Politics and Society: The Gun Control Debate

The assertion that if there are less guns there will be less gun violence seems like a logical conclusion right? In the realm of science people may draw conclusions without data that seem reasonable but then the scientist will go out and test that theory. So I wanted to do the same. Below is what I discovered.

The correlation between gun ownership and gun violence is inverse.

Gun Ownership stats
46% of U.S. households reported owning guns, may have been some under reporting so might be in the 50's
There are over 320 million guns in the U.S. 36% of which are handguns
Ownership rose enormously from the 1960s to 2010
Fewer than 100,000 guns are used in violent crimes yearly, or 0.03125% of guns in American are used in violent crimes yearly

Ownership is highest where gun violence is lowest. Whites own more guns than Blacks, but there is statistically more gun violence among blacks

Middle-aged own more guns than Young, But there is statistically more gun violence among the young

Rich/wealthy own more guns than Poor, But there is statistically more gun violence among the poor

Rural folks own more guns than Urban folks, But there is statistically more gun violence in Urban communities

Gun ownership tends to concentrate where gun violence is the least.

• Most gun owners use them for recreation/sports first major group of gun ownership
• Half of handgun owners use for defense second major group of gun ownership
• Most gun ownership of first major group is rural hunting subculture
• Self-defense gun ownership is not cultural, these individuals are very diverse
• Widespread gun ownership predated any gun controls
• Crime rates shot up 1964-1974, leveled off, fluctuated through 1992, then declined through 2000. Gun ownership has followed crime rates not driven them 

Some studies have shown gun ownership to increase following and increase in crime, supposedly as a result of those wanting to protect themselves.

Crime stats

There were 350,000 gun crimes in 2009
24% of robberies and 5% of assaults included the use of a gun (present as a threat or worse)
Guns are used in defense 2.5 million times/year, 7 times more than in assaults or attacks on others

Those defending with guns are less likely to lose property or be injured
Of those defending self/property with a gun 24% fired the gun, 16% at the criminal, 8% injured the perpetrator.

Criminals interviewed in prison say they refrained from attacking people who might be armed. Duh

Crime rates drop substantially after highly publicized instances of victims arming or defending themselves

43% of UK burglaries occurred when people were home, and only 9% of US burglaries occurred when people were home.

The best research on gun uses is very consistent: it reduces the likelihood of harm.

1/3 of legal gun owners get their guns privately

Of 943 felon handgun owners interviewed:

• 44% bought privately
• 32% Stole it
• 9% rented or borrowed it
• 16% bought it from a retailer, This is where gun legislation might make an impact. It could very well push people more towards these other areas… remember, we are talking about felons in this instance not law abiding citizens.
• <3% mentioned the 'black market'
• 600k handguns are stolen each year, millions circulating among criminals

None of the 19 types of gun controls limited ownership

The common gun  controls have no effect on reducing violence

General gun ownership has no net positive effect on total violence rates

Of almost 200k ccw's in Florida, only 8/year were revoked due to crime (criminal behavior)

>>>
It might occur to someone that the legislators and political wings in support of gun control measures know that it makes no impact. Eventually measures will pass, and gun violence will continue unchanged (or worsen), the only step beyond that is an all-out ban. And when that happens, and there is still rampant murder, burglaries, and violence despite the absence of guns, they will not reverse the decision. Even after the statistics show that the common citizen was safer when they kept arms. Conspiracy theorists would say that is what Big Brother wants, a disarmed populace so that they can impose their will. That is doubtful in my mind, but then again, history has shown others thought similarly until it was too late.

Let's assume all the data I've presented above is right-wing skulduggery and completely false (it could be!). There is some other tested logic we can look to; drugs. The war on drugs has driven the profit margins of the cartels well into the black. Organized crime is more profitable and ruthless than ever, with ISIS-style beheading going on across the boarder it could be argued that war on and ban on drugs has worsened the conditions of people in Mexico. In fact, every time we ban or restrict something in the states we create a business opportunity for organized crime on both sides of that long border.
Another aspect of this is that whatever was banned is no longer something the law-abiding citizen possess but is something that the criminal elements do possess.
So until we can completely control what comes across our borders then the result of banning something will be more crime. Great plan. It has always seemed absurd to me that the Left wants to open borders and increase gun bans. Such propositions when combined make me question the intellectual fortitude of the Liberal political establishment. Do they not see this relationship? Take a holistic view, pretty please?

