In the first nationally representative study to examine the relationship between survey measures of household firearm ownership and state level rates of homicide, researchers at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found that homicide rates among children, and among women and men of all ages, are higher in states where more households have guns.
Analyses…found that states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates for children, and for women and men. The association between firearm prevalence and homicide was driven by gun-related homicide rates; non-gun-related homicide rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership.
The survey base for this was immense — 200,000 people — controlled for extraneous factors.
#30: In Iraq, they have well funded and trained insurgents using AK-47’s, rocket launchers, grenades, plastique explosives and other sophisticated weaponry not available at WalMart.
“So you mean to tell me that if/when the government or another armed force invades you will welcome them into your home? Not me, not without a fight.”
Neither would I. Of course, we’d both be dead afterwards from automatic fire, so I guess that would show ’em.
#34
You are assuming that all the military would support the government, and I think that if it came to that point where armed rebellion was necessary to overthrow a totalitarian government in the mold of the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, a lot of the military would side with the people. Hopefully this question will always be an academic one, and we will never have to see who is right.
Don’t be dense. You don’t fight the military head on. That plays to their strength. To defeat a structured military you use guerilla tactics and blend into the population. Sort of reminds you of Iraq, don’t it?
What about North Dakota? Every home here has a rifle or shotgun for hunting. Very low murder rate here. I am guessing they are only talking about handguns?
“But hey, it’s a free country and you’re free to be as stupid as you want. However, willful stupidity shouldn’t be free, so I think that people who own guns should pay more in homeowner’s insurance, health insurance, etc., because of the clear correlation between death & injury and the possession of guns.”
Please do us a favor and place a sign on your house stating, “There are no guns in this house”. There is a proven correlation between people who fear guns and mental disorders. Maybe we should baker act people who are afraid of random objects, such as guns. Oh wait that wouldn’t be a liberty minded thing to do. Unlike you I don’t support the violence of government on others.
#15,
It’s like the morons we have in Texas, Florida and other states with concealed-carry permits. These microcephalics fought for and got a law letting them post notices saying “Possession of a firearm, licensed or unlicensed, on these premises is prohibited.”
As much as I’m in favor of concealed-carry laws, I also have to support a property owner’s right to not allow them on his property.
20…you’re on to something there. The gun lobby successfully prevented the FTC from enacting basic safety standards. So if I buy a gun and it accidentally goes off and blows apart my hand, or randomly fires for the hell of it, well that’s just too bad. But at least I won’t get hurt by my garage door opener, which does have some safety features.
The gun lobby has its head up a dirty orfice on this one.
You have taken your first step into a tyranny. Disarming the populace makes military rule substantially easier.
Presumably this just applies in the USA, given that there are plenty of countries (most of Europe, for example) in which guns are only carried by the police and military and in which the disarmed populace has considerably greater freedom than that which exists in the USA, where tyranny seems to be fast approaching despite its armed population.
#27,28 – You’re on the right track but not finishing. Back when the Bill Of Rights was written, if you owned a rifle or pistol you were equally armed with an Army soldier.
To truly honor the 2nd Amendment, any non-felon citizen should be able to own any weapon they can afford. For example, it should be perfectly legal for Bill Gates to have his own personal tanks, missiles and even nukes if he so chose.
the disarmed populace has considerably greater freedom than that which exists in the USA
The soccer hooligans appreciate your support.
#43,
you forgot the Paris Car-B-Ques
remember that pizza chain that will sell pizza’s for peso’s?
they’re been getting a lot of bad press and death threats over it:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070111/D8MJ9A100.html
There is the right to own a gun. I don’t see any place where it say ‘except when….’
haha, oh dear Ron. You just proved my point – there in that nice little quote you posted. Yes, you have the right to own a gun. That’s it, that’s all. The extra quote is just rhetoric, not law, or anything close to it.
“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Gun control isn’t infringing the right of the people to bear arms. It merely says “if you want to this, as is your right, do it according to these safety regulations.”
That doesn’t infringe upon your right to have them. If they were saying “you can’t have them unless you do this” that would be different. They aren’t, they are saying “if you don’t do this, and we find out, you can be fined, if something goes wrong – you are responsible and could face jail if it’s that serious”
On another point – what are “arms”? Does a machine gun count? Does a rocket launcher? How about a nuke? Where is the line, and why is that line acceptable? When you can answer that you’ll understand why people want gun control
#39 – Mike
“As much as I’m in favor of concealed-carry laws, I also have to support a property owner’s right to not allow them on his property.”
These signs and the law they proclaim relate not to private residences, but to businesses and such which are open to the general public.
There is no rational justification for said law. Citizens who are armed in compliance with the concealed-carry permit law must be assumed to be no more and no less law-abiding than unarmed citizens. They do not present any danger. In point of actual fact, they are subject to more severe penalties than the general public for misuse of a firearm. Therefore the law has no justification. Laws made without a logically valid reason are unacceptable infringements on liberty.
