How can teaching gun safety in schools help prevent gun violence?

[Jordan Joab]

I think it is fair to say that those statistics don't have any significant meaning since the murder rate is so much lower there for non firearm murders than here also. That just goes to show that it is a different place with different criminal activity. I wonder if they have the mexican mafia there?

Maybe they don't have the gang problem we have here. In my opinion, the fact that there are more criminals killing people with guns here is all the more reason that non criminals should have the right to own one to so that they can protect themselves.

Don't you think that if the number of individuals with legal handguns increases it will also increase the number of criminals carrying illegal handguns? After all, if criminals realize more non-criminals are armed they'll simply become more violent or focus even more on weak non-criminals like the elderly, children, and teenagers.

It is absurd to think that just because more citizens carry handguns crime will be deterred or reduced. If anything, these criminals will be more willing to kill you first and take your possessions after.

And let's not forget how more individuals with legal handguns on the streets increases the chances of more "accidental" deaths due to prejudice, fear, stress, anger, paranoia, etc.



Jordan.

 

[Gokul43201]

Unfortunately the UN site has a zip file for the data, so I'm using wikipedia which has the data posted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

It's obvious when you compare the US which has no gun control and the England, which bans guns, you can see how much lower the murder rate is.

You cannot dispute the facts.

Overall homicide rate per 100,000 pop

US - 7.52
England & Wales - 1.57

I posted the link to this data in my first post in the thread, but I don't imagine many people followed all the links, so let me just paste the relevant data here:

Year  	Homicide per Mil pop
1967      	7.3
1968 	        7.4
1969     	6.8
1970     	7.0
1971     	8.3
1972    	8.3
1973    	8.0
1974    	10.7
1975    	9.0
1976    	9.9
1977     	8.5
1978     	9.6
1979    	11.1
1980    	11.1
1981    	10.1
1982    	11.2
1983    	9.7
1984    	10.8
1985    	10.7
1986    	11.2
1987    	11.9
1988    	10.9
1989    	10.3
1990    	10.9
1991    	12.2
1992    	11.4
1993    	11.0
1994    	12.3
1995    	12.8
1996    	11.2
1997    	11.7
1998    	12.5 
1999    	13.2
2000    	15.5

For more recent years, see: http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page40.asp

For reference, UK's gun control laws were enacted between 1988 and 1997. Also note that the UK introduced the National Crime Recording Standard in Apr 2002.

And to show that a comparison of national crime rates across countries at a single point in time can be anything from misleading to unilluminating, consider this excerpt from the UN data (also linked in my first post):

An overall measure of contact crime was taken as robbery, assaults with force, and sexual assaults (against women only). The highest risks were in Australia, England and Wales, Canada, Scotland and Finland: over 3% were victims. This was more than double the level in USA, Belgium, Catalonia, Portugal, and Japan (all under 2%).

http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/icvs/pdf_files/key2000i/

The lack of any change in homicide rates following gun control legislation is even more apparent in Australia, where the gun buy back program was implemented in 1997.

See: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi359t.html

 

[sketchtrack]

Don't you think that if the number of individuals with legal handguns increases it will also increase the number of criminals carrying illegal handguns? After all, if criminals realize more non-criminals are armed they'll simply become more violent or focus even more on weak non-criminals like the elderly, children, and teenagers.

It is absurd to think that just because more citizens carry handguns crime will be deterred or reduced. If anything, these criminals will be more willing to kill you first and take your possessions after.

And let's not forget how more individuals with legal handguns on the streets increases the chances of more "accidental" deaths due to prejudice, fear, stress, anger, paranoia, etc.
Jordan.

A criminal cannot get a firearm legally, so absolutely no. You can't get firearm unless you pass the background check, and if you have any even minor thing on it, then you can't get one.

I also seriously doubt that the average thug or meth addict is staying up to date on percentages of people with legal handguns.

