TX - Santa Fe High School Shooting

[Hepar]

Fact: Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year or 6,849 every day. Most often, the gun is never fired and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed.

Source: Targeting Guns, Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University, Aldine, 1997

I would also strongly caution against sharing something as fact that is based on one study. His research has been proven by multiple people as being filled with holes, assumptions and false conclusions. Don’t be blinded by something just because it fits your personal narrative. And that’s a general statement to everyone (including myself) not just you.

 

[Inv4drZm]

:gun6: Sure you are. That gun will definitely protect you from a drone strike.

AK's and their variants have done pretty well in Vietnam and the middle east, last I checked there have been decades of fighting by our troops/drones against barely trained militias. My AR should do me well if absolutely necessary.

Besides, the mere presence of firearms in the U.S. has already protected their users from 'drone strikes', without firing a single shot. Merely their numbers. If there were 1/4 of the firearms/users in the U.S. they would have already been heavily regulated and the government would already be working towards control of our next set of rights, probably freedom of speech.

 

[83Mule]

Guns are Awesome! I come from a family that all own and USE guns. I mean my Mother Brother Sister Aunt Uncle Cousins etc! We all grew up with them in our lives and I got my first when I was 7..a '34 Remington SportMaster .22 Rifle. NOBODY in my Family has been the victim of a violent crime or a break-in and We feel confident and safe knowing We can defend ourselves without waiting for Cops to show up (or not)! Not a single person or Child has hurt themselves with one of these guns in our homes spread over 6 different states and from poor to millionaires. Maybe We are just lucky...or maybe we are doing something right in showing our kids from a young age how to respect, handle and use a firearm while enjoying the benefits of recreation AND defense a gun provides?!:rockon:

 

[simple]

AK's and their variants have done pretty well in Vietnam and the middle east, last I checked there have been decades of fighting by our troops/drones against barely trained militias. My AR should do me well if absolutely necessary.

Besides, the mere presence of firearms in the U.S. has already protected their users from 'drone strikes', without firing a single shot. Merely their numbers. If there were 1/4 of the firearms/users in the U.S. they would have already been heavily regulated and the government would already be working towards control of our next set of rights, probably freedom of speech.

Brother, I disagree. What the enemy did well with was IEDs. When they went toe to toe with us with AKs and PKMs, we called in air with HELLFIRES and JDAMs. Don’t kid yourself. The police department blew the guy who shot up Dallas with a robot armed with a bomb. And the President authorized police departments to get military gear. Police departments have MRAPs and all sorts of other unnecessary gear because of guys that shoot up schools and malls with heavy weaponry.

Also, I’m not sure what you’re talking about people having guns protecting you Fromm drone strikes.

 

[Gunslinger-13]

I would also strongly caution against sharing something as fact that is based on one study. His research has been proven by multiple people as being filled with holes, assumptions and false conclusions. Don’t be blinded by something just because it fits your personal narrative. And that’s a general statement to everyone (including myself) not just you.

I absolutely agree. Stat would have been a much better choice. And that's why I gave a variance of ratios, because there is no definitive number, however, the most conservative of numbers places it at 3:1 defensive versus criminal use of a gun.

That should very much resonate with the crowd that truly wants to save people's lives and they should realize what most of the rest of the world lives. Getting rid of guns doesn't stop violent crime and murder. It doesn't even improve the rates in a majority of countries.

We've been down this road in every country and every government throughout history. Take away people access and ownership of arms/means of defense (And it was swords and long bows and cross bows, etc before guns were even invented) and eventually a bunch of people die.

It's just not logical to keep going down this path. It's literal insanity. People control through the guise of gun control with promises of "safety" by the State is the most foolish and dangerous proposition based on all of the historical experiences we share.

 

[Inv4drZm]

Brother, I disagree. What the enemy did well with was IEDs. When they went toe to toe with us with AKs and PKMs, we called in air with HELLFIRES and JDAMs. Don’t kid yourself. The police department blew the guy who shot up Dallas with a robot armed with a bomb. And the President authorized police departments to get military gear. Police departments have MRAPs and all sorts of other unnecessary gear because of guys that shoot up schools and malls with heavy weaponry.

Also, I’m not sure what you’re talking about people having guns protecting you Fromm drone strikes.

Yes we use air superiority but then why has it taken us decades of fighting if it was that easy to eradicate the enemy? Same thing for Vietnam.

If the government has this much firepower and unleashes it on it's citizens like you two are proposing wouldn't you want a firearm? I mean Trump is basically Hitler right? It could happen any day now?

