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

[lantern2814]

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.

Population...and rural vs urban settings.

Idaho is also Constitutional carry..and I support this. But your stats have nothing to do with guns..or how they are regulated. IMO.

I bet you think that if large urban areas had Constitutional Carry--violent crime would go down?

I doubt it....but carry on... my lil one trick pony!

Nice try.....but no....

The anti-gun argument has never been....More guns = more gun crime but only in large populations.

The anti-gun argument is More guns = More gun crime, regardless of any other factor including population size....so....even with small populations, according to you anti-gunners, their gun crime rates should be amazingly high....but nice try.

Dipstick.....normal people carrying guns for self defense do not increase the gun crime rate...because they do not use their guns for crime....are you really this dumb? So whether they have to get permits or not, they are not going to drive up the gun crime rate, you simpleton......

Actually...i don't conform to some pre-packaged narrative--such as you do.

Normal people carrying guns, eh? Of course, abnormal people would have the same protections, right? Not that it matters to me..as the cause of crime..and violent crime..has little to do with the availability of weapons anyway. Or the lack there-of. It is our culture.

Your position is a great big NRA boondoggle. As I said, I support Constitutional Carry--but I doubt that the crime stats would be affected one way or the other..with or without CC.

Rural vs Urban--now there is where the rubber meets the road as far as the prime causation for violent crime. Not armed vs not-armed.

Of course, abnormal people would have the same protections, right?


No, moron. Are you really this stupid? If you break the law with a gun, you get arrested...till then, you are a normal citizen with the Rights of a normal citizen...

No, moron, the cause of violent crime is fatherless homes.....prisons are filled with the destruction of the welfare state, allowing single teenage girls to have children from multiple males without a father in the home....

It is quite interesting..how you just flit from one talking point to the other.

I'm amused by your logic that says as long as you don't get caught..you're a "normal citizen"..ROTFLMAO!

You're last paragraph is pure garbage. You take one stat..well..putative stat..since you don't back it up...and tell me that it is the prime cause of violent crime? Stupid!!

I note with amusement that you really don't rebut anything I say..you just pick some small snippet and go on about that. Not a single word about Urban vs Rural..since you have no rebuttal.

You're not really very good at this, you know., Your lock-step friends will feed you lots of 'winners'--but anyone with a brain...just laughs and moves on.

No, people are laughing at you and your constant refusal to look at any stat while you bleat out the left's anti-NRA talking points. Until you are declared to be mentally unfit or are arrested you ARE considered a normal citizen with all the rights guaranteed to one. So that statement of yours is pure garbage. Your fixation on ignoring all other causes of violent crime is telling. See, you really don't have an argument since you REFUSE (like all people like you) to answer the question of if you are more or less likely to attempt an armed robbery if your intended victim may very well be armed as well. Urban, rural, same situation. Now how do you want your crow prepared?

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Population...and rural vs urban settings.

Idaho is also Constitutional carry..and I support this. But your stats have nothing to do with guns..or how they are regulated. IMO.

I bet you think that if large urban areas had Constitutional Carry--violent crime would go down?

I doubt it....but carry on... my lil one trick pony!

Nice try.....but no....

The anti-gun argument has never been....More guns = more gun crime but only in large populations.

The anti-gun argument is More guns = More gun crime, regardless of any other factor including population size....so....even with small populations, according to you anti-gunners, their gun crime rates should be amazingly high....but nice try.

Dipstick.....normal people carrying guns for self defense do not increase the gun crime rate...because they do not use their guns for crime....are you really this dumb? So whether they have to get permits or not, they are not going to drive up the gun crime rate, you simpleton......

Actually...i don't conform to some pre-packaged narrative--such as you do.

Normal people carrying guns, eh? Of course, abnormal people would have the same protections, right? Not that it matters to me..as the cause of crime..and violent crime..has little to do with the availability of weapons anyway. Or the lack there-of. It is our culture.

Your position is a great big NRA boondoggle. As I said, I support Constitutional Carry--but I doubt that the crime stats would be affected one way or the other..with or without CC.

Rural vs Urban--now there is where the rubber meets the road as far as the prime causation for violent crime. Not armed vs not-armed.

Of course, abnormal people would have the same protections, right?


No, moron. Are you really this stupid? If you break the law with a gun, you get arrested...till then, you are a normal citizen with the Rights of a normal citizen...

No, moron, the cause of violent crime is fatherless homes.....prisons are filled with the destruction of the welfare state, allowing single teenage girls to have children from multiple males without a father in the home....

It is quite interesting..how you just flit from one talking point to the other.

I'm amused by your logic that says as long as you don't get caught..you're a "normal citizen"..ROTFLMAO!

You're last paragraph is pure garbage. You take one stat..well..putative stat..since you don't back it up...and tell me that it is the prime cause of violent crime? Stupid!!

I note with amusement that you really don't rebut anything I say..you just pick some small snippet and go on about that. Not a single word about Urban vs Rural..since you have no rebuttal.

You're not really very good at this, you know., Your lock-step friends will feed you lots of 'winners'--but anyone with a brain...just laughs and moves on.

No, people are laughing at you and your constant refusal to look at any stat while you bleat out the left's anti-NRA talking points. Until you are declared to be mentally unfit or are arrested you ARE considered a normal citizen with all the rights guaranteed to one. So that statement of yours is pure garbage. Your fixation on ignoring all other causes of violent crime is telling. See, you really don't have an argument since you REFUSE (like all people like you) to answer the question of if you are more or less likely to attempt an armed robbery if your intended victim may very well be armed as well. Urban, rural, same situation. Now how do you want your crow prepared?

Read much? Or just a comprehension issue>I challenge you to quote one of my posts in its entirety that that qualifies as, 'left anti-NRA talking points"..I admit to some curiosity. Not very cognizant with the left..except as I read them here.

Urban/rural..same situation/ Not really at all. most criminals are not clear thinking to begin with..so the odds of a weapon being, or not being, in the house...probably provides zero disincentive. If anything..a gun has value..and is a target for theft. So, asked and answered. Stats...can be such liars, right? The fact that 3 of the smallest states..with a rural population..have a low crime rate is easily explainable without resorting to presenting CC as the cause.

Ignoring what stats again? Not really seeing any that stand out. 3 States with CC..but easily explainable reasons for said stats that have nothing to do with CC.

