Leftists Now Clamoring To Get Guns And Finding Out It's Not That Easy

[miketx]

"First came the panic buying of hand sanitizer. Then, people panic bought toilet paper. Now, food shelves are emptying and firearm and ammunition sales are through the roof. The COVID19 outbreak might be bad for the stock market, but it’s certainly been a boon for very specific sectors of the economy. The gun industry, used to such boom/bust cycles, knows how to respond – but other sectors might not be so acclimated.

Here at Omaha Outdoors, we’ve been inundated with inquiries from out-of-state folks – many from California – asking if we can ship them a gun directly. The answer is, of course, no. Despite what politicians and many in popular media claim, you can’t buy a gun online and have it shipped to your house. Well, you could, if you were a federally licensed firearm dealer (or federally licensed curio and relic collector) and your home was your place of business. Other than that, no, you can’t buy a gun online and have it shipped, especially across state lines, to your home."

A Lot of People Are Finding Out You Can’t Just Buy a Gun Online - Omaha Outdoors

---------------------

I never tire of proving these anti-gun idiots wrong.

OMG! A person has to have the gun shipped to his local licensed dealer, then he has to go over there, and endure a 3 minute background check! Oh, the HORROR!

So why do you loons keep saying we need background checks if we already have them? lol, liar.

 

[2aguy]

BOOM goes the dynamite!

Still waiting for someone to claim that they had their home invaded...

Still waiting for you to tell us why you have homeowners insurance.

Because you can prepare for some of the problems that life throws at you, but you can't prepare for ALL of them. The coronavirus, for example. I didn't have insurance for that.

So it's totally fine to have homeowners insurance because your house MIGHT burn down, but the same logic does not apply to being armed in case of a home invasion?

The gun grabbing libs are not displaying any logic

When do they ever use logic, facts, reality or truth to justify their insanity?

 

[Mac-7]

Still waiting for someone to claim that they had their home invaded...

Still waiting for you to tell us why you have homeowners insurance.

Because you can prepare for some of the problems that life throws at you, but you can't prepare for ALL of them. The coronavirus, for example. I didn't have insurance for that.

So it's totally fine to have homeowners insurance because your house MIGHT burn down, but the same logic does not apply to being armed in case of a home invasion?

The gun grabbing libs are not displaying any logic

When do they ever use logic, facts, reality or truth to justify their insanity?

Most liberals do not think

they emote

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

In reply to "2aguy":

I actually can agree with most of your comment #217 above. But I really disagree with your tag line, because it politicizes defense of the 2nd Amendment in a way I think unnecessarily partisan.

I was a member of the IRA myself until the mid-1970s when it got taken over by rightwingers who made the IRA practically an arm of Republican populists. IMO the content is also completely illogical. You write:

"Any vote for any democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment.
18.6 million Americans carry guns. Gun murder in U.S. down 49% since 1990s.
18.6 million Americans carry guns. Gun crime in U.S. down 75% since 1990s.
18.6 million Americans carry guns. Violent crime down 72% since the 1990s."

But there were plenty of guns in the U.S. before the 1990s and no reason whatever to associate the decline in violent crime since then to the number of guns existing today.

Indeed, it would probably make a bit more sense to argue that it was the spread of family planning and abortion since Roe vs. Wade that led to fewer unwanted children growing up abused and turning to violent crime.

Of course there is also a rural / big city contrast here worth noting, historically observable at least from early in the 19th century. "Decline in violent crime," like "rise in violent crime" is a complex social issue in any society, with many causes, as is the rate of incarceration -- where we are indubitably the world's leader.

 

[M14 Shooter]

A Lot of People Are Finding Out You Can’t Just Buy a Gun Online - Omaha Outdoors
---------------------
I never tire of proving these anti-gun idiots wrong.

Those of us not wholly ignorant of firearms already knew this.
Funny how the people from California - the land of the anti-gun loon's wet dreams - are looking to buy firearms.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wrong again.
I bought a Brno Model 1 online – no 4473, no background check, no waiting period.
The seller and I agreed to the sale on a firearm message board. I met the seller in a hotel parking lot, we verified we were residents of the same state, I paid the agreed price, and took the rifle home.
So yes, one can just buy firearms online.

You didn't buy the gun on-line, dipshit - you bought it FtF.
Why do you need to lie to make a point?

 

[M14 Shooter]

UBCs are perfectly appropriate, warranted, and Constitutional – in no manner violating the Second Amendment, placing no undue burden on the right to possess firearms.

This is a lie.

UBCs will help keep guns out of the hands of prohibited persons;

This is also a lie.

But UBCs will serve to reduce gun crime and violence.

Thsi is -also- a lie.

Why do you need ti lie to make a point?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I've never owned a gun, nor have I wanted to. And yet, I have survived for nearly 70 years somehow.

Well then - we -clearly- do not need further restrictions placed on the right to keep and bear arms.
Eh?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your civil right to self defense ends at my right to live.

Correction:
Your right to live ends when my right to self-defense kicks in.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Here's what the 2nd Amendment says:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It says, "to keep and bear arms." It doesn't say that you can have ANY kind of arms; it says that you can keep and bear arms.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

You can have a rifle, or maybe even a handgun.

And every other 'bearable arm' - those in common use for traditionally lawful purposes.

It doesn't give you the right to own a machine gun or a bazooka.

The constitution does not grant rights, period.

 

[westwall]

If an honest citizen owns more guns only criminals are less safe

if you want gun crimes to go down put gang bangers in jail and throw away the key

Every murderer who ever lived was once a law abiding citizen.

But every gun owner is not a future murderer

..but every murderer was once a law abiding citizen, including the asshole in Vegas who killed over 60 innocent random people, with an arsenal that was so far beyond the pale of what anyone needs for self defense, that there was absolutely no rational justification of his being allowed to own it.

but every murderer was once a law abiding citizen

You’ve already said that

...and, quite simply, the blood of these kids are on your hands.

Emotional arguments are the tactics of weakness. The blood of children is on the hands of their killers, and no one else.

Unless you wish to claim credit for gun free zones where these monsters do their horrible deeds.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Flat out, false.

nope

I will wait patiently while you point out the wording in the law that requires a private seller to ask if the buyer is legally authorized to own a firearm.

Your straw grasping attempts are as pathetic as they are comical. Give it up, idiot.

I am still waiting patiently or you to show me the law that requires a seller to ask if the buyer is legally qualified to own a gun.

I am not your remedial reading teacher. Go play your juvenile semantic games with someone else.

It is odd that I have had this same discussion with other gun nuts, and it always ends up that they divert when I ask them to quote the law that requires a private seller to ask a buyer if they are legally allowed to own a gun. And, of course, if they are not required to ask, they are not knowingly selling to a convicted felon, and that makes the sale legal, which, of course, destroys their entire argument that no new background check laws are necessary..

 

[2aguy]

In reply to "2aguy":

I actually can agree with most of your comment #217 above. But I really disagree with your tag line, because it politicizes defense of the 2nd Amendment in a way I think unnecessarily partisan.

I was a member of the IRA myself until the mid-1970s when it got taken over by rightwingers who made the IRA practically an arm of Republican populists. IMO the content is also completely illogical. You write:

"Any vote for any democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment.
18.6 million Americans carry guns. Gun murder in U.S. down 49% since 1990s.
18.6 million Americans carry guns. Gun crime in U.S. down 75% since 1990s.
18.6 million Americans carry guns. Violent crime down 72% since the 1990s."

