IF more guns = more gun crime...why are the 3 safest states Constitutional carry states?

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Good grief, the argument the OP uses is spurious. The three states mentioned has very small populated cities. The LARGEST city in Maine is 66,000 people. Yes... 66,000 people. Next highest populated city? Lewiston at 36,000. Yes, I'm sure it is the number of people carrying guns that is keeping gun violence down.

BTW: Maine has elected a Centrist Senator in Republican Susan Collins who has been in office since 1997 and an Independent in Angus King who has been in office since 2013. Both of the Representatives are Democrats in Chellie Pingree & Jared Golden. Oh yes, Maine citizens must be so pro-gun in order to stop gun violence! Or they could be pro-gun for hunting because they literally live in the backwoods and gun violence isn't even in their thoughts whatsoever...

New Hampshire's is Manchester with 110,000 people, with the second largest Nashua at 87,000. The third largest is Concord at 42,000. That's over a 60% drop from the highest to the THIRD highest, showing just how rural New Hampshire really is.

The Senators and Representatives i New Hampshire are both Democrats Jeanne Shaheen & Maggie Hassan (Not a Muslim). The Representatives are ALSO both Democrats Chris Pappas & Ann Kuster.

Vermont's largest city is Burlington at a whopping 42,000 people! What a metropolis! Next largest is SOUTH Burlington at close to 18,000 people.

Let's take a look at Vermont's representatives in Congress in both sides of the house... Independent Bernie Sanders and Democrat Patrick Leahy. In the House they are represented by the long "at large" (because the state is SO SMALL they only get one State Rep.) Democrat Peter Welch.

So do you still think their gun laws were put into place to help fight gun violence and that it is those laws that have deterred gun violence?

Again, you moron....

The anti-gun argument is not....

More Guns = More Gun Crime...only if the population is really big.

The entire argument of the anti-gun loons is...

More Guns = More Gun crime...regardless of all other factors...

The smaller popluations of those 3 states does not matter in your theory, they should have more gun crime simply because they have more guns....a smaller population but more gun crime than a non-gun owning state........

Over the last 26 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decad

Soooooo...

The anti-gun hypothesis and argument.....

More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.

Actual Result:

In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72%

The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....

In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.

Check this out..one trick pony....I'm posting here..not 'the anti-gun argument'. Only a complete imbecile would continue to argue with some invisible 'argument' rather than address the post in front of him.
I do not give a shit about the 'anti-gun argument' as I'm not anti-gun..just anti ignorant NRA shill...that would be you, right?

 

[2aguy]

Good grief, the argument the OP uses is spurious. The three states mentioned has very small populated cities. The LARGEST city in Maine is 66,000 people. Yes... 66,000 people. Next highest populated city? Lewiston at 36,000. Yes, I'm sure it is the number of people carrying guns that is keeping gun violence down.

BTW: Maine has elected a Centrist Senator in Republican Susan Collins who has been in office since 1997 and an Independent in Angus King who has been in office since 2013. Both of the Representatives are Democrats in Chellie Pingree & Jared Golden. Oh yes, Maine citizens must be so pro-gun in order to stop gun violence! Or they could be pro-gun for hunting because they literally live in the backwoods and gun violence isn't even in their thoughts whatsoever...

New Hampshire's is Manchester with 110,000 people, with the second largest Nashua at 87,000. The third largest is Concord at 42,000. That's over a 60% drop from the highest to the THIRD highest, showing just how rural New Hampshire really is.

The Senators and Representatives i New Hampshire are both Democrats Jeanne Shaheen & Maggie Hassan (Not a Muslim). The Representatives are ALSO both Democrats Chris Pappas & Ann Kuster.

Vermont's largest city is Burlington at a whopping 42,000 people! What a metropolis! Next largest is SOUTH Burlington at close to 18,000 people.

Let's take a look at Vermont's representatives in Congress in both sides of the house... Independent Bernie Sanders and Democrat Patrick Leahy. In the House they are represented by the long "at large" (because the state is SO SMALL they only get one State Rep.) Democrat Peter Welch.

So do you still think their gun laws were put into place to help fight gun violence and that it is those laws that have deterred gun violence?

Again, you moron....

The anti-gun argument is not....

More Guns = More Gun Crime...only if the population is really big.

The entire argument of the anti-gun loons is...

More Guns = More Gun crime...regardless of all other factors...

