Rachel Maddow: More Guns Does Not Equal Less Crime
Rachel Maddow points out for us that despite Representatives Louie Gohmert and Trent Franks' fantasies about more guns equaling there being any less crime, in the states where we have more lenient gun laws, the opposite is true.
These idiots want to take us back to some version of the Wild Wild West and pretend that if everyone has the ability to shoot each other, somehow fewer people would end up being shot.
Rep. Gohmert apparently thinks that having guns on the House floor is a good idea as well.
Texas Republican Louie Gohmert Drafting Legislation To Let Guns on House Floor:
To Louie Gohmert, the answer to violence is more guns, and allowing members of congress to carry them on the House floor.“It’d be a good thing for members of Congress who want to carry a weapon in the District,” he said. “I know friends that walk home from the Capitol. There’s no security for us,” he said, adding that the measure would deter people from attacking members. “There is some protection in having protection.”He said there were times during the health care debate last year that he felt afraid, including when a stranger approached him on the street and started screaming at him.
Gohmert’s staff is preparing a bill that would allow guns. Of course, what do you expect from a man who believes women come to the United States to have “terror babies” and to whom comparing Obama to Hitler is “brilliant.”
And Rep. Trent Franks thinks if we'd just had one more shooter during that tragedy in Arizona, all would have been well.
Trent Franks: 'I Wish There Had Been One More Gun' In Tucson -- There was, and he almost shot the wrong person.
Here's more from Rachel Maddow's blog on why more guns in the hands of citizens doesn't ever equal less people being killed with guns with some stats on states and gun ownership.
Pity that the gun worshippers won't listen.
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
""There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
http://www.twainquotes.com/Statistics.html
i do appreciate that posters here are trying to improve our society, pity that so many good intentions are misdirected. behaviorists will tell you that positive reinforcement works lot's better than negative. rein in the excesses of capitalism, operate under a moral code that respects human life, and these problems will be greatly, greatly alleviated.
More guns = more gun crimes
The idea that guns prevent crime is idiocy. Guns are offensive weapons, not defensive weapons. They therefore benefit the criminal more than the law-abiding citizen.
but we have outlawed lot's of stuff, it simply goes underground. truth is most people pushing gun control don't want restrictions, they want prohibition. social engineering is best accomplished on the front end.
Just put a 1000% tax on ammunition.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
you can buy reloading suplies
Underground yes, but even simple regulations allow some control. Look to liquor, cigarettes and other vices. Eliminated no, but not as widespread either. A simple registration so that if a gun can be traced after a crime seems such a small thing. We are forced to register our cars!
This total capitulation to the gun lobby is ridiculous. Maybe a simple check on buying a gun or a waiting period will not deter safety or well being.
We're forced to register for marriage,
Is the bride loaded?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Depends on the groom, obviously.
In the marketplace of ideas, too many people shop in the bargain basement.
-- Thunder BlueRose
Why, yes, I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU
http://saxman.bravepages.com
but like a lot of citizens my fear is that once we go down this road.......
should we totally disband our armed forces?
do you really trust our government to protect you in all circumstances?
there is no need for a 30 round clip on a pistol, but you outlaw 30 round clips, then you can't buy them for a rifle. societies collapse, it has happened before. modern ammunition has an indefinite shelf life.
from a gun forum.
"Some of the nicest shooting 6.5 Swedish i ever shot was last year. The ammo was Swede manufactured in 1924 and 1926. That's a little over 80 years in storage"
i have shot 38 caliber cartridges that i know were over 50 years old. if you ever need it, there is no substitute.
but once again, do we disband our military? is force used by people in groups somehow more rational and reasonable?
All the feds need to do is place semi-automatic weapons (excluding maybe revolvers) and high capacity clips under the same law that regulates ownership of machine guns. This would prevent mass killings as only those really serious about gun ownership would be willing to go through the red tape required to obtain military-class weaponry.
