Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, but that doesn't mean that it's because of gun ownership. Maybe it's because people are wealthier and crime has been moved to certain parts of town where people are left to rot away from everyone else.

Had gun ownership gone done, perhaps crime would also have gone down.

What about crime rates in the rest of the world? Have they gone down with more or less gun ownership?

You're making a claim, yet it's such a flimsy remark, it's almost pointless.

UK crime rates have dropped since 1996, in 1997 stricter gun control was put in place due to the Dunblaine School Massacre (where Jamie Murray was at, at the time)

So, saying that guns have reduced crime, is a little far fetched, don't you thunkt?

But you argue that the number of guns increases the murder rate. So that seems to be false

And I never said guns have reduced crime I am saying that the increase in gun ownership and the decrease in murders and violent crimes contradicts your assertion that more guns = more murders

Not necessarily the number of guns, no. I didn't say that.

What I'm saying is that guns freely available in society cause problems in society. There's a difference between the US and other countries in the guns are floating around so much in the US.

Numbers don't necessarily matter. Like people say, people kill people, not guns. You have the people and the guns, you have a murder rate 4 or 5 time higher. If you just have the people, then it will be much lower.

Contradicts something that I didn't actually say.

Even within the USA, more gun ownership doesn't lead to higher murder rates necessarily. There are plenty of factors to take into consideration.

The US has another issue which causes more murders, and that's a political system full of people reaping the rewards and doing nothing.

Rural areas have many, many more guns than people and less crime...

They do. However, as I've said in other areas, there are a lot more factors than just people with guns.

However in the UK there are rural areas too, and in all the other countries.

Cities are the main problem. But cities have guns too.

Cities are controlled by progressives and have the strictest "gun" control laws...

Listen, if you want to come up with points that a 5 year old could come up, then I'm sure you can find a forum for that sort of thing.

We're not talking about a city that lives in complete isolation with the state and country around it. We're talking about cities where you can buy a gun in a different state and take it, without border checks, without your bags being screened, without your car being checked, and walk right into that city.

In Europe, well, this is different, because even though many are in the Schengen Zone, none of those countries have an abundance of guns.

 

[frigidweirdo]

There is a bizarre fascination by some here with people getting harmed or killed. They comb the news for any act of misery on Earth that they can find.

You do know the bad acts of one person with a gun is proof that all gun owners are killers waiting to go on a shooting spree don't you?

Oh please. We're not talking about all gun owners being guilty.

What we're talking about is guns in society and the impact guns, in the hands of humans, have on society.

You can wriggle and squirm all you like, but the impact is clearly there.

Since most guns are in the hands of people who will never kill anyone with them they have very little effect on society.

Not necessarily.

Firstly, guns being readily available has a big impact. Criminals get guns from bad deals, from stealing from law abiding people and so on. There are consequences to guns being so easily bought and obtained.

Gee criminals break the laws.

None of us knew that.

FYI all of us here who support the second are for draconian punishments for any gun crime

"Criminals break laws", well the law abiding break laws too.

Criminals don't break all the laws, they break some, and they've been caught.

This debate is getting off the track of taking about real life, and reverting back to people throwing right wing slogans at me. I'm not dealing with stupid slogans. If you want to talk about this topic like an intelligent adult, fine, otherwise, no.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Er..... not at all.

I use first world countries because there are lots of issues with countries who aren't first world.

The US somewhere near the top of many rankings, like GDP, like size of the economy and so on. To compare the USA to a country like Somalia is just ridiculous. To compare the US to a country like South Africa is still ridiculous.

To compare the US with a country like the UK, Canada, Australia, etc, which have the money to spend on social programs, which have the education, the resources to deal with problems effectively, then you see what the US should be and what the US is not.

Germany murder rate 0.7
France murder rate 1.2
UK murder rate 1.0
Spain murder rate 0.6
Sweden murder rate 0.9

US murder rate 3.8

Do you see the difference?

You can try and play little games and pretend that the US should be compared to Honduras, but the reality is the US has a GDP of $55,000, Honduras has a GDP of $4,800.

