Gun Control & RKBA

Nancyswidower

(182 posts)

183. " How do we determine in advance which legal gun owner will later commit homicide?"

Sat Aug 27, 2016, 04:16 PM

Aug 2016

That would be inappropriate to ask....BUT thankfully we have an idea of that data...always in hindsight of course. Minuscule amounts per the data.

There is a question in your post that is of concern...."..How do we determine in advance..."...what, pre crime standards(?).......then you go on to say... "If criminals have no problem getting guns, we can assume that every criminal with a gun has avoided a background check."....silly statement.. on it's face.

Adam Lanza(not subject to back ground checks), a criminal after his actions, killed his Mom ...felony 1. Stole her firearms...felony 2. Stole his mothers car..felony 3(in commission of a homicide). Took stolen firearms onto school property and discharged them...felony 4....and then....26 more felonies later....

MOST criminals do not steal firearms or avoid background checks...again a tiny portion.

You ask..."What number of legal gun owners will go on to commit homicide?" FBI reports on just those data points...not as a prediction but as a tally after the fact....very tiny number but you know that.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

215 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

U.S. judge denies Texas professors who sought gun ban in their classrooms [View all] Eugene Aug 2016 OP

The Gun rules over all. (nt) enough Aug 2016 #1

Not really surprised Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #2

I am a college professor retired chillfactor Aug 2016 #3

I'm in the college classroom, too, it wouldn't bother me. aikoaiko Aug 2016 #5

So, with 10 states allowing it, where's the explosion? DonP Aug 2016 #8

Like I said in my post Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #10

Such a funny gun topic, lol? elehhhhna Aug 2016 #88

Not really Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #91

Yours is a question that has been assiduously dodged for *years*: friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #15

There's constantly school shootings, so that proves guns shouldn't be allowed scscholar Aug 2016 #28

"Those gun owners can't be trusted." Empirical evidence indicates otherwise: friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #52

Thanks. That proves they're unsafe. 108 criminals with guns in public! scscholar Aug 2016 #92

Out of a population of 940,877-that's *1* conviction for every 8711 permitees friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #105

Numbers don't lie Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #114

It still proves those gun owners are criminals. scscholar Aug 2016 #122

It proves that those 108 convicted criminals are criminals friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #123

By tha standard everyone who drinks alcohol is responsible for all alcohol-related crime. Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #124

Uh oh. beevul Aug 2016 #126

And how many of those shootings were by people with a CCW permit? DonP Aug 2016 #93

That is a question for which that sort dares not offer an accurate answer... friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #108

I expected the usual response; "Hey look over there!" DonP Aug 2016 #109

Conflating all criminals that use guns with people with lawful carry permits is being tried upthread friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #110

Squirrel!!!! Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #116

"That is a situation just waiting to explode." pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #17

Science Denier or just Factose Intolerant? DonP Aug 2016 #18

Selective respect for the verdict of empirical evidence. pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #19

Interesting, sounds a lot more like religious belief than science DonP Aug 2016 #21

"I've always respected Kleck and his his work.......... pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #22

Factose intolerant science denier. N/t beevul Aug 2016 #32

Taught government at a CC for 3 yrs. No problems. Eleanors38 Aug 2016 #31

It was obvious that the outcome would be this way. aikoaiko Aug 2016 #4

No, it all comes down to THIS: guillaumeb Aug 2016 #6

I'm can live with the word illusory because that's fair and it doesn't really matter. aikoaiko Aug 2016 #7

If there is an "increased risk of violence", then why hasn't it happened elsewhere? friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #9

Probably the same place campus cops put the rape and assault reports. elehhhhna Aug 2016 #89

Do you have any evidence of such a coverup? Or even a media report of same? friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #90

My kids a TA in grad school in Tx who just completed her mandatory wtf to do elehhhhna Aug 2016 #146

Gunsucker? sarisataka Aug 2016 #147

What's with the insults? Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #149

Eh, I'll live-the devoutly religious can get quite emotional when they feel their faith challenged.. friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #154