When I was a kid, most people only had hunting weapons and revolvers, and there wasn't any *government tyranny.* Therefore, I don't see why the general public should get upset about not having instant access to high capacity semi-automatic pistols and rifles.
Should be FIRED for stealing from his employer, US! What a brainless fuckwad.
But Rachael... don't you get it? Facts don't matter to Republicans. They make it up as they go along... no rhyme, no reason, no logic... just whatever pops into their head at the time, counts.
Sorry, but this kinda seems like it goes in the "huh-duh" column ---
More cars = more car accidents
More guns = more gun crime and gun accidents
What is so difficult about for the gun nuts to understand? Of course, one must be willing to understand, first... silly me... there I go again.
In the marketplace of ideas, too many people shop in the bargain basement.
-- Thunder BlueRose
Why, yes, I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU
http://saxman.bravepages.com
Facts are such sticky little things.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
And they tend to have a decided liberal bias, at that.
In the marketplace of ideas, too many people shop in the bargain basement.
-- Thunder BlueRose
Why, yes, I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU
http://saxman.bravepages.com
Solving gun crimes by giving people more guns is like curing AIDS by letting more people have unprotected sex.
Texas Republican Louie Gohmert Drafting Legislation To Let Guns on House Floor:
I support that as long as they also allow guns in the gallery.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
not like we haven't seen that before: Violence Over Slavery on the Floor of the US Senate A Southern Congressman Attacked a Northern Senator With a Cane
guns in the cafeteria and bathrooms. Hey you never know...
NOBODY 2012
"The findings of the McDowall's study for the American Journal of Public Health contrast with the findings of a 1993 study by Gary Kleck, who finds that as many as 2.45 million crimes are thwarted each year in the United States, and in most cases, the potential victim never fires a shot in these cases where firearms are used constructively for self-protection.[62] The results of the Kleck studies have been cited many times in scholarly and popular media"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_...
not a bad wiki, tells both sides.
"in most cases, the potential victim never fires a shot"
http://www.charterfirearms.com/products/Chart...
good ladies gun, fits in a purse, that's what i'm talkin' bout.
The criminals will just amp their power needs.
In the same amount of time we squeeze off one or two shots, they squeeze off 36.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I bet we lose more people in texas due to gun violence in the next 30 years, to any of the phantom anchor babies you seem so worried about.
who use a gun commiting a crime - and we do away with most of our drug laws freeing up space for those who just won't get it.
O.k. I'm just throwing it out there.
that by itself would probably do more to reduce gun violence than anything else.
Can you imagine the NRA protesting mandatory sentences for gun crime?
Huh? Did he shoot and narrowly miss the wrong person? Did he pull his gun and point it at the wrong person stopping just short of pulling the trigger?
Or did he not even pull the gun and not even come remotely close to shooting the wrong person?
Corruption favors the wealthy.
as I understand it, from an interview I saw him give, it was the second of your listed possiblities - he pulled his gun and pointed it at the wrong person, only to stop just short of pulling the trigger when other bystanders managed to alert him in time that the person he initially targeted wasn't the perpetrator, but another hero who had just managed to get the perp's gun away from him.
- Pretzelogic in Philly, PA
And now for some feedback: Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
From a Slate article which also claims he almost killed the wrong guy despite the facts it relates.
Although, there may be a different interview I 'm not aware of. It happens :)
Corruption favors the wealthy.
took off the safety and had his hand on his gun while it was still in his pocket.
. . . almost killing the wrong guy.
And while I realize that the word "almost" has some elasticity to it, some liberties have been taken with this incident that defy logic. The same Slate article I link above, in the paragraph immediately after it noted that he didn't draw his weapon, claimed that he was "poised to fire."
How one can be "poised to fire" while still not having drawn the weapon is a mystery to me. Most people would draw their gun and point it at the target before they considered themselves poised to fire.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
While I can't quote ver batim, what he said was he had the gun in his pocket, he always carries it with him, when he heard the shots, he took off the safety, kept the gun in his pocket while holding it in his hand, ready to draw and fire.
