Missouri gun murders 'rose after law repeal'

[mr aize]

Like I said to Lonesage below...I really do feel were in for it (we as in Americans). I'm not sure how much you pay attention to the US but we are broke...and I mean BROKE. Most states are completely broke and borrowing $$ from a broke national government...which is in debt up to its ears. All it will take is one hiccup in the public aid/city funding system (aka police funding) and shit will hit the fan, trust me.



I am a bit paranoid...I'll admit it.

But...situations like Detroit are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to what most of us are going to get. Broke cities, borrowing from broke states, borrowing from a broke national system.

The flat fact is...we're out of $$. Detroit is a prime example of where we are heading. Cities with no $$ = underfunded police. Add that to low/no public aid due to lack of funds and see where that gets us. Massive civil unrest, high crime and looting.

There are many people looking at our countries finical numbers and seeing we're in for it...I'm one of them.



By in large...they are. We get to hear about the few guns that are used in homicides...but not the VAST majority that are not used in crimes...which is a ton of them.

Now...remove the ability to get food or basic needs from the equation...and see how fast civilized folks turn into uncivilized folks...

Fair enough, a pretty bleak outlook but good to be prepared I spose... The solution, however, is simple, in fact I suggested it earlier. Just legalize all drugs and the resulting taxes will revitalize the economy... Then, ban all the guns, melt them down and sell the scrap metal to China, jobs a goodun

 

[Lagduf]

I'm afraid I actually somewhat agree with this idea. Maybe the time limit is a little short, but to me it makes sense. If you're going to have gun ownership, because it is part of the culture, fair enough, but it has to be responsible gun ownership. I really don't think it's an outrageous idea to make it a condition that people are responsible for the safety of their own firearms. If you're going to have a gun, you have to keep it in a gun safe, when you're not using it. If you're too lazy or stupid to do that, imho, you really shouldn't have a gun in the first place.

I think most people have an expectation that their homes are not going to be invaded or burglarized. If you keep firearms at a minimum I think just locking your door is good enough.

I myself own a safe, because I do want an extra layer of protection.

But to penalize someone because a criminal broke in to their home (and committed a crime)? Come on.

Like I said earlier it's one thing to leave a loaded pistol in the bathroom of the 711 for some kid to find, but to be penalized because a criminal committed a crime and got hold of one of your weapons during the commission of said crime?

That said, mandatory storage requirements are illegal (not constitutional) in the United States per the decision in Heller v. DC by the Supreme Court of the United States.

What you must understand is that while there is a "cultural" difference between the UK and the USA on the issue of firearms - there is also a core legal difference. In the US the access to firearms, in particular handguns , for the purpose of lawful self defense is one of the core rights rights recognized and enumerated in the Constitution.

When one talks about "well it's reasonable to place these restrictions on gun ownership" you must realize that you are talking about placing a restriction on a fundamental right that is supposed to be protected by the government. And at least in America, the core essence of Government is supposed to be to protect mans' rights.

Again, if you can restrict one right because it's "reasonable" because the right grants access to something "dangerous" then the same could be done with or said of any other right.

Advocates of gun control in the United States have faced several blows over the past decade since the courts have actually be viewing the right to keep and bear arms as just that - a right, not a privilege.

Fair enough, a pretty bleak outlook but good to be prepared I spose... The solution, however, is simple, in fact I suggested it earlier. Just legalize all drugs and the resulting taxes will revitalize the economy... Then, ban all the guns, melt them down and sell the scrap metal to China, jobs a goodun

LOL.

Sure, as long as every agent of the state who carries a weapon (Law Enforcement, all Military, etc) turns in their firearms too.

An interesting point and one I feel speaks volumes about the differences between our cultures and societies. I mean no disrespect here, but you guys really are paranoid aren't you? Tbf, to you guys it probably just seems like being prepared, but to the rest of the world it definitely looks like serious paranoia. Hell, you may well be right, to paraphrase a great man, 'Just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you'.

