As to your mention of Heller, perhaps what you dont know that it doesn't mean what you think it means? http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2011/08/so-what-happened-to-chicagos-murder-and.html So what happened to Chicago's Murder and Violent Crime rates after the Supreme Court decision in June 2010 striking down Chicago's gun laws?In DC, the change in gunlock laws as a result of the Supreme Court decision meant that about a third of adults already had registered long guns that they were now allowed to legally load and fire for self defense. In Chicago, very few new guns have been allowed and that gun ownership is essentially restricted to relatively well to do areas (see below). Yet it is the poorest parts of the city where crime is the worst and where people need guns the most for self protection. One would thus expect a much bigger change in crime rates from the Heller than the McDonald decisions. Still, for Chicago, the change in the law has not had the bad effect that many had predicted.
This part is just to strange to even respond to without asking for a clarification. Are you saying that striking the Chicago gun ban should've led to an increase in gun violence but that striking the DC ban should not? Huh?
again, not really sure how it is controversial that MORE GUNS = MORE GUN VIOLENCE . . . but here's the same Harvard Center talking about the impact guns have on women. Tiis was cited in response to the NRA trying to say that "assault rifles" were needed by women because they had to defend themselves against stronger men. 1. Across states, more guns = more female violent deaths We analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and unintentional gun death, homicide and suicide for women across the 50 states over a ten year period. Women in states with many guns have elevated rates of unintentional gun deaths, suicides and homicide, particularly firearm suicides and firearm homicides http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/misperceptions/ obviously guns are more delay then, say, a hammer. You can kill people with both, but the reason someone would choose a gun over a hammer is specifically because it is more effective. So, if one can accept that simple logic, it should not be hard to understand that when there are a lot of guns around there are a lot of disputes being settled by guns . . rather than hammers. Similarly, it should go without saying that it is more likely that someone will be seriously injured or killed in an accident with a gun than with a hammer. That's not to say both cant do the job, just that its more likely because the very purpose of the gun is to injure and kill. Same thing with suicides, gun versus hammer, which is more deadly?If you want another example, look at the recent shooting in the Wesley Chapel movie theater . . . that was one of your "gun good guys" -- a career cop. If he doesn't have the gun, the two guys spit on each other, maybe punches are thrown . . . but it is VERY UNLIKLEY anyone dies. If you can understand that, then it should be obvious why guns are a PUBLIC HEALTH issue . .they cause often times PREVENTABLE death and injurylet me know if you get the point WT. NO one was making the argument you just made or that was the focus of that one Harvard report
You are more likely to get struck by lightning when there is a lot of lighting around. If you swim in a pond with one piranha you're less likely to get bit then in a pond with 10,000 piranha .. . more guns = more gun violence. Not even sure that is controversial, but hey . .
I understand your logic Vin. But, that would mean the only solution would mean to eliminate guns, right?
You are more likely to get struck by lightning when there is a lot of lighting around. If you swim in a pond with one piranha you're less likely to get bit then in a pond with 10,000 piranha .. . more guns = more gun violence. Not even sure that is controversial, but hey . .
I understand your logic Vin. But, that would mean the only solution would mean to eliminate guns, right?
No, because there is SO MUCH room to improve between the 30,000 or so deaths/injuries we have in the US per year and ZERO. If you look at all the common preventable death issues that are considered in the Public Health perspective -- things like smoking, cancer, car accidents --- none of them are zeroes, nor will they ever be. Its the same thing with guns, I don't think anyone says it should be zero, its just that the current effort is to do almost nothing, or at best very little, and that is primarily PROFIT driven, so we should do something, just like we do with every other Public Health issue to try and REDUCE preventable deaths/injuries.
You are more likely to get struck by lightning when there is a lot of lighting around. If you swim in a pond with one piranha you're less likely to get bit then in a pond with 10,000 piranha .. . more guns = more gun violence. Not even sure that is controversial, but hey . .
I understand your logic Vin. But, that would mean the only solution would mean to eliminate guns, right?
No, his logic is wrong. Using that same logic there should be a metric crap ton of knife violence because there are alot more knives lying around than guns. There should be a lot of baseball bat violence too. Oddly the area that I live in has a higher rate of gun ownership AND a high number of guns owned per gun owner (the average is over 6 which is flippin' crazy to me) than almost anywhere in the USA and it has a stunningly low rate of gun violence. The firearms are a symptom of other problems not a cause.
