OUR OPINION: Why mess with success since gun laws are working?

[rl6214]

A legislative committee is tackling a long list of proposed changes to Maine's gun laws this week, and most Mainers must be asking themselves why.



Among the 50 states, Maine consistently has one of the lowest violent crime rates. And while any figures about the level of gun ownership would be conjecture because there is no registration requirement here, Maine takes among the most permissive positions on gun regulation and has a long tradition of hunting and self-protection with firearms.

You can argue all day how these two facts are related: Is crime low here because we own so many guns, or is it due to other factors such as our aging population or the lack of warring gangs. But you don't have to settle the argument to determine one thing -- something is working.

http://www.kjonline.com/opinion/why-mess-with-success-since-gun-laws-are-working__2011-04-13.html

Why mess with success?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hoyt]

2. They want to keep crime rate low. Difficult with gun proliferators pushing guns and accessories.

[spin]

3. The statistics prove you wrong again ...

The violent crime rate has been falling for years even while the number of firearms and accessories have skyrocketed.



source: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/weapons.cfm


source:http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/cv2.cfm


http://www.ammoland.com/2009/05/14/1225980-guns-bought-americans/gun-sales-april-2009/


source: http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/02/robert-farago/nssf-long-gun-sales-push-u-s-to-new-firearms-sales-record/

Out of curiosity do you subscribe to the theory that if you repeat a untrue statement often enough, people will believe you?

Actually I enjoy posting statistics and graphs. Thanks for giving me an opportunity.

[lawodevolution]

4. I'm sure hoyt can read, I'm sure it knows the truth by now.

Lies, dishonesty and manipulation are part of their tactic. They already know the truth but the truth goes against their agenda. The honest ones will convert only leaving the ones willing to lie in order to reach their goal. In the end they only support gun control because they are trying to strike a blow against the conservatives so they're willing to harm liberal gun owners with their selfish childish fight with republicans.

[Starboard Tack]

11. Do you honestly believe that people who are pro-gun control are only

of that opinion so as to "strike a blow against the conservatives"? You don't think it has anything to do with the TENS OF THOUSANDS OF GUN DEATHS in this country annually?
You can't be that cynical.

[Straw Man]

17. It would certainly seem to be the case.

Do you honestly believe that people who are pro-gun control are only

of that opinion so as to "strike a blow against the conservatives"? You don't think it has anything to do with the TENS OF THOUSANDS OF GUN DEATHS in this country annually?

Otherwise, why are they not similarly outraged by comparable rates of motor-vehicle-related deaths? Preventable death is preventable death, right?

I think it goes beyond "liberal vs. progressive." It's a classist bias promulgated by those who see themselves as morally and intellectually superior to those on the other side of the issue. They are wrong.

[Starboard Tack]

18. How do you know that they are not outraged by vehicular homicides?

Where is your data on that? You say "Preventable death is preventable death, right?" That's why communities have implemented NO SMOKING areas and SPEED BUMPS. You think that is a class war?
GUNS are made to kill. Who recommends ZERO GUN CONTROL?
How would you define "liberal vs. progressive" on this issue?

[Straw Man]

19. If they are, they are remarkably quiet about it.

No TV documentaries, PSAs, poster campaigns...

That's why communities have implemented NO SMOKING areas and SPEED BUMPS.

And why there are laws against armed robbery, assault, and murder. Notice that neither cigarettes nor cars are banned.

You think that is a class war?

Absolutely.

GUNS are made to kill.

What is the relevance of that to the issue of preventable death? Are gun victims therefore deader than car-crash victims?

Who recommends ZERO GUN CONTROL?

No one on this forum, as far as I can tell.

How would you define "liberal vs. progressive" on this issue?

I meant to say "conservative vs. progressive." I believe that the right to private gun ownership is a progressive value.

[Starboard Tack]

26. Ever heard of MADD?

They don't want to ban cars or alcohol, just the combo
I wouldn't advocate a total ban on guns or walking in public, just the combo.

[Straw Man]

27. Not lately.

They certainly aren't making the nightly news. Lawrence O'Donnell and Rachel Maddow aren't carrying their water on the airwaves.

