Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
13,266
http://news.yahoo.com/firearms-statistics-gun-control-advocates-don-t-want-194040384.html

To accompany TheBlaze's coverage of the National Rifle Association's annual meeting in Houston, we figured it could be helpful to share some gun statistics pointed out to us by some of the NRA Convention attendees. Forget the talking points used by both sides in the gun control debate; we're going to be talking about verified statistics.

Gun control advocates be advised, these are not the statistics you are looking for.

According to data from the FBI's uniform crime reports, California had the highest number of gun murders in 2011 with 1,220 -- which makes up 68 percent of all murders in the state that year and equates to 3.25 murders per 100,000 people.

The irony of such a grisly distinction is evident when you look at which state was named the state with the strongest gun control laws in 2011 by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. You guessed it -- it was California.

"What is very unusual is that California also has a program by which we can remove guns, recover guns from people who have a gun and then subsequently become prohibited or dangerous," Brady Campaign spokeswoman Amanda Wilcox said at the time.

It should be noted, though, that California is also one of the biggest states in the country, with a population of about about 37 million. Therefore, it might make sense that it would have a high number of murders but its murder rate is still high as gun control has had a seemingly inconsequential impact. In comparison, Texas has a population of about 25.6 million and saw 699 total gun murders in 2011 -- nearly half that of California -- and a firearms murder rate of 2.91 per 100,000.

In 2011, Utah, the state that the Brady Campaign determined had the least gun control, experienced just 26 gun murders and a firearms murder rate of 0.97. Utah has a population 2.8 million.

But if you look at the data another way -- murders per 100,000 people -- another gun control haven tops the list.

The FBI data also notes that Washington, D.C. had the highest murder rate per 100,000 people. The nation's capital saw 12 gun murders per 100,000 in 2011. DC also finished first in gun-related robberies per 100,000 people - with 242.56.

In 1976, the District of Columbia required all guns be registered, banned new handguns and required guns at home to be stored and dissembled or locked up. Unfortunately, the draconian measures -- which lasted more than three decades -- didn't had the desired effect.

Journalist and attorney Jeffrey Scott Shapiro explains the not-so-surprising result in an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal on Jan. 15, 2013:

The gun ban had an unintended effect: It emboldened criminals because they knew that law-abiding District residents were unarmed and powerless to defend themselves. Violent crime increased after the law was enacted, with homicides rising to 369 in 1988, from 188 in 1976 when the ban started. By 1993, annual homicides had reached 454.
[...]
Since the gun ban was struck down, murders in the District have steadily gone down, from 186 in 2008 to 88 in 2012, the lowest number since the law was enacted in 1976.


Though it should be noted that the gun murders started decreasing in 1994.

Today, Washington, D.C. still has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. And yet again, the gun murder rate remains dramatically high, the highest in the United States in fact.

So, do the numbers indicate that gun control is the answer to gun violence? You decide.
 

argatoga

Can't Start His Wank
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
18,204
Location
Seattle
Car(s)
'13 Moto Guzzi V7, '08 Pontiac Solstice GXP
That logic is the biggest fallacy of all. You shouldn't ban something because criminals will still do it anyway? And unless you cannot solve a problem completely in one go, you shouldn't even start trying?

Would you please name the logical fallacy being committed by name?
 

Blind_Io

"Be The Match" Registered
DONOR
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
22,957
Location
Utah, Banana Republic
Car(s)
06 XTerra, '00 VFR800, '07 ST1300, '11 Multistrada
Yeah, I'm curious too.

The difference is that criminal acts (behavior) is already illegal. It is already illegal to kill someone; so why do we need to make an object illegal when the bad things the object can be used for are already illegal? I have a SOG tomahawk (weapon), it is illegal to attack someone with it but the weapon itself is not illegal. I can use it in knife throwing competitions, or for fun, or defense - just like a gun. Without criminal intent, it is just an object - just like a gun.

A gun is a force equalizer and is used by people obeying the law for defense every day. Guns sales and weapons training for women has skyrocketed in the past few years because a firearm allows someone who is physically smaller or weaker than a potential attacker to equal or exceed the force brought against them. This is one thing that, aside from Crazy Uncle Joe Biden, gun control advocates have failed to address.

Edit:
 
Last edited:

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,871
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
Turns out one of the Sandy Hook parents who has been highly publicly promoted as 'a voice for more gun control'...

