“What Percentage Of Murders Are Committed With An AR-15?”

[jbander]

And what caused the Depression? There was just a recession until the Uber Rich were nailed by it then it became a Depression. If you are so smart, what's the difference and why is it almost impossible to have a Depression today but we can have many recessions. We are in one right now.

The way out of a recession is not government taking over....a worse depression happened in 1920....but it didn't last because they didn't try to take over the economy...

Not-So-Great Depression

hich U.S. president ranks as America’s greatest depression fighter?

Not the fabled Franklin Delano Roosevelt, since unemployment averaged 17 percent through the New Deal period (1933-1940). What banished high unemployment was the conscription of 12 million men into the armed forces during World War II. FDR actually prolonged high unemployment: he tripled taxes; he signed laws that made it more expensive for employers to hire people, made discounting illegal, and authorized the destruction of food; and he launched costly infrastructure projects like the Tennessee Valley Authority that became a drag on states receiving TVA-subsidized electricity.

America’s greatest depression fighter was Warren Gamaliel Harding. An Ohio senator when he was elected president in 1920, he followed the much praised Woodrow Wilson— who had brought America into World War I, built up huge federal bureaucracies, imprisoned dissenters, and incurred $25 billion of debt.

Harding inherited Wilson’s mess— in particular, a post-World War I depression that was almost as severe, from peak to trough, as the Great Contraction from 1929 to 1933 that FDR would later inherit. The estimated gross national product plunged 24 percent from $91.5 billion in 1920 to $69.6 billion in 1921. The number of unemployed people jumped from 2.1 million to 4.9 million.

Harding had a much better understanding of how an economy works than FDR. As historian Robert K. Murray wrote in The Harding Era, the man who would become our 29th president “always decried high taxes, government waste, and excessive governmental interference in the private sector of the economy. In February 1920, shortly after announcing his candidacy, he advocated a cut in government expenditures and stated that government ought to ‘strike the shackles from industry… . We need vastly more freedom than we do regulation.’ “

One of Harding’s campaign slogans was “less government in business,” and it served him well. Harding embraced the advice of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon and called for tax cuts in his first message to Congress on April 12, 1921. The highest taxes, on corporate revenues and “excess” profits, were to be cut. Personal income taxes were to be left as is, with a top rate of 8 percent of incomes above $4,000. Harding recognized the crucial importance of encouraging the investment that is essential for growth and jobs, something that FDR never did.

Even without Harding, there was going to be no Depression. All he did was stop Federal Frivolous spending. Not a bad idea. The Nation was on a huge upswing without him anyway. Well, at least for white America anyway. WWI had ended and the Nation had to pay for it. Harding decided to get Congress to fund paying for it and not pay for the excesses. He wasn't really in office long enough to make any other difference though. He died too quick to make much of a dent. But right after that, the Frivolous Spending by the Corporations buried them in such a way that they could no longer stay afloat. Partly brought on by the reduction by Hardings getting rid of a lot of protection regulations that held them down. Teddy R. (a Republican) put many of those in place to prevent the runaway that happened anyway which started under Wilson and continued under Harding. But the real culprit was Hoover that saw a depression, caused a huge trade deficit and brought on the depression and the Crash of 1929 which destroyed many of the Uber Rich because of the trade deficit being out of control. FDR just stepped into that mess. FDR wasn't elected until 1933. The Depression belongs to Hoover and earlier Presidents. The 2 previous Presidents that actually caused the Depression were all Republicans. The recession was actually started in about 1925 but didn't become a depression until 1929 when your buddy Hoover made a huge mess of things with his tariff ideas. So don't go laying things on FDR. He was faced with an Armed Revolution by about 3 1/2 million armed hungry, cold and angry family men when he took office. The Nation was at stake right then.

FDR was nothing but a dictator, bring in unconstitutional things like income tax and socialist entitlement programs...

Couldn't be funnier coming from the party who's leader is exactly that, a dictator, a dictator of very very small minds. And the insanity is that this is what the right wants now , total control, they would sell out this country again to stay in power. WEll in fact they already have. But the hate party is done, it will be the last president ever that will be called a republican. Conservatism isn't going away but the hate party is. You can't govern this Republic from the singular basis of hatred .

The democratic party is going away?

Big Difference you , no clue. Me well versed on facts and not a one string puppet like the gun bubbas,

 

[2aguy]

Murders murder, who cares if they use a sharpened flint or a winglaner 2200 (C) with extra special nozzles on their outer perimeters? Who cares? Let's stop that nonsense. Who needs guns, after all? We would all sleep better at night if NOBODY had guns.

