"Whenever there is a shooting, the first question I ask is where did the gun come from? We can't always answer that at the moment, but it IS the key to a lot of these issues. When those three homicides happened in a row [summer 2011] involving young kids in North Minneapolis, my biggest question's who's arming our kids?"In addition to the Mayor's statement, the interview touched on actions by the city of Minneapolis in conjunction with the police department that were effective in reducing crime and removing guns from the hands of criminals and other prohibited persons.
None of the solutions which worked to reduce Minneapolis violent crime included more guns or more people engaging in either open or concealed carrying of firearms.
The answer to that question would appear to be people who don't keep their guns secured, like those who are not in control of their accessible weapons while they sleep. If they are routinely that casual about firearm security every night, they are likely just as sloppy and stupid about gun security the rest of the time.
But of course, just as some of the worst drivers insist they are great drivers, some of the least responsible gun carriers will swear up and down that THEY are safe, and we should trust them.
The evidence from incidents like these shows the contrary.
From KSTP News:
Updated: 01/06/2012 12:42 PM
Created: 01/06/2012 12:20 PM KSTP.com By: Colleen Mahoney
Created: 01/06/2012 12:20 PM KSTP.com By: Colleen Mahoney
Minneapolis Officials: Violent Crime Hits 28 Year Low
The City of Minneapolis released crime statistics for 2011, Friday.The city says violent crime is down 6.3 percent, compared to 2010.
The number of violent crimes committed in 2011 was lower than any year since 1983, for a 28-year low, according to the city.
Property crimes, which includes burglaries, larceny, arson, and auto theft, was up by 6.67 percent.
The number of homicides in 2011 were 32, down from 2010.
City leaders acknowledge that the death of 3 year old Terrel Mayes, hit by a stray bullet inside his North Minneapolis home in December, show that more work needs to be done.
The focus for 2012 will be on youth violence, and getting guns off the street.
Police took 515 guns of the streets, last year.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeletePlease do explain how my handgun on my nightstand is responsible for homicides in Minnesota. I'm not sleepwalking. I'm not renting out my guns during the night. You're making a wild claim without any support.
GC, I'm not holding you responsible specifically for any homicides in Minnesota.
ReplyDeleteAlthough given your lack of knowledge about the people to whom you transfer firearms, you might be. Neither you nor I can know that.
Now, DO explain to me how you are in control of your weapon while you are effectively unconscious during sleep.
It is precisely stupidity like that which makes the rest of us distrust your judgment under any and all circumstances EVER, least of all in public.
It is also UTTERLY contrary to the instruction I received for carrying.
You will almost certainly, with the same predictability that made it so easy to manipulate Ma Gummer, try to blubber and bluster that you are superhumanly able to shoot intruders while engaging in REM sleep, or that you never sleep deeply, blah blah blah.
That is bullshit, and I'm predicting here that you will once again be too fundamentally dishonest to admit that your firearm is NOT in your control while you are asleep.
Because if you aren't in actual control of your firearm,then you are unsafe with how that firearm is secured.
Unsecured firearms end up in the hands of people who use them to harm others.
Or did you believe that every firearm used in violent acts was purchased and only in the care, custody and control of that original legal purchaser?
So long as you have no factual or objective knowledge about the history of the people with whom you engage in private transactions sales, so long as you do NO background checks whatsoever, and support that others not be required to do them either, and so long as you engage in unsafe gun behavior - YOU ARE PART of that larger problem, and so are your pro-gun violence colleagues.
Am I reading this correctly? Your contention is that no gun in a locked building is ever safe, under any condition?
ReplyDeleteI am assuming, of course, that Greg lives in a house and secures his premises before drifting off.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteSometimes, you're so full of yourself that it's hard to comprehend what you're ranting about. Let's try to weed and prune our way through your comment:
1. Is the gun on my nightstand in my control while I'm asleep? No and yes. No, I'm not conscious at that moment, so the gun is out of my control in that sense. So is my truck. So are my kitchen knives. In fact, everything is out of my control at that moment. But it is with me in my house behind a locked door. In that sense, it's under my control. No one is with me who doesn't have a right to be there.
2. If someone breaks in, that act will create noise. One of us will awaken. (The knucklehead dog in the crate in the next room will have something to say, I'm sure.) That will give me time to take hold of my handgun.
Now, let me ask you a couple of questions again, since you have yet to answer them:
1. How is my handgun on my nightstand a danger to anyone? It isn't out of my possession, and as I explained, no one has access to it who isn't authorized for such.
