Mass shooting: At Least 11 Shot At Gilroy Garlic Festival

[2aguy]

Background checks will never be a predictive tool.

didn't say it would predict a thing. just saying that if we could flag someone who should not have a gun at the time of purchase, it forces them to another method at least.

So how much privacy does one have to give up to exercise his second amendment rights? And shouldn't that standard be applied to all rights?

what privacy are you giving up when you buy a gun now?

i don't believe everything that should be on a background check is there.

Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet

And then there are the people who slip through the cracks and obtain guns they should have been barred from possessing — sometimes with deadly consequences. The gunmen in the Sutherland Springs, Texas, church shooting, Charleston, South Carolina, church massacre, and Virginia Tech rampage each had a history that banned them from owning firearms. Yet none were stopped, because of omissions and loopholes in the system.

what i am saying is - we have something we *can* do that would potentially stop events that took place otherwise. while yes they could have gotten their guns from other places, this flag would be raised and depending on why they are banned from buying guns, watch them for a bit and see if they're doing anything to flag.

so again - if this info was supposed to be a part of their background, what is wrong with fixing what we have so it works vs letting it sit proven to be broken? i'll need a link from a valid background check to the loss of privacy cause i don't see it from here.

None my criminal record is public info

The Orlando shooter passed his background check so you must think his criminal record isn't enough information. WHat other information would you want to be used besides what is public information?

then why did this history on their background checks get missed? i'm not asking for more to be added, i'm asking for what should be there to simply be there.

I agree......we don't need more rules, we need to implement what we have....if that was the point....the actual point is getting guns banned and confiscated so the actual implementation against actual criminals isn't the focus.....

But, again, I agree......criminals need to be in that dumb data base for the background checks that won't catch them...I will give the other side that....if they leave us alone

 

[2aguy]

And you are being silly.

I showed you actual expierence in gun banning and confiscation and they all began with registration....where people like you said, " we aren't going to confiscate your guns...we just want to know who has them...." Years or decades later.....turn in your guns or you will be a felon...

Sorry, seen that, done that......we will fight it here.

So you admit you'll be a criminal if things don't go your way.

Yes.....if you don't hand over your Constitutionally protected gun you will now be a felon.....never having used it for a crime....you will now be a criminal. That is as fascist as it gets.......which is why we don't trust people like you....

It is not "fascist." It is sane.

again - you went from simply wanting the violence to stop to now calling it "sane" we get rid of the 2nd amendment.

this is why we can't have nice things.

Your comment makes no sense to me. There is nothing crazy about deleting an amendment which is outdated and no longer applies to our society.

The First Amendment the same thing.....government should be able to control whatever we say, and for safety purposes, they should be able to search and seize any property they thing might be dangerous, and they should be able to bring you in for questioning, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, on the chance that at some point, you might commit a crime.....

I see where you are going with this, and I like it...

 

[iceberg]

And you are being silly.

I showed you actual expierence in gun banning and confiscation and they all began with registration....where people like you said, " we aren't going to confiscate your guns...we just want to know who has them...." Years or decades later.....turn in your guns or you will be a felon...

Sorry, seen that, done that......we will fight it here.

So you admit you'll be a criminal if things don't go your way.

Yes.....if you don't hand over your Constitutionally protected gun you will now be a felon.....never having used it for a crime....you will now be a criminal. That is as fascist as it gets.......which is why we don't trust people like you....

It is not "fascist." It is sane.

again - you went from simply wanting the violence to stop to now calling it "sane" we get rid of the 2nd amendment.

this is why we can't have nice things.

Your comment makes no sense to me. There is nothing crazy about deleting an amendment which is outdated and no longer applies to our society.

There is if you do it right after saying you are not coming for guns.

 

[2aguy]

Oh, here's one.

You're as full of shit as I expected.

Not the mini argument. So why isn't it the most popular semi automatic?

