Most gun violence in the US is not from mass shootings. Some truth and an honest question.

[Skip Intro]

I think we're somewhere over 12,000 gun homicides this year in the US. How many of those are victims of mass shootings like the tragedy in CT? 50? 100?

Less than one percent seems a safe claim, yes?

Over 400 have died in gun violence in Chicago this year.

The vast, overwhelming majority of gun violence in the US is not from mass shootings like in CO or CT.

The majority of gun violence in the US is in drug deals gone bad, in home invasions, in armed robberies, in gang violence.

Given this reality, how does restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns curtail the violence caused by criminals who probably don't own their guns legally anyway? How does restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens to own firearms get them out of the hands of people who are using them to murder other people?

[letemrot]

1. It doesn't..

But that doesn't fit with the emotional reactionary 'ban guns' meme.

[Flabbergasted]

17. About 170,000 guns are stolen every year from homes...

Last edited Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:52 AM - Edit history (2)

I think this may be on the low end. I found a variety of sources that all gave higher numbers but this seems like a good baseline number and still illustrates the point. Thanks to glassunion for the correction.

[letemrot]

21. How many of those are recovered?

AND what does that have to do with the question at hand?

[Flabbergasted]

28. I'm not sure I agree with the premise of the op...

How many are recovered is not important

I'm suggesting how criminals get guns which likewise answers the question...

"How does restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns curtail the violence caused by criminals who probably don't own their guns legally anyway? How does restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens to own firearms get them out of the hands of people who are using them to murder other people?"

They buy stolen guns or steal them from law abiding citizens.

[Glassunion]

35. Not sure where MAIG got that number from. Accoring to the DOJ the number is just over 170,000.

Don't get me wrong, that's still an ass load of guns but I cannot find where MIAG got that number.

The DOJ number does seem to correlate closer to the FBI number (they maintain the database) of reported stolen firearms.

[Flabbergasted]

38. Perhaps they are estimating unreported thefts or not?

Either way it established an answer to the question in the op.

Thanks for the info.

[Glassunion]

41. The unreported thefts of firearms is low when compared to burgluries when a firearm was not stolen.

Firearm thefts are reported at a higher rate than other crimes. Not 100%, but that number I gave includes unreported. Reported thefts number around 150,000.

[Flabbergasted]

47. I'm going to edit my post thanks. Nt

[Mojorabbit]

51. Someone posted stats earlier

and over half the firearm deaths were suicides. Which is sad because perhaps if we had a better health system those people may have had treatment and perhaps regained their desire to live.

[dkf]

98. Most mass murders are also suicides. Maybe you've hit the nail on the head.

[intaglio]

53. And the Australian experience of gun control

does not fit with the propaganda from the gun industry now so common on this site

[Mojorabbit]

60. Snopes has a write up on it. It is a little complicated

and both sides have been using them as an example.

[intaglio]

61. Yup

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

Personally I like the proportion of robberies involving guns decreasing year on year following the buy-back

[spanone]

82. tell it to the dead children, that'll be great comfort.

[letemrot]

83. Ok..

Do you have anything other than emotion to add to the discussion?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Is not being able to own a certain type of gun a fair trade for 20 kids' lives?

Does anybody NEED a Bushmaster-type rifle that can shoot off 30 rounds? You don't need a 30-round magazine for hunting. If large-capacity magazines are unavailable I hardly see how that would cause problems for sportsmen or for home protection. And maybe if Adam Lanza didn't have that gun those 20 kids wouldn't be dead.

[loyalsister]

72. My thoughts exactly

mass shootings like the tragedy in CT? 50? 100? Less than one percent seems a safe claim..

How can even that number be negligible????

[BeyondGeography]

3. Don't worry, you can still have your guns

Do we really have to go through this again?

[xoom]

4. All good points.

Is suicide by gun considered gun violence and part of the statistics?

[KittyWampus]

42. Some posit that Mass Shooting are, in fact, suicide by gun. Akin to suicide bombers.

[DeschutesRiver]

59. Yes. Suicides by gun account for more deaths than homicides by guns. nt

[letemrot]

75. 56%

Of gun deaths in the us are suicide.

[DeschutesRiver]

84. In another thread, the suicide stats were 62% of all annual gun deaths

IIRC, it was an article via yahoo.com which broke down the 33,000 annual gun deaths to: around 12,500 homicides/accidents and the remainder suicides. I knew it was high but not that it was 62%, and I hadn't confirmed that for myself yet.

It also claimed that the FBI stats on mass killings had around 755 deaths occurring in the period 2006-2010, with 1/3 being caused by things other than firearms, so it worked out to be about 103 deaths per year from mass killings. This was a yahoo article, can't recall the source, and am on dialup and can't find the thread at the moment. Those are close but just approx. numbers.

