People Kill People, Not Guns

[sollunaestrella]

I do think that people kill people, but it's easier to kill a person with a gun than with anything else.

Guns, I think, provide a sort of distance from the situation that you couldn't get from anything else. All you do is pull a trigger - you don't even have to watch. If you're going to kill a person with a knife, you have to really DO it. You can't hide behind a rock when you do it like you could with a gun. You're much more involved and present. I think (obviously I don't know since I haven't experienced any of this first-hand ) that to use anything else would be harder to do both in a physical sense and in a mental/emotional sense (I'm not saying at all that killing with a gun is EASY mentally or emotionally, but I think, as I said before, guns provide distance from the circumstances). Guns make killing easier.

But people kill people and no matter how they do it it's sad.

[Torey]

Guns don't kill people. How can they? They can't use themselves. They can't do anything unless a person pulls the trigger. Therefore, people kill people by using guns.

[Buddy]

There seems to be some kind of common mindset among many that guns don't hurt people. That they, in fact, make us safer.

The truth is, statistics prove just the opposite.

In 1993, Congress passed a bill called The Brady Bill. This restricted who could get guns and how. I don't really view it as very a heavy gun control law, but then, that's me.

The point is, after the law came into effect, we saw an immediate, almost stunning drop in murder rates.

In 1993, the murder rate in the U.S. was 24,526 - 24,526 people being murdered every year. That comes out to 9.5 people per every 100,000.

In the ten years since the law was passed, the murder rate has dropped, almost unbelieveably, to 16,204 in 2002, or 5.6 people killed per 100,000.

The murder rate dropped every single year since the Brady Bill's passing and going into effect, except for 2002, in which it jumped a jaw-dropping 167 murders.

These are, of course, just the statistics for murders in general, right?

In '93, 17,075 of those murders occured with guns. That's 69 percent of the murders that happened in this country occured with guns.

In 2002, 10,824 murders occured with guns. 66 percent of all gun murders were done with guns.

What does that show? That more gun control really does cause less murder - and that criminals aren't changing the weapons they use to commit crimes. They're just commiting less crime.

Oh, and in 2002, only 233 people were killed in what is considered "Justifiable Homicide". So, 233 people were killed in what is considered self-defence, 16,204 people were killed in what wasn't considered self-defence.

Strange...

Statistics: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/overview.htm

You can tout all you wish about how "guns don't killed people" and "there has to be a person to fire the gun". But really, it can all be boiled down to a very simple fact.

There were less guns, then less murders.

The End.

[Crystal]

There are no guns here. I have never seen a gun in my life. I draw guns like water pistols. Thus, I have no opinion except that I wish I'd seen a gun so that I'd know how to draw them.

[irishdragonlord]

2002 jumped that much? I think that may have been caused by 9/11 and phobia...*shrugs*

Yes, guns make it easier - my basic point is, it won't STOP the murders.

But that's VERY interesting Buddy.

[Princess Ember Mononoke]

IDL said:

Yes, guns make it easier - my basic point is, it won't STOP the murders.

Of course not. But there ARE people who might not murder if it weren't so easy, as Buddy's statistics have shown. It won't stop all murders, but isn't it worth it to just make there be fewer of them? DOesn't every life saved count?

[irishdragonlord]

Princess said:

Of course not. But there ARE people who might not murder if it weren't so easy, as Buddy's statistics have shown. It won't stop all murders, but isn't it worth it to just make there be fewer of them? DOesn't every life saved count?

Of course - just don't get RID of the guns. They COULD come in handy and save someone else's life

[Smiley]

IDL said:

Of course - just don't get RID of the guns. They COULD come in handy and save someone else's life

If you look at the ratio between how many lives are saved by guns and how many are taken away... well, we're better off without them. It's true that people would find other ways to kill - hanging, perhaps - but can you hang someone when they're thirty feet away?

Think of it - about half of all gun murders would stop immediately (the other half would probably find other methods of killing). Then we're down to what... 70%-ish of our total annual murders? Three out of every ten people murdered would be alive. Three thousand out of every ten thousand if guns were banned. Then, a hundred or two at most who would have been saved if guns were legal. Compare for yourself.

