Wyoming has highest gun per capita rate...and below average murder rate, guns don't cause murder.

[airplanemechanic]

I've yet to see one gun grabber say "More guns equals more gun crime (unless you live in a sparely populated area)" Nope, they flat out say more guns equal more crime.

More guns, more crime: New research debunks a central thesis of the gun rights movement

Nowhere in that study does it even MENTION population density. It calls "more guns" not actually physically more guns, but "right to carry laws". Is that what liberals are hanging their hats on these days?

So that begs the question....more guns per what? Per person, or per square mile? It seems to make a huge difference.

 

[Meathead]

Nigeria: 500 ppl/square mile, gun ownership:1.5 guns per 100, murder rate:10.3 per 100000

Switzerland: 523 ppl/sq mile, gun ownership: 45.7guns per 100, murder rate:0.5 per 100,000

it isn't population density either, inverse relationship to guns, race is the only correlation

Nigeria Crime Facts & Stats
List of countries and territories by population density - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Estimated number of guns per capita by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As is wealth

There is a variable that you cannot grasp even though you know it is true.

That there are higher murder rates wherever blacks are found is indisputable.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Sorry to disagree with you..that isn't the argument the gun grabbers make......they make the specific argument that more guns mean more gun crime...they state that if you have more guns.....that automatically means more people will shoot each other...

Again -- nobody made that argument. Except this guy.

​

--- You sincerely don't get why that's a bogus argument, do you?

​

WYoning [sic] has highest gun per capita rate...and below average murder rate, guns don't cause murder.

No shit, Sherlock. Wyoming also has the thinnest population density in the conterminous 48. That's far more relevant.

Does that mean when gun control nuts use per capita gun ownership trying to support the laws they want passed they are no longer relevant?

Such as?

The argument Liberals use that the U.S. has the highest per capita gun ownership rate in the world, therefore, we have more murders because we have more guns. That one.

Based on what say, the per capita arguments are no longer valid.

The U.S. Has the highest per capita gun ownership rate, we have more murders because we have more guns

We also have a 13% black population. That's significant. If those people were white, our murder rate would be far lower. Blacks in Africa have no problem slaughtering each other with or without guns. They're just as violent with machetes.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
I'm sure people living 5 miles away from each other has nothing to do with it.

What's that?
There's more to violent crime than gun laws and the presence of guns?
Do tell.

 

[Pogo]

I've yet to see one gun grabber say "More guns equals more gun crime (unless you live in a sparely populated area)" Nope, they flat out say more guns equal more crime.

And I've asked for a link to anybody saying that since the thread started. All I ever got was this guy --

​

Fallacious thread fails. Never got off the ground.

​

 

[Pogo]

[
I'm sure people living 5 miles away from each other has nothing to do with it.

What's that?
There's more to violent crime than gun laws and the presence of guns?
Do tell.

I've been saying that since I got to this site, and before I got here. Do listen.

 

[Divine Wind]

And I've asked for a link to anybody saying that since the thread started. All I ever got was this guy --

​

Fallacious thread fails. Never got off the ground.

​

Dude, get a brain. The OP included a factual link. You not only posted a straw man reply, but either intentionally or ignorantly conflated rate with total numbers. Now you are claiming everyone only posted straw man arguments. That's a lie.

Now, like your post conflating rate with total numbers, are you intentionally lying or just ignorant?

 

[NCC1701]

I've yet to see one gun grabber say "More guns equals more gun crime (unless you live in a sparely populated area)" Nope, they flat out say more guns equal more crime.

And I've asked for a link to anybody saying that since the thread started. All I ever got was this guy --

​

Fallacious thread fails. Never got off the ground.

​

I gave you links up to your ass you retarded liar

 

[Skull Pilot]

I've yet to see one gun grabber say "More guns equals more gun crime (unless you live in a sparely populated area)" Nope, they flat out say more guns equal more crime.

And I've asked for a link to anybody saying that since the thread started. All I ever got was this guy --

​

Fallacious thread fails. Never got off the ground.

​

So the tune has changed for this one thread?

