Legal Gun Owners Can Deter Crime, Says Detroit Police Chief

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So you say we take the WHOLE package when talking gun or vehicle deaths (accidental, himicide, suicide, etc.), but we are not to look at the whole picture when it comes to gun deaths as compared to the rest of the world. Just the few countries you deem peers. Hardly seems a rational comparison or argument. You prefer the raw numbers of the US vs. say the UK, but the per capita deaths don't shout your personal opinion as loudly, so you opt not to use those statistics. Got it.

And FWIW, my comparisons are every bit as spot-on as the ones you dream up.

Let's not take the whole package with deaths. As I said earlier, let's look at homicide only. How many homicides are committed with a vehicle vs. a firearm? Now let's talk about comparing the US to comparable nations - our peers. I'd expect this country to be a bit ahead of the Central African Republic and Sudan. You apparently don't.

Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols jumped behind the wheel, and took out a lot more than your normal shooting spree.

But I get your point.

They didn't kill a single person with that car. They killed 160+ with an explosive device. Nice try, though.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I don't think we all agree on that, because anything that's brought up that could be put in place to restrict how easy it is to get a gun is met with "DO NOT INFRINGE UPON MY RIGHTS!!!!" from the crazies.

But that's the point, Penny. You say you want measures to ensure that the crazies don't have guns. Naturally, the crazies object.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

I'd expect this country to be a bit ahead of the Central African Republic and Sudan. You apparently don't.

Show me where I said anything close to what you are claiming.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

So then the felons will register their guns.... The gang banger will register? If you cannot control drugs then you certainly cannot control guns.

This is what you want with universal registration. correct.

Just because you can't take all the guns away from people that shouldn't have them, does not mean you shouldn't take away the ones you can. With universal registration, every firearm sold legally in the US would have a trail, and since the overwhelming majority of the firearms in the US are sold legally, there is no reason to assume that if universal firearm registration was the law of the land the overwhelming majority of firearms would not also be registered. Then the ability to retrieve firearms from people that shouldn't have them would be that much easier.

You can't say you don't want criminals to have firearms, and with the same breath, say you don't want to give the authorities the tools they need to take them away. That is, of course, unless you are afraid someday it may be you committing those crimes.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Show me where I said anything close to what you are claiming.

Well, if we're in the middle globally, I'd suppose that these two places would fall into the category of countries that fare worse than us. That's what your argument is based on - that things ain't so bad since we're in the middle of the pack globally. All I did is point out what countries are below the median. Without these kind of places, we wouldn't make the middle of the pack. That's the reality of the case you're making. Not pretty, is it?

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

Well, if we're in the middle globally, I'd suppose that these two places would fall into the category of countries that fare worse than us. That's what your argument is based on - that things ain't so bad since we're in the middle of the pack globally. All I did is point out what countries are below the median. Without these kind of places, we wouldn't make the middle of the pack. That's the reality of the case you're making. Not pretty, is it?

As usual, a lot of posturing on your part, but nowhere did I say we were not "ahead of the Central African Republic and Sudan". The trouble with your approach is, what criteria will be used to judge their equality/disparity to the US? I mean, in the end, they are humans, just like us. They have the same rights as you and I do.

Don't forget, this country was founded on the ability of those with guns to overpower those without them, or with less firepower than we had. Been true since the first Thanksgiving. Not saying we should go back to the lawless, wanton killing of those days, but that's our heritage, much like it is in less-developed nations today.

[Sousuke 1,214]

The reason American gun owners have fought registration is based upon the actions of Parliament in UK. I believe there were about 11 years between full registration requirements and a practical full ban.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

As usual, a lot of posturing on your part, but nowhere did I say we were not "ahead of the Central African Republic and Sudan".

No, you didn't say that. But you seem to think that our being situated better than those and others like it is somehow relevant to the discussion. It isn't. Compare the US to our peers and see how we do. Naturally, we're doing better than developing nations that are ravaged by tribal, civil and other wars as well as incomprehensible poverty. Being ahead of them to land "in the middle of the pack" is hardly an accomplishment. It's actually an abysmal failure.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Today your guns, tomorrow your #######.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Just because you can't take all the guns away from people that shouldn't have them, does not mean you shouldn't take away the ones you can. With universal registration, every firearm sold legally in the US would have a trail, and since the overwhelming majority of the firearms in the US are sold legally, there is no reason to assume that if universal firearm registration was the law of the land the overwhelming majority of firearms would not also be registered. Then the ability to retrieve firearms from people that shouldn't have them would be that much easier.

You can't say you don't want criminals to have firearms, and with the same breath, say you don't want to give the authorities the tools they need to take them away. That is, of course, unless you are afraid someday it may be you committing those crimes.

Nah, Lost is only afraid of "thugs". Not mentally ill people, not folks with anger issues, just thugs.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Today your guns, tomorrow your #######.

