Guns, guns, guns

[Zaij]

The other worst thing about the gun debate is this. There's a total lack of facts, because the gun-lobbies are too powerful to allow honest research, so there's no unambiguous statistical data on whether or not guns help or harm US society as a rule.

You can make claims about it until you're blue in the face, but the scientific research of this matter has been poisoned beyond belief.

This is telling on it's own.

 

[[PCE]el_Prez]

Lastly, school shootings happen more than other types of shootings because the shooters tend to be students at the school, and schools are one of the few places where there are consistently and reliable a lot of people in a very concentrated and closed environment.
Also, school shootings are actually a very minor issue due to their infrequency and the limited amount of injury they cause.

There have been a lot of school shootings where the shooter was not a student - not even student age. Why did those people pick schools? There are tons of other places where a shooter could find hordes of innocent civillians.

I use school shootings as an example of what happens in "gun free" zones that are poorly guarded. I would hate to imagine what would happen if my neighborhood became a "gun free" zone.

 

[Sander]

el_Prez]

There have been a lot of school shootings where the shooter was not a student - not even student age. Why did those people pick schools? There are tons of other places where a shooter could find hordes of innocent civillians.

I went down the list of school shootings in the USA on wikipedia. Only the 17th shooting mentioned a non-student shooter, 6 of those linked pages mentioned nothing about the shooter, the rest all identified the shooter as a student.

el_Prez]
I use school shootings as an example of what happens in "gun free" zones that are poorly guarded. I would hate to imagine what would happen if my neighborhood became a "gun free" zone.

There's no reason to believe anything will change, actually.

To be fair, if you look at any country that isn't the USA, school shootings are extremely, extremely infrequent. Yet almost all of those countries have strict gun laws.

This is telling on it's own.

It means that there is a powerful gun lobby. This isn't actually all that telling on its own, as the gun lobby simply doesn't want any research done as they cannot risk the effects a negative study would have. This doesn't mean they know anything (and they probably don't, as if they did, these facts do not stay hidden for long given the everpresent whistleblowers), it simply means that as commercial companies they are smart enough to realise that the risks of a negative study are far greater than the possible benefits of a positive study.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Assault rifles are only more dangerous because of association. There is no logical reason to feel that assault rifles are inherently insanely dangerous.

Interesting point. Though I beg to differ ...
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bw94nN5qc_M[/youtube]
It definetly makes a difference I think.

I could be wrong here with what I say now but I heard once in a documentation that those guys have been some days before the robbery sightet in a usual control with the weapons in the rear trunk of their car by the police. Now I dont know if they got their some serious punishment, weapons back or just retracted by the police. Though for the case the story is true in quite some other places like Germany for example they definetly would had to deal with harsh consquenzes if they would have been found with assault rifles in the car

el_Prez]
Why are they automatically amateur shooters? I got news for you my friend. Your average patrolman might not be the best shot. Why is it crazy to think that average citizens might be great shots?

I teach at small school in Phoenix where I Coach football as well. The head football coach carries on school campus. He is an ex-marine and a licensed Sheriff's departement deputy.

I think it is a situation similar with Mercenaries (Black Water) and trained marines. Its not so much the skill to hit a target or not. Its about the mental training how to deal with a situation. It has been reported that Black Water personal with short training react extremly nervous in combat compared to long time experienced personal and soldiers (which many times got training during their time in some military) which received some training how to react under stress situations in combat and have the right awareness.

People that just spend some 2-3 months training in how to operate the weapon compared to those with a long time training simulating a realistic scenario like urban engagements usualy cause higher casualites to civilians as they tend to get in "panic" reactions when they suffer a ambush for example. They tend to shoot on anything that gets in their sight or that is moving around instead of trying to detect from which location the enemy might be shooting and concentrate the fire on this position. Colateral damage is pretty high in such cases.

