How Do Gun Laws Influence College Shootings?

[Evo]

Yes, guns are stolen, but if we make the purchase of guns illegal, the blackmarket trade of illegally imported and manufactured guns is going to take off like wildfire.

 

[Evo]

A friend of mine is into these types of issues and told me about this.

More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws

"States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. Thirty-one states now have such laws—called "shall-issue" laws. These laws allow adults the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness."

Question: It just seems to defy common sense that crimes likely to involve guns would be reduced by allowing more people to carry guns. How do you explain the results?

John R. Lott, Jr. is a resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute. He was previously the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School.

Lott: Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent."

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

 

[moose]

I read somewhere (sorry that I don't have the link), that when it became really easy in Arizona to obtain a CCW (conceal carry weapons permit), crime went down drastically. This was due to criminals not being certain whether or not a certain individual was carrying or not.

 

[Evo]

I read somewhere (sorry that I don't have the link), that when it became really easy in Arizona to obtain a CCW (conceal carry weapons permit), crime went down drastically. This was due to criminals not being certain whether or not a certain individual was carrying or not.

Yes, that's been proven.

If you walk into a place knowing that everyone could be carrying a gun, you are less likely to pull out a gun and commit a crime. If you believe that you are the only one with a gun, you are VERY likely to pull out a gun, thinking you have the advantage. That's why gun control empowers the criminal.

 

[Cyrus]

The Clinton administration BATF study of illegal firearms in the black market estimated that as many as 4 million illegal fully automatic firearms had either been illegally smuggled into the USA or illegally constructed within the USA.

The link you have a problem with was to show how many Illegal firearms are in circulation, the next (which was ignored) was to show how many are stolen in one area, per year. Probably the first link is redundant to this argument, but I just wanted to show how many Illegal automatic weapons were in circulation.
The second link I provided is more relevant to this argument, as it shows how many are stolen each year. If you have a lot of legal weapons in circulation many are going to get stolen, and thus the amount of Illegal weapons is going to increase, Right?

See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

If it was illegal to own an assult weapon (94'-04'), explain to me how someone would steal it and use it in a crime, if we are to put any weight into your quoted source (data from 97' -which falls within the 10 year ban period)?

 

[Anttech]

Theft (also known as stealing) is, in general, the wrongful taking of someone else's property without that person's willful consent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft

You can still steal something that isn't legal. I suppose I am going to have to define every word I use, because you have no ability to comprehend my argument, instead all you seem to be able to do, is talk aggressively, and call me names.

That graph seems to be made up by a guncite to strenthen its case. I followed the link you posted (which I had done already) but couldn't find any link to the DATA its meaningless without the DATA. Under the graph, it says:

"Source: Data points from Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York 1997, and FBI Uniform Crime Reports. (Handgun homicide rate became available in 1966.)"
The FBI link sends you here ---> http://www.fbi.gov/ucr.htm

Not Found
The requested object does not exist on this server. The link you followed is either outdated, inaccurate, or the server has been instructed not to let you have it. Please inform the site administrator of the referring page.

Without showing how the data behind your graph was accumulated it is just a picture. You are basing your whole argument around this picture, yet you have failed to link the DATA which was used to form this picture.

So basically, your first point, has nothing at all to do with your second point. <rant>..

Well it does. IMO (For the second time) if you have the infrastructure for weapons sale to the General Public, there are less barriers to getting your product to market. Your Distribution channels are open already. This makes it far easier to get Black and Grey area weapons into the market. If you didnt have this infrastructure in place already it would be far harder to get these weapons into circulation.

Myself, Evo, ShawnD, and Bystandard have all given you data. When are you going to cough something up? You are long over due.

Evo has given data.
shawnD didnt give data, but had some valid points, which I refuted*
Bystander also didnt give any data, but gave his opinion
You have given a picture from a pro gun www site.

*on that, I was not dismissing what has happened in Switerland, I am saying there is NO comparision between America and Swizterland. Switzerlands population is under 8 Million and it doesn’t have the same inner-city problems like America does. Its not a good comparision, or a good place for America to base it policies on. It’s a small country that is up a mountain, with a Huge financial sector, lots of money. Its just not a good comparison, just like N.Ireland is not. If you used South Africa, or Brasil, or the UK, or China, or Japan it would be much better. These countries have Large cities with ghetos

 

[Cyrus]

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1621

Unfortunately this is based on the unfounded belief that the more guns in an area the more violence will occur. If that were true, the United States, with 280 million guns today, should have a far higher murder rate than after WWII when we had only 48 million guns. Instead, the murder rate is the same.

In the last 30 years the number of guns owned by civilians more than doubled, yet murder declined by one third.

In a study published last December, the National Academy of Sciences, having reviewed 43 government publications, 253 journal articles, 99 books, and its own research, could not identify even one example of gun control that reduced murder or violent crime.

