Could absence of gun control have saved VT victims?

  • Thread starter Thread starter vluvski
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Urf said:
Honestly…

Yeah VT wouldnt have happened if everyone had a gun on them and shot him first. The world would be a safer place if everyone owned a gun.
Click to expand...
We need to assemble a bibliography of titles and authors who have validated the idea that gun ownership reduces crime.

One author whose name comes to mind is John Lott.
 
Here are three books I found by John R. Lott by entering his name on Amazon.com
More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws by John R. Lott Jr. (Paperback - Jun 15, 2000)
Buy new: $14.00 $11.20 12 Used & new from $11.20
The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You’ve Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong by John R. Lott (Hardcover - Mar 25, 2003)
Buy new: $27.95 $20.40 19 Used & new from $13.95
Straight Shooting: Firearms, Economics and Public Policy by John R. Lott (Hardcover - Oct 30, 2006)
Buy new: $23.00 $15.64 27 Used & new from $14.11
 
Urf said:
Honestly…

Yeah VT wouldnt have happened if everyone had a gun on them and shot him first. The world would be a safer place if everyone owned a gun.
Click to expand...
That’s what all the data shows in the 39 states that either have shall-issue laws or no laws at all.
 
vern_humphrey said:
That’s what all the data shows in the 39 states that either have shall-issue laws or no laws at all.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t it be great to live in Alaska. I think Alaska style carry should be pushed in every state in the union. They are the truest to the Constitution and the founding fathers.
 
mgrobertson79 said:
Wouldn’t it be great to live in Alaska. I think Alaska style carry should be pushed in every state in the union. They are the truest to the Constitution and the founding fathers.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t it be great if we actually followed the Constitution?

I just have to say, after participating in this and other similar threads, I have yet to meet anyone who I would consider wise enough to decide what I should not be allowed to have when my life is at stake.
 
I agree. People who advocate civilian disarmament (gun control) don’t seem to realize exactly who would be controlling the guns. How much do you trust your politicians?

I would rather have everybody on the street carrying than to have all the guns in the hand of the politicians, and the other criminals.

ابو كمون
 
abu_kamoon said:
I agree. People who advocate civilian disarmament (gun control) don’t seem to realize exactly who would be controlling the guns. How much do you trust your politicians?

I would rather have everybody on the street carrying than to have all the guns in the hand of the politicians, and the other criminals.

ابو كمون
Click to expand...
That, indeed, is why the Founding Fathers included the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights. They saw that an armed populace, by its very existance, serves as a check on governmental tyranny.
 
It’s kind of an ironic situation we have here.

On the one hand there’s a bunch of people who don’t trust anyone who would pick up a gun.

On the other hand there’s a bunch of people who don’t trust anyone who is telling them to put their gun down.

Britain is the only country that I can appreciate some because I understand that their police are disarmed. But I’m sure that’s only until they decide their police need guns.
 
Black_Jaque said:
It’s kind of an ironic situation we have here.

On the one hand there’s a bunch of people who don’t trust anyone who would pick up a gun.

On the other hand there’s a bunch of people who don’t trust anyone who is telling them to put their gun down.

Britain is the only country that I can appreciate some because I understand that their police are disarmed. But I’m sure that’s only until they decide their police need guns.
Click to expand...
There are armed police in Britain – seen them myself. But not all of them are armed, and those who are seem poorly trained.
 
vluvski said:
I firmly believe that the eradication of most gun control laws could, in fact, have saved many lives at VT and in other tragic shootings.

Why did no one hear about this shooting at Appalachian Law in 2002?🤷 (sarcastic shrug)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting
One of the Luby’s survivors, a woman whose parents were shot right before her eyes, had a gun in her car. She didn’t have it on her person because it was illegal in the state of Texas to carry a firearm. Now THAT is a crime!

My husband and I own a Taurus revolver, and it stays loaded at our bedside. If MD had legal concealed carry, we would own two and both keep our firearms with us. Think about it. Most individuals are law abiding citizens. If it was legal to carry a gun, the vast majority of people carrying guns would be law abiding citizens. If I was a criminal, I would think twice about pulling out a weapon if I knew that was a good chance someone in the vicinity would have a gun.

Gun control accomplishes one thing, and one thing only. If it is a crime to own a gun, only criminals will own guns. It’s as simple as that.
Click to expand...
Interesting that this thread, which been dormant should come up again becuase TODAY is the day that the RAINBOW COALITION has picked to have protests against gun all around the nation. The local TV station today announced that approximately 30 Anti-Gun protests will take place in cities around the nation.

I also found it interesting that the HARVARD LAW REVIEW recently released a study that compares crimes/murders in many nations with those of the USA.

The Harvard study showed:
  • More Guns = LOWER Crimes
  • More Guns = FEWER Murders
Here are some links, the first is to a SUMMARY of the Harvard study:
cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/Gun-Ownership.htm

This one is to a complete text of the study (very long, but includes footnotes, source data, etc):
law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

I found this part to be very interesting:
**CONCLUSION **

This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence
from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra.149 To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.

Over a decade ago, Professor Brandon Centerwall of the University of Washington undertook an extensive, statistically sophisticated study comparing areas in the United States and Canada to determine whether Canada’s more restrictive policies had better contained criminal violence. When he published his results it was with the admonition:

If you are surprised by [our] finding, so [are we]. [We] did not begin this research with any intent to “exonerate” handguns, but there it is—a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where not to aim public health resources.150​
 
melensdad said:
Interesting that this thread, which been dormant should come up again becuase TODAY is the day that the RAINBOW COALITION has picked to have protests against gun all around the nation. The local TV station today announced that approximately 30 Anti-Gun protests will take place in cities around the nation.

