USA and the Gun Lobby

[DJCrystaL]

It might be refreshing to compare the USA with an economically equal nation, instead of naming Cuba, South Africa, Brazil etc. because IMO criminal behaviour is strongly linked with economical status of the individual.

If people can get by, then most of the time they will.

If you're born broke, in a -broke for generations family- and you have to feed your kids, then it's quite understandable (not acceptable) that you won't hold back to feed them.

Where do you think the mojority of our violent crimes come from? Not upper class caucasion America. The majority of our violent crime comes from immigrants who come here from many of the economically ""poor" countries. Or from the "poor" in our own country...people trying to "get by".

[Neo]

Where do you think the mojority of our violent crimes come from? Not upper class caucasion America. The majority of our violent crime comes from immigrants who come here from many of the economically ""poor" countries. Or from the "poor" in our own country...people trying to "get by".

The UK, Australia, France, and even New Zealand all have siginificant imigrant populations from economically poor countries yet their murder rates are only a fraction of that of the US.

Something is wrong, and so far most of the justification for doing nothing is along the lines of...

"making guns harder to get won't help" - wrong (see my previous posts)

"it's not really our fault" - fine but you can do something about it.

"no liberal pansy tree hugger is gonna take away my right to kill people with a fully automatic assault rifile" - :roll:

[afook06]

Attention: SunTZU76,

It sounds like you're not American born, and never lived in the USA? So,I can't really expect you to understand the gun issues here. Maybe everyone is the nicest person in the Netherlands, but not really so in America! Eddie

[DJCrystaL]

The UK, Australia, France, and even New Zealand all have siginificant imigrant populations from economically poor countries yet their murder rates are only a fraction of that of the US.

Something is wrong, and so far most of the justification for doing nothing is along the lines of...

"making guns harder to get won't help" - wrong (see my previous posts)

"it's not really our fault" - fine but you can do something about it.

"no liberal pansy tree hugger is gonna take away my right to kill people with a fully automatic assault rifile" - icon_rolleyes.gif

I did not offer any opinions in my posts....I offered fact..and I surely did not offer any of these opinions...Also, I did not offer a real solution to the problem, but neither did I justify the violence or the improper use of fire arms..I advocate leagl fire arm ownership. I also advocate safety classes prior to ownership and necessary child locks and gun safes. The problem is not the fire arms. The problem is irresponsible gun owners and somewhat lenient laws.

[Neo]

Something is wrong, and so far most of the justification for doing nothing is along the lines of...

"making guns harder to get won't help" - wrong (see my previous posts)

"it's not really our fault" - fine but you can do something about it.

"no liberal pansy tree hugger is gonna take away my right to kill people with a fully automatic assault rifile" - icon_rolleyes.gif

..and I surely did not offer any of these opinions...I advocate leagl fire arm ownership.

I think it's fair to say that guns are for killing people, so it seems reasonable to imply that you are offering an opinion remarkably similar to the third justification.

I know I applied a liberal dose (pun intended) of parody, but seriously, do you really believe that? It's that kind of sentiment that causes Europeans to take such a dim view of America.

There's no room for discussion with people who when faced with the falacy of the self-protection myth still insist on the 'right' to own an instrument of death.

[DJCrystaL]

I think it's fair to say that guns are for killing people, so it seems reasonable to imply that you are offering an opinion remarkably similar to the third justification.

I know I applied a liberal dose (pun intended) of parody, but seriously, do you really believe that? It's that kind of sentiment that causes Europeans to take such a dim view of America.

There's no room for discussion with people who when faced with the falacy of the self-protection myth still insist on the 'right' to own an instrument of death.

It's a good thing that we don't live our lives according to what you think is fair to say. Imagine how many poor families that live in the rural areas in the United States would be starving or barely surviving with out the use of a fire arm as a form of hunting. The fire arm is merely and instrument and intent of the user is what makes it into an " instrument of death." I also think that Europeans take a dim view of Americans, not because of our sentiment, but because we follow our belief systems and do not always conform to the world views and kiss Old Father Europes ass at every turn. If I want to give an opinion I will. So please if I do not offer an opinion do not imply one for me. "

[Loburt]

Where do you think the mojority of our violent crimes come from? Not upper class caucasion America. The majority of our violent crime comes from immigrants who come here from many of the economically ""poor" countries. Or from the "poor" in our own country...people trying to "get by".

