The Brady Bill introduced and passed into law under the Clinton adminstration is proving what many of us thought all along, “If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns.” An article today points out this to be true and that the Brady Bill has not had a significant impact on violent crimes involving guns.
http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-10_19_05_JS.html
I think gun control was dealt a serious blow by the disorder, chaos and mayhem in New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. When a state of emergency overwhelms the police, individual citizens are obliged to defend themselves, their families and their property. We have witnessed the scenario that justiries, even requires, gun ownership. I find it difficult to believe anyone would be able to credibly argue for greater gun control at this point.
Thank God I live in Canada. The murder by hand guns statistics south of the border speak for themselves.
Of course guns don’t kill people, only people do. Yeah right.
I am a Gun Control Advocate.
Good Gun control allows you to have better aim and to hit your target.
Guns don’t kill people … sucking chest wounds do!
I concur with you about gun control. My control is poor and my groupings are too wide. I need to work on my control.
My son obviously has the same problem:
What disorder, chaos and mayhem in New Orleans are you talking about?
I am in agreement with the only outlaws having guns approach. There’s an interesting section in the book ‘Freakonomics’ that covers that whole notion - basically that the underground economy can never be regulated, hence, guns used by criminals will never be regulated. However, it doesn’t bother me a bit that i have to show a firearms licence when i buy firearms (I’m Canadian, and i should mention that i don’t really know that much about the Brady Bill)
However, that article does mention ‘myths’, then goes on to mention:
“Because guns are used more than twice as often defensively as criminally. When armed men broke into Susan Gonzalez’ house and shot her, she grabbed her husband’s gun and started firing. “I figured if I could shoot one of them, even if we both died, someone would know who had been in my home.” She killed one of the intruders. She lived. Studies on defensive use of guns find this kind of thing happens at least 700,000 times a year. Studies on defensive use of guns find this kind of thing happens at least 700,000 times a year.”
I find those statistics ASTOUNDING. I would really like to know where he got them from (why don’t writers show their sources?). I find it very hard to believe that guns are used more than twice as often defensively. And 700,000 times a year? That’s over 1900 times a day! The author REALLY needs to qualify that statement. 1900 criminals are killed per day? 1900 crimes per day are prevented by gun owners?
How do you kill women and children–just lead them less.
I have enough for a family of 20 to defend this house.
I advocate that gun haters purchase guns to keep them out of the hands of bad people.
Have any idea what the name or of a URL for the study the article mentions? It sounds intriguing, but sadly the name is not given.
I’ve seen studies like this before. I don’t think they refer to 1,900 bad guys a day being shot and killed. The ones I have seen count instances where a gun was brandished and a crime prevented. Sometimes that’s all it takes. Still seems mighty high though.
And that’s where this author immediately made me suspect. It’s worthless to report on myths, and in the same breath, start throwing around statistics with no source and not a single qualifying statement. Take that quote at face value and you could easily interpret that 1900 criminals are killed daily, even if that’s not the case i still have a hard time believing that 1900 crimes/day are prevented by gun owners.
Does anyone have numbers on this?!
Here’s a link. Salt not included:
Second attempt at this post, I love my work connectivity.
Here is what I believe to be the CDC study: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
Note this item from the “Summary”: *The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) *
So I’m wondering if I got the right study, I’m guessing there was a follow on that was done around 2003-2004.
Interestingly, here’s a 20/20 item that predates your article by well over a year, and the snippet on gun control is about the same thing: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=124324&page=7 I’d be interested to know if anyone replied or corroborated this article back in 2004.
I don’t personally agree with the article that you posted though. I don’t see the harm in having stringent gun control laws that legal gun sellers must follow. I think it is a first line of defense for preventing bad people from getting guns. I think the point the article is missing is that the absolute necessary second step after the Brady Bill is that we crack down on the means of importing foreign produced weapons, as well as the black markets where criminals get guns.
I think this opens us up to the inevitable “Why do hunters need semi or fully automatic rifles or machine guns? Why does anyone need a semi or fully automatic hand gun?” inquiries/debates. I personally don’t see why, but I’m not a hunter. I can’t see the need for semi/automatic guns, but I’m not a hunter.
It’d also be interested to know what type of guns are most used in criminal actions. Hand guns? Automatic weapons? etc. For either type, it would also be interesting to know if we are talking about guns that have always been a part of the black market, or if they were originally legally owned. It would also be good to know the origin of the gun manufacturing (as I touched upon above). Are we talking Russian or former Soviet-bloc produced weapons? US manufactured?
From the NRA-ILA (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=83)
SELF-DEFENSE AND RIGHT-TO-CARRY
*Anti-gun groups openly oppose the use of firearms for protection and claim that self-defense is not a right under the Constitution. The federal and 44 state constitutions, and the laws of every state, recognize the right to arms for defensive purposes. *
*Survey research during the early 1990s by award-winning criminologist Gary Kleck found as many as 2.5 million protective uses of guns each year in the U.S. “(T)he best available evidence indicates that guns were used about three to five times as often for defensive purposes as for criminal purposes,” Kleck concluded. Analyzing National Crime Victimization Survey data, he found, “robbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection or those who did not resist at all.” *
*In most defensive gun uses, the gun is not fired. In only 1% of instances are criminals wounded, and in only 0.1% are criminals killed. *
A Dept. of Justice survey (1986) found that 40% of felons chose not to commit at least some crimes for fear their victims were armed, and 34% admitted having been scared off or shot at by armed victims. Thirty-eight states now have Right-to-Carry (RTC) laws providing for law-abiding citizens to carry guns for protection. Twenty-eight states have adopted RTC laws since 1987: Two-thirds of Americans live in RTC states.