628x471.jpg

NEW YORK, NY - MARCH 21: Neil Heslin, father of Newtown shooting victim Jesse Lewis, 6, speaks out for gun reform at a press conference on March 21, 2013 in New York City. Heslin and other family members of Newtown victims were joined by Vice President Joe Biden (L) and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (R) at the city hall event. (Photo by John Moore/Getty Images) Photo: John Moore, Getty Images

...is a multiple time convicted felon who is facing yet more charges and is barred from being anywhere near firearms in the first place. Gee. I wonder why a a felon convicted of multiple DUI, multiple kiting bad checks and possession of narcotics would want everyone else to be disarmed.
 

mpicco

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,413
Location
Portugal
Car(s)
R19
I'm wondering about the Mother's day parade shooting now... isn't Louisiana very lax about guns?
Where are the so called armed citizens who would stop criminal shooters?
I've always questioned this as an argument, and it doesn't seem to hold its ground...
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,871
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
I'm wondering about the Mother's day parade shooting now... isn't Louisiana very lax about guns?
Where are the so called armed citizens who would stop criminal shooters?
I've always questioned this as an argument, and it doesn't seem to hold its ground...

New Orleans is the city that went door to door confiscating firearms after Katrina. To this day, NOLA cops refuse to recognize state carry permits; they confiscate weapons first and let you try to get it back with a lawyer later.

So, while Louisiana does not have stricter gun control, NOLA does have de facto strict gun control and no carry. No carry = no armed citizens to shop mass shootings.

Evidence that this argument does have factual basis has been posted several times upthread.
 
Last edited:

mpicco

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,413
Location
Portugal
Car(s)
R19
Could that be by any case because "law abiding citizens" who had gun permits used them in a less than commendable way when Katrina hit and everyone was looting, when society crumbled down into survival of the fittest?
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,871
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
Could that be by any case because "law abiding citizens" who had gun permits used them in a less than commendable way when Katrina hit and everyone was looting, when society crumbled down into survival of the fittest?

No evidence has ever been given that permit holders in Louisiana were caught or even seen looting. The police and national guard simply went door to door (illegally!) and just started seizing weapons on general principles. They weren't even going by permit list, just door to door ransacking houses. Video evidence has been posted upthread.

So, no.
 

mpicco

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,413
Location
Portugal
Car(s)
R19
Still when you compare the number of times a shooter has been stopped by a civilian (or an off-duty cop) to the number of times people have been murdered by 'law abiding citizens' who killed someone with a gun registered at their name, it's a no contest.
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,871
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
Still when you compare the number of times a shooter has been stopped by a civilian (or an off-duty cop) to the number of times people have been murdered by 'law abiding citizens' who killed someone with a gun registered at their name, it's a no contest.

Um, no. In the US, legitimate self-defense shootings outnumber murders committed by the legal owner of a firearm by a significant percentage. Most firearm murders are not committed by legal firearms owners - the vast majority of firearm murders are committed by people who were legally precluded from owning or possessing a firearm, or who stole the firearm. The last breakdown I saw was that 95% of shootings were committed with illegally possessed firearms. And the number is even higher in some US jurisdictions. Albany County in New York, for example, was not able to find any murders committed with legally held firearms.

It's also significant that most of these mass shootings take place in places legally declared 'gun-free' where the law-abiding are not permitted to carry anyway. Aurora, Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook all took place in Gun Free Zones.

- - - Updated - - -

By the way, in case you didn't know, they arrested the guy they think committed the Mother's Day shooting in NOLA. They also released photographs of the event itself, where the man is shown using a handgun to fire into the crowd. Not an 'assault weapon,' not a 'machine gun,' just a handgun. Spoilered for graphic violence.

r

Turns out he's Akein Scott, 19 years old. He's not legally allowed to purchase a handgun anywhere in the United States because he's not 21. So, again, illegally obtained and possessed handgun.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57584311/police-name-suspect-in-new-orleans-parade-shooting/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/1...d-in-mother-day-parade-shooting-that-wounded/
 
Last edited:

GerFix

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
1,461
Location
Sydney, Australia
Car(s)
Jaguar XKR, BMW E92 M3, MG TF, Riv 4000
Turns out one of the Sandy Hook parents who has been highly publicly promoted as 'a voice for more gun control'...
...is a multiple time convicted felon who is facing yet more charges and is barred from being anywhere near firearms in the first place. Gee. I wonder why a a felon convicted of multiple DUI, multiple kiting bad checks and possession of narcotics would want everyone else to be disarmed.

This is so typical of the american gun lover lobby. What is your point? You post up that this guy has some drink driving convictions as if this is relevant. It isn't. Are you saying that he deserved to loose his child?

How many mass shootings have there been in your country since this thread started? I've heard of 3 (Oregon, South Valley, New Orleans). Yet you guys persist in your self congratulatory balloon of ignorance. Quoting selective statistics, looking for spurious diversions (mental health care, diabetes, DUI etc). The pro-gun lobby in america is the epitome of (pseudo)intellectual corruption. Keep it up though, this thread has been a source of much amusement to me.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
13,266
mpicco - after Katrina just about all the police did was confiscate weapons. Then they disappeared. Yes, that's right, no police enforcement. Until private police forces sprung up all over the city, those that were still armed (aka those that owned guns illegally) ruled the streets, looted, set fires, etc, and there was no one around to stop them. As for your last point, some studies have estimated that firearms get used defensively as much as 2.5 million times per year.


