The myth of law-abiding firearm owners who just "snap"

[gorfle]

One of the frequent arguments of anti-firearm people, especially when presented with the data that demonstrates that well over 90% of firearm owners are not involved in firearm crime, is that "All firearm owners are law-abiding until they are not". The implication, of course, is that all firearm owners are potential criminals, being just one shooting away from the other side of the law.

We need to dispel this myth.

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20

In this article from the Cardozo Law Review, author Don Kates provides the data that demonstrates how, contrary to the myth, most people who commit crimes with firearms were not model citizens right up to the point where they committed their first firearm crime. In fact, the vast majority of people who commit crimes using firearms have extensive prior criminal records, usually violent in nature.

Kates summarizes it thusly:

"The lie on which gun prohibitionists centrally rely asserts that most murders are committed by ordinary citizens because they happened to have a firearm in a moment of anger. This lie is repeated time and again in countless supposedly scholarly books and articles. For instance, the medical school professor and gun prohibition lobbyist Katherine Kaufer Christoffel solemnly asserts: “most shootings are not committed by felons or mentally ill people, but are acts of passion that are committed using a handgun that is owned for home protection.”2 To the same effect, other mendacious gun control advocates commonly claim that:

ost would be considered law-abiding citizens prior to their pulling the trigger<;>3

More than half the homicides in this country involve people who are not criminals. . . . These so-called “mom and pop” murders, the result of heated arguments or accidents, are rarely premeditated<; and>4

are neither felons nor crazy, people involved in family fights and fights over jobs and money, and people who are sad or depressed.5"

He then debunks it by showing:

"For instance, though only fifteen percent of Americans have criminal records, roughly ninety percent of adult murderers have adult records (exclusive of their often extensive juvenile records), with an average adult crime career of six or more years, including four major felonies.14 Moreover, leading American criminologists know the prior criminality of murderers is so well established by dozens of homicide studies as to rank among the axioms of criminology.15"

He continues,

"What differentiates criminals and violent psychopaths from ordinary people is not their experiencing hatred or rage, but the ease with which those emotions are prompted and the acts to which they give rise. Killers exhibit an absence of impulse control and a seemingly inexplicable (to ordinary people) propensity to explode into extreme violence over the most trifling matters. Ordinary people virtually never kill, while the kind of people who murder often do so over things so trivial that we are left aghast not only at the fact of killing but at the inconsequential grievance that engendered it.27 The triviality of motive further confirms the extreme deviance of murderers.

To reiterate, the claim of gun prohibition advocates that most murderers are ordinary people is preposterous, devoid of even a shred of supporting evidence."

Emphasis mine.

Clearly the myth that all firearm owners are just one snap action away from being murderers is just that - a myth. Most violent crimes are not committed by people who just one day decided to kill someone, but rather by people with a long history of crime.

This is why people like me are adamant that firearm laws should target the people most likely to commit crime and not inconvenience those who are least likely to commit crime. It is unacceptable to burden all the law-abiding firearms for the sake of the criminals.

[county worker]

1. I think the fact that there are background checks for firearm purchase is an attempt

to do just what you are advocating here. Of course people who do not care to obey the law are not going to go through a gun dealer to buy a gun so how do you prevent that?

[sui generis]

2. I always find foxes debunking the hen house myth to be

somewhat suspect.

The real, 100% observable fact is that SOME people are unreasonably obsessed with guns and gun ownership. They live in a world where there are bogeymen under every rock, gang bangers, wife rapers and incipient violence behind every casual gesture.

I do not believe most gun owners fall into that category, but the ones that do are fucking batshit crazy. They aren't "going to" snap - they did a tsukahara triple toe loop inside quadruple axel over the edge a while ago, and licensing and actual gun ownership had little to do with the momentum that carried them there.

Own it people. You've got a lot more uptight angry fearful people in the "licensed gun owner" population per capita than in virtually any other strata of modern American society.

[shadowrider]

4. Please prove your last sentence

with links that prove it.

I'll wait.

[sui generis]

5. You can wait a while, it's opinion and personal observation

I'm sorry if your need for authority requires "links" instead of some personal fortitude and a willingness for me to stand behind what I say just 'cause.

If you need to pee now would be a good time.

[shadowrider]

6. then your last sentence should have said it's your opinion.