As 'valid'? Yes. beevul Aug 2016 #150

Instead of producing evidence, you get angry and spout insults. I don't take it too much to heart. friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #153

Ladies and gentlemen ... Straw Man Aug 2016 #156

Indeed, some can do nothing but insult others Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #157

"Probably the same place campus cops put the rape and assault reports." beergood Aug 2016 #151

So where are all of these cases? Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #11

This is about virtue signalling, not demonstrable threat friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #13

Wonder if they know Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #14

We are all entitled to our opinions. nt... virginia mountainman Aug 2016 #12

"If they really protected there would be no police officers killed." pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #16

Hey! That's their favorite straw man you're picking on DonP Aug 2016 #26

Kind of makes you wonder ... Straw Man Aug 2016 #20

"any minimal protection that they might give will be negated by the increased risk of violence" Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #23

taking those 2: discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #24

"Good argument for anarchy." Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #25

And reliance on violence has always been the first position of the US. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #35

Violence has been the first position of every nation-state and NS-wannabe. Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #36

And is there any difference between individual violence and state violence? guillaumeb Aug 2016 #39

The difference is people protecting themselves versus the elite protecting their power over people. Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #43

And who are "the elite" of whom you are so fearful? guillaumeb Aug 2016 #53

Are you saying there is no valid reason for citizens to keep arms to protect themselves from Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #62

Do you see your own government as an occupying force? guillaumeb Aug 2016 #67

Do you see your government as a perpetual source of benevolence and good will? Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #76

So this was an official government action? guillaumeb Aug 2016 #79

It was official to Dr. Perry, his family and friends. Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #83

The Klan, in many cases, were a de facto part of local power structures friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #84

True, but that still does not make this action guillaumeb Aug 2016 #95

have you ever seen beergood Aug 2016 #189

I don't. Then again, to regard the possiblity that it *might* become one as ludicrous... friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #81

And we might both agree that fascism has appeal to a certain portion guillaumeb Aug 2016 #96

In your own words, who or what is "encourag(ing) individual violence"? friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #46

There are many reasons that people commit violence. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #54

Yet persons with concealed handgun licenses tend not to commit it friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #60

It is amazing how easily some forget this. beevul Aug 2016 #40

It is not an easy thing to come to terms with the implication that Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #45

self defense beergood Aug 2016 #155

George Zimmerman also killed in "self-defense". guillaumeb Aug 2016 #159

And? beevul Aug 2016 #160

re: "And how safe has that made this country?" discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #158

Show me a modern society that doesn't rely on violence as the 'stick'... beevul Aug 2016 #161

"...how safe has that made this country?" Well, crime-wise things have improved... Eleanors38 Aug 2016 #186

If murder rates have gone down, guillaumeb Aug 2016 #193

"If murder rates have gone down ,...why are more guns needed?" Murder still happens... friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #194

106 reported crimes, with 1 murder, versus 30,000 actual gun deaths. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #198

How many of those "30,000 actual gun deaths" were caused by CCW holders? friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #200

Here is a source that may help you out: guillaumeb Aug 2016 #201

3 in Oklahoma Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #202

Oklahoma? A 10 second Google search got me here: guillaumeb Aug 2016 #206

But my tens of thousands was Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #207

"You can thank me later." Feel free to hate me for these right now: friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #204

Some math that you keep ignoring: guillaumeb Aug 2016 #208

Mere collective guilt-tripping. You blame a verifiably safe subgroup for the actions of the entirety friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #210

Dismissing 30,000 deaths a year is what is sad. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #211

"30,000 deaths/dead" as used in this thread is a 'thought-terminating cliche': friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #215

And you don't? beevul Aug 2016 #212

That will leave a mark, lol Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #209

Gun ownership is for personal protection. To answer your question is to subsume gun Eleanors38 Aug 2016 #195

The number of guns sold has increased, guillaumeb Aug 2016 #199

Why have some states seen a large spike in FOID cards Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #203

