OK gun lobby and Property rights folks...let's hear how great this was

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by lew

Your point is lost in the pictures.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Break down the percentage to me of criminals who use guns one can legally purchase with any sort of special federal license (just following local state laws) and the percentage of criminals who use guns banned by regular sales (Fully automatic machine guns, RPGs, etc)

Well there has only been one murder by a legally owned Automatic weapon since the 1934 law.

Now guess how many murders have happened with illegally owned automatic weapons.

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

In the 1930s, automatic guns were used in Chicago and other cities for massacres by criminals (See St. Valentines Day)

Now that there are gun control laws, that doesn't happen

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Kytro

However making it illegal does solve the problem

How does this solve a problem? If a person wants to commit a crime with a gun they are going to care less if they obtain the gun in a legal manner. Thus out lawing guns would be useless and counter productive.

How many potential crimes do you think are averted each you due to someone wondering "Am I going to get shot for attempting this act of stupidity?" Obvisously no one will ever know.

Is there any solid evidence that proves where guns are outlawed has helped crime? Maybe you should check out the latest crime and murder rates for the Washington D.C. area where there are the strictest gun laws of all.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

If a member of the NRA who shares the use of several guns with his father, while short on cash, takes the handgun his father bought that morning to the local urban center and sells it "illegally" to a gang member who hours later in the day kills a person...

There is a direct less than one day link between a legal purchase of a firearm and a "illegally obtained firearm used to murder"

Again, its the negligence of firearm owners

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Dave

How does this solve a problem? If a person wants to commit a crime with a gun they are going to care less if they obtain the gun in a legal manner. Thus out lawing guns would be useless and counter productive.

My bad it was supposed to say "does not"

[7960]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

..........behavior like this is unacceptable.

You are 100% correct. Behavior like that is unacceptable. The guy who did it should go to jail.

What's funny, for every story we hear about people valiantly defending their homes from home invaders, there are at LEAST 5,000 like this one

Link to 4,999 more stories like this? Then I'll post my one "dad stopped a home invasion because he was armed" story.

And while you're looking for 4,999 stories can you please link to the details on the shooter? I'd like to know if he had that gun legally, because if he didn't then your entire premise that "this wouldn't have happened if guns and people were more regulated."

Adding to this scenario, what would your opinion be if the kids, in fear for their lives, shot the guy who killed their friend..... Would they be justified?

Yes.

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

The question isn't whether or not they come from "legal purchasers," but rather were the guns used at one time legally purchased?

If it wasn't stolen from a factory or gun store then of course at one point it was legally purchased.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Kytro

There is no plausible link between legal firearm ownership levels and deaths caused by firearms.

Laws the outlaw are ineffective.

I don't think people should want firearms for self defense, I think that is a dangerous idea. Nations where people have guns to "defend" themselves often find people using them in inappropriate situations. However making it illegal does not solve the problem

But crime either stayed the same or went UP in australia when they gathered up the guns

[motivez]

Originally Posted by 7960

If it wasn't stolen from a factory or gun store then of course at one point it was legally purchased.

So, why wouldn't the argument be for tougher restrictions on the purchasing of firearms to prevent them from being illegally resold where they're then used in crimes, etc?

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

If these people were willing to shoot a 14 yr old, they are willing to aquire illegal guns.

I disagree entirely with this logic. You're telling me this guy bought his firearm with the forsight that he would carry it around in his to kill a 14 year old? All criminals do not start out life with criminal records.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by 7960

But crime either stayed the same or went UP in australia when they gathered up the guns

Exactly. It makes no difference. Australia has never had a high gun ownership percentage. If I recall, the weapons used in the massacre were not legal anyway.

Gun ownership and crime rates don't have a direct correlation

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

So, why wouldn't the argument be for tougher restrictions on the purchasing of firearms to prevent them from being illegally resold where they're then used in crimes, etc?

There are tough restrictions but they're very difficult to enforce. I can buy a gun tomorrow, keep it for a week, report it stolen, and illegally sell it to you...how can police determine if the gun was actually stolen or if I illegally sold it? This is very difficult for police. But OP's idea that we need *more* restrictions on guns is pretty stupid. Where is the most gun crime? Washington DC. Where are the most restrictive gun laws? Washington DC. As they make laws tougher they're just disarming people who have a right to defend themselves and turning them into victims-in-waiting.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Gun ownership and crime rates don't have a direct correlation

No. Crime rates are lower where gun ownership is up.

