How to dramatically reduce gun violence in American cities

[otjm]

Comparing the characteristics of one country to another is for the large part irrelevant and not productive to any conversation.

It is interesting to note, as you cite generalizations on various countries, that Stalin and Mao made a direct and ruthless action of removing firearms from individuals; if you want the most recent example, there is Venezuela. Read the Second Amendment; it is put in place first and foremost to provide defense against an unjust government - which started with England, but was clearly on the minds of those who defeated England; and it has been a factor since.

And if you want something to read, I would suggest Gun Control in the Third Reich by Stephen P. Halbrook. While it may or may not have been a deciding factor had it not occurred (there are legitimate questions of whether or not the Jewish population and the enemies of the Reich would have revolted), the bottom line is the Nazis clearly thought it necessary as part of their consolidation of power.

 

[graciew]

I understood what she said in the sense that we have a right to self defense but it isn t a “ divine right” to have “a firearm “ for self defense.
If I am not allowed to have a gun say in US as a temporary resident, and it is ok, I cannot claim that right as “divine” or that I need a gun on religious grounds.

 

[otjm]

Well, we disagree. If someone enters your home or if you are threatened on the street, what do you propose as a means of self defense? Spray will require close proximity and if they are searing glasses, is ineffective; a baseball bat or similar item will require even closer proximity.

The short of it is that you are saying that we have a right to protect ourselves, but not the means.

 

[TK421]

Jews having guns so they could get obliterated by the German military at even greater speed is one of the sadder attempts to show the idea has any use or legitmacy. Most of them wouldn’t have tried in the first place because they know better.

If America ever goes full blown authoritarian it will happen with widespread support among the people. 2nd amendment laws where lower-class people have pistols to protect themselves and their families from a hostile regime is risible.

 

[Emeraldlady]

The statistic is not “voided” - it is not made meaningless. And please provide the statistic from which you make the statement that “as many or more”. “As many as” from a news report is irrelevant unless it is backed by a study.

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey of over 1,900 adults conducted in 1996, we find that criminal gun use is far more common than self-defense gun use. This result is consistent with findings from other private surveys and the National Crime Victimization Surveys. In this survey, all reported cases of criminal gun use and many cases of self-defense gun use appear to be socially undesirable. There are many instances of gun use, often for intimidation, that are not reported to the police and may not appear in official crime statistics.

The relative frequency of offensive and defensive gun uses

I am well aware of the NRA’s position; I practiced law and did divorce work, so I am not exactly ignorant of the use of restraining orders.

the point of the NRA objections has to do with hearings; the spouse can appear by themselves, make allegations and the judge can issue an order, whether or not therre is a lick of truth in it, and I am also well aware of “talk” - meaning, if the wife/girlfriend wants to devestate the other side, lack of truth is an extremely effective weapon.

The NRA in the last debate was flatly rejecting closing “the boyfriend” loophole. That is if a domestic situation comes to the courts attention, a partner who has already had a conviction for domestic abuse or stalking, could be barred from owning a weapon. How often do we find that dating and domestic abusers are serial material? It’s one of those crimes that is rarely one off. They are a certain type of male. I’ve been involved in the counselling field in the past who specialised in relationship and family dysfunction. Males who kill their partners have a long lead up to that point.

 

[otjm]

And there are a multitude of civilians using a gun (without firing) to protect against robbery and/or assault which do not go reported either.

The source you site - do they give a statistic of any sort?

And you are correct that abuse doesn’t simply come out of nowhere. The matter is food for another thread, so I will not take it further. My frustration was with abuse victims, trying to get them into counseling and their choice to not do so - the dynamics of abuse in all too many circumstances ends up in self fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Theo520]

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey of over 1,900 adults conducted in 1996, we find that criminal gun use is far more common than self-defense gun use. This result is consistent with findings from other private surveys and the National Crime Victimization Surveys. In this survey, all reported cases of criminal gun use and many cases of self-defense gun use appear to be socially undesirable. There are many instances of gun use, often for intimidation, that are not reported to the police and may not appear in official crime statistics.

The relative frequency of offensive and defensive gun uses

I have a strong suspicion your study wasn’t reviewed. I can’t find an online presence for the journal and the research abstract is very scarce on any supporting details about the study, doesn’t even summarize the data but somehow does determine what is “socially undesirable”

Since it contradicts CDC research, I’m leaning towards junk science.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Perhaps you should read and reflect on paragraphs 2263 - 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church; the right of self defense is a moral right, explicated by St Thomas Aquinas as part of moral law, given by God - so a divine right.

Aquinas states that the self defense must be ‘moderate’ and ‘blameless’. The majority of countries around the world who recognise the divine right to defend our lives, also ban guns for self defense, deeming them immoderate. That’s because guns have proved to be more harm than good as unrestricted tools for self defense. These countries aren’t fooled by the propaganda of the gun lobby because the age of the internet makes the facts abundantly visible. Like the English law that the US law is based on, we regard guns as an ‘auxiliary’ right to the right of resistance and defense. Not an inalienable or divine right in itself.

 

[pnewton]

Since it contradicts CDC research, I’m leaning towards junk science.

Do you have any research that says otherwise? I do not think it contradicts the CDC, and being on the NCBI website, it is unfair to consider it junk without evidence.

 

[Emeraldlady]

And there are a multitude of civilians using a gun (without firing) to protect against robbery and/or assault which do not go reported either.

The source you site - do they give a statistic of any sort?

It isn’t that it is impossible to gather statistics of this sort. It is because the NRA aggressively blocks the gathering of that kind of statistic using their political influences and copious wealth.

