More "freedom" going on - doesnt rate a mention

[Billy_Kinetta]

And you are wrong....again...

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

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


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


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

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

S

You can’t possibly have read my source and put together this cut and paste in just two minutes. This an article looking at as many as 30 different studies...printed in October 2017.

They cite Kellerman at the beginning of the article.......

So what does the research say? By far the most famous series of studies on this issue was conducted in the late 1980s and 1990s by Arthur Kellermann, now dean of the F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, and his colleagues. In one, published in 1993 in the New England Journal of Medicine and funded by the CDC, he and his colleagues identified 444 people who had been killed between 1987 and 1992 at home in three U.S. regions—Shelby County, Tennessee, King County, Washington State, and Cuyahoga County, Ohio—and then collected details about them and their deaths from local police, medical examiners and people who had been close to the victims. They found that a gun in the home was associated with a nearly threefold increase in the odds that someone would be killed at home by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

This Guy.......so no, that research is already crap........and I gave you actual, peer reviewed papers that say you are wrong...

Public Health and Gun Control: A Review

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4

Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example,

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested,

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use,

32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight,

and 17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required.

Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home.

One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6

While Kellermann and associates began with 444 cases of homicides in the home, cases were dropped from the study for a variety of reasons, and in the end, only 316 matched pairs were used in the final analysis, representing only 71.2 percent of the original 444 homicide cases.

This reduction increased tremendously the chance for sampling bias. Analysis of why 28.8 percent of the cases were dropped would have helped ascertain if the study was compromised by the existence of such biases, but Dr. Kellermann, in an unprecedented move, refused to release his data and make it available for other researchers to analyze.

Likewise, Prof. Gary Kleck of Florida State University has written me that knowledge about what guns were kept in the home is essential, but this data in his study was never released by Dr. Kellermann: "The most likely bit of data that he would want to withhold is information as to whether the gun used in the gun homicides was kept in the home of the victim."*

As Kates and associates point out, "The validity of the NEJM 1993 study¹s conclusions depend on the control group matching the homicide cases in every way (except, of course, for the occurrence of the homicide)."6

However, in this study, the controls collected did not match the cases in many ways (i.e., for example, in the amount of substance abuse, single parent versus two parent homes, etc.) contributing to further untoward effects, and decreasing the inference that can legitimately be drawn from the data of this study. Be that as it may, "The conclusion that gun ownership is a risk factor for homicide derives from the finding of a gun in 45.4 percent of the homicide case households, but in only 35.8 percent of the control household. Whether that finding is accurate, however, depends on the truthfulness of control group interviewees in admitting the presence of a gun or guns in the home."6

From the article...

Most of this research—and there have been several dozen peer-reviewed studies—punctures the idea that guns stop violence. In a 2015 study using data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least. Also in 2015 a combined analysis of 15 different studies found that people who had access to firearms at home were nearly twice as likely to be murdered as people who did not.

Funny how they don't link to any of that research......

and they also cite donahue...another rabid anti gunner with a history of lying in his research...

The flawed and misleading Donohue, Aneja, & Weber Study claiming right-to-carry laws increase violent crime - Crime Prevention Research Center

The bottom line is pretty clear: Since permit holders commit virtually no crimes, right-to-carry laws can’t increase violent crime rates. You can’t get the 1.5 to 20 percent increases in violent crime rates that a few of their estimates claim with only thousandths of one percent of permit holders committing violent crimes. To put it differently, states would have to be miss reporting 99%+ of crimes committed by permit holders for their results to be possible.

And here....

Confirming More Guns. Less Crime | Instrumental Variable | Statistics

Abstract

Analyzing county level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annualreductions in murder rates between 1.5 and 2.3 percent 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 fromreduced crimes usually ranges between about $2 billion and $3 billion per year.

Ayres and Donohue have simply misread their own results. Their own most generalizedspecification that breaks down the impact of the law on a year-by-year basis shows large crimereducing benefits. Virtually none of their claims that their county level hybrid model impliesinitial significant increases in crime are correct. Overall, the vast majority of their estimatesbased on data up to 1997 actually demonstrate that right-to-carry laws produce substantial crimereducing benefits. We show that their models also do an extremely poor job of predicting thechanges in crime rates after 19

Well...since we're into bashing sources here, let's look at yours. John R. Lott, Jr. - a rabid pro-gunner with...hmmm....a history of making up research???

Disputed survey

In the course of a dispute with Otis Dudley Duncan in 1999–2000,[67][68] Lott claimed to have undertaken a national survey of 2,424 respondents in 1997, the results of which were the source for claims he had made beginning in 1997.[68] However, in 2000 Lott was unable to produce the data, or any records showing that the survey had been undertaken. He said the 1997 hard drive crash that had affected several projects with co-authors had destroyed his survey data set,[69] the original tally sheets had been abandoned with other personal property in his move from Chicago to Yale, and he could not recall the names of any of the students who he said had worked on it. Critics alleged that the survey had never taken place,[70] but Lott defends the survey's existence and accuracy, quoting on his website colleagues who lost data in the hard drive crash.[71]

So what exactly makes his claims against Donahue credible?

The Scientific American article also notes another survey by Douglas Wiebe, in 2003 (U. Penn) that adjusted for the variables that were criticized in the Kellerman study, and confirmed the results.

"Well...since we're into bashing sources here, let's look at yours. John R. Lott, Jr. - a rabid pro-gunner with...hmmm....a history of making up research???"

Too funny. I suppose you also have Michael Bellesiles' book in a shrine of some sort in your house?

 

[2aguy]

And you are wrong....again...

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

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


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


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

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

S

You can’t possibly have read my source and put together this cut and paste in just two minutes. This an article looking at as many as 30 different studies...printed in October 2017.

They cite Kellerman at the beginning of the article.......

So what does the research say? By far the most famous series of studies on this issue was conducted in the late 1980s and 1990s by Arthur Kellermann, now dean of the F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, and his colleagues. In one, published in 1993 in the New England Journal of Medicine and funded by the CDC, he and his colleagues identified 444 people who had been killed between 1987 and 1992 at home in three U.S. regions—Shelby County, Tennessee, King County, Washington State, and Cuyahoga County, Ohio—and then collected details about them and their deaths from local police, medical examiners and people who had been close to the victims. They found that a gun in the home was associated with a nearly threefold increase in the odds that someone would be killed at home by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

This Guy.......so no, that research is already crap........and I gave you actual, peer reviewed papers that say you are wrong...

Public Health and Gun Control: A Review

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4

Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example,

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested,

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use,

32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight,

and 17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required.

Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home.

One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6

While Kellermann and associates began with 444 cases of homicides in the home, cases were dropped from the study for a variety of reasons, and in the end, only 316 matched pairs were used in the final analysis, representing only 71.2 percent of the original 444 homicide cases.

This reduction increased tremendously the chance for sampling bias. Analysis of why 28.8 percent of the cases were dropped would have helped ascertain if the study was compromised by the existence of such biases, but Dr. Kellermann, in an unprecedented move, refused to release his data and make it available for other researchers to analyze.

Likewise, Prof. Gary Kleck of Florida State University has written me that knowledge about what guns were kept in the home is essential, but this data in his study was never released by Dr. Kellermann: "The most likely bit of data that he would want to withhold is information as to whether the gun used in the gun homicides was kept in the home of the victim."*

As Kates and associates point out, "The validity of the NEJM 1993 study¹s conclusions depend on the control group matching the homicide cases in every way (except, of course, for the occurrence of the homicide)."6

However, in this study, the controls collected did not match the cases in many ways (i.e., for example, in the amount of substance abuse, single parent versus two parent homes, etc.) contributing to further untoward effects, and decreasing the inference that can legitimately be drawn from the data of this study. Be that as it may, "The conclusion that gun ownership is a risk factor for homicide derives from the finding of a gun in 45.4 percent of the homicide case households, but in only 35.8 percent of the control household. Whether that finding is accurate, however, depends on the truthfulness of control group interviewees in admitting the presence of a gun or guns in the home."6

From the article...

Most of this research—and there have been several dozen peer-reviewed studies—punctures the idea that guns stop violence. In a 2015 study using data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least. Also in 2015 a combined analysis of 15 different studies found that people who had access to firearms at home were nearly twice as likely to be murdered as people who did not.

Funny how they don't link to any of that research......

and they also cite donahue...another rabid anti gunner with a history of lying in his research...

The flawed and misleading Donohue, Aneja, & Weber Study claiming right-to-carry laws increase violent crime - Crime Prevention Research Center

The bottom line is pretty clear: Since permit holders commit virtually no crimes, right-to-carry laws can’t increase violent crime rates. You can’t get the 1.5 to 20 percent increases in violent crime rates that a few of their estimates claim with only thousandths of one percent of permit holders committing violent crimes. To put it differently, states would have to be miss reporting 99%+ of crimes committed by permit holders for their results to be possible.

And here....

Confirming More Guns. Less Crime | Instrumental Variable | Statistics

Abstract

Analyzing county level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annualreductions in murder rates between 1.5 and 2.3 percent 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 fromreduced crimes usually ranges between about $2 billion and $3 billion per year.

