HyperU2
War Child
Road rage I can understand.
I was referring to malls, movie theaters, in PA we can carry anywhere except for federal and state buildings though bars are discouraged for obvious reasons.
MERGED--> all Gun Control discussion
- Thread starter deep
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Road rage I can understand.
I was referring to malls, movie theaters, in PA we can carry anywhere except for federal and state buildings though bars are discouraged for obvious reasons.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Yes but you seem to overlook the point that certain populations are going to naturally have more crime. The density of populations in Montana are much different from Philly. The economics are different, there are so many factors. Just like college campuses.
HyperU2
War Child
But the presence of guns does not cause crime.
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
Because they're more likely to result in fatalities, you mean? Guns are the weapon used in 68% of US murders, far more than knives (12%), fists/kicks (6%), and "other" (14%--blunt object, poison, burning, strangling etc.). (That's FBI 2007 data.) It's extremely unlikely that our murder rate would remain as high as it is if it were harder to acquire handguns (used in 80% of firearms murders that same year).
Of course it's true that a major city is going to have a higher murder rate than Montana, but that doesn't mean its murder rate would remain the same without all the (hand)guns.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
You keep saying it.
We keep agreeing.
We state that the access to guns will increase the ease of use...
and you keep ignoring. If guns started to get controlled in the 70's we would have less guns in the hands of "law abiding" citizens and criminals right now.
Crime will continue to occur, no one is arguing against this... I just like my odds against a knife more than I do a gun.
HyperU2
War Child
Even in DC and Chicago where handguns were banned? There are already checks in place to acquire handguns, if only we had to worry about lawful gun owners.
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
Well, but obviously we also have to worry about unlawful gun owners--that's the problem with strictly local bans; people can get around them by smuggling in guns from other states/municipalities where no such purchase restrictions apply. As I posted earlier, by FBI/DoJ estimate around 40% of gun crimes are committed with illegally acquired guns, and presumably that figure would be higher in a high-crime area. But you can't toss all notion of guns making killing (too much) easier out the window just because the word 'criminal' is invoked; it doesn't follow that if someone is willing to murder at all, then they'd have murdered just as many with a knife.
The DC ban was implemented in 1975, Chicago's in 1982. The arrival of the crack cocaine epidemic in the late '80s-early '90s, right in the middle of those policies' tenure, makes easy conclusions about their effects difficult, since the resulting criminal 'business' opportunities obviously meant enhanced incentives to acquire guns illegally and there's really no way to know how things might (or might not) have been different had handguns also been locally--and legally--readily available. I haven't seen any data on homicide rates in those cities during the earlier, pre-crack-cocaine years immediately following the bans; I just know rates fell dramatically from the mid-90s through to the present (from 474 in 1990, to 181 in 2007 in DC's case; from 851 in 1990, to 442 in 2007 in Chicago's case). I'm also not sure to what extent those bans applied to poorly-regulated 'secondary market' sales (gun shows etc.)--which, again per FBI/DoJ estimate, are where some 45% of guns used in crimes are acquired.
The DC ban was implemented in 1975, Chicago's in 1982. The arrival of the crack cocaine epidemic in the late '80s-early '90s, right in the middle of those policies' tenure, makes easy conclusions about their effects difficult, since the resulting criminal 'business' opportunities obviously meant enhanced incentives to acquire guns illegally and there's really no way to know how things might (or might not) have been different had handguns also been locally--and legally--readily available. I haven't seen any data on homicide rates in those cities during the earlier, pre-crack-cocaine years immediately following the bans; I just know rates fell dramatically from the mid-90s through to the present (from 474 in 1990, to 181 in 2007 in DC's case; from 851 in 1990, to 442 in 2007 in Chicago's case). I'm also not sure to what extent those bans applied to poorly-regulated 'secondary market' sales (gun shows etc.)--which, again per FBI/DoJ estimate, are where some 45% of guns used in crimes are acquired.
Last edited:
HyperU2
War Child
If you drop a magic bomb eliminating guns in the US they will be as easy to acquire as illegal drugs. Gang bangers aren't going to go without. Even the UK has seen a rise in handgun crime after getting rid of private ownership, and they're an island. Our illegal guns will just walk over the border.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
As easy as illegal drugs? Doubt it. Not to say it would be impossible, but not even close to that easy... The how to and the space needed to smuggle drugs is much easier than guns and ammo. The number of guns manufactured in Mexico is pretty small. Plus the black market price would be much higher deterring your common thief or thug that can pick up a gun for $30 on the street now.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
A stor
Refugee
Or just a stone's trow drive for Marylanders. Just ask anyone of us. 90% of the murders occur in certain areas of Baltimore City. Doesn't take a genius to figure out why. Gangs, drugs and guns. Deadly combination.
