Time, once again, to make some liberal heads explode.

[BlindBoo]

Check this out. One of the safest cities in America, with a population of over 200,000 is Gilbert, AZ. Why will this make liberal heads explode? Well, you see, in Arizona, you can buy a gun online, or from a friend, without a background check. Also, you do not need a permit to carry a concealed firearm. All those guns floating around. The streets should be running with blood. But they aren't. Would any of you libtards care to explain this?

There is a reason the Mexican Cartels like AZ's lax gun laws. Can you guess what it is?

God you're a fucking dummy!
Do you think the mexican cartels give a fucking shit about 'gun laws'?
Do you know about a place in America named 'Chicago'? You know. The place where they have the strictest 'gun laws' in the country.
Cartel leader: "Well I guess we can't do business in Chicago what with their strict gun laws".
You REALLY need to take your head out of your asshole pal.

Hahaha. Did you hear a whooshing sound?

I'm pretty sure they don't pay straw-buyers for weapons in Chicago.

 

[mgh80]

There is evidence/statistics that suggest that there is no correlation between states with higher rates of gun ownership and gun homicide.

So where is this evidence, who paid to find this evidence, and what does that have to do with the OP's claim?

It's directly from the FBI, I can provide links if you'd like me to.

You didnt actually answer my question and yes i would like a link.

What was your question? If it's from the FBI, then obviously taxpayers paid for it. As for the purpose in me brining it up, is that in order for something to be proven as true, we need to reject the null hypothesis, which is what I was addressing.

To put it simply: instead of proving that places with more guns have lower crime (in this case homicide rates), we need to reject the idea that notion that places with fewer guns are indeed safer. The evidence I'm providing shows that there's no correlation between states with higher homicide rates and gun ownership (this is actually also true if we look at "Wester Countries" on a global scale-I can also provide evidence for this as well if you wish).

I also decided to add additional FACTS in links. Basically here are the main points:

-Gun homicides have been declining in recent years (despite the sensationalism that the media portrays)

I think the above is very important to point out because with 24/7 news, and social media it's easy to get wrapped in the hysteria that's created after mass shooting (I live in Tampa-about a hour or so away from Orlando and knew a victim-I assure you there was tons of hysteria that even I got caught up in). But we need to take a step back and look at facts to make informed decision, and not just get caught up in the emotions of events. It's how the government took our rights away after 9/11, and it's how they'll do so again.

-Handguns are utilized in the overwhelming amount of gun homicides (NOT "assault weapons/rifles")

Here's a wikipedia page (with citations at the bottom), it's an easy chart to look at and compare the (lack of) correlation together:

Gun violence in the United States by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CBS news also reported on gun ownership rates, which are very similar (the other link is about 5-6 years old)

Most heavily-armed states in America


Table 20

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

Your post betrays a puerile assessment of the situation just like the OP. No matter how many links you put in your post none of them have proven that accessibility of fire arms is the reason for low crime. Your argument falls down and busts its lip on the pavement because of the simple fact that nothing ever happens in a vacuum. There are other dynamics at work and not understanding that pretty much assures me that your intelligence level is not ready to take on a comprehensive understanding of the issue. Sorry man.

Using "big" words doesn't make you intelligent, I can use them as well. You apparently don't understand how the scientific method works-it's ok I'm sure it's due to a lack of education.

I never stated that more guns = less crime-try and keep up here-I stated that there's no correlation between gun homicides and gun ownership rates (which I did prove).

What is the purpose of me doing so? Because it proves that while having more guns doesn't necessarily decrease homicides...it also proves that having less doesn't necessarily do so either.

Again try to keep up, I can't make it any more plain than the above.

Your first tactic was to discredit any source I might have...as soon as you noticed it was the FBI (aka-a legit source of information), you changed your tactics to fit your argument.

 

[Asclepias]

Just possessing or buying a gun doesnt mean you are going to shoot someone. Whats more important is that avenue is cut off for those that buy guns with the intent of shooting someone. I'll tell you a story about why I dont carry a gun with me anymore. i almost shot a cop that pulled me over for no reason. Luckily the guy didnt make me get out of the car or i would have shot him. He just asked me some questions then backed off when I asked for his badge number. I had just had my first child and had to make a decision after that episode. If I didnt have access to a gun it wouldnt have gotten that close.

