More guns, more gun deaths

[brocktice]

I'm a scientifically-minded person, and it is an empirical fact that countries with more guns per capita have more gun deaths per capita, with the exception of Mexico. This makes sense to me. More guns around means more available to criminals (via theft), and more available to law-abiding citizens that turn criminal.

I'm a believer in the importance of the second amendment, and I don't think we need to revise it, but a lot of smart people whose opinions I generally respect do feel that way.

Is the higher rate of gun deaths simply the price we must pay for this freedom? Is it due to the gang violence in America that the numbers are so high? I'm looking for a way to understand this that will make an argument to rational people that we should not in fact infringe the second amendment, based on the desire for a society with less gun violence, not because it's written in the constitution. Am I looking in vain?

I understand based on what has happened in the UK since their handgun ban that such bans are not effective, and I'm quick to point that out to skeptics, but what about the argument that we shouldn't have the guns and the violence in the first place? Is there anything beside "look at the Bill of Rights" that can even be said, empirically, to such criticisms?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[BuckysGlock]

That may be true, but I believe we're way past the point of an all out gun ban in the US. I know it's been said a thousand times but criminals are going to get their hands on guns no matter what, and making it harder for law abiding citizens to obtain them is only going to make things worse.

[1911_Kimber]

When there are no guns, criminals and mentally disturbed people turn to other tools to do their bidding... Just take a look at what happen on China with the 20 stabbings.

Taking away guns does not remove the thoughts and urges of murderers. They are just going to use other means... I read on other posts that in some countries where guns are scarce they like to use pipe bombs and you read about suicide bombers in the news all the time... Would that be better for you?

[dben002]

"I'm a scientifically-minded person, and it is an empirical fact that countries with more guns per capita have more gun deaths per capita, with the exception of Mexico. This makes sense to me. More guns around means more available to criminals (via theft), and more available to law-abiding citizens that turn criminal."

Consider the original intent of 2A. What was known about weapons of the era? (flintlocks and muzzle loaders)..could the founders foreseen modern firearm technology....of course not....does 2A give us the rights to have APC's, and F-15's in the driveway, Motion detected, laser aimed machine gun bunkers around the property line.....don't think so......

It come's down to what is reasonable and sensible in the right to bear arms. The tragic events of the past few days has caused a re-examination of this question.

What the answer will come to be is not known, but what is known is that there is now a public outcry for change. And change will be forthcoming.

[brocktice]

When there are no guns, criminals and mentally disturbed people turn to other tools to do their bidding... Just take a look at what happen on China with the 20 stabbings.

I have pointed this out, and it has been pointed out to me in return that none of the 20 stabbed victims died. All of the victims at Sandy Hook died. It's not a robust line of reasoning, much as I would like it to be

Taking away guns does not remove the thoughts and urges of murderers. They are just going to use other means... I read on other posts that in some countries where guns are scarce they like to use pipe bombs and you read about suicide bombers in the news all the time... Would that be better for you?

Understood and agreed. And when you say 'would that be better for you' keep in mind that I'm on your side here. I am looking for tools and lines of thinking that will be useful when talking with people that do not agree with us.

[farronwolf]

You might want to read over this material. Your assumptions about the number of guns and the violence rate are incorrect.

http://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/...6_1_screen.pdf

[brocktice]

You might want to read over this material. Your assumptions about the number of guns and the violence rate are incorrect.

http://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/...6_1_screen.pdf

I'm not making assumptions, I can easily pull up charts that support what I'm saying. Thank you for posting that document, however. I'm going to give it a thorough read. That's the kind of thing I'm looking for.

Here's one sample.

[Piratesailor]

Explain Switzerland. EVERY household has a gun. They had 40 gun related deaths last year. They educate and train their population. Everyone knows that there is a gun in the house hence a lower total crime rate.

[brocktice]

Explain Switzerland. EVERY household has a gun. They had 40 gun related deaths last year. They educate and train their population. Everyone knows that there is a gun in the house hence a lower total crime rate.

If you look at the 'Here's one sample' link above you'll see Switzerland is next in line after the USA. I used to like the Switzerland argument. Not only do they have guns, they have ACTUAL assault rifles with select-fire. As to only 40 gun deaths, well, they're a very small country.

[ccw9mm]

I have yet to see an intelligent argument as to how "softening" a target can result in it being tougher to take down that target.

And I have yet to see anything that can explain how it's even remotely possible that, say, an elimination of defensive weaponry will stop the heavily-weaponed criminals who are perpetrating so much violence along the southern border of this country (namely, the cartel-fueled folks).

Any argument that can explain how disarmament can solve those two nuts might be an argument worth something. Until then, citizens don't have many effective options at being able to survive violent attacks against them, short of being armed. Has essentially always been true, and there's nothing I see that shows today's reality is any different.

[suntzu]

When there are no guns, criminals and mentally disturbed people turn to other tools to do their bidding... Just take a look at what happen on China with the 20 stabbings.

Taking away guns does not remove the thoughts and urges of murderers. They are just going to use other means... I read on other posts that in some countries where guns are scarce they like to use pipe bombs and you read about suicide bombers in the news all the time... Would that be better for you?

That is anecdotal and a real bad example. The counter arguement is if the man had access to a gun 20 kids would be dead, not injured. The fact is guns are efficient killing machines, more so than a knife if one wants to kill many people.

The rest of your argument is still not a good example to present to anti's. Folks in other countries turn to bombs because they plan on blowing people up and not committing robberies or domestic violence. You can not use that as an example. Are you seriously trying to say that if here were no guns then a robbery on the street will be done with a bomb instead? Come on. Don't bring up the couple of times someone put a bomb around someones neck to rob a bank. They used surrogates for that.

I am sure that most domestic violence incidents (done in the heat of the moment) will be accomplished with one of the partners going out to buy fertilizer.

BTW: One reason why explosives are used in other countries (IED's) is because it is advantage to use that as a weapon, more so than a gun. It has nothing to do with the lack of getting guns.

[NMB]

Based on the number of firearms in this country, if quantity had a direct correlation to violence, our numbers should be exponentially higher than they are.

Guns are not the catalyst for violence.

[brocktice]

I have yet to see an intelligent argument as to how "softening" a target can result in it being tougher to take down that target.

I'm sorry, can you explain what you mean?

And I have yet to see anything that can explain how it's even remotely possible that, say, an elimination of defensive weaponry will stop the heavily-weaponed criminals who are perpetrating so much violence along the southern border of this country (namely, the cartel-fueled folks).

Agreed.

Any argument that can explain how disarmament can solve those two nuts might be an argument worth something. Until then, citizens don't have many effective options at being able to survive violent attacks against them, short of being armed. Has essentially always been true, and there's nothing I see that shows today's reality is any different.

From NDAA.org: "Gangs are responsible for an average of 48 percent of violent crime in most jurisdictions, much higher in others, and they are increasingly beginning to engage in less visible crime, such as identity theft and human trafficking." I would love to see more solid numbers on how much of the gun deaths come from gang violence.

[onacoma]

Factoid:

In the US there are twice as many murders every year by drunk drivers than by handguns! Additionally, every years there are more murders by drunk drivers than by firearms!

Let band the weapon of choise for drunk drivers, i.e., the Cars and Trucks!

We can still get drunk but we can kill by staggering our way home!

[brocktice]

Based on the number of firearms in this country, if quantity had a direct correlation to violence, our numbers should be exponentially higher than they are.

Guns are not the catalyst for violence.

this chart seems to contradict that assertion.