The 15 states with the highest rates of death by firearms are:

Alaska, Louisiana, New Mexico, Wyoming, Nevada, Alabama, Mississippi, Montana, Arizona, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia, Georgia and Kentucky.

The statistic comes from the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics.

None of those states contain large populations of immigrants from "economically" poor countries. They are overwhelmingly caucasian. They all voted for Bush.

The majority of violent crime in the United States is not committed by immigrants. If you believe it is, back it up with facts that can be sourced.

[i_love_som_tam]

The problem is irresponsible gun owners and somewhat lenient laws.

I agree on the first part about irresponsibl owners. I disagree on the "lenient laws" resonse. What lenient laws are you referring too? In every state there are sentencing enhancements when you use a firearm in the commission of a crime. In most states it's a 2 year minimum sentencing enhancement. This 2 year sentence is served consecutively with the sentence of the other crime, let's say "robbery". So if a guy gets 5 years for a robbery beef he gets 2 years on top of that. Even if the guy has his sentence cut to 3 years for good time he still has to do the 2 additional years at the end of the 3 year hit.

If he has done 5 robberies and is sentenced to 10 years on each charge to be served concurrently then he still has 5 two year sentencing enhancements for 10 years. He will conceiveably serve more time on the arming enhancements than he will on the original robbery charges.

Does this deter criminals from using firearms? Nope. Does this prevent the enraged person that legally owns a firearm from killing 3 people over a fence line dispute? Hell no.

[Loburt]

Imagine how many poor families that live in the rural areas in the United States would be starving or barely surviving with out the use of a fire arm as a form of hunting.

Most people hunt with rifles. Most violent crimes are committed with handguns and assault weapons.

You don't hunt for deer and rabbits with a Saturday Night Special or an AK-47.

[i_love_som_tam]

Imagine how many poor families that live in the rural areas in the United States would be starving or barely surviving with out the use of a fire arm as a form of hunting.

In two words... "Food Stamps".

My family's home town, in the Smokey Mountains of North Carolina, were poor most of their lives. This place is as rural as a place can get. Granted, in the 1930's and 1940's, people there did hunt in order to feed their families. My grandfather and my uncles did it. In this day and age the poor people in that county feed their families with "Food Stamps"

The days of people hunting for food to feed their families in America are pretty much over. You may have some people that still do it, but if they are poor then how do they afford their hunting licenses? How do they afford their deer tags? Hunting in America is now for the sportsman, not the indigent.

[DJCrystaL]

Most people hunt with rifles. Most violent crimes are committed with handguns and assault weapons.

You don't hunt for deer and rabbits with a Saturday Night Special or an AK-47.

Loburt....as you requested that I fact find and prove my point...maybe you should look at the bureau of Justice site on violent crimes commited with firearms. 10% of all violent crimes does not Constitute "most" violent crimes. Also, fully automatic weapons such as the AK-47 are illegal here in the United States. Here is the website if you care to take a look before shooting off your mouth. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm Yes I know you will look at the site and notice that 66% of all murders are from firearms and that is probably all you will see. Notice however you said "most violent crimes". and yes my backed up facts are on the way:P:P

[DJCrystaL]

Where do you think the mojority of our violent crimes come from? Not upper class caucasion America. The majority of our violent crime comes from immigrants who come here from many of the economically ""poor" countries. Or from the "poor" in our own country...people trying to "get by".