I don't own a gun either, because I don't want to be responsible for someone getting hurt in spite of every precaution. Guns themselves, however, are not really the problem when it comes to violence. I think that even a total ban on guns would make people feel better about themselves for a while, but not make any difference in the total number of violent deaths.

if it were actually possible to get all or most guns off the street it would make a huge difference. Not too many people want to get close enough to their target to possibly end up being a victim themselves. Guns are a lot like alcohol.Its false courage. They make people brave that would otherwise back down.

And therein lies the problem. The guns are already out there and trying to eliminate them will only disarm the victim side of the population. SOME people might gain false courage from being armed, but a lot don't. It is not accurate to make such a blanket statement about ALL gun owners.

Its pretty accurate if you understand humans. If a gun didnt make people feel secure they wouldnt have them except to hunt. Whats the number one marketing tactic that gun makers use. The old fear of loss psychology. in this particular case its loss of security which ranks right up their with the instinct to survive. You cant be that naive to believe the vast majority of people dont own guns out of fear. Having one makes them feel braver and more secure.

But that does not automatically translate into increased recklessness. It can, for example, translate into a rape victim not being afraid to go out by herself, or an older person being able to remain independent for longer. Think of it this way. The incredibly VAST majority of gun owners NEVER hurt ANYONE with their weapons. Using the standard you set, I could then make the blanket statement that gun owners don't hurt anyone with their weapons.

I didnt say it translated into recklessness. I said it translated to false courage. Instead of backing down from a confrontation the presence of a gun is likely to make the person possessing the gun bold and escalate the situation. Therefore there is more potential for someone to be shot. No guns and you have more people backing down and less shootings.

 

[Asclepias]

So where is this evidence, who paid to find this evidence, and what does that have to do with the OP's claim?

It's directly from the FBI, I can provide links if you'd like me to.

You didnt actually answer my question and yes i would like a link.

What was your question? If it's from the FBI, then obviously taxpayers paid for it. As for the purpose in me brining it up, is that in order for something to be proven as true, we need to reject the null hypothesis, which is what I was addressing.

To put it simply: instead of proving that places with more guns have lower crime (in this case homicide rates), we need to reject the idea that notion that places with fewer guns are indeed safer. The evidence I'm providing shows that there's no correlation between states with higher homicide rates and gun ownership (this is actually also true if we look at "Wester Countries" on a global scale-I can also provide evidence for this as well if you wish).

I also decided to add additional FACTS in links. Basically here are the main points:

-Gun homicides have been declining in recent years (despite the sensationalism that the media portrays)

I think the above is very important to point out because with 24/7 news, and social media it's easy to get wrapped in the hysteria that's created after mass shooting (I live in Tampa-about a hour or so away from Orlando and knew a victim-I assure you there was tons of hysteria that even I got caught up in). But we need to take a step back and look at facts to make informed decision, and not just get caught up in the emotions of events. It's how the government took our rights away after 9/11, and it's how they'll do so again.

-Handguns are utilized in the overwhelming amount of gun homicides (NOT "assault weapons/rifles")

Here's a wikipedia page (with citations at the bottom), it's an easy chart to look at and compare the (lack of) correlation together:

Gun violence in the United States by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CBS news also reported on gun ownership rates, which are very similar (the other link is about 5-6 years old)

Most heavily-armed states in America


Table 20

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

Your post betrays a puerile assessment of the situation just like the OP. No matter how many links you put in your post none of them have proven that accessibility of fire arms is the reason for low crime. Your argument falls down and busts its lip on the pavement because of the simple fact that nothing ever happens in a vacuum. There are other dynamics at work and not understanding that pretty much assures me that your intelligence level is not ready to take on a comprehensive understanding of the issue. Sorry man.

Using "big" words doesn't make you intelligent, I can use them as well. You apparently don't understand how the scientific method works-it's ok I'm sure it's due to a lack of education.

I never stated that more guns = less crime-try and keep up here-I stated that there's no correlation between gun homicides and gun ownership rates (which I did prove).