[letemrot]

97. Thanks for the info

Ill look it up.

[DeschutesRiver]

114. Here are links to the thread and article if you hadn't found it yet; my dialup

finally sped up. Well, let's say it became functional for awhile

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2035004
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gun-deaths-set-outstrip-car-fatalities-first-time-152632492.html

[a geek named Bob]

5. The point isn't to stop the violence...

The point is to assuage their minds, rally the populace, and/or disempower people.

[Whovian]

6. K&R

[Bonobo]

7. Less guns. It's simple.

Reduce the amount of guns.

As the number goes down, the cost per gun goes UP.

Eventually it will be so hard to get a gun that it will begin to seriously become cost prohibitive.

As it continues, the violent crimes will also go down.

[letemrot]

13. You think?

That's a mighty big assumption there.

[Bonobo]

15. Could you be more specific?

What is my big assumption?

[letemrot]

22. Violent crimes will go down

As costs of guns go up.

[Bonobo]

23. Do you agree that guns would be more expensive as they become more rare?

If so, how can you avoid concluding that it would become more difficult for some to afford them?

[letemrot]

24. I think guns would be incredibly

Expensive to obtain.. But the people that have them and use for nefarious reasons will only continue to do so .

[Bonobo]

26. So a meth addict that doesn't have $100 to spend would have more trouble getting them.

You can't really deny it.

[letemrot]

29. A meth addict would probably B&E to get what

They wanted.. Be it a gun, cash, or their fix. You know.. Like they do now.

[Bonobo]

30. Yeah he would do B&E without a gun. That's my point.

If your argument is that he would B&E to get a gun, I say he will not know where one is.

If you say he will do B&E to get money to buy a $1,000 gun, I say nonsense. He would spend it on meth first.

[letemrot]

31. Depends on ROI for the gun

If the method addict is able to secure future fixes with the gun.. Well you get the picture.

[Bonobo]

33. I think that at this point, YOU are relying more on crazy assumptions than I am.

We agree that guns get expensive, but you would have me believe that all homeless meth addicts who spends their last dollars on drugs would STILL have equal access to guns?

I do not even believe that YOU believe that.

In truth, you probably agree that fewer criminals would have guns but you don't want to admit it.

Maybe we would disagree on the number, but you sound like a reasonably intelligent person and so you really MUST agree that as things become dearer and more rare and expensive, it is, by definition, harder for them to be obtained -B&E not withstanding.

[letemrot]

39. To an extent we're saying the same thing

Just looking at different outcomes. A meth addict uses a gun to commit a crime. That gun provides 'ease of access.' Guns become illegal.. Meth addict sees short term profit In selling gun. Sells gun loses easy way to get fix. Realizes that gun is a tool to ease obtaining fix. Commits crime to get another gun.. Or the meth addict sees the inherit value of the gun in the first place.. Anyways. I think a ban or an attempt to prohibit most guns will actually backfire create a run on guns like their is now.

As for being intelligent you're giving too much credit.

[letemrot]

43. Let me rethink that..

That's what 'Kevin' would think.. Not 'methed up Kevin.'

[intaglio]

57. so the actual experience of other countries does not interest you?

American Exceptionalism at its finest

[letemrot]

71. Australia and the United Kingdom are not the United States

And according to Wikipedia... there were gun control measures almost from the start of colonization as well as contention over the effects of the laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#Firearms_in_Australian_history

It is also interesting that a lot of the UK/Commonwealth gun control laws came into effect because of fears of workers uprising...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#1920_Firearms_Act

[intaglio]

74. So, as they say, what?

It means a continually lower rate of crime committed with guns and much lower rates of gun related violence in both countries.

The UK hardened it's anti-gun owning policies in response to the Hungerford and Dunblane and is thinking about further restrictions following the Cumbrian massacre. Certainly the certificates issued in the last 2 cases should have been withdrawn as it was known that the perpetrators were under extreme stress and, in the case of Bird, known for violent actions.

Australia hardened it's gun policies in response to the Tasmanian massacre leading to a year on year decline in crime committed with guns.

In fact the USA is alone amongst all developed countries in its insistence on unfettered access to weapons and is outstanding in the number of gun deaths per capita; the per capita the deaths in the USA dwarf even Switzerland and Israel. Correlation is not causation but it is very highly indicative.

[letemrot]

76. I guess you didn't read the links

The were fairly strict gun control laws in place prior to those events. And the UK has a history of disarming its citizens at various points in time. Gun violence was already trending down in Australia and there is no change in that trend. So again. The US, is not the UK or Austrailia and neither of those countries had guns entwined in their national psyche to begin with.

