If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for?

[rkbabang]

I think that the odds of Trump becoming president just went up significantly with what happened in Orlando.

 

Florida is a major swing State and I doubt that its citizens will feel safe with status quo.

 

Cardboard

 

You might be right, given it was a Radical Islamist shooter.

 

On the other hand, maybe, just maybe, people might wake up to the fact that the bigger problem was that there was an assault rifle used which made it so much more worse than if it had been a regular gun. Or heaven forbid, had there been no gun at all.

 

There are many things I hate about Hillary Clinton but I have great respect for her stance on gun control. As someone who hates both candidates, this attack made me lean a bit more towards her.

 

 

Really?  Really? The biggest problem is the type of gun used? Not the fact that Obama has been terrorising the world for the past 8 years and Bush for the 8 years previous?  Not the fact that Madeleine Albright said that the 500,000 men women and children Clinton murdered in Iraq was "worth it"?  There's an elephant in the room that no one is talking about and it isn't an AR-15.  The western world has been messing around in the middle east since the end of WWI, one hundred years of killing and other shenanigans isn't going to go away anytime soon. Orlando, Paris, Boston Marathon, London subways, etc, these things are not going to stop. And neither building walls nor passing gun control is going to do anything to stop them.  But please continue with what you want to believe.

 

[wachtwoord]

I think that the odds of Trump becoming president just went up significantly with what happened in Orlando.

 

Florida is a major swing State and I doubt that its citizens will feel safe with status quo.

 

Cardboard

 

You might be right, given it was a Radical Islamist shooter.

 

On the other hand, maybe, just maybe, people might wake up to the fact that the bigger problem was that there was an assault rifle used which made it so much more worse than if it had been a regular gun. Or heaven forbid, had there been no gun at all.

 

There are many things I hate about Hillary Clinton but I have great respect for her stance on gun control. As someone who hates both candidates, this attack made me lean a bit more towards her.

 

 

Really?  Really? The biggest problem is the type of gun used? Not the fact that Obama has been terrorising the world for the past 8 years and Bush for the 8 years previous?  Not the fact that Madeleine Albright said that the 500,000 men women and children Clinton murdered in Iraq was "worth it"?  There's an elephant in the room that no one is talking about and it isn't an AR-15.  The western world has been messing around in the middle east since the end of WWI, one hundred years of killing and other shenanigans isn't going to go away anytime soon. Orlando, Paris, Boston Marathon, London subways, etc, these things are not going to stop. And neither building walls nor passing gun control is going to do anything to stop them.  But please continue with what you want to believe.

 

"A well-armed populace is the best defense against tyranny."

 

Criminals will always have acces to guns.

[Cardboard]

I didn't mention that because I think that Trump has the solution. I simply believe that being this close to the general election and with it happening in Florida that many people will demand changes from leadership which Clinton isn't perceived to go after hence the words status quo.

 

Regarding the weapon used, this is not a deranged kid going for a school rampage. This was premeditated murder with ideology being the motive. They have strong gun control in Paris and it still happened. Guns were not used in Brussels. So yes, criminals will find way to get them and a car bomb with homemade explosives can do as much damage as we have seen all around the world.

 

By the way, I do support some stronger gun control on assault style weapons. As their name implies, they are not a defensive weapon. People can't buy tanks and portable missiles so a line has to be drawn somewhere.

 

Finally, this man was not poor. He had a good job and living in a pretty good area. So this argument that I hear sometimes about terrorists being desperate goes out the window. It is entirely about ideology and how far they are willing to go.

 

So if you mix people with different ideologies in a society, there will be outliers per normal distribution who will want to impose it on others. Pretty tough to fix in an open society.

 

Cardboard 

[tooskinneejs]

Saying guns are the problem would be like going back 80 years to Nazi Germany and saying gas chambers, not Nazi views, were the problem.  Bad people will always find an instrument to cause the destruction they seek.

 

 

[Mephistopheles]

I think that the odds of Trump becoming president just went up significantly with what happened in Orlando.

 

Florida is a major swing State and I doubt that its citizens will feel safe with status quo.

 

Cardboard

 

You might be right, given it was a Radical Islamist shooter.

 

On the other hand, maybe, just maybe, people might wake up to the fact that the bigger problem was that there was an assault rifle used which made it so much more worse than if it had been a regular gun. Or heaven forbid, had there been no gun at all.