Then he went on to say he didn't believe in gun control or some such thing.
the person he thought was the shooter (this person had Loughner's gun) until the people there told him that the person with the gun had wrestled it away from Loughner and to please help subdue Loughner.
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
You can knock a gun out of someone's hand before you can draw your own gun. In a public setting, criminals (or demented persons like Loughner) always have the element of surprise, so you have to do something to surprise them in return. Someone slapping the gun out of their hand is the last thing they would expect.
Scary Doctor Facts
This is really something to think about:
A. The number of physicians in the US is 700,000
B. Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year is 120,000
C. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171 (US Dept of Health & Human
Services).
Then think about this:
A. The number of gun owners in the US is 80,000,000.
B. The number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) is 1,500.
C. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188.
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than
gun owners.
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors
before this gets out of hand.
How come you don't mention homicides? Or those wounded? I'll remember this the next time my doctor (if I had insurance of course) pulls a gun on me in the examination room.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoU39Rpp4FI&fe...
What are the comparative poverty rates between the deep South (and Nevada) and the Eastern Seaboard (and Hawaii)? Or is economics no longer an accurate predictor of crime?
And just what is "The Violence Policy Center"? Who appointed them to be in charge of our "Violence Policy"? (whatever that is) According to Wikipedia: The Violence Policy Center is an "educational organization working to prohibit gun ownership in America, especially in relation to gun politics."
For an "educational organization" they seem to have very little understanding of the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc at least as far as this particular subject.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Here's an interesting observation about that chart: Did you happen to notice that all 5 of the states with the highest number of gun deaths are "Red States" while the 5 states with the lowest rates are all "Blue"?
coincidence???
tonight
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/uncatego...
Need to Know, January 14, 2011: Gun control, Haiti and high-speed rail
fact that we're quite a violent society. More guns begets more gun violence. There's no other rational conclusion. As Rachel pointed out, one of the guys who ran up to render assistance was carrying a gun. He freely admitted almost using it on the wrong person. Can you imagine if more people ran around with weapons how hard it would for law enforcement to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys.
might have evolved had this guy been a militia member or a war vet with PTSD. And yes, we are a violent society, angry and armed to the teeth. Not good news.
"No one ever said these people were logically consistent."
- watchdog -
I think this chart misses the causal relationship here. The chart implies a higher rate of gun ownership leads to higher rates of gun-related crime, but couldn't the opposite be true... that higher rates of gun crime result in people buying guns to protect themselves?
I'm anti-gun, but the data in this chart (as presented) is not exactly a solid link indicating more guns lead to more crimes.
I think there will always be bad guys with guns... the question is whether we need to allow good guys to have guns also, and the data above does NOT conclusively prove that good guys with guns is a bad thing.
It has been proven statistically. Looking at hot break-ins in Canada and England run about 50%. (Hot break-in is where someone breaks into the house when the family is at home). In the US hot break-ins are only 13%. The difference is that in England and Canada criminals know there are no guns in the house, so they feel no threat from the homeowners. In the US no one know which home has a gun and which ones do not. Additionally, when in counties/states where right to carry laws are passed, violent crime goes down dramatically because criminals do not know who does and does not have a gun. Thus far, no person with a right to carry permit has committed a crime or killed anyone outside of the law. This has been documented in the book "More Guns Less Crime" I am a hard line liberal, but facts have to impact laws. I love Rachel Maddow but she is wrong on this issue.
Stats Canada (a government agency) gives these stats: 2700 home invasions (what you're calling a "hot" break in) Canada in 2008
Source: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2010001...
Break and enters when no one was home: approximately 120,000 (200,000 break and enters in the country in 2007 of which nearly 6 in 10 were residential)
Extrapolating: 2700/120,000 = 2.25% of breakins with a weapon, not 50%.