The link. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #214

Actually, you misconstrue a major controller/banner talking point... Eleanors38 Aug 2016 #213

If they can ban guns based on illusions of safety, surely they may allow them for the same reason? jmg257 Aug 2016 #27

"If they really protected there would be no police officers killed." beevul Aug 2016 #29

"Shamed silence"? What an interesting phrase. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #33

I was giving you credit, and assuming you were capable. My bad. beevul Aug 2016 #37

And I gave you credit for understanding, however....... guillaumeb Aug 2016 #44

Sure you did. beevul Aug 2016 #47

You also are a mind reader? guillaumeb Aug 2016 #56

No, I just hear the gears grinding from time to time. beevul Aug 2016 #59

I think the key phrase here is: guillaumeb Aug 2016 #65

I think the key phrase is 'biased control freaks'. beevul Aug 2016 #75

Projection on your part? guillaumeb Aug 2016 #78

Who is it that I'm trying to control? Whos choices am I trying to dictate? beevul Aug 2016 #80

You are trying to control both the framing of the question guillaumeb Aug 2016 #94

You accepted the framing when you brought up 'projection'. beevul Aug 2016 #104

Background checks are a national law. So is the Lautenberg (sp?) Amendment. Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #48

Background checks are easily avoided. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #57

We are discussing people who did not avoid background checks- in fact, passed them friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #63

Which does not invalidate my point. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #69

Should you be banned from driving because others choose to speed? friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #72

So are drug laws in spite of the fact they're as restricted by a regime of laws and agencies as Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #64

How often, in practice, are background checks actually avoided? N/T beevul Aug 2016 #162

Think about your question and the answer is apparent. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #165

In a straw prchase, a background check is done. beevul Aug 2016 #167

If a person who cannot pass a background check wishes to buy a gun, guillaumeb Aug 2016 #170

Except that I wasn't referring to that beevul Aug 2016 #172

Were you then referring to gun sales in parking lots, guillaumeb Aug 2016 #173

How often does a gun sale happen in which no background check is done? beevul Aug 2016 #175

Reread 173. I answered it. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #176

That was an answer to...something...just not the question I asked. beevul Aug 2016 #177

As is your habit of asking unanswerable questions. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #178

I have this habit or requiring substantiation... beevul Aug 2016 #180

The problem is 30,000 gun deaths each year. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #192

Which are caused at a lesser rate by CCW holders than the general public- or cops, for that matter. friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #197

If thats the problem, start focusing on causes rather than instrumentality. beevul Aug 2016 #205

" How do we determine in advance which legal gun owner will later commit homicide?" Nancyswidower Aug 2016 #183

Why do you believe that it's possible to diagnose psychiatric disorders at a distance? friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #38

Vaccinations do not provide perfect protection from disease Mugu Aug 2016 #30

But no one walks around with a needle killing people, guillaumeb Aug 2016 #34

Nor do people defend themselves with a needle. beevul Aug 2016 #41

Does the defense outweigh the 30,000 homicides? guillaumeb Aug 2016 #50

The lowest DGU estimates are over double that figure. beevul Aug 2016 #51

So potential homicides outweigh actual homicides? guillaumeb Aug 2016 #58

If we're only talking homicides... beevul Aug 2016 #68

"(V)accines are not designed to kill." But they still kill people on very rare occasions. friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #42

30,000 gun homicides every year, on average. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #49

Thats an answer to a question you weren't asked. beevul Aug 2016 #55

The "question" was a nonsense type of question. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #61

Given that this has been legal in colleges elsewhere for years, without apparent problem... friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #70

The question is legitimate. Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #71

What is the percentage of homicide victims killed by guns? guillaumeb Aug 2016 #77

That is not the quesiton being asked. The question was -- Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #82

It is a question that is obviously being avoided. friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #86

Unanswerable, and the reason is apparent if you read my citations. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #98

Actually, it is easily answerable for concealed weapons permitees in Texas. 27 friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #107

