I know plenty of people assiduously track the crimes prevented by using a gun and I know people track crimes committed with guns. Does anyone track crimes committed with a gun that was legally owned and carried? I have had a hard time finding legitimate statistics for the argument that the armed citizens do not commit crime. I would like to know if the murderer of Dr. Tiller was legally carrying a gun? The murderer of the Recruiter? The wives who shoot their husbands and vice versa? The children who get a gun and shoot themselves or others? The rampage killer in NY? The Holocaust Museum murderer? I watch Dateline and the ID channel and LOTS of people kill people. I cannot feel the debate is complete without the statistics of when a crime with a gun was committed by someone already a criminal and illegally in possession and when a crime with a gun occurs with someone who was a legally allowed owner gone bad and I think that the argument is skewed and dishonest without that knowledge. Any links for such information would be appreciated.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 11, 2009 @ 9:37 am
Sandi, honestly I think that type of data is going to be hard to come by. Likely one would need to compile it to get accurate data.
Personally I feel the issue is moot. I am more concerned with the fact that someone has decided to murder another rather than nuances of did he purchase or steal a gun, or did he cross some geopolitical boundary.
But there is an interesting side-point to your question. It shows that there are few black-and-white arguments or fully consistent arguments when discussing "political" issues. One person may feel that the types of statistics Sandi asks for are perfectly legitimate for placing restrictions on people. However, they may feel a Gattaca or Minority Report(*) type use of figures would be wholly inappropriate (such as limiting health benefits based on risk analysis or genetic profile).
(*never saw Minority Report, but I understand it had to do with acting based on predicting peoples behavior)
I see your point Ed S, but the debate rages whenever it is brought up and many do maintain that legal gun owners are not criminals and I just find that an absurd argument as I know better anecdotally and wondered if anyone did do the research. When 28% of us die of heart disease, 4% from accidents and less than or around 1% from homicide, it is a silly question in that context, but in the gun control debate I feel it is very relevant.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 11, 2009 @ 10:40 am
I do understand what you are saying. I take a slightly different view on the point you are citing in that the vast majority of the public is law-abiding (in the respect that they do not commit murder and mayhem...legally parking or staying strictly to the speed limit may be another matter).
After the other night I see where the 28% of deaths from heart disease comes from. The wifey was fixing some microwave popcorn. I checked the label (doing that more lately), and it had a whopping *7 grams* of trans fat in the bag. Wow. I'm trying to steer her away from that brand now.
One approach may be to find statistics on how many murders were committed by people with a previous felony conviction - they are automatically prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm. I believe I have seen those statistics referenced before (but I don't remember where). John Lott would be a good name to start with - he seems to be considered one of the preeminent researchers in this area (I believe he was also cited in at least one brief in the Heller case).
Anyone who argues that legally armed citizens do not commit crimes is, quite frankly, not in touch with reality. The usual argument, I believe, is that it's very rare because by the time someone rises to the level of committing a violent crime using a firearm, they normally already have at least one felony under their belt.
I know that the Holocaust Museum killer was prohibited from possessing a firearm - he had a previous felony conviction. I don't know about the others off the top of my head, and I'm not somewhere that I can look them up at the moment.
Without doubt the only saving grace any of us really have is that, "the vast majority of the public is law-abiding (in the respect that they do not commit murder and mayhem...)" but again, that was not my point or question. If people want to debate the gun control issue, and we all know it is hotly debated and will probably be an issue in the Governor's race, the information and statistics used need to be fairly researched and applied and I do not think it is. While I do not think gun control laws have really been effective since their racist inception and certainly do not support more of them, I think we need to look at an issue that has people feeling they need to go to the mall and movies carrying a gun. There is a disconnect, there is a problem, and unfair debate and dishonest stats are a big part of the problem IMHO.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 11, 2009 @ 11:18 am
Thanks Jake, I will look at John Lott. When you look at the overall deaths and causes of death you see the bigger picture (or when you look at the local obituary notices) and realize the small minority of crime we are talking about anyway, but when you watch the news and as I mentioned Dateline and the ID Channel, you think homicide (and especially domestic homicide) is number one with a bullet. (couldn't resist)
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 11, 2009 @ 11:29 am
The best and most successful form of gun control is simply being able to hit your target.
Crazy people, like the maniacs at the museum, the maniac at the recruiter station and the one who killed Tiller will obtain guns noi matter what laws are passed to prevent it. The only thing gun control laws do is to disarm the law abiding public. The old adage that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is as true now as it's always been. Stiff prison sentences, even the death penalty for gun crimes is the only thing that will even come close to working. Gun control attempts are a waste of time, always have been.
Sandi I wasn't trying to block or de-rail you from your train of thought. I was simply interjecting my personal opinion, somewhat of a counterpoint, that the statistics would be near irrelevant in the formation of my opinion.
Back to your point, I think those stats are going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to find. Some time ago, an acquaintance of mine was trying to find accurate statistics in Virginia for people that have been stripped of their CHP. In the course of looking up the info, the question of why they were stripped of their permit came up. They were able to get the figures of the number of permits revoked, but not accurate reasons why. It could have been some administrative issue, some minor or major issue having no relation to guns, or it could have been for some gun-related issue.
Just saying it would be difficult to compile the info, and even then it may not be precise enough to make the kind of comparisons you are looking for.
While you already have an opinion on the subject (as do I), at least you are looking for descriptive data rather than taking existing skewed compilations (as you noted).
Patrick, the seed was planted in my head to do some research after reading "Deer Hunting with Jesus" (GREAT book BTW) and sure enough I believe it is true:
"Before the Civil War ended, State "Slave Codes" prohibited slaves from owning guns. After President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and after the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery was adopted and the Civil War ended in 1865, States persisted in prohibiting blacks, now freemen, from owning guns under laws renamed "Black Codes." They did so on the basis that blacks were not citizens, and thus did not have the same rights, including the right to keep and bear arms protected in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as whites. This view was specifically articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in its infamous 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford to uphold slavery."