Also I wouldn't want to be in the position of hoping that the guy kicking in my door or sneaking up behind me in a alley isn't planning on killing me. I would rather that my life is in my hands rather than at the mercy of a random criminal.

 

[sketchtrack]

Unfortunately the UN site has a zip file for the data, so I'm using wikipedia which has the data posted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

It's obvious when you compare the US which has no gun control and the England, which bans guns, you can see how much lower the murder rate is.

You cannot dispute the facts.

Overall homicide rate per 100,000 pop

US - 7.52
England & Wales - 1.57

Firearm homicide rate per 100,000 pop

US - 2.97
England & Wales - 0.12

% homicides with firearms

US - 39%
England & Wales - 8%

How about comparing Oakland California to Los Gatos California, I bet there will be big differences in statistics, but it has little or nothing to do with laws.

In Los Gatos, I feel safe and would never think to have a need for personal protection, but if I was walking around in Oakland, I would feel a lot safer with one.

 

[Evo]

Your study doesn't adjust for the differences in what is reported and what is considered an assualt or violent crime, making it rather meaningless.

Overall crime statistic comparisons are difficult to conduct, as the definition of crimes significant enough to be published in annual reports varies across countries. Thus an agency in a foreign country may include crimes in its annual reports which the United States omits. Some countries such as Canada, however, have similar definitions of what constitutes a violent crime, and nearly all countries had the same definition of the characteristics that constitutes a homicide. Overall the total crime rate of the United States is similar to that of other highly developed countries. Reported property crime in the US is actually lower than in Germany or Canada, yet the homicide rate in the United States is substantially higher. There were 17,034 murders in the United States in 2006[29] (666,160 murders from 1960 to 1996).[30] Interestingly enough, the overall violent crime rate in the United States was roughly half that of Canada, despite its homicide rate being 189.5% higher; note from the references, however, that the US violent crime rate includes only Aggravated Assault, whereas the Canadian violent crime rate includes all categories of assault, including the much-more-numerous Simple Assault (i.e., assault not using a weapon and not resulting in serious bodily harm).[6][31] According to a recent study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, where crime figures were adjusted for international comparison, the United States had a lower overall burglary rate than Scotland, England, Canada, the Netherlands, and Australia. The other two countries included in the study, Sweden and Switzerland, had only slightly lower burglary rates.[28]

“ "Due to the difficulties of comparing national crime trends between countries some of the data included in this report may be adjusted or estimated. This is because of differences in measuring crimes and definitions of crime type. The report does however state clearly which pieces of data have been adjusted and why."-David P. Farrington, Patrick A. Langan, Michael Tonry (Bureau of Justice Statistics), 2004[28] ”

Despite the overall crime rate of the United States being seemingly in line with that of other industrialized countries, its homicide rate, which has declined substantially since 1991, is still among the highest in the industrialized world. Comparing just homicide rates by themselves, however, may not be representative of the overall crime rate of a country. Only the homicide rate of Northern Ireland in the early 1990s compares to that of the United States today. In 2004, there were 5.5 homicides for every 100,000 persons, compared to 1.9 in Canada and 1.0 in Germany.[31] This means that the homicide rate in the United States was nearly three times as high as in Canada and slightly more than five times as high as in Germany.[6][32] Most industrialized countries had homicide rates below the 2.5 mark. Overall the homicide rate in the United States was similar to that of some lesser developed Eastern European countries.[33][34][35]

Country Ireland[36] Norway[36] Germany[31] United Kingdom[36] France[36] Canada[6] United States[7] Russia[36] Venezuela[36] Jamaica[36] South Africa[36] Colombia[36]
Homicide rate 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.6 1.9 5.5 20.15 31.61 32.41 49.60 61.78
Year 2000 2000 2004 2000 2004 2004 2004 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000

