So this guy from Chicago, shows up at a Florida Convenience store showing the clerk he has a gun. Clerk shows robber his gun. Yeah for 2nd amend.

[Pellinore]

I have a question.

If we have a massive number of uncounted, crime-deterring, defensive gun uses out there every year, protecting our people from crime, why aren't our crime rates lower than they are?

It stands to reason that even if their numbers can't be counted, we should be able to see their effect on the rate of crime, if there is any.

 

[Hollie]

Actually, I live here. Most of the bullshit about the SAFE-T act are exactly that... bullshit.

Gee, whiz. Why am I not convinced that your, “…because I say so”, argument is anything but nonsense?

Let’s see. Who do I need to listen to, a sitting Mayor or an anonymous, far left poster on a message board. Decisions, decisions.

Yeah. Ending cash bail and leftist prosecutors who coddle criminals. That’s worked out so well in leftist Hellholes.

 

[2aguy]

I have a question.

If we have a massive number of uncounted, crime-deterring, defensive gun uses out there every year, protecting our people from crime, why aren't our crime rates lower than they are?

It stands to reason that even if their numbers can't be counted, we should be able to see their effect on the rate of crime, if there is any.

Because the criminal simply moves on to the next victim...an unarmed victim.

And there is an effect....


Here.... a list of research papers on the topic...

UPDATE: Do Right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime?

Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns, John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, Journal of Legal Studies, 1997
The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis by William Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen, published in Economic Inquiry, April 1998 (Copy available here)
The Concealed‐Handgun Debate, John R. Lott, Jr., Journal of Legal Studies, January 1998
Criminal Deterrence, Geographic Spillovers, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns by Stephen Bronars and John R. Lott, Jr., American Economic Review, May 1998
The Impact of Gun Laws on Police Deaths by David Mustard, published in the Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001
Privately Produced General Deterrence By BRUCE L. BENSON AND BRENT D. MAST, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001
Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say By FLORENZ PLASSMANN AND T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001
Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness By CARLISLE E. MOODY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001
Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001
Safe-Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime By JOHN R. LOTT, JR., AND JOHN E. WHITLEY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001 — see Table 3 on page 679
Confirming More Guns, Less Crime by Florenz Plassmann and John Whitley, published in the Stanford Law Review, 2003
Measurement Error in County-Level UCR Data by John R. Lott, Jr. and John Whitley, published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, June 2003, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 185-198
Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime” by Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok, published in Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, 4 (1): Article 1, 2004
Abortion and Crime: Unwanted children and out-of-wedlock births, John R. Lott, Jr and John Whitley, October 2006.– page 14, Table 2.
The Impact of Banning Juvenile Gun Possession By Thomas B. Marvell, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001 — page 707, fn. 29
Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement By John R. Lott, Jr. and William Landes, published in The Bias Against Guns
More Readers of Gun Magazines, But Not More Crimes by Florenz Plassmann and John R. Lott, Jr. — many places in the text.
“More Guns, Less Crime” by John R Lott, Jr. (University of Chicago Press, 2010, 3rd edition).
“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody, Thomas B. Marvell, Paul R Zimmerman, and Fasil Alemante published in Review of Economics & Finance, 2014
“An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates” by Mark Giusa published in Applied Economics Letters, Volume 21, Issue 4, 2014
“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..
“The Debate on Shall Issue Laws, Continued” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 6, Number 2 May 2009
“Did John Lott Provide Bad Data to the NRC? A Note on Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang” by Carlisle e. Moody, John R Lott, Jr, and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 10, Number 1, January 2013
“On the Choice of Control Variables in the Crime Equation” by Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Volume 72, Issue 5, pages 696–715, October 2010.
“The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws: A Critique of the 2014 Version of Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang,” Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, Econ Journal Watch, January 2018: 51-66.
“Do Right to Carry Laws Increase Violent Crime? A Comment on Donohue, Aneja, and Weber,” Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, Econ Journal Watch, Volume 16, Number 1, March 2019: 84-96.
More Guns, Less Crime: A Response to Ayres and Donohue’s 1999 book review in the American Law and Economics Review by John R. Lott, Jr.
Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime Revisited: Clustering, Measurement Error, and State-by-State Break downs by John R. Lott, Jr.

