Just asking again in case people missed it.
more characterizations. Equating the heart of WW2 to your bull .
Patton was not one for taking up defensive positions. When they left Britain we were advancing east and dday was done and over with.
He locked them up because he had no intention on using them. Again he was not a scared man.
cide rates in Los Angeles reached a low not seen since 1970. I'm glad Los Angeles implemented that semi-auto ban, it's really working!
And fuzzy, answer my two questions pussy.
Are there millions+ more gun than ten years ago?
Is gun crime down from ten years ago?
Funny, because the Army is under the department of defense.
Patton was not one for taking up defensive positions. When they left Britain we were advancing east and dday was done and over with.
He locked them up because he had no intention on using them. Again he was not a scared man.
Not scared, he was honorable as you said, but also smart enough to not trust you with them. Maybe he didn't think too highly of you. Did anyone teach him to shoot as a child?
Even if you attack, you're defending your position.
Same response as last time. I am not making your argument for you. If you want to try and make it then make it yourself. I am not your research .
and more semantics and you trying to characterize my relationship with my grandfather.
youre boring again im going to do something else. bye.
You coward.
I blame RG for this . You do not get to ask questions that make it seem like I support your premise. Its a lame tactic that is designed to give the appearance of the answerer agreeing with your assertion.
I know the point that you are trying to make. It's pretty obvious but I am not playing your game. If you want to make the contentions of an argument then do it. I am not making the gun sales up crime down argument for you.
I cannot blame you for trying to make the argument for you though. I think its pretty obvious I am better at presenting them than you are.
I am not arguing that gun sales going up made crime go down, never have. The two facts I pointed out do however all over your theory that more guns=more crime.
If you're a simpleton that thinks that a detailed analysis is not needed to make such a claim.
So which branch did you serve, and what was your MOS?
I was characterizing your GF's viewpoint, not your relationship. Grandfathers were rough around the edges back then. Take one from the war and he's not going to care much for kids, and perhaps your father was opposed to guns as well.
You abandon every discussion only to return a short time later in another thread.
lol forum honor, I served my country in a time of war, I don't need stains like you to tell me what is and isn't honorable.
No detailed analysis is needed. The facts are there, more guns, less crime, your "causation" is shot down. Move on.
I've been looking all day for a detailed analysis that proves that more guns=more gun crimes and have about given up. Can you point me in the right direction? Or do you have this analysis on hand I can take a look at? Thanks.
Damn it...found that link you were talking about Fuzzy. You win.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...-up-crime-down
With Democrats in Congress and in the California state legislature pushing as much gun control as humanly possible, California gun sales are skyrocketing. Meanwhile, gun crime in the state is dropping dramatically.
In 2002, 350,000 guns were sold in the state of California. By 2011, that number was 600,000. Last year, it jumped to 817,000, a single year increase of 36 percent.
Did crime go up? Precisely the opposite. Since 2002, hospital visits due to injuries from gun wounds plummeted 28 percent. Gun deaths decreased 15 percent.
But that doesn’t stop California’s sanctimonious liberals from pushing more gun control. “When I see that the sales go up, I don’t like that,” complained LAPD Chief Charlie Beck. “My officers have to face these guns on the street.”
There is no evidence of that. The LAPD is facing less guns even as more guns are stolen. And the guns the LAPD does face are disproportionately acquired illegally. Even Beck admits that “guns that are excess and become unwanted in a home” are sold illegally, and that “those are the kind of guns that my officers run into on the street.” So gun laws didn’t stop those sales. What will more gun laws do?
Nothing. More gun sales have correlated with less crime for a decade now in California. And the left’s single-minded pursuit of gun control shows that they don’t care about declining crime nearly as much as they care about disarming the public.
, another one. ing google.
http://novatownhall.com/2012/12/29/g...me-down-in-ca/
It appears that yet another inconvenient truth has raised its head for the anti gun fanatics of the world. I am sure that they will dismiss this datum as well. It does not fit their narrative of a populace that needs to disarmed for its own good. Statistics from California demonstrate a correlation between a drop in gun crime and violence as the law abiding members of the population arm themselves. From the Sacramento Bee:
Gun deaths and injuries have dropped sharply in California, even as the number of guns sold in the state has risen, according to new state data.
The tone of the article shows that the “journalist” is perplexed. This information does not fit his world view either. Poor dear. Guns sales nearly doubled and the murder rate went down over 10%. Firearms sales soared with 650,000 purchases and the number of deaths and shootings fell over 10%. This is a story that has repeated itself in over 20 states. That is over 20, well do ented case studies. This information means nothing to the control fanatic. For our own good, we must be disarmed.
Places like Switzerland are among the safest in the world. Guns ownership is mandatory. Switzerland is diverse, there are four national languages, German, French, Italian and an obscure Latin based mountain language called Romansh. A society does not need to either disarmed nor monolithic for it to be safe. What it does require is respect for the individual’s capacity to reason and make the right choice when under duress.