One driving force for more gun controls is to prevent deranged people getting their hands on them and shooting up crowds, schools, and recruiting centers. Ever notice how such attacks are almost always in gun-free zones. They are afraid of armed responses or at least know that such armed responses limit the lethality of their attacks. Crazy, but not stupid. Most know they will likely die in their attack and have accepted this. So limiting magazine capacity and adding bullet buttons reduces their lethality and saves lives right? It does not take much imagination to discern that such assailants, whom expect to die in the attack, care little for the penalties of going around a bullet button or possessing a higher than 10-round capacity... so such measures are ludicrous, and are truly meant for something else (we'll get to that later). These are the bad apples, they are bad, break laws, and harm others. Do we let one bad apple spoil the whole bunch? Maybe.
Most illegal immigrants that cross our southern board just want to find a better life. A few of them are associated with crime and will commit murder, rape, and robbery. The political left would be selective in their decision about what kind of bad apples are acceptable. I agree that we shouldn't punish immigrants that are only looking to work and support their families because of a fractional minority are up to no good. Applying the same logic to the gun debate we should not punish the honest citizen by removing or restricting their rights to defend themselves because a couple 'bad' citizens have abused the same right. A right that is more important when we continue to allow bad folks to immigrate here (however a small minority they might be). So then again I am puzzled by this hypocrisy, doing one thing directly opposes the other and the reasoning is fraught with double-standards.
Going back to gun control measures, bullet buttons, bans on high-cap magazines and other such measures impact only one thing: the people's ability to resist their government. Maybe there's a conspiracy and maybe there isn't, but that is the truth of it. The only measure that does not limit the citizens' rights and might help reduce violence is background checks on all gun sales or gun ownership transactions. Background checks have not been proven to do any good, but since they do not really limit the average citizen's ability to keep and bare arms, and it could possibly reduce some instances of violent or unstable people owning firearms I am for it.
Ammunition. Placing background checks and restrictions on ammunition is not good, it does not help the people. The whole purpose of the second amendment is to give the people the power to resist an oppressive government, limiting ammo sales restricts this right. Like many other legislative actions by California and other states it does nothing to protect anyone (except maybe the government).

Mass shootings were higher in the 1980's than they are now. They are defined as any shooting involving 3 or more persons (presumably shot). Most mass shootings stem from the criminal or gang world. Gun fatalities are down since the 1980's. While concealed carry permits are up. I'm not saying the people holding CCW's reduce crime, there are many factors to reduced violence overall. What I am saying is that an increase in people carrying concealed weapons has NOT increased gun violence. It therefore cannot be concluded as an increasing factor to increasing gun violence.
Violent crime is down, gun violence is down, this is what the statistics and data indicate and it contradicts the mainstream media narrative and people's resulting 'feelings'. Why is the violent crime down? Contributing factors are wide and varying. Some studies assert that the lack of exposure to lead over previous generations has an impact, asserting that the presence of lead as kids develop has certain biological impacts that makes them more violent. The high number of kids playing video games in the home instead of being out on the street committing crimes. The victory of Roe v Wade, and the resulting reduction in unwanted pregnancies. The presence of cell phones, capturing evidence has possibly deterred crime. I don't think we can pin one thing down as the reason 'why' murder rates have been on a decline. 
What does seem to be increasing, at least in recent years, is the number of incidents where a non-gang-related individual becomes enraged by some inequity or perceived injustice and chooses to take as many lives as they can before being taken out themselves. These are not acts of passion, the person usually plans their violence fairly well, remember they usually don't expect to survive. This premeditation leads me to believe that if they could not get a gun (that's a big 'if') then they would resort to some sort of explosive device or a even more devastation means to inflict harm on the innocent, as some have already done (Cars, vans. etc.).

Here's a quote:
"With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tuscon in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns." Economist John Lott
This could also include cities where open carry laws are suspended, there are many, and I am not certain where Mr. Lott got this statistic but it is hard for me to imagine that this includes all gang activity in the US. Even then, gang activity withstanding the quote makes the point. Disturbed or disenfranchised lone-wolf shooters act in gun-free zones.

Supposed "Gun Violence" has more to do with the latter part of that term. America is simply more violent that countries like the U.K. Before gun bans in the U.K. there were far less homicides per capita, since the 1920's and the beginning of gun restrictions across the pond violence has increased, not dramatically, but it has increased. Again we have a situation where gun ownership and violent crimes have an inverse trend, not asserting that the increase in violence is due to decreases in gun ownership, rather it implicates that decreasing gun ownership does not have a positive effect on violent crime rates as 2nd amendment opponents would have us believe.

