Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?


PDA






Sky
April 6, 2012, 09:34 PM
Worth a read on a rainy day; not the usual drivel.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

“data on firearms
ownership by constabulary area in England,” like data
from the United States, show “a negative correlation,” that is,
“where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest,
and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest.”

Table 1: European Gun Ownership and Murder Rates
(rates given are per 100,000 people and in descending order)

Nation | Murder Rate | Rate of Gun Ownership
Russia | 20.54 [2002] | 4,000
Luxembourg | 9.01 [2002] | c. 0
Hungary | 2.22 | [2003] | 2,000
Finland | 1.98 [2004] | 39,000
Sweden | 1.87 [2001] | 24,000
Poland | 1.79 [2003] | 1,500
France | 1.65 [2003] | 30,000
Denmark | 1.21 [2003] | 19,000
Greece | 1.12 [2003] | 11,000
Switzerland | 0.99 [2003] | 16,000
Germany | 0.93 [2003] | 30,000
Norway | 0.81 [2001] | 36,000
Austria | 0.80 [2002] | 17,000

Notes: This table covers all the Continental European nations for which the two data sets given are both available. In every case, we have given the homicide data for 2003 or the closest year thereto because that is the
year of the publication from which the gun ownership data are taken. Gun ownership data comes from GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, SMALL ARMS SURVEY 64 tbl.2.2, 65 tbl.2.3 (2003).


While American rates stabilized and then
steeply declined, however, Russian murder increased so drastically
that by the early 1990s the Russian rate was three times
higher than that of the United States. Between 1998‐2004 (the latest
figure available for Russia),

If you enjoyed reading about "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
SharpsDressedMan
April 6, 2012, 10:04 PM
Kind of goes out of whack if you try to factor in the Mideast or African countries. Oh, and don't forget those countries where guns are banned, but the governments engage in genocide or mass murder..............

Sky
April 6, 2012, 10:10 PM
Kind of goes out of whack if you try to factor in the Mideast or African countries. Oh, and don't forget those countries where guns are banned, but the governments engage in genocide or mass murder..............

Not to mention Mexico~

T Bran
April 6, 2012, 10:17 PM
I'd like to see it seperated into two groups murder vs suicide.
While it is easy to hit someone else in the head with a hammer and kill them it is much more difficult to get a good swing on yourself.
Just a thought.
T

BobTheTomato
April 6, 2012, 10:26 PM
No. That being said a lot of people confuse correlation with causation.

MrDig
April 6, 2012, 10:40 PM
The City of Minneapolis has more Gourmet Coffee Shops per Ca pita than the City of Saint Paul. The City of Minneapolis also has a Higher Murder Rate per Ca Pita than the City of Saint Paul. Closing Coffee shops will not help the Murder rate.
I have no statistics regarding suicide.
I am also reminded of "All in the Family" and a particular episode about gun control. Gloria asks if Archie knows how many people are killed by Guns each year, Archie replies, "And you would feel better if they were pushed out of windows?"
State of mind and propensity for violence do not specifically correlate to gun ownership by legal owners.

pbearperry
April 6, 2012, 10:41 PM
If all guns were banned it would reduce murders and suicides by guns.However,I suspect the numbers would most likely be the same or higher.They would just use other items.

Carl Levitian
April 6, 2012, 10:48 PM
Any brief study of human history will show that people were being killed en-mass long before firearms were invented. How many people were killed by swords, arrows, clubs, whatever. How many were killed during the crusades?

Somehow, man will figure out how to kill even if there were no guns around at all. Heck, how many are shanked each year in prisons?

Carl.

The War Wagon
April 6, 2012, 11:06 PM
No.


GzFWRPiNXOI

bubbacrabb
April 6, 2012, 11:16 PM
I don't think suicide should even come up with guns. If a guy wants to check out and is serious about it not having a gun will just result in another method. I've had a few friends that were selfish enough to do it. Every year I sit thru classes on suicide since my profession is the 2nd highest in suicide next to dentists. Men are statistically more successful because they usually do use a gun, but I think you'll most likely just see guys getting creative if you took guns away.

Owen Sparks
April 6, 2012, 11:40 PM
Why don't they just make murder and suiside illegal?

bigfatdave
April 7, 2012, 12:05 AM
Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?HOW exactly would banning any particular object reduce violent crime and voluntary self-elimination?

Ragnar Danneskjold
April 7, 2012, 12:11 AM
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/correlation.png

Agsalaska
April 7, 2012, 03:04 AM
Why don't they just make murder and suiside illegal?
Absolutely. That will fix it

thump_rrr
April 7, 2012, 05:24 AM
Banning guns will not reduce either murder or suicides.
Stricter storage laws will however reduce accidental deaths in which children are involved.

Manson
April 7, 2012, 05:56 AM
No. But it would cause a big change in tools used.

