Well, actually disarming the innocent is a great idea for two reasons.

1. There is absolutely no evidence that citizens with gun deter or prevent crime. The only relationship to legal gun ownership and crime to an unknown party is once your gun is stolen it may be used in a crime, though that is most commonly the shooting of a gang member by a gang member.

2. Getting your guns out of your household greatly reduces the likelihood of your death or a family member by suicide, accident or murder by a family member.

Seems like a no brainer.

Kamaaina....There is all sorts of evidence of legal citizens with guns prevent violent crime. Nearly every study proves that.

2. Getting guns out of the house does prevent accidents. Take care of your guns and you won't have to worry about it. Not having a gun also increases the rates of violent crimes.

It's amazing(or maybe not) that so many people that post on these boards have never heard of the Posse Comitatus act of 1879. These people want to bring federal troops home from around the world and use them to enforce laws in inner cities, patrol the Mexican border, and other such things. The Posse Comitatus acts specifically prohibits the troops from any law enforcement in the U.S. The only two exceptions are a) the Coast Guard, which has been part of the Treasury Department(currently part of Homeland Security) and b) civil rights violations under the Force Acts of 1870-1871. These acts deal with voting rights and KKK activity in the South and were passed during Reconstruction. And the president has to specificly authorize the use of troops under those acts, such as Eisenhower did in Little Rock in 1958. So if you want federal troops to enforce laws in the U. S. write your congressmen and tell them to change the law.

PutAmericaFirst,

Please provide two or three unbiased studies showing guns prevent violence. Unbiased means not supported by the NRA or some gun group, but conducted by university faculty and/or published in refereed journals.

I have provided reviews of all studies that demonstrated (1) no effect on violence reduction from guns and (2) greatly increase in suicide, murder of a family member or accidental death, even where guns had been secured.

Too many seem to be arguing for arguing sake or accepting unsupportable opinions. It is your and your families life. You owe it to yourself and your family to rely on evidence not spin.

Getting your guns out of your household greatly reduces the likelihood of your death or a family member by suicide, accident or murder by a family member.

That would also hold true for the removal of the family sedan, little Junior's baseball bat, mom's steak knives, dad's hammer, etc. If they aren't there, they can't cause accidents nor be used as a weapon.

Murder, (an end result) is already illegal, punishable by death to life imprisonment depending on your state. The modality by which you accomplish the murder would appear to be secondary since the end result has already been dealt with.

Gun control might get a gun out of your house and save the life of a loved one or your life. Those families with guns in the home have a far greater risk of death by family homicide, suicide or accident. If you love your family, aloha the gun. Review the studies below for yourselves. The life you save may be your own or someone you love:

http://www.upenn.edu/ldi/issuebrief8_8.pdf

http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home

http://www.news-medical.net/news/20100204/Guns-in-homes-can-increase-risk-of-death-and-firearm-related-violence.aspx

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/18/the_answer_is_not_more_guns/

Kam- I noticed that you claimed back on page one that you claim that their is not evidence to support that a gun can make your home safer. You should read this article.

The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.

And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.

With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you?

The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence.

The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish.

There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired.

www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/crime_rate_plummets.htm

Anecdotal reports are not evidence. I cite well controlled study examining many data points, not one small community. Read carefully the many studies summarized indicating an absence of evidence you are safer with a gun in your home. These studies clearly show you and your family are at much increased risk of death. Beliefs, even those based on fallacies, die hard (no pun intended). Who'd a thunk the earth wasn't flat in the 1,300's or 30 year ago that Ron Woods would still be alive? Dude, its you life (or death) and that of your family. It is noble to believe you are protecting them, but the odds are totally in the direction of harming them or you with a gun in the house.

Note the fact that in Kennesaw that no one has been killed or injured by a gun in the home since they adopted the law. If your studies were correct than the town would be overrun by firearms incidents. I have yet to see a gun get up load itself and hurt someone.

Kamaaina...Those reports don't really mean much. Most of the statistics center around suicides and make the assumption that if there isn't a gun, the person will not attempt suicide at all. That would be incorrect. Look at Australia where gun laws lowered the instances of gun violence, but overall, there were more people killed and committed suicide.