 

There are many things I hate about Hillary Clinton but I have great respect for her stance on gun control. As someone who hates both candidates, this attack made me lean a bit more towards her.

 

 

Really?  Really? The biggest problem is the type of gun used? Not the fact that Obama has been terrorising the world for the past 8 years and Bush for the 8 years previous?  Not the fact that Madeleine Albright said that the 500,000 men women and children Clinton murdered in Iraq was "worth it"?  There's an elephant in the room that no one is talking about and it isn't an AR-15.  The western world has been messing around in the middle east since the end of WWI, one hundred years of killing and other shenanigans isn't going to go away anytime soon. Orlando, Paris, Boston Marathon, London subways, etc, these things are not going to stop. And neither building walls nor passing gun control is going to do anything to stop them.  But please continue with what you want to believe.

 

 

1,000% agree with you that our foreign policy is what makes Islamic extremism worse.

 

Having said that, guns are absolutely a big problem. There is a reason why the U.S. has more mass shootings, and more gun deaths per capita than the rest of the world by FAR.

 

And not every mass shooter is a terrorist; so to look at this mass shooting as only a terrorism problem doesn't get us very far.

 

Edit: And I also think that banning 1.8 billion Muslims, if that's even possible, will further radicalize people and make the problem worse.

[RichardGibbons]

Having said that, guns are absolutely a big problem. There is a reason why the U.S. has more mass shootings, and more gun deaths per capita than the rest of the world by FAR.

 

This is exactly right. America has decided having tens of thousands of innocents die every year is worth it in order to continue to own guns.  It's a reasonable decision--even in America the odds of you or someone else killing your kids with a gun is pretty low.  So, if you really like guns, there's far less than a 1% chance of your kid being the one that gets sacrificed so you can keep your toys. 

 

I wouldn't make that trade-off because I like to reduce even the small chance of my kids suffering a bloody death, but I can see why others would decide it's worth the risk.

 

"A well-armed populace is the best defense against tyranny."

 

LOL, do you actually believe this?  That if the government went all tyrannical (heck,  rkbabang might think they already are) guns will provide the means to stop them?  Has there been a single time in the last 50 years where a bunch of Americans with guns decided to fight the US government and won?  (Or is this more of a "this is a cool quote, so I don't really care if it actually would work in real life" thing.)

 

 

[Mephistopheles]

LOL, do you actually believe this?  That if the government went all tyrannical (heck,  rkbabang might think they already are) guns will provide the means to stop them?  Has there been a single time in the last 50 years where a bunch of Americans with guns decided to fight the US government and won?  (Or is this more of a "this is a cool quote, so I don't really care if it actually would work in real life" thing.)

 

 

+1 million

 

It's an absurd argument and I don't think anyone in their right mind truly believes it. Allowing your citizens to be armed against a tyrannical government may have worked in the 1700s (when the 2nd amendment was introduced), but do people REALLY think that their assault weapons can fight off an F-14, or a nuclear submarine?

[rb]

That's because NY isn't a battleground state. But if Trump would like to spend money and time trying to win New York.... Please, by all means!

[TwoCitiesCapital]

Having said that, guns are absolutely a big problem. There is a reason why the U.S. has more mass shootings, and more gun deaths per capita than the rest of the world by FAR.

 

This is exactly right. America has decided having tens of thousands of innocents die every year is worth it in order to continue to own guns.  It's a reasonable decision--even in America the odds of you or someone else killing your kids with a gun is pretty low.  So, if you really like guns, there's far less than a 1% chance of your kid being the one that gets sacrificed so you can keep your toys. 

 

I wouldn't make that trade-off because I like to reduce even the small chance of my kids suffering a bloody death, but I can see why others would decide it's worth the risk.

 

The analysis isn't between thousands of dying and 0 dying to have guns. The data suggests that taking away firearms reduces gun-related violence, but violence overall increases. So the real evaluation would be the thousands that die every year from guns relative to how much of an increase in those who will be killed by other means once guns are banned and whether the other things given up by giving up guns is worth that sacrifice. "Freedom isn't free" applies to more than simply the military men we send over seas to die, but this is the evaluation that must occur to determine if getting rid of them is "worth it". Obviously, people will come to different conclusions.

