Firearms and their relation to crime figures

[Sicblades]

I don't recall saying they are precisely the same. What I did infer is that they both can cause mass fatalities/casualties, and both are easily accessible. It's a valid comparison...

Those on the other side of the fence will ignore that.

I've asked the question why firearm homicides in the U.S. - which account for less than than half of 1% of deaths in america are so important to them, while they ignore vehicular deaths, which account for over 11% of all deaths in america.

Yes I was being purposely obtuse to illustrate a point.

Most vehicular deaths are caused by accidents. Be it a person driving too fast and hitting pedestrians and/or a person hitting black ice, falling asleep at the wheel, etc. Those aren't "Violent Crime" deaths, they are deaths of either lack of skill behind the wheel, or of an accidental nature.

Of course, an accidental discharge of a firearm which results in a death is just as much an accident as a car crash causing deaths. And yes, a lot of people shouldn't receive their driver's licenses either, but that's not the point.

How about finding the percentage of total deaths by vehicular homicide and then compare it to firearm homicide?
That stat would actually help your 'car vs firearm' argument.

It's because they can rant about how americans are nuts and violent savages, and so on and so on - in regard to guns which they emotionally percieve as 'evil'.

Death by automobile evidently doesn't allow for nearly enough emotional drama queenery...

I don't recall saying any of that. There are Canadians who own firearms legally and go on rampages too.

It's just strange that a country such as yours with more relaxed gun laws has a much higher firearm homicide rate per 100,000 than those of other first-world countries. It's not like us living in Canada (and Britain, afaik) are banned from owning firearms either.

 

[Bal-Sagoth]

Canada (and Britain, afaik) are banned from owning firearms either.

Actually no, the gun situation in Britain is deplorable at best. It is commonly cited by the NRA and other pro-gun groups as the worst case scenario of what could happen in America if we even give an inch to the anti-gun crowd.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkS2BRoCd2I

 

[DammitBoy]

I feel that firearms are created with one main purpose - to injure and kill.

Incorrect. The main use of firearms is as a deterrent. This is why police can wear them to work every day without having to kill someone.

If statistics suggest that higher rates of violence are linked to availability of firearms, then I think limiting the rights and freedoms of individuals with regards to personal property is a reasonable sacrifice

"They that can give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~ Benjamin Franklin

Vehicular deaths are generally the result of accident, not of intention. Most fatalities related to gun violence are the result of accident as well

Incorrect. Accidental firearm fatalities are the lowest in number and have been dropping every year for over a decade. Death however, is still death whether accidental or intentional. The statement that more people die by vehicle than by gun is factually correct.

However, cars are far more available than guns in North America, and while availability of cars to individuals is integral to the way that society functions, the availability of guns is not integral.

Incorrect. There are more firearms in america than vehicles. Additionally, firearms are integral to the existence of the united states - without them, we would have been canada.

I personally think in a sensitized society the reaction is different than in one where guns are more normal.

A sensitized society? So your claim is that nations without private gun ownership are more sensitive and morally superior to nations that have private gun ownership?

Most vehicular deaths are caused by accidents. Be it a person driving too fast and hitting pedestrians and/or a person hitting black ice, falling asleep at the wheel, etc. Those aren't "Violent Crime" deaths, they are deaths of either lack of skill behind the wheel, or of an accidental nature.

Of course, an accidental discharge of a firearm which results in a death is just as much an accident as a car crash causing deaths.

Death is still dead. And accidental firearms deaths are constantly used as a great reason to ban all guns. So why shouldn't accidental vehicular death be used as an argument to ban cars? Think of the children, if just one life could be saved by banning cars, isn't it worth it?

It's just strange that a country such as yours with more relaxed gun laws has a much higher firearm homicide rate per 100,000 than those of other first-world countries. It's not like us living in Canada (and Britain, afaik) are banned from owning firearms either.

It's only strange if you are ignorant of what actually causes violent crime, i.e. poverty, culture, welfare, population density, drug crime, large urban centers.

---

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." ~ Cesare Bonesana, Essay on Crimes and Punishments

 

[Sicblades]

I feel that firearms are created with one main purpose - to injure and kill.

Incorrect. The main use of firearms is as a deterrent. This is why police can wear them to work every day without having to kill someone.

It is mostly a deterrent due to the high probability of death and/or serious injury, is it not?

