Murder Rate Down

[Zacha341]

I'm sure the supposed stats are out there.

Bottom line: Gun ownership is very serious, even more so should you have children around or even children or teens 'visiting'. Hand guns even more so. It's not for everyone. But I know more criminals are aware that more people of various levels of responsibility, knowledge of use, etc. own guns and are ready to use them to defend themselves -- particularly in their homes.

I would really like to know the odds of stopping a robber who would have broken into the house and actually killed a family member vs. the chances of accidental gun death of your own child in these urban households.

[Wesley Mouch]

The types of parents who leave the house with a loaded shotgun laying around for their kids to find are not the responsible "hunting and fishing, growing up with guns" type. I would really like to know the odds of stopping a robber who would have broken into the house and actually killed a family member vs. the chances of accidental gun death of your own child in these urban households.

Well that is the important calculation.

It may be unknowable. The stats are unlikely to really provide good information.

But that said, Detroit's death-by-gun rate for intruders seems to be higher than its accidental youth death-by-gun rate. But I'm basing that mostly on the series of intruder deaths reported in the media --- who I think would be very likely to report on accidental death by gun too.

In a low-crime area, is probably is a bad idea to have guns around.

In a high-crime area, is probably a good idea to have guns around.

Since Detroit's death rate is going down, whatever is being done seems to be a good thing. Whether intruder or child, nobody wants dead people [[although given a choice, I'd rather a dead criminal)

[Scottathew]

In a low-crime area, is probably is a bad idea to have guns around.

In a high-crime area, is probably a good idea to have guns around.

I agree with you here. If I lived in Detroit I more than likely would have a loaded gun in a secured safe in my bedroom.

[Honky Tonk]

I would really like to know the odds of stopping a robber who would have broken into the house and actually killed a family member vs. the chances of accidental gun death of your own child in these urban households.

I would like to know how many people that were robbed, beaten, tortured, raped, permanently crippled, or killed, would be Ok today had they had a weapon to defend themselves with.

[Gpwrangler]

In a low-crime area, is probably is a bad idea to have guns around.

In a high-crime area, is probably a good idea to have guns around.

Crime rate has little to do with whether or not it is a good idea to have a gun. If a person and their family cannot responsibly and safely handle and store a weapon they should avoid having one. If you're in a low crime area and a criminal picks you, you still might want to have the option to defend rather than flee.

The vast majority, based on the stats, are responsible.

[Scottathew]

Crime rate has little to do with whether or not it is a good idea to have a gun. If a person and their family cannot responsibly and safely handle and store a weapon they should avoid having one. If you're in a low crime area and a criminal picks you, you still might want to have the option to defend rather than flee.

The vast majority, based on the stats, are responsible.

Responsible gun ownership is a must. However, the point is that you have more incentive\reason to own a gun if you live in a high crime area.

If you live in Rochester Hills you're far less likely to need to defend your home against intruders than if you live in Detroit.

I think it's great that so many responsible gun owners in Detroit are living, and the bad guys are dying instead. I wouldn't be surprised if responsible gun ownership, along with improving police coverage are responsible for a decline in some crimes in Detroit.

[aj3647]

I would like to know how many people that were robbed, beaten, tortured, raped, permanently crippled, or killed, would be Ok today had they had a weapon to defend themselves with.

What's stopping them from carrying a gun? Michigan has had shall-issue CCW for 13 years now. It's not hard to get a permit provided you are legally allowed to carry a gun. The only thing stopping people from carrying a gun is lack of interest in carrying a gun. Guns aren't for everyone, just like serving in the military is not for everyone. Not everyone can bring themselves to fire a gun or take a human life, even if threatened. And if they aren't responsible enough to carry one or aren't trained, then it may even be counter-productive.

Contrary to what the NRA says, not everyone should be armed.

[Danny]

Murder rate down. It's only winter. Wait til summer, than the murders in Detroit will get hot.

[Scottathew]

Murder rate down. It's only winter. Wait til summer, than the murders in Detroit will get hot.

It's the murder rate for the year of 2014, including the summer. Hopefully it's a trend, and next year at this time we will be talking about how crime is even lower in 2015.

