Guns Rarely Used to Kill Criminals ... 1 vs. 112

[kenny]

Per FBI data, for every criminal killed, by a private citizen with a gun, in the act of committing a felony 112 other non-criminals are killed by guns.

Quote, "In 2012, there were 8,855 criminal gun homicides in the FBI's homicide database, but only 258 gun killings by private citizens that were deemed justifiable, which the FBI defines as "the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen."


Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/19/guns-in-america-for-every-criminal-killed-in-self-defense-34-innocent-people-die/?tid=sm_fb


SNIP, "For every "justifiable' gun homicide in 2012 there were 34 criminal gun homicides, and 78 gun suicides."

Put another way, For every criminal killed in self-defense, 34 innocent people die and 78 die in gun suicides.

These numbers make a mockery out of people who see guns as appropriate for self defense.
Less than 1% of those killed by a gun were shot in legitimate self-defense.

It's time to change the US Constitution and take away all guns.
These data show how guns do WAY more harm to society than good ... 112 times.

 

[manderz]

So, I take it you are against hunting as well?

 

[jordyonbass]

The US needs similar laws to Australia for gun use although I am concerned that it may be too late. There's a bizarre misconception that guns are illegal to get in Australia, fact is that they aren't illegal BUT you will have to jump through many hoops, navigate endless red tape and at the end of the process you're left with a relatively small selection of weapons that you can legally buy. I'm all for hunting, vermin eradication and target practice - which is basically the only reasons gun owners in australia own a gun - but nobody owns one for self-defence and shouldn't have to IMO (with maybe the exception of police).

I don't believe that any person other than law enforcement should have access to hand guns and semi-automatic rifles.

 

[Dancing Fire]

The US needs similar laws to Australia for gun use although I am concerned that it may be too late. There's a bizarre misconception that guns are illegal to get in Australia, fact is that they aren't illegal BUT you will have to jump through many hoops, navigate endless red tape and at the end of the process you're left with a relatively small selection of weapons that you can legally buy. I'm all for hunting, vermin eradication and target practice - which is basically the only reasons gun owners in australia own a gun - but nobody owns one for self-defence and shouldn't have to IMO (with maybe the exception of police).

I don't believe that any person other than law enforcement should have access to hand guns and semi-automatic rifles.

I'd agree, now all we needed to do here in the U.S. is to convince the criminals.

 

[arkieb1]

This is totally true farmers in Australia, people that belong to gun clubs all have licenses and legally own registered guns. Taking specific types of guns off the streets and making them harder to get for people that do not need to have them really does lower gun related crime.

 

[the_mother_thing]

I'd agree, now all we needed to do here in the U.S. is to convince the criminals.

Exactly! That is THE fact always left out of gun debates - that the people who perpetrate these heinous acts are CRIMINALS, and they almost always possess/acquire the gun illegally, and will always find a way to get them regardless of whatever laws or bans are put in place. No gun goes out and commits these acts of violence on its own - it's the criminal who pulls the trigger. If criminals respected laws, we wouldn't need police, prosecutors or prisons.

Until that happens, I am not inclined to put myself on UNeven footing in the face of a criminal wishing to do me or my family harm by giving up my rights to defend my family with a firearm, which IMO is as "at the core of human rights" as any other, if not more. I can't pursue life, liberty or happiness, practice free speech or my religion of choice, love who I want regardless of gender, etc, if I am dead because a criminal chose to take my life.

I WOULD like to see a tougher, "highway to hell" approach for criminals who use firearms in the commission of a crime. Make the punishments for neglectful owners or illegal firearm possession (felons, etc) stiffer, take the insanity defense off the table for murderers, etc. And increase access to mental healthcare for people needing help.

But don't punish me - a responsible gun owner & law abiding citizen - because someone else chooses a different & destructive path in life.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Per FBI data, for every criminal killed, by a private citizen with a gun, in the act of committing a felony 112 other non-criminals are killed by guns.

Quote, "In 2012, there were 8,855 criminal gun homicides in the FBI's homicide database, but only 258 gun killings by private citizens that were deemed justifiable, which the FBI defines as "the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen."


Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/19/guns-in-america-for-every-criminal-killed-in-self-defense-34-innocent-people-die/?tid=sm_fb


SNIP, "For every "justifiable' gun homicide in 2012 there were 34 criminal gun homicides, and 78 gun suicides."

Put another way, For every criminal killed in self-defense, 34 innocent people die and 78 die in gun suicides.

These numbers make a mockery out of people who see guns as appropriate for self defense.
Less than 1% of those killed by a gun were shot in legitimate self-defense.

It's time to change the US Constitution and take away all guns.
These data show how guns do WAY more harm to society than good ... 112 times.

First, guns don't do harm; people do. Secondly, statistics are like salad ... You can toss them a hundred different ways to make them prove your point. For example, what would that 8,855 homocide rate be if NOT for those 258 justifiable killings? How many people would the dead felons have killed if not taken out but the armed citizen? The family of the person who killed them, a convenience store clerk, a couple bank employees, former coworkers, a theater full of teens on a Saturday night, a school filled with children and teachers, or perhaps a church full of people practicing their religious freedom peacefully via prayer group on a week night?

 

[momhappy]

Taking away guns won't solve the problem. Period. And that's the end of my participation in this thread.

 

[arkieb1]

We had the same arguments from everyone here in Australia as well, that criminals will still have guns etc. But you know what, taking away the guns from everyone and then making it harder for decent people to access them and even harder for non decent people to access them really does drive down rates of gun related crimes.

You have gun ownership ingrained in your national psyche. Many view it as their individual right to have guns. Nothing will ever change until you realise changing the laws relating to guns for the benefit of all is more powerful than the right of one individual to own a gun.

But we have had this argument on here before gun owners will still want to be gun owners until their children, grandchildren or someone close to them is shot by someone and then they will still say if they had a gun they could have defended/protected that person. It's a highly emotionally charged irrational debate.

 

[House Cat]

Guns kill people.

Let's be clear, guns kill people.

A person alone, with their finger in the air can only say "bang bang." A person with a gun is a killing machine.

Guns kill people. So stop playing with words. We are all smarter than this.

I am tired of the same old rhetoric and I am ready for an intelligent conversation. How about this, you tell me how you can justify in your mind keeping the very killing machine that mows down our babies in school on a regular basis just for the sake of your false security or fantasies of vigilanteism? What is real: mass quantities of children being murdered in their own schools, kids being mowed down in movie theaters, college students being killed on campus, parishioners being killed in church, mass shootings are real and done with legally obtained firearms in most situations. What isn't real: fantasies of protecting yourself or others with your firearm. That is media propaganda that the NRA loves to push. When do we hear about citizens protecting themselves or others with their guns? Once in a BLUE MOON? We aren't hearing about this half as much as when a very REAL MASS SHOOTING occurs. Why? Because people protecting themselves and others with guns isn't happening.

So once again, how do you justify the murders of our most innocent for your right to carry your firearm? Because you need to justify it. You need to tell me how my son's life is less important than yours. You need to tell me how your old self, life lived self, is more important than my 10-year-old who hasn't done anything yet. Even on a moral level, this is wrong. You aren't more important than our young. Yet, each time I hear someone argue for their right to bear arms, what I hear is that they are willing to sacrifice however many children it takes in order to preserve this "right" and that disgusts me.

 

[NOYFB]

Taking away guns won't solve the problem. Period. And that's the end of my participation in this thread.

+1

 

[the_mother_thing]

HC: It's your choice to not own a firearm if you dont want to have one. But lets be real - a person with a rock, machete, car, knife, wrench, baseball bat, can of gasoline, tennis racket, candlestick holder or fireplace poker can also kill someone, yet none of those items are banned, nor generate mass protest when used as weapons. I don't need to argue my right to bear arms and protect my family ... it IS my right, so says our constitution. And it's your right to not own one. But I am no threat to you or your children; criminals are.

And if we as a society are going to increase personal choice and 'access' to things that others may not believe in or agree with under the premise it's "their right", trying to take one of my rights away just because you dont like it is nothing short of hypocritical. That's up there with religions opposed to same sex marriage (which FTR I do NOT oppose) because they feel threatened by it somehow. My owning a gun does not preclude anyone from their rights because I am a responsible, sane, law abiding citizen and gun owner. It's the criminal whack jobs with no regard for laws, bans, and gun free zones who you should worry about. Heck, meth is against the law and banned as well, yet people are cooking it up in mass quantities and selling it to our kids. Where's the public outcry about that?