What is the purpose of me doing so? Because it proves that while having more guns doesn't necessarily decrease homicides...it also proves that having less doesn't necessarily do so either.

Again try to keep up, I can't make it any more plain than the above.

Your first tactic was to discredit any source I might have...as soon as you noticed it was the FBI (aka-a legit source of information), you changed your tactics to fit your argument.

Who said using big words make you intelligent and why did you deflect and even bring that up? As I read your post I see that you think I was using big words, became intimidated, and decided to unintentionally prove my theory about your intellect. Nothing i stated used big words. If you think those words are big you probably should go post in the kiddie zone.

The OP stated that more guns being accessible was the reason for the low crime rate in Arizona. Please stay on topic because thats what i was questioning and what you attempted to offer your two cents on. Since the post you replied to never made the claim that having less guns decreased homicides you need to explain why you thought it was more important to make that point rather than question the OP on something he actually stated. Kinda weird you did that isnt it?.

 

[Zoom-boing]

No they don't. They link to the post #s I listed.

I've even given you the post #s - 63, 66, 73, 75 - and you still refuse to even bother to go read your responses to me. That's because your comment in this thread drew the same nit picking that you showed me in that thread, and you know it.

Why don't you answer the question I've asked three time in this thread? Go ahead.

Again, this is all to point out that you should get off your high horse when you nit pick other posters posts then turn around and do same in your own posts.

Because I still don't know what quote you're talking about. Why don't you just post the fucking quote instead of expecting me to search it out myself?

Post #s given, twice. Done spoon feeding you.

Doesn't matter, you've already given me your answer with your complete avoidance of answering my question in this thread.

Bookmarked ... in case you nit pick someone again.

Here's how it works, asshole. You make a claim referencing a comment made by someone, YOU post the quote. If you're too stupid to know how to do that, it's not my problem. I'm not gonna do the work for you. Post it or STFU. Comprende?

Not cluttering this thread with four quoted posts from another thread. I posted the thread, I posted the post numbers, several times, info is two clicks away. You must be feeble that you can't click twice. You did the same damn thing in this thread that I did in the other thread. You said "the left"; I said "conservatives". I didn't mean "every single conservative" anymore than you meant "every single leftist" ... unless you did mean every single leftist. We'll never know as you pussied out answering me, every time. Anyway, for whatever retarded reason you felt the need to rag on me so I'm just returning the favor. Next time you put your nose in the air demanding other posters adhere to whatever your posting 'requirements' are, you better fucking make sure you do the same.

Kiss my ass. You demand I respond to a comment you say I made but can't post it. You can post 4 links to pages that have no comments from me, but can't post the fucking comment you claim I made, then say you don't want to clutter the thread with the actual comments??? If you're too stupid to know how to post it, just say so. If you're too proud to admit you're too stupid to know how to post it, you should just STFU and hope nobody notices how stupid you are.

Thread posted.

Levins response today about Trump winning

Post numbers posted.

Posts 63, 66, 73, 75

That you are too inept to click to the information is not my problem.

Still refuse to answer the question in this thread, eh? Stay off your high horse.

 

[ptbw forever]

The logical fallacy known as false cause. You have no way of proving the crime rate is low because of gun policy..

You really are stupid, aren't you?

 

[Asclepias]

The logical fallacy known as false cause. You have no way of proving the crime rate is low because of gun policy..

You really are stupid, aren't you?

No. I'm nothing like you in the slightest.

 

[Searcher44]

Check this out. One of the safest cities in America, with a population of over 200,000 is Gilbert, AZ. Why will this make liberal heads explode? Well, you see, in Arizona, you can buy a gun online, or from a friend, without a background check. Also, you do not need a permit to carry a concealed firearm. All those guns floating around. The streets should be running with blood. But they aren't. Would any of you libtards care to explain this?

The average household income is $80K. You just don't get a lot of crime when everyone has plenty of money.

So you agree that it's not the guns fault.

Hey! I already showed how you lied your way through this post last week (See that post below.) You should hang your head in shame and withdraw this post/thread. You're just reinforcing your reputation as a lying son of a bitch.