There's a massive difference.

We have seen an increase in gun ownership and a steady decrease in homicides and violent crimes overall over the past decade in fact violent crime is the lowest it's been in 40 years why is that do you think?

If guns truly are a causation of the high murder rates shouldn't we be seeing an increase in murder and crime in general?

Yes, but that doesn't mean that it's because of gun ownership. Maybe it's because people are wealthier and crime has been moved to certain parts of town where people are left to rot away from everyone else.

Had gun ownership gone done, perhaps crime would also have gone down.

What about crime rates in the rest of the world? Have they gone down with more or less gun ownership?

You're making a claim, yet it's such a flimsy remark, it's almost pointless.

UK crime rates have dropped since 1996, in 1997 stricter gun control was put in place due to the Dunblaine School Massacre (where Jamie Murray was at, at the time)

So, saying that guns have reduced crime, is a little far fetched, don't you thunkt?

In rural America firearms outnumber people many, many times over... The lowest crime rates are in rural areas. People kill people, firearms in law abiding hands have nothing to do with violent crimes.
You control freaks are delusional...

You don't even know my position on this whole thing. You're just jumping to conclusions. And then trying to insult. And it's not the first time. Maybe you should learn to make an argument and not insult.

The pro gun-control nutters try to distort the numbers in their favor by putting homicides, suicides and accidental deaths all in the same category... That's called lying.
The fact remains more "gun control" does not reduce crime numbers… in this country.
What fucked up socialist countries do is irrelevant here.

Prove it. Don't talk to me about facts and prove nothing.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not necessarily the number of guns, no. I didn't say that.

What I'm saying is that guns freely available in society cause problems in society. There's a difference between the US and other countries in the guns are floating around so much in the US.

That is correct. But on the other hand, what would happen if liberals were ever able to disarm Americans as they have in other countries?

So below are two tables, once showing the RISE in rapes in Australia from 1997 to 2007. The other shows the drop in rapes in the US. No spin just facts.

Rapes in Australia – 1995 to 2007, the source, is the Australian Institute of Criminology:

The following table is of crime in the U.S., including rape and murders, the source if the FBI unified crime report. The rapes are in BLUE:

This simple fact is Australia had a massive gun confiscation and rapes increased by half or more over the next decade. While the US saw a fifty percent drop in rapes while the number of guns owned by American DOUBLED.

Read more: Gun Control and Rape Facts

 

[frigidweirdo]

Not necessarily the number of guns, no. I didn't say that.

What I'm saying is that guns freely available in society cause problems in society. There's a difference between the US and other countries in the guns are floating around so much in the US.

That is correct. But on the other hand, what would happen if liberals were ever able to disarm Americans as they have in other countries?

So below are two tables, once showing the RISE in rapes in Australia from 1997 to 2007. The other shows the drop in rapes in the US. No spin just facts.

Rapes in Australia – 1995 to 2007, the source, is the Australian Institute of Criminology:


View attachment 74609

The following table is of crime in the U.S., including rape and murders, the source if the FBI unified crime report. The rapes are in BLUE:


View attachment 74610


This simple fact is Australia had a massive gun confiscation and rapes increased by half or more over the next decade. While the US saw a fifty percent drop in rapes while the number of guns owned by American DOUBLED.

Read more: Gun Control and Rape Facts

I take your rise in rapes in Australia, and your drop in rapes in the USA and then I add in Alaska.

Alaska is the rape capital of the USA, get a bunch of drunk Alaskan men together, and it seems rape just appears.

Alaska has a rape rate of 75.3, that was 2014. Put that into perspective, their robbery rate was 85.4, so for a woman, the chances of you being raped is much higher than being robbed.

Let's go to the other side of the country. New York.

Their rate is 19.8.

Yep, Alaska's rate is 4 times higher than New York's, and which has more guns? Alaska has a 57.8% ownership of guns. New York has an 18% ownership of guns. Clearly even within the US, it's not guns that stop rapes, but it might be guns that allow men to make rape so much easier, if they choose that route.