Are you saying that he deserved to loose his child?
Typical Liberal tactic, appealing to fallen children.


How many mass shootings have there been in your country since this thread started? I've heard of 3 (Oregon, South Valley, New Orleans). Yet you guys persist in your self congratulatory balloon of ignorance. Quoting selective statistics, looking for spurious diversions (mental health care, diabetes, DUI etc). The pro-gun lobby in america is the epitome of (pseudo)intellectual corruption. Keep it up though, this thread has been a source of much amusement to me.
And you (gun control supporters) persist in your blind one-sided biased control-freak fit of rage. You keep on ignoring facts. What I've said upthread still holds true. The only points that gun-grabbers ever come up with are "think of the children!" and "look at Japan and Australia!"
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,601
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
This is so typical of the american gun lover lobby. What is your point? You post up that this guy has some drink driving convictions as if this is relevant. It isn't. Are you saying that he deserved to loose his child?

How many mass shootings have there been in your country since this thread started? I've heard of 3 (Oregon, South Valley, New Orleans). Yet you guys persist in your self congratulatory balloon of ignorance. Quoting selective statistics, looking for spurious diversions (mental health care, diabetes, DUI etc). The pro-gun lobby in america is the epitome of (pseudo)intellectual corruption. Keep it up though, this thread has been a source of much amusement to me.

How many of those mass shootings were performed by legal firearm holders?

I know for sure that the VT shooter had his guns legally, yet his record actually precluded him from buying them, which didn't seem to stop either the state or federal government from giving him the guns.

What many gun control advocates either ignore or simply don't know is that there are many laws that govern firearm ownership in the US, yet a lot of times they are either not enforced by LEO or the relevant authorities don't have power to do so. Introducing more laws is hardly an answer.
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,871
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
This is so typical of the american gun lover lobby. What is your point? You post up that this guy has some drink driving convictions as if this is relevant. It isn't. Are you saying that he deserved to loose his child?

This is so typical of the ignorant gun grabber lobby, ranting without knowledge of the subject. His drunk driving convictions are extremely relevant, actually. In case you aren't aware, second-conviction drunk driving makes one a felon under Federal law. That means you are legally prohibited from voting, lobbying for most political purposes, or being anywhere near a firearm. Felons are also normally prohibited from being anywhere near the President, Vice President and many other politicians, either by laws or security policy.

But here he is, making statements with President Obama, VP Biden and others, all 'for the children.' Even though he's been convicted of activity that kills more people (including children) than firearms every year.

How many mass shootings have there been in your country since this thread started? I've heard of 3 (Oregon, South Valley, New Orleans). Yet you guys persist in your self congratulatory balloon of ignorance. Quoting selective statistics, looking for spurious diversions (mental health care, diabetes, DUI etc). The pro-gun lobby in america is the epitome of (pseudo)intellectual corruption. Keep it up though, this thread has been a source of much amusement to me.

Oregon's Clackamas Mall shooting was prior to Sandy Hook. It was committed with a stolen weapon and was stopped by an armed citizen.
South Valley shootings: Committed by someone who illegally possessed a firearm - and who had stolen the weapons in the first place.
New Orleans shootings: Committed by someone who illegally possessed a firearm. No details on where he got it yet.

So, 0/3 on legal gun owners committing those three crimes. Also 0/3 for existing laws stopping these shootings from happening even though they were illegal, and 0/3 for any proposed legislation being able to stop them either.

Others have addressed the fact issue - I will point out that in the US, gun control advocates have been caught using spurious studies and even outright lies to support their positions. Such as "All police support this" and "95% of the American people want this."
 
Last edited:

Wizegui

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 3, 2006
Messages
2,466
Location
Richmond, BC
Car(s)
'93 Toyota Tercel, '01 Swagger Wagon
It seems that when it comes to the topic of gun control, it seems that gun control advocates always cite Australia for their argument. While they tend to focus exclusively on gun-related crimes that have fallen, they don't seem to mention if overall crime has fallen because of gun control.
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,871
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
It seems that when it comes to the topic of gun control, it seems that gun control advocates always cite Australia for their argument. While they tend to focus exclusively on gun-related crimes that have fallen, they don't seem to mention if overall crime has fallen because of gun control.

Their University of Melbourne has studied it and found that their strict gun control has had little effect on the number of firearm homicides or suicides, and that it doesn't seem to have affected the overall crime rate much either.