I have no problem sleeping at night with a neighbor with a gun, hell I live in minnesota. Let me describe a Gun Bubbas for you though. You know that there has been a massive increase in sales of guns , with hamburger guns right up there in sales. That is a problem when you find out that less and less households have guns every year. So who are buying all these guns to add massively to the number of guns they have, Weak minded Gun Bubbas, they think there is a commie behind every corner. that they have the right to shoot first and figure out what happened afterwards and if you don't like any one of their guns like in a forum like this, they will without hesitating threatens to kill you.
That is the person you never want living next to you, can't let you kids out to play or let your pets out to relieve themselves when the gun Bubbas is at home. You would be stupid to do otherwise. The ultra wackos, like many that you find in here, when they move in you should move out. They are dangerous , not mentally sound and think they can impress people because they own a assault weapon.

wrong....in fact, women and minorities, previously under represented groups in gun ownership are buying guns at record rates.....

NBC Poll: Does Gun Ownership Increase Or Decrease Safety? Anti-Gun Activists Won't Like The Results.

nearly 6 in 10 Americans believe that getting guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens increases safety.

"In the poll, 58 percent agree with the statement that gun ownership does more to increase safety by allowing law-abiding citizens to protect themselves," NBC News reports. "By contrast, 38 percent say that gun ownership reduces safety by giving too many people access to firearms, increasing the chances for accidental misuse."

------

NBC notes that the overall result is a "reversal" of the findings of a 1999 survey that found that 52 percent of respondents believed gun ownership reduced safety. The more positive perspective on gun ownership is partly reflected in gun ownership trends: "47 percent of American adults say they have a firearm in the household, which is up from 44 percent in 1999."

 

[2aguy]

Murders murder, who cares if they use a sharpened flint or a winglaner 2200 (C) with extra special nozzles on their outer perimeters? Who cares? Let's stop that nonsense. Who needs guns, after all? We would all sleep better at night if NOBODY had guns.

Do you really think through what you post? According to the CDC Americans use their legal guns to stop violent criminals 2.4 million times a year.....those are rapes, robberies and murders that do not happen because an innocent person has a gun to stop them.

There was a time in earth history where guns did not exist.... and the weak were raped, robbed and murdered by the strong....guns changed that.....and stopped that for those victims...

The 2.4 million people who use guns to save lives need those guns....

 

[Daryl Hunt]

1. A Sporting Rifle doesn't have the need for rails to accept a M-203 Grenade Launcher. Or a Silencer or a Bayonet or a.......... Like we did in Colorado, remove the ability to mount those and then, and only then, can you call it a sporting rifle. Until then, it's an assault rifle that can also be used as a sporting rifle.

2. I already told you what we need to do to get the crime and murder level down. But, no, you won't even consider it. Your 1% that you pray to would never go for it. They moved the jobs out of those areas and didn't replace them with other jobs so the people turned to the only other way to make a living they could and that was crime and public assistance. And, no, they didn't have the option to move. They didn't have the funds to relocate and even if they did, there were no jobs waiting for them anyway. When the jobs were finally available in alternative locations, they could not afford to relocate anyway. The buildings are still there for the Factories, the work force is still there. Yes, it would have be rebuilt and retrained but that USED to be part of running a business. Not so these days. Long term investments gave way for Bottom Line short term.

Keep spewing that propaganda, the M203 in not rail mounted, neither are bayonets or noise suppressors. Lies are not your friends.


.

He does not even know the difference between a suppressor and a silencer...
And thinks rails make a firearm more dangerous... lol

No he does, he's just trolling, repeating shit over and over and over, no matter how many times it's proven wrong. He refuses to answer honest questions because the answers won't support his trolling and propaganda.


.

Your little band just likes to misinform and use that to win any and all arguments. Well, cupcakes, you are losing this argument on the legislature. In Colorado, the ability to mount those rails and the ability to thread on the silencer cannot be included in any new AR-15 sold in the State since 2013. Now, keep lying and misdirecting. The cat is out of the bag, cupcake.

Things are going the other direction in most other states, sorry to disappoint.

You mean like Florida?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Murders murder, who cares if they use a sharpened flint or a winglaner 2200 (C) with extra special nozzles on their outer perimeters? Who cares? Let's stop that nonsense. Who needs guns, after all? We would all sleep better at night if NOBODY had guns.

Do you really think through what you post? According to the CDC Americans use their legal guns to stop violent criminals 2.4 million times a year.....those are rapes, robberies and murders that do not happen because an innocent person has a gun to stop them.

There was a time in earth history where guns did not exist.... and the weak were raped, robbed and murdered by the strong....guns changed that.....and stopped that for those victims...

The 2.4 million people who use guns to save lives need those guns....

I took a look at the 9 laxest gun law states. All but Vermont, the other 8 are shithole states. Even the states that your bunch lives in like Montana and Texas didn't make the list of 9.