Paranoid? No.

I'm not afraid to walk down a dark street where I live in the middle of the night. I don't fear getting robbed.

I just like guns (for many reasons.)

I think there is a lot of value in being prepared, particularly if you have a family. I don't purport to speak for him but I'm confident that I can say that I know Smokehouse, for example, is ready and willing to use his firearms to defend his family, especially his children. I think that's noble.

 

[SonGohan]

I'm not sure how much you pay attention to the US but we are broke...and I mean BROKE. Most states are completely broke and borrowing $$ from a broke national government...which is in debt up to its ears. All it will take is one hiccup in the public aid/city funding system (aka police funding) and shit will hit the fan, trust me.

I keep waiting for something like this - http://www.theonion.com/articles/us-takes-out-debtconsolidation-loan,80/

 

[norton9478]

So anyways what Missouri did was to make Guns much easier to get for people with criminal records than for people without a criminal background. The fact that homicides rose should be no shock to anybody. The fact that crime guns from MO increased in neighboring states shouldn't either.

Potentially more difficult yes, but never impossible since firearems would come from Canada or Mexico.

One of the major issues with the gun debate is simply geography and that we are connected to Mexico which is struggling as a nation to maintain a sense of control or order. Mexico is then connected to Central America and from there South America all of which have political issues, especially the South American countries nearest to central (I.E. Colombia). What this all means is that there is a healthy stream of illegal firearms and narcotics coming into the country (I'd need to find some proper data on a good conclusion as to how severe it is). .

Actually, smuggled guns currently flow from the US to Canada and Mexico. It would take some serious restrictions in the US to get things to flow the other way.

I don't necessarily agree with that...

You're conversing with someone who probably would land up having a black market firearm.

Look at it this way; many ask me why I have firearms and my answer is simple.

-I have life insurance
-I have home owner's insurance
-I have health insurance
-I have automobile insurance

Now...I don't plan on getting killed today, or having my home burn down, or coming down with cancer or even totaling my car...but I'm covered nonetheless. Society would consider me prudent, prepared and a good provider for my family.

But my firearms...

I do not hunt, and with the prices of ammo, I rarely shoot anymore either. So why own them?

Riot insurance.

Yup...protection against normal citizens in the case of a mass panic should there be one. I do not have delusions of being some Rambo that can take on the police or military, I'm just a person that feels that should there ever be a mass panic, I can defend myself from common people.

I hope like hell I never have to use it...or my health insurance, or my car insurance...or any other insurance I have. If I do, it's only because something bad has happened. NOT being prepared is not an option however, even if the idiotic government removes my right to legally own a firearm. In other words, I would find a way (and so would many others).

The difference is that a gun in the home is more likely to result in the death of a household member.

 

[Karou]

a gun in the home is more likely to result in the death of a household member.

the unfortunate reason for that being true is that that stat includes suicides which we have alot more of than homicides. also it does not include intruders who didn't stay long enough to get hit so its a bit skewed.

 

[smokehouse]

a gun in the home is more likely to result in the death of a household member.

the unfortunate reason for that being true is that that stat includes suicides which we have alot more of than homicides. also it does not include intruders who didn't stay long enough to get hit so its a bit skewed.

This.

To me...suicide is not a valid statistic when using guns in the home causing an increased date possibility. Look at this page:

http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/

In 2010, 19K firearm suicides and a whopping 606 accidental shooting deaths. 606 deaths vs the absurd amount of legally owned firearms in the country (est 300 million) = roughly .0002% were used in those cases. Not to be a douche...but I'll take my chances I guess.

 

[FAT$TACKS]

If there is going to be any laws against guns I think they should start at the top and start making laws first for every thing that is causing more deaths. One by one work the way down the list moving to the next one once the last one has been resolved. We would be living in a utopia by the time we got to dealing with guns.

Or.. and I'll just throw this out and maybe if our nation resolves the issues that are causing the crimes that firearms are involved in then there won't be any need to regulate firearms.