OARNGESI
April 7, 2012, 06:38 AM
bubbacrab,

dentist have the highest suicide rate?

Sav .250
April 7, 2012, 07:00 AM
Makes you wonder how folks got it done before or where there`s a will. there`s a way.

beatledog7
April 7, 2012, 07:23 AM
I teach argumentative writing, and I can report without reservation that it's difficult for most of my students to recognize what is a cause and what is an effect. They have trouble distinguishing among facts, assumptions, whims, etc. Their critical thinking muscles are there, but they've never been flexed. Fixing this is what I find myself focusing on every term.

Since my students are a pretty good cross-section of the non-degreed, aged 25-45 population, I'd conclude (granted, without empirical study to verify it) that most American adults not specifically trained in logic and argument don't have the vaguest idea how to judge the voracity of they're reading/hearing in the news. However, once given the understanding of how to use their minds, they see the light.

Groups who use various media to forward their agendas are counting on audiences not being able to discern when they're being deceived, and they're usually going to get their way.

CDW4ME
April 7, 2012, 08:08 AM
Suicide: if someone is obviously at the end of their life due to cancer, age, ect... why should they have to spend the last week at hospice or in a hospital?
I don't see it as selfish to want to avoid the drawn out inevitable.

Skyshot
April 7, 2012, 08:15 AM
When has any law that tries to legislate the worst of human behavior, ever worked.

tri70
April 7, 2012, 08:20 AM
Suicide and murder are actions used by tools, the data targets 1 type of tool. It does not include all tools used or all murders by type, drowning, stabbing beaten or the amount of crime per capita. Austraila crime jump significantly and so did European crime took a big jump. The gun death dropped but the big question is, "How did it affect crime?"

Great Britan is 2nd to the US;

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes

markdaniel
April 7, 2012, 08:22 AM
Drugs are outlawed that really reduces crime,murder and suicide I am sure.

Tipro
April 7, 2012, 08:41 AM
When has any law that tries to legislate the worst of human behavior, ever worked.
Don't know if it's the "worst" of human behavior, but stricter laws and increased awareness about drunk driving have been very successful.

303tom
April 7, 2012, 09:27 AM
No !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pilot
April 7, 2012, 09:43 AM
Don't know if it's the "worst" of human behavior, but stricter laws and increased awareness about drunk driving have been very successful.


Because the laws are focused on greater penalties for the PERPETRATOR illegally using the implement, not the bannning of the implement (car). In addition these laws are actually ENFORCED.

By enacting laws on LEGAL firearms, the result is only the loss of freedom by the law abiding.

See the difference?

Owen Sparks
April 7, 2012, 10:33 AM
Drunk driving is an ACTION that puts others in danger. Simply having a car or a bottle of whiskey endangers no one.

Tipro
April 7, 2012, 12:36 PM
Because the laws are focused on greater penalties for the PERPETRATOR illegally using the implement, not the bannning of the implement (car). In addition these laws are actually ENFORCED.

By enacting laws on LEGAL firearms, the result is only the loss of freedom by the law abiding.

See the difference?
Yeah I definitely do, although you illustrated it nicely. And the quote I was responding to asked about legislating behavior, not the banning of implements.

However, we should all be careful I guess in how we approach this issue, because the idea of legislating behavior (which I admittedly just supported) could be used to analogize how limiting where/how one can carry a weapon would be effective legislation. Not that I agree with such legislation...just pointing that out.

Animal Mother
April 7, 2012, 12:42 PM
Was I the only person who noticed that the last name of one of the authors was "Mauser"? :D

Buck Kramer
April 7, 2012, 12:52 PM
The weapon would change, look at Britain, I have read that crimes involving knives have skyrocketed. China is having the same problem.

Pilot
April 7, 2012, 12:55 PM
And the quote I was responding to asked about legislating behavior, not the banning of implements.

However, we should all be careful I guess in how we approach this issue, because the idea of legislating behavior (which I admittedly just supported) could be used to analogize how limiting where/how one can carry a weapon would be effective legislation. Not that I agree with such legislation...just pointing that out.


I understand. The flawed logic comes from trying to legislate behavior, not by focusing on the person displaying the illegal behavior, but the inanimate object used by the person.

People that have their driver's license revoked or suspended still drive cars illegally. People that have criminal records or a record of mental illness can still carry guns illegally, as like the illegal driver, they do not follow the law. However, due to the potential risks and penalties involved, you and I WOULD follow the law because we are among the law abiding, and we are not the people society should be concerned about.

The politicians crying for "tougher gun laws" know that more laws won't help. It is "political theater" played out for votes, and emotional currency. Liberal politicians want gun bans, not tougher criminal penalties as sometimes their constituents sympathize with the criminal as seen as a victim of society, etc. But, I digess.

