Guns don't kill people, murderers gonna murder

[whiteox]

So says this article from Harvard Journal of Public Law and Policy. Reddit can be a huge time suck.

This is the quote that I thought that summed it up best.

Thus both sides of the gun prohibition debate are likely
wrong in viewing the availability of guns as a major factor in
the incidence of murder in any particular society. Though
many people may still cling to that belief, the historical, geo‐
graphic, and demographic evidence explored in this Article
provides a clear admonishment. Whether gun availability is
viewed as a cause or as a mere coincidence, the long term
macrocosmic evidence is that gun ownership spread widely
throughout societies consistently correlates with stable or
declining murder rates. Whether causative or not, the consis‐
tent international pattern is that more guns equal less mur‐
der and other violent crime. Even if one is inclined to think
that gun availability is an important factor, the available in‐
ternational data cannot be squared with the mantra that
more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less
death. Rather, if firearms availability does matter, the data
consistently show that the way it matters is that more guns
equal less violent crime.

I've been doing some reflecting and researching over the last several days. Trying to figure out where I stand.

I love my AR(s) but do I really need a 30 round mag?

Turns out whether I need it or not isn't the right question. The question is: Will banning my 30 round mag reduce the homicide or mass-homicide rate?

The answer to that question seems to be a resounding, probably not. If it isn't going to make a difference in either one of those things, I'd prefer to keep them thank you very much.

I read the Slate article about Australia's experience with a ban. Slate Link
OK, They haven't had a mass shooting since the ban. That's good, I suppose but what about homicide overall?

Not much of a change Certainly no change that coincides with their gun ban. Causation claim busted.

Apparently Australia wasn't that big into guns to begin with so the ban may not have had much effect according to Snopes

What about Europe? Surely they must have the answer?! Not so much. If you take all of Western Europe which has fairly restrictive gun laws they had just as many mass shooting as we did in the US.

The conclusion I came to? Countries that have lots of murderers have higher murder rates. If guns are available the murderers use guns. If guns aren't available the murderers improvise, but they still murder.

Action plan: Start writing my legislators, even Franken and Klobuchar. If you don't write to them they aren't ever going to change their mind as the only voices they'll hear are those of the gun ban echo chamber.

[GunClasses.Net]

I love my AR(s) but do I really need a 30 round mag?

Turns out whether I need it or not isn't the right question. The question is: Will banning my 30 round mag reduce the homicide or mass-homicide rate?

Exactly. As someone put to me: The question is illegitimate! Does grandma "need" a Cadillac to go to the grocery store?

How many people are killed by cars? We all know speeding increases fatalities in car crashes, so... Why haven't we banned cars that can speed? Ban "hi capacity engines"! ...? We don't talk about banning these dangerous cars... Yet, driving isn't even a right, it's just a privilege.

Here's a question that I think may be legit?: Why is the government now 'not letting this good crisis go to waste' in going after 'assault weapons' and 'high capacity magazines'? The 'assault weapon' present in Aurora was not used for more than a few shots (didn't it jam and he went to his shotgun?), right? And, at Sandy Hook, was not the 'assault weapon' completely unused? (not 100% sure on that; sooo much conflicting news came out in the hours after).

Either way, it just looks like Obama's going for broke on it.

BTW, anyone see the news that another Fast & Furious gun was found linked to a murder in Mexico, I think it was?

Oh the irony...

Sent from my Tardis using Tapatalk HD

[Lunchbox]

How many people are killed by cars? We all know speeding increases fatalities in car crashes, so... Why haven't we banned cars that can speed? Ban "hi capacity engines"! ...? We don't talk about banning these dangerous cars... Yet, driving isn't even a right, it's just a privilege.

Since there is that correlation between speed and fatalities, why don't "we" push for a national speed limit of 35mph? Correct me if I'm wrong but don't more people die per year as a result of traffic accidents. It would make as much sense as a capacity limit and do as much good.