Guns are in fact more lethal than other types of hand-held weapons. If knives were more effective implements of violence then police and soldiers would not carry firearms. A deranged person in a crowd can inflict a lot of harm with a knife, but nothing on the scale of what they can do with a handgun, shotgun, or rifle. The counter argument is that if you have a legal permit-carrying citizen armed with a handgun, Mr. Knife gets stopped. But if the attacker has a gun and the lawful people only have knives or sticks, then a lot of people are going to die. The guns can't disappear, due to some of the arguments above, criminals will always have guns, period.

Gun type limitations. This topic can get a bit more muddy. The truth is, if a crazy or radical person enters a department store with a shotgun and starts taking aim at people, death will be unavoidable. However, if a couple of well-trained and properly permitted handgun owners respond to such an assailant the amount of death that happens will be significantly reduced. This is well documented, so no need to go into actual events or case studies. For the purpose of this topic, the presence of armed resistance is not in dispute, what I do want to explore is what kind of guns are practical. To protect one self and others in public a handgun gets the job done. We do not need to carry AK-47's to deal with the lightning-strike odds of having to defend ourselves. So what are AK-47's and M-4's good for? Well, you can hunt with them but there are better rifles and calibers for that purpose that cost a great deal less. What about recreation? Yes, these types of rifles are quit fun to take to the range, this is true, but not a very good argument. These types of rifles that some call "Assault Rifles" are very effective for combat. For killing or injuring other humans, this is the intent of their design and nothing more. Every firearm is designed to send a small projectile at a high rate of speed at a living target with the purpose of killing that target. Not all guns are used this way but they are all designed this way and thus are all designed for assaulting a target, so the term "Assault Weapon" covers anything designed to kill. Whatever term you prefer, this type of firearm is best suited for combat situation, and therefore the exact thing that the U.S. constitution protects.

The Second Amendment.
I listened to a constitutional law professor cover this topic in brief once and his points have always stuck with me. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that we have the right to arm ourselves, to keep arms, and to bear arms in the event that we need to come together and form a militia to oppose a threat. Just like our revolutionary forefathers opposed an oppressive English government and army. It was for this purpose that it was written, so that we the people keep arms to oppose an oppressive government, ours or otherwise, which also is designed to ensure that the government is for the people and not the other way around. Some want to argue that the 'Militia' part of it would indicate that everyone in your locality would go to the militia for their guns if this need arise and this argument is utter nonsense, no one in that day would have thought of such a ridiculous use of the idea of a militia. We "Keep" arms privately in the event that a well-regulated militia need to be formed. This needs to be thought of in terms of the day. The firearm was a muzzle-loaded black powder rifle, possibly with a bayonet. A secondary weapon may have been a sword, ax, or knife. Communities were ran by land-owners whom at that time were the only individuals with the right to vote. These would have been the 'Lords' that regulated or commanded such a militia.
Is this all antiquated? Possibly. The notion of forming a militia today would require black hawk helicopters, tanks, fighter jets, and an array of military equipment that we would never be permitted to legally own as regular citizens. Even if we could afford such technology. Technically, in the spirit of the constitution we should have the right to any weaponry... "Keep and bear arms" doesn't rule out tanks let alone AR-15's and other "assault rifles", but I think we would all agree that your neighbor Bob has no business owning a pair of Tomahawk cruise missiles. Albeit effectively resisting oppression and embarking in all out revolution would definitely require rifles, success would be hard to attain without other military hardware that we do not (and should not) have access to as every day citizens (though the Taliban might disagree). The best weapons we have at present are the keyboard and mouse.
While the second amendment does not state we even have the right to hunt or defend ourselves against burglary, such rights were implied and not in contest at the time. The specificity surrounds our right to resist our government, with arms, if the needs arises, with the intent of ensuring this government never abuse the power that it is entrusted with. Also likely, an antiquated sentiment.

The most powerful argument against gun restrictions, in my opinion, is that it will only drive up crime and therefore violence. This has been tried and this was the effect. In my view the problem with gun violence has much more to do with a culture of violence and not with a culture of guns.


Some interesting videos on the topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFMUeUErYVg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_1718916149&feature=iv&src_vid=sFMUeUErYVg&v=8hyQDQPEsrs