Where there is a marked disparity between the incidence of crime in the US and all other comparable developed countries is in the per capita rate of murder committed with firearms. The most recent data show that the proportion of Americans killed by firearms is more than three and a half times greater than the next country of comparable development (Portugal.)[37] The proportion of Americans killed by firearms per year is more than seven and a half times greater than the comparable proportion of residents in the 10 developed countries with the next highest rates of firearm homicides.[38]

SOURCES: US Bureau of Justice Statistics (2004),[7] Bundeskriminalamt, BKA (2004),[31] Canada Statistics (2004),[6] Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (2000)[36]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

 

[sketchtrack]

[
One of my best friends was murdered with a gun, bullet through the head, he had a gun. I witnessed a drive by shooting (murder), wouldn't have mattered how many guns the guy was carrying, he was shot in the back.

Another dear friend was a bounty hunter for several years, talk about guns, he quit after his wife got pregnant and became a well to do Corporate Headhunter. Loves his guns though.

Sure there are instances where it wouldn't have mattered if you had a weapon or not, but there are also instances where having one can save your life. So at very least you can say without doubt that there is more potential for safety carrying a firearm than not.

 

[Jordan Joab]

A criminal cannot get a firearm legally, so absolutely no. You can't get firearm unless you pass the background check, and if you have any even minor thing on it, then you can't get one.

I also seriously doubt that the average thug or meth addict is staying up to date on percentages of people with legal handguns.

Also I wouldn't want to be in the position of hoping that the guy kicking in my door or sneaking up behind me in a alley isn't planning on killing me. I would rather that my life is in my hands rather than at the mercy of a random criminal.

Criminals obtain guns illegally. Criminals do update themselves by word of mouth and perception; if they notice more victims are armed and fighting back I'm sure these criminals become more violent. This is not the point of the thread.

Does an increase of legal handguns makes us more likely to fall victim to handgun-related violence and/or accidents?

Are we as a society comfortable with the idea of a bigger number of legal handguns in our cities? I'm not.

How about comparing Oakland California to Los Gatos California, I bet there will be big differences in statistics, but it has little or nothing to do with laws.

In Los Gatos, I feel safe and would never think to have a need for personal protection, but if I was walking around in Oakland, I would feel a lot safer with one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakland,_California

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Gatos,_California

Has little to do with laws and more to do with poverty, arguably the root of the majority of crimes in the U.S.



Jordan.

 

[Evo]

Sure there are instances where it wouldn't have mattered if you had a weapon or not, but there are also instances where having one can save your life. So at very least you can say without doubt that there is more potential for safety carrying a firearm than not.

Buit it can also be argued that the more average citizens have guns, the more criminals feel the need to carry guns, making the potential for an act of random violence higher.

 

[WarPhalange]

That's a bit of a silly reason. Not carrying a gun so that getting mugged is a smoother operation?

But what data you can look at is how many people get shot in a spur of the moment action, i.e. someone got really mad and shot the other person, either in a bar or road rage incident, etc.

 

[Gokul43201]

Your study doesn't adjust for the differences in what is reported and what is considered an assualt or violent crime, making it rather meaningless.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

Who is this addressed to, which study are you talking about? And please elaborate on your objection - it isn't particularly clear to me.

 

[Gokul43201]

That's a bit of a silly reason. Not carrying a gun so that getting mugged is a smoother operation?

Actually, it could be a very sensible reason. Some people would prefer to lose their wallet once a month to the alternative of saving their wallet but risking a shoot-out once a year.

 

[sketchtrack]

That's a bit of a silly reason. Not carrying a gun so that getting mugged is a smoother operation?

But what data you can look at is how many people get shot in a spur of the moment action, i.e. someone got really mad and shot the other person, either in a bar or road rage incident, etc.

I know, if everyone thought that way, you could just go around asking people to give them your money or there will be trouble. Criminals would be living the good life and business would be good. They would have never had it easier. People would be moving here from all over the world just to get some of the action while getting would be good. LOL Ok maybe not that extreme. But then say criminals were getting shot down half the time they tried to mug someone, criminals would be laying low. If they start being more violent, that means more risk, and harder to do business.