In any case, the issue of vehicular death goes well beyond alcohol-related accidents. Am I reading you correctly in that you believe CCW to be as dangerous as DUI? I don't think the data will support that.

[Starboard Tack]

28. CCW & DUI. No, I don't equate the two

Though if I were to, I'm not so sure about the data. What % of drunken drivers actually have accidents or even get pulled over? No data on that, but I'd bet it's a phenomenally high number. So maybe the numbers don't mean much, unless you're the victim.

[lawodevolution]

22. Yes, you have no data and evidence to support the false belief that gun control reduces crime

Nigeria has 1% the rate of civilian gun ownership as the USA or in other words the USA has about 100 times more civilian owned guns per capita than Nigeria (Haiti and Jamaica have even fewer guns). It is obvious that violence is a problem that gun control cannot solve and there is a possibility that gun control can facilitate increases in violent crime. If you observe gun ownership rates and violent crime rates of different nations you'll see that the most violent nations have low gun ownership rates while all nations with high gun ownership rate have relatively low violent crime rate.

If you are correct that more guns results in more violence, I'm sure you can come up with one (none war zone) nation with high civilian gun ownership rate that also has a high rate of violent crime and murder, then I'll bother to show you the data. Even if you find a nation with both high gun ownership rate and high murder rate tha isn't a war zone the trend still shows that low gun ownership rate correlates to high murder rate.

[Starboard Tack]

53. You are now referencing failed states to support your position

Do you consider Japan, UK and the rest of Europe to be failed states too?

[Atypical Liberal]

33. Here's the rub.

Why is it that you want to penalize 40-80 million people for the action of a tens of thousands of people every year?

[rrneck]

48. Aye. nt

[whoneedstickets]

78. To save a few 1000 lives.

[Hoyt]

5. Do you actually believe more folk parading around with guns is the reason for any decrease in crime?

Tougher sentencing laws, better police enforcement, etc., are more likely the cause. There are even studies that suggest -- believe it or not -- relaxed abortion laws and reduced exposure to lead as the causes. In some area, studies indicate crack and meth use has decreased and with it violent crime.

Whatever, your guns ain't the reason.

[friendly_iconoclast]

6. "Whatever, your guns ain't the reason." Care to attempt to prove that statement?

And the disinterested observer will note that what you attribute to him isn't what he said....

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

8. That's not the claim he made...

he said, "The violent crime rate has been falling for years even while the number of firearms and accessories have skyrocketed."

"even while" ... meaning "in spite of the fact that"... that does indicate any attribution whatsoever. He did not say that more guns are *causing* lower crime. He merely pointed that more guns are there and crime has not risen.

The inference, of course, being that while guns may not be empirically proven to lower crime (correlation is not causation), their proliferation certainly hasn't aided the crime rates.

So while correlation is not necessarily causation, your view (more guns = more crime) does not even have correlation to reference as being evidence. While data may not validate his viewpoint - it CERTAINLY doesn't aid your viewpoint.

[spin]

9. Well one thing is obvious and you can't logically deny it ...

MORE GUNS DOES NOT EQUAL MORE CRIME!!!

Gun Owners Buy 14 Million Plus Guns In 2009 – More Than 21 of the Worlds Standing Armies
Wednesday, January 13th, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- Data released by the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) for the year reported 14,033,824 NICS Checks for the year of 2009, a 10 percent increase in gun purchases from the 12,709,023 reported in 2008.

So far that is roughly 14,000,000+ guns bought last year!
The total is probably more as many NICS background checks cover the purchase of more than one gun at a time by individuals.

To put it in perspective that is more guns than the combined active armies of the top 21 countries in the world.
http://www.ammoland.com/2010/01/13/gun-owners-buy-14-million-plus-guns-in-2009/

So with all those guns sold, did the crime rate skyrocket?

Violent Crime Declined As Gun Sales Climbed in 2009
Thursday, September 16, 2010

(CNSNews.com) - Violent crime continued to fall in 2009, even as gun sales reached an all-time high, according to statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This is “proof positive that gun prohibitionists have been consistently and undeniably wrong,” the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said in a statement.