 

[norton9478]

a gun in the home is more likely to result in the death of a household member.

the unfortunate reason for that being true is that that stat includes suicides which we have alot more of than homicides. also it does not include intruders who didn't stay long enough to get hit so its a bit skewed.

I would argue that we should not discount Suicides. Especially in households with Teenagers and Young Adults.

Furthermore, it isn't just suicides and accidents, but firearm HOMICIDES that increase with gun ownership.Don't discount Domestic violence her.

 

[norton9478]

I would implore everyone here to ask themselves these two questions.

1. Of all the people you know of that were killed by a firearm, how many of those people had a gun in the home?

2. Of all the people you know of that were killed by a firearm, how many of those people were killed by a stranger?


Note: For this exercise, war does not count.

 

[FAT$TACKS]

I would argue that we should not discount Suicides. Especially in households with Teenagers and Young Adults.

Furthermore, it isn't just suicides and accidents, but HOMICIDES that increase with automobile ownership.

Fixed.

But being serious for a change, people are going to use whatever they have at hand.

 

[Karou]

It is reported that more than 2,000 children in the U.S. die of child abuse and neglect each year,http://www.childdeathreview.org/causesCAN.htm

In 2000, 174 children (0-18) in the United States died from unintentional firearm-related injuries.
http://www.childdeathreview.org/causesAF.htm so I wonder if this stat has the poor kids who killed themselves removed. my guess is it doesn't, and if 2000 kids die from abuse/neglect a year some who live through it and find a gun are in there.

all of column b belongs in column a. its just a subsection of people who probably shouldn't be allowed to have a kid. too bad they let their spawn go out and hurt others sometimes.

edit: USA http://www.childdeathreview.org/statistics.htm a clicky map

 

[norton9478]

Fixed.

But being serious for a change, people are going to use whatever they have at hand.

Actually with a gun in the home, it tends to happen easier.

 

[norton9478]

It is reported that more than 2,000 children in the U.S. die of child abuse and neglect each year,http://www.childdeathreview.org/causesCAN.htm

In 2000, 174 children (0-18) in the United States died from unintentional firearm-related injuries.
http://www.childdeathreview.org/causesAF.htm so I wonder if this stat has the poor kids who killed themselves removed. my guess is it doesn't, and if 2000 kids die from abuse/neglect a year some who live through it and find a gun are in there.
\

Why would suicides be included in "unintentional" deaths?

Anyways Guns are a lot like kids. Most people that have them probably shouldn't.

 

[smokehouse]

Why would suicides be included in "unintentional" deaths?

Anyways Guns are a lot like kids. Most people that have them probably shouldn't.

But a freedom is a freedom...intelligence is not a factor. Start limiting freedoms based on intelligence and things will fall apart.

I agree that there are many people out there that are complete fools...but to limit the freedoms of everyone based on a few is wrong.

Actually with a gun in the home, it tends to happen easier.

Yes...but again, the gun is not the cause. People blame the gun for every evil in this world...as if it does things on its own. People who want to kill will find a way...

I would implore everyone here to ask themselves these two questions.

1. Of all the people you know of that were killed by a firearm, how many of those people had a gun in the home?

2. Of all the people you know of that were killed by a firearm, how many of those people were killed by a stranger?


Note: For this exercise, war does not count.

-0

-0

-Car deaths? Many, 10+ off the top of my head.

-Deaths related to Rx abuse? 2

-Deaths related to alcohol abuse? 2.

I would argue that we should not discount Suicides. Especially in households with Teenagers and Young Adults.

Furthermore, it isn't just suicides and accidents, but firearm HOMICIDES that increase with gun ownership.Don't discount Domestic violence her.

I will not deny firearms are used in these situations...but I will say these situations will happen no matter what. A gun gets blamed because its the path of least resistance to the user. A person wanting to kill another or commit suicide is going to do it by the easiest means possible...if a gun is available, that is the path they take.