[The Angry Artist]

IDL said:

2002 jumped that much? I think that may have been caused by 9/11 and phobia...*shrugs*

How could a jump in gun violence be attributed to September 11? Do you honestly believe people thought, "OMG PEOPLE DIED TERRORISTS KILLED THEM I'LL KILL J00!!!!!1" or something along that line?

IDL said:

Of course - just don't get RID of the guns. They COULD come in handy and save someone else's life

Save somebody's life? That doesn't make sense. If there were no guns nobody would be killed with a gun. Besides, what does a gun do? Why, is shoots a bullet out of a barrel -- and every bullet fired out of a gun has been made out of some sort of metal -- lead, for example, was the type of bullet used in early American history. Bullets are made out of lead for a reason -- to kill. What do you think the earliest medieval guns were used for? That's right -- to kill people. So let's recount a summary:

-Bullets are fired out of a gun
-Bullets are made of metal
-Guns kill
-Knights in full chain mail armor firing guns is a cool idea

So far we've learned that bullets tend to kill or injure when they are fired at living objects. There has been an extremely low occurance of bullets healing somebody when fired at them (0% in fact).

How in the world could a guns save lives if guns are meant to kill? A gun is a weapon. Just like swords. I suppose you say swords can save lives too. What's that? They can't save lives because they aren't the same? Yes, they are. Swords kill people. Swords are weapons, developed for killing -- just like guns, what a coincidence! Oh, you say swords aren't the same because they don't shoot bulets. So let's make a sword that shoots bullets! So now it can save lives?

Can you see what I'm saying? (And by the way, that last paragraph is sarcasm.)

[theunorthodox]

I found an old article that I found very interesting a while back:

What if it you had to own a gun? Let's say a law was made in your town that every household *must* own a firearm, unless they had some sort of criminal record or religious objection. Do you think the crime rate would rise dramatically? Would murders be rampant?

Seems like it's not the case: www.auctionarms.com/help/soapbox-ErichPratt01.cfm

So is it the guns that are the problem or the people? For some reason, I doubt this law would work too well in New York City (Or maybe it would. Who knows?), but it certainly makes you think...


Edit: Also wanted to add that people seem to think that guns are meant soley for killing people or protecting yourself from the 'bad guys' or hunting and all that junk.
Out in rural places that have dangerous animals it's good to have a gun around since 'threatening to call the cops' probably won't do much to deter them. I know certain places have major bear problems, where bears are so accustom to people giving them food that they'll walk right into neighborhoods and might encounter people. I've heard of two cases from friends of their pets being eaten by coyotes, which could probably deliver a nasty bite if you surprised one. And yea, sometimes they can be scared off, but it doesn't always work (And if they have rabies or something, it plain won't). Gotta take that into consideration.

[TheEaterofWorlds]

The said:

I found an old article that I found very interesting a while back:

What if it you had to own a gun? Let's say a law was made in your town that every household *must* own a firearm, unless they had some sort of criminal record or religious objection. Do you think the crime rate would rise dramatically? Would murders be rampant?

Seems like it's not the case: www.auctionarms.com/help/soapbox-ErichPratt01.cfm

So is it the guns that are the problem or the people? For some reason, I doubt this law would work too well in New York City (Or maybe it would. Who knows?), but it certainly makes you think...

I think it's sort of like the missle crisis or the cold war. We know we can't shoot without being shot back. Or it's sort of like a 'Mexican standoff' no one's firing then, but the presense of guns makes the situation dangerous.

Also, since I've finally actually replied to this topic I will say something I've been debating sharing with you all. I would really like as little said about this as possible, I don't want to get into an hypothetical arguement over this because it would hurt a lot. I'm just saying this to give some insight to my veiws;

My grandfather a few months ago related to me a conversation that happened between him and my uncle Dan. It went something like this-

My uncle Dan asked. "If I didn't own a gun, do you think Julie would still have killed herself?"
"She wouldn't have used that one."

