Gun Master Debate

[Dak]

Ah I see. Because the UN doesn't recognize the government, they are by definition civilians? Fights for power occur regardless of the era and weapon of the era. Now you've shifted from blaming guns in America for running stop signs to blaming them for civil wars in Africa. You're grasping at straws left and right.

I won't speak for Britain's needs and laws. The country has fallen far since it wrote the Magna Carta. I do know when Conceal Carry was opened up in Arizona to extend to places serving alcohol, the same sorts of gloom and doom you are proclaiming was shouted high and low by the fearmongering paranoid civilian haters. However, the drunken shoot outs did not happen.

@Summerian: Way to miss the point. You can't blame objects, whether it's a CD (or the message on it) or a gun.

I have already posted those homicide numbers. 2.97 is already quite low, and falling. Maybe if we didn't have the War on Drugs, a border with Mexico, and gun control poster child cities like DC and Chicago driving up the murder rate it would be better. Ending the War on Drugs (prohibition) would save many more lives than tacking on another prohibition. BTW, Sweden has more than twice the violent crime rate as the US and rising. France has a higher rate and rising. Etc. I don't see the net positive.

 

[UltimateApathy]

And you referenced Chicago as an example of the problem of gun availability. You know, the city and state with some of the strictest restrictions on guns in the country? May as well cite North Korea as an example of a failure of capitalism.

Anyway, you still haven't acknowledged that crime figures have been falling in the US for years even with the country being awash in guns.

Never mind the manner that you off-handedly dismiss shooting tragedies (just numbers on a page, right?), if you want to go down the route of states with varying degrees of gun control, I'm going have to post this again. Take special note of the following:

9. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.
7. Gun ownership in the United States is declining overall.
5. America is an unusually violent country. But we’re not as violent as we used to be.
8. More guns tend to mean more homicide.

No surprise with number 9 there for anyone with a logical mind, of course. Also, we can clearly see that the number of guns in the US is declining and so is the level of violent crime - a clear correlation exists between the two and that IS part of the narrative that I want to put forth.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

Twelve facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States

"When we first collected much of this data, it was after the Aurora, Colo. shootings, and the air was thick with calls to avoid “politicizing” the tragedy. That is code, essentially, for “don’t talk about reforming our gun control laws.”

Let’s be clear: That is a form of politicization. When political actors construct a political argument that threatens political consequences if other political actors pursue a certain political outcome, that is, almost by definition, a politicization of the issue. It’s just a form of politicization favoring those who prefer the status quo to stricter gun control laws.

Since then, there have been more horrible, high-profile shootings. Jovan Belcher, a linebacker for the Kansas City Chiefs, took his girlfriend’s life and then his own. In Oregon, Jacob Tyler Roberts entered a mall holding a semi-automatic rifle and yelling “I am the shooter.” And, in Connecticut, at least 27 are dead — including 18 children — after a man opened fire at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

If roads were collapsing all across the United States, killing dozens of drivers, we would surely see that as a moment to talk about what we could do to keep roads from collapsing. If terrorists were detonating bombs in port after port, you can be sure Congress would be working to upgrade the nation’s security measures. If a plague was ripping through communities, public-health officials would be working feverishly to contain it.

Only with gun violence do we respond to repeated tragedies by saying that mourning is acceptable but discussing how to prevent more tragedies is not. “Too soon,” howl supporters of loose gun laws. But as others have observed, talking about how to stop mass shootings in the aftermath of a string of mass shootings isn’t “too soon.” It’s much too late.

What follows here isn’t a policy agenda. It’s simply a set of facts — many of which complicate a search for easy answers — that should inform the discussion that we desperately need to have.

1. Shooting sprees are not rare in the United States.

Mother Jones has tracked and mapped every shooting spree in the last three decades. “Since 1982, there have been at least 61 mass murders carried out with firearms across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii,” they found. And in most cases, the killers had obtained their weapons legally:

(graph)


2. 15 of the 25 worst mass shootings in the last 50 years took place in the United States.

Time has the full list here. In second place is Finland, with two entries.

3. Lots of guns don’t necessarily mean lots of shootings, as you can see in Israel and Switzerland.*

As David Lamp writes at Cato, “In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel ‘have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States.’”

*Correction: The info is out-of-date, if not completely wrong. Israel and Switzerland have tightened their gun laws substantially, and now pursue an entirely different approach than the United States. More details here. I apologize for the error.

4. Of the 11 deadliest shootings in the US, five have happened from 2007 onward.

That doesn’t include Friday’s shooting in Sandy Hook, Connecticut. The AP put the early reported death toll at 27, which would make it the second-deadliest mass shooting in US history.

5. America is an unusually violent country. But we’re not as violent as we used to be.

Kieran Healy, a sociologist at Duke University, made this graph of “deaths due to assault” in the United States and other developed countries. We are a clear outlier.

(graph)

As Healy writes, “The most striking features of the data are (1) how much more violent the U.S. is than other OECD countries (except possibly Estonia and Mexico, not shown here), and (2) the degree of change—and recently, decline—there has been in the U.S. time series considered by itself.”

6. The South is the most violent region in the United States.

In a subsequent post, Healy drilled further into the numbers and looked at deaths due to assault in different regions of the country. Just as the United States is a clear outlier in the international context, the South is a clear outlier in the national context:

(graph)

7. Gun ownership in the United States is declining overall.

“For all the attention given to America’s culture of guns, ownership of firearms is at or near all-time lows,” writes political scientist Patrick Egan. The decline is most evident on the General Social Survey, though it also shows up on polling from Gallup, as you can see on this graph:

The bottom line, Egan writes, is that “long-term trends suggest that we are in fact currently experiencing a waning culture of guns in the United States. “

8. More guns tend to mean more homicide.

The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found that there’s substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This holds true whether you’re looking at different countries or different states. Citations here.

9. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.

Last year, economist Richard Florida dove deep into the correlations between gun deaths and other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: Higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly predictable: States with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths. The disclaimer here is that correlation is not causation. But correlations can be suggestive:

(map)

“The map overlays the map of firearm deaths above with gun control restrictions by state,” explains Florida. “It highlights states which have one of three gun control restrictions in place – assault weapons’ bans, trigger locks, or safe storage requirements. Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).”

10. Gun control, in general, has not been politically popular.

Since 1990, Gallup has been asking Americans whether they think gun control laws should be stricter. The answer, increasingly, is that they don’t. “The percentage in favor of making the laws governing the sale of firearms ‘more strict’ fell from 78% in 1990 to 62% in 1995, and 51% in 2007,” reports Gallup. “In the most recent reading, Gallup in 2010 found 44% in favor of stricter laws. In fact, in 2009 and again last year, the slight majority said gun laws should either remain the same or be made less strict.”

11. But particular policies to control guns often are.

An August CNN/ORC poll asked respondents whether they favor or oppose a number of specific policies to restrict gun ownership. And when you drill down to that level, many policies, including banning the manufacture and possession of semi-automatic rifles, are popular.

(graph)

12. Shootings don’t tend to substantially affect views on gun control.

That, at least, is what the Pew Research Center found:

(graph)

 

[UltimateApathy]

Ah I see. Because the UN doesn't recognize the government, they are by definition civilians? Fights for power occur regardless of the era and weapon of the era. Now you've shifted from blaming guns in America for running stop signs to blaming them for civil wars in Africa. You're grasping at straws left and right.

I won't speak for Britain's needs and laws. The country has fallen far since it wrote the Magna Carta. I do know when Conceal Carry was opened up in Arizona to extend to places serving alcohol, the same sorts of gloom and doom you are proclaiming was shouted high and low by the fearmongering paranoid civilian haters. However, the drunken shoot outs did not happen.

What mindless blatherings are you going on about the U.N. not recognizing governments? Do I really have to spell it out for you: armed civilians groups in many of these countries start civil wars as a means of rebellion against the government, which plunges these countries into an endless cycle of war, regime change, and war once again - and far more civillians also tend to die in wars like this as opposed to combatants. It really does come down to the availability of guns to the civilian population - without guns they wouldn't have the means or desire to commit to such lengthy civil wars with the government, and knives (or similar devices) simply would not be adequate. This is exactly why the U.N. wanted to limit gun production and civilian gun ownership on a global with that bill, but the N.R.A. decided that the sexy metallic sheen of a gun in their fat greedy 1st world country hands was more important than child soldiers fighting in and civilians dying in endless gun-fueled civil wars in third world countries.

Your idiocy truly knows no bounds if you seriously think that you can compare an epidemic of gun murders in the U.S.A. with an epidemic of drunken fistfights in British (or Swedish, French) pubs and still come out the winner in the violent crime statistics game. I have a few questions that I would like to ask your brainwashed puppet-like mind:

1) do you understand/know that there are differing levels of severity of violent crime?
2) do you understand the difference in severity of a fist fight at the pub compared to a murder?
3) do you agree that murder is the most serious violent crime of all?
4) are you able/unable to understandby looking at the statistics that we can clearly see that America has a very serious gun-related murder problem, even compared to the entire rest world?
5) Do you have any facts to base this hearsay Arizona example of yours on other than your own warped perspective? It IS a fact that alcohol reduces your inhibitions, and that includes the inhibition to pull out your gun and shoot someone for whatever reason.

See, if you answer truthfully, your argument about violent crime statistics really comes up looking awfully retarded and baseless. And you were accusing me of grasping at straws?

 

[UltimateApathy]

@Summerian: Way to miss the point. You can't blame objects, whether it's a CD (or the message on it) or a gun.

I have already posted those homicide numbers. 2.97 is already quite low, and falling.

This object-based argument has got to be one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard. It's completely myopic and ignorant of what objects are most likely to be used for: a gun is MADE FOR KILLING, so doesn't logic follow that it will likely be used for exactly that? By the (non) logic of your argument everyone should, for example, also be allowed to own a bomb factory in their backyard or drive a tank around, or every single country in the world should be allowed to own nuclear warheads because we can't blame bombs, tanks or nukes for what people might do with with them, right? Oh, and the last time I checked a heavy metal CD wasn't a fine-tuned killing machine either. Sheer idiocy

2.97 as a gun homicide rate is only "low" when compared to the gangster-ridden, poverty-stricken 3rd world countries on that list, and still far higher than any other first world country there. And the very way that gangsters and other criminals use guns in those countries to assert their dominance is in itself a very effective example of why it's bad to have a society overflowing with civilian guns. For a gangster a gun is the Holy Graille that gives him a sense of power and control - no gangbanger feels like a "badass" with a knife tucked in his sock compared to 90% of the other gangster out there packing all manner of guns.

And back with a reference to those violent crime statistics that you posted earlier, you were making false statements about the U.S. having far lower violent crime rates than most other first world countries, but since the U.S. clocked in at 466 crimes per 100,000 residents it would be 11th or 12th on the last list which is still very much in the top tier of violent countries, and (as I mentioned earlier) we also need to remember that the U.S. has a far greater degree of serious violent crime (such as murders), with much of it centered around guns.

 

[Dak]

2.97 is low both relatively and absolutely. It means 3 people in 100,000.