So "only 27" cases of assault with a weapon in one state in one year. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #118

What leads you to claim that trouble is somehow inevitable that in Texas, when it hasn't... friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #119

Guns are required for a gun homicide to occur. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #120

Murder is not the only crime that occurs on campuses- but you knew that already. friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #121

SO the solution for this tiny number of crimes guillaumeb Aug 2016 #128

That was the most concentrated Gish Gallop I've seen to date friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #131

Allow me to simplify: guillaumeb Aug 2016 #132

Yet again, you are employing a strawman argument against claims that I have not made. friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #139

There aren't 30 thousand gun homicides every year. beevul Aug 2016 #163

Homicide refers to killing a person. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #166

So you know the proper definitions, you just aren't willing to use them. beevul Aug 2016 #169

Keep avoiding or minimizing suicide. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #171

You're the one avoiding it. beevul Aug 2016 #174

The terms "suicide" and "problem" are extinct; now the one is "homicide," the other "issue." Eleanors38 Aug 2016 #187

Pretty much. beevul Aug 2016 #188

Or as the old school hip-hop song said... Eleanors38 Aug 2016 #196

There are about 11,000 yearly victims of gun homicides. Waldorf Aug 2016 #144

Is a student be allowed to defend herself against a rapist? Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #125

Defense necessitates a gun? guillaumeb Aug 2016 #127

A gun is the best means of defense against a rapist. Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #129

Your answer is pure assumption. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #130

"You assume that:" You know what they assume, how exactly? Telepsychology? friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #133

The post was basically a "Dirty Harry" argument. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #135

That post contains two strawman arguments and an argument by assertion friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #140

It's not an assumption to those who defend themselves. Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #136

All of my points are still valid. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #138

No, they are not. You are still arguing mightily against an assertion that poster did not make: friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #141

I argued against what I inferred from the poster's remarks. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #148

Their reasons for buying guns are not subject to your approval friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #191

A gun doesn't equate automatic protection, it equates better protection than defenselessness. Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #145

you sound like sen Hudak beergood Aug 2016 #190

A strawman argument-your interlocutor made no such claim friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #134

A nice try that ignores what was asked. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #137

A reply to your points: 1) The 'implication' is entirely yours, not voiced by that poster. friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #142

I repeat myself, at the risk of seeming rude: guillaumeb Aug 2016 #143

You still argue vigorously against an idea that *no one* here seems to have to expressed. friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #152

It necessitates leaving the decision up to the individual... beevul Aug 2016 #164

It is answerable because others have answered it. Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #111

Not sure but most of them get a... discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #115

No, it isn't. beevul Aug 2016 #73

You appear to have either misunderstood the question, or *did* understand it and don't like... friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #66

Incorrect. Straw Man Aug 2016 #106

So you are minimizing suicide to defend gun carnage? guillaumeb Aug 2016 #168

Loading the question a bit, aren't you? Straw Man Aug 2016 #179

Thats the intended purpose... beevul Aug 2016 #181

Dueling definitions. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #182

Not at all. Straw Man Aug 2016 #184

I thought you were reaching before, but this newest is really bullshit. beevul Aug 2016 #185

If looks could kill... Ilsa Aug 2016 #74

"Guns on campus may not make any difference whatsoever" They probably won't: friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #85

I was never worried about being shot by a cop on campus. Ilsa Aug 2016 #87

How many have done that in the 10 states Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #97

It doesn't matter how many accidents there are specifically Ilsa Aug 2016 #99

Just a small point Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #100

And put in prison if their negligence kills someone. Ilsa Aug 2016 #101

Hard to hold a person accountable for a true accident Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #103

"It is almost impossible for any modern gun to go off accidentally. 99% are negligent discharges..." Ilsa Aug 2016 #117

But you are even less likely to be shot if no one is carrying a gun. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #102

If a person is determined to shoot at someone else that someone else will be shot at. Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #112

re: "Gun free zones only apply to victims." discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #113