Stopped Motorist Shoots at Deputy...Deputy Handles It

What would be the punishment for someone who admitted to owning a drug stash and refused to disclose its' location?

Is that something which commonly happens?

It doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, what matters is that not one person has managed to raise a meaningful argument against the link between legalised gun ownership and high murder rates.

@Paladin has made the most interesting case but interesting is all it is. I can't imagine many neutral outsiders being sold on the idea that having the right to a recreational object outweighs that link.

I look at the list of countries' per capita gun ownership and I don't see any trend that indicates that gun ownership and murder rates are necessarily linked. If I look at the list of countries where guns are illegal, I should see low murder rates, right?

No? Probably because correlation is not causation.

It's been pointed out that the U.S. murder rate where guns are not used is considerably higher than similarly developed countries...are we to believe that these murders will decline if guns were outlawed?

The differences are cultural, not just material.

Not mere recreational objects no matter how many times you say it. Firearms are used hundreds of thousands to millions of times per year for defense (depending on which study you want to believe), and a great many of those incidents are against aggressors who are not themselves using guns.

And having the ability to resist tyrannical government is not as far-fetched as some would claim. I'm betting a great many Venezuelans are wishing they had guns now...

so...only spot's arguments are meaningful. Got it! I agree (knowing the US culture just a wee bit better than spot and all) with Paladin that if we didn't have guns we would be the stabbingest motherfuckers you have ever seen.

Case in point quite a few years ago in Milwaukee Wisconsin a bunch of teenagers beat an elderly man to death on his front porch with his own gardening/lawn care tools. Yep, rakes, shovels, things like that. There was blood splattered all over in every direction, on the ceiling of the porch, you name it from the sheer force and ferocity.of the blows. Some neighbors made excuses for the kids by saying "well what do you expect? They don't have any dads to guide them & teach them right from wrong."

Because whether to beat an elderly man to death or not is about the same decision as whether to pay older kids to buy you beer or not to. Typical "boys will be boys" I guess!

Anyway here is an interesting take on the subject of guns & murder. I'm sure spot will shoot it down (no pun intended) quickly as not relating to his original argument.
Here is a segment that I find telling, further supporting my often repeated claim that ZIP CODES MATTER. It's a reality when considering gun crime, murder rates, etc.etc.

So...is it fair to keep guns out of the hands of people in specific neighborhoods? Of course not, but is it fair to broad brush mild-mannered Forbin the legal gun owner along with some hood rat from Newark who has three prior felonies for aggravated assault and has a gun he took off a dead security guard? Just sayin'

Finally, murder isn’t a nationwide problem in the United States; it’s a problem in a very small set of urban areas. In 2014, the worst 2 percent of counties accounted for 52 percent of the murders. 5 percent of counties account for 68 percent of the murders. Yet, even within these counties with all these murders, there are large areas without any murders.

https://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/

Apparently disparity is the natural order, e.g. recently Latin America, with just 8% of world pop, reported 38% of all homicides world wide, with 80% of those murders occurring on 2% of the streets.

well if we just fixed all of societies problems those people living on the 2% of the murderous streets would straighten up and fly right! It's not their fault! Perhaps socialism would fix their problems. I've heard good things about it! Venezuela is a pioneer among Latin American countries by initiating a universal wage - everybody earns zero!

I enjoy crema macicana. Queso blanca is... Good.

here is an example of who SHOULD NOT have a gun! BTW folks this man is WHITE! I had to say that because if you don't follow MMA or don't scroll down to his picture you may not know, and think I am talking negatively about a minority. Backstory - Matt was a UFC fighter (retired at the time or nearing retirement) who was driving his truck near his residence in Illinois and got hit by a train, which caused severe brain damage. Here are things to consider:

1) severe brain damage
2) owns a gun (legally as per Illinois state gun laws)
3) has already been physically violent toward family members
4) restraining orders don't mean shit to a criminal or crazy person

authorities should get a search warrant and separate him from his weapons and possibly his family right this minute. He is a "ticking time bomb" and this will not end well.


https://www.tmz.com/2019/02/26/ufc-matt-hughes-domestic-violence-restraining-order/

That list doesn't even mention murders? It's hard to understand your point if you are claiming no visible relationship between two variables when one of them isn't even represented.