Of course murder is the most serious violent crime. But at some point the net benefit of murder reduction is undone by the explosion of other crimes. What consolation is it that 2 less people per 100,000 die annually when thousands more are getting robbed and beaten instead? Do you really think that society is a better place to live?

What you are advocating are laws to prevent the breaking of laws. Prohibition. Why is it that you think prohibition would work in the case of guns and provide a net benefit when it's failed massively in other cases? Notice it's now Mothers Against Drunk Driving, not Mothers Against Alcohol.

Your constant assertions about the psychological impacts of guns are unfounded. If what you are saying were the case we wouldn't see the opposite correlation in countries with little gun access: Western Europe. Removing guns from the equation automatically tips the hand of power to the mob and to the young/strong. Guns have been referred to before as "the great equalizer" for a reason.

The US does have far lower than most of the first world. Hundreds per 100k is a lot less. And again, it's trending down instead of trending up, at the same time as gun purchases and conceal carry permits/usability increases. There are many more factors at play than mere gun availability (culture and environmental things like lead in the gasoline), but if you want to reduce it down to guns, your argument holds no water. Less guns = less gun crime is irrelevant when less guns = more overall crime.

Also, most of the gun crime is restricted to the border, big northern cities, and "Squalor Heights" in the deep South. What do these areas have in common? Drug trade, gun restrictions in the north, and poverty/lack of education. If you avoid places like DC, El Paso, Jackson, and Chicago, those rates of violent crime plummet, regardless of the amount of guns around.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

I really don't understand you Dak. Why do you continue to argue with these idiots?

 

[Dak]

It's practice. It's also an education in how people's value scales can be shaped. 2 deaths > 2000 assaults and robberies blows my mind, but obviously whatever their education source and cultural environment is, it has given them this value scale.

 

[Chimaera]

I'm not going to pretend to know a lot about this subject as guns are illegal over here and the most exposure I get to them, if you exclude video games and movies, is in an airport. I certainly wouldn't want them fully legalised over here but I doubt that will ever happen so that's not really an issue for me. If you Yanks want the freedom to shoot each other, that's your business.

However, I would like to see accurate statistics comparing the rate of gun crime with the rate of guns being used, justifiably, for self defense.

 

[Dak]

However, I would like to see accurate statistics comparing the rate of gun crime with the rate of guns being used, justifiably, for self defense.

Such a statistic would be lovely, but is unfortunately almost impossible to accurately acquire/define. IIRC a Mr Kleck tried to estimate such a number, and the anti-gun crowd had a fit with his estimates (too high they thought).

Piers Morgan sort of provided the case in point when he accurately yet absurdly pointed out that there was no case of a mass murder being stopped by a lawful concealed carrying civilian. Mr Pratt pointed out that such a statistic doesn't exist since the interference prevents a possible mass shooting from becoming one. It's impossible to accurately predict possibilities. So the definition of the statistic virtually eliminates it's usefulness.

Allowing concealed carry has already been demonstrated to correlate with a drop in crime, even though there would be no open indication of any change in gun ownership or carrying. The purpose of concealed carry is to do so anonymously. This uncertainty factor has a downward pressure on crime, even if there were no more guns being carried about than under a no-concealed-carry law.

 

[UltimateApathy]

I'm an idiot that is seemingly unable to read a chart that clearly shows that the U.S. has a much higher rate of gun homicide than any other first world country on that list, and I keep blindly and pathetically mumbling about about how low it is compared to third world countries racked by gangsterism and civil war. I still think that civilians owning guns is a great idea even though all the statistics, studies, and common sense suggest otherwise - I have no evidence to back up my claims but feel compelled to say something because of how effective my brainwashing has been at the hands of the NRA. I'm also apparently too retarded to realise that UltimateApathy is not in favour of prohibition (as he stated numerous times earlier) but rather in favor of much stricter regulation of who gets guns and why - a strategy that has worked well in most other first world countries. I don't answer drect questions that would reveal the idiocy of my flawed logic, and apparently I think that drunken louts who get into an epidemic of pub fights in Britain would be better off carrying guns. My object-based argument has been already shown to be incredibly stupid but I have to stick with it because that's the kind of mindless propaganda that the NRA has filled me with. It's easy for me to ignore third world civil wars fought by child soldiers fueled by the overproduction of American guns, the same guns that also fuel violent rampant gangsterism in many third world world countries, the same guns that infect the globe like a plague. I think it's great that the NRA voted against a U.N. bill to curtail civilian gun manufacture and ownership to curtail these civil wars and violently-rampant gangsterism. I'm actually stupid enough to state that the rate of gun ownership in the US is increasing even though the statistics clearly show it decreasing. I make plenty of non-founded statements without a shred of evidence and expect people to believe me: it's really pathetic, to be honest.

That's a much more accurate representation of what you said there.

And now on with more fun gun-related studies:

http://suite101.com/a/guns-and-america-troubled-marriage

Guns and America: a Troubled Marriage

There are sufficient examples spread over the globe that guns are not needed to protect children in schools — where guns are needed, it is typically a sign of an illness in the culture, government, and society.

Guns and American Culture

Guns are interwoven into American culture. Guns have played starring roles in some of the most important event in American history — the American Revolution, the Civil War, westward expansion, etc. Most of the eighty or so citizens who die daily in our country, die almost anonymously. The majority of the 30,000 people who die from gun violence annually — 17,000 — die by their own hand. The tragedy of accidental death by firearms represents less than three per cent of deaths by firearms, and about 12,500 are murdered.

Despite the criminal violence of the era of organized crime in the 20’s and 30’s, American fascination with the criminals of that time has not diminished. Movies that depict graphic gun violence have been box office hits and won numerous awards.

Our Bill of Rights is sacred. Though often misquoted and misunderstood, it is a powerful summary of the values Americans prize most. The right to bear arms is supported with an almost cult-like passion.

