Another school shooting

[morethanpretty]

Originally Posted by tw

Charted were gun ownership and violent deaths. A major peak occured in the post civil war decade. Another peak coincided with increased gun ownership during prohibition.

If more guns means safer streets, then why did sharp increases in murders occur when gun ownership increased? According to claims made here by others, then more guns should mean decreased violent deaths. That trend was not only demonstrated in America. Same trend was demonstrated in other nations.

But the events during these times were the main reason that there was an increase in violent deaths. During the Reconstruction, there was great animosity towards the Radical Republicans, and all northerners really. Its still there in the south to some extent. The former confederates had been defeated, but they didn't want to be conquered. They rebelled against the north. The KKK was began to repel the Radical Republicans, and those were their main target. After Reconstruction the violence started to end, the north was no longer constantly agitating the former Confederate states, and those states had gained back much of the freedom they had lost because of their defeat.
During prohibition the amount of illegal activity increased because people all over the country were rebelling against the prohibition law. The mafia was profiting greatly by smuggling in booze and were fighting over territory.
There is normally a reason that violent crime increases, and it is not the availabilty of guns that makes people violent. They must feel a need or want for a gun, they plan on using it and therefore seek out aquiring one, either legally or illegally. If they plan on using the gun for an illegal activity they will most likely aquire the gun through illegal means, harder for the weapon to be traced back to them.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by glatt

This isn't just my opinion. Fully automatic machine guns were outlawed back in the '20s or '30s. You can't easily get them today, even on the black market. You hear every few years about someone being caught with one, but they are not the problem that other guns are. They are virtually non-existant or are kept in hiding where they do exist. The same would happen with all guns if they were outlawed. It would just take time.

How many would you like?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

Guns were almost non-existent in the old west. This for numerous reasons. Some obvious ones. First, guns were manufactured in only two places in America - Harper's Ferry VA and Springfield MA. Hunting parties traveled in large numbers so that among twenty might be three guns. Furthermore, those hunting parties had to carefully arrange who would shoot and who would withhold fire - so that a loaded gun always remained.

Absolutely, positively, not true. Everyone is the west had a gun....at least every man and many of the women. For that matter most everyone in the east, that didn't live in one of the cities, did too.

Not everyone had a handgun, because they were expensive and not all that accurate, reliable or useful. The long gun, however, was essential for obtaining food and not becoming food. People were further from the top of the food chain then.
Oh, and those pesky heathens that lived there first.

Harper's Ferry, VA and Springfield, MA were military ordinance, although during the war, people like Mr Colt in Hartford, Ct, lent a hand. That's when manufacturing of interchangeable parts, field repairable, cheap(er), and with that wonderful invention the metallic cartridge, came about.

Ever hear of the Pennsylvania Rifle, the Kentucky Rifle? These guns were made by blacksmiths by the tens of thousands. Blacksmiths that proved adept at making guns were in much demand and turned to gunsmithing exclusively. They also commanded more money but most of the other blacksmiths still made guns in their spare time between horseshoeing and utensil building.

After the war, was a period of "how ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm". Young men that had a taste of travel and adventure. Before that most people never went more than 50 miles from home in there whole lives unless they were emigrating for some reason. Sure, most of the soldiers just wanted to go home, but many, particularly in the South, had no home to go to, and others had reasons they didn't want to or couldn't go home. More people on the move, repeating weapons and hard feelings, are a recipe for conflict.


A couple people claimed making handguns is difficult. Not so. Making accurate, reliable, high caliber guns, yes. But in my basement, with rudimentary tools, I can turn out a substantial number of single action revolvers that look good enough and work well enough to commit a crime, hold up a person or 7-11, as long as you didn't get into a shootout with the cops or an armed citizen. We're not talking Dirty Harry's magnum, .22, .32 or .38 will do.
If somebody sticks a gun in your face are you going to demand to see the machining marks?....ask to see the heat treat record for the barrel?
Don't forget that most crimes committed with a gun, no shots are fired. Despite the YouTube clips of clerks opening a can of whoopass on armed robbers, most people acquiesce.

[warch]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/socia...ess_10-06.html

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by tw

You were hear when those numbers and charts were posted. You had posted in that discussion. When all that information was posted, suddenly, those who advocated more guns went silent.

Because it was pointless...go read John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime"; he explains why those statistics are misleadingly interpreted.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by warch

More guns= more gun deaths.

More matches = more house fires? More crowbars = more burglaries? More ski masks = more bank holdups

The majority of legal defensive gun uses do not involve "gun deaths", gunshot wounds, or even discharging the weapon.

