "outcome" studies on the safety educational program is lame in the extreme. Excuse mongering and whining. It's too bad that we have to do *any* of this social education in schools at all-- that is simply not the proper role of educators, IMO. But gradually the "mission creep" of substitute parenting has fallen on the shoulders of K-12 educators because ADULTS have abdicated this role, and thrust it on teachers who are ill-positioned to do it for such a "diverse" population of kids that they only have a few hours a day. We ask FAR too much of our teachers, who should be focused on just a few educational things in those 6-7 hours a day. So if we insist on forcing teachers to present a whole lot of social topics that don't belong in schools, then life saving and health enhancing topics should top the list. Far ahead of "alternative lifestyle" topics, IMO. Or let's bring in other educators to do this, and relieve teachers of this obligation.

On my wish list is also regulation that would prohibit "candy colored" REAL firearms, and REQUIRE all so called "toy", airsoft, and pellet guns to be a specific color or shape so as to be instantly identifiable in light or darkness.

BBM - imo, this post reflects the denial or inability to face the fact that with 312 million guns floating around the US it makes it easy for people, many of them children, to get shot every year in the US.

Touting 'keep the guns but someone needs to do something' isn't going to change the situation.

 

[Jennifer17]

And none of the countries who have implemented strict gun laws have a no gun policy. Sensible gun laws do not mean that every single gun in the country is going to be confiscated.

 

[PrairieWind]

BBM - imo, this post reflects the denial or inability to face the fact that with 312 million guns floating around the US it makes it easy for people, many of them children, to get shot every year in the US.

Touting 'keep the guns but someone needs to do something' isn't going to change the situation.

There is no denial or inability to see. Nor a lack of empathy or sympathy. This is simply the realistic view. In America, individual rights are cherished and in some areas constitutionally protected. To enact some sort of mandatory gun buy-back such as Australia would require first a Constitutional amendment. I think everyone recognizes that that is not going to happen. So the guns are here and here to stay. So the question then becomes one of "how to stop the violence."

 

[Jennifer17]

There is no denial or inability to see. Nor a lack of empathy or sympathy. This is simply the realistic view. In America, individual rights are cherished and in some areas constitutionally protected. To enact some sort of mandatory gun buy-back such as Australia would require first a Constitutional amendment. I think everyone recognizes that that is not going to happen. So the guns are here and here to stay. So the question then becomes one of "how to stop the violence."

I don't think anyone has suggested a solution like Australia adopted, but sensible gun control would be a first step.

 

[human]

I retired to a Third World country from the US where guns are not allowed except for hunting. Those are kept at the police department and a person checks them out.

There are deaths, usually from a fight when people are drunk.

You don’t have to worry that some random person is going to shoot you or your children at school. There is high unemployment here, high abuse, high abuse of alcohol. But zero gun deaths.

People look at amazement at the US. It is unbelievable that the US accepts children shot at church, in school, at home

 

[MaryG12]

If I must be protected by someone with a gun please make it this guy thanks

 

[MaryG12]

If children are the primary concern then I must request an exemption, DH and I are childfree and do not have children belonging to friends in our home.

 

[human]

If children are the primary concern then I must request an exemption, DH and I are childfree and do not have children belonging to friends in our home.

Abd your guns are always secured so that no one could ever steal one, I would guess,

Lots of people are childless, though, such as Adam Lanza

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

There is no denial or inability to see. Nor a lack of empathy or sympathy. This is simply the realistic view. In America, individual rights are cherished and in some areas constitutionally protected. To enact some sort of mandatory gun buy-back such as Australia would require first a Constitutional amendment. I think everyone recognizes that that is not going to happen. So the guns are here and here to stay. So the question then becomes one of "how to stop the violence."

Which solutions do you believe will be most effective in reducing firearm-related injuries and deaths in America?

 

[kaen]

The following Harvard study is ten years old but still contains some interesting information:

[FONT="]Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence[/FONT]


It would require some digging online to find some actual unbiased stats regarding gun safety.

Sadly, most of what I have come across is agenda-driven from both sides of the argument and not truly unbiased.

Just worth mentioning.

Interesting piece. However, it is not a study but a literature review and not a thorough one at that. Here is an excerpt of the conclusion:

This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the bur- den of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, espe- cially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra.1^' To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.


This is an opinion piece with data cherry picked to prove his point-- not a study. The statistics are old and don't have similarities going between nations. Anyone in the sciences would recognize a lit review versus a study.

 

[Jennifer17]

Whatever self serving studies are released, is irrelevant to me. Just follow the news.

 

[Ibiz]

I don't think that legally owned guns are really the problem here in the USA. Acually there's a lot of red tape you have to go through to buy one. I think it's more or less the illegall gun trade that causes the problems. If you go to a place like Detroit or Chigago there are tons of illegal guns on the streets, and just not enough police enforcement to control them.

If you look at columbine you'll see those two kids bought those guns illegally, and weren't allowed to own them.

 

[KaaBoom]

I don't think that legally owned guns are really the problem here in the USA. Acually there's a lot of red tape you have to go through to buy one. I think it's more or less the illegall gun trade that causes the problems. If you go to a place like Detroit or Chigago there are tons of illegal guns on the streets, and just not enough police enforcement to control them.

If you look at columbine you'll see those two kids bought those guns illegally, and weren't allowed to own them.

80% of guns used in mass shootings are legally owned by the killers. The other 20% are legally owned guns that are stolen to commit the killings, or are legally owned guns that are legally bought by someone else and sold or given to the killers, as was the case with Columbine. Legally owned guns are the problem. This simply doesn't happen in any countries that restrict gun ownership. But I get it, you don't care about any of that. The right to own a gun is more important than the right not to be killed by a gun. I get it.

More Than 80 Percent of Guns Used in Mass Shootings Obtained Legally - NBC News