Now I'm going to add in the collection of rape crime statistics.

As wikipedia correctly puts it

Rape statistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Statistics on rape and other sexual assaults are commonly available in industrialized countries, and are becoming more common throughout the world. Inconsistent definitions of rape, different rates of reporting, recording, prosecution and conviction for rape create controversial statistical disparities, and lead to accusations that many rape statistics are unreliable or misleading. In some jurisdictions, male-female rape is the only form of rape counted in the statistics [1] and countries may or may not criminalize marital rape."

Rape in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"A 2013 study found that rape is grossly underreported in the United States."

While in the UK

Women are still terrified of reporting rape | Jinan Younis

"we learn that more women are coming forward but that they are far from always being believed."

"Police figures released by the Office for National Statistics reveal that the number of rapes reported increased by 29% in the year to June. The police are quick to point to the growing confidence in victims to come forward and report rape."

So, rape rates increasing in Australia might have more to do with more women coming forward to report rape, and more likely to gain a successful prosecution for rape.
And at the same time rape rates in the US might be dropping simply because people are ignoring rape in the USA.

I can't find it now, but when talking about this issue a while back I found that the rape rates in the US and UK were considered to either be close or the US's was estimated to be higher, even though statistics said something else.

Rape statistics are hard. Using rape statistics to compare within the US, as I have done, is verging on the edge of difficulty, does Alaska have a lot more rape than New York? Probably, it might even have more, but still it's hard to make these comparison, or even use these statistics. To go over international boundaries though, that's so difficult it's really not worth doing.

You have to look at what is being done, and in many western countries there is a lot, in the USA, there isn't a lot.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Really?

Which first world countries have a murder rate lower than the USA?

Cute question - intentionally disingenuous. "What house with four people, ages 34, 32, 9 and 2, of which two have birthdays in the month of May, who drive a 4 year old Subaru with rust on the rear panel, is located on the north side of an east-west corridor, the name of which starts with P and ending with K has a small pine tree and an aspen in the left side of the yard as you face the house?"

The US ranks 34th in national homocide rates (in 2013) Intentional homicides (per 100,000 people) | Data | Table

Er..... not at all.

I use first world countries because there are lots of issues with countries who aren't first world.

The US somewhere near the top of many rankings, like GDP, like size of the economy and so on. To compare the USA to a country like Somalia is just ridiculous. To compare the US to a country like South Africa is still ridiculous.

To compare the US with a country like the UK, Canada, Australia, etc, which have the money to spend on social programs, which have the education, the resources to deal with problems effectively, then you see what the US should be and what the US is not.

Germany murder rate 0.7
France murder rate 1.2
UK murder rate 1.0
Spain murder rate 0.6
Sweden murder rate 0.9

US murder rate 3.8

Do you see the difference?

You can try and play little games and pretend that the US should be compared to Honduras, but the reality is the US has a GDP of $55,000, Honduras has a GDP of $4,800.

There's a massive difference.

We have seen an increase in gun ownership and a steady decrease in homicides and violent crimes overall over the past decade in fact violent crime is the lowest it's been in 40 years why is that do you think?

If guns truly are a causation of the high murder rates shouldn't we be seeing an increase in murder and crime in general?

Yes, but that doesn't mean that it's because of gun ownership. Maybe it's because people are wealthier and crime has been moved to certain parts of town where people are left to rot away from everyone else.

Had gun ownership gone done, perhaps crime would also have gone down.

What about crime rates in the rest of the world? Have they gone down with more or less gun ownership?

You're making a claim, yet it's such a flimsy remark, it's almost pointless.

UK crime rates have dropped since 1996, in 1997 stricter gun control was put in place due to the Dunblaine School Massacre (where Jamie Murray was at, at the time)

So, saying that guns have reduced crime, is a little far fetched, don't you thunkt?

Better look at your chart a little closer. Looks like crime rates were lower than today in 1981 long before the gun ban.

And how does this impact this debate in any way at all?

Back in 1066 when Harold was running up and down the length of the country, there weren't any gun murders..... so what?