Dow,

Apparently, the Kenneshaw's crime rare is very similar to the gun free comparison city:

The Kennesaw, Georgia Gun Violence Reduction Myth

Gun lobbyists and their supporters are once again parading a deeply misleading myth that claims greatly improved public safety in the rural community of Kennesaw, Georgia after in 1982 the City Council passed a law requiring every head of a household to own a gun, while the community of Morton Grove, Illinois passed a handgun ban in their community earlier in 1982.

Gun supporters misleadingly claim that Kennesaw is now much safer than Morton Grove by the use of some select use of statistical percentages of claimed crime reductions. However an honest comparison of the actual crime figures of the two communities certainly fail to prove the case of the gun advocates that more guns in a comunity improve the public safety compared to less guns. In general, guns do correlate with 33,000 national incidents that result in death each year including teen and adult suicide, accidents, domestic violence and murders.

Morton Grove, Illinois is a suburb of the huge city of Chicago, where no doubt, some Chicago residents will travel by car for the purpose of armed robbery and other crimes. Kennesaw is a far more rural community, much farther from a larger community, where most crime will be by local residents.

FBI crime statistics for 2003 provide the most recent equal models for comparison of the two cities which are roughly comparable in population. Morton Grove has 22, 966 and Kennesaw 25, 183 for the purposes of this 2003 actual crime figures comparison.

In 2003, Morton Grove had 2 murders and Kennesaw just 1. But both figures are subject to yearly fluctuations, where some years neither community will have an incident classified as a murder.

In 2003, Morton Grove had 4 robberies compared to 7 in Kennesaw. The Kennesaw figures are much higher than Morton Grove's for that year, and guns are often the weapon of choice in a robbery.

In 2003, Morton Grove had 12 aggravated assaults compared to the higher number of 15 in Kennesaw.

In 2003, Morton Grove had 70 burglaries compared to the much higher number of 89 in Kennesaw. Many burglars may carry a gun in case of being surprised by security or a property owner.

In 2003, Morton Grove had 390 incidents of larcency and theft compared 455 examples in Kennesaw.

No good statistics on suicide in the two communities can be easily found, but in general more guns do correlate with higher suicide rates just the same as more automobiles will correlate with higher accident figures. But with higher actual crime figures in Kennesaw compared to Morton Grove, that may include the use of guns, why gun supporters use Kennesaw as any shining example to support their claims yhay more guns improve community safety is simply absurd. No good evidence is to be found in the actual number of crimes which are higher in Kennesaw than Morton Grove that the law requiring gun ownership has made the community are more safe or crime free at all.

Kennesaw PD Investigates Murder-Suicide

Full story: WXIA Atlanta

The Kennesaw Police Department is investigating what appears to be a murder-suicide at a home in the English Oaks subdivision.

Suicide statistics should not be included with homicide statistics.

If a person is going to commit suicide they do not need a gun to do it, they will find another way. Buy the way Kam- since you are son interested in your family's safety you must have a no swimming pool policy.

Suicide and Murder Suicide speak to deeply disturbed mind and the presence of a gun or not will not change the mental disturbance. We need to take better care of those with such sickness. Just by being good family members and neighbors we can make a difference in the life of someone suffering from depression.

Dow, you are correct, the presence of a gun will not change a mental disturbance. But, many murders of family members occur in the context of heated arguments, patterns of spouse abuse and accidents. These are not murders by mentally disturbed.

For a mentally disturbed person, a gun is the most readily available and lethal weapon. No weapon--no murder.

Suicidal thoughts, especially for teens or those experiencing temporary stress of death of a loved one, divorce, financial collapse are not uncommon. But, for those with a gun in the house there is a ready ,effective, immediate suicide weapon. no gun--no quick, sure death. Read the studies I posted. They may save your life or someone you love.

I did read them. They have a bias and no control group. Not a good source.

More people hang themselves than shoot themselves.

Kamaaina; will mention Euro control, but lets look at that.

Northern Ireland: Hmm, bombs instead.

India: Mumbai , strong laws , perps outgun police.

Norway: Strong laws, Whole island of victims gunned down , plus bomb.

Germany & Russia: post ww1 to late 1930's , Strong gun laws, = genocide vs Ukrainians,Jews, and Serbs .

So who is trying to grab power?? Thats the real purpose in the past?? Or do we ignore history???

Should we defend our rights?? Or just give them away to a more and more detached political structure?? Congress approval rating = what?? Why??

Anecdotal reports are not evidence.

Except when they support your position.

I have yet to see any concrete evidence that demonstrates that because the gun was in the house that they were killed and that had the gun not been in the house that they would not have been killed. The gun in the house just made it a convenient weapon. It doesn't precipitate a crime. The crime woud have happened anyway - with a different weapon.

Poor, misguided Kakamammie...

Talk about living in a bubble.

The top 11 out of 12 states by median income voted blue in the last presidential election. New Hampshire, Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut, Hawaii, Colorado, Virginia, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Washington, California.

All 10 out of 10 bottom states in median income voted red. Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Kentucky, Alabama, West Virginia, Tennessee, Oklahoma, North Carolina, South Carolina.

What does this tell you about Republican policies? Why are all the Republican states so dirt poor? When will they stop freeloading off the other states?

Demographics- look up the racial makeup of the two groups of states and you will have your answer

california running state deficits of 10-20 billion ,and 150 plus billion in unfunded state pensions......illinois running deficits of 17-20 billion,and unpaid state bills of 5 billion......and new york running 7 billion deficits,and also state pension shortfalls of 100 billion.....talk about states living in bubbles....

@tt-1536352, using your line of logic, do you think Russia, Mexico, Vietnam, Colombia all have better economies than the US? Given that all these countries have considerably less debt than the US?

Or do you think income per capita is probably more important?

income per capita will become totally irrelevant as these states declare bankruptcy,the government has to massively inflate its way out of debt,and money becomes worthless.....more bubbles,and very,very BIG....

Median income is not a good way to support your opinion or whatever you're trying to say Visions, as it's simply a reaction to the cost of living in those states. Big cities, big populations, bigger debt, bigger expenses, bigger incomes.

Actually the cost of living would be the reaction to bigger incomes. Not the other way around. That's supply and demand. It's not like houses will go for millions in say Alabama when everyone is broke as hell there with no skills to boot.

But the very heavy concentration of engineers and scientists, in say the San Francisco Bay Area, where 6 figure incomes is extremely common, means there's a lot of money to be thrown at something.

Even with Obama bailing out GM, the unions are sucking the auto companies dry. It won't be long before GM goes bankrupt a second time. I hope the government dumps our stock soon.

Ford and GM lost market share for the year. Ford fell to 15.5% from 16.8% a year ago, considered a hefty tumble in the car business. GM dropped more, to 17.9% from 2011's 19.6%.

GM's sales growth, which lagged most competitors, was helped by new models, among them the Buick Verano, and the Chevrolet Spark, Sonic and Cruze. Sales of the Volt extended-range electric sales jumped 72%. "In a strong year for the auto industry overall, GM struggled to hold up its end in 2012," says analyst Jessica Caldwell of Edmunds.com. "Its year-over-year growth is well under the industry average, and the company couldn't hold on to market share gains it enjoyed in 2011. The biggest disappointment is Cadillac."

Unless you are a professional athlete or a drug dealer, Detroit is a lost city. And we will probably have many more just like it.

Unions arent sucking anything dry. I could just as easily say fat exec salaries are sucking them dry. And I would be correct, as management takes more then the workers do. When you include all the extras.

As long as the taxpayers are footing the bill!!! ;)

Hey BothParties,

More home with guns. Stick around and watch the home murder/suicide rate skyrocket (unless you are one of the statistics. If you care about your life or that of you family, read on:

The risk of death for those with guns in the house far outweighs any belief of protection from harm. I hope you review carefully. The life you save may be your own of someone you love.

http://www.upenn.edu/ldi/issuebrief8_8.pdf

http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home

http://www.news-medical.net/news/20100204/Guns-in-homes-can-increase-risk-of-death-and-firearm-related-violence.aspx

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/18/the_answer_is_not_more_guns/

You are 100 time more likely to drown in the public pool than to be killed by a gun.

the truth is that, as Stephen Dubner wrote, “far more children die each year in swimming pool accidents than in gun incidents.”