[intaglio]

77. I've read them, perhaps you didn't read my post

I know there were strict gun laws in place prior to those events, I live in the UK and at one time wanted to own a weapon (back in the '70s) and investigated what was needed and why. It is true it was was a fear of violent revolution that lead to the original laws but it was the crimes I cited that led to a hardening of those laws.

The difference from the USA is that the vile crimes committed dead to a hardening of restrictions on guns not to the idea that more guns are the solution. The problem the USA faces is that the more guns that there are in circulation the more chances there are that someone who becomes a criminal or goes mad will have access to firearms alleleophones

[letemrot]

79. So you willing to curtail rights enumerated in the Constitution

to get essentially no change..? Many of the studies showed that the new laws had little to no impact on already downward trending gun violence.

[intaglio]

80. That's up to the USA

But laws made for muskets are not suitable weapons like AR-15s

[letemrot]

81. "laws made for muskets"

Well the 'muskets' that you refer to and that citizens had, were the cutting edge of firearms in that day. In other words, the civilians had the same, if not better quality weapons, that the government had. I am not saying that with snark. It is merely a fact.

[intaglio]

86. Cutting edge muskets - Bull-Shot!

Well the 'muskets' that you refer to and that citizens had, were the cutting edge of firearms in that day

do you work for the NRA?

The muskets of that time were no more cutting edge than .38 specials are cutting edge today. Both sides in that conflict used, essentially identical weapons with a firing mechanism that had been in use since about 1620. The nearest thing to "cutting edge" were the rifles used, the Kentucky Long Rifle on the American side and the Pattern 1776 and the Ferguson on the British. It seems the large numbers of French troops supporting the Americans had no rifle.

The Kentucky was first developed in about 1730 from the Prussian Jager and, in practised hands, outranged the British equivalents. The Pattern 1776 was also developed from earlier German examples and the Ferguson was the only one that might be considered cutting edge due to its breech loading.

[letemrot]

87. Oh..

So they weren't the pinnacle of firearms of the day? That the civilians didnt have the same arms as the military?

[intaglio]

88. Can you actually read?

The only cutting edge weapon in that war was the Ferguson Rifle. What is more you now chose to define cutting edge as what everybody (except a few British riflemen) were equipped with despite the fact that the design was 150 years old. By those lights I have a cutting edge claw hammer in my toolbox.

As I said do you work for the NRA/Gun manufacturers? Because you have the sophistry down pat.

[letemrot]

89. Ok

So they weren't the top of line for the time period? Civilians didn't have the same weapons as the military? I only ask because rifling wasn't common until mid 19th century and breech loading/cartridges weren't common until the civil war.

[intaglio]

91. No, you are asking me to justify these ridiculous views

Now let's get back onto subject - the 2nd amendment was written when muzzle loading, smooth bore, flintlock rifles were the common weapon. At that time the rate of fire of those weapons was 4 - 6 rounds per minute. The only breech loader of which there was common knowledge was the Ferguson which had many design flaws and required special training to use. Rifles (with the exception of the Ferguson) fired at about 2 shots per minute.

And you are saying that an amendment written about 18th Century weapons should remain unchanged for weapons with 20th or 21st Century technology, accuracy and rates of fire.

By that sort of logic women captured in war should be forced to marry their captors - like it says in the Bible

[letemrot]

93. Oh look over there ..

I am asking you to justify ridiculous views? No. I am asking if civilians had weapons of the same lethality as the military at the time the Constitution was drafted..( And then to ensure ratification they had to add the Bill of Rights and ensure that included the right to bear arms). You focused on 'cutting edge' in an attempt to be coy. i probably should have said comparable lethality (but the weapons were about the latest mass reproducible technology of the time). So you believe that founding fathers didnt anticipate advancements in weaponry? They didn't have concerns or foresee the rise of a possible tyrannical government? It wasn't that long ago; right here on DU people were speculating that Bush was looking for a way to declare martial law/suspend the elections to remain in power. We have President Obama right now.. But what if a power hungry RWNJ gets in?

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." Tench Coxe in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution." Under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1.



"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot, Debates at 45 (Virginia Convention, June 5, 1788).


So yes.. "Laws written for muskets" still apply today. Regardless of whatever straw man you put up.

[intaglio]

94. I love you when you get angry

Do you froth at the mouth as well? By your argument here everyone should have access to SAMs, Hellfire missiles, kill drones and nuclear weapons. Then people would have weapons "of the same lethality as the military"

BTW comparing 2 outmoded sets of legislation is not a straw man, it is drawing a parallel

[letemrot]

95. Sigh..

The SAMs, Nukes, etc are red herrings;and comparing a religious text to the Constitution and Bill of Rights is in fact a strawman. That you consider the 2nd Amendment to be outmoded is (your belief) and has no impact on the reality of the situation.

[intaglio]

105. Nope, comparing an biblical right with a right in the Constitution

... is definitely a valid comparison and not a straw man because I have not used the inequities of one right as proof of the idiocy of the other right. I just say that there is one right that is acknowledged to be a dead letter because time have changed and this should happen to the other right. If you don't like it then how about the original Constitution having to be modified by the 13th Amendment because of the development of society since the Revolution

In respect of SAMs Nukes etc. You were the one who brought up the concept of cutting edge weapons being owned by civilians - don't blame me.

[letemrot]

106. Rifles, Pistols, are personal weapons which can be transported

maintained and employed by an individual. Sams, Nukes, etc... not so much. But you know that.. with another attempt to be coy.

[intaglio]

113. Grenades, shoulder launched missiles, chain guns

are personal weapons which can be transported maintained and employed by an individual

And still you cannot see the idiocy of what you post

[intaglio]

55. Find out what happened in Australia

and if you hunt I'm sure you'll find something on a gun lovers forum that will deny the facts

[letemrot]

96. Very little..

If any measurable impact. That's according to the snopes you, or someone, linked earlier. I would also suggest you read the last sentence of that page.

[intaglio]

99. Yup a year on year decrease in gun crime is nothing

And the abuse of the statistics by US pro-gun groups and highlighted by Snopes is irrelevant. Don't just read last sentences - read whole articles.

[letemrot]

100. except that decrease

was occurring before the ban...so it was trend that did not change after the ban.
follow your own advice.

[MrSlayer]

8. Why have any laws at all?

Since criminals don't obey them anyway, why bother with any law?

Lots of criminals own their guns illegally but most guns used in crimes were purchased legally somewhere along the line. Straw purchases or theft are generally how criminals get their guns so if you make it harder for people to get them in the first place, by extension you make it harder for criminals to get them.

[Honeycombe8]

9. It doesn't. It's mainly aimed at those who want to mass kill....assault weapons, big count mags,

waiting period to buy, etc.

It will also lessen violence in general, I believe. All we need to do is look at other countries that have bans in place (Great Britain, Australia).

[Mojorabbit]

52. Great Britian's gun crime rate went up after their laws went into place

I looked at an extensive paper on it. It rose for about a decade if I am remembering right and then declined a bit. The trend was down. Knife crime had increased. If I feel better tomorrow I will try and look up the paper for you if you would like.

Australia apparently did not have much of a gun culture to start with. Snopes has a big write up on it because the right has been using a meme that crime increased by a huge amt after they passed their laws and the left has been saying the opposite. Peace, Mojo

[jeff47]

10. Illegal guns start out as legal guns

Reduce the supply of legal guns, or restrict what they can do (ie. clip size) and that's what will flow into the illegal trade.

Illegal guns don't last long. The user of the gun gets arrested, or has to dispose of the gun to sever the link to the gun. It's not like the criminals you worry about are just going to store the gun in a safe for 40 years. As a result, the illegal guns will flow out, and be replaced by what is currently legal.

The fact that full auto guns are rarely used illegally kinda shows what would happen if "assault weapons" were also restricted.

[Mojorabbit]

58. I think full autos are not used because they cost a fortune and you need an FBI check

and a ton of paperwork before you can buy one. Only the wealthy can afford those.
My understanding is the guns they are calling assault weapons are just semiautos ..one trigger pull. one shot. I have one that I shoot at the range.
I am not expecting to ever use it for more than range shooting. If it goes it will not be the end of the world for me. I expect they will grandfather it in.
Peace, Mojo

[Flabbergasted]

11. Do you have stats for this....?

"The majority of gun violence in the US is in drug deals gone bad, in home invasions, in armed robberies, in gang violence."

[RZM]

14. That's a pretty reasonable assumption

The OP made a good point. If you add all of the victims of high profile shootings this year (Aurora, Oregon, Newtown, etc.), it's a tiny percentage of the total number of victims.

I imagine most gun crimes revolve around things that most people don't care much about. Domestic disputes, gang warfare, drug deals, robberies, and bullshit confrontations seem like the norm for gun violence. And nobody cares about that because it's boring. What's interesting about a guy shooting another guy at a party because the first guy used to go out with the second guy's girlfriend and they exchanged words?

We are in an unfortunate situation where most violence is deemed par for the course, while the unusual incidents lead to passionate calls for action. In reality the situation should be reversed. We should be focused on the 'mundane' killings because that's where the numbers are.