Remove the gun from the equation and it will still happen. Lots of people kill other people without the aid of a firearm.

This is why I look at that as a non issue...there is zero proof that if you removed the gun, it wouldn't have still happened.

Accidental gun deaths however...pretty cut and dried. Remove the gun and its hard to have an accidental gun death.

 

[norton9478]

Yes...but again, the gun is not the cause. People blame the gun for every evil in this world...as if it does things on its own. People who want to kill will find a way...

Never said it was "cause". It is just a contributing factor. It makes it so much easier. Remove the gun and homicides will go down.



-0

-0

-Car deaths? Many, 10+ off the top of my head.

-Deaths related to Rx abuse? 2

-Deaths related to alcohol abuse? 2.

Not sure what your point is.

I will not deny firearms are used in these situations...but I will say these situations will happen no matter what. A gun gets blamed because its the path of least resistance to the user. A person wanting to kill another or commit suicide is going to do it by the easiest means possible...if a gun is available, that is the path they take.

Remove the gun from the equation and it will still happen. Lots of people kill other people without the aid of a firearm.

This is why I look at that as a non issue...there is zero proof that if you removed the gun, it wouldn't have still happened.

The statistics don't lie.

 

[evil wasabi]

Norton citing stats. Lol.

 

[Karou]

Why would suicides be included in "unintentional" deaths?

Never said it was "cause". It is just a contributing factor. It makes it so much easier. Remove the gun and homicides will go down.

Not sure what your point is.

Anyways Guns are a lot like kids. Most people that have them probably shouldn't.

maybe they think theres 'no way' that a kid under lets say 12 for instance did it on purpose? My guess is that the bulk of the homicides of 'kids' were done by other kids in gangs violence...do they have their weapons yet...No? wtf are you trying to get mine 'for the childrens' for then?

Just like they did in Australia?

Try clicking around on the map in my post before this one and try to keep believing guns are the big contributer. cars kill more kids a year than guns.compared to being beaten or starved to death guns only add up to an 1/8th as many per year(noting that some kids probably are listed as unintentional because they were too young, so less).

sure gangs have stacks of guns that they give to kids so go get them! cynical/facetious response -you wouldn't want to hinder natural selection in getting rid of those idiots would you?

 

[norton9478]

maybe they think theres 'no way' that a kid under lets say 12 for instance did it on purpose? My guess is that the bulk of the homicides of 'kids' were done by other kids in gangs violence...do they have their weapons yet...No? wtf are you trying to get mine 'for the childrens' for then?

You are just speculating.

Just like they did in Australia?

The homicide rate in Australia has steadily dropped since 1996. So I really don't understand what you are getting at.

Try clicking around on the map in my post before this one and try to keep believing guns are the big contributer. cars kill more kids a year than guns.compared to being beaten or starved to death guns only add up to an 1/8th as many per year(noting that some kids probably are listed as unintentional because they were too young, so less).

So what is your point? That Guns should be regulated like cars????? Talk about barking up the wrong tree.

I never said that guns are a great contributor to child deaths. Just that access to a gun is contributor to domestic homicides/suicides.

 

[smokehouse]

Never said it was "cause". It is just a contributing factor. It makes it so much easier. Remove the gun and homicides will go down.



-0

-0

Not sure what your point is.



The statistics don't lie.

My point is...in a country so plagued by gun violence (plagued according to politicians/media)...I don't know anyone that has been killed by a firearm. I do, however, know many that are dead for other reasons. 4 of which are from other items made legal that kill a giant amount of people each year (drugs/alcohol)

...and statistics do lie. Like I said...fools that trick themselves into thinking that evil comes from a gun rather than a man are idiotic and diluted. Like I said earlier, people will take the path of least resistance. If a gun is there, it is the easiest way to get things done. Remove the gun and it will not remove the evil...they will simply move on to the the next easiest path of resistance...a bat, a knife, a stick, a brick, their fists...it doesn't matter.