[Wesley Mouch]

...snip...I think it's great that so many responsible gun owners in Detroit are living, and the bad guys are dying instead. I wouldn't be surprised if responsible gun ownership, along with improving police coverage are responsible for a decline in some crimes in Detroit.

The fight against this logic is so obviously inspired by the liberal orthodoxy against guns. No examples where guns do provide the safety the NRA claims can be allowed to be spread, as it undermines righteous efforts to control guns.

That gun ownership and active use against home invasions helps fight crime and provides justics is of no interest -- if it undermines the campaign against guns.

The self-delusional thinking on this forum is much of the reason I like it here. I am genuinely curious about people who fight so loudly against the obvious, and continue to hold onto battles of the past.

I favor reasonable gun control, but dislike obsession overreaction. And I clearly see that in Detroit gun ownership likely reduces crime. And probably so does a cold spell.

[Midnight Rambler]

The Second Amendment is my weapons permit, period.

[401don]

Oops again.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/new...-mom/21068617/

[Novack]

What were the final numbers for the year now. It appears there were 4 or 5 more murders in the news I am saddened to point out.

[aj3647]

I favor reasonable gun control, but dislike obsession overreaction. And I clearly see that in Detroit gun ownership likely reduces crime. And probably so does a cold spell.

That's the problem though. There's no room in the debate for people who support reasonable gun control. Even supporting the existing background check system makes you a "freedom-hating gun grabber" to the Pro-Gun side. The pro-gun side has become so radicalized that anyone who supports ANY form of gun regulation no matter how reasonable is the "enemy." Anything short of being able to buy a fully-auto MAC-10 out of a vending machine or being able to buy a Surface to Air missile at Walmart is an abridgment of their freedoms. It's insane.

[Wesley Mouch]

That's the problem though. There's no room in the debate for people who support reasonable gun control. Even supporting the existing background check system makes you a "freedom-hating gun grabber" to the Pro-Gun side. The pro-gun side has become so radicalized that anyone who supports ANY form of gun regulation no matter how reasonable is the "enemy." Anything short of being able to buy a fully-auto MAC-10 out of a vending machine or being able to buy a Surface to Air missile at Walmart is an abridgment of their freedoms. It's insane.

Yeah, and I'm sure you'll agree that the left is just the same with their zeal. If guns in Detroit do protect citizens as the NRA claims, well, they're just 100% wrong and should accept a complete bad today -- and that will solve all your problems with crime.

[mwilbert]

If you could get rid of all the guns, that would clearly be better from a public safety standpoint than having the vast quantity of guns that exist now. Tens of thousands fewer people would die prematurely every year, and even more wouldn't be injured. I'm ignoring whatever benefits may exist from gun ownership in the event of a Russian invasion or government abuse or similar.

But as getting rid of all the guns seems impossible, you have to look at the tradeoff between the benefits and the costs of wider gun ownership. Lots of people get killed because there are so many guns around. Those cases are relatively easy to document because there is a body--the 29 year old mother who was killed by her two year old at Walmart last week would not be dead if she hadn't been carrying a gun in her purse. There would be no mass shootings. On the other hand, it is a lot harder to count people who aren't killed/robbed/assaulted because they are carrying a gun, or perhaps because someone thinks that they might be carrying a gun, but we know this is something that happens; we just don't know how much. As Congress has done its best to make it impossible to fund studies on gun ownership and its public health implications, we don't really have the data to make reasonable policy choices.

[JBMcB]

The disconnect in the gun debate is, I believe, rather simple.

The pro-gun-control side says we need tighter regulations on guns to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands.

The anti-gun-control side says that if you are the "wrong hands" sort of person and you really want a gun, you're going to get one anyways, and the stricter regulations place a burden on those willing to go through the proper procedures anyways.

The statistics don't help out much. There are cities with strict gun laws that have low crime rates. There are cities with strict gun laws that have high crime rates. There are small towns where nearly everybody owns a small cache of guns that have zero crime. I'm not sure how you tease out any useful information out of any of that.

[Scottathew]

I'd like to see common sense gun control laws that apply to every time a gun changes ownership. Exactly what "common sense" is would require a lot of thought. But I do feel strongly that these regulations should apply to any transfer of ownership of a firearm.