Vehicular deaths are generally the result of accident, not of intention. Most fatalities related to gun violence are the result of accident as well

Incorrect. Accidental firearm fatalities are the lowest in number and have been dropping every year for over a decade. Death however, is still death whether accidental or intentional. The statement that more people die by vehicle than by gun is factually correct.

Yes it's true that more people die by cars than by guns. The question is whether or not more people die by car or guns in the context of violent crimes.

Most vehicular deaths are caused by accidents. Be it a person driving too fast and hitting pedestrians and/or a person hitting black ice, falling asleep at the wheel, etc. Those aren't "Violent Crime" deaths, they are deaths of either lack of skill behind the wheel, or of an accidental nature.

Of course, an accidental discharge of a firearm which results in a death is just as much an accident as a car crash causing deaths.

Death is still dead. And accidental firearms deaths are constantly used as a great reason to ban all guns. So why shouldn't accidental vehicular death be used as an argument to ban cars? Think of the children, if just one life could be saved by banning cars, isn't it worth it?

I'm not using accidental gun deaths as a reason to ban guns (in fact, I'm not saying that guns should be banned at all). I'd be more inclined to say that there needs to be a little more regulation on guns in America due to their ease of use in a violent crime.

It's just strange that a country such as yours with more relaxed gun laws has a much higher firearm homicide rate per 100,000 than those of other first-world countries. It's not like us living in Canada (and Britain, afaik) are banned from owning firearms either.

It's only strange if you are ignorant of what actually causes violent crime, i.e. poverty, culture, welfare, population density, drug crime, large urban centers.

And how does making guns easily accessible to those who find themselves in those situations not exacerbate the problem?

 

[Hassknecht]

I feel that firearms are created with one main purpose - to injure and kill.

Incorrect. The main use of firearms is as a deterrent. This is why police can wear them to work every day without having to kill someone.

Your "incorrect" is incorrect. The main use is not the main purpose. The purpose of a gun is to make bullets fly very fast and accurate into a target. Most of the time, that target is a person.
That is what guns are for. And that is what makes them scary, so they can be used as a deterrent.

 

[Crni Vuk]

yeah yeah yeah weapons dont kill people do bla bla bla. We all know that. And still in any kind of conflict it are weapons which they use be it from WW1 to any modern war today. The target is to destroy the enemy it doesnt always mean to kill him but it many times is the result. You cant really argue that some weapons are more lethal or lets say more capable of dealing damage compared to others. Hence why some weapons face harsher restrictions then others (I dont see civilians using nuclear weapons any time soon).

 

[SuAside]

I was going to stay out of this, but holy batshit batman, I had to reply to this:

I feel that firearms are created with one main purpose - to injure and kill.

Incorrect. The main use of firearms is as a deterrent. This is why police can wear them to work every day without having to kill someone.

Your "incorrect" is incorrect. The main use is not the main purpose. The purpose of a gun is to make bullets fly very fast and accurate into a target. Most of the time, that target is a person.
That is what guns are for. And that is what makes them scary, so they can be used as a deterrent.

Euhm, no.
Are you not aware of the millions upon millions of rounds of ammo shot throughout the world each year? Where then are you millions upon millions of victims if they were targeted at people?

No, just no. The vast majority of ammo used is used in recreative, sport shooting or training. I'd suspect that there is one round in a million shot in self-defense or in offense towards someone, that that would already be A LOT.

I don't own any guns for the purpose of self-defense btw. Sure, I'll use a gun if someone invades my home, but that's an afterthought. It's just like a baseballer would use his bat if someone attacked him.

Anyhow, would you kindly stop trying to steal my guns away from me? I've never caused anyone violent harm and if I have any say in it, I never will. Guns are marvels of engineering, mechanics, history and beauty. And goddamn it, they're just fucking fun to shoot. Let each have his own. Legally owned firearms are very underrepresented in crime statistics (with the exception of suicide, but wouldn't you use one if you could?), so stop trying to hurt legal gun owners to fight criminals. Being a criminal kinda implies breaking the law, ye know.
Background checks: no problem.
Registration: fine.
Permits & licensing: if the implementation is fair and objective.
Attempt to take my guns away: fuck you. My freedom ends where yours begins & vice versa. Stop trying to intrude in other people's lives.

Neither of the extremes work (all is permitted/no regulation vs ban/very strict regulation). Both generally see an increase in crime as either guns are very easy to get or as people having guns to defend their homes becomes very unlikely (detterent disappears).
The zone inbetween this is hard to qualify and there's no real scientific evidence of what's the best approach, but one thing is clear: extremes do not work...