Vonderek
April 7, 2012, 01:09 PM
I have read of studies (don't ask me for citation, just search for it) that show that suicide is usually performed by whatever means is most at hand. Meaning that if guns were not available persons intent on committing suicide would choose other means...such as hanging, jumping off tall buildings, carbon monoxide poisoning, stepping in front of trains, etc etc.

Similarly, countries with strict gun control laws have murders committed by other means...hands & feet, blunt force, etc. I was stunned years ago while on extended visit to England when reading the daily papers about local murders all committed by stabbing.

Bottom line...murders and suicide are caused by other complex factors than simply by means available. Guns no more cause suicide or murder than a length of rope or a claw hammer do.

dmazur
April 7, 2012, 01:30 PM
My favorite correlation = causation graph -

http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/001857.php

The example they used in my statistics class was that the number of alcoholics and the number of school teachers were both directly proportional to the population of a city. So, that proved that school teachers were alcoholics...

The problem is, while most will dismiss these examples as obviously stupid, they don't seem to be able to see the exact same (fallacious) arguments used in the news, every day.

ApacheCoTodd
April 7, 2012, 01:58 PM
Unpopular as it may be, I'm saying that it probably would decrease the numbers in much the same way that the outlawing of ALL prescription meds would almost certainly decrease the suicide numbers. I feel certain that there are people who would not have killed themselves if their own personal choice of tool had not been present.

In example: there's gotta be at least one person (moldering corpse) out there who chose the perceived painless and un-messy route of sleeping pill overdose as the only acceptable route to the great beyond and would never have; hung, gassed, or drowned themselves let alone shot themselves.

Likewise, I know of one person who deliberately shot himself in his family's kitchen to make a point with the shotgun. The selfish prick got outa that shotgun and venue something very immediate (for him) and long lasting (for his family) just like he wanted. This guy would not likely have killed himself in any other way (knowing him all my life).

So yeah, I say some folk murdered (by themselves or others) would still be alive if firearms had never been invented but the same can be said about cars, toasters, airliners and dogs.

What's a fella to do? Recognize that life is messy and other people's "own good" is most often none of your business.

GEM
April 7, 2012, 04:51 PM
There is a debate in the suicide prevention literature about whether means removal actually reduces suicide rate. Most have focused on diagnosis and prevention.

It was thought that if you removed a method, there would be quick substitution of other methods but it's argued this isn't the case in current literature. Some means are attractive nuisances. So blocking jumping sites seems to have reduced suicides as you don't see an increase in other means near those sites.

However, would a blanket ban on guns work to prevent suicide. Previous literature says no. Since it won't happen, there can't be an empirical test in the USA.

But, I do caution that if you have someone showing suicidal ideation, it is a very good ideas to get the means out of there - including guns and Rx, etc.

A blanket ban is different from dealing with an individual.

Loosedhorse
April 7, 2012, 05:29 PM
There is a debate in the suicide prevention literature about whether means removal actually reduces suicide rate.Agreed.

I'll go further and claim that, while no one knows the answer for sure, it is likely that reducing gun ownership would reduce suicide rate (especially in men, who have a high tendency toward suicide with guns). Some of the reduced suicide-by-gun numbers would be of course be replaced by suicide by other means...but I'm not at all sure the substitution would be 100%.

We would have to weigh any reduced suicide numbers against (I believe) increased murder, assault, and rape numbers.

And, quite frankly, we would have to also consider whether any of that matters: whether we'd be willing to give up the RKBA in any case, no matter what the data suggest.

Other thoughts on suicide and guns here (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=7277728&postcount=11) and here (http://gunrightsmedia.net/showthread.php?p=5381787&#post5381787).

Carl N. Brown
April 7, 2012, 05:41 PM
dentist have the highest suicide rate?
It's a depressing job; they're always looking down in the mouth.

Japan has a lower murder rate than the US, and a smaller percentage of their of their smaller number of murders are by shooting. Their suicide rate is higher, to the point that the intentional death rate homicides + suicides per 100,000 pop. per year is actually higher in Japan than in the US. Japanese suicides are also more likely to be by methods that endanger others, including ingesting chemicals that generate gases that can be fatal to emergency medical personnel. People in different countries have different lives--and deaths--for different reasons.

Criminologist Marvin Wolfgang (who personally loathed guns) studied 588 Philadelphia homicides in detail: relationship of murderer and victim, circumstances of the crime, and concluded :
... More than the availability of a shooting weapon is involved in homicide. .... The type of weapon used appears to be, in part, the culmination of assault intentions or events and is only superficially related to causality. To measure quantitatively the effect of the presence of firearms on the homicide rate would require knowing the number and type of homicides that would not have occurred had not the offender_ or, in some cases, the victim_ possessed a gun. Research would require determination of the number of shootings that would have been stabbings, beatings, or some other method of inflicting death had no gun been available. It is the contention of this observer that few homicides due to shootings could be avoided merely if a firearm were not immediately present, and that the offender would select some other weapon to achieve the same destructive goal. ...
He also noted that firearms used in murder were often bought off the streets.

beatledog7
April 7, 2012, 06:28 PM
Stricter storage laws will however reduce accidental deaths in which children are involved.