If you don’t want people carrying on your property, you should be free to prohibit them, backed by the available trespass statutes. But making it a seperate criminal offense is nothing more than catering to stupidity. But it does create business for the criminal justice industry. And remember, our legislators are almost all lawyers – half the laws they fuck up the system with have little purpose but to create more lucrative work for their brethren of the Bar.
…or am I too cynical?
Nah.
Uncle Dave, My sentiments as well. This story just makes a correlation that many other studies have already shown. And the NRA no more represents gun owners then the AARP speaks for all older Americans.
In my neck of the woods, long guns and shot guns are quite common. So are deer. And every deer hunted is one less to commit suicide by jumping in front of my car. Handguns though, make lousy hunting weapons. Especially those little 38s with the 3” barrels.
Another quick point, almost every civilized country in the world has not only a much lower murder rate, but also a fraction the percentage of people in jail. They also enjoy lower crime rates as well. And most notable, more responsive governments, though I think everyone hates their government to some degree.
I would really love to see Ron stare down a Storm Trooper squad with his trusty Remington 30-06 with that S&W 38 on his hip. That’ll get their attention. Maybe even their respect too. Or maybe just a momentary bit of attention as they shove his lifeless body out of the way. No wonder Bush got elected.
I’m sorry, have I missed something? Just because a store owner allows people to walk in the door and request service doesn’t mean he should surrender his property rights as a result. Oh, I forgot, this is 21 century America we are talking about…
#49 — why should someone immersed in 18th Century ideology, foreign policy and politics even worry about the 21st Century?
The biggest chuckle throughout this discussion, of course, is the number of participants ignorant of research methodology, the means and mathematics required for peer review — but, they still recall a cute quote from the 19th Century that someone probably read to them when they were in high school.
So much for an informed electorate.
48 .”I would really love to see Ron stare down a Storm Trooper squad with his trusty Remington 30-06 with that S&W 38 on his hip. That’ll get their attention. Maybe even their respect too. Or maybe just a momentary bit of attention as they shove his lifeless body out of the way. No wonder Bush got elected.”
As opposed to you who would be first in line to welcome your new masters and live on your knees. I also would not be standing alone.
Btw I carry a .40 not a .38 and its a Glock not a Ruger, and where is hunting mentioned in the Constitution? Maybe my copy is the abridged version
Surrender WHAT property rights?
Your statement is utterly devoid of logic. You’re gonna hafta do better than that.
As far as a business owner is concerned, there is no difference between an unarmed citizen and a legally armed citizen. Neither one represents a greater or lesser threat to the owner or any other party. Neither one is in violation of the law. In fact, the very presence of an armed citizen carries the possibility of a crime being thwarted. So, the upshot is, allowing the armed citizen onto your property does not endanger anyone – but it may reduce the chances of the persons present becoming victims of a crime. No negative. Possibly a positive. Therefore, the law is unjust, unnecessary and is a mere sop to idiots.
Reading skillz, chum. Get ’em. Use ’em.
I said, quite clearly, that if you don’t want someone on your property, there are already trespass laws. They work just fine.
Subjecting someone to arrest, prosecution and incarceration for doing absolutely no harm to anyone, simply going about one’s business, in full compliance with the law – just to pander to an idiotic, false belief – that’s pretty God-damned unAmerican.
So like I said at the top – just exactly what “property rights” are being “given up” by allowing a law-abiding citizen through the door?
I’ll spare you the trouble: none whatsoever.
Can someone explain to me how the same person can claim that handguns and basic rifles can’t hold off a military in one post, but in another talk about how the insurgency in Iraq are slaughtering our troops?
What do you think they’re armed with? Homemade explosives and some AK-47s. Once in a blue moon someone gets a cache of 25 year old RPGs. You could make a better RPG out of plumbing supplies and gunpowder.
Logic. It works when it’s consistent.
I guess I’m just suspicious by nature when people start throwing around stats. I don’t trust claims that gun ownership diminishes crime and I don’t trust what is being reported in the above article. To quote:
“Analyses that controlled for several measures of resource deprivation, urbanization, aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, and alcohol consumption found that states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates for children, and for women and men.” (emphasis added)
Why did the researchers fill there was a need to control for these factors? The calculation is pretty straight forward: correlate gun violence against gun ownership and voila! you prove your point or you don’t. Specifically, why did they eliminate aggravated assault and robbery from the analysis? Why on earth would you eliminate crime from homicide rates? It strongly appears that the researchers were cheery picking their data to get the result they wanted.
This study lacks credibility.
It obviously escapes you that it should be the store owner’s prerogative to allow or disallow people carrying their personal weapons on his property. Your going on about how much safer the store owner may be is irrelevant.
It is no different than having a “no shoes, no shirt, no service” policy. Just because men are legally allowed to walk around with no shirt on doesn’t mean I have to allow them into my store without one.
“On another point – what are “arms”? Does a machine gun count? Does a rocket launcher? How about a nuke? Where is the line, and why is that line acceptable? When you can answer that you’ll understand why people want gun control”
Any weapon that your normal infantryman would use, the citizens should be able to have. Machine gun? Yep. Rocket launcher? Yep. Nuke? No.