And the truth is practically illustrated in Kennesaw, GA—where gun ownership is mandatory for every head of household, per ordinance [Sec 34-21], which states: (a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore, and (b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.”

Kennesaw—contrary to what the gun grabbers would have you believe - is not the Wild West, but rather was voted by Family Circle magazine as one of the nation’s “10 best towns for families.” The city website also claims Kennesaw ““has the lowest crime rate in Cobb County”—this in one of the most populated counties in Georgia. In fact, from 1982 through 2009, Kennesaw, with a population of just under 25,000, had only one murder, in 2007. Compare this to gun-free New York City, which in a recent 25-year period had more than 15,000 murders—2, 245 in 1990 alone—while Kennesaw, Georgia, had 1.

www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/48285

Kaamaaina---you can find and repeat "statistics" and "stories" to support any thing you want. If you don't live in a city big enough to have well established slum/drug areas then you really are just preaching some old rhetoric. There are just as many stories supporting the other side but then you have an agenda don't you?

Hey Kam - LOL - you really don't consider the source of your data do you?

I will grant you this. The chances of being shot if I have a gun in my home are indeed greater. Common sense - however that is ever so slight if one is raised by parents that have some brains.

Take a look at your links and go out and follow the money. That's all you need to do. Justfacts dot com is okay but they have their agenda also. Sorry - I won't even debate this. I have studied firearm statistics for years. My dissertation was on the near impossible task of finding reliable data of people who used a firearm to protect themselves. If not actually fired - the incident is close to never reported.

Have a safe weekend and try not to fall which you have a much greater chance of dying from than being shot by any means. Also stay away from medications of any kind and don't drive.

You have to find the local news sources to find the incidents of self defense in detail. You will not find it on national news.

Ban swimming pools: They are 100 times more likely to harm you or a family member than a gun.

dowhatisright76 - Hell I put an ad in three local news papers. Tried a lot of methods to not only get a story but ascertain the credibility. Lot's of "Yeah man I pulled my Glock and the Mothers ran!" out there.

I leaned on Gary Kleck's data but even that has issues.

I do know this: Take the guns and stand by. The crime rates including violent crime will sky-rocket. Good luck with that taking the guns part.

You can get many stories from the NRA web sight. I am not a member but find the location of the story and verify the story in the local news where the incident occurred. I would not suggest using the NRA or any other political site as a source but I will use them to lead me to more creditable sources.

Let me tell you about that fish er I mean robber I caught--this big!!!!!!

Sure lots of stories.

Read the studies I provided, then get back to me folks.

Re: swimming pools? 30,000 gun deaths last year. 3,000,000 swimming pool deaths last year? I think not.

I did cite data indicating gun deaths are about equal to auto accident deaths and will soon overtake them. Ouch!

Grishnak,

I cited STUDIES in refereed journals, not statistics or stories. If you don't know the difference, ask someone who does.

The problem with the studies is that they include suicide. Suicide distorts the figure because 1. they are the most numerous and 2. they will find some other way to get the job done. Show me a study that doesn't include suicide and it might be relevant. I don't really care if someone kills themselves with a gun or with pills.......that shouldn't be part of the studies.

I did Kam- Yours were not studies but rather stories with some exerts taken from a few studies. When that happens it is easy for the publisher to twist the meaning of the study to fit their agenda.

Here is something taken from a Harvard study.

The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:

Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study's authors write in the report:

If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)

Finally, and as if to prove the bumper sticker correct - that "gun don't kill people, people do" - the study also shows that Russia's murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns.

The important thing to keep in mind is not the rate of deaths by gun - a statistic that anti-gun advocates are quick to recite - but the overall murder rate, regardless of means. The criminologists explain:

[P]er capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 - emphases in original)

theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

I doubt Detroit will get back on its feet in 5 years. They taxed the productive people to oblivion and all that is left (not all, but many) are the takers.

Detroit has had Democrat mayors and administrations since 1962. Chicago has had Democrat mayors and administrations since 1931, Is it just me or does anyone else think that it's kinda curious that most of the high murder/crime rate cities in this country have a long history of Democrat rule?

