School shooting

[BiGBMAW]

could you believe that a criminal..commits more then 1 crime a year!!?? gasp the horrah!

[Toad]

"Tajuan Bullock"

[Charon]

How many of the dead were the ones who were drunk? A pretty large proportion, I'd bet. Of course, firearms murders excludes all those who killed themselves, accidental deaths, etc.

We don't really know, do we. I do know that anecdotally its very common for them to take at least one other person with them. We recently had a string of underage DUI fatalities in the Chicago area and you saw passenger killed 3-4 at a pop. It's not uncommon anecdotally for the drunk driver to survive while others perish. Drive on the highway at 11:00 pm Friday or Saturday and you see people clearly putting your life in danger with your own eyes. Not that hard to spot.

Source for a national figure, rather than just a local one?

I'm sure that's true for certain high crime inner cities with extensive gang warfare, but I doubt it for general murders.

As I already pointed out earlier national figures are hard to come by. Perhaps you have some figures to prove your point?

This is just Wiki, but it shows the Urban nature of US crime.

Prevalence of homicide and violent crime is greatest in urban areas of the United States. In metropolitan areas, the homicide rate in 2005 was 6.1 per 100,000 compared with 3.5 in non-metropolitan counties.[22] In U.S. cities with populations greater than 250,000, the mean homicide rate was 12.1 per 100,000.[23] Rates of gun-related homicides are greatest in southern and western states.[24]

Then there's this. A bit dated, but...

An FBI data run of murder arrestees nationally over a four year period in the 1960s found 74.7% to have had prior arrests for violent felony or burglary. In one study, the Bureau of Criminal Statistics found that 76.7% of murder arrestees had criminal histories as did 78% of defendants in murder prosecutions nationally. In another FBI data run of murder arrestees over a one year period, 77.9% had prior criminal records [Guncite note: 50.1% had prior convictions (Kleck and Bordua at p. 293)]. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Rep. 38 (1971).

Again, if you actually lived here you wouldn't have to rely on statistics to know where the firearm crime actually occurs. In Illinois there are a handful of neighborhoods in Chicago. A few parts of Aurora/Joliet (pop. 285,000) , a slice of Elgin (pop. 94,487) and parts of Waukegan (pop. 93,389). Chicago would be the only formal "urban" area in the mix. Aurora/Joliet would qualify as  the 14th largest cities in the UK (about like Nottingham), though here it is just another suburban area in the Chicago metropolitan area that most people on the board likley never heard of.

They put it at about 100,000 in the high crime mid 90s.

No, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS estimated 108,000 DGU's annually. I linked to the criticism of it's methodology, which starts with the gun violence angle being an aside and finishes with possibly having to incriminate yourself to answer truthfully in some cases.

As I've already posted, these 13 other studies ( http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html ) find DGUs from almost 800,000 to 3 million times per year. None lower that 777,000. Now, you're going to want to highlight the study that best supports your position as do I. But, the NCVS study is extraordinarily unique, while the DOJ study found 1.5 million and in fact fits in the middle of the pack with those 13 studies., by far the most unusual response, is the only accurate one? What's wrong with each of the

No, I use the study that seems most credible.
I know that any credible opinion poll will tell the the margin of error is 1 - 3%. Kleck found that about 1% had used guns defensively.
But above all, what Kleck's respondents said does not match with the figures known.
According to Kleck, his interviews showed that there had been 2.5 million DGUs in a year.
They also said that in 15.6% of those cases, they had fired at the criminal (not warning shots, fired to hit). That's 390,000 criminals shot at.
Just over half those who fired, 8.3% of the total DGUs, told Kleck that they had hit the criminal. That's 207,500 criminals shot.
However, the police only recorded about 200 criminals shot and killed.
So either less than 1 in 1,000 shot criminals dies, there are loads of bodies lying in the bushes no one knows about, or people were lying to Kleck.
Kleck's "explanation" is that people overestimate their accuracy, and that a lot less than half those who shot hit the criminal. But if you assume only 1 in 10 of those hit dies, that means that 2,000 criminals were hit, out of 390,000 shot at.
That would mean only 1 in 200 who fired at the criminal actually hit, and an accuracy of less than 0.5%, in close quarters with criminals, isn't credible either.
Kleck's figures don't match up to the hard facts that are known. The fact that the method he used is known to be faulty is almost besides the fact, compared to that.

You're welcom to your opinion. I have no problem with the opinions of Dr. Kleck:
Gary Kleck is a Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University (see curriculum vita and this overview). His research centers on violence and crime control with special focus on gun control and crime deterrence. Dr. Kleck is the author of Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (Aldine de Gruyter, 1991), and Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control (Aldine de Gruyter, 1997). He is also a contributor to the major sociology journals, and in 1993 Dr. Kleck was the winner of the Michael J. Hindelang Award of the American Society of Criminology, for the book which made "the most outstanding contribution to criminology" in the preceding three years (for Point Blank).