But there were plenty of guns in the U.S. before the 1990s and no reason whatever to associate the decline in violent crime since then to the number of guns existing today.

Indeed, it would probably make a bit more sense to argue that it was the spread of family planning and abortion since Roe vs. Wade that led to fewer unwanted children growing up abused and turning to violent crime.

Of course there is also a rural / big city contrast here worth noting, historically observable at least from early in the 19th century. "Decline in violent crime," like "rise in violent crime" is a complex social issue in any society, with many causes, as is the rate of incarceration -- where we are indubitably the world's leader.

One.....defense of the 2nd Amendment is intensely political and the democrat party is actively trying to end it....so pretending that one political party isn't a threat to it is just not going to productive of effective in defending it.

And you miss the point of my tag line...the single argument that the anti-gun extremists push, is that more guns = more gun crime....that is their sole argument........that no matter any other factor, the simple equation of more guns = more gun crime is true......and it isn't true as my tag line shows....

They don't know what they are talking about, and the basis of their gun control movement is not true, factual or based in the real world reality of guns in America.....

Over the last 27 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 18.6 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.

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.



Whatever the crime rate does......as more Americans owned more guns the crime rate did not go up....so again...



Britain...
More Guns = More Gun Crime
Britain had access to guns before they banned them.....they had low gun crime, low gun murder.
They banned guns, the gun murder rate spiked for 10 years then returned to the same level...
Your Theory again....
More guns = More Gun Crime
Guns Banned creates no change? That means banning guns for law abiding gun owners had no effect on gun crime.
When your theory states one thing, and you implement your theory, and nothing changes....in science, that means your theory is wrong...
-------

Maine tops ‘safest states’ rankings four years after removing major gun restriction

When Maine passed a “Constitutional Carry” law allowing Maine residents to carry a concealed firearm without any special permit in 2015, opponents of the law forecast a dangerous future for the state. They said the new law would hurt public safety and put Maine kids at risk.



One state representative who opposed the bill went so far as to say it would give Mainers a reason to be afraid every time they went out in public or to work.

Another state representative suggested the law would lead to violent criminals with recent arrests and convictions legally carrying handguns.


-----

Now four years later, Maine has been named the safest state in the nation according to US News and World Report’s public safety rankings, which measures the fifty states based on crime data.



Ranking as the top safest state for violent crime and fourth for property crime, Maine edges out another New England state, Vermont, for the top spot. Of note, Vermont also is a “Constitutional Carry” state. New Hampshire ranks third in the national rankings, giving New England all three of the top spots in the nation.

In 2018, Maine was edged out by Vermont in the same “safest states” ranking, but declared the best state overall in the broader “Crime and Corrections” category.

In 2017, using a different methodology, Maine was ranked second among the fifty states in the “Crime and Corrections” category and also second in the categories used to rank the “safest states.”

The U.S. News and World Report “Best States” rankings are built in partnership with McKinsey & Company, a firm that works closely with state leaders around the nation.

Maine has also ranked at the top of other state rankings. WalletHub.com recently ranked Maine second in “Personal and Residential Safety” among the fifty states, and third overall.

 

[2aguy]

nope

I will wait patiently while you point out the wording in the law that requires a private seller to ask if the buyer is legally authorized to own a firearm.

Your straw grasping attempts are as pathetic as they are comical. Give it up, idiot.

I am still waiting patiently or you to show me the law that requires a seller to ask if the buyer is legally qualified to own a gun.

I am not your remedial reading teacher. Go play your juvenile semantic games with someone else.

It is odd that I have had this same discussion with other gun nuts, and it always ends up that they divert when I ask them to quote the law that requires a private seller to ask a buyer if they are legally allowed to own a gun. And, of course, if they are not required to ask, they are not knowingly selling to a convicted felon, and that makes the sale legal, which, of course, destroys their entire argument that no new background check laws are necessary..

Again.....you have no responsibility to be a police officer and determine if you are selling to a felon.........the felon already knows it is illegal to buy, own or carry a gun, no matter where they get it....

And....again....since you are slow.............. a criminal who buys a gun can already be arrested under existing law. The police can then use that criminal to track down who sold it to them and if they sold it knowingly as a criminal act, they can arrest the seller too.....

Just like they do for all illegal drug crime.....

You have no point, you have no argument for Universal Background Checks....

The facts that makes Universal Background Checks unnecessary are these

1) Criminals use Straw Buyers...straw buyers can pass any background check including a Universal Background Check....or they steal their guns.....Mass public shooters can also pass any Universal Background Check, or they can steal the guns they use....

2) We currently have laws that allow us to arrest any criminal buying a gun no matter how they buy it....

3) Universal Background Checks are only being pushed so you can demand universal gun registration...

4) Also, as a side benefit......Universal Background Checks increase the taxes, fees, and legal peril for normal gun owners.....peris created for accidental non-compliance, allowing you to target them for personal destruction......

For example...

Textual analysis of HR8, bill to "To require a background check for every firearm sale"

Summary

HR8 requires that loans, gifts, and sales of firearms be processed by a gun store. The same fees, paperwork, and permanent record-keeping apply as to buying a new gun from the store.

If you loan a gun to a friend without going to the gun store, the penalty is the same as for knowingly selling a gun to a convicted violent felon.

Likewise, when the friend returns the gun, another trip to the gun store is necessary, upon pain of felony.

A clever trick in HR8 effectively bans handguns for persons 18-to20.

The bill has some narrow exemptions. The minuscule exemption for self-defense does not cover stalking victims. None of the exemptions cover farming and ranching, sharing guns on almost all public and private lands, or storing guns with friends while on vacation. The limited exemption for family excludes first cousins and in-laws.


The bill authorizes unlimited fees to be imposed by
regulation.
-----

The narrowness of the self-defense exemption endangers domestic violence victims. For example, a former domestic partner threatens a woman and her children. An attack might come in the next hour, or the next month, or never. The victim and her children cannot know. Because the attack is uncertain—and is certainly not "immediate"—the woman cannot borrow a handgun from a neighbor for her defense. Many domestic violence victims do not have several hundred spare dollars so that they can buy their own gun. Sometimes, threats are manifested at night, when gun stores are not open.
-------

HR8 requires almost all firearms sales and loans to be conducted by a federally-licensed dealer. Because federal law prohibits licensed dealers from transferring handguns to persons under 21 years, HR8 prevents young adults from acquiring handguns. This is a clever way to enact a handgun ban indirectly.

HR8 would prohibit a 20-year-old woman who lives on her own from acquiring a handgun for self-defense in her home, such as by buying it from a relative or borrowing it from a friend.
-----

Exorbitant fees may be imposed by regulation

"(3)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Attorney General may implement this sub-section with regulations."

"(D) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph may not include any provision placing a cap on the fee licensees may charge to facilitate transfers in accordance with paragraph (1)."

Regulators may set a minimum fee, but not "a cap on a fee." The Attorney General is allowed to require that every gun store charge a fee of $30, $50, $150, or more. Even a $20 fee can be a hard burden to a poor person.

------
Family members

You can make a "a loan or bona fide gift" to some family members. In-laws and cousins are excluded.

The family exemption vanishes if one family member pays the other in any way. If a brother trades an extra shotgun to his sister in exchange for her extra television, both of them have to go to a gun store. Their exchange will have all the fees and paperwork as if she were buying a gun from the store.