The old "gun's don't kill people" is a bogus today as it ever was. Unless you're going to make the argument that American "people" are substantially more violent and homicidal than the rest of the industrialized world.
Where gun deaths are concerned....we are indeed #1!
For a comparison, can someone find the total homicide rates of industrialized countries so we have a meaningful way to interpret the data? If the total rate in the US is higher, then that's indicative of a societal problem. If the total rates are largely equal, then it's simply a questin/problem with the tool used, but it has no bearing on how likely a person will kill another person. Now, if a country with tight gun control laws has both a statistically meaningful lower gun-related homicide rate and a lower overall homicide rate, then there's some merit to the argument.
However, that statistic would only measure one side. It would not take into account the personal level of protection that individual gun ownership may provide.
People feel "they need to go to the mall and movies carrying a gun" because crimes happen in those places, just like they happen everywhere else.People who carry tend to do so everywhere, because you never know when you might need it. By carrying routinely, they're more likely to have it if they do need it.
"when you watch the news and as I mentioned Dateline and the ID Channel, you think homicide (and especially domestic homicide) is number one with a bullet. (couldn't resist)"
The news tends to focus on the stories that are more dramatic, because drama sells better. Other causes of death don't make the news as often because there have never been, as far as I know, things like "mass heart-attacks." Stories about someone scaring off a mugger just by pulling his jacket aside and putting his hand on his gun rarely, if ever, make the news.
Which brings up another point - any debate about gun control also needs to take into account defensive gun uses (DGUs). Unfortunately, statistics and news coverage of DGUs are hard to come by. Like I pointed out above, incidents where a criminal runs away at the mere sight of an armed victim rarely make the news, and it's believed that they often don't even get reported to the police, so the statistics vary widely.
See that is the problem with statistics. The person compiling may have some control and inside knowledge but the stats alone are only a portion of any picture. Those Kristen linked were very informative and we can see a problem even without the fuller stats to compare, but it is hard to base any debate on stats or compare the U.S. culture to Brazil or Jamaica. It is all interesting and if we can leave the emotion out of it I can see a fascinating thing to decipher and discuss. From the origins, to the ineffectiveness to the statistics, we have a days work.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 11, 2009 @ 12:59 pm
"The old "gun's don't kill people" is a bogus today as it ever was. Unless you're going to make the argument that American "people" are substantially more violent and homicidal than the rest of the industrialized world."
So, Kristen, all those guns just jumped up on their own and shot people, did they?
Somehow, I expect that each of the deaths in the statistics you linked to was caused by a person, one way or another. With extremely rare exceptions, guns don't just spontaneously fire themselves.
And, as Other John pointed out, the statistics you pointed to are meaningless without taking into account total homicide rates as well.
I like those crowded street scenes in the peaceloving, gentle, Moslim cities of the middle east where it looks like everybody is toting an AK-47 and when they want to celebrate something they fire a few rounds in to the air. Makes us look like right to bear arms pikers. Talk about 2nd amendment rights, there's a group thats got em.
According to this we're "only" 24th in overall homicide rates, while much higher in gun related homicide.
And Jake, I guess you're right. Guns can't fire themselves. The only other conclusion is that Americans are comparatively tend more to shooting eachother than other countries.
Here is a comparison of the gun deaths of children in industrialized countries.
"Moreover, a February 2002 study found that children ages 5 to 14 were more likely to die from gunshot wounds if they lived in states where firearm ownership was more common. This finding held true even after the researchers controlled for state-level poverty rates, education, and urbanization."
Ed, thanks for adding that one. I knew I was forgetting a possibility. This is why I am not a fan of statistics, because depending on how they are presented, they can paint a vary different picture using the same data, but different matrices from which to base the presented results. For instance, one of my biggest peeves is profit data. Yes, the oil companies pulled down record profits in terms of total dollar amounts in the past few years, but their profit margins, i.e. the percentage of profit made as a basis of their total operating costs, was significantly lower than healthcare, banking, credit card, and pharmaceutical industry margins were, in some cases half or less. But, because energy is a high-dollar industry, just reporting the net dollar amount got people outraged, even though several industries pulled down double or more in margins per dollar of revenue. So, even though the same data was presented, it was put forth in a way to drawe antagonism to the oil companies with how it was reported...and that's the main fault of statistics. So, really the only good way to decipher what's out there is to look at a broad data set, several independent studies, and then ascertain their meaning on your own.
Sorry Jake, I love you, I do, and you offer well reasoned argument without the condemnation you might feel and I so much appreciate that, but "People feel "they need to go to the mall and movies carrying a gun" because crimes happen in those places, just like they happen everywhere else" I just do not think that any statistic backs that argument up and in fact while crimes can indeed occur anywhere those are not the prevalent places for them. I know we as a people have caved into the "be prepared" motto to the nth degree but preparing for a flat by having a spare is not comparable to carrying a concealed weapon in preparation for a crime before your eyes. You and I both know that there are very legitimate reasons for some people to go armed and there are the "it's my right" crowd who do it because they can. While that is your argument to make, I think it insults the society you are a part of and the social etiquette we like to think we have in this country. If that prepared mantra was the real reason, why not advocate for all Americans to get armed and prepared? Do you think all of us should prepare for that unexpected crime on a daily basis? Please do not fall back on the fire alarm or locking your doors argument, that is plainly offensive and insulting frankly. I do not feel my family is less worthy of protection, I feel we either have faith in our society and the massive amounts of people who never do harm or we give in to the irrational fear of the prospect of a crime happening in an unlikely place any moment.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 11, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
Another bit of food for thought, I'd like to separate out the amount of gun deaths associated with gang violence...whether it's gang on gang turf wars, or gunfights over drug trade, or other such related gange activities. In many cities, most of their gun murders are gang-related in some fashion, which drives up the total murder rates substantially. I think most of those guns are not legally obtained, but a few might be. I really wonder if anyone has bothered to do an in-depth study on this and split the numbers out so we can get a valuable data set with figures we can use to compare to other nations to see where our problem areas really lie. Are they in gang violence, vigilantism, self-defense, random crimes with guns, accidental shootings, govnernment/police use, etc. I think only when the data is filtered down to such a detailed level can we really figure out what the real root of gun-related homicides are, and actually work to implement real solutions that can actually help to reduce them. We can't cure a disease without knowing what caused it. It seems like most of our efforts have been attempts to control the symptoms, rather than fix the root cause.