Not likely. Gun owners with small children actually engaging in smarter storage would do the trick, but passing a law that is pretty much impossible to enforce will not get it done.

FROGO207
April 8, 2012, 12:00 AM
Kind of like saying banning silverware would cause fat people to loose weight and get healthy.:banghead:

BTW you can't legislate stupidity out of the situation.

ol' scratch
April 8, 2012, 12:46 AM
Or putting fences up around the nations 215,000 miles of rail would stop people from jumping in front of trains. Oddly enough, more women choose that way of suicide then men.

EnfieldEnthusiast
April 8, 2012, 03:12 AM
No amount of gun control will ever stop suicides.If a gun is not available,then a person may hang themselves,gas themselves,with carbon-monoxide(Attatching a hose pipe from the exaust pipe,into the car:-),jump off a bridge,etc.

Also no amount of stricter storage regulations will stop children from taking their parents firearms.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7436232/Tragedy-as-teenager-kills-himself-with-parents-shotgun.html
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4098131/Boy-13-shoots-himself-dead-in-row-br-with-colonel-dad.html

Neverwinter
April 8, 2012, 04:47 AM
Also no amount of stricter storage regulations will stop children from taking their parents firearms.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7436232/Tragedy-as-teenager-kills-himself-with-parents-shotgun.html
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4098131/Boy-13-shoots-himself-dead-in-row-br-with-colonel-dad.html
Nothing in those stories indicates that the secure storage of the firearms was bypassed in order to obtain access to the suicide instrument.

Unless the argument is that mandating secure storage doesn't mean that guns will necessarily be stored securely. The same quandary exists for seatbelts.

22-rimfire
April 8, 2012, 04:59 AM
Sounds like stuff for the UN Small Arms Treaty.... Hillary and Obama support this.

One world government stuff.....

The US would loose its sovernity. No No No

Added: If firearms were completely eliminated from private ownership, people would still kill each other and find a way to kill themselves. If you are going to kill youself, do it in the confines of your home where others will not be affected directly versus driving into a tree at 100 MPH. Maybe we could just make auto ownership and operation more difficult and expensive.... Oh, that is what our President wants anyway... and he claims to be for the common man.

The Lone Haranguer
April 8, 2012, 09:22 AM
Banning guns won't eliminate or even reduce suicides. Someone truly serious about taking their own life will find some other way. Without trying to be ghoulish, there are anecdotes that such people, in countries that lack guns, often choose methods that are much more painful and brutal than gunshot. :uhoh:

ball3006
April 8, 2012, 10:13 AM
Once you understand where Harvard is, the rest falls into place. People, at least most of us, don't want to be like Europe. That is why my family came here in the 1700s....chris3

Redlg155
April 8, 2012, 09:55 PM
I work in a prison. There are no firearms other than those of the officers outside of the secure areas of the compound. No knives or any weapons are allowed. Those that are present are manufacured or obtained through illegitimate means.

Does the lack of weapons affect the murder, suicide or even incidents of violence? No.

What criminals do on the inside, they do on the outside.

rodregier
April 9, 2012, 11:51 AM
The ongoing Canadian experiment with placebo firearm legislation initiated in 1995 showed that making lawful access to firearms more difficult didn't change the suicide rate, it just resulted in method substitution.

Sky
April 9, 2012, 12:12 PM
http://youtu.be/jQX64xOd-Us on your gun rights and the U.N.

I work in a prison. There are no firearms other than those of the officers outside of the secure areas of the compound. No knives or any weapons are allowed. Those that are present are manufacured or obtained through illegitimate means.

Does the lack of weapons affect the murder, suicide or even incidents of violence? No.

What criminals do on the inside, they do on the outside.

Laws restricting guns or anything else only have an effect on law abiding citizens.

Non law abiding citizens have their own source of (whatever) 'off the street' and could care less what some ruling body decrees.

buckhorn_cortez
April 9, 2012, 12:27 PM
There are also statistics that show guns are used about two million times per year with people defending themselves from a crime. Sometimes, this is nothing more than pulling a gun out to show the perpetrator that a defense against them is available and that stops the crime with no shots being fired. So, you would also have to factor in the outcome of these events without a gun being available, and there you have 2M more chances for a violent crime being successful.

Wanderling
April 9, 2012, 01:35 PM
Gun control by itself does little good. It's all about (1) mentality /culture, (2) availability (3) quality of law enforcement and only then gun control laws. What works for one country or culture doesn't work for another.

crankyoldlady
April 9, 2012, 01:43 PM
Cain committed the first murder when he smote his brother Abel. Judas committed suicide. No firearms were involved.