[GunClasses.Net]

How many people are killed by cars? We all know speeding increases fatalities in car crashes, so... Why haven't we banned cars that can speed? Ban "hi capacity engines"! ...? We don't talk about banning these dangerous cars... Yet, driving isn't even a right, it's just a privilege.

Since there is that correlation between speed and fatalities, why don't "we" push for a national speed limit of 35mph? Correct me if I'm wrong but don't more people die per year as a result of traffic accidents. It would make as much sense as a capacity limit and do as much good.

My econ professor in college actually said that if we want to eliminate all traffic fatalities, we would do what you suggest, but that people behave economically when they weigh the costs and benefits. He then went on to talk about probability and risk... It was a real eye opener for a lot of people, though in essence it was such a simple argument. Sometimes the simplest ones are the most beautiful!

[GunClasses.Net]

I found it's about 11k deaths by cars / year.

How about by axe? This was news in Plymouth, MN recently: http://plymouth-mn.patch.com/articles/plymouth-man-charged-with-threatening-2-people-with-ax People, when they're blind with rage, grab what's available...

If Lanza went in with a couple axes, could 20+ have been killed? Maybe!

[Rmfcasey]

Oddly traffic deaths are at a post WWII low despite the repeal of the 55 mph speed limit .I think this is because of better enforcement and acceptance of DWI laws.WE need to focus our efforts on the criminal and violent in society and leave the majority alone.
Rmfcasey

[tman]

Oddly traffic deaths are at a post WWII low despite the repeal of the 55 mph speed limit .I think this is because of better enforcement and acceptance of DWI laws.

Vehicle safety standards and radial tires.

[xd ED]

Oddly traffic deaths are at a post WWII low despite the repeal of the 55 mph speed limit .I think this is because of better enforcement and acceptance of DWI laws.

Vehicle safety standards and radial tires.

Yep;
better engineered vehicles, the engine doesn't end up in the front seat in a crash
the tires are a real biggy,
arguably better road design,
and
seat belts.

[Evad]

Yep;
better engineered vehicles, the engine doesn't end up in the front seat in a crash
the tires are a real biggy,
arguably better road design,
and
seat belts.

I'm not sure we want to use vehicle mandates as a comparison. Without being very old, I remember when a seat belt was a choice. I remember when not all cars HAD them for each seat. Cars being safer because they are mandated by law may not be our best comparison...technology enhancements are great...forced advancement I am not so sure on.

Smokers are what, twenty percent of the population? Look what has happened to that group. It seems anyone part of a group that the masses attack stands to lose. Taxes, regulations, restrictions...they aren't new. We've lived under this control a long time. It just gets worse with every step. When a group that is 1/5th of the population gets bullied and loses, what happens to smaller groups?

[xd ED]

Yep;
better engineered vehicles, the engine doesn't end up in the front seat in a crash
the tires are a real biggy,
arguably better road design,
and
seat belts.

I'm not sure we want to use vehicle mandates as a comparison. Without being very old, I remember when a seat belt was a choice. I remember when not all cars HAD them for each seat. Cars being safer because they are mandated by law may not be our best comparison...technology enhancements are great...forced advancement I am not so sure on.

Smokers are what, twenty percent of the population? Look what has happened to that group. It seems anyone part of a group that the masses attack stands to lose. Taxes, regulations, restrictions...they aren't new. We've lived under this control a long time. It just gets worse with every step. When a group that is 1/5th of the population gets bullied and loses, what happens to smaller groups?

I agree. The marketplace could handle both creating safer vehicles, and smokers.
In a small way, some of the vehicular safety advancements were market driven.
I believe it was Mercedes-Benz developed both anti-lock brakes, and air bags. It is also my understanding they intentionally did not patent either creation.

[ferric021]

I didn't see a link to the harvard article being quoted (maybe I just missed it), but I think this is the article:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

[whiteox]

I didn't see a link to the harvard article being quoted (maybe I just missed it), but I think this is the article:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

That's the one. Doh!