As Gun Ownership Rises, Gun Crimes Plummet

[Shiranu]

You know, because cars don't serve a practical purpose... and are used intentionally to kill people in 90% of car related deaths...

Comparing guns to cars...

[Hijiri Byakuren]

You know, because cars don't serve a practical purpose... and are used intentionally to kill people in 90% of car related deaths...

Comparing guns to cars...

[ Image ]

Because of course it makes sense to take away my .22 rabbit-shooter because some motherfucker shot up a school with an M16. :roll:

I'll go for regulations and restrictions, but people advocating the banning of all guns just need to piss off.

[Johan]

I don't get it.

The claim is that having more guns decreases the amount of gun crime?

The only claim I see is that data indicates gun ownership has risen and gun related crime had fallen. I see no claim that one has anything to do with causing the other.

They might be related or they might not. But I love what it shows about people. Give them a statistic that seems to support their side and its ' ha, suck on that'. But give them a statistic that seems to prove them wrong and its ' anyone can easily manipulate data'. I find it particularly entertaining when someone manages to do both in the same post.

[Shiranu]

You know, because cars don't serve a practical purpose... and are used intentionally to kill people in 90% of car related deaths...

Comparing guns to cars...

[ Image ]

Because of course it makes sense to take away my .22 rabbit-shooter because some motherfucker shot up a school with an M16. :roll:

I'll go for regulations and restrictions, but people advocating the banning of all guns just need to piss off.

Agreed. But again, comparing guns to cars is like comparing Pat Robinson to Carl Sagan. They just aren't the same on any level.

[Colanth]

Sorry Colanth, I missed your post earlier.

Colanth wrote in part:

But is that because once you get arrested you get convicted (or made to confess), whether you're guilty or not? Because they only make an arrest when they know they can get a conviction? Or some other reason?

My amateur studies of Japanese culture would lead me to its' mostly "Because they only make an arrest when they know they can get a conviction?"  Maybe some of the other too.  

The thing is, they are tough of crime.

You just said that they're lax on crime.  Only making an arrest when you know you'll get a conviction is being lax on crime and tough - in the sense of protecting it - on your record.  Being tough on crime is arresting everyone for whom you have probable cause to arrest.  Even if your conviction rate drops.

I was watching a national news program and they had about 5 minutes about a kid stealing change out of people's parked cars.  Slow news day, but can you imagine that here in the US?

Easy conviction.  So?  Yes, I can imagine it in the US.  Not only imagine it, I know a few cops who arrested kids for pilfering from cars.

Colanth also wrote in part:

But is that due to the fact that many (not all, not even most) adults walk around armed? Or is it due to the fact that Swiss society has a different philosophy, as a whole, than, say, American society? Or something entirely different?

Have to admit that I don't know much about the Swiss.  It might be because they all have to go in for military training.  Kind of levels things out for everyone.  But, the point I was trying to make was, that almost all adults have easy access to firearms.  And we are talking about military weapons. And they are not shooting each other down just because they have guns to do it with.

And why not?  And would giving all AMERICANS easy access to military weapons reduce the number of shootings?  We have no idea, and looking at Switzerland isn't going to give us one.

Colanth also wrote in part:

What all of this, including the OP, boils down to is that correlation isn't causation.

That is very true.  But, I think it is safe to say that there is no correlation with more people having guns and violence with guns goes up either.  As there is no real correlation showing that to be the case.

The extreme is used to analyze the situation, and there's a definite correlation between no one owning guns and no one getting shot, so the fewer guns, maybe the fewer the shootings.  (And, since MANY shootings are accidental, if those guns weren't in those hands, THOSE shootings definitely wouldn't have occurred.)

But not having any definite proof is certainly no reason to ignore the "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" part of the 2nd amendment.  It's not "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed since a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state".  Why did they put the "well regulated militia" part first?  (They were clasically-educated people - they understood how language works.)  We're totally subverting what they wanted.  (And as vigilante group after vigilante group has shown, you can't protect individual freedom [which isn't what the 2nd amendment is about anyway] in the 21st century with individual firepower.)

[Colanth]

As you mentioned, most/many of the guns owned are a result of military service, but everyone entering service needs to pass a mental health screening--can you imagine the outcry if one were suggested in America before a person could buy a gun?

What a stupid idea, making sure that only mentally well-balanced people have the means to kill other people at a distance and easily.  Americans, being the rational, intelligent people we are, would never go for such an insane idea.

[Cheerful Charlie]

link

A couple of new studies reveal the gun-control hypesters' worst nightmare...more people are buying firearms, while firearm-related homicides and suicides are steadily diminishing. What crackpots came up with these conclusions? One set of statistics was compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice. The other was reported by the Pew Research Center.

According to DOJ's Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. gun-related homicides dropped 39 percent over the course of 18 years, from 18,253 during 1993, to 11,101 in 2011. During the same period, non-fatal firearm crimes decreased even more, a whopping 69 percent. The majority of those declines in both categories occurred during the first 10 years of that time frame. Firearm homicides declined from 1993 to 1999, rose through 2006, and then declined again through 2011. Non-fatal firearm violence declined from 1993 through 2004, then fluctuated in the mid-to-late 2000s.