Anyway, the larger point is that we don't even have a gun problem in the U.S. Look at the murder rates or violent crime rates between countries and you will see the U.S. is mid pack and below that of a few gun-regulating countries which isn't bad considering we don't live on an island, but right by Mexico, and have a range of culture and people. Every chart I have seen comparing violent crime/homicide was unaffected by bans of any type, in the U.K., U.S., and Australia.

 

[Gunslinger-13]

Brother, I disagree. What the enemy did well with was IEDs. When they went toe to toe with us with AKs and PKMs, we called in air with HELLFIRES and JDAMs. Don’t kid yourself. The police department blew the guy who shot up Dallas with a robot armed with a bomb. And the President authorized police departments to get military gear. Police departments have MRAPs and all sorts of other unnecessary gear because of guys that shoot up schools and malls with heavy weaponry.

Also, I’m not sure what you’re talking about people having guns protecting you Fromm drone strikes.

You said "us", so that leads me to believe you served, no? If so- you swore an oath.

So if your commanding officer gave you an unconstitutional order to engage targets domestically, you would follow that order?

Are you going to send some hellfires up a US citizens ass, if, say an order for confiscation of privately held firearms was given?

Well, some would follow that order. Lots of sheep out there. But, some would not. And they would fight back. Grab some toys on there way out to uphold their oath.


Same goes for LE. Some would follow the order some wouldn't.

It would get messy fast and I can tell you the side with the folks who upheld their oath and the sheer number of people/citizens that would not comply would be a logistical impossibility to defeat.

You think Guns are the only tools non Leo and non military folks have at their disposal? That's naive and just plain ignorant.

The derkas have caves and 1980's tech and look at the trouble they are- where as quite a few folks in the US have tools, elaborate workshops in their garages and access to components and chemicals.

You think that if this scenario went down there wouldn't be companies that make the effing Guns handing hem out and arming people? That other countries and black markets wouldn't provide and sell hardware?

Have you forgotten the very birth of our Nation? The most advanced military in the world fighting a bunch of "inbreed Colonist hicks" under gunned and less trained. I'm guessing you know the rest of that story...

 

[-JD-]

Every chart I have seen comparing violent crime/homicide was unaffected by bans of any type, in the U.K., U.S., and Australia.

Here's one:

 

[simple]

You said "us", so that leads me to believe you served, no? If so- you swore an oath.

So if your commanding officer gave you an unconstitutional order to engage targets domestically, you would follow that order?

Are you going to send some hellfires up a US citizens ass, if, say an order for confiscation of privately held firearms was given?

Well, some would follow that order. Lots of sheep out there. But, some would not. And they would fight back. Grab some toys on there way out to uphold their oath.


Same goes for LE. Some would follow the order some wouldn't.

It would get messy fast and I can tell you the side with the folks who upheld their oath and the sheer number of people/citizens that would not comply would be a logistical impossibility to defeat.

You think Guns are the only tools non Leo and non military folks have at their disposal? That's naive and just plain ignorant.

The derkas have caves and 1980's tech and look at the trouble they are- where as quite a few folks in the US have tools, elaborate workshops in their garages and access to components and chemicals.

You think that if this scenario went down there wouldn't be companies that make the effing Guns handing hem out and arming people? That other countries and black markets wouldn't provide and sell hardware?

Have you forgotten the very birth of our Nation? The most advanced military in the world fighting a bunch of "inbreed Colonist hicks" under gunned and less trained. I'm guessing you know the rest of that story...

You guys are way overthinking this.

 

[BrianSD_42]

Originally Posted by simple View Post
Brother, I disagree. What the enemy did well with was IEDs. When they went toe to toe with us with AKs and PKMs, we called in air with HELLFIRES and JDAMs. Don’t kid yourself. The police department blew the guy who shot up Dallas with a robot armed with a bomb. And the President authorized police departments to get military gear. Police departments have MRAPs and all sorts of other unnecessary gear because of guys that shoot up schools and malls with heavy weaponry.

Also, I’m not sure what you’re talking about people having guns protecting you Fromm drone strikes.

Yes we use air superiority but then why has it taken us decades of fighting if it was that easy to eradicate the enemy? Same thing for Vietnam.
.

[MENTION=130999]Inv4drZm[/MENTION] If you are referring to recent wars like Iraq or Afghanistan than it doesn't sound to me that you understand the nature of US war in the middle east today. Perhaps I misunderstand what you were trying to convey. The United States is MASSIVELY outnumbered on the ground. Our troops can be stopped and injured by cheap IEDs buried in the road and they also face firepower that is enough that they cannot secure the area with such a small deployment of troops.