I also found it interesting that the HARVARD LAW REVIEW recently released a study that compares crimes/murders in many nations with those of the USA.

The Harvard study showed:
  • More Guns = LOWER Crimes
  • More Guns = FEWER Murders
Here are some links, the first is to a SUMMARY of the Harvard study:
cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/Gun-Ownership.htm

This one is to a complete text of the study (very long, but includes footnotes, source data, etc):
law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

I found this part to be very interesting:
**CONCLUSION **

This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence
from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra.149 To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.

Over a decade ago, Professor Brandon Centerwall of the University of Washington undertook an extensive, statistically sophisticated study comparing areas in the United States and Canada to determine whether Canada’s more restrictive policies had better contained criminal violence. When he published his results it was with the admonition:

If you are surprised by [our] finding, so [are we]. [We] did not begin this research with any intent to “exonerate” handguns, but there it is—a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where not to aim public health resources.150​
Click to expand...

How 'bout them apples?😃

The antis have tried for more than a decade to tear down John Lott’s monumental study on guns and crime, and failed miserably. Now it seems even liberal institutions are finding he was right.
 
Gun control (Civilian Disarmament) does one thing: it makes innocent people defenseless. It gives advantage to the lawless, which includes the street criminal and the politician.

History shows the results of gun control. Probably the best source of this is a couple of books published by Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. These books are entitled GUN CONTRO, GATEWAY TO TYRANNY, and LETHAL LAWS, “GUN CONTROL” IS THE KEY TO GENOCIDE.

The authors, Jay Simkin, Aaron Zelman and Alan M. Rice illustrate the connection between firearms registration, firearms confiscation and eventual tyranny or genocide.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 was based on the Nazi Weapons Law of 18 March 1938. GUN CONTROL actually published the original 1938 law in German, and then a translation in English.

Many are not aware of the fact that the late senator Thomas Dodd, father of U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd, who authored the Gun Control Act of 1968 had the German text of the Nazi Weapons Law in his possession in July 1968, four months before the GCA '68 was signed into law.

Regarding genocide, LETHAL LAWS lists the major genocides of the Twentieth Century: Ottoman Turkey (1915-1917), Soviet Russia (1929-1953), Germany (1933-1945), China (1949-1953), (1957-1960), (1966-1976), Guatemala (1961-1981), Uganda (1971-1979), Cambodia (1975-1979). It then reprints the original laws with their English translation. Does anyone actually that it can’t happen here?

Gun Control (Civilian Disarmament) is immoral. It victimizes the innocent and empowers the criminal.
 
abu_kamoon said:
Gun Control (Civilian Disarmament) is immoral. It victimizes the innocent and empowers the criminal.
Click to expand...
And it now seems that the Harvard Law Review and its very comprehensive study of gun ownership and gun crimes, across many nations, seems to back up and support your claim. (read the last paragraph of this post)

So why didn’t this study get reported all over the news?

In fact today there are dozens of Anti-Gun protests occuring around the nation. Seems to me someone should email those people a memo about the new article published by Harvard 🙂

In summary, Harvard stated:
  • Good people with guns do not commit crimes.
  • Good people with guns do not murder.
  • Good people with guns use them to REDUCE crime/murder.
  • Bad people commit crimes with or without guns.
  • Bad people who want guns will get them regardless of the laws.
  • Only a small % of people are criminals but they commit the majority of crimes.
And then there was this portion of the summary:
The reason that gun ownership doesn’t correlate with murder rates, the authors show, is that violent crime rates are determined instead by underlying cultural factors. “Ordinary people,” they note, “simply do not murder.” Rather, “the murderers are a small minority of extreme antisocial aberrants who manage to obtain guns whatever the level of gun ownership” in their society.

Therefore, **“banning guns cannot alleviate the socio-cultural and economic factors that are the real determinants of violence and crime rates.” ** According to Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser, "there is no reason for laws prohibiting gun possession by ordinary, law-abiding, responsible adults because such people virtually never commit murder. If one accepts that such adults are far more likely to be victims of violent crime than to commit it, disarming them becomes not just unproductive but counter-productive."
 
I used to think that if people were allowed to carry guns then it would deter crime.

I had gone to visit my daughter in Arizona and while I was shopping at WalMart I saw several shoppers (not security guards or police) walking around with guns in holsters. My first thought was, ‘who would be foolish enough to try and rob a store when the guy standing in line behind you is probably carrying?’

Then my daughter reminded me that Arizona has one of the highest violent crime rates in the Country.

Oh Well! there goes that argument.🤷
 
sprout said:
I used to think that if people were allowed to carry guns then it would deter crime.

I had gone to visit my daughter in Arizona and while I was shopping at WalMart I saw several shoppers (not security guards or police) walking around with guns in holsters. My first thought was, ‘who would be foolish enough to try and rob a store when the guy standing in line behind you is probably carrying?’

Then my daughter reminded me that Arizona has one of the highest violent crime rates in the Country.

Oh Well! there goes that argument.🤷
Click to expand...
Actually no. That does not void your arguement.

Please read just the little excerpt above from the Harvard Law Journal. Clearly YOU WERE RIGHT.

However, in the case of Arizona, Arizona is ranked #17 in total population and (in 2005) was ranked #17 in violent crime. So the crime rate is consistent with the population, and no worse or no better. Consequently your daughter was wrong about the crime rate in Arizona.

If you like to read studies, the full report in the Harvard Law Review is actually fascinating to read because it explains how you were, in fact, correct. But it also discusses that criminals are often the most virulent types of pests and drags on society who prey on society, often within tight geographic areas.

One factor that Arizona deals with is that it is a border crossing state and that tends to increase violence, so people with guns are offsetting that increase and the effect appears to be neutral.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top