In the 1980s, gangs with guns hadn't reached the UK.

Yardie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"A large influx of inner city Jamaican immigration to Britain during the 1980s led to the rise of gang violence or behaviour on the part of Jamaicans which became known in wider British society as "Yardie culture" and the participants "Yardies". The terms "Yardie gang" or "Yardie gun violence" were largely used by the British media to describe violent crimes in London's black community."

Basically the UK suffered from immigration from Jamaica, which due to colonial history, meant they didn't need visas. Yardies brought with them guns, this became worse in the 1990s, however murder rates may have increased because of them.

So, your 1981 thing has more to do with other factors, and we see a rise in guns during the 1980s and 1990s.

 

[IsaacNewton]

People saying 'guns don't kill people' is music to the ears of gun makers, just like 'cigarettes don't cause cancer' was music to the ears of the tobacco producers. Just as 'prescription opiates aren't to blame for addiciton, people addict themselves'.

When the lowest of lowlifes can get people to guy their crap even though it kills them and others and they make billions doing it they view this as heaven. When they can get the very people that are being killed by their product to defend their product, they are in pure white glowing bliss and satan bows before THEM.

 

[Rustic]

But you argue that the number of guns increases the murder rate. So that seems to be false

And I never said guns have reduced crime I am saying that the increase in gun ownership and the decrease in murders and violent crimes contradicts your assertion that more guns = more murders

Not necessarily the number of guns, no. I didn't say that.

What I'm saying is that guns freely available in society cause problems in society. There's a difference between the US and other countries in the guns are floating around so much in the US.

Numbers don't necessarily matter. Like people say, people kill people, not guns. You have the people and the guns, you have a murder rate 4 or 5 time higher. If you just have the people, then it will be much lower.

Contradicts something that I didn't actually say.

Even within the USA, more gun ownership doesn't lead to higher murder rates necessarily. There are plenty of factors to take into consideration.

The US has another issue which causes more murders, and that's a political system full of people reaping the rewards and doing nothing.

Rural areas have many, many more guns than people and less crime...

They do. However, as I've said in other areas, there are a lot more factors than just people with guns.

However in the UK there are rural areas too, and in all the other countries.

Cities are the main problem. But cities have guns too.

Cities are controlled by progressives and have the strictest "gun" control laws...

Listen, if you want to come up with points that a 5 year old could come up, then I'm sure you can find a forum for that sort of thing.

We're not talking about a city that lives in complete isolation with the state and country around it. We're talking about cities where you can buy a gun in a different state and take it, without border checks, without your bags being screened, without your car being checked, and walk right into that city.

In Europe, well, this is different, because even though many are in the Schengen Zone, none of those countries have an abundance of guns.

Firearms used in crimes are mostly stolen and/or come from south of the border. No criminals buy firearms from gun shows dolt...
Gun Control does not work... Lol

 

[Rustic]

People saying 'guns don't kill people' is music to the ears of gun makers, just like 'cigarettes don't cause cancer' was music to the ears of the tobacco producers. Just as 'prescription opiates aren't to blame for addiciton, people addict themselves'.

When the lowest of lowlifes can get people to guy their crap even though it kills them and others and they make billions doing it they view this as heaven. When they can get the very people that are being killed by their product to defend their product, they are in pure white glowing bliss and satan bows before THEM.

Fucking pussies like you Are music to criminals ears... Lol

 

[2aguy]

But you argue that the number of guns increases the murder rate. So that seems to be false

And I never said guns have reduced crime I am saying that the increase in gun ownership and the decrease in murders and violent crimes contradicts your assertion that more guns = more murders

Not necessarily the number of guns, no. I didn't say that.

What I'm saying is that guns freely available in society cause problems in society. There's a difference between the US and other countries in the guns are floating around so much in the US.

Numbers don't necessarily matter. Like people say, people kill people, not guns. You have the people and the guns, you have a murder rate 4 or 5 time higher. If you just have the people, then it will be much lower.

Contradicts something that I didn't actually say.

Even within the USA, more gun ownership doesn't lead to higher murder rates necessarily. There are plenty of factors to take into consideration.

