Archive through December 08, 2002
MoveCloseDeleteAdmin

TV ClubHouse: Archives: US States with More Gun Owners Have More Murders: Archive through December 08, 2002

Ocean_Islands

Thursday, December 05, 2002 - 07:49 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
US States with More Gun Owners Have More Murders
Wed Dec 4,11:10 AM ET Add Health - Reuters to My Yahoo!

By Charnicia E. Huggins

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Homicides in the United States are more common in states where more households own guns, according to researchers.

The study findings imply "that guns, on balance, lethally imperil rather than protect Americans," lead study author Dr. Matthew Miller of Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts, told Reuters Health.

"This inference is consistent with previous...studies that have found that the presence of a gun in the home is a risk factor for homicide, and starkly at odds with the unsubstantiated, yet often adduced, notion that guns are a public good," he added.

Miller and his team investigated the association between homicide and rates of household firearm ownership using 1988-1997 data collected from the nine US census regions and the 50 states.

They found that household gun ownership was linked to homicide rates throughout the nine census regions. At the state level, the link between rates of gun ownership and murder existed for all homicide victims older than age 5, according to the report in the December issue of the American Journal of Public Health.

In fact, the six states with the highest rates of gun ownership--Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Wyoming, West Virginia and Arkansas--had more than 21,000 homicides, nearly three times as many as the four states with the lowest rates of gun ownership--Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Jersey.

Further, people who lived in one of the six "high gun states" were nearly three times as likely to die from any homicide and more than four times as likely to die from gun-related homicide than those who lived in "low gun states," the report indicates. Their risk of dying in a non-gun-related homicide was also nearly double that of those who lived in states with the lowest rates of gun ownership.

On average, about half of households in high gun states had firearms, according to data reported by three of the six states, in comparison to 13% of households in low-gun states.

Although homicide rates were higher in poor areas and in states with higher rates of non-lethal violent crime and urbanization, the association between household firearm ownership and homicide remained true when the researchers took these and other factors into consideration.

Still, Miller's team notes that it is not clear whether the higher rates of household gun ownership caused or resulted from the increased number of homicides.

"It is possible, for example, that locally elevated homicide rates may have led to increased local gun acquisition," they write.

SOURCE: American Journal of Public Health 2002;92:1988-1993.

Deedee

Thursday, December 05, 2002 - 08:28 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I do not own a gun. Previously I did.

A few years back at one of the first school shootings, before Columbine. I saw the mother of one of the school shooters on the news a few days after the incident. She was crying and saying that she did not understand, her son had been raised around guns. He knew gun saftey. Then the mother said "If someone had told me week ago that my son would have done this, I would never have believed them." That hit home for me. My stepson was in middle school at the time, from the time I heard about the school shooting I had been thinking my kid would never do anything like that. Within 2 days the gun was gone from my house. I still believe in the right to bear arms, but for me I no longer want a gun in my house.

Cmore

Thursday, December 05, 2002 - 10:56 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Gun safety starts with the gun owners ability to control who may use the weapon and when. This is why we have such things as gun safes and trigger locks available to us.

Guns do not kill people, deranged people kill people and while a gun may be their weapon of choice, not having a gun will not prevent their crime or make them normal,passive people again.

Guns have also saved lives, but really when was the last time you read a story praising a gun for saving the lives of a family when thugs kicked their door down in the middle of the night? It happens more often than you think, but it is seldom written about or included in senseless studies that have little fact in reality

Marysafan

Friday, December 06, 2002 - 07:21 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Wow...talk about making statistcs say what you want them to. I noticed several flaws right out of the block on this one, just in comparing the highest states to the lowest states.

Knowledge of geography is essential. I still say we need to be teaching more of this stuff in our schools...so that our children will know when they are being manipulated by the media and the government.

In the Upper Penninsula of Michigan where I come from, there is a very high rate of gun ownership. We live in the woods and hunting is a way of life. Yet there is a very low rate of homicides.

This in my opinion is a very flawed article and does not bear out the more important factors that affect homicides...such as poverty level, quality of life, drug usage, and other economic conditiions such as employment rates.

Ocean_Islands

Friday, December 06, 2002 - 05:49 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
People with guns kill people.

Whit4you

Friday, December 06, 2002 - 08:12 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I'm not really into the pro or anti gun thing though I think there are fanatics on both sides that give both sides a bad name.

But I think this is an oxymoron myself

of course States with more gun owners have more murders... um that's because states with more murders tend to have more gun owners.

I don't own a gun but if I lived in a state that has more murders I would - dunno it's just the way that is phrased it's implying that because more people own guns there are more murders, but I think it's probably the other way aroudn because there are more murders, more people own guns.

Not that I really care anyhow - I am glad for the pro gun rights people only because I think big-brother already has to much control in our lives if they took away the 'right to bear arms' the rest the constitution would soon follow.

But I also think the fanatics try a bit to hard to defend guns - of course people could still kill people with other means, but I know personally who was killed by an accidental gun shooting and I doubt he would have accidently died by the use of a hammer or kitchen knife. LOL.

Bullets do kill - just as nuclear bombs KILL - but that doesn't mean we should give up our constitutional right to own guns. Wondering if it's a constitutal right to own bullets? LOL there'd be a good loophole for big-brother :)

Bryan

Friday, December 06, 2002 - 08:19 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Ocean Islands, I am assuming by your posting of this article that you feel it is best to limit or prevent the ownership of guns.

You said People with guns kill people. If you take guns away from people will that mean people will no longer kill people?

If a person makes a decision that they are going to kill another person it would make sense that their first choice of weapon could be a gun. You don't have to get as close to the victim as you would if you used another method such as a knife or baseball bat or fists or whatever the many ways that human lives are ended.

It would be very interesting to see what would happen if no one was able to access firearms anymore. Would there be less murders?. Would people adjust to not being able to use a firearm and find another means to do their deed?

Would you ban knives next?

Whit4you

Friday, December 06, 2002 - 08:41 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Bryan - the 'pro-gun' people always amuse me when they say that... most sat by quitely as smokers have been persecuted to no end the last decade. I'll sit back in amuzement when big-brother decides to do the same to any and all other substances that are deemed dangerous ... sugar for instance.

I have no doubts if say all guns suddendly disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow, that there would be a noticeable decline in the # of deaths. Just as if all cars were to disappear tommorow, or if all substances made of sugar were to disappear tommorow. I think if all guns were to disappear tommorow we would see a decrease in the # of deaths and I think the statistics in those countries that ban them stand up to. But that's so beside the point to me personally, and I wish gun rights people would defend it realistically

"Your right, guns, cars, knives, pills, matches, hammers all kill people, I'll be right beside you in the persuit of a law that will outlaw use of ALL of the above products"

The reason why smokers have gotten this commie treatment in the USA is because the majority are non smokers and have sat back and done nothing - they'll be next and big-brother will be using the money they take from us smokers to take away your rights. At least I'll gain some satisfaction in knowing I'm helping to pay for it. Oh gee now that it's something big brother has determined is bad for YOU, now you care? LOL.

Trust me driving is dangerous - you could die from it - they need to start charging everyone at the pump for potentiallly dying some day in the next 30 years from auto-related death. Sugar is also dangerous - it could kill you - they need to (and I'm beating it'll be coming) start charging you for potential health risks you might face 30 years from now everytime you partake of a sugary substance.

Ok ya I'm ranting but I just don't get why so many gun-rights people have sat back and watched big-brother get more and more control over our lives by deciding that THEY have a right to decide any and all legal substances that we partake in might someday lead to health problems.