Excellent thought Other John, I wonder why such an emotional and hot button issue for pols is not researched and dissected '8 ways from Sunday'. It almost makes you believe that like the profit margins you mentioned in another post, people on both sides are researching and using the stats that support their side and ignoring the rest and those struggling to understand and make a decision have difficulty getting the whole picture. Too much in our society is treated that way. By cracky if it is unsafe for me to go out unarmed to the mall or the movies, I should have a right to that statistic. I know it is unsafe to go into some areas armed with a tank so the information is available.
I think that absolutely if the gang and drug related gun violence is included that would inflate the "problem" out of demonstrable proportion for the vast majority of Americans to the point of being useless. The plot thickens...
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 11, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
"Nothing like a nice cluster in the 10-ring."
I've completely removed the 10-ring with a single 10rd magazine before. Who needs a cluster? I say just remove the 10-ring altogether.
@Jake: "incidents where a criminal runs away at the mere sight of an armed victim rarely make the news, and it's believed that they often don't even get reported to the police, so the statistics vary widely."
@Jake: "With extremely rare exceptions, guns don't just spontaneously fire themselves"
And when that happens, it's usually faulty ammunition. Modern guns have many safety mechanisms in them to prevent the firing pin from touching the primer without someone or something physically pulling the trigger.
OJ - Agree. Also, good point on the stats related to energy industry. I had missed that one, and it's a good example.
Sandi and I will probably disagree on allowing people to carry a pistol for self-defense in areas she mentioned. I believe that a person who behaves lawfully should be able to do so. Likewise, I respect her desire to not carry. I don't advocate it as right for everyone. Some may not feel comfortable doing so. Some may just plain object to violence, even in self-defense. That's fine with me, and fits with my "to each his own" belief on the subject. But I do believe that it is perfectly acceptable for one to determine their own method of preparedness. However unlikely, it is possible someone could be in a bad situation. And I feel that it's been shown that it is not uncivil to carry a pistol for self-defense.
I do agree with Sandi that we cannot avoid the fact that figures are used to support the argument being presented. It's difficult to find un-adulterated statistics, near-impossible in political topics.
@Sandi: "You and I both know that there are very legitimate reasons for some people to go armed and there are the "it's my right" crowd who do it because they can"
How about this, Sandi... I'll leave my gun at home if you pinky promise to call me EARLY on the day that I will need it so that I can carry it that day. Do you promise??? If you can't promise, I'm going to go ahead and carry it just in case.
@Jack: #31: Now if we can get incidents like that reported more frequently, people might get a more balanced picture of the issues involved.
#32: Exactly. For most modern firearms, at least two safety features have to fail at the same time for a spontaneous discharge. My caveat was, in fact, mainly to cover antiques that don't have those features.
@Sandi #26: I'll try to have something for you after work. That deserves a better response than I can come up with in the little bits of time I can manage at the moment.
Will...that actually reminds me of one of the old Health Team 10 blips that Karen McNew did a few years back related to obesity. I think she started with something along the lines of 'research has shown that overeating has been determined to be one of the leading causes of obesity.' I heard that and was like, wow really?!? I had no idea. I honestly hoped that it was an outside piece she had to present on air and not something she did on her own, because it made her seem a lot less intelligent than i had given her credit for up until that point. It was just one of those forehead smacking moments of brilliance.
Honestly, I think we're both being too specific and too general about the "malls and movies" issue. People who carry each have their own reasons for doing so, and what most really want is the ability to decide when and where on their own, without having to plan "special" trips around whether they can carry or not. Not everyone going to see a movie is only going to see a movie - for example, they may need to pick up something at Wal-Mart while they're out. Or their particular circumstances may mean going out anywhere unarmed is dangerous.
I've had a blind date go "stalker-creepy" on me before (without actually going all the way, thank goodness), and that was the most unnerving couple of weeks of my life. I can't imagine what people with real stalkers go through, but I did go through a period of "I can't go there because I can't carry there - what if he shows up and tries something?"
That being said, for many who carry it is a case of "be prepared." There are enough stories floating around the internet of "I wish I had been carrying that day, but I wasn't because of X," or even worse, the "I don't know why he didn't have his gun with him that day, he always has it" stories - usually coming from a grieving family member - that there is a fairly common mentality of "If you choose to carry, always carry, so you don't wish you had."
"why not advocate for all Americans to get armed and prepared"
Some do. I simply advocate for all Americans to have the ability to get armed and prepared.
"I feel we either have faith in our society and the massive amounts of people who never do harm or we give in to the irrational fear of the prospect of a crime happening in an unlikely place any moment."
I look at it another way - we either have faith in our society and the massive amounts of people who never do harm or we give in to the irrational fear of the prospect of someone committing a crime just because they have a gun.
If someone wants to commit a crime, not having a gun won't stop them. If someone does not want to commit a crime, having a gun won't make them. But it might let him protect himself against the first guy.
"If someone wants to commit a crime, not having a gun won't stop them. If someone does not want to commit a crime, having a gun won't make them. But it might let him protect himself against the first guy."
OK, I am going to give you this round, because you are so rational and manage to make sense, discuss and make your point without insulting me and my friend that is a rare thing.
I see your point and I will continue this journey and my research. I am coming around and when I finally capitulate, it will be in large measure thanks to you!