My fixation of ignoring the other causes of violent crime? Huh..the entire thrust of my argument is those 'other causes' instead of an ingenuous stat about CC. Demographics---poverty followed closely by overcrowding--along with our culture in general--is where I tend to point my finger.

Ahh..unless you mean my ignoring the 'family with no fathers' argument. It's a factor..but not, as Doofus presented it...the main cause. So you can blow that out your ass as well.

To sum up...small words...I'm in favor of the 2nd. I also believe in reasonable control. The SCOTUS agrees with me.

Demographics have more to do with crime and/or its absence than Guns. One of the most telling stats about crime has to do with Rural vs Urban---Constitutional Carry has little to no effect on crime rates.



Until you can put up a nuanced argument supporting your position...You're going to get laughed at..Just sayin'...

 

[Ernie S.]

What states are non-constitutional carry states???

http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/constitutional-carry-states/

Constitutional Carry States 2019
In the United States, the phrase “constitutional carry” means that someone can carry a handgun without a license or permit. The term was derived from the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which gives citizens the right to bear arms.

Few states have constitutional carry laws. As of 2018, the states that permit constitution carry are:

• Alaska
• Arizona
• Arkansas
• Idaho
• Kansas
• Maine
• Mississippi
• Missouri
• New Hampshire
• North Dakota
• Vermont
• West Virginia
• Wyoming

In these states, any person that is of legal age and is not otherwise prohibited from carrying a firearm can do so without a permit. In the states of Idaho, North Dakota, and Wyoming, permitless carry is only allowed for residents. All non-residents must have a permit to carry a concealed handgun. Concealed and open carry do not require a permit for any of the states mentioned above except North Dakota and some localities in the state of Missouri.

Some U.S. states have a limited form of concealed carry without a permit. These states are as follows:

• Illinois
• Montana
• New Mexico
• Oklahoma

Alabama is an open carry state but you need a permit for concealed carry. The permit process takes 5 minutes. I rarely carry open, though I do tuck in my shirt when I'm counting up at closing time. I own a bar.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

What states are non-constitutional carry states???

http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/constitutional-carry-states/

Constitutional Carry States 2019
In the United States, the phrase “constitutional carry” means that someone can carry a handgun without a license or permit. The term was derived from the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which gives citizens the right to bear arms.

Few states have constitutional carry laws. As of 2018, the states that permit constitution carry are:

• Alaska
• Arizona
• Arkansas
• Idaho
• Kansas
• Maine
• Mississippi
• Missouri
• New Hampshire
• North Dakota
• Vermont
• West Virginia
• Wyoming

In these states, any person that is of legal age and is not otherwise prohibited from carrying a firearm can do so without a permit. In the states of Idaho, North Dakota, and Wyoming, permitless carry is only allowed for residents. All non-residents must have a permit to carry a concealed handgun. Concealed and open carry do not require a permit for any of the states mentioned above except North Dakota and some localities in the state of Missouri.

Some U.S. states have a limited form of concealed carry without a permit. These states are as follows:

• Illinois
• Montana
• New Mexico
• Oklahoma

Alabama is an open carry state but you need a permit for concealed carry. The permit process takes 5 minutes. I rarely carry open, though I do tuck in my shirt when I'm counting up at closing time. I own a bar.

Idaho was that way until 2 years ago. Now it's permit less concealed..for state residents. Travelers must have Permit.

 

[lantern2814]

Nice try.....but no....

The anti-gun argument has never been....More guns = more gun crime but only in large populations.

The anti-gun argument is More guns = More gun crime, regardless of any other factor including population size....so....even with small populations, according to you anti-gunners, their gun crime rates should be amazingly high....but nice try.

Dipstick.....normal people carrying guns for self defense do not increase the gun crime rate...because they do not use their guns for crime....are you really this dumb? So whether they have to get permits or not, they are not going to drive up the gun crime rate, you simpleton......

Actually...i don't conform to some pre-packaged narrative--such as you do.

Normal people carrying guns, eh? Of course, abnormal people would have the same protections, right? Not that it matters to me..as the cause of crime..and violent crime..has little to do with the availability of weapons anyway. Or the lack there-of. It is our culture.

Your position is a great big NRA boondoggle. As I said, I support Constitutional Carry--but I doubt that the crime stats would be affected one way or the other..with or without CC.

Rural vs Urban--now there is where the rubber meets the road as far as the prime causation for violent crime. Not armed vs not-armed.

Of course, abnormal people would have the same protections, right?


No, moron. Are you really this stupid? If you break the law with a gun, you get arrested...till then, you are a normal citizen with the Rights of a normal citizen...

No, moron, the cause of violent crime is fatherless homes.....prisons are filled with the destruction of the welfare state, allowing single teenage girls to have children from multiple males without a father in the home....

It is quite interesting..how you just flit from one talking point to the other.

I'm amused by your logic that says as long as you don't get caught..you're a "normal citizen"..ROTFLMAO!

You're last paragraph is pure garbage. You take one stat..well..putative stat..since you don't back it up...and tell me that it is the prime cause of violent crime? Stupid!!

I note with amusement that you really don't rebut anything I say..you just pick some small snippet and go on about that. Not a single word about Urban vs Rural..since you have no rebuttal.

You're not really very good at this, you know., Your lock-step friends will feed you lots of 'winners'--but anyone with a brain...just laughs and moves on.

No, people are laughing at you and your constant refusal to look at any stat while you bleat out the left's anti-NRA talking points. Until you are declared to be mentally unfit or are arrested you ARE considered a normal citizen with all the rights guaranteed to one. So that statement of yours is pure garbage. Your fixation on ignoring all other causes of violent crime is telling. See, you really don't have an argument since you REFUSE (like all people like you) to answer the question of if you are more or less likely to attempt an armed robbery if your intended victim may very well be armed as well. Urban, rural, same situation. Now how do you want your crow prepared?

Read much? Or just a comprehension issue>I challenge you to quote one of my posts in its entirety that that qualifies as, 'left anti-NRA talking points"..I admit to some curiosity. Not very cognizant with the left..except as I read them here.

Urban/rural..same situation/ Not really at all. most criminals are not clear thinking to begin with..so the odds of a weapon being, or not being, in the house...probably provides zero disincentive. If anything..a gun has value..and is a target for theft. So, asked and answered. Stats...can be such liars, right? The fact that 3 of the smallest states..with a rural population..have a low crime rate is easily explainable without resorting to presenting CC as the cause.

Ignoring what stats again? Not really seeing any that stand out. 3 States with CC..but easily explainable reasons for said stats that have nothing to do with CC.