I look at it this way - if I die at 60 cause I smoke - I'm going to save the government a heck of alot of $$ since they won't have to pay ME the social security that they've been taking for me because THEY have decided that I can't manage my money as well as they can. Lemme see - I die at 60 from smoking and they are charging me for this now to the tune of $2.40 a pack in cig taxes.. do my relatives get that 'medical insurance' money back should I die at 55 in a car accident? That's 10+ grand I put into this 'med insurance' fund. If I instead live to say 80 - and they've had to pay me back 15 years of social security .. that's going to save them money over me dying at 60 from smoking? LOL. Ok so if I do live to be 80 - do I get the 30+ grand I will have payed by then for 'cig med expenses' back? I should hmm... 99% of people die around 80 so what does it matter to THEM what I die of.. me dying of cig cancer at 80 or any other med illness won't cost them anymore.

Ya I know I'm ranting... but pro-gun people should have to listen to this - they have all sat back the past decade and said and done nothing about big-brother and their insanity over this - while claiming "guns don't kill people, people do" uh well lemme tell you cigs don't KILL people either, us choosing to SMOKE them does. If you EAT 40 twinkies a day for the next 40 years chances are those would kill you too.

Ok I'll shut up...

Goddessatlaw

Friday, December 06, 2002 - 09:50 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
A little personal perspective on the subject. My father was an artillery expert with the army for 37 years. In all those years, we never ever had a gun in the house. When I was old enough to realize what my father's expertise was, and draw the connection between his expertose in firearms and our lack of the same within our own household, I asked him why. Why did we never have guns in the house? He could have trained us - we were all responsible, instructable and mature children. Why were guns, which were such a large part of his professional military career, not also a carryover into his (and our) personal experiences? He told me this: it is a fact that a firearm in the household is far more likely to be used in error to shoot a member of your own family than to protect the family from an intruder. You are much more likely to shoot a loved one than a stranger. I never forgot it. And regardless of the many years I carried and kept weapons while I was a prosecutor, I later gave them away when my sister moved in with me because of the lesson my dad taught me. There are other ways to protect oneself within the household, ones which will better enable you to determine whether deadly force is needed. Guns kill immediately and without a need-to-know standard.

I am not anti-gun. As soon as my sister moved out, I rearmed myself for my own protection. But I know if anyone comes through my front door without a previous invitation, deadly force is warranted. I know, if there's noise in the living room when I'm sleeping in the bedroom, deadly force is needed. I know what the deal is, because I live alone. Anyone who has another person living within the household may THINK they know when deadly force is needed, for example when they're significant other says they're going to be out of town for the weekend, but can't be sure when they shoot that gun that the "intruder" is not their so with a change of plans.

I am in favor of restrictions on gun sales. Background checks, five day waiting period, no automomatic weapons ever (no legal reason for them in a secure civilian population). I do not buy the "slippery slope to complete gun outlaw" argument of 2nd amendment distorters. At the same time, I believe that one is entitled to defend oneself within one's home with use of a gun, if lethal force is necessary. It is not too much to ask that the background of the prospective gun purchaser be checked within the five days necessary to determine the same requires. If someone shows up wanting to buy a gun RIGHT NOW, clearly a cooling-off period is warranted. If things are that bad, go to the police because otherwise the chances are your need to purchase the gun RIGHT NOW are directly related to a domestic situation which will seem much less REQUIRING of MURDER five days later than the impulse which drove you to buy the gun in the first place.

There is a balance which needs to be struck. gun advocates need to be less rigidly opposed to sensible guidelines for the purchase thereof, and gun opponents need to be less hard-lined on their opposition to all effective means of self-defense within the home, particularly when an armed intruder enters. A fire-poker generally ain't gonna get it done. Common sense, good training, and circumspect distribution of firearms are what's needed.

Jo_5329

Saturday, December 07, 2002 - 03:55 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Amazing that I'm 43 years old and have lived in homes with weapons all my live -- minus the 3 years in the military where they wouldn't let us keep our M16's with us -- a there has never been an accidental shooting yet. <scratches head in amazement>

When people want to kill - they will use whatever is handy to them to complete the dead.