Safe storage discouraged

Consider a person who will be away from home for an extended period: a member of the armed services being deployed overseas, a person going away to school, a person going on a long vacation, or a person evacuating her home due to a natural disaster. Such persons might wish to store firearms with a trusted neighbor or friend. This type of storage should be encouraged. Guns are less likely to be stolen by burglars, and then sold into the black market, if they are kept in an occupied home rather than left in a house that will be unoccupied.

But under HR8, neighbor A can only store neighbor B's guns if both persons go to a gun store, fill out extensive paperwork for each and every gun to be stored, pay per-gun fees to the government and the gun store, and then repeat the process when the firearms are returned. As a result, many fewer people will go through all the trouble.


So more guns will be left in unoccupied dwellings; they will be at greater risk of being stolen and thus of being supplied to the criminal black market. Discouraging safe storage is among the ways HR8 harms public safety.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

In reply to "2aguy":

I actually can agree with most of your comment #217 above. But I really disagree with your tag line, because it politicizes defense of the 2nd Amendment in a way I think unnecessarily partisan.

I was a member of the IRA myself until the mid-1970s when it got taken over by rightwingers who made the IRA practically an arm of Republican populists. IMO the content is also completely illogical. You write:

"Any vote for any democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment.
18.6 million Americans carry guns. Gun murder in U.S. down 49% since 1990s.
18.6 million Americans carry guns. Gun crime in U.S. down 75% since 1990s.
18.6 million Americans carry guns. Violent crime down 72% since the 1990s."

But there were plenty of guns in the U.S. before the 1990s and no reason whatever to associate the decline in violent crime since then to the number of guns existing today.

Indeed, it would probably make a bit more sense to argue that it was the spread of family planning and abortion since Roe vs. Wade that led to fewer unwanted children growing up abused and turning to violent crime.

Of course there is also a rural / big city contrast here worth noting, historically observable at least from early in the 19th century. "Decline in violent crime," like "rise in violent crime" is a complex social issue in any society, with many causes, as is the rate of incarceration -- where we are indubitably the world's leader.

One.....defense of the 2nd Amendment is intensely political and the democrat party is actively trying to end it....so pretending that one political party isn't a threat to it is just not going to productive of effective in defending it.

And you miss the point of my tag line...the single argument that the anti-gun extremists push, is that more guns = more gun crime....that is their sole argument........that no matter any other factor, the simple equation of more guns = more gun crime is true......and it isn't true as my tag line shows....

They don't know what they are talking about, and the basis of their gun control movement is not true, factual or based in the real world reality of guns in America.....

Over the last 27 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 18.6 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.

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.



Whatever the crime rate does......as more Americans owned more guns the crime rate did not go up....so again...



Britain...
More Guns = More Gun Crime
Britain had access to guns before they banned them.....they had low gun crime, low gun murder.
They banned guns, the gun murder rate spiked for 10 years then returned to the same level...
Your Theory again....
More guns = More Gun Crime
Guns Banned creates no change? That means banning guns for law abiding gun owners had no effect on gun crime.
When your theory states one thing, and you implement your theory, and nothing changes....in science, that means your theory is wrong...
-------

Maine tops ‘safest states’ rankings four years after removing major gun restriction

When Maine passed a “Constitutional Carry” law allowing Maine residents to carry a concealed firearm without any special permit in 2015, opponents of the law forecast a dangerous future for the state. They said the new law would hurt public safety and put Maine kids at risk.



One state representative who opposed the bill went so far as to say it would give Mainers a reason to be afraid every time they went out in public or to work.

Another state representative suggested the law would lead to violent criminals with recent arrests and convictions legally carrying handguns.


-----

Now four years later, Maine has been named the safest state in the nation according to US News and World Report’s public safety rankings, which measures the fifty states based on crime data.



Ranking as the top safest state for violent crime and fourth for property crime, Maine edges out another New England state, Vermont, for the top spot. Of note, Vermont also is a “Constitutional Carry” state. New Hampshire ranks third in the national rankings, giving New England all three of the top spots in the nation.

In 2018, Maine was edged out by Vermont in the same “safest states” ranking, but declared the best state overall in the broader “Crime and Corrections” category.

In 2017, using a different methodology, Maine was ranked second among the fifty states in the “Crime and Corrections” category and also second in the categories used to rank the “safest states.”

The U.S. News and World Report “Best States” rankings are built in partnership with McKinsey & Company, a firm that works closely with state leaders around the nation.

Maine has also ranked at the top of other state rankings. WalletHub.com recently ranked Maine second in “Personal and Residential Safety” among the fifty states, and third overall.

If you want to discuss this with me you should pay attention to MY arguments, and not some silly liberal who might argue a position you want to debate: "The anti-gun hypothesis and argument... More guns equal more gun crime, regardless of any other factors."

That is not my position, though you would probably call me a "liberal" or "leftist." Indeed, your statistical evidence is exactly the same kind of argument by correlation that you polemicize against. By disregarding "any other factors," one might argue equally that it is precisely the increase in number and enforcement of city laws against carrying guns ("stop & frisk," etc) or related laws imposing stricter penalties for crimes committed with weapons, or the side-effects of Roe vs. Wade, that is responsible for the decline. Also the decline in violent crime you mis-attribute to more guns in the U.S. followed an unusual rise in violent crime after Vietnam War days. Do you want to argue the post-Vietnam rise in violent crime, drug addiction, and racial tension all resulted from a simultaneous decline in gun ownership?

If you live in a big city you might feel it is a good thing that every Tom, Dick and Harry doesn't carry. I carry, and my background was carefully checked and I waited months before being given my license. Like many police chiefs around the country, I know that everybody carrying automatic weapons everywhere can make us all less safe and maintaining the peace more difficult. On the other hand, where crime is out of control, it is important and perfectly understandable that law-abiding citizens can and do in fact exercise this right.

A little common sense is necessary in dealing with this issue. Furthermore, Democrats supposedly "now rushing to buy guns" proves that if you argue reasonably and don't attack in a completely absurd and partisan manner, you can convince many even normally "anti-gun" folks of your "pro-gun" position. Our society (with it's unique "wild West" culture concerning guns and its strong military traditions) can work out reasonable compromises, but not if "your people" (or Democrats) take extreme partisan positions.

 

[2aguy]

In reply to "2aguy":

I actually can agree with most of your comment #217 above. But I really disagree with your tag line, because it politicizes defense of the 2nd Amendment in a way I think unnecessarily partisan.

I was a member of the IRA myself until the mid-1970s when it got taken over by rightwingers who made the IRA practically an arm of Republican populists. IMO the content is also completely illogical. You write:

"Any vote for any democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment.
18.6 million Americans carry guns. Gun murder in U.S. down 49% since 1990s.
18.6 million Americans carry guns. Gun crime in U.S. down 75% since 1990s.
18.6 million Americans carry guns. Violent crime down 72% since the 1990s."

But there were plenty of guns in the U.S. before the 1990s and no reason whatever to associate the decline in violent crime since then to the number of guns existing today.

Indeed, it would probably make a bit more sense to argue that it was the spread of family planning and abortion since Roe vs. Wade that led to fewer unwanted children growing up abused and turning to violent crime.