Released Tuesday, the violent crime statistics are part of the FBI’s yearly Uniform Crime Report, which collects crime statistics from localities all across the country and is the most comprehensive report on crime in America.

***snip***

Each of the four violent crime offenses decreased when compared with the 2008 estimates. Murder and non-negligent manslaughter and robbery had the largest decreases: 7.3 percent and 8.0 percent, respectively,” the FBI said in a press release summarizing the report. “In addition, aggravated assault decreased 4.2 percent, and forcible rape declined 2.6 percent.”

In fact, the types of crime most likely to be committed with a firearm, murders and manslaughters, experienced one of the greatest rates of decline in 2009 – 7.3 percent.
http://www.cnsnews.com/node/75359

Many factors influence violent crime. The crime rate was expected to increase because of the downturn in the economy in the last months of the last Bush administration. It didn't, even though the Democratic political victories that gained control of Presidency and both houses of Congress caused gun owners to rush to their gun stores and stock up on firearms and ammo.

[Starboard Tack]

13. Not more crime. Just more gun deaths. Interesting.

More guns probably doesn't mean more bad weather either. Sometimes the logic around here amazes me.
Guns don't kill, people do. Now which people would they be? Not the ones using guns perchance?
And so it goes on and on and on...

[rrneck]

21. Do more knives equal more knife deaths? nt

[Starboard Tack]

24. I don't know. Maybe certain types of knife

[rrneck]

29. What is the relationship of the knife

to the psyche of the person holding it? What characteristics of the knife will have an impact on the psyche of the person holding it? How would you measure that impact?

Is this:


more deadly or dangerous than this?:


The questions pile up really fast.

[Starboard Tack]

30. I have lots of knives. Never saw any as a weapon

but I use them all the time for different things. Not for killing or self-defense, though I'm sure some could be used for those purposes.

[rrneck]

31. That's probably because

you never had to use one as a weapon. But that's not what I asked. If the type of knife matters, how do you measure that difference? How would you even know what type is worse than another?

[Starboard Tack]

32. I think blade length is the usual parameter when classifying knives as

prohibited weapons. Also switch blades in some places.
Funny, when I think about it, the only object/tool I can remember ever using as a weapon to defend myself was a camera against two boxer dogs who were determined to kill me. Got one on the nose with my camera and field kicked the other. If I'd had a gun I would have used it. Thank God I didn't.

[rrneck]

41. How far is your heart

or your carotid artery or your throat from the surface of your skin?

[RSillsbee]

46. Your heart is pretty well protected

the carotid would be an easier target. I have a 3.5 inch CRKT ingitor that is sharp enough to take your head off w/ one swipe. It would get the job done

[rrneck]

47. Not to mention put out eyes.

Someone with a regular pocket knife could slice you up pretty badly and never stab you. Even a pretty good steak knife would do.

[Starboard Tack]

52. Not sure what your point is here

I thought we were trying to come up with solutions. I don't mind you trying to keep the conversation honest, but we're getting a little off track.

[rrneck]

54. Regulating knife configurations is as futile

as regulating gun configurations. Even the safest seeming knife can be deadly. Certainly almost any sharp object can wound you enough to wreck your life.

As usual it's about the person wielding the weapon, not the weapon itself. That's where the solution will be found.

[Starboard Tack]

56. Yes, but we can't ban people. Those who want to misbehave always will.

But restricting their options is a step.

[rrneck]

57. When you restrict options for criminals

you restrict those same options for those who need to defend themselves from same. And since the bad guys lack scruples, those restrictions have a greater effect on the law abiding.

Every design feature of every weapon ever made works just as well for offense as for defense. Reducing that effectiveness for one reduces it for the other. The difference is that those who need to defend themselves are already at a disadvantage in a disparity of force and any reduction will effect them more.

That's why the gun debate seems so circuitous.