Because of this conversation, they are no longer on good speaking terms. My family is not sure if she had intentionally killed herself or if she had been contemplating killing herself when the gun was accidently fired. I think the second theory is really wishful thinking, but we'll never know.

I don't know what kind of woman she would have grown up to be. I no longer can remember her alive clearly. In my mind I can see a small room with light coming in from the windows onto the bed. There was a pinata shaped like a unicorn hanging from the ceiling. These things exist only in my mind now.

I do not think she would have been able to kill herself if they did not have a gun in their house. She would still have wanted to, at least for a while, but I don't think that she would have found other means. (I do not want this debated. We've all gone over the 'what ifs' a thousand times and nothing worthwhile is ever found there.)

If there had been one less gun in the world, one less handgun made for killing humans, I may be remembering going to a graduation or a wedding instead of the quiet room that she died in. If that gun had not existed I would still have had a cousin, and that's all I can think.

[The Angry Artist]

The said:

I found an old article that I found very interesting a while back:

What if it you had to own a gun? Let's say a law was made in your town that every household *must* own a firearm, unless they had some sort of criminal record or religious objection. Do you think the crime rate would rise dramatically? Would murders be rampant?

Seems like it's not the case: www.auctionarms.com/help/soapbox-ErichPratt01.cfm

So is it the guns that are the problem or the people? For some reason, I doubt this law would work too well in New York City (Or maybe it would. Who knows?), but it certainly makes you think...


Edit: Also wanted to add that people seem to think that guns are meant soley for killing people or protecting yourself from the 'bad guys' or hunting and all that junk.
Out in rural places that have dangerous animals it's good to have a gun around since 'threatening to call the cops' probably won't do much to deter them. I know certain places have major bear problems, where bears are so accustom to people giving them food that they'll walk right into neighborhoods and might encounter people. I've heard of two cases from friends of their pets being eaten by coyotes, which could probably deliver a nasty bite if you surprised one. And yea, sometimes they can be scared off, but it doesn't always work (And if they have rabies or something, it plain won't). Gotta take that into consideration.

In regards to the article... Did you look up those towns? Geuda Springs, Kansas is a small town. Very small. In fact, it's only 212 people as of 2000! There are only 85 households! That is a fallacy - Small Sample. Do you really believe a smaple that small can be compared to populations much larger and the whole of the United States, which is made up of many millions of people? And then Kennesaw, Georgia -- that's 21, 675 people as of 2000. A town 100 times larger than Geuda Springs, but it's hardly a large town. Find me a city of 500,000 and I might think differently. Other than that, it doesn't make me think. The samples are too small.

As far as defending yourself from people/animals. That's a good point. You should be able to defend yourself like that. Don't tell me that's saving a life, however, as one of a few things happen: you scare off the animal, you injure the animal, or you kill the animal. In the two latter cases, one party still has a bullet put into it.

As far as the bears... That's a situation caused by stupid people. Yes, you should defend yourself, but if it weren't for the people who thought it was okay to feed the bears the bears wouldn't wander into neighborhoods, now would they?

[theunorthodox]

The said:

In regards to the article... Did you look up those towns? Geuda Springs, Kansas is a small town. Very small. In fact, it's only 212 people as of 2000! There are only 85 households! That is a fallacy - Small Sample. Do you really believe a smaple that small can be compared to populations much larger and the whole of the United States, which is made up of many millions of people? And then Kennesaw, Georgia -- that's 21, 675 people as of 2000. A town 100 times larger than Geuda Springs, but it's hardly a large town. Find me a city of 500,000 and I might think differently. Other than that, it doesn't make me think. The samples are too small.

Yes I did look them up, (It also said that the population had dramatically increased since then); that's pecisely why I added that it probably wouldn't work in a larger city such as New York. *But* it does prove that guns can exist without people blowing each other to bits. They said the crime rates had dropped 90%, there had been no murders the first year (I honestly don't know if there were any after that, but it said that the law is still working well), and burglaries had gone down more than 80%. Small town or not, those are still impressive results over something people said/say would never work.