A January, 2013 Gallup poll reports that 47% of American homes have a gun “in their homes or on their property,” although that percentage has been dropping for at least fifty years. The Southern Poverty Law Center lists 512 “patriot groups” in the U.S. — some are known to promote violence and keep large numbers of weapons.

Are Guns the Real Issue?

Is the issue before the nation really about guns? Perhaps not. Yes, guns are an effective way to kill people — that’s why they are the preferred way to arm soldiers around the world. Yes, Americans hate the violence that periodically snuffs out the lives of innocent children and renders parts of our large cities dark and dangerous.

Yet, obviously we are often facing the tragic symptoms of mental illness, criminality, poverty, and extremism. Those who promote or fear a repeal of the Second Amendment will almost certainly not see the abolishment of the right to bear arms. It has been generally supported by the Supreme Court time and again, and support for it strong among the public and politicians.

In looking back at those responsible for gun violence we almost without variation are looking at people who are, by some definition, outside the social norm. Often they go to jail rather than a mental institution, but their psychopathy is often, though not always, clear. Indeed, most who abhor gun violence understand that “normal” people just don’t pick up a gun and march off to randomly kill. Most understand that people who use guns for criminal purposes are, in fact, criminals. It of note also that about 80% of those responsible for gun violence purchased guns legally.

America is Uniquely Violent

The ongoing debate over gun control will most likely ignore that most Americans are horrified by gun violence, but freely accept the risk of violence over strict control of firearms. Our deaths-by-gun rate places us in the company of third-world countries with major social issues, drug cartels, and prolonged tribal battles against government. Other nations are puzzled by the American gun problem. Per capita gun ownership in the U.S. is the highest in the world — twice as high as second-placed Yemen, a country divided by recent civil war, political strife, and al -Qaeda.

Words fail us when we try to describe our emotional reactions to mass shootings, especially when children are involved. Violence makes us forget that for most children school is the safest place to be. This fact also speaks against the need to arm teachers. Shootings by people with illnesses or issues in the U.S. speak clearly to a need to do something— but what? Studies simply don’t provide the answers.

Guns Violence: No Clear Answer

Our values, our morals, our guiding principles of life must not be derived from slogans and posters. We were given abilities to reason, to evaluate, to think beyond the bondage of emotion. We must allow deeper thoughts into our minds — even at the risk of feeling threatened. We must learn more, teach more, share more. The NRA has a vested interest in avoiding gun control, rendering its finger-wagging, biased opinions virtually useless.

To protect our rights in this nation of splendid freedom is natural. But there are tacit and deliberate responsibilities to stand against the corruption of rights, lest we reshape them to serve rather than protect. The human mind created the gun and the human mind can create proper solutions to protect people from its abuse.

We can preserve the Second Amendment and re-educate society in doing so. Our forefathers could never have predicted how “the right to bear arms” would evolve, but they provided tools for correcting their lack of prescience. We must reignite the fervor of the Founding Fathers in addressing the issue, and reject the ill-conceived, knee-jerk reactions of those who see America as already corrupt and violent beyond repair.

 

[UltimateApathy]

Another study that shows that freely-available guns in civilian society aren't a good idea:

http://www.popcenter.org/problems/gun_violence/2

Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders

Guide No.23 (2003)

by Anthony A. Braga

The Problem of Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders

This guide addresses serious youth gun violence, describing the problem and reviewing factors that increase the risks of it. It then identifies a series of questions that might help you analyze your local problem. Finally, it reviews responses to the problem, and what is known about them from evaluative research and police practice.

Criminal misuse of guns kills or injures tens of thousands of Americans every year. This violence imposes a heavy burden on our standard of living, not only on groups that have the highest victimization rates, but also on the community at large. By one estimate, this burden amounts to $80 billion per year. 1 Although overall U.S. homicide rates declined between the 1980s and 1990s, youth homicide, particularly gun homicide, increased dramatically. Between 1984 and 1994, juvenile (younger than 18) homicides committed with handguns increased by 418 percent, and juvenile homicides committed with other guns increased by 125 percent.2 During this time, adolescents (ages 14 to 17) had the largest proportional increase in homicide commission and victimization, young adults (ages 18 to 24) had the largest absolute increase, and there was much crossfire between the two age groups.3 Gun homicide accounted for all of the increase in youth homicide. The youth violence epidemic peaked in 1993 and was followed by a rapid, sustained drop over the rest of the 1990s.4 However, in 2000, more than 10,000 Americans were killed with guns, and guns are much more likely to be used in homicides of teens and young adults than in homicides of people of other ages.5

In urban areas, gun violence takes a particularly heavy toll, as vastly disproportionate numbers of young minority males are killed and injured, and increasing fear drives out businesses and disrupts community social life. Research has linked urban youth gun violence to gang conflicts, street drug markets, and gun availability.6 Youth gun violence is usually concentrated among groups of serious offenders and in very specific places.7

The police can prevent youth gun violence by focusing on identifiable risks. While gun violence seems to pervade our society, it is remarkably clustered among high-risk people, in high-risk places, at high-risk times. This concentration of violence provides an important opportunity for police to strategically address a seemingly intractable problem.