A detailed discussion of the National Research Council report is available here. We have reservations for many research papers on both sides of this debate, so inclusion here doesn’t mean that we think that the estimates were done correctly, but to give you information on the number of peer-reviewed academic papers that find a benefit from right-to-carry laws.
For the data errors in the one published paper by Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang that claims to find a bad effect from right-to-carry laws on aggravated assaults see this paper (the authors published an Erratum acknowledging errors in their piece here).
In addition, Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang have retracted their original claim that the my research could not be replicated. Their argument was that Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang could not replicate the replication work done by the National Research Council that had replicated my research. In an Erratum note published in October 2012 they concede: “Subsequent to the publication of this article, members of the NRC panel demonstrated to the authors that the results in question were replicable if the authors used the data and statistical models described in Chapter 6 of the NRC (2004) report.”
UPDATED: Another recent paper by Charles D. Phillips, Obioma Nwaiwu, Szu-hsuan Lin, Rachel Edwards, Sara Imanpour, and Robert Ohsfeldt in the Journal of Criminology is discussed here.
The Siegel et al paper in the American Journal of Public Health, “Easiness of Legal Access to Concealed Firearm Permits and Homicide Rates in the United States” is discussed here.
Another unpublished paper by Donohue is discussed here and here.
For those interested in seeing our debate with Scientific American over whether some of the studies listed below should be included in our list, please see the discussion available here.


And this.....

Journal of the American College of Surgeons

Results​

During the study period, all states moved to adopt some form of concealed-carry legislation, with a trend toward less restrictive legislation. After adjusting for state and year, there was no significant association between shifts from restrictive to nonrestrictive carry legislation on violent crime and public health indicators. Adjusting further for poverty and unemployment did not significantly influence the results.

Conclusions​

This study demonstrated no statistically significant association between the liberalization of state level firearm carry legislation over the last 30 years and the rates of homicides or other violent crime. Policy efforts aimed at injury prevention and the reduction of firearm-related violence should likely investigate other targets for potential intervention.
Landmark Study Finds Concealed Carry Does NOT Increase Violent Crime - The Truth About Guns

On October 22, Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership (DRGO) presented new concealed carry-related research to the Congress of the American College of Surgeons. The key takeaway from this research is that relaxing concealed carry laws has no effect on violent crime rates.

This paper, which was well received and is now available online (paywalled),is an important step toward clarifying contradictory findings in the existing research literature. Past research focused largely on concealed carriers as a group or on the number of concealed carry licenses among the population. However, increased interest in concealed carry is very possibly a response to rising crime rates, not a cause. For this reason, this DGRO-affiliated study measured the effects (or lack thereof) of legislation only, not the number of permits issued or the number of gun owners in the population.

Using data from a 30-year period (1986-2015), during which many U.S. states changed their concealed carry policies in favor of greater leniency, the researchers designed a Carry Restriction Scale that incorporated “no carry,” “may issue,” “shall issue,” and “unrestricted carry.” This allowed the leniency of concealed carry legislation to be meaningfully understood as a variable in their statistical analysis. Then, for good measure, they created a second, binary variable that also measured restrictiveness of concealed carry laws.

For each state and year during that 30-year period, the researchers amassed data on 14 different variables, including the Carry Restriction Scale variable. Among those, they included not only data on various violent crimes (rape, aggravated assault, homicide, etc.) but also data on unemployment and poverty rates, which are known to influence crime. Thanks to this dynamic approach, they were able to actually isolate the variable they were interested in.


Finally, applying a regression analysis that involved over 21,420 discrete data points and two different measures of concealed carry leniency, the researchers confidently confirmed their hypothesis: There is no association between state-level concealed carry laws and the rate of ANY violent crime.

The study...
Journal of the American College of Surgeons

Results​

During the study period, all states moved to adopt some form of concealed-carry legislation, with a trend toward less restrictive legislation. After adjusting for state and year, there was no significant association between shifts from restrictive to nonrestrictive carry legislation on violent crime and public health indicators. Adjusting further for poverty and unemployment did not significantly influence the results.

Conclusions​

This study demonstrated no statistically significant association between the liberalization of state level firearm carry legislation over the last 30 years and the rates of homicides or other violent crime. Policy efforts aimed at injury prevention and the reduction of firearm-related violence should likely investigate other targets for potential intervention.

 

[2aguy]

I have a question.

If we have a massive number of uncounted, crime-deterring, defensive gun uses out there every year, protecting our people from crime, why aren't our crime rates lower than they are?

It stands to reason that even if their numbers can't be counted, we should be able to see their effect on the rate of crime, if there is any.