[Glassunion]

37. The FBI released a report stating that roughly 80% of all violent crime is gang/drug related.

So the statement is accurate.

[Flabbergasted]

40. Is this the source...it doesn't specify violent crime...

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-01-29-ms13_N.htm

[Glassunion]

46. No I read the actual report from the FBI.

I could be wrong about the violent, but I think that the report stated it. It was attached in an industry paper we received.

[Flabbergasted]

50. Ok thanks.

[neverforget]

12. 300 million guns in the US. Are we safe yet?

[rustydog]

16. "Law abiding" citizens do not need AK 47 or high capacity magazines or other weapons that can kill

dozens in relatively short time.
if you want home defense: s shotgun is perfect. A 357 magnum revolver. If you can't kill an intruder in a 8 x 12 bedroom with 6 shots, you never should have bought the weapon in the first place.
Hunting: 7mm Remington magnum bolt action. 30-06 bolt action. 30-30 winchester repeater.

You do not need semi-auto for deer, bear, elk, squirrel, rabbit or grouse hunting!

[morningfog]

18. I think legislation aimed to end mass murders, even using your "safe" number, well wroth it.

Let's start there. We have a long way to go.

[Aristus]

19. Oh, well, that makes it all right then.

what a relief...

[cynatnite]

20. Are there statitics on how many of the legally owned weapons...

by responsible gun owners were involved in injurying or killing someone?

Just curious as to the ratio of legally vs. illegally.

[cvoogt]

25. there should be a buy-back program for any and all kinds of firearms.

No more quibbling over one kind of gun versus another. $200 per firearm no questions asked. The proceeds will go to mental health care for anyone with more than oh, let's say three firearms in their house (aka gun nuts). I think I am being generous here.
Outlaw high-capacity magazines and limit people to 10 rounds per mag max. I'd prefer limiting it to handguns and the most basic of rifles but let's be realistic.
Oh, and tax bullets at a zillion percent. You can still make your own if you want.

[Hoyt]

27. Everyone should have a gun to hug, but not many more, not in public,

and not to play army or compound dweller.

[bhikkhu]

32. A real effort that will make a difference is what banning assault weapons would be

we can niggle over the size of the difference, but at no point does it become so small that its not worth doing.

[MrModerate]

34. The focus now is on weapons of mass mayhem . . .

And accessories: automatic and semiautomatic rifles (and perhaps pistols) and high-capacity magazines. Things for which civilians have no reasonable need but which are really effective killing machines in the hands of crazy people.

Looking to the future, we could mandate reregistering every legally-held firearm in the US (not including those deemed nonregistrable) and, after a given date, any other firearm would become flatly illegal and subject to immediate seizure and destruction. Eliminate private sales (only from federally license outlets) and put deliberately crippling regulations on firearms manufacturers to turn off the tap of new guns. This would allow the law-abiding to keep their weapons while gradually drying up illegal supply.

Personally, I'd go farther, but the above would be a great leap forward and might even be politically plausible.

[Dems to Win]

36. American homes are the criminal's Wal-Mart: the place to go to get their lethal weapons

Many, many of the weapons used in crimes were stolen from homes of law abiding, irresponsible lethal weapon owners. Safes only slow this down a bit.

Nancy Lanza was a law abiding gun owner whose lethal playthings never were a problem...until those deadly toys massacred a roomful of first graders.

With guns everywhere, they don't just stay in the hands of law abiding gun owners. They get into the hands of their troubled teenagers, their three year grandson, the guy who broke into their truck, the criminal attracted to the home of the gun collector specifically to steal and sell all the lethal weapons.

If we want to stem the gun carnage, we have to vastly reduce the number of lethal massacre machines floating around in America.

[ellisonz]

44. Way to ignore our unacceptably high level of domestic violence and the role of guns:

Guns and domestic violence are a lethal combination - injuring and killing women every day in the
United States. A gun is the weapon most commonly used in domestic homicides. In fact, more than
three times as many women are murdered by guns used by their husbands or intimate acquaintances
than are killed by strangers’ guns, knives or other weapons combined.i Contrary to many public
perceptions, many women who are murdered are killed not by strangers but by men they know.

• Nearly one-third of all women murdered in the United States in recent years were murdered by
a current or former intimate partner. In 2000, 1,247 women, more than three a day, were killed
by their intimate partners.ii

• Of females killed with a firearm, almost two-thirds of were killed by their intimate partners.iii

• Access to firearms increases the risk of intimate partner homicide more than five times more
than in instances where there are no weapons, according to a recent study. In addition, abusers
who possess guns tend to inflict the most severe abuse on their partners.iv

• In 2002, 54 percent of female homicide victims were shot and killed with a gun.