[Starboard Tack]

58. "a disadvantage in a disparity of force and any reduction will effect them more. "

They need to get over it. Nobody said the world was fair. We deal with it. That's life.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Starboard Tack]

62. Please don't put words in my mouth.

There's nothing arrogant or callous about what I said. The collateral damage are the ones killed or injured by the CC cowboys who have taken it upon themselves to carry OFFENSIVE weapons to the streets in the guise of defending themselves from possible "bad guys", who may have clubs, knives, guns or big muscles. Sorry, but there's something wrong with that.

[rrneck]

64. I don't have to put them there. That's where I found them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=400201#401472
rrneck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Thu Apr-14-11 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #73
77. Good for you. Updated at 3:27 PM
Why would you compel others to live with your risk assessment?

Starboard Tack Donating Member (729 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Thu Apr-14-11 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #77
84. I would never dream of compelling others to do anything they didn't want to, except maybe get off my porch if I didn't like them. But I like most people. Compelling people to do things is not my style. I'd rather learn or teach by example. It's way more effective. Legislation doesn't really do much good. Laws are written for those who ignore and break them.

rrneck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Thu Apr-14-11 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #84
86. So all things being equal would you vote for a candidate that promised a UK style firearms ban?

Starboard Tack Donating Member (729 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Thu Apr-14-11 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #86
90. Absolutely.

Advocating the ban of firearms would make people who have no intent to harm anyone defenseless against assault. If you make carrying guns in public illegal, people will be killed or injured who might otherwise be able to defend themselves. It's that simple. That makes them collateral damage. Your own words make that perfectly clear.

Congratulations, you made #15. I bet you'll hit all of them before you're done. Hell, you might even come up with a new one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x370200
#15.
What some anti RKBA say: "You probably won't ever be assaulted anyway."

What most people hear: I don't care about you. You are just collateral damage in the implementation of my blinkered ideology.

Republican spin opportunity: Elitist arrogant big government ideologue liberals.

You just told the whole world, "Tough shit. I don't want to see guns in public and you have to die because of my personal preferences." Not the best way to win votes.

[rl6214]

68. I see you've picked up the "cowboys" from another member here

Along with "offensive" weapons. You have made quite a conversion since you started posting here. Or was that your true position from the start and now that you've been here a while you are letting it out?

[oneshooter]

70. So what type of DEFENSIVE weapon would you agree to? n/t

[spin]

39. That's a good looking Bark River blade in the second picture ...

Bark River makes fantastic semi-custom knifes.

I have a Classic Lite Hunter in a belt sheath on my side as I type this.

[rrneck]

42. They do indeed.

As soon as I hit the lottery I'm getting one.

[spin]

43. Bark River blades are convex ...

when means that your strop them rather than use a stone or ceramic rods. It takes a while to get use to sharpening them, but now I hate to have to sharpen any other knife.

[rrneck]

55. I like my tanto blade.

It's large, heavy and indestructible but a bitch to sharpen. And it ain't too pretty. Firearms may or may not be elegant I guess, but craftsmanship in a knife is special.

[spin]

59. Agreed. (n/t)

[oneshooter]

60. I have a Kukri that was given to me. The Nepalese Sgt. Major carried it thru three wars.

Razor sharp and well cared for. A real fighting knife.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[spin]

40. I haven't found any statistics that indicate more gun deaths ...

have occurred while the homicide and crime rate by firearms has been decreasing. I suspect the opposite.

Perhaps you could direct me to your source of info.

[Starboard Tack]

63. Sorry, meant to say more potential gun deaths.

[spin]

65. I will agree that the proliferation of firearms ...

creates more potential victims, but statistics show the fewer people are being killed by firearms even though the number of guns and the number of more lethal semi-automatic weapons has skyrocketed.

I suggest that this may be due to the fact that the number of mentally unstable people and criminals who would misuse firearms to murder or kill has not increased.

Therefore, the solution to keep the number of firearm related deaths is to enforce and improve existing law to stop such people from obtaining firearms.

[Starboard Tack]

67. Good points

but I'm not convinced of the correlation of more firearms and less homicides. There are too many other factors in play like Bratton's tenure as chief of LAPD and the consequent reduction in gang related homicides. That's just one example.
Regarding the mentally unstable and non gang related criminals, I don't know the figures, but suspect they haven't changed much.