And here, some of those papers with quotes...

In December 2008, a Memphis, TN newspaper published a searchable online database of names, zip codes, and ages of Tennessee handgun carry permit holders. We use detailed crime and handgun carry permit data for the city of Memphis to estimate the impact of publicity about the database on burglaries. We find that burglaries increased in zip codes with fewer gun permits, and decreased in those with more gun permits, after the database was publicized.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w29940/w29940.pdf
==============

Social science on the right to bear arms

Lott amicus to New York case...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...144549202_Amicus brief SWD 7.19.2021 2300.pdf


https://www.jstor.org/stable/1229604

1977-2000
1.5%-2.3% reductions in murder rate
2-3 billion dollars benefit in first 5 years.


Wilson....

Appendix A Dissent--James Q. Wilson | Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review |The National Academies Press

Lott argued that murder rates decline after the adoption of RTC laws even after allowing for the effect of other variables that affect crime rates. The committee has confirmed this finding as is evident in its Tables 6-1, 6-2, 6-5 (first row), 6-6 (first row), and 6-7 (first two rows). This confirmation includes both the original data period (1977-1992) used by Lott and data that run through 2000. In view of the confirmation of the findings that shall-issue laws drive down the murder rate, it is hard for me to understand why these claims are called “fragile.”
-----
In addition, with only a few exceptions, the studies cited in Chapter 6, including those by Lott’s critics, do not show that the passage of RTC laws drives the crime rates up (as might be the case if one supposed that newly armed people went about looking for someone to shoot). The direct evidence that such shooting sprees occur is nonexistent. The indirect evidence, as found in papers by Black and Nagin and Ayres and Donohue [cited in Chapter 6], is controversial. Indeed, the Ayres and Donohue paper shows that there was a “statistically significant downward shift in the trend” of the murder rate (Chapter 6, page 135). This suggests to me that for people interested in RTC laws, the best evidence we have is that they impose no costs but may confer benefits. That conclusion might be very useful to authorities who contemplate the enactment of RTC laws.
----
In sum, I find that the evidence presented by Lott and his supporters suggests that RTC laws do in fact help drive down the murder rate, though their effect on other crimes is ambiguous.

Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness* | The Journal of Law and Economics: Vol 44, No S2

Abstract​

In 1997, John Lott and David Mustard published an important paper in which they found that right‐to‐carry concealed weapons laws reduce violent crime. Although Lott and Mustard appear to do all possible variations of the analysis, a closer reading reveals that the study might suffer from several possibly important errors. I reestimate the model and check for incorrect functional form, omitted variables, and possible second‐order bias in the t‐ratios. Lott and Mustard's basic conclusions are generally robust with respect to these potential econometric problems. Overall, right‐to‐carry concealed weapons laws tend to reduce violent crime. The effect on property crime is more uncertain. I find evidence that these laws also reduce burglary.

Do Right to Carry Laws Increase Violent Crime? A Comment on Donohue, Aneja, and Weber · Econ Journal Watch : shall-issue, gun control

Nevertheless, when we use the synthetic control model, we find that the claim that RTC laws increase either murder or violent crime is not supported. We find states where crime increased after the implementation of the RTC law, and we find more states in which crime decreased after the law.

Mustard, D. 2001. The impact of gun laws on police deaths. The Journal of Law & Economics, 44(S2): 635-657..

After enactment of the right-to-carry laws, states exhibit a reduced likelihood of having a felonious police death rate and slightly lower rates of police deaths.
-------
Allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons does not endanger the lives of officers and may help reduce their risk of being killed.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ountable_Crimes-Only_a_Count_Analysis_Can_Say
We find that the effects of such laws vary across crime categories, U.S. states, and time and that such laws appear to have statistically significant deterrent effects on the numbers of reported murders, rapes, and robberies. Copyright 2001 by the University of Chicago.

EconPapers: Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness
Overall, right-to-carry concealed weapons laws tend to reduce violent crime. The effect on property crime is more uncertain. I find evidence that these laws also reduce burglary. Copyright 2001 by the University of Chicago.