You presented it as fact.

[sui generis]

16. Not really - if I had presented something as fact I would have

indeed quoted the study and the method behind the study.

Anyway I THINK we're kind of on the same side here.

[shadowrider]

30. We very well may be in agreement here

I just get a little uptight when gun rights come under fire, so to speak. My apologies if I came off a little gruff.

[gorfle]

9. Even if that were true.

I do not believe most gun owners fall into that category, but the ones that do are fucking batshit crazy. They aren't "going to" snap - they did a tsukahara triple toe loop inside quadruple axel over the edge a while ago, and licensing and actual gun ownership had little to do with the momentum that carried them there.

Own it people. You've got a lot more uptight angry fearful people in the "licensed gun owner" population per capita than in virtually any other strata of modern American society.

Even if this were true, so what? Is paranoia equivalent to action? Are we going to start penalizing people for being paranoid? Remember, the people who made this country were paranoid! They were downright terrified of creating a tyranny! Everything the did was an attempt to build a system of checks and balances that decentralized power - including military power!

These were people who called standing armies "dangerous to liberty".

Now you might think that firearm owners who hold the founders' vision concerning firearms to be "batshit crazy", but until they have actually committed crimes, they should be held harmless.

And, of course, unless these batshit crazy people have a long criminal history (that probably makes them ineligible to own firearms anyway), they are highly unlikely to commit crimes!

[sui generis]

15. I agree with your last sentence

I don't believe that paranoid people are likely to commit crimes, at least not intentionally.

[NewMoonTherian]

25. I have to admit, I'm confused.

You're arguing from what, on the surface, would appear to be an anti-gun stance, and your thesis seems to revolve around paranoia among gun owners. But if these paranoid people aren't likely to commit crimes(and by that, do you mean no MORE likely than the population as a whole?), what is your objection to individual gun ownership?

On the other hand, you may not be anti-gun at all, and simply taking issue with an assertion the OP made that you don't agree with on an academic basis. In any case, some clarification would be appreciated.

[shadowrider]

3. Pass laws that say bad guys can't buy guns, legally or illegally

or, if they already exist, pass more laws. Yea, that'll stop 'em.

[county worker]

7. I feel that most gun laws are what I call "feel good laws." People feel good that they passed a law

in response to a shooting yet the law they passed would not have prevented the shooting.

[gorfle]

10. How to prevent that.

Of course people who do not care to obey the law are not going to go through a gun dealer to buy a gun so how do you prevent that?

The way Illinois prevents that is they require that a record of all firearm sales be maintained by the seller, including private sales. And you may not sell a firearm to an individual unless they have a valid Firearm Owner Identification (FOID) card. Law-abiding folks are hesitant to sell to anyone without an FOID because they know the firearm would likely be used for bad things, likely turn up after a crime, and likely get traced back to the last legitimate owner (them), with consequences.

My main problem with the Illinois system is that it is an opt-in, rather than an opt-out system. What this means is that only firearm owners will apply for FOIDs, which means that the state has a registry of firearm owners.

[Vinnie From Indy]

8. This article is about as relevant as my dog's bowel movement

The very first bit of idiocy is this line:
" the claim of gun prohibition advocates that most murderers are ordinary people is preposterous"

If the author is going to write such drivel, he should include some examples of "gun prohibitionists" that have actually offered such an argument. As it stands, he appears to have created a straw man to tear down with this bit of piffle.

In addition, I hope all readers note the very specific term of "murderers" being used by the author. This apparently means that he ONLY used those people in his study that have been convicted of murder by the judicial system. What degree of murder is only anyone's guess. What about manslaughter? 2nd degree?

Then there is this gem of nonsense:
"The lie on which gun prohibitionists centrally rely asserts that most murders are committed by ordinary citizens because they happened to have a firearm in a moment of anger."

Really? Which gun prohibitionists? What are their names and what did they say?

In addition, would it not still be a correct statement to offer "ALL gun deaths are committed by people that happened to have a firearm in the moment that someone was killed with a firearm?" See how easy that is to write! I didn't even have to conduct a study for that bit of wisdom which is no different than the author's silly and meaningless straw man argument.

I will also add that the author neglects to touch on all the other aspects of gun violence like suicide and serious injury caused by firearms. Those stats dwarf the number of people actually murdered with a gun.