Drastically increasing homicide led Washington, D.C., to ban handguns in the 1970s. So useless was this that D.C. soon had (and continues to have) some of the nation’s highest murder rates.

Anti-gun advocacy is built on decades of erroneous claims that the United States, with the world's highest gun ownership rate (true), has the highest murder rate (false). Russia’s recently disclosed murder rates since 1965 have consistently exceeded U.S. rates despite Russia’ ban of handguns and strict control of long guns. Since the 1990s Russian murder rates have remained almost four times greater than American.

Anti-gun advocates used to compare the United States to England, Canada and Australia, nations specially selected because they once combined low violence rates with severe gun controls. But gun controls and initially low violence rates did not prevent their violent crime rates from steadily outpacing ours in recent decades. Although these nations banned and confiscated hundreds of thousands of guns in the 1990s, today their violence rates are among the highest in the world—more than twice ours.

If more guns mean more violence, nations with high gun-ownership rates should have high murder rates. But two international studies comparing gun ownership with murder rates in 36 and 21 nations (respectively) found “no significant correlations.”

Norway, with the highest gun ownership rate in Western Europe, has the lowest murder rate—far below England's.only European nation that bans all guns, Luxembourg, has the highest murder rate (except for Russia): 30 percent higher than the U.S. and ten times that of gun-dense Norway. Holland, with Western Europe's lowest rate of gun ownership, has a 50 percent higher murder rate than Norway. Greece has much higher gun ownership than the Czech Republic but much less murder. Finland has 14 times more gun ownership than neighboring Estonia but much lower murder rates.

In 2004, Oxford University Press published Can Gun Control Work? by New York University criminologist James Jacobs who feels "The most unrealistic control policy for the United States is prohibition of private ownership of firearms or of just handguns” This “serves no useful purpose and only fans the flames of a culture war between gun owners and gun controllers, who in fighting with one another forget that the violent crime problem is the source of our concern."
About that problem Florida State criminologist Gary Kleck, another scholar who once believed guns cause murder, writes: "Fixating on guns seems to be, for many people, a fetish which allows them to ignore the more intransigent causes of American violence, including its dying cities, inequality, deteriorating family structure, and the all-pervasive economic and social consequences of a history of slavery and racism."

These are all criminologists, not pro-gun groups.

 

[Anttech]

Quote:
Well it does. IMO (For the second time) if you have the infrastructure for weapons sale to the General Public, there are less barriers to getting your product to market. Your Distribution channels are open already. This makes it far easier to get Black and Grey area weapons into the market. If you didnt have this infrastructure in place already it would be far harder to get these weapons into circulation.

So prove it.

This is basic MBA material, barriers to market entry. How do you me want to prove that, its a 'marketing theory'? Can you not see by making something illegal is a barrier to get that said something to market, in the white gray or black market?

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

# Government regulations may make entry more difficult or impossible. In the extreme case, a government may make competition illegal and establish a statutory monopoly. Requirements for licenses and permits, for example, may raise the investment needed to enter a market.

*on that, I was not dismissing what has happened in Switerland, I am saying there is NO comparision between America and Swizterland. Switzerlands population is under 8 Million and it doesn’t have the same inner-city problems like America does. Its not a good comparision, or a good place for America to base it policies on. It’s a small country that is up a mountain, with a Huge financial sector, lots of money. Its just not a good comparison, just like N.Ireland is not. If you used South Africa, or Brasil, or the UK, or China, or Japan it would be much better. These countries have Large cities with ghetos.

You said:

Quote:
However since you brought it up, I would say that it is a matter of how many people owe guns, the less who do the less chance that someone is going to get shot, by someone with a gun.

I honestly don't see the connection between these two points I made. One is refuting the comparrison between Switzerland and the US on Gun regulation. The other is asserting, (paraphrasing) The less Guns you have in ciruclation the less chance you will statistically from being shot by a gun. Really its not that difficult a concept to grasp.

Quote:
Quote:
Maybe its just me, but I think it's a little bit hard to steal illegal firearms from legal owners, no?
Please specifiy EXACTLY where I assert that... I didnt. Just to clairfy (before you once again attempt to build a strawman) I DID NOT ASSERT THAT ANYWHERE. Clear enough for you? You drew the wrong conclusion from my post. Regardless, a legal owner can also have an Illegal firearm.

Well, you just said so yourself in this very post, look what you wrote just above this sentence.

Quote:
You can still steal something that isn't legal.

You said it, not me.

"Steeling an illegal <object> from a person who has the same <object> but legally", does not have the same meaning as "You can steal something that isn't legal."

You attempted to postion me as stating that "people were steal illegal firearms from legal owners" Again its a very simple difference.