HyperU2
War Child
Criminals killing other criminals is a whole other aspect. It's probably 45% of our murder rate.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
HyperU2
War Child
People want to ban guns because of shooting sprees, when it's the gang bangers doing the most homicides. People that will continue to have guns and kill each other after we're all disarmed. No, that's what I'd call a pretty good ballpark figure. (hence the probably) Nearly every inner city homicide in my general area is drug or turf related. And the inner cities are where the majority of our killings occur.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
People don't want to ban because of shooting sprees. People want to try and find a way to diminish homicides period. Some people by controlling those devices most used they may save some lives.
Personally, I would say that number is high, but honestly it's almost impossible to calculate. I'm not aware of anyone tracking down the criminal records of the dead.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
the iron horse
Rock n' Roll Doggie
I agree with you HyperU2,
The most gun related crimes in the US occur in the cities with the strictest gun laws and the most gang and drug problems. In countries with total bans, like the UK and Australia, gun crimes have increased.
I live in a rural area where all my neighbors have guns. We use them for hunting and varmits attacking the chicken house.
And copperhead or rattlesnakes snakes in the barn.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Yes let's ignore all the obvious factors and facts.
Let's see, of course more densely populated areas will have more violence.
Of course stricter gun laws aren't going to make that much of a difference when 15 miles away you can cross a city border and get a gun at the local Walmart.
The truth is out there.
Listen.
the iron horse
Rock n' Roll Doggie
"Let's see, of course more densely populated areas will have more violence."
It's not the numbers, it's the lack of morality.
What is right and what is wrong.
That's the problem.
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
The murder rate in the UK and Australia is still way lower than the US, surely?
Ya think it might be the guns? Just conceivably?
I tried to explain this to you before. Your rural values, although indeed admirable, just aren't relevant in big cities. The basement carpark in my apartment complex frequently gets broken into by local yobs trying to burglarise cars. What if they had guns?
the iron horse
Rock n' Roll Doggie
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
Is this proportionately higher or lower than the number of gun crimes committed in the US every day?
It is either one or the other. Which is it?
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
Re: gang-related homicides--
Based on DoJ data, for the period 1976-2005, gang-related homicides accounted for 69.3% of large-city homicides, 13.1% of small-city homicides,16.9% of suburban homicides, and 0.7% of rural homicides (I'm guessing they're using the Census Bureau urbanicity categories there). For that same period, 57.3% of all homicides occurred in large cities, 11.5% in small cities, 21.0% in suburban areas, and 10.2% in rural areas.
So...that works out to, what, 44.8% of all US homicides for 1976-2005 being gang-related? (If someone could check my math here that'd be great, as I'm severely sleep-deprived at the moment and was setting my equations up on autopilot.) While that probably would make it the largest homicide 'circumstance' category as defined by the DoJ, it still wouldn't be the majority of homicides.
Based on DoJ data, for the period 1976-2005, gang-related homicides accounted for 69.3% of large-city homicides, 13.1% of small-city homicides,16.9% of suburban homicides, and 0.7% of rural homicides (I'm guessing they're using the Census Bureau urbanicity categories there). For that same period, 57.3% of all homicides occurred in large cities, 11.5% in small cities, 21.0% in suburban areas, and 10.2% in rural areas.
So...that works out to, what, 44.8% of all US homicides for 1976-2005 being gang-related? (If someone could check my math here that'd be great, as I'm severely sleep-deprived at the moment and was setting my equations up on autopilot.) While that probably would make it the largest homicide 'circumstance' category as defined by the DoJ, it still wouldn't be the majority of homicides.
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
Much, much, much lower. In 2005, the most recent year for which I could easily find the relevant FBI data, a total of 433,650 gun crimes were committed (gun homicides + other violent crimes involving a gun--rape, robbery, assault). That works out to around 1188 gun crimes per day. And our population is only about 5 times the size of the UK's, so that's nowhere close to proportionately equal.
Last edited:
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Only if it were that simple...
Then we'd have a simple life and your simple answers would work.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
How do they define "gang-related"? Gang on gang, gang on non-gang, stray bullets?
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
The DoJ data was drawing from the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports database, which treats the "gang-related circumstance" category as a catchall for any homicide where the local police jurisdiction indicated "gang member involvement." There's no national standardized definition, because most states (and in some cases municipalities) have their own legal definitions of "gang" which their local police departments are required to use.
I'm still uncertain whether my math was correct there.
Last edited:
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
HyperU2
War Child
The UK's was lower even before the ban. Different culture. We've always had gangs.
Thanks for backing up my guess work.
It's not the majority but without that 45% our numbers equal other countries, despite all of our guns.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Thanks for backing up my guess work.
what's the conclusion your guess work has led you to?
Similar threads