Posted last week.
I've been posting on these boards for about 1.5 years. I haven't posted much on gun control and have never flamed over any posts on gun issues like I did yours. Frustration maybe incited my disdainful flip-off of your post. Awhile back I had a lengthier back and forth with 2aguy over a post he did on Canada's gun policy. His line, "Canada...has seen a spike in gun crime and gun murder" Turned out that it wasn't Canada really, he was generalizing Toronto, our largest city and rather dishonestly I thought hyping the whole story. And trying to smear Obama with his fictional interpretation of the business. I'll give a few more details after I speak to your post.
I think you played fast and loose with "facts" worse than 2aguy even though attempting the same flim-flam, trying to subtly set up the small "safe" city of Gilbert as Arizona itself where "you can buy a gun online, or from a friend, without a background check. Also, you do not need a permit to carry a concealed firearm." And you try to sarcastically demean liberals by claiming they think it's streets should be "running with blood". Of course your "facts" weren't quite "true" were they? Gilbert city itself had rather strict gun control laws even after they loosened them up recently.
From an azcentral.com news story - On Gilbert's gun control laws - "Update: Gun owners with a state permit are still prohibited from carrying firearms in "secure areas" of public buildings, including employee-only areas, police and fire department facilities, and the Gilbert Municipal Court and Prosecutor's Office.
Gun owners with a state permit can now carry a concealed firearm inside all Gilbert public buildings, reversing a previous policy that made such deadly weapons illegal."
One more little glitch in your bait and switch, "those without a concealed-carry weapon permit can be asked by a police officer to place their firearms in a gun locker", So really your version of Gilbert where "you do not need a permit to carry a concealed firearm" And with "All those guns floating around" didn't, and still doesn't exist. Some might say you're a liar.
I won't even bother to get into other details that make your imaginary Potemkin Village a statistical outlier even without your added fictions. So your little story is "blown out of the water", eh? How much does it suck to be you?

 

[S.J.]

Because I still don't know what quote you're talking about. Why don't you just post the fucking quote instead of expecting me to search it out myself?

Post #s given, twice. Done spoon feeding you.

Doesn't matter, you've already given me your answer with your complete avoidance of answering my question in this thread.

Bookmarked ... in case you nit pick someone again.

Here's how it works, asshole. You make a claim referencing a comment made by someone, YOU post the quote. If you're too stupid to know how to do that, it's not my problem. I'm not gonna do the work for you. Post it or STFU. Comprende?

Not cluttering this thread with four quoted posts from another thread. I posted the thread, I posted the post numbers, several times, info is two clicks away. You must be feeble that you can't click twice. You did the same damn thing in this thread that I did in the other thread. You said "the left"; I said "conservatives". I didn't mean "every single conservative" anymore than you meant "every single leftist" ... unless you did mean every single leftist. We'll never know as you pussied out answering me, every time. Anyway, for whatever retarded reason you felt the need to rag on me so I'm just returning the favor. Next time you put your nose in the air demanding other posters adhere to whatever your posting 'requirements' are, you better fucking make sure you do the same.

Kiss my ass. You demand I respond to a comment you say I made but can't post it. You can post 4 links to pages that have no comments from me, but can't post the fucking comment you claim I made, then say you don't want to clutter the thread with the actual comments??? If you're too stupid to know how to post it, just say so. If you're too proud to admit you're too stupid to know how to post it, you should just STFU and hope nobody notices how stupid you are.

Thread posted.

Levins response today about Trump winning

Post numbers posted.

Posts 63, 66, 73, 75

That you are too inept to click to the information is not my problem.

Still refuse to answer the question in this thread, eh? Stay off your high horse.

You can't do it, can you? Admit it.

 

[hadit]

I don't own a gun either, because I don't want to be responsible for someone getting hurt in spite of every precaution. Guns themselves, however, are not really the problem when it comes to violence. I think that even a total ban on guns would make people feel better about themselves for a while, but not make any difference in the total number of violent deaths.

if it were actually possible to get all or most guns off the street it would make a huge difference. Not too many people want to get close enough to their target to possibly end up being a victim themselves. Guns are a lot like alcohol.Its false courage. They make people brave that would otherwise back down.

