patrick.net

1)
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunviolence?s=1

In one year, 31,593 people died from gun violence and 66,769 people survived gun injuries (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC)). That includes:

12,179 people murdered and 44,466 people shot in an attack (NCIPC).

18,223 people who killed themselves and 3,031 people who survived a suicide attempt with a gun (NCIPC).

592 people who were killed unintentionally and 18,610 who were shot unintentionally but survived (NCIPC).

Over a million people have been killed with guns in the United States since 1968, when Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated (Childrens’ Defense Fund, p. 20).

3.) How can 100,000 people be shot if there are no guns?

Also, does anyone have data on the number of unsolved gun shootings?

OK, see this is the type of distortion I am talking about.

StillLooking says

12,179 people murdered and 44,466 people shot in an attack (NCIPC).

Crimes.

StillLooking says

18,223 people who killed themselves and 3,031 people who survived a suicide attempt with a gun (NCIPC).

592 people who were killed unintentionally and 18,610 who were shot unintentionally but survived (NCIPC).

Not crimes.

So...56,645 gun related crimes.

Not...
StillLooking says

...guns add 100,000 crimes

When you show your data your original shocking number is almost cut in half. Why would you present your data that way in your original post?

And then you are asking me to trust you that all those crimes would not have happened if there were no guns.

leoj707 says

And then you are asking me to trust you that all those crimes would not have happened if there were no guns.

It's a sleight of hand - words "shot" and "killed" are used interchangeably or not, depending on the need.
In worst genocides in resent history machetes and hoes were the tools of choice.

StillLooking says

100,000 people are shot each year in the United States. Almost everyone of these shootings is a crime. This means guns add 100,000 crimes
The argument that guns reduce crime is a logic fail because it is pretty stinking obvious that guns add 100,000 crimes and the most horrific crimes at that.

Did you know that pirates cause global cooling? That's why we have global warming. There aren't enough pirates. It's true!

In contrast, approx 30 people die in alcohol related accidents. That's like two Batman-showings a day, every single day, year after year.

So, spend time and money on Gun Control, or spend it on something useful like breathalyzer locks?

How do you stop somebody who flips out out of the blue? Either ban all guns - which is unconstitutional - or put 1984 cameras in everybody's home.

wthrfrk80 says

Did you know that pirates cause global cooling? That's why we have global warming. There aren't enough pirates. It's true!

While it is not known that pirates actually cause the globe to "cool" it is a clear fact that they do somehow prevent "warming".

lenar says

In worst genocides in resent history machetes and hoes were the tools of choice.

That's just it. Before guns were invented, people were stabbing each other with swords. Not sure how taking all guns away from the law-abiding is going to stop violence.

That said, there are probably some places guns shouldn't be allowed: crowded stadiums, airplanes, busses, etc.

leoj707 says

While it is not known that pirates actually cause the globe to "cool" it is a clear fact that they do somehow prevent "warming".

Ok, so I should have said something like "pirates allow the planet to establish radiative equilibrium at a lower average temperature." ;-)

lenar says

In worst genocides in resent history machetes and hoes were the tools of choice.

Not just genocides, but many-many violent crimes right here in the US are perpetrated each year without *gasp* the use of a gun. In fact in 2010 there were 1,246,248 violent crimes!

wthrfrk80 says

Ok, so I should have said something like "pirates allow the planet to establish radiative equilibrium at a lower average temperature."

Ah, yes very scientific!

I went to that link to Brady's site
The situation may be misinterpreted even more than it seemed.
31,593 - what is it? They write "gun violence". "Gun violence" is a very generic term, it may include suicides, police shootings, and situations where bad guy loses. The breakdown of the paragraph seems to suggest so.
The numbers almost add up - 12,179 + 18,223 + 592 = 30,994. 599 people are missing in this math. However, it's too close to be just a coincidence.

The other number - 12,179 - is quite interesting. It says "people murdered". It doesn't say anything about circumstances. Now, Brady is a very agenda-driven resource, their other statistics included deaths from LEOs on duty (I don't know if this one does). There is exactly 0 data on justified shooting.
Statistics don't lie, omissions and interpretations do

Gun laws have their roots in racism. Laws enacted to prevent the black man from defending himself and his family from racial attacks.