 

"A well-armed populace is the best defense against tyranny."

 

LOL, do you actually believe this?  That if the government went all tyrannical (heck,  rkbabang might think they already are) guns will provide the means to stop them?  Has there been a single time in the last 50 years where a bunch of Americans with guns decided to fight the US government and won?  (Or is this more of a "this is a cool quote, so I don't really care if it actually would work in real life" thing.)

 

Show me a time when the gov't went all tyrannical in the past 50 years, or does your time frame totally miss the comparison? The last time we had a tyrannical government that tried something that a large number of people disagreed with and were willing to die for was the Revolutionary War - and you can be damn sure guns made a difference.

 

The other consideration would be would other tryannical governments made the progress they made, or caused the damage they caused, if the populace had been armed. This is a harder question to ask as its hypothetical, but it was illegal to own firearms period in Germany after WW1 all the way through 1928 in which guns were allowed to be purchased under strict permitting requirements. This was amended in 1938 to reduce the restrictions on handguns, but made it illegal for Jews to obtain permits to purchase handguns.

 

Would Hitler have had as much success systematically murdering 6.5 million individuals had those individuals been allowed defend themselves by purchasing arms? Would he have had as much success conquering Europe if citizens in occupied countries did not have the firearms confiscated?  I don't know if the people would have been successful in stopping him had they been armed, but I think we can at least admit it would have made it a lot more difficult and would have required a far larger body of soldiers to maintain (less fighting bodies for invasion) than it did.

[rb]

Pretty sure that a French army and 2 French navy fleets made a pretty big difference as well. And Britain didn't have drones, or tanks, or cruise missiles....

[rkbabang]

Having said that, guns are absolutely a big problem. There is a reason why the U.S. has more mass shootings, and more gun deaths per capita than the rest of the world by FAR.

 

This is exactly right. America has decided having tens of thousands of innocents die every year is worth it in order to continue to own guns.  It's a reasonable decision--even in America the odds of you or someone else killing your kids with a gun is pretty low.  So, if you really like guns, there's far less than a 1% chance of your kid being the one that gets sacrificed so you can keep your toys. 

 

I wouldn't make that trade-off because I like to reduce even the small chance of my kids suffering a bloody death, but I can see why others would decide it's worth the risk.

 

The analysis isn't between thousands of dying and 0 dying to have guns. The data suggests that taking away firearms reduces gun-related violence, but violence overall increases. So the real evaluation would be the thousands that die every year from guns relative to how much of an increase in those who will be killed by other means once guns are banned and whether the other things given up by giving up guns is worth that sacrifice. "Freedom isn't free" applies to more than simply the military men we send over seas to die, but this is the evaluation that must occur to determine if getting rid of them is "worth it". Obviously, people will come to different conclusions.

 

"A well-armed populace is the best defense against tyranny."

 

LOL, do you actually believe this?  That if the government went all tyrannical (heck,  rkbabang might think they already are) guns will provide the means to stop them?  Has there been a single time in the last 50 years where a bunch of Americans with guns decided to fight the US government and won?  (Or is this more of a "this is a cool quote, so I don't really care if it actually would work in real life" thing.)

 

Show me a time when the gov't went all tyrannical in the past 50 years, or does your time frame totally miss the comparison? The last time we had a tyrannical government that tried something that a large number of people disagreed with and were willing to die for was the Revolutionary War - and you can be damn sure guns made a difference.

 

There are ~310M Americans and ~380M privately owned firearms.  The government could not put down a large scale rebellion short of using its nuclear arsenal.  And if it is willing to do that, no one wins.  But I am more concerned about crime than fighting off government.  I am much more likely to be attacked by a private criminal at some point in my life than I am to be involved in a revolutionary uprising.  And the need for a revolutionary uprising is a lot less likely if there are hundreds of millions of guns in private hands as there are now.  The largest problem America has with its guns is that most of them are sitting unloaded at home in their owners gun safes where they do no one any good.  The problem isn't that there were too many guns at that club this weekend, the problem is that there were far too few.  When your life is in danger, your gun at home in your safe is as useless to you as if you didn't own it.  What needs to happen is to get people to carry and remove the legal and cultural barriers which are stopping them.