Lastly, I have not looked, but I doubt even the author's central premise. I assume that the incidents of family members killing each other in fits of anger far outnumbers the incidents of gun deaths during the commission of a crime.

[gorfle]

12. Did you read the article?

If the author is going to write such drivel, he should include some examples of "gun prohibitionists" that have actually offered such an argument. As it stands, he appears to have created a straw man to tear down with this bit of piffle.

The author provided several quotes, with citations, and I quoted them.

In addition, I hope all readers note the very specific term of "murderers" being used by the author. This apparently means that he ONLY used those people in his study that have been convicted of murder by the judicial system. What degree of murder is only anyone's guess. What about manslaughter? 2nd degree?

His discussion of murder is in direct response to the anti-firearm people he quoted and was addressing, who also addressed or implied murder specifically.

Then there is this gem of nonsense:
"The lie on which gun prohibitionists centrally rely asserts that most murders are committed by ordinary citizens because they happened to have a firearm in a moment of anger."

Really? Which gun prohibitionists? What are their names and what did they say?

Clearly you did not read the article. Both he (and I) cited several specific examples. The author even provides citations:

3. Daniel W. Webster et al., Reducing Firearms Injuries, ISSUES SCI. & TECH., Spring 1991, at 73, 73.
4. Bruce R. Conklin & Richard H. Seiden, Gun Deaths: Biting the Bullet on Effective Control, PUB. AFF. REP., Oct. 1981, at 1, 4.
5. Deane Calhoun, From Controversy to Prevention: Building Effective Firearm Policies, INJ. PREVENTION NETWORK NEWSL., Winter 1989, at 15; see also GEORGE PICKETT & JOHN J. HANLON, PUBLIC HEALTH: ADMINISTRATION AND PRACTICE 496 (9th ed. 1990); J.A. Barondess, Correspondence, 272 JAMA 1409 (1994); Frederick P. Rivara & F. Bruder Stapleton, Handguns and Children: A Dangerous Mix, 3 J. DEVELOPMENTAL & BEHAV. PEDIATRICS 35, 37 (1982). "

In addition, would it not still be a correct statement to offer "ALL gun deaths are committed by people that happened to have a firearm in the moment that someone was killed with a firearm?" See how easy that is to write! I didn't even have to conduct a study for that bit of wisdom which is no different than the author's silly and meaningless straw man argument.

Sure you could write that. But you cannot imply that just because all firearm deaths are committed by someone with a firearm that all firearm owners are equally likely to commit such crimes, and THAT is the implication of the anti-firearm crowd being addressed in the article. The fact is, the biggest determinator of who is going to commit a firearm murder is not that they possess a firearm but rather that they have an extensive prior criminal history.

I will also add that the author neglects to touch on all the other aspects of gun violence like suicide and serious injury caused by firearms. Those stats dwarf the number of people actually murdered with a gun.

I would be very surprised if other criminal uses of firearms did not follow a similar pattern. Suicides and accidents are a whole other kettle of fish and not relevant to the anti-firearm argument under discussion that "all firearm owners are law-abiding until they are not". The discussion is about the criminal use of firearms.

Lastly, I have not looked, but I doubt even the author's central premise. I assume that the incidents of family members killing each other in fits of anger far outnumbers the incidents of gun deaths during the commission of a crime.

The author addresses this specifically. Your argument assumes that people with extensive criminal backgrounds do not also have families and fits of anger. We all have those - criminal and non-criminal alike. Yet it is still true that over 90% of people who commit murder with a firearm have extensive criminal records. It is the criminals who are far more likely to kill their family members in fits of anger.

[Vinnie From Indy]

18. True, I did not read the article and only responded to what was posted

I will continue to assert that the author has constructed a straw man argument in that he bases the entire article on the feelings of a small minority of those that wish for greater regulation of firearm ownership in America. One would think that if the author had to travel to the early 1980s and 1990s to find quotes from so-called "gun prohibitionists" with which to argue, that his work is a tempest in a teapot and still irrelevant to a substantive discussion of the topic of gun violence. In addition, the highly segmented and nuanced argument the author makes would be inherently easy to manipulate the outcome of any study by changing just one of the definitions or parameters used in the statistical analysis. For example, does a misdemeanor count in determining a criminal history in this authors construct? Parking tickets?

