Guns don’t make us safer

The U.S. Army knows what the National Rifle Association and a majority of our state and federal legislators don’t: that keeping guns out of the hands of people makes for a safer community.

For example, soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas, don’t carry weapons unless they are actually training or in law enforcement. One would think that if anyone could be trusted to carry guns all the time it would be soldiers who have had extensive training with firearms. But at Fort Hood, and all other military bases, weapons and ammunition are kept under lock and key.

Unfortunately, outside of military bases, guns are available to almost anyone, anytime. As a result, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who couldn’t obtain an Army weapon on base, went into town and purchased a firearm that no one needs outside of law enforcement. Then the major returned to base and allegedly killed 13 people.

No one knows why and probably never will. But if he hadn’t been able to buy a gun, Hasan wouldn’t be facing 13 counts of murder and 13 families wouldn’t be grieving the senseless loss of their loved ones.

Will they ever learn?

Keith Evans
St. Joseph

Comments

[GCYL]

“Crib note: All I have is kill the messenger and I’m getting upset that you keep pointing that out.” -
Posted by: Wild Man | Nov 21, 2009 11:03:40 AM

You’ve been caught red handed with nothing but “kill the messenger” and you don’t appreciate it. By all means then keep your personal myths on the front porch where it’s safe or next time factually defend it. I find your efforts at personal judgments as a means to obtain an “out” morally repulsive.

[Wild Man]

At first I viewed you as an honorable person engaging in intellectual discourse. Obviously I was wrong. Your practice of attributing quotes to me that were never made proves you less than honorable.

[GCYL]

“I meant proof.” - but I’m still sticking with “kill the messenger”.

Check. Understood the post with the typing error but I completely understand a need to correct it any way.

[Wild Man]

I meant proof.

[GCYL]

“I don't have a dog in this hunt.” - Posted by: Wild Man | Nov 21, 2009 9:43:00 AM

[Snicker]

“You believe that guns make us safer. I was just wondering where you came up with that myth?” - Posted by: Wild Man | Nov 20, 2009 6:11:51 AM

If you don’t care what may or may not be a myth then by all means, keep your dog on the front porch.

[GCYL]

“But as far as proff goes, you haven't proved anything either.” - I’m sticking with the “kill the messenger” thing.

Good for you Wild Man. Keep telling yourself that it’s working.

[Wild Man]

As I said before, I don't have a dog in this hunt. I don't care. But as far as proff goes, you haven't proved anything either.

[GCYL]

“By the time that there were significant guns in circulation the trend lines were already decreasing for violent crimes. Seems like a stretch to me.” - Wild Man

You would have thought that with more guns in circulation (CC laws) we would have had a trend to us as why we shouldn’t have these types of laws. CC laws took years and years to move across this country and still we lack any substantial support to point out why this is a bad thing.

“You believe that guns make us safer. I was just wondering where you came up with that myth?” - Posted by: Wild Man

I think that being safer is a perceptional issue. You want to make it a myth but you continue to fail in your efforts to factually prove that.

[GCYL]

“First, the study was conducted and released by the Brookings Institute,” - all I have is “kill the messenger”

Since I’m not happy with the message I had hopes that Wild Man could actually kill the message. Aagin: If only Wild Man or I could come up with something substantial to replace the taking of a right to ownership this discussion would be over with. Heck I’d be impressed if Wild Man could come up with a reasonably cost alternative to achieve “an average drop in murder rates of more than 13 percent”.

[Wild Man]

You fail to mention two important facts. First, the study was conducted and released by the Brookings Institute, a neocon think tank, and a couple of studies out of Stanford and the University of Alabama, Birmingham dispute the findings. Research can give you any answer you want.

I don’t have a dog in this fight, people can do what ever they want. It seems strange to me that most of the years of the Lott study were before gun laws were changed. Conceal carry laws were not enacted in this country in any state until 1992 and the licensing practice began the next year. It took other states several years to propose and pass like legislation. By the time that there were significant guns in circulation the trend lines were already decreasing for violent crimes. Seems like a stretch to me.

