• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing gun violence/injury thread

I will add that there are four states that are constitutional carry, 37 states that are shall issue, and 56% of us live in those 41 states. However, 70% of firearm homicides occur in 3% of counties in the US. Off the top of my head, some of those counties are Cook IL, Baltimore MD, and Los Angeles CA. The US population has increased, concealed carry has increased by state, yet violent crime has dropped. One may argue correlation and causation, but surely the increase in firearm ownership has not increased violent crime.
 
Last edited:
""Crime is down in the city of Los Angeles for the 10th straight year,” L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said at a press conference called to tout the new numbers. “Now this is an extraordinary achievement. It's a testament to the tireless work of our law enforcement officers in conjunction with citizens who care about their communities and the quality of life.”
Overall, violent crime fell by 8.3 percent, with the number of murders remaining low. Just 20 years ago there were 1,092 murders in Los Angeles. In 2012, the city recorded just 298."

The murder rate in LA has fallen by more than 70% over the past twenty years. It has nothing to do with concealed or any other kind of carry rate.

According to the CDC there were 11,078 homicides by firearm. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

Even if 100% of the murders in LA were by firearms, it wouldn't be as many 3% of the national total.

But keep making shit up out of thin air. Some people will believe your BS.
 
Last edited:
Of course not. CA is not one of the 41 states listed. My point was that violent crime has not increased yet firearm ownership has. Concealed carry has increased by state.

The murder rate in LA has fallen by more than 70% over the past twenty years. It has nothing to do with concealed or any other kind of carry rate.

I will let you parse that statement...
 
The difference is a car isn't designed to kill people. It does so if operated improperly. A gun kills people by design.


Mine must defective then, because no person has died while any were in my hand. Some birds, squirrels, rabbits and deer have made a trip to my plate because of them, but that is it. Maybe the handful of WWII era guns I own might have been used to deal with an enemy, but I do not know that.

And for cars malfunctioning and/or being safe, you do know that the CDC reports that deaths due to alcohol related auto accidents is higher that firearms homicides, right?

And for the guy with the neck tattoo, WTF...

American Gun Deaths to Exceed Traffic Fatalities by 2015
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...ths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html

It also defeats the spin that more guns equals more crime...

You are accepting that 11,000 gun deaths a year is acceptable. As with traffic fatalities, safety regulations will dramatically reduce gun fatalities.
 
I will add that there are four states that are constitutional carry, 37 states that are shall issue, and 56% of us live in those 41 states. However, 70% of firearm homicides occur in 3% of counties in the US. Off the top of my head, some of those counties are Cook IL, Baltimore MD, and Los Angeles CA. The US population has increased, concealed carry has increased by state, yet violent crime has dropped. One may argue correlation and causation, but surely the increase in firearm ownership has not increased violent crime.

Firearm ownership has come down over the past 30 years as I recall.
 
From The Atlantic-

"5 percent: America's population relative to the world population.

50 percent: Amount of the guns on Earth owned by Americans, CNN reports.

Decreasing: The number of Americans who own guns. John Sides posts the graph at right, based on data from Gallup and the General Social Survey, showing the decline.

Increasing: The number of guns those American gun owners have.

18 percentage points: Amount the share of households who own guns decreased from 1973 to 2010. Three decades ago, 50 percent of households owned guns, in 2010, just 32 percent do,, according to University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center.

65 percent: The portion of guns in America owned by just 20 percent of gun owners. When we debate gun control, there is the inevitable claim that gun ownership is a cherished tradition held by a vast portion of the country. For an example of this, here's a National Review editorial making that case Monday. But the portion of Americans who own a whole bunch of guns is actually pretty small."

What it shows is the percentage of people owning guns is falling.
 
I will add that there are four states that are constitutional carry, 37 states that are shall issue, and 56% of us live in those 41 states. However, 70% of firearm homicides occur in 3% of counties in the US. Off the top of my head, some of those counties are Cook IL, Baltimore MD, and Los Angeles CA. The US population has increased, concealed carry has increased by state, yet violent crime has dropped. One may argue correlation and causation, but surely the increase in firearm ownership has not increased violent crime.