[gorfle]

19. But we see it here every day.

I will continue to assert that the author has constructed a straw man argument in that he bases the entire article on the feelings of a small minority of those that wish for greater regulation of firearm ownership in America. One would think that if the author had to travel to the early 1980s and 1990s to find quotes from so-called "gun prohibitionists" with which to argue, that his work is a tempest in a teapot and still irrelevant to a substantive discussion of the topic of gun violence.

But we see this very argument presented here every day, which is what compelled me to start this thread in the first place. When presented with the hard data that most firearm owners are not involved in violent crime, lots of people in this very forum continue to then respond by saying that they just have not committed a crime yet, as if every firearm owner is just a breath away from being a criminal.

My purpose in citing the article I cited was to provide evident that shows that, in fact, most firearm crime (or at least murders) are not committed by people with clean criminal records, but in fact just the opposite is true.

In addition, the highly segmented and nuanced argument the author makes would be inherently easy to manipulate the outcome of any study by changing just one of the definitions or parameters used in the statistical analysis. For example, does a misdemeanor count in determining a criminal history in this authors construct? Parking tickets?

Again, read the article. Your question is answered there:

"For instance, though only fifteen percent of Americans have criminal records, roughly ninety percent of adult murderers have adult records (exclusive of their often extensive juvenile records), with an average adult crime career of six or more years, including four major felonies.14 Moreover, leading American criminologists know the prior criminality of murderers is so well established by dozens of homicide studies as to rank among the axioms of criminology.15"

Emphasis mine.

Look. Criticism is fine. But if you are going to go off on rants comparing the guy's article to "your dog's bowel movement" and call it "drivel". At least go to the trouble to read what you are commenting about!

What you are doing is the classic definition of a "knee jerk reaction".

[X_Digger]

nvm, I see others corrected you. n/t

[jazzhound]

24. Clearly, you've not followed the debate for long.

The very first bit of idiocy is this line:
" the claim of gun prohibition advocates that most murderers are ordinary people is preposterous"

If the author is going to write such drivel, he should include some examples of "gun prohibitionists" that have actually offered such an argument. As it stands, he appears to have created a straw man to tear down with this bit of piffle.

In addition, I hope all readers note the very specific term of "murderers" being used by the author. This apparently means that he ONLY used those people in his study that have been convicted of murder by the judicial system. What degree of murder is only anyone's guess. What about manslaughter? 2nd degree?

Then there is this gem of nonsense:
"The lie on which gun prohibitionists centrally rely asserts that most murders are committed by ordinary citizens because they happened to have a firearm in a moment of anger."

Really? Which gun prohibitionists? What are their names and what did they say?

Asking for citations regarding the statements you reference is tantamount to demanding citations from a pro-choice advocate regarding statements from anti-abortionists that abortion is murder. The claim that ordinary people (previously non-criminal) are responsible for a large number of murders by virtue of the proximity of a gun is one of the favorite slices of bullsh*t served up by the anti-gun crowd --- and if you're not aware of that, you simply haven't been paying attention. No citation is needed for this one.

[jazzhound]

11. Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda?

Here's more on this subject from another source:

XIV. The Myth That Murderers Are Ordinary Gun Owners

The case for reducing firearm availability to ordinary people rests on two interrelated myths endorsed explicitly and implicitly in the health advocacy literature on firearms. First is the myth that "most would be considered law-abiding citizens prior to their pulling the trigger."<274> Second is the myth that "most shootings are not committed by felons or mentally ill people, but are acts of passion that are committed using a handgun that is owned for home protection."<275> From these myths other falsehoods follow: that firearms availability to ordinary citizens is the "primary cause" of murder,<276> that murder would radically decrease if ordinary citizens were deprived of those guns, and that it is unnecessary to worry much about the enforceability of gun bans because, even if criminals will not disarm, the law abiding will--and they are the ones committing most murders. The problem is that it simply is not true that previously law abiding citizens commit most murders or many murders or virtually any murders. Thus, disarming them would not, and could not, eliminate most, many, or virtually any murders. homicide studies show that murderers tend not to be ordinary law-abiding citizens, but rather extreme aberrants.<277> The great majority of murderers have life histories of violence, felony records, and substance abuse.<278> These facts are so firmly established that they even appear in medico-health discussions of violence,<279> yet they are never discussed in connection with the health (p.580)advocate sages' mythology about ordinary citizens murdering relatives and acquaintances with guns.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/tennmed.html

[damntexdem]

13. Some snap, some have their guns stolen, ...

and some, when faced with a threatening situation, manage to shoot themselves or bystanders.