The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws · Econ Journal Watch : shall-issue, crime, handguns, concealed weapons
Our analysis, as well as Ayres and Donohue’s when projected beyond a five-year span, indicates that shall-issue laws decrease crime and the costs of crime. Purists in statistical analysis object with some cause to some of methods employed both by Ayres and Donohue and by us. But our paper upgrades Ayres and Donohue, so, until the next study comes along, our paper should neutralize Ayres and Donohue’s “more guns, more crime” conclusion.
The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws on Crime: An Exercise in Replication
his paper reports a replication of their basic findings and some corresponding robustness checks, which reveal a serious omitted variable problem. Once corrected for omitted variables, the most robust result, confirmed using both county and state data, is that RTC laws significantly reduce murder. There is no robust, consistent evidence that RTC laws have any significant effect on other violent crimes, including assault. There is some weak evidence that RTC laws increase robbery and assault while decreasing rape. Given that the victim costs of murder and rape are much higher than the costs of robbery and assault, the evidence shows that RTC laws are socially beneficial.

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah, that’s not the category they are going to release on no bail… violent criminals will get released because they can’t be held……. People are saying this is the gang banger get out of jail bill

They think they can claim credit for “charity”, not based on giving any of whatever is rightfully theirs to give, but on what they can get government to steal from others.

I pay my fair share in taxes, and that gives me a say... The ironic thing is that as a resident of IL, I'm paying more in taxes than are being sent back to my state... as opposed to red states where theyare getting more back from the government than they pay in.

But to take your logic a bit further, I supposed that I shouldn't be in favor of their being a road unless I'm willing to go out there and build it myself.

Do your part. Open your house / apartment to violent felons and the poor. Let them get started on the road to wealth and prosperity.

Odd how leftists claim to be supporters of the poor and the criminal class but they always bugger of when it's time to implement their policies.

Those of The Party of Slavery haven't changed since the 19th century. They want an oppressed lower class.

Feeding them and giving them shelter and medical care is "oppressing" them? What an odd bit of thinking.

 

[JoeB131]

Because the criminal simply moves on to the next victim...an unarmed victim.

And there is an effect....

So DGU's that don't involve laying a suspect out have NO EFFECT on crime..

But the proliferation of guns does.

Hmmm... think you just defeated your own argument.

 

[JoeB131]

Gee, whiz. Why am I not convinced that your, “…because I say so”, argument is anything but nonsense?

Let’s see. Who do I need to listen to, a sitting Mayor or an anonymous, far left poster on a message board. Decisions, decisions.

Yeah. Ending cash bail and leftist prosecutors who coddle criminals. That’s worked out so well in leftist Hellholes.

Not that you are a logical thinker, but why have bail at all? Either someone is so dangerous they shouldn't be out on the street, or they aren't.

If you are arguing that someone who can come up with $1000 bond to get a $10,000 bail isn't that dangerous, then you'd have no problem letting them out completely.

The people who hate the SAFE-T act are all the bails bondsmen who profit off the system...

But then again, it's just part of a prison-industrial complex that makes crime worse.

 

[Batcat]

Okay, let's look at your bullshit stats.



So if the 200 fatalities are in the 18% where shots were fired, then the number of non-shot fired incidents are the other 82% That means you've had only about 1000 DGU, not 3 million.



Um, yeah, the CDC isn't allowed to study guns since Kellerman found a gun in the home is more dangerous to the people living in the home.

All the CDC did was compile all the bullshit reports the NRA has paid for for Ammosexual clowns like Lott.

There is no real way to estimate the number of DGUs when you have no statistics on the number of those instances where the mere display of a firearm ended the event.

You might find out how reality works if you ever manage to disarm the honest citizens. Of course the criminals would keep their weapons because they don’t follow laws. It doesn’t take a crystal ball to predict skyrocketing cirme and home invasions.

Our nation would likely end up like Mexico which has strict gun laws and drug cartels armed with fully automatic firearms and other military weapons. The liberals in our nation would love to have gun laws like Mexico.

Answers to Common Questions About Gun Laws in Mexico - Two Expats Mexico

I get a lot of questions related to the gun laws in Mexico so I decided to do a post answering the most common ones....

qroo.us

Mexico's Jalisco drug cartel pose with military-grade weapons in terrifying video

FOOTAGE has emerged showing dozens of uniformed gunmen posing in Mexico with military-grade weapons near armoured pickup trucks emblazoned with the initials of the Jalisco drug cartel. The country&…

www.thesun.co.uk

Mexican cartels and their weapons

People ask why the Mexican Marines don't apply the same arial assaults on the Sinaloa Cartel in Culiacán. The answer is simple.

sofrep.com

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/ideal-killers-young-beautiful-reckless-female-death-squad/news-story/13ed8a9475c03d2e8010085a16091cd9

 

[Batcat]

Actually, probably pretty good. They had to report the call and the incident.