Note: I said " immigrants who come here from many of the economically ""poor" countries. Or from the "poor" in our own country...people trying to "get by".....not only " immigrants from economically poor countries.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_05.html

Firearm deaths per 100,000 of population

1. Maryland 9.9 6. New Mexico 7.4

2. Louisiana 9.9 7. South Carolina 7.4

3. Nevada 8.5 8. Mississippi 7.3

4. Alabama 8.2 9. Tennessee 7.2

5. Arizona 7.5 10. California 6.9

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/

MI=Medium Income National MI=43.3K

BP= % below poverty level national average is 12.5

Maryland Louisiana Nevada Alabama Arizona

White 64% 64% 82.5% 71% 61%

Black 29% 33% 7.5% 26% 3.5%

Hispanic 5.4% 3% 22.8% 2% 28%

M.I. 54.3k 33k 45k 36k 42k

B.P. 8% 18% 11% 15.2% 13.9%

New Mexico South Carolina Mississippi Tennessee California

White 43% 65.6% 59% 78% 44%

Black 2.4% 29.4% 36% 16.8% 6.8%

Hispanic 43% 3.1% 1.7% 3% 34.7%

M.I. 35k 38k 32k 37k 48k

B.P. 17.7% 13.8% 18.3% 13.5% 13.8%

With the exception of Maryland every state is has an income disparity or a high immigrant population.

[i_love_som_tam]

Also, fully automatic weapons such as the AK-47 are illegal here in the United States. /quote]

no they are not. any person with a class III federal firearms can own an automatic weapon, even an AK-47. Hell, they can even own a .50 caliber machine gun. :roll:

[i_love_som_tam]

Where do you think the mojority of our violent crimes come from? Not upper class caucasion America. The majority of our violent crime comes from immigrants who come here from many of the economically ""poor" countries. Or from the "poor" in our own country...people trying to "get by".

Note: I said " immigrants who come here from many of the economically ""poor" countries. Or from the "poor" in our own country...people trying to "get by".....not only " immigrants from economically poor countries.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_05.html

Firearm deaths per 100,000 of population

1. Maryland 9.9 6. New Mexico 7.4

2. Louisiana 9.9 7. South Carolina 7.4

3. Nevada 8.5 8. Mississippi 7.3

4. Alabama 8.2 9. Tennessee 7.2

5. Arizona 7.5 10. California 6.9

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/

MI=Medium Income National MI=43.3K

BP= % below poverty level national average is 12.5

Maryland Louisiana Nevada Alabama Arizona

White 64% 64% 82.5% 71% 61%

Black 29% 33% 7.5% 26% 3.5%

Hispanic 5.4% 3% 22.8% 2% 28%

M.I. 54.3k 33k 45k 36k 42k

B.P. 8% 18% 11% 15.2% 13.9%

New Mexico South Carolina Mississippi Tennessee California

White 43% 65.6% 59% 78% 44%

Black 2.4% 29.4% 36% 16.8% 6.8%

Hispanic 43% 3.1% 1.7% 3% 34.7%

M.I. 35k 38k 32k 37k 48k

B.P. 17.7% 13.8% 18.3% 13.5% 13.8%

With the exception of Maryland every state is has an income disparity or a high immigrant population.

ok, you have statistcal data on violent crime and then the poverty and racial make up of states. do u have something that supports your claims that violent crime is committed by what race of people or what poverty level that they are at?

you can't just throw these stats out and expect them to make sense. :roll:

[DJCrystaL]

Tam....check this website

http://www.recguns.com/Sources/IIF1.html

Machine guns are also treated differently. In 1986, as part

of the Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA), Congress prohibited

individuals from owning machine guns, and made it an affirmative

defense that the machine gun was registered before the act took

effect (which was 5/19/86). See 18 USC sec. 922(o) for the law.

Thus as an individual you can only legally own a machine gun that

was registered before that date. Any registered after that date

can only be owned by SOT's, law enforcement, and government

entities. A SOT may not keep these machine guns after

surrendering his SOT. In order to transfer one of these machine

guns, the SOT must have a request from an agency able to own one

for a demonstration. Or an order from one of those agencies to

buy one. A class 2 SOT can make machine guns for research and

development purposes, or for sale to dealers as samples, or for

law enforcement. These are commonly called post-86 machine

guns.

[DJCrystaL]

My original posting was obviously not read in its entirity by some individuals responding to this particular thread. I was attempting to point out that this argument is one which is based on a correlational type of study, and correlation is not causation. Which was really my point stated in the most simplistic form.