Related Problems

For police agencies, the most pressing concerns regarding youth gun violence are why offenders target particular people, at particular places, at particular times. However, it is also important to recognize that youth gun violence is often linked to a variety of risk factors beyond the scope of problem-oriented policing. For example, it has been linked to changing demographics, adverse economic conditions, family disruption, media violence, and poor parenting skills.8 These are sometimes considered the “root causes” of the problem. However, by the time gun violence problems come to police attention, the broader questions of why youth offend are no longer relevant. While police often help people access social services, they are best positioned to prevent youth gun crimes by focusing on the situational opportunities for offending rather than trying to change those socioeconomic conditions on which other government agencies primarily focus. Thinking about how likely offenders, potential victims, and others are to make decisions based on perceived opportunities is more useful in designing effective problem-oriented policing interventions.9

Youth gun violence is only one of many youth-related problems police must handle. The following require separate analysis and response:
•gang formation,
•gang intimidation,
•gang crime,
•youth drug dealing,
•youth drug use,
•underage drinking,
•gun availability to youth,
•gun possession by youth,
•illegal gun markets,
•street drug markets,
•disorderly youth in public places,
•assaults in and around bars,
•street cruising, and
•truancy.

Factors Contributing to Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders

Understanding the factors that contribute to your youth gun violence problem will help you frame your own local analysis questions, determine good effectiveness measures, recognize key intervention points, and select appropriate responses. Research has shown that crime problems tend to cluster among a few offenders, victims, and places. Youth gun violence is similarly concentrated among a few offenders in a few places. This section reviews what is known from criminal profiles of youth gun offenders and victims, addresses the importance of gangs and criminally active groups in youth gun violence, and discusses the clustering in location and time of youth gun violence. It is important to note that the problem frames vary across the studies described below. In many jurisdictions, an initial interest in “juvenile violence” or “gun violence” shifted, as the problem assessments proceeded, to a focus on understanding and controlling violence, regardless of age or weapon type. However, in all cities, youth gun violence was the most important component of the problem. For example, in Minneapolis, problem-oriented research conducted on an emergent total homicide problem found that homicide was largely committed by youth ages 24 and under, who used guns and were known to the criminal justice system.10

Previous Offenses

Youth gun violence is concentrated among serious offenders well known to police and other criminal justice agencies. In Boston, an interagency group of law enforcement personnel, youth workers, and researchers examined the criminal histories of youth ages 21 and under killed by gun or knife in the city between 1990 and 1994, and of the youth offenders responsible.11 Of the victims, 75 percent had been arraigned for at least one offense in Massachusetts courts, and 20 percent had served time in a youth or adult detention center. Nearly 50 percent had been on probation in the past, and many were on probation when they were killed. Of the offenders, a little over 75 percent had been arraigned for at least one offense in Massachusetts courts, 25 percent had served time, over 50 percent had been on probation in the past, and 25 percent were on probation when they committed the crime. Victims and offenders known to the criminal justice system had an average of nearly 10 prior arraignments, and nearly 50 percent had 10 or more arraignments. They had been arraigned for a wide variety of crimes, including armed violent offenses, disorder offenses, and drug offenses. In gang literature, this wide range of offending is described as “cafeteria-style” offending.12

A number of other jurisdictions have reported similar findings. In Minneapolis, Baltimore, Los Angeles, Indianapolis, and Stockton, Calif., gun violence was largely committed by and against youth with extensive criminal backgrounds.13

Gangs and Criminally Active Groups

Youth gun violence is concentrated among feuding gangs and criminally active groups. The Boston interagency group examined the circumstances of the youth gun and knife murders and found that nearly two-thirds were gang-related.14 Most of the murders were not linked to drug dealing or other “business” interests; instead, most resulted from relatively long-standing gang feuds. In Minneapolis, nearly two-thirds of youth murders between 1994 and 1997 were gang-related.15 In the Boyle Heights section of Los Angeles, slightly less than two-thirds of youth gun homicides were gang-related. Another 25 percent involved gang members as victims or offenders, but were motivated for reasons other than gang rivalries.16

Even in neighborhoods suffering from high rates of youth gun violence, most youth are not in gangs and criminally active groups. In addition, some gangs are more dangerous than others. To better understand the city’s gang problem, the Boston interagency group mapped gang turf and estimated gang size.17 They identified 61 different crews with around 1,300 members. Gang members represented less than 1 percent of all Boston youth, and less than 3 percent of youth in high-risk neighborhoods. The mapping also documented rivalries and alliances among gangs. Gangs had identifiable “beefs” with particular rival gangs, not all rivalries were active (i.e., shots were not currently being fired), and certain gangs were much more involved in conflicts than others. In Minneapolis, researchers identified some 2,650 people in 32 active street gangs as being central to youth gun violence; they represented less than 3.5 percent of Minneapolis residents between the ages of 14 and 24. The gangs tended not to be territorial; they operated fluidly across Minneapolis and nearby jurisdictions. In Boyle Heights, researchers identified 37 criminally active street gangs as being involved in youth gun violence.

However, gangs are not always behind youth gun violence. In some cities, criminally active groups who are not considered “gangs” are major gun offenders. In Baltimore, violent groups active in street drug markets were involved in numerous homicides in 1997.18 Most of the murders occurred in or near a street drug market, and many victims and suspects were part of a drug organization or a recognized neighborhood criminal network. Researchers identified 325 drug groups that ranged in nature from rather sophisticated organizations, to structured neighborhood groups, to loose neighborhood groups. While drug disputes and street drug robberies contributed to Baltimore’s gun violence problem, homicides often resulted from ongoing, non-drug-related disputes among people in drug-selling groups.

In thinking about the nature of your youth gun violence problem, it is important to recognize that the direct links between youth gangs, drugs, and violence are usually overstated.19 Even in Baltimore, where most youth gun violence occurs in a drug market setting, most youth gun homicide is not drug-related. Gang and group violence is usually retaliatory or expressive (defending gang honor, status, and members). Today’s offenders are often tomorrow’s victims, and vice versa. Youth gun violence victims treated in Boston emergency rooms often had scars from past gun and knife wounds.20 Youth gun violence in many cities appears to be a self-sustaining cycle among a relatively small number of criminally active youth. They are at high risk of being confronted by gun violence, so they tend to try to protect themselves by getting, carrying, and using guns; forming and joining gangs; acting tough; and so forth.21 This behavior adds to the cycle of street violence.