But let's look at it another way. If you have an encounter between a gun owner and a crook where the crook saw a gun and moved on, did that really "prevent" a crime? Did the Criminal Find Jesus that day and walked the straight an narrow. Nope. He just moved on to an easier target, like a home he was sure no one was home at. So no crimes are actually prevented if you haven't either killed or wounded the bad guy.

Yes, the gun did prevent a crime at the store with the armed clerk. It could have also prevented the clerk being shot by the bad guy.

Using your argument there are no DGUs if the bad guy flees when he sees his victim is armed. Nobody was killed or wounded.

 

[Batcat]

Okay, let's look at your bullshit stats.



So if the 200 fatalities are in the 18% where shots were fired, then the number of non-shot fired incidents are the other 82% That means you've had only about 1000 DGU, not 3 million.



Um, yeah, the CDC isn't allowed to study guns since Kellerman found a gun in the home is more dangerous to the people living in the home.

All the CDC did was compile all the bullshit reports the NRA has paid for for Ammosexual clowns like Lott.

Those “bullshit” reports may well have been accurate. Just because they don’t prove your argument does not mean they are wrong.

 

[JoeB131]

There is no real way to estimate the number of DGUs when you have no statistics on the number of those instances where the mere display of a firearm ended the event.

Exactly my point. Was that a real criminal attempt, or was it just a scary black man some redneck waved a gun at and called it a DGU? The point is there IS no Data, just a lot of bullshit estimates commissioned by the NRA and other gun groups, who of course, are going to find what they want.

And they will be about as credible as those oldy time surveys of Doctors who said smoking was healthy.

You might find out how reality works if you ever manage to disarm the honest citizens. Of course the criminals would keep their weapons because they don’t follow laws. It doesn’t take a crystal ball to predict skyrocketing cirme and home invasions.

Actually, we ALREADY know how that works by disarming citizens. We can look at Japan, which has almost no gun homicides (and very few of any other kind) because private citizens haven't been allowed to own guns since the Meiji Reformation. We can look at the UK, which has a very low murder rate. We can even look at Canada, which has some private gun ownership, but it's regulated. They have very few murders.

Our nation would likely end up like Mexico which has strict gun laws and drug cartels armed with fully automatic firearms and other military weapons. The liberals in our nation would love to have gun laws like Mexico.

Well, no, we'd want ones that are actually enforced. The problem with Mexico is that we have a shitload of gun shops on the Mexican border, and 250,000 US guns are smuggled in every year.

Yes, the gun did prevent a crime at the store with the armed clerk. It could have also prevented the clerk being shot by the bad guy.

Using your argument there are no DGUs if the bad guy flees when he sees his victim is armed. Nobody was killed or wounded.

Yup, that's exactly my argument. You see, if neither the clerk or the robber are armed, you have no incident.

Those “bullshit” reports may well have been accurate. Just because they don’t prove your argument does not mean they are wrong.

Actually, here's how I know they aren't terribly accurate.

Every fucking day, I read from Ammosexuals like 2AGuy and yourself all your wank fantasies about wanting to shoot bad guys. You all treat guys like Zimmerman and Rittenhouse like national heroes when they stumbled into incidents where they shot people without any good reason, but were acquitted due to white privilege.

But according to the FBI, only 200 people are killed in "Self-Defense" homicides by civilians with guns. And many of those are domestic battery, not robberies.

So if you accept the 1 million DGU number as accurate, then you'd have to believe that 999,800 of those times, an ammosexual with a gun finally gets that happy day when he can plug him a darkie, and he doesn't do it.


Nope, it's laughable.

 

[Hollie]

Not that you are a logical thinker, but why have bail at all? Either someone is so dangerous they shouldn't be out on the street, or they aren't.

If you are arguing that someone who can come up with $1000 bond to get a $10,000 bail isn't that dangerous, then you'd have no problem letting them out completely.

The people who hate the SAFE-T act are all the bails bondsmen who profit off the system...

But then again, it's just part of a prison-industrial complex that makes crime worse.

Not that you understand some basic concepts of civil society, a person's need to feel safe from crime or the primary function of elected government is to provide for its citizens but how did you miss the leftist Hellhole disasters of cashless bail and leftist prosecutors who enable criminals?

