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.
Agreed, Lauren! I wish more states would adopt the law that Vermont has regarding carrying a handgun. Now here’s a well-written law…
“A person who carries a dangerous or deadly weapon, openly or concealed, with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring a fellow man, or who carries a dangerous or deadly weapon within any state institution or upon the grounds or lands owned or leased for the use of such institution, without the approval of the warden or superintendent of the institution, shall be imprisoned not more than two years or fined not more than $200.00, or both.”
This is a law that decriminalizes good, law-abiding citizens who wish to carry for their own protection. It accurately reflects the person’s intent, and ascribes punishment for those with ill intent. Basically, if you’re carrying for the purpose of carrying out a crime, your punishment increases. If you’re carrying for your own safety (especially since Vermont is very loosely populated and cops may be 40 minutes away from your cabin home), you may do so.
It affirms that there is danger out there, and it re-affirms the fact that gun owners must be responsible.
Kudos to Vermont.
# 62
You seem sad that not more soldiers are dying in Iraq. Would you rather more be dead?
Its the Question and HOW you analize things…
Quote:
household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates for children, and for women and men. In these analyses, states within the highest quartile of firearm prevalence had firearm homicide rates 114% higher than states within the lowest quartile of firearm prevalence. Overall homicide rates were 60% higher. 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.
It dont Jive…
HOW is 114% higher equal to 60%.
Homicide?? OK, which? DEFENCE of home or person or business, or Attacking a person..
NON- GUN homicide WASNT compared??
REALLY, doesnt sound very scientific…MOST Questions like this come up with MORE answers and questions, Then anything else. But they erased ALL the controls for a TRUE answer…They only LOOKED at 1 data, NOT all of them.
Homicide..
Gun
Non-gun
Defence
Attack
Family member
Male or female..
conclusion:
Quote:
“Our findings suggest that in the United States, household firearms may be an important source of guns used to kill children, women and men, both on the street and in their homes,”
Ya, OK, and what else did they shoot?? WHAT is there TOO shoot??
I can see the Democrats/NAZI’s are starting to drum up they bogus studies for their anti-gun rights laws. Exactly how actuate is a telephone survey, and does this take into account any criminal that might have been injured by a citizen defending themselves. How about the fact that crime rates have dropped in states that have Right to Carry Permits? One after another of these bogus surveys have been proven either prejudiced or just not factual, but you might as well as talk to a wall.
[edited: comments guide]
#66 — don’t worry — your and your fearless leader will guarantee bigger numbers for dead and wounded in Iraq.
So you do want more dead I take it?
#70 — Is English your 2nd language? My statements are clear. Sophomoric attempts to restate someone’s position may keep things rolling at the American Legion Bar on a Friday night; but, in the realm of civilized discourse, it’s time-wasting.
#67 –
“It dont Jive…”
The word is “jibe.” Jive means bullshit.
I own several guns and have grown up with them, but the argument that “If we give up our guns, what will we do if the government turns on us!” is stupid. You know what would happen, a lot of people would die and no amount of armed civilians could stop it. Look no further than the continent of Africa for proof. There is no shortage of automatic weapons or weapons of any kind for that matter among any group you can name and yet no one group is ever able to protect themselves, how interesting. This is because if a group of sufficient power and resources is involved, ordinary people are going to loose. No civilian group pitted against modern weapons technology stands any hope of winning or even losing well. Its a stupid argument and gun enthusiasts need to drop it.
“rdaneelolivaw”!? Tee-hee. I knew your dad.
“rdaneelolivaw”!? Tee-hee. I knew your dad.
it is totally inconcievable to me that all these people who are anti gun come up with facts that cannot be proven,(not facts duh) but have never fired a pistol or rifle, never hunted, probably never fished and just don’t do much “outdoors”… they sit at their computer and espouse lies and know they are doing it…(conspiracy,treason?) there are 100’s of millions of guns and gunowners who do not commit crimes such as murder, rape, robbery-burglary or asssaults of a deadly nature and only approximately less than one percent of of such crimes are committed with any gun…(rifle or pistol because some “guns” come in calibers of 16 inches or so and kind of hard to carry around since they USED to be mounted to battleships and such) if the numbers of murders were so high because and merely the cause of private firerarms ownership, murders with guns alone would be so numerous that there would be 100’s of millions of murders a year, and if you actually apply the “logic” of antigunners, probably those numbers would be by the DAY… IT AIN’T HAPPENIN!!! and besides, if 1 million men under arms in a government sponsored disarmament or whatever met 10 million civilians under arms against such tyranny i think the civilians would come out on top… and yeah, the left totally hate our gov’t and system and yet they TOTALLY want the gov’t to take care of everything for them… OXYMORON… when is common sense going to return… never i guess, but that would come from a populace totally beholden to a tyrannical or obfuscant regime and can only live in an urban environment be totaly dependant on anyone but themselves… go ahead, pass more and more laws that NEVER will or could be enforced without making EVERYONE a criminal… don’t do anything, just give up, let the gov’t do it… THAT IS THE MANTRA OF THE DEMOCRAT LEFT, except if anyone but them is giving the orders then it is unhealthy, uncivilized(in england use s instead of z) and unconstitutional… WOW… please save us from ourselves mr. lefty, please give us firearms safety courses you who have never FIRED a weapon of any kind for any reason but love “che” and the revolution… vive la revolution
Well trained armed citizens is one thing but armed untrained citizens is dangerous. People who own guns that train themselves how to use and store the gun correctly are not the problem. It is the idiots that think buying a gun automatically makes them an expert shooter. Most country folk will learn how to shoot and store a gun by their parents. But what about the city folk?