There are always going to be those kids going crazy and killing a bunch of people and themselves. There are those guys that kill there cheating wives, and there are those guys who have a mental breakdown and go nuts.

Still, those guys are people who you need to protect yourselves from as well. I find it hard to imagine that it is having a gun that triggers that persons attitude, but it does serve him a good tool of destruction. Still who is to say that the kid wouldn't just stab someone, what is to say the guy wouldn't just poison his wife, and what is to say the crazy dude wouldn't just set a house on fire.

There is though like you say spur of the moment things where if a person hadn't been armed they would have attacked the other person some other way maybe not resulting in a death. Those statistics would be worth looking at like you said, but it would still have to be a huge result to warrant changing the constitution.

 

[Cyrus]

Sometimes the criminals intend to kill their victims. A guy that lived in my town was killed a year ago in his home. The robbers kicked his door in , proceeded to beat his wife nearly to death with baseball bats, and then shot the guy several times, took all his money and left. They also never were caught. If he had a gun, maybe he would be alive today, and maybe his wife wouldn't be crippled for life.

Other incidents happen like that close to home sometimes as well, usually it involves criminals high on meth or something.

If guns are made illegal, then criminals will still get them, and they won't be registered, so there will be no tracing them. If they are legal, then those who get them legally will be registered and if they use them they will be traceable.

A person I knew was killed a year ago being stabbed to death. It started out because two illegal aliens at the age of 16 asked someone to buy them alcahol. They refused to, and so the kids stabbed him and ran. Another person chased after the kids, and the kids stopped and turned and stabbed him in the heart killing him. i'd like to see someone try to stab me when I have a gun on me.

Nice stories, what's the point?

 

[sketchtrack]

Nice stories, what's the point?

The point is that sometimes things can go smoother when you are armed such as those situations. So if you think that getting robbed or attacked for something petty is going to always go smoother when you put your hands up and say take my money, then that's not right.

 

[Holocene]

Wouldn't a higher supply of legal guns create a higher supply of illegal guns?

There is no such thing as an "illegal gun". There are only guns in the hands of people who have acquired them illegally. Pass all the gun bans you want, what makes you think a CRIMINAL is going to obey laws?

Gun bans are a bad deal all around, because the criminals get the guns (as always), and the law-abiding citizen is left without any viable means with which to defend him/herself from said criminal.

Please enlightment me, how does gun ownership make a person safer?

Um, maybe because you can defend yourself imediately? Or, you can call the cops, and they'll eventually show up to investigate your death.

 

[Cyrus]

The point is that sometimes things can go smoother when you are armed such as those situations. So if you think that getting robbed or attacked for something petty is going to always go smoother when you put your hands up and say take my money, then that's not right.

Er, I have been robbed at gunpoint and things did go smoother. Had I tried to do a chuck norris to a guy with a pistol on my head, I'd probably be dead right now...I don't think your advice is good.

 

[sketchtrack]

Um, maybe because you can defend yourself imediately? Or, you can call the cops, and they'll eventually show up to investigate your death.

Why do you call the cops when your in trouble in the first place anyways? Because they have guns!

 

[Cyrus]

Why do you call the cops when your in trouble in the first place anyways? Because they have guns!

...? Because they have legal authority to kill people and you dont.

 

[sketchtrack]

Er, I have been robbed at gunpoint and things did go smoother. Had I tried to do a chuck norris to a guy with a pistol on my head, I'd probably be dead right now...I don't think your advice is good.

Exactly so there are instances in which it is smart to not pull a gun and times when it is best to pull a gun. Were you frisked by your robber? Don't you think you could have made the determination wether it was worth it to use a gun or not at the time? Why should the government deny us our right to make choices which directly determine our own survival or the survival of our loved ones?