2. In the event that I do need it (a rare but possible occurence), what good would it be to me if it were locked up--and unloaded? What you call safety is in fact uselessness, a state in which you apparently want all firearms to be.
With regard to my transactions at gun shows, I will state again a couple of points:
1. The people with whom I've traded were not in a demographic category noted for its criminal activity. You want me to respect your position that violent crime is a rare event; by the same token, you should respect the idea that most people are not engaged in crime.
2. For the most part, guns enter my collection. They do not leave, except for a couple that were not satisfactory to me. I traded those for something else. Other than that, I buy; I don't sell or trade.
"None of the solutions which worked to reduce Minneapolis violent crime included more guns or more people engaging in either open or concealed carrying of firearms."
ReplyDeleteHuh? Let's take a closer look shall we? Violent crime went down, that's rape, robbery and assault and property crimes went up. That's telling me that the criminal element is scared to interact with the victims and turned to crimes where no one would be to defend themselves.
dog gone said....
"Now, DO explain to me how you are in control of your weapon while you are effectively unconscious during sleep."
Why don't you explain to use how you are in control of your automobile while you are effectively unconscious during sleep. As you know, automobiles kill far more innocent people every year than firearms. Stolen vehicles assist criminals in robberies and homicides and reduce the resources of police drastically during high speed chases.
someguy writes:Violent crime went down, that's rape, robbery and assault and property crimes went up. That's telling me that the criminal element is scared to interact with the victims and turned to crimes where no one would be to defend themselves.
ReplyDeleteSpecious argument.
What DID show a reduction in crime - all crime as well as violent crime - were certain police and community efforts.
There is absolutely NO indication that more guns reduces crime, not anywhere, not ever. There was NO big jump in the number of guns in Minneapolis to justify this conclusion on your part.
There was a big jump in the number of street guns taken off the streets - you know, the ones you guys sell to people without background checks of any kind.
There have been comparable declines in states without more lenient gun laws; most of the decline over the period noted came while there had been no change in MN gun laws.
There are similar declines in crime in other countries where there is stricter gun regulation and dramatically fewer guns per capita.
Some of those 'property crimes' stats include things like graffiti for heaven's sake, where no one is now or was at any previous time worried about someone with a gun confronting them.
You know what we DID have a jump in? People who got their hands on guns and then shot police officers - like the recent convicted sex offender case in northern Minnesota, and of course the perennial gun nuts who go off their nuts and shoot family and friends before offing themselves.
You make an incredibly poor argument for a causal relationship someguy.
It's a delusion you desperately want to believe, because it supports your fetish relationship with your gun.
But there is no plausible argument that matches up with any of the stats that supports your thinking.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteYou didn't answer my points, but I'll address yours. The number of guns and carry licenses in this country is going up, and the rate of violent crime is going down. I'm not saying that those guns and licenses prevent violent crime. What I do note, though, is that the predictions that more guns equals more violent events is wrong. You pointed to the deaths of police officers, but as we showed you, the numbers that you cited were total deaths from all causes, not just firearms, and the increase in total number was tiny. The numbers invovled were so small that even one more represents a huge percent increase.
You claim to base your position on data, but those data actually don't support your conclusion.
dog gone said...
ReplyDelete"There was NO big jump in the number of guns in Minneapolis to justify this conclusion on your part."
There doesn't have to be a big jump in the number of guns sold to a specific area. The headlines "biggest surge in guns sales", "FBI trying to keep pace with NICS checks", etc to have an effect. We agree that there is no data to show that more guns doesn't equate to a decline in crime, but certainly one thing that you can't deny is that more guns equals more crime. In the past decade, crime has been falling while gun sales are rising.
"You make an incredibly poor argument for a causal relationship someguy."
I didn't realize we had a casual relationship. I be next you'll start talking about fetishes.
"because it supports your fetish relationship with your gun."
Yep there we go, I knew it. I think you're flirting with me..
dog gone, since I've been here, you've gone from no one is safe with a gun except you, to hey, here's an example of a good DGU, back to no one should own guns because no one can be trusted with a gun, to let's do background checks and psycho tests to make sure everyone who gets a gun is safe to then showing us TWO stories of people that past such tests go off and be stupid with a gun. You proclaim that you striving for a reduction in violent crime but fail to realize that's exactly what's happening already.
someguy writes:In the past decade, crime has been falling while gun sales are rising.
ReplyDeleteAnd it is falling where there is no increase in gun sales, and in countries where there is no comparable number of firearms per capita.
