Another school shooting

[Paul Moscow]

What's the incremental cost compared to non-firearm homicides?  That's a perfectly reasonable question.

ETA:  The Harvard study by Kates/Mauser already proved gun control is counter productive.

Firearms are estimated to be responsible for 70-80% of all homicides. Maybe no one has looked into non-firearm homicide costs because eliminating fists isn't reasonable.

Sounds like a dead end Paul Moscow.  T's & P's.

Cool dude, I'll wait for your figures on the marginal social benefit of gun ownership in the US.  Fax em over when you get a min. 

[Rage Against the McKee]

What's the incremental cost compared to non-firearm homicides?  That's a perfectly reasonable question.

ETA:  The Harvard study by Kates/Mauser already proved gun control is counter productive.

Firearms are estimated to be responsible for 70-80% of all homicides. Maybe no one has looked into non-firearm homicide costs because eliminating fists isn't reasonable.

Sounds like a dead end Paul Moscow.  T's & P's.

Cool dude, I'll wait for your figures on the marginal social benefit of gun ownership in the US.  Fax em over when you get a min.

Simply looking at costs, especially when you bring in externalities like pain and suffering, is unfair without also weighing the benefits.

http://www.nssf.org/PDF/2012EconomicImpactReport.pdf

This report shows an economic benefit of $31.8 billion. I know that's nowhere near the $174 billion that your article states, but 3/5 of that total was classified as pain and suffering, and the report I've linked does not include any dollar amount for the joy these weirdos get from owning guns.

I agree with you that guns have a net negative effect on our society.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

What are the costs of violent crime in general? Take away the guns and violent crime increases without the threat of being killed.

[Paul Moscow]

What are the costs of violent crime in general? Take away the guns and violent crime increases without the threat of being killed.

Wait, so you're suggesting that if guns were to go away tomorrow, that those 10,000 people who would have died via guns would still die via knife, fist, feet, tv set?

[Domino]

What are the costs of violent crime in general? Take away the guns and violent crime increases without the threat of being killed.

Wait, so you're suggesting that if guns were to go away tomorrow, that those 10,000 people who would have died via guns would still die via knife, fist, feet, tv set?

I think he's referencing the talking point that the UK allegedly has triple the amount of violent crime as the U.S. I've seen that figure thrown out on a few conservative websites. The thing is, it's misleading. The UK has a different (and wider) definition of "violent crime."

Could be wrong, though.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

What are the costs of violent crime in general? Take away the guns and violent crime increases without the threat of being killed.

Wait, so you're suggesting that if guns were to go away tomorrow, that those 10,000 people who would have died via guns would still die via knife, fist, feet, tv set?

No. But if there were no more guns, the overall violent crime rate is sure to go up. Aggravated robbery, rape, battery, attempted murder, etc. would increase knowing that the victim or home would be gun-free. It's sure to affect a larger portion of society than is currently affected by gun murders.

[OregonSmock]

Why do people oppose universal background checks?

[wetwillie]

Why do people oppose universal background checks?

Who opposes them?

[Domino]

What are the costs of violent crime in general? Take away the guns and violent crime increases without the threat of being killed.

Wait, so you're suggesting that if guns were to go away tomorrow, that those 10,000 people who would have died via guns would still die via knife, fist, feet, tv set?

No. But if there were no more guns, the overall violent crime rate is sure to go up. Aggravated robbery, rape, battery, attempted murder, etc. would increase knowing that the victim or home would be gun-free. It's sure to affect a larger portion of society than is currently affected by gun murders.

Do you have proof, and by proof, I mean links to research papers, that can validate this claim of yours?

[husserl]

The Harvard study by Kates/Mauser already proved gun control is counter productive.

Neither is at Harvard.  Both work for right wing think tanks.  Their study wasn't peer-reviewed, and was published in a student-run libertarian/conservative law review.  I'm not going to read it through, but in their first table they show Luxembourg with a murder rate of 9.01 (lol) and make a big deal about it in the text. 

Here's a bunch of real Harvard research.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

[Paul Moscow]

What are the costs of violent crime in general? Take away the guns and violent crime increases without the threat of being killed.

Wait, so you're suggesting that if guns were to go away tomorrow, that those 10,000 people who would have died via guns would still die via knife, fist, feet, tv set?

No. But if there were no more guns, the overall violent crime rate is sure to go up. Aggravated robbery, rape, battery, attempted murder, etc. would increase knowing that the victim or home would be gun-free. It's sure to affect a larger portion of society than is currently affected by gun murders.

Because deterrence has decreased crime in any measurable way? Violent crime goes up and down due to the make-up of our social institutions not the presence of guns in households.

Spend 10 minutes looking into why violent crime has decreased in the United States over the past 15 years or so and you'll come up with a list including all or most of the following.

1) High incarceration rate (world's highest actually)
2) Tougher sentencing (3 strikes, etc)
3) End of the crack cocaine epidemic
4) Better technology to secure firearms and increased safety features
5) Demographics (population is aging fewer young people)
6) Improved education
7) Decrease in lead exposure and poisoning in urban areas
8) Steven Levitt even thinks abortions have contributed greatly. The thought that terminations of unwanted births that would have occurred in unhealthy environments has helped decrease violent crime.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

What are the costs of violent crime in general? Take away the guns and violent crime increases without the threat of being killed.