Human nature does not change. Tools do.

gym
April 9, 2012, 02:59 PM
Only in a case where someone got some terriblly tragic news, and didn't have time to process it. If a firearm was available it might and I say might have an immediate effect on if he did himself in. In that period of minutes and no one was around to talk him down, like the death of a child. Otherwise no. The death of a loved one might trigger that, a sudden death of a child, or spouse. But the body has defenses against this sort of thing. Maybe one in a million would do such a thing.
Many people fail at this process. I had a very wealty client who I saw every month for 15 or more years, and he tried "out of the clear blue sky" 3 times. His wife caught him 3 of the 3, he was looked down upon by the family whose daughter he married, they were one of the wealthiest familys in the country. That wore on him for years.
I sat with him and told him if he wanted to kill himself , he was too smart to screw it up 3 times, he agreed, I never saw him after thet, I think he was embarrased he told me.

Shoobee
April 9, 2012, 03:14 PM
The garrote and the dagger are much quieter than a firearm for murder. The garrote suffocates the brain, and the dagger kills the heart.

And carbon monoxide poisoning from the tailpipe of a car though a shop vacuum hose you can buy at any hardware store works pretty well for suicide.

If somebody is going to off someone else or themselves, you probably could not stop them, no matter what feeble laws were passed.

wannabeagunsmith
April 9, 2012, 04:30 PM
No, people will use cars, poison, ninja swords and butcher knives.

Busyhands94
April 9, 2012, 05:07 PM
Say there were no guns, they never were invented, never existed. How did Cain kill Able? IIRC with a rock or a sharp stick.

If someone really wanted to commit suicide there is always rat poison, rope, cars, alcohol to overdose on, you could overdose on narcotics, probably even a couple grams of pure caffeine, you could ingest a whole container of drain cleaner, I heard the Arabs do it by eating a pound of salt. So would the logical choice be to ban salt?

Guns only make it easier to do, if someone completely lost the will to live and wanted to end their own life there are a million other ways to do it than with a firearm. Yes, a firearm makes it easy and painless. If you had a bullet going 1400 FPS go through your brain you probably won't feel it. But if a person is determined enough then they will find a way to get it done, no use in making all of us suffer. Banning guns would make murder rates go up, think of all the home invasions where the good guys wouldn't have guns to stop the violence.

Just my two cents...

Levi

mgkdrgn
April 9, 2012, 05:28 PM
Sure it will! Just look at NYC and Washington, DC. There ain't ever any murders in NYC, and DC only started getting murders after Heller screwed things all up.

ErikO
April 9, 2012, 07:02 PM
Easy.

No

newfalguy101
April 9, 2012, 07:11 PM
Banning guns will not reduce either murder or suicides.
Stricter storage laws will however reduce accidental deaths in which children are involved.
So would banning swimming pools, buckets, and household cleaners.

Oh, and for what its worth, any of the three above acount for more accidental deaths of kids than firearms.....................just something to think about...

tri70
April 9, 2012, 10:35 PM
It's the only control we have over tyranny of government, murder would increase in the battle for control.

Neverwinter
April 9, 2012, 11:22 PM
So would banning swimming pools, buckets, and household cleaners.

Oh, and for what its worth, any of the three above acount for more accidental deaths of kids than firearms.....................just something to think about...
Swimming pools do have storage laws in some localities in the form of mandatory fencing. Mandating safe storage for firearms would be consistent with the similar regulation for pools.

DammitBoy
April 9, 2012, 11:31 PM
Mandating safe storage for firearms would be consistent with the similar regulation for pools.

I checked the Bill of Rights this afternoon... coud not find any mention of the right to own swimming pools not being infringed.

robhof
April 9, 2012, 11:31 PM
Florida passed a law to prosecute parents if a child causes injury or death with a gun improperly secured, to date no-one has ever been prosecuted by this law. The law has been on the books for over 7 years and many children have died, but no-one wants to punish greiving parents!!!

Neverwinter
April 10, 2012, 12:04 AM
I checked the Bill of Rights this afternoon... coud not find any mention of the right to own swimming pools not being infringed.
Which isn't relevant to discussion of safe storage requirements, any more than it is relevant to laws regarding brandishing.

Agsalaska
April 10, 2012, 12:57 AM
Thats actually a pretty complicated question. First, are you BANNING them or ELIMINATING them. If you are Banning them then mureders and suicides would undoubtedly increase. The old 'the only people to turn in their guns were ther honest ones' argument which holds very true.