Ban AR 15s and it will be then you'll want to ban the mini as well

Yep

So why not just be honest and say you want to ban all semiautomatic rifles?

All that accept a magazine.

I have a semi-automatic shotgun. Plugged to 3 but could hold 5.

Yes....and a 5 shot shotgun was used to murder 20 people in Russia, 12 people at the D.C Naval yard....so according to your logic it too needs to be banned.

 

[2aguy]

They don't take them.......New York, Washington State, Colorado simply state it is now illegal to own them......you then have to sell them, hand them over, or you will be a felon.....they know who has the guns from the registration...

Then....whenever you have an interaction with the police...."your neighbor called about your loud music....and, by the way, you are in our records as having a rifle that is banned that you didn't turn in....we are placing you under arrest for felony possession of a banned rifle." You are stopped for running a red light..."License and registration please.....Ma'am, step out of the car, we are placing you under arrest because you are in our records as having a gun that is banned, that you haven't turned in..."

That is how they will do it.....

I said "lawfully." Sounds like the people you used as an examples did not follow the law, did they?
And NO state will completely outlaw guns. If it is done properly, gun laws will be on a national, not state, level so that people can't "state shop" for the set of rules that allows them to buy a gun outlawed for good reason by their state.

And you are being silly.

I showed you actual expierence in gun banning and confiscation and they all began with registration....where people like you said, " we aren't going to confiscate your guns...we just want to know who has them...." Years or decades later.....turn in your guns or you will be a felon...

Sorry, seen that, done that......we will fight it here.

So you admit you'll be a criminal if things don't go your way.

Yes.....if you don't hand over your Constitutionally protected gun you will now be a felon.....never having used it for a crime....you will now be a criminal. That is as fascist as it gets.......which is why we don't trust people like you....

It is not "fascist." It is sane.

No....it is fascist..... disarm people and they make less trouble for the government...easier to handle them....I see where you are coming from...sounds great. Just ask the people in Venezuela...

 

[iceberg]

So you admit you'll be a criminal if things don't go your way.

Yes.....if you don't hand over your Constitutionally protected gun you will now be a felon.....never having used it for a crime....you will now be a criminal. That is as fascist as it gets.......which is why we don't trust people like you....

It is not "fascist." It is sane.

again - you went from simply wanting the violence to stop to now calling it "sane" we get rid of the 2nd amendment.

this is why we can't have nice things.

Your comment makes no sense to me. There is nothing crazy about deleting an amendment which is outdated and no longer applies to our society.

The First Amendment the same thing.....government should be able to control whatever we say, and for safety purposes, they should be able to search and seize any property they thing might be dangerous, and they should be able to bring you in for questioning, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, on the chance that at some point, you might commit a crime.....

I see where you are going with this, and I like it...

That's the flip side. You won't get just what YOU want removed. You are opening up the table to change a LOT of shit and we simply are not mature enough today to tackle that issue.

 

[RealDave]

Not the mini argument. So why isn't it the most popular semi automatic?

Ban AR 15s and it will be then you'll want to ban the mini as well

Yep

So why not just be honest and say you want to ban all semiautomatic rifles?

All that accept a magazine.

I have a semi-automatic shotgun. Plugged to 3 but could hold 5.

Yes....and a 5 shot shotgun was used to murder 20 people in Russia, 12 people at the D.C Naval yard....so according to your logic it too needs to be banned.

How many if those people had a AR-15?

 

[RealDave]

So you admit you'll be a criminal if things don't go your way.

Yes.....if you don't hand over your Constitutionally protected gun you will now be a felon.....never having used it for a crime....you will now be a criminal. That is as fascist as it gets.......which is why we don't trust people like you....

It is not "fascist." It is sane.

again - you went from simply wanting the violence to stop to now calling it "sane" we get rid of the 2nd amendment.

this is why we can't have nice things.

Your comment makes no sense to me. There is nothing crazy about deleting an amendment which is outdated and no longer applies to our society.