• Handguns are more likely than rifles or shotguns to be used in homicides in which men kill
women. In 2002, handguns were used in 73 percent of cases where men used firearms to kill
women.v

• In homicides where males use firearms to kill women, handguns are the most commonly used
weapon, over rifles and shotguns. Seventy-three percent of all female were killed with a
handgunvi

• In 1998, for every one woman who used a handgun to kill an intimate acquaintance in selfdefense,
83 women were murdered by an intimate acquaintance using a handgun.vii

• A study of women physically abused by current or former intimate partners found a five-fold
increased risk of the partner murdering the woman when the partner owned a gun.viii

• Domestic violence misdemeanor convictions and restraining orders were the second most
common reason for denials of handgun purchase applications between 1994 and 1998.ix

• From 1998 to 2001, more than 2,800 people with misdemeanor domestic violence convictions
were able to purchase guns without being identified by the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System.x

The Facts on Guns and Domestic Violence
i When Men Murder Women: An Analysis of 2002 Homicide Data: Females Murdered by Males in Single Victim/Single
Offender Incidents. 2004. Violence Policy Center. Washington, DC. Retrieved January 9, 2004.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2004.pdfhttp://www.vpc.org/graphics/WMMW03.pdf.
ii Rennison, Callie Marie and Sarah Welchans. 2003. Intimate Partner Violence 1993-2001. U.S. Department of Justice
Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington, DC. Retrieved January 9, 2004.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ipv01.htm.
iii When Men Murder Women: An Analysis of 2002 Homicide Data: Females Murdered by Males in Single Victim/Single
Offender Incidents. 2004. Violence Policy Center. Washington, DC. Retrieved January 9, 2004.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2004.pdf
iv J. C. Campbell, D; Webster, J; Koziol-McLain, C. R; et al. 2003. Risk Factors For Femicide in Abusive Relationships:
Results From A Multi-Site Case Control Study. American Journal of Public Health. 93(7).
v When Men Murder Women: An Analysis of 2001 Homicide Data: Females Murdered by Males in Single Victim/Single
Offender Incidents. 2003. Violence Policy Center. Washington, DC. Retrieved January 9, 2004.
http://www.vpc.org/graphics/WMMW03.pdf.
vi When Men Murder Women: An Analysis of 2002 Homicide Data: Females Murdered by Males in Single Victim/Single
Offender Incidents. 2004. Violence Policy Center. Washington, DC. Retrieved January 9, 2004.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2004.pdf
vii A Deadly Myth: Women, Handguns, and Self-Defense. 2001. Violence Policy Center. Washington, DC. Retreived
January 9, 2004. http://www.vpc.org/studies/myth.htm.
viii Firearms and Intimate Partner Violence. 2003. Johns Hopkins University Center for Gun Policy and Research.
Retrieved January 9, 2004. http://www.jhsph.edu/gunpolicy/IPV_firearms.pdf.
ix Manson, D.A., Gillard, D.K., Lauver, G. 1999. A National Estimate: Presale Handgun Checks, the Brady Interim
Period, 1994-98. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, DC. Retrieved January 9, 2004.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/phc98.pdf.
x Opportunities to Close Loopholes in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. 2002. Report to the
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives. General Accounting Office. Washington, DC.

Jackass.

[Dems to Win]

45. Law abiding gun owners sometimes have psycotic breaks, becoming lethally dangerous crazed killers

on a rampage, murdering everyone unfortunate to be near that particular 'law abiding gun owner'.

It is not right that people should have to live in fear of their neighbors who choose to bring incredibly dangerous lethal weapons into their vicinity.

[sibelian]

48. Chuck away the idea of "law-abiding citizen" and "criminal".

Everyone's a "law abiding citizen" right up until the point they become a "criminal". Get rid of the guns and significantly fewer "law-abiding citizens" will become "criminals".

[RedCappedBandit]

49. Why do countires with less guns have less gun violence?

[GCP]

62. Hush - you're making too much sense

And chilling the gun-loving vibe.

[riderinthestorm]

112. +1. Less guns means less gun violence. nt

[graham4anything]

54. That is why we need to reframe the gun as a terror item, and ban it in the streets 100%

all guns
don't care what type
don't know the difference
as I am not a gun fan and it matters to me little
ban all from the street

it takes getting the legal guns out of the street, to remove the illegal

and most illegal guns once were legal
just like strays on street with collars on them

they used to be somebody's baby
both the guns and the dead people, and the ones who shoot someone
all were somebody's baby
a gun is a wmd
reframe it as such

matters little one or 100. It's still a wmd to me.

[HooptieWagon]

56. Good luck using facts and logic,

When a large segment of DU is basing their argument on emotion and their own set of "facts".