Of course there is also a rural / big city contrast here worth noting, historically observable at least from early in the 19th century. "Decline in violent crime," like "rise in violent crime" is a complex social issue in any society, with many causes, as is the rate of incarceration -- where we are indubitably the world's leader.

One.....defense of the 2nd Amendment is intensely political and the democrat party is actively trying to end it....so pretending that one political party isn't a threat to it is just not going to productive of effective in defending it.

And you miss the point of my tag line...the single argument that the anti-gun extremists push, is that more guns = more gun crime....that is their sole argument........that no matter any other factor, the simple equation of more guns = more gun crime is true......and it isn't true as my tag line shows....

They don't know what they are talking about, and the basis of their gun control movement is not true, factual or based in the real world reality of guns in America.....

Over the last 27 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 18.6 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.

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.



Whatever the crime rate does......as more Americans owned more guns the crime rate did not go up....so again...



Britain...
More Guns = More Gun Crime
Britain had access to guns before they banned them.....they had low gun crime, low gun murder.
They banned guns, the gun murder rate spiked for 10 years then returned to the same level...
Your Theory again....
More guns = More Gun Crime
Guns Banned creates no change? That means banning guns for law abiding gun owners had no effect on gun crime.
When your theory states one thing, and you implement your theory, and nothing changes....in science, that means your theory is wrong...
-------

Maine tops ‘safest states’ rankings four years after removing major gun restriction

When Maine passed a “Constitutional Carry” law allowing Maine residents to carry a concealed firearm without any special permit in 2015, opponents of the law forecast a dangerous future for the state. They said the new law would hurt public safety and put Maine kids at risk.



One state representative who opposed the bill went so far as to say it would give Mainers a reason to be afraid every time they went out in public or to work.

Another state representative suggested the law would lead to violent criminals with recent arrests and convictions legally carrying handguns.


-----

Now four years later, Maine has been named the safest state in the nation according to US News and World Report’s public safety rankings, which measures the fifty states based on crime data.



Ranking as the top safest state for violent crime and fourth for property crime, Maine edges out another New England state, Vermont, for the top spot. Of note, Vermont also is a “Constitutional Carry” state. New Hampshire ranks third in the national rankings, giving New England all three of the top spots in the nation.

In 2018, Maine was edged out by Vermont in the same “safest states” ranking, but declared the best state overall in the broader “Crime and Corrections” category.

In 2017, using a different methodology, Maine was ranked second among the fifty states in the “Crime and Corrections” category and also second in the categories used to rank the “safest states.”

The U.S. News and World Report “Best States” rankings are built in partnership with McKinsey & Company, a firm that works closely with state leaders around the nation.

Maine has also ranked at the top of other state rankings. WalletHub.com recently ranked Maine second in “Personal and Residential Safety” among the fifty states, and third overall.

If you want to discuss this with me you should pay attention to MY arguments, and not some silly liberal who might argue a position you want to debate: "The anti-gun hypothesis and argument... More guns equal more gun crime, regardless of any other factors."

That is not my position, though you would probably call me a "liberal" or "leftist." Indeed, your statistical evidence is exactly the same kind of argument by correlation that you polemicize against. By disregarding "any other factors," one might argue equally that it is precisely the increase in number and enforcement of city laws against carrying guns ("stop & frisk," etc) or related laws imposing stricter penalties for crimes committed with weapons, or the side-effects of Roe vs. Wade, that is responsible for the decline. Also the decline in violent crime you mis-attribute to more guns in the U.S. followed an unusual rise in violent crime after Vietnam War days. Do you want to argue the post-Vietnam rise in violent crime, drug addiction, and racial tension all resulted from a simultaneous decline in gun ownership?

If you live in a big city you might feel it is a good thing that every Tom, Dick and Harry doesn't carry. I carry, and my background was carefully checked and I waited months before being given my license. Like many police chiefs around the country, I know that everybody carrying automatic weapons everywhere can make us all less safe and maintaining the peace more difficult. On the other hand, where crime is out of control, it is important and perfectly understandable that law-abiding citizens can and do in fact exercise this right.

A little common sense is necessary in dealing with this issue. Furthermore, Democrats supposedly "now rushing to buy guns" proves that if you argue reasonably and don't attack in a completely absurd and partisan manner, you can convince many even normally "anti-gun" folks of your "pro-gun" position. Our society (with it's unique "wild West" culture concerning guns and its strong military traditions) can work out reasonable compromises, but not if "your people" (or Democrats) take extreme partisan positions.

Like many police chiefs around the country, I know that everybody carrying automatic weapons everywhere can make us all less safe and maintaining the peace more difficult.


Police Chiefs you say?

National Association of Chiefs of Police Annual Surveys on Concealed Handgun Reciprocity and other issues - Crime Prevention Research Center


National Association of Chiefs of Police Annual Surveys on Concealed Handgun Reciprocity and other issues - Crime Prevention Research Center

Concealed carry reciprocity: Support

29th annual Survey..... 88.62%
28th.............................86.4%
27th.............................63.3%

Can armed citizens help lower violent crime activity: Support

29th......75.77%

In reply to "2aguy":

I actually can agree with most of your comment #217 above. But I really disagree with your tag line, because it politicizes defense of the 2nd Amendment in a way I think unnecessarily partisan.

I was a member of the IRA myself until the mid-1970s when it got taken over by rightwingers who made the IRA practically an arm of Republican populists. IMO the content is also completely illogical. You write:

"Any vote for any democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment.
18.6 million Americans carry guns. Gun murder in U.S. down 49% since 1990s.
18.6 million Americans carry guns. Gun crime in U.S. down 75% since 1990s.
18.6 million Americans carry guns. Violent crime down 72% since the 1990s."

But there were plenty of guns in the U.S. before the 1990s and no reason whatever to associate the decline in violent crime since then to the number of guns existing today.

Indeed, it would probably make a bit more sense to argue that it was the spread of family planning and abortion since Roe vs. Wade that led to fewer unwanted children growing up abused and turning to violent crime.

Of course there is also a rural / big city contrast here worth noting, historically observable at least from early in the 19th century. "Decline in violent crime," like "rise in violent crime" is a complex social issue in any society, with many causes, as is the rate of incarceration -- where we are indubitably the world's leader.

One.....defense of the 2nd Amendment is intensely political and the democrat party is actively trying to end it....so pretending that one political party isn't a threat to it is just not going to productive of effective in defending it.

And you miss the point of my tag line...the single argument that the anti-gun extremists push, is that more guns = more gun crime....that is their sole argument........that no matter any other factor, the simple equation of more guns = more gun crime is true......and it isn't true as my tag line shows....

They don't know what they are talking about, and the basis of their gun control movement is not true, factual or based in the real world reality of guns in America.....

Over the last 27 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 18.6 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.

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.



Whatever the crime rate does......as more Americans owned more guns the crime rate did not go up....so again...



Britain...
More Guns = More Gun Crime
Britain had access to guns before they banned them.....they had low gun crime, low gun murder.
They banned guns, the gun murder rate spiked for 10 years then returned to the same level...
Your Theory again....
More guns = More Gun Crime
Guns Banned creates no change? That means banning guns for law abiding gun owners had no effect on gun crime.
When your theory states one thing, and you implement your theory, and nothing changes....in science, that means your theory is wrong...
-------

Maine tops ‘safest states’ rankings four years after removing major gun restriction

When Maine passed a “Constitutional Carry” law allowing Maine residents to carry a concealed firearm without any special permit in 2015, opponents of the law forecast a dangerous future for the state. They said the new law would hurt public safety and put Maine kids at risk.