I'm not a gun nut, but I certainly get the point of the gun lobby that if we flat-out make guns illegal, that all the law abiding folks will turn them in, and all the bad guys will still have them.

I would like to see some items become illegal, such as large capacity clips\magazines. A 30 round magazine isn't needed to help defend your home, but it sure is handy if you want to kill nearly 30 kids in an elementary school.

[aj3647]

Yeah, and I'm sure you'll agree that the left is just the same with their zeal. If guns in Detroit do protect citizens as the NRA claims, well, they're just 100% wrong and should accept a complete bad today -- and that will solve all your problems with crime.

Yes, but let's not perpetuate the "both sides are equal" fallacy. The anti-gun left doesn't have 1/10th the clout, money, power, or influence as the radical pro-gun right. Do you really think the Brady Center is even close to being as influential as the NRA?

Are there liberals out there who want to ban guns? Sure. But nobody listens to them, certainly not politicians. Are there conservatives out there who think that people should be allowed to freely carry guns into bars, courtrooms, airports, and elementary schools without so much as a permit or even a simple background check? Or who think it's completely normal to take your AR-15 with you to Kroger while you go grocery shopping? Yes there are...and the Republican Party DOES listen to them. Very much so. That's the fundamental difference between the anti-gun Left and the pro-gun Right. We couldn't pass a Universal Background Check law after Sandy Hook even though it had the support of >85% of the general population.

[canuck]

I'd like to see common sense gun control laws that apply to every time a gun changes ownership. Exactly what "common sense" is would require a lot of thought. But I do feel strongly that these regulations should apply to any transfer of ownership of a firearm.

I'm not a gun nut, but I certainly get the point of the gun lobby that if we flat-out make guns illegal, that all the law abiding folks will turn them in, and all the bad guys will still have them.

I would like to see some items become illegal, such as large capacity clips\magazines. A 30 round magazine isn't needed to help defend your home, but it sure is handy if you want to kill nearly 30 kids in an elementary school.

I think you can hope for legal limits on ownership of automatic, semi-automatic weapons maybe in the U.S.; but not much else. Canada had a gun registry that fucked up from the get go and cost us a couple of billion to implement. There was so much opposition to it except in Quebec where the govt negotiates with the federal govt to get the records for Quebec owners. The police in all provinces were pretty much for the gun controls but didnt manage to get Harper to keep the thing going.

A gun registry in the United States would be a bureaucratic nightmare with many agencies bloating out of proportion. What bothers me is the ease of acquisition in the U.S. for something like a military style weapon. This has upped the ante in the police departments and then people complain about more control, heavier set forces etc... It's a vicious circle conundrum for sure. Meanwhile, the incarceration rates are rising. The only positive is that there are fewer murders and violent crimes generally in the U.S. but it is still much higher than in the rest of the wealthy nations pact. Another variable in this gun situation is the promotion of guns via video games and movies which makes the whole problem nearly unsurmountable. The "culture of violence" would have to diminish for the violence to abate. As you mention, the nutjobs who have access to a powerful weapon can easily walk into a schoolroom and empty rounds into innocent kids in seconds. That is where we have very little control over individuals with mental, behavioral problems unless they advertize their deeds in advance...

[Gpwrangler]

That's the problem though. There's no room in the debate for people who support reasonable gun control. Even supporting the existing background check system makes you a "freedom-hating gun grabber" to the Pro-Gun side. The pro-gun side has become so radicalized that anyone who supports ANY form of gun regulation no matter how reasonable is the "enemy." Anything short of being able to buy a fully-auto MAC-10 out of a vending machine or being able to buy a Surface to Air missile at Walmart is an abridgment of their freedoms. It's insane.

Exaggerations aside, we do have a very strict background check system with very stiff penalties. I don't know a single person who opposes this step and my friends tend toward the conservative side. We already do have laws prohibiting fully auto weapons in private hands as well as prohibitions against having missiles etc. Doesn't stop criminals because they usually skip registration, grind off serial numbers, etc.

Just thought I would throw that in. We already have the laws mentioned above.

[Wesley Mouch]

Yes, but let's not perpetuate the "both sides are equal" fallacy. The anti-gun left doesn't have 1/10th the clout, money, power, or influence as the radical pro-gun right. Do you really think the Brady Center is even close to being as influential as the NRA?
...snip...