My fixation of ignoring the other causes of violent crime? Huh..the entire thrust of my argument is those 'other causes' instead of an ingenuous stat about CC. Demographics---poverty followed closely by overcrowding--along with our culture in general--is where I tend to point my finger.

Ahh..unless you mean my ignoring the 'family with no fathers' argument. It's a factor..but not, as Doofus presented it...the main cause. So you can blow that out your ass as well.

To sum up...small words...I'm in favor of the 2nd. I also believe in reasonable control. The SCOTUS agrees with me.

Demographics have more to do with crime and/or its absence than Guns. One of the most telling stats about crime has to do with Rural vs Urban---Constitutional Carry has little to no effect on crime rates.



Until you can put up a nuanced argument supporting your position...You're going to get laughed at..Just sayin'...

Keep dodging. Sorry but a robbery in a rural area is a robbery in an urban area too. Your total dodging of the question reveals all we need to know about your lack of argument. Lack of two parents is certainly a leading cause of delinquent behavior so blow your shit out your own ass moron. Keep laughing because you're too gutless to actually answer a question. You show nothing but an ability to run from a question. Laughing at a question you refuse to answer makes you gutless.

 

[rightwinger]

This is a tough one.....

States with low population densities will have low murder rates regardless of their carry laws

Cities with dense populations and large numbers of guns see high murder rates

Solution.. ...Cut down on the numbers of guns in populated areas

Except the real world doesn't follow that rule.

The real world does

They have one fifth the murder rate we do

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Global warming.

has to be!

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Actually...i don't conform to some pre-packaged narrative--such as you do.

Normal people carrying guns, eh? Of course, abnormal people would have the same protections, right? Not that it matters to me..as the cause of crime..and violent crime..has little to do with the availability of weapons anyway. Or the lack there-of. It is our culture.

Your position is a great big NRA boondoggle. As I said, I support Constitutional Carry--but I doubt that the crime stats would be affected one way or the other..with or without CC.

Rural vs Urban--now there is where the rubber meets the road as far as the prime causation for violent crime. Not armed vs not-armed.

Of course, abnormal people would have the same protections, right?


No, moron. Are you really this stupid? If you break the law with a gun, you get arrested...till then, you are a normal citizen with the Rights of a normal citizen...

No, moron, the cause of violent crime is fatherless homes.....prisons are filled with the destruction of the welfare state, allowing single teenage girls to have children from multiple males without a father in the home....

It is quite interesting..how you just flit from one talking point to the other.

I'm amused by your logic that says as long as you don't get caught..you're a "normal citizen"..ROTFLMAO!

You're last paragraph is pure garbage. You take one stat..well..putative stat..since you don't back it up...and tell me that it is the prime cause of violent crime? Stupid!!

I note with amusement that you really don't rebut anything I say..you just pick some small snippet and go on about that. Not a single word about Urban vs Rural..since you have no rebuttal.

You're not really very good at this, you know., Your lock-step friends will feed you lots of 'winners'--but anyone with a brain...just laughs and moves on.

No, people are laughing at you and your constant refusal to look at any stat while you bleat out the left's anti-NRA talking points. Until you are declared to be mentally unfit or are arrested you ARE considered a normal citizen with all the rights guaranteed to one. So that statement of yours is pure garbage. Your fixation on ignoring all other causes of violent crime is telling. See, you really don't have an argument since you REFUSE (like all people like you) to answer the question of if you are more or less likely to attempt an armed robbery if your intended victim may very well be armed as well. Urban, rural, same situation. Now how do you want your crow prepared?

Read much? Or just a comprehension issue>I challenge you to quote one of my posts in its entirety that that qualifies as, 'left anti-NRA talking points"..I admit to some curiosity. Not very cognizant with the left..except as I read them here.

Urban/rural..same situation/ Not really at all. most criminals are not clear thinking to begin with..so the odds of a weapon being, or not being, in the house...probably provides zero disincentive. If anything..a gun has value..and is a target for theft. So, asked and answered. Stats...can be such liars, right? The fact that 3 of the smallest states..with a rural population..have a low crime rate is easily explainable without resorting to presenting CC as the cause.

Ignoring what stats again? Not really seeing any that stand out. 3 States with CC..but easily explainable reasons for said stats that have nothing to do with CC.

My fixation of ignoring the other causes of violent crime? Huh..the entire thrust of my argument is those 'other causes' instead of an ingenuous stat about CC. Demographics---poverty followed closely by overcrowding--along with our culture in general--is where I tend to point my finger.

Ahh..unless you mean my ignoring the 'family with no fathers' argument. It's a factor..but not, as Doofus presented it...the main cause. So you can blow that out your ass as well.

To sum up...small words...I'm in favor of the 2nd. I also believe in reasonable control. The SCOTUS agrees with me.

Demographics have more to do with crime and/or its absence than Guns. One of the most telling stats about crime has to do with Rural vs Urban---Constitutional Carry has little to no effect on crime rates.



Until you can put up a nuanced argument supporting your position...You're going to get laughed at..Just sayin'...

Keep dodging. Sorry but a robbery in a rural area is a robbery in an urban area too. Your total dodging of the question reveals all we need to know about your lack of argument. Lack of two parents is certainly a leading cause of delinquent behavior so blow your shit out your own ass moron. Keep laughing because you're too gutless to actually answer a question. You show nothing but an ability to run from a question. Laughing at a question you refuse to answer makes you gutless.

Asked and answered: "
Urban/rural..same situation/ Not really at all. most criminals are not clear thinking to begin with..so the odds of a weapon being, or not being, in the house...probably provides zero disincentive. If anything..a gun has value..and is a target for theft. So, asked and answered. Stats...can be such liars, right? The fact that 3 of the smallest states..with a rural population..have a low crime rate is easily explainable without resorting to presenting CC as the cause."


Thus, i don't think the knowledge of a gun in the house has any bearing on the decision making process of the average robber.
You seem..very confused.

 

[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.....

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.

Wrong....what this shows....as well as the decline in gun murder, gun crime and violent crime as more Americans own and carry guns?

That normal people owning and carrying guns does not increase the crime rate or the gun crime rate...so any focus on that, which is the only place anti-gunners put their focus....is just stupid....

My idea....still the only one that will work....

support a life sentence on any criminal who uses a gun for an actual gun crime..... and 30 years if a criminal is caught in possession of a gun, even if they are not using it at that moment for crime.