One state representative who opposed the bill went so far as to say it would give Mainers a reason to be afraid every time they went out in public or to work.

Another state representative suggested the law would lead to violent criminals with recent arrests and convictions legally carrying handguns.


-----

Now four years later, Maine has been named the safest state in the nation according to US News and World Report’s public safety rankings, which measures the fifty states based on crime data.



Ranking as the top safest state for violent crime and fourth for property crime, Maine edges out another New England state, Vermont, for the top spot. Of note, Vermont also is a “Constitutional Carry” state. New Hampshire ranks third in the national rankings, giving New England all three of the top spots in the nation.

In 2018, Maine was edged out by Vermont in the same “safest states” ranking, but declared the best state overall in the broader “Crime and Corrections” category.

In 2017, using a different methodology, Maine was ranked second among the fifty states in the “Crime and Corrections” category and also second in the categories used to rank the “safest states.”

The U.S. News and World Report “Best States” rankings are built in partnership with McKinsey & Company, a firm that works closely with state leaders around the nation.

Maine has also ranked at the top of other state rankings. WalletHub.com recently ranked Maine second in “Personal and Residential Safety” among the fifty states, and third overall.

If you want to discuss this with me you should pay attention to MY arguments, and not some silly liberal who might argue a position you want to debate: "The anti-gun hypothesis and argument... More guns equal more gun crime, regardless of any other factors."

That is not my position, though you would probably call me a "liberal" or "leftist." Indeed, your statistical evidence is exactly the same kind of argument by correlation that you polemicize against. By disregarding "any other factors," one might argue equally that it is precisely the increase in number and enforcement of city laws against carrying guns ("stop & frisk," etc) or related laws imposing stricter penalties for crimes committed with weapons, or the side-effects of Roe vs. Wade, that is responsible for the decline. Also the decline in violent crime you mis-attribute to more guns in the U.S. followed an unusual rise in violent crime after Vietnam War days. Do you want to argue the post-Vietnam rise in violent crime, drug addiction, and racial tension all resulted from a simultaneous decline in gun ownership?

If you live in a big city you might feel it is a good thing that every Tom, Dick and Harry doesn't carry. I carry, and my background was carefully checked and I waited months before being given my license. Like many police chiefs around the country, I know that everybody carrying automatic weapons everywhere can make us all less safe and maintaining the peace more difficult. On the other hand, where crime is out of control, it is important and perfectly understandable that law-abiding citizens can and do in fact exercise this right.

A little common sense is necessary in dealing with this issue. Furthermore, Democrats supposedly "now rushing to buy guns" proves that if you argue reasonably and don't attack in a completely absurd and partisan manner, you can convince many even normally "anti-gun" folks of your "pro-gun" position. Our society (with it's unique "wild West" culture concerning guns and its strong military traditions) can work out reasonable compromises, but not if "your people" (or Democrats) take extreme partisan positions.

Also the decline in violent crime you mis-attribute to more guns in the U.S. followed an unusual rise in violent crime after Vietnam War days.

First...... my post with the Pew data is used to show that Americans who own and carry guns do not increase the gun crime rate.....showing that the anti-gun argument is wrong........as our experience shows...over 26 years or so.......

So you are wrong there..

 

[2aguy]

In reply to "2aguy":

I actually can agree with most of your comment #217 above. But I really disagree with your tag line, because it politicizes defense of the 2nd Amendment in a way I think unnecessarily partisan.

I was a member of the IRA myself until the mid-1970s when it got taken over by rightwingers who made the IRA practically an arm of Republican populists. IMO the content is also completely illogical. You write:

"Any vote for any democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment.
18.6 million Americans carry guns. Gun murder in U.S. down 49% since 1990s.
18.6 million Americans carry guns. Gun crime in U.S. down 75% since 1990s.
18.6 million Americans carry guns. Violent crime down 72% since the 1990s."

But there were plenty of guns in the U.S. before the 1990s and no reason whatever to associate the decline in violent crime since then to the number of guns existing today.

Indeed, it would probably make a bit more sense to argue that it was the spread of family planning and abortion since Roe vs. Wade that led to fewer unwanted children growing up abused and turning to violent crime.

Of course there is also a rural / big city contrast here worth noting, historically observable at least from early in the 19th century. "Decline in violent crime," like "rise in violent crime" is a complex social issue in any society, with many causes, as is the rate of incarceration -- where we are indubitably the world's leader.

One.....defense of the 2nd Amendment is intensely political and the democrat party is actively trying to end it....so pretending that one political party isn't a threat to it is just not going to productive of effective in defending it.

And you miss the point of my tag line...the single argument that the anti-gun extremists push, is that more guns = more gun crime....that is their sole argument........that no matter any other factor, the simple equation of more guns = more gun crime is true......and it isn't true as my tag line shows....

They don't know what they are talking about, and the basis of their gun control movement is not true, factual or based in the real world reality of guns in America.....

Over the last 27 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 18.6 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.

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.



Whatever the crime rate does......as more Americans owned more guns the crime rate did not go up....so again...



Britain...
More Guns = More Gun Crime
Britain had access to guns before they banned them.....they had low gun crime, low gun murder.
They banned guns, the gun murder rate spiked for 10 years then returned to the same level...
Your Theory again....
More guns = More Gun Crime
Guns Banned creates no change? That means banning guns for law abiding gun owners had no effect on gun crime.
When your theory states one thing, and you implement your theory, and nothing changes....in science, that means your theory is wrong...
-------

Maine tops ‘safest states’ rankings four years after removing major gun restriction

When Maine passed a “Constitutional Carry” law allowing Maine residents to carry a concealed firearm without any special permit in 2015, opponents of the law forecast a dangerous future for the state. They said the new law would hurt public safety and put Maine kids at risk.



One state representative who opposed the bill went so far as to say it would give Mainers a reason to be afraid every time they went out in public or to work.

Another state representative suggested the law would lead to violent criminals with recent arrests and convictions legally carrying handguns.


-----

Now four years later, Maine has been named the safest state in the nation according to US News and World Report’s public safety rankings, which measures the fifty states based on crime data.



Ranking as the top safest state for violent crime and fourth for property crime, Maine edges out another New England state, Vermont, for the top spot. Of note, Vermont also is a “Constitutional Carry” state. New Hampshire ranks third in the national rankings, giving New England all three of the top spots in the nation.

In 2018, Maine was edged out by Vermont in the same “safest states” ranking, but declared the best state overall in the broader “Crime and Corrections” category.

In 2017, using a different methodology, Maine was ranked second among the fifty states in the “Crime and Corrections” category and also second in the categories used to rank the “safest states.”

The U.S. News and World Report “Best States” rankings are built in partnership with McKinsey & Company, a firm that works closely with state leaders around the nation.

Maine has also ranked at the top of other state rankings. WalletHub.com recently ranked Maine second in “Personal and Residential Safety” among the fifty states, and third overall.

If you want to discuss this with me you should pay attention to MY arguments, and not some silly liberal who might argue a position you want to debate: "The anti-gun hypothesis and argument... More guns equal more gun crime, regardless of any other factors."