In 1993, a CDC-funded study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that firearms kept at home increased the risk of homicide by someone in the household, rather than offering protection. Soon after this article was published, the NRA launched a targeted campaign to eliminate “anti-gun propaganda” within the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC. Study author Dr. Arthur Kellerman remembers receiving a note from the research coordinator for the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action: “It said something to the effect of, ‘Dear Art: With publication of your last study, you have graduated from the public health file to your own, named file at the NRA headquarters.’”

In 1996, Dickey, a lifelong NRA member and self-described “point man” for the NRA, inserted this provision into the federal spending bill that targeted the CDC’s $2.6 million in annual funding to study gun violence: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” As a result,the National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, the research arm that had produced the 1993 study, was disbanded.

The NRA moved quickly to quash similar research at other agencies. In 2009, the NIH’s National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism funded a study that examined whether carrying a gun increases or decreases the risk of firearm assault. In 2012, Congress extended the CDC language to all Department of Health and Human Services agencies, including the NIH.

The NRA has taken credit for blocking government gun violence research.

How the NRA Suppressed Gun Violence Research | Union of Concerned Scientists

 

[Theo520]

Do you have any research that says otherwise? I do not think it contradicts the CDC, and being on the NCBI website, it is unfair to consider it junk without evidence.

The link failed to provide any of the normal information I see with solid research, so I suspect it’s quality is in question. The abstract doesn’t even provide any data to concur or refute.

Here’s an article on the CDC research

That Time The CDC Asked About Defensive Gun Uses

 

[Odilon]

Forget all the studies that say this or that, because once again at the heart of this it is not the guns, it is the people involved. In Chicago where gun control is very strict, people are shooting themselves left and right. Roll down the highway into Indiana and not many people are getting shot despite the fact that they have a liberal concealed carry law and far less restrictions. It’s the people, not the guns. Take all the guns out of Chicago and they will be killing each other with edged weapons, bats, pieces of steel, or whatever weapon they can find. Those animals will simply not stop killing each other no matter what you do. The problem can only be lessoned by taking the worst offenders out of circulation by imprisoning them.

 

[Emeraldlady]

And if you want something to read, I would suggest Gun Control in the Third Reich by Stephen P. Halbrook. While it may or may not have been a deciding factor had it not occurred (there are legitimate questions of whether or not the Jewish population and the enemies of the Reich would have revolted), the bottom line is the Nazis clearly thought it necessary as part of their consolidation of power.

I have to laugh when I see this claim made. In 1939 Jews made up a mere 0.42% of the German population. Halve that to account for the percentage that would be capable of using a gun and it’s truly laughable to believe that being armed against the troops of the 3rd Reich and every other Jew hating German with a gun, would have saved the them.

 

[Theo520]

You misrepresent what he said. There were quite a few other German opponents to Nazi rule. All but the loyal were disarmed.

 

[Emeraldlady]

You misrepresent what he said. There were quite a few other German opponents to Nazi rule. All but the loyal were disarmed.

What sort of weapons did the general population have that would make any difference in an armed uprising with the government? The Nazis as well has having the usual handguns and rifles and bayonets and knives, had all manner of submachine guns, flame throwers, vehicle and aircraft mounted machine guns, demolition charges, mortars, rocket launchers, howitzers, tanks, anti tank weapons, anti aircraft weapons, armoured cars, armoured carriers, radars, missles and bombs and on it goes.

To imagine that ordinary people could have risen up against the Nazis 80 years ago is not even as insane as thinking that ordinary Americans could rise up against the US government and its modern day armoury though.

 

[Theo520]

You are the one imagining things, I simply pointed out you misrepresented what was said.

What’s clear is that the NAZI party did consolidate power and took means of opposition away from their opponents. I don’t know how things would have played out if they remained armed.

 

[Emeraldlady]

I don’t know how things would have played out if they remained armed.

That issue can play no credible part as a pro gun argument in the US of today.

 

[Aquinas11]

To imagine that ordinary people could have risen up against the Nazis 80 years ago is not even as insane as thinking that ordinary Americans could rise up against the US government and its modern day armoury though.

You’re making a perfect argument for 2nd amendment and gun rights in line with Founding Fathers.

The scope of Government weaponry (as you outline) being so vast mandates citizens arm themselves to prevent future tyrannical genocide. In fact, that’s why 2nd amendment discusses a “militia”, it required every able bodied man to have a gun in his house in event he was called to resist a tyrannical government. So I just want to thank you for making the case so well and pointing out how much the scales are tipped and out of balance and clearly that citizenry need to arm up and balance the scales.

I have to laugh when I see this claim made. In 1939 Jews made up a mere 0.42% of the German population. Halve that to account for the percentage that would be capable of using a gun and it’s truly laughable to believe that being armed against the troops of the 3rd Reich and every other Jew hating German with a gun, would have saved the them.

Another excellent argument for more guns. If a mere 0.42% can’t defeat an armed Government, then your post makes the argument that far more % need to own guns for citizenry to effectively resist tyranny! Excellent point!!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Another excellent argument for more guns. If a mere 0.42% can’t defeat an armed Government, then your post makes the argument that far more % need to own guns for citizenry to effectively resist tyranny! Excellent point!!

No, the point is that no number of guns in private hands has much of a chance against a powerful government. So if you want to protect yourself against a powerful repressive government, do something else!

 

[Aquinas11]

the point is that no number of guns in private hands has much of a chance against a powerful government

that’s clearly not the point or no number would even be cited, particularly with “mere” before the number, and then further saying it was actually “halve that”. A lot of quantitative analysis if “no number” had a chance.