Why anti gun people are so angry.....

[2aguy]

Large capacity magazines are expensive. And so are the guns that accept them.

A Cobra derringer can be had for $130.

A 3D printer costs about the same as a good AR-15.

It does look like the pricing has come down since the last time I checked. But the law would put huge jail time on anyone caught manufacturing. So again, why would they bother when they can commit crimes with the smaller capacity magazines?

One, they would use whatever magazine they thought would get the job done, legal or illegal.....but still illegal for them any way since they are criminals.....yet innocent people will be caught and turned into felons...it has already happened and it didn't stop the mass shooting in California, or Columbine...they both used 10 round magazines....so it is a pointless law meant to entrap honest, law abiding people in simple mistakes....and turning them into felons and taking away their rights forever....

He started with a 33 round magazine and reloaded after it was exhausted. The only reason it gave people time to react is because he dropped the new magazine on the ground, an unplanned impediment. When I was carrying a service weapon, our reload times were tested. After my gun went dry, I was able to reload in just under 4 seconds. Counting on people being able to stop an assailant between reloads is a cynical ploy, and typical of the Left.

The more times you have to reload the more opportunities to drop a magazine. That is the point. 4 seconds is plenty of time for a person to run around a corner or through a door.

Unless the shooter chains the doors shut, like Cho did at Virginia Tech.

Or they are driving around shooting people, like California Virgin guy.

Columbine guys found a friend, one could shoot while the other reloaded.

This is why gun control is never going to work. Criminals aren't stupid...even the crazy ones.

exactly....and they learn from the nuts who went before.....

 

[2aguy]

It does look like the pricing has come down since the last time I checked. But the law would put huge jail time on anyone caught manufacturing. So again, why would they bother when they can commit crimes with the smaller capacity magazines?

One, they would use whatever magazine they thought would get the job done, legal or illegal.....but still illegal for them any way since they are criminals.....yet innocent people will be caught and turned into felons...it has already happened and it didn't stop the mass shooting in California, or Columbine...they both used 10 round magazines....so it is a pointless law meant to entrap honest, law abiding people in simple mistakes....and turning them into felons and taking away their rights forever....

He started with a 33 round magazine and reloaded after it was exhausted. The only reason it gave people time to react is because he dropped the new magazine on the ground, an unplanned impediment. When I was carrying a service weapon, our reload times were tested. After my gun went dry, I was able to reload in just under 4 seconds. Counting on people being able to stop an assailant between reloads is a cynical ploy, and typical of the Left.

The more times you have to reload the more opportunities to drop a magazine. That is the point. 4 seconds is plenty of time for a person to run around a corner or through a door.

Didn't help in Sandy Hook, those stories you tell aren't even true.....he dropped the magazine and reloaded several times, before he ran out of ammo, and he killed 26 people.....those stories, as I pointed out are not accurate and no one knows how they started...remember....everyone was running away or hiding and they weren't looking to go and see what the killer was doing...the police "assume" people escaped when he reloaded, but there is no confirmation of that.....

And the Long Island shooter on the train, Massad Ayoob points out he more than likely completely ran out of ammo before he was rushed...since he too reloaded on the crowded, enclosed train.....

Yes it did help. Kids did escape. And it helps in every mass shooting. They all have survivors who ran away and escaped. Slowing the shooter allows more to escape.

Sorry brain...those stories are not true.....the cops said they "assumed" that people got away when he reloaded multiple times but no one in the building actually said it.....since in a grade school there are few adults and he stayed in the kindergarten area.......no eyewitnesses reported it brain......

 

[Brain357]

Looks like the murder rate shot up from 1.1 to 1.2.

Time to rethink this!

Yea, 17% which even the liar John Lott doesn't dispute. Cherry picker extraordinaire

Shooting Down the Gun Lobby s Favorite Academic A Lott of Lies Armed With Reason

A Lott of lies. Whoa, clever! Tell us how the genius supports this:

Lott replied to this accusation by arguing that, even if there weren’t more households owning guns, there were still more people carrying guns in public after the passage of shall-issue laws. However, we know this assertion is factually untenable, based on surveys showing that 5-11% of US adults already carried guns for self-protection before the implementation of concealed carry laws.