What has NOT been going down are certain categories of crime- like homicides where the overwhelming majority are committed with firearms, or suicides, where again, firearms are a greater part of the problem, and of course the big one, murder suicides where the shootist kills a lot of other people, or tries to, and then shoots himself (or rarely, herself).
So your argument fails on all points by being simplistic and by not making a causal (not casual) correlation.
There is an excellent basis for determining OTHER measures that work very well to reduce or even eliminate crime. Those DO have a causal correlation.
The only causal correlation more guns have is more gun death, injuries and gun crime. That would be in part because legal owners are careless in private sales about keeping guns out of the hands of prohibited people.
And no, someguy, I don't flirt with men who worship phallus objects. I'm wonderfully loved and satisfied by someone who doesn't need any substitutions or compensating fetishes.
dog gone said...
ReplyDelete"What has NOT been going down are certain categories of crime- like homicides"
Murder rate in 2010 was 4.8. Does anyone know when the last time we had a murder rate that low? That's right class it was back in the early 1960's. Does anyone recall the highest murder rate? Yep, 9.8, and that represents a 51% Decrease
"and of course the big one, murder suicides"
Yeah, that's included in the murder rate.
Someguy incorrectly writes: someguy said...
ReplyDeletedog gone said...
"What has NOT been going down are certain categories of crime- like homicides"
Murder rate in 2010 was 4.8. Does anyone know when the last time we had a murder rate that low? That's right class it was back in the early 1960's. Does anyone recall the highest murder rate? Yep, 9.8, and that represents a 51% Decrease
While murders have declined from their peak numers, they've actually started to climb, and have been on a slow steady rise for awhile now.
And of course you are wrong about the numbers somewhat:
"and of course the big one, murder suicides"
Yeah, that's included in the murder rate.
From CBS News noting a trend which has not significantly improved:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/16/eveningnews/main2092624.shtml
(CBS) Minneapolis, Minn., conjures up images of the Twins and the Mall of America. Crime is not likely to spring to mind, but as CBS News national correspondent Byron Pitts reports, the city's murder rate is simply through the roof.
"It's pretty much just try to swim and keep our head above water," Officer Rich Jackson says.
Officer Jackson is a member of the Minneapolis Police Department. On a typical day, he's at work at 10 a.m. and still there by 3 a.m.
Police forces everywhere are stretched thin these days, particularly in mid-sized cities like Minneapolis, St. Louis and Cleveland. Last year, the murder rate increased by 8.7 percent, while the rate for bigger cities like New York, Los Angeles and Chicago increased by only 0.6 percent.
"A lot of the violence I'm noticing is from our youth," Jackson says.
and from wikipedia.org:
The US homicide rate, which has declined substantially since 1991 from a rate per 100,000 persons of 9.8 to 4.8 in 2010, is still among the highest in the industrialized world. There were 14,748 murders in the United States in 2010[29] (666,160 murders from 1960 to 1996).[30] In 2004, there were 5.5 homicides for every 100,000 persons, roughly three times as high as Canada (1.9) and six times as high as Germany (0.9). A closer look at The National Archive of Criminal Justice Data indicates that per-capita homicide rates over the last 30 years on average of major cities, New Orleans' average per capita homicide rate of 52 murders per 100,000 people overall (1980–2009) ranks highest among major U.S. cities[31][32] Most industrialized countries had homicide rates below the 2.5 mark.[33][34]
Nothing there to brag about, least of all in favor of more guns.
You are losing the argument; it is only a matter of time.
dog gone said...
ReplyDelete"And of course you are wrong about the numbers somewhat:"
then goes on to cite a news article.
From FBI
1991 9.8
1993 9.5
1995 8.2
1997 6.8
1999 5.7
2001 5.6
2003 5.7
2005 5.6
2007 5.7
2008 5.4
2009 5.0
2010 4.8
Murder rate is going Down. New Orleans rates shouldn't even be included in the national rate because that's just the police down there killing the citizens.
I'm not losing an argument, I just proved your statement,"What has NOT been going down are certain categories of crime- like homicides", WRONG
You ARE losing the argument someguy.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, while violent crime, including homicides are down substantially in big cities,they are up in mid-sized cities - up dramatically.
The crime drop in those largest cities were a direct result of policing efforts and other measures, NOT MORE GUNS.
The U.S. still has a murder rate many times that of other, comparable nations. Those nations have ALSO had their crime rate decline without the increase in gun ownership, especially hand guns.
So any delusions you have about guns making us more safe or contributing positively to the decline in the crime stats is purely wishful thinking on your part that has NO basis in reality.