I have not seen anyone who has posted a single message to this thread that addressed the fact that this is simply a matter of correlation and not causation. There is nothing to really argue with this point. If it was a matter of causation as implied by individuals who make the statement, if we had gun laws, we would have lower crime rates. Or if we had laws which restricted gun ownership or prevented altogether we would have a lower crime rate...then countries such as Norway, Sweden and Canada would all have crime rates as high or higher than the United States as they do not restrict gun ownership in the same way that some European nations do, such as England, France etc. Since these countries do not have the high violent crime rates the United States does, then it can be said that it is clear that gun ownership is NOT the ONLY factor, and not even a determining factor in whether or not a certain country has a higher crime rate.

If this was an experiment, gun ownership would be the indpendent variable, this is the variable that we can control directly. The dependent variable in such an experiment would be violent crime or the lack thereof. This dependent variable would, if the hypotheses about violent crime were true...would increase with the increase of gun ownership and decrease with the decrease in gun ownership. However, the reason I mentioned the countries with high violent crime rates, and low gun ownership, was because it shows that even when we manipulate the independent variable, we do not get the expected dependent response. The reason I mention Norway, Canada and Sweden is because here too we have manipulated the independent variable and received an unexpected response. (dependent variable.)

Since this is the case, it becomes clear that the hypotheses that we began with is incorrect. While it may be true, that gun ownership would make it easier for SOME individuals to commit violent crimes, it is not necessarily true that gun ownership directly impacts the rate of violent crime.

This was my entire point from the beginning. It is the reason I address the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, and the example of said that Icecream sales and violence are not really related, though it may seem so on the surface. Yes, there is more crime when the ice cream sales are higher, however ice cream sales are not impacting violent crime. It also happens that there are greater ice cream sales on hotter days, and on hotter days individuals are more likely to be out and about and more likely to be in agitated states etc etc. There are many factors contributing here, and ice cream sales are certainly not at the top of the list. The same is true with gun ownership and violent crime. There are many contributing factors and to attempt to explain the phenomenon by use of just one factor like gun ownership is retarded.

I know its a difficult concept to grasp, but I'll say it again. Correlation is not EQUAL to causation. Any person who has taken a basic biology course, basic psychology course, or hell any basic course that covers research and the scientific method understands this simple principle. While it may seem the two are related, it is not necessarily so. This kind of argumentation is taking Occam's razor a bit too literally, and using it just a bit too liberally.

[zeusbheld]

The UK, Australia, France, and even New Zealand all have siginificant imigrant populations from economically poor countries yet their murder rates are only a fraction of that of the US.

Something is wrong, and so far most of the justification for doing nothing is along the lines of...

"making guns harder to get won't help" - wrong (see my previous posts)

"it's not really our fault" - fine but you can do something about it.

"no liberal pansy tree hugger is gonna take away my right to kill people with a fully automatic assault rifile" - icon_rolleyes.gif

I did not offer any opinions in my posts....I offered fact..and I surely did not offer any of these opinions...Also, I did not offer a real solution to the problem, but neither did I justify the violence or the improper use of fire arms.. I advocate leagl fire arm ownership. I also advocate safety classes prior to ownership and necessary child locks and gun safes. The problem is not the fire arms. The problem is irresponsible gun owners and somewhat lenient laws.

not to hang you on a technicality but i'll do it anyway, notice the bolds above: you claim to offer fact not opinion yet you advocae legal firearm ownership, which is inherently opnion. a pro or con position on handgun ownership can ONLY be opinion even if reached through argument from facts (although i find with 'hot button' issues many people don't bother with facts at all, but that's a separate conversation).

Unless a) the accuracy and relevance of your facts is undisputed and unquestionable (not the case with ANY argument based on crime statistics)

the answer is already built into your facts,

c) your arguments are just a logical rearrangement of those facts,

it's NOT A DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT BY DEFINITION AND THEREFORE NOT PURE FACT AT ALL. ALTHOUGH CLAIMING IT IS, THAT'S PURE SPIN.

[DJCrystaL]

The UK, Australia, France, and even New Zealand all have siginificant imigrant populations from economically poor countries yet their murder rates are only a fraction of that of the US.