In Canada, people do have firearms. The number of firearms is about 1/3 (per capita) the number of firearms in the States. Handguns for self defense are illegal here, for 99.9% of us.
12 gauges are not.
Most break and enters in Canada are committed when no one is home. It's easier. No chance that someone has a firearm in the house or any other kind of weapon that can be used. Burglars pick easy targets. Most are committed by younger guys.
The number of break and enters in Canada has been declining since 1991, when stricter gun control laws were passed.
Quote from Stats Can (Police reported Crime Statistics, 2008):
The 2008 rate of break and enter continued the downward trend that began in the early 1990s, and was 10% lower than in 2007 (Chart 9). The rate of reported break and enter in 2008 was less than half of what it was in 1991. Police reported over 200,000 break and enters in 2008, of which nearly 6 in 10 were residential. Another 32% were businesses and 9% were other locations such as schools, sheds and detached garages.
Quote from Stats Can (Police reported robbery in 2008):
Using the narrow definition, the rate of police-reported home invasions rose by 38% between 1999 and 2005 and has remained stable since. In 2008, approximately 2,700 such incidents came to the attention of police.
I'm not scared when I go to bed at night.
by John Lott. He was neutral or anti gun before he started his research and figured that the results would be totally opposite of what he found. His bio is outrageous, he is currently senior research scientist at Maryland University, and has taught law and economics at Harvard, University of Chicago(as an actual professor even), Yale law, Stanford... He was chief economist for the sentencing committee under Clinton
And for a non statistical "proof" compare Kennesaw, GA to Morton Grove, IL. Morton grove passed a city ordinance banning handguns, Kennesaw passed one requiring each head of household to own/maintain a firearm and ammo in response. Guess which one had crime drop significantly and which one had it increase?
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/7387...
and murder by firearms.
Morton Grove has had zero murders from 1999 - 2008. The crime rate dropped in those years: http://www.city-data.com/city/Morton-Grove-Il...
Kenneshaw Georgia? http://www.city-data.com/city/Kennesaw-Georgi...
The crime rate has increased.
In fact, there were a number of murders/shootings in Kenneshaw last year.
http://rn-t.com/bookmark/10152699
http://www.ajc.com/news/cobb/penske-murder-su...
http://www.ajc.com/news/brother-finds-cornwel...
http://romenews-tribune.com/view/full_story/1...
Your associated content article doesn't say who wrote it BTW; maybe get better sources.
Morton Grove Illinois doesn't have a gun ban. It was repealed three years ago.
from2008. So it wouldn't of had shootings from 2009/2010. And of the links you posted for the shootings. The first one was in Rome not Kennesaw, the Penske one wasn't in Kennesaw and the guy sounds insane which if your that nuts and want to do harm it doesn't matter what the law is, third is a dead link and the last mentions that the one guy was from Kennesaw but that's not where he killed himself which is homicide but not murder.
Yes there were a few murders in Kennesaw according to the city-data link, but it doesn't state what the murder weapon was, you do know that about 40% of homicides are not committed with a firearm in the US.
Also you the links you provided do not show what the crime rate was when the ordinances were put into place. I can't find them at the moment but it could be that the crime rate is lower/higher than when the ordinances were instituted. Iirc it was 81/81.
And the city-data crime index increased/decreased for both over the time period listed, not the crime rate. I don't know how they index the different crimes, Kennesaw has a lower rate of rapes, but a higher rate of auto theft for instance.
You are wrong Gun rights is a joke
More guns mean more crime You are wrong
the second amendment. I want my nuclear weapon! That'll teach those neighbor kids a lesson.
NOBODY 2012
I have a gun. It's in my shop, which is in an area that has frequent robberies. My wife is at home, alone. She also has a gun. Neither of these are for hunting or killing defenseless animals (we are both VERY much against hunting), they are for our own protection. I will NOT give up the right to protect myself. Somebody comes in my shop to rob me, I will blow him away. Somebody attacks my wife, ditto. I will not play patty-cake with them. In a free society, there are always a few incidents of some nutcase using a freedom to damage, hurt, kill, or annoy someone...that's the price you pay for having that freedom. It's a risk. If you want to give up your freedom to avoid risk, you are nothing but a slave. History is full of examples of oppressive governments coming to power because the unarmed population had no way to prevent it. Your daily news is full of examples of robberies, murders, rapes, etc., perpetrated on unarmed, defenseless people. It's very nice to have police, but they always show up AFTER the crime has been committed. Think about it.
"I will NOT give up the right to protect myself. Somebody comes in my shop to rob me, I will blow him away."
There are convenience store clerks shot and killed every day in this country. No gun would've saved them, as the criminal always has the element of surprise, and they will immediately shoot you if try and go for a gun. Most often when a person saves himself or herself from a criminal with a gun, they do so by simply slapping the gun out of the criminal's hand. In the few cases I've seen where storeowners or homeowners have actually used a gun to *protect* themselves, it was by shooting fleeing burglars in the back.
"History is full of examples of oppressive governments coming to power because the unarmed population had no way to prevent it."
I saw Boris Yeltsin stop a Soviet tank. He didn't have a gun in his hand. Clearly what protects people from an oppressive government is the force of the human spirit, not guns.
It's obvious that pro-gun people really aren't all that concerned about preventing crime, but are simply engaging in fantasy scenarios where they wind up a hero. What this indicates is that pro-gun people are experiencing feelings of mental and physical impotence. Such feelings are a product of age, so it's no surprise that the gun rights movement in the U.S. has coincided with the aging of America. In fact, I think it's safe to say that the entire conservative movement is a product of the aging of America, as all the vices we associate with conservatism - selfishness, paranoia, rage, etc. - also happen to be the symptoms of a deteriorating mind and body.
end watch shop in Santa Monica where over the years the owner had either shot - or shot and killed about a dozen people who had tried to rob him (I don't know how many people he killed, but I know it was a few). For a while, it seemed like he was in the news every year or so.
I was always afraid to go in there being a young athletic guy knowing an owner with an itchy finger was on the other side of the counter. But I happen to like antique watches so one day I went in. Man was it uncomfortable - he was just waiting for the wrong move or the wrong words - I kept thinking I was going to get shot.
I never went back.
. . . those shop owners without firearm protection were looted (and some were injured); those shop owners with firearms were not.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
I've got two buddies that work in the same convenience store and the owner keeps a gun there for the employees to use if they need. The instructions were, "if you think you can use it then do so, but only if the situation allows it; otherwise don't do anything to get hurt and hand over the money." I asked specifically that if after giving the crook the money, as he turns to run can you shoot him in the back and my friend said the boss told them specifically that once the perpetrator is leaving you can't shoot them in the back. I've also gotten to know the owner since then, and this store in particular has been robbed multiple times before. Clearly the owner speaks from real experience and not anecdotal evidence gleaned from reading news from all over the nation as you seem to do(not that your information is wrong).
Also, a gun isn't much use against a tank anyways. Not to mention the people of Chechnya probably do not share your vision of former Soviet Premier Boris Yeltsin as protecting people from an oppressive government.
I think you're right on the money as being able to have the right to defend yourself, and anybody that thinks that guns can't prevent some(not all of course) crimes from taking place are drinking from the same polluted kool-aid that those people who think if just everyone open carried then we'd all be safe(I tend to think open carry makes you a target for robbery, not an easy one, but a rewarding one if successful).
Mentioning the daily news filled with robberies, murders, rapes, I recall back a few years ago here in San Antonio for a number of months we were having 3-4 home invasions a week, with some homeowners being raped and/or killed, and many of them were armed robberies. Most of these invasions started by the perpetrators knocking on the door then forcing their way in when it was opened. Then one week, one night a homeowner had this happen to him but he had been armed and killed the guy(no charges filed against homeowner). Two nights later, again a home invasion involving multiple suspects had forced their way into the house where the homeowner then shot and killed one suspect immediately and shot another dead trying to flee after the first guy fell and the third got away. I didn't see any more home invasions on the news for the next couple weeks.