[GCYL]

“You believe that guns make us safer. I was just wondering where you came up with that myth?” - Posted by: Wild Man

------------

“As gun ownership rises, violent crime drops. The more likely that a victim may be armed, the less likely that he - or she - will be attacked. And when victims are attacked, guns tilt the odds in their favor. Government data show that women who don't resist when confronted by an attacker end up seriously hurt 2.5 times more often than women who resist with a gun. For men, it's 1.4 times more often.

In an exhaustive marathon of research, University of Chicago Law School professor John Lott and economist David Mustard analyzed FBI crime records from all 3,054 US counties over a 19-year period (1977-1995). Nothing, they found, had a more decisive impact in lowering violent crime rates than the adoption of ''shall-issue'' laws - i.e., laws giving adults with no criminal record the right to carry concealed handguns.

Such laws are now in force in 31 states. ''Our most conservative estimates,'' writes Lott, ''show that by adopting shall-issue laws, states reduced murders by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assaults by 7 percent, and robbery by 3 percent.'' The effect is especially pronounced in big cities. ''In counties with populations of more than 200,000, concealed-handgun laws produced an average drop in murder rates of more than 13 percent.''

Lott and Mustard used multiple-regression checks to correct their data for arrest and conviction rates, for prison sentences, and for new gun-control laws. The results were unambiguous: More concealed handguns, and increased gun ownership generally, drives down murder, robbery, and aggravated assault.”

What the media don't admit: Guns make us safer

Commentary
By Jeff Jacoby

-------------------

Clearly it’s not a myth but I’m not calling it the silver bullet on the issue of personal safety. I don’t own a weapon and I’m not a fan of CC laws. If only Wild Man or I could come up with something substantial to replace the taking of a right to ownership this discussion would be over with. Heck I’d be impressed if Wild Man could come up with a reasonably cost alternative to achieve “an average drop in murder rates of more than 13 percent”.

[tom2]

From T. Hanson: I have to disagree with you Tom. This guy was a traitor and a terrorist. He wanted to kill people and he would have succeeded no matter which way...

Not to belabor the argument but I agree with you. He also was a pseudo-intellectual who would have maximized the carnage. He'd have known his rampage would have been dropped cold after the first or second shot. Consequently, he'd have selected another method and we'd be debating cars in lieu of the 2nd Amendment.

[Wild Man]

"So guns are the catalyst for crime? Really. Interesting as to where you came up with that myth."

You believe that guns make us safer. I was just wondering where you came up with that myth?

[GCYL]

“A gun is not a tool to kill its a tool to stay alive.” - tonyspdx

I’ve never owned a gun. After military service I walked away with a stronger understanding why I’d never own a gun. When I can give something meaningful in exchange for removing our right to gun ownership that’s when I’ll stop supporting a right that I have no intension of using.

That said, I’d have to disagree with ton’s statement. A gun is not a tool, it’s a clear indicator of a person’s perception of our society.

[GCYL]

“You mean one with a lower crime rate?” - Wild Man

Where’s Engineer when you need a pro gun fact magnet?

This claim is right up there with “countries with better health care”. Cherry pick your facts and let the fun begin all over again.

The fact of the matter is the supposed “lower crime rate” is not a substantial replacement for removing our right to bear arms.

[tonyspdx]

"Guns don't make us safer, but they sure make the criminals deader" Murderers set on killing will find a way to make it come true. The only way to stop them is at the point of contact. A gun is not a tool to kill its a tool to stay alive.

[Wild Man]

First of all, looking at the concept of individuals owning guns, the world view of the second amendment is that it is a liberal idea. Few other countries in the world has such liberal rights and gun laws as us. I hear you say. liberals are bad, but you want even more liberal gun laws. So therefore, your bad. Now I understand why your posts are so anguished.

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

Hanson simply pointing out that whether it be a gun or something else, the criminals are going to find an apparatus.
So I suppose we should outlaw cars?
Shoes? Carbon steel pipe?

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

Wild Man you live in fantasyland.
Move instead of trying to dilute the US Constitution. We own a handgun and for good reason. Some liberal entitlement thinker breaks into our house and we will take them off the welfare roles permanently.
So guns are the catalyst for crime? Really. Interesting as to where you came up with that myth.

[Keith Williams3]

People make us safer, Guns gives us false hope of security. With that said Guns can and is benificial to our armed forces/Police.