Violence in a culture can be attributed to many things. Weaponry choices are not one of them. The masacre of 1.5M Tutsi was accomplished largely with knives, clubs and fire — not bullets. Had the Tutsi been armed with guns the massacre would have ended abruptly, or, even better — it never would have started in the first place. Deterrence is the best protection.
The next best defense, after deterrence, is to be armed and trained as well or better then the initiator of the violence. The massacre in Norway would not have reached its monstrous proportions had someone on the island had been armed other then the evil creature who stalked the island that day. It is far harder to kill those who are able to protect themselves.
And another. This is getting boring.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...up-crime-down/
Gun-control advocates are noticeably silent when crime rates decline. Their multimillion-dollar lobbying efforts are designed to manufacture mass anxiety that every gun owner is a potential killer. The statistics show otherwise.
Last week, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) announced that violent crime decreased 4 percent in 2011. The number of murders, rapes, robberies and aggravated assaults all went down, continuing a pattern.
“This is not a one-year anomaly, but a steady decline in the FBI’s violent-crime rates,” said Andrew Arulanandam, spokesman for the National Rifle Association. “It would be disingenuous for anyone to not credit increased self-defense laws to account for this decline.”
Mr. Arulanandam pointed out that only a handful of states had concealed-carry programs 25 years ago, when the violent-crime rate peaked. Today, 41 states either allow carrying without a permit or have “shall issue” laws that make it easy for just about any noncriminal to get a permit. Illinois and Washington, D.C., are the only places that refuse to recognize the right to bear arms. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence did not respond to requests for comment.
If the gun grabbers were right, we’d be in the middle of a crime wave, considering how many guns are on the streets. “Firearms sales have increased substantially since right after the 2008 election,” said Bill Brassard, spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), which represents the $4 billion firearms and ammunition industry. “There was a leveling off in 2010, but now we’re seeing a surge again.”
The FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) serves as one of the best indicators of gun sales because it counts each time someone buys a gun. Checks hit an all-time high of 16.5 million last year. In the first five months of this year, the numbers have gone up 10 percent over the same period last year as Americans rush to the gun store in case President Obama decides to exercise “more flexibility” in restricting guns in a second term.
Gun manufacturing is the one private-sector industry “doing fine” on Mr. Obama’s watch. Sturm, Ruger & Co. sold 1 million firearms in the first quarter of 2012 - an amazing 50 percent increase from the first quarter of 2011. The jump was so steep that the company stopped accepting orders from March to May to catch up with demand for its products.
Last month, Smith & Wesson announced a firearm-order backlog of approximately $439 million by the end of April, up 135 percent from the same quarter in 2011. Sales in that period were up 28 percent from 2011 and 14 percent over its own predictions to investors. NSSF estimates the industry is responsible for approximately 180,000 jobs and has an annual impact on the U.S. economy of $28 billion.
Mr. Obama could honestly take credit for this jobs program, economic boost and the reduction in violent crime that has followed the e in gun ownership on his watch. Instead, he’s silent about his greatest positive accomplishment.
I did a little looking in to your claims of Great Britain and Australia. Not sure why you think it would work here, when it didn't really work there. This linky thing you suggested is fun.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...446855466.html
Americans are determined that massacres such as happened in Newtown, Conn., never happen again. But how? Many advocate more effective treatment of mentally-ill people or armed protection in so-called gun-free zones. Many others demand stricter control of firearms.
We aren't alone in facing this problem. Great Britain and Australia, for example, suffered mass shootings in the 1980s and 1990s. Both countries had very stringent gun laws when they occurred. Nevertheless, both decided that even stricter control of guns was the answer. Their experiences can be instructive.
In 1987, Michael Ryan went on a shooting spree in his small town of Hungerford, England, killing 16 people (including his mother) and wounding another 14 before shooting himself. Since the public was unarmed—as were the police—Ryan wandered the streets for eight hours with two semiautomatic rifles and a handgun before anyone with a firearm was able to come to the rescue.
Nine years later, in March 1996, Thomas Hamilton, a man known to be mentally unstable, walked into a primary school in the Scottish town of Dunblane and shot 16 young children and their teacher. He wounded 10 other children and three other teachers before taking his own life.
Enlarge Image
image
image
David Klein
Since 1920, anyone in Britain wanting a handgun had to obtain a certificate from his local police stating he was fit to own a weapon and had good reason to have one. Over the years, the definition of "good reason" gradually narrowed. By 1969, self-defense was never a good reason for a permit.
After Hungerford, the British government banned semiautomatic rifles and brought shotguns—the last type of firearm that could be purchased with a simple show of fitness—under controls similar to those in place for pistols and rifles. Magazines were limited to two s s with a third in the chamber.
Dunblane had a more dramatic impact. Hamilton had a firearm certificate, although according to the rules he should not have been granted one. A media frenzy coupled with an emotional campaign by parents of Dunblane resulted in the Firearms Act of 1998, which ins uted a nearly complete ban on handguns. Owners of pistols were required to turn them in. The penalty for illegal possession of a pistol is up to 10 years in prison.