It is rather odd for a person to commit a first violent crime that late in life. Most violent offenders will have a record that starts before the age of 22.

For some odd reason they tend to get used more in places that have the most restrictions on guns. Strange but true.

So let's force innumerable girls/women who are financially, emotionally or otherwise unable to raise a productive member of society - and consequently add several more million to welfare dole.

Interesting, I'll review the study. No support for or against guns in reducing deaths.

It is VERY clear that gun greatly increase deaths within the home from suicide, family murder and accident. I cited reviews of those studies above. You can review yourself for your and your family's benefit.

Your argument on suicide is invalid Kam. However if you feel so strongly than don't take your kids swimming.

Say Jeffersonian3,

Is this the Professor Gary Mauser you refer to. He serves on pro-gun committees with the NRA's LaPue. Have anything from an unbiased source? Professor of Marketing? Overall, not much to hang your gun on!

"Professor Gary Mauser is a retired professor of marketing at British Columbia’s Simon Fraser University, a gun collector, former Reform Party candidate, president of the Barnet Rifle Club38,39, and Chair of the BC Wildlife Federation40. Mauser is a long-time advisor41 to the National Firearms Association(NFA). He has represented the NFA at several occasions including multiples times at the UN4243, as well as at the 2009 Annual Gun Rights Policy Conference in St. Louis, Missouri. In 2009, he was nominated for a US Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) Gun Rights Defender of the Month Award after he spoke at their Gun Rights Policy Conference.44 Mauser has been an active opponent of the firearms law as well as a proponent of arming for self-protection and his early research was partly funded by the US National Rifle Association. Much of his “research” has been published by the Fraser Institute (rather than in academic peer-reviewed journals) and focuses on attempts to prove that gun control does not work and that arming for self-protection will make us safer. He wrote: “The police receive such training, and they are just normal people. Why is it impossible for Canadian journalists to recognize that perhaps we could trust school personnel to defend themselves and their students? Academic research by professors Gary Kleck, Don Kates, John Lott and others show convincingly that civilians can use firearms to protect themselves and their families safely and effectively. My own academic research shows that Canadians use firearms approximately 80,000 times each and every year to protect themselves against violent attack.”45In a 2012 article co-authored with US arming for self-protection advocate John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime, Mauser wrote “The problem isn’t just with the longgun registry. The data provided above cover all guns, including handguns. There is no evidence that, since the handgun registry was started in 1934, it has been important in solving a single homicide.”

Where are you getting your facts from? Opposite of the Truth News?

And he also co-authored a book with Grover Norquist, which means that he will say anything - and most of it a fabrication.

Tax cuts for the job creators!

Hey Jeffersonian3,

Do you subscribe to the Journal of Gun Fanatics Masquerading as Academics? You have been outed too many times. Give it up. You are causing harm to well meaning people trying to make sense of gun violence potential within and outside their homes.

To paraphrase the New Jersey slogan...."Kam and Molly, perfect together"

america has 12,000 gun murders and 12,000 accidental shootings and suicides every year.Its kinda hard to argue credibly with those numbers.america still has more murders than any european country no matter how you much u conjure and manipulate statistics.

Dokron......But is it cultural or the guns? Look at Australia. The passed massive gun restrictions and gun law advocates look at them as a model because gun crimes were drastically reduced.........but that is only part of the story. Violent crime drastically increased and there were more homicides and suicides...but less from guns....Is that a good thing? More people dying, but less from guns?

Finally, and as if to prove the bumper sticker correct - that "gun don't kill people, people do" - the study also shows that Russia's murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns.

To put the stats into proper perspective you need to look at the rate per capita. You than see that the U.S. rate is much lower compared to many other nations.

However if you believe that strict gun bans will make you safe feel free to move to Mexico where the public is not allowed to have a gun.

Dokron -

What you, Molly and Kama refuse to take into account is the population of this nation when compared to the other countries you wish to compare statististics with. As the US has many time the population of some of these countries, our total numbers would be higher - HOWEVER, our rates are lower - which is why the per capita rate should be used. Any other method is just lying to yourself.