 

 

[writser]

Haha, have you ever been in a night club? Testosterone + drinks + drugs + hot girls + group dynamics + carrying loaded guns would mean ten times the causalties _every weekend_. You can have your pet theories but club owners prefer bouncers & metal detectors. Even in your libertarian Utopia.

[rkbabang]

Haha, have you ever been in a night club? Testosterone + drinks + drugs + hot girls + group dynamics + carrying loaded guns would mean ten times the causalties _every weekend_.

 

Designated driver should also be the designated carrier.  I've been to and carried in such places (clubs, not gay bars :), not that there is anything wrong with that).

 

I don't know if you've ever carried a firearm, but it changes the way you behave completely.  I am less likely to blow the horn on my car when driving, I notice that I keep more of a distance between my car and the car in front of me and more likely to let everyone else go at intersections and such.  I am  much more likely to avoid even the most egregious antagonization from someone who's had too much to drink, and I never drink at all myself.

Carrying a firearm is an enormous responsibility and the vast majority of people treat it as such.  If you ever use your firearm every action you take in the moment and every action which preceded it, and every action you take after it will be endlessly gone over by the police, prosecutors (and if all goes wrong, a jury) after the fact with plenty of time to analyze and re-analyze every thing you said and did.  If you've never carried and you start carrying you will even shock yourself at the effect it has on your actions and level of aggressiveness.  You think about everything you do and say. You try to reduce the chance of any confrontation at all, however minor, to zero.  In short you behave as civilized people should behave anyway, but don't always.  An armed society is a polite society.

 

[rb]

As someone else said, installing a knife on the steering wheel pointed at the driver will reduce the number of accidents. But everyone recognizes that it would be a supremely dumb thing to do.

 

Also I suspect that the reason why so many firearms in America sit unloaded and locked in a safe is because their owners think that it would be irresponsible to have a bunch of loaded guns around the house or on their person.

[oddballstocks]

Haha, have you ever been in a night club? Testosterone + drinks + drugs + hot girls + group dynamics + carrying loaded guns would mean ten times the causalties _every weekend_.

 

Designated driver should also be the designated carrier.  I've been to and carried in such places (clubs, not gay bars :), not that there is anything wrong with that).

 

I don't know if you've ever carried a firearm, but it changes the way you behave completely.  I am less likely to blow the horn on my car when driving, I notice that I keep more of a distance between my car and the car in front of me and more likely to let everyone else go at intersections and such.  I am  much more likely to avoid even the most egregious antagonization from someone who's had too much to drink, and I never drink at all myself.

Carrying a firearm is an enormous responsibility and the vast majority of people treat it as such.  If you ever use your firearm every action you take in the moment and every action which preceded it, and every action you take after it will be endlessly gone over by the police, prosecutors (and if all goes wrong, a jury) after the fact with plenty of time to analyze and re-analyze every thing you said and did.  If you've never carried and you start carrying you will even shock yourself at the effect it has on your actions and level of aggressiveness.  You think about everything you do and say. You try to reduce the chance of any confrontation at all, however minor, to zero.  In short you behave as civilized people should behave anyway, but don't always.  An armed society is a polite society.

 

Have heard this from someone, he said when he carried he became so paranoid that he eventually stopped carrying. 

 

Worked with a guy who carried and the gun changed him to the point where every person walking down the street during daylight suddenly became a thug who was out to get him.  If you walked towards the guy he was likely to grab for his gun fearing being attacked.

 

These are just anecdotes.  It doesn't bother me to see people carry guns, but I don't do it myself.

 

To whomever's point about taking over the populace.  I have heard the stat that on opening day there are more people in PA with guns in their hand than any standing army in the world.  Another odd and fascinating point is (based on my interactions) that the majority of the US military seems anti-government.  Agencies such as the FBI, Homeland Security etc have employees who are very pro-system, pro-government.  But based on my interaction with a variety of people both current and past who are/were in the military is that the vast majority, and it's a high majority are very anti-government.  They're pro-military, but anti big-government anti pro-system etc.

[oddballstocks]

As someone else said, installing a knife on the steering wheel pointed at the driver will reduce the number of accidents. But everyone recognizes that it would be a supremely dumb thing to do.

 

Also I suspect that the reason why so many firearms in America sit unloaded and locked in a safe is because their owners think that it would be irresponsible to have a bunch of loaded guns around the house or on their person.