The US has another issue which causes more murders, and that's a political system full of people reaping the rewards and doing nothing.

Rural areas have many, many more guns than people and less crime...

They do. However, as I've said in other areas, there are a lot more factors than just people with guns.

However in the UK there are rural areas too, and in all the other countries.

Cities are the main problem. But cities have guns too.

Cities are controlled by progressives and have the strictest "gun" control laws...

Listen, if you want to come up with points that a 5 year old could come up, then I'm sure you can find a forum for that sort of thing.

We're not talking about a city that lives in complete isolation with the state and country around it. We're talking about cities where you can buy a gun in a different state and take it, without border checks, without your bags being screened, without your car being checked, and walk right into that city.

In Europe, well, this is different, because even though many are in the Schengen Zone, none of those countries have an abundance of guns.

The lie that criminals get guns from other states is why some cities have higher gun murder rates doesn't play.....Chicago has a higher gun murder rate than both New York and L.A combined...L.A. Criminals can drive just as easily as Chicago crimals and New YOrk is the same...yet Chicago has a higher gun murder rate.....explain that....

None of the anti gunner theories on gun crime explain the actual numbers.......the only hung that does is an understanding that different criminal groups murder more often than other groups and access to guns has no bearing on their willingness to murder....

As I just posted.....Americans increased gun ownership and our gun murder rate went down.......

Nothing you believe about guns is true or accurate....

 

[Rambunctious]

my new scope.....

 

[2aguy]

But you argue that the number of guns increases the murder rate. So that seems to be false

And I never said guns have reduced crime I am saying that the increase in gun ownership and the decrease in murders and violent crimes contradicts your assertion that more guns = more murders

Not necessarily the number of guns, no. I didn't say that.

What I'm saying is that guns freely available in society cause problems in society. There's a difference between the US and other countries in the guns are floating around so much in the US.

Numbers don't necessarily matter. Like people say, people kill people, not guns. You have the people and the guns, you have a murder rate 4 or 5 time higher. If you just have the people, then it will be much lower.

Contradicts something that I didn't actually say.

Even within the USA, more gun ownership doesn't lead to higher murder rates necessarily. There are plenty of factors to take into consideration.

The US has another issue which causes more murders, and that's a political system full of people reaping the rewards and doing nothing.

Rural areas have many, many more guns than people and less crime...

They do. However, as I've said in other areas, there are a lot more factors than just people with guns.

However in the UK there are rural areas too, and in all the other countries.

Cities are the main problem. But cities have guns too.

Cities are controlled by progressives and have the strictest "gun" control laws...

Listen, if you want to come up with points that a 5 year old could come up, then I'm sure you can find a forum for that sort of thing.

We're not talking about a city that lives in complete isolation with the state and country around it. We're talking about cities where you can buy a gun in a different state and take it, without border checks, without your bags being screened, without your car being checked, and walk right into that city.

In Europe, well, this is different, because even though many are in the Schengen Zone, none of those countries have an abundance of guns.

Europe is flooded with guns.......that is why the criminals use fully automatic weapons....

 

[2aguy]

And the lie about criminals going out of state and getting guns increasing the gun murder rate...

http://nypost.com/2015/10/28/the-trouble-with-brattons-iron-pipeline-gun-complaint/



It’s not as if suppressing gun rights for law-abiding citizens in New York has solved the crime problem. One of our neighbors, Vermont, is the closest of the 50 states to the constitutional ideal. For those over the age of 15, there just aren’t restrictions on carrying a pistol. No permit needed.

What’s the result? When it comes to the rate of gun homicides, Vermont is consistently close to the safest state, if not the safest state, in the union. In 2010, FBI figures put the rate of murders in Vermont at less than a quarter of the rate in New York.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Not necessarily the number of guns, no. I didn't say that.

What I'm saying is that guns freely available in society cause problems in society. There's a difference between the US and other countries in the guns are floating around so much in the US.

Numbers don't necessarily matter. Like people say, people kill people, not guns. You have the people and the guns, you have a murder rate 4 or 5 time higher. If you just have the people, then it will be much lower.