"Therefore, the solution to keep the number of firearm related deaths is to enforce and improve existing law to stop such people from obtaining firearms."
I agree, but the question, as usual, is how.

[spin]

69. That is the challenge ...

We can improve the NICS background check to input the names of criminals and those adjudged as having severe mental problems on a more timely basis. We might even be able to devise legislation that would require a background check for all gun purchases that would not require a de facto registration.

But no matter how hard we try, we will never completely eliminate gun violence. Unfortunately, eliminating all firearms is impossible and even if we eliminated 90% we might find that an absolute dictator or tyrant would take control of our government and would oppress our citizens. One of the reasons we have had the longest written constitution in the modern world may well be the Second Amendment. Three hundred million firearms in the hands of civilians is something any potential dictator has to seriously consider.

We also must realize that firearms are used in legitimate self defense to save lives. It's easy to wish to ban all firearms but you must also realize that criminals would still be able to obtain them. Drug gangs can smuggle in tons of marijuana and guns are made in many countries. If a market were created for smuggled weapons in the U.S. we might be faced with dealing with fully automatic AK-47s rather than semi-auto clones. If all honest citizens were disarmed, criminals would be empowered.

As in most issues our country faces, the problem of gun violence has no easy solutions.

I will agree with you that there are many factors in the decrease in the violent crime rate and that I personally believe that proactive policing is in a large part responsible for the decline. That's why I never say that more guns equals less crime as many do. I say, based on the statistics, that more guns does not equal more crime. If more guns equaled more crime, we would have more gun violence despite all the other factors. In 2009 at least 14 million firearms were purchased. (source: http://www.ammoland.com/2010/01/13/gun-owners-buy-14-million-plus-guns-in-2009/)

[Starboard Tack]

71. I don't say that more guns equals more crime either.

But I do say that more guns equals more probability of gun deaths and injuries by whatever means - crime, accident, suicide. They are dangerous tools and should be locked away until needed. Liken when that "dictator" comes along. Not routinely carried around for "personal protection". That's what tampons and deodorant are for.

[spin]

72. People do carry them around for personal protection without serious problems ...

For example Florida has had "shall issue" concealed carry since Oct 1, 1987. In that twenty three year plus time frame the state has issued 1,953,856 concealed weapons permits of which 801,219 are currently valid.

Only 168 licenses have been revoked for a crime that involved a firearms that was committed after the license had been issued. Not all those crimes involved a shooting, unfortunately the Florida web page doesn't break the crimes down further.

source:http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

In the mid 90s there was a rash of attacks on tourists in Florida. These tourist were targeted because they were driving rental cars that had unique license plates which the criminals could recognize. Criminals preferred to avoid armed Floridians and viewed unarmed tourists as easy prey. The license tags were changed.

October 17, 1994
"Shall Issue": The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws

By Clayton E. Cramer & David B. Kopel

***snip***

From the enactment of the 1987 Florida carry reform until August 31, 1992, the Dade County permit incident tracking project provided the most detailed information available about actual incidents involving carry permit holders. The tracking program had been created as result of intense fears among some police administrators about the consequences of the carry reform law. The tracking program was abandoned in the fall of 1992, because of the rarity of incidents involving carry permit holders, and the greatly diminished concern about the issue on the part of law enforcement administrators. The fact that negative incidents involving permit holders were so rare as to not be worth counting is in itself evidence of the lack of negative effects of carry reform.

***snip***

Based on the reports of incidents known to the police, the Florida carry reform law would appear to be a net plus for public safety. The pro-safety result becomes even more lopsided if one believes that the persons who committed crimes with their licensed firearms probably would have committed the same crimes even without a license.

***snip***

Accordingly, we now look at the overall trends in Florida murder rates. Of all the states that enacted concealed carry reform, Florida shows the most dramatic change. As the graph details, Florida's murder rate throughout the period 1975-1986 was between 118% and 157% of the murder rate elsewhere in America. After passage of Florida's law, the murder rate began declining, rapidly, dramatically, and consistently, at a time when the rest of the U.S. was experiencing an increase in murder rates. By 1991, Floridians were less likely to be murdered than people elsewhere in America. Only in 1992 did the murder rate percentage stop falling. Even then, this is because the U.S. murder rate fell more than 10% from 1991 to 1992, while the Florida murder rate fell "only" 5%.