And as you already say here by your self the person is a ex-marine. Most usual people dont have the needed mental training or experience by a simulated scenario and thus will most likeley not react professinonaly in some combat situation cause they simply have never ever been in such a situation.

Weapons in the hands of teachers (or other students) for self defence will most likely (as how I think) result in some accidents. Its simply a logic that if you allow everyoen a weapon the chance for people to die accidantly becomes higher compared to before. Thats a mathematical fact like driving faster will more likely result in higher chances to die in a car accident compared to slower driving or that the chance for accidents with weapons in a house that has a weapon are of course biger compared to one that has no guns so thats not even a question. But the real question is just if the numbers of killed people by gunmens on rampage legitimate the use of weapons in school and the following kills by accidents. It is also a question if everyone armed with a weapon has the needed qualification/chance to disable a person running amok as even that is not certain. Someone also asked the question how the police could differ between civlians and people running amok. A lot of questions and issues that have to be considered.

el_Prez]
So from what I gather from the first couple paragraphs - you don't think that anyone who is not a soldier/swat member (or whatever) does not have adaquate experience to protect civilians effectively? Your talking about human error and fearing for their their life - don't all humans feel that in these situations? Even SWAT team specialists? Everyone is suspect to human error - so is Anyone really qualified to take civilians' lives into their hands?
...

From what I think when I read about the difference between (unexperienced) mercenaries and professional soldiers is the mental conditions in combat situations with the general awarness. Same could count to police officers and civlians. Experience on a shooting range should not be set on the same level as the pyshical and mental training police officers and/or military personal receive. The difference is huge. Of course professionaly trained persons will as well make mistakes but the chance is much lower compared to usual civlians with simple weapon experience (even if they are long time shooters).

Police officers or similar personal are trained in urban engagements (usualy) like how to deal with conflict situations, and reacting without thinking (instinctively) in some but what is as well mportant they usualy also get instructions and education in theorie.

Now what ever if one think its accurate or not but I think at least that inccidents in the Iraq now which sees exceptional large use of independed companies and "mercenaries" show that the colateral damage caused by people that have no militaric background compared to those that have this experience from somewhere are much higher (ex soldiers like forreign legionairs for example). What we are talking here about is a direct combat situation though that require very fast reactions and awarness for the situation which only can be aquired by simulating those situations somewhere or by long time combat experience (which most civlians though dont have) which is less about the skill "how fast one can shot" but more about how fast one can identify the situation like if its some ambush and what kind of ambush, by sharpshooters or usual weapons, explosives etc. It would be as expecting to have in every person a potential firefighter if you would only give him the equipment of professional firefighters but without some training that is as close to rel life as possible.

el_Prez]
Heres the deal with private citizens and them carrying for protection in the U.S. If you are in a gun-drawing situation - and act irresponsibly, you can and will be tried. Your example about inexperienced teachers firing a crowd of students is moot because IF a teacher did that they would go prison or face consequences for whatever happened as a result of them pulling the trigger.

Sure there is a "Self Defense" aspect that comes into it - but it will utlimately be up to a grand jury if you actions were justified or not.

We could go with hypothetical situations even I think where a teach gets in a situation to defend him self. For the case he even has the chance to react like when he heard a gun shoot somewhere. I doubt that in a case where a student gets a gun out of his bag or enters the room the teacher has enough time to react and thus shoot back. But letz assume a situation where a teacher (or armed student) hears a gun. A lot of things could happen. They could for example shoot in fear everyone who attempts to enter the classroom what ever if it might be a inocent student trying to escape in to the class room. The teacher might as well shoot a student that might only look like he is using a gun or he might as well shoot another teacher/student that tries to defend him self cause he has only seen the "weapon" in his hands.

The difference is the mental conditions between a professional persona like a police officers and soldier that had some training how to deal with such a situation in a simulated scenario and never ever act alone but always together and can easily identify each other cause of markings and uniforms.