None of the 9 rquire the reportin gof the Mentally ill to th ecourts or authorities in regard to weapons. No reporting of lost or stolen firearms. There is a long list of really dumb blockhead moves done in the last 6 years from these states. And all but Vermont is controlled by the deep Republicans. Meanwhile just as many states have added common sense gun regulations to their laws to prevent more mass killings in the schools and other mass gatherings. Many states have started educating the Schools an, community and cops in the communities to recognize the warning signs. Many states have added the ability to allow law enforcement to temporarily seize the weapons of what they deem as an dangerous person and get in front of a judge to to say one way or another. You scream to high heavens that their rights are taken yet you also scream that we need to do something about the mentally ill with guns. Well, that's being done but you fight it because your masters want to not lose those sales. And sales is what it's all about.

 

[2aguy]

Murders murder, who cares if they use a sharpened flint or a winglaner 2200 (C) with extra special nozzles on their outer perimeters? Who cares? Let's stop that nonsense. Who needs guns, after all? We would all sleep better at night if NOBODY had guns.

Do you really think through what you post? According to the CDC Americans use their legal guns to stop violent criminals 2.4 million times a year.....those are rapes, robberies and murders that do not happen because an innocent person has a gun to stop them.

There was a time in earth history where guns did not exist.... and the weak were raped, robbed and murdered by the strong....guns changed that.....and stopped that for those victims...

The 2.4 million people who use guns to save lives need those guns....

I took a look at the 9 laxest gun law states. All but Vermont, the other 8 are shithole states. Even the states that your bunch lives in like Montana and Texas didn't make the list of 9.

None of the 9 rquire the reportin gof the Mentally ill to th ecourts or authorities in regard to weapons. No reporting of lost or stolen firearms. There is a long list of really dumb blockhead moves done in the last 6 years from these states. And all but Vermont is controlled by the deep Republicans. Meanwhile just as many states have added common sense gun regulations to their laws to prevent more mass killings in the schools and other mass gatherings. Many states have started educating the Schools an, community and cops in the communities to recognize the warning signs. Many states have added the ability to allow law enforcement to temporarily seize the weapons of what they deem as an dangerous person and get in front of a judge to to say one way or another. You scream to high heavens that their rights are taken yet you also scream that we need to do something about the mentally ill with guns. Well, that's being done but you fight it because your masters want to not lose those sales. And sales is what it's all about.

Dipshit.......which cities? The major cities in Red States are controlled by democrats who have a revolving door policy for violent gun offenders....and since you didn't provide any links, I will tell you that of the lists that do show this? They combine suicide into their numbers because in many of the states the gun crime rates are so low they don't even register.....

You are almost too stupid to post with.......

 

[2aguy]

Murders murder, who cares if they use a sharpened flint or a winglaner 2200 (C) with extra special nozzles on their outer perimeters? Who cares? Let's stop that nonsense. Who needs guns, after all? We would all sleep better at night if NOBODY had guns.

Do you really think through what you post? According to the CDC Americans use their legal guns to stop violent criminals 2.4 million times a year.....those are rapes, robberies and murders that do not happen because an innocent person has a gun to stop them.

There was a time in earth history where guns did not exist.... and the weak were raped, robbed and murdered by the strong....guns changed that.....and stopped that for those victims...

The 2.4 million people who use guns to save lives need those guns....

I took a look at the 9 laxest gun law states. All but Vermont, the other 8 are shithole states. Even the states that your bunch lives in like Montana and Texas didn't make the list of 9.

None of the 9 rquire the reportin gof the Mentally ill to th ecourts or authorities in regard to weapons. No reporting of lost or stolen firearms. There is a long list of really dumb blockhead moves done in the last 6 years from these states. And all but Vermont is controlled by the deep Republicans. Meanwhile just as many states have added common sense gun regulations to their laws to prevent more mass killings in the schools and other mass gatherings. Many states have started educating the Schools an, community and cops in the communities to recognize the warning signs. Many states have added the ability to allow law enforcement to temporarily seize the weapons of what they deem as an dangerous person and get in front of a judge to to say one way or another. You scream to high heavens that their rights are taken yet you also scream that we need to do something about the mentally ill with guns. Well, that's being done but you fight it because your masters want to not lose those sales. And sales is what it's all about.

Here... I will do it for you....

You Know Less Than You Think About Guns

Do Gun Laws Stop Gun Crimes?

The same week Kristof's column came out, National Journal attracted major media attention with a showy piece of research and analysis headlined "The States With The Most Gun Laws See The Fewest Gun-Related Deaths." The subhead lamented: "But there's still little appetite to talk about more restrictions."

Critics quickly noted that the Journal's Libby Isenstein had included suicides among "gun-related deaths" and suicide-irrelevant policies such as stand-your-ground laws among its tally of "gun laws." That meant that high-suicide, low-homicide states such as Wyoming, Alaska, and Idaho were taken to task for their liberal carry-permit policies. Worse, several of the states with what the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considers terribly lax gun laws were dropped from Isenstein's data set because their murder rates were too low!