Greater safety for Florida residents and American tourists may be the reason for another notable characteristic of Florida in recent headlines--criminal attacks on foreign tourists. These tourists stood out because of the distinctive rental car license plates that Florida issued until recently. Unlike Florida residents or American tourists (who might shoot back), foreign tourists would certainly be unarmed, suggests the head of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. <41> emphasis added
http://rkba.org/research/cramer/shall-issue.html

The concealed carry program has been very successful in Florida. It shows that honest citizens can carry firearms concealed and pose no real threat to other honest citizens. In fact your chances of getting shot in Florida by a person with a legally concealed weapon is less than your chances of getting hit by lighting. This, of course, assumes that you are an also an honest person.

Every year, Florida averages 10 deaths and 30 injuries from lightning strikes, with several of these usually occurring in or around Tampa.<7> University of Florida lightning expert Martin A. Uman has calculated that the average resident is within a half-mile of 10 to 15 lightning strikes every year.<8> TECO Energy, the local electric utility, spends over USD $1,000,000 annually to repair transformers and other equipment damaged by lightning strikes.<4>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_the_Tampa_Bay_area

[Starboard Tack]

74. I understand that and it is good to know it has mostly gone well

Though I fail to see how carrying concealed can be a deterrent. If you can't see it, how does it deter? Also, how do the tourists, many who are not citizens, get to carry?

[spin]

76. Imagine yourself as a criminal ...

One of your buddies in crime comes over to visit you and says, "I saw this fat old fart walking through the Walmart parking lot last night, and he looks like he might have some cash. So I walk up to him, pull my knife and tell him to give it up. This old SOB pulls a gun on me. Surprised the shit out of me and he looked like he just might shoot me. I hate to say it, but I hauled ass. What the hell is this world coming to?"

You might decide that mugging people could be dangerous to your health.

You're a rapist and you see a potential victim in a parking lot so you walk up behind her as she is opening her car door and grab her. She resists and manages to escape your grasp by stamping her high heel into the top of your foot and elbowing you in the stomach. She tries once again to get into her car but you grab her hair. She turns and pushes a .38 snub nosed revolver in your stomach and pulls the trigger twice. As you fall to the pavement, she gets in her car and races off. You survive because she called 911 and the EMTs arrived in time, but you end up in jail. Years later, you are back on the street. Every time you think about raping another woman, your stomach starts to hurt.

[rrneck]

79. Because

the criminal isn't sure what might be behind door number three.

[cleanhippie]

37. Moving the goalposts, AGAIN! Your dishonesty is disgusting.

[Starboard Tack]

12. Spin spin spin spin spin

[spin]

15. Can you prove my statistics wrong?

The crime graphs come from the BJS.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) is a component of the Office of Justice Programs in the U.S. Department of Justice.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=abu

The gun sales graphs are based on NICS background check data or come from the NSSF.


(Definition of spin)

4. spin - make up a story; "spin a yarn"
cook up, fabricate, invent, manufacture, make up - make up something artificial or untrue
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/spin

I don't believe that these charts were fabricated or cooked up. They simply prove my point that more guns does not equal more crime.

To reiterate, In 2009 the sales of guns skyrocketed which means more guns.

In 2009 the violent crime rate fell.

Therefore, more guns does not mean more crime.

[Starboard Tack]

16. The spin is in the implication in your interpretation. Faulty causality.

How did the gun death rate change? That's a statistic that can be directly linked to gun sales, not violent crime rates, which are affected by all kinds of social, political and economic factors.

[spin]

20. Firearms are often used in many violent crimes ...

and not just to kill people. For example a criminal may use a firearm to rob a store or a person or to rape a woman and never fire a shot. It would seem logical that more firearms would result in more violent crimes of all types, but it just isn't shown in the statistics.

This graph I used shows that all violent crime was decreasing from 1973 through 2009.