Histroy's greatest murders believed and pressed for gun control, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot. The Jews learned a lesson about gun control in the days leading up to WW2. "Never again".

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

This fucker would have been vaporized instantly.

Except no one knows if this was the guy, or just a patsy.

wthrfrk80 says

That said, there are probably some places guns shouldn't be allowed: crowded stadiums, airplanes, busses, etc.

You can make a case about that. However, prohibition without control would be the worst possible solution. It effectively disarms law abiding and the law abiding only; it's plainly irresponsible.

Edit: Failure of TSA, on the other hand, is a prime example of why control is a very delicate matter.

Honest Abe says

Gun laws have their roots in racism. Laws enacted to prevent the black man from defending himself and his family from racial attacks.

Yes, and this is some of the problem with "reasonable" gun control. It has the potential for being manipulated to prevent "undesirables" from getting guns.

However, there is a difference between gun control and gun prohibition.

bdrasin says

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will accidentally shoot their own kids.

Hardly. They'll shoot yours and everyone else's:

Here’s a short list of government mass murder carried out throughout history, almost always following the disarmament of the public:

50+ million dead: Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50)
20-30+ million dead: Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39)
12+ million dead: Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) – concentration camps, civilian deaths and dead Russian POWs
8+ million dead: Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908)
5+ million dead: Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44)
2+ million dead: Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-22)
1.7 million dead: Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79)
1.6 million dead: Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94)
1.5 million dead: Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78)
1 million dead: Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970)
900,000 dead: Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982)
800,000 dead: Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994)
300,000 dead: Idi Amin (Uganda, 1971-1979)

This lone gunman thing is tragic, but it pales in comparison to the real danger: Governments ruling unarmed citizens. Without it, the U.S. sings "God Save The Queen."

leoj707 says

Honest Abe says

Gun laws have their roots in racism. Laws enacted to prevent the black man from defending himself and his family from racial attacks.

Yes, and this is some of the problem with "reasonable" gun control. It has the potential for being manipulated to prevent "undesirables" from getting guns.

However, there is a difference between gun control and gun prohibition.

Exactly. It's more elegant.

For example, the majority believes your views on guns to be those of someone with a mental disorder. Hence, you're no longer sufficiently mentally stable to own a gun.

There! Neat, tidy, and perfectly supportable!

Outlandish? There are plenty of progressives who equate those who have "outlandish fantasies of liberty" to be of unsound mind. Look it up.

thunderlips11 says

How do you stop somebody who flips out out of the blue? Either ban all guns - which is unconstitutional - or put 1984 cameras in everybody's home.

The constitution is nice and all, but let's cut to the chase. It's liberty that matters. That's what our constitution was intended to protect, and where it failed has been where it didn't extend protections to citizens because of their race or gender, etc.

Constitutional or not, the right to bear arms is one of liberty, granted not by the state and those who desire to control its power for their own human benefit /agendas. It belongs to everyone innately.

lenar says

However, prohibition without control would be the worst possible solution. It effectively disarms law abiding and the law abiding only; it's plainly irresponsible.

Agree. I was assuming there would be security checkpoints.

Leopold B Scotch says

For example, the majority believes your views on guns to be those of someone with a mental disorder. Hence, you're no longer sufficiently mentally stable to own a gun.
There! Neat, tidy, and perfectly supportable!
Outlandish? There are plenty of progressives who equate those who have "outlandish fantasies of liberty" to be of unsound mind. Look it up.

Bingo.

Example: why do you think the hard-core gay activists are trying to brand anyone who doesn't agree with "gay marriage" as "homophobic"?

Just label your opposition as "crazy" and you can do anything you want.

Leopold B Scotch says

bdrasin says

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will accidentally shoot their own kids.