As soon you allow teachers/students the use of weapons in areas like schools it would not be possible anymore for the police to tell a difference between people just trying to defend them self or runing amok which I see as a very big problem.

 

[[PCE]el_Prez]

Ok, you had an excessive amount of text in telling me that basically you don't believe that regular citizens would be able to handle high-stress dangerous situations properly. Thats your opinion and I happen to disaggree. I'm not going to give you stats on the reaction times of the average person - I'm just going to say that I believe a person is capable of protecting him or herself and others from dangerous gunmen - IF that particular person took the time to learn basic firearm operation.

But If you disagree thats ok. I've rattled on in this thread WAY too much already...

 

[Crni Vuk]

I dissagree with this based on my own experience as firefighter.

And this is only a discussion which no one should take personaly anyway. I am do not even denny the fact that someome could be able to take a stressfull person in the same way as someome with training since reality proved that even under harsh conditions some individuals without any real training managed to not just survive but do amazing things like rescue people or something similar.

I am just saying that the chance for it is lower to expect this from a untrained person in relation with the "numbers" of civilians not some individual that has some born skill/awarness to react in the correct maner in some extreme situation (may it be a gun fight, big fire, etc.). Thats the reason you have "specialiced" training and roles in a society cause not every is "the" firemen, "the" policeofficers or or or.

I am sorry if I used a lot of words to say just something small. But I just dont want to be missunderstood. Thats all.

 

[welsh]

@El Prez- I am really impressed that you stuck with this argument. Well done.

But, being that I teach on a college campus and I recognize that most of our college campus cops are incompetent, I have to admit, I like the idea of a college campus being demilitarized or at least gun-crime free.

I agree with you that probably having a person with a concealed gun would make school shootings more difficult for the would-be shooter.

But there are two things that work against this-

(1) a lot of campus security and cops prefer that the people on campus don't have guns. The reason is simply one of identification. The cops want to hit the bad guy and don't want to hit the guy who is trying to help but is mistaken.

So then the question would be- would an accidental shooting or a mistaken shooting be worse than waiting for the cops to show up? I am not sure.

But what really worries me-

(2) I live around a lot of students who tend to get drunk, disorderly, get into stupid fights, act up, and generally speak, are fairly irresponsible. That's one of the joys of college life although I've had enough run ins with drunk kids to try to avoid them during certain weekends.

I am not sure if I want this population heavily armed either. If we were to allow more guns on campus, we'd probably have more shootings and I would venture a guess that the number of shootings on campus would increase more than the occassional shooting spry.

@ Sander- Does Gun Control reduce crime- Yes.

Although I also agree with BN, the statistics and facts on gun control have been so poisoned by both sides that its hard to tell what is good from what is crap.

But we do know that gun control does make guns more expensive for criminals and harder to get. We know that gun restrictions often prevent criminals from buying certain guns (penalties for automatic weapons make their use irrational).

Now Sander- you may say, "show me stats"- but you know that I can and will if pushed. The problem is really what is the goal. Can gun control limit all homicides- no. Can it even prevent all guns from getting into criminal hands? No.

At the end of the day, the reasons for crime are due to other factors. Why do nuts shoot up schools- because kids are seen as innocent? Because it draws attention? because they are in a gun free environment? Hard to tell when the shooters usually end up dead.

Occassionally, towns in the old west would require that everyone leave their guns outside. Likewise, in courts, people are not supposed to go inside with guns. Consequently- not much gun violence in those localities. This doesn't mean that homicides or crimes didn't occur- but that gun deaths were seriously reduced.

I also agree that America is largely a gun culture. Nearly 40% of households have guns and many have more than one.

To think that anyone, or even the government, has the power to take those guns away, is insane. No one is ever going to get those guns and it would be a political disaster to try.

But the hype on gun control actually plays to the advocates of guns. Easier gun laws, easier access = more gun sales. The industry doesn't give a crap if guns result in deaths. What they want to do is limit their liability.