How can you steal something from someone who can't own it legally in the first place? You can't, because no one can have it other than law enforcement...so, like I said, your data was pointless to your argument. Are you saying those 4 million weapons were stolen from police stations around the country?

come on I already linked you to the definition of theft.

Here is another definition:

the act of taking something from someone unlawfully; "the thieving is awful at Kennedy International" http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=theft

This thread is going nowhere.. You keep trying to put words in my mouth.

 

[Evo]

Ok, I'm going to have to do some cleanup here, but it will have to wait until tonight. I see where issues got confused. Let's not flame. Anttech I see where Cyrus misunderstood the source of some of the things you said.

 

[Anttech]

Well At least you are posting some decent stuff now, not pictures :)

Granted, I will accept that Murder rates have more to do with Poverty, and weak policing and corruption, as is the case in Russia. However the there are some rather interesting comparrisons there, have you any idea of the size and population of luxembourgh? Its 400,000. How on Earth can you compare a small dutchy like that to the USA >200,000,000 people? Any statistics you contrive would be warped by sheer scaling. Norway is the richest country in Europe, and one of the richest in the world. The middle classes don't typically go around killing each other, so again I don't think it is a good comparisson.

I do actually believe that it would be pointless to outlaw weapons in America now, because of the sheer volume of weapons there, its part of your culture now, and banning them would probably have a worse effect, as more would go underground. That being said, what works for you doesn't work everywhere. So keep your guns... But stop making these comparrisons between countries that are completely alien to America.

The fact you do have a high murder rate in the inner-cities is not only because of the availiabilty of guns (black and white market) but also because these people are also far poorer.

To conclude I still stand by everything I said in this thread, but after look at all the evidence I do not believe that the crinimisation of weapons ue would have a positive effect in your country. I don't think that it is a universal truth, and what goes on on your doorsteps is vastly different than what goes on on mine.

 

[Cyrus]

Here is an interesting read: http://www.secondamendmentcenter.org/debate5.asp

Too long to quote it all, but it talks about each of your points in terms of countries.

*source from Ohio State University.

 

[ShawnD]

This is basic MBA material, barriers to market entry. How do you me want to prove that, its a 'marketing theory'? Can you not see by making something illegal is a barrier to get that said something to market, in the white gray or black market?

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

The problem with this example is that barriers disproportionately stop people from getting things; that means criminals get more access than noncriminals.

Take an extreme example here. Have you ever seen it on the news where police display all the things they found in a drug raid, and they find things like grenades, mortars, rocket launchers, and big bags of heroin? All of these things are illegal under any circumstance, but the fact remains that criminals have access to them (mafia connections). Making grenades and rocket launchers illegal means the mafia has grenades and rocket launchers (still fewer than if they were legal), while you are left with no grenades and no rocket launchers.
This is just an example of how barriers work. I don't think grenades or rockets should be legal since that sort of crosses the line between deterrence and craziness.

 

[Anttech]

The problem with this example is that barriers disproportionately stop people from getting things; that means criminals get more access than noncriminals.

Take an extreme example here. Have you ever seen it on the news where police display all the things they found in a drug raid, and they find things like grenades, mortars, rocket launchers, and big bags of heroin? All of these things are illegal under any circumstance, but the fact remains that criminals have access to them (mafia connections). Making grenades and rocket launchers illegal means the mafia has grenades and rocket launchers (still fewer than if they were legal), while you are left with no grenades and no rocket launchers.
This is just an example of how barriers work. I don't think grenades or rockets should be legal since that sort of crosses the line between deterrence and craziness.

Well yes, if something is illegal, then a criminal will have more access (than a non-criminal), but the circulation of that there said object will decrease overall. So in theory even the criminals will have less, than before. When you destroy the infrastructure to distribute anything, its circulation will decrease.

Anyway its neither here nor there when sieting the USA, since there is a vast number of firearms (legal and illegal) already in circulation, it would be impossible to rain them in. However for other countries this methodology works, so again you can't compare. I still believe that America has a problem with a high murder rate within the inner-cities, but its a complex problem, and the high circulation of firearms is only one factor that should be considered.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well yes, if something is illegal, then a criminal will have more access (than a non-criminal), but the circulation of that there said object will decrease overall. So in theory even the criminals will have less, than before. When you destroy the infrastructure to distribute anything, its circulation will decrease

Gee, I wondered why our drug problem had just gone away!

 

[Anttech]

Gee, I wondered why our drug problem had just gone away!

Drugs are much easier to make and distribute than weapons are.

1 vat of xtc can produce enough pills to for a long time, people make the stuff in there kitchen, same as cocaine. (I can give you links, but not know because I am at work) if you can't wait google for "ecstasy production"

People get addictred to drugs and need to sustain there habits (regular consumption).