And therein lies the problem. The guns are already out there and trying to eliminate them will only disarm the victim side of the population. SOME people might gain false courage from being armed, but a lot don't. It is not accurate to make such a blanket statement about ALL gun owners.

Its pretty accurate if you understand humans. If a gun didnt make people feel secure they wouldnt have them except to hunt. Whats the number one marketing tactic that gun makers use. The old fear of loss psychology. in this particular case its loss of security which ranks right up their with the instinct to survive. You cant be that naive to believe the vast majority of people dont own guns out of fear. Having one makes them feel braver and more secure.

But that does not automatically translate into increased recklessness. It can, for example, translate into a rape victim not being afraid to go out by herself, or an older person being able to remain independent for longer. Think of it this way. The incredibly VAST majority of gun owners NEVER hurt ANYONE with their weapons. Using the standard you set, I could then make the blanket statement that gun owners don't hurt anyone with their weapons.

I didnt say it translated into recklessness. I said it translated to false courage. Instead of backing down from a confrontation the presence of a gun is likely to make the person possessing the gun bold and escalate the situation. Therefore there is more potential for someone to be shot. No guns and you have more people backing down and less shootings.

I don't think the data supports your contention. When concealed carry becomes more widespread, shootings do not increase. If you have data that says otherwise, I'd like to see it. Also, when no victims are armed, more die.

 

[Asclepias]

if it were actually possible to get all or most guns off the street it would make a huge difference. Not too many people want to get close enough to their target to possibly end up being a victim themselves. Guns are a lot like alcohol.Its false courage. They make people brave that would otherwise back down.

And therein lies the problem. The guns are already out there and trying to eliminate them will only disarm the victim side of the population. SOME people might gain false courage from being armed, but a lot don't. It is not accurate to make such a blanket statement about ALL gun owners.

Its pretty accurate if you understand humans. If a gun didnt make people feel secure they wouldnt have them except to hunt. Whats the number one marketing tactic that gun makers use. The old fear of loss psychology. in this particular case its loss of security which ranks right up their with the instinct to survive. You cant be that naive to believe the vast majority of people dont own guns out of fear. Having one makes them feel braver and more secure.

But that does not automatically translate into increased recklessness. It can, for example, translate into a rape victim not being afraid to go out by herself, or an older person being able to remain independent for longer. Think of it this way. The incredibly VAST majority of gun owners NEVER hurt ANYONE with their weapons. Using the standard you set, I could then make the blanket statement that gun owners don't hurt anyone with their weapons.

I didnt say it translated into recklessness. I said it translated to false courage. Instead of backing down from a confrontation the presence of a gun is likely to make the person possessing the gun bold and escalate the situation. Therefore there is more potential for someone to be shot. No guns and you have more people backing down and less shootings.

I don't think the data supports your contention. When concealed carry becomes more widespread, shootings do not increase. If you have data that says otherwise, I'd like to see it. Also, when no victims are armed, more die.

Theres plenty of data freely available on the internet that supports this. My contention is having a gun makes you bolder. Not only is that common sense its supported by commonly known scientific fact. The freeze fight or flight automatic response never completes when one has gun. It stops at fight since you feel you have the upper hand. If you didnt have a gun you would run.

 

[mgh80]

Well let me tell you a little story. 40 years ago, I saw how they were starting to take discipline out of our schools, telling kids to report their parents if they were spanked. I decided it would be abuse to bring a child into that world and the world that would result. I didn't have any and I don't regret it a bit, this country has continued the down hill spiral that started back then.

It used to be that when kids got bad grades in school their parents would yell at them and demand answers...now the parents call the school and demand answers from the teachers.

I was reading an article about education and a teacher replied in the comments section that many students could not read past a 6th grade level. I asked him that, as a teacher, how could you let that happen? He said it wasn't his fault.

When a kid doesn't want to learn-you can't teach them. It's a simple as that.

 

[hadit]

And therein lies the problem. The guns are already out there and trying to eliminate them will only disarm the victim side of the population. SOME people might gain false courage from being armed, but a lot don't. It is not accurate to make such a blanket statement about ALL gun owners.