The smaller popluations of those 3 states does not matter in your theory, they should have more gun crime simply because they have more guns....a smaller population but more gun crime than a non-gun owning state........

Over the last 26 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decad

Soooooo...

The anti-gun hypothesis and argument.....

More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.

Actual Result:

In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72%

The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....

In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.

Your argument is spurious, and using the 3 states you used is fucking moronic. People in those states don't carry a gun in order to prevent being robbed. They carry a gun in order to keep from being mauled by a bear, pounced on by a mountain lion, or trampled on by a moose.

Those aren't things you worry about in Charlotte, NC.

again, moron....your argument isn't More Guns = More Gun crime only if the population is big....

So your argument is crap.

That's not my argument. I'm saying YOUR argument that more guns means less gun crime. You can't understand that.

That is one of my arguments...

My other point, the truth....is that more guns in the hands of normal people does not increase the crime rate......or the gun crime rate...26 years of experience shows us this as a fact...

Over the last 26 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[2aguy]

Good grief, the argument the OP uses is spurious. The three states mentioned has very small populated cities. The LARGEST city in Maine is 66,000 people. Yes... 66,000 people. Next highest populated city? Lewiston at 36,000. Yes, I'm sure it is the number of people carrying guns that is keeping gun violence down.

BTW: Maine has elected a Centrist Senator in Republican Susan Collins who has been in office since 1997 and an Independent in Angus King who has been in office since 2013. Both of the Representatives are Democrats in Chellie Pingree & Jared Golden. Oh yes, Maine citizens must be so pro-gun in order to stop gun violence! Or they could be pro-gun for hunting because they literally live in the backwoods and gun violence isn't even in their thoughts whatsoever...

New Hampshire's is Manchester with 110,000 people, with the second largest Nashua at 87,000. The third largest is Concord at 42,000. That's over a 60% drop from the highest to the THIRD highest, showing just how rural New Hampshire really is.

The Senators and Representatives i New Hampshire are both Democrats Jeanne Shaheen & Maggie Hassan (Not a Muslim). The Representatives are ALSO both Democrats Chris Pappas & Ann Kuster.

Vermont's largest city is Burlington at a whopping 42,000 people! What a metropolis! Next largest is SOUTH Burlington at close to 18,000 people.

Let's take a look at Vermont's representatives in Congress in both sides of the house... Independent Bernie Sanders and Democrat Patrick Leahy. In the House they are represented by the long "at large" (because the state is SO SMALL they only get one State Rep.) Democrat Peter Welch.

So do you still think their gun laws were put into place to help fight gun violence and that it is those laws that have deterred gun violence?

Again, you moron....

The anti-gun argument is not....

More Guns = More Gun Crime...only if the population is really big.

The entire argument of the anti-gun loons is...

More Guns = More Gun crime...regardless of all other factors...

The smaller popluations of those 3 states does not matter in your theory, they should have more gun crime simply because they have more guns....a smaller population but more gun crime than a non-gun owning state........

Over the last 26 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decad

Soooooo...

The anti-gun hypothesis and argument.....

More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.

Actual Result:

In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72%

The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....

In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.

Check this out..one trick pony....I'm posting here..not 'the anti-gun argument'. Only a complete imbecile would continue to argue with some invisible 'argument' rather than address the post in front of him.
I do not give a shit about the 'anti-gun argument' as I'm not anti-gun..just anti ignorant NRA shill...that would be you, right?

Show me where anything I have posted comes from the NRA you dumb ass...

 

[2aguy]

Good grief, the argument the OP uses is spurious. The three states mentioned has very small populated cities. The LARGEST city in Maine is 66,000 people. Yes... 66,000 people. Next highest populated city? Lewiston at 36,000. Yes, I'm sure it is the number of people carrying guns that is keeping gun violence down.

BTW: Maine has elected a Centrist Senator in Republican Susan Collins who has been in office since 1997 and an Independent in Angus King who has been in office since 2013. Both of the Representatives are Democrats in Chellie Pingree & Jared Golden. Oh yes, Maine citizens must be so pro-gun in order to stop gun violence! Or they could be pro-gun for hunting because they literally live in the backwoods and gun violence isn't even in their thoughts whatsoever...

New Hampshire's is Manchester with 110,000 people, with the second largest Nashua at 87,000. The third largest is Concord at 42,000. That's over a 60% drop from the highest to the THIRD highest, showing just how rural New Hampshire really is.