That is not my position, though you would probably call me a "liberal" or "leftist." Indeed, your statistical evidence is exactly the same kind of argument by correlation that you polemicize against. By disregarding "any other factors," one might argue equally that it is precisely the increase in number and enforcement of city laws against carrying guns ("stop & frisk," etc) or related laws imposing stricter penalties for crimes committed with weapons, or the side-effects of Roe vs. Wade, that is responsible for the decline. Also the decline in violent crime you mis-attribute to more guns in the U.S. followed an unusual rise in violent crime after Vietnam War days. Do you want to argue the post-Vietnam rise in violent crime, drug addiction, and racial tension all resulted from a simultaneous decline in gun ownership?

If you live in a big city you might feel it is a good thing that every Tom, Dick and Harry doesn't carry. I carry, and my background was carefully checked and I waited months before being given my license. Like many police chiefs around the country, I know that everybody carrying automatic weapons everywhere can make us all less safe and maintaining the peace more difficult. On the other hand, where crime is out of control, it is important and perfectly understandable that law-abiding citizens can and do in fact exercise this right.

A little common sense is necessary in dealing with this issue. Furthermore, Democrats supposedly "now rushing to buy guns" proves that if you argue reasonably and don't attack in a completely absurd and partisan manner, you can convince many even normally "anti-gun" folks of your "pro-gun" position. Our society (with it's unique "wild West" culture concerning guns and its strong military traditions) can work out reasonable compromises, but not if "your people" (or Democrats) take extreme partisan positions.

Furthermore, Democrats supposedly "now rushing to buy guns" proves that if you argue reasonably and don't attack in a completely absurd and partisan manner, you can convince many even normally "anti-gun" folks of your "pro-gun" position.

It takes actual real world events to penetrate their ignorance of the gun issues, since actual facts, and truth tend not to sink in quite the way that the democrat party releasing prison inmates and telling police not to arrest criminals does.........and keep in mind.....the members of the democrat party leadership have the resources to pay for armed security....so they aren't the ones lining up to buy guns........and they are the ones who will pass the laws actually banning and confiscating guns.

 

[2aguy]

In reply to "2aguy":

I actually can agree with most of your comment #217 above. But I really disagree with your tag line, because it politicizes defense of the 2nd Amendment in a way I think unnecessarily partisan.

I was a member of the IRA myself until the mid-1970s when it got taken over by rightwingers who made the IRA practically an arm of Republican populists. IMO the content is also completely illogical. You write:

"Any vote for any democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment.
18.6 million Americans carry guns. Gun murder in U.S. down 49% since 1990s.
18.6 million Americans carry guns. Gun crime in U.S. down 75% since 1990s.
18.6 million Americans carry guns. Violent crime down 72% since the 1990s."

But there were plenty of guns in the U.S. before the 1990s and no reason whatever to associate the decline in violent crime since then to the number of guns existing today.

Indeed, it would probably make a bit more sense to argue that it was the spread of family planning and abortion since Roe vs. Wade that led to fewer unwanted children growing up abused and turning to violent crime.

Of course there is also a rural / big city contrast here worth noting, historically observable at least from early in the 19th century. "Decline in violent crime," like "rise in violent crime" is a complex social issue in any society, with many causes, as is the rate of incarceration -- where we are indubitably the world's leader.

One.....defense of the 2nd Amendment is intensely political and the democrat party is actively trying to end it....so pretending that one political party isn't a threat to it is just not going to productive of effective in defending it.

And you miss the point of my tag line...the single argument that the anti-gun extremists push, is that more guns = more gun crime....that is their sole argument........that no matter any other factor, the simple equation of more guns = more gun crime is true......and it isn't true as my tag line shows....

They don't know what they are talking about, and the basis of their gun control movement is not true, factual or based in the real world reality of guns in America.....

Over the last 27 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 18.6 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.

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.



Whatever the crime rate does......as more Americans owned more guns the crime rate did not go up....so again...



Britain...
More Guns = More Gun Crime
Britain had access to guns before they banned them.....they had low gun crime, low gun murder.
They banned guns, the gun murder rate spiked for 10 years then returned to the same level...
Your Theory again....
More guns = More Gun Crime
Guns Banned creates no change? That means banning guns for law abiding gun owners had no effect on gun crime.
When your theory states one thing, and you implement your theory, and nothing changes....in science, that means your theory is wrong...
-------

Maine tops ‘safest states’ rankings four years after removing major gun restriction

When Maine passed a “Constitutional Carry” law allowing Maine residents to carry a concealed firearm without any special permit in 2015, opponents of the law forecast a dangerous future for the state. They said the new law would hurt public safety and put Maine kids at risk.



One state representative who opposed the bill went so far as to say it would give Mainers a reason to be afraid every time they went out in public or to work.

Another state representative suggested the law would lead to violent criminals with recent arrests and convictions legally carrying handguns.


-----

Now four years later, Maine has been named the safest state in the nation according to US News and World Report’s public safety rankings, which measures the fifty states based on crime data.



Ranking as the top safest state for violent crime and fourth for property crime, Maine edges out another New England state, Vermont, for the top spot. Of note, Vermont also is a “Constitutional Carry” state. New Hampshire ranks third in the national rankings, giving New England all three of the top spots in the nation.

In 2018, Maine was edged out by Vermont in the same “safest states” ranking, but declared the best state overall in the broader “Crime and Corrections” category.

In 2017, using a different methodology, Maine was ranked second among the fifty states in the “Crime and Corrections” category and also second in the categories used to rank the “safest states.”

The U.S. News and World Report “Best States” rankings are built in partnership with McKinsey & Company, a firm that works closely with state leaders around the nation.

Maine has also ranked at the top of other state rankings. WalletHub.com recently ranked Maine second in “Personal and Residential Safety” among the fifty states, and third overall.

If you want to discuss this with me you should pay attention to MY arguments, and not some silly liberal who might argue a position you want to debate: "The anti-gun hypothesis and argument... More guns equal more gun crime, regardless of any other factors."

That is not my position, though you would probably call me a "liberal" or "leftist." Indeed, your statistical evidence is exactly the same kind of argument by correlation that you polemicize against. By disregarding "any other factors," one might argue equally that it is precisely the increase in number and enforcement of city laws against carrying guns ("stop & frisk," etc) or related laws imposing stricter penalties for crimes committed with weapons, or the side-effects of Roe vs. Wade, that is responsible for the decline. Also the decline in violent crime you mis-attribute to more guns in the U.S. followed an unusual rise in violent crime after Vietnam War days. Do you want to argue the post-Vietnam rise in violent crime, drug addiction, and racial tension all resulted from a simultaneous decline in gun ownership?

If you live in a big city you might feel it is a good thing that every Tom, Dick and Harry doesn't carry. I carry, and my background was carefully checked and I waited months before being given my license. Like many police chiefs around the country, I know that everybody carrying automatic weapons everywhere can make us all less safe and maintaining the peace more difficult. On the other hand, where crime is out of control, it is important and perfectly understandable that law-abiding citizens can and do in fact exercise this right.

A little common sense is necessary in dealing with this issue. Furthermore, Democrats supposedly "now rushing to buy guns" proves that if you argue reasonably and don't attack in a completely absurd and partisan manner, you can convince many even normally "anti-gun" folks of your "pro-gun" position. Our society (with it's unique "wild West" culture concerning guns and its strong military traditions) can work out reasonable compromises, but not if "your people" (or Democrats) take extreme partisan positions.