This will dry up gun crime over night. Criminals will stop using guns for robberies, rapes and murders.....and those who do will be gone forever......

Criminals will also stop walking around with guns in their pants......which is the leading cause of random gang shootings in our cities. if they are stopped by police, with a gun in their pants, they are gone for 30 years...they will stop carrying those guns, and random gang violence will end.

You implement this with two other things...

1) No More Bargaining Away the Gun Charge.........it must be against the law to bargain away a gun charge as part of a plea deal....this stops.

2) When a criminal is arrested for any crime, and booked in...they will be read the announcement that any use of a crime is a life sentence without parole, owning or carrying a gun as a felon is a 30 year sentence without parole....when they are released from custody...the same will be read to them again....when they meet their parole officer it will be read to them again.....the U.S. government will also buy and send out Public announcements on this policy on t.v. radio. and cable......

That is how you stop gun crime over night.

Mass shooters are different..... but with only 93 people killed in mass public shootings in 2018, they are not the major problem in gun crime.

The value in my plan......it actually targets the individuals actually using guns to commit crimes and murder people....

It does not require new background check laws, it does not require gun licensing, licensing gun owners, gun registration, new taxes, fees or regulations on guns...

By making gun crime a life sentence, criminals will stop using guns for crime and will stop carrying guns around for protection.....

Also....a nurse, with a legal gun, driving from Pennsylvania, to New Jersey, will not be considered a gun criminal.....that will end. Criminals with a record of crime, caught with a gun will get 30 years, no deals.....and criminals who use guns for actual crime...robbing the local store, rape, robbery, murder.....life without parole...

This, of course, eliminates the need for more gun control laws...we can already do this.....
Mass shooters

1) end gun free zones

2) get the media to stop covering mass shootings like it is the Oscars.....

3) We are already seeing this...get people who know these nuts to report these nuts....

4) Make sure the police who know these nuts arrest these nuts when they have the chance so they will pop on background checks....
What does each do to stop mass shooters....

1) keeps shooters from targeting people, since they target gun free zones.

2) The media not covering it like they are the criminal oscars deters copycats...just like they stopped covering teen suicides to stop the copycat effect

3) The only way to stop mass shooters, since they commit no other crime, is for family, coworkers and neighbors to report their violent behavior....the Odessa shooter should have felonies for the crimes he was committing but they didn't report his shooting his weapon from his front porch....

4) The Parkland shooter had 33 contacts with police and numerous contacts with police at his school.....due to Obama's "Promise Program" the police never arrested him for the felonies he committed....so he didn't pop on the background check..

 

[2aguy]

Nice try.....but no....

The anti-gun argument has never been....More guns = more gun crime but only in large populations.

The anti-gun argument is More guns = More gun crime, regardless of any other factor including population size....so....even with small populations, according to you anti-gunners, their gun crime rates should be amazingly high....but nice try.

Dipstick.....normal people carrying guns for self defense do not increase the gun crime rate...because they do not use their guns for crime....are you really this dumb? So whether they have to get permits or not, they are not going to drive up the gun crime rate, you simpleton......

Actually...i don't conform to some pre-packaged narrative--such as you do.

Normal people carrying guns, eh? Of course, abnormal people would have the same protections, right? Not that it matters to me..as the cause of crime..and violent crime..has little to do with the availability of weapons anyway. Or the lack there-of. It is our culture.

Your position is a great big NRA boondoggle. As I said, I support Constitutional Carry--but I doubt that the crime stats would be affected one way or the other..with or without CC.

Rural vs Urban--now there is where the rubber meets the road as far as the prime causation for violent crime. Not armed vs not-armed.

Of course, abnormal people would have the same protections, right?


No, moron. Are you really this stupid? If you break the law with a gun, you get arrested...till then, you are a normal citizen with the Rights of a normal citizen...

No, moron, the cause of violent crime is fatherless homes.....prisons are filled with the destruction of the welfare state, allowing single teenage girls to have children from multiple males without a father in the home....

It is quite interesting..how you just flit from one talking point to the other.

I'm amused by your logic that says as long as you don't get caught..you're a "normal citizen"..ROTFLMAO!

You're last paragraph is pure garbage. You take one stat..well..putative stat..since you don't back it up...and tell me that it is the prime cause of violent crime? Stupid!!

I note with amusement that you really don't rebut anything I say..you just pick some small snippet and go on about that. Not a single word about Urban vs Rural..since you have no rebuttal.

You're not really very good at this, you know., Your lock-step friends will feed you lots of 'winners'--but anyone with a brain...just laughs and moves on.

No, people are laughing at you and your constant refusal to look at any stat while you bleat out the left's anti-NRA talking points. Until you are declared to be mentally unfit or are arrested you ARE considered a normal citizen with all the rights guaranteed to one. So that statement of yours is pure garbage. Your fixation on ignoring all other causes of violent crime is telling. See, you really don't have an argument since you REFUSE (like all people like you) to answer the question of if you are more or less likely to attempt an armed robbery if your intended victim may very well be armed as well. Urban, rural, same situation. Now how do you want your crow prepared?

Read much? Or just a comprehension issue>I challenge you to quote one of my posts in its entirety that that qualifies as, 'left anti-NRA talking points"..I admit to some curiosity. Not very cognizant with the left..except as I read them here.

Urban/rural..same situation/ Not really at all. most criminals are not clear thinking to begin with..so the odds of a weapon being, or not being, in the house...probably provides zero disincentive. If anything..a gun has value..and is a target for theft. So, asked and answered. Stats...can be such liars, right? The fact that 3 of the smallest states..with a rural population..have a low crime rate is easily explainable without resorting to presenting CC as the cause.

Ignoring what stats again? Not really seeing any that stand out. 3 States with CC..but easily explainable reasons for said stats that have nothing to do with CC.

My fixation of ignoring the other causes of violent crime? Huh..the entire thrust of my argument is those 'other causes' instead of an ingenuous stat about CC. Demographics---poverty followed closely by overcrowding--along with our culture in general--is where I tend to point my finger.

Ahh..unless you mean my ignoring the 'family with no fathers' argument. It's a factor..but not, as Doofus presented it...the main cause. So you can blow that out your ass as well.

To sum up...small words...I'm in favor of the 2nd. I also believe in reasonable control. The SCOTUS agrees with me.