I think you can agree that I have come a long way. I am working on getting past the thought that fear and/or arrogance is the motivation for some CHP which is really my last hurdle. I trust you with a gun, now I will work on the rest.
You had me at the second paragraph of #5!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 11, 2009 @ 10:35 pm
So lets just ban marriage and births...and we solved 2 problems! Woohoo!
Comment by Other John — June 11, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
I will give up birth and marriage...but they'll take my food from my cold, dead hands.
HMMMMMMM IRS looking to tax cell phone use.... theory being employees may be using employer provided cell phones for personal use. The IRS is considering 25% of cell phone use to be "personal". Could "add" on $300/yr in taxable income. Tell me the FAIRTAX aint looking better and better.
JAck..good point about "use of the can" at work..better keep those good ideas to yourself. another might be the imputed value of free parking at work... did you have a donut today at the staff meeting?coffee? CHACHING!!
I'm going to a Red Sox (Avalanche/Buccaneers/Red Birds/Whatever) game tonight. We got free tickets for some kind of HCA appreciation thing. Is that taxable?
I can see it now.. the IRS implementing a $20/day tax and it is your responsibility to prove on a daily basis that you didn't do anything that would justify those taxes. You could, with enough work, get your daily tax all the way down to ZERO!
I can see employees everywhere declining a company cell phone because it's not worth the trouble of having to deal with the taxes. Oh, and if you're not paying for my phone, you certainly won't be calling me in the middle of the night. Sorry, those days are over.
$20 a day? Where do you get that? My cell phone bill (not paid by the company, by the way) is about $80 a month - with an unlimited data plan.
If the company paid that and I got taxed on the entire thing, the tax would, at a maximum, come to $20 a month. But since their talking about taxing only 25 percent of the cost, it would be more like $5 a month, or 16 cents a day.
Deal in hyperbole much, Jack?
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 12, 2009 @ 9:00 am
If they want to tax me for my company-issued blackberry, the company can have it back. I don't use it for personal calls; I have a personal cell phone for that.
Comment by Susan St. Clair — June 12, 2009 @ 9:09 am
I have to carry a company supplied phone and I do use it for personal stuff. If they want to tax the company phone, they can take it. I'm not going to carry two phones.
@Dan: "$20 a day? Where do you get that? My cell phone bill (not paid by the company, by the way) is about $80 a month - with an unlimited data plan.
If the company paid that and I got taxed on the entire thing, the tax would, at a maximum, come to $20 a month. But since their talking about taxing only 25 percent of the cost, it would be more like $5 a month, or 16 cents a day.
Deal in hyperbole much, Jack?"
I was making a generalization regarding the "prove that you didn't" thing.
"If they want to tax me for my company-issued blackberry, the company can have it back. I don't use it for personal calls; I have a personal cell phone for that."
I use mine for personal calls. I don't see the point in carrying two phones around. If they want it back, they can have it. They just can't expect to call me outside business hours on my own phone that I am paying my own money for.
The way I see it, my use of it to make a few personal calls here and there is a way of compensating me for being available on it 24/7.
The company would not care if I made personal calls on the blackberry they issued me. The reason I do not use it for personal phone calls is because my personal phone is much clearer and easier to talk on. The blackberry does many things, but I can't say it is great for phone conversations. It is a pain to carry around 2 phones and it does make my purse quite a bit heavier. I also do not see how one is going to prove that they do not use a company phone for personal calls. There's a landline phone on my desk I can and do use for personal calls as well.
Comment by Susan St. Clair — June 12, 2009 @ 1:52 pm
RSS feed 
I know plenty of people assiduously track the crimes prevented by using a gun and I know people track crimes committed with guns. Does anyone track crimes committed with a gun that was legally owned and carried? I have had a hard time finding legitimate statistics for the argument that the armed citizens do not commit crime. I would like to know if the murderer of Dr. Tiller was legally carrying a gun? The murderer of the Recruiter? The wives who shoot their husbands and vice versa? The children who get a gun and shoot themselves or others? The rampage killer in NY? The Holocaust Museum murderer? I watch Dateline and the ID channel and LOTS of people kill people. I cannot feel the debate is complete without the statistics of when a crime with a gun was committed by someone already a criminal and illegally in possession and when a crime with a gun occurs with someone who was a legally allowed owner gone bad and I think that the argument is skewed and dishonest without that knowledge. Any links for such information would be appreciated.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 11, 2009 @ 9:37 am
Sandi, honestly I think that type of data is going to be hard to come by. Likely one would need to compile it to get accurate data.
Personally I feel the issue is moot. I am more concerned with the fact that someone has decided to murder another rather than nuances of did he purchase or steal a gun, or did he cross some geopolitical boundary.
But there is an interesting side-point to your question. It shows that there are few black-and-white arguments or fully consistent arguments when discussing "political" issues. One person may feel that the types of statistics Sandi asks for are perfectly legitimate for placing restrictions on people. However, they may feel a Gattaca or Minority Report(*) type use of figures would be wholly inappropriate (such as limiting health benefits based on risk analysis or genetic profile).
(*never saw Minority Report, but I understand it had to do with acting based on predicting peoples behavior)
Comment by Ed S. — June 11, 2009 @ 10:20 am
I see your point Ed S, but the debate rages whenever it is brought up and many do maintain that legal gun owners are not criminals and I just find that an absurd argument as I know better anecdotally and wondered if anyone did do the research. When 28% of us die of heart disease, 4% from accidents and less than or around 1% from homicide, it is a silly question in that context, but in the gun control debate I feel it is very relevant.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 11, 2009 @ 10:40 am
I do understand what you are saying. I take a slightly different view on the point you are citing in that the vast majority of the public is law-abiding (in the respect that they do not commit murder and mayhem...legally parking or staying strictly to the speed limit may be another matter).
After the other night I see where the 28% of deaths from heart disease comes from. The wifey was fixing some microwave popcorn. I checked the label (doing that more lately), and it had a whopping *7 grams* of trans fat in the bag. Wow. I'm trying to steer her away from that brand now.