....so, he believes Lott lied because he believes just as many carried weapons after permits were issued more liberally by shall issue than prior to the laws? He supports this...how? With a poll on people who admit to their previous felonies by carrying a hand gun illegally? And you bought that? I read on a bit more and it's obvious he's a cvnt trying to impose his will on a target audience by a series of condescending remarks, rather than statistical facts.

The fact is that shall issue permits have been on the increase and crime has gone down. And the author didn't understand that Lott didn't make the claim that shall issue was reponsible for all crime going down but that it flies in the face of the liberal fear mongers that claim more guns mean more crime. It doesn't.

Lott has addressed all of his critics and explained his mistakes and the fact that he is still the most respected gun researcher...as well as an economist, shows that whatever they try to say, his explanations were solid.....and they can't stand that...and they really hate him because his work, which examined crime statistics in every county in the United States was the most detailed work on the subject of gun self defense and crime rates.....

He showed that as concealed carry laws went into effect...violent crime rates dropped...

How do we know his research was accurate........right now...with more guns in private hands, our gun crime rate is going down, not up, overall crime rate is going down, not up...and as a side benefit to all the new gun owners learning about guns....our gun accident rate and our gun accident death rate are going down, not up....

And we didn't ban guns to achieve those results.....in fact...we own and carry more guns than before....


The anti-gun nuts will never forgive him for showing that....

The crime rates have been on a steady decline for a very long time now. Even when gun ownership was clearly declining. I think the gun ownership rate is still declining based on the evidence I have seen. I don't really think gun ownership rates effect crime rates. If it were the case we would have far fewer crimes than any other country or the most.

You're full of shit. Lying Leftists like you cite the fact that the percent of households owning guns has been on the decline to create the impression that gun ownership is falling into disfavor when in fact gun sales are exploding with the expansion of CCW rights.

Stop lying, Leftists!

That is sales, not ownership. Every gun owner I know has quite a few. Gun ranges are going down:
Shooting Ranges in the US Market Research IBISWorld
Each gun owner can only take up one lane regardless of how many guns he has. Also several polls support ownership being down.

 

[2aguy]

I will find that link when I get back......

 

[2aguy]

Here you go brain...again...

Sandy Hook Shooter s Pause May Have Aided Students Escape - tribunedigital-thecourant



Based on initial statements from surviving children and the fact that unfired bullets from Lanza's rifle were found on the ground, detectives suspect that some students were able to run to safety when Lanza stopped firing, probably for a short period of time, the officials said.

It is possible that Lanza, who reloaded the rifle frequently, mishandled or dropped a magazine and unfired bullets fell to the floor, they said.

But it also is possible, they said, that the mechanism that fed bullets into the rifle jammed, causing Lanza to remove the magazine and clear the weapon. Unfired bullets could have fallen to the classroom floor during that process as well, law enforcement officials said.


The authorities have learned generally from the children who ran away that something may have happened to Lanza's rifle that caused him to stop firing. The substance of the statements, which are not entirely consistent, is that a piece of the weapon, probably a magazine holding live bullets, was dropped or fell to the classroom floor.

Investigators have decided not to formally interview the children, based on advice from Yale child psychologists. Given the chaotic nature of the scene, it is also possible that some children escaped while Lanza was shooting others in the room.

 

[Brain357]

One, they would use whatever magazine they thought would get the job done, legal or illegal.....but still illegal for them any way since they are criminals.....yet innocent people will be caught and turned into felons...it has already happened and it didn't stop the mass shooting in California, or Columbine...they both used 10 round magazines....so it is a pointless law meant to entrap honest, law abiding people in simple mistakes....and turning them into felons and taking away their rights forever....