 

I'd like to see more people walking around rambo-style with guns and ammo strapped to their person with provoking t-shirts with sayings like "I hate all xyz people" and see what happens.  Maybe there's a relationship to stature and number of guns?  The guy with the full arsenal is also 4' 7" and drives a truck with a 15" lift?

[DTEJD1997]

Hey guys:

 

Before this goes too far off the rails....I would caution members to "check their privilege".

 

I am going to guess that most members of this forum come from a middle class or higher background.

 

I grew up in Detroit in the late 70's and early 80's.  The city was an ABSOLUTE nightmare.  Violence was absolutely almost out of control.  Society seemed to be coming apart at the seems.  Police were almost ineffectual.  The area I grew up in was the highest end part of Detroit, "Indian Village".  Very beautiful, very large houses built by industrialists in the very early part of the 20th century.  It was about 3 blocks wide by 12 blocks long.  It was surrounded on 3 sides by ghetto.  Over the years, on every block, people were killed, shot at, bludgeoned, etc.  Break ins and property crimes were too numerous to even keep track of.  Once my father was shot at by a  thief breaking into his car.  Luckily, he was not hit, and the thief took off after firing.  When the police were summoned, they asked if anybody was wounded, was the thief still there?  If not, they would be there sometime that night,  they came 3 hours later.

 

Gun ownership was not that common amongst the homeowners.  It should have been. 

 

Why should people not be allowed to arm themselves if police are ineffectual?  People have a right to protect themselves and their property, rich & poor alike.

 

I think that some people who live in good areas and have led "sheltered lives"  tend to forget about this...

[Guest Schwab711]

Hey guys:

 

Before this goes too far off the rails....I would caution members to "check their privilege".

 

I am going to guess that most members of this forum come from a middle class or higher background.

 

I grew up in Detroit in the late 70's and early 80's.  The city was an ABSOLUTE nightmare.  Violence was absolutely almost out of control.  Society seemed to be coming apart at the seems.  Police were almost ineffectual.  The area I grew up in was the highest end part of Detroit, "Indian Village".  Very beautiful, very large houses built by industrialists in the very early part of the 20th century.  It was about 3 blocks wide by 12 blocks long.  It was surrounded on 3 sides by ghetto.  Over the years, on every block, people were killed, shot at, bludgeoned, etc.  Break ins and property crimes were too numerous to even keep track of.  Once my father was shot at by a  thief breaking into his car.  Luckily, he was not hit, and the thief took off after firing.  When the police were summoned, they asked if anybody was wounded, was the thief still there?  If not, they would be there sometime that night,  they came 3 hours later.

 

Gun ownership was not that common amongst the homeowners.  It should have been. 

 

Why should people not be allowed to arm themselves if police are ineffectual?  People have a right to protect themselves and their property, rich & poor alike.

 

I think that some people who live in good areas and have led "sheltered lives"  tend to forget about this...

 

The Rust Belt! This is still true for most of the cities in the region, from what I've seen. The above is a fair description of Buffalo, today.

 

Also, to the person who mentioned that fighting the Federal Government is out dated, I'd bring up:

Dorr Rebellion

Civil War

Temperance Movement (there are hundreds of pre-ww2 examples)

Vietnam War draft riots

Localized armed-uprisings +/- 10 years around Civil Rights Movement (1963)

Baltimore Riots

There are dozens more post-ww2 examples

 

[Rainforesthiker]

 

This is supposed to be a value investing board, so it seems the study of history would be important to most members here.  To those of you who think that guns (e.g., semiautomatic rifles (ARs)) should be taken out of private hands, history is pretty clear on the inevitable consequences of this action.  Does anyone know how many people were murdered by governments in the 20th century (not including armed combatants)? The answer is well in excess of 100 million, likely more than 150 million. And the story is mostly the same: 1) Government disarms population; 2) Government commits genocide against either: a) an unfavored minority; or 2) the whole population. Consider Stalin's purges, the forced starvation in the Ukraine, Hitler's genocide, the Khmer Rouge, the Armenian genocide in Turkey, the Rwandan genocide, Mao's purges, and on and on. Would you really feel safer knowing that only officers of the state owned weapons? The best deterrent and defense against state tyranny, oppression and genocide is an armed population - a population sufficiently armed (with ARs) to fight back.  If you are not concerned about the steady increase in government power over the last 75 years, then you aren't paying attention.

