If legal ownership of guns lowers the homicide rate, then please explain the very high homicide rates of Detroit and Philadelphia to me.

Not exactly a lot of meat attached to the link. C'mon had you heard of this Florida criminologist guy before today? Just trying to find articles that agree with your existing views?

The Phantom: I have read many times that gun control (in gun-free zones, for example) does not correlate with less gun crime. I'm just reading articles and digesting them. I'm not looking to validate my opinion. I've reached my opinion based on what I have read.

I don't see the evidence that gun-control = less gun crime.

Gun control = victims without means of self-defense.

Kleck is an interesting fellow with at least some credible background history. I'm not sure he's right, in fact I am pretty sure he is not, but at least he seems to make a serious argument.

Oddly enough, there is an Associated Press Article today indicating that handgun ownership has been linked to suicide (more likely than in on-gun owning households).

Yep. In one of the links I posted yesterday, it said that teenagers who lived in homes with guns had twice the suicide rate as those who lived in homes without them.

Wouldn't be surprised if a similar ratio existed for adults in houses with/without guns.

It makes sense that there will be some who could not take it upon themselves to stab themselves or ingest poison could do something very quick, and "painless" [except for the person who has to find them]

--
pardon

In America, an adolescent is five times more likely to commit suicide if there is a firearm in the house.

Don't mean to be a cynic, but I do believe there is a study to fit every political persuasion.

I think legal ownership of guns is not really the problem.

Don't mean to be a cynic, but I do believe there is a study to fit every political persuasion.

am... what a strange statement to make when you are posting research to further your views on gun control

UK HOME OFFICE PRESS RELEASE- 079/98 27 February 1998
Welcoming the end of the hand-in period, Home Office Minister Alun Michael said:

"We have now held a successful firearms surrender for large and small calibre handguns, which I believe has put a firm brake on the development of a dangerous gun culture in the UK.

Today's deadline for surrender of small calibre pistols completes the Government's drive to take all handguns out of general civilian circulation."

Ten years on, look at the facts*:

THE CRIMINAL SHOOTER - ENGLAND AND WALES
Deaths and injuries caused by the illegal use of guns.
1969 - - - - 173
1988 - - - - 410
2005/6 - - - 3,821

THE LEGAL SHOOTER - ENGLAND AND WALES
Certificates for the legal use of guns
1988 - - - - 1,037,400
2005/6 - - - - 691,508

CRIMES INVOLVING THE USE OF HANDGUNS
1988 - - - - 1,484
1998/9 - - - 2,687
2006/7 - - - 4,144

So deaths and injuries from armed crime have increased TENFOLD whilst legal ownership has been reduced by one third.

Pistols have been banned from legal use for most practical purposes whilst the criminal use of pistols has nearly doubled.

NOW tell the victims that banning or licensing saves lives.....

*From the Home Office publication "Homicides, Firearms Offences and Intimate Violence 2005/2006, (Supplementary Volume 1 to Crime in England and Wales 2005/2006.)"

Patty - so you want your gun on the off-chance you might need it yes? Even if that means you have swathes of acceptable losses of life (liberty) through accidents or innocent bystanders etc, in order to maintain your 'insurance', right?

NSE: It seems to have leapt up significantly in the 80s when rap culture and the love on guns and gangs became ever more prevalent. It would great to see if there is any research on that. Also - did people have access to the internet and sales of replica handguns in 1969? Most of the weapons the police seize are replicas made good.

I would suggest that the relative criminality of whites and blacks be looked at before reaching any conclusions. By throwing all numbers into a pot, comparison and clarity is lost.

The missing word in the debate on UK firearms offences: DRUGS

Check out the figures and you will find a drugs link to at least 90% of all gun crime. The figures in 1968 are tiny because the drugs problem was tiny.

NSE

Yet still, the UK deaths and injuries rate from guns is but a fraction as compared with the carnage in the States.

Your anti-firearms policies are probably serving you very well, still.despite the recent spikes ( which I agree are very likely due to drugs related incidents )

Alison " so you want your gun on the off-chance you might need it yes? Even if that means you have swathes of acceptable losses of life (liberty) through accidents or innocent bystanders etc, in order to maintain your 'insurance', right?"

Yes. The "liberal" - or left, or progressive, if you prefer - notion that negligent, or criminal misuse of a firearms - and the damage this causes - is somehow corrected by the subsequent banning of all firearm's is wrong.

BTW -- I also want to drive and I also want to swim in pools....

Patty

So the higher suicide rate in homes with guns--no biggie, right? Screw 'em, so long as we got our guns to shoot invading varmints!!

"I would suggest that the relative criminality of whites and blacks be looked at before reaching any conclusions. By throwing all numbers into a pot, comparison and clarity is lost."

I would suggest looking at the relative criminality of small versus normal sized men before reaching any conclusions. Small men (say under 5'8") are generally much more aggressive/arseholey and by treating normal men in the same manner you are losing all clarity.

Kloot: THe thing about studies are that they can be cherry picked to suit the moment. The research needs to be culled over, understood within context, analized intensively by someone in the field. -- that is why I turn to experts who summarize, whom I trust - and remain open minded (hopefully) to bonafide new studies which might disprove prior assumptions.

From what I read: gun control does not decrease crime.

Here is a good summary of the current research on legal ownership of handguns:

"In the 1980s and 1990s, as violence raged at epidemic levels, the preferred remedy of policymakers was to restrict the manufacture, sale, and ownership of firearms. Washington, D.C. had banned handguns in 1976, and in 1982, Chicago did likewise, prompting several of its suburbs to follow suit.