He started with a 33 round magazine and reloaded after it was exhausted. The only reason it gave people time to react is because he dropped the new magazine on the ground, an unplanned impediment. When I was carrying a service weapon, our reload times were tested. After my gun went dry, I was able to reload in just under 4 seconds. Counting on people being able to stop an assailant between reloads is a cynical ploy, and typical of the Left.

The more times you have to reload the more opportunities to drop a magazine. That is the point. 4 seconds is plenty of time for a person to run around a corner or through a door.

Didn't help in Sandy Hook, those stories you tell aren't even true.....he dropped the magazine and reloaded several times, before he ran out of ammo, and he killed 26 people.....those stories, as I pointed out are not accurate and no one knows how they started...remember....everyone was running away or hiding and they weren't looking to go and see what the killer was doing...the police "assume" people escaped when he reloaded, but there is no confirmation of that.....

And the Long Island shooter on the train, Massad Ayoob points out he more than likely completely ran out of ammo before he was rushed...since he too reloaded on the crowded, enclosed train.....

Yes it did help. Kids did escape. And it helps in every mass shooting. They all have survivors who ran away and escaped. Slowing the shooter allows more to escape.

Sorry brain...those stories are not true.....the cops said they "assumed" that people got away when he reloaded multiple times but no one in the building actually said it.....since in a grade school there are few adults and he stayed in the kindergarten area.......no eyewitnesses reported it brain......

I have seen an eyewitness account. And like I said people escape every mass shooting. Slowing down the shooter will only help more escape.

 

[Brain357]

The more times you have to reload the more opportunities to drop a magazine. That is the point. 4 seconds is plenty of time for a person to run around a corner or through a door.

Unless the shooter chains the doors shut, like Cho did at Virginia Tech.

Or they are driving around shooting people, like California Virgin guy.

Columbine guys found a friend, one could shoot while the other reloaded.

This is why gun control is never going to work. Criminals aren't stupid...even the crazy ones.

People escaped all of those. Slowing the shooter is always good. What are the negatives to a mass shooter having to reload often?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

He started with a 33 round magazine and reloaded after it was exhausted. The only reason it gave people time to react is because he dropped the new magazine on the ground, an unplanned impediment. When I was carrying a service weapon, our reload times were tested. After my gun went dry, I was able to reload in just under 4 seconds. Counting on people being able to stop an assailant between reloads is a cynical ploy, and typical of the Left.

The more times you have to reload the more opportunities to drop a magazine. That is the point. 4 seconds is plenty of time for a person to run around a corner or through a door.

Didn't help in Sandy Hook, those stories you tell aren't even true.....he dropped the magazine and reloaded several times, before he ran out of ammo, and he killed 26 people.....those stories, as I pointed out are not accurate and no one knows how they started...remember....everyone was running away or hiding and they weren't looking to go and see what the killer was doing...the police "assume" people escaped when he reloaded, but there is no confirmation of that.....

And the Long Island shooter on the train, Massad Ayoob points out he more than likely completely ran out of ammo before he was rushed...since he too reloaded on the crowded, enclosed train.....

Yes it did help. Kids did escape. And it helps in every mass shooting. They all have survivors who ran away and escaped. Slowing the shooter allows more to escape.

Sorry brain...those stories are not true.....the cops said they "assumed" that people got away when he reloaded multiple times but no one in the building actually said it.....since in a grade school there are few adults and he stayed in the kindergarten area.......no eyewitnesses reported it brain......

I have seen an eyewitness account. And like I said people escape every mass shooting. Slowing down the shooter will only help more escape.

Putting a hyde in his melon would slow him down even better.

 

[Missourian]

It does look like the pricing [of a 3D printer] has come down since the last time I checked. But the law would put huge jail time on anyone caught manufacturing. So again, why would they bother when they can commit crimes with the smaller capacity magazines?

Sorry I missed this one...I'm getting a lot of alerts from this thread from the long quote strings.