And that's where the problem is. Most folks don't want to take away your gun, they just don't want to get killed by a gun (yours or anyone elses). So they might ask for some limits-

Do you need 30 shot magazines for your AK? Can't you keep your gun in a safe? How about a gun lock? Do you really need armor piercing bullets to protect your family?

Honestly, my main concerns have to do with straw purchasers and gun fairs.

 

[Slaughter Manslaught]

I think people should be allowed to have guns, but they should be older than 18, take mental exams and training before being allowed to use guns.

Banning guns to stop crime is ridiculous. The only difference is that the honest citizen is disarmed.

When seconds can make a difference, the police is minutes away.

 

[TheGM]

I see people keep talking about people getting drunk and doing stupid shit. and the idea of stupid drunk asshole getting a gun.

IDEA: Ban Alcohol.

 

[welsh]

No way Gm- more people like alcohol than guns!

You'll can try to take my beer away, but it will be from my cold dead hands!

 

[Sander]

Although I also agree with BN, the statistics and facts on gun control have been so poisoned by both sides that its hard to tell what is good from what is crap.

But we do know that gun control does make guns more expensive for criminals and harder to get. We know that gun restrictions often prevent criminals from buying certain guns (penalties for automatic weapons make their use irrational).

Now Sander- you may say, "show me stats"- but you know that I can and will if pushed.

Please do so. I believe you can - but I'd like to see what the stats have to say and infer my own conclusions from them as well.

I also note, again, that I don't think limiting things like automatic weapons or magazine sizes is all that useful and is another marginal issue that distracts from the much more important aspects. Education as to responsible gun use to prevent accidents might be, but as Steven Levitt notes in Freakonomics having a pool poses a much, much greater risk than having a gun. So again, another aspect of the gun control debate that people constantly go on about, but that is in actuality of very little importance.

As you note, this does play into the hands of gun producers - for better or for worse. The debate never touches on the core issue of what the biggest gun problem is: criminal use of illegal guns.
All this effort spent on marginally useful gun control legislation would be much, much better spent on hiring more police officers and being more vigilant against criminal gun sales.

 

[Crni Vuk]

The issue is just as how I see it is that it doesnt even start there with what "responsible use" of weapons now would be.

Its that like any kind of viable discussion in a serious context about the issue gets totally beaten by those that only see the extrems of both worlds in their mind politicaly and economicaly. Its nut just the issue inside of the borders of the united states. YOu have worldwide a very big economical lobby which have no interest in better control of weapons particularly regarding many african states that get their guns in exchange for raw material.

Any kind of real solution or agrement gets already discredited from the begining. It seems like there is no real moderate discussion anymore possible which is counterprodictive.

I like the example people give with curts for example that do not allow for guns as it shows that in such places people dont feel any issue to give away their weapons or have some restriction but suddenly in a place like a school with children and students things become a completely different story as here people should be allowed to carry guns?

When talking about such a topic you usualy have to many emotional and thus biased (for one side or the other) comments and oppinion.

 

[TheWesDude]

i just want to clear up one point of fact...


officers of the law are allowed to carry guns at government buildings and courthouses.

poliece, sherriffs, fbi, and etc dont have to remove their guns when going through the front door.

 

[DammitBoy]

I've never seen so much nonsense paraded as fact in a thread ever - and that's a whole lot of threads at dozens of forums.

I'm not going to enter this futile debate/argument/circle jerk beyond stating the only true facts this thread may ever see.

1) Gun ownership doesn't cause crime.

2) Criminals don't care what laws you make, they are already determined to break them. They don't care about consequences because they do not expect to be caught.

3) In the United States, gun ownership is considered a right of each citizen to provide for their own self-defense. If you want to change that, feel free to get an amendment passed changing the 2nd amendment. Otherwise, keep your whiny comments to yourself.

4) There is no such thing as an assault weapon. This is a ruse put together by the anti-gun crowd to get the votes of feeble-minded people who don't know the difference between a semi-auto rifle and a full auto weapon.