Another of National Journal's mistakes is a common one in gun science: The paper didn't look at gun statistics in the context of overall violent crime, a much more relevant measure to the policy debate. After all, if less gun crime doesn't mean less crime overall—if criminals simply substitute other weapons or means when guns are less available—the benefit of the relevant gun laws is thrown into doubt. When Thomas Firey of the Cato Institute ran regressions of Isenstein's study with slightly different specifications and considering all violent crime, each of her effects either disappeared or reversed.

Another recent well-publicized study trying to assert a positive connection between gun laws and public safety was a 2013 JAMA Internal Medicine article by the Harvard pediatrics professor Eric W. Fleegler and his colleagues, called "Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Fatalities in the United States." It offered a mostly static comparison of the toughness of state gun laws (as rated by the gun control lobbyists at the Brady Center) with gun deaths from 2007 to 2010.

"States with strictest firearm laws have lowest rates of gun deaths," a Boston Globeheadline then announced. But once again, if you take the simple, obvious step of separating out suicides from murders, the correlations that buttress the supposed causations disappear. As John Hinderaker headlined his reaction at the Power Line blog, "New Study Finds Firearm Laws Do Nothing to Prevent Homicides."

Among other anomalies in Fleegler's research, Hinderaker pointed out that it didn't include Washington, D.C., with its strict gun laws and frequent homicides. If just one weak-gun-law state, Louisiana, were taken out of the equation, "the remaining nine lowest-regulation states have an average gun homicide rate of 2.8 per 100,000, which is 12.5% less than the average of the ten states with the strictest gun control laws," he found.

October interview with Slate and found it wanting: "There have been studies that have essentially toted up the number of laws various states have on the books and examined the association between the number of laws and rates of firearm death," said Wintemute, who is a medical doctor and researcher at the University of California, Davis. "That's really bad science, and it shouldn't inform policymaking."

Wintemute thinks the factor such studies don't adequately consider is the number of people in a state who have guns to begin with, which is generally not known or even well-estimated on levels smaller than national, though researchers have used proxies from subscribers to certain gun-related magazines and percentages of suicides committed with guns to make educated guesses. "Perhaps these laws decrease mortality by decreasing firearm ownership, in which case firearm ownership mediates the association," Wintemute wrote in a 2013 JAMA Internal Medicine paper. "But perhaps, and more plausibly, these laws are more readily enacted in states where the prevalence of firearm ownership is low—there will be less opposition to them—and firearm ownership confounds the association."











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.)


, 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.

------

Left-leaning media outlets, from Mother Jones to National Journal, get around this absence of correlation by reporting numbers on “gun deaths” rather than gun homicides or homicides in general.
More than 60 percent of gun deaths nationally are suicides, and places with higher gun ownership typically see a higher percentage of their suicides committed with a gun.
Focusing on the number of gun deaths practically guarantees a finding that guns and violence go together. While it may be true that public policy should also seek to reduce suicide, it is homicide — often a dramatic mass killing — that usually prompts the media and politicians to call for gun control, and it is homicide that most influences people as they consider supporting measures to take away their fellow citizens’ access to guns.
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.

 

[hadit]

Murders murder, who cares if they use a sharpened flint or a winglaner 2200 (C) with extra special nozzles on their outer perimeters? Who cares? Let's stop that nonsense. Who needs guns, after all? We would all sleep better at night if NOBODY had guns.

I have no problem sleeping at night with a neighbor with a gun, hell I live in minnesota. Let me describe a Gun Bubbas for you though. You know that there has been a massive increase in sales of guns , with hamburger guns right up there in sales. That is a problem when you find out that less and less households have guns every year. So who are buying all these guns to add massively to the number of guns they have, Weak minded Gun Bubbas, they think there is a commie behind every corner. that they have the right to shoot first and figure out what happened afterwards and if you don't like any one of their guns like in a forum like this, they will without hesitating threatens to kill you.
That is the person you never want living next to you, can't let you kids out to play or let your pets out to relieve themselves when the gun Bubbas is at home. You would be stupid to do otherwise. The ultra wackos, like many that you find in here, when they move in you should move out. They are dangerous , not mentally sound and think they can impress people because they own a assault weapon.

You need to get out and meet real people.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Murders murder, who cares if they use a sharpened flint or a winglaner 2200 (C) with extra special nozzles on their outer perimeters? Who cares? Let's stop that nonsense. Who needs guns, after all? We would all sleep better at night if NOBODY had guns.

Do you really think through what you post? According to the CDC Americans use their legal guns to stop violent criminals 2.4 million times a year.....those are rapes, robberies and murders that do not happen because an innocent person has a gun to stop them.

There was a time in earth history where guns did not exist.... and the weak were raped, robbed and murdered by the strong....guns changed that.....and stopped that for those victims...

The 2.4 million people who use guns to save lives need those guns....

I took a look at the 9 laxest gun law states. All but Vermont, the other 8 are shithole states. Even the states that your bunch lives in like Montana and Texas didn't make the list of 9.