Understand why some people want gun control? Yes. Agree with them? No.
It obviously escapes you that it should be the store owner’s prerogative to allow or disallow people carrying their personal weapons on his property. Your going on about how much safer the store owner may be is irrelevant.”
I agree with you. The store owner should be able to decide who and what he or she will allow in his store, without being charged with discrimination.
The customers can vote with their dollars.
Hopefully no one is implying that this is a causal relationship.
If anyone recalls the “Million Mom March” that happened a number of years ago when mothers were spitting out stats with respect to how many kids were killed by accidental shooting due to having a gun in the home.
They were on a political spin to get guns out of the homes.
What the “Million Mom March” failed to mention is signficantly more kids died from drowing in a 5 gallon bucket. No lie. I recall hearing this on a radio talk show. However, I don’t think you’re gonna get too many people to outlaw 5 gallon buckets.
Statistics are frequently used for spin doctoring to push a poltical agenda.
Case in point. The casualties in the Iraq War. You won’t see comparisons of this war’s casualties in the Iraq War versus any other because those who have an agenda to push don’t want people to realize, it’s one of the lowest. It deflates the emotional reaction people get from seeing the raw body count. On top of that, more people get murdered in the U.S. in one year than we have had military service members dying in the Iraq War. But again, you don’t see this talked about too much.
We’ve got a lot of sheeple in this country. And they are easily persuaded with some very good slight of hand use of statistics.
Like it or not, the right to bear arms is your RIGHT. It’s to defend yourself against your government when they become totalitarian… but that has been pretty much eroded away to the point you cannot even do that when and if such a scenario presented itself. If Liberals had their way, they’d make the Constitution unconstitutional.
A couple of interesting facts, courtesy of my concealed carry course I took here in North Carolina.
1 – Individuals with a concealed carry permit have a lower crime rate than… *drum roll*… law enforcement officers. Leave it to the professionals? Gun duels in the streets? Methinks not.
2 – In North Carolina, you may not carry a concealed handgun in places such as: properties where they make use of the trespassing laws (ie., posting a sign stating “no trespassing” as well as any place that conspicuously places a sign prohibiting concealed handguns. Property owners’ rights are thus upheld.
Check out http://www.packing.org/ as it has very good information regarding concealed carry. “Concealed carry” does not mean “concealed carry anywhere you please.” States, like North Carolina, are often very restrictive when it comes to where you may carry.
In North Carolina, if a person owns a handgun which was not properly stored, the owner may be charged if a child were to cause death or serious injury as a result of the improper storage. That’s paraphrasing the law (very loosely), but it reminds gun owners (and provides penalties for those who fail to be responsible) that they need to be responsible when they own guns.
Lastly, don’t get me started on a number of these silly “gun control laws” we have in various states. Many states prohibit magazines (or “clips,” for those who don’t habla) that carry more than 10 rounds. Pray tell, what do they think THAT will accomplish? Ever heard of extra mags? Or hopping the border to a neighboring state that doesn’t have such a restriction?
I carry, and I carry responsibly. And you’re damn right I’ll have my two 17-round mags with me with one round chambered.
Hate to contradict your elaborate and fun-filled peroration #60; but, casualties in your favorite war ain’t nowhere near the lowest — for a lot of reasons that have more to do with medical treatment and body armor than anything else.
But, then, that ain’t what this discussion is about, anyway. Perish the thought that reactionary politics stay the course of debate. 🙂
#57 –
Are you simply dense or is it an act?
I asked a question. You did not answer it. You cannot answer it.
I’ll repeat, since you apparently have a learning disability;
If you or any other person doesn’t want someone on your property, you have the right to direct them to vacate. If they don’t, they can be arrested for trespassing.
So, I’ll ask you again: what right is being given up?
If someone comes in your store without a gun and another comes in your store with a concealed gun – to you they are identical. You do not know if a given individual is carrying – that’s why it’s called a ‘concealed weapon.’ Duh. And since that gun is invisible to you and everyone else, it doesn’t affect you in any way. Except maybe when the person carrying it saves your dimwitted ass.
A legally armed citizen presents zero danger to you. If you choose to believe otherwise, against all demnstrate fact to the contrary, feel free. But I draw the line at putting anyone through the legal wringer because of your moronic ideas.
The law is unnecessary and unjust. It protects no one. Were I an armed robber, I would specifically target any place that forbids the public from carrying on those premises, since the owner has already kindly made sure I’m in no danger of being shot by a citizen.
Yeah, great fucking law. Panders to mental defectives and protects no one from anything.
“Hate to contradict your elaborate and fun-filled peroration #60; but, casualties in your favorite war ain’t nowhere near the lowest — for a lot of reasons that have more to do with medical treatment and body armor than anything else.”
Looks like one of the lowest to me:
Civil War (Union only) 364,511
World War I 116,516
World War II 405,399
Vietnam 58,184
Korea 36,913
Mexican War 13,283
Revolution 4,435
Iraq 3,000
Spanish – American War 2,446
War of 1812 2,260