Eliminating them is where it gets complicated. I think a logical conclusion would be that yes, mureder and suicide rates would fall. Suicide was discussed earlier in this thread with some posts about taking the 'means'. That is a common argument that most experts see some validity, although I think it would be veyr nominal. Murder is a little easier. I think it would drop a little bit because of basic effenciency questions. We can talk about people killing themselves for thousands of years and Cain and Able and on and on, but let me know when you find an axe or a knife that is as efficient as a Glock. You would have less multiple murders, like a guy walking into a sandwich shop to rob it and offing four people. It would be pretty tough to kill four people in a Subway with a knife, not to mention completely unnecesary. THose kinds of things would decrease some. I would not include pre meditaded mass killings in that example. Those guys would find other means.

The kicker though is the action of government and how many people they would kill. It is very easy to argue that number would far outweigh any gains made by reductions in the general public.


And on a side note, anyone that wants to compare murder rates in other countries ie England, Sweden, etc to the murder rates in the US always want to blame the guns. ZTHey pay no attention to the actual forces behind the killings. The society we live in.

FreddyKruger
April 10, 2012, 01:41 AM
"when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"

truest statement ever imo.

Handguns are pretty tough to get a licence for over here, and even then they are competition range use only. But theres been 10 shootings in the past 2 weeks or so.

i cant find the data, but i think only something like 1-2% of homicides are with a registered firearm.

While bans didnt change much in the way of homicides, since they were already declining from the past 20 years, suicides did go up slightly.

pockets
April 10, 2012, 06:52 AM
Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?
No one committed murder nor suicide before the advent of firearms?
Questions like this are both silly and somewhat pointless.

.

bikerdoc
April 10, 2012, 07:09 AM
Quote:
Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?

No one committed murder nor suicide before the advent of firearms?
Questions like this are both silly and somewhat pointless.



Well said pockets.

Infidel4life11
April 10, 2012, 07:19 AM
NO it would NOT stop anything other than good people having guns. Many euro countries have band against guns and the only people that have them are the bad guys.

SleazyRider
April 10, 2012, 07:50 AM
Ban guns? I made my first gun on the metal lathe/milling machine in my high school metal shop class using a donor barrel from an old Ted Williams .22 rifle; in fact, there was enough left over for my buddies as well. I carried it as a paperboy in Newark, New Jersey. Yes, the gun was banned, but it is the reason I am here today, half a century later. (In retrospect, I'm mad as hell that the law couldn't protect a 16-year old just trying to earn a few bucks to buy a car someday.)

gbw
April 10, 2012, 01:19 PM
Assuming an effective ban, which would be fairly easy over time, the assault rate would probably remain about the same. The murder rate would decrease.

The anti's, at least the smart ones, never say the crime rate would decrease, only the number of dead.

They are correct. Guns are better for killing than any weapon an assaultor might use instead. That's why they were developed and why police, soldiers, criminals, and armed citizens have them.

Same for suicide. Attempts no change, resulting deaths lower.

newbie4help
April 10, 2012, 01:32 PM
The stats are meaningless without controlling for demographics, poverty, and all sorts of other factors.

Controlling for demographics, the U.S. has a murder rate much more in line with some European countries.

Cliffhanger
April 10, 2012, 01:38 PM
Need more data -- how many murders and suicides are actually by guns?

Ragnar Danneskjold
April 10, 2012, 01:56 PM
As others have said, murder and suicide have existed as long as there have been humans. We kill each other and ourselves no matter what tools are around. Changing the tool makes no difference. It never has.

Jonah71
April 10, 2012, 03:43 PM
Not in the U.S.A. But the death of home owners and renters would increase as would the number of burglaries.

sugarmaker
April 10, 2012, 04:02 PM
If we could somehow un-invent firearms and totally banish all projectile launching devices, yes, murders, wars, etc. would decrease just because it's more work, riskier, and time consuming to kill people with edged weapons and blunt instruments. I must say that it would probably be in the greater common good if that had happened. However, that horse left the barn long ago and isn't coming back.

In that fantasy case, It would be the same arguments, the NBA might stand for National Bow Association and Brady would fretting about assault quivers with more than 10 arrow capacity. String silencers would be registered, as would any commercial bow with an arrow diameter over .5 inch. The saga continues from there...

SDC
April 10, 2012, 04:17 PM
Actually, we have some pretty good statistical evidence regarding this here in Canada, dating from the introduction of the FAC/Firearms Acquisition Certificate (a national firearms licence, required to purchase a gun of any kind); although GUN-related suicides went down after the introduction of the program, all OTHER suicides went up, so the net effect on suicides was nil (unless you believe that people who kill themselves by firearm are "more dead" than those who kill themselves by other means). No-one has yet managed to explain the other main component of the anti-gunners' argument, that "guns are why the U.S.'s murder rate is so high". If this was true, why are the vast majority of those murders happening in cohorts that have LOWER than average ownership rates (including young black males below 21) or why the US murder rate by kicking, stomping, and beating is so much higher than other countries'? As far as I'm aware, most Americans are born with exactly the same number of arms and legs as most other nationalities are.

JustinJ
April 10, 2012, 07:29 PM
Does the OP really expect objective answers? Jefferson said it best:

"The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination sees in every object only the trait which favor that theory".