The First Amendment the same thing.....government should be able to control whatever we say, and for safety purposes, they should be able to search and seize any property they thing might be dangerous, and they should be able to bring you in for questioning, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, on the chance that at some point, you might commit a crime.....

I see where you are going with this, and I like it...

Use your free speech to incite a riot & see what happens.

 

[2aguy]

Ban AR 15s and it will be then you'll want to ban the mini as well

Yep

So why not just be honest and say you want to ban all semiautomatic rifles?

All that accept a magazine.

I have a semi-automatic shotgun. Plugged to 3 but could hold 5.

Yes....and a 5 shot shotgun was used to murder 20 people in Russia, 12 people at the D.C Naval yard....so according to your logic it too needs to be banned.

How many if those people had a AR-15?

In Gilroy? 3 SKS rifle shooter stopped by someone with a gun.

SKS rifle used by the Bernie Bro at the Republican baseball practice...0 killed...stopped by people at the scene with guns......

20 killed in Russia with a pump action shotgun.

12 killed at the Navy Yard with a pump action shotgun

32 killed at Virginia Tech with 2 pistols

24 killed in Luby's Cafe with 2 pistols.

 

[2aguy]

Yes.....if you don't hand over your Constitutionally protected gun you will now be a felon.....never having used it for a crime....you will now be a criminal. That is as fascist as it gets.......which is why we don't trust people like you....

It is not "fascist." It is sane.

again - you went from simply wanting the violence to stop to now calling it "sane" we get rid of the 2nd amendment.

this is why we can't have nice things.

Your comment makes no sense to me. There is nothing crazy about deleting an amendment which is outdated and no longer applies to our society.

The First Amendment the same thing.....government should be able to control whatever we say, and for safety purposes, they should be able to search and seize any property they thing might be dangerous, and they should be able to bring you in for questioning, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, on the chance that at some point, you might commit a crime.....

I see where you are going with this, and I like it...

Use your free speech to incite a riot & see what happens.

Exactly, which is why the 1st Amendment is also outdated......speech is far too dangerous to allow people to use it freely.....strict controls over speech, including public marches, private computers, email, tweets....all need to be prior approved by the government to make sure no one is using them for crimes or dangerous activities..

I see where you are going....I like it....

 

[RealDave]

Yep

So why not just be honest and say you want to ban all semiautomatic rifles?

All that accept a magazine.

I have a semi-automatic shotgun. Plugged to 3 but could hold 5.

No reason to ban magazine fed weapons whatsoever because 99.9999% of them are never used to commit any crime

What are they used for that requires a detachable magazine that could not be accomplished without a built in, limited size magazine.

Doesn't matter. What matters is how they are actually used now and 99.999% magazine fed firearms will never be used to commit any crimes.

The fact that a minuscule fraction of people will use a gun for violence is not reason enough to put restrictions on everyone

It does matter.

To ban something that leads to mass killings that has no other use is a nobrainer.

So what can't to do with a built in smaller magazine that you can do with a detachable larger magazine?



.

 

[RealDave]

It is not "fascist." It is sane.

again - you went from simply wanting the violence to stop to now calling it "sane" we get rid of the 2nd amendment.

this is why we can't have nice things.

Your comment makes no sense to me. There is nothing crazy about deleting an amendment which is outdated and no longer applies to our society.

The First Amendment the same thing.....government should be able to control whatever we say, and for safety purposes, they should be able to search and seize any property they thing might be dangerous, and they should be able to bring you in for questioning, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, on the chance that at some point, you might commit a crime.....

I see where you are going with this, and I like it...

Use your free speech to incite a riot & see what happens.

Exactly, which is why the 1st Amendment is also outdated......speech is far too dangerous to allow people to use it freely.....strict controls over speech, including public marches, private computers, email, tweets....all need to be prior approved by the government to make sure no one is using them for crimes or dangerous activities..

I see where you are going....I like it....

As usual you turn to the ridiculous. This is what happens when you have no real argument.