Demographics have more to do with crime and/or its absence than Guns. One of the most telling stats about crime has to do with Rural vs Urban---Constitutional Carry has little to no effect on crime rates.



Until you can put up a nuanced argument supporting your position...You're going to get laughed at..Just sayin'...

Moron...you dumb shit.....Fatherless homes are the primary cause of crime and violence......the violent crime rate went down during the worst economic times in this country, the Great Depression because families were still intact.....

 

[2aguy]

This is a tough one.....

States with low population densities will have low murder rates regardless of their carry laws

Cities with dense populations and large numbers of guns see high murder rates

Solution.. ...Cut down on the numbers of guns in populated areas

Except the real world doesn't follow that rule.

The real world does

They have one fifth the murder rate we do

Yes....when you take out government murder they do......when you add in government murder of unarmed men, women and children, their murder rate dwarfs ours.......

And Britain's murder rate is higher than ours.....

U.S. vs U.K. - Crime/Murder - iGeek

• If you look at the (the blue line): Each time the UK enacted or stiffened their gun control laws, they saw an increase in murder rates. Each new law, had no positive (and some negative) impact or an increase in murder rates. (Crime trends are even worse). (In the 1950’s they outlawed conceal and carry, in the 80’s it was shotguns, and in the late 90’s it was all pistols). So regardless of whether the UK has fewer murders than the US for cultural reasons, we know that gun control didn’t help the UK’s murder rate.
• Next if you look at the (the red line): I overlaid (and adjusted) the U.S. murder rates with major gun control events. After JFK was shot, states and eventually the Fed (1968) passed all sorts of gun control laws — and what happened to our murder rates? They doubled from around 5 to 10 per 100K over the next decade, and they hovered there, despite all sorts of state and federal revisions, or more laws (30,000 different state/local/federal gun control laws were passed in total). There was no significant positive effects, and some observable negative ones in the U.S. due to our gun control laws.
• Then in the late 80’s Florida passed “Must Issue” conceal and carry and castle doctrine laws were passed, and their crime/murder rates started falling noticeably. Many other states (in the South and Midwest) followed suit, with the same effects in their state murder rates, and eventually enough of those added up to start impacting the federal murder rates noticeably. Then the federal assault weapon ban expired — and if gun control worked, you’d expect an upward spike in murders, but murders trended down. Adding gun control had no positive effects, and removing them had no significant negative effects, in the U.S.!. So if you have the choice of tyranny or liberty, and there's no benefit to tyranny: opt for liberty.
• -----

Something important to know is that the U.K. ONS distorts their numbers for political reasons. While the rest of the world measures murder rates as people who are killed, the ONS does two things to cheat:

1. They exclude Scotland and North Ireland from their counting: I guess when they are murdered, it isn’t as important to ONS as if Britons die. While that is only about 10% of the total population of the UK, it is significantly more of their crimes and murders.
2. They only count murders where someone is charged with a crime. (Only between 1/2 and 3/4ths of all murders are counted).
3. ----
4. n the U.S. Blacks are 1/7th the population, but over 1/2 of all our murders, and Latino’s are about the same 15% of the population and are responsible for over half the rest of murders.England has virtually no blacks or latino’s (<3%). So if we correct for those demographic differences (or just compare a subset — the U.S.’s white murder rate to the UK’s white murder rate), we find that in the bright red trend line, that the U.S. has a lower murder rate than the U.K.
   
   Racist:Now around this time, people that can’t handle the facts or truth, start trying to distract by claiming either I’m racist, or this data is racist. But data is not making judgements, it’s just facts.
   
   The problem isn’t racial in America, but it is cultural.
   
   
   Black immigrants don’t have the same murder rates as Black Americans.
   
   
   And if you dive into the groups, you find rural blacks (and whites and latinos) have lower murder rates than inner cities. It’s also not income or income equality based since rural poor have lower murder rates than urban poor -- and many richer countries have more murders/crime than many poorer ones. It's about failures of the inner city gang culture.
   
   So facts are facts. In the U.S. we have a lower white murder rate (but higher black murder rate) than the U.K.
   
   
   And white’s in America have higher gun ownership rates than blacks (or than whites in the U.K.) — so we know that gun control doesn’t help murder rates for whites. At least across these two countries.
   
   And the reason for differences among blacks in the two countries is easily explained by gang culture in the U.S.

Conclusion
Anyone vaguely informed on gun control issues knows is that the U.S. does not have a gun problem.

• Whites and Asian are highly responsible with guns, and have a lower murder rate than almost all of Europe and the OECD countries. We have a very specific problem: democrats, blacks and latino gang-members drag our murder and crime rates averages up.
• The UK has a higher white murder rate, but they use clubs and knives rather than guns. Since I’m pretty sure most people don’t want to be stabbed or beaten to death, the important factor is whether you’re murdered or not (not the tool the murderer uses), right?

Another thing gun-controller advocates either don’t realize (or do, and lie about) is as bad as the U.S. is at murders or violent crime -- the UK is worse despite their gun control. England alone has something like 600 murdersby knife per year (and 26,370 knife crimes). Compare that to only 1,500 for the U.S., with over 5 times the population. Home invasion robberies, aggravated assault, violent rape, and stabbings are worse in the UK than in the U.S. And that's BEFORE you correct for race and gang crimes.

 

[elongobardi]

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.

Liberals are too brainwashed to look at the facts. All the highest murder rates are run by Democrats and have strict gun laws. Go figure


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Actually...i don't conform to some pre-packaged narrative--such as you do.

Normal people carrying guns, eh? Of course, abnormal people would have the same protections, right? Not that it matters to me..as the cause of crime..and violent crime..has little to do with the availability of weapons anyway. Or the lack there-of. It is our culture.

Your position is a great big NRA boondoggle. As I said, I support Constitutional Carry--but I doubt that the crime stats would be affected one way or the other..with or without CC.

Rural vs Urban--now there is where the rubber meets the road as far as the prime causation for violent crime. Not armed vs not-armed.

Of course, abnormal people would have the same protections, right?


No, moron. Are you really this stupid? If you break the law with a gun, you get arrested...till then, you are a normal citizen with the Rights of a normal citizen...

No, moron, the cause of violent crime is fatherless homes.....prisons are filled with the destruction of the welfare state, allowing single teenage girls to have children from multiple males without a father in the home....

It is quite interesting..how you just flit from one talking point to the other.

I'm amused by your logic that says as long as you don't get caught..you're a "normal citizen"..ROTFLMAO!