How convenient

 

[Pogo]

And I've asked for a link to anybody saying that since the thread started. All I ever got was this guy --

​

Fallacious thread fails. Never got off the ground.

​

Dude, get a brain. The OP included a factual link. You not only posted a straw man reply, but either intentionally or ignorantly conflated rate with total numbers. Now you are claiming everyone only posted straw man arguments. That's a lie.

Now, like your post conflating rate with total numbers, are you intentionally lying or just ignorant?

Not so much a "factual link" as a cherrypicked out-of-all-context irrelevancy. Fortunately he made it laughingly easy with his ridiculous comparison between a sparsely populated western state with a crowded northeastern city. It couldn't get more apples-to-oranges unless he had maybe compared Baltimore to a cheeseburger.

Go and pretend context doesn't exist all you like. It doesn't chase it away.

 

[Pogo]

I've yet to see one gun grabber say "More guns equals more gun crime (unless you live in a sparely populated area)" Nope, they flat out say more guns equal more crime.

And I've asked for a link to anybody saying that since the thread started. All I ever got was this guy --

​

Fallacious thread fails. Never got off the ground.

​

So the tune has changed for this one thread?

How convenient

What "tune" would this be then?

I exposed a blatant fallacy, which is what I usually do. This one was far more blatant than most.

 

[theHawk]

WYoning [sic] has highest gun per capita rate...and below average murder rate, guns don't cause murder.

No shit, Sherlock. Wyoming also has the thinnest population density in the conterminous 48. That's far more relevant.

Then do you care to explain Switzerland? They have 45 guns per 100 residents, and far worse density population than the US.

 

[Pogo]

WYoning [sic] has highest gun per capita rate...and below average murder rate, guns don't cause murder.

No shit, Sherlock. Wyoming also has the thinnest population density in the conterminous 48. That's far more relevant.

Then do you care to explain Switzerland? They have 45 guns per 100 residents, and far worse density population than the US.

Aahhhh --- don't think so Sparkles. The OP's comparison didn't involve "the US". It involved Wyoming and Baltimore. Two places that have as much in common as a tree and an iPad.

 

[theHawk]

WYoning [sic] has highest gun per capita rate...and below average murder rate, guns don't cause murder.

No shit, Sherlock. Wyoming also has the thinnest population density in the conterminous 48. That's far more relevant.

Then do you care to explain Switzerland? They have 45 guns per 100 residents, and far worse density population than the US.

Aahhhh --- don't think so Sparkles. The OP's comparison didn't involve "the US". It involved Wyoming and Baltimore. Two places that have as much in common as a tree and an iPad.

Yes, and according to you the only reason one has super low murder rates is because of population density.

You still can't just admit that it's a racial problem with blacks and violence.

Places that have few blacks have very little crime, despite high or low gun ownership rates. Places with majority blacks have the highest crime and gun violence rates no matter what gun laws.

It's amusing watching progressive nutters tap dance around the obvious facts.

 

[Pogo]

Yes, and according to you the only reason one has super low murder rates is because of population density.

Bullshit. I ever said it was the ONLY reason. In fact I went into considerable detail about another unrelated one back in post 21.

Go ahead --- quote me to prove me wrong, or learn how to read.

You still can't just admit that it's a racial problem with blacks and violence.

Places that have few blacks have very little crime, despite high or low gun ownership rates. Places with majority blacks have the highest crime and gun violence rates no matter what gun laws.

It's amusing watching progressive nutters tap dance around the obvious facts.

Not half as amusing as watching desperate message board wankers try to float the turds of Composition Fallacy. It's not the fallacy itself that's funny --- it's that somewhere in your tiny little minds you think that shit actually will work.

You see son --- citing some associated aspect as a causation while (again) ignoring all its context, makes no point, except that the asserter is a profound idiot. Correlation is not the same thing as causation.

But it's an amusing game. Let's play it.

Hmmm -- "Baltimore" starts with a B and "Wyoming" with a W. Clearly places at the beginning of the alphabet are calmer than places at the end. Let's go to Zanzibar, because Antarctica is a hellhole.