Sky
April 10, 2012, 10:04 PM
“where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest,
and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest.”

"The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination sees in every object only the trait which favor that theory".

The statistical study of the report comes to the same conclusion as many have postulated in this thread. Guns are just a means to an end. If the end is your goal then many are smart enough to figure out a mode of transportation.

National Institute of Justice surveys among prison inmates
find that large percentages report that their fear that a victim
might be armed deterred them from confrontation crimes.
“[T]he felons most frightened ‘about confronting an armed
victim’ were those from states with the greatest relative
number of privately owned firearms.” Conversely, robbery
is highest in states that most restrict gun ownership.88

The first concerns the 1980s increase in suicide among
young American males, an increase that, although relatively modest,
inspired perfervid denunciations of gun ownership.144 What
these denunciations failed to mention was that suicide of teenagers
and young adults was increasing throughout the entire industrialized
world, regardless of gun availability, and often much more
rapidly than in the United States. The only unusual aspect of suicide
in the United States was that it involved guns. The irrelevancy
of guns to the increase in American suicide is evident because suicide
among English youth actually increased 10 times more sharply, with “car exhaust poisoning [being] the method of suicide
used most often.”145 By omitting such facts, the articles blaming
guns for increasing American suicide evaded the inconvenience of
having to explain exactly what social benefit nations with few guns
received from having their youth suicides occur in other ways.

A New York Times study of the 1,662 murders committed in
that city in the years 2003–2005 found that “[m]ore than 90 percent
of the killers had criminal records.”70 Baltimore police figures show
that “92 percent of murder suspects had [prior] criminal records in
2006.”71 Several of the more recent homicide studies just reviewed were done at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and
found almost all arrested murderers to have earlier arrests.

There is a lot of fact based info for those who care about such things and want to spend the time reading.

JustinJ
April 11, 2012, 10:01 AM
The statistical study of the report comes to the same conclusion as many have postulated in this thread. Guns are just a means to an end. If the end is your goal then many are smart enough to figure out a mode of transportation.

Like any event removing means prevents the end. While suicide is debateable there is no arguing that many who murder with guns would be unable or unwilling to do so by other means. Charles Whitman for example did not commit mass murder by throwing knives at people. The Columbine kids pipe bombs were essentially nothing more than noise makers. I could go on. Yes, mass murder has been comitted by explosives but realistically restrictions and technical difficulty puts this means out of the reach of most with nefarious intent. If this weren't true explosives would be used more frequently than firearms as they can be far more effective in creating mass carnage. The fact is a crazy person can perform mass murder with extreme ease due to firearms and the ease and availabilty of the tools needed are motivating factor.

In regards to general murder it is far easier psychologically, as well as physically, to apply a few pounds of pressure to a trigger than bludgeon a person to death. There is also the issue of ability to kill and chances of getting away with it. For example, i've never heard of a drive by stabbing. Survival rates could also be a factor but one woudl have to compare survival rates of gun shots to stabbings and other means of attack. Also, unlike bats and knives one can't outrun a bullet. Of course many murderers would be willing to kill via other means but many also wouldn't so in regards to total murder rates it is pure fantasy to believe they would not decrease if guns magically disappeared.

I'm not advocating a gun ban. Its not practical and i value liberty but i also value honesty and realism.

Wanderling
April 11, 2012, 05:43 PM
JustinJ is correct. While legally restricting firearms won't make a noticeable dent in gun related crimes (as the criminals don't get them legally anyway), completely banning them and taking them away from anyone by force will, in 30 years or so, reduce the overall number of murders - killing someone with a knife or a bat is way harder both physically and mentally, and defending oneself is way easier for someone in good shape.

happygeek
April 11, 2012, 06:44 PM
Like any event removing means prevents the end. While suicide is debateable there is no arguing that many who murder with guns would be unable or unwilling to do so by other means. Charles Whitman for example did not commit mass murder by throwing knives at people. The Columbine kids pipe bombs were essentially nothing more than noise makers. I could go on. Yes, mass murder has been comitted by explosives but realistically restrictions and technical difficulty puts this means out of the reach of most with nefarious intent. If this weren't true explosives would be used more frequently than firearms as they can be far more effective in creating mass carnage. The fact is a crazy person can perform mass murder with extreme ease due to firearms and the ease and availabilty of the tools needed are motivating factor.


The worst mass murder in US history that wasn't considered an act of terrorism used a can of gas and some matches as the weapon (the Happyland massacre). There were others that were even worse, but they're heavily suspected acts of arson whereas Happyland was confirmed.

JustinJ
April 11, 2012, 07:31 PM
The worst mass murder in US history that wasn't considered an act of terrorism used a can of gas and some matches as the weapon (the Happyland massacre). There were others that were even worse, but they're heavily suspected acts of arson whereas Happyland was confirmed.