And with that, I too will step away from this topic. It's pretty clear where I stand on the topic.

 

[kenny]

So, I take it you are against hunting as well?

I'm against hunting humans.

I realize the vast majority of gun owners are good responsible people.
But, as with many things, it's the few bad apples who ruin it for all of us.

 

[House Cat]

HC: It's your choice to not own a firearm if you dont want to have one. But lets be real - a person with a rock, machete, car, knife, wrench, baseball bat, can of gasoline, tennis racket, candlestick holder or fireplace poker can also kill someone, yet none of those items are banned, nor generate mass protest when used as weapons. I don't need to argue my right to bear arms and protect my family ... it IS my right, so says our constitution. And it's your right to not own one. But I am no threat to you or your children; criminals are.

And if we as a society are going to increase personal choice and 'access' to things that others may not believe in or agree with under the premise it's "their right", trying to take one of my rights away just because you dont like it is nothing short of hypocritical. That's up there with religions opposed to same sex marriage (which FTR I do NOT oppose) because they feel threatened by it somehow. My owning a gun does not preclude anyone from their rights because I am a responsible, sane, law abiding citizen and gun owner. It's the criminal whack jobs with no regard for laws, bans, and gun free zones who you should worry about. Heck, meth is against the law and banned as well, yet people are cooking it up in mass quantities and selling it to our kids. Where's the public outcry about that?

And with that, I too will step away from this topic. It's pretty clear where I stand on the topic.

Yes, there are many mass killings of children with rocks and candlesticks in this nation. It is very possible to hurl mass quantities of wrenches in a projectile manner at people in a movie theater so as to kill 15 of them before they are able to run for their lives. More rhetoric.

And I see that my question still remains unanswered, as it always does by the people who believe their gun rights supersede our children's right to safely attend school.

Edit: I would like to add that a majority of the shooters in mass shootings used LEGALLY OBTAINED FIREARMS. This means that they could be classified as "responsible gun owners" up until the moment that they chose not to be.

 

[kenny]

Taking away guns won't solve the problem. Period. And that's the end of my participation in this thread.

Wrong.
If you somehow do a good enough job of removing guns ... there won't be guns.
No guns = No shootings.

It won't be easy.
It'll take forever.
It'll raise a sh!tstorm.
They'll never get every last gun.
But we must start.

Other countries have pulled it off and their gun violence plummeted.

 

[House Cat]

Taking away guns won't solve the problem. Period. And that's the end of my participation in this thread.

Wrong.
If you somehow do a good enough job of removing guns ... there won't be guns.
No guns = No shootings.

It won't be easy.
It'll take forever.
It'll raise a sh!tstorm.
They'll never get every last gun.
But we must start.

Other countries have pulled it off and their gun violence plummeted.

Agree

 

[distracts]

Taking away guns won't solve the problem. Period. And that's the end of my participation in this thread.

Wrong.
If you somehow do a good enough job of removing guns ... there won't be guns.
No guns = No shootings.

It won't be easy.
It'll take forever.
It'll raise a sh!tstorm.
They'll never get every last gun.
But we must start.

Other countries have pulled it off and their gun violence plummeted.

This.

My husband and I do own guns. Both of us still support gun restrictions or entire bans or WHATEVER is necessary, even if that meant we would no longer be able to own guns. He enjoys hunting and I enjoy shooting targets (and the fruits - or meats - of his hunting) but those are easy things to give up in order to save lives. We do have handguns but they are locked away in a safe I don't know the combination to because I have been suicidal in the past and those are... idk... low-hanging "kill yourself" fruit, you know? Everything else is harder to kill yourself with and takes more thought and planning and that's usually enough time to talk yourself out of it. I haven't been suicidal in a long time but I'm terrified that I might be one day when the handgun is easily accessible, because I could easily do it before I had time to talk myself out of it. All I ever need, really, is thirty seconds to think to myself and then call my psychologist, but with a loaded gun in easy reach I could kill myself before I stop and think, you know? At least in my experience, being suicidal is a momentary bout of craziness that only lasts for a minute and then goes away, and the key is to not have anything on hand that you can kill yourself with in under a minute! I don't think my husband ever seriously thought about guns with respect to suicides until he started dating me, and he's only gone through one time of me being that bad (most of them were in high school, which is long past, thank god), but it really changed his mind from thinking "if someone wants to kill themselves, they'll do it no matter what" to understanding that you're just totally disconnected from reality in that moment but once you come back to it you're glad you didn't do anything rash.