Did this solve the problem of home invasions, even temporarily? No, but I would bet money that whatever criminals had been planning another of these same crimes gave it at least a second thought after seeing the fates of some of his fellow crooks. Conversely, nobody in favor of the right to bear arms and use them for personal protection should ever kid themselves that just because they have a gun they are safe, or more dangerous (and deadly), think they can always defend themselves from an armed criminal. I had a buddy who shot pistols competitively in college at the national level a years or so back was carjacked and held hostage for a few hours by the mexican mafia(oh and the crime was never reported, because the first thing they do is take your wallet and then get your drivers license out and say "if you talk to the police about this, we know where you live now and we'll come kill you and your whole family"). He didn't have a gun with him at the time and had to comply and he says he wish he did, but you know what? Even if he had a gun, he was already at gunpoint before he knew what was happening, and at that point, trying to pull a gun would've gotten him killed. That's the reality that any responsible gun owner knows and lives with. I think the debate over gun ownership for the purposes of personal protection is much, much more nuanced than anything either the NRA or the left-leaning blogs I like reading(such as this one) want to admit.
I won't either.
I am right there with you that it's nice to have police, but they end up showing after the fact. My own example is living through Katrina. What do you do when there is a displaced wild pig or alligator on the front lawn and there is no one to call, but it's going to eat your pet or threatens your property?
Use bad language?
If everybody was packin' could you imagine future consummations of marriages?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
The number of firearms in Canada per capita (total number of firearms divided number of residents) was 31.5 firearms per 100 residents (Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countrie...)
In the U.S. it's 90 firearms per 100 residents. Approximately 3 times more than Canada (per capita).
Murder by Firearms? (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit...) Data from 2007.
US: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
Canada: 0.00502972 per 1,000 people
5 times more murders in the U.S. (approximately) in 2007 for every thousand people. The US has 3 times more firearms, and 5 times more murders than Canada.
BTW Canadians are not allowed, legally, to have a handgun for self defense except for very, very, very few exceptional cases.
But I disagree with her here, because I live in one of those high gun ownership states.
I live in Mississippi on the Gulf Coast. I went through Katrina from start to finish.
Every level of society, and safety broke down in that period, and we were contending with nature itself to survive. Wild animals were roaming through our neighborhoods.
I am a handgun owner.
That said, I don't carry it in public, and it is strictly for the defense of my home and vehicle. If you live in a different region of the US, you likely do not need one. In the deep South, however, you can break down and have issues with alligators.
That likely sounds ridiculous, but understand that I am a well-educated woman, who happens to live in a place where the police and security might not always be available. I'm certainly not alone.
Do I agree with the premise that more guns would have altered the tragedy in AZ? No, I don't.
Do I agree that guns are completely unnecessary? Absolutely not, and certain communities and regions do need them.
That's merely my observation.
I can't watch the video for some reason, but in regards to the infographic from her blog at the bottom of the entry, four of the five "highest in gun death" states are also in the the bottom 10 POOREST states in the US, and four of the five "lowest gun death" states are in the top 10 WEALTHIEST states in the US.
Correlation is not causation. Merely matching up correlating numbers tells us nothing about the underlying causes. I'm willing to wager that if every firearm disappeared tomorrow, areas of poverty are still going to have much higher homicide and suicide rates than areas of wealth.
Rep. Gohmert is right, Washington's Capitol Hill is dangerous. Those people in Tucson were killed outside a Safeway supermarket, and there's one of those on Kentucky Avenue, a mere 14 blocks from the Capitol.
See http://bit.ly/gOiEPp
Comments are closed on this entry