Ayres and Donohue have simply misread their own results. Their own most generalizedspecification that breaks down the impact of the law on a year-by-year basis shows large crimereducing benefits. Virtually none of their claims that their county level hybrid model impliesinitial significant increases in crime are correct. Overall, the vast majority of their estimatesbased on data up to 1997 actually demonstrate that right-to-carry laws produce substantial crimereducing benefits. We show that their models also do an extremely poor job of predicting thechanges in crime rates after 19

Well...since we're into bashing sources here, let's look at yours. John R. Lott, Jr. - a rabid pro-gunner with...hmmm....a history of making up research???

Disputed survey

In the course of a dispute with Otis Dudley Duncan in 1999–2000,[67][68] Lott claimed to have undertaken a national survey of 2,424 respondents in 1997, the results of which were the source for claims he had made beginning in 1997.[68] However, in 2000 Lott was unable to produce the data, or any records showing that the survey had been undertaken. He said the 1997 hard drive crash that had affected several projects with co-authors had destroyed his survey data set,[69] the original tally sheets had been abandoned with other personal property in his move from Chicago to Yale, and he could not recall the names of any of the students who he said had worked on it. Critics alleged that the survey had never taken place,[70] but Lott defends the survey's existence and accuracy, quoting on his website colleagues who lost data in the hard drive crash.[71]

So what exactly makes his claims against Donahue credible?

The Scientific American article also notes another survey by Douglas Wiebe, in 2003 (U. Penn) that adjusted for the variables that were criticized in the Kellerman study, and confirmed the results.

Moron.......

Here is Lott responding to the anti gunners trying to smear him...


Response to Malkin's Op-ed

It was not simple. Lott claims to have lost all of his data due to a computer crash.


2) As to the “claim” that I lost my data in a computer crash on July 3, 1997, I have offered Malkin the statements from nine academics (statements attached), four of whom I was co-authoring papers with at the time and who remember quite vividly also losing the data that we had on various projects. David Mustard at the University of Georgia spent considerable time during 1997 helping me replace gun crime data. Other academics worked with me to replace data on our other projects. Just so it is clear, this computer crash basically cost me all my data on all my projects up to that point in time, including all the data and word files for my book, More Guns, Less Crime, and numerous papers that were under review at journals. The next couple of years were hell trying to replace things and the data for this survey which ended up being one sentence in the book, was not of particular importance. However, all the data was replaced, including not only the large county level data, the state level data, as well as the survey data, when the survey was redone.
He financed the survey himself and kept no financial records.


* Unlike many academics, I have never asked for government support for my research. Nothing different or unusual was done in this case. While we still have the tax forms that we filed that show we made large expenditures on research assistants that year, my wife keeps our financial documents for the three years required by the IRS. I have provided my tax records from that year to several professors. Among them is a tax expert, Professor Joe Olson, at Hamline University in Minnesota, and he can verify this information. I have checked with the bank that we had an account with, but they only keep records five years back. Since wild claims have been made about the costs of the survey, some notion of its scope would be useful. The survey was structured so that over 90 percent of those questioned would only have to answer three short questions and those were usually completed in under 30 seconds. Less than one percent of those surveyed would actually answer as many as seven questions and even in that case the survey only took about two minutes. The appendix in The Bias Against Guns provides a description of the survey when it was replicated.
He has forgotten the names of the students who allegedly helped with the survey and who supposedly dialed thousands of survey respondents long-distance from their own dorm rooms using survey software Lott can't identify or produce.


* I have hired lots of student RAs over the years. Since I have been at AEI in the last couple of years I have had around 25 people work for me on various projects. The students in question worked for me during the very beginning of 1997. While I can usually reconstruct who has worked for me, it requires that I have that material written down. The information on these students was lost in the hard disk crash and given that I had lost data for other projects such as three revise-and-resubmits that I had at the Journal of Political Economy it was not a particularly high priority.


I don’t have the original CD with telephone numbers from across the country that was used to obtain telephone numbers, but I have kept one that I obtained later in 1997 when I was considering redoing the survey and I still have that available.
Assuming the survey data was lost in a computer crash, it is still remarkable that Lott could not produce a single, contemporaneous scrap of paper proving the survey's existence, such as the research protocol or survey instrument.


3) I have statements from two people who took the survey and other confirmatory evidence. As to the written material, being asked for written material six years after the survey is a long time. After the survey was done, the material was kept on my computer. In addition, I have moved three times (Chicago to Yale to Pennsylvania to AEI) as well as changed offices at Chicago and Yale since the summer of 1997. Yet, besides the statements from the academics who can verify the hard disk crash as well as the statement of those who participated in the survey, I do have statements David Mustard, who I had talked to numerous times about doing the survey with me during 1996 and who remembers after that us talking about the survey after it was completed. He is “fairly confident” that those conversations took place during 1997. John Whitley and Geoff Huck also have some recollections. Russell Roberts, now a professor at George Mason, was someone else that I talked to about the survey, but he simply can’t remember one way of the other. I didn’t talk to people other than co-authors about the survey and the research that I was doing on guns generally. This is because of the often great hostility to my gun work and also because I didn’t want to give those who disliked me a heads-up on what I was doing. I did have the questions from the survey and they were reused in the replicated survey in 2002.

 

[emilynghiem]

Family of 4 dies in Texas hotel shooting

A family of 4 dead. Mom shot her kids aged 5 and 10 and her husband.Then killed herself.

I wonder if those kids would still be alive if this woman found it difficult to get a gun ?

Is it just possible ?

Tommy Tainant
Would banning and restricting access to abortion
stop anyone from getting abortions other ways?

 

[2aguy]

Nothing supports your positions on the 2nd Amendment....not truth, facts or reality........the Supreme Court has ruled against you, and 41 years of research shows you are wrong.....

the fact....the fact....that as more Americans have purchased and now have permits to carry guns...and our gun crime rates have gone down, show you don't know what you are talking about...

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 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...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.

htt

Pew is a reputable source however - it isn't really supporting what you are claiming.

For example while homicides went down...suicides went up: Gun homicides steady after decline in ’90s; suicide rate edges up

It also noted this:

The July survey also found that Americans strongly support a variety of specific gun control measures, including expanded background checks (85%), laws to prevent people with mental illness from purchasing guns (79%) and creation of a federal database to track all gun sales (70%). A smaller majority (57%) support a ban on assault-style weapons.​

But more important - it draws no definitive causal conclusion between increased gun ownership and lower crime rates. Crime rates are affected by a complex array of factors but the gun lobby wants you to think the only factor is the increase or decrease in gun ownership. Pew notes here in this part of the report, that there are numerous factors at play.

What is Behind the Crime Decline?

Researchers continue to debate the key factors behind changing crime rates, which is part of a larger discussion about the predictors of crime.3 There is consensus that demographics played some role: The outsized post-World War II baby boom, which produced a large number of people in the high-crime ages of 15 to 20 in the 1960s and 1970s, helped drive crime up in those years.

A review by the National Academy of Sciences of factors driving recent crime trends (Blumstein and Rosenfeld, 2008) cited a decline in rates in the early 1980s as the young boomers got older, then a flare-up by mid-decade in conjunction with a rising street market for crack cocaine, especially in big cities. It noted recruitment of a younger cohort of drug seller with greater willingness to use guns. By the early 1990s, crack markets withered in part because of lessened demand, and the vibrant national economy made it easier for even low-skilled young people to find jobs rather than get involved in crime.

At the same time, a rising number of people ages 30 and older were incarcerated, due in part to stricter laws, which helped restrain violence among this age group. It is less clear, researchers say, that innovative policing strategies and police crackdowns on use of guns by younger adults played a significant role in reducing crime.

Some researchers have proposed additional explanations as to why crime levels plunged so suddenly, including increased access to abortion and lessened exposure to lead. According to one hypothesis, legalization of abortion after the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision resulted in fewer unwanted births, and unwanted children have an increased risk of growing up to become criminals. Another theory links reduced crime to 1970s-era reductions in lead in gasoline; children’s exposure to lead causes brain damage that could be associated with violent behavior. The National Academy of Sciences review said it was unlikely that either played a major role, but researchers continue to explore both factors.

The plateau in national violent crime rates has raised interest in the topic of how local differences might influence crime levels and trends. Crime reductions took place across the country in the 1990s, but since 2000, patterns have varied more by metropolitan area or city.4

One focus of interest is that gun ownership varies widely by region and locality. The National Academy of Sciences review of possible influences on crime trends said there is good evidence of a link between firearm ownership and firearm homicide at the local level; “the causal direction of this relationship remains in dispute, however, with some researchers maintaining that firearm violence elevates rates of gun ownership, but not the reverse.”

There is substantial variation within and across regions and localities in a number of other realms, which complicates any attempt to find a single cause for national trends. Among the variations of interest to researchers are policing techniques, punishment policies, culture, economics and residential segregation.​

Yes.....gun ownership went through the roof.....and gun crime went down...

There are studies that support the belief that guns in private hands helped lower the crime rate....I have linked to those in earlier posts....

But the real problem for you......moron.......is that the last 21 years have shown that the basic, the fundamental argument that you guys make......is wrong.....and has no basis in reality....

You guys claim that More Guns = More Gun Crime....that is your entire argument.....

And it has been proven wrong over 21 years ........as more Americans bought and carried guns....the gun crime rates went down, not up...showing that you have nothing....your arguments are based on false premises and a lack of understanding.......