The research confirms a high degree of overlap between victim and offender populations. It is important that you determine whether this overlap exists in your jurisdiction.

Geographic and Temporal Distribution

Like most crime problems, youth gun violence is clustered in specific places. Between 1987 and 1990, half of Chicago’s gang-related homicides occurred in only 10 of its 77 communities.22 In Minneapolis, nearly two-thirds of homicides were clustered in only eight of its 95 neighborhoods. In Boston, gang turf covered only 3 percent of the city’s total area, but over 25 percent of the city’s youth homicides, gun assaults, weapons offenses, and shots-fired calls for service occurred there. In Boyle Heights, spatial analyses revealed that youth gun homicide was concentrated in specific hot spots, in and around gang hangouts. Most of the Boyle Heights youth gun homicides were considered to be predatory, as perpetrators invaded rival gang territory to commit them. 23

Youth gun violence often clusters in time. For example, in Boston, most youth gun violence occurred in the afternoon hours immediately following school release, as well as during weekend evenings. In Kansas City, Mo., computer analysis of gun crime hot spots within a beat revealed that most gun violence occurred between 7 p.m. and 1 a.m.

Understanding Your Local Problem

The information provided above is only a generalized description of youth gun violence. Research has shown that criminal and disorderly youth gangs and groups vary widely both within and across cities.25 (For example, Boston gangs were small, loosely organized, mostly neighborhood-based groups, unlike Chicago and Los Angeles gangs.) You must combine the basic facts with a more specific understanding of your local problem. Analyzing the local problem carefully will help you design a more effective response strategy.

Analyses of youth gun violence should combine official data with street-level knowledge to provide a dynamic, real-life picture of the problem. The experiences, observations, and historical perspectives of police officers, street workers, and others in routine contact with offenders, communities, and criminal networks are underused resources for describing, understanding, and crafting interventions aimed at crime problems. Collecting data through interviews and focus groups can help you refine existing practitioner knowledge.26 For example, you can greatly enhance official data on youth gun violence by systematically reviewing and recording the circumstances of each incident in a working-group setting. Crime mapping is also an important tool in assessing youth gun violence. It can provide important insights on the locations of gun crimes, gang turf, and drug markets.†

† Interested readers should consult the National Institute of Justice Mapping and Analysis for Public Safety website, at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/maps/.

 

[Matt]

That's a much more accurate representation of what you said there.

 

[Dak]

One anti-gun-"nut" constructs strawmen and hurls ad homs. The "peanut gallery" applauds.

How many times are you going to reference guns as being like a living thing, capable of action all it's own? Thanks for providing all sorts of wonderful articles demonstrating the deleterious effects of the war on drugs, welfare, and government education on urban youths. But no, IT BE DEH GUNZ!

 

[Chimaera]

UA and Summerian are more backwards than Monoxide.

 

[Summerian]

You stupid!

And there's no correlation between gunshot wounds and guns.

 

[UltimateApathy]

One anti-gun-"nut" constructs strawmen and hurls ad homs. The "peanut gallery" applauds.

How many times are you going to reference guns as being like a living thing, capable of action all it's own? Thanks for providing all sorts of wonderful articles demonstrating the deleterious effects of the war on drugs, welfare, and government education on urban youths. But no, IT BE DEH GUNZ!

One propaganda-possessed-puppet ignores all the facts, studies, and statistics arrayed against him and sticks his head into the ground like an ostrich in defiance of the cold hard truth. The gods of reason and logic nod their heads knowingly at his pathetic small-minded brainwashed condition.

This ignorant and blind wretch is now even ignoring statistics showing that gun violence amongst the youth in America is in fact increasing with regard to both gang-related shootings and non-gang-related shootings. But all these gun-related slaughters and injuries (even to youngsters) are all just numbers on a page to a numb-skulled heartless propaganda pawn like you as long as you still get to lovingly caress your metal killing machine at the end of the day, aren't they?

An overflow of civillian guns are what empower and enable gangsters to control and terrorise large swarths of territory in many third world countries, and the same goes for areas in many cities in the USA. We've already seen how violent gangsterism is very rare and subdued in countries like Japan where gangsters aren't able to get guns because of tight gun control laws. A gunless gangster is a disempowered gangster, and you sure as hell can't control entire areas of cities or make the lives of the citizens there a living hell if they are only carrying knives. This same concept regarding the "empowering and enabling" abillity of guns applies to the endless third world civil wars and the general abillity of criminals and psycopaths everywhere to commit more heinous and dangerous crimes.

You clearly lack the mental capacity to realize that the NRA is little more than a political arm of the gun manufacturers of America that exists purely to brainwash mindless muppets like you into believing that you actually have a very immediate and vital need to possess a killing machine that you can keep in your inner jacket pocket. The US manufactures more guns than any other country in the world, and is also the only country in the world that has a very powerful political group such as the NRA that exists purely to promote civillian gun ownership - there's a pretty clear correlation here. They don't give a flying fuck about the likelihood or abillity of you being able to use a gun to defend yourself from criminals or the evil authoritarian government, they just need want to sell you more guns and make more money - you're little more than a clown being conned by corporations into spending money and believing ridiculous propaganda.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...racing-anti-government-rhetoric-90943419.html

NRA Once Again Embracing Anti-Government Rhetoric

WASHINGTON, April 15 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Fifteen years ago former National Rifle Association (NRA) member Timothy McVeigh -- motivated by his fear and hatred of the federal government -- bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Today, the NRA and other members of the gun lobby are again embracing and validating anti-government rhetoric according to the new 21-page Violence Policy Center (VPC) study "Lessons Unlearned: The Gun Lobby and the Siren Song of Anti-Government Rhetoric" (http://www.vpc.org/studies/lessonsunlearned.pdf).