Contradicts something that I didn't actually say.

Even within the USA, more gun ownership doesn't lead to higher murder rates necessarily. There are plenty of factors to take into consideration.

The US has another issue which causes more murders, and that's a political system full of people reaping the rewards and doing nothing.

Rural areas have many, many more guns than people and less crime...

They do. However, as I've said in other areas, there are a lot more factors than just people with guns.

However in the UK there are rural areas too, and in all the other countries.

Cities are the main problem. But cities have guns too.

Cities are controlled by progressives and have the strictest "gun" control laws...

Listen, if you want to come up with points that a 5 year old could come up, then I'm sure you can find a forum for that sort of thing.

We're not talking about a city that lives in complete isolation with the state and country around it. We're talking about cities where you can buy a gun in a different state and take it, without border checks, without your bags being screened, without your car being checked, and walk right into that city.

In Europe, well, this is different, because even though many are in the Schengen Zone, none of those countries have an abundance of guns.

Firearms used in crimes are mostly stolen and/or come from south of the border. No criminals buy firearms from gun shows dolt...
Gun Control does not work... Lol

You know what I love? I love people who "know" so much, and yet know nothing.

frontline: hot guns: "How Criminals Get Guns" | PBS

"Ask a cop on the beat how criminals get guns and you're likely to hear this hard boiled response: "They steal them." But this street wisdom is wrong, according to one frustrated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agent who is tired of battling this popular misconception."

(And funnily, it was people on the right who told me this first)

""Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes," Wachtel said."

"Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf."

"manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun."

"Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities."

"The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers."

"Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen."

 

[frigidweirdo]

People saying 'guns don't kill people' is music to the ears of gun makers, just like 'cigarettes don't cause cancer' was music to the ears of the tobacco producers. Just as 'prescription opiates aren't to blame for addiciton, people addict themselves'.

When the lowest of lowlifes can get people to guy their crap even though it kills them and others and they make billions doing it they view this as heaven. When they can get the very people that are being killed by their product to defend their product, they are in pure white glowing bliss and satan bows before THEM.

Fucking pussies like you Are music to criminals ears... Lol

No, people like you are music to criminals' ears, because you'll believe anything you want to, and thus crime never gets dealt with properly.

 

[2aguy]

And of course the lie that the gun grabbers keep putting out...

Do Strict Firearm Laws Give States Lower Gun Death Rates?



Once you get past those six states, the hypothesis that low gun death rates go hand in hand with strict gun control starts to break down.

New Hampshire, with a gun death rate just a little higher than New Jersey's, has permissive gun policies.

Likewise Minnesota, Washington, Vermont, Wisconsin, and South Dakota, all of which have gun death rates of 10 or less per 100,000. New Hampshire and Minnesota have lower rates than California, Illinois, the District of Columbia, and Maryland, all of which have substantially stricter gun rules.

At the other end of the list, Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Wyoming have both permissive gun policies and high gun death rates, ranging from around 17 to nearly 20 per 100,000. But of these six states, only Louisiana has a very high gun murder rate (based on 2010 data). The rate in Mississippi is fairly high but still lower than in D.C. or Maryland, which have much stricter gun laws. Alaska, Wyoming, Alabama, and Arkansas have lower gun murder rates than California, which has more gun restrictions.

Although its overall analysis looks at all gun-related deaths, National Journal (after some prodding, judging from the note in italics) focuses on gun homicides in charts that compare states based on three policies: whether they impose a duty to retreat, whether they require background checks for all gun sales, and whether they issue carry permits to anyone who meets a short list of objective criteria. Excluding suicides makes sense for at least two of those comparisons, since you would not expect the rules for self-defense or for carrying guns in public to affect suicide rates. Background checks conceivably could, since among other things they are supposed to prevent gun purchases by people who were forcibly subjected to psychiatric treatment because they were deemed a threat to themselves.