Guns kill only when in the hands of a killer. Until that time, it's an object that has no movement of it's own.

Jo

Kaili

Saturday, December 07, 2002 - 07:27 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Guns kill in the hands of killers...and in the hands of accidental circumstances. There are so many stories about children/teens getting a hold of guns and accidently shooting someone, stories about people pulling their guns in self defense as their loved one comes home at an unexpected time. Guns kill people in the hands of paranoid people, in the hands of jumpy people. Plus we have all heard the stats about you being more likely to be killed BY YOUR OWN GUN in the event someone is breaking into your house.

By the way, what is the liklihood of your house being broken into realisticly? If it does happen, it is way more likely to happen when you are not home. My dad's house was broken into (while he was at work) and his three guns were stolen. They didn't help my dad at all and now the theif is in possession of those guns. Now the unloaded guns that my dad hadn't used in years and that could have been referred to as harmless because nobody ever touched them (he had quit target shooting years before) are in the hands of someone who will do who-knows-what with them. So who benefitted from those guns? My dad could have come home for lunch and been shot by his own gun in his own home. That scares me a lot more than the remote chance someone will try to break in while I am home.

I don't care if people want to own guns, and I know people who want to get a hold of them will with or without gun laws (criminals on the street, theft, etc). However, for those people who indend on using their guns responsibily, what is the problem with a few restrictions? Why not try to take every precaution? Do you have to have that gun today, or can you wait a few days? I like the idea of waiting periods. Here's another situation...imagine some guy is extremely angry with his wife for whatever reason...maybe he caught her cheating on him...so he decides she needs to die. He goes to buy a gun to take care of the problem. Guns are nice because you don't have to be physically close to your victim and it's a lot less personal. But wait, he has to sign some paperwork and wait a few days. Okay, so he does. As he is waiting, maybe the third day he realized that killing her is not the thing to do. It gives him time to calm down about the situation and rationalize.

There are so many guns for sale that are ridiculously too powerful for everyday civilians to possess. Do you NEED a gun that will rip apart the intruders whole body? Or just one that will stop their advance and maybe disable them until the police get there. I don't believe deadly force is needed for intruders, but I also thing the death penalty is rather barbaric. Whole other conversation.

Basically, if a person plans on being responsible with their gun, what exactly is the problem with a short waiting period, mandatory locks, etc? These things are precautionary, not preventative.

Pottedplant

Saturday, December 07, 2002 - 10:54 am EditMoveDeleteIP
You can find a news article to prop up either pro gun or anti gun. I have read that cities with the strictest gun control laws, have the highest rate of homicide....take Oakland, CA. Very strict gun laws, yet already over 100 people killed (many by guns) this year to date.
I personaly favor the right to own guns, but I do not own one (yet).
I agree that its about personal liberty.

Pottedplant

Saturday, December 07, 2002 - 11:03 am EditMoveDeleteIP
link
see # 10 :)
http://www.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm

Cmore

Saturday, December 07, 2002 - 02:30 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Whit4you, Why do you feel it is the resposibility of gun owners to defend your rights to smoke? The main reason smokers have lost a lot of ground is because they have sat quietly and done nothing about it. Gun owners don't want to make the same mistake.

All smokers should take the resposibility for the situation they are in, because they had the same opportunity to organize and defend their rights. I was a smoker and did the same thing.....nothing, but I didn't expect any other group to defend my right to smoke.


Ocean_Islands Wrote....

People with guns kill people.


I have owned guns for well over 30 years without killing any living creature or ever having any desire to, so your statement is way off base.