Correlation doesn't equal causation, sure, but as we aren't able to work under controlled conditions here we'll never be able to truly establish causality for any political or social phenomena, ever. That doesn't mean we can't do the best with what we have and try to see how the pieces fit.

The reason I (and many others) tend to limit this question to developed countries (as defined by the OECD, G7/G8, whatever) is as an ad hoc method of controlling for socio economic conditions as a whole bundle of confounding variants. There's no end of evidence out there that murder rates are highest in areas of stark socioeconomic inequity but unless you fancy sitting in front of SPSS for a few days trying to control for them all then it seems safest just to try to eliminate socioeconomic status as best we can.

Consider this from even the most cursory overview of a statistical analysis, when we are talking about sample sizes well into the millions we really don't need to run the figures to know that a difference between two groups which runs into multiples will reach the threshold for statistical significance, it isn't just noise.

From the (former) G8, only Russia and the US have what could be reasonably termed "permissive gun laws", laws which you are defending in terms of

a) harm reduction
b) a deterrent to political tyranny.

The former doesn't seem to hold true when both countries have such starkly higher murder rates than the other six nations.

The latter is hard to square as being effective whilst maintaining that Russia is an oppressive and dictatorial state despite having more relaxed gun laws than the US.

Not only has the even greater prevalence of guns not prevented that state of political affairs, the murder rate is even higher again, establishing the start of what looks distinctly like a pattern where the effect isn't binary. Not only are guns associated with higher risk, but that the relative permissiveness of those gun laws is associated with the scale of that risk and they do nothing to prevent political overreach.

Permissive is riskier than strict, more permissive is even riskier again.

If, however, you want to rely on the global figures, the question becomes why in terms of homicide risk such a socio economic powerhouse as the US is on a par with much less developed nations. If socio economic status is tied to murder rates then the US should be much further up the scale. If guns reduce murders it should be even further up again.

However the opposite is playing out in the figures, despite its' advantages the US performs very poorly indeed, as though something were not only counteracting those socioeconomic advantages but actively overshadowing them. Sans any other explanation, we are left with the conclusion that guns increase risk of being murdered and if Russia is anything to go by are pretty ineffective where it comes to "defense against tyranny" in a powerful nation.

Think that through, you'll find it doesn't really help the pro gun argument one bit.

You keep bringing up the argument that fewer gun restrictions are supposed to somehow reduce violent crime ("harm reduction"). Who here is making that argument?

It's been explained to you a hundred times and you insist on not seeing it.

We *do* have mandatory DUI sentencing in most places.We *have* cut down considerably on drunk driving since a mother in Sacramento came up with MADD and raised awareness. Something that had yet to happen with guns, despite mass shootings, countless accidents with toddlers, that one kid who accidentally shot his own mother by digging into her purse and yes, gang warefare.

Now, will you answer the question on what it'll take for you to consider we have a problem without defaulting to sugar addiction or heart disease?

One thing to consider is that we don't have a gun problem. We have several gun problems that can't all be addressed by a single policy change short of banning the sale and ownership of all guns, and then going house to house to confiscate every gun in the country that isn't turned in.

Mass school shootings are an incredibly small slice of gun violence that get attention way out of proportion compared to much more frequent gun crimes. I'm not saying they shouldn't get a lion's share of the attention, because we're talking about children after all, but you have to realize that if we were somehow able to put a stop to all school shootings tomorrow, it would be deemed a miracle that they stopped happening, but it wouldn't put so much as a dent in the rates of gun violence overall.

Same thing with "assault weapons". Sure, they're the low hanging fruit, but they're rarely ever used in gun violence. When they are, however, everybody hears about it. More people are murdered in the US with hands and feet than with all long guns put together...not just assault weapons...all long guns, including shotguns. Again, if all assault weapons were to magically disappear, their use in gun crimes would cease to exist, but the amount of gun violence would remain unchanged.

Common street/drug gun violence and domestic gun violence are where the numbers are*, but those barely register for some reason.

I'm not saying the first two types of gun violence should be ignored, but focusing on them while ignoring the vast majority of gun crimes kind of misses the point IMHO.

*except for suicides, which makes up the vast majority of gun deaths in the US.