None of the 9 rquire the reportin gof the Mentally ill to th ecourts or authorities in regard to weapons. No reporting of lost or stolen firearms. There is a long list of really dumb blockhead moves done in the last 6 years from these states. And all but Vermont is controlled by the deep Republicans. Meanwhile just as many states have added common sense gun regulations to their laws to prevent more mass killings in the schools and other mass gatherings. Many states have started educating the Schools an, community and cops in the communities to recognize the warning signs. Many states have added the ability to allow law enforcement to temporarily seize the weapons of what they deem as an dangerous person and get in front of a judge to to say one way or another. You scream to high heavens that their rights are taken yet you also scream that we need to do something about the mentally ill with guns. Well, that's being done but you fight it because your masters want to not lose those sales. And sales is what it's all about.

Dipshit.......which cities? The major cities in Red States are controlled by democrats who have a revolving door policy for violent gun offenders....and since you didn't provide any links, I will tell you that of the lists that do show this? They combine suicide into their numbers because in many of the states the gun crime rates are so low they don't even register.....

You are almost too stupid to post with.......

I posted about States. You sure to like to change the subject and claim that I said something I didn't. And then you use insults to boot. The more you do that the more the states will go with common sesne gun regulations. Thos 9 states that don't have a clue will have to change sooner or later.

IIf you don't like the way it's done in a given city, don't live there. If you don't like the way the laws of a given state is and you can't get them changed, move to one that is to more your liking. I happen to like the laws here when it comes to firearms. I just don't care for the dirty underhanded tactics that are used to try to get them changed.

For instance, in 2013 the state of Colorado voted in some common sense gun laws. The NRA spent millions taking it to court and the Supreme Court upheld the laws. Then they forced a recall of 3 state representatives. 2 survived the recall. One didn't and was replaced by a Republican. More millions were spent. Unfortunately, at least 1 of those million was the Tax Payers money to pay for the recall. In 2014, the Republican was replaced by another Democrat so nothing was really gained and everything went back to the status quo where the House was Democrat and the Senate was Republican. The laws still stand but the taxpayers are out at least a million dollars for that nonsense. That money had to come from somewhere. Some of it came from the School Budget, some came from roads and bridges and more. Our State Government can't just raise taxes to pay for it. We have something called the Tabor Act. They have to take the tax increase to the Public in a Vote. Instead, they had no choice but to shortchange other programs. You may have a cool million laying around but others don't. Not even states for frivolous BS like that. In the end, the only things that changed were our Roads didn't get fixed, our Bridges went further into disrepair, our schools fell behind and more. Because of that, there are more Gun Regs that are being presented as they know that your vindictive bunch of cowards will keep coming over and over. So we just give you more to bitch about. Look for other states to follow.

You are your own worst enemy.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Murders murder, who cares if they use a sharpened flint or a winglaner 2200 (C) with extra special nozzles on their outer perimeters? Who cares? Let's stop that nonsense. Who needs guns, after all? We would all sleep better at night if NOBODY had guns.

Do you really think through what you post? According to the CDC Americans use their legal guns to stop violent criminals 2.4 million times a year.....those are rapes, robberies and murders that do not happen because an innocent person has a gun to stop them.

There was a time in earth history where guns did not exist.... and the weak were raped, robbed and murdered by the strong....guns changed that.....and stopped that for those victims...

The 2.4 million people who use guns to save lives need those guns....

I took a look at the 9 laxest gun law states. All but Vermont, the other 8 are shithole states. Even the states that your bunch lives in like Montana and Texas didn't make the list of 9.

None of the 9 rquire the reportin gof the Mentally ill to th ecourts or authorities in regard to weapons. No reporting of lost or stolen firearms. There is a long list of really dumb blockhead moves done in the last 6 years from these states. And all but Vermont is controlled by the deep Republicans. Meanwhile just as many states have added common sense gun regulations to their laws to prevent more mass killings in the schools and other mass gatherings. Many states have started educating the Schools an, community and cops in the communities to recognize the warning signs. Many states have added the ability to allow law enforcement to temporarily seize the weapons of what they deem as an dangerous person and get in front of a judge to to say one way or another. You scream to high heavens that their rights are taken yet you also scream that we need to do something about the mentally ill with guns. Well, that's being done but you fight it because your masters want to not lose those sales. And sales is what it's all about.

Here... I will do it for you....

You Know Less Than You Think About Guns

Do Gun Laws Stop Gun Crimes?

The same week Kristof's column came out, National Journal attracted major media attention with a showy piece of research and analysis headlined "The States With The Most Gun Laws See The Fewest Gun-Related Deaths." The subhead lamented: "But there's still little appetite to talk about more restrictions."

Critics quickly noted that the Journal's Libby Isenstein had included suicides among "gun-related deaths" and suicide-irrelevant policies such as stand-your-ground laws among its tally of "gun laws." That meant that high-suicide, low-homicide states such as Wyoming, Alaska, and Idaho were taken to task for their liberal carry-permit policies. Worse, several of the states with what the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considers terribly lax gun laws were dropped from Isenstein's data set because their murder rates were too low!