Ahm, having the President of the United States behind you is hardly having no clout or power.

But I posted to highlight the fallacy of your logic. Both sides are equal. They both have opportunities to present their case. And the public has so far voted for legislators who do not
want to ban guns. Oh, and the judiciary has leaned towards defending the minority rights of gun owners. They are not an equality nor popularity contest. Its a contest of ideas, rooted in respect for constitutional right. Those rights are in the constitution to protect minorities from majoritarian or mob rule. Seems they are working. That's not inequality.

Not getting your way is not 'unequal'.

[Scottathew]

Another variable in this gun situation is the promotion of guns via video games and movies which makes the whole problem nearly unsurmountable. The "culture of violence" would have to diminish for the violence to abate. As you mention, the nutjobs who have access to a powerful weapon can easily walk into a schoolroom and empty rounds into innocent kids in seconds. That is where we have very little control over individuals with mental, behavioral problems unless they advertize their deeds in advance...

This is exactly why my children are not allowed to have toy guns, period. They're still too young for me to worry about violent video games, but I'll probably banish those as well. We've been drilling empathy into their brains.

But as you say, it just takes one guy with a mental defect and his mom's legally obtained bushmaster to take out an unthinkable amount of children and innocents. Even if these people do announce their evil intentions in advance, will the right people hear it? Will people take it seriously? Will less-direct threats be protected as free speech?

I was talking with some of my gun-nut friends and I asked them why they needed "military style" weapons. The response that I got was that "military style" and "assault" weapons are basically the same as normal weapons, but they look mean and scary through styling and color. Basically, they're still guns, they still shoot bullets, and styling doesn't matter. So banning "military" and "assault" weapons will accomplish nothing, according to them.

I haven't heard a contrary opinion based on fact on this subject.

[aj3647]

Ahm, having the President of the United States behind you is hardly having no clout or power.

I'm talking lobbyists and industry here. Who's more politically powerful, the NRA or the Brady Center? Which side has more big money donors and lobbyists and influence?

Why did the Universal background check bill fail in Congress after Sandy Hook despite having overwhelming [[75-85%) public support? Answer that question and then tell me that the pro-gun lobby and the anti-gun lobby have equal influence... Only one side can override the will of 80% of the American people.

This isn't a matter of opinion, I can show you hard numbers showing exactly how much money the NRA donates to political campaigns versus anti-gun groups. Who do you think spends more, WAY more, if you had to guess?

Exaggerations aside, we do have a very strict background check system with very stiff penalties.

Private sales are not subject to background checks. You can go on any number of online marketplaces and arrange to buy a handgun from a private seller. No background check, no questions asked, and it's all perfectly legal. If you can't buy one at the store because you are a convicted felon, just buy it online or at a gun show from a private seller.

I don't know a single person who opposes this step and my friends tend toward the conservative side.

The NRA opposes it. They opposed the 1993 Brady Bill that established background checks on commercial firearms sales. They spent MILLIONS of dollars trying to defeat that bill and then years in court trying to abolish it. And most recently, they opposed the universal background check bill. The Pro-gun side has never been OK with background checks and that they begrudgingly accept it now because they have no choice is in no way some sort of tacit endorsement.

[Wesley Mouch]

I'm talking lobbyists and industry here. Who's more politically powerful, the NRA or the Brady Center? Which side has more big money donors and lobbyists and influence?

Why did the Universal background check bill fail in Congress after Sandy Hook despite having overwhelming [[75-85%) public support? Answer that question and then tell me that the pro-gun lobby and the anti-gun lobby have equal influence... Only one side can override the will of 80% of the American people.

This isn't a matter of opinion, I can show you hard numbers showing exactly how much money the NRA donates to political campaigns versus anti-gun groups. Who do you think spends more, WAY more, if you had to guess? ...snip...

Money doesn't determine elections, votes do. Apparently our representatives are not afraid of voting against gun control.

Sure, the NRA is a loud voice. Sure they spend money. But if the public was really ready to accept gun control, it would be law now.

Demonizing the money behind the NRA doesn't speak to why it didn't pass.