Hmmm--- Baltimore's in the eastern time zone, Wyoming in Mountain. Clearly time zones named after natural aspects are calmer than those named after geographic ones.

Etc etc etc. Grow up.

 

[Meathead]

Aahhhh --- don't think so Sparkles. The OP's comparison didn't involve "the US". It involved Wyoming and Baltimore. Two places that have as much in common as a tree and an iPad.

Yeah, or thugs and whites.

 

[theHawk]

Yes, and according to you the only reason one has super low murder rates is because of population density.

Bullshit. I ever said it was the ONLY reason. In fact I went into considerable detail about another unrelated one back in post 21.

Go ahead --- quote me to prove me wrong, or learn how to read.

You still can't just admit that it's a racial problem with blacks and violence.

Places that have few blacks have very little crime, despite high or low gun ownership rates. Places with majority blacks have the highest crime and gun violence rates no matter what gun laws.

It's amusing watching progressive nutters tap dance around the obvious facts.

Not half as amusing as watching desperate message board wankers try to float the turds of Composition Fallacy. It's not the fallacy itself that's funny --- it's that somewhere in your tiny little minds you think that shit actually will work.

You see son --- citing some associated aspect as a causation while (again) ignoring all its context, makes no point, except that the asserter is a profound idiot. Correlation is not the same thing as causation.

But it's an amusing game. Let's play it.

Hmmm -- "Baltimore" starts with a B and "Wyoming" with a W. Clearly places at the beginning of the alphabet are calmer than places at the end. Let's go to Zanzibar, because Antarctica is a hellhole.

Hmmm--- Baltimore's in the eastern time zone, Wyoming in Mountain. Clearly time zones named after natural aspects are calmer than those named after geographic ones.

Etc etc etc. Grow up.

You went into considerable detail by comparing Detroit and Windsor, Canada? Detroit being the biggest shithole populated with 82% blacks, and Windsor having less than 4% blacks?

Gun culture isn't the problem, it's thug culture.

Pull your head out of your ass.

 

[Theowl32]

Why are cities and states with highest densities of blacks the highest in gun violence?

Hmmmmm?

 

[2aguy]

Sorry to disagree with you..that isn't the argument the gun grabbers make......they make the specific argument that more guns mean more gun crime...they state that if you have more guns.....that automatically means more people will shoot each other...

Again -- nobody made that argument. Except this guy.

​

--- You sincerely don't get why that's a bogus argument, do you?

​

WYoning [sic] has highest gun per capita rate...and below average murder rate, guns don't cause murder.

No shit, Sherlock. Wyoming also has the thinnest population density in the conterminous 48. That's far more relevant.

Does that mean when gun control nuts use per capita gun ownership trying to support the laws they want passed they are no longer relevant?

Such as?

The argument Liberals use that the U.S. has the highest per capita gun ownership rate in the world, therefore, we have more murders because we have more guns. That one.

Based on what say, the per capita arguments are no longer valid.

The U.S. Has the highest per capita gun ownership rate, we have more murders because we have more guns

Nope....we rank 111th for murder......even though we have more guns.....Mexico and Russia beat us and they have extreme gun control....

And guns do not cause murder...the criminals in Europe, Japan and Australia get guns, they just don't use them to commit murder.....

 

[Skull Pilot]

I've yet to see one gun grabber say "More guns equals more gun crime (unless you live in a sparely populated area)" Nope, they flat out say more guns equal more crime.

And I've asked for a link to anybody saying that since the thread started. All I ever got was this guy --

​

Fallacious thread fails. Never got off the ground.

​

So the tune has changed for this one thread?

How convenient

What "tune" would this be then?

I exposed a blatant fallacy, which is what I usually do. This one was far more blatant than most.

Don't be obtuse

You know as well as I that no one outside of this thread has ever said more guns equals more crime only in densely populated areas

Just admit that the anti-gun people were hit with a stat that didn't jive with their more guns equals more crime mantra so all of a sudden it's being qualified