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 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...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.

More Guns......less crime.....you have nothing....

 

[2aguy]

Nothing supports your positions on the 2nd Amendment....not truth, facts or reality........the Supreme Court has ruled against you, and 41 years of research shows you are wrong.....

the fact....the fact....that as more Americans have purchased and now have permits to carry guns...and our gun crime rates have gone down, show you don't know what you are talking about...

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 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...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.

htt

Pew is a reputable source however - it isn't really supporting what you are claiming.

For example while homicides went down...suicides went up: Gun homicides steady after decline in ’90s; suicide rate edges up

It also noted this:

The July survey also found that Americans strongly support a variety of specific gun control measures, including expanded background checks (85%), laws to prevent people with mental illness from purchasing guns (79%) and creation of a federal database to track all gun sales (70%). A smaller majority (57%) support a ban on assault-style weapons.​

But more important - it draws no definitive causal conclusion between increased gun ownership and lower crime rates. Crime rates are affected by a complex array of factors but the gun lobby wants you to think the only factor is the increase or decrease in gun ownership. Pew notes here in this part of the report, that there are numerous factors at play.

What is Behind the Crime Decline?

Researchers continue to debate the key factors behind changing crime rates, which is part of a larger discussion about the predictors of crime.3 There is consensus that demographics played some role: The outsized post-World War II baby boom, which produced a large number of people in the high-crime ages of 15 to 20 in the 1960s and 1970s, helped drive crime up in those years.

A review by the National Academy of Sciences of factors driving recent crime trends (Blumstein and Rosenfeld, 2008) cited a decline in rates in the early 1980s as the young boomers got older, then a flare-up by mid-decade in conjunction with a rising street market for crack cocaine, especially in big cities. It noted recruitment of a younger cohort of drug seller with greater willingness to use guns. By the early 1990s, crack markets withered in part because of lessened demand, and the vibrant national economy made it easier for even low-skilled young people to find jobs rather than get involved in crime.

At the same time, a rising number of people ages 30 and older were incarcerated, due in part to stricter laws, which helped restrain violence among this age group. It is less clear, researchers say, that innovative policing strategies and police crackdowns on use of guns by younger adults played a significant role in reducing crime.

Some researchers have proposed additional explanations as to why crime levels plunged so suddenly, including increased access to abortion and lessened exposure to lead. According to one hypothesis, legalization of abortion after the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision resulted in fewer unwanted births, and unwanted children have an increased risk of growing up to become criminals. Another theory links reduced crime to 1970s-era reductions in lead in gasoline; children’s exposure to lead causes brain damage that could be associated with violent behavior. The National Academy of Sciences review said it was unlikely that either played a major role, but researchers continue to explore both factors.

The plateau in national violent crime rates has raised interest in the topic of how local differences might influence crime levels and trends. Crime reductions took place across the country in the 1990s, but since 2000, patterns have varied more by metropolitan area or city.4

One focus of interest is that gun ownership varies widely by region and locality. The National Academy of Sciences review of possible influences on crime trends said there is good evidence of a link between firearm ownership and firearm homicide at the local level; “the causal direction of this relationship remains in dispute, however, with some researchers maintaining that firearm violence elevates rates of gun ownership, but not the reverse.”

There is substantial variation within and across regions and localities in a number of other realms, which complicates any attempt to find a single cause for national trends. Among the variations of interest to researchers are policing techniques, punishment policies, culture, economics and residential segregation.​

As to the other questions...

It also noted this:
The July survey also found that Americans strongly support a variety of specific gun control measures, including expanded background checks (85%), laws to prevent people with mental illness from purchasing guns (79%) and creation of a federal database to track all gun sales (70%). A smaller majority (57%) support a ban on assault-style weapons.

They asked uninformed people, unrefined questions and got those results.....

As I have posted before....ask those same people if they support background checks if they are willing to register their guns with the government, and inform them that in every country that registered guns, guns were banned and confiscated.....and then ask them if it is correct that law abiding citizens will have to register their guns......while felons and other criminals will not have to register their illegal guns due to the Haynes v. United States Supreme Court decision.....

Dittos the federal background data base...ask them if they realize that such a data base will not solve crimes or prevent them.....and if that is the case, and that a national data base will allow the government to ban and confiscate guns at a later date, if they still support that data base.....

Then....ask them to explain what an "Assault Rifle" is.....and ask them if the fact that they are used to murder very few people in this country...and that knives, clubs and empty hands kill more people every single year than all types of rifles do....

Ask those questions with that information....doofus.....then get back to us with the poll results.....

 

[Coyote]

Nothing supports your positions on the 2nd Amendment....not truth, facts or reality........the Supreme Court has ruled against you, and 41 years of research shows you are wrong.....

the fact....the fact....that as more Americans have purchased and now have permits to carry guns...and our gun crime rates have gone down, show you don't know what you are talking about...

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 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...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.

htt

Pew is a reputable source however - it isn't really supporting what you are claiming.

For example while homicides went down...suicides went up: Gun homicides steady after decline in ’90s; suicide rate edges up

It also noted this:

The July survey also found that Americans strongly support a variety of specific gun control measures, including expanded background checks (85%), laws to prevent people with mental illness from purchasing guns (79%) and creation of a federal database to track all gun sales (70%). A smaller majority (57%) support a ban on assault-style weapons.​

But more important - it draws no definitive causal conclusion between increased gun ownership and lower crime rates. Crime rates are affected by a complex array of factors but the gun lobby wants you to think the only factor is the increase or decrease in gun ownership. Pew notes here in this part of the report, that there are numerous factors at play.

What is Behind the Crime Decline?

Researchers continue to debate the key factors behind changing crime rates, which is part of a larger discussion about the predictors of crime.3 There is consensus that demographics played some role: The outsized post-World War II baby boom, which produced a large number of people in the high-crime ages of 15 to 20 in the 1960s and 1970s, helped drive crime up in those years.

A review by the National Academy of Sciences of factors driving recent crime trends (Blumstein and Rosenfeld, 2008) cited a decline in rates in the early 1980s as the young boomers got older, then a flare-up by mid-decade in conjunction with a rising street market for crack cocaine, especially in big cities. It noted recruitment of a younger cohort of drug seller with greater willingness to use guns. By the early 1990s, crack markets withered in part because of lessened demand, and the vibrant national economy made it easier for even low-skilled young people to find jobs rather than get involved in crime.

At the same time, a rising number of people ages 30 and older were incarcerated, due in part to stricter laws, which helped restrain violence among this age group. It is less clear, researchers say, that innovative policing strategies and police crackdowns on use of guns by younger adults played a significant role in reducing crime.

Some researchers have proposed additional explanations as to why crime levels plunged so suddenly, including increased access to abortion and lessened exposure to lead. According to one hypothesis, legalization of abortion after the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision resulted in fewer unwanted births, and unwanted children have an increased risk of growing up to become criminals. Another theory links reduced crime to 1970s-era reductions in lead in gasoline; children’s exposure to lead causes brain damage that could be associated with violent behavior. The National Academy of Sciences review said it was unlikely that either played a major role, but researchers continue to explore both factors.

The plateau in national violent crime rates has raised interest in the topic of how local differences might influence crime levels and trends. Crime reductions took place across the country in the 1990s, but since 2000, patterns have varied more by metropolitan area or city.4

One focus of interest is that gun ownership varies widely by region and locality. The National Academy of Sciences review of possible influences on crime trends said there is good evidence of a link between firearm ownership and firearm homicide at the local level; “the causal direction of this relationship remains in dispute, however, with some researchers maintaining that firearm violence elevates rates of gun ownership, but not the reverse.”

There is substantial variation within and across regions and localities in a number of other realms, which complicates any attempt to find a single cause for national trends. Among the variations of interest to researchers are policing techniques, punishment policies, culture, economics and residential segregation.​

Yes.....gun ownership went through the roof.....and gun crime went down...

There are studies that support the belief that guns in private hands helped lower the crime rate....I have linked to those in earlier posts....

But the real problem for you......moron.......is that the last 21 years have shown that the basic, the fundamental argument that you guys make......is wrong.....and has no basis in reality....

You guys claim that More Guns = More Gun Crime....that is your entire argument.....

And it has been proven wrong over 21 years ........as more Americans bought and carried guns....the gun crime rates went down, not up...showing that you have nothing....your arguments are based on false premises and a lack of understanding.......

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 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...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.

More Guns......less crime.....you have nothing....

You are just spamming the same crap over and over again.

The source you yourself used - Pew even said that there were MANY factors involved in declining crime rates and that increased gun ownership was not necessarily causal in the rates going down.

Mobile phone ownership increased during that time. As mobile phone ownership went up - violent crime went down. Hmmm....according to your logic...it must be causal.

 

[2aguy]

California New York and Massachusetts have openly violated the Right to keep and Bear arms.....magazine bans, concealed carry bans, and may issue laws, as well as assault weapon bans.....licensing, registration, also violate the right...

None of that violates the right. No right is unrestricted.

Can they purchase a firearm?

Yes...it does....according to your logic, Poll Taxes and Literacy tests for voting...which democrats used against blacks, do not violate the Right to Vote, neither does censorship of books........

They can't buy magazines over 10 rounds, they can't buy civilian rifles, and they can't carry guns without permits which those states refuse to give out.....