There's huge jail time on a lot of things criminals do...that doesn't seem to stop them.

If you are committing a robbery, or a driveby, or whatever...is the jailtime of the 30 round magazine really that big of a consideration...hell, they're criminals, they know that little crap is run concurrent if they get caught anyway, so the real question is...why not?

And just like drugs, if there is a black market profit in it, someone is going to be manufacturing them.

 

[ChrisL]

I don't go "after" anyone. I've got no idea what you are talking about.

It is a right to carry or to have your business be armed, or to run a business and be armed yourself if you so choose. It is a CHOICE, get it yet?

Shouldn't the workers have the right to be armed? I mean it is a right and there are lots of shootings at work.

Yes they should...if you can't violate civil rights in other areas in a work place you shouldn't violate the right to self defense....however...you don't have a right to freedom of speech at work...so you could make an argument that you wouldn't have a right to 2nd amendment protection either.......

Well obviously I think employers have the right to have no firearms. But you guys really should be going after them.

As I pointed out, the First Amendment has no guarantee at your place of work...so that would likely be the outcome at the Supreme court for the 2nd at work.......and again...that would be because it is private, not public property...

However, public buildings should be required to respect the 2nd amendment....

So if gun free zones are killing zones why are there not more work related shootings?

Neither happen frequently. School shootings and the like, and work place shootings are relatively rare. Like I told you, these types of mass shootings make up less than 1% of ALL homicides.

This is how we KNOW you are full of it. IF you people cared about "deaths" then you would be outraged by the number of drownings every year and demand that swimming be banned, or demand that all people have a special license in order to swim, or some such bullshit.

 

[Missourian]

Yea, 17% which even the liar John Lott doesn't dispute. Cherry picker extraordinaire

Shooting Down the Gun Lobby s Favorite Academic A Lott of Lies Armed With Reason

A Lott of lies. Whoa, clever! Tell us how the genius supports this:

Lott replied to this accusation by arguing that, even if there weren’t more households owning guns, there were still more people carrying guns in public after the passage of shall-issue laws. However, we know this assertion is factually untenable, based on surveys showing that 5-11% of US adults already carried guns for self-protection before the implementation of concealed carry laws.


....so, he believes Lott lied because he believes just as many carried weapons after permits were issued more liberally by shall issue than prior to the laws? He supports this...how? With a poll on people who admit to their previous felonies by carrying a hand gun illegally? And you bought that? I read on a bit more and it's obvious he's a cvnt trying to impose his will on a target audience by a series of condescending remarks, rather than statistical facts.

The fact is that shall issue permits have been on the increase and crime has gone down. And the author didn't understand that Lott didn't make the claim that shall issue was reponsible for all crime going down but that it flies in the face of the liberal fear mongers that claim more guns mean more crime. It doesn't.

Lott has addressed all of his critics and explained his mistakes and the fact that he is still the most respected gun researcher...as well as an economist, shows that whatever they try to say, his explanations were solid.....and they can't stand that...and they really hate him because his work, which examined crime statistics in every county in the United States was the most detailed work on the subject of gun self defense and crime rates.....

He showed that as concealed carry laws went into effect...violent crime rates dropped...

How do we know his research was accurate........right now...with more guns in private hands, our gun crime rate is going down, not up, overall crime rate is going down, not up...and as a side benefit to all the new gun owners learning about guns....our gun accident rate and our gun accident death rate are going down, not up....

And we didn't ban guns to achieve those results.....in fact...we own and carry more guns than before....


The anti-gun nuts will never forgive him for showing that....

The crime rates have been on a steady decline for a very long time now. Even when gun ownership was clearly declining. I think the gun ownership rate is still declining based on the evidence I have seen. I don't really think gun ownership rates effect crime rates. If it were the case we would have far fewer crimes than any other country or the most.

You're full of shit. Lying Leftists like you cite the fact that the percent of households owning guns has been on the decline to create the impression that gun ownership is falling into disfavor when in fact gun sales are exploding with the expansion of CCW rights.