Comment by Ed S. — June 11, 2009 @ 10:54 am
Sandi,
One approach may be to find statistics on how many murders were committed by people with a previous felony conviction - they are automatically prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm. I believe I have seen those statistics referenced before (but I don't remember where). John Lott would be a good name to start with - he seems to be considered one of the preeminent researchers in this area (I believe he was also cited in at least one brief in the Heller case).
Anyone who argues that legally armed citizens do not commit crimes is, quite frankly, not in touch with reality. The usual argument, I believe, is that it's very rare because by the time someone rises to the level of committing a violent crime using a firearm, they normally already have at least one felony under their belt.
I know that the Holocaust Museum killer was prohibited from possessing a firearm - he had a previous felony conviction. I don't know about the others off the top of my head, and I'm not somewhere that I can look them up at the moment.
Comment by Jake — June 11, 2009 @ 11:17 am
Without doubt the only saving grace any of us really have is that, "the vast majority of the public is law-abiding (in the respect that they do not commit murder and mayhem...)" but again, that was not my point or question. If people want to debate the gun control issue, and we all know it is hotly debated and will probably be an issue in the Governor's race, the information and statistics used need to be fairly researched and applied and I do not think it is. While I do not think gun control laws have really been effective since their racist inception and certainly do not support more of them, I think we need to look at an issue that has people feeling they need to go to the mall and movies carrying a gun. There is a disconnect, there is a problem, and unfair debate and dishonest stats are a big part of the problem IMHO.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 11, 2009 @ 11:18 am
Thanks Jake, I will look at John Lott. When you look at the overall deaths and causes of death you see the bigger picture (or when you look at the local obituary notices) and realize the small minority of crime we are talking about anyway, but when you watch the news and as I mentioned Dateline and the ID Channel, you think homicide (and especially domestic homicide) is number one with a bullet. (couldn't resist)
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 11, 2009 @ 11:29 am
The best and most successful form of gun control is simply being able to hit your target.
Comment by Jim W. — June 11, 2009 @ 11:36 am
Crazy people, like the maniacs at the museum, the maniac at the recruiter station and the one who killed Tiller will obtain guns noi matter what laws are passed to prevent it. The only thing gun control laws do is to disarm the law abiding public. The old adage that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is as true now as it's always been. Stiff prison sentences, even the death penalty for gun crimes is the only thing that will even come close to working. Gun control attempts are a waste of time, always have been.
Comment by Jim W. — June 11, 2009 @ 11:42 am
Sandi, I find your comment "I do not think gun control laws have really been effective since their racist inception" interesting.
What do you mean by it?
Comment by Patrick — June 11, 2009 @ 11:48 am
Sandi I wasn't trying to block or de-rail you from your train of thought. I was simply interjecting my personal opinion, somewhat of a counterpoint, that the statistics would be near irrelevant in the formation of my opinion.
Back to your point, I think those stats are going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to find. Some time ago, an acquaintance of mine was trying to find accurate statistics in Virginia for people that have been stripped of their CHP. In the course of looking up the info, the question of why they were stripped of their permit came up. They were able to get the figures of the number of permits revoked, but not accurate reasons why. It could have been some administrative issue, some minor or major issue having no relation to guns, or it could have been for some gun-related issue.
Just saying it would be difficult to compile the info, and even then it may not be precise enough to make the kind of comparisons you are looking for.
While you already have an opinion on the subject (as do I), at least you are looking for descriptive data rather than taking existing skewed compilations (as you noted).
Comment by Ed S. — June 11, 2009 @ 11:57 am
Nothing like a nice cluster in the 10-ring.
Comment by Other John — June 11, 2009 @ 11:58 am
Patrick, the seed was planted in my head to do some research after reading "Deer Hunting with Jesus" (GREAT book BTW) and sure enough I believe it is true:
"Before the Civil War ended, State "Slave Codes" prohibited slaves from owning guns. After President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and after the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery was adopted and the Civil War ended in 1865, States persisted in prohibiting blacks, now freemen, from owning guns under laws renamed "Black Codes." They did so on the basis that blacks were not citizens, and thus did not have the same rights, including the right to keep and bear arms protected in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as whites. This view was specifically articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in its infamous 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford to uphold slavery."
http://www.lizmichael.com/racistgc.htm
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 11, 2009 @ 11:59 am
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6166
http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html
http://www.allcountries.org/gun_deaths_by_country.html
The old "gun's don't kill people" is a bogus today as it ever was. Unless you're going to make the argument that American "people" are substantially more violent and homicidal than the rest of the industrialized world.
Where gun deaths are concerned....we are indeed #1!
Comment by Kristen — June 11, 2009 @ 12:09 pm
Thanks, Sandi.
I wonder...are the laws really ineffective, or is it that they are not enforced to their fullest?
Comment by Patrick — June 11, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
For a comparison, can someone find the total homicide rates of industrialized countries so we have a meaningful way to interpret the data? If the total rate in the US is higher, then that's indicative of a societal problem. If the total rates are largely equal, then it's simply a questin/problem with the tool used, but it has no bearing on how likely a person will kill another person. Now, if a country with tight gun control laws has both a statistically meaningful lower gun-related homicide rate and a lower overall homicide rate, then there's some merit to the argument.
Comment by Other John — June 11, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
OJ,
Wouldn't you need to somehow definitively link the low gun-related homicide rate to the low overall homicide rate?
Comment by Ed S. — June 11, 2009 @ 12:45 pm
Forgot to add to my post to OJ...
However, that statistic would only measure one side. It would not take into account the personal level of protection that individual gun ownership may provide.
Comment by Ed S. — June 11, 2009 @ 12:48 pm
Sandi,
People feel "they need to go to the mall and movies carrying a gun" because crimes happen in those places, just like they happen everywhere else.People who carry tend to do so everywhere, because you never know when you might need it. By carrying routinely, they're more likely to have it if they do need it.