Poll Taxes and Literacy tests violate the Right, even if blacks were still allowed to vote...

Poll taxes and literacy tests prevent people from voting.

Requiring registration does not disenfranchise anyone.

Placing reasonable limits on what you can buy doesn’t either. It isn’t an unlimited right. You can still purchase many firearms. Conceal carry is not a right.

Thus far the only groups deprived of that right are felons and mentally ill...correct?

Placing reasonable limits on what you can buy doesn’t either


We already have "reasonable restrictions" on the Right to bear arms...

1) you cannot use a gun to commit a crime.

2) you cannot be a felon or dangerously mentally ill and own a gun.

Those are the only 2 we need......allowing us to disarm dangerous people....

Really....?

Are you going to sell guns in Toys R Us?

How about a suitcase nuke? (nukes are arms too)

A rocket launcher?

If we're going to be very literal, we should look at what were considered arms in the 1770's and stick with that.

It would help if you did some basic research........try reading Heller for starts....doofus......explains everything really well....then get back to us...

Here is a nice look at your stupidity....

Countering Gun Control Advocates' "No Right is Absolute" Argument - The Truth About Guns



As Second Amendment absolutists say, what part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand? Answer: “the right to keep and bear arms.”

Keep means have, as in possess. Bear means to carry on one’s person. And . . . that’s it. The Second Amendment doesn’t prohibit the government from limiting the use of these arms. For example . . .

In Texas, a municipality can ban citizens from discharging a firearm on a tract of land smaller than 10 acres (unless it’s for lawful self-defense). Residents can keep and bearfirearms on a sub-10 acre plot, but cities can ban them from shooting those guns (unless it’s for lawful self-defense). That’s not unconstitutional.

In contrast, residents who want to carry (i.e. “bear”) a firearm in Texas have to get a government permission slip; requiring an application, fingerprinting, background check, four hours of training, a shooting test and a fee. That is clearly unconstitutional.



----

Big Bill is correct when he insists that the First Amendment doesn’t protect someone shouting “FIRE!” in a crowded movie house — if doing so causes harm. But you can shout FIRE! if there’s a fire.

By the same token, Uncle Sam can’t stop someone from entering a theater because the government has reason to believes the parton might shout FIRE! in a crowded movie house, creating panic and harm. This is no small point . .

The First Amendment prohibits prior suppression of free speech.

Nothing prohibits the government from holding citizens accountable for the effects of their free speech — save the difficulty proving that a speaker directly, knowingly and maliciously caused harm by his or her speech. Unless it’s something like creating panic or physical harm by falsely and maliciously shouting FIRE! in a crowded movie house.

The First and Second Amendment forbid the government from prohibiting the keeping and bear arms or the exercise of free speech. They don’t stop the government from punishing citizens whose firearms or speech causes harm AFTER THE FACT.

Our Founding Fathers knew that laws that attempt to stop unwanted activities before they occur are both ineffective and dangerous. Inherently tyrannical.

What would the FFs have made of FBI background checks for gun purchases, ammunitionmagazine limitations, “assault weapons” bans, carry permits, bullet taxes and the like? A constitutional abomination and a direct affront to freedom. Like . . .

Banning the word “FIRE” in case someone might use it in a crowded theater (that wasn’t on fire).

So, in fact, the right to keep and bear arms is absolute, as is the right to free speech.

 

[Coyote]

Nothing supports your positions on the 2nd Amendment....not truth, facts or reality........the Supreme Court has ruled against you, and 41 years of research shows you are wrong.....

the fact....the fact....that as more Americans have purchased and now have permits to carry guns...and our gun crime rates have gone down, show you don't know what you are talking about...

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 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...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.

htt

Pew is a reputable source however - it isn't really supporting what you are claiming.

For example while homicides went down...suicides went up: Gun homicides steady after decline in ’90s; suicide rate edges up

It also noted this:

The July survey also found that Americans strongly support a variety of specific gun control measures, including expanded background checks (85%), laws to prevent people with mental illness from purchasing guns (79%) and creation of a federal database to track all gun sales (70%). A smaller majority (57%) support a ban on assault-style weapons.​

But more important - it draws no definitive causal conclusion between increased gun ownership and lower crime rates. Crime rates are affected by a complex array of factors but the gun lobby wants you to think the only factor is the increase or decrease in gun ownership. Pew notes here in this part of the report, that there are numerous factors at play.

What is Behind the Crime Decline?

Researchers continue to debate the key factors behind changing crime rates, which is part of a larger discussion about the predictors of crime.3 There is consensus that demographics played some role: The outsized post-World War II baby boom, which produced a large number of people in the high-crime ages of 15 to 20 in the 1960s and 1970s, helped drive crime up in those years.

A review by the National Academy of Sciences of factors driving recent crime trends (Blumstein and Rosenfeld, 2008) cited a decline in rates in the early 1980s as the young boomers got older, then a flare-up by mid-decade in conjunction with a rising street market for crack cocaine, especially in big cities. It noted recruitment of a younger cohort of drug seller with greater willingness to use guns. By the early 1990s, crack markets withered in part because of lessened demand, and the vibrant national economy made it easier for even low-skilled young people to find jobs rather than get involved in crime.

At the same time, a rising number of people ages 30 and older were incarcerated, due in part to stricter laws, which helped restrain violence among this age group. It is less clear, researchers say, that innovative policing strategies and police crackdowns on use of guns by younger adults played a significant role in reducing crime.

Some researchers have proposed additional explanations as to why crime levels plunged so suddenly, including increased access to abortion and lessened exposure to lead. According to one hypothesis, legalization of abortion after the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision resulted in fewer unwanted births, and unwanted children have an increased risk of growing up to become criminals. Another theory links reduced crime to 1970s-era reductions in lead in gasoline; children’s exposure to lead causes brain damage that could be associated with violent behavior. The National Academy of Sciences review said it was unlikely that either played a major role, but researchers continue to explore both factors.

The plateau in national violent crime rates has raised interest in the topic of how local differences might influence crime levels and trends. Crime reductions took place across the country in the 1990s, but since 2000, patterns have varied more by metropolitan area or city.4

One focus of interest is that gun ownership varies widely by region and locality. The National Academy of Sciences review of possible influences on crime trends said there is good evidence of a link between firearm ownership and firearm homicide at the local level; “the causal direction of this relationship remains in dispute, however, with some researchers maintaining that firearm violence elevates rates of gun ownership, but not the reverse.”

There is substantial variation within and across regions and localities in a number of other realms, which complicates any attempt to find a single cause for national trends. Among the variations of interest to researchers are policing techniques, punishment policies, culture, economics and residential segregation.​

As to the other questions...

It also noted this:
The July survey also found that Americans strongly support a variety of specific gun control measures, including expanded background checks (85%), laws to prevent people with mental illness from purchasing guns (79%) and creation of a federal database to track all gun sales (70%). A smaller majority (57%) support a ban on assault-style weapons.

They asked uninformed people, unrefined questions and got those results.....

As I have posted before....ask those same people if they support background checks if they are willing to register their guns with the government, and inform them that in every country that registered guns, guns were banned and confiscated.....and then ask them if it is correct that law abiding citizens will have to register their guns......while felons and other criminals will not have to register their illegal guns due to the Haynes v. United States Supreme Court decision.....

Dittos the federal background data base...ask them if they realize that such a data base will not solve crimes or prevent them.....and if that is the case, and that a national data base will allow the government to ban and confiscate guns at a later date, if they still support that data base.....

Then....ask them to explain what an "Assault Rifle" is.....and ask them if the fact that they are used to murder very few people in this country...and that knives, clubs and empty hands kill more people every single year than all types of rifles do....

Ask those questions with that information....doofus.....then get back to us with the poll results.....

So...now you are saying the SAME poll (Pew) you used to SUPPORT your claims is now based on "uninformed people" answering "unrefined questions" when it comes to that ONE paragraph?

 

[2aguy]

Nothing supports your positions on the 2nd Amendment....not truth, facts or reality........the Supreme Court has ruled against you, and 41 years of research shows you are wrong.....

the fact....the fact....that as more Americans have purchased and now have permits to carry guns...and our gun crime rates have gone down, show you don't know what you are talking about...

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 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...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.

htt

Pew is a reputable source however - it isn't really supporting what you are claiming.

For example while homicides went down...suicides went up: Gun homicides steady after decline in ’90s; suicide rate edges up

It also noted this:

The July survey also found that Americans strongly support a variety of specific gun control measures, including expanded background checks (85%), laws to prevent people with mental illness from purchasing guns (79%) and creation of a federal database to track all gun sales (70%). A smaller majority (57%) support a ban on assault-style weapons.​

But more important - it draws no definitive causal conclusion between increased gun ownership and lower crime rates. Crime rates are affected by a complex array of factors but the gun lobby wants you to think the only factor is the increase or decrease in gun ownership. Pew notes here in this part of the report, that there are numerous factors at play.

What is Behind the Crime Decline?

Researchers continue to debate the key factors behind changing crime rates, which is part of a larger discussion about the predictors of crime.3 There is consensus that demographics played some role: The outsized post-World War II baby boom, which produced a large number of people in the high-crime ages of 15 to 20 in the 1960s and 1970s, helped drive crime up in those years.