Its pretty accurate if you understand humans. If a gun didnt make people feel secure they wouldnt have them except to hunt. Whats the number one marketing tactic that gun makers use. The old fear of loss psychology. in this particular case its loss of security which ranks right up their with the instinct to survive. You cant be that naive to believe the vast majority of people dont own guns out of fear. Having one makes them feel braver and more secure.

But that does not automatically translate into increased recklessness. It can, for example, translate into a rape victim not being afraid to go out by herself, or an older person being able to remain independent for longer. Think of it this way. The incredibly VAST majority of gun owners NEVER hurt ANYONE with their weapons. Using the standard you set, I could then make the blanket statement that gun owners don't hurt anyone with their weapons.

I didnt say it translated into recklessness. I said it translated to false courage. Instead of backing down from a confrontation the presence of a gun is likely to make the person possessing the gun bold and escalate the situation. Therefore there is more potential for someone to be shot. No guns and you have more people backing down and less shootings.

I don't think the data supports your contention. When concealed carry becomes more widespread, shootings do not increase. If you have data that says otherwise, I'd like to see it. Also, when no victims are armed, more die.

Theres plenty of data freely available on the internet that supports this. My contention is having a gun makes you bolder. Not only is that common sense its supported by commonly known scientific fact. The freeze fight or flight automatic response never completes when one has gun. It stops at fight since you feel you have the upper hand. If you didnt have a gun you would run.

You can't run if the perp has shot you. The bottom line remains, a weapon in the hand of a victim is a last line of defense. Not everyone should have one, but not everyone should be denied one.

 

[Asclepias]

Its pretty accurate if you understand humans. If a gun didnt make people feel secure they wouldnt have them except to hunt. Whats the number one marketing tactic that gun makers use. The old fear of loss psychology. in this particular case its loss of security which ranks right up their with the instinct to survive. You cant be that naive to believe the vast majority of people dont own guns out of fear. Having one makes them feel braver and more secure.

But that does not automatically translate into increased recklessness. It can, for example, translate into a rape victim not being afraid to go out by herself, or an older person being able to remain independent for longer. Think of it this way. The incredibly VAST majority of gun owners NEVER hurt ANYONE with their weapons. Using the standard you set, I could then make the blanket statement that gun owners don't hurt anyone with their weapons.

I didnt say it translated into recklessness. I said it translated to false courage. Instead of backing down from a confrontation the presence of a gun is likely to make the person possessing the gun bold and escalate the situation. Therefore there is more potential for someone to be shot. No guns and you have more people backing down and less shootings.

I don't think the data supports your contention. When concealed carry becomes more widespread, shootings do not increase. If you have data that says otherwise, I'd like to see it. Also, when no victims are armed, more die.

Theres plenty of data freely available on the internet that supports this. My contention is having a gun makes you bolder. Not only is that common sense its supported by commonly known scientific fact. The freeze fight or flight automatic response never completes when one has gun. It stops at fight since you feel you have the upper hand. If you didnt have a gun you would run.

You can't run if the perp has shot you. The bottom line remains, a weapon in the hand of a victim is a last line of defense. Not everyone should have one, but not everyone should be denied one.

Your deflection has nothing to do with my point.

 

[hadit]

But that does not automatically translate into increased recklessness. It can, for example, translate into a rape victim not being afraid to go out by herself, or an older person being able to remain independent for longer. Think of it this way. The incredibly VAST majority of gun owners NEVER hurt ANYONE with their weapons. Using the standard you set, I could then make the blanket statement that gun owners don't hurt anyone with their weapons.

I didnt say it translated into recklessness. I said it translated to false courage. Instead of backing down from a confrontation the presence of a gun is likely to make the person possessing the gun bold and escalate the situation. Therefore there is more potential for someone to be shot. No guns and you have more people backing down and less shootings.

I don't think the data supports your contention. When concealed carry becomes more widespread, shootings do not increase. If you have data that says otherwise, I'd like to see it. Also, when no victims are armed, more die.

Theres plenty of data freely available on the internet that supports this. My contention is having a gun makes you bolder. Not only is that common sense its supported by commonly known scientific fact. The freeze fight or flight automatic response never completes when one has gun. It stops at fight since you feel you have the upper hand. If you didnt have a gun you would run.