 

If you look at the past 100 years or so, there have been FAR fewer gun deaths in the US than most other countries.  Of course, if you conveniently leave out the genocides in Europe, Asia, Africa, etc., then the numbers look different.  I think the crazy thing is that populations in Europe and Australia are voluntarily disarming themselves for perceived safety.  This did not end well for them in the 20th century, and will not end well for them this time either. 

 

And I am sure many of you would say "it couldn't happen here". I am sure that's what the German people thought in the 1930s;  or most of the populations affected thought.  With the development of video cameras on phones, we are starting to see a sliver of what officers of the state (police) do with their weapons against unarmed citizens. 

 

It is also important to know the history of gun control in this country. Gun control was instituted after the Civil War to disarm recently freed black slaves so that the Klan (mostly southern white sheriffs and police - yes officers of the state) could commit lynchings and other crimes. Given history, why would anybody trust the state to be the only one with weapons? To those who think the civilian population should be disarmed, I know your intentions are good, but the unintended consequences of what you are asking for are horrendous.

[Palantir]

Hey guys:

 

Before this goes too far off the rails....I would caution members to "check their privilege".

 

I am going to guess that most members of this forum come from a middle class or higher background.

 

I grew up in Detroit in the late 70's and early 80's.  The city was an ABSOLUTE nightmare.  Violence was absolutely almost out of control.  Society seemed to be coming apart at the seems.  Police were almost ineffectual.  The area I grew up in was the highest end part of Detroit, "Indian Village".  Very beautiful, very large houses built by industrialists in the very early part of the 20th century.  It was about 3 blocks wide by 12 blocks long.  It was surrounded on 3 sides by ghetto.  Over the years, on every block, people were killed, shot at, bludgeoned, etc.  Break ins and property crimes were too numerous to even keep track of.  Once my father was shot at by a  thief breaking into his car.  Luckily, he was not hit, and the thief took off after firing.  When the police were summoned, they asked if anybody was wounded, was the thief still there?  If not, they would be there sometime that night,  they came 3 hours later.

 

Gun ownership was not that common amongst the homeowners.  It should have been. 

 

Why should people not be allowed to arm themselves if police are ineffectual?  People have a right to protect themselves and their property, rich & poor alike.

 

I think that some people who live in good areas and have led "sheltered lives"  tend to forget about this...

 

The problem with your argument is that it's not the people in the terrible parts of town that desire to be gun owners, nor are they the most vocal about 2A rights. It's people in rural areas that are politically conservative that are most likely to be vocal in this issue. It is not solely a utilitarian or safety issue, but the simple fact that some people just like guns and view it as a fundamental right. Not an existential battle to survive. Privileged people also want guns!

[Jurgis]

Added 5 pro gun demagogues to ignore list.

 

Donated to https://secure.efsgv.org/page/contribute/efsgv

 

Good day's work.

 

Pro-gun propaganda kills people. Stop NRA, stop guns, stop gun violence.

[Mephistopheles]

Added 5 pro gun demagogues to ignore list.

 

Donated to https://secure.efsgv.org/page/contribute/efsgv

 

Good day's work.

 

Pro-gun propaganda kills people. Stop NRA, stop guns, stop gun violence.

 

Have you looked into Michael Bloomberg's "Every Town For Gun Safety" organization? I'm sure it has all the funding it needs but I am considering getting involved.

[rb]

You guys definitely should. Maybe if you pitch it he won't keep raising the fees for the terminals.

[Jurgis]

Added 5 pro gun demagogues to ignore list.

 

Donated to https://secure.efsgv.org/page/contribute/efsgv

 

Good day's work.

 

Pro-gun propaganda kills people. Stop NRA, stop guns, stop gun violence.

 

Have you looked into Michael Bloomberg's "Every Town For Gun Safety" organization? I'm sure it has all the funding it needs but I am considering getting involved.

 

I saw it mentioned among others. I will look into it next time I do a donation. Thanks.

 

Of course, even pro-gun-control groups in USA treat 2nd amendment as a third rail. (yeah pun intended). So none of them stand up for a gun ban. Pity.

[vox]

There were 11,208 firearm homicides and 21,175 firearm suicides in the US in 2013  (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm and http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm).