The study offers examples of the NRA's anti-government language, details NRA marketing to Tea Party supporters, and reveals links in nine states between NRA State Election Volunteer Coordinators, the Tea Party movement, and other factions of the "Patriot movement."

The study's release comes four days before the pro-gun "Second Amendment March" in Washington, D.C. The April 19th event, held on the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing and the federal government's siege at Waco that contributed to McVeigh's anti-government anger, has been publicized by the NRA and received financial support from the organization.

The study finds that, echoing the language of the resurgent Patriot movement, the NRA routinely presents the election of Barack Obama as a virtually apocalyptic threat not only to gun ownership, but to the future of the United States itself.

In a December 2009 direct-mail letter echoing the language of both the Tea Party movement and the Oath Keepers, the NRA urges the reader to join an "army whose highest allegiance is not to any individual or any political party but only to the cause of freedom."

In the letter, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre -- who, speaking at the 2009 CPAC convention, told cheering attendees that "our Founding Fathers understood that the guys with the guns make the rules" -- warns of "...massive armies of anti-gun, anti-freedom radicals marshaling against us for an attack that could make every other battle we've ever fought look like a walk in the park...an attack aimed at completely rewriting our nation's values and the future of our country in ways that you and I won't even recognize."

In the first four months of 2009, the NRA's flagship activist magazine, America's 1st Freedom, profiled key members of the Obama administration, likening them to a "'who's who' of gun-ban advocates."
A January 2009 article entitled "Beware the Rahm" asked, "Will Rahm Emanuel be able to stab a knife into the Constitution and scream that the Second Amendment is 'Dead! Dead! Dead!?'"
A February 2009 NRA profile of Attorney General Eric Holder attacked his record under "the infamous Janet Reno ," the Clinton Administration attorney general who is widely blamed in pro-gun circles for the Waco stand-off.
A March 2009 cover proclaimed, "The Whole World is Watching—Hillary Clinton Takes the Reins: Will the new secretary of state defend the U.S. constitution, or will she invite the global gun-ban movement into the corridors of power?"
An April 2009 cover featured Secretary of Education Arne Duncan with the headline: "What would this man teach your kids? Anti-gun extremist Arne Duncan takes over as Secretary of Education."


The organization now also markets NRA clothing products emblazoned with the Gadsden "Don't Tread on Me" flag, which has become the symbol of the Tea Party movement. The description for the NRA Gadsden tee shirt reads: "What goes around comes around. In the late 18th century, oppressed American patriots voiced their defiance of tyranny by exclaiming, 'Don't Tread on Me!' Perhaps it's time once again for Freedom-loving citizens to rally 'round the legendary slogan of the famous Gadsden flag."

The VPC study states that "the NRA incites its members and others, offering words that outside of the purported protective bubble of direct-mail and official publications would be chilling." It cites an August 2008 NRA direct-mail letter warning of the threat posed by a possible Obama administration: "Our Constitution and our system of government guarantee that every American has the opportunity to write his or her name in the history books of tomorrow -- to leave his or her imprint on the fabric of our nation. But in the end, history is always written only by a select few -- the few who sacrifice of themselves to fight for the causes in which they believe."

The study concludes, "Such language offers benediction to the most violent of acts...Based on past history, the overriding concern should be that the NRA's words may, in fact, once again be revealed as violent prophecy."

 

[Dak]

You clearly lack the capacity to understand I have nothing to do with the NRA, the Tea Party, the Republican Party, etc etc etc etc nor that guns are merely tools to be used for good or ill depending on the user.

Nothing empowers criminals and gangs like the profits from the War on Drugs. You're focused on the wrong thing.

 

[UltimateApathy]

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2...gnant_and_cowardly_antigun_control_video.html

NRA uses Barack Obama’s kids in ‘repugnant and cowardly’ anti-gun control ad


Are the president’s kids more important than yours?” a narrator says in the 35-second television and Internet spot. “Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their schools? Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he’s just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security.”

WASHINGTON- Hours before President Barack Obama was due to unveil proposals on Wednesday to prevent mass shootings like the one in Newtown, Conn., last month, the National Rifle Association released an advertisement that referred to his two school-aged daughters.


“Are the president’s kids more important than yours?” a narrator says in the 35-second television and Internet spot. “Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their schools? Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he’s just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security.”


Obama’s two children, who attend private school in Washington, D.C., receive Secret Service protection.


The White House condemned the ad.


“Most Americans agree that a president’s children should not be used as pawns in a political fight. But to go so far as to make the safety of the president’s children the subject of an attack ad is repugnant and cowardly,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said.


Former Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs, speaking earlier on MSNBC’s Morning Joe program, said the ad was “disgusting on so many levels.”


Gun control activists and gun rights advocates have said in recent days that they could find common ground, particularly over the issue of expanding background checks for potential gun owners.


The NRA ad’s tone, however, and the personal nature of the attacks speaks to the cultural gulf that divides both sides.


The clip, called “Stand and Fight,” promotes the leading gun lobby’s proposal to put armed guards in schools. The idea has been at the centre of the NRA’s response to the Dec. 14 shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, in which 20 children and 6 adults were killed.


The ad is airing on the Sportsman Channel, a cable network, but will likely receive a much larger viewership on news stations and through the Internet.