A review by the National Academy of Sciences of factors driving recent crime trends (Blumstein and Rosenfeld, 2008) cited a decline in rates in the early 1980s as the young boomers got older, then a flare-up by mid-decade in conjunction with a rising street market for crack cocaine, especially in big cities. It noted recruitment of a younger cohort of drug seller with greater willingness to use guns. By the early 1990s, crack markets withered in part because of lessened demand, and the vibrant national economy made it easier for even low-skilled young people to find jobs rather than get involved in crime.

At the same time, a rising number of people ages 30 and older were incarcerated, due in part to stricter laws, which helped restrain violence among this age group. It is less clear, researchers say, that innovative policing strategies and police crackdowns on use of guns by younger adults played a significant role in reducing crime.

Some researchers have proposed additional explanations as to why crime levels plunged so suddenly, including increased access to abortion and lessened exposure to lead. According to one hypothesis, legalization of abortion after the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision resulted in fewer unwanted births, and unwanted children have an increased risk of growing up to become criminals. Another theory links reduced crime to 1970s-era reductions in lead in gasoline; children’s exposure to lead causes brain damage that could be associated with violent behavior. The National Academy of Sciences review said it was unlikely that either played a major role, but researchers continue to explore both factors.

The plateau in national violent crime rates has raised interest in the topic of how local differences might influence crime levels and trends. Crime reductions took place across the country in the 1990s, but since 2000, patterns have varied more by metropolitan area or city.4

One focus of interest is that gun ownership varies widely by region and locality. The National Academy of Sciences review of possible influences on crime trends said there is good evidence of a link between firearm ownership and firearm homicide at the local level; “the causal direction of this relationship remains in dispute, however, with some researchers maintaining that firearm violence elevates rates of gun ownership, but not the reverse.”

There is substantial variation within and across regions and localities in a number of other realms, which complicates any attempt to find a single cause for national trends. Among the variations of interest to researchers are policing techniques, punishment policies, culture, economics and residential segregation.​

Yes.....gun ownership went through the roof.....and gun crime went down...

There are studies that support the belief that guns in private hands helped lower the crime rate....I have linked to those in earlier posts....

But the real problem for you......moron.......is that the last 21 years have shown that the basic, the fundamental argument that you guys make......is wrong.....and has no basis in reality....

You guys claim that More Guns = More Gun Crime....that is your entire argument.....

And it has been proven wrong over 21 years ........as more Americans bought and carried guns....the gun crime rates went down, not up...showing that you have nothing....your arguments are based on false premises and a lack of understanding.......

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 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...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.

More Guns......less crime.....you have nothing....

You are just spamming the same crap over and over again.

The source you yourself used - Pew even said that there were MANY factors involved in declining crime rates and that increased gun ownership was not necessarily causal in the rates going down.

Mobile phone ownership increased during that time. As mobile phone ownership went up - violent crime went down. Hmmm....according to your logic...it must be causal.

Yes.....you now have to run from the fact that the fundamental argument you guys make....

More Guns = More Gun Crime....

Is disproven by those 21 years of Americans buying more and more guns...and more and more Americans carrying those guns for self defense...showing for all the world to see that normal. law abiding people, owning and carrying guns does not increase the gun crime rate...at all.....and that the gun murder rate went down 49%....the gun crime rate went down 75%....and the violent crime rate went down 72%...

Which is the exact oppososite of what you anti gun extremists said would happen......

You have no argument....facts, research, and real world experience show you have no argument......you just want to ban guns because you are emotionally afraid of guns...

 

[Dr Grump]

Wish I had a peashooter. That would really tell me with regard to freedom!

 

[2aguy]

Nothing supports your positions on the 2nd Amendment....not truth, facts or reality........the Supreme Court has ruled against you, and 41 years of research shows you are wrong.....

the fact....the fact....that as more Americans have purchased and now have permits to carry guns...and our gun crime rates have gone down, show you don't know what you are talking about...

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 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...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.

htt

Pew is a reputable source however - it isn't really supporting what you are claiming.

For example while homicides went down...suicides went up: Gun homicides steady after decline in ’90s; suicide rate edges up

It also noted this:

The July survey also found that Americans strongly support a variety of specific gun control measures, including expanded background checks (85%), laws to prevent people with mental illness from purchasing guns (79%) and creation of a federal database to track all gun sales (70%). A smaller majority (57%) support a ban on assault-style weapons.​

But more important - it draws no definitive causal conclusion between increased gun ownership and lower crime rates. Crime rates are affected by a complex array of factors but the gun lobby wants you to think the only factor is the increase or decrease in gun ownership. Pew notes here in this part of the report, that there are numerous factors at play.

What is Behind the Crime Decline?

Researchers continue to debate the key factors behind changing crime rates, which is part of a larger discussion about the predictors of crime.3 There is consensus that demographics played some role: The outsized post-World War II baby boom, which produced a large number of people in the high-crime ages of 15 to 20 in the 1960s and 1970s, helped drive crime up in those years.

A review by the National Academy of Sciences of factors driving recent crime trends (Blumstein and Rosenfeld, 2008) cited a decline in rates in the early 1980s as the young boomers got older, then a flare-up by mid-decade in conjunction with a rising street market for crack cocaine, especially in big cities. It noted recruitment of a younger cohort of drug seller with greater willingness to use guns. By the early 1990s, crack markets withered in part because of lessened demand, and the vibrant national economy made it easier for even low-skilled young people to find jobs rather than get involved in crime.

At the same time, a rising number of people ages 30 and older were incarcerated, due in part to stricter laws, which helped restrain violence among this age group. It is less clear, researchers say, that innovative policing strategies and police crackdowns on use of guns by younger adults played a significant role in reducing crime.

Some researchers have proposed additional explanations as to why crime levels plunged so suddenly, including increased access to abortion and lessened exposure to lead. According to one hypothesis, legalization of abortion after the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision resulted in fewer unwanted births, and unwanted children have an increased risk of growing up to become criminals. Another theory links reduced crime to 1970s-era reductions in lead in gasoline; children’s exposure to lead causes brain damage that could be associated with violent behavior. The National Academy of Sciences review said it was unlikely that either played a major role, but researchers continue to explore both factors.

The plateau in national violent crime rates has raised interest in the topic of how local differences might influence crime levels and trends. Crime reductions took place across the country in the 1990s, but since 2000, patterns have varied more by metropolitan area or city.4

One focus of interest is that gun ownership varies widely by region and locality. The National Academy of Sciences review of possible influences on crime trends said there is good evidence of a link between firearm ownership and firearm homicide at the local level; “the causal direction of this relationship remains in dispute, however, with some researchers maintaining that firearm violence elevates rates of gun ownership, but not the reverse.”

There is substantial variation within and across regions and localities in a number of other realms, which complicates any attempt to find a single cause for national trends. Among the variations of interest to researchers are policing techniques, punishment policies, culture, economics and residential segregation.​

As to the other questions...

It also noted this:
The July survey also found that Americans strongly support a variety of specific gun control measures, including expanded background checks (85%), laws to prevent people with mental illness from purchasing guns (79%) and creation of a federal database to track all gun sales (70%). A smaller majority (57%) support a ban on assault-style weapons.

They asked uninformed people, unrefined questions and got those results.....

As I have posted before....ask those same people if they support background checks if they are willing to register their guns with the government, and inform them that in every country that registered guns, guns were banned and confiscated.....and then ask them if it is correct that law abiding citizens will have to register their guns......while felons and other criminals will not have to register their illegal guns due to the Haynes v. United States Supreme Court decision.....

Dittos the federal background data base...ask them if they realize that such a data base will not solve crimes or prevent them.....and if that is the case, and that a national data base will allow the government to ban and confiscate guns at a later date, if they still support that data base.....

Then....ask them to explain what an "Assault Rifle" is.....and ask them if the fact that they are used to murder very few people in this country...and that knives, clubs and empty hands kill more people every single year than all types of rifles do....

Ask those questions with that information....doofus.....then get back to us with the poll results.....

So...now you are saying the SAME poll (Pew) you used to SUPPORT your claims is now based on "uninformed people" answering "unrefined questions" when it comes to that ONE paragraph?

No, dipshit....please keep up.....Pew showed that gun murder went down, gun crime went down, violent crime went down...those are facts....

You then went on to try to use opinion polls to push anti gun actions that do not work, and I showed you that those people responding to the opinion part of the Pew Research were not given accurate questions to respond to.......

 

[bodecea]

Family of 4 dies in Texas hotel shooting

A family of 4 dead. Mom shot her kids aged 5 and 10 and her husband.Then killed herself.

I wonder if those kids would still be alive if this woman found it difficult to get a gun ?

Is it just possible ?

Oh well, these things happen.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Family of 4 dies in Texas hotel shooting

A family of 4 dead. Mom shot her kids aged 5 and 10 and her husband.Then killed herself.

I wonder if those kids would still be alive if this woman found it difficult to get a gun ?

Is it just possible ?

Freedom must be consistently acknowledged and protected in order for freedom to have any value or meaning.

The American Constitution is not a ‘cafeteria plan,’ one cannot pick and choose the rights he likes and ignore the rights he doesn’t like.