If we had guns in the possession of civilians ONLY at the levels those nations have, our crime rate, especially our crimes involving firearms, would be as low or lower than those nations, not higher.
And as we have seen by the lax background checking habits of those who have legal guns - be it here, or in other countries like the Czech Republic - there is a hugely greater problem with guns getting into the hands of criminals.
I would refer you to sources like this one:
www.watsoninstitute.org/bjwa/archive/9.1/SmallArms/Marsh.pdf
We're part of the international problem of guns and violence. YOU, the pro-gunners, the plural 'you', you are the problem within the U.S. for guns and gun crime, and obstruction of the efforts to keep guns out of the hands of those who would harm others as well as themselves.
What you, the plural pro-gunners you are emphatically categorically NOT is any part of the solution or decline in crime rates.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteSince you will never see us any other way, I'll just say it: I'm pleased to be a part of the problem.
As for your numbers, crime is down, even in a bad economy. If murders are up, that may be related to the economy more than to the number of guns, since crime rates do tend to follow economic fluctuations. But crime in general is down. The murder rate is not such that it supports your claims. If the number of guns tracked exactly with crime rates, this country should be in a constant state of criminal warfare. It isn't. Not even close.
But do keep dreaming about gun control. I'm sure that it gives your life much meaning.
dog gone said...
ReplyDelete"The crime drop in those largest cities were a direct result of policing efforts and other measures, NOT MORE GUNS."
You have no data to support your claim.
"So any delusions you have about guns making us more safe or contributing positively to the decline in the crime stats is purely wishful thinking on your part that has NO basis in reality."
I've already agreed that there is no data to support that more guns equal less crime, but while there was a 12% increase in gun sales over the last three years the United States has experienced a drop in violent crime so you can't claim that more guns equal more crime. There is no data to support your claim, however there is circumstantial evidence to support otherwise
"We're part of the international problem of guns and violence. YOU, the pro-gunners, the plural 'you', you are the problem within the U.S"
Which is it? Is the rest of the world safer than US or not? Let me see if I can quote you by memory. "Oh, gawd, the rest of the world is like so safe. The U.S. has a murder rate of 4.8 which is like, three time higher than Canada. Like OMG, we have to do something about that" Am I close? but now you're saying there is an epidemic of gun violence throughout the world. It's just like your comments about crime in the U.S. First you tell us that it's not so dangerous that we need to carry a firearm, then you claim it's dangerous, so we need to get rid of our firearms.
Someguy,
ReplyDeleteIt's because we--you and I--are shipping crates of automatic rifles to any third world country that can afford our prices. Aren't you bringing in the dough through your own personal arms sales? That elderly couple that I traded a rifle with were actually a front for al-Qaeda. You just know that they or the Taliban look forward to getting a decades old bolt action rifle. Of course, I never could get the sights to work properly, so that might be good for us.
Greg, you don't know anything about those people.
ReplyDeleteYou tap dance around that fact.
But it doesn't change that you know nothing and cannot tell anything by a casual contact.
You are irresponsible. Bottom line.
Greg says: "What I do note, though, is that the predictions that more guns equals more violent events is wrong."
ReplyDeleteThat's not necessarily so. There are too many other factors involved in violent crime rates to either blame or credit the gun.
Whatever the crime rate is now, it would be lower if gun availability had been lower.
Greg Camp said...
ReplyDelete"Someguy,
It's because we--you and I--are shipping crates of automatic rifles to any third world country that can afford our prices. Aren't you bringing in the dough through your own personal arms sales? "
I was trying to keep my arms trading business on the down low, but since you mentioned it, yeah, I'm raking in the Bengimins by the truck load. If you need a driver for your truck load of assault riffles, I got a guy you can borrow. I shot him once, I though he was stealing from me. I was just being paranoid though and miscounted my money. It all worked out, now he tosses in a few extra bucks to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteYup, you're a regular Junior G-man badge carrier, aren't you? You caught al-Qaeda's chief arms supplier, an elderly couple at a gun show. Just for once, try using numbers when they don't support your conclusions. Based on criminology and demographics, how likely is it that the couple in question will use the rifle that I traded to them to commit a crime? Especially since it was a trade--one for one. They already had a gun to use, if they wanted to do something. All I did was trade a sporterized Remington 1917 for a Yugoslavian Mauser. The situation is basically status quo.
Mikeb302000,
The idea that the crime rate would have been even lower without guns in this country is a claim, not a statement of fact.
Someguy,
Cheers!