The Senators and Representatives i New Hampshire are both Democrats Jeanne Shaheen & Maggie Hassan (Not a Muslim). The Representatives are ALSO both Democrats Chris Pappas & Ann Kuster.

Vermont's largest city is Burlington at a whopping 42,000 people! What a metropolis! Next largest is SOUTH Burlington at close to 18,000 people.

Let's take a look at Vermont's representatives in Congress in both sides of the house... Independent Bernie Sanders and Democrat Patrick Leahy. In the House they are represented by the long "at large" (because the state is SO SMALL they only get one State Rep.) Democrat Peter Welch.

So do you still think their gun laws were put into place to help fight gun violence and that it is those laws that have deterred gun violence?

Again, you moron....

The anti-gun argument is not....

More Guns = More Gun Crime...only if the population is really big.

The entire argument of the anti-gun loons is...

More Guns = More Gun crime...regardless of all other factors...

The smaller popluations of those 3 states does not matter in your theory, they should have more gun crime simply because they have more guns....a smaller population but more gun crime than a non-gun owning state........

Over the last 26 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decad

Soooooo...

The anti-gun hypothesis and argument.....

More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.

Actual Result:

In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72%

The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....

In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.

Check this out..one trick pony....I'm posting here..not 'the anti-gun argument'. Only a complete imbecile would continue to argue with some invisible 'argument' rather than address the post in front of him.
I do not give a shit about the 'anti-gun argument' as I'm not anti-gun..just anti ignorant NRA shill...that would be you, right?

.one trick pony..


Wow...you called me a name....that hurts me...deeply. I think, because of you calling me a name....that I will simply stop posting, go somewhere, have a good cry, and never post again...

 

[2aguy]

For the anti-gunners out there....

According to your argument...

More Guns = More Gun Crime.......these states can't be the safest......but, your argument isn't based on truth, facts or reality....

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

..and I also favor registration and background checks

Um.... why?

The background check is an imperfect system..as it cannot read minds or predict situations. However...it can grossly filter out a few crazies and ex-cons---registration gives LEA a starting spot in their investigations--truthfully..I'd register every land and groove of every weapon that has them. The right to bear arms is not the right to murder..and get away with it, obviously.

There is no silver bullet solution...we are who we are as a people..and as a culture.

 

[Lewdog]

Good grief, the argument the OP uses is spurious. The three states mentioned has very small populated cities. The LARGEST city in Maine is 66,000 people. Yes... 66,000 people. Next highest populated city? Lewiston at 36,000. Yes, I'm sure it is the number of people carrying guns that is keeping gun violence down.

BTW: Maine has elected a Centrist Senator in Republican Susan Collins who has been in office since 1997 and an Independent in Angus King who has been in office since 2013. Both of the Representatives are Democrats in Chellie Pingree & Jared Golden. Oh yes, Maine citizens must be so pro-gun in order to stop gun violence! Or they could be pro-gun for hunting because they literally live in the backwoods and gun violence isn't even in their thoughts whatsoever...

New Hampshire's is Manchester with 110,000 people, with the second largest Nashua at 87,000. The third largest is Concord at 42,000. That's over a 60% drop from the highest to the THIRD highest, showing just how rural New Hampshire really is.

The Senators and Representatives i New Hampshire are both Democrats Jeanne Shaheen & Maggie Hassan (Not a Muslim). The Representatives are ALSO both Democrats Chris Pappas & Ann Kuster.

Vermont's largest city is Burlington at a whopping 42,000 people! What a metropolis! Next largest is SOUTH Burlington at close to 18,000 people.

Let's take a look at Vermont's representatives in Congress in both sides of the house... Independent Bernie Sanders and Democrat Patrick Leahy. In the House they are represented by the long "at large" (because the state is SO SMALL they only get one State Rep.) Democrat Peter Welch.

So do you still think their gun laws were put into place to help fight gun violence and that it is those laws that have deterred gun violence?

Again, you moron....

The anti-gun argument is not....

More Guns = More Gun Crime...only if the population is really big.

The entire argument of the anti-gun loons is...

More Guns = More Gun crime...regardless of all other factors...

The smaller popluations of those 3 states does not matter in your theory, they should have more gun crime simply because they have more guns....a smaller population but more gun crime than a non-gun owning state........

Over the last 26 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decad

Soooooo...

The anti-gun hypothesis and argument.....

More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.

Actual Result:

In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72%

The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....

In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.

Your argument is spurious, and using the 3 states you used is fucking moronic. People in those states don't carry a gun in order to prevent being robbed. They carry a gun in order to keep from being mauled by a bear, pounced on by a mountain lion, or trampled on by a moose.

Those aren't things you worry about in Charlotte, NC.

again, moron....your argument isn't More Guns = More Gun crime only if the population is big....

So your argument is crap.

That's not my argument. I'm saying YOUR argument that more guns means less gun crime. You can't understand that.

That is one of my arguments...

My other point, the truth....is that more guns in the hands of normal people does not increase the crime rate......or the gun crime rate...26 years of experience shows us this as a fact...

Over the last 26 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

You need to take a stats class, you'd find out just how awful your posting is, and how fucking stupid all the people you post from are.

I'm not posting in here any farther. I already showed you the flaw in your argument. I'm not here to say more guns mean more crime. YOU said that was my argument. I said, and have ALWAYS said that more guns is not the answer to solving gun crime.

In this thread argument specifically, you shit the bed with your stats, the states you used, and the lack of background research you did before cut and pasting someone else's research.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Good grief, the argument the OP uses is spurious. The three states mentioned has very small populated cities. The LARGEST city in Maine is 66,000 people. Yes... 66,000 people. Next highest populated city? Lewiston at 36,000. Yes, I'm sure it is the number of people carrying guns that is keeping gun violence down.

BTW: Maine has elected a Centrist Senator in Republican Susan Collins who has been in office since 1997 and an Independent in Angus King who has been in office since 2013. Both of the Representatives are Democrats in Chellie Pingree & Jared Golden. Oh yes, Maine citizens must be so pro-gun in order to stop gun violence! Or they could be pro-gun for hunting because they literally live in the backwoods and gun violence isn't even in their thoughts whatsoever...

New Hampshire's is Manchester with 110,000 people, with the second largest Nashua at 87,000. The third largest is Concord at 42,000. That's over a 60% drop from the highest to the THIRD highest, showing just how rural New Hampshire really is.

The Senators and Representatives i New Hampshire are both Democrats Jeanne Shaheen & Maggie Hassan (Not a Muslim). The Representatives are ALSO both Democrats Chris Pappas & Ann Kuster.

Vermont's largest city is Burlington at a whopping 42,000 people! What a metropolis! Next largest is SOUTH Burlington at close to 18,000 people.

Let's take a look at Vermont's representatives in Congress in both sides of the house... Independent Bernie Sanders and Democrat Patrick Leahy. In the House they are represented by the long "at large" (because the state is SO SMALL they only get one State Rep.) Democrat Peter Welch.

So do you still think their gun laws were put into place to help fight gun violence and that it is those laws that have deterred gun violence?

Again, you moron....

The anti-gun argument is not....

More Guns = More Gun Crime...only if the population is really big.

The entire argument of the anti-gun loons is...

More Guns = More Gun crime...regardless of all other factors...

The smaller popluations of those 3 states does not matter in your theory, they should have more gun crime simply because they have more guns....a smaller population but more gun crime than a non-gun owning state........

Over the last 26 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decad

Soooooo...

The anti-gun hypothesis and argument.....

More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.

Actual Result:

In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72%

The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....

In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.

Check this out..one trick pony....I'm posting here..not 'the anti-gun argument'. Only a complete imbecile would continue to argue with some invisible 'argument' rather than address the post in front of him.
I do not give a shit about the 'anti-gun argument' as I'm not anti-gun..just anti ignorant NRA shill...that would be you, right?

.one trick pony..


Wow...you called me a name....that hurts me...deeply. I think, because of you calling me a name....that I will simply stop posting, go somewhere, have a good cry, and never post again...

What...and miss that paycheck??

I think not.....and the name fits..now doesn't it?

 

[DOTR]

Der.......um.....well.......the anti-gunners sorta, kinda say that more guns make people less safe......right? But then how is it that the 3 safest states in the United States....allow normal people to carry guns without permits.....?

Riddle me that, Batman...

GUN WATCH: Top Three Rated "Safe States" are Constitutional Carry States

US News and World Report rates the states for public safety. The rating takes both property crime and violent crime into account. The ratings use the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) data from 2017 for the article this year, as the latest data available.

The top three states for public safety this year are Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire. All three are Constitutional Carry states, which means no permit is required to carry a loaded handgun in most public places, openly, or concealed.


That was the state of the law in the nation when the Constitution was ratified on 4 March, 1789. Constitutional carry existed in all states for the first four decades of the Republic. Then states and the courts started chipping away at the Second Amendment.

Im sure its a coincidence. Thats all.

 

[Blues Man]

..and I also favor registration and background checks

Um.... why?

The background check is an imperfect system..as it cannot read minds or predict situations. However...it can grossly filter out a few crazies and ex-cons---registration gives LEA a starting spot in their investigations--truthfully..I'd register every land and groove of every weapon that has them. The right to bear arms is not the right to murder..and get away with it, obviously.

There is no silver bullet solution...we are who we are as a people..and as a culture.

So then I'd take it as you are in favor of every person having to supply their fingerprints and DNA to the government as a "starting place" to solve all crimes right?

 

[M14 Shooter]

..and I also favor registration and background checks

Um.... why?

The background check is an imperfect system..as it cannot read minds or predict situations. However...it can grossly filter out a few crazies and ex-cons---registration gives LEA a starting spot in their investigations...

If only there were investigations - of the millions of denials by the NICS since 1993, fewer than 100 people were convicted of breaking the relevant laws.

Background checks are no different than a police officer, absent any reasonable suspicion, stopping people as they walk down the street and reattaining them while he checks for outstanding warrants, etc.

I'd register every land and groove of every weapon that has them.

Um... why?
And is this in addition to or in lieu of registration of the firearm itself?

 

[GLASNOST]

"IF more guns = more gun crime...why are the 3 safest states Constitutional carry states?"

Because they have the least unemployment.

 

[2aguy]

..and I also favor registration and background checks

Um.... why?

The background check is an imperfect system..as it cannot read minds or predict situations. However...it can grossly filter out a few crazies and ex-cons---registration gives LEA a starting spot in their investigations--truthfully..I'd register every land and groove of every weapon that has them. The right to bear arms is not the right to murder..and get away with it, obviously.

There is no silver bullet solution...we are who we are as a people..and as a culture.

Gun registration doesn't solve crimes....the only reason to have it is to later confiscate guns.

You can't give a real reason to register guns.

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.


As to solving crimes....it doesn't...
Ten Myths Of The Long Gun Registry | Canadian Shooting Sports Association


Myth #4: Police investigations are aided by the registry.
Doubtful. Information contained in the registry is incomplete and unreliable. Due to the inaccuracy of the information, it cannot be used as evidence in court and the government has yet to prove that it has been a contributing factor in any investigation. Another factor is the dismal compliance rate (estimated at only 50%) for licensing and registration which further renders the registry useless. Some senior police officers have stated as such: “The law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered ... the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.” Former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino, January 2003.


-----

https://www.quora.com/In-countries-...olved-at-least-in-part-by-use-of-the-registry



Tracking physical objects that are easily transferred with a database is non-trivial problem. Guns that are stolen, loaned, or lost disappear from the registry. The data is has to be manually entered and input mistakes will both leak guns and generate false positive results.

Registries don’t solve straw-purchases. If someone goes through all of the steps to register a gun and simply gives it to a criminal that gun becomes unregistered. Assuming the gun is ever recovered you could theoretically try and prosecute the person who transferred the gun to the criminal, but you aren’t solving the crime you were trying to. Remember that people will prostitute themselves or even their children for drugs, so how much deterrence is there in a maybe-get-a-few-years for straw purchasing?

Registries are expensive. Canada’s registry was pitched as costing the taxpayer $2 million and the rest of the costs were to be payed for with registration fees. It was subject to massive cost overruns that were not being met by registrations fees. When the program was audited in 2002 the program was expected to cost over $1 billion and that the fee revenue was only expected to be $140 million.

No gun recovered. If no gun was recovered at the scene of the crime then your registry isn’t even theoretically helping, let alone providing a practical tool. You need a world where criminals meticulously register their guns and leave them at the crime scene for a registry to start to become useful.

Say I have a registered gun, and a known associate of mine was shot and killed. Ballistics is able to determine that my known associate was killed with the same make and model as the gun I registered. A registry doesn’t prove that my gun was used, or that I was the one doing the shooting. I was a suspect as soon as we said “known associate” and the police will then being looking for motive and checking for my alibi.

 

[2aguy]

"IF more guns = more gun crime...why are the 3 safest states Constitutional carry states?"

Because they have the least unemployment.

No.....crime rates went down during the Great Depression......unemployment doesn't drive crime rates...fatherless homes drives crime rates.

 

[OldLady]

For the anti-gunners out there....

According to your argument...

More Guns = More Gun Crime.......these states can't be the safest......but, your argument isn't based on truth, facts or reality....

Guy, your link in the OP has nothing to do with the number of guns. Maine is 38th in the US in % of gun owners (22%). In only twelve states do less citizens own guns.
So whatever you're arguing, the number of guns isn't "proven" to have anything to do with safety. Not from what you're putting forth.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/gun-ownership-by-state/

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

..and I also favor registration and background checks

Um.... why?

The background check is an imperfect system..as it cannot read minds or predict situations. However...it can grossly filter out a few crazies and ex-cons---registration gives LEA a starting spot in their investigations--truthfully..I'd register every land and groove of every weapon that has them. The right to bear arms is not the right to murder..and get away with it, obviously.

There is no silver bullet solution...we are who we are as a people..and as a culture.

So then I'd take it as you are in favor of every person having to supply their fingerprints and DNA to the government as a "starting place" to solve all crimes right?

In effect..yes..yes I am. In truth..that ship has sailed anyway....

 

[2aguy]

For the anti-gunners out there....

According to your argument...

More Guns = More Gun Crime.......these states can't be the safest......but, your argument isn't based on truth, facts or reality....

Guy, your link in the OP has nothing to do with the number of guns. Maine is 38th in the US in % of gun owners (22%). In only twelve states do less citizens own guns.
So whatever you're arguing, the number of guns isn't "proven" to have anything to do with safety. Not from what you're putting forth.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/gun-ownership-by-state/

People can carry guns in these 3 states without training or permits...we have been assured by people like you this means there will be more gun violence and death.....and yet, it does not happen.....

 

[OldLady]

For the anti-gunners out there....

According to your argument...

More Guns = More Gun Crime.......these states can't be the safest......but, your argument isn't based on truth, facts or reality....

Guy, your link in the OP has nothing to do with the number of guns. Maine is 38th in the US in % of gun owners (22%). In only twelve states do less citizens own guns.
So whatever you're arguing, the number of guns isn't "proven" to have anything to do with safety. Not from what you're putting forth.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/gun-ownership-by-state/

People can carry guns in these 3 states without training or permits...we have been assured by people like you this means there will be more gun violence and death.....and yet, it does not happen.....

No, your article showed it doesn't happen when a state becomes Constitutional carry states, but I agree with Fleegle that it isn't because of Constitutional carry that they are safe states; it is because they are safe states that Constitutional carry is permitted.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Der.......um.....well.......the anti-gunners sorta, kinda say that more guns make people less safe......right? But then how is it that the 3 safest states in the United States....allow normal people to carry guns without permits.....?

Riddle me that, Batman...

GUN WATCH: Top Three Rated "Safe States" are Constitutional Carry States

US News and World Report rates the states for public safety. The rating takes both property crime and violent crime into account. The ratings use the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) data from 2017 for the article this year, as the latest data available.

The top three states for public safety this year are Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire. All three are Constitutional Carry states, which means no permit is required to carry a loaded handgun in most public places, openly, or concealed.


That was the state of the law in the nation when the Constitution was ratified on 4 March, 1789. Constitutional carry existed in all states for the first four decades of the Republic. Then states and the courts started chipping away at the Second Amendment.

Im sure its a coincidence. Thats all.


View attachment 278691

What..that Democrats or moderate and Independent Republicans run all three?

that is odd....ain't it?

 

[OldLady]

Der.......um.....well.......the anti-gunners sorta, kinda say that more guns make people less safe......right? But then how is it that the 3 safest states in the United States....allow normal people to carry guns without permits.....?

Riddle me that, Batman...

GUN WATCH: Top Three Rated "Safe States" are Constitutional Carry States

US News and World Report rates the states for public safety. The rating takes both property crime and violent crime into account. The ratings use the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) data from 2017 for the article this year, as the latest data available.

The top three states for public safety this year are Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire. All three are Constitutional Carry states, which means no permit is required to carry a loaded handgun in most public places, openly, or concealed.


That was the state of the law in the nation when the Constitution was ratified on 4 March, 1789. Constitutional carry existed in all states for the first four decades of the Republic. Then states and the courts started chipping away at the Second Amendment.

Im sure its a coincidence. Thats all.


View attachment 278691

What..that Democrats or moderate and Independent Republicans run all three?

that is odd....ain't it?

Angus King caucuses with the Dems, and in any vote I've ever checked him on, he's voted Democrat. Just so ya know.