Conservatives in the United States are infamous for this: they oppose the states placing restrictions on firearms yet support states’ efforts to compel a woman to give birth against her will, or denying same-sex couples access to marriage law.

The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense; seeking to place an undue burden on the right to obtain a firearm violates the Second Amendment.

Just as those who oppose abortion must find a way to end the practice which comports with 14th Amendment jurisprudence and the right to privacy, so too must those wishing to end gun violence find the means to do so which is consistent with the Second Amendment.

The freedom Americans enjoy is the freedom to find real, actual solutions to problems that do not jeopardize the rights and protected liberties of the people – a freedom unique to our Constitutional Republic, and lacking in most democracies.

Im not an expert on the US constitution but wasnt there a reference to a "well regulated militia" ?
You dont hear much about these organisations.

Yes you do.

Our well regulated militia are those who are able bodied and armed.

You know... Those Veterans that are plentiful in the United States.

Who regulates them ?

We do.

 

[Coyote]

None of that violates the right. No right is unrestricted.

Can they purchase a firearm?

Yes...it does....according to your logic, Poll Taxes and Literacy tests for voting...which democrats used against blacks, do not violate the Right to Vote, neither does censorship of books........

They can't buy magazines over 10 rounds, they can't buy civilian rifles, and they can't carry guns without permits which those states refuse to give out.....

Poll Taxes and Literacy tests violate the Right, even if blacks were still allowed to vote...

Poll taxes and literacy tests prevent people from voting.

Requiring registration does not disenfranchise anyone.

Placing reasonable limits on what you can buy doesn’t either. It isn’t an unlimited right. You can still purchase many firearms. Conceal carry is not a right.

Thus far the only groups deprived of that right are felons and mentally ill...correct?

Placing reasonable limits on what you can buy doesn’t either


We already have "reasonable restrictions" on the Right to bear arms...

1) you cannot use a gun to commit a crime.

2) you cannot be a felon or dangerously mentally ill and own a gun.

Those are the only 2 we need......allowing us to disarm dangerous people....

Really....?

Are you going to sell guns in Toys R Us?

How about a suitcase nuke? (nukes are arms too)

A rocket launcher?

If we're going to be very literal, we should look at what were considered arms in the 1770's and stick with that.

It would help if you did some basic research........try reading Heller for starts....doofus......explains everything really well....then get back to us...

Here is a nice look at your stupidity....

Countering Gun Control Advocates' "No Right is Absolute" Argument - The Truth About Guns



As Second Amendment absolutists say, what part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand? Answer: “the right to keep and bear arms.”

Keep means have, as in possess. Bear means to carry on one’s person. And . . . that’s it. The Second Amendment doesn’t prohibit the government from limiting the use of these arms. For example . . .

In Texas, a municipality can ban citizens from discharging a firearm on a tract of land smaller than 10 acres (unless it’s for lawful self-defense). Residents can keep and bearfirearms on a sub-10 acre plot, but cities can ban them from shooting those guns (unless it’s for lawful self-defense). That’s not unconstitutional.

In contrast, residents who want to carry (i.e. “bear”) a firearm in Texas have to get a government permission slip; requiring an application, fingerprinting, background check, four hours of training, a shooting test and a fee. That is clearly unconstitutional.

No where is the right to keep and bear unlimited. You can not carry firearms into all establishments (private property rights) nor can you keep all manner of firearms - ie nukes. The 1700's was a very different world then the 2000's.

An application, background check, fingerprinting, training, and a shooting test - is not unconstitutional unless the person is denied the ability to own a weapon unconstitutionally. You mentioned you DID agree (I think it was you?) that violently mentally ill people should not have weapons. At the very least without the application and background check - how would you even know? All of those requirements have held up in a court -background checks, finger printing, applications.

----

Big Bill is correct when he insists that the First Amendment doesn’t protect someone shouting “FIRE!” in a crowded movie house — if doing so causes harm. But you can shout FIRE! if there’s a fire.

By the same token, Uncle Sam can’t stop someone from entering a theater because the government has reason to believes the parton might shout FIRE! in a crowded movie house, creating panic and harm. This is no small point . .

The First Amendment prohibits prior suppression of free speech.

Nothing prohibits the government from holding citizens accountable for the effects of their free speech — save the difficulty proving that a speaker directly, knowingly and maliciously caused harm by his or her speech. Unless it’s something like creating panic or physical harm by falsely and maliciously shouting FIRE! in a crowded movie house.

The First and Second Amendment forbid the government from prohibiting the keeping and bear arms or the exercise of free speech. They don’t stop the government from punishing citizens whose firearms or speech causes harm AFTER THE FACT.

Our Founding Fathers knew that laws that attempt to stop unwanted activities before they occur are both ineffective and dangerous. Inherently tyrannical.

What would the FFs have made of FBI background checks for gun purchases, ammunitionmagazine limitations, “assault weapons” bans, carry permits, bullet taxes and the like? A constitutional abomination and a direct affront to freedom. Like . . .

Banning the word “FIRE” in case someone might use it in a crowded theater (that wasn’t on fire).

So, in fact, the right to keep and bear arms is absolute, as is the right to free speech.

Given your reaction (doofus) to "rabid anti gun" sources...why would you think I would take seriously a "rabid pro gun" source like this? Our Founding Fathers also did not live in a world with nukes or the kind of weaponry we now have. Limiting that right is not abolishing it. What you want is the right to bear any weapon, open or concealed, any place in the country. I have free speech. But that doesn't mean I can carry my vocal abilities and start shouting and yelling anywhere I want. Someone's going to arrest me for disorderly conduct.

 

[Coyote]

Nothing supports your positions on the 2nd Amendment....not truth, facts or reality........the Supreme Court has ruled against you, and 41 years of research shows you are wrong.....

the fact....the fact....that as more Americans have purchased and now have permits to carry guns...and our gun crime rates have gone down, show you don't know what you are talking about...

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 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...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.

htt

Pew is a reputable source however - it isn't really supporting what you are claiming.

For example while homicides went down...suicides went up: Gun homicides steady after decline in ’90s; suicide rate edges up

It also noted this:

The July survey also found that Americans strongly support a variety of specific gun control measures, including expanded background checks (85%), laws to prevent people with mental illness from purchasing guns (79%) and creation of a federal database to track all gun sales (70%). A smaller majority (57%) support a ban on assault-style weapons.​

But more important - it draws no definitive causal conclusion between increased gun ownership and lower crime rates. Crime rates are affected by a complex array of factors but the gun lobby wants you to think the only factor is the increase or decrease in gun ownership. Pew notes here in this part of the report, that there are numerous factors at play.

What is Behind the Crime Decline?

Researchers continue to debate the key factors behind changing crime rates, which is part of a larger discussion about the predictors of crime.3 There is consensus that demographics played some role: The outsized post-World War II baby boom, which produced a large number of people in the high-crime ages of 15 to 20 in the 1960s and 1970s, helped drive crime up in those years.

A review by the National Academy of Sciences of factors driving recent crime trends (Blumstein and Rosenfeld, 2008) cited a decline in rates in the early 1980s as the young boomers got older, then a flare-up by mid-decade in conjunction with a rising street market for crack cocaine, especially in big cities. It noted recruitment of a younger cohort of drug seller with greater willingness to use guns. By the early 1990s, crack markets withered in part because of lessened demand, and the vibrant national economy made it easier for even low-skilled young people to find jobs rather than get involved in crime.

At the same time, a rising number of people ages 30 and older were incarcerated, due in part to stricter laws, which helped restrain violence among this age group. It is less clear, researchers say, that innovative policing strategies and police crackdowns on use of guns by younger adults played a significant role in reducing crime.

Some researchers have proposed additional explanations as to why crime levels plunged so suddenly, including increased access to abortion and lessened exposure to lead. According to one hypothesis, legalization of abortion after the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision resulted in fewer unwanted births, and unwanted children have an increased risk of growing up to become criminals. Another theory links reduced crime to 1970s-era reductions in lead in gasoline; children’s exposure to lead causes brain damage that could be associated with violent behavior. The National Academy of Sciences review said it was unlikely that either played a major role, but researchers continue to explore both factors.

The plateau in national violent crime rates has raised interest in the topic of how local differences might influence crime levels and trends. Crime reductions took place across the country in the 1990s, but since 2000, patterns have varied more by metropolitan area or city.4

One focus of interest is that gun ownership varies widely by region and locality. The National Academy of Sciences review of possible influences on crime trends said there is good evidence of a link between firearm ownership and firearm homicide at the local level; “the causal direction of this relationship remains in dispute, however, with some researchers maintaining that firearm violence elevates rates of gun ownership, but not the reverse.”

There is substantial variation within and across regions and localities in a number of other realms, which complicates any attempt to find a single cause for national trends. Among the variations of interest to researchers are policing techniques, punishment policies, culture, economics and residential segregation.​

As to the other questions...

It also noted this:
The July survey also found that Americans strongly support a variety of specific gun control measures, including expanded background checks (85%), laws to prevent people with mental illness from purchasing guns (79%) and creation of a federal database to track all gun sales (70%). A smaller majority (57%) support a ban on assault-style weapons.

They asked uninformed people, unrefined questions and got those results.....