Hardly. They'll shoot yours and everyone else's:

Here’s a short list of government mass murder carried out throughout history, almost always following the disarmament of the public:

Oh come on; there are forty-some democracies in Europe all of which have much stricter gun laws than the US would ever accept, and all of which have much lower levels of violent crime than the US, and the great majority of which are basically free democratic nation states. They haven't dissolved into fascist dictatorships so...whatever. No, it doesn't prove causality but it should make you think.

bdrasin says

They haven't dissolved into fascist dictatorships so...whatever.

Not yet. Greece might fairly soon...

bdrasin says

there are forty-some democracies in Europe all of which have much stricter gun laws than the US would ever accept, and all of which have much lower levels of violent crime than the US

They also don't have 40+ million genetically less intelligent sub-saharan Africans in those European nations. The sub-saharan Africans they do have commit a disproportionately higher amount of violence when compared to the native Europeans. Where ever blacks go, high crime rates follow.

foxmannumber1 says

bdrasin says

there are forty-some democracies in Europe all of which have much stricter gun laws than the US would ever accept, and all of which have much lower levels of violent crime than the US

They also don't have 40+ million genetically less intelligent sub-saharan Africans in those European nations. The sub-saharan Africans they do have commit a disproportionately higher amount of violence when compared to the native Europeans. Where ever blacks go, high crime rates follow.

Wow, that was a beautiful pivot to a racist canard. Anyway, that's basically just a very ugly form of the argument:

the collective republican id said

No! Their gun control laws make them LESS safe! It's just there are these other factors that completely cancel out and overwhelm the statistics in the other direction! They'd be safer if the got rid of their restrictions on guns! I just know it!

bdrasin says

Wow, that was a beautiful pivot to a racist canard. Anyway, that's basically just a very ugly form of the argument:

You may consider it ugly, but you didn't say whether or not it was a fact.

Ask those 70+ people(98% black offender and victim) who are shot in Chicago each week how the cities de facto handgun ban is keeping them safe from gun violence.

foxmannumber1 says

bdrasin says

Wow, that was a beautiful pivot to a racist canard. Anyway, that's basically just a very ugly form of the argument:

You may consider it ugly, but you didn't say whether or not it was a fact.

Ask those 70+ people(98% black offender and victim) who are shot in Chicago each week how the cities de facto handgun ban is keeping them safe from gun violence.

Well, since it has nothing to do with the original claim (gun regulations inevitably lead to fascism and genocide), I'd rather just ignore it this time.

Hitler armed his people to the teeth. In response to the guns bring liberty canard.

I am losing liberty because of guns. It is more dangerous to be out in the world because the risk of getting shot is real. This means I have less liberty because of guns.

OK, see this is the type of distortion I am talking about.

StillLooking says

12,179 people murdered and 44,466 people shot in an attack (NCIPC).

Crimes.

StillLooking says

18,223 people who killed themselves and 3,031 people who survived a suicide attempt with a gun (NCIPC).

592 people who were killed unintentionally and 18,610 who were shot unintentionally but survived (NCIPC).

Not crimes.

So...56,645 gun related crimes.

Not...
StillLooking says

...guns add 100,000 crimes

When you show your data your original shocking number is almost cut in half. Why would you present your data that way in your original post?

And then you are asking me to trust you that all those crimes would not have happened if there were no guns.

So what? We still have 100,000 people with nasty bullet holes in them each year. This means over the course of one's life millions get shot in the USA. This means one's chances of being shot in one's lifetime are pretty good.

Why are we taking this completely not needed risk? Why not ban guns?

StillLooking says

Hitler armed his people to the teeth. In response to the guns bring liberty canard.

Leopold B Scotch says

Here’s a short list of government mass murder carried out throughout history, almost always following the disarmament of the public

Actually, I have no idea what the facts are on this. I don't think its that important because, as I've mentioned above, the current state of the developed world gives lots of examples which prove that not only is freedom possible in a society with rather strict gun control, it is possible under many different systems.

-however-

If anyone does have a credible source regarding tightening/relaxing of gun laws during the rise of the Nazis in Germany (or the rise of any other totalitarian state), I'd be interested to read it. I've heard lots of claims on this matter but seen no evidence either way.

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a Gun."