You can't run if the perp has shot you. The bottom line remains, a weapon in the hand of a victim is a last line of defense. Not everyone should have one, but not everyone should be denied one.

Your deflection has nothing to do with my point.

Actually, it does. You seem to be advocating the flight response. In many cases, flight is impossible because you already have a bullet in you, or get one when you try to flee. Having the freedom to carry a weapon gives you options. You can still flee, or you can fight.

 

[Asclepias]

I didnt say it translated into recklessness. I said it translated to false courage. Instead of backing down from a confrontation the presence of a gun is likely to make the person possessing the gun bold and escalate the situation. Therefore there is more potential for someone to be shot. No guns and you have more people backing down and less shootings.

I don't think the data supports your contention. When concealed carry becomes more widespread, shootings do not increase. If you have data that says otherwise, I'd like to see it. Also, when no victims are armed, more die.

Theres plenty of data freely available on the internet that supports this. My contention is having a gun makes you bolder. Not only is that common sense its supported by commonly known scientific fact. The freeze fight or flight automatic response never completes when one has gun. It stops at fight since you feel you have the upper hand. If you didnt have a gun you would run.

You can't run if the perp has shot you. The bottom line remains, a weapon in the hand of a victim is a last line of defense. Not everyone should have one, but not everyone should be denied one.

Your deflection has nothing to do with my point.

Actually, it does. You seem to be advocating the flight response. In many cases, flight is impossible because you already have a bullet in you, or get one when you try to flee. Having the freedom to carry a weapon gives you options. You can still flee, or you can fight.

Obviously you have no clue about what you are talking about. That freeze, fight, flight response is much faster than any bullet even if someone is going to shoot you. I'm speaking of escalation. People that would normally back down and not escalate feel brave when they have a gun so they keep escalating to the point someone gets shot.

 

[hadit]

I don't think the data supports your contention. When concealed carry becomes more widespread, shootings do not increase. If you have data that says otherwise, I'd like to see it. Also, when no victims are armed, more die.

Theres plenty of data freely available on the internet that supports this. My contention is having a gun makes you bolder. Not only is that common sense its supported by commonly known scientific fact. The freeze fight or flight automatic response never completes when one has gun. It stops at fight since you feel you have the upper hand. If you didnt have a gun you would run.

You can't run if the perp has shot you. The bottom line remains, a weapon in the hand of a victim is a last line of defense. Not everyone should have one, but not everyone should be denied one.

Your deflection has nothing to do with my point.

Actually, it does. You seem to be advocating the flight response. In many cases, flight is impossible because you already have a bullet in you, or get one when you try to flee. Having the freedom to carry a weapon gives you options. You can still flee, or you can fight.

Obviously you have no clue about what you are talking about. That freeze, fight, flight response is much faster than any bullet even if someone is going to shoot you. I'm speaking of escalation. People that would normally back down and not escalate feel brave when they have a gun so they keep escalating to the point someone gets shot.

When a shooter is engaged in a mass shooting, there is no escalation left. It's already at emergency situation.

 

[Asclepias]

Theres plenty of data freely available on the internet that supports this. My contention is having a gun makes you bolder. Not only is that common sense its supported by commonly known scientific fact. The freeze fight or flight automatic response never completes when one has gun. It stops at fight since you feel you have the upper hand. If you didnt have a gun you would run.

You can't run if the perp has shot you. The bottom line remains, a weapon in the hand of a victim is a last line of defense. Not everyone should have one, but not everyone should be denied one.

Your deflection has nothing to do with my point.

Actually, it does. You seem to be advocating the flight response. In many cases, flight is impossible because you already have a bullet in you, or get one when you try to flee. Having the freedom to carry a weapon gives you options. You can still flee, or you can fight.

Obviously you have no clue about what you are talking about. That freeze, fight, flight response is much faster than any bullet even if someone is going to shoot you. I'm speaking of escalation. People that would normally back down and not escalate feel brave when they have a gun so they keep escalating to the point someone gets shot.

When a shooter is engaged in a mass shooting, there is no escalation left. It's already at emergency situation.

Mass shootings are not the norm. What are you even talking about? Concentrate.