Another of National Journal's mistakes is a common one in gun science: The paper didn't look at gun statistics in the context of overall violent crime, a much more relevant measure to the policy debate. After all, if less gun crime doesn't mean less crime overall—if criminals simply substitute other weapons or means when guns are less available—the benefit of the relevant gun laws is thrown into doubt. When Thomas Firey of the Cato Institute ran regressions of Isenstein's study with slightly different specifications and considering all violent crime, each of her effects either disappeared or reversed.

Another recent well-publicized study trying to assert a positive connection between gun laws and public safety was a 2013 JAMA Internal Medicine article by the Harvard pediatrics professor Eric W. Fleegler and his colleagues, called "Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Fatalities in the United States." It offered a mostly static comparison of the toughness of state gun laws (as rated by the gun control lobbyists at the Brady Center) with gun deaths from 2007 to 2010.

"States with strictest firearm laws have lowest rates of gun deaths," a Boston Globeheadline then announced. But once again, if you take the simple, obvious step of separating out suicides from murders, the correlations that buttress the supposed causations disappear. As John Hinderaker headlined his reaction at the Power Line blog, "New Study Finds Firearm Laws Do Nothing to Prevent Homicides."

Among other anomalies in Fleegler's research, Hinderaker pointed out that it didn't include Washington, D.C., with its strict gun laws and frequent homicides. If just one weak-gun-law state, Louisiana, were taken out of the equation, "the remaining nine lowest-regulation states have an average gun homicide rate of 2.8 per 100,000, which is 12.5% less than the average of the ten states with the strictest gun control laws," he found.

October interview with Slate and found it wanting: "There have been studies that have essentially toted up the number of laws various states have on the books and examined the association between the number of laws and rates of firearm death," said Wintemute, who is a medical doctor and researcher at the University of California, Davis. "That's really bad science, and it shouldn't inform policymaking."

Wintemute thinks the factor such studies don't adequately consider is the number of people in a state who have guns to begin with, which is generally not known or even well-estimated on levels smaller than national, though researchers have used proxies from subscribers to certain gun-related magazines and percentages of suicides committed with guns to make educated guesses. "Perhaps these laws decrease mortality by decreasing firearm ownership, in which case firearm ownership mediates the association," Wintemute wrote in a 2013 JAMA Internal Medicine paper. "But perhaps, and more plausibly, these laws are more readily enacted in states where the prevalence of firearm ownership is low—there will be less opposition to them—and firearm ownership confounds the association."











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.)


, 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.

------

Left-leaning media outlets, from Mother Jones to National Journal, get around this absence of correlation by reporting numbers on “gun deaths” rather than gun homicides or homicides in general.
More than 60 percent of gun deaths nationally are suicides, and places with higher gun ownership typically see a higher percentage of their suicides committed with a gun.
Focusing on the number of gun deaths practically guarantees a finding that guns and violence go together. While it may be true that public policy should also seek to reduce suicide, it is homicide — often a dramatic mass killing — that usually prompts the media and politicians to call for gun control, and it is homicide that most influences people as they consider supporting measures to take away their fellow citizens’ access to guns.
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.

Good one. Your cite comes from a once good source but since then has been infested by it's biggest contributor and master, the Koch Brothers who are also the biggest contributors to the John Birch Society. You can't get any more to the ultra right than that without falling off the edge of the flat earth.

 

[OKTexas]

AR15s are just sporting rifles, anyway those places you speak of are still plagued the country’s highest rate of violence.
Firearms have no control over people most people learn and understand that in middle school or grade school.

1. A Sporting Rifle doesn't have the need for rails to accept a M-203 Grenade Launcher. Or a Silencer or a Bayonet or a.......... Like we did in Colorado, remove the ability to mount those and then, and only then, can you call it a sporting rifle. Until then, it's an assault rifle that can also be used as a sporting rifle.

2. I already told you what we need to do to get the crime and murder level down. But, no, you won't even consider it. Your 1% that you pray to would never go for it. They moved the jobs out of those areas and didn't replace them with other jobs so the people turned to the only other way to make a living they could and that was crime and public assistance. And, no, they didn't have the option to move. They didn't have the funds to relocate and even if they did, there were no jobs waiting for them anyway. When the jobs were finally available in alternative locations, they could not afford to relocate anyway. The buildings are still there for the Factories, the work force is still there. Yes, it would have be rebuilt and retrained but that USED to be part of running a business. Not so these days. Long term investments gave way for Bottom Line short term.

Keep spewing that propaganda, the M203 in not rail mounted, neither are bayonets or noise suppressors. Lies are not your friends.


.

He does not even know the difference between a suppressor and a silencer...
And thinks rails make a firearm more dangerous... lol

No he does, he's just trolling, repeating shit over and over and over, no matter how many times it's proven wrong. He refuses to answer honest questions because the answers won't support his trolling and propaganda.