Paladin for one. This, from the very exchange you're quoting:

is one of many such instances over several threads.

Personally I think that's very much a case of a proximate prediction failing to be realised on aggregate as the very presence of those guns is a factor in shaping the very culture of which they are a part. If that is the case and people (such as oldfella) are claiming that the figures simply reflect an aggressive streak in US society then the idea guns can reduce violent crime by being a defense against aggression becomes an extremely circular argument. The argument becomes one where they are intended for use as a counter measure to a problem that they themselves are causing.

Either way, you can't look at the figures and say something isn't happening, the differences in murder rates are so far beyond mere statistical significance it does a disservice to use the term.

Something in the picture is fundamentally flawed and whilst no one is offering a plausible alternative it seems interesting that of the worlds' most advanced nations the two who are struggling with glaringly high murder rates are also the two with permissive gun laws. Given the lieu of plausible alternative hypotheses it stretches credibility to see that as a coincidence

Yeah, but saying people use firearms for self defense isn't the same as saying gun ownership reduces crime.

My intention in writing it was to point out that, apparently, disparity is the natural order.

There comes a certain point to which no amount of punishment will deter any more of that sort of crime. I cannot say that DUI has reached that point, but I think other solutions would be more effective on lowering DUIs in general. We should not proceed on one single path of punishment.

However, you are comparing apples and nails again. Transportation is far more useleful to society than your gun will ever be. One could say transportation by motor vehicle is a necessity for those in some areas, but there is no need to own a gun in a society where you can survive easily without one. Hunting is actually a difficulty compared to getting food in other ways.

It is an irrelevant comparison because a car and the ability to drive are not a gun or the ability to kill easily.

You see spot, you are trying to argue with a completely amoral dick. You cannot win an argument of nationality and morality with a person who feels they are above everyone else. It creates a whole different set of rationalizations and ethics.

When the focus is on violent crime the latter is a measure of the formers' efficacy.

Not necessarily. At the very least, rape and attempted rape are both violent crimes. Successfully defending ones self against a violent crime doesn't change the nature of the crime, just the outcome. A violent crime has still been committed either way.

Bigger picture, I don't buy into the idea that fewer gun restrictions act as any sort of deterrent to crime. When I carry a firearm for protection, or have one easily accessible for home defense, I'm not doing that to deter crime. I'm doing it to protect me and mine from harm. And before you say, "well, statistics show you're more likely to be killed by trying to defend yourself with a gun against a violent criminal...", no...statistics don't show that. They may show the likely outcome for the average gun owner, but not me personally.

Which is a situation repeated millions of time across the country, each person thinking in exactly the same terms. Ergo if each person is protecting themself and if the means they are using is effective then you would expect violent crime to come down, no? You can't have effective personal protection times ten, twenty, a hundred million but no concurrent drop in crime, it simply doesn't add up. If it doesn't then there's a problem at least somewhere in that picture.

I think it's worth emphasising here that the US isn't out of the ballpark compared to its' peers for violent crimes in general, it's just that proportionately more of them end up with a dead body as the outcome. There's no real reduction or increase in frequency, but there is an increase in severity, which is exactly the opposite of what you suggest with your argument "a thwarted crime is still a crime" point. If the frequency remains the same but the severity increases that's not in line with your projection, you'd be expected fewer corpses, not more.

I'm not following you. If someone attempts to murder me, and I successfully defend myself against that person, a violent crime has still been committed has it not?

So you're saying if we compare the rates of violent crime in general instead of murder specifically, the US is on par with the rest of the developed world?

Absolutely, but if guns were an effective means of defense then you'd ideally be looking for a deterrent effect, such that you were less likely to be attacked in the first place. Looking at instances of "guns preventing crime" or "guns being used to defend" is pointless as we can't know what would have happened in some hypothetical other scenario where the gun was not present. What we can do is look at the aggregate figures for violent crimes rates between countries which are otherwise comparable.

Now, you may reply "but that doesn't alter the fact that I'm safer with my gun anyway, as I am better able to survive an attack", but the proof of the pudding there would be a reduction in the number of people killed in violent crimes, meaning a reduction in the aggregate severity of the consequences.

Ergo if the murder rate were lower than in those comparable countries your point would stand. Sadly that isn't borne out.