As far as defending yourself from people/animals. That's a good point. You should be able to defend yourself like that. Don't tell me that's saving a life, however, as one of a few things happen: you scare off the animal, you injure the animal, or you kill the animal. In the two latter cases, one party still has a bullet put into it.

I never said it was saving a life, I said it was protecting yourself. However, I'm all for the fact that life cannot exist without death. If it comes between me and an unescapable situation where I or a loved one is caught in the sights of a dangerous animal that wants to harm me, I'm going to either hurt it enough to make it leave or kill it. A gun would be surprisingly useful in said situation.

As far as the bears... That's a situation caused by stupid people. Yes, you should defend yourself, but if it weren't for the people who thought it was okay to feed the bears the bears wouldn't wander into neighborhoods, now would they?

True, but that's sorta like saying, "Well if the stupid girl wasn't wearing that skimpy skirt and walking around in dark alleys she never would've gotten raped."
(Not the best example, but you get my point, right?) I mean, it's not necesarily like the people who live in the area are feeding the bears (Since they probably know better), but tourists will come in and feed them, take pictures of them, or even try to put their children on their backs for pictures (And yes, that was an authentic case. No joke.). The bears get more used to humans and wander into the neighborhoods of people who probably didn't contribute to the problem. You can't just say, "Well, it's their own fault for being stupid so let the bears cleanse the idiots from out world in a prime example of Natural Selection!"
(Though I can't say I have that much of an objection to that philosophy, I don't like the idea of people getting hurt or killed because of something they didn't understand the consequences of at the time. Honestly, who would feed a bear if they *knew for certain* it would come back to their town next time it was hungry and raid their kitchen?)



Also:

Washington, D.C. used to have a relatively low crime rate in the 1960s. It never used to be the nation's Murder Capital.
But that all changed after the city passed its draconian gun ban in 1976. In the following 25 years, the city's murder rate has increased 51 percent, even while the national rate has decreased 36 percent.

What's the deal with that? o0

[theunorthodox]

TheEaterofWorlds said:

I think it's sort of like the missle crisis or the cold war. We know we can't shoot without being shot back. Or it's sort of like a 'Mexican standoff' no one's firing then, but the presense of guns makes the situation dangerous.

Also, since I've finally actually replied to this topic I will say something I've been debating sharing with you all. I would really like as little said about this as possible, I don't want to get into an hypothetical arguement over this because it would hurt a lot. I'm just saying this to give some insight to my veiws;

My grandfather a few months ago related to me a conversation that happened between him and my uncle Dan. It went something like this-

My uncle Dan asked. "If I didn't own a gun, do you think Julie would still have killed herself?"
"She wouldn't have used that one."

Because of this conversation, they are no longer on good speaking terms. My family is not sure if she had intentionally killed herself or if she had been contemplating killing herself when the gun was accidently fired. I think the second theory is really wishful thinking, but we'll never know.

I don't know what kind of woman she would have grown up to be. I no longer can remember her alive clearly. In my mind I can see a small room with light coming in from the windows onto the bed. There was a pinata shaped like a unicorn hanging from the ceiling. These things exist only in my mind now.

I do not think she would have been able to kill herself if they did not have a gun in their house. She would still have wanted to, at least for a while, but I don't think that she would have found other means. (I do not want this debated. We've all gone over the 'what ifs' a thousand times and nothing worthwhile is ever found there.)

If there had been one less gun in the world, one less handgun made for killing humans, I may be remembering going to a graduation or a wedding instead of the quiet room that she died in. If that gun had not existed I would still have had a cousin, and that's all I can think.

This may not be exactly what you want to hear, but it's in the debating forums and nothing I say is a personal attack on anything and I'll respect this as best I can, it's just my humble opinion. (And since you said you listen to 2 The Ranting Gryphon, you've probably heard something like this before)

People who are suicidal are suicidal. If they truly have their mind set on killing themselves, they're going to do it. (You said you didn't want it debated, so I won't go any further than that....sorry if I already went too far.)