The NRA, which says it has about 4 million members, also announced earlier this week that it would produce a nightly one-hour cable talk show hosted by gun advocate Cam Edwards on the Sportsman Channel.


“I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools,” Obama said in a recent interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press. “And I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem.”


In a survey released on Monday, the Pew Research Center found that people favor putting armed guards or police officers in more schools by a two-to-one margin, 64 per cent to 32 per cent.

 

[UltimateApathy]

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_nras_war_on_gun_science/

The NRA’s war on gun science

As the tragic shooting in Colorado last week has reignited the debate over guns, one key public policy question — does gun control save lives? — is almost impossible to answer thanks to a dearth of research on the subject. That lack of research is no accident. It’s the product of a concerted campaign by the gun lobby and its allies on Capitol Hill to stymie and even explicitly outlaw scientific research into gun violence in what critics charge is an attempt to deceive the public about the dangers of guns.

Over the past two decades, the NRA has not only been able to stop gun control laws, but even debate on the subject. The Centers for Disease Control funds research into the causes of death in the United States, including firearms — or at least it used to. In 1996, after various studies funded by the agency found that guns can be dangerous, the gun lobby mobilized to punish the agency. First, Republicans tried to eliminate entirely the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, the bureau responsible for the research. When that failed, Rep. Jay Dickey, a Republican from Arkansas, successfully pushed through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget (the amount it had spent on gun research in the previous year) and outlawed research on gun control with a provision that reads: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

David Satcher, the then-director of the CDC, wrote an Op-Ed in the Washington Post in November of 1995 warning that the NRA’s “shotgun assault” on the CDC was dangerous both for public health and for our democracy:


What ought to be of wider concern, is the second argument advanced by the NRA — that firearms research funded by the CDC is so biased against gun ownership that all such funding ought to cease. Here is a prescription for inaction on a major cause of death and disability. Here is a charge that not only casts doubt on the ability of scientists to conduct research involving controversial issues but also raises basic questions about the ability, fundamental to any democracy, to have honest, searching public discussions of such issues.


Dickey’s clause, which remains in effect today, has had a chilling effect on all scientific research into gun safety, as gun rights advocates view “advocacy” as any research that notices that guns are dangerous. Stephen Teret, who co-directs the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, told Salon: “They sent a message and the message was heard loud and clear. People [at the CDC], then and now, know that if they start going down that road, their budget is going to be vulnerable. And the way public agencies work, they know how this works and they’re not going to stick their necks out.”

In January, the New York Times reported that the CDC goes so far as to “ask researchers it finances to give it a heads-up anytime they are publishing studies that have anything to do with firearms. The agency, in turn, relays this information to the NRA as a courtesy.”

In response to the news, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence sent a letter to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius expressing concern that the agency was giving the NRA a “preferred position” and allowed to sway research.

Teret said that he’s noticed that the CDC appears to avoid using the word “firearms” when possible in research on homicide and suicide, using instead euphemisms like the “availability of lethal means.”

More recently, Republicans have gone after the National Institutes for Health, which has also funded research into the public health issues of guns. “It’s almost as if someone’s been looking for a way to get this study done ever since the Centers for Disease Control was banned from doing it 10 years ago,” Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican, said in 2009 of the NIH.

“You’d think that after the CDC had their money revoked, we wouldn’t be dealing with this,” Erich Pratt, a spokesman for the Gun Owners Association of America, told the Washington Times at the time.

Last year, Rep. Denny Rehberg, a Republican from Montana, added a rider to the current government-funding bill, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012, based on the Dickey language, which targets the NIH. It states that no funds going to the NIH “may be used, in whole or part, to advocate or promote gun control.” In a press release from March, Rehberg touted the amendment and condemned President Obama’s “insidious … efforts to subvert the Second Amendment,” a reference to a signing statement Obama made pushing back (gently) on the provision.

Daniel Vice of the Brady Center told Salon that the stymieing of research at the CDC “is just one part of a broad campaign of secrecy to keep information from the public about how dangerous guns are.” He noted that the ATF used to release lots of gun crime data to the public, including a list of problem gun dealers providing firearms to criminals (almost 60 percent of firearms at crime scenes were traced back to just one percent of gun dealers, he said). But beginning in 2003, an amendment introduced by Rep. Todd Tiahrt, a Republican from Kansas, prevents the ATF from releasing all kinds of gun data. It’s been added as a rider to every spending bill since.

Dr. Arthur Kellermann, a prominent researcher whose 1993 CDC-funded study became a flashpoint in the debate over government funding of gun research, told Salon that the effects of the campaign against gun research have real consequences. “In a nation dedicated to personal freedom and responsibility, it is ironic that policymakers and the public have been denied access to timely and objective research on this issue for 15 years and counting,” he said in an email.

Indeed, gun violence is the second leading cause of death for young people after car accidents, but the federal agency responsible for researching ways to stop it has had its hands tied. No other research topic has been singled out in this way. “We’ve got a huge social problem that causes a very substantial amount of premature mortality and by and large, we have invested scant resources studying it. And the reason is politics,” Teret said.

 

[Summerian]

You clearly lack the capacity to understand I have nothing to do with the NRA, the Tea Party, the Republican Party, etc etc etc etc nor that guns are merely tools to be used for good or ill depending on the user.

Nothing empowers criminals and gangs like the profits from the War on Drugs. You're focused on the wrong thing.

wow
Really?!
And how does owning an AR-15 help in fighting criminals and gangs? What do the US police do all day? Doughnut?

Nah, USA will be better of when the macho gun culture is in check and those who want a gun have to show society they can handle a gun. And the semi or full automatic murder "tools" must go. Except for army and specialist in law enforcement.
The UN is not trying to invade USA.