Have you seen the movie The Hornets Nest (or perhaps you served on the ground in Iraq/Af)? I did not serve on the ground (Navy here) but I've read quite a few books and among other things many of these documentaries show clearly how vastly the US is outnumbed on the ground by a mostly hostile civilian population.

The US cannot fix the civilian population of Iraq, we can't kill them and they are not pro-US nor do they share our Western values. We are at a standstill and basically losing more of Afghanistan each year. Iraq is barely any better. We aren't winning because we can't fix the people, their society, their culture. The US cannot remake a culture and our troops are outnumbed massively by either outright hostiles or those who secretly hate the US occupation, THE WAR which BTW is still going on.

 

[BrianSD_42]

@-JD-

The problem with your chart showing gun deaths in Austrailia in late 80s vs now trending downward is the concept of correlation not causation. This is a constant limitation of so called Social 'Science'.

If you look at gun deaths and overall violent crime in the United States from the late 80s until 2018 you will see a similar or even more drastic trend downwards. There was no "total gun ban" in the United States yet violent crime including gun murders trended downward just as sharply or even more so.

:fishing:

 

[simple]

[\quote]

Couldn’t have said it better. Not to mention, the kid who’s parents we killed when we dropped a bomb on the neighbors house cause it had a sniper in it, yeah that kid hates us and 10yrs later we’re still there and he’s old enough to pick up a weapon. ... not to get too off topic

 

[Inv4drZm]

Here's one:

There is no change after the ban went into effect. The charts were already trending downward. The ban did not help.

 

[Inv4drZm]

[MENTION=130999]Inv4drZm[/MENTION] If you are referring to recent wars like Iraq or Afghanistan than it doesn't sound to me that you understand the nature of US war in the middle east today. Perhaps I misunderstand what you were trying to convey. The United States is MASSIVELY outnumbered on the ground. Our troops can be stopped and injured by cheap IEDs buried in the road and they also face firepower that is enough that they cannot secure the area with such a small deployment of troops.

Have you seen the movie The Hornets Nest (or perhaps you served on the ground in Iraq/Af)? I did not serve on the ground (Navy here) but I've read quite a few books and among other things many of these documentaries show clearly how vastly the US is outnumbed on the ground by a mostly hostile civilian population.

The US cannot fix the civilian population of Iraq, we can't kill them and they are not pro-US nor do they share our Western values. We are at a standstill and basically losing more of Afghanistan each year. Iraq is barely any better. We aren't winning because we can't fix the people, their society, their culture. The US cannot remake a culture and our troops are outnumbed massively by either outright hostiles or those who secretly hate the US occupation - which BTW is still going on.

Well, doing some research, 1/4 of our citizens own guns. If 5% of gun owners decide to start a militia, that would be 4 million people. Wouldn't that outnumber the men and women in the branches of our military that decided to go against their own people? We have roughly 2 million service members currently?

 

[BrianSD_42]

I thought you were talking about the wars?

 

[wadle5]

Reality having a liberal bias must really be a drag in your simple mind.

Keep deepthroating that Trump dick, justice is coming.

Well with such a sound argument like that I just can’t wait to join your side and get in on your thought process and justification ndecent?

Here's one:

Since the new law enforcing Australians to surrender over 640k firearms the statistics are amazing!
The first year after this ban homicides were up 6.2%,
Assaults were up 10%
Armed robberies were up 44%(yup nearly a 50% increase is probably how the media would say that)
In just the state of Victoria alone homicides with firearms were up 300%. As people keep saying and people keep ignoring is that if law abiding citizens turned in their weapons, surprise criminals did not. Gun control will work about as well as banning drugs and underage drinking. . . .its going to happen no matter what law is put in place and the only people who are effected are the law abiding citizens.



And call me old school, but I also like to use multiple references before copying and pasting a skewed chart JD. At least you aren’t biased in your “research” at all. . .






When you look at the available 2016 FBI crime data with the breakdown by cities.

Looking at this data we have a homicide rate of about 3.9 per 100,000 citizens

You will find that 30% of the murders in the US are committed in cities that comprise 8.9% of the population, living in 15 cities. This is somewhat to be expected, the more densely populated an area the more murders in a given space.