Something is wrong, and so far most of the justification for doing nothing is along the lines of...

"making guns harder to get won't help" - wrong (see my previous posts)

"it's not really our fault" - fine but you can do something about it.

"no liberal pansy tree hugger is gonna take away my right to kill people with a fully automatic assault rifile" - icon_rolleyes.gif

I did not offer any opinions in my posts....I offered fact..and I surely did not offer any of these opinions...Also, I did not offer a real solution to the problem, but neither did I justify the violence or the improper use of fire arms.. I advocate leagl fire arm ownership. I also advocate safety classes prior to ownership and necessary child locks and gun safes. The problem is not the fire arms. The problem is irresponsible gun owners and somewhat lenient laws.

not to hang you on a technicality but i'll do it anyway, notice the bolds above: you claim to offer fact not opinion yet you advocae legal firearm ownership, which is inherently opnion. a pro or con position on handgun ownership can ONLY be opinion even if reached through argument from facts (although i find with 'hot button' issues many people don't bother with facts at all, but that's a separate conversation).

Unless a) the accuracy and relevance of your facts is undisputed and unquestionable (not the case with ANY argument based on crime statistics)

the answer is already built into your facts,

c) your arguments are just a logical rearrangement of those facts,

it's NOT A DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT BY DEFINITION AND THEREFORE NOT PURE FACT AT ALL. ALTHOUGH CLAIMING IT IS, THAT'S PURE SPIN.

I claimed that I had no offered opinions in my previous posts...and then went on to offer my opinion....I kept my opnion out of the original post so it would contain facts and not opinions

[Loburt]

Your statistics on ethnic breakdowns prove nothing.

Most blacks are not immigrants. The statistics you provide don't tell us whether or not the Hispanics in the percentage are immigrants, or are members of families that have lived here for generations.

I believe you made the statement that most violent crimes are committed by immigrants from economically poorer countries.

I don't see where you've provided any evidence that the majority of people committing violent crimes in the United States were not born in the United States.

And you've done far more "shooting your mouth off" than I have.

[LAWMAN]

I WANT TO GET INVOLVED WITH THIS DISCUSION, BUT I DONT HAVE THE TIME TO READ ALL THE MESSAGES AND IM NOT SURE WHAT THE MAIN POIT IS. I DO KNOW THAT IF U TAKE AWAY THE GUNS PEOPLE WILL FIND ANOTHER WAY TO KILL EACH OTHER, OR YOU COULD SAY IF EVERYONE OWNED A GUN THEN CRIME MIGHT GO DOWN BECAUSE CRIMINALS WOULD BE AFRAID OF THE AVERAGE CITIZEN IF THEY WERE ALL ARMED AND DANGEROUS.

[zeusbheld]

Most people hunt with rifles. Most violent crimes are committed with handguns and assault weapons.

You don't hunt for deer and rabbits with a Saturday Night Special or an AK-47.

Loburt....as you requested that I fact find and prove my point...maybe you should look at the bureau of Justice site on violent crimes commited with firearms. 10% of all violent crimes does not Constitute "most" violent crimes. Also, fully automatic weapons such as the AK-47 are illegal here in the United States. Here is the website if you care to take a look before shooting off your mouth. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm Yes I know you will look at the site and notice that 66% of all murders are from firearms and that is probably all you will see. Notice however you said "most violent crimes". and yes my backed up facts are on the way:P:P

not to put words in his mouth but i will anyway: i believe the general intent of loburt's post is that he meant most violent GUN crimes are commited with handguns and assault weapons. even if this is not the case, that's where the real debate (should) lie.

i believe that turning the argument away from handguns and assault rifles and toward guns in general is a smoke-and-mirrors tactic that inevitably leads to beating strawmen rather than a genuine debate. both sides do it, it isnt just a diabolical tactic by the gun lobby, but it's useless and misleading. even a hardcore ban-all-firearms type should be able to recognize that to be honest and relevant hunting rifles (as allowed by australian law for example) and handguns are NOT the same thing.

do you know anyone who hunts with a handgun? i know a handful of handgun hunters exist (and probably for the sole purpose of writing for gun hobbyist magazines) but let's face it handguns suck for hunting compared to long guns, full stop.

semi auto AK-47's were not illegal as of fairly recently, and being of redneck ancestry i am sure i could still call around and find a place to get a plan for full-mod auto. it ain't that hard if you got an AK and know a machinist (i dont' have an AK but my uncle's a machinist).