And, given the state of debate here, prospects for a national debate which includes the "other" side looks bleak indeed. Nothing meaningful will come from this, unfortunately.

[GCP]

63. Some statistics

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/blow-on-guns-america-stands-out.html?hp&_r=0

[Glassunion]

64. Easy answer if you know where the majority of illegal firearms come from.

A gun is not born illegal.

Currently about 78% (latest estemate I could find via the ATF) of guns used in crime are born in the US. The 22% that are not, are impossible for us in the stated to control as they come from foriegn nations that we have no authority to control.

If you look at the 78% that start here, there are measures that you can take that would slow (not stop) the flow of illegal guns.

I had some ideas here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021990149

I'm willing to have an adult conversation on this.

[Dems to Win]

66. Apparently, the OP is NOT willing to have an adult conversation on this. Post and run.

no responses to the many thoughtful and fact-based answers to his 'honest' question....

[Skip Intro]

108. The OP may be busy outside of DU, especially this time of year.

I'm not on call, Dems to Win.

Feel free to discuss the issue in my absence.

[mainer]

67. No, the overwhelming majority of gun violence is NOT drug deals, gangs, or robberies

It's gun-owners shooting themselves, or someone they love.

55% of gun deaths are suicides.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25463844/ns/us_news-life/t/surprising-fact-half-gun-deaths-are-suicides/#.UNNHJBxoglU

Add intra-family homicides, and you're well into the majority of gun deaths.

Or maybe you don't consider a gunshot suicide "violence"?

[Savannahmann]

68. Well when we get the guns out of hands like yours

We will worry less about people like the Lanza's who were perfectly law abiding gun owners, until they weren't. We will eventually worry less about those armed robbery guys, when they have fewer guns to buy on the black market because supply has dried up. Then we can live in peace, like the rest of the civilized world.

So let me as you this question, is it worth twelve thousand gun deaths a year for all of those supposedly law abiding gun owners to keep their rambo rifles until they join Lanza and the rest of the formally law abiding gun owners in slaughtering defenseless children?

[bowens43]

69. Prohibiting the sale of guns and especially ammunition would be an excellent start.

Your argument is silly. Because most gun deaths in the US do not occur during mass shootings that means that guns aren't responsible for the deaths??? Are you kidding me? That's your argument?

There is no reason for a law abiding citizen to own an assault weapon or a hand gun.

There is no constitutionally protected right to firearms out side of a well regulated militia.

BTW if the criminals don't get their guns legally, were do they get them?

Answer: They get them from someone who DID get them legally.

Bottom line, if you are not a member of a well regulated militia you do NOT have a right to own a gun.

YOU DON NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO OWN GUNS. If you own an assault weapon or hand gun you intend to use it to kill someone. There is no other reason to have it.

[Dems to Win]

70. Sadly, the US Supreme Court and the Constitution says Americans do have a constitutional right to

own machines of mass death.

It is obscene. That is why we need to repeal the second amendment.

[letemrot]

73. Good luck with that n/t

[calimary]

78. Well, seems to me what needs to be done is to address questions like this one head-on.

What's the underlying point of questions like these? That MC Hammer still rules the day? (As in "You Can't Touch This.&quot I'm not trying to put you specifically on the spot, Skip Intro. But this has to be looked at.

I have found in my own personal experience that many of those posing questions like this, thoughtfully bringing up all the reasons why we really CAN'T sort this out, or come to some meaningful answers and implementation, or that this is too big a mountain to climb, are in a subtle way suggesting that this is in too many ways an unsolvable problem. If you present too many hurdles, and they're too wide and too tall and too large and too permanently cemented into place so they can't even be moved, well then, chances are the annoying do-gooders of the world will throw up their hands and give up in discouragement before they even get started.

That's yet another aspect of this multi-headed strategy we need to adopt and push forward if we're going to make ANY headway at all. The mindset.