 

[distracts]

Hilarious video - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/19/an-australian-stand-up-comic-explains-what-u-s-gun-laws-look-like-to-the-rest-of-the-world/?postshare=1431434829369984

 

[Asscherhalo_lover]

I live in NY. Strict gun control here, especially in NYC where I work. There are shootings in the neighborhood where I work at least weekly. Children die. Bystanders die. Police are killed. Crimes do not get solved. Often. I am all for NO GUNS AT ALL. My family is a family of hunters. You wanna hunt? Use a bow and arrow. Hunting is not a legitimate reason for children to die walking across the street or people taking a bath to be shot and killed through their window.

 

[arkieb1]

Your right to keep and bear arms comes originally comes from your constitution adopted on December the 15th 1791, precursory wording came from the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 and before that it was reconstituted from part the English bill of rights from 1689 which allowed Protestants the right to bear arms.

Historically people were given these rights to fight the oppression from in England Kings and for back then fairly meagre self defence. If you trace the history of the American Constitution the right to bear arms stems from wanting to break free from English oppression and rule, to and I quote "form a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state."

Back in 1776 people didn't own semi automatic weapons, they didn't belong to gangs where it's every day practise to commit drive by shootings for fun and mostly they didn't own anything more than one or two slow firing fairly primitive guns.

Ironically England where many of your (and might I add many of Australian laws) come from no longer legally allows it's citizens the right to keep or bear arms. The possession of guns is now restricted and legally controlled by the government in England and Australia.

When this happened, yes there was a big outcry in Australia. Lots and lots of people didn't like this, they used all the same arguments the pro gun people do in the US. England and Australia got rid of automatic and semi automatic weapons without special provision to have them. They made guns generally harder to access. But what you are all missing is that you can still own a gun here. My nephew owns a gun, he grew up in a rural environment and likes to go hunting whenever he can. In fact I think he has a couple of guns, they are all registered.

To own a gun here you have to be a law abiding citizen with no criminal record. If you own a gun you have a permit, your guns are registered on a database and you can hunt in rural areas legally or go to a gun range.

So what I don't get is that if you are a law abiding citizen why this is so difficult. You can still own certain types of guns if you wish and if you do the right thing. Yes it's a long hard road to remove most of the guns from a society. But in every other country it has been effective in reducing gun related crime.

Last time we had this debate here people argued, if you remove the guns then other crimes will go up and they gave a whole heap of statistics to prove this. So what? I'd rather take my chances with a guy that breaks into my house with a knife than a gun any day. I'd rather if someone is going to be a nut and walk into a school my kids go to with a knife than a gun any day. The reason? You can take out far less people and do far less damage with one knife than one gun especially when we are talking automatic and semi automatic weapons.

No one is saying if you have no criminal record you can't have guns. Have your guns, hell have 10 of them. What we are talking about is a national gun register, the complete banning of certain types of guns, getting all guns from people who have committed crimes off the streets, if they buy or make illegal guns you keep taking them away until there aren't any or it's so hard for them to get them they have to resort to either forgetting about it or choosing less deadly weapons.

It's a 200+ year outdated right deeply ingrained in your culture that needs to be changed. Will this eliminate all crime? No it won't. Will it reduce the number of mass shootings? Statistically it will. Will it reduce the amount of people killed accidentally or intentionally by guns? Statistically it will. Will it make your society better because of it? It did for mine, so I believe it can for yours as well.

 

[DNB]

Guns are not the issue.