Gary Kleck's voluntary disclosure statement that appears in Targeting Guns:
The author is a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International USA, Independent Action, Democrats 2000, and Common Cause, among other politically liberal organizations He is a lifelong registered Democrat, as well as a contributor to liberal Democratic candidates. He is not now, nor has he ever been, a member of, or contributor to, the National Rifle Association, Handgun Control, Inc. nor any other advocacy organization, nor has he received funding for research from any such organization.

The fact is people do use firearms for self defense. Beyond people actually shooting and hitting the other person there will be inaccuracies in their subjective view of the event. Still, except for the NEVC study the others show a much higher DGU. All of the others. The census bureau NEVC study must have got it right without even trying. Or maybe its own flaws in methodology came into play to set it so far apart for those other 13 studies.

Using exactly the same method. Note that the DOJ themselves point out the errors, and discount the result:

"Evidence suggests that this survey and others
like it overestimate the frequency with which
firearms were used by private citizens to defend
against criminal attack. "



"The NSPOF survey is quite similar to the Kleck and
Gertz instrument and provides a basis for
replicating their estimate. Each of the respondents
in the NSPOF was asked the question, "Within the
past 12 months, have you yourself used a gun, even
if it was not fired, to protect yourself or someone
else, or for the protection of property at home,
work, or elsewhere?"

Actually the DOJ didn't like the results any more than you do. This is the Clinton Administration DOJ, a decidedly unfriendly administration to the 2nd Amendment. If you are familiar with the US bureaucratic system you clearly understand how politicized such things become. Take, for example, the positions of the EPA under Clinton or Bush or Regan or Carter, etc. Or look at all of the neutral to positive marijuana studies that get routinely ignored by the appropriate government agencies, even when they commissioned the study. And even take the conclusion of the DOJ rebuttal:

The NSPOF does not provide much evidence on whether consumers who buy guns for protection against crime get their money's worth. The NSPOF based
estimate of millions of DGUs each year greatly exaggerates the true number, as do other estimates based on similar surveys. Much debated is whether the widespread ownership of firearms deters crime or makes it more deadly—or perhaps both—but the DGU estimates are not informative in this regard.

For other purposes, the NSPOF is a reliable reference. Such information is vital to the evaluation of the ongoing debate over government regulation of gun transactions, possession, and use.

Lol. The part that goes against the administrations gun control efforts is "exaggerated" but the rest of the study is just swell

Now, the DOJ under the Bush administration came out with a piece strongly supporting the Individual rights model of the 2nd. Nothing new really -- the founders/framers expressed their thoughts pretty clearly and you don't have to just rely on a linguistic interpretation of the comma and the regulated militia stuff. But, I have not pushed that personally since, frankly, it's tainted by association with Bush/Ashcroft. The DOJ is a political organization that changes with the administration. In fact, the real shift in the public/media/political perception on the rights issue is coming from people like Lawrence Tribe, who came to the same conclusions yet have a lifelong history of liberal though and came to this conclusion "regrettably."

[Charon]

And yet fire is used to murder about 130 people a year in the US, compared to 12,000 or so for firearms.

No, this response was to your "Mad Nutter" mass killing thing. I honestly think you are trying to confuse the issue. In fact you switch and swap a number of other times [edit: between the mass killing argument and the general criminality argument]. I'll only address this one. There is a difference between the typical criminal use of a firearm and the rare mass killings that get all the media attention. You seemed to make that distinction and I have addressed each individually.

You said this: Offhand, can you name the mass shootings carried out with sawn off shotguns? I can name several where handguns were used, but can't think of any with sawn offs.

I said this: I can name two individual mass killings involving a match and a can of gasoline that each eclipse the Brady bunch published fact sheet totals for firearms mass killings with a list going back 20 years. The deadliest school mass killing involved dynamite. The deadliest home grown terror mass killing involved diesel fuel and fertilizer. The London tube bombers used bombs. The Spanish train bombings used bombs. 911 involved airliners and box cutters. We can add alcohol related vehicular homicide to the list if we move mass down to 3-5 victims. Serial killers seldom use a gun in their crimes, yet pull up a Virginia Tech body count with greater frequency.

Lets look at those totals (The brady figures are actually a bit incomplete, so I made some additions and even included international incidents)
* The McDonald's shooting - On July 18, 1984 21
* 20 Aug 1986 Edmond, OK, USA 14
* 06 Dec 1989 Montreal, Canada  14
* The Louisville, Kentucky, September 14, 1989 7
* The San Francisco Pettit & Martin shootings - On July 1, 1993, 8
* 13 Mar 1996 Dunblane, Scotland  17
* 28 Apr 1996 Port Arthur, Australia 35
* 29 Jul 1999 Atlanta, GA, USA  12
* Colombine - April 20, 1999 -- 12 victims
* 27 Sep 2001 Zug, Switzerland 14
* 26 Apr 2002 Erfurt, Germany 16
 * Virginia Tech 32