Nightcrawler

Saturday, December 07, 2002 - 07:49 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Ok I WAS going to just read this one and not post
BUT you can see that did not work out so well???

ok I'm 33 and got my first gun when I was 12. Before I got my first gun I went hunting with my dad for 2 years. The first year I carried a stick the same size as a gun and the next year I got to take a toy shot gun. All of this was to see if I would treat the fake gun like a real gun (carry it right, hold it right, not do anything stupid like point it at peole and what I did when we went over a fence and so on)
Only after that did I get a real gun. If I had done anything dumb with the fake guns I would have had 1 more year with the fake guns!!!

My oldest son just passed his test and is getting his frist real gun this year.
We do have guns in the house BUT they both have trigger locks on them and I have the only key. (Bookie did not want one)

Goddess, I do agree with your post. That was very well written.

I got a call from the NRA wanting me to join and I said NO because they keep defending the right to own fully automatic guns.
AND THERE IS NO REASON TO HAVE ONE OF THESE UNLESS YOU ARE IN THE MILITARY.
You can not hunt with them and it is not needed for self defense, so why do we need them???

So I told them no for that reason only!!!

Maybe if more people put their kids through what I had to do to get a gun there would be less people killed with there own guns.

In IOWA were I live there is a mandatory 10-maybe 14 day waiting period for all hand guns. On long guns there is a very extensive background check to get one I just went through it to get my son's 20 guage.

I have owned a gun for a long time and have never killed anyone with one!!!! I do go hunting and have killed game with it.
I guess I don't know what I'm trying to say here.
I think we should have the right to own guns.

I just wish there was a test to see what you were going to do with the gun when you buy it.

I like the idea of the smart guns that will only work when the owner has it, but I'm sure there is a way to get around that to.

Well I'll stop now so someone else can chime in on this one.

Ocean, I don't always agree with your posts but you do get us talking when you do post. LOL.

Sabbatia

Saturday, December 07, 2002 - 09:47 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
People with guns kill? We have probably a dozen guns in the house and neither my husband nor I have ever killed anyone....or anything for that matter except a snake. I do agree that people with guns in the house with small children should have trigger locks on them. BUT, how many of you people out there have let your children play with toy guns? My neighbor's kid has toy guns....I know cause I accidently ran over it. As a child, my mother never allowed us to play with them. We had real guns in the house, but were taught from a very young age not to touch them, they are not a toy. I don't mind the background checks to buy guns, but I honestly don't see the point. Criminals.....killers.....anyone that wants a gun badly enough can get one and won't do it legally. That's what makes them criminals instead of law abiding citizens.

Halfunit

Sunday, December 08, 2002 - 05:46 am EditMoveDeleteIP
I also grew up with firearms being in the house. I was taught to respect them, just like an automobile, and I do to this day.

Some people were questioning long guns and semi-automatic rifles. We have a few, and DH actually qualified with one in particular and now carries it daily with him while on duty.

A big reason for having them is investment. Just as I have my collections and hobbies, so does DH. His just happen to be powerful and expensive, and as long as bad guys have guns, I find comfort having access to something bigger and better than they do.

As for not needing all of that power, the same can be said about a recurve bow vs a compound bow. Or a Honda 350 vs a Kawasaki 953 Ninja. Or to make it ridiculous, a hand can opener vs an electric one. Do we need that additional power? No. Once basic needs are taken care of, we choose things based on ease, enjoyment, comfort, entertainment, etc.

I'm sure some of you think I'm stretching things a bit. Perhaps, but we choose things based on our ability to control them. Some people use a snow blower, some a shovel, some pay for snow removal, and others don't bother at all. It is what is right for us, as individuals, that matters.

The majority of gun owners are responsible, and it doesn't matter if you have a six shot revolver or an AK-47. You treat them the same. With any group, you will get bad apples. I believe that everyone here has the wisdom to know that those few bad apples don't represent the entire bunch.

Do I believe in waiting periods? Sure.
Trigger locks? Why not.
Training courses? Couldn't hurt.

When it comes to issues, I believe both sides have valid points. It is personal preference, and everyone is different.