 

[JoeB131]

Not that you understand some basic concepts of civil society, a person's need to feel safe from crime or the primary function of elected government is to provide for its citizens but how did you miss the leftist Hellhole disasters of cashless bail and leftist prosecutors who enable criminals?

The Japanese and Europeans have more civil societies than we do. And they do it without locking up millions of people. In fact, none of those countries lock up more than 100,000 people. The biggest problem Japanese cops have these days is lonely elderly people shoplifting so the cops will pay attention to them.

But here's what those European countries (and Japan) do that we don't.

They make sure the mentally ill and addicted get treatment.
They don't let average citizens own guns, either banning them outright (Japan and the UK), or limiting gun ownership to highly vetted owners (Germany and Canada).
They have substantial poverty relief programs and put the emphasis on maintaining workers protections.
They invest in affordable housing.

But we let an addicted person live in a tent with no food and easy access to guns and then wonder why we have a crime problem.

 

[Vagabond63]

No, you can thank leftists and their out of control spending in Britain.........you guys spend and spend and then think you will never run out of other people's money....

Conservative governments in the UK have been responsible for far more spending than any Labour government. Nice try, but fail as usual.

 

[Blues Man]

Again, I love the racist distinctions you guys make that poor people are "subhuman"... I'd say "Check your privilege", but never mind.

One more time, if Guns and Prisons make us safer, we should have the LOWEST crime rates in the industrialized world, not the highest.

Says the racist fuck who calls minoroties "Darkies"

 

[Blues Man]

I have a question.

If we have a massive number of uncounted, crime-deterring, defensive gun uses out there every year, protecting our people from crime, why aren't our crime rates lower than they are?

It stands to reason that even if their numbers can't be counted, we should be able to see their effect on the rate of crime, if there is any.

Irrelevant

For one many DGU's never get reported because a crime was stopped before it was committed therefore those crimes would never be counted anyway

Secondly it isn't any gun owners responsibility to protect the public and since SCOTUS has ruled that no police officer or police force has any legal obligation to come to the aid of the public it seems the cops aren't there to protect the public either.

Knowing that the police have no obligation to come to your aid the questions why don;t you own guns?

I have a gun for self defense not to protect the public. I'm not a cop, don;t want to be a cop.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Again, I love the racist distinctions you guys make that poor people are "subhuman"...

Nobody here, other than you, has said any such thing.

And poverty is not a race, so even if anyone did say that, it wouldn't be racist.

 

[Hollie]

The Japanese and Europeans have more civil societies than we do. And they do it without locking up millions of people. In fact, none of those countries lock up more than 100,000 people. The biggest problem Japanese cops have these days is lonely elderly people shoplifting so the cops will pay attention to them.

But here's what those European countries (and Japan) do that we don't.

They make sure the mentally ill and addicted get treatment.
They don't let average citizens own guns, either banning them outright (Japan and the UK), or limiting gun ownership to highly vetted owners (Germany and Canada).
They have substantial poverty relief programs and put the emphasis on maintaining workers protections.
They invest in affordable housing.

But we let an addicted person live in a tent with no food and easy access to guns and then wonder why we have a crime problem.

You don't understand the terms you use. To claim "the Japanese and Europeans have more civil societies than we do", is rather naive and just an attempt to evade from the results of leftism.

It's understandable that you despise Constitutional freedoms and protections afforded by the Founding documents. That's a pattern of behavior typical among the far left. The left has this need to coddle criminals and make victims of crimes endorsed by leftist policies their overriding concern. The result has been crime waves and the brutalization of the citizenry.

So here we are again, with the leftist politburo mouthpiece whining about homelessness, the drug addicted living on the streets when the most blatant examples of that occur in leftist paradises.

 

[Vagabond63]

I have a question.

If we have a massive number of uncounted, crime-deterring, defensive gun uses out there every year, protecting our people from crime, why aren't our crime rates lower than they are?

It stands to reason that even if their numbers can't be counted, we should be able to see their effect on the rate of crime, if there is any.

Good question. The fact that 2aguy created a torrent of cut and paste John Lott articles means you struck a nerve.

 

[2aguy]

Conservative governments in the UK have been responsible for far more spending than any Labour government. Nice try, but fail as usual.

Trying to keep your social welfare state going takes a lot of money........too bad for you the leftists here are destroying our country, we won't be able to pay for your national defense, technological advances and medical miracles anymore...you will have to staff your own military and suffer with inferior technology and medicine going forward.......