Obama the Liar at it again...

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Piscator, you forgot the US Census figures on knife homicides, ranging from 15.3% to 28.6% with around 20% in most states. They didn't include blunt instruments either.
Time to ban knifes, bats and fishing rods that could be made into sharp instruments too.

According to the FBI:

Firearms: 67.8%
Knives or other cutting instruments: 13.4%
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.): 5.7%
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.): 3.9%
Other dangerous weapons: 9.2%

Mind the gap.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

According to the FBI:

Firearms: 67.8%
Knives or other cutting instruments: 13.4%
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.): 5.7%
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.): 3.9%
Other dangerous weapons: 9.2%

Mind the gap.

-spence

It's an interesting link Spence. Minorities are involved in the majority of homicides . There is an interesting number of justifiable homicides. Translation ...life's saved . I was looking for a link to repeat offenders but I didn't find one .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

It's an interesting link Spence. Minorities are involved in the majority of homicides . There is an interesting number of justifiable homicides. Translation ...life's saved . I was looking for a link to repeat offenders but I didn't find one .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

His link?

What's interesting is why we're a bit of an abnormality among developed nations. Some of this could be due to sheer size, but the preponderance of weapons is something that can't be ignored.

I've looked into justified homicides before and while it certainly does happen it's still quite rare and often in the home. There of course are equally rare situations where good intentions go awry.

My assumption on repeat offenders is that if you commit a crime with a gun and are caught, you'll need to get another gun to repeat.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

His link?

What's interesting is why we're a bit of an abnormality among developed nations. Some of this could be due to sheer size, but the preponderance of weapons is something that can't be ignored.

I've looked into justified homicides before and while it certainly does happen it's still quite rare and often in the home. There of course are equally rare situations where good intentions go awry.

My assumption on repeat offenders is that if you commit a crime with a gun and are caught, you'll need to get another gun to repeat.

-spence

Defensive use of guns is not rare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

And:
http://www.examiner.com/article/detr...arm-themselves

And:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5128271.html

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

His link?

the preponderance of weapons is something that can't be ignored.


-spence

No, it can't be ignored. But we can't fanatically obsess with it, to the exclusion of other possibilities, either.

One last time. See if you can follow. Check out this link, which lists gun ownership rates and gun murder rates by state...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vio...tates_by_state

From this link, you can see some things that suggest that your conclusion, that proliferation of guns is the core issue, is false.

Wyoming is ranked #1 in gun ownership at 59.7% of the residents. Spence, do you therefore presume that Wyoming has a problem with gun violence? Really? According to that data, Wyoming had the 9th lowest gun murder rate in the nation.

Flip side, let's look at DC. DC has the lowest gun ownership rate in the country, the absolute lowest, at 3.6%. Spence, based on your logic, gun crime in DC shuold be low, right? In fact, DC has the very highest gun murder rate in the nation. Are you going to tell me that the murders in DC are committed by tourists from Wyoming who come into DC with their guns blazing?

Therefore, while I agree that gun crime cannot occur if guns don't exist, you have to concede that there is not a great correlation between gun ownership and gun crime. The data could not be much more clear on this.

Why can the people of Wyoming own so many guns, yet be so less likely to use them on each other? Family values and religion, the very things that many on your side spend a lot of resources mocking. Your side likes to tell people, especially people who live in places like DC and Chicago, that religion and family values have no place in the modern world.

Stop saying that it's all about guns. Spence, if you owned 50 guns, would you be more likely to murder anybody with them, than you are today? Of course not.

We need to deal with the attitude so many have, that the only thing that matters is the self. The guns are out there, and that is fact. The most effective thing we can do, is restore in our citizenry, a minimal amount of empathy for others.

I'm not a big fan of guns, and I think that requiring the chip on the trigger that verifies the fingerprint of the owner (so that nobody else can fire the gun) is a good idea. But what's scarier to me than guns, is the willingness of so many Americans to do God-awful things to each other.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

No, it can't be ignored. But we can't fanatically obsess with it, to the exclusion of other possibilities, either.

One last time. See if you can follow. Check out this link, which lists gun ownership rates and gun murder rates by state...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vio...tates_by_state

From this link, you can see some things that suggest that your conclusion, that proliferation of guns is the core issue, is false.