Its this simple, people just keep blaming things on our own shitty behavior. it is not Vicodin's fault one of my friends is dead...nor is it alcohol's fault another friend and my uncle are now gone either. They made choices for various reasons and paid with their lives.

People pump out statistics to prove all kinds of points they're trying to make...but it never addresses the base issue. Evil and human nature. People have been slaughtering each other since WAY before the gun was invented and even if you could somehow magically remove guns the from the face of the earth...we'd still slaughter each other.

It is this simple. A vast minority of the US population abuses an item...and item that has many purposes for those who do not abuse the laws. The answer of restraining/removing the rights of the law abiding majority is not the answer...and is the opposite of being a free man. I do not want to live in a society where the masses are punished for the actions of the few.


One last thing...the gun/abortion/gay/whatever topic bothers the shit out of me. Any hot-button item basically comes down to two camps: "For" and "Against". Why in the fuck is it that the "against" crowd always wants to suppress the shit out of everyone? I can't recall the last time I heard a pro gun/abortion/gay rights advocate demand that the US accept these things and that everyone be forced to do them. I don't give a flying fuck if you don't want to own a gun, or have an abortion, or accept homosexuals...be free to do whatever you want, just don't demand that I feel a certain way about it or push laws forcing me to see things your way. I can't for the life of me understand why so many people want to suppress the shit out of everyone else. Again...I've never met so many people want to suppress their own freedoms or the freedoms of others.

 

[norton9478]

I'm just giving you the statistics. The gun in the home slightly increases the likelihood that a member of a household will be killed. Both in Accidents, Suicides and intentional-non defensive homicide.

Of course, each individual can always take precautions and measures to mitigate them. You might even whittle it down to a net neutral. The first step is to admit that by having a gun in the household, that a household member is more likely to die to a firearm. Then you can take the proper precautions to help lower that likelihood.

I don't think that homicides have much to do with evil/non-evil. Lots of them are cases where somebody just acted faster than their brains could process the situation. Particularly domestic situations. And in those situations, the gun is a contributing factor in the outcome.

Look at poor old Bob Costas who had the audacity to lament the gun culture in Professional Sports. And his critics could only respond with "Well, if mr Belcher had used the gun to save his family, Costas wouldn't talk about it". O'Realy? is that the best they can come up with. Because last time I checked, there are almost no stories of Athletes using a gun in such a fashion. But athletes getting into serious trouble with a gun, lots of them.

 

[FAT$TACKS]

The first step is to admit that by having a gun in the household, that a household member is more likely to die to a firearm. Then you can take the proper precautions to help lower that likelihood.

This right here is totally true. That being said the exact same thing can be stated about anything even a marshmallow. Hot dogs.. how many kids choke on those. Now some things are more easy than others to harm another person or yourself with.

Everyone in my homes knows I keep a loaded firearm. In fact everyone in my home keeps a loaded firearm. Accidents happen, that's for sure, and there is a lot that can be done to prevent accidents with firearms from happening. Common sense goes a long way.

There very much are people that have no business with a firearm. I can't tell you the number of times I've been out at a range or such and seen someone do something stupid. Some people forget, just make mistakes, or just don't know any better, if nothing else I should like to see better education about firearms for people. There are a lot of things we have in our daily lives that are far more dangerous than a firearm but there is little outcry over that.

Almost all issues with firearm related deaths in this country could be solved without any new laws or regulations involving firearms. The problem is though that could be expensive and would be a lot of work. It's just easier to treat an aspect of a symptom than to address or admit that a bigger issue exists.

I should like to know how violent crime would be affected, if we had better education in this nation, Eliminated poverty, homelessness, addressed and cared for mental illness, or dealt with a host of other issues.

Here is the simple truth.

If anyone who is bitching about guns actually gave a flying fuck about another human being other than themselves, rather than wasting their effort trying to get guns banned, regulated, or taken from the populace the would be spending that energy and effort dealing with the following.