I can relate to you, believe it or not. At the begining of the year, my aunt killed herself with drugs, tranquilizers. She was 25, beautiful, had a loving boyfriend, and promising career as a veterinarian. At the wake, my Grandfather said that he had been saving money towards a wedding, but he ended up using it on her funeral.
Now all I could think of was 'If there were no drugs in the world, this never would've happened.' ...but after a while I realized that if there were no drugs in the world, a lot of people would have died anyway without them. So I kinda sulked, seeing that it was kind of a no-win situation. My aunt had done it of her own will, the drugs were just a catylyst.

But I think it's the same thing with guns. One less handgun could've been from anywhere. It could've been from a Cop trying to protect people or someone trying to fend off a wild animal. If guns never exsisted...well gee, where would we be? I guess you have to use your imagination... I know if drugs never existed we'd probably still be battling off Strep Throat and Pneumonia.


(I truly apologize if I hit any sore points. I did my best to keep it respectful.)

[The Angry Artist]

The said:

Yes I did look them up, (It also said that the population had dramatically increased since then); that's pecisely why I added that it probably wouldn't work in a larger city such as New York. *But* it does prove that guns can exist without people blowing each other to bits. They said the crime rates had dropped 90%, there had been no murders the first year (I honestly don't know if there were any after that, but it said that the law is still working well), and burglaries had gone down more than 80%. Small town or not, those are still impressive results over something people said/say would never work.

"Dramatically incresed?" Geuda Springs is now, what, 400? Kennesaw is maybe 25,000? I want to see the page that told you the population increased dramatically. It proves that guns can exist without people killing each other -- in small, rural towns. Think about it. 212 people. The average family income there is somwhere between $35,000-40,000. They probably aren't keeping jewels in the freezer with that kind of money. While the people in Kennesaw make on average $25,000 more, would you really expect anything to be there. It still is only 22,000 people! My grandparents live in a small town in Iowa of 85,000 people. There is absolutely nothing to do there -- it's really just an agricultural community. It's not like there's any high technology there! It's just farmers. How could you expect a town 4x smaller to be better?

The said:

I never said it was saving a life, I said it was protecting yourself. However, I'm all for the fact that life cannot exist without death. If it comes between me and an unescapable situation where I or a loved one is caught in the sights of a dangerous animal that wants to harm me, I'm going to either hurt it enough to make it leave or kill it. A gun would be surprisingly useful in said situation.

The saving a life thing was not directed at you, as you never said it. I should've made that clear.

The said:

True, but that's sorta like saying, "Well if the stupid girl wasn't wearing that skimpy skirt and walking around in dark alleys she never would've gotten raped."
(Not the best example, but you get my point, right?) I mean, it's not necesarily like the people who live in the area are feeding the bears (Since they probably know better), but tourists will come in and feed them, take pictures of them, or even try to put their children on their backs for pictures (And yes, that was an authentic case. No joke.). The bears get more used to humans and wander into the neighborhoods of people who probably didn't contribute to the problem. You can't just say, "Well, it's their own fault for being stupid so let the bears cleanse the idiots from out world in a prime example of Natural Selection!"

That is a Bad Analogy. And I'll tell you why: For that analogy to be truly correct, it would be the girl that took the bus home that got raped because the girl in the dark alley gave the rapist the other girl's address. And even then it would still be incorrect. Basically, the people in the neighborhood with the bear have to pay for the stupidity of the tourists, while the tourists don't have to pay for what they did.

The said:

(Though I can't say I have that much of an objection to that philosophy, I don't like the idea of people getting hurt or killed because of something they didn't understand the consequences of at the time. Honestly, who would feed a bear if they *knew for certain* it would come back to their town next time it was hungry and raid their kitchen?)



Also:
What's the deal with that? o0

Well, my grandfather fed the bears one when he went to Yellowstone. Yeah, it was pretty stupid thing to do. I think it was more lack of caring but there was still a fair amount of no common sense involved. I see your point.

I honestly can't explain Washington, D.C., as I am neither a criminal nor have the mind of one.