During the Democrats' 15-hour filibuster in a desperate bid for Congress to vote on gun control, there were 48 shootings across America, with 12 killed and 36 injured. Today, Chicago saw nine more. They included an employee shot and killed outside an elementary school; detectives "worked quickly to remove the body before school let out." At this point, we got numbers, but no words.
Just to show how detached from reality the pro gun crowd is some numbers.
Do not look at these numbers on their own. Look at the larger picture.
There are some 16000 homicides a year in the USA.
There are some 300.000,000 firearms in the USA.
According to Census reports 1/3 of households have guns. The rest do not.
This means 300000000 firearms are concentrated in 1/3rd of the households.
Gun facts claims that Guns SAVE the lives of 2.5 MILLION US Citizens each year. In other words were the persons in question not armed there would be some 2.5 million more dead.
Yet there 16000 homicides total 11000 of these by firearms. Yet 2/3rds of the households do not have guns. If households with guns save 2.5 million lives per year one would think that statistically speaking there would be millions more killed in the households without guns.
If 2.5 million lives are saved each year because of a gun as claimed by the pro gun crowd , this suggests that compared to all other countries on this earth , US Citizens are just waiting to kill one another and all that prevents a mass slaughter of citizen on citizen are those guns, It also suggests that the mere presence of a gun (see 16000 homicides total another 14000 other deaths by gun like suicide and accident) makes it 80 times more likely your life will be at risk to a person intending violence.
The total number of deaths in the USA by gun is some 30000. This includes accidents/.suicides and unintedned consequences in addition to Homicides.
This 2.5 million lives saved is not being advanced by some person who might have a low level of education. Persons that claim to be Professers with degrees make the claim.
There little critical thinking that goes on when it comes to Guns in the USA. The reactions are conditioned reactions much like Pavlovs dog salivating when a bell is rung.
I believe the 2.5 million is the number of times a gun is used for defense. This includes preventing sexual assault, robberies and other violent crimes, not all of which would result in the loss of the victims life. I have seen estimates of 25,000 to 250,000 lives saved. The justice department reported 1.5 million protective uses of guns for protection. Their number does not include incidents where the gun was brandished but no shots were fired and the police were not notified.
I would take the census figure of 1/3 of households have guns with a grain of salt. This is a self reported figure. Many legal gun owners do not feel that that the issue of gun ownership is business of the census bureau and either leave that field blank or respond no. I would also assume that the majority of illegal gun owners prefer not to provide this information.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
And so it goes...
Am thinkin here re " moral compass" Can't lose somethin you ain't never had ??
Your numbers still do not reconcile . Firstly I cited GUN Facts directly not the US GOvernment. Gun Facts states clearly that this use of guns in self defense is to defend lives , not property.
Property crime is the highest single crime committed in the USA. Defending ones property is NOT Self defense. The VIOLENT crime rate in the USA is 365 per 100000 which comes to a total of just over a million. Again if there just over 1 million violent crimes in the USA per year (which includes rapes and assaults) than that 2.5 million in 1/3 of the households used to defend oneself does not reconcile.
As to your take on the numberof households with Guns, The numbers being used to make the case that "guns save lives" ARE those Governmnet Statitistics. You can not make this case and just pick and choose the numbers you wish and claim the others provided "do not count" because they do not fit your model. You have to give evidence that households are lying.
Further to that this number has been measured for years and the number of households with guns has declined over that period of time. As example 50 percent of households reported owning a gun in 1970. This means of measuring the rate of ownership is the same methodology that of "self reporting". At the same time the total number of violent crimes committed has dropped. Yes there more guns in sum total but it the same people just buying more guns.
Again if "guns save lives" as claimed by the pro gun crowd to the extent that they claim even if the ACTUAL numbers of households with guns are not what is being reported and is higher, one can not simply claim there no trend to less households with guns without providing evidence of the same.
Here In Canada the SELF reported number of households with guns is also dropping. While it true some with guns may decide not report the same I do not see any logical reason why the number of said households not reporting would be climbing to any great extent.
Now added to the argument that I make , that being having more Guns does not make one safer from violence, there the example of dozens of Countries around the world having not only fewer guns , but having less violence and smaller police forces per Capiita than the USA.
The gun is no security blanket. A better course to being safer is to learn to get along with one another.
Yours is a straw man argument. Cars have nothing to do with this debate. I never stated Gun Ownership be banned, All I stated was more guns do not make people more safe from crime and that the pro gun crowd advancing these numbers are not making rational arguments.
Gun facts states 2.5 million uses to "defend themselves" and further states that 15% of these people felt that their use of a gun in self defense saved their lives. So that puts the number of "saved" lives at 375,000, not 2.5 million.
You are correct, the discussion should center on violent crimes. Sexual assault and robbery are violent crimes, not property crimes.