Some U.S. statistics

The National Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative think tank, reported the following statistics [1]:

* New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46 percent and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.

* In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures and its murder rate, then a low 2.4 per 100,000 per year, tripled to 7.2 by 1977.

* In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134 percent while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent.

* Over 50% of American households own guns, despite government statistics showing the number is approximately 35%, because guns not listed on any government roll were not counted during the gathering of data. [8]

* Evanston, Ill., a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982 but experienced no decline in violent crime.

* Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.

* 20 percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6 percent of the population - New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C. - and each has a virtual prohibition on private handguns.[2]

* After Canada passed a gun control law in 1977, the murder rate failed to decline but armed robbery and burglary, crimes frequently deterred by gun ownership, increased.

* Violent crime accelerated in Jamaica after handguns were banned.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Exactly. It makes no difference. Australia has never had a high gun ownership percentage. If I recall, the weapons used in the massacre were not legal anyway.

Gun ownership and crime rates don't have a direct correlation

Although the old adage says that "Figures don't lie, but liars figure," those who seek to influence public opinion often employ a variety of means to slant statistical figures into seemingly supporting their point of view:

Urban Legends Reference Pages: Crime (Australian Guns)

[Bob the Goat]

From up here in Canada it seems to me that all the guns America has have only served to make America more dangerous, not safer. You folks have an exceptionally high murder and gun crime rate even with your exceptionally tough criminal penalties. As a foreigner I may be mistaken but doesn't your constitution suggest that citizens can keep and bear arms specifically in the context of State and local militias in order that the grass roots are able to prevent the advent of monarchy, dictatorship or family oligarchy? It doesn't read as if it was intended to be a license to arm each individual for old west style self defence or in this case absurd escalation from eggs as ammo to bullets as ammo. In Canada we have a strict licensing and registration system for guns. Hand guns are illegal unless you're a peace officer or licensed security agent or are engaged in a recognized target shooting organization. Subsequently, although the registration system is unwieldy and expensive, we have a low gun crime rate, (although we still have gun crime), and guns are not as readily available across the counter as they are in the States. We also understand that one role of the Police is to protect the citizenry sufficiently to enable us to feel confident of personal and property rights without toting a gun.

[Kytro]

The problem is for stats to have any meaning they need to be qualified. Unfortunately this rarely happens.

People see rate A and rate B and claim that A must have caused B.

First of all you need to compare what happened in similar socioeconomic situations where guns were not banned / restricted over time.

My point is that the attitude towards firearms has more of an effect than ownership.

High levels of ownership will increase the risk of accidents (this can be counted with good education and training).

If the guns were removed from the US stabbings would increase. The level of violence in the US is a result of the culture mix

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Kytro

The problem is for stats to have any meaning they need to be qualified. Unfortunately this rarely happens.

People see rate A and rate B and claim that A must have caused B.

First of all you need to compare what happened in similar socioeconomic situations where guns were not banned / restricted over time.

My point is that the attitude towards firearms has more of an effect than ownership.

High levels of ownership will increase the risk of accidents (this can be counted with good education and training).

If the guns were removed from the US stabbings would increase. The level of violence in the US is a result of the culture mix

Are you honestly suggesting that if guns disappeared tommorow, there would be over 10,000+ stabbing homicides a year? Right now the number is at less than 2000

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

I disagree entirely with this logic. You're telling me this guy bought his firearm with the forsight that he would carry it around in his to kill a 14 year old? All criminals do not start out life with criminal records.

No, I'm saying it takes a certain type of person to commit such illegal activities; one that is willing to kill a 14 yr old is most certainly willing to commit other illegal activities.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by 7960

You are 100% correct. Behavior like that is unacceptable. The guy who did it should go to jail.

Correct.

Originally Posted by 7960

Link to 4,999 more stories like this? Then I'll post my one "dad stopped a home invasion because he was armed" story.

And while you're looking for 4,999 stories can you please link to the details on the shooter? I'd like to know if he had that gun legally, because if he didn't then your entire premise that "this wouldn't have happened if guns and people were more regulated."

Incorrect assumption. I am not advocating MORE regulation. I am saying that we need SOME...more directed towards the people that say we need LESS or NONE.

Originally Posted by 7960

Yes.

Correct.