New York required anyone who wanted a handgun to acquire a special permit, which was expensive and hard to get. Meanwhile, the federal government and several states outlawed "assault weapons"—semiautomatic guns with a military appearance.

It looked as though ever-stricter gun control was the wave of the future. But the future had different ideas. What happened? Three main things:

Gun control didn't work. In the 1990s, despite its draconian ban, Washington became the murder capital of the United States. Chicago's homicide rate, which had been declining in the years before it banned handguns, climbed over the following decade. Gun control didn't work.

During the time the federal assault weapons law was in effect, the number of gun murders declined—but so did murders involving knives and other weapons. When the law was allowed to expire in 2004, something interesting happened to the national murder rate: nothing.

Laws allowing concealed weapons proliferated—with no ill effects. In 1987, Florida gained national attention—and notoriety—by passing a law allowing citizens to get permits to carry concealed handguns. Opponents predicted a wave of carnage by pistol-packing hotheads, but it didn't happen. In fact, murders and other violent crimes subsided. Permit holders proved to be sober and restrained."

http://reason.com/news/show/127251.html

Phantom ; Just answer me one question , your wife is being raped , you have a 9mm. Ruger in your hand ; what do you do ?

Phantom: I personally know 2 little toddlers who have died needlessly by pool drownings. One was a guest at a house with a housekeeper who couldn't swim, and who turned her back when she went to answer the telephone. Another was a guest at a house with a pond and the 2 mothers turned their backs and were talking in the kitchen.

I know someone who accidently ran over a toddler. I don't even want to talk about the car accidents I personally have been aware of.

People commit suicide with legally prescribed pharmaceuticals as well as guns. Do we ban legally prescribed pharmaceuticals? Do we ban cars? or pools? or ponds?

Doctor

I would shoot the son of a bitch. I'm not a true pacifist. I just think that guns are a poor solution most individual security problems.

Pharmaceuticals, cars and pools presumably do the good things that they are supposed to do--alleviate symptoms, move us around, cool us off. They do all these things well.

Guns in places like America are supposed to keep us safe. But I'm not sure that they even do that. When you net out the "collateral damage" of various kinds ( some of which we've not even spoken of) I'm not convinced that they keep society any safer at all. The country against country and the NY vs Gun States analysis indicates otherwise.

Are some individuals safer with guns? Yes of course. But what about the suicides, etc? When I brings this up, all I hear about is swimming pools.

Phantom: Suicide? It seems like you are introducing an issue here which has little if no place in a discussion of legal gun owvnership.

Are you assuming that if a gun wasn't available then the person would not have committed suicide? Isn't it possible that suicides would have been by drugs, or something else if a gun weren't available? .

Wash. DC and Chicago had increases in homicides when gun control was introduced, while nationwide crime and gun crime was decreasing overall. Did you read the article above?

Alison: How many more children must die from Pitt Bull attacks? before we ban pitt bulls?

And yet, I don't see any ground swell support for massive regulation over the breeding, sale and ownership of these dogs.

Why your obseession with banning handguns?

--Isn't it possible that suicides would have been by drugs, or something else if a gun weren't available? --

All I know is that houses with guns have five times the adolescent suicide rate. You tell me what that statistic means.

Yes I read the article. To be honest, I thought it was skimpy. And DC in any event is adjacent to gun-happy Virginia which must be taken into account.

Gun control has worked very well in Canada and Britain and many other countries, the citizens of which enjoy a vastly greater degree of personal safety than the citizens of the USA...despite their recent crime rises in England, etc.

I'd be happy to ban pit bulls. Seems to me that only drug dealers like those dogs.

Phantom: I actually hate pit bulls. Do you know the Dog Whisperer? He is wonderful with dogs but he very stupidly promotes the idea that there are no bad dogs. He loves Pit Bulls.

Pit Bulls are bred (illegally) in LA to fight - so some people that "rescue" Pit Bulls are actually (and stupidly) rescuing killer dogs - with the inevitable bad results....but because some people make poor decisions, and because some people do illegal things like breed fight dogs - does that mean we need more regulations?

Where do you draw the line, Phantom? Do we just ban things because some people are negligent or criminal? Seems to me we are better off stressing education and responsibility.

BTW -- I saw the Msnbc article on suicide and guns. It looked very biased to me. Less reporting, and more just making a case for gun control.

Patty

Lets just disagree on the gun thing.

On pit bulls. I agree that they are bad, as dobermans are bad. Pit bull owners I do not trust and regard as bad.

Now ( lets see if I can really offend someone ) I really hate the little yapping sissy dogs. They are the worst creatures on earth and should probably be fed to the pit bulls!

Pahntom: re: pit bull owners - I couldn't agree more. "Pretty girl walking a pit bull" is the current trend here. The dogs are "rescued" from the pound which is full of castoff fighting pits.

I always know when I see this sight coming towards me on the street:

1. the girl probably has a tatoo and probably a piercing somewhere "sexy" on her body.

2. the girl is an idiot - either stupid or naive, or both.

3. I better cross the street if I have my dogs with me because I know "the pretty girl" will not be able to control her dog/accessory and my 2 dogs could be killed by her pit.

I've not seen that. Mostly here you see physically strong, male drug dealers walking their physically strong, pit bull drug dealer dogs.

What angers me and you see it a lot in the UK, is families with small children who have pit bulls as 'family pets'. They inevitably claim that 'Tyson' is a loveable dog who adores the kids and would never hurt them, and they learn nothing from the routine news stories about these dogs suddenly turning on and savaging a toddler within the home. Pit Bull sare not designed to be family pets.