"when you watch the news and as I mentioned Dateline and the ID Channel, you think homicide (and especially domestic homicide) is number one with a bullet. (couldn't resist)"
The news tends to focus on the stories that are more dramatic, because drama sells better. Other causes of death don't make the news as often because there have never been, as far as I know, things like "mass heart-attacks." Stories about someone scaring off a mugger just by pulling his jacket aside and putting his hand on his gun rarely, if ever, make the news.
Which brings up another point - any debate about gun control also needs to take into account defensive gun uses (DGUs). Unfortunately, statistics and news coverage of DGUs are hard to come by. Like I pointed out above, incidents where a criminal runs away at the mere sight of an armed victim rarely make the news, and it's believed that they often don't even get reported to the police, so the statistics vary widely.
Comment by Jake — June 11, 2009 @ 12:57 pm
See that is the problem with statistics. The person compiling may have some control and inside knowledge but the stats alone are only a portion of any picture. Those Kristen linked were very informative and we can see a problem even without the fuller stats to compare, but it is hard to base any debate on stats or compare the U.S. culture to Brazil or Jamaica. It is all interesting and if we can leave the emotion out of it I can see a fascinating thing to decipher and discuss. From the origins, to the ineffectiveness to the statistics, we have a days work.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 11, 2009 @ 12:59 pm
"The old "gun's don't kill people" is a bogus today as it ever was. Unless you're going to make the argument that American "people" are substantially more violent and homicidal than the rest of the industrialized world."
So, Kristen, all those guns just jumped up on their own and shot people, did they?
Somehow, I expect that each of the deaths in the statistics you linked to was caused by a person, one way or another. With extremely rare exceptions, guns don't just spontaneously fire themselves.
And, as Other John pointed out, the statistics you pointed to are meaningless without taking into account total homicide rates as well.
Comment by Jake — June 11, 2009 @ 1:07 pm
I like those crowded street scenes in the peaceloving, gentle, Moslim cities of the middle east where it looks like everybody is toting an AK-47 and when they want to celebrate something they fire a few rounds in to the air. Makes us look like right to bear arms pikers. Talk about 2nd amendment rights, there's a group thats got em.
Comment by wayne p — June 11, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
According to this we're "only" 24th in overall homicide rates, while much higher in gun related homicide.
And Jake, I guess you're right. Guns can't fire themselves. The only other conclusion is that Americans are comparatively tend more to shooting eachother than other countries.
http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2827/information_show.htm?doc_id=154420
Here is a comparison of the gun deaths of children in industrialized countries.
"Moreover, a February 2002 study found that children ages 5 to 14 were more likely to die from gunshot wounds if they lived in states where firearm ownership was more common. This finding held true even after the researchers controlled for state-level poverty rates, education, and urbanization."
More guns, more people dead by guns.
Comment by Kristen — June 11, 2009 @ 2:21 pm
People who live in cities are more likely to be the victim of a crime
So we should put a limit on the number of people who can live in cities. Problem solved
Comment by Henry — June 11, 2009 @ 2:47 pm
Ed, thanks for adding that one. I knew I was forgetting a possibility. This is why I am not a fan of statistics, because depending on how they are presented, they can paint a vary different picture using the same data, but different matrices from which to base the presented results. For instance, one of my biggest peeves is profit data. Yes, the oil companies pulled down record profits in terms of total dollar amounts in the past few years, but their profit margins, i.e. the percentage of profit made as a basis of their total operating costs, was significantly lower than healthcare, banking, credit card, and pharmaceutical industry margins were, in some cases half or less. But, because energy is a high-dollar industry, just reporting the net dollar amount got people outraged, even though several industries pulled down double or more in margins per dollar of revenue. So, even though the same data was presented, it was put forth in a way to drawe antagonism to the oil companies with how it was reported...and that's the main fault of statistics. So, really the only good way to decipher what's out there is to look at a broad data set, several independent studies, and then ascertain their meaning on your own.
Comment by Other John — June 11, 2009 @ 3:07 pm
Sorry Jake, I love you, I do, and you offer well reasoned argument without the condemnation you might feel and I so much appreciate that, but "People feel "they need to go to the mall and movies carrying a gun" because crimes happen in those places, just like they happen everywhere else" I just do not think that any statistic backs that argument up and in fact while crimes can indeed occur anywhere those are not the prevalent places for them. I know we as a people have caved into the "be prepared" motto to the nth degree but preparing for a flat by having a spare is not comparable to carrying a concealed weapon in preparation for a crime before your eyes. You and I both know that there are very legitimate reasons for some people to go armed and there are the "it's my right" crowd who do it because they can. While that is your argument to make, I think it insults the society you are a part of and the social etiquette we like to think we have in this country. If that prepared mantra was the real reason, why not advocate for all Americans to get armed and prepared? Do you think all of us should prepare for that unexpected crime on a daily basis? Please do not fall back on the fire alarm or locking your doors argument, that is plainly offensive and insulting frankly. I do not feel my family is less worthy of protection, I feel we either have faith in our society and the massive amounts of people who never do harm or we give in to the irrational fear of the prospect of a crime happening in an unlikely place any moment.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 11, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
Another bit of food for thought, I'd like to separate out the amount of gun deaths associated with gang violence...whether it's gang on gang turf wars, or gunfights over drug trade, or other such related gange activities. In many cities, most of their gun murders are gang-related in some fashion, which drives up the total murder rates substantially. I think most of those guns are not legally obtained, but a few might be. I really wonder if anyone has bothered to do an in-depth study on this and split the numbers out so we can get a valuable data set with figures we can use to compare to other nations to see where our problem areas really lie. Are they in gang violence, vigilantism, self-defense, random crimes with guns, accidental shootings, govnernment/police use, etc. I think only when the data is filtered down to such a detailed level can we really figure out what the real root of gun-related homicides are, and actually work to implement real solutions that can actually help to reduce them. We can't cure a disease without knowing what caused it. It seems like most of our efforts have been attempts to control the symptoms, rather than fix the root cause.