 

[sketchtrack]

...? Because they have legal authority to kill people and you dont.

You do if it is in self defense

 

[Holocene]

Why do you call the cops when your in trouble in the first place anyways? Because they have guns!

The police exist to deter crime, and when a crime has been committed, they exist to clean up the mess.

Expecting the police to protect you in a grave moment of need is preposterous, and potentiality lethal.

 

[Cyrus]

Exactly so there are instances in which it is smart to not pull a gun and times when it is best to pull a gun. Were you frisked by your robber? Don't you think you could have made the determination wether it was worth it to use a gun or not at the time? Why should the government deny us our right to make choices which directly determine our own survival or the survival of our loved ones?

Buddy, you have never been robbed in your life. There isn't any time to think, hmmmmmm should I do a back flip, karate chop the gun out of his hand, and then shoot him with my piece. When someone puts a gun to the back of your head you say here is my wallet.

 

[Cyrus]

You do if it is in self defense

You want to trust the legal system that your claim of self defense is going to work? I don't want anything to do with the legal system...innocent people go to jail all the time. This is absurd.

 

[sketchtrack]

Sure, but what about if they kick down your door and you are in the bedroom. You hear them brutally beating your wife with a bat. You can't just pop out and say here is my money in that circumstance.

 

[sketchtrack]

You want to trust the legal system that your claim of self defense is going to work? I don't want anything to do with the legal system...innocent people go to jail all the time. This is absurd.

If my life depended on it then I wouldn't have a choice but to take that chance.

 

[Cyrus]

If your life depends on it then I wouldn't have a choice but to take that chance.

You won't live long and will die for a stupid $50 bucks in your pocket. In all seriousness, you think its some easy citizen hero scenario where you apprehend the bad guy...its not. You try that in real life and your going to get shot in the back of the head with no mercy.

 

[Holocene]

You want to trust the legal system that your claim of self defense is going to work? I don't want anything to do with the legal system...innocent people go to jail all the time. This is absurd.

"Better to be tried by 12, than carried by 6".

 

[humanino]

Gun bans are a bad deal all around, because the criminals get the guns (as always), and the law-abiding citizen is left without any viable means with which to defend him/herself from said criminal.

Sure, your sound argument strikes me with brightness. And it is clearly proven by those stupid countries where guns are banned altogether, and which have such a higher rate of criminality than the US.

Hey, this is natural selection after all : it is all good that those stupid countries face consequences of their stupid misconceptions.

 

[sketchtrack]

My point is that having the right to own a firearm doesn't mean you are required to use it as defense under all circumstances. It is just one of many tools you use if its need is required.

 

[Cyrus]

"Better to be tried by 12, than carried by 6".

No, ask any lawyer. The you want NOTHING to do with the us legal system if you can avoid it.

 

[Cyrus]

My point is that having the right to own a firearm doesn't mean you are required to use it as defense under all circumstances. It is just one of many tools you use if its need is required.

Yeah, but I am still waiting for someone to show me where the 2nd amendment talks about personal protection on the streets.

 

[sketchtrack]

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United States of AmericaThis article is part of the series:
United States Constitution
Original text of the Constitution
Preamble
Articles of the Constitution
I ∙ II ∙ III ∙ IV ∙ V ∙ VI ∙ VII
Amendments to the Constitution
Bill of Rights
I ∙ II ∙ III ∙ IV ∙ V
VI ∙ VII ∙ VIII ∙ IX ∙ X
Subsequent Amendments
XI ∙ XII ∙ XIII ∙ XIV ∙ XV
XVI ∙ XVII ∙ XVIII ∙ XIX ∙ XX
XXI ∙ XXII ∙ XXIII ∙ XXIV ∙ XXV
XXVI ∙ XXVII
Other countries · Law Portal
view • talk • edit
U.S. Firearms
Legal Topics
Assault weapons ban
ATF (law enforcement)
Brady Handgun Act
Federal Firearms License
Firearm case law
Firearm Owners Protection Act
Gun Control Act of 1968
Gun laws in the U.S. — by state
Gun laws in the U.S. — federal
Gun politics in the U.S.
National Firearms Act
Second Amendment
Straw purchase
Sullivan Act (New York)
Violent Crime Control Act"The Bill of Rights in the National Archives
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights that protects the pre-existing individual right to possesses and carry weapons (i.e. "keep and bear arms") in case of confrontation.[1] Codification of the right to keep and bear arms into the Bill of Rights was influenced by a fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia,[2] since history had shown that a tyrant's ability to suppress political opponents was accomplished by simply taking away the people's arms.[3] In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that self-defense is a central component of the right.[4]"