Wait, so you're suggesting that if guns were to go away tomorrow, that those 10,000 people who would have died via guns would still die via knife, fist, feet, tv set?

No. But if there were no more guns, the overall violent crime rate is sure to go up. Aggravated robbery, rape, battery, attempted murder, etc. would increase knowing that the victim or home would be gun-free. It's sure to affect a larger portion of society than is currently affected by gun murders.

Because deterrence has decreased crime in any measurable way? Violent crime goes up and down due to the make-up of our social institutions not the presence of guns in households.

Spend 10 minutes looking into why violent crime has decreased in the United States over the past 15 years or so and you'll come up with a list including all or most of the following.

1) High incarceration rate (world's highest actually)
2) Tougher sentencing (3 strikes, etc)
3) End of the crack cocaine epidemic
4) Better technology to secure firearms and increased safety features
5) Demographics (population is aging fewer young people)
6) Improved education
7) Decrease in lead exposure and poisoning in urban areas
8) Steven Levitt even thinks abortions have contributed greatly. The thought that terminations of unwanted births that would have occurred in unhealthy environments has helped decrease violent crime.

looks like we're doing all the right things and no need to mess with success. taking guns out of the hands of good people may ef things up.

[Emo EMAW]

What are the costs of violent crime in general? Take away the guns and violent crime increases without the threat of being killed.

Wait, so you're suggesting that if guns were to go away tomorrow, that those 10,000 people who would have died via guns would still die via knife, fist, feet, tv set?

Absofuckinglutely.  Even more.  Go read the study I mentioned.

[HeinBallz]

What are the costs of violent crime in general? Take away the guns and violent crime increases without the threat of being killed.

Wait, so you're suggesting that if guns were to go away tomorrow, that those 10,000 people who would have died via guns would still die via knife, fist, feet, tv set?

No. But if there were no more guns, the overall violent crime rate is sure to go up. Aggravated robbery, rape, battery, attempted murder, etc. would increase knowing that the victim or home would be gun-free. It's sure to affect a larger portion of society than is currently affected by gun murders.

Do you have proof, and by proof, I mean links to research papers, that can validate this claim of yours?

Chicago, DC, New York, etc.

[husserl]

Absofuckinglutely.  Even more.  Go read the study I mentioned.

2nd author (not joking):

[Emo EMAW]

Absofuckinglutely.  Even more.  Go read the study I mentioned.

2nd author (not joking):

People who have been photographed holding a gun are not capable of quality research?  I mean for eff's sake Obama's been trap shooting, yet he's the one calling for these bills.  Doesn't mean anything dumbass.

[husserl]

You post a lot and I haven't gotten the impression that you're stupid enough to have read that article and walked away thinking that it

already proved gun control is counter productive.

If I'm wrong, and you want to have a real discussion about it, point me to whatever it is about the article that you found so convincing and I'll try to help.  Shoot me a PM if it's too embarrassing to do it here.   

[Emo EMAW]

Thanks for the compliment.

[husserl]

 

[Emo EMAW]

Honestly I don't care about the studies, for or against.  I think the incremental difference between a guns or no guns society is too small to warrant this kind of attention and effort in the face of larger problems.  Even in the absense of larger problems I don't think the changes we could realistically make would be worth the sacrifice of rights by lawful gun owning/supporting citizens.  This is just a huge boondoggle and takes attention away from MUCH larger problems.  Also seems to act like a sharp wedge driving people apart that could otherwise agree on other things and make a positive impact.

[Paul Moscow]

Honestly I don't care about the studies, for or against.  I think the incremental difference between a guns or no guns society is too small to warrant this kind of attention and effort in the face of larger problems.  Even in the absense of larger problems I don't think the changes we could realistically make would be worth the sacrifice of rights by lawful gun owning/supporting citizens.  This is just a huge boondoggle and takes attention away from MUCH larger problems.  Also seems to act like a sharp wedge driving people apart that could otherwise agree on other things and make a positive impact.

DOESN'T CARE ABOUT STUDIES!

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Honestly I don't care about the studies, for or against.  I think the incremental difference between a guns or no guns society is too small to warrant this kind of attention and effort in the face of larger problems.  Even in the absense of larger problems I don't think the changes we could realistically make would be worth the sacrifice of rights by lawful gun owning/supporting citizens.  This is just a huge boondoggle and takes attention away from MUCH larger problems.  Also seems to act like a sharp wedge driving people apart that could otherwise agree on other things and make a positive impact.

DOESN'T CARE ABOUT STUDIES!

Studies predicting human behavior really are pretty worthless when you already have real world results to fall back on. But, many liberals do have a hard time looking at history as a learning tool.

[Institutional Control]

UN is coming for your guns, boys. 

http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/03/6750-un-international-gun-ban/

BREAKING: Weapons Ban Shot Down, Obama Sends Kerry To U.N. To Pass International Gun Ban

[steve dave]

 

[SkinnyBenny]

Hey man, gun restrictions would probably never work so I guess we shouldn't even bother trying.