 

[Hassknecht]

I won't take your guns away. Banning guns won't do shit in my opinion.
What I meant with "most of the time, that target is a person" is that the intended target is a person.
Yeah, shitloads of AKs are in the hands of civilian owners all over the world, but the purpose of this gun was not to shoot at old cans and targets but at enemy soldiers.
And so is the intended purpse for a lot of weapons, except for dedicated hunting weapons and specialized target shooting weapons.

 

[DammitBoy]

What I meant with "most of the time, that target is a person" is that the intended target is a person...

Either way you 'meant' it - you are still incorrect.

 

[Hassknecht]

What I meant with "most of the time, that target is a person" is that the intended target is a person...

Either way you 'meant' it - you are still incorrect.

So, what is the intended target of an AK, AR15, any non-specialized automatic pistol, any cap'n'ball revolver, virtually any weapon that is not a hunting weapon or a sport gun?
These weapons were designed as that: as weapons. They are meant to kill or at least injure.
Hunting weapons of course are, too, designed for that purpose, although not people but animals are the target, so I left them out.
Yeah, people use them for different things. The purpose of a gun is not the purpose of a person carrying that gun.

 

[DammitBoy]

The purpose of a gun is not the purpose of a person carrying that gun.

Yes it is. In case you are not aware, guns are inanimate objects.

The person carrying the weapon decides its purpose, not the firearm.

I own every weapon you mentioned. For your position to be correct, I have no choice but to kill people with them. Which is not true.

The most oft used cited reason to own a firearm in the U.S. is for self-defense. FBI crime lab statistics state that americans use firearms in self-defense over 1 million times a year without firing the weapon.

How can this be? If they 'used' a firearm a million times in self-defense and the only use is killing - why don't we have an annual pile of 1 million dead criminals?

Because using a firearm as a deterrent in self-defense does not require shooting the weapon.

 

[Bad_Karma]

I personally think in a sensitized society the reaction is different than in one where guns are more normal.

A sensitized society? So your claim is that nations without private gun ownership are more sensitive and morally superior to nations that have private gun ownership?

Nope.
I claim people who are more sensitive in case of guns might react a bit differen under stress. This has nothing to do with some really thought-through decision or planning - it's emotions.
Also i try not to apply my morality as an universal morality everyone should adhere too. Doesn't work everytime, but in this case i wouldn't judge that one of them is superior to the other.

 

[Crni Vuk]

The purpose of a gun is not the purpose of a person carrying that gun.

Yes it is. In case you are not aware, guns are inanimate objects.
.

What purpose has an AK47m ? Why did Michail Kalashnikov designed it ? What was the intention behind the modernisation of the MG34 to the MG42. What was the idea behind a machinegun or its invention in general in wars ? What is the purpose of a bomb. Why have B17s droped them over German cities ?

Certain objects inamiated or not have been designed to destroy, kill or hurt. Some with more effiency some with less. This is true since the first time someone used a bow as hunting for killing/injuring a human. And since that point a evolution was started which is still in place even today. Desiging better protection and weaspons which can destroy it. Regardless if we are talking about swords or guns or bombs. Weapons are weapons. And from a military point of view the intention is many times to either kill or at least injure the enemy.

I dont know why that is so hard to accept. Look no one here is going to take away your right to have firearms. No one will argue that in the hands of civlians weapons are not the real issue. Regardless if it is a pistol or machinegun. But there is no question about the effectivity of some weapons. And the intention behind its design. Its not just about shooting for sport or to have something that can hit a object somewhere. The machinegun was without any doubts a try to make "killing" more efficient compard to the weapons they used before just like the bolt action rifle was a improvement over the muzzleloader. When the German Reich adopted the 7.92mm Mauser one requirement was that it should penetrate a steelhelmet over the distance of 1000meters. Why would the military make such requirements if the idea was not to "kill" some enemy ? Obviously guns can be used for non-military situations. Even just for fun. But even if all you do with some MG42 is to shoot it in your backyard for lulz it doesnt change the fact what the idea behind it was.

 

[DammitBoy]

The purpose of a gun is not the purpose of a person carrying that gun.

Yes it is. In case you are not aware, guns are inanimate objects.
.