 

[RealDave]

Yep

So why not just be honest and say you want to ban all semiautomatic rifles?

All that accept a magazine.

I have a semi-automatic shotgun. Plugged to 3 but could hold 5.

Yes....and a 5 shot shotgun was used to murder 20 people in Russia, 12 people at the D.C Naval yard....so according to your logic it too needs to be banned.

How many if those people had a AR-15?

In Gilroy? 3 SKS rifle shooter stopped by someone with a gun.

SKS rifle used by the Bernie Bro at the Republican baseball practice...0 killed...stopped by people at the scene with guns......

20 killed in Russia with a pump action shotgun.

12 killed at the Navy Yard with a pump action shotgun

32 killed at Virginia Tech with 2 pistols

24 killed in Luby's Cafe with 2 pistols.

In Gilroy, in DC Not "someone" but a trained police officer.

What the fuck makes you think trained law enforcement carrying a gun is the same as one of you whackjobs carrying a gun? You have little training on handing the weapon and no training of a shooter situation.

Yet another one opf yiour srtyupud asrgumebts.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is nothing crazy about deleting an amendment which is outdated and no longer applies to our society.

The need for the right to keep and bear arms applies today as it did in 1791; the protections provided for it by the 2nd are FAR more necessary now than ever in our history.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It does matter.
To ban something that leads to mass killings that has no other use is a nobrainer.

Look how cute you are, thinking 'assault weapons' have no use other than mass killings.




.[/QUOTE]

 

[M14 Shooter]

In Gilroy, in DC Not "someone" but a trained police officer.

Wait...
You REALLY think only a "trained police officer" could stop the Gilroy shooter?

 

[XponentialChaos]

Your point has been brought up before. The theory by anti-gun activists is that regardless of those other factors......More Guns = More Gun crime. That is where they hang their hat.

So.....the point they miss, and I think you miss....is that over those 26 years.....whether or not normal people owning guns was a factor in reducing gun crime.....

More Guns in the hands of law abiding people did not increase the gun crime rates...

So over that 26 years.....more Americans own and actually carry guns....17.25 million Americans from about 4 million actually being able to legally carry guns.....and the gun crime rates went still went down.

So the core theory is wrong....More Guns did not = More gun crime.

Now, it is true that various factors made the murder rate go down, more police, smarter police tactics and so on.......but that isn't their argument or their point.......

Also, for one thing........if you are being attacked, and you use a gun to stop the attack....that crime didn't happen to you....

Then, I have actual research from various researchers who state that there is a correlation to decreases in interpersonal crime when more people own and carry guns...for example, there are more home invasions in Britain than here in the U.S....why? When researchers ask criminals in prison, they state they go into empty houses in the U.S. because they don't want to get shot. In Britain, the criminals don't care about people being home, because they don't have guns...and since they don't have guns, they can be tied up and questioned about where their belongings are...

I don't think I got a clear answer so I'll keep this one short and more direct.

I don't want to discuss the 26 year time period, which I consider an extraneous variable.

Removing that variable from the discussion, it's a fact that states with more gun ownership have more gun homicides. Why is that?

It's not even a low correlation. It's a moderate to high correlation. Very distinct.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Other researchers have done the same thing and found the opposite....and then you get into the chicken and egg problem.....

Are more people getting legal guns, which are different from criminals getting guns, because of the violent crime...or is gun ownership driving up the gun crime rate....

You have to think, that coming from your thought, that normal people having guns, means they are then using those guns for crime....which doesn't make any sense. Criminals drive the gun crime rate, not normal people.

Here are papers that show that concealed carry permits actually help reduce crime.....not by huge amounts, but they do lower the crime rate....interpersonal crimes...

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Bartley-Cohen-Economic-Inquiry-1998.pdf


The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis by William Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen, published in Economic Inquiry, April 1998 (Copy available here)

.....we find strong support for the hypothesis that the right-to-carry laws are associated with a decrease in the trend in violent crime rates.....

