This: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34714389/ns/us_news-life/
In the 1980s and ’90s, as the concealed-carry movement gained steam, Americans were killed by others with guns at the rate of about 5.66 per 100,000 population. In this decade, the rate has fallen to just over 4.07 per 100,000, a 28 percent drop. The decline follows a fivefold increase in the number of “shall-issue†and unrestricted concealed-carry states from 1986 to 2006.
The highest gun homicide rate is in Washington, D.C., which has had the nation’s strictest gun-control laws for years and bans concealed carry: 20.50 deaths per 100,000 population, five times the general rate. The lowest rate, 1.12, is in Utah, which has such a liberal concealed weapons policy that most American adults can get a permit to carry a gun in Utah without even visiting the state.
The decline in gun homicides also comes as U.S. firearm sales are skyrocketing, according to federal background checks that are required for most gun sales. After holding stable at 8.5 to 9 million checks from 1999 to 2005, the FBI reported a surge to 10 million in 2006, 11 million in 2007, nearly 13 million in 2008 and more than 14 million last year, a 55 percent increase in just four years.
Huh. Whodathunkit? Honest citizens carrying firearms-- concealed ones at that! --reduces crime. Wow. Kinda counter-intuitive, right, Libtards? Imagine that, criminals actually worry about law abiding John Q. Public packing heat and whacking them during the process of a crime.
Totem
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- I guess this ends the gun debate once and for all
I guess this ends the gun debate once and for allFollow
I'm just pissed that I have to wait for every additional handgun I purchase.
Correlation, causation, etc.
"I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"
Totem wrote:
Honest citizens carrying firearms-- concealed ones at that! --reduces crime.
Show this, please. I think you're purposely ignoring correlation and causation.
Iamadam the Prohpet wrote:
Correlation, causation, etc.
Shifting population, changing demographics, and the abatement of the crack epidemic. Were all of these factors controlled in the analysis? I admit I didn't read the article.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
That's really encouraging news.
The figures are way higher than most European countries who have very strict gun laws, but we don't have a heritage of carrying firearms. For USA, the toothpaste is out of the tube, so trying to put it back makes bugger-all sense.
The figures are way higher than most European countries who have very strict gun laws, but we don't have a heritage of carrying firearms. For USA, the toothpaste is out of the tube, so trying to put it back makes bugger-all sense.
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
When in doubt, obsfucate, Lefties. I know this flies in the face of what each of you know and feel in your heart of hearts, but there is no getting around the simple fact that gun control laws are ineffectual at preventing crime, whereas citizens packing heat empiracally does.
But please, don't let such inconvenient truths stop you from tapping dancing like Bojangles on speed.
Totem
But please, don't let such inconvenient truths stop you from tapping dancing like Bojangles on speed.
Totem
Makes sense. Only difference between Washington DC and Utah is their gun laws, after all.
Really, gun control isn't a real big hot-button issue for me and I'll even agree that it's a loser of an issue for the Democrats to put into their platform as a focus. But "Correlation, causation, etc." about sums it up.
Really, gun control isn't a real big hot-button issue for me and I'll even agree that it's a loser of an issue for the Democrats to put into their platform as a focus. But "Correlation, causation, etc." about sums it up.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Totem wrote:
When in doubt, obsfucate
Damn data clarifications, always confusing stuff
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I'm not saying it's impossible. I just don't think criminals are that smart, and I'd like to see the methodology.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
Iamadam the Prohpet wrote:
Correlation, causation, etc.
Shifting population, changing demographics, and the abatement of the crack epidemic. Were all of these factors controlled in the analysis? I admit I didn't read the article.
I only skimmed through it, but what I got from it is that there's a lack of information to draw a real conclusion.
Of course, that won't stop some people.
"I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"
"...that there's a lack of information to draw a real conclusion." --Iam
Not that that stops the Left from imposing their group-think on us in kind, ie the Brady Law, etc etc. This is certainly more conclusive than the bad data that was used to formulate those such laws. After all, if it is made out of black plastic and shoots more than a single shot it must be an assault weapon.
Totem
Not that that stops the Left from imposing their group-think on us in kind, ie the Brady Law, etc etc. This is certainly more conclusive than the bad data that was used to formulate those such laws. After all, if it is made out of black plastic and shoots more than a single shot it must be an assault weapon.
Totem
Totem wrote:
"...that there's a lack of information to draw a real conclusion." --Iam
Not that that stops the Left from imposing their group-think on us in kind, ie the Brady Law, etc etc. This is certainly more conclusive than the bad data that was used to formulate those such laws. After all, if it is made out of black plastic and shoots more than a single shot it must be an assault weapon.
Totem
Not that that stops the Left from imposing their group-think on us in kind, ie the Brady Law, etc etc. This is certainly more conclusive than the bad data that was used to formulate those such laws. After all, if it is made out of black plastic and shoots more than a single shot it must be an assault weapon.
Totem
I don't know what the Brady Law is, but I can't fault people for doing something they think is safe. This goes for both sides of the isle.
"I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"
Why not credit any reduction (or blame any increase) on the Brady Bill? And the disparity between states? Probably need to correct for poverty, rates of incarceration, other laws which might effect crime rates, etc.