Guns are a menace when carried into public places. Period.

[jazzhound]

17. Too bad the facts don't back up your assertion.

Guns are a menace when carried into public places. Period.

Classic example of the arrogant pro-controller who can't be bothered to investigate whether or not his "beliefs" are consistent with reality.

[cognoscere]

28. Yeah, but writing "period" after the assertion gives it soooo much

more credibility.

[gorfle]

20. Do you have any evidence to support that assertion?

Some snap, some have their guns stolen, ...and some, when faced with a threatening situation, manage to shoot themselves or bystanders.

Yes, some previously law-abiding people do "snap" and commit firearm crimes. But it is very rare. Most people who commit firearm crimes have extensive prior criminal records.

Yes, some people have their firearms stolen. I'm not sure how this is germane to the discussion at hand about the myth of law-abiding firearm owners randomly becoming criminals.

Some firearm owners do shoot themselves or bystanders. But, as has been shown here before, CCW permit holders are less likely to cause collateral damage than even the police.

Guns are a menace when carried into public places. Period.

Do you have any evidence to support your assertion? Because what I have seen posted here indicates that CCW permit holders are many times, sometimes hundreds of times less likely to be involved in firearm crime than your average citizen. And it's not surprising why when you think about it. People who go to the trouble to get CCW permits to comply with the laws concerning firearms are not just law-abiding, they are hyper-law-abiding. They are going beyond the usual law and going out of their way in terms of trouble and expense to comply with a set of laws that most people don't have to concern themselves with.

These sorts of people are highly unlikely to engage in criminal activity, and we see this by noting that the revocation rate for CCW permit holders is less than 2%.

It has also been shown that when CCW permit holders are involved in a shooting, they are less likely to cause collateral damage than even police officers.

Do you think that the guns carried by police officers are a menace when carried in public places?

[Euromutt]

29. The previously law-abiding ones don't "just snap," either

In just about every case of homicide within a family (be it a household or extended family), and for that matter workplace shootings as well, once the authorities, the news media and neighbors have gone through their obligatory "nobody could have seen this coming" routine, closer examination almost always uncovers that there were plenty of warning signs, only nobody recognized them for what they were, or rationalized them away.

The overwhelming majority of intimate partner murders are committed by the husbands when the wife threatens to leave, or already has left him and it sinks in she's not coming back. These killings do not occur in a sudden fit of rage resulting in a loss of control; they are deliberate and premeditated acts. They are, in a very real sense, "honor killings" in that the perpetrator's motive is to protect his self-image, and his image in the eyes of others. Such murders don't necessarily take place after a history of physical abuse, but the husband generally is very possessive and controlling.

We've arguably done ourselves a disservice in more ways than one by buying into the myth of the "crime of passion"; it makes us let men who cold-bloodedly murder their spouses get off too lightly, and--more perniciously--makes us worry about everybody instead of just the people we have actual reason to fear.

[Callisto32]

31. Damn straight, disarm the police!

[Pholus]

14. It's a myth you can't dispel unless you can police your fellows.

You want to dispel a myth? Try stopping some of the following behaviours in other gun
owners that lower trust in the entire subculture.

Have you ever stopped a fellow gun owner from:

1) Joking about putting someone they don't like "up against the wall"
or "dragging them out behind the barn?"
2) Joking talking about revolution to address their bad luck
at the polls or to keep "those people" from taking over the country.
3) Making a political statement by using their gun as a fashion accessory.
4) Expressing constant and repeating fantasies about being ready to kill
someone threatening them. Almost begging it to happen at times?
5) Mention how glad they are that they're packing EVERY SINGLE DARKENED ALLEY
during a 10 block walk in a farming town more than four hours from any city
with a population exceeding 50000?
6) Slipping "I'm packing" into a conversation in an attempt to impress a new
acquaintance along with a little glimpse of their weapon.

I have been a personal witness to every single one of those, in fact I've
been the "target" of the jokes just from my conservative tea-bagging family.
So pardon me for taking a dim view of some gun owners who are covering for
obvious social insecurities with a tool that lets them get to decide life
and death. I have an excuse though, it's family.