 

About 16% of firearm homicides occur during the course of a felony of any kind. The largest percentage of murders, more than 40%, occurs during arguments (Bogus, p. 7 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1140442). Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkins have written "Most of the circumstances that generate homicide are not property crimes involving strangers, but arguments among acquaintances that nobody would regard as distinctively criminal until the attack began." If people substituted other weapons for guns, that would reduce overall homicides as other weapons are less deadly. There was a "Tale of Two Cities" study conducted by a team of epidemiologists led by John Henry Sloan and published in the New England Journal of Medicine which compared crime rates over a 7 year period in Seattle, WA and Vancouver British Columbia. Quoting the Bogus article:

 

They selected these two cities because, although they are opposite sides of an international border, they had similar histories, geographies, cultures, and socio-economic profiles. Both cities had nearly identical population sizes, unemployment rates, and median household incomes in adjusted U.S. dollars. The percentages of inhabitants below the poverty line in both cities were also extremely close. Whites composed 79% of Seattle’s population and 76% of Vancouver’s. In Vancouver, Asians composed nearly all of the remaining quarter of the population while in Seattle the balance of the population was split among Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics.

 

Most of the top-ten television shows in one city also ranked among the top-ten in the other. Seattle and Vancouver, moreover, are only 140 miles apart, and both are major ports in the Pacific Northwest. They also share a common frontier history. Both cities were formed as a result of the gold rush and the completion of the transcontinental railroads in the late nineteenth century. As one might expect from twin cities, the burglary rates in Seattle and Vancouver were nearly identical. The aggravated assault rate, however, was slightly higher in Seattle. On examining the data more closely, the researchers found “a striking pattern.” There were almost identical rates of assaults with knives, clubs, and fists, but there was a far greater rate of assault with firearms in Seattle. Indeed, the firearm assault rate was nearly eight times higher than in Vancouver. The homicide rate was also markedly different in the two cities. During the seven years of the study, there were 204 homicides in Vancouver and 388 in Seattle – an enormous difference for two cities with nearly identical population sizes. Further analysis led to a startling finding: the entire difference was due to gun-related homicides. The murder rates with knives and all other weapons excluding firearms were nearly identical, but the murder rates with guns were five times greater in Seattle. That alone accounted for Seattle having nearly twice as many homicides. During the study period, people in Seattle could purchase a handgun for any reason after a thirty-day waiting period, and handguns were present in 41% of all households. Vancouver, on the other hand, required a permit for handgun purchases and issued them only to applicants with a lawful reason to own a handgun and who, after a careful investigation, were found to have no criminal record and to be sane. Self-defense was not a valid reason to own a handgun in Vancouver, and recreational use was strictly regulated. The penalty for illegal use was severe: two years imprisonment. Twelve percent of Vancouver homes had handguns. The central lesson of this study is that the prevalence of handguns is a major factor in homicides, aggravated assaults, and robberies. The study also suggests answers to several other important questions. Do handguns deter crime?

 

If handguns deter burglaries, as some argue, the burglary rate in Seattle where so many more homes had handguns – should have been lower than the burglary rate in Vancouver. But it was not. (This finding has been confirmed by a study that found that both U.S. states and individual counties with a greater prevalence of guns also have both more total burglaries and more home invasions, that is, burglaries when someone is at home.) How often are handguns used for self-defense? The Seattle-Vancouver study found that less than 4% of the homicides in both cities resulted from acts of self-defense. And particularly, if handguns are not available, will people switch to other weapons? The answer must be no. Otherwise, Seattle and Vancouver would have had similar total homicide rates, and Vancouver would have had higher rates of homicide with other weapons.

 

Suicide rates with firearms have a fatality rate of 85% (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/case-fatality/), far in excess of fatality rates by other means. The total suicide fatality rate of all methods is 9%.

 

Let's say that in total, banning firearm would conservatively save 33% of the firearm deaths in the US, so 10,000 people each year. For comparison purposes, the number of Americans that died in the Vietnam war was 58,000. One would have to assign a huge likelihood of mass murder by the US government in order to come close to offsetting the lives saved. For example, it would take a 5% chance each year that 200,000 are killed in some statist dystopia to get an expected lives saved that would offset the deaths prevented by eliminating firearms.