How about a car?
http://www.people.com/article/Austrian-car-crash-kills-3

 

[packrat]

hahahahahahahahha

is all she could think to say.

it is an impossibility to get rid of all guns. ALL GUNS. If they're in Greece, they can find a way here. If they're in Portugal, they can find a way here. If they're at the North Pole, they will be here. they come across our borders every *day*. That's a fact, Jack. It's also a fact that there is no way to get ALL guns from ALL people. It is an impossibility. Is JD going to be w/out a gun on duty, trying to take a gun from the drug dealer that does in fact carry illegally, and does in fact live about 6 blocks from us? I'm pretty sure *he* won't be standing in line to turn his weapon(s) in. Or the man who just this past October had the town in a tizzy, demanding "suicide by cop" and was in fact shooting at our officers, one of whom happened to be my husband, who did in fact feel the air as the bullet zinged over the top of his head? *He* wouldn't be standing in line next to *me* to turn my firearms in, which I would do as a law abiding citizen.

Please let's not act like taking firearms away from those who do use them responsibly is going to solve the world's problems. It's not. We're looking at people who have a blatant disregard for human life-I'm pretty sure they're not going to give a shit what the rules are, what the regulations are, what the laws are. Go ahead and make it harder for me to have a firearm. I don't care-make it take four months. But don't act like that four months it takes *me* to go legal routes is going to change the fact that if I wanted it illegally, I could get it in four days.

 

[arkieb1]

And how many people use cars statistically like that in the last 10 years in one country compared to guns in the last 10 years the US?

I agree you will never get rid of all guns, but if you get rid of most of them and specifically certain types of them altogether it would be a really good start. I am under no delusions that it would be a long, difficult and unpopular process for you but long term it will be worth it.

It probably doesn't matter it will be years before one of your politicians has the balls to do something about it.

 

[kenny]

Guns are not the issue.

How about a car?
http://www.people.com/article/Austrian-car-crash-kills-3

We're all going to die eventually, so guns and cars are not the issue.

 

[arkieb1]

Security guards and people who have jobs doing things like that are allowed to have guns with permits here so what you are saying isn't what happens.

Your boarder security could screen for guns and confiscate any guns or anything that looks like parts of weapons just as ours do. Ours deal with people trying to import whole guns, parts to make guns both homemade and these days parts made with 3D printers. They don't find everything but they find a lot of it, confiscate it, destroy it and then both fine and give people jail sentences. They recently raided specific gangs across 3 states and confiscated and destroyed and jailed members of specific gangs for gun and drug possession.

It's a long road but if you don't start somewhere how much worse is it going to get. Stating a problem is too hard is not going to make the problem go away nor is it going to begin to fix it.

 

[packrat]

We don't have border security for a very large portion of our border-that's a huge issue right there. And there's plenty of people who can cross the border and smuggle things back in even crossing border security-heck people smuggle *people* across the border, much less a handgun.

I'm not saying nothing should be done, I just think we're looking at things that are too far out of reach, and we're pinning all our hopes and dreams on a pie in the sky, while real causes/issues are sliding under the radar. Something needs to be done, for sure. Responsible gun owners get that-what we don't get is how to get everyone on board for a workable solution. All the interim solutions seem to involve Suzy Homemaker who likes to go out target shooting w/her husband, turning in her shotgun, while drug dealers are by default allowed to keep theirs. (cuz who's going to take them, really?)

And nobody can keep their ears from ringing from the war drums on *both* extremes. Again, that us v them mentality that gets us nowhere, but that an increasingly vast majority seem to get off on.

ETA just from my own personal experience, JD has worked for the department for 3 years. There has not been ONE DAY since he started-not ONE single solitary day that he hasn't had a phone call while off duty, had to leave to do surveillance, or the shit hits the fan (as mentioned before-he was on vacation at that time), been called out after his shift, or before his shift, etc etc-shit we were on vacation last week in a different *state* and we were out in the boat fishing and he was fielding phone calls from the department, the sheriff's department, attorneys, judges-good lord it's insane. Departments aren't given budgets to add the officers needed to add in this sort of patrol-they're stretched so thin as it is. If people want these kinds of measures to happen, they've got to be willing to pay for it.