Comment by Other John — June 11, 2009 @ 3:13 pm
You can't take something from someone if they haven't committed a crime. You cannot suspend someone's driver's license because they MIGHT drive drunk.
Comment by Jack — June 11, 2009 @ 3:23 pm
Excellent thought Other John, I wonder why such an emotional and hot button issue for pols is not researched and dissected '8 ways from Sunday'. It almost makes you believe that like the profit margins you mentioned in another post, people on both sides are researching and using the stats that support their side and ignoring the rest and those struggling to understand and make a decision have difficulty getting the whole picture. Too much in our society is treated that way. By cracky if it is unsafe for me to go out unarmed to the mall or the movies, I should have a right to that statistic. I know it is unsafe to go into some areas armed with a tank so the information is available.
I think that absolutely if the gang and drug related gun violence is included that would inflate the "problem" out of demonstrable proportion for the vast majority of Americans to the point of being useless. The plot thickens...
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 11, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
"Nothing like a nice cluster in the 10-ring."
I've completely removed the 10-ring with a single 10rd magazine before. Who needs a cluster? I say just remove the 10-ring altogether.
Comment by Jack — June 11, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
@Jake: "incidents where a criminal runs away at the mere sight of an armed victim rarely make the news, and it's believed that they often don't even get reported to the police, so the statistics vary widely."
This one did...
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/may/14/150753/carjacker-surprised-when-would-be-victim-pulls-gun/
Comment by Jack — June 11, 2009 @ 3:34 pm
@Jake: "With extremely rare exceptions, guns don't just spontaneously fire themselves"
And when that happens, it's usually faulty ammunition. Modern guns have many safety mechanisms in them to prevent the firing pin from touching the primer without someone or something physically pulling the trigger.
Comment by Jack — June 11, 2009 @ 3:36 pm
OJ - Agree. Also, good point on the stats related to energy industry. I had missed that one, and it's a good example.
Sandi and I will probably disagree on allowing people to carry a pistol for self-defense in areas she mentioned. I believe that a person who behaves lawfully should be able to do so. Likewise, I respect her desire to not carry. I don't advocate it as right for everyone. Some may not feel comfortable doing so. Some may just plain object to violence, even in self-defense. That's fine with me, and fits with my "to each his own" belief on the subject. But I do believe that it is perfectly acceptable for one to determine their own method of preparedness. However unlikely, it is possible someone could be in a bad situation. And I feel that it's been shown that it is not uncivil to carry a pistol for self-defense.
I do agree with Sandi that we cannot avoid the fact that figures are used to support the argument being presented. It's difficult to find un-adulterated statistics, near-impossible in political topics.
Comment by Ed S. — June 11, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
@Sandi: "You and I both know that there are very legitimate reasons for some people to go armed and there are the "it's my right" crowd who do it because they can"
How about this, Sandi... I'll leave my gun at home if you pinky promise to call me EARLY on the day that I will need it so that I can carry it that day. Do you promise??? If you can't promise, I'm going to go ahead and carry it just in case.
Comment by Jack — June 11, 2009 @ 3:41 pm
Statistics prove that marriage is the leading cause of divorce.
Comment by Blue John — June 11, 2009 @ 3:54 pm
True BlueJohn, and birth the leading cause of death.
Comment by Kristen — June 11, 2009 @ 4:01 pm
@Jack: #31: Now if we can get incidents like that reported more frequently, people might get a more balanced picture of the issues involved.
#32: Exactly. For most modern firearms, at least two safety features have to fail at the same time for a spontaneous discharge. My caveat was, in fact, mainly to cover antiques that don't have those features.
@Sandi #26: I'll try to have something for you after work. That deserves a better response than I can come up with in the little bits of time I can manage at the moment.
Comment by Jake — June 11, 2009 @ 4:07 pm
So lets just ban marriage and births...and we solved 2 problems! Woohoo!
Comment by Other John — June 11, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
...and food the leading cause of obesity.
Comment by Will — June 11, 2009 @ 4:15 pm
Will...that actually reminds me of one of the old Health Team 10 blips that Karen McNew did a few years back related to obesity. I think she started with something along the lines of 'research has shown that overeating has been determined to be one of the leading causes of obesity.' I heard that and was like, wow really?!? I had no idea. I honestly hoped that it was an outside piece she had to present on air and not something she did on her own, because it made her seem a lot less intelligent than i had given her credit for up until that point. It was just one of those forehead smacking moments of brilliance.
Comment by Other John — June 11, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
I'll be listening Jake, you are an engaging little scamp!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 11, 2009 @ 4:29 pm
Like "newspaper readers aging rapidly"...some things just hit you.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 11, 2009 @ 4:31 pm
Darn,
Now I'm hungry!!
Comment by Blue John — June 11, 2009 @ 4:32 pm
@Sandi: Hey, I resemble that remark!
Honestly, I think we're both being too specific and too general about the "malls and movies" issue. People who carry each have their own reasons for doing so, and what most really want is the ability to decide when and where on their own, without having to plan "special" trips around whether they can carry or not. Not everyone going to see a movie is only going to see a movie - for example, they may need to pick up something at Wal-Mart while they're out. Or their particular circumstances may mean going out anywhere unarmed is dangerous.
I've had a blind date go "stalker-creepy" on me before (without actually going all the way, thank goodness), and that was the most unnerving couple of weeks of my life. I can't imagine what people with real stalkers go through, but I did go through a period of "I can't go there because I can't carry there - what if he shows up and tries something?"
That being said, for many who carry it is a case of "be prepared." There are enough stories floating around the internet of "I wish I had been carrying that day, but I wasn't because of X," or even worse, the "I don't know why he didn't have his gun with him that day, he always has it" stories - usually coming from a grieving family member - that there is a fairly common mentality of "If you choose to carry, always carry, so you don't wish you had."