On the other hand, you want me to not express my distrust for you? Show me
that you are capable of instilling some level of responsibility in your
less responsible peers.

[Pavulon]

21. If you are threatened call the police, or just tell them to shut the

hell up. I am not responsible for every jackass carrying a gun any more than I am responsible for everyone with a working penis. How they choose to use it is their call and between them and the law.

There is no culture, there are individuals who act legally or illegally.

[gorfle]

22. I can't do anything about that.

I'm afraid I cannot do much about the things you mentioned, since none of them are a crime.

That said, I sympathize with your situation - most of my family is also conservative, though I've never known anyone who carried a concealed firearm.

On the other hand, you want me to not express my distrust for you? Show me
that you are capable of instilling some level of responsibility in your
less responsible peers.

All that should be required to form your opinion is to show you the statistical data that supports my position, rather than the anecdotal evidence you are relying on.

And what the data shows is that most people who commit murder (and probably other firearm crimes as well) with firearms have extensive prior criminal histories. Which means if you know a firearm owner without such a criminal history, he is probably law-abiding and you don't need to worry about his criminal behavior.

[GreenStormCloud]

26. I don't know anybody who does those thngs.

Here on DU is about the only place that I regulary talk about guns and with one friend who shoots in competitions. In real life, although I pack daily, I almost never mention it to anybody. Some of my close friends know, but even with them it isn't an object of conversation. There are too many other things to talk about.

Regarding #6, concealed carry means concealed and in most states it is illegal to play peek-a-boo with the gun.

I can't speak about your family, however that is a very small group. I suggest you take a look at the statistics for the almost eight million CCW permit holders. You will find that you have a greater chance of getting struck by lightning than of being illegally killed by a CCW holder.

[Pholus]

40. Look, most gun owners ARE responsible. But your voices are needed out there, not here!

I'm hardly anti-gun (although I obviously have a heavy, bitter, bile-filled bias against "enthusiasts" who are fanatical about everything gun to the point of not living a normal life). I've even been to more than one gun show in my life. Try growing up in my family and expressing an opinion that I'd rather go to the movies than go shooting... How do you think my brothers decided I was a "godless liberal" for crying out loud?

The responses to my post are interesting. "I'm not responsible for every jackass....", "I can't do anything about that" and "I don't know anyone who does that". Really? You guys HONESTLY
don't know that your passion is something linked at the hip to the right wing? That the popular opinion about the second amendment demands complete equivalence between guns and anti-liberalism? That Obama is trying to take away all your guns to the point where his election caused ammo shortages? Your statements seem completely disingenuous considering the large number of guns carried outside the town halls as recently as last summer as a not-so-subtle reminder that the wielders felt they had other options than democracy available. There are MORE THAN A FEW gun owners appear to conflate gun ownership and a 100% adherence to right wing ideals (witness Dan Cooper's resignation from Cooper firearms for merely stating he supported Obama and the crusade against Jim Zumbo for daring to state that in his opinion AK and AR rifles weren't sporting rifles).

Why the H*LL are you guys not out there yelling from the rooftops that responsible gun owners do not brandish their guns as a protest sign? That some of you might actually have voted for Obama (or at least a Democrat somewhere, sometime). Did I hear a gun enthusiast ANYWHERE saying, "look guys, where are the Obama's gun grabbing cops -- are you SURE you're not overreacting?" Where were the organized pushbacks against Cooper Firearms and the "Get Zumbo" crowd? Why did it take Zumbo having to kiss that nutjob Ted Nugent's feet before he could get back to writing columns?

YOU GUYS LIKE GUNS -- YOU SHOULD HAVE SOME CREDIBILITY!!!!

Oh that's right. That kind of talk will get you banned from the gun enthusiast crowd. They have long memories and a fairly uniform policy of no forgiveness for dissent. And since they actually carry guns I guess I'd think twice about cheesing them off too. I guess it's better to go over to DU and cry about how unfair it is that the long-haired peacenik hippies think you'll all snap someday despite some statistical study you read somewhere.

Seriously guys, buck it up. The country needs you and you're keeping your silence at a bad time.