Wyoming is ranked #1 in gun ownership at 59.7% of the residents. Spence, do you therefore presume that Wyoming has a problem with gun violence? Really? According to that data, Wyoming had the 9th lowest gun murder rate in the nation.

Flip side, let's look at DC. DC has the lowest gun ownership rate in the country, the absolute lowest, at 3.6%. Spence, based on your logic, gun crime in DC shuold be low, right? In fact, DC has the very highest gun murder rate in the nation. Are you going to tell me that the murders in DC are committed by tourists from Wyoming who come into DC with their guns blazing?

Therefore, while I agree that gun crime cannot occur if guns don't exist, you have to concede that there is not a great correlation between gun ownership and gun crime. The data could not be much more clear on this.

Why can the people of Wyoming own so many guns, yet be so less likely to use them on each other? Family values and religion, the very things that many on your side spend a lot of resources mocking. Your side likes to tell people, especially people who live in places like DC and Chicago, that religion and family values have no place in the modern world.

Stop saying that it's all about guns. Spence, if you owned 50 guns, would you be more likely to murder anybody with them, than you are today? Of course not.

We need to deal with the attitude so many have, that the only thing that matters is the self. The guns are out there, and that is fact. The most effective thing we can do, is restore in our citizenry, a minimal amount of empathy for others.

I'm not a big fan of guns, and I think that requiring the chip on the trigger that verifies the fingerprint of the owner (so that nobody else can fire the gun) is a good idea. But what's scarier to me than guns, is the willingness of so many Americans to do God-awful things to each other.

I love it, comparing Wyoming with Washington DC. Brilliant analysis...

This issue actually has been studied.

http://www.bu.edu/news/2013/09/13/ne...and-homicides/

Remember that in areas like DC or Chicago with tough gun laws and yet ample crime that the crime generally was present before the gun laws were passed...that's why they have tough gun laws, to aid with prosecution. Given the easy availability of firearms outside of restricted areas I don't think you can assume a localized law will have a depressing impact on behavior...although that's what the NRA would like you to believe.

The reason so many gun control advocates want Federal legislation is precisely because localized efforts are challenged by short-termism and open state borders.

Very few in this country want to ban weapons entirely, but the opposing position -- that more guns is always the answer -- is just as faulty.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I love it, comparing Wyoming with Washington DC. Brilliant analysis...

This issue actually has been studied.

http://www.bu.edu/news/2013/09/13/ne...and-homicides/

Remember that in areas like DC or Chicago with tough gun laws and yet ample crime that the crime generally was present before the gun laws were passed...that's why they have tough gun laws, to aid with prosecution. Given the easy availability of firearms outside of restricted areas I don't think you can assume a localized law will have a depressing impact on behavior...although that's what the NRA would like you to believe.

The reason so many gun control advocates want Federal legislation is precisely because localized efforts are challenged by short-termism and open state borders.

Very few in this country want to ban weapons entirely, but the opposing position -- that more guns is always the answer -- is just as faulty.

-spence

"I love it, comparing Wyoming with Washington DC. Brilliant analysis..."

Aha! But it was you, not I, who said that gun crime is driven primarily by gun ownership. If what you said had a shred of validity to it, then the crime rates in DC and Wyoming would be a function of gun ownership. And clearly, that is not the case. My data refutes that as clearly as anything can be refuted.

You are right! The citizens of DC and the citizens of Wyoming are very different. And it is the cultural and socioeconomic differences between the 2 groups, not merely the presence of guns, that is the root cause of gun crime. There is a reason why 50 Cent and Snoop Dog don't do concerts in Wyoming and South Dakota, yet they sell out in places like DC and Chicago (meaning, they sell out in places with high crime rates). Thank you for making my point for me. You don't often hear radical liberals concede that you cannot compare expected behavior between those who live in DC and those who live in Wyoming...

"that's why they have tough gun laws, to aid with prosecution"

There is nothing you won't make up, will you? In the aftermath of the Newtown shooting, liberals were not calling for tough gun laws "to aid with the prosecution" of the gunmen. The liberals were calling for tough gun laws, because they claim it will reduce gun crime and save lives. Can't you go 5 seconds without being so blatantly dishonest?

I'll ask you again...Why can the citizens of Wyoming own so many more guns than the citizens of DC, yet commit so much less crime?

Why can't you answer that? Could it be the fact that there is no answer to that question, which doesn't repudiate your claims here?