5) About gun free zones and schools. When I went to high school, we carried our guns to school - you could even bring one for show and tell. We didn't have school shootings back then. Now that guns are not allowed on campuses, we have school shootings.

You might also want to check into the school shooting that was stopped by two students with concealed carry pistols. No accidental shooting deaths, no panic firing of weapons, just one bad guy caught by the students and disarmed. It was a college in Virginia, if I'm not mistaken.

6)

7) Profit!

 

[Sander]

I've never seen so much nonsense paraded as fact in a thread ever - and that's a whole lot of threads at dozens of forums.

I'm not going to enter this futile debate/argument/circle jerk beyond stating the only true facts this thread may ever see.

1) Gun ownership doesn't cause crime.

2) Criminals don't care what laws you make, they are already determined to break them. They don't care about consequences because they do not expect to be caught.

False.
This is true for some criminals, but certainly not for all of them. Laws and consequences do not stop every criminal, but they do stop at least some of them.
Also, if this were true, then all laws and rules and punishments would be useless.

3) In the United States, gun ownership is considered a right of each citizen to provide for their own self-defense. If you want to change that, feel free to get an amendment passed changing the 2nd amendment. Otherwise, keep your whiny comments to yourself.

Ah yes, the great American civil liberty of free speech is obviously null and void as soon as you discuss, ehm, civil liberties?

Please keep your trolling out of here, DB. People are free to discuss laws and rules if they wish, and it is in fact one of the core values of the US constitution.

5) About gun free zones and schools. When I went to high school, we carried our guns to school - you could even bring one for show and tell. We didn't have school shootings back then. Now that guns are not allowed on campuses, we have school shootings.

So you're about 65 years old?

Also, correllation is not the same as cause. You know what else changed over that time period? More TV. TV causes shootings!
No wait, maybe it's satan's music: heavy metal!
A lack of smoking!

No, sorry, I know what it is: Dumbass debates where people fail to cite any sources or, y'know, actual facts.

You might also want to check into the school shooting that was stopped by two students with concealed carry pistols. No accidental shooting deaths, no panic firing of weapons, just one bad guy caught by the students and disarmed. It was a college in Virginia, if I'm not mistaken.

Incidents prove nothing about general consequences.

Similarly, I could cite a crazed sniper incident on an army base as 'proof' that everpresent guns don't stop lunatics from killing people.

 

[DammitBoy]

Dumbass debates where people fail to cite any sources or, y'know, actual facts.

That's a pretty succinct description of this thread and your contribution to it. I notice a dearth of facts and cites in all your posts on this topic.

Which is why I won't be participating in this thread beyond this post.

edit: inability to fathom my post duly noted...

 

[Sander]

That's a pretty succinct description of this thread and your contribution to it. I notice a dearth of facts and cites in all your posts on this topic.

Which is why I won't be participating in this thread beyond this post.

Thank you for failing to notice the actual content of my posts, which mainly consisted of pointing out faulty reasonings and fact/baseless assumptions on both sides of the debate. You know, like I just did with your post.

 

[welsh]

Ok, Sander- I got a little time so I will try to post some stuff.

To check the stats- I would advise taking a look at the older threads where this discussion arose. A lot of those stats back there are pretty good and from decent authoritative sources.

You asked- does gun control work or succeed-
A better question is, what kind of gun control? A more important question- how do you measure success.

Take for instance a rule that prevents criminals from buying guns by forcing all legal gun owners to acquire permits. How do you measure its effectiveness? If gun crime increases or even stays the same, does that mean that the gun control didn't work? Perhaps, but also perhaps you have a problem that if the gun control didn't exist you'd have more criminals buying guns and the crime rates would be even higher. You might think of this as the "dogs that don't bark" or how do you prove the nonexistence of something.

