Firearms Talk banner

Murder Statistics- Guns & Ownership

1K views 25 replies 11 participants last post by  Mosin 
#1 · (Edited)
#2 ·
Interesting that Chicago showed "N/A" for number of murders. Not Available? Not Applicable? None Admitted? Not Accounted-for?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JimRau
#3 ·
Interesting video.
Chicago was like # 10 in the states for murder rate.
Sad that AZ wasn't mention for lowest murder rate. Too many CA economic refugees, and slave traders from down South ( yes Mexico ).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dallas53
#8 ·
Murder 'statistics' need to be broken down to the micro level to make sense.
I started a project breaking down mass shootings to see what laws would have helped prevent them, and discovered many interesting things.

For example. In the columbine shooting, Dylan Kleebold used a civilian version of the Tec-9, and in the first 40 minutes of the shooting only fired 2 shots.

I think if you broke down gun murders the same you'd find interesting info that dispels any of the anti gun nonsense out there.
 
#12 ·
what laws would have helped prevent them
Laws rarely prevent anything. They merely offer a mean to punish those who do wrong. In the case of suicidal killers there is no punishment that can deter them. They have already decided they are going to die. Laws only keep the honest honest.
 
#9 ·
Preaching to the choir.

I thought all statistics were lies, what gives 03? Oh wait, only statistics that disagree with you ideals are lies, if they support your notions they are true. I get it now.

What was in that video was propaganda, meant for true believers, in it's finest form. You should be able to determine that by the language. The video builds a large lie around a small truth and compares apples to elephants.

We look like champs when compared to Banana Republics or Somalia, but don't compare us to European countries.... And by the way, if you think that 13,000+ murders a year are something to brag about, you have a strange set of standards.

Now, because I know you are a fair minded man, bring us comparisons in the murder or gun murder rates comparing the US to Germany, Great Britain, France, Italy, Austria, or even with freaking Russia and do us a little video on that. ( I will give you a little clue: Violent crime, including murder, in the US is almost ten times that of Russia)

Now that is some fine Prince Albert in your pipe ain't it.
 
#13 ·
[QUOTE="Chainfire, post: 1899604, member: 10411

Violent crime, including murder, in the US is almost ten times that of Russia)

[/QUOTE]
Here's an exercise for you....take out just 4 major US cities and the US drops to the bottom of the list. People are convinced that the US has a crime problem when it's completely unfair to judge the US by the action of some sanctuary, democrat controlled cities.
 
#10 ·
"There are lies, damned lies and statistics." Samuel Langhorne Clemens (Mark Twain)
 
  • Like
Reactions: kfox75 and AZdave
#15 ·
But 'muh mass shootingzzzzzz'.

Here's a nifty list of mass terror attacks in Europe committed by Muslims, so it leaves out the nutty white people, meaning the number of mass attacks is actually higher. Notice all the 'hundreds mowed down' by automobiles.

Europe has a mass casualty incident problem as well... at first glance, their mass casualty incidents appear even higher than the US.
Difference is, when a muzzie muzzes, the media covers it up, and when a shooting happens, it's all the media talks about.

https://thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/europe-attacks.aspx
 
#16 ·
1. If we had a magic wand and could "disappear" all guns owned by civilians tomorrow, would that stop mass murderers from murdering other people?

2. If not, then do the anti-2A people even have a valid argument to make?

3. Do we need to acquiesce to people who ignore available evidence and falsely claim their illogical ideas have merit, however sincerely held their ideas happen to be, when it's painfully obvious that they're just irrational, fearful, and/or just plain ignorant?

4. Are people who have had their children murdered with cars, bombs, poisons, or any other implement but firearms "less upset" about their children being murdered with those other implements?

5. Do all the bodies of the people who were murdered with implements other than firearms not count as "evidence" that banning firearms is just silly?

6. Why the fixation on firearms murders, especially murders committed with so-called "assault weapons"?

7. How many murders using that category of implements occur in America compared to the number of people murdered with handguns and long guns of any other description?

8. Are you more or less "dead" when killed by a firearm of some other description than "assault weapon"?

9. Since something like 250 of the 10,000 to 15,000 murders committed with firearms every year are committed with what existing laws define as "assault weapons", is it probable that banning such weapons would have little meaningful impact on firearms murder rates and figures?

10. Why aren't we talking about banning "assault cars" or "assault trucks", "assault pressure cookers", and "assault chemicals" from the pool supply store?

Anyone who has passing familiarity with the evidence at hand who honestly answers the ten questions I've posed in a rational (numerical) versus emotional manner is also forced to accept the conclusion that any laws that confiscate automatic and semi-automatic rifles will have little to no impact on murders committed with firearms in the US.

Since everyone likes to compare the US to Europe so often, France already has strict "gun control" laws in place and those laws had zero impact on recent terrorist activities. The muslim terrorists brought their fully automatic AK-47's with them, illegally, and murdered more than double the number of people that our home-grown Las Vegas nutcase managed to murder. Although 9 people committed the Paris attacks versus just one in Las Vegas, the body count is what it is and terrorism is on the rise here and elsewhere in the world. So yeah, that's a decent comparison between the "gun crazy" US and "gun free" (obviously not) Europe when it comes to mass murder. Such acts occur more frequently in the US because we have no effective mental health care system and regressives love defenseless victims so they set up "mass murder" zones they like to call "gun free" zones around the US, including the hotel and concert location in Vegas, in their homage to Dr. Kevorkian.

More recently, a Japanese man named Satoshi Uematsu killed 19 people using a kitchen knife, so let's ban kitchen knives while we're at it. If it saves just one life, then it's worth it, or at least that's the silly drivel coming from the simple minded liberal regressives around this country. Something about their anti-logic reeks of bovine excrement. It's time for them to put the pipe down and stop smoking dope. It's affecting their ability to count.
 
#17 ·
After the Las Vegas shooting, I simply replied 'thank God he didn't use a car, like those muslims in France who killed 86. If he plowed a truck into a concert there would've been hundreds dead.'
All of the semi-anti gunners I know (fence sitters) agreed with my assessment.
The difference is, the fence sitters and 'liberals' I know, have valid concerns, questions, and a willingness to listen to the other side. Whereas the media, and leftists propagated by the media are straight up wanna be communist anti constitutionalists.

A 'liberal' might be legitimately afraid of guns, while the media and their ilk want to disarm you for your future compliance...er, reeducation.
 
#18 ·
Mosin,

I don't doubt that there are people, irrespective of politics, who are genuinely afraid of firearms. Their fear is insufficient justification to take anything from anyone else who has never committed a crime. Regulations of things that are not intrinsically dangerous need to be centered around behavior rather than ownership.

Firearms are precisely manufactured pieces of metal and wood or plastic. There's nothing intrinsically dangerous about people owning firearms. The way firearms are used is extremely important, thus laws that forbid convicted felons from owning firearms. A motor vehicle is no different in that regard. If one person out of a 100,000 or a 1,000,000 people does something they should not have done with a firearm or a car, that is insufficient cause to revoke the firearms or driving privileges of everyone else. In fact, it's a non-sequitur. Judging everyone else on the behaviors of the worst bad actors is a form of prejudice or discrimination that liberal regressives practice whenever it suits their political cause or ignore for the exact same reason.

The planned future activities of our liberal regressives and their behavior as it relates to other important human privileges, such as freedom of speech and freedom to assemble, is why I would never willingly give up my privilege of bearing arms. They don't merely demand that other people forfeit "some" of their privileges, they want them all. We don't need to kowtow to evil people who want to use the power of the state to do evil things to other people. Going along to get along with people who exhibit such atrocious behavior is how things like genocide happen. It never ends well.

We don't need to subject ourselves to abuse to appease the timid, the power hungry, or those among us who exhibit the basest of human behaviors. Those people should never be the determining factor that dictates the privileges we're permitted as citizens and humans.
 
#20 ·
People who are afraid of things tend to listen to the communists in the news who spout ideas against those things.
If the scum media portrayed accidents with the same questions and tone that they reported firearms, 'Does anyone really need a car that can drive 30 miles per hour?!... ASSAULT cars and their HIGH CAPACITY speed kill more than 50,000 people per year... should they be regulated?!'....
you'd see people come out of the woodwork clamoring for a banning of vehicles except by those in government.
That's how the enemy combatant media operates. You could generate support for re-gassing Jews if you simply asked the question.
So yes, people who genuinely fear firearms think others shouldn't have them, because channel Tokyo Rose tells them thats how they should feel.
 
#26 ·
Who cares what the correlation is or is not. The issue isn't the device used. If crazy pills got dumped in the drinking water and 30% of Americans started strangling their families with belts, no one would be talking about the belts, and everyone would be talking about the crazy pills.

Again, were ONLY talking about guns because the scumbag, treasonous, lying, anti constitutional, anti American, anti white, anti Christian media has framed the debate in such a manner that they've directed the conversation that way.

If they present flu deaths (over 30k per year) in the same manner they portrayed guns, the entire economy would collapse.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top