[zeusbheld]

I think this last would explain why Columbia is so high up on the list of countries dealing with this issue, and would explain some of why the rates of gun violence in the United States have climbed.

i think you mean Colombia, Columbia is a half-decent school and the gun violence rates are only slightly higher than the rest of the city of New York.

could be columbia, south carolina. a lot of murders there. and can also be considered another country :wink:

true. Deliverance country.

<<played off to: "dueling banjos">>

this is an in-joke amongst north carolina snobs, don't feel bad if it soars majestically over your head..

It's OK we get it Bubba :wink:

nah columbia is actually a college town, with flush toilets, running water, people who can read, virgins who can't outrun their brothers and many of the rest of the acoutrements of civiliization.

these posts are just a manifestation of the cultural superiority of north carolina to its hillbilly down's syndrome cousin.

[zeusbheld]

My original posting was obviously not read in its entirity by some individuals responding to this particular thread. I was attempting to point out that this argument is one which is based on a correlational type of study, and correlation is not causation. Which was really my point stated in the most simplistic form.

and *your* argument assigning crimes to a few particular demographics and even implying the motivation for said violent crimes is somehow NOT based on correlation?

logic isn't your strength is it.

I know its a difficult concept to grasp, but I'll say it again. Correlation is not EQUAL to causation.

i know it is a difficult concept to grasp, but i'll say it again for you. correlation does not suddenly equal causation just coz it's convenient for *you,* either.

dont get me wrong i'm glad you feel smart coz you went to college but you have yet to construct a cogent argument.

ps the careful observer will note i have not advocated a position for or against legal firearm ownership in this thread.

[DJCrystaL]

No I don't own a gun....no I don't think it is a good idea to own a gun unless it is for the purpose of hunting. No I don't think that handguns or any type of assault weapon should be legal. Yes, I do believe in the democratic process, and that every man or woman should be able to own one of these weapons as long as this right is protected by our constitution.

[zeusbheld]

The UK, Australia, France, and even New Zealand all have siginificant imigrant populations from economically poor countries yet their murder rates are only a fraction of that of the US.

Something is wrong, and so far most of the justification for doing nothing is along the lines of...

"making guns harder to get won't help" - wrong (see my previous posts)

"it's not really our fault" - fine but you can do something about it.

"no liberal pansy tree hugger is gonna take away my right to kill people with a fully automatic assault rifile" - icon_rolleyes.gif

I did not offer any opinions in my posts....I offered fact..and I surely did not offer any of these opinions...Also, I did not offer a real solution to the problem, but neither did I justify the violence or the improper use of fire arms.. I advocate leagl fire arm ownership. I also advocate safety classes prior to ownership and necessary child locks and gun safes. The problem is not the fire arms. The problem is irresponsible gun owners and somewhat lenient laws.

not to hang you on a technicality but i'll do it anyway, notice the bolds above: you claim to offer fact not opinion yet you advocae legal firearm ownership, which is inherently opnion. a pro or con position on handgun ownership can ONLY be opinion even if reached through argument from facts (although i find with 'hot button' issues many people don't bother with facts at all, but that's a separate conversation).

Unless a) the accuracy and relevance of your facts is undisputed and unquestionable (not the case with ANY argument based on crime statistics)

the answer is already built into your facts,

c) your arguments are just a logical rearrangement of those facts,

it's NOT A DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT BY DEFINITION AND THEREFORE NOT PURE FACT AT ALL. ALTHOUGH CLAIMING IT IS, THAT'S PURE SPIN.

I claimed that I had no offered opinions in my previous posts...and then went on to offer my opinion....I kept my opnion out of the original post so it would contain facts and not opinions

reread your post i quoted above. can you honestly tell me i, as a neutral reader and non-mindreader, should have come away understanding that? the post was either misworded or sleight of hand, but either way didnt work.