This is made more difficult given the nature of crime, especially in the US. I believe in the past we both agreed that guns and crime do not exist in a mono-causal relations. In otherwords, guns alone don't cause crime. Criminal behavior is rather a consequence of social, economic and political circumstantial factors as well as the mental state of individuals. It may be that homicide rates in the US are higher than in Europe because Americans are more prone to kill each other. Maybe. But an alternative explanation is that crime rates are different because circumstances are different in the US and Europe- for instance, Europe has better social safety nets than the US and offer greater opportunities for poor folks to get by. In the US, the collapse of industrial cities led to economic downturns that led to an increase in crime.

This discussion grows more complicated because of the political nature of the gun control debate in the US - which in some cases has affected the nature of studies on this topic (which both BN and I noted above).

Ok- so lets start with some general background-
From the University of Utah med Library-
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

More on the relationship between guns and homicide rates can be found here - at the US Department of justice site-

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm
and more broadly-
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/homtrnd.htm#contents

Looking at the stats reveals a few interesting things I've argued before-
(1) Homicide rates are especially high in cities and among urban minorities (especially blacks and increasingly among latinos)
(2) Those homicides occuring outside large cities and those populations often involve those that the killer has some level of acquaintaince relationship- frequently family, often spouse. The victims are oftem female.

The Utah data also bears this out.

Ok, but that doesn't get us to gun control data.

Gun control involves a variety of different types of control. These controls vary in the US by the state. Those variations by state and control can be found here-
http://www.stategunlaws.org/

Compare for instance Georgia-
http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/state/viewstate.php?st=ga
to New York
http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/state/viewstate.php?st=ny

Now folks down South might argue that New York has a higher rate of gun violence than Georgia- Not exactly true. If you compare Atlanta and New York, Atlanta is actually significantly more dangerous than New York.

http://www.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=new+York&s1=NY&c2=atlanta&s2=GA

Or even Richmond Virginia to New York-
http://www.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=new+York&s1=NY&c2=Richmond&s2=VA

Does that mean that crime stats are working? Or are the populations of those states more likely to commit crimes?

Hard to say, but it does reflect a trend- that the relationship between guns and crime differs depending on your locality- whether you live in a city or whether you live in the country.

Interesting- the majority of the public does support more gun control-
http://www.jhsph.edu/gunpolicy/surveys.html

Or- so what about gun controls? A lot of the research on this has been taken from a public health approach. Among those doing the research come from John Hopkin's University-
http://www.jhsph.edu/gunpolicy/faculty_research_pubs_gpevals.html

Ok, but wait a minute- Gun advocates would argue that criminals will still get their guns and legal owners wouldn't have them.

Well, lets think about that. Even states that regulate guns don't generally take guns away from citizens, but it might restrict your ability to carry. Does that work for the criminals too?

Yes-
Afterall, the way criminals still get guns is by importing them from states that have soft gun control rules- As noted here

But more to the point- Gun Controls even handicap the capacity of criminals to get guns-

Underground markets

Half-cocked
Dec 6th 2007
From The Economist print edition

America's illicit gun-market is surprisingly inefficient

Get article background

AS AMERICANS digest the news of another gun atrocity, a mall shooting in Nebraska on December 5th, they cannot be blamed for thinking that guns are in too ready supply. But an article in the latest Economic Journal* suggests that the demand for illegal guns, at least, is not met as easily as people might fear. Sudhir Venkatesh, now of Columbia University, has talked to 132 gang-members, 77 prostitutes, 116 gun-owning youths, 23 gun-dealers and numerous other denizens of Chicago's Grand Boulevard and Washington Park neighbourhoods. He did not find many satisfied customers.

Chicago has unusually tough restrictions on legal handguns. Even so the black market is surprisingly “thin”, attracting relatively few buyers and sellers. The authors reckon that the 48,000 residents of the two neighbourhoods buy perhaps 1,400 guns a year, compared with at least 200,000 cocaine purchases. Underground brokers sell guns for $150-350, a mark-up of perhaps 200% over the legal price. They also demand a fee of $30-50 for orchestrating the deal. Even then, 30-40% of the transactions fall through because the seller cannot secure a gun, gets cold feet or cannot agree on a location for the deal.