As I have posted before....ask those same people if they support background checks if they are willing to register their guns with the government, and inform them that in every country that registered guns, guns were banned and confiscated.....and then ask them if it is correct that law abiding citizens will have to register their guns......while felons and other criminals will not have to register their illegal guns due to the Haynes v. United States Supreme Court decision.....

Dittos the federal background data base...ask them if they realize that such a data base will not solve crimes or prevent them.....and if that is the case, and that a national data base will allow the government to ban and confiscate guns at a later date, if they still support that data base.....

Then....ask them to explain what an "Assault Rifle" is.....and ask them if the fact that they are used to murder very few people in this country...and that knives, clubs and empty hands kill more people every single year than all types of rifles do....

Ask those questions with that information....doofus.....then get back to us with the poll results.....

So...now you are saying the SAME poll (Pew) you used to SUPPORT your claims is now based on "uninformed people" answering "unrefined questions" when it comes to that ONE paragraph?

No, dipshit....please keep up.....Pew showed that gun murder went down, gun crime went down, violent crime went down...those are facts....

You then went on to try to use opinion polls to push anti gun actions that do not work, and I showed you that those people responding to the opinion part of the Pew Research were not given accurate questions to respond to.......

You showed nothing of the sort. Dipshit.

You took Pew's facts and used them to claim it was caused by increased gun ownership when Pew made no such causal claim.

 

[2aguy]

Yes...it does....according to your logic, Poll Taxes and Literacy tests for voting...which democrats used against blacks, do not violate the Right to Vote, neither does censorship of books........

They can't buy magazines over 10 rounds, they can't buy civilian rifles, and they can't carry guns without permits which those states refuse to give out.....

Poll Taxes and Literacy tests violate the Right, even if blacks were still allowed to vote...

Poll taxes and literacy tests prevent people from voting.

Requiring registration does not disenfranchise anyone.

Placing reasonable limits on what you can buy doesn’t either. It isn’t an unlimited right. You can still purchase many firearms. Conceal carry is not a right.

Thus far the only groups deprived of that right are felons and mentally ill...correct?

Placing reasonable limits on what you can buy doesn’t either


We already have "reasonable restrictions" on the Right to bear arms...

1) you cannot use a gun to commit a crime.

2) you cannot be a felon or dangerously mentally ill and own a gun.

Those are the only 2 we need......allowing us to disarm dangerous people....

Really....?

Are you going to sell guns in Toys R Us?

How about a suitcase nuke? (nukes are arms too)

A rocket launcher?

If we're going to be very literal, we should look at what were considered arms in the 1770's and stick with that.

It would help if you did some basic research........try reading Heller for starts....doofus......explains everything really well....then get back to us...

Here is a nice look at your stupidity....

Countering Gun Control Advocates' "No Right is Absolute" Argument - The Truth About Guns



As Second Amendment absolutists say, what part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand? Answer: “the right to keep and bear arms.”

Keep means have, as in possess. Bear means to carry on one’s person. And . . . that’s it. The Second Amendment doesn’t prohibit the government from limiting the use of these arms. For example . . .

In Texas, a municipality can ban citizens from discharging a firearm on a tract of land smaller than 10 acres (unless it’s for lawful self-defense). Residents can keep and bearfirearms on a sub-10 acre plot, but cities can ban them from shooting those guns (unless it’s for lawful self-defense). That’s not unconstitutional.

In contrast, residents who want to carry (i.e. “bear”) a firearm in Texas have to get a government permission slip; requiring an application, fingerprinting, background check, four hours of training, a shooting test and a fee. That is clearly unconstitutional.

No where is the right to keep and bear unlimited. You can not carry firearms into all establishments (private property rights) nor can you keep all manner of firearms - ie nukes. The 1700's was a very different world then the 2000's.

An application, background check, fingerprinting, training, and a shooting test - is not unconstitutional unless the person is denied the ability to own a weapon unconstitutionally. You mentioned you DID agree (I think it was you?) that violently mentally ill people should not have weapons. At the very least without the application and background check - how would you even know? All of those requirements have held up in a court -background checks, finger printing, applications.

----

Big Bill is correct when he insists that the First Amendment doesn’t protect someone shouting “FIRE!” in a crowded movie house — if doing so causes harm. But you can shout FIRE! if there’s a fire.

By the same token, Uncle Sam can’t stop someone from entering a theater because the government has reason to believes the parton might shout FIRE! in a crowded movie house, creating panic and harm. This is no small point . .

The First Amendment prohibits prior suppression of free speech.

Nothing prohibits the government from holding citizens accountable for the effects of their free speech — save the difficulty proving that a speaker directly, knowingly and maliciously caused harm by his or her speech. Unless it’s something like creating panic or physical harm by falsely and maliciously shouting FIRE! in a crowded movie house.

The First and Second Amendment forbid the government from prohibiting the keeping and bear arms or the exercise of free speech. They don’t stop the government from punishing citizens whose firearms or speech causes harm AFTER THE FACT.

Our Founding Fathers knew that laws that attempt to stop unwanted activities before they occur are both ineffective and dangerous. Inherently tyrannical.

What would the FFs have made of FBI background checks for gun purchases, ammunitionmagazine limitations, “assault weapons” bans, carry permits, bullet taxes and the like? A constitutional abomination and a direct affront to freedom. Like . . .

Banning the word “FIRE” in case someone might use it in a crowded theater (that wasn’t on fire).

So, in fact, the right to keep and bear arms is absolute, as is the right to free speech.

Given your reaction (doofus) to "rabid anti gun" sources...why would you think I would take seriously a "rabid pro gun" source like this? Our Founding Fathers also did not live in a world with nukes or the kind of weaponry we now have. Limiting that right is not abolishing it. What you want is the right to bear any weapon, open or concealed, any place in the country. I have free speech. But that doesn't mean I can carry my vocal abilities and start shouting and yelling anywhere I want. Someone's going to arrest me for disorderly conduct.

No, Shit Head.....I have stated that the Right to Bear Arms applies to Rifles and pistols, the minimum being the ones our military and police carry...since they work for us, they don't get to be better armed than we do......

The dangersously mentally ill.....will have papers in court...when they are found with guns they can be disarmed......no background check needed......

And any fee that is attached to any Right is unConstitutional...no matter what the lower courts, in their ignorance, rule....

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)



4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.

5. The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. P. 319 U. S. 114.

6. That the ordinance is "nondiscriminatory," in that it applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise, is immaterial. The liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment are in a preferred position. P. 319 U. S. 115.

7. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state authority, the inquiry as to whether the State has given something for which it can ask a return is irrelevant. P. 319 U. S. 115.

8. A community may not suppress, or the State tax, the dissemination of views because they are unpopular, annoying, or distasteful. P. 319 U. S. 116.

------

Page 319 U. S. 108



The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ."

It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this ordinance is, in substance, just that.

 

[Rustic]

Family of 4 dies in Texas hotel shooting

A family of 4 dead. Mom shot her kids aged 5 and 10 and her husband.Then killed herself.

I wonder if those kids would still be alive if this woman found it difficult to get a gun ?

Is it just possible ?

Lol
Like that would make any difference you dumbass motherfucker...

 

[2aguy]

Nothing supports your positions on the 2nd Amendment....not truth, facts or reality........the Supreme Court has ruled against you, and 41 years of research shows you are wrong.....

the fact....the fact....that as more Americans have purchased and now have permits to carry guns...and our gun crime rates have gone down, show you don't know what you are talking about...

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 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...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.

htt

Pew is a reputable source however - it isn't really supporting what you are claiming.

For example while homicides went down...suicides went up: Gun homicides steady after decline in ’90s; suicide rate edges up

It also noted this:

The July survey also found that Americans strongly support a variety of specific gun control measures, including expanded background checks (85%), laws to prevent people with mental illness from purchasing guns (79%) and creation of a federal database to track all gun sales (70%). A smaller majority (57%) support a ban on assault-style weapons.​

But more important - it draws no definitive causal conclusion between increased gun ownership and lower crime rates. Crime rates are affected by a complex array of factors but the gun lobby wants you to think the only factor is the increase or decrease in gun ownership. Pew notes here in this part of the report, that there are numerous factors at play.

What is Behind the Crime Decline?

Researchers continue to debate the key factors behind changing crime rates, which is part of a larger discussion about the predictors of crime.3 There is consensus that demographics played some role: The outsized post-World War II baby boom, which produced a large number of people in the high-crime ages of 15 to 20 in the 1960s and 1970s, helped drive crime up in those years.

A review by the National Academy of Sciences of factors driving recent crime trends (Blumstein and Rosenfeld, 2008) cited a decline in rates in the early 1980s as the young boomers got older, then a flare-up by mid-decade in conjunction with a rising street market for crack cocaine, especially in big cities. It noted recruitment of a younger cohort of drug seller with greater willingness to use guns. By the early 1990s, crack markets withered in part because of lessened demand, and the vibrant national economy made it easier for even low-skilled young people to find jobs rather than get involved in crime.

At the same time, a rising number of people ages 30 and older were incarcerated, due in part to stricter laws, which helped restrain violence among this age group. It is less clear, researchers say, that innovative policing strategies and police crackdowns on use of guns by younger adults played a significant role in reducing crime.