.

Your little band just likes to misinform and use that to win any and all arguments. Well, cupcakes, you are losing this argument on the legislature. In Colorado, the ability to mount those rails and the ability to thread on the silencer cannot be included in any new AR-15 sold in the State since 2013. Now, keep lying and misdirecting. The cat is out of the bag, cupcake.

You're watching way too many movies if you think any firearm can be silenced. BTW the CO senate has already passed a repeal of the magazine ban and it's up for consideration in the house. I guess your legislators are getting a bit of a backlash for their misguided BS.


.

 

[OKTexas]

Murders murder, who cares if they use a sharpened flint or a winglaner 2200 (C) with extra special nozzles on their outer perimeters? Who cares? Let's stop that nonsense. Who needs guns, after all? We would all sleep better at night if NOBODY had guns.

Get back to us when you have all the criminals guns in custody, then we can have a discussion, should be a piece of cake, right?


.

 

[MaryL]

You need to get out and meet real people.[/QUOTE]
So, you are real? I met you. Ok. Ever had a gun pointed at you? Ever use a gun in self defense. Yes no, maybe?..Let's spit hairs ad infinitum. When? Why? Were is your Proof? Why didn't you you do this or that instead... I am a mortal human being and have been harmed by people with guns , and that is the be all end all as far as I am concerned. Guns do way more harm than good, and that's not anecdotal, its a matter of fact.

 

[OKTexas]

You need to get out and meet real people.

So, you are real? I met you. Ok. Ever had a gun pointed at you? Ever use a gun in self defense. Yes no, maybe?..Let's spit hairs ad infinitum. When? Why? Were is your Proof? Why didn't you you do this or that instead... I am a mortal human being and have been harmed by people with guns , and that is the be all end all as far as I am concerned. Guns do way more harm than good, and that's not anecdotal, its a matter of fact.[/QUOTE]


Speaking of proof, where's yours?


.

 

[MaryL]

Call it deja vu. I never met you, you must be a figment of my imagination, OKTexas guy person. That is were the deep sigh and the deja vu comes in, been there done that. Prove you exist. I triple dog dare you. Go ahead...

 

[MaryL]

Hmm, still waiting, OKtexas guy, what proof do you have you aren't some computer algorithm planted here as some kind of agent provocateur? We can humor people, or we can go off the deep end. Up to you.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

1. A Sporting Rifle doesn't have the need for rails to accept a M-203 Grenade Launcher. Or a Silencer or a Bayonet or a.......... Like we did in Colorado, remove the ability to mount those and then, and only then, can you call it a sporting rifle. Until then, it's an assault rifle that can also be used as a sporting rifle.

2. I already told you what we need to do to get the crime and murder level down. But, no, you won't even consider it. Your 1% that you pray to would never go for it. They moved the jobs out of those areas and didn't replace them with other jobs so the people turned to the only other way to make a living they could and that was crime and public assistance. And, no, they didn't have the option to move. They didn't have the funds to relocate and even if they did, there were no jobs waiting for them anyway. When the jobs were finally available in alternative locations, they could not afford to relocate anyway. The buildings are still there for the Factories, the work force is still there. Yes, it would have be rebuilt and retrained but that USED to be part of running a business. Not so these days. Long term investments gave way for Bottom Line short term.

Keep spewing that propaganda, the M203 in not rail mounted, neither are bayonets or noise suppressors. Lies are not your friends.


.

He does not even know the difference between a suppressor and a silencer...
And thinks rails make a firearm more dangerous... lol

No he does, he's just trolling, repeating shit over and over and over, no matter how many times it's proven wrong. He refuses to answer honest questions because the answers won't support his trolling and propaganda.


.

Your little band just likes to misinform and use that to win any and all arguments. Well, cupcakes, you are losing this argument on the legislature. In Colorado, the ability to mount those rails and the ability to thread on the silencer cannot be included in any new AR-15 sold in the State since 2013. Now, keep lying and misdirecting. The cat is out of the bag, cupcake.

You're watching way too many movies if you think any firearm can be silenced. BTW the CO senate has already passed a repeal of the magazine ban and it's up for consideration in the house. I guess your legislators are getting a bit of a backlash for their misguided BS.


.

Feb 2018
Colorado House of Representatives
Allow Licensed CCW people to be armed on school property.........rejected
Repeal the 2013 ban on Mags over 15 rounds........rejected
Allow Business Owners and Employees to use deadly force against intruders similar to Make My Day.....rejected.

Sounds like the biggest BS around here is coming from you. They try this every year since 2013 and fail every year. The Senate is controlled by the Reps while the House is controlled by the Dems. And the Voters are the ones that voted those laws in. So it appears that the Reps don't give a tinkers damn what the citizens actually want. This is why Colorado went from a solid red state to a purple state and has recently went to a Blue state.