*Professor John R. Lott, Jr., and David B. Mustard, in the most comprehensive study to date of RTC laws, concluded, “When state concealed-handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell about 8 percent, rapes fell by 5 percent, and aggravated assaults fell by 7 percent.” (1998) *
RTC states have lower violent crime rates on average: 27% lower total violent crime, 32% lower murder, 45% lower robbery, and 20% lower aggravated assault. (FBI) People who carry legally are by far more law-abiding than the rest of the public.
Three points:
The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. If you think so, you need to go back to history class.
An American-made gun will kill you just as dead as an import. Where the guns come from is not the issue. Where they end up is.
Fully-automatic weapons are already illegal, except under very special and rare circumstances.
In regards to your question about what types of guns are used in crimes, it tends to be cheap pieces of crap. I saw a study years ago that said the most common models used were the Smith and Wesson 38 caliber revolver and the Ruger 22 caliber pistol. This is no doubt because they are the two models that have been produced in the greatest numbers over the years.
(This is a great argument for “More guns mean more crime” for all you antis out there. I can argue either side of this issue all day long. Sadly, most people I talk to can’t intelligently argue EITHER)
As the marketing director for a major firearms manufacturer, I have done my own, albeit informal, research with many of our law enforcement customers. To a man, they say assault-style weapons are by far the minority. They believe this is for a few reasons:
An AK47 is much harder to conceal than a handgun. I concur. We sell a military-style autoloader and it is 44 inches long and weighs over nine pounds. Its a real pain in the ass to carry around and an even bigger pain in the ass to get out the window in a drive-by.
Most crimes are committed by repeat offenders and the “pros” know that eventually they are going to have to throw down and run from the man. Even on the stolen gun black market, military weapons cost a lot. If you are gonna have to ditch it, you want it to be a cheap one. The rifle I mentioned above starts at $1,400 retail and goes up from there. We don’t get too many calls from BATF wanting to trace one of those.
I’m not saying these guns are not used in crimes. Obviously they are. But not as much as you think. Much like in cycling, its not the bike, it’s the engine. So it is the same with killers, it is the skill and training of the guy behind the trigger that makes him or her the real “weapon.” The guns is just the tool.
I don’t see the harm in having stringent gun control laws that legal gun sellers must follow. I think it is a first line of defense for preventing bad people from getting guns.
I guess it depends on what you mean by “stringent gun control laws.” If you’re talking about tight controls on who can or can’t buy guns, I think most people would agree with you.
**I think the point the article is missing is that the absolute necessary second step after the Brady Bill is that we crack down on the means of importing foreign produced weapons, as well as the black markets where criminals get guns. **
Why is it necessary to crack down on importing foreign produced weapons?
I can’t see the need for semi/automatic guns, but I’m not a hunter.
Semi-auto guns have a legitimate place in hunting. But of course, hunting is not the only legitimate reason to own a gun. Self-defense is also a valid reason, and right now, semi-automatic guns are widely recognized as the best choice for that role.
It’d also be interested to know what type of guns are most used in criminal actions. Hand guns? Cheap, small caliber handguns, yes.
** Automatic weapons?** Virtually never.
** it would also be interesting to know if we are talking about guns that have always been a part of the black market, or if they were originally legally owned.**
That would be interesting.
It would also be good to know the origin of the gun manufacturing (as I touched upon above). Are we talking Russian or former Soviet-bloc produced weapons? US manufactured?
I don’t know how many of guns used in crimes are US manufactured, (though my guess would be the vast majority) but I’m fairly certain that they’re rarely from Russia or the former Soviet bloc. The only weapon from the Soviet-bloc countries in wide use here is the AK47, and it’s hardly ever used to commit crimes.
We had a big thread about this last year sometime, I think. I don’t recall anyone changing their mind one bit…
I’m generally against assault-style weapons being available, as I see no need for anyone to own such a weapon. We’ve had too much crime around here with them. Last year it was a crazy guy who shot his mom, then killed a police officer (and injured several others) during a standoff, then offed himself. He was using a modified SKS. I believe the weapon had been purchased legally. The police had nothing with them to use against such a weapon. I do believe the now have M-16s available if they need them. Weapons such as these, with larger magazines, possibility of full auto operation, etc, put the police at a disadvantage.
But, there’s some guy out there right now saying “yeah, he coulda killed all those people with a knife, too!” or some such. And there’s another guy who thinks an SKS is a perfectly reasonable item to have on hand should a ferocious deer come calling, so…
I’m not sure what you mean by the salt comment, but thanks for the link. A link in the original article would have gone a long way in battling my skepticism.
What disorder, chaos and mayhem in New Orleans are you talking about?
You know. The reports of disorder, chaos and mayhem that we subsequently found to be blown way out of proportion.