According to the first chart, the average rate of gun-related homicides in states with "some form of 'stand your ground' law" in 2013 was 4.23 per 100,000, compared to 3.08 in the other states. (Oddly, Arkansas is included in the former category, although its "stand your ground" law was not enacted until this year.) States that did not require background checks for private sales also had a higher average gun homicide rate: 4.02 per 100,000, compared to 3.41 for the other states. But the average rates were the same (3.78 per 100,000) regardless of whether states had discretionary or "must issue" carry permit policies, which is consistent with the observation that permit holders rarely commit violent crimes.

Some states were excluded from these analyses, and the reason is revealing. The fine print at the bottom of the charts says "Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming had too few homicides in 2013 to calculate a reliable rate" (emphasis added). These are all states with permissive gun laws, and three of them are among the seven states with the highest overall gun death rates, which highlights the importance of distinguishing between suicides and homicides. Had National Journal's main analysis excluded suicides, some of the states with few gun controls, including Alaska and Wyoming, would have looked much safer.

"The states with the most gun laws see the fewest gun-related deaths," say the headline and subhead over the National Journal post, "but there's still little appetite to talk about more restrictions." The implication is that the data prove a cause-and-effect relationship. But the question of whether stricter gun control policies cause lower gun death rates cannot be addressed by this sort of static analysis. Gun laws obviously are not the only way in which Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Wyoming differ from Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Jersey. Furthermore, while the latter states have both low suicide and low homicide rates, the former states (with the notable exception of Louisiana) are distinguished mainly by high suicide rates.

 

[2aguy]

Rural areas have many, many more guns than people and less crime...

They do. However, as I've said in other areas, there are a lot more factors than just people with guns.

However in the UK there are rural areas too, and in all the other countries.

Cities are the main problem. But cities have guns too.

Cities are controlled by progressives and have the strictest "gun" control laws...

Listen, if you want to come up with points that a 5 year old could come up, then I'm sure you can find a forum for that sort of thing.

We're not talking about a city that lives in complete isolation with the state and country around it. We're talking about cities where you can buy a gun in a different state and take it, without border checks, without your bags being screened, without your car being checked, and walk right into that city.

In Europe, well, this is different, because even though many are in the Schengen Zone, none of those countries have an abundance of guns.

Firearms used in crimes are mostly stolen and/or come from south of the border. No criminals buy firearms from gun shows dolt...
Gun Control does not work... Lol

You know what I love? I love people who "know" so much, and yet know nothing.

frontline: hot guns: "How Criminals Get Guns" | PBS

"Ask a cop on the beat how criminals get guns and you're likely to hear this hard boiled response: "They steal them." But this street wisdom is wrong, according to one frustrated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agent who is tired of battling this popular misconception."

(And funnily, it was people on the right who told me this first)

""Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes," Wachtel said."

"Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf."

"manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun."

"Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities."

"The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers."

"Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen."

And how little you know......you just posted the argument why gun background checks are stupid....and why universal background checks will be gotten around the same way that current, federally mandated background checks are gotten around.

 

[2aguy]

An updated look at murder, gun control and various cities...

L.A., Chicago Rank 1 and 2 for Gun Murders; N.O. Has Highest Rate



Overall number of gun murders:

1. Los Angeles.......................1,141

2. Chicago..............................1,139

3. New York.............................1,101


5. Houston..................................701





Populations of these cities 2010:

City Mayors: Largest 100 US cities

Los angeles...... 3,792,621

Chicago..... 2,695,598

New York.... 8,175,133

Houston...... 2,099,451

 

[2aguy]

And more on states and gun crime...

Would Cracking Down on Guns in the U.S. Really Reduce Violence? , by Robert VerBruggen, National Review

There is actually no simple correlation between states’ homicide rates and their gun-ownership rates or gun laws. This has been shown numerous times, by different people, using different data sets. A year ago, I took state gun-ownership levels reported by the Washington Post (based on a Centers for Disease Control survey) and compared them with murder rates from the FBI: no correlation.

The legal scholar Eugene Volokh has compared states’ gun laws (as rated by the anti-gun Brady Campaign) with their murder rates: no correlation.

