14 total posts
Your link states clearly.....
......that the data is inconclusive. It also shows that the numbers, while down, are still shocking:
What percentage of murders are committed by people using guns?
According to the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, in 2011 firearms were used in 68 percent of the nation's murders, 41 percent of robberies, and 21 percent of aggravated assaults.
How has the rate of firearms-related murder changed in recent years?
In 2011 there were 14,612 murder victims, of which 9,903 were killed by assailants with firearms, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports.
The rate of firearms-related murders in 2011 was 3.2 per 100,000 people - a sharp decline from 1993 when the rate of firearms-related murders was 6.6 per 100,000 people.
Even with the decline, there are about as many people shot to death in this country every single day as are shot to death in the UK in an entire year.
Most people understand that even with a change in the law, there are a lot of existing guns out there. You have to grandfather that kind of legislation in because you can't force people to give up something they bought legally, unless the feds are willing to buy them back at full original price. It would take time for the numbers to show the effect of any new legislation.
It still comes back to
the method by which any victim might prefer to be murdered. Think of capital punishment, where the choices are gunfire, hanging, beheading by axe, machete, knifed to death, burned at stake, and so forth. Most would prefer firing squad. Gunfire is a more merciful death.
Well, that's one way of looking at it, I suppose....
......though I would like to point out that you can't really machete 27 people from a distance.
Having a gun at the ready also means a higher likelihood of rage killings, where the gun was used just because it was there. I'd have to try to verify this but I recently read that gun owners are 30% more likely to be victims of gun violence than non-owners.
RE; Gunfire is a more merciful death.
Some might find that comforting.
The inherent flaw in his logic, of course....
......is the presumption that the person is going to be murdered regardless. Homicide rates in countries with stricter gun laws belie that notion pretty quickly.
I wonder if James wants to go "more mercifully"?
That the data was inconclusive is something I specifically
noted in the text of the OP. As such, it should leave us to ponder what the data means. In the last 20 years, we've grown considerably in population and in the number of guns among us. More people in the same amount of space means more opportunities for friction between them. Add additional guns to that situation and we'd expect the murder rate to go up...not be cut in half. No doubt there's not just one reason for it but there must be a few that stand out among the other reasons. Surely one of them isn't that folks are becoming nicer to each other.
RE: More people in the same amount of space means
More people in the same amount of space means more opportunities for friction between them.
Why isn't the same happening in China?
You're too big for your britches, that's what it was called back in the day.
America...go on a diet?.....Go west, young man...but not as far west as California.
Surely one of them isn't that folks are becoming nicer to each other.
Make them go to church...the church of their choice...that will make them get along.
Or Obama could pass out guns instead of cell phones?
that might quickly solve
the intercity problems, and reduce the number of incarcerated all at the same time. They can't do that because the crime industry, all those who depend on controlling crime, not lessening nor eradicating it, would face loss of jobs, power positions, etc. This would be the police, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, bailbonds, prisons and jails, and all those who manufacture and sell them equipment. I suspect the criminal industry in this country takes more money combined from federal, state, and local authorities than even our military does.
Of course I wasn't being serious...
I know, but....
...consider this, from the FBI and DOJ.
If the murder rate by race equaled the percentage of population, the current murder rate would be reduced by 40% from what it currently is. We have a 20% or less portion of the population committing more than 50% of the murders. That's 250% more murders per capita by race than whites are doing. If instead, blacks were the predominant race at 80% and the same rate of murders was maintained, it might come close to the per capita statistics of murders in South American and some African countries.
If one ONLY counts the per capita murders done by whites, then it would be half of that 3.12 per 100,000, or equal to those European countries where race is NOT a factor in their per capita murder rate.
It's not the guns, it's the people who are using them to murder.