Buyers also find it hard to verify the quality of the merchandise. They often know little about the weapons they covet. “Tony”, who owns a .38 calibre handgun, learnt how to use his weapon by fiddling with it. He even put a stone in it. “Did it fire?” Mr Venkatesh asked. “I'm not sure. I think it did,” Tony said.

Fortunately for Tony and his peers, their rivals and the victims of crime cannot tell if their guns work any better than they can. Often, showing the “bulge” is enough to gain the respect of rival gangs. In robberies brandishing the weapon will usually do. Storekeepers do not wait for proof that it works.

Markets can overcome thinness, the paper says; they can also overcome illegality. But they cannot overcome both. A thin market must rely on advertising or a centralised exchange: eBay, for example, has dedicated pages matching sellers of imitation pearl pins or Annette Funicello bears to the few, scattered buyers that can be found. But such solutions are too cumbersome and conspicuous for an underground market. The drugs market, by contrast, slips through the law's fingers because of the natural density of drug transactions. Dealers can always find customers on their doorstep, and buyers can reassure themselves about suppliers through repeated custom. There are no fixed and formal institutions that the police could easily throttle.

Indeed, the authors argue that the gun market may be threadbare partly because the drug market is so plump. Gang-leaders are wary of gun-dealing because the extra police scrutiny that guns attract would jeopardise their earnings from coke and dope. Even Chicago's gang-leaders have to worry about the effect of crime on commerce.

AN inefficient market- driven by gun control laws, is a good thing. Making guns easier to get, by relaxing gun control laws- would allow criminals easier access to guns.

Consequently, criminals buy guns in states with lax laws and ship them to states with harsher laws-
http://www.bookrags.com/news/virginia-a-major-source-for-illegal-moc/

(Oh and the link to alcohol and gun violence-
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510475,00.html)

More coming.

To answer your question more directly does gun control work-
yes-
Why- it makes it more difficult for criminals to own guns and consequently handicaps their capacity to do violence to each other.

Do safety locks help prevent children from shooting themselves? Yes

Would registration requirements limit the distribution of guns to criminals through gun fairs? Or do bulk sales restrictions frustrate the dissimination of guns to criminal organizations (or is it a bigger pain in the ass to buy guns in Virginia than New York if you're a New York gang?- answer- yes).

SHould there be consumer safety standards? Or- should people who own guns and their families be required to take a gun safety course - even gun advocates support the notion that people should be trained to use guns safety- something the NRA supports. So does gun manufacturer Ruger (perhaps to limit liability?- http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/PDF/Blue Book.pdf)

Honestly, I tend to believe that idea that all guns could be removed from US society is insane. There are just too many guns out there and most of them won't be used to do violence against anyone. Gun advocates often see every restriction as an infringement or threat to their liberties- they shouldn't. That level of gun control would never work. But should we restrict guns or limit the ability of guns to get to criminals- yes. I think most sensible people would agree.

In many states its easier to get a gun license than a driver's license. Safety standards on children's toys are harder than on some guns. (GuncontrolinAmerica. By: Singh, Robert. Political Quarterly, Jul-Sep98, Vol. 69 Issue 3, p288, 9p)

Is gun control the answer to all gun related crime in America? All homicide? Absolutely not. Can Gun Control reduce crime and gun violence- yes. But gun control doesn't exist in a vacuum nor can gun control be seen as the answer to all these problems. Furthermore, the gun control advocates have to acknowledge the danger of going "too far" in trying to end gun violence.

But hey, that's all part of the debate.