The results have not been what proponents of the act wanted. Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time. Moreover, another massacre occurred in June 2010. Derrick Bird, a taxi driver in bria, shot his brother and a colleague then drove off through rural villages killing 12 people and injuring 11 more before killing himself.
Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens who have come into the possession of a firearm, even accidentally, have been harshly treated. In 2009 a former soldier, Paul Clarke, found a bag in his garden containing a shotgun. He brought it to the police station and was immediately handcuffed and charged with possession of the gun. At his trial the judge noted: "In law there is no dispute that Mr. Clarke has no defence to this charge. The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant." Mr. Clarke was sentenced to five years in prison. A public outcry eventually won his release.
In November of this year, Danny Nightingale, member of a British special forces unit in Iraq and Afghanistan, was sentenced to 18 months in military prison for possession of a pistol and ammunition. Sgt. Nightingale was given the Glock pistol as a gift by Iraqi forces he had been training. It was packed up with his possessions and returned to him by colleagues in Iraq after he left the country to organize a funeral for two close friends killed in action. Mr. Nightingale pleaded guilty to avoid a five-year sentence and was in prison until an appeal and public outcry freed him on Nov. 29.
***
Six weeks after the Dunblane massacre in 1996, Martin Bryant, an Australian with a lifelong history of violence, attacked tourists at a Port Arthur prison site in Tasmania with two semiautomatic rifles. He killed 35 people and wounded 21 others.
At the time, Australia's guns laws were stricter than the United Kingdom's. In lieu of the requirement in Britain that an applicant for permission to purchase a gun have a "good reason," Australia required a "genuine reason." Hunting and protecting crops from feral animals were genuine reasons—personal protection wasn't.
With new Prime Minister John Howard in the lead, Australia passed the National Firearms Agreement, banning all semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic and pump-action shotguns and imposing a more restrictive licensing system on other firearms. The government also launched a forced buyback scheme to remove thousands of firearms from private hands. Between Oct. 1, 1996, and Sept. 30, 1997, the government purchased and destroyed more than 631,000 of the banned guns at a cost of $500 million.
To what end? While there has been much controversy over the result of the law and buyback, Peter Reuter and Jenny Mouzos, in a 2003 study published by the Brookings Ins ution, found homicides "continued a modest decline" since 1997. They concluded that the impact of the National Firearms Agreement was "relatively small," with the daily rate of firearms homicides declining 3.2%.
According to their study, the use of handguns rather than long guns (rifles and shotguns) went up sharply, but only one out of 117 gun homicides in the two years following the 1996 National Firearms Agreement used a registered gun. Suicides with firearms went down but suicides by other means went up. They reported "a modest reduction in the severity" of massacres (four or more indiscriminate homicides) in the five years since the government weapons buyback. These involved knives, gas and arson rather than firearms.
In 2008, the Australian Ins ute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, but an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults.
What to conclude? Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don't provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems.
Ms. Malcolm, a professor of law at George Mason University Law School, is the author of several books including "Guns and Violence: The English Experience," (Harvard, 2002).
The fact is that very rare shootings cause people to re-examine what they think they can control, which is law abiding citizens. They broaden the view to include all gun related crime and pretend that's the issue, but it's really just the nature of the mass shooting that shocked them into action. They aren't concerned with gun related crime, they just want to feel like they did something.
And a WSJ op ed. A cursory glance does not show an exhaustive study of stats but rather cherry picking.
Looks like you cherry picked which links to respond to as well you coward. I provided the links you asked, now it's your turn to prove that more guns=more gun crimes. I'll be patiently waiting as I clean my extremely dangerous semi-automatic weapons, got a fun weekend of shooting lined up.
"Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is."
DOJ
Rate of Homicide per 100,000 People (any method)
ChartIn the United States, the annual rate of homicide by any means per 100,000 population is
2010: 4.67
2009: 4.965
2008: 5.35
2007: 5.61
2006: 5.70
2005: 5.66
2004: 5.51
2003: 5.69
2002: 5.64
2001: 5.63
2000: 5.52
1999: 4.556 7
1998: 5.19
1997: 6.77
1996: 7.3
1995: 8.1
1993: 9.939
Compare
Number of Gun Homicides
ChartIn the United States, annual firearm homicides total
2009: 9,1467
2008: 9,48410 7
2007: 10,129
2006: 10,225
2005: 10,158
2004: 9,385
2003: 9,6597
2002: 9,36911
2001: 8,890
1999: 8,2596
1998: 9,257
Compare
Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People
ChartIn the United States, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is
2009: 2.985 7
2008: 3.12
2007: 3.36
2006: 3.42
2005: 3.43
2004: 3.20
2003: 3.37
2002: 3.2511
2001: 3.12
1999: 2.976
1998: 3.37
1993: 7.0712
gunpolicy.org
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/se...hest-1993.aspx
That tells me the problem is elsewhere, unrelated to the number of guns. Whatever the problem is/was, it seems to be getting better. I hate to admit it, but CD had a point in his abortion comments. Also, baby boomers are getting to old to be involved in that now.
i remember reading that in Levitt's Freakonomics.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