Some researchers have proposed additional explanations as to why crime levels plunged so suddenly, including increased access to abortion and lessened exposure to lead. According to one hypothesis, legalization of abortion after the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision resulted in fewer unwanted births, and unwanted children have an increased risk of growing up to become criminals. Another theory links reduced crime to 1970s-era reductions in lead in gasoline; children’s exposure to lead causes brain damage that could be associated with violent behavior. The National Academy of Sciences review said it was unlikely that either played a major role, but researchers continue to explore both factors.

The plateau in national violent crime rates has raised interest in the topic of how local differences might influence crime levels and trends. Crime reductions took place across the country in the 1990s, but since 2000, patterns have varied more by metropolitan area or city.4

One focus of interest is that gun ownership varies widely by region and locality. The National Academy of Sciences review of possible influences on crime trends said there is good evidence of a link between firearm ownership and firearm homicide at the local level; “the causal direction of this relationship remains in dispute, however, with some researchers maintaining that firearm violence elevates rates of gun ownership, but not the reverse.”

There is substantial variation within and across regions and localities in a number of other realms, which complicates any attempt to find a single cause for national trends. Among the variations of interest to researchers are policing techniques, punishment policies, culture, economics and residential segregation.​

As to the other questions...

It also noted this:
The July survey also found that Americans strongly support a variety of specific gun control measures, including expanded background checks (85%), laws to prevent people with mental illness from purchasing guns (79%) and creation of a federal database to track all gun sales (70%). A smaller majority (57%) support a ban on assault-style weapons.

They asked uninformed people, unrefined questions and got those results.....

As I have posted before....ask those same people if they support background checks if they are willing to register their guns with the government, and inform them that in every country that registered guns, guns were banned and confiscated.....and then ask them if it is correct that law abiding citizens will have to register their guns......while felons and other criminals will not have to register their illegal guns due to the Haynes v. United States Supreme Court decision.....

Dittos the federal background data base...ask them if they realize that such a data base will not solve crimes or prevent them.....and if that is the case, and that a national data base will allow the government to ban and confiscate guns at a later date, if they still support that data base.....

Then....ask them to explain what an "Assault Rifle" is.....and ask them if the fact that they are used to murder very few people in this country...and that knives, clubs and empty hands kill more people every single year than all types of rifles do....

Ask those questions with that information....doofus.....then get back to us with the poll results.....

So...now you are saying the SAME poll (Pew) you used to SUPPORT your claims is now based on "uninformed people" answering "unrefined questions" when it comes to that ONE paragraph?

No, dipshit....please keep up.....Pew showed that gun murder went down, gun crime went down, violent crime went down...those are facts....

You then went on to try to use opinion polls to push anti gun actions that do not work, and I showed you that those people responding to the opinion part of the Pew Research were not given accurate questions to respond to.......

You showed nothing of the sort. Dipshit.

You took Pew's facts and used them to claim it was caused by increased gun ownership when Pew made no such causal claim.

No...dipshit....I showed that Americans owning guns does not increase the gun crime rate....then I also linked to research that shows that Americans who own and also carry guns decrease the violent crime rate...

And again, you are running away and trying to avoid the fact....that the entire foundational argument of the anti gun extremism you follow........is wrong......and has no basis in facts, statistics or reality......

As more Americans own and carry guns....our gun murder rate went down, our gun crime rate went down, our violent crime rate went down....

As an additional point...as Britain did the exact opposite...banned and confiscated guns...their gun crime rate went up, their violent crime rate went up....

 

[westwall]

Family of 4 dies in Texas hotel shooting

A family of 4 dead. Mom shot her kids aged 5 and 10 and her husband.Then killed herself.

I wonder if those kids would still be alive if this woman found it difficult to get a gun ?

Is it just possible ?

Mentally ill people kill without guns just fine. But you would have to be honest to admit that, and we all know you're not honest.

Mother feared to have COOKED her two-year-old alive on a barbecue after neighbors heard screaming and police find the girl's charred body in Belgium

Read more: Brussels mother feared to have cooked her daughter alive | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[Coyote]

Nothing supports your positions on the 2nd Amendment....not truth, facts or reality........the Supreme Court has ruled against you, and 41 years of research shows you are wrong.....

the fact....the fact....that as more Americans have purchased and now have permits to carry guns...and our gun crime rates have gone down, show you don't know what you are talking about...

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 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...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.

htt

Pew is a reputable source however - it isn't really supporting what you are claiming.

For example while homicides went down...suicides went up: Gun homicides steady after decline in ’90s; suicide rate edges up

It also noted this:

The July survey also found that Americans strongly support a variety of specific gun control measures, including expanded background checks (85%), laws to prevent people with mental illness from purchasing guns (79%) and creation of a federal database to track all gun sales (70%). A smaller majority (57%) support a ban on assault-style weapons.​

But more important - it draws no definitive causal conclusion between increased gun ownership and lower crime rates. Crime rates are affected by a complex array of factors but the gun lobby wants you to think the only factor is the increase or decrease in gun ownership. Pew notes here in this part of the report, that there are numerous factors at play.

What is Behind the Crime Decline?

Researchers continue to debate the key factors behind changing crime rates, which is part of a larger discussion about the predictors of crime.3 There is consensus that demographics played some role: The outsized post-World War II baby boom, which produced a large number of people in the high-crime ages of 15 to 20 in the 1960s and 1970s, helped drive crime up in those years.

A review by the National Academy of Sciences of factors driving recent crime trends (Blumstein and Rosenfeld, 2008) cited a decline in rates in the early 1980s as the young boomers got older, then a flare-up by mid-decade in conjunction with a rising street market for crack cocaine, especially in big cities. It noted recruitment of a younger cohort of drug seller with greater willingness to use guns. By the early 1990s, crack markets withered in part because of lessened demand, and the vibrant national economy made it easier for even low-skilled young people to find jobs rather than get involved in crime.

At the same time, a rising number of people ages 30 and older were incarcerated, due in part to stricter laws, which helped restrain violence among this age group. It is less clear, researchers say, that innovative policing strategies and police crackdowns on use of guns by younger adults played a significant role in reducing crime.

Some researchers have proposed additional explanations as to why crime levels plunged so suddenly, including increased access to abortion and lessened exposure to lead. According to one hypothesis, legalization of abortion after the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision resulted in fewer unwanted births, and unwanted children have an increased risk of growing up to become criminals. Another theory links reduced crime to 1970s-era reductions in lead in gasoline; children’s exposure to lead causes brain damage that could be associated with violent behavior. The National Academy of Sciences review said it was unlikely that either played a major role, but researchers continue to explore both factors.

The plateau in national violent crime rates has raised interest in the topic of how local differences might influence crime levels and trends. Crime reductions took place across the country in the 1990s, but since 2000, patterns have varied more by metropolitan area or city.4

One focus of interest is that gun ownership varies widely by region and locality. The National Academy of Sciences review of possible influences on crime trends said there is good evidence of a link between firearm ownership and firearm homicide at the local level; “the causal direction of this relationship remains in dispute, however, with some researchers maintaining that firearm violence elevates rates of gun ownership, but not the reverse.”

There is substantial variation within and across regions and localities in a number of other realms, which complicates any attempt to find a single cause for national trends. Among the variations of interest to researchers are policing techniques, punishment policies, culture, economics and residential segregation.​

Yes.....gun ownership went through the roof.....and gun crime went down...

There are studies that support the belief that guns in private hands helped lower the crime rate....I have linked to those in earlier posts....

But the real problem for you......moron.......is that the last 21 years have shown that the basic, the fundamental argument that you guys make......is wrong.....and has no basis in reality....

You guys claim that More Guns = More Gun Crime....that is your entire argument.....

And it has been proven wrong over 21 years ........as more Americans bought and carried guns....the gun crime rates went down, not up...showing that you have nothing....your arguments are based on false premises and a lack of understanding.......

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 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...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.

More Guns......less crime.....you have nothing....

You are just spamming the same crap over and over again.

The source you yourself used - Pew even said that there were MANY factors involved in declining crime rates and that increased gun ownership was not necessarily causal in the rates going down.

Mobile phone ownership increased during that time. As mobile phone ownership went up - violent crime went down. Hmmm....according to your logic...it must be causal.

Yes.....you now have to run from the fact that the fundamental argument you guys make....

More Guns = More Gun Crime....

Is disproven by those 21 years of Americans buying more and more guns...and more and more Americans carrying those guns for self defense...showing for all the world to see that normal. law abiding people, owning and carrying guns does not increase the gun crime rate...at all.....and that the gun murder rate went down 49%....the gun crime rate went down 75%....and the violent crime rate went down 72%...

Which is the exact oppososite of what you anti gun extremists said would happen......

You have no argument....facts, research, and real world experience show you have no argument......you just want to ban guns because you are emotionally afraid of guns...

There is a direct correlation between the availability of guns (more guns) and increased gun crimes. I'm not emotionally afraid of guns. I have a gun. I just don't worship it and feel I need to drag it everywhere with me like a kid. It's a tool I use when my husband and I go target shooting. Otherwise, it's put away like my other tools.

And, speaking of "have no argument" - you're building a strawman. I don't want to ban guns. You make exactly the kind of argument that I was complaining about in my first post in this thread.

You present it as only two options: ban guns or no restrictions whatsoever on guns. Those are the only two positions you seem to see. Is there anything in between those extremes that you would consider reasonable?