From New England Journal of Medicine-

Volume 325:1615-1620 December 5, 1991 Number 23

Effects of restrictive licensing of handguns on homicide and suicide in the District of Columbia
C Loftin, D McDowall, B Wiersema, and TJ Cottey

Abstract

BACKGROUND. Whether restricting access to handguns will reduce firearm-related homicides and suicides is currently a matter of intense debate. In 1976 the District of Columbia adopted a law that banned the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians. We evaluated the effect of implementing this law on the frequency of homicides and suicides.

METHODS. Homicides and suicides committed from 1968 through 1987 were classified according to place of occurrence (within the District of Columbia or in adjacent metropolitan areas where the law did not apply), cause (homicide or suicide), mechanism of death (firearms or other means), and time of occurrence (before or after the implementation of the law). The number of suicides and homicides was calculated for each month during the study period, and differences between the mean monthly totals before and after the law went into effect were estimated.

RESULTS. In Washington, D.C., the adoption of the gun-licensing law coincided with an abrupt decline in homicides by firearms (a reduction of 3.3 per month, or 25 percent) and suicides by firearms (reduction, 0.6 per month, or 23 percent). No similar reductions were observed in the number of homicides or suicides committed by other means, nor were there similar reductions in the adjacent metropolitan areas in Maryland and Virginia. There were also no increases in homicides or suicides by other methods, as would be expected if equally lethal means were substituted for handguns.

CONCLUSIONS. Restrictive licensing of handguns was associated with a prompt decline in homicides and suicides by firearms in the District of Columbia. No such decline was observed for homicides or suicides in which guns were not used, and no decline was seen in adjacent metropolitan areas where restrictive licensing did not apply. Our data suggest that restrictions on access to guns in the District of Columbia prevented an average of 47 deaths each year after the law was implemented.

More info? Also from the New England School of Medicine-

Special Article

Volume 329:1084-1091 October 7, 1993 Number 15

Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home
Arthur L. Kellermann, Frederick P. Rivara, Norman B. Rushforth, Joyce G. Banton, Donald T. Reay, Jerry T. Francisco, Ana B. Locci, Janice Prodzinski, Bela B. Hackman, and Grant Somes

ABSTRACT

Background It is unknown whether keeping a firearm in the home confers protection against crime or, instead, increases the risk of violent crime in the home. To study risk factors for homicide in the home, we identified homicides occurring in the homes of victims in three metropolitan counties.

Methods After each homicide, we obtained data from the police or medical examiner and interviewed a proxy for the victim. The proxies' answers were compared with those of control subjects who were matched to the victims according to neighborhood, sex, race, and age range. Crude and adjusted odds ratios were calculated with matched-pairs methods.

Results During the study period, 1860 homicides occurred in the three counties, 444 of them (23.9 percent) in the home of the victim. After excluding 24 cases for various reasons, we interviewed proxy respondents for 93 percent of the victims. Controls were identified for 99 percent of these, yielding 388 matched pairs. As compared with the controls, the victims more often lived alone or rented their residence. Also, case households more commonly contained an illicit-drug user, a person with prior arrests, or someone who had been hit or hurt in a fight in the home. After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4). Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

Conclusions The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home. Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

Oh but wait- that's only in bad neighborhoods right?
Nope-
http://www.uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=1910

Really- safety locks are a bad thing?

Oh and school violence and homicide- truth is that most kids who die by guns don't die at school but outside of schools. In most of these cases poverty and guns has a higher correlation to the child's death. http://www.childdeathreview.org/causesHF.htm

 

[TheWesDude]

Welsh, if those DC numbers are not figured average per capita per month with some scientificially reviewed method and held as accurate enough...

those numbers dont mean much

 

[welsh]

Hey Wes- given that this is the New England Journal of Medicine- one of the best med journals in the country.. I would trust their scientificy methods as pretty good.

Feel free to check the article- I just submitted the abstract, but it seems they are looking at homicides per month and that they populations of these areas are fairly static.

So I think you can cover numbers of homicide change over time with a fairly static population with a change in one independent variable.