Sure, the black helicopters are going to come for my #######. When did you have your last cat scan?

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

No, you didn't say that. But you seem to think that our being situated better than those and others like it is somehow relevant to the discussion. It isn't. Compare the US to our peers and see how we do. Naturally, we're doing better than developing nations that are ravaged by tribal, civil and other wars as well as incomprehensible poverty. Being ahead of them to land "in the middle of the pack" is hardly an accomplishment. It's actually an abysmal failure.

Again, your words, not mine. I say ALL countries/peoples need to be considered when using the per capita statistic. We shouldn't get to pick and choose which countries have lower or higher rates, and exclude them. Again, if you compare us to our "peers" only, then it becomes your opinion which countries to count (which is handy for you, eh?), but it's not an accurate overall picture. He11, why not just choose the countries that all have lower rates than the US, and make us out to be the worst? Oh wait, that's what you are attempting to do, right?

Now stop trying to pole vault over tick turds and focus on the topic at hand... Armed citizens HAVE been shown to lower crime rates. In SOME studies. In SOME cases. But compare AK to DC, and the stats become WAY skewed...

DC - no carry concealed. No open carry. Magazine cap restriction. Permit required to buy. Registration required. No "assault" nor .50 BMG allowed. Yet...

With a population of 602K, gun ownership only 3.6%, the gun murder rate (2010) is 16.5 per 100K

AK - None of the restrictions/limitations of DC. ANYONE can buy, ANYONE can carry, concealed or open, no requirement to get a permit.

With a population of 710K, gun ownership 57.8%, the gun murder rate is only 2.7 per 100K.

So do all those restrictions in DC make a difference? Is DC safer to live in than AK? You decide. Fact is, America allows guns. Fact is, people die because of irresponsible people who own guns. Fact is, restrictions on ownership do NOT limit gun murders all that much. Is it a tragedy that people die unnecessarily because of guns? Yes. And there is nothing you or I can do about it, except mourn the losses. But though I own guns, and though I don't see anything wrong with people who obtain permits to carry, I have never aimed at nor shot anyone. Nor can I ever see myself doing it. That's why I leave mine at home most of the time (traveling far distances or going hunting excluded). Cuz if you point a gun at someone, you need to be prepared to kill them. And I'd prefer not to have to make that decision. Personal choice.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Sure, the black helicopters are going to come for my #######. When did you have your last cat scan?

When they come for your #######, it won't be in helicopters. They'll be dressed in black, carrying a sharp knife.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The reason American gun owners have fought registration is based upon the actions of Parliament in UK. I believe there were about 11 years between full registration requirements and a practical full ban.

I've registered cars in this country ever since I arrived here some 17 years ago and they still haven't come for any of them. I understand that Americans have registered cars for decades before I got here. Why is the government not confiscating them? What's the point of registering them?

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Again, your words, not mine. I say ALL countries/peoples need to be considered when using the per capita statistic. We shouldn't get to pick and choose which countries have lower or higher rates, and exclude them. Again, if you compare us to our "peers" only, then it becomes your opinion which countries to count (which is handy for you, eh?), but it's not an accurate overall picture. He11, why not just choose the countries that all have lower rates than the US, and make us out to be the worst? Oh wait, that's what you are attempting to do, right?

Now stop trying to pole vault over tick turds and focus on the topic at hand... Armed citizens HAVE been shown to lower crime rates. In SOME studies. In SOME cases. But compare AK to DC, and the stats become WAY skewed...

DC - no carry concealed. No open carry. Magazine cap restriction. Permit required to buy. Registration required. No "assault" nor .50 BMG allowed. Yet...

With a population of 602K, gun ownership only 3.6%, the gun murder rate (2010) is 16.5 per 100K

AK - None of the restrictions/limitations of DC. ANYONE can buy, ANYONE can carry, concealed or open, no requirement to get a permit.

With a population of 710K, gun ownership 57.8%, the gun murder rate is only 2.7 per 100K.

So do all those restrictions in DC make a difference? Is DC safer to live in than AK? You decide. Fact is, America allows guns. Fact is, people die because of irresponsible people who own guns. Fact is, restrictions on ownership do NOT limit gun murders all that much. Is it a tragedy that people die unnecessarily because of guns? Yes. And there is nothing you or I can do about it, except mourn the losses. But though I own guns, and though I don't see anything wrong with people who obtain permits to carry, I have never aimed at nor shot anyone. Nor can I ever see myself doing it. That's why I leave mine at home most of the time (traveling far distances or going hunting excluded). Cuz if you point a gun at someone, you need to be prepared to kill them. And I'd prefer not to have to make that decision. Personal choice.

The restrictions have little effect about the gun deaths. DC has a high kill ratio due to the issues it has coming from within the city. If you lifted those restrictions, you'd still have crime and shootings. Just like Chicago, conceal and carry isn't helping the mother who got shot in the face putting her daughter in the car seat.