 

[humanino]

Yeah, but I am still waiting for someone to show me where the 2nd amendment talks about personal protection on the streets.

The second amendment goes against Hobbes' Leviathan. We have only very few valid arguments to explain how it comes violence has been constantly reduced over time in our societies. Among those few arguments, Hobbes' Leviathan is considered one of the most compelling. Jeopardizing this for an outdated conception of politics is insanity to me.

 

[Jordan Joab]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper_spray

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taser

Here we have two wonderful items that can be just as effective as a handgun and less lethal. Whereas a handgun is almost guaranteed to kill you, pepper spray and tasers have a lesser chance of being lethal. But no, our society wants more handguns.

I'm not comfortable with the idea of law-abiding citizens carrying handguns in the bus, subway, private cars, public places, etc. in our major cities. Why? Because we are hoping that other individual won't pull out his/her gun when an argument becomes heated over road rage, you stepped on my shoe on the bus/subway, you bumped into me, you stared are me and I didn't like it, I thought you were going to rob me because you are [insert ethnicity here], you called me a [insert racial slur here], and other such wonderful reasons.

Should we allow teachers to carry handguns in our public schools? Bus drivers? Janitors? Street vendors? Taxi drivers? They will claim they need personal protection as well!

I'm not against protecting one's life. I simply do not believe allowing citizens to carry handguns is the way to go. There are better, safer ways to address this problem. Like the two items I linked above.



Jordan.

 

[Cyrus]

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United States of America


This article is part of the series:
United States Constitution
Original text of the Constitution
Preamble
Articles of the Constitution
I ∙ II ∙ III ∙ IV ∙ V ∙ VI ∙ VII
Amendments to the Constitution
Bill of Rights
I ∙ II ∙ III ∙ IV ∙ V
VI ∙ VII ∙ VIII ∙ IX ∙ X
Subsequent Amendments
XI ∙ XII ∙ XIII ∙ XIV ∙ XV
XVI ∙ XVII ∙ XVIII ∙ XIX ∙ XX
XXI ∙ XXII ∙ XXIII ∙ XXIV ∙ XXV
XXVI ∙ XXVII
Other countries · Law Portal
view • talk • edit
U.S. Firearms
Legal Topics
Assault weapons ban
ATF (law enforcement)
Brady Handgun Act
Federal Firearms License
Firearm case law
Firearm Owners Protection Act
Gun Control Act of 1968
Gun laws in the U.S. — by state
Gun laws in the U.S. — federal
Gun politics in the U.S.
National Firearms Act
Second Amendment
Straw purchase
Sullivan Act (New York)
Violent Crime Control Act


"The Bill of Rights in the National Archives
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights that protects the pre-existing individual right to possesses and carry weapons (i.e. "keep and bear arms") in case of confrontation.[1] Codification of the right to keep and bear arms into the Bill of Rights was influenced by a fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia,[2] since history had shown that a tyrant's ability to suppress political opponents was accomplished by simply taking away the people's arms.[3] In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that self-defense is a central component of the right.[4]"

That part in quotes is not from the constitution, is it? I don't know how you got from militia to personal protection.