Seeing as you mentioned rape:



You aren't out of the ordinary there by any stretch of the imagination, or more generally:



The US is no more violent in general terms than any of her peers, the difference is that the violence has more severe consequences, hence my carping on about murder rates, which are specifically much higher in the US and Russia then in their disarmed peers.

Therefore guns can't be said to be reducing crimes rates or the severity of the outcomes. Their only influence is to increase the chances that said crimes will end in a death.

I'm still not following. Proof of what? That if a high rate of gun ownership doesn't act as a deterrent to crime, then that "proves" that no one successfully uses them in self defense?

Again, as far as I can tell, you're the only one here harping on the deterrent affect of firearm ownership on crime. I've already said that I don't buy that argument.

Okay, I didn't know that, but if we ignore murders in the United States committed by firearms, don't we still have more murders than the rest of the developed world?

I don't know if guns deter crime, but I have no reason to expect non-gun violence would drop if all guns went away, and a large disincentive to commit violent crimes--the possibility potential victims could be armed--would be removed.

And, geez, haven't the Swedes gotten really rapey lately. Wonder what's got into them?

"However, you are comparing apples and nails again. Transportation is far more useleful to society than your gun will ever be. One could say transportation by motor vehicle is a necessity for those in some areas, but there is no need to own a gun in a society where you can survive easily without one. Hunting is actually a difficulty compared to getting food in other ways. " - Tererun

Yes privately owned & operated transportation is useful, actually a necessity in much of America. Alcohol is not a necessity. Combing the two should entail a severe punishment. Any DUI involving a death should a life sentence with zero chance of parole.

Was that a consequence of Merkel's misguided 'see we're not anything like nazis anymore forgive us' open door policy?

toxic masculinity? It's all the rage now (no pun intended).

Surely not!

"Ergo if each person is protecting themself and if the means they are using is effective then you would expect violent crime to come down, no? You can't have effective personal protection times ten, twenty, a hundred million but no concurrent drop in crime, it simply doesn't add up." - spot261

Okay spot try to visualize this - you as a law abiding typical citizen who chooses to carry a gun for protection will not (because you have enough common sense to avoid trouble as much as possible and not spend too much time in the "danger zone") be in a position to deter violent crime. In other words if you don't hang around criminals or spend time in statistically proven "high crime" areas you'll rarely have anyone try to rob you at gunpoint.

Bad guys don't call you up and say "hey, I'm in the mood to carjack somebody! Be at the corner of MLK and 15th Street around midnight. You can't miss me, I'll be wearing a red T-shirt. Don't forget to bring your gun so you can get the drop on me before I can pull mine out, and then scare me away so I abort my mission!"

Bad guys generally choose targets that have their guard down (aren't likely to fight back whether from fear or lack of weaponry). Bad guys don't like a challenge and often panic when compliance with their demands isn't promptly forthcoming, thus leading to bullets flying and subsequent gun violence.
That said taking a "just give the bad guy what we wants and he won't hurt you" approach is hit-or-miss (no pun intended) and they will still kill you just for the LULZ or they are crazy/on drugs.

Much gun violence (depending on the city) is committed by two rival groups of criminals. Often bullets are sprayed at cars & houses because many violent criminals are sociopathic cowards. Not many nerdy law abiding gun owners spend time with or even near these criminals so how would they be a position to prevent them from committing gun violence?

Bottom line - bad guys with the intention of committing gun violence don't telegraph their offensive capabilities or the location of their future crimes, so they will always have the element of surprise - the odds of a good guy being able to use their gun to prevent a gun crime if they are nowhere near the location of the gun crime will always be low. But on the individual level (the only crime you can stop is the crime being carried out against you) it's a different story.

That said by you the well trained & practiced gun owner carrying your weapon (and practicing common sense situational awareness) you have a very good chance of protecting your own life versus the average unarmed citizen caught in the same scenario. And while anecdotal, in Columbia County GA armed citizens quite often use their guns to prevent themselves from being crime victims. Georgia does not coddle criminals and will rarely charge potential victims with using deadly force for self defense.

While mostly true, there are, in fact, places in the US where the income is so low and the location so rural, that hunting is simply the least difficult way to get meat.