What purpose has an AK47m ? Why did Michail Kalashnikov designed it ? What was the intention behind the modernisation of the MG34 to the MG42. What was the idea behind a machinegun or its invention in general in wars ? What is the purpose of a bomb. Why have B17s droped them over German cities ?

Certain objects inamiated or not have been designed to destroy, kill or hurt. Some with more effiency some with less. This is true since the first time someone used a bow as hunting for killing/injuring a human. And since that point a evolution was started which is still in place even today. Desiging better protection and weaspons which can destroy it. Regardless if we are talking about swords or guns or bombs. Weapons are weapons. And from a military point of view the intention is many times to either kill or at least injure the enemy.

I dont know why that is so hard to accept. Look no one here is going to take away your right to have firearms. No one will argue that in the hands of civlians weapons are not the real issue. Regardless if it is a pistol or machinegun. But there is no question about the effectivity of some weapons. And the intention behind its design. Its not just about shooting for sport or to have something that can hit a object somewhere. The machinegun was without any doubts a try to make "killing" more efficient compard to the weapons they used before just like the bolt action rifle was a improvement over the muzzleloader. When the German Reich adopted the 7.92mm Mauser one requirement was that it should penetrate a steelhelmet over the distance of 1000meters. Why would the military make such requirements if the idea was not to "kill" some enemy ? Obviously guns can be used for non-military situations. Even just for fun. But even if all you do with some MG42 is to shoot it in your backyard for lulz it doesnt change the fact what the idea behind it was.

No one is denying that firearms can be used as efficient killing machines honey, they wouldn't be much of a deterrent if they were not...

Read Hassknecht's post that I quoted and then read my response again. The very purpose of a gun is determined by the person carrying it.

If I'm a law abiding citizen - I don't carry a firearm with the purpose of commiting homicide.

Then again, if I'm a career criminal - I'll probably have a very different purpose in mind.

 

[Wintermind]

Fuck this "original intended purpose" bullshit. I don't care what Mikhael Klashinakov though of when he designed the AK47. When I take a civ-marketed repro of one, I intended to just make steel ring or put holes in paper. If I buy a K98k, I don't want to go and shoot people, I want to shoot inanimate shit with one of the coolest goddamned rifles in history. Shit gets re-purposed all the goddamned time.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

I'd be more inclined to say that there needs to be a little more regulation on guns in America due to their ease of use in a violent crime.

Agreed. Making classful firearms licenses with both a written and practical portion (like drivers licenses). Require all weapons to be registered which could include having a discharged round being entered into a nation firearms database to expedite and reduce the cost of police investigations.

FBI crime lab statistics state that americans use firearms in self-defense over 1 million times a year without firing the weapon.

It's a meaningless statistic without their definition of self-defense, as I believe was pointed out earlier in the thread.

If I'm a law abiding citizen - I don't carry a firearm with the purpose of commiting homicide.

When self-defense is given as the reason (presumably why someone would be carrying a handgun) it immediately begs the question of why not use a taser or other non-lethal defense weapon instead?

 

[Shoveler]

When self-defense is given as the reason (presumably why someone would be carrying a handgun) it immediately begs the question of why not use a taser or other non-lethal defense weapon instead?

HAHAHAHAHA............(says to guy with gun) please hold still while I taze you! Not so helpful when your attacker has a gun himself. Besides the mere sight of a gun and most criminals will bolt. No fuss, no muss.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

(says to guy with gun) please hold still while I taze you!

Because there's no such thing as ranged tasers, right?

Besides the mere sight of a gun and most criminals will bolt.

Statistical evidence?

 

[Shoveler]

Because there's no such thing as ranged tasers, right?

Ofcourse there are, and you have one opporunity to fire, if you miss well.....the imagry humored me, nothing more.

Statistical evidence?

Personal experience. Both times. However, I'm sure there's evidence around somewhere.

 

[DammitBoy]

I'd be more inclined to say that there needs to be a little more regulation on guns in America due to their ease of use in a violent crime.

Because I have a C&R FFL (curio and relic federal firearms license) every year the BATF sends me a book with all the federal laws and regulations concerning firearms.

The regulations are printed in really small type on paper similar to what you'd find in a bible. 700 pages of rules and regulations I must know and follow to their interpretation of the law or I roll the dice on going to jail.

That's just the federal guidelines. In addition, I must know all the rules and regulations of every state I do business with or even just travel through while possessing a firearm.

We have more than enough fucking regulations. I'm also curious to know what kind of moron actually thinks any regulation or law ever stopped a crime?