Stop lying, Leftists!

That is sales, not ownership. Every gun owner I know has quite a few. Gun ranges are going down:
Shooting Ranges in the US Market Research IBISWorld
Each gun owner can only take up one lane regardless of how many guns he has. Also several polls support ownership being down.

I wouldn't trust the polls. People are getting a little paranoid, with all the govenment spying going on.

 

[Missourian]

The more times you have to reload the more opportunities to drop a magazine. That is the point. 4 seconds is plenty of time for a person to run around a corner or through a door.

Unless the shooter chains the doors shut, like Cho did at Virginia Tech.

Or they are driving around shooting people, like California Virgin guy.

Columbine guys found a friend, one could shoot while the other reloaded.

This is why gun control is never going to work. Criminals aren't stupid...even the crazy ones.

People escaped all of those. Slowing the shooter is always good. What are the negatives to a mass shooter having to reload often?

Wasn't Virginia Tech the worst ever?

And he had handguns with mostly 10 round magazines.

Kinda blows that theory out of the water.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Yea, 17% which even the liar John Lott doesn't dispute. Cherry picker extraordinaire

Shooting Down the Gun Lobby s Favorite Academic A Lott of Lies Armed With Reason

A Lott of lies. Whoa, clever! Tell us how the genius supports this:

Lott replied to this accusation by arguing that, even if there weren’t more households owning guns, there were still more people carrying guns in public after the passage of shall-issue laws. However, we know this assertion is factually untenable, based on surveys showing that 5-11% of US adults already carried guns for self-protection before the implementation of concealed carry laws.


....so, he believes Lott lied because he believes just as many carried weapons after permits were issued more liberally by shall issue than prior to the laws? He supports this...how? With a poll on people who admit to their previous felonies by carrying a hand gun illegally? And you bought that? I read on a bit more and it's obvious he's a cvnt trying to impose his will on a target audience by a series of condescending remarks, rather than statistical facts.

The fact is that shall issue permits have been on the increase and crime has gone down. And the author didn't understand that Lott didn't make the claim that shall issue was reponsible for all crime going down but that it flies in the face of the liberal fear mongers that claim more guns mean more crime. It doesn't.

Lott has addressed all of his critics and explained his mistakes and the fact that he is still the most respected gun researcher...as well as an economist, shows that whatever they try to say, his explanations were solid.....and they can't stand that...and they really hate him because his work, which examined crime statistics in every county in the United States was the most detailed work on the subject of gun self defense and crime rates.....

He showed that as concealed carry laws went into effect...violent crime rates dropped...

How do we know his research was accurate........right now...with more guns in private hands, our gun crime rate is going down, not up, overall crime rate is going down, not up...and as a side benefit to all the new gun owners learning about guns....our gun accident rate and our gun accident death rate are going down, not up....

And we didn't ban guns to achieve those results.....in fact...we own and carry more guns than before....


The anti-gun nuts will never forgive him for showing that....

The crime rates have been on a steady decline for a very long time now. Even when gun ownership was clearly declining. I think the gun ownership rate is still declining based on the evidence I have seen. I don't really think gun ownership rates effect crime rates. If it were the case we would have far fewer crimes than any other country or the most.

You're full of shit. Lying Leftists like you cite the fact that the percent of households owning guns has been on the decline to create the impression that gun ownership is falling into disfavor when in fact gun sales are exploding with the expansion of CCW rights.

Stop lying, Leftists!

That is sales, not ownership. Every gun owner I know has quite a few. Gun ranges are going down:
Shooting Ranges in the US Market Research IBISWorld
Each gun owner can only take up one lane regardless of how many guns he has. Also several polls support ownership being down.

Wrong again. The number of people purchasing and carrying guns, as indicated by the skyrocketing CCW issue rate, tells the real stories. It isn't the same people buying more guns, it's more people buying guns to carry, which is why in the chart I provided, the rate of handgun manufacture tripled.