"why not advocate for all Americans to get armed and prepared"
Some do. I simply advocate for all Americans to have the ability to get armed and prepared.
"I feel we either have faith in our society and the massive amounts of people who never do harm or we give in to the irrational fear of the prospect of a crime happening in an unlikely place any moment."
I look at it another way - we either have faith in our society and the massive amounts of people who never do harm or we give in to the irrational fear of the prospect of someone committing a crime just because they have a gun.
If someone wants to commit a crime, not having a gun won't stop them. If someone does not want to commit a crime, having a gun won't make them. But it might let him protect himself against the first guy.
Comment by Jake — June 11, 2009 @ 9:46 pm
"If someone wants to commit a crime, not having a gun won't stop them. If someone does not want to commit a crime, having a gun won't make them. But it might let him protect himself against the first guy."
OK, I am going to give you this round, because you are so rational and manage to make sense, discuss and make your point without insulting me and my friend that is a rare thing.
I see your point and I will continue this journey and my research. I am coming around and when I finally capitulate, it will be in large measure thanks to you!
I think you can agree that I have come a long way. I am working on getting past the thought that fear and/or arrogance is the motivation for some CHP which is really my last hurdle. I trust you with a gun, now I will work on the rest.
You had me at the second paragraph of #5!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 11, 2009 @ 10:35 pm
So lets just ban marriage and births...and we solved 2 problems! Woohoo!
Comment by Other John — June 11, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
I will give up birth and marriage...but they'll take my food from my cold, dead hands.
Comment by Kristen — June 12, 2009 @ 6:31 am
HMMMMMMM IRS looking to tax cell phone use.... theory being employees may be using employer provided cell phones for personal use. The IRS is considering 25% of cell phone use to be "personal". Could "add" on $300/yr in taxable income. Tell me the FAIRTAX aint looking better and better.
Comment by BUD — June 12, 2009 @ 7:12 am
FAIRTAX would kick ass. Do they tax office landlines the same way? I'm sure people use those for personal use, too.
How about the bathroom at work? I think at least 90% of that is for personal use.
Comment by Jack — June 12, 2009 @ 7:35 am
JAck..good point about "use of the can" at work..better keep those good ideas to yourself. another might be the imputed value of free parking at work... did you have a donut today at the staff meeting?coffee? CHACHING!!
Comment by BUD — June 12, 2009 @ 8:06 am
I'm going to a Red Sox (Avalanche/Buccaneers/Red Birds/Whatever) game tonight. We got free tickets for some kind of HCA appreciation thing. Is that taxable?
Comment by Jack — June 12, 2009 @ 8:20 am
"It is not a novel idea. Since 1989, the IRS has expected people who use company-issued phones for personal calls to count the value of those calls as income."
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/06/12/irs-wants-to-tax-cell-phone-use/
I guess we can all go on flouting the law for a while longer.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 12, 2009 @ 8:24 am
You are guilty of using your work phone for personal use until you PROVE otherwise.
Comment by Jack — June 12, 2009 @ 8:47 am
Here is the particular article that I read on the topic...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124473141538306335.html
I can see it now.. the IRS implementing a $20/day tax and it is your responsibility to prove on a daily basis that you didn't do anything that would justify those taxes. You could, with enough work, get your daily tax all the way down to ZERO!
I can see employees everywhere declining a company cell phone because it's not worth the trouble of having to deal with the taxes. Oh, and if you're not paying for my phone, you certainly won't be calling me in the middle of the night. Sorry, those days are over.
Comment by Jack — June 12, 2009 @ 8:51 am
$20 a day? Where do you get that? My cell phone bill (not paid by the company, by the way) is about $80 a month - with an unlimited data plan.
If the company paid that and I got taxed on the entire thing, the tax would, at a maximum, come to $20 a month. But since their talking about taxing only 25 percent of the cost, it would be more like $5 a month, or 16 cents a day.
Deal in hyperbole much, Jack?
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 12, 2009 @ 9:00 am
If they want to tax me for my company-issued blackberry, the company can have it back. I don't use it for personal calls; I have a personal cell phone for that.
Comment by Susan St. Clair — June 12, 2009 @ 9:09 am
I have to carry a company supplied phone and I do use it for personal stuff. If they want to tax the company phone, they can take it. I'm not going to carry two phones.
Comment by Patrick — June 12, 2009 @ 9:22 am
Jack #50 only if you're successful in scalping those tix!!
Comment by BUD — June 12, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
@Dan: "$20 a day? Where do you get that? My cell phone bill (not paid by the company, by the way) is about $80 a month - with an unlimited data plan.
If the company paid that and I got taxed on the entire thing, the tax would, at a maximum, come to $20 a month. But since their talking about taxing only 25 percent of the cost, it would be more like $5 a month, or 16 cents a day.
Deal in hyperbole much, Jack?"
I was making a generalization regarding the "prove that you didn't" thing.
Comment by Jack — June 12, 2009 @ 1:25 pm
"If they want to tax me for my company-issued blackberry, the company can have it back. I don't use it for personal calls; I have a personal cell phone for that."
I use mine for personal calls. I don't see the point in carrying two phones around. If they want it back, they can have it. They just can't expect to call me outside business hours on my own phone that I am paying my own money for.
The way I see it, my use of it to make a few personal calls here and there is a way of compensating me for being available on it 24/7.
Comment by Jack — June 12, 2009 @ 1:26 pm
The company would not care if I made personal calls on the blackberry they issued me. The reason I do not use it for personal phone calls is because my personal phone is much clearer and easier to talk on. The blackberry does many things, but I can't say it is great for phone conversations. It is a pain to carry around 2 phones and it does make my purse quite a bit heavier. I also do not see how one is going to prove that they do not use a company phone for personal calls. There's a landline phone on my desk I can and do use for personal calls as well.
Comment by Susan St. Clair — June 12, 2009 @ 1:52 pm