I think it is fairly clear that concealed carry laws do not increase violent crime (i.e. the fears of gun-toting cowboys settling their disputes with concealed weapons are overblown). The link between gun ownership and ALL violent crime is not clear, but it is fairly clear that increased gun ownership correlates with increased gun deaths (from crime, accident, and suicide). I'm too lazy to go back and find it but someone posted a table many, many pages ago showing a pretty straightforward correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths on a state to state basis.

The whole thing is a mixed bag, which is why there should be more high-quality research done on the issue - and that research should be eligible for government funding on the same basis as any other public-health research.
 
"Back in 1996, Congress worked with the National Rifle Association to enact a law banning CDC funding for any research to “advocate or promote gun control.” Technically speaking, that wasn’t a ban on all gun research, but the law was vague enough that the centers shied away from the topic altogether. Funding for gun-violence research by the Centers for Disease Control dropped from $2.5 million per year in the early 1990s to a mere $100,000 per year today.
Since federal funding was the primary source of support for gun-violence research, the entire field withered as a result. Gun studies as a percentage of peer-reviewed research dropped 60 percent since 1996. Right now, there are only about a dozen researchers in the country whose primary focus is on preventing gun violence — despite the fact that more than 30,000 Americans were killed by guns in 2011.
The list of simple things that existing gun-violence research can’t answer is quite striking. Over at Atlantic Cities, Emily Badger tallies up some very basic questions that we still don’t know the answers to (below is just a partial list, and I’ve added a few from here and here, but you should read her full post):
*How many guns actually exist in the United States?
*How do guns get into the hands of people who commit crimes?
*What percentage of gun owners even commit gun crimes?
*Is there a relationship between gun ownership levels and crime?
*Are criminals deterred by guns?
*Do limits on high-capacity magazines reduce the number of deaths?
*Does firearm licensing and registration make people safer?
*How do gun thefts affect crime rates?
*Does gun ownership affect whether people commit suicide?
*What’s the best way to restrict firearm access to those with severe mental illnesses?
*Why do gun accidents occur? Who’s involved?"
 
^yes, that is what I was referencing.

Amazing that gun deaths are on a trend to exceed auto deaths, and less than a dozen scholars are on the case to study why.

Wonder how many people are full time employed to study auto safety. It's probably in the thousands between the public and private sector.
 
On the other hand, all Bloomberg needs to do is put out a call for proposals.
 
Gun ownership is not a disease, unless you're so anti-gun that you consider gun owners to be afflicted upstairs. Hence, the CDC should not be funding gun studies.
 
Gun ownership is not a disease, unless you're so anti-gun that you consider gun owners to be afflicted upstairs. Hence, the CDC should not be funding gun studies.

When I say "the score on this game has really blown up", my 8 year old thinks it is clever to say "Dad said the game has blown up!" and makes explosion sounds. This argument is the political version of that.

Obviously the CDC and its many subagencies study, and provide grants to study, all kinds of public health issues that are not diseases, and the federal government funds all kinds of research in all kinds of fields through the Department of Health and other agencies. Making an argument based on the name of an agency is about as weak as it gets. The Secret Service (part of Treasury Department) doesn't have "protect the president" in its name.

Cue the next two tea party arguments, which are "the government is too big and shouldn't be doing all this research", and "it doesn't say anything in teh constitution about research". I just went down this rabbit hole with a gun nut on facebook yesterday. 'Murica.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ONW
just because I know it will drive the Tea Partiers nuts, here's the org chart of the DHHS. You can pick which agency you want to do the gun research. :D

orgchart041612.jpg
 
^yes, that is what I was referencing.

Amazing that gun deaths are on a trend to exceed auto deaths, and less than a dozen scholars are on the case to study why.

Wonder how many people are full time employed to study auto safety. It's probably in the thousands between the public and private sector.

So, I post some stats from the BJS, someone else posts stats from Bloomberg that include suicides, and you take that as gospel? As Cris Carter would say, come on, man...
 
Back
Top