David Freddoso of the Washington Examiner, a former National Review reporter, failed to find a correlation even between gun ownership in a state and gun murders specifically, an approach that sets aside the issue of whether gun availability has an effect on non-gun crime. (Guns can deter unarmed criminals, for instance, and criminals without guns may simply switch to other weapons.)

RELATED: Mass Shootings and Gun Control For good measure, I recently redid my analysis with a few tweaks. Instead of relying on a single year of survey data, I averaged three years. (The CDC survey, the best available for state-level numbers, included data on gun ownership only in 2001, 2002, and 2004. Those were the years I looked at.) And instead of comparing CDC data with murder rates from a different agency, I relied on the CDC’s own estimates of death by assault in those years. Again: no correlation.

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

There are large gaps among the states when it comes to homicide, with rates ranging all the way from about two to twelve per 100,000 in 2013, the most recent year of data available from the CDC.

These disparities show that it’s not just guns that cause the United States to have, on average, a higher rate of homicide than other developed countries do.

Not only is there no correlation between gun ownership and overall homicide within a state, but there is a strong correlation between gun homicide and non-gun homicide — suggesting that they spring from similar causes, and that some states are simply more violent than others. A closer look at demographic and geographic patterns provides some clues as to why this is.

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

The first major factor is race.

Blacks lacked the government’s protection from violence through most of American history and even today have higher rates of homicide than other racial groups do.

Despite being 13 percent of the general population and owning guns at just half the rate of whites, blacks commit about half of murders, overwhelmingly against other blacks.

Drawing on recent CDC data, the website FiveThirtyEight has reported that while blacks suffer homicide at a rate of 19.4 per 100,000, the rate for non-Hispanic whites is just 2.5 — “not so much of an outlier” in the international context, FiveThirtyEight notes.

To the extent that the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow affects homicide rates among black Americans, it prevents meaningful comparisons with countries that lack a comparably lamentable racial history.

RELATED: Anyone Who Would Use Terror As an Excuse to Subvert the Second Amendment Should Be Tarred & Feathered Race is not the end of the story, though, because a rate of 2.5 per 100,000 would still put America solidly above most of Western Europe, where rates tend to be around one per 100,000.

Further differences become apparent when, in addition to focusing on the death rates of non-Hispanic whites, we break the CDC data down by state, combining the years 2009 through 2013 to make the rates more reliable at this more local level.

Whites in 14 states face a roughly European level of violence, with an annual homicide risk of no more than 1.5 per 100,000. Confusingly, these states don’t appear to have much in common culturally.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You do know the bad acts of one person with a gun is proof that all gun owners are killers waiting to go on a shooting spree don't you?

Oh please. We're not talking about all gun owners being guilty.

What we're talking about is guns in society and the impact guns, in the hands of humans, have on society.

You can wriggle and squirm all you like, but the impact is clearly there.

Since most guns are in the hands of people who will never kill anyone with them they have very little effect on society.

Not necessarily.

Firstly, guns being readily available has a big impact. Criminals get guns from bad deals, from stealing from law abiding people and so on. There are consequences to guns being so easily bought and obtained.

Gee criminals break the laws.

None of us knew that.

FYI all of us here who support the second are for draconian punishments for any gun crime

"Criminals break laws", well the law abiding break laws too.

Criminals don't break all the laws, they break some, and they've been caught.

This debate is getting off the track of taking about real life, and reverting back to people throwing right wing slogans at me. I'm not dealing with stupid slogans. If you want to talk about this topic like an intelligent adult, fine, otherwise, no.

No gun law already enacted has ever stopped anyone from committing a crime with a gun

So tell me how would any law you want to enact do what every other law has already failed to do?

And FYI IF a person is law abiding they do not break the law since as soon as they do break the law they are no longer law abiding

The fact is that the vast and overwhelming majority of people who own guns legally will never even point a gun at another person never mind fire at or kill another

So you want to base any law that will effect the rights of everyone on what a minuscule fractional percentage of what some people might do.

My answer to gun crimes: Life in prison without parole for any crime committed while in possession of a firearm.