These 15 cities are:

City Deaths % of national total
Chicago, IL 765 6.07%
New York, NY 335 2.66%
Baltimore, MD 318 2.52%
Detroit, MI 303 2.40%
Los Angeles, CA 293 2.39%
Philadelphia, PA 273 2.17%
Memphis, TN 196 1.56%
St. Louis, MO 188 1.49%
New Orleans, LA 174 1.38%
Dallas, TX 171 1.36%
Las Vegas, NV 158 1.25%
San Antonio, TX 149 1.18%
Indianapolis, IN 148 1.17%
Phoenix, AZ 146 1.16%

Total Deaths: 3,918

Taking these cities out of our homicide count, and total population we end up with a rate of 2.95 per 100,000. A change of 1 per 100,000.

Examining the data further:

The next 30 % of murders takes 74 cities, with 8.9% of the population.

Hummm, 30% of the murders, 8.9% of the population… Where did we see that number before….

That means that 60% of the murders occur with 17.8% of the population. This was 89 of the 9579 cities in the report.

Now, starting at the bottom:

7,655 cities reported NO murders. These represented 21.8% of the population.

The bottom 30% of murders in the United States came from 1755 cities. These represented 20.53% of the population.

So, there is a large swath of the country that is downright safe.

When you look at the top ten cities for deaths per 100,000 residents (in cities with >100,000 residents) we get some interesting numbers. In order these are:

St. Louis MO: 59.78
Baltimore, MD: 51.42
Detroit, MI: 45.25
New Orleans, LA: 43.81
Newark, NJ: 35.53
Cleveland, OH: 34.95
Jackson, MS: 34.10
Orlando, FL: 30.25
Memphis, TN: 28.96
North Charleston, SC: 28.96 (110,490 population, 32 murders)

Chicago comes in at #12: 28.07 (765 deaths with 2,725,153 population)

Ultimately, there are a wide range of places you will be incredibly safe. There are 8964 cities on the list with zero to two homicides, and another 317 with three, four, or five homicides in 2016. These had a total of 2,821 homicides with 38.45% of the population.

That leaves 298 cities for the remaining 9,780 homicides.

All in all, we are a rather safe country.

I think if anything the sad part is when these “events” occur they happen to be in places where its not common to hear about a shooting once a week or every day. People in the larger cities have just accepted it as part of life and relate it poverty/gangs/drugs/etc. The fact that Chicago is okay with losing nearly 2 people a day or just accepted as the norm IS the problem. As lame as it sounds its a head/heart issue and not a gun issue.

 

[simple]

. As lame as it sounds its a head/heart issue and not a gun issue.

Interesting interpretation of the data. So if it’s a head/heart problem, what’s your solution for something like that? Or are you happy enough with saying, it’s not guns... don’t touch the guns?

Vegas, Sandy Hook, Stoneman Douglas, Dallas, Boulder, and a ton of of other places that we no longer recognize or remember happened with legally purchased firearms. The ultra right likes to say, no gun law could have prevented this... isn’t that a problem?

 

[nevada]

Anyway, the larger point is that we don't even have a gun problem in the U.S. Look at the murder rates or violent crime rates between countries and you will see the U.S. is mid pack and below that of a few gun-regulating countries which isn't bad considering we don't live on an island, but right by Mexico, and have a range of culture and people. Every chart I have seen comparing violent crime/homicide was unaffected by bans of any type, in the U.K., U.S., and Australia.

correct.

just look at the sheer number of guns and gun owners. if we really truly had a gun problem, there would literally be blood flowing in the streets. we would have MUCH higher gun crime. statistically though, you are very unlikely to be shot in the US. its a number well below 1%.

 

[nevada]

Every chart I have seen comparing violent crime/homicide was unaffected by bans of any type, in the U.K., U.S., and Australia.

Here's one:

I bolded the important part, because apparently you missed it.

 

[nevada]

Interesting interpretation of the data. So if it’s a head/heart problem, what’s your solution for something like that? Or are you happy enough with saying, it’s not guns... don’t touch the guns?

Vegas, Sandy Hook, Stoneman Douglas, Dallas, Boulder, and a ton of of other places that we no longer recognize or remember happened with legally purchased firearms. The ultra right likes to say, no gun law could have prevented this... isn’t that a problem?

I don't have the time or patience to verify each of those stories, however on its face I don't think that's correct. im pretty sure at least one of those the guns were acquired via a crime. which leads me to the last part,


how would a gun law prevent someone who has already made the choice to commit murder? murder IS already illegal. its arguably one of the worst crimes, yet the fact that its illegal doesn't stop them from doing it...