Hunting Forum

And THIS is the truth...

This is NOT the route you should take. If we start using this stat as a reason for them not to take your rifles- assault or otherwise- don't you think they are going to say "Holy crap- you guys are right. It's handguns we should be banning......."

How about a table that shows the actual breakdown of how those gun related murders took place, as well as a breakdown as to race of the murderer and the murdered. I'm willing to bet that we would then see a rather complete picture that just might point towards a more social reason rather than choice of weapon!!! When I read about the drive by killings in major cities, especially ones where guns are already under strict control, it's always interesting to note (when the news provides them) the names of the victims and the names of the "suspects". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who is killing who; take Chicago as an example, or Detroit, hell even Atlanta, Charleston, Savannah, or any other inner city area and then extrapolate the racial and social information along with the source of the weapons used. The obvious conclusion is that it's not law abiding citizens who suddenly go on a rampage and kill, and it's not legally obtained guns that are being used in most of the cases; so how can the antis even justify blaming those murders on the choice of the tool used, rather than the fact of who actually pulled the trigger? The last time I saw a gun fire, it required a human to make it go off.

The same information is also very relevant, when comparing the homicide rates in the US to those of other civilized countries.  For example, YH, how many gang bangers live in your neck of the woods, and what is your homicide rate?  Need I get into specifics to point out the differences in population ratios of the US compared to other countries?  Facts are facts, so in an evaluation of statistical analysis, all of the pertinent facts should be stated for the complete understanding of the facts!!!!!!

I'm with RT4 on this one. It ain't the friggin' guns that are the problem. They don't shoot people by themselves.

I lived in Southern California most of my life and I can remember politicians and activists lamenting that "guns are killing our young men" when the "young men" are killing each other and guns are a popular method----but certainly not the only one. Tons of other factors.

I won't debate the source of most of the problems with you, RT.
However- what kind of Constitutional amendments would be required to remove all minorities and inner-city poverty?

AHoffman2, you may have a better grasp of my point of view than anyone on here. I've lived in the boonies for a long time, and have no need of either assault rifles or handguns (although a handgun might be nice...).
That said, I HAVE lived in cities with relatively (by Canadian standards) high crime rates- Winnipeg, Halifax, Victoria. Still didn't really try to chase down anything in excess of my .375 H&H.

Posted By YH on 06 Jan 2013 06:13 AM
I won't debate the source of most of the problems with you, RT.
However- what kind of Constitutional amendments would be required to remove all minorities and inner-city poverty?

I got it... it should be illegal for the government to provide entitlements.
Minority communities would have to work together to survive, they'd have to stop the violence created by themselves and they'd have to be responsible for their own actions.

Only a fool can't see that government has created and perpetuated this! The blacks will never be free from the slavery they now accept, unless they take the steps to become free!



  I've lived in the boonies for a long time, and have no need of either assault rifles or handguns (although a handgun might be nice...).
That said, I HAVE lived in cities with relatively (by Canadian standards) high crime rates- Winnipeg, Halifax, Victoria. Still didn't really try to chase down anything in excess of my .375 H&H.

You are a perfect example of how Democracies become pits of despair with tyranny... with statements such as, if I don't need it, no one does! That's why individual rights are so important... this is why the US is superior to Canada and nearly all countries on the globe, individual rights are cherished and protected by our Constitution! The founders were light years ahead in their thinking.

The founders realized and knew , that Government over time ,becomes corrupt and disabling... this is why the right to bear arms was the second most important thing in our Constitution, the right to free speech being number one.

Was an ar type weapon used? Seems to me it was found in the car with a shotgun, leaving 2 pistols as the weapons of choice. And another stat, where are the reports on people defending their lives using a gun in the USA? 4000 times a yr this happens but no news. Stat, there is 200 million guns in the USA right now with 30 thousand gun laws on the books, so let us pass another one that the so called bad people will not follow the law anyhow. Really I blame the parents of these kids, KNOWING that their child was out of control and not getting any help BEFORE all this happened. Also by allowing weapons to be around them. Take any big city in the USA that has restrictive gun laws and look at their rate of gun crimes. Nutcases and crooks do NOT play by the rules only law abiding gun owners do.

YH, wasn't trying to debate, just thought I'd point out the flaws in the statistics. As for the amendment? I think sw makes a valid point. Laws that limit and regulate welfare recipients, along with requirements for cities to clean up their urban blight areas might serve as deterrents; but then with the requirements the Feds get involved in dictating to the state, so it's a catch 22 situation.

Okay- I'm just gonna come right out and say it- not only is the U.S. NOT the "freest" country on the planet, it barely cracks the top ten. And Canada ranks higher. So there. Nyah.
(Let me preface the following statement by saying I don't believe that inner city crime rates and race are linked...)
Do any of you believe that the answer is to cut off welfare? When backed into a corner, where they don't have enough to eat, no where to live, no way to take care of their children, how many residents of the "urban blight areas" are going to say "Jeez, I better get a job"- and even those that do, when there ARE no jobs for them, would be saying "Hey- this guy has LOTS of money, and I have a handgun- maybe I'll just take his...".
I know. Let's cut 'em off, live in gated communities, arm ourselves to the teeth. Let anarchy rule.
OR...
Maybe we can fund social programs that help get kids out of these $hitholes- get them good educations, give them a chance. Maybe you guys hadn't noticed, but Canada has WAY better social programs... and less gang warfare.

Maybe we should send those that need a job to Canada. I hear they can't get enough help up there.