You're last paragraph is pure garbage. You take one stat..well..putative stat..since you don't back it up...and tell me that it is the prime cause of violent crime? Stupid!!

I note with amusement that you really don't rebut anything I say..you just pick some small snippet and go on about that. Not a single word about Urban vs Rural..since you have no rebuttal.

You're not really very good at this, you know., Your lock-step friends will feed you lots of 'winners'--but anyone with a brain...just laughs and moves on.

No, people are laughing at you and your constant refusal to look at any stat while you bleat out the left's anti-NRA talking points. Until you are declared to be mentally unfit or are arrested you ARE considered a normal citizen with all the rights guaranteed to one. So that statement of yours is pure garbage. Your fixation on ignoring all other causes of violent crime is telling. See, you really don't have an argument since you REFUSE (like all people like you) to answer the question of if you are more or less likely to attempt an armed robbery if your intended victim may very well be armed as well. Urban, rural, same situation. Now how do you want your crow prepared?

Read much? Or just a comprehension issue>I challenge you to quote one of my posts in its entirety that that qualifies as, 'left anti-NRA talking points"..I admit to some curiosity. Not very cognizant with the left..except as I read them here.

Urban/rural..same situation/ Not really at all. most criminals are not clear thinking to begin with..so the odds of a weapon being, or not being, in the house...probably provides zero disincentive. If anything..a gun has value..and is a target for theft. So, asked and answered. Stats...can be such liars, right? The fact that 3 of the smallest states..with a rural population..have a low crime rate is easily explainable without resorting to presenting CC as the cause.

Ignoring what stats again? Not really seeing any that stand out. 3 States with CC..but easily explainable reasons for said stats that have nothing to do with CC.

My fixation of ignoring the other causes of violent crime? Huh..the entire thrust of my argument is those 'other causes' instead of an ingenuous stat about CC. Demographics---poverty followed closely by overcrowding--along with our culture in general--is where I tend to point my finger.

Ahh..unless you mean my ignoring the 'family with no fathers' argument. It's a factor..but not, as Doofus presented it...the main cause. So you can blow that out your ass as well.

To sum up...small words...I'm in favor of the 2nd. I also believe in reasonable control. The SCOTUS agrees with me.

Demographics have more to do with crime and/or its absence than Guns. One of the most telling stats about crime has to do with Rural vs Urban---Constitutional Carry has little to no effect on crime rates.



Until you can put up a nuanced argument supporting your position...You're going to get laughed at..Just sayin'...

Moron...you dumb shit.....Fatherless homes are the primary cause of crime and violence......the violent crime rate went down during the worst economic times in this country, the Great Depression because families were still intact.....

Nope..but thanks for playing.

Poverty is the #1 precursor of crime..especially violent crime. Fatherless households....children of single parent families in general...are more likely to break the law and get caught.

As for comparing the crime rate of the present..with the crime rate of the Depression..is a bit ingenuous.
The crime rate..especially the rise of organized crime..does not bear out your assertion. If our laws..today..were in force in 1932....the prisons would have exploded!

Missing parents is hard.....but quite a few do seem to get over it.

 

[2aguy]

Of course, abnormal people would have the same protections, right?


No, moron. Are you really this stupid? If you break the law with a gun, you get arrested...till then, you are a normal citizen with the Rights of a normal citizen...

No, moron, the cause of violent crime is fatherless homes.....prisons are filled with the destruction of the welfare state, allowing single teenage girls to have children from multiple males without a father in the home....

It is quite interesting..how you just flit from one talking point to the other.

I'm amused by your logic that says as long as you don't get caught..you're a "normal citizen"..ROTFLMAO!

You're last paragraph is pure garbage. You take one stat..well..putative stat..since you don't back it up...and tell me that it is the prime cause of violent crime? Stupid!!

I note with amusement that you really don't rebut anything I say..you just pick some small snippet and go on about that. Not a single word about Urban vs Rural..since you have no rebuttal.

You're not really very good at this, you know., Your lock-step friends will feed you lots of 'winners'--but anyone with a brain...just laughs and moves on.

No, people are laughing at you and your constant refusal to look at any stat while you bleat out the left's anti-NRA talking points. Until you are declared to be mentally unfit or are arrested you ARE considered a normal citizen with all the rights guaranteed to one. So that statement of yours is pure garbage. Your fixation on ignoring all other causes of violent crime is telling. See, you really don't have an argument since you REFUSE (like all people like you) to answer the question of if you are more or less likely to attempt an armed robbery if your intended victim may very well be armed as well. Urban, rural, same situation. Now how do you want your crow prepared?

Read much? Or just a comprehension issue>I challenge you to quote one of my posts in its entirety that that qualifies as, 'left anti-NRA talking points"..I admit to some curiosity. Not very cognizant with the left..except as I read them here.

Urban/rural..same situation/ Not really at all. most criminals are not clear thinking to begin with..so the odds of a weapon being, or not being, in the house...probably provides zero disincentive. If anything..a gun has value..and is a target for theft. So, asked and answered. Stats...can be such liars, right? The fact that 3 of the smallest states..with a rural population..have a low crime rate is easily explainable without resorting to presenting CC as the cause.

Ignoring what stats again? Not really seeing any that stand out. 3 States with CC..but easily explainable reasons for said stats that have nothing to do with CC.

My fixation of ignoring the other causes of violent crime? Huh..the entire thrust of my argument is those 'other causes' instead of an ingenuous stat about CC. Demographics---poverty followed closely by overcrowding--along with our culture in general--is where I tend to point my finger.

Ahh..unless you mean my ignoring the 'family with no fathers' argument. It's a factor..but not, as Doofus presented it...the main cause. So you can blow that out your ass as well.

To sum up...small words...I'm in favor of the 2nd. I also believe in reasonable control. The SCOTUS agrees with me.

Demographics have more to do with crime and/or its absence than Guns. One of the most telling stats about crime has to do with Rural vs Urban---Constitutional Carry has little to no effect on crime rates.



Until you can put up a nuanced argument supporting your position...You're going to get laughed at..Just sayin'...

Moron...you dumb shit.....Fatherless homes are the primary cause of crime and violence......the violent crime rate went down during the worst economic times in this country, the Great Depression because families were still intact.....

Nope..but thanks for playing.

Poverty is the #1 precursor of crime..especially violent crime. Fatherless households....children of single parent families in general...are more likely to break the law and get caught.