 

[arkieb1]

I think Packrat you and I agree. I am not saying ban every single gun we both know that is never going to happen - but start regulating everything. Ban certain types of guns not all guns. If you need better boarder security then start educating, training and employing young people or people out of work (many of whom are desperate, poor and have to resort to crime) into more jobs on boarders, patrolling and policing. Target gangs and remove as many guns from criminals as possible, make it harder for them to access and get them.

I don't blame the average American for your problems at all and I feel really sorry for people that work on the front line that risk their lives day in day out for everyone else - your politicians are mostly too spineless to step up and do something about better gun laws. We all know it needs to be done. Many know the steps to getting it done too, but they don't have political fortitude to get on and do it.

 

[Tekate]

+1 and more! gun control.

 

[Tekate]

Yes ArkieB we DO have guns in our national psyche.. I have no clue why.. Guns DO kill people.. if a person has no gun then they are going to have to hit, stab, strangle.. the possibility of getting a way or surviving is higher. For me, it's just sad and makes us look as though the whole country is full of thugs. But then again, we are backwards in a lot of things.

 

[yssie]

HC: It's your choice to not own a firearm if you dont want to have one. But lets be real - a person with a rock, machete, car, knife, wrench, baseball bat, can of gasoline, tennis racket, candlestick holder or fireplace poker can also kill someone, yet none of those items are banned, nor generate mass protest when used as weapons. I don't need to argue my right to bear arms and protect my family ... it IS my right, so says our constitution. And it's your right to not own one. But I am no threat to you or your children; criminals are.

And if we as a society are going to increase personal choice and 'access' to things that others may not believe in or agree with under the premise it's "their right", trying to take one of my rights away just because you dont like it is nothing short of hypocritical. That's up there with religions opposed to same sex marriage (which FTR I do NOT oppose) because they feel threatened by it somehow. My owning a gun does not preclude anyone from their rights because I am a responsible, sane, law abiding citizen and gun owner. It's the criminal whack jobs with no regard for laws, bans, and gun free zones who you should worry about. Heck, meth is against the law and banned as well, yet people are cooking it up in mass quantities and selling it to our kids. Where's the public outcry about that?

And with that, I too will step away from this topic. It's pretty clear where I stand on the topic.

Yes, there are many mass killings of children with rocks and candlesticks in this nation. It is very possible to hurl mass quantities of wrenches in a projectile manner at people in a movie theater so as to kill 15 of them before they are able to run for their lives. More rhetoric.

And I see that my question still remains unanswered, as it always does by the people who believe their gun rights supersede our children's right to safely attend school.

Edit: I would like to add that a majority of the shooters in mass shootings used LEGALLY OBTAINED FIREARMS. This means that they could be classified as "responsible gun owners" up until the moment that they chose not to be.

+1, +1, +1...

The errant knife is actually a very good example:

In late 2014 a man in China attacked a school with a knife. He stabbed eight people, including the teacher, then took his own life. Three of those children died.

In late 2014 a man in the USA attacked a school with a gun. He shot and killed twenty six students and teachers, then took his own life.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Knives don't kill people, people kill people.


Two constitutional rights are subject to revocation during a state of National Emergency per the National Emergency Act - neither of them is the right to bear arms, and given our national preoccupation with preserving this particular right, I'm confident it never will be.

Take two line-ups:
A) Legally-owned hunting rifle, legally-owned handgun, legally-owned handgun, legally-owned hunting rifle, no gun, illegally-owned handgun, legally-owned handgun.
B) Legally-owned hunting rifle, no gun, no gun, legally-owned hunting rifle, no gun, illegally-owned handgun, no gun.
That illegally-owned handgun sticks out like a sore thumb in lineup (B) - it is, quite obviously, much easier to spot it, and therefore do something about it!! Is it foolproof? No. Will it stop all criminals from obtaining and using illegally-accessed and illegally-owned firearms? No. But it sure will make the trainwreck that is our current national situation a whole heck of a lot better.

I do support private ownership of hunting tools, including rifles, if the owner can establish a sustenance-based need for ownership. Yes - more legislation and more red-tape... and yes, I think there must be a need - if your hobby is wielding devices that serve absolutely no purpose besides killing other creatures, that's most definitely not a need...