That's true, Grizz...especially anyone with a trade.

YH, as these gun control threads come up I notice a couple of recurring themes in them.

The first being that there are already plenty of gun laws in place, but criminals don't obey these laws (I.E. there were laws in place that made it illegal for the Newtown shooter to posses the guns that he had) So in effect more restrictive gun laws really only punish law abiding gun owners.

The second being that guns don't kill people until a human picks them up and takes action (I.E. The guns in my safe aren't hurting anyone)  A concurrent theme to this is that if someone wants to do mass harm to other humans they'll find a way (I.E. Oklahoma City)

I don't recall ever seeing your response to these statements, so what say you?

I say I agree with most of what you say.
The old saw "guns don't kill people- people kill people is absolutely true. Unfortunately (surely we can all admit this...) guns make it MUCH easier for mental deficients to kill a LOT of people at once.
Yes- there are those who would simply make a big jeezus bomb- but that takes a little more work, skill and research than picking up Ma's handguns and a few boxes of ammo.

"The old saw "guns don't kill people- people kill people is absolutely true. Unfortunately (surely we can all admit this...) guns make it MUCH easier for mental deficients to kill a LOT of people at once".

Yes we can certainly agree on this, but this leads to another recurring theme in these threads. There are millions of responsible gun owners in this country that may be punished by laws created by gun grabbers as a result of the actions of a few mentally ill individuals. Does it seem right to punish the masses for the acts of a few?

As to the point RT4 is making. I'm trying to find the article that John Lott wrote, I'll post it if/when I do. He did a statistical breakdown on the murders committed in the U.S. I can't remember the #s exactly, but a majority of the murders were committed in just 3% of the county's in the U.S. It was a pretty telling stat.

YH, here's that article from Lott. You can find it in the archives on his site.

John Lott's Website

The truth about Costas, Belcher and guns

By John Lott
Published December 03, 2012
FoxNews.com


Did Jovan Belcher, the 6’2” 228 pound linebacker for the Kansas City Chiefs, need a gun to kill his girlfriend Kasandra Perkins? How about to commit suicide? Apparently some think that Saturday's murder-suicide tragedy in Kansas City wouldn't have happened if he hadn't had a firearm. Amazingly, during halftime on NBC’s "Sunday Night Football," Bob Costas told viewers he believed: “If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.”

Belcher apparently killed Perkins, the 22-year-old mother of his 3-month-old daughter, at home. The horrible tragedy occurred in front of Perkins’ mom. He then drove to the Chiefs' practice facility where he committed suicide.

Guns can make it easier to kill people, but that isn’t relevant here. Even if no weapon existed, the strength differential is so large that Belcher could have easily killed Perkins in any number of ways. The same is true, sadly, about suicide. There are so many ways that Belcher could have killed himself, including crashing his car at a high rate of speed into a wall or even another car as he drove to Arrowhead Stadium.

What Bob Costas ignored on Sunday is that guns save a lot more lives than they cost each year.

Unfortunately, pointing to two deaths here does nothing to advance the case for gun control. Costas’ rant falls under the category of if gun control could save just one life it would be worth it. The argument makes as much sense as saying we shouldn’t have gun control if guns can save one life.

The question is the net effect of guns, and what Costas ignores is that guns save a lot more lives than they cost each year. And that's not even mentioning the roughly 2 million times a year that people use guns defensively.

Whether people like Costas like it or not the facts speak for themselves: Murder rates consistently rise when guns are banned. This is not just a US phenomenon in places such as Washington, DC and Chicago, but has been observed worldwide. When guns are banned, even in island nations such as the UK, Ireland, and Jamaica, the pattern has been the same. The problem is that gun bans disarm law-abiding good people, not criminals. With disarmed victims, crime is easier to commit.

Gun control advocates frequently point out that the majority of murders are committed by acquaintances, trying to make people fearful of letting relatives have access to guns. But this claim regarding domestic violence irresponsibly makes people afraid of those who they have no reason to be afraid of. What isn’t mentioned by these same advocates is that most of these acquaintances are not people who are emotionally close to each other. They involve rival gang members who know each other. Acquaintance murders also include prostitutes and their pimps or Johns as well as cab drivers who are murdered by their fares.

To put it bluntly, criminals are not typical citizens. About 90 percent of adult murderers have an adult criminal record. They tend to have low IQs and long histories of social problems. Murders are also very heavily concentrated among minorities in urban areas. Over 70 percent of murders occur in about 3 percent of the counties in the US. Even if our country passed laws banning guns, most of these murderers are not the kind of people who are going to voluntarily turn in their weapons.

If women want to protect themselves, they should get a gun. The FBI’s National Crime Victimization Survey indicates that by far the safest course of action for women to take when they are confronted by a criminal is to have a gun.

There are two groups of people who benefit the most from gun ownership: people who are weaker physically (women and the elderly) and those who are most likely to be victims of violent crime (primarily poor blacks who live in high crime urban areas).

The research by economists overwhelmingly shows that gun ownership has no impact on suicide rates. To the extent that gun control has any impact, restrictions just change the way in which the suicide is committed.

Bob Costas’ emotional reaction to the deaths of Belcher and Perkins is understandable, even if a rant on gun control during a football game is misplaced. But hopefully cooler heads will prevail before we enact laws that will unintentionally lead to more deaths.

YH, this was another interesting article I found on that same archive page.

12/2/12 - 12/9/12

Canadian Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau calls long-gun registry 'a failure'