As for comparing the crime rate of the present..with the crime rate of the Depression..is a bit ingenuous.
The crime rate..especially the rise of organized crime..does not bear out your assertion. If our laws..today..were in force in 1932....the prisons would have exploded!

Missing parents is hard.....but quite a few do seem to get over it.

Wrong.....we had massive poverty in the depression but the crime rate went down. When you have intact families they control their children and they are less likely to turn to crime.

Organized crime isn't the same as the crime we are talking about.... and no, quite a few don't get over missing a parent. Prisons are filled with fatherless inmates. Fatherless daughters have children on welfare, and they raise their young males into sociopaths.....

Father-Absent Homes: Implications for Criminal Justice and Mental Health Professionals

ADVERSE OUTCOME 5: Criminal Justice Involvement

Family structure and the lack of paternal involvement are predictive of juvenile delinquency. The more opportunities a child has to interact with his or her biological father, the less likely he or she is to commit a crime or have contact with the juvenile justice system (Coley and Medeiros, 2007). In a study of female inmates, more than half came from a father-absent home (Snell, Tracy, & Morton, 1991). Youths who never had a father living with them have the highest incarceration rates (Hill, O’Neill, 1993), while youths in father-only households display no difference in the rate of incarceration from that of children coming from two-parent households (Harper and McLanahan, 2004). In addition, children who come from father-absent homes are at a greater risk for using illicit substances at a younger age (Bronte-Tinkew, Jacinta, Moore, Capps, & Zaff, 2004). The absence of a father in a child’s life may also increase the odds of his or her associating with delinquent peers (Steinberg, 1987).

 

[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?

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

So let's repeal the 4th amendment

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[lantern2814]

Of course, abnormal people would have the same protections, right?


No, moron. Are you really this stupid? If you break the law with a gun, you get arrested...till then, you are a normal citizen with the Rights of a normal citizen...

No, moron, the cause of violent crime is fatherless homes.....prisons are filled with the destruction of the welfare state, allowing single teenage girls to have children from multiple males without a father in the home....

It is quite interesting..how you just flit from one talking point to the other.

I'm amused by your logic that says as long as you don't get caught..you're a "normal citizen"..ROTFLMAO!

You're last paragraph is pure garbage. You take one stat..well..putative stat..since you don't back it up...and tell me that it is the prime cause of violent crime? Stupid!!

I note with amusement that you really don't rebut anything I say..you just pick some small snippet and go on about that. Not a single word about Urban vs Rural..since you have no rebuttal.

You're not really very good at this, you know., Your lock-step friends will feed you lots of 'winners'--but anyone with a brain...just laughs and moves on.

No, people are laughing at you and your constant refusal to look at any stat while you bleat out the left's anti-NRA talking points. Until you are declared to be mentally unfit or are arrested you ARE considered a normal citizen with all the rights guaranteed to one. So that statement of yours is pure garbage. Your fixation on ignoring all other causes of violent crime is telling. See, you really don't have an argument since you REFUSE (like all people like you) to answer the question of if you are more or less likely to attempt an armed robbery if your intended victim may very well be armed as well. Urban, rural, same situation. Now how do you want your crow prepared?

Read much? Or just a comprehension issue>I challenge you to quote one of my posts in its entirety that that qualifies as, 'left anti-NRA talking points"..I admit to some curiosity. Not very cognizant with the left..except as I read them here.

Urban/rural..same situation/ Not really at all. most criminals are not clear thinking to begin with..so the odds of a weapon being, or not being, in the house...probably provides zero disincentive. If anything..a gun has value..and is a target for theft. So, asked and answered. Stats...can be such liars, right? The fact that 3 of the smallest states..with a rural population..have a low crime rate is easily explainable without resorting to presenting CC as the cause.

Ignoring what stats again? Not really seeing any that stand out. 3 States with CC..but easily explainable reasons for said stats that have nothing to do with CC.

My fixation of ignoring the other causes of violent crime? Huh..the entire thrust of my argument is those 'other causes' instead of an ingenuous stat about CC. Demographics---poverty followed closely by overcrowding--along with our culture in general--is where I tend to point my finger.

Ahh..unless you mean my ignoring the 'family with no fathers' argument. It's a factor..but not, as Doofus presented it...the main cause. So you can blow that out your ass as well.

To sum up...small words...I'm in favor of the 2nd. I also believe in reasonable control. The SCOTUS agrees with me.

Demographics have more to do with crime and/or its absence than Guns. One of the most telling stats about crime has to do with Rural vs Urban---Constitutional Carry has little to no effect on crime rates.



Until you can put up a nuanced argument supporting your position...You're going to get laughed at..Just sayin'...

Keep dodging. Sorry but a robbery in a rural area is a robbery in an urban area too. Your total dodging of the question reveals all we need to know about your lack of argument. Lack of two parents is certainly a leading cause of delinquent behavior so blow your shit out your own ass moron. Keep laughing because you're too gutless to actually answer a question. You show nothing but an ability to run from a question. Laughing at a question you refuse to answer makes you gutless.

Asked and answered: "
Urban/rural..same situation/ Not really at all. most criminals are not clear thinking to begin with..so the odds of a weapon being, or not being, in the house...probably provides zero disincentive. If anything..a gun has value..and is a target for theft. So, asked and answered. Stats...can be such liars, right? The fact that 3 of the smallest states..with a rural population..have a low crime rate is easily explainable without resorting to presenting CC as the cause."


Thus, i don't think the knowledge of a gun in the house has any bearing on the decision making process of the average robber.
You seem..very confused.

Damn you truly are a complete idiot aren't you? See, apparently unlike you, even most criminals have a thing about self-preservation. Breaking into a home where you KNOW the owner has a gun means a lot greater possibility of you getting hurt or killed. That's why most criminals case the area ahead of time. Research. You really need to stop just bleating out anti-NRA talking points. By the way, Daniel Patrick Moynihan predicted the problems coming from the breakdown of the family unit (that means having two parents, not one)years ago. Turns out he was a prophet in that area.

 

[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.

Wrong....what this shows....as well as the decline in gun murder, gun crime and violent crime as more Americans own and carry guns?

That normal people owning and carrying guns does not increase the crime rate or the gun crime rate...so any focus on that, which is the only place anti-gunners put their focus....is just stupid....

My idea....still the only one that will work....

support a life sentence on any criminal who uses a gun for an actual gun crime..... and 30 years if a criminal is caught in possession of a gun, even if they are not using it at that moment for crime.