Fortunately, this has already been done. There are actual studies on this. They consider all these factors. There is evidence on both sides. Right now, from what limited time I devoted to this, I'd say any effect of concealed carry is within the noise (e.g. no measurable effect).
Go to google scholar, try something like "concealed carry gun" and you'll see.
Pfft. Social "sciences".
Fortunately, this has already been done. There are actual studies on this. They consider all these factors. There is evidence on both sides. Right now, from what limited time I devoted to this, I'd say any effect of concealed carry is within the noise (e.g. no measurable effect).
Go to google scholar, try something like "concealed carry gun" and you'll see.
Pfft. Social "sciences".
Jophiel wrote:
Makes sense. Only difference between Washington DC and Utah is their gun laws, after all.
So you're saying the incidence of negros directly impacts the violent crime rate?
So Yoss, if there is no measurable effect, then why not open the legal avenues for conceal carry for every honest citizen? Since, after all, it doesn't make any difference.
Totem
Totem
Totem wrote:
So Yoss, if there is no measurable effect, then why not open the legal avenues for conceal carry for every honest citizen? Since, after all, it doesn't make any difference.
Totem
Totem
If you are suggesting we actually make gun laws according to the best measured effects, you are not going to like the results.
I only skimmed a few papers, but the evidence against gun ownership, in general, seems overwhelming. Why is the effect of concealed carry not seen then? Because very, very few gun owners register for concealed carry.
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Makes sense. Only difference between Washington DC and Utah is their gun laws, after all.
So you're saying the incidence of negros directly impacts the violent crime rate?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
yossarian wrote:
I only skimmed a few papers, but the evidence against gun ownership, in general, seems overwhelming. Why is the effect of concealed carry not seen then? Because very, very few gun owners register for concealed carry.
Genuine curiosity, and all, but what would your skimming have revealed as the primary categories of evidence against gun ownership and, more broadly, are you referring to hand guns or to guns in general?
Jophiel wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Makes sense. Only difference between Washington DC and Utah is their gun laws, after all.
So you're saying the incidence of negros directly impacts the violent crime rate?
Proof I'm a racist, yeah?
What are the tags to use when you want to keep the original spacing you wrote up in your post?
[thislookedbetterinword]something that looked better in word[/thislookedbetterinword]
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
yossarian wrote:
I only skimmed a few papers, but the evidence against gun ownership, in general, seems overwhelming. Why is the effect of concealed carry not seen then? Because very, very few gun owners register for concealed carry.
Genuine curiosity, and all, but what would your skimming have revealed as the primary categories of evidence against gun ownership and, more broadly, are you referring to hand guns or to guns in general?
Generally, they didn't specify hand versus gun in general, although I wasn't reading for it; some might have mentioned hand gun. Generally, it was found more guns -> more crime and more deaths. Legal, illegal guns, I don't know. A waiting period (which is not a ban) prevents suicide (very robust result).
I'd have to go digging through references for more.
Honestly, unless you're a hobbyist - like a skeet shooter or recreational hunter, I can't imagine why you'd need a gun. But it's a free country eh. Stock up at Sam's Club.
Guns don't, however, deter criminals or criminal behavior. They don't make you safer in your home unless they handily hold up the dining room table you're crouched under when the earthquake shakes things up.
Guns don't, however, deter criminals or criminal behavior. They don't make you safer in your home unless they handily hold up the dining room table you're crouched under when the earthquake shakes things up.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Aripyanfar wrote:
What are the tags to use when you want to keep the original spacing you wrote up in your post?
Can't you use the "code" button (which puts the "pre" and "end pre" for preformated text) to make ascii art like things?
I think it also uses a fixed width font, useful for aligning stuff.
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
int i;
for(i=0;i<42;i++)
printf("Foo on You\n");
}
It's not concealed carry permit holders that are an issue, the fact that they bothered to get the permit in the first place shows they are reasonably responsible.
It's the guy who robbed the permit holder's house last week and now has a shiny new hand gun to bring to his next B&E, or the dude with the shotgun in his closet sitting on top of the case of empty beer bottles that has a beef with his neighbor that's a concern.
It's just too easy to point and shoot a gun. It makes impulse killing way too easy. There is no good reason in modern times to own any weapon not used for hunting, or protection from bears (even then it's next to useless).
If you don't have a hunting license you shouldn't have a gun. If you do have a hunting license the authorities should know what type/how many guns you have so they are aware of the weapons situation if, for example, you were robbed, there was a domestic dispute at your home etc.
It's the guy who robbed the permit holder's house last week and now has a shiny new hand gun to bring to his next B&E, or the dude with the shotgun in his closet sitting on top of the case of empty beer bottles that has a beef with his neighbor that's a concern.
It's just too easy to point and shoot a gun. It makes impulse killing way too easy. There is no good reason in modern times to own any weapon not used for hunting, or protection from bears (even then it's next to useless).
If you don't have a hunting license you shouldn't have a gun. If you do have a hunting license the authorities should know what type/how many guns you have so they are aware of the weapons situation if, for example, you were robbed, there was a domestic dispute at your home etc.
Recent Visitors: 214
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (214)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- I guess this ends the gun debate once and for all
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC