Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Hahaha! Nice

You do have to be pretty damn good though to be able to switch out ammo so quickly that it doesn't give a big enough pause for a cop to take advantage. As I mentioned, there are well famous sprees which could have gone on for longer had that pause not happened. It just seems like a simple middle-ground measure that can help save lives in at least some cases (as evidenced) without impacting very much on normal people's rights.

Really... I can change a mag in less time than it takes to acquire a moving target in the open. Why do you have to wait until a mag change. If the target is in the open engage while another officer gives cover fire, or engage when the target is laying down fire else where.. He the target seeks cover to reload, it's a moot point.

Wanna talk small unit tactics, I got all day.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

conjecture.

Not at all. It is well established when he was subdued - when changing magazines. Fewer rounds in the magazine means fewer shots fired means less damage done. It's not conjecture, it's fact. He squeezed of 33 rounds out of a single magazine before he had to reload killing 6 and injuring 13. That's at least 19 rounds out of the 33 doing actual damage. That carnage would have been impossible with a 10 round magazine. Plain and simple.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

i has trouble to understand.

You had to have thick skin to post in Expats.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Did your mother explain to you don't trample on others right... based on your personal belief

Can you please explain this to anti gun nuts.

I'd have to go searching for the statistics again, but during the time period I read about homicide by guns dropped by about 10,000, the population increased by over 50 millions and and many millions of guns were sold during the same time period. There are tens of millions more guns today than there were in 1993, yet there has been a huge drop in gun deaths. I bet if we went to work on the mental health issues, there would be another big drop.

[Protocol417 161]

Really... I can change a mag in less time than it takes to acquire a moving target in the open. Why do you have to wait until a mag change. If the target is in the open engage while another officer gives cover fire, or engage when the target is laying down fire else where.. He the target seeks cover to reload, it's a moot point.

Wanna talk small unit tactics, I got all day.

Then you're good. Listen, I'm not saying that everyone has to (or should) wait until that moment, I'm saying that the pause can give (and, more importantly, has given) opportunity to stop a gunman in some instances. You can talk theoretical tactics all you want, and how you personally are so good that you wouldn't ever have to wait for that window, but it's documented. It happens, plain and simple.

Bottom line is that it's a small measure that doesn't really impact people's rights, so why not? It's like seat belts on a car. Maybe you're such a good driver (and so lucky) that your seat belt will never help you because you'll never get into an accident. Does that mean mandating seat belt use is a bad idea?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Then you're good. Listen, I'm not saying that everyone has to (or should) wait until that moment, I'm saying that the pause can give (and, more importantly, has given) opportunity to stop a gunman in some instances. You can talk theoretical tactics all you want, and how you personally are so good that you wouldn't ever have to wait for that window, but it's documented. It happens, plain and simple.

Facts? Again? The gun nuts are not going to like you very much.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'd have to go searching for the statistics again, but during the time period I read about homicide by guns dropped by about 10,000, the population increased by over 50 millions and and many millions of guns were sold during the same time period. There are tens of millions more guns today than there were in 1993, yet there has been a huge drop in gun deaths. I bet if we went to work on the mental health issues, there would be another big drop.

No, no and no. Homicides have declined overall - gun homicides and all others. Gun homicides still account for 70% of all homicides. That ratio hasn't changed. At all. What does mental health have to do with the fact that gun homicides has decreased right along with all homicides? That argument makes no sense at all.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

No, no and no. Homicides have declined overall - gun homicides and all others. Gun homicides still account for 70% of all homicides. That ratio hasn't changed. At all. What does mental health have to do with the fact that gun homicides has decreased right along with all homicides? That argument makes no sense at all.

Of course it does, you just don't want to accept it. If there were 10 homicides in the country and 7 of them were by gun, it would still be 70%. But guns wouldn't even be a blip on the radar then, would they? If guns are the cause of homicides like many like to argue, then logically, the more guns, the more murders by guns. Since 1993, tens of millions of guns have been sold, so why less deaths, not more?

[Protocol417 161]

I'd have to go searching for the statistics again, but during the time period I read about homicide by guns dropped by about 10,000, the population increased by over 50 millions and and many millions of guns were sold during the same time period. There are tens of millions more guns today than there were in 1993, yet there has been a huge drop in gun deaths. I bet if we went to work on the mental health issues, there would be another big drop.

You seem to be a bit more knowledgable about statistics than I am, so I was wondering if you happened to know something.

I've seen articles saying that the number of households with guns is actually down. So, pairing this with what you're saying about the number of guns in the country going up, could it be that there are fewer (or relatively the same number of) owners, but that those who own guns just own more of them? What're your thoughts?

[Ban Hammer 12,845]

Not at all. It is well established when he was subdued - when changing magazines. Fewer rounds in the magazine means fewer shots fired means less damage done. It's not conjecture, it's fact. He squeezed of 33 rounds out of a single magazine before he had to reload killing 6 and injuring 13. That's at least 19 rounds out of the 33 doing actual damage. That carnage would have been impossible with a 10 round magazine. Plain and simple.

the facts in bold are not in dispute. i'm also not aware of a 33 round magazine either....

also, assuming there would have been no carnage with a 10 round magazine is conjecture again.

now reference your earlier statement which drew my comment of "conjecture""

Had there been a limit on the magazine size, he could have been stopped sooner. Some of those that he managed to kill could still be alive. Maybe even that 9 year old girl that was among his victims. When no limits on magazine capacity are more important to you than the chance to save innocent lives, you should maybe revisit your value system. Just sayin'.

the statement about the 9 year old girl is conjecture.

i'm also curious as to how many magazines are in the usa that are greater than 10 rounds.

and what is the grand plan for the military, which uses 20 and 30 round magazines?

[spookyturtle 9,465]

You seem to be a bit more knowledgable about statistics than I am, so I was wondering if you happened to know something.

I've seen articles saying that the number of households with guns is actually down. So, pairing this with what you're saying about the number of guns in the country going up, could it be that there are fewer (or relatively the same number of) owners, but that those who own guns just own more of them? What're your thoughts?

I honestly have never read any stats on that, but it certainly could be possible. There are more guns than people in the US according to most estimates. But after every mass shooting, police departments in many areas get flooded with new applications for gun permits and licenses to carry. It has been reported that there have been a few million gun sales since the Sandy Hook shootings. You bring up an interesting point.

[Protocol417 161]

Of course it does, you just don't want to accept it. If there were 10 homicides in the country and 7 of them were by gun, it would still be 70%. But guns wouldn't even be a blip on the radar then, would they? If guns are the cause of homicides like many like to argue, then logically, the more guns, the more murders by guns. Since 1993, tens of millions of guns have been sold, so why less deaths, not more?

Ooooh, you just reminded me of another question I have: You were saying "homicides" at one point, and then "deaths" at another, but I would imagine these are separate statistics (ie a death can be accidental). So do these figures take into account accidental deaths? And what about shootings that don't result in death? Have other factors been taken into account, such as better access to hospitals, or what I mentioned before about a greater concentration of guns per owner (as opposed to a larger number of gun owners?

Just trying to get a clearer idea of the picture you're painting here.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Of course it does, you just don't want to accept it. If there were 10 homicides in the country and 7 of them were by gun, it would still be 70%. But guns wouldn't even be a blip on the radar then, would they? If guns are the cause of homicides like many like to argue, then logically, the more guns, the more murders by guns. Since 1993, tens of millions of guns have been sold, so why less deaths, not more?

By that very same line of argument, we have done one hell of a job addressing mental health issues already seeing that we have fewer homicides today vs. two, three decades ago while the population has gotten so much larger over that time period. So it's not mental health issues, is it? You just disassembled your own line of argument. Now what?

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Ooooh, you just reminded me of another question I have: You were saying "homicides" at one point, and then "deaths" at another, but I would imagine these are separate statistics (ie a death can be accidental). So do these figures take into account accidental deaths? And what about shootings that don't result in death? Have other factors been taken into account, such as better access to hospitals, or what I mentioned before about a greater concentration of guns per owner (as opposed to a larger number of gun owners?

Just trying to get a clearer idea of the picture you're painting here.

I believe the article in the original post shows gun death by suicide down too. There is info available on accidental deaths due to guns too, but I don't have any accurate info off the top of my head. Total gun deaths take into account suicide, homicide and accidental. The numbers I was quoting were homicide only.

I have never personally read anything about better access to hospitals, better medical care etc, and again you bring up a good point. Perhaps medical facilities are better equipped to deal with gunshot wounds, emergency response could be faster, etc. I have not read any figures on new gun owners vs more purchases by existing owners. That was also a good point that you brought up.

By that very same line of argument, we have done one hell of a job addressing mental health issues already seeing that we have fewer homicides today vs. two, three decades ago while the population has gotten so much larger over that time period. So it's not mental health issues, is it? You just disassembled your own line of argument. Now what?

Ok, you win. Feel better now? That will lead to all guns being confiscated and you can sleep peacefully.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

the statement about the 9 year old girl is conjecture.

Nope. Perhaps you should look up the meaning of the term "maybe".

i'm also curious as to how many magazines are in the usa that are greater than 10 rounds.

and what is the grand plan for the military, which uses 20 and 30 round magazines?

I don't know how many there are. We could count them after they're turned in. The military? I am not worried about the military having 20 and 30 round magazines. It must have been awhile that the military shot 20 first grade children at school or a member of Congress and a judge at a campaign event or an audience at a movie theater since I can't remember any of that happening.

Edited June 22, 2013 by Mr. Big Dog