Liberty belongs to whoever has the political power.

StillLooking says

Hitler armed his people to the teeth. In response to the guns bring liberty canard.

I am losing liberty because of guns. It is more dangerous to out in the world because the risk of getting shot is real. This means I have less liberty because of guns.

So do you 'feel' safer when you walk the streets of inner city chicago, because guns are banned?

StillLooking says

This means one's chances of being shot in one's lifetime are pretty good.

Horribly wrong logic. However, I think statistics prove the odds of getting shot greatly increase by associating with blacks.

StillLooking says

Why are we taking this completely not needed risk? Why not ban guns?

You can't put the genie back in its bottle. A gun is a simple but very effective tool that when used in an uncivil manner can inflict great injury in a short amount of time.

Criminals, by definition, do not care if something is unlawful or not. By banning guns you would be arming the criminals and disarming the potential victims.

errc says

So do you 'feel' safer when you walk the streets of inner city chicago, because guns are banned?

What, you think guns are banned in Chicago? Where did you hear this, it's not true at all. Unless you have some weird NRA definition of "banned", which means "there are some regulations I don't like"...

StillLooking says

So what?

So, what? Your original assertion is that guns were causing 100,000 crimes to happen each year (on average) in the US. I was responding to that claim.

StillLooking says

This means guns add 100,000 crimes

StillLooking says

This means over the course of one's life millions get shot in the USA. This means one's chances of being shot in one's lifetime are pretty good.

Really? this is your argument?

What are pretty good chances?

Obligatory:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk9wd2FGG-E

(sorry zzyzzx I beat you to it)

bdrasin says

What, you think guns are banned in Chicago? Where did you hear this, it's not true at all. Unless you have some weird NRA definition of "banned", which means "there are some regulations I don't like"...

While the Supreme Court did overturn Chicago's always illegal 28 year old handgun ban in 2010, you can't conceal carry and you will be harassed by police when carrying in public. It effectively disarms you when outside of your house, making you an easier victim.

Yes, the regulations are also made to deter people getting the permit as well.

It is much restricted than Vermont for instance. Given the demographics differences between VT and IL I agree that everyone should not have the right to carry without restriction in IL.

foxmannumber1 says

bdrasin says

What, you think guns are banned in Chicago? Where did you hear this, it's not true at all. Unless you have some weird NRA definition of "banned", which means "there are some regulations I don't like"...

There are some restrictions I don't like. And I hate black people.

*sigh*

StillLooking says

This means one's chances of being shot in one's lifetime are pretty good.

Horribly wrong logic. However, I think statistics prove the odds of getting shot greatly increase by associating with blacks.

StillLooking says

Why are we taking this completely not needed risk? Why not ban guns?

You can't put the genie back in its bottle. A gun is a simple but very effective tool that when used in an uncivil manner can inflict great injury in a short amount of time.

Criminals, by definition, do not care if something is unlawful or not. By banning guns you would be arming the criminals and disarming the potential victims.

Mass production of guns requires heavy industry so unlike drugs for instance, a prohibition of guns will be effective.

Once guns are banned the only new guns will be made by hand in a garage in small numbers. The price of guns will quickly rise to a level where a two bit punk won't have the means to get a gun.

So the genie can be put back in the bottle.

StillLooking says

Hitler armed his people to the teeth. In response to the guns bring liberty canard.

I am losing liberty because of guns. It is more dangerous to out in the world because the risk of getting shot is real. This means I have less liberty because of guns.

So do you 'feel' safer when you walk the streets of inner city chicago, because guns are banned?

I would feel much safer walking the streets of Chicago if guns were banned. Much much much safer.

bdrasin says

There are some restrictions I don't like. And I hate black people.

I do not hate black people. I recognize there are genetic differences between blacks and every other race on the planet that should be addressed in a fact based way so that the happiness of all races can be improved.

StillLooking says

I would feel much safer walking the streets of Chicago if guns were banned. Much much much safer.

Guns were banned in Chicago for 28 years. It did not stop violent gun crime. Once again, criminals do not care about gun bans.