I also used a graph that showed the weapons used from 1976 through 2005. Unfortunately the graph ends at 2005 and I don't believe that the DOJ has updated their graphs since this graph was produced. Still gun sales have been steady or increasing in this period of time and there were obviously far more firearms in civilian hands in 2005 than there were in 1976. "Assault weapons" which are semiautomatic firearms that fire at a higher rate than revolvers or bolt action rifles and hold more ammunition also became quite popular in this time frame.

Therefore a direct correlation between the increase in the number of firearms and an increase in crime or murder doesn't exist. Also the popularity and increased sales of the supposedly more lethal "assault weapons" didn't create an increase in crime.



But I will add a couple of graphs from the DOJ that interesting enough show a drop in gun homicides from 1975 through 2005.



I prefer graphs more than statistical data as they are visual and get the point across quicker, but since I can't find a graph for firearm murders from 2005 to 2009, I'll just present the statistics. If you visit this site from the DOJ you will see the total numbers of murders committed by firearms in those years.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/homicide.html

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8
Murder Victims
by Weapon, 2005–2009

Total Firearms 2005.....2006.....2007.....2008.....2009
....................10,158.. 10,225 .. 10,129 .. 9,528 .. 9,146

Please notice that the number of murders committed by firearms decreased in this period of time despite the fire that firearm sales had skyrocketed.

[Starboard Tack]

23. The graphs and stats are interesting, but still leave much to interpretation

Bottom line appears to be 1o,000 gun homicides a year. This consistency lends credence to the saturation argument. "Those who are going to kill will do so regardless of restrictions or lack thereof"
I think we may be at or close to that point. Question is, how do we improve as a society?
I see two ways to accomplish that.
1. More restrictive gun legislation including all automatic and semi-automatics. Very draconian.
2. Evolve as a society by getting our priorities right.

[PavePusher]

34. Since gun deaths are dropping....

wouldn't that seem to indicate that we are evolving as a society?

[Starboard Tack]

49. I wish! I think we could say that when we don't have to think guns at all

But as long as we're talking to each other, we still have a chance.

[spin]

38. I do not see more firearms as a solution to crime ...

just that the facts support my contention that more firearms in civilian hands does not mean there will be more crime.

More proactive policing might be the reason that the crime rate has decreased but that's probably just one factor.

***

To improve our society, we need to educate our students so as to prepare them for good jobs and we need to bring good jobs back to our country and stop exporting them to nations who allow international corporations to pollute the environment without restrictions and pay employees peanuts.

We need to stop fighting useless wars that drain our economy and accomplish nothing.

We need to stop fighting our long lost war on drugs. Some drugs such as marijuana should to be legalized.

We may also need to change our tax code and eliminate all the loopholes that lobbyists have managed to obtain for the rich and the big corporations.

We have to figure out a way to restore our middle class and eliminate the disparity between the rich and the lower classes.

We need to create a healthcare system that does not primarily exist for the profits of the healthcare industry and the drug companies.

But all the improvements we wish to make may be thwarted if, as I suspect, the officials we elect are bought and paid for by the big corporations.

[Starboard Tack]

50. Couldn't agree more

except for the gun proliferation issue which I think fits perfectly into your last point.

[oneshooter]

44. You support #1. Just as you support UK gun laws and disarming police. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

51. I support either one, but prefer the second not the first.

[oneshooter]

73. So you do support UK style gun laws and disarming the police. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

75. I would support that if a better solution can't be found

Sometimes draconian is the only way to go, in order to avoid social chaos. And thanks to the UK, we see that it can work

[cleanhippie]

36. As usual, you are as wrong as you could possibly be.

Why do you repeat the same old bullshit day after day?

[oneshooter]

45. Because he has no other meme. That is all he knows. n/t

[tech9413]

7. As far as Maine is concerned, I don't see any need for a change either

Everyplace is not Maine. I grew up in SW PA from the 50's on. Most of us as kids had guns and used them regularly for hunting, fun, sport, or just to make noise. No big deal just use your brain and eyes before you use the trigger. Even then you could drive 10 miles to the county seat and you'd have 20 calls to the police if you shot at a squirrel with anything more than a BB gun.