Number of homeless people in the US 1,750,000

Percent of homeless that do not get enough to eat daily 28 %

Percent of homeless that have problems with alcohol, drug abuse, or mental illness 66 %

Percent of homeless persons that have been sexually assaulted 7 %

Percent of homeless that have been homeless for more than two (2) years 30 %

Percent of homeless women claim to have been abused within the past year. 25 %

Percent of homeless population that are Veterans / Vets 40 %

Number of Americans who now live in hunger or on the edge of hunger 31,000,000

Percent of people in a soup kitchen line who are children 20 %

Number of children in the U.S. who live below poverty level. 12,000,000

Annual number of food stamp recipients who are children 9,300,000

Percent of the adult homeless population that suffer from a severe and persistent mental illness 22 %

Now that's jus a start, and some of those stats may be a bit off, but even with that, the numbers are unacceptable.

Anyone that bitches about guns being an issue in this nation who has not or is not actively working to try improve one of those issues is a completely worthless excuse for a human being. If regulating firearms is of so much more concern to you than there being 31,000,000 who now live in hunger, then just fucking shoot yourself.

I would like right now for anyone in this country against firearms to tell me just what they are doing to deal with the above issues. And if the answer is nothing then please explain why firearms are so much more of a threat to our society than the above mentioned issues.

The bottom line is there is more important shit to be dealt with. The whole anti firearm business is a political agenda and system of control. Solve the real issues with this nation and the rest we can sort out later.

 

[evil wasabi]

Look at poor old Bob Costas who had the audacity to lament the gun culture in Professional Sports. And his critics could only respond with "Well, if mr Belcher had used the gun to save his family, Costas wouldn't talk about it". O'Realy? is that the best they can come up with. Because last time I checked, there are almost no stories of Athletes using a gun in such a fashion. But athletes getting into serious trouble with a gun, lots of them.

So many things in that paragraph are false and misleading. Wow.

Lament?

Athletes as some paradigm for gun owners?

Sheesh dude. You're getting lazy.

 

[norton9478]

So many things in that paragraph are false and misleading. Wow.

Lament?

Athletes as some paradigm for gun owners?

Sheesh dude. You're getting lazy.

So what is false?

Anyways, never suggested Athletes as some paradigm for gun owners. It was just more of a tangent.

 

[evil wasabi]

It's a stupid tangent to make because you imply that since some uneducated idiot, who happens to be rich just because he can play sports, does something stupid with guns, that everyone else has to adjust their values and practices.

As for that idiot Costas, he didn't "lament". He channelled his liberal rage and condemned the nation because of gun culture. Good for him having an opinion. However, he wasn't lamenting. Maybe you meant that his display was lamentable.

 

[smokehouse]

I'm just giving you the statistics. The gun in the home slightly increases the likelihood that a member of a household will be killed. Both in Accidents, Suicides and intentional-non defensive homicide.

Of course, each individual can always take precautions and measures to mitigate them. You might even whittle it down to a net neutral. The first step is to admit that by having a gun in the household, that a household member is more likely to die to a firearm. Then you can take the proper precautions to help lower that likelihood.

I don't think that homicides have much to do with evil/non-evil. Lots of them are cases where somebody just acted faster than their brains could process the situation. Particularly domestic situations. And in those situations, the gun is a contributing factor in the outcome.

Look at poor old Bob Costas who had the audacity to lament the gun culture in Professional Sports. And his critics could only respond with "Well, if mr Belcher had used the gun to save his family, Costas wouldn't talk about it". O'Realy? is that the best they can come up with. Because last time I checked, there are almost no stories of Athletes using a gun in such a fashion. But athletes getting into serious trouble with a gun, lots of them.

"Poor old Bob Costas" ill-used a neutral public stage to spew his pointless and skewed opinion (and quote someone else as well). It was in poor taste and he should be condemned for it. People do not tune into the NFL to get preached at...and he misused his celebrity for a political statement no one wanted at that time.