 

[Brain357]

Shouldn't the workers have the right to be armed? I mean it is a right and there are lots of shootings at work.

Yes they should...if you can't violate civil rights in other areas in a work place you shouldn't violate the right to self defense....however...you don't have a right to freedom of speech at work...so you could make an argument that you wouldn't have a right to 2nd amendment protection either.......

Well obviously I think employers have the right to have no firearms. But you guys really should be going after them.

As I pointed out, the First Amendment has no guarantee at your place of work...so that would likely be the outcome at the Supreme court for the 2nd at work.......and again...that would be because it is private, not public property...

However, public buildings should be required to respect the 2nd amendment....

So if gun free zones are killing zones why are there not more work related shootings?

Neither happen frequently. School shootings and the like, and work place shootings are relatively rare. Like I told you, these types of mass shootings make up less than 1% of ALL homicides.

This is how we KNOW you are full of it. IF you people cared about "deaths" then you would be outraged by the number of drownings every year and demand that swimming be banned, or demand that all people have a special license in order to swim, or some such bullshit.

If you really cared about peoples right to defend themselves you would be demanding corporations allow employees to carry.

 

[Brain357]

A Lott of lies. Whoa, clever! Tell us how the genius supports this:

Lott replied to this accusation by arguing that, even if there weren’t more households owning guns, there were still more people carrying guns in public after the passage of shall-issue laws. However, we know this assertion is factually untenable, based on surveys showing that 5-11% of US adults already carried guns for self-protection before the implementation of concealed carry laws.


....so, he believes Lott lied because he believes just as many carried weapons after permits were issued more liberally by shall issue than prior to the laws? He supports this...how? With a poll on people who admit to their previous felonies by carrying a hand gun illegally? And you bought that? I read on a bit more and it's obvious he's a cvnt trying to impose his will on a target audience by a series of condescending remarks, rather than statistical facts.

The fact is that shall issue permits have been on the increase and crime has gone down. And the author didn't understand that Lott didn't make the claim that shall issue was reponsible for all crime going down but that it flies in the face of the liberal fear mongers that claim more guns mean more crime. It doesn't.

Lott has addressed all of his critics and explained his mistakes and the fact that he is still the most respected gun researcher...as well as an economist, shows that whatever they try to say, his explanations were solid.....and they can't stand that...and they really hate him because his work, which examined crime statistics in every county in the United States was the most detailed work on the subject of gun self defense and crime rates.....

He showed that as concealed carry laws went into effect...violent crime rates dropped...

How do we know his research was accurate........right now...with more guns in private hands, our gun crime rate is going down, not up, overall crime rate is going down, not up...and as a side benefit to all the new gun owners learning about guns....our gun accident rate and our gun accident death rate are going down, not up....

And we didn't ban guns to achieve those results.....in fact...we own and carry more guns than before....


The anti-gun nuts will never forgive him for showing that....

The crime rates have been on a steady decline for a very long time now. Even when gun ownership was clearly declining. I think the gun ownership rate is still declining based on the evidence I have seen. I don't really think gun ownership rates effect crime rates. If it were the case we would have far fewer crimes than any other country or the most.

You're full of shit. Lying Leftists like you cite the fact that the percent of households owning guns has been on the decline to create the impression that gun ownership is falling into disfavor when in fact gun sales are exploding with the expansion of CCW rights.

Stop lying, Leftists!

That is sales, not ownership. Every gun owner I know has quite a few. Gun ranges are going down:
Shooting Ranges in the US Market Research IBISWorld
Each gun owner can only take up one lane regardless of how many guns he has. Also several polls support ownership being down.

Wrong again. The number of people purchasing and carrying guns, as indicated by the skyrocketing CCW issue rate, tells the real stories. It isn't the same people buying more guns, it's more people buying guns to carry, which is why in the chart I provided, the rate of handgun manufacture tripled.