 202 in 22 years. Just the US figures: 106

Average number of people killed by lightning per year in the US: about 200. Over 22 years: 4,400
The notable Arson Incidents (though plenty of smaller ones result in mass killings):  
* Happy Land Social Club -- 87  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_Fire
* Dupont Plaza Hotel fire -- 97 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dupont_Plaza_Hotel_fire

Now, I have said in the past that either of these incidents eclipse the Brady figure, but as noted their attention to detail on this issue is no stronger than in general for the group. My additions don't really change the fact that the most successful mass killers do not use guns. Once you get away from the big incidents firearms still come up short:

Dr. Kleck also states that "Oddly enough, mass killings are actually less likely to involve the use of guns of any kind than homicides involving small numbers of victims. For all murders and non negligent manslaughters covered in Supplementary Homicide Reports (about 90% of all U.S. killings) for the period 1976 to 1992, only 48.3% of victims killed in incidents with four or more victims were killed with guns, compared to 62.3% of those killed in incidents with three or fewer victims. This is mainly due to the large share of mass killings committed with arson, which is rarely involved in ordinary homicides." http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html

George Harrison, Beatle. Attacked in his house in Britain by a deranged man with a knife. Harrison was stabbed several times before he and his wife overpowered the man. Harrison spent a few days in hospital and made a full recovery.

John Lennon, Beatle. Attacked in the street by a deranged man with a gun. Shot and killed.

You make a big deal out of Kleck's research and then you trot out something as pointless as this?

The statistics aren't on your side, here. Far more people are victim of an armed criminal than use a gun to defend themselves, far more are killed by a criminal than kill the criminal whilst defending themselves.

Well have to agree to disagree. I'll take the findings of the 13 studies (of varying quality certainly but some by clearly anti-gun sources like Time and the LA Times) that show a minimum of 770,000 DGUs over the one you support that is, at best, flawed in its own right.

Plenty on armed ones, too.

 Which ones are those again?

The fact is successful insurgencies always have access to military weapons, not sporting rifles and handguns. Handguns in particular are practically useless in a military context.

That's why no modern military fields a handgun, I suppose. Why SOCOM decided 9mm didn't have the punch they wanted. While similar criticisms can be found for the combat use of the Beretta platform in Iraq. What about all those Enfields used by the taliban against the Russians where the reach of a 303 beat the 7.62X39. Once you remove the ability to use non-violent riot control methods you force the supporters of tyranny (military, police and civilian) to look a bit closer at their commitment to what would be, at best, a shaky cause. Once you have to kill large numbers of YOUR people and the collateral damage is YOUR people you may question the regime a bit.

No. I assume criminals have the initiative. If you are behind the counter of a shop, you have no idea when or if a criminal is going to walk through the doors. The criminal outside knows exactly when, though.

I posted a link showing dozens of real world examples where your position fails. The criminal, in my unknown house in the middle of the night is not at an advantage. An assassin trying to kill one person with a detailed plan perhaps -- that focus group of Reagan and Lennon again. That is not your average home invader or stickup man though. In fact, lately there seems to be somewhat of a rash of self defense shooting going on that end badly for the criminal.

You bring up the Police thing. Now, the police, by the very nature of their jobs seek out criminals on a daily basis. Across the US, in 2004:

Seventy-two local, state and federal officers died from traffic-related accidents while 57, about one-third, died from shootings, the organizations said. A variety of causes led to the other deaths.

There were 368 justifiable homicides committed by police that same year. It sucks that desperate criminals kill police, but the police seem to come out on top 6 times as often and you do hear very mixed reports on the level of common firearm training possessed by many officers.

No, I want to take the tools of violence away from the criminal.

Just how will you do that? The only response you really need to make frankly. How will you take the firearms away from the criminals. How will you do a better job than, say, taking the drugs away from the drug dealers?

Charon

[lazs2]

also..  while wars are not fought with handguns per se.... resistance fighters depend on them.. revolutionaries depend on them.. covert killers depend on them... they most defintely have their place.

nashwan can be ignored on the strength of two comments... that alcohol hurts only the person drinking it and that a shotgun is less effective than a handgun for shooting unarmed students.

The rest is just poor interpretation of data.    It is also ignoring the facts and comparing cultures.   apples and oranges.

As his country becomes more like ours.. he will see more guns and more violence from the bad guys... he will see his police carrying more and more weapons more and more openly.

Only the poor citizens will be unarmed.

lazs

[Toad]

Bottom line is England never did have any sort of major problem with gun homicide.

They restricted firearms initially because of the Red Scare.

If you look at their stats, there's basically no change in their gun homicide rate from the advent of modern handguns to present.

Many of them try to attribute this to their ever more restrictive gun laws, one following upon the other to keep their wild, unruly criminal element in check.

However, it's pretty obvious that their society just never was that violent and certainly not anywhere near as violent as ours has since the very beginning of the US.

It's their societal mores that keep their gun homicide low, not their gun laws.

As Laz correctly points out though, their society is at the start of what amounts to a sea change.

I believe that sooner or later the fact that it was not their gun laws that kept their gun homicide rate low will become obvious to even the most casual observer.