Greg writes: Based on criminology and demographics, how likely is it that the couple in question will use the rifle that I traded to them to commit a crime? Especially since it was a trade--one for one. They already had a gun to use, if they wanted to do something. All I did was trade a sporterized Remington 1917 for a Yugoslavian Mauser. The situation is basically status quo.
ReplyDeleteYou didn't trade a firearm to a demographic, you traded it to individuals.
And you haven't yet realized that since you know nothing definitive about these people, you don't know anything about the firearm either. You have no proof of the trade.
So here's a question for you - what if it turns out that the firearm you received in the trade WAS used in the commission of a crime?
What you don't recognize - or more likely, you do, but are too intellectually dishonest and insecure to admit you are wrong - is that by doing such a background check, you don't rely on the vague hope that this couple is consistent with the demographic, you don't rely on a vague and unsupported hope to protect yourself and everyone else by being conscientious.
The reality is that an awful lot of firearms go from being legal, to being illegally owned. The best possible and most responsible way to do that is to check the person to whom you are selling, trading, ow swapping a firearm.
If you are correct in your expectations, good for you - and you have proof. But by NOT doing so, you are irresponsible and you have only guesses and assumptions, but nothing solid.
It is the hubris of gun lunatics in part that makes them 'loons', that qualifies their thinking as delusional rather than objective reality based.
This specific couple might or might not have passed a background check. You assume, you don't KNOW. But clearly for the number of guns that get into illegal hands, people ARE making mistakes, and that could be you or your gun loon friends who don't do background checks. Like russian roulette, it is some of you, if not you yourself this time, who are allowing that transfer to a prohibited person or persons to happen.
The idea that the crime rate would have been even lower without guns in this country is a claim, not a statement of fact.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeletePay attention, please: I traded one rifle for another. That's a net gain or loss of zero. If Grandma and Grandpa wanted to kill someone, they could have used the gun that they had originally. Since the total number of guns owned by each person did not change, what is the problem here? Even if either side of the transaction is criminal, no party has more guns than before.
Do you know for a fact that the rifle they traded you did not come from a theft at some point?
ReplyDeleteNo. Of course you don't.
So you could have assisted a criminal to unload a hot weapon, while giving them a nice clean legal one.
There are so many reasons why your way of doing things is irresponsible that the mind boggles.
That you don't care simply underlines why people like you contribute to firearms being in the hands of the irresponsible or the criminal or the dangerous.
If you had done a proper check to determine if they were prohibited individuals, you could have alerted the cops, removing one more illegal firearm. But clearly, you DON'T want to do that.
Ergo - you are part of the problem.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteLet's be practical for a moment. How exactly am I supposed to run a background check? I'm not a licensed dealer in firearms. I don't have access to the NICS. So I'd have to hunt down an FFL who wouldn't laugh me away from his booth, presuming that the seller would agree to this expedition, and arrange a background check--on both parties, the couple and me, I suppose--all in a state that has no such requirement.
Do you get the Internet way out there in your fantasy world, or do you have to sneak into reality to post your comments?
Greg: "The idea that the crime rate would have been even lower without guns in this country is a claim, not a statement of fact."
ReplyDeleteCorrect. That's why you have to open your mind, use a little common sense and reasoning and be honest about what you come up with.
Demanding facts and proof for everything is a way to avoid doing that.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteI'll enjoy watching Dog Gone smack you around for that statement. You're begging me to set aside my reasoning so as to see the truth of your position. I didn't realize that this was a question of religious faith.
There is a lower rate of gun of violence, and specifically lower rates of specific kinds of crime that we have here, such as murder rates generally, and a far lower rate of murder suicides and murders of law enforcement per capita in EVERY country where those regulations are enforced.
ReplyDeleteThat leaves out Mexico,where there is no effective enforcement.
In countries where gun enforcement has become more stringent, those numbers declined afterwards.
So, the assertion that we would have a lower crime rate and a less violent culture and society is an extrapolation.
It would be an unwarranted claim to assert how much that crime rate would decline.
But it is a very reasonable expectation to anticipate some reduction in crime in those categories of crime in the U.S.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteYou refuse to understand that American culture will not tolerate the kind of control that European countries accept. Americans do not like to be dictated to. You want authority, but Americans want inspiration. You want control, but Americans want freedom. We don't live in Europe.
By the way, I'm still waiting for you to tell me how my handgun on my nightstand is a danger to anyone while I'm asleep. Don't just say that I don't have control over it. No one is in immediate control of it, so it will do nothing other than lie there as an inert object. Tell me exactly how my handgun poses a danger to anyone while it is on my nightstand at night.