If you have a situation like in the UK where both Guns and Drugs are banned, you will see that the circulation of Drugs is huge but the circulation of weapons is not. People don't tend to go to street corners for a "gun" fix.

Anyway I said the circulation will decrease if something is illegal, not go away. If you look at the Netherlands where most xtc is made for the world, you will find that due to there liberalisation of drug laws there is more drugs being made and in circulation there. I live in Amsterdam for 5 years, I saw it with my own eyes. Also I would say that the UK has a far worse drug problem than the US, its not something to be proud of it just is like that, [sarcasm] maybe its because we can't get guns and turn to drugs instead?[/sarcasm]

Anyway there maybe an argument for legalising drugs, it would take it out of the black market and into the "white" market so Johnson and Johnson and the likes can make even more money than they currently do. More power to the corporation, because we can all trust them to do what is right (by the shareholders)?

 

[ptabor]

[rant]
There are plenty of arguments for the legalization consumption (not selling) of controlled substances.

Not the least of which is the fact that it's MY body. Where does the government get off telling me what I can and cannot put in my body? What, we should ban some substances just because they are bad for our health? Fine, whatever, but that's going to put McD, Wendy's et al out of business.

How about the fact that it makes criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens? How about the fact that in the US, you can get financial aid if you rape 50 women and dump their body's in dumpsters, but if you get busted for 1 joint they cut you off.
[end rant]

Anttech, you said that perhaps since those in the UK are unable to get illegal fireams, that they turn to illegal substances. This argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Nobody sits around and says: "hmmm... I've got about 400 euros here... I could buy a pistol to go blast some fools... or I could just get wasted". Sorry, they're just not substitute products.
People do drugs because they like to get high, whereas they own guns for a multitude of reasons. Those that obtain them illegally usually have nefarious purposes in mind; seldom is it home protection.

 

[Anttech]

Anttech, you said that perhaps since those in the UK are unable to get illegal fireams, that they turn to illegal substances. This argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Ohh sorry I was being sarcastic... Ill edit my post

 

[Anttech]

People do drugs because they like to get high,

People also do drugs because they need to (heroin addition--> you can die if you don't have your fix), and they also do them to escape from reality, especially in poorer areas.

 

[ptabor]

Sorry that your sarcasm was lost on me.

Not that it has any bearing on the discussion at hand, but I feel compelled... I view the war on drugs as one of the last great injustices in our society.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/heroin.html

Actually, withdrawal from heroin is less dangerous than from alcohol.

 

[tribdog]

People also do drugs because they need to (heroin addition--> you can die if you don't have your fix), and they also do them to escape from reality, especially in poorer areas.

heroin addition isn't that bad, it's the multiplication and division that threw me for a loop

 

[ShawnD]

[rant]
Not the least of which is the fact that it's MY body

Much like gun laws, the drug laws are in place due to a perceived risk to the public. Nobody really cares if you OD on cocaine and die, but they do care when "cocaine-crazed negroes" start to think they're as good as white folk (that was an actual argument to the US senate). On the side of guns, people want guns illegal because there is a perceived risk that guns cause crime.

 

[Anttech]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2908621023073531157&q=the+drugs+were+legal

here is a nice fictitious program by the bbc, which looks at what would happen if drugs became legal. It has interviews with real experts. Good analysis

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Another, in Pennsylvania: http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/School_Violence


This time, the gunman sent the males and adult females out and then opened fire on the remaining dozen girls, shooting 4 execution style.

Another female was killed in the recent Canadian shooting.

14 females killed in Ecole Polytechnique shooting in 1989
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/École_Polytechnique_massacre

Is this violence directed specifically at women? The Polytechnique shooting certainly was - http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2000/12/06/massacre001206

He began shooting. Fourteen young women were killed. Thirteen other people were injured.

Then he killed himself, and left behind a note that said feminists had ruined his life.

The shooting horrified the nation and has come to symbolize violence against women.

Possibly the recent Colorado shooting, too
http://www.examiner.com/a-315481~Student_Details_Colo__School_Shooting.html

Cassidy Grigg, 16, said the man walked in, fired a warning shot at the floor and ordered the students to line up. He told some to leave and others - all girls - to stay.

"You could tell that he wanted the females," Cassidy said on NBC's "Today" Thursday. "He tapped me on the shoulder and he told me to leave the room. I told him, 'I don't want to leave.'"

Are there a lot of gunmen in school shootings that specifically target females?

 

[ShawnD]

Are there a lot of gunmen in school shootings that specifically target females?

"You won't have sex with me? Women must die!"

It's probably not too far from the truth. Guys having lots of sex probably won't go all crazy and start killing people.

 

[Cyrus]

When the Amish have school shootings, the world is going to end...oh dear.

I won't say anything about an Amish drive by, because that would be wrong...

 

[J77]

When will it end

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4371403.stm