Just how well would untrained armed citizens going up against a well trained army?
May be there should be something similar to a driver’s license for guns. Every two years, the person owning a gun most take a written test and a firing test to show they know how to properly shoot and store a gun.
Dang alan, calm down a little. Its hard to read incoherent rants. As a gun-toting lefty I am interested in what you were trying to get across but frankly, I had a hard time following it.
#71,
#70 — Is English your 2nd language? My statements are clear. Sophomoric attempts to restate someone’s position may keep things rolling at the American Legion Bar on a Friday night; but, in the realm of civilized discourse, it’s time-wasting.
Comment by giap — 1/12/2007 @ 4:20 pm
A classical retort to an idiot. A gold star beside your name sir.
To the the doubters of the study’s accuracy. READ THE EFFEN REPORT !!! Just click on the link.
First, they used the collected data from the Center for Disease Control. This gives them the number of homicides (a person killed by another person), the number of injured people, the locality, the time of day, and method.
Second, they used the telephone survey to determine the number of guns per household.
The results or conclusion of the study should not be that surprising. The easier it is to shoot someone, the higher the crime rate. The rate of homicides using other then guns was close to the same across the country. After all, it is harder to outrun a bullet then it is a #3 wood golf club.
Washington DC is surrounded by two states where it is relatively easy to obtain a gun. It is also highly urbanized with very little employment prospects for local citizens, especially when compared to similar cities. Two ingredients in a volatile mixture of youth crime.
Should there be an automatic Darwin Award for every gun owner?
72,
then..
“it IS Jive”…
73,
If you are going to DIE anyway, then why NOT shoot back??
And if you look, it ISNT as you say. Its a bunch of weapon toting militia Shooting unarmed farmers, looking for work.. Go check out the weapons from both sides..
77.
true, and yes. But this is handguns. Everyone wants one, for SOME odd reason.
But the Military learned something in Vietnam…LOTS of BULLETS, LOTs and LOTS, and hit something, it dont matter if you AIM…Just shoot “That way—>” something SHOULD die..
80,
You are good…
also consider that Pistols, handguns are for personal use, Mostly. they arent used for hunting, that much. and a .22 caliber gun ISNT going to kill much in a hunt. And most Handguns Dont have range past 50 yeads, worth mentioning, UNLESS you know how to use the gun.
Statement…
IF’
If it came to it, and the mil had to fight the citizans in the US.
1. there would not be tanks.
2. Hunters Vs Newby Military?? try it.. I dont think that .22 calibar M16 has much of a chance. And dont forget, that the Cits have the VETS on our side.
3. just cause they tried to Dumb’ us down, dont mean some idiot out here Hasnt played with Sterno, and knows HOW to use it and MAKE it. for those in the know about it..
4. teaching the Nubs(newbys) with handguns?? Aint hard…Just gotta teach them WHO and how to aim FIRST.
there may be ALOt of loss’s, in the beginning, but I will swear, that after the original Loss, you get the HARD nose’s that know HOw to shoot, and hit something.
This just in: winters are colder in places with a high level of winter coat ownership!
#83, OK, LOL, you win the argument.
>business is good
Except for military contractors, who are unaffected by gun control laws, the gun industry doesn’t ahve that much money. That’s the real reason those gun industry lawsuits ended differently than the tobacco lawsuits. The greedy lawyers saw there was nothing in it for them, and it was just a political lawsuit.
this is to bs about the 9:10 commit I am a redneck and I like to drink but when i drink I keep my guns unloaded and locked up. not all rednecks are like you think they are . we dont do things half ass like you think we do and just think im only a 18 year old redneck so FUCK OFF!