The MINDSET. The idea too many people still have - that reminds me of the catechism classes I sat through in Catholic elementary school. The priest comes in and initiates the lesson and discussion for that hour. The kids ask questions. And I noticed that my classmates would come up with all kinds of "what ifs" to ask the priest about - that just might force him to go outside the talking points, and sometimes were just plain goofy. "Well, what if you're... and the rule says... but you couldn't... " and so forth. Sometimes they'd really be outlandish and rather ridiculous. Made me think some of these fellow classmates of mine were just farting around to hear themselves talk and to "have the floor" and get everybody to look at them while they were muddying the waters. Part of me wonders if I'm hearing the grown-up version of that. I was on the phone with a girlfriend a couple of nights ago and every minute of our conversation that involved the school massacre, she had some loop hole or exception or reason to present, to make the case that whatever we'd try to do or want to do was just impossible, unworkable, impractical, unrealistic, whatever. I kept explaining that this was a multi-pronged problem that needed multi-pronged approaches and attempts and answers. She still had a "well, what about the Mexican drug cartels and smuggling weapons in and..." ALWAYS a loophole. And I finally got fed up and told her - "okay then. So then I guess we do NOTHING, correct? We just shouldn't even bother, true?" I had to drag her kicking and screaming to the begrudging acceptance of the idea that if you can't have the whole pie, why not try for at least a slice of it? Her mind was SO set, SO pre-programmed to find all the hurdles and stop there, without ever trying to figure out - since they're all way too high, well, hell, what if we tried to go around them, or dig a little ditch underneath them to let us crawl under them. Or could they be moved slightly? Or could we put a step-stool in front of some of 'em? Or one of those bouncy things the gymnasts use to approach the vault?

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph!!!! It was like arguing with this series of cartoon trees or obstacles that would pop up in your way as you tried to cut your way through the jungle. And every time you'd cut through one, another would appear, or maybe another several.

When one is talking about sins and all the "thou shalt nots" and that's one's default position whenever the issue is raised, or posing situations that seem hellbent on making it impossible to enact ANY changes or reforms or restrictions, it's just too complicated, insurmountable, a real Gordian Knot, then I think it's fair and reasonable to ask - "what's really going on here? What's the REAL agenda at work here?" And then RESIST EVERY SINGLE GOD-FORSAKEN excuse for giving up and throwing in the towel before the fight even begins.

[Fire Walk With Me]

85. K&R!

[tledford]

90. "The majority of gun violence in the US is in drug deals gone bad, in home invasions, [...]"

"[...] in armed robberies, in gang violence."

Bzzt. Wrong.

The majority of gun-related deaths are suicides.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

Then there are the people (mostly women) killed by an intimate partner (spouse, ex-spouse, boyfriend, ex-boyfriend, etc.), over 16% ...

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

And family members killed by other family members...

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html

The vast majority of gun-related deaths, in other words, are suicides or people killing family members or significant others.

[ellisonz]

92. +1000

I went to look for that BJS report the other night and couldn't find it. Sad that in this country, you have to download and dig into a pdf to find out the number of domestic homicides committed with a gun. The NRA has gone to great lengths to prevent accurate accumulation of statistics by cutting funding for both the ATF to release such information and for the CDC to conduct research. I would take most of these numbers with a grain of salt as they likely represent inconsistent reporting. No matter what, it is clear, that a substantial number of intimate/domestic homicides involve guns and that this represents a substantial statistical factor. The OP is just flat wrong in its representation of gun violence in this country.

[VOX]

103. Nailed it. Thanks. n/t

[Skip Intro]

107. Dont be dishonest. The OP explicitly refers to homicide. Some relevant stats:

The OP clearly refers to homicide by firearm. Taking one sentence out of context, misrepresenting its meaning, and then "disproving" that misrepresentation in reality proves nothing. I think most here are smart enough to see your post for what it is.

CDC stats for 2009 show 11,493 homicides by firearm. This is in pdf form here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf.

Screenshot:



Now if you want to debate whether gun control would reduce suicides, that is another discussion, but I suspect that if someone has made that decision and can't obtain a firearm, he or she would choose to use a different method.

But for this thread, we are clearly talking about homicides.

[merrily]

101. Depends on the restriction. What specific restriction are you referring to?

Or is your point that there shouldn't be any restrictions at all?

If not, exactly what is your point? (Please be specific.)

Requiring that people pass driving tests doesn't end all vehicular tragedies either. And? Does that mean we should not try to end even a few, if the restriction is reasonable.

[merrily]

102. I'll be honest, too. Whenever a poster specifies that his or her question is "honest," it usually

turns out to be not all that honest.

[jberryhill]

104. The extremes move with the middle, Skip

When you shift a curve, the tail moves too.

Speed limit signs don't stop speeders. But they do, remarkably, lower both the average speed and the top speed, on the road.

[CreekDog]

111. excellent and insightful reasoning

[JSwaggert]

109. Too Many Guns Are Unaccounted For

[morningfog]

115. Take it to the gungeon.

[morningfog]

116. NRA propaganda. You shoud be ashamed.

Unless you are a proud member of the NRA and enjoy spouting their bullshit propaganda on DU.

[BainsBane]

117. Actually half are suicides

And 90% of suicide attempts by gun are successful as opposed to 3% by pills. It never occurred to me that the majority would be by mass shooting. We have far too man gun deaths and shootings every year for that to be the case.