This will dry up gun crime over night. Criminals will stop using guns for robberies, rapes and murders.....and those who do will be gone forever......

Criminals will also stop walking around with guns in their pants......which is the leading cause of random gang shootings in our cities. if they are stopped by police, with a gun in their pants, they are gone for 30 years...they will stop carrying those guns, and random gang violence will end.

You implement this with two other things...

1) No More Bargaining Away the Gun Charge.........it must be against the law to bargain away a gun charge as part of a plea deal....this stops.

2) When a criminal is arrested for any crime, and booked in...they will be read the announcement that any use of a crime is a life sentence without parole, owning or carrying a gun as a felon is a 30 year sentence without parole....when they are released from custody...the same will be read to them again....when they meet their parole officer it will be read to them again.....the U.S. government will also buy and send out Public announcements on this policy on t.v. radio. and cable......

That is how you stop gun crime over night.

Mass shooters are different..... but with only 93 people killed in mass public shootings in 2018, they are not the major problem in gun crime.

The value in my plan......it actually targets the individuals actually using guns to commit crimes and murder people....

It does not require new background check laws, it does not require gun licensing, licensing gun owners, gun registration, new taxes, fees or regulations on guns...

By making gun crime a life sentence, criminals will stop using guns for crime and will stop carrying guns around for protection.....

Also....a nurse, with a legal gun, driving from Pennsylvania, to New Jersey, will not be considered a gun criminal.....that will end. Criminals with a record of crime, caught with a gun will get 30 years, no deals.....and criminals who use guns for actual crime...robbing the local store, rape, robbery, murder.....life without parole...

This, of course, eliminates the need for more gun control laws...we can already do this.....
Mass shooters

1) end gun free zones

2) get the media to stop covering mass shootings like it is the Oscars.....

3) We are already seeing this...get people who know these nuts to report these nuts....

4) Make sure the police who know these nuts arrest these nuts when they have the chance so they will pop on background checks....
What does each do to stop mass shooters....

1) keeps shooters from targeting people, since they target gun free zones.

2) The media not covering it like they are the criminal oscars deters copycats...just like they stopped covering teen suicides to stop the copycat effect

3) The only way to stop mass shooters, since they commit no other crime, is for family, coworkers and neighbors to report their violent behavior....the Odessa shooter should have felonies for the crimes he was committing but they didn't report his shooting his weapon from his front porch....

4) The Parkland shooter had 33 contacts with police and numerous contacts with police at his school.....due to Obama's "Promise Program" the police never arrested him for the felonies he committed....so he didn't pop on the background check..

More Americans don't own guns. In the 1950's, half of American households had a gun. Now it is one third of households. They just own MORE guns than they used to.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

Wrong....what this shows....as well as the decline in gun murder, gun crime and violent crime as more Americans own and carry guns?

That normal people owning and carrying guns does not increase the crime rate or the gun crime rate...so any focus on that, which is the only place anti-gunners put their focus....is just stupid....

My idea....still the only one that will work....

support a life sentence on any criminal who uses a gun for an actual gun crime..... and 30 years if a criminal is caught in possession of a gun, even if they are not using it at that moment for crime.

This will dry up gun crime over night. Criminals will stop using guns for robberies, rapes and murders.....and those who do will be gone forever......

Criminals will also stop walking around with guns in their pants......which is the leading cause of random gang shootings in our cities. if they are stopped by police, with a gun in their pants, they are gone for 30 years...they will stop carrying those guns, and random gang violence will end.

You implement this with two other things...

1) No More Bargaining Away the Gun Charge.........it must be against the law to bargain away a gun charge as part of a plea deal....this stops.

2) When a criminal is arrested for any crime, and booked in...they will be read the announcement that any use of a crime is a life sentence without parole, owning or carrying a gun as a felon is a 30 year sentence without parole....when they are released from custody...the same will be read to them again....when they meet their parole officer it will be read to them again.....the U.S. government will also buy and send out Public announcements on this policy on t.v. radio. and cable......

That is how you stop gun crime over night.

Mass shooters are different..... but with only 93 people killed in mass public shootings in 2018, they are not the major problem in gun crime.

The value in my plan......it actually targets the individuals actually using guns to commit crimes and murder people....

It does not require new background check laws, it does not require gun licensing, licensing gun owners, gun registration, new taxes, fees or regulations on guns...

By making gun crime a life sentence, criminals will stop using guns for crime and will stop carrying guns around for protection.....

Also....a nurse, with a legal gun, driving from Pennsylvania, to New Jersey, will not be considered a gun criminal.....that will end. Criminals with a record of crime, caught with a gun will get 30 years, no deals.....and criminals who use guns for actual crime...robbing the local store, rape, robbery, murder.....life without parole...

This, of course, eliminates the need for more gun control laws...we can already do this.....
Mass shooters

1) end gun free zones

2) get the media to stop covering mass shootings like it is the Oscars.....

3) We are already seeing this...get people who know these nuts to report these nuts....

4) Make sure the police who know these nuts arrest these nuts when they have the chance so they will pop on background checks....
What does each do to stop mass shooters....

1) keeps shooters from targeting people, since they target gun free zones.

2) The media not covering it like they are the criminal oscars deters copycats...just like they stopped covering teen suicides to stop the copycat effect

3) The only way to stop mass shooters, since they commit no other crime, is for family, coworkers and neighbors to report their violent behavior....the Odessa shooter should have felonies for the crimes he was committing but they didn't report his shooting his weapon from his front porch....

4) The Parkland shooter had 33 contacts with police and numerous contacts with police at his school.....due to Obama's "Promise Program" the police never arrested him for the felonies he committed....so he didn't pop on the background check..

More Americans don't own guns. In the 1950's, half of American households had a gun. Now it is one third of households. They just own MORE guns than they used to.

So what?

 

[M14 Shooter]

More Americans don't own guns. In the 1950's, half of American households had a gun. Now it is one third of households. They just own MORE guns than they used to.

So... more guns do -not- lead to more gun-related crime.
Thank you

 

[OldLady]

More Americans don't own guns. In the 1950's, half of American households had a gun. Now it is one third of households. They just own MORE guns than they used to.

So... more guns do -not- lead to more gun-related crime.
Thank you

There are a couple reasons the gun homicide rate has dropped. First, much improved trauma medicine for saving shooting victims. Second, less households have a lethal weapon designed to kill people sitting in their closet waiting to be used to kill someone.