Your comparison of 1/3 of the population not experiencing 2.5 million violent crimes while the other 2/3s experience 1 million violent crimes is a poor breakdown of the statistics. Not all prevented crimes are targeted at the 1/3 of the households that own guns. Gun owners have stepped in to protect non gun owners from becoming victims of crime. Also, if an attempted robbery is foiled by the brandishing of a weapon, that one incident would count towards the 2.5 million defensive uses of a gun AND towards the 1 million violent crimes.
I would also point out that the 365/100,000 figure you quoted is "reported" violent crimes. Not all violent crimes are reported. Acknowledging that a statistic may under represent the actual value is not Picking and choosing, it is recognizing where the numbers came from and accounting for factors that are not captured by the statistics.
I do not know the breakdown of gun owners protecting gun owners or reported defensive use of guns. But until you can break down those statistics into more detail, your analysis is seriously flawed.
Also, the 2.5 million includes roughly 0.5 million uses during home invasions. Which is a justifiable use of a weapon, but may would not be included in the violent crime catagory.
Same reference as previous post.
The gun issue will never be resolved as long as Americans continue to focus on guns as though they jump up and kill. It is the design of the civil order that is the fundamental problem, however, the wealthy elite/1% will never allow egalitarianism to bloom.
The gun issue can only be resolved by a more fair and even civil design based on inclusion.
Suggesting a household with a gun dashes over to a household without a gun in order to prevent a violent crime is really grasping at straws , just as your suggestion that households are not reporting they have guns to explain that only 1/3 of households have guns number is. The single largest location for where violent crimes occur is the home. The next largest location crimes committed are in schools. Between these 2 locations close to 50 percent of all violent crimes occur.
Are you really suggesting that one of those peoples in a household with guns dashes over to a school or home to prevent a crime against a person with no gun? I am going to suggest that number is statistically insignificant.
Violent crimes as I indicated number 365/100000. This includes rapes and assaults.
So let us go to non reported crimes of violence. Statistics indicated that around 50 percent of all violent crimes are not reported. This would put your violent crime rate at 730/100000 or a sum total of 2 million total. Again your people with guns claim the number of violent crimes they prevent each year is 2.5 million,
This number of violent crimes includes acts of attempted violence . In other words if there 2.5 million defensive uses of a firearm as claimed by gun facts then there were 2.5 million violent crimes committed. From your FBI website.
In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and non negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses that involve force or threat of force
That same FBI reports 1 million plus violent crimes which would INCLUDE threats of force and those thwarted by people with guns.
My last point which s the only ral point I am trying to make. I see no evidence that having access to more guns and bigger guns and deadlier guns makes a population safer or that it leads to more freedom and liberty. There are far better ways of achieving these goals.
Why all this mental masturbation with numbers? Assault weapons do not belong in a private citizen's hands. Period. End of argument.
I am not suggesting a household dashes anywhere. I am stating that armed people, going about their business in public have happened upon unarmed people being threatened with violence and have used firearms to prevent a violent crime. Close to 25% of all violent crimes happen at home or at school, not 50%, that leaves 75% to happen elsewhere, in public, where you may have a mix of armed and unarmed people.
Even the Clinton DOJ (no gunnuts there) found about 1.5 million defensive uses of guns a year. I do not know if the number is 1.5 million or 2.5 million. Either way, there is a large number of documented defensive gun usage. If we go with strictly government numbers, we get 1.5 million defensive uses vs. 1 million violent crimes. That works out to guns preventing 60% of violent crime.
Your assumption that only people who come from a household with a gun are the only ones who have benefited from defensive gun usage is incorrect. Mashing numbers together from multiple statistics sources, not taking in account known causes of under reporting to "prove" the statistics show no defensive benefit from an armed populous is comparing apples to oranges.
As to no evidence that more guns leads to less crime, please read Lott's work (not just the bullet points of his detractors), then read his rebuttals to the detractors. Look at the increase in violent crime in countries that have instituted firearms bans (England and Australia - same Gun facts refernse as previously posted).
An armed populous, while safer, does not lead to more liberty. However, allowing the government to curtail constitutional rights certainly undermines freedom and liberty.
What is an assault weapon and why should the public be barred from having them?
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Um, Muslims cry "Allahu Akbar" as often as Jews cry "mazeltov," plus all the times in the day that they pray, formally or informally, and then some. The problem here really was that he got a gun that allowed him to fire so many high-damage bullets in so short a time. And it happened where Latinx gays were gathered and felt safe.
Where's the list of trans women of color killed? Yeah, that's just one by one, but it's one by one by one by too many. And defended by or cited approvingly by those who wave the Bible and claim to be Christians. Don't try to distract. Your ignorance is showing.