The Wild West wasn't wild......why? Because people had guns........

The big cities are the places where people need guns....since the democrat party politicians enact policies that allow repeat, violent gun offenders out of jail on bond, and out of prison on short sentences.........

or related laws imposing stricter penalties for crimes committed with weapons,

And that makes sense.....you don't need all the extra laws, the taxes, fines, fees and red tape meant to ensnare normal gun owners for accidental non-compliance to destroy them for the crime of wanting to own and carry a gun for self defense............

This is what I have posted numerous times in the past....and if the democrats focused on this, instead of normal gun owners, our gun crime numbers would be reduced by about 95%....but they don't care about gun crime......they simply hate guns and those who own them and focus all of their efforts attacking them....while releasing violent gun offenders from jail and prison...

I 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]

In reply to "2aguy":

I actually can agree with most of your comment #217 above. But I really disagree with your tag line, because it politicizes defense of the 2nd Amendment in a way I think unnecessarily partisan.

I was a member of the IRA myself until the mid-1970s when it got taken over by rightwingers who made the IRA practically an arm of Republican populists. IMO the content is also completely illogical. You write:

"Any vote for any democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment.
18.6 million Americans carry guns. Gun murder in U.S. down 49% since 1990s.
18.6 million Americans carry guns. Gun crime in U.S. down 75% since 1990s.
18.6 million Americans carry guns. Violent crime down 72% since the 1990s."

But there were plenty of guns in the U.S. before the 1990s and no reason whatever to associate the decline in violent crime since then to the number of guns existing today.

Indeed, it would probably make a bit more sense to argue that it was the spread of family planning and abortion since Roe vs. Wade that led to fewer unwanted children growing up abused and turning to violent crime.

Of course there is also a rural / big city contrast here worth noting, historically observable at least from early in the 19th century. "Decline in violent crime," like "rise in violent crime" is a complex social issue in any society, with many causes, as is the rate of incarceration -- where we are indubitably the world's leader.

One.....defense of the 2nd Amendment is intensely political and the democrat party is actively trying to end it....so pretending that one political party isn't a threat to it is just not going to productive of effective in defending it.

And you miss the point of my tag line...the single argument that the anti-gun extremists push, is that more guns = more gun crime....that is their sole argument........that no matter any other factor, the simple equation of more guns = more gun crime is true......and it isn't true as my tag line shows....

They don't know what they are talking about, and the basis of their gun control movement is not true, factual or based in the real world reality of guns in America.....

Over the last 27 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 18.6 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.

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.



Whatever the crime rate does......as more Americans owned more guns the crime rate did not go up....so again...



Britain...
More Guns = More Gun Crime
Britain had access to guns before they banned them.....they had low gun crime, low gun murder.
They banned guns, the gun murder rate spiked for 10 years then returned to the same level...
Your Theory again....
More guns = More Gun Crime
Guns Banned creates no change? That means banning guns for law abiding gun owners had no effect on gun crime.
When your theory states one thing, and you implement your theory, and nothing changes....in science, that means your theory is wrong...
-------

Maine tops ‘safest states’ rankings four years after removing major gun restriction

When Maine passed a “Constitutional Carry” law allowing Maine residents to carry a concealed firearm without any special permit in 2015, opponents of the law forecast a dangerous future for the state. They said the new law would hurt public safety and put Maine kids at risk.



One state representative who opposed the bill went so far as to say it would give Mainers a reason to be afraid every time they went out in public or to work.

Another state representative suggested the law would lead to violent criminals with recent arrests and convictions legally carrying handguns.


-----

Now four years later, Maine has been named the safest state in the nation according to US News and World Report’s public safety rankings, which measures the fifty states based on crime data.



Ranking as the top safest state for violent crime and fourth for property crime, Maine edges out another New England state, Vermont, for the top spot. Of note, Vermont also is a “Constitutional Carry” state. New Hampshire ranks third in the national rankings, giving New England all three of the top spots in the nation.

In 2018, Maine was edged out by Vermont in the same “safest states” ranking, but declared the best state overall in the broader “Crime and Corrections” category.

In 2017, using a different methodology, Maine was ranked second among the fifty states in the “Crime and Corrections” category and also second in the categories used to rank the “safest states.”

The U.S. News and World Report “Best States” rankings are built in partnership with McKinsey & Company, a firm that works closely with state leaders around the nation.

Maine has also ranked at the top of other state rankings. WalletHub.com recently ranked Maine second in “Personal and Residential Safety” among the fifty states, and third overall.

If you want to discuss this with me you should pay attention to MY arguments, and not some silly liberal who might argue a position you want to debate: "The anti-gun hypothesis and argument... More guns equal more gun crime, regardless of any other factors."

That is not my position, though you would probably call me a "liberal" or "leftist." Indeed, your statistical evidence is exactly the same kind of argument by correlation that you polemicize against. By disregarding "any other factors," one might argue equally that it is precisely the increase in number and enforcement of city laws against carrying guns ("stop & frisk," etc) or related laws imposing stricter penalties for crimes committed with weapons, or the side-effects of Roe vs. Wade, that is responsible for the decline. Also the decline in violent crime you mis-attribute to more guns in the U.S. followed an unusual rise in violent crime after Vietnam War days. Do you want to argue the post-Vietnam rise in violent crime, drug addiction, and racial tension all resulted from a simultaneous decline in gun ownership?

If you live in a big city you might feel it is a good thing that every Tom, Dick and Harry doesn't carry. I carry, and my background was carefully checked and I waited months before being given my license. Like many police chiefs around the country, I know that everybody carrying automatic weapons everywhere can make us all less safe and maintaining the peace more difficult. On the other hand, where crime is out of control, it is important and perfectly understandable that law-abiding citizens can and do in fact exercise this right.

A little common sense is necessary in dealing with this issue. Furthermore, Democrats supposedly "now rushing to buy guns" proves that if you argue reasonably and don't attack in a completely absurd and partisan manner, you can convince many even normally "anti-gun" folks of your "pro-gun" position. Our society (with it's unique "wild West" culture concerning guns and its strong military traditions) can work out reasonable compromises, but not if "your people" (or Democrats) take extreme partisan positions.

Do you want to argue the post-Vietnam rise in violent crime, drug addiction, and racial tension all resulted from a simultaneous decline in gun ownership?

No........I make the argument it is the destruction of the family that caused the rise in crime from the mid 1960s to the 19990s....the 1990s when concealed carry laws were passed in various states........and yes...concealed carry does help lower the violent crime rate.....as lots of research shows...

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Maltz.pdf


Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Our results indicated that the direction of effect of the shall-issue law on total SHR homicide rates was similar to that obtained by Lott and Mustard, although the magnitude of the effect was somewhat smaller and was statistically significant at the 7 percent level. In our analysis, which included only counties with a 1977 population of 100,000 or more, laws allowing for concealed weapons were associated with a 6.52 percent reduction in total homicides (Table 2). By comparison, Lott and Mustard found the concealed weapon dummy variable to be associated with a 7.65 percent reduction in total homicides across all counties and a 9 percent reduction in homicides when only large counties (populations of 100,000 or more) were included.43
====

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Plassmann_Whitley.pdf

COMMENTS

Confirming ìMore Guns, Less Crimeî Florenz Plassmann* & John Whitley**

CONCLUSION Analyzing county-level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annual reductions in murder rates between 1.5% and 2.3% for each additional year that a right-to-carry law is in effect.