In those years and until today I never felt that I needed a gun. It was just a tool that might be needed. I lived and worked in some of the toughest areas of Metro NY and Pgh but never felt I needed to be armed there.

I agree with you, why mess with success. The more important question is what is the success? Is it the deterrent that everyone else might be armed and be a tougher target? Could be, but the unintended consequence is that law enforcement doesn't know where to point if everyone is armed. Another unintended consequence is that you as an armed citizen thinking you are defending yourself shoot another armed citizen thinking they re defending themselves.

There are hundreds, if not more possible scenarios where being armed might provide as much if not more risk than being unarmed.

The variables are almost infinite but I think I have a few ideas that could be effective when applying only local data to enact laws for that area. Registration and background checks should be based on the type of firearm and the location of owner.

Use of the weapon in an uncontrolled area when deadly force can be had beyond the line of sight the owner/user accepts responsible for any and all damages.

Handguns, shotguns, and rifles should all be considered under different restrictions.
Fully automatic weapons should be outlawed unless licensed for use by law enforcement, military, or for sport usage on licensed firing ranges.

I try and stay away from any posts about guns and legislation because I've always had bipolar views on the subject. I don't want anyone telling me what I can or cannot have but I understand (and have been in situations where I understand the alternative view). If you live in a tough neighborhood or get blindsided by someone with a gun, you've got to consider your options and outcomes in a split second. If I carried CCW, it would be in the safest form, unloaded and unchambered. I'm already down two steps. By the time I got a round in the chamber, I would have to have ducked at least three shots.
That is if I was awake and aware. If I were asleep and had a gun within reach and loaded the chamber while I was still groggy, I'd be lucky if I could shoot my foot before I caught someone aware and awake and high on the chemistry turned on by the excitement.

That's one of the reasons that gun owners most likely get shot by their own guns.

I've got no problem with guns but they have been used as a tool for the NRA for decades. The NRA doesn't represent the interest of gun owners, they represents the interest of the gun manufacturers.

They've done good for the last thirty years Now it's time to fleece the fat cats for all they stole from you.

[Starboard Tack]

14. Beautifully and thoughtfully said. A voice of sanity.

If only more people could take such a well reasoned approach, we wouldn't be as polarized and people could still enjoy gun ownership without resorting to CCW proliferation and other extremes.

[spin]

25. You seen to believe that a loaded firearm is extremely dangerous ...

A loaded weapon is something to treat with extreme respect and requires using basic gun safety if handling but there is no reason to carry an unloaded weapon if you have a concealed carry permit just because you feel that "it would be in the safest form, unloaded and unchambered." Nor is there any reason to have an unloaded home defense weapon in your home.

I carry a loaded S&W Model 642 .38 caliber revolver in a pocket holster in the front pocket of my pants. A revolver has no safety. You pull the trigger and if loaded it will make a load noise. If you don't play around with it while it is in your pocket and you keep your finger off the trigger it's safe.



Loaded firearms in proper holsters are safe and will not fire on their own. It's your responsibly to handle them properly and with care.

For a home defense gun, I also use the same revolver and it is loaded in a quick access lock box in a drawer by my bed.

Gun owners get shot by their own guns not because the gun is loaded but because they handled it foolishly.

I have to leave now to drive a person to work. I just dropped my loaded revolver in my pocket. I'll reply to this post when I return to let you know how things worked out.

[spin]

35. I'm back. My carry weapon behaved itself ...

it didn't discharge by accident. It's now safely back in its lock box. Everything ended peacefully just like the last several thousand times I carried this revolver.

The only interesting thing that happened on my trip was that I was stopped at a police roadblock and asked to show my license. One of the officers at the roadblock was an individual who used to room with us. We said hello.

That's the first time I ran into a roadblock in many years.

[Logical]

66. +1

[Starboard Tack]

10. What makes Maine a success? 6.5 gun deaths/100,000

or is it safe because 42 other states have higher gun death rates. One man's "working" is another man's "broken".
Maybe Mainers are getting saner.

[provis99]

77. that's 10 times the rate of gun deaths in Canada.

Some success.