Wrong. Concealed carry is becoming legal in more states. Those are people who have always been gun owners, just now they can carry.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Yes they should...if you can't violate civil rights in other areas in a work place you shouldn't violate the right to self defense....however...you don't have a right to freedom of speech at work...so you could make an argument that you wouldn't have a right to 2nd amendment protection either.......

Well obviously I think employers have the right to have no firearms. But you guys really should be going after them.

As I pointed out, the First Amendment has no guarantee at your place of work...so that would likely be the outcome at the Supreme court for the 2nd at work.......and again...that would be because it is private, not public property...

However, public buildings should be required to respect the 2nd amendment....

So if gun free zones are killing zones why are there not more work related shootings?

Neither happen frequently. School shootings and the like, and work place shootings are relatively rare. Like I told you, these types of mass shootings make up less than 1% of ALL homicides.

This is how we KNOW you are full of it. IF you people cared about "deaths" then you would be outraged by the number of drownings every year and demand that swimming be banned, or demand that all people have a special license in order to swim, or some such bullshit.

If you really cared about peoples right to defend themselves you would be demanding corporations allow employees to carry.

Corporations should be subject to class action when they create a gun free zone and leave their workers defenseless to a crazed gunman.

 

[Brain357]

The more times you have to reload the more opportunities to drop a magazine. That is the point. 4 seconds is plenty of time for a person to run around a corner or through a door.

Unless the shooter chains the doors shut, like Cho did at Virginia Tech.

Or they are driving around shooting people, like California Virgin guy.

Columbine guys found a friend, one could shoot while the other reloaded.

This is why gun control is never going to work. Criminals aren't stupid...even the crazy ones.

People escaped all of those. Slowing the shooter is always good. What are the negatives to a mass shooter having to reload often?

Wasn't Virginia Tech the worst ever?

And he had handguns with mostly 10 round magazines.

Kinda blows that theory out of the water.

No it shows that it could have been worse. And again what are the negatives to a mass shooter having to reload often? He might drop a magazine?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Lott has addressed all of his critics and explained his mistakes and the fact that he is still the most respected gun researcher...as well as an economist, shows that whatever they try to say, his explanations were solid.....and they can't stand that...and they really hate him because his work, which examined crime statistics in every county in the United States was the most detailed work on the subject of gun self defense and crime rates.....

He showed that as concealed carry laws went into effect...violent crime rates dropped...

How do we know his research was accurate........right now...with more guns in private hands, our gun crime rate is going down, not up, overall crime rate is going down, not up...and as a side benefit to all the new gun owners learning about guns....our gun accident rate and our gun accident death rate are going down, not up....

And we didn't ban guns to achieve those results.....in fact...we own and carry more guns than before....


The anti-gun nuts will never forgive him for showing that....

The crime rates have been on a steady decline for a very long time now. Even when gun ownership was clearly declining. I think the gun ownership rate is still declining based on the evidence I have seen. I don't really think gun ownership rates effect crime rates. If it were the case we would have far fewer crimes than any other country or the most.

You're full of shit. Lying Leftists like you cite the fact that the percent of households owning guns has been on the decline to create the impression that gun ownership is falling into disfavor when in fact gun sales are exploding with the expansion of CCW rights.

Stop lying, Leftists!

That is sales, not ownership. Every gun owner I know has quite a few. Gun ranges are going down:
Shooting Ranges in the US Market Research IBISWorld
Each gun owner can only take up one lane regardless of how many guns he has. Also several polls support ownership being down.

Wrong again. The number of people purchasing and carrying guns, as indicated by the skyrocketing CCW issue rate, tells the real stories. It isn't the same people buying more guns, it's more people buying guns to carry, which is why in the chart I provided, the rate of handgun manufacture tripled.

Wrong. Concealed carry is becoming legal in more states. Those are people who have always been gun owners, just now they can carry.

Handgun manufacture tripled! Are you stupid or just a little slow? More people are deciding to buy and carry guns, why are you threatened by the facts?