From what I can see, you are just too stupid to have guns. I have decided that we need to come take your guns like you keep telling us we are going to do anyway. So guard your guns. And go buy more. And buy more ammo. Hide it under the bed when you hide under there yourself. We are going to take your guns. We are your worst nightmare. But, hey, you keep telling us that this is what we should do.

 

[OKTexas]

Keep spewing that propaganda, the M203 in not rail mounted, neither are bayonets or noise suppressors. Lies are not your friends.


.

He does not even know the difference between a suppressor and a silencer...
And thinks rails make a firearm more dangerous... lol

No he does, he's just trolling, repeating shit over and over and over, no matter how many times it's proven wrong. He refuses to answer honest questions because the answers won't support his trolling and propaganda.


.

Your little band just likes to misinform and use that to win any and all arguments. Well, cupcakes, you are losing this argument on the legislature. In Colorado, the ability to mount those rails and the ability to thread on the silencer cannot be included in any new AR-15 sold in the State since 2013. Now, keep lying and misdirecting. The cat is out of the bag, cupcake.

You're watching way too many movies if you think any firearm can be silenced. BTW the CO senate has already passed a repeal of the magazine ban and it's up for consideration in the house. I guess your legislators are getting a bit of a backlash for their misguided BS.


.

Feb 2018
Colorado House of Representatives
Allow Licensed CCW people to be armed on school property.........rejected
Repeal the 2013 ban on Mags over 15 rounds........rejected
Allow Business Owners and Employees to use deadly force against intruders similar to Make My Day.....rejected.

Sounds like the biggest BS around here is coming from you. They try this every year since 2013 and fail every year. The Senate is controlled by the Reps while the House is controlled by the Dems. And the Voters are the ones that voted those laws in. So it appears that the Reps don't give a tinkers damn what the citizens actually want. This is why Colorado went from a solid red state to a purple state and has recently went to a Blue state.

From what I can see, you are just too stupid to have guns. I have decided that we need to come take your guns like you keep telling us we are going to do anyway. So guard your guns. And go buy more. And buy more ammo. Hide it under the bed when you hide under there yourself. We are going to take your guns. We are your worst nightmare. But, hey, you keep telling us that this is what we should do.

No CO has been a commie bitch State for decades now. They depend on the military to help keep the State afloat, but walk into a restaurant in uniform in a town away from the bases and people look at you like an alien from mars. That's specially true in college towns.


.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I left out the fact that the media calls every semi-auto rifle an AR-15 when it's not.
Plus, lets not overlook the total body-count for AR-15s is very miniscule compared to handguns.

But liberals always play this game that 10 children being shot by a Whiteman using an AR-15 matters more than 256 black kids in Chicago being shot by Glocks in gang violence.

We save what we can and not save what we can't save. You don't even want to outlaw the Bump Stock which is useful only on the AR-15 and is worthless on all other rifles including the Mini-14. You are against removal of the militiary hardware mounting rails on the AR-15. If these things are left then the opposition has a case in moving the AR into a FFL licensed rating. You either compromise or you lose it all. Luckily, MOST go for the compromise and don't pay a whole hell of a lot of credence to your insanity.

I figure outlawing Bump Stocks is okay, but once you guys get that what's next?
Outlawing anything that fires more than one round at a time?
Why not outlaw everything other than Flintlocks, shall we?

The problem is all of this anti-gun BS isn't based on saving lives. It's based on screwing us out of our right to own a means of protecting ourselves.
Those rights are by design in place to prevent government from taking away the rest of our rights.
They are essential to maintain a free society.
Banning guns never stopped murders in any country.
If that were the case then sign me up.
But anyone who is a realist knows that this is what every Socialist society has done.
They want to take away our right to secure our homes.

Why the fake outrage? The Supreme Court ruled that you have the right to defend your home with your firearm no matter how the local or state rules. Of course, they also placed reasonable limits to that. For instance, no automatic weapons. But you can use semi autos. Sorry, no Bazookas (you might miss and take out the bus stop down the street). Your outrage is almost the temper tantrum of a small child who wanted the whole bag of cookies when he was told to only take one.

There is no law against owning a fully automatic rifle.
Anyone who can pass a background check and pay the additional tax can own one

So a fully auto rife could be used for home defense if the above conditions are met

No it can't. Well, it can once. Then the prison sentence will begin. It's well beyond the reasonable weapons to be used for home defense. If it is in the security storage it's supposed to be in then you probably won't have time to get it out in time and would choose a different more suitable weapon. You have been watching way too many A-Team episodes.

Of course it can. If I legally own a fully auto rifle there is no reason I cannot use it of some piece of shit breaks into my home and threatens my safety.

And if my home is locked then my guns are secured.

The best weapon for self defense is the one you have not the one some armchair quarterback says you should have

 

[Skull Pilot]

The NRA has explained to us that firearms don't kill people. People kill people. That being the case, one has to wonder why the NRA allows people to attend their conventions, but ban guns.

That is the up to the management of the venue rented for the conventions