[rrneck]

23. Nobody does anything for just one reason.

People rarely just suddenly go nuts and kill one another. That's how we got over six billion people on the planet. Human beings tend to try to get along.

People seem to snap because those around them, who should have been willing and able to help, weren't paying attention.

Those who fancy themselves compassionate liberals might do well to remember that the construction of elaborate laws and regulations designed to micromanage a specific type of technology do almost nothing to help real people. It's just another way of ignoring them and their problems while congratulating themselves for creating an illusion of a peaceful utopia.

[GreenStormCloud]

27. +1 N/T

[Glassunion]

32. +1 as well... nt

[Euromutt]

33. Well put

Though I'd qualify your points by pointing out that, ultimately, responsibility for every violent crime rests with the culprit. Still, humans are social creatures, and we cannot but be shaped at least partly by our interactions with others.

[rrneck]

35. True that.

Every society has a system of carrots and sticks to facilitate working and playing well with others. If you just can't manage it with carrots, then you have to use a stick.

In too small a nutshell, we've spent the last few decades pushing risk down the economic ladder, and the lower you go the more sticks there are. Conversely, the higher you go, the more carrots get used. So Goldman Saks has figured out how to make the system all carrots no matter what they do, while someone at the bottom lives in a world of sticks.

We have created an Ayn Randian free market dystopia where the only way to get ahead is to take what you need and do it while climbing over somebody else's shoulders. If you combine crass consumerism with an ignorance of delayed gratification because of financial insecurity and add to that the arrogance bourne of a poor education you get people shot over a purse or a pair of tennis shoes. You also get shot up schools, shot up workplaces and suicides because people just don't have the intellectual, emotional, and social resources to cope with the system we have created. And the tradgedy is that rather than amednd the system, we have figured out a way to make money off the failures by privitizing that prison system. I wonder how much of our economy is devoted to profit from human misery.

There will always be sociopaths and psychopaths among us that will just have to be locked up. But most of the people who are doing time right now didn't have to wind up in jail if we had just shown them a few carrots when they were kids.

[Towlie]

34. "Well over 90% of firearm owners are not involved in firearm crime"? So nearly one out of ten ARE???

I hadn't realized it was that bad.

[jazzhound]

36. "So nearly one out of ten ARE???"

If one out of ten ARE they would be the ones we define as CRIMINALS. Persons who we KNOW FOR A FACT have a LONG HISTORY OF CRIME which usually involves VIOLENT CRIME!!!

[Glassunion]

37. Bad math...

Look at it like this... In 2004 there was just over 8000 handgun homicides in the US. Using the 10% mentioned in the OP, just over 800 of them were committed by the "firearm owners" you are referencing from the post. It has been estimated that there are just over 80 million firearm owners in the US.

So the percentage of all firearm owners that actually commit homicide is 0.001% using today's count of firearm owners. I'm not sure what the number of firearm owners in the US was in 2004.

[jazzhound]

38. Knew that there was something very fishy about the number

but couldn't remember the relevant stats. Thanks for the reminder, GU.

[jazzhound]

39. Sorry for the ill-mannered "snap" in post #36

Guess I reacted to a perceived shout (ARE???) and should have opened up one of my books to gain the info. for the appropriate response that you received from Glassunion. My apologies.

[Euromutt]

41. "Well over 90%" was an extremely conservative estimate on gorfle's part

It would be a mathematical impossibility for anything even approaching 10% of legal firearm owners to be involved in firearm crime. By even the most conservative estimates, there are over 35 million households in the United States that contain one or more firearms; the number is almost certainly higher. Since 1998, there have been fewer than 400,000 violent crimes committed with firearms annually (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/guncrimetab.cfm), which means that it is simply impossible for much more than 1% of legal gun owners to commit a violent crime with a firearm in any given year.

Moreover, not even the most sagecraftian gun control advocate claims that legal gun owners are given to committing armed robbery (since this is not an act undertaken on impulse), and that's almost half the total of gun crimes out of the picture.

[jazzhound]

42. Another point I recall reading on this is that if it is determined (for example)

that 95% of gun crimes are committed by those with adult criminal records that involve violence, that doesn't mean that 5% were committed by "ordinary joes who snapped" due to the fact that the stats exclude *youthful* offenders and first time (gun crime) offenders with some criminal background.

[jazzhound]

43. kick NT

[jazzhound]

44. kick NT