http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/27/us-usa-execution-texas-idUSBREA2Q0QQ20140327 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/02/walmart-baseball-bat-killing_n_1072429.html http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/police-arrest-man-in-late-night-baseball-bat-killing/article_c26f1a50-93db-11e3-a1bf-0017a43b2370.html
three different links but NOT this? http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8 Obviously people can and do get killed by baseball bats, but in the FBI list for "murder by weapon" (07-11) there are 8600 firearm murders in 2011. Bats are not even specifically identified and the entire category of "blunt instruments" is only 496are there any links for people killed ACCIDENTALLY by a bat? How about SUICIDE by bat?
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.
That's not true but even if you accept the basic premise you're highlighting MY point. There are many factors that contribute to violence and gun violence in general, so as a simple example one would expect more gun violence in the south side of Chicago then even a gun heavy affluent community BUT no one has suggested that things are linear. I have suggested - and posted numerous studies to back it up - what should be common sense and that is that we have a lot of gun violence because we have a lot of guns. Of course there are other factors. Gangs are a negative factor but then general affluence is a positive factor. But when you have a lot if guns disputes get settled with guns and not those knives and bats. No better example than the recently Wesley Chapel theater shooting. There are a lot of guns easily available so crooks choose guns over knives and bats ...a lot if people die here as a result of property crimes. Is that even shocking?
You are still making a leap that the inanimate object is causing the violence. That is my quibble. There was no such thing as "spear violence" or "sword violence" in the middle ages when the murder rate was astronomically higher than today. Violence is a decision into and of itself, the tool used to commit that violence is an outcome of a previously made decision to resort to violence.
I am not, but to use your example, the French gave up spears and swords when the Germans showed up with guns. Guns are more deadly than those other weapons and very deadly in general. From a Public Health we usually restrict access to things that are very deadly ...except guns. Why? Money You want me to show you how to but an AR right now, no questions asked?Like I have said all along .... More guns = more gun violence. We have more gun violence in this country than necessary ... In large part so a small industry can make a lot of money
Dal, your last sentence is actually the subject of a recent study. I have posted the link before and will again, but basically the conclusion is that this country has a high number of property crimes and assaults that become murders specifically because the person involve chooses a gun as the weapon. Obviously, availability is part of that process for choosing the gun. Another factor is effectiveness. There are other factors like culture etc, but to deny that availability and effectiveness play a big role would be absurd. More guns = more gun violenceBy the way, have you ever seen a story in the press about a 4 year old accidentally killing himself with his father's baseball bat?
I am not, but to use your example, the French gave up spears and swords when the Germans showed up with guns. Guns are more deadly than those other weapons and very deadly in general. From a Public Health we usually restrict access to things that are very deadly ...except guns. Why? Money You want me to show you how to but an AR right now, no questions asked?Like I have said all along .... More guns = more gun violence. We have more gun violence in this country than necessary ... In large part so a small industry can make a lot of money
The thing is you want to reduce violence or reduce gun violence, yes, we can lower the rate of gun crime (actually I doubt this but just to play pretend games) but you replace gun crime with other forms of violence and you aren't solving for much of anything. The idea that guns = higher rates of violence and crime are fairly easily disproven by a wandering into the past to see what rates of violence looked like. Again, the problem now like then is the willingness to use a weapon sword,spear, club or gun. Our property crimes turn into violent crimes not because people have a gun but because they are willing to use it. The willingness to kill is the critical element here. There is a reason that a fairly well armed populace in Switzerland doesn't have a much of a rate of gun crime and the difference isn't access but attitude. Here is the reality and why you are wasting time. There are already too many guns here. We could outlaw sales and short of massive confiscation which won't happen and would miss the guns used by criminals anyways the number of guns is simply too large to ever solve the problem you think exists. It isn't often you can look at a problem and say don't solve X because Y is a MUCH bigger problem but in this case that is exactly what you have to look at.