Paper........CCW does not increase police deaths...

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Mustard-JLE-Polic-Deaths-Gun-Control.pdf

This paper uses state-level data from 1984–96 to examine how right-to-carry laws and waiting periods affect the felonious deaths of police. Some people oppose concealed weapons carry laws because they believe these laws jeopardize law enforcement officials, who risk their lives to protect the citizenry. This paper strongly rejects this contention. States that allowed law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons had a slightly higher likelihood of having a felonious police death and slightly higher police death rates prior to the law. After enactment of the right-to-carry laws, states exhibit a reduced likelihood of having a felonious police death rate and slightly lower rates of police deaths. States that implement waiting periods have slightly lower felonious police death rates both before and after the law. Allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons does not endanger the lives of officers and may help reduce their risk of being killed

========

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


Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say By FLORENZ PLASSMANN AND T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

However, for all three crime categories the levels in years 2 and 3 after adoption of a right-to-carry law are significantly below the levels in the years before the adoption of the law, which suggests that there is generally a deterrent effect and that it takes about 1 year for this effect to emerge.

=======

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/323313

Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness*




Carlisle E. Moody
College of William and Mary
Overall, right‐to‐carry concealed weapons laws tend to reduce violent crime. The effect on property crime is more uncertain. I find evidence that these laws also reduce burglary.
====
http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Helland-Tabarrok-Placebo-Laws.pdf
Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime”∗ Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok

We also find, however, that the cross equation restrictions implied by the Lott-Mustard theory are supported.
-----
Surprisingly, therefore, we conclude that there is considerable support for the hypothesis that shall-issue laws cause criminals to substitute away from crimes against persons and towards crimes against property.
===========
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

===============

This one shows the benefits, in the billions of CCW laws...

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. There is no robust, consistent evidence that RTC laws have any significant effect on other violent crimes, including assault. There is some weak evidence that RTC laws increase robbery and assault while decreasing rape. Given that the victim costs of murder and rape are much higher than the costs of robbery and assault, the evidence shows that RTC laws are socially beneficial.

=======

States with lower guns = higher murder....and assault weapon ban pointless..

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2013.854294

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).





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.

Whoa, that's a lot of text for something I didn't say. I didn't say anything about gun crime rate. I'm specifically linking gun ownership rate to homicides.

It's a fact that these two measures have a moderate to high positive correlation.

 

[OldLady]

So you admit you'll be a criminal if things don't go your way.

Yes.....if you don't hand over your Constitutionally protected gun you will now be a felon.....never having used it for a crime....you will now be a criminal. That is as fascist as it gets.......which is why we don't trust people like you....

It is not "fascist." It is sane.

again - you went from simply wanting the violence to stop to now calling it "sane" we get rid of the 2nd amendment.

this is why we can't have nice things.

Your comment makes no sense to me. There is nothing crazy about deleting an amendment which is outdated and no longer applies to our society.

There is if you do it right after saying you are not coming for guns.

? I still don't understand what connection you're making that is so damning. But okay.

 

[XponentialChaos]

But how about we try looking at something different? Let's try removing that time variable just to see what happens. I looked at gun ownership rates by state and gun-related homicides by state. There was a positive correlation of approximately 0.7, which would be considered a moderate to strong correlation. That is, generally speaking the more armed citizens there are, the more gun homicides there are.

Interesting.
Explain the 50% drop in US gun-related homicides 1993-2014, while the number of guns increased 22% over the same period.

I answered this in the part that you cut out.

"The variable that this doesn't account for is time. As time has passed in those 26 years, I assume the norms have changed or law enforcement has improved, or something culturally has happened to reduce those homicides. Now I'm sure you'll credit that to more guns = less crime, to which we'll just disagree."

In short, I think it's an extraneous variable and I know we'll disagree on that. But that's why I'm focusing on the data without that variable, and in doing so, there is a distinct positive correlation between gun ownership and gun homicides.