For the first five years that such a law is in effect, the total benefit from reduced crimes usually ranges between about $2 and $3 billion per year.

The results are very similar to earlier estimates using county-level data from 1977 to 1996. We appreciate the continuing effort that Ayres and Donohue have made in discussing the impact of right-to-carry laws on crime rates. Yet we believe that both the new evidence provided by them as well as our new results show consistently that right-to-carry laws reduce crime and save lives. Unfortunately, a few simple mistakes lead Ayres and Donohue to incorrectly claim that crime rates significantly increase after right-to-carry laws are initially adopted and to misinterpret the significance of their own estimates that examined the year-to-year impact of the law.

====

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content...An-Exercise-in-Replication.proof_.revised.pdf

~ The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws on Crime: An Exercise in Replication1

Carlisle E. Moody College of William and Mary - Department of Economics, Virginia 23187, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected] Thomas B. Marvell Justec Research, Virginia 23185, U.S.A. Paul R. Zimmerman U.S. Federal Trade Commission - Bureau of Economics, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Fasil Alemante College of William and Mary, Virginia 23187, U.S.A.


Abstract: In an article published in 2011, Aneja, Donohue and Zhang found that shall-issue or right-to-carry (RTC) concealed weapons laws have no effect on any crime except for a positive effect on assault.

This paper reports a replication of their basic findings and some corresponding robustness checks, which reveal a serious omitted variable problem.

Once corrected for omitted variables, the most robust result, confirmed using both county and state data, is that RTC laws significantly reduce murder.
====
An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates
Mark Gius

Abstract

The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates.

Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states.

It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997).

===


“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..


Summary and Conclusion

Many articles have been published finding that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one article, by Ayres and Donohue who employ a model that combines a dummy variable with a post-law trend, claims to find that shall-issue laws increase crime.

However, the only way that they can produce the result that shall-issue laws increase crime is to confine the span of analysis to five years

. We show, using their own estimates, that if they had extended their analysis by one more year, they would have concluded that these laws reduce crime.

Since most states with shallissue laws have had these laws on the books for more than five years, and the law will presumably remain on the books for some time, the only relevant analysis extends beyond five years. We extend their analysis by adding three more years of data, control for the effects of crack cocaine, control for dynamic effects, and correct the standard errors for clustering.

We find that there is an initial increase in crime due to passage of the shall-issue law that is dwarfed over time by the decrease in crime associated with the post-law trend.

These results are very similar to those of Ayres and Donohue, properly interpreted.

The modified Ayres and Donohue model finds that shall-issue laws significantly reduce murder and burglary across all the adopting states. These laws appear to significantly increase assault, and have no net effect on rape, robbery, larceny, or auto theft. However, in the long run only the trend coefficients matter. We estimate a net benefit of $450 million per year as a result of the passage of these laws. We also estimate that, up through 2000, there was a cumulative overall net benefit of these laws of $28 billion since their passage. We think that there is credible statistical evidence that these laws lower the costs of crime. But at the very least, the present study should neutralize any “more guns, more crime” thinking based on Ayres and Donohue’s work in the Stanford Law Review




Taking apart ayre and donahue one....




“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..



Abstract
“Shall-issue” laws require authorities to issue concealed-weapons permits to anyone who applies, unless the applicant has a criminal record or a history of mental illness. A large number of studies indicate that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one study, an influential paper in the Stanford Law Review (2003) by Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue iii, implies that these laws lead to an increase in crime. We apply an improved version of the Ayres and Donohue method to a more extensive data set. Our analysis, as well as Ayres and Donohue’s when projected beyond a five-year span, indicates that shall-issue laws decrease crime and the costs of crime. Purists in statistical analysis object with some cause to some of methods employed both by Ayres and Donohue and by us. But our paper upgrades Ayres and Donohue, so, until the next study comes along, our paper should neutralize Ayres and Donohue’s “more guns, more crime” conclusion.

Summary and Conclusion Many articles have been published finding that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one article, by Ayres and Donohue who employ a model that combines a dummy variable with a post-law trend, claims to find that shall-issue laws increase crime. However, the only way that they can produce the result that shall-issue laws increase crime is to confine the span of analysis to five years. We show, using their own estimates, that if they had extended their analysis by one more year, they would have concluded that these laws reduce crime. Since most states with shallissue laws have had these laws on the books for more than five years, and the law will presumably remain on the books for some time, the only relevant analysis extends beyond five years. We extend their analysis by adding three more years of data, control for the effects of crack cocaine, control for dynamic effects, and correct the standard errors for clustering. We find that there is an initial increase in crime due to passage of the shall-issue law that is dwarfed over time by the decrease in crime associated with the post-law trend. These results are very similar to those of Ayres and Donohue, properly interpreted. The modified Ayres and Donohue model finds that shall-issue laws significantly reduce murder and burglary across all the adopting states. These laws appear to significantly increase assault, and have no net effect on rape, robbery, larceny, or auto theft. However, in the long run only the trend coefficients matter. We estimate a net benefit of $450 million per year as a result of the passage of these laws. We also estimate that, up through 2000, there was a cumulative overall net benefit of these laws of $28 billion since their passage. We think that there is credible statistical evidence that these laws lower the costs of crime. But at the very least, the present study should neutralize any “more guns, more crime” thinking based on Ayres and Donohue’s work in the Stanford Law Review. We acknowledge that, especially in light of the methodological issues of the literature in general, the magnitudes derived from our analysis of crime statistics and the supposed costs of crime might be dwarfed by other considerations in judging the policy issue. Some might contend that allowing individuals to carry a concealed weapon is a moral or cultural bad. Others might contend that greater liberty is a moral or cultural good. All we are confident in saying is that the evidence, such as it is, seems to support the hypothesis that the shall-issue law is generally beneficial with respect to its overall long run effect on crime.



The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws · Econ Journal Watch : shall-issue, crime, handguns, concealed weapons

 

[Daryl Hunt]

No leftist should be allowed to possess a gun. Period!
Make that, no Democrat voter.

Well, this "leftist" (that's what I'm called by most Democrats and almost all Trump supporters anyway) doesn't have to rush out to buy a gun...

I've owned a rifle most of my life and have a carry license for my pistol. I don't appreciate idiotic comments like the one above. My father was a proud Rooseveltian Democrat who fought in WWII. He taught me that rightwingers who talk about -- or even just joke about -- disarming people they disagree with are usually either Klansmen, professional union busters, John Birchers, or just fools already taking the first steps on the long road to fascism.

Everyone has a legal right to bear arms under the Constitution, but reasonable regulation and registration and even restrictions, are entirely appropriate.

We have a veritable mountain of regulation and restrictions. Enough is enough. And you will NEVER get me to register my guns.

No one is requiring you to do so.

Slippery slope fallacies, fearmongering, demagoguery – the last refuge of one whose ‘argument’ has failed.

Mr. Pseudo intellectual, take your fallacies horsecrap and shove it. The facts are that every gun law erodes the 2nd amendment. Multiple Democrat presidential candidates wish to steal my property. My guns, and the 330 million other guns, in the hands of the law abiding, are not the problem.

BAD people are. Regulate them.

We regulate everyone. And since have started our criminal gun crimes have gone down. And I can still get a firearm in a gun shop in less than 5 minutes. Of course, unlike you, I don't have a criminal felony record.