You mean the one in which the building's capacity was far exceeded, there were no sprinklers, fire exits or fire alarms as required by law? Not exactly a common situation in which anybody wanting to commit mass murder will be able to find. And if it had happened today you can bet it would be called terrorism.

happygeek
April 11, 2012, 10:42 PM
Right, there's no illegal nightclubs in existence anymore.

I only mention that it wasn't considered terrorism because if we're counting terrorist attacks than it's no longer the worst, not even close. Of course the terrorists didn't use guns either.

All this is really just a theoretical exercise anyway because as you said yourself


Of course many murderers would be willing to kill via other means but many also wouldn't so in regards to total murder rates it is pure fantasy to believe they would not decrease if guns magically disappeared.


many countries have found that making a law banning guns doesn't make them magically disappear.

abq87120
April 12, 2012, 12:08 AM
Ask the Brits and Aussies. Violent crime sky rocketed when the gun-grabbers got their wish.

JustinJ
April 12, 2012, 09:17 AM
Right, there's no illegal nightclubs in existence anymore.

I never said they did. Only that it is apparently obvious that every person who snaps won't be able to find one at the time they are wanting to kill. The question is wether or not murder rates will be reduced, not eliminated. Also, many mass killers have specific targets. A guy angry about being fired is not going to go burn down a night club for revenge and it is highly unlikely that he would have any chance at all of lighting a modern office building on fire in a manner that would spread fast enough to kill multitudes of people.

Ask the Brits and Aussies. Violent crime sky rocketed when the gun-grabbers got their wish.

Its a bit more complicated than that: http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

Sky
April 12, 2012, 09:34 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2127414/The-suicide-forest-Japan-Mystery-Mount-Fuji-beauty-spot-100-bodies-year.html

The infamous forest of Japan

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

Is ^ good also

happygeek
April 12, 2012, 05:46 PM
Only that it is apparently obvious that every person who snaps won't be able to find one at the time they are wanting to kill.


They seem to have an uncanny knack of finding "gun free" zones. They may not find an illegal building and kill 87 people, but half a dozen or more people get killed by arsons all the time.

I'm not aware of even an anti-gun "study" that has shown that homicide rates were reduced by any gun control law. The CDC tried to find just that awhile back and failed.

DammitBoy
April 12, 2012, 09:06 PM
If the premise that removing all firearms would reduce murder and suicide then the converse must also be true ie adding more firearms will increase murder and suicide rates.

Considering the massive increase in firearm sales of the last three years and a lacking big jump in suicide and murder rates - the premise is incorrect.

B!ngo
April 13, 2012, 05:11 PM
I tend to believe that if citizens were banned from gun ownership, murder and suicide rates (total and via gunshot) would be decreased.
However I'm not sure that is the point. When our Founders created the 2nd Amendment, surely they must have acknowledged that having a bunch of guns lying around might lead to people turning on each other with consequences more dire than throwing shovels at ten paces.
But the point of the 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with murder or personal protection but was to ensure that the public could protect itself from an ill-behaving government, thus holding that delicate balance of mandate from a republic and personal freedom in check. And I suspect they found this last issue to be more important than the risk.
The question is whether we still do?
I understand that this is a controversial view not shared by all and left ambiguous at the time of the initial writing, but it's what I believe. And I guide my behavior and beliefs accordingly.
B

Ky Larry
April 13, 2012, 05:28 PM
I knew a man in California who had a long history of depression and mental health issues. He killed himself by tieing a rope around his neck and the other end to the bumper of a car. He was drug to death over the course of 20 miles of rural roads.
A neighbor in North Carolina , an 86 year old blind woman, was beaten to death with a cast iron skillet by a man on parole.
Guns had nothing to do with either incident. Banning guns makes as much sense as banning rope and frying pans.

Loosedhorse
April 13, 2012, 05:33 PM
For the interested, the other side of the "guns and suicide" argument is presented here (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0805923):There are at least a dozen U.S. case–control studies in the peer-reviewed literature, all of which have found that a gun in the home is associated with an increased risk of suicide. The increase in risk is large, typically 2 to 10 times that in homes without guns, depending on the sample population (e.g., adolescents vs. older adults) and on the way in which the firearms were stored. The association between guns in the home and the risk of suicide is due entirely to a large increase in the risk of suicide by firearm that is not counterbalanced by a reduced risk of nonfirearm suicide. [emphasis added]I suspect that this thread has expressed more certainty on the non-importance of guns in overall suicide rates than is justified by available evidence.

lilguy
April 13, 2012, 05:47 PM
Highschoolers are using the commuter rail road tracks in our area at an alarming rate. People will kill themselves with what ever is available.

XxBulletBendeRXx
April 13, 2012, 05:56 PM
This thread reads like a "how to" at times..... :what:

If you enjoyed reading about "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!