I would also point out this article for more information: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html
 
Last edited:

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,871
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
And this just in - New Orleans shooting now a gang war event, not a Sandy Hook or VT type event.

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/05/mothers_day_shootings_arrest_d.html

The second suspect arrested Thursday was identified as Shawn Scott, 24, brother of Akein Scott, 19, who was arrested Wednesday night and charged with 20 counts of attempted second-degree murder.

Authorities said Shawn Scott also will face 20 counts of attempted second-degree murder, as well as heroin and other drug charges.

Authorities said the Scott brothers are members of the Frenchman and Derbigny gang and that the target of the attack was Leonard Epps, 35, who suffered multiple gunshot wounds to his upper torso Sunday. Police said Epps was affiliated with a gang known as the Deslonde Boys, based in the Lower 9th Ward.

Serpas said the Scott brothers "worked together" in the attack.

According to court records, Shawn Scott pleaded guilty in 2007 to possession of cocaine and crack cocaine and attempted possession of heroin. He was sentenced to five years probation. Just a year later, in 2008, he pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute heroin. He was sentenced to eight years in prison for that crime. Police say he was out on probation until December 2015 when he was arrested Thursday.

So, gang members attempting to kill another gang member, not a 'psychotic random shooter.'

Gang members are prohibited from possessing or even attempting to purchase firearms.
Drug users are prohibited from possessing or even attempting to purchase firearms.
Convicted felons are prohibited from possessing or even attempting to purchase firearms.
And, of course, murder itself is illegal.

But that didn't stop them. None of the existing laws stopped this. None of the proposed laws would have stopped this.
 
Last edited:

Blind_Io

"Be The Match" Registered
DONOR
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
22,957
Location
Utah, Banana Republic
Car(s)
06 XTerra, '00 VFR800, '07 ST1300, '11 Multistrada
Can I just weigh in on the psychology for a moment?

The question was raised earlier about how many mass shooting events have taken place since Sandy Hook. First of all, let me say that I have not seen any data regarding mass shooting in particular; I plan to address known phenomena of other extreme behavior.

I think we can agree that both mass shootings and suicide represent extremes in human behavior. It is already known that suicides frequently occur together, this is called a "suicide cluster". This phenomenon is possibly explained from the perspective of someone who is experiencing intrusive thoughts of self-harm. Many of these individuals, who often have limited or no access to mental health care and are often socially isolated, are "on the fence" about going through with the suicide they have been contemplating for some time. Another suicide in the community, along with the news coverage, funerals, and other attention that goes with it, can be enough to "push" the hesitant or "on the fence" person to give in to their intrusive thoughts. Remember, this doesn't make sense to a rational person who doesn't suffer from distorted thought processes due to severe depression, psychosis or substance use.

I think the same is true for other extreme behavior, such as a mass shooting. One mass shooting, which garners far more attention and discussion than a suicide, can influence others who are already inclined to violence act on their inclinations. Combine these individual psychological effects with the confirmation bias and an increase in dramatic coverage of events that would have previously been lost in the 24-hour news cycle and you have all the ingredients necessary to create a national mass-shooting cluster.
 

GerFix

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
1,461
Location
Sydney, Australia
Car(s)
Jaguar XKR, BMW E92 M3, MG TF, Riv 4000
Typical Liberal tactic, appealing to fallen children.

And you (gun control supporters) persist in your blind one-sided biased control-freak fit of rage. You keep on ignoring facts. What I've said upthread still holds true. The only points that gun-grabbers ever come up with are "think of the children!" and "look at Japan and Australia!"

LOL at the first comment. Do you really think the guy is advocating gun control so he has the upper hand next time he is caught drink driving rather than because he has lost his daughter?

As for the second. I have seen it here many times writ that America is not Australia (or Japan) and the situation is unique. I'm sure it is. I do not however accept that the statistics from Australia (can't speak for Japan) are irrelevant. Particularly when inter-state statistics are quoted here in favour of pro-gun legislation. Some pages back, Chicago was quoted as a city with strict gun control laws and a high rate of firearm homicide (supposed evidence for their lack of efficacy). What wasn't mentioned was that Cook County is the jurisdiction with the strict laws, but surrounding jurisdictions do not enforce these laws. It was also not mentioned that Illinois is the largest importer of private firearms in the country and that Indianapolis was the largest exporter of private firearms in the country (I don't need to remind you of their geographical proximity). Comparing one state to another is less valid than analysing foreign data when such variation between states exists and so few resources are available to enforce these differences.

You cannot legislate against the onset of mental disease. You can however legislate against the ease of access to semi-automatic guns, which make the lives of lunatics much simpler when they decide to go postal.
 
Top