I can only be responsible for my own actions. I don't want to be denied the enjoyment I get from trying to improve my target shooting scores. Or the time I spend with my DH, tearing the guns down and cleaning them. My activities have never caused property damage, nor have I ever hurt anyone.

Stepping down...

½

Kat

Sunday, December 08, 2002 - 09:50 am EditMoveDeleteIP
The gun debate is one where you cannot change opinions. The closest you can get is to develop an understanding of each others views. I read these messages and it strikes me that gun ownership is almost a cultural experience which is alien to me. I couldn't imagine giving a gift of a gun to a child. I remember a portrait photo taken of a boy who had shot students in his school down in Arkansas. The portrait photo showed him at four holding a rifle.

Where I live you have to be 21 to drink, 18 to buy cigarettes and I cant believe that 11 in any state is old enough to own a gun. It is one thing for adults to have guns, but giving them to children?

Nightcrawler

Sunday, December 08, 2002 - 06:21 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
maybe I should clear up some things in my post.

when I said, I was getting my 11 yr. old son a gun.

he will be getting the gun, BUT it is not like he can go get it anytime he wants. he can only use it when he is with me, until he is older like 16-18 before he can go on his own.

there is a trigger lock on his gun and mine and I have the only key. his bb gun even has a trigger lock on it.
I know this must seen like a very bad idea for a gift to some of you.

where we live it is normal.
we live in farm country, where hunting is a way of life.
my son also had to do all the thing I had to do before I got my first gun (as I posted above).

my 11yr. son also drives the pickup around the farm when needed and has for 2-3 yrs..not too many 11 year-olds drive. (and he drives better then most grown ups I know)
again its normal around here.
Some also drive the tractor around the farm and doing field work.

if we lived in a bigger city it would be different.

I'm not saying that all kids need guns.
that is up to the parents to decide.
I just hope that parents make sure their kids are ready to have one before they get them one.

I'm not trying to start a fight just clarifying my post above.

I do like reading all the views on guns

Bryan

Sunday, December 08, 2002 - 07:23 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Your original post was very clear to me Nightcrawler. You came across as a responsible parent who was instructing their child in the culture prevalent for where you live. What is important is being responsible versus not living in the correct culture.

Kat

Sunday, December 08, 2002 - 07:33 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I referring to nightcrawler's parent. I had no idea of the age of his/her child. As I said owning a gun seems to be a cultural thing and I dont believe there is a "correct" culture. I dont understand a culture that buys guns for children. That was my only point. You are absolutely right though there is no point in getting into a fight about something that neither side would agree on. I was just giving a different opinion and I understand that it may be a minority opinion here.

Twiggyish

Sunday, December 08, 2002 - 07:52 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Excellent point there Goddess! I also agree with you about background checks, etc..

Bryan

Sunday, December 08, 2002 - 07:56 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Kat, you might not be in the minority here. Who would really know unless you did a poll of the members here.

If someone were to live in New York city it would be easy to not understand the culture of rural Iowa. Someone from rural Iowa may not understand why black is the prevalent color of sneakers in the City versus the color of white as is prevalent in many other parts of the nation.

Sia

Sunday, December 08, 2002 - 08:36 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I'm curious about the sneakers, Bryan? Do more city-dwellers choose to wear black sneakers because the city sidewalks are dirtier? Guess that would make sense, as the black shoes would not show dirt like white sneakers would.

I live way out in the country, and I wear white sneakers year-round--until I'm forced by inclement weather to wear my snow-boots. I have a pair of black snow-boots and a pair of white snow-boots. Now you've made it more difficult for me to decide which pair to wear to town tomorrow when I make my weekly grocery shopping trip. Hmmm. . .decisions, decisions.

Kat

Sunday, December 08, 2002 - 08:57 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I had no idea that black was a prevalent color of sneakers in a a city. What an interesting fact. I would think that black would be better color to wear on a farm or rural environment. I will have to pay more attention to the color of sneakers (I will admit my sneakers are more of a grey color....they started out white)