 

[Brain357]

A Lott of lies. Whoa, clever! Tell us how the genius supports this:

Lott replied to this accusation by arguing that, even if there weren’t more households owning guns, there were still more people carrying guns in public after the passage of shall-issue laws. However, we know this assertion is factually untenable, based on surveys showing that 5-11% of US adults already carried guns for self-protection before the implementation of concealed carry laws.


....so, he believes Lott lied because he believes just as many carried weapons after permits were issued more liberally by shall issue than prior to the laws? He supports this...how? With a poll on people who admit to their previous felonies by carrying a hand gun illegally? And you bought that? I read on a bit more and it's obvious he's a cvnt trying to impose his will on a target audience by a series of condescending remarks, rather than statistical facts.

The fact is that shall issue permits have been on the increase and crime has gone down. And the author didn't understand that Lott didn't make the claim that shall issue was reponsible for all crime going down but that it flies in the face of the liberal fear mongers that claim more guns mean more crime. It doesn't.

Lott has addressed all of his critics and explained his mistakes and the fact that he is still the most respected gun researcher...as well as an economist, shows that whatever they try to say, his explanations were solid.....and they can't stand that...and they really hate him because his work, which examined crime statistics in every county in the United States was the most detailed work on the subject of gun self defense and crime rates.....

He showed that as concealed carry laws went into effect...violent crime rates dropped...

How do we know his research was accurate........right now...with more guns in private hands, our gun crime rate is going down, not up, overall crime rate is going down, not up...and as a side benefit to all the new gun owners learning about guns....our gun accident rate and our gun accident death rate are going down, not up....

And we didn't ban guns to achieve those results.....in fact...we own and carry more guns than before....


The anti-gun nuts will never forgive him for showing that....

The crime rates have been on a steady decline for a very long time now. Even when gun ownership was clearly declining. I think the gun ownership rate is still declining based on the evidence I have seen. I don't really think gun ownership rates effect crime rates. If it were the case we would have far fewer crimes than any other country or the most.

You're full of shit. Lying Leftists like you cite the fact that the percent of households owning guns has been on the decline to create the impression that gun ownership is falling into disfavor when in fact gun sales are exploding with the expansion of CCW rights.

Stop lying, Leftists!

That is sales, not ownership. Every gun owner I know has quite a few. Gun ranges are going down:
Shooting Ranges in the US Market Research IBISWorld
Each gun owner can only take up one lane regardless of how many guns he has. Also several polls support ownership being down.

I wouldn't trust the polls. People are getting a little paranoid, with all the govenment spying going on.

The decline in gun ranges however is quite undeniable.

 

[Brain357]

The crime rates have been on a steady decline for a very long time now. Even when gun ownership was clearly declining. I think the gun ownership rate is still declining based on the evidence I have seen. I don't really think gun ownership rates effect crime rates. If it were the case we would have far fewer crimes than any other country or the most.

You're full of shit. Lying Leftists like you cite the fact that the percent of households owning guns has been on the decline to create the impression that gun ownership is falling into disfavor when in fact gun sales are exploding with the expansion of CCW rights.

Stop lying, Leftists!

That is sales, not ownership. Every gun owner I know has quite a few. Gun ranges are going down:
Shooting Ranges in the US Market Research IBISWorld
Each gun owner can only take up one lane regardless of how many guns he has. Also several polls support ownership being down.

Wrong again. The number of people purchasing and carrying guns, as indicated by the skyrocketing CCW issue rate, tells the real stories. It isn't the same people buying more guns, it's more people buying guns to carry, which is why in the chart I provided, the rate of handgun manufacture tripled.

Wrong. Concealed carry is becoming legal in more states. Those are people who have always been gun owners, just now they can carry.

Handgun manufacture tripled! Are you stupid or just a little slow? More people are deciding to buy and carry guns, why are you threatened by the facts?

Again everyone I know has a lot of guns. Sales do not show ownership.