Read Gun Facts, and then Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime".

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Absolutely, positively, not true.

Oh, but tw said it; it's "reality". ;-)

[warch]

Lott's "study" is no more statistically sound that my laypersons typing of

More guns = more gun deaths.

or the majority of gun deaths are caused by gun shots.

His stats are suspect, and his analysis weak.
I bet I can find more evidence for my equation. I'll see what I can find. Meantime:

The flaw with your example is that the objects you cite have uses other than causing death. That is what a gun is for. If is doesnt kill, its not effective. If youre not ready to use it to kill, dont own it. right?

[warch]

And I'd forgotten about all the Lott fraud! You sure picked a lame reference, Mags. (Meanwhile, I'll continue to gather up the research I can find that suggests the reality of my simple equation)

this debunking courtesy of the brady gun control campaign site:

Lott Co-Author Admits to Gaping Flaws in Study

Professor David Mustard, the co-author of Lott's study, has conceded that there were serious flaws in their study - flaws that seriously undermine the conclusions. Mustard was deposed under oath in the Ohio concealed handgun case Klein v. Leis. Mustard admitted that: 1) the study "omitted variables" which could explain that changes in the crime rate are due to reasons other than changes in CCW laws, and 2) the study did not account for many of the major factors that Mustard believes affect crime including crack cocaine, wealth, drugs and alcohol use, and police practices such as community policing. These serious flaws completely undermine Lott's findings.

Lott Claims Computer Ate His Controversial CCW Survey

In his published research analysis, John Lott has claimed that a 1997 survey he conducted found that concealed handguns deterred crime without being fired an astoundingly high 98% of the time. That claim allowed Lott to explain away the fact that extremely few self-defense uses of handguns are ever reported. But when scholars began questioning his survey results, Lott began a series of evasions that culminated in the claim that his computer had crashed and he had "lost" all the data. The University of Chicago, where Lott claims he conducted the study, has no record of it being conducted so Lott began claiming that he funded it himself (and kept no records) and that he used students to make the survey calls (though no students have been identified who participated). Indeed, no records of the survey exist at all. Lott is now facing serious questions about whether he fabricated the entire survey - raising serious questions about his ethics and credibility.

Only the tip of the freaky fraud iceberg http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=lott

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by warch

The flaw with your example is that the objects you cite have uses other than causing death. That is what a gun is for. If is doesnt kill, its not effective. If youre not ready to use it to kill, dont own it. right?

There's a very significant difference between being "ready to kill", and killing. Not every one who is "ready" to kill actually kills anyone.

A gun that cannot kill isn't an effective weapon...but a weapon doesn't have to be used to kill to be used. Every cop on the street has a gun (and the smart ones have more than one), but they very, very seldom use them to shoot to kill. (So seldom that too many cops think they'll *never* need to fire them, and don't develop and maintain the skill to use them well.) But a cop's sidearm that isn't used to kill isn't "useless". It changes a situation by simply existing.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Because it was pointless...go read John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime"; he explains why those statistics are misleadingly interpreted.

Or he misleadingly misinterprets statistics, himself.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by warch

this debunking courtesy of the brady gun control campaign site:

Yeah, the Brady Bunch are real authorities on statistics. They've been manufacturing them for years.

The second edition of "More Guns, Less Crime" was published in 2000, with new data reinforcing the original conclusions. His more recent work is "The Bias Aginst Guns", which deals with how media handles the issue.

Go look at Gun Facts for other stats on defensive gun use...it's free.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by warch

(Meanwhile, I'll continue to gather up the research I can find that suggests the reality of my simple equation)

Oh, no! Another expert on "reality"! Whatever will we do if they disagree?

[Flint]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Oh, no! Another expert on "reality"! Whatever will we do if they disagree?

"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" – Adam Savage

[Hippikos]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Because it was pointless...go read John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime"; he explains why those statistics are misleadingly interpreted.

Didn't Lott impersonate himself on the internet as this "Mary Rosh" female person to praise his own work? Can we take this guy serious?

Lott finds, for example, that both increasing the rate of unemployment and reducing income reduces the rate of violent crimes and that reducing the number of black women 40 years old or older (who are rarely either perpetrators or victims of murder) substantially reduces murder rates. Indeed, according to Lott's results, getting rid of older black women will lead to a more dramatic reduction in homicide rates than increasing arrest rates or enacting shall-issue laws. (New England Journal of Medicine)