And where did the bad people who did the shooting get most of their guns? Were those gun show "loopholes" responsible? Nope. According to surveys DOJ conducted of state prison inmates during 2004 (the most recent year of data available), only two percent who owned a gun at the time of their offense bought it at either a gun show or flea market. About 10 percent said they purchased their gun from a retail shop or pawnshop, 37 percent obtained it from family or friends, and another 40 percent obtained it from an illegal source.

Violent crime dropped in America since  the early 90's,  the biggest drop since post-WW2.  It dropped
equally in states with strong gun control, and states that allowed concealed carry.  Gun laws had NOTHING to do with any of it, which has been known for years.

Since the 90's, religious belief innAmerica has been dropping, Nones  now make up 1 in 5 Americans.
This was not uniform, the North West and North East states saw large rises in Nones, the South barely changed.  Crime rates in the North East and North West tumbled, the South dropped only a bit.

The strongly pro-gun states of the South still have high crime rates compared to the North East, 10% higher.

Your statistics don't tell the truth about guns at all.

Cheerful Chalie

[Minimalist]

Black men with guns don't alarm me.

Unfortunately, most of the tea bagging assholes wet their Depends at the very thought of that.

[LikelyToBreak]

Colanth wrote in part:

Quote:LTB:
"I was watching a national news program and they had about 5 minutes about a kid stealing change out of people's parked cars. Slow news day, but can you imagine that here in the US?"
Easy conviction. So? Yes, I can imagine it in the US. Not only imagine it, I know a few cops who arrested kids for pilfering from cars.

You missed what I was trying to get across.  This was broadcast nationally.  You know like "Tonight with Huntley Brinkley, we look at a story of criminal behavior."  Kids getting arrested for pilfering from cars, is not what I was trying to show.  What I was trying to show is how hard the police go after even the smallest criminal activity.  And I don't think arresting everybody you might even suspect of a crime, would be a valuable use of the police's time.  Nor would it be good for society.  But, busting people for petty crime helps to stop them from going on into bigger crime.  

And yes, I know cops can and do arrest kids for pilfering cars in the US.  But, does it make the national news.  Of course, not.  Because the news has gory stories to run.  Because we are not an homogenous society with the same values.  Japan is mostly homogenous, so their values tend to be the same through out the country.

But, this topic is supposed to be about more guns and less crime.  Yes, people get accidentally hurt and even killed with firearms.  They also get hurt and killed, swimming, boating, hang gliding, parachuting, skiing, bungee jumping, etc. etc.  So, I propose accidents with firearms shouldn't be considered a reason to seize them from people.  Unless you want to stop all sports which may be unsafe.  Cheer leading is the first sport I would like to go after.  Girls are being crippled every year, just so some old farts can see their undies.  For shame!

The militia at the time of the signing of the US Constitution was considered to be every able bodied man between the ages of, I think off the top of my head, 16 and 50.  The militia was necessary to keep the slaves in check, where applicable, run Native Americans off, and deal with highwaymen and pirates.  And according to some, to help keep the government in check.  Now it seems nobody sees the need to keep the government in check.  Well, I guess that is a personal decision.  Let the police chief disappear or suicide you, if you want.  But, some of us don't want to give the police chief the chance, if we can do anything about it.  

This is what I am talking about: //http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQakPtOQCJo&feature=youtu.be

I know I would probably not be able to hold guys like this off for long, but maybe, just maybe, I might be able to hold them off til the Sheriff Deputies or State Police showed up.  Or maybe even the news.  Not that it would make much difference.  Just ask the Branch Davidians.  They got them anyway while the nation just watched.  Oh well, had to protect all those kids.  Their much better off dead then having the possibly of being raped forced on them.  The point being, at least I could go down swinging.

[Seabear]

You know, because cars don't serve a practical purpose... and are used intentionally to kill people in 90% of car related deaths...

Comparing guns to cars...

[ Image ]

I'm clearly not enough of a condescending pseudo intellectual fucktard to fit in on this circle jerk of a forum anymore. All the smart people got out after the reboot. Shame on me for hanging around here this long.

[Shiranu]

You know, because cars don't serve a practical purpose... and are used intentionally to kill people in 90% of car related deaths...

Comparing guns to cars...

[ Image ]

I'm clearly not enough of a condescending pseudo intellectual fucktard to fit in on this circle jerk of a forum anymore. All the smart people got out after the reboot. Shame on me for hanging around here this long.

Holy mother of butt hurt. Your snide post sucked and i pointed out why,  get over it.

Most people here tend to AGREE with you, and you apparently don't look at many threads if you think they agree with me the majority of the time.

[LikelyToBreak]

Seabear, what fun would it be if we all agreed with each other.  I thought about not joining because while I was lurking, it seemed everybody had the same opinions I had.  Happily, almost no one does, except for not believing in a God.  And occasionally, a theist does show up to make things even more fun.   :-D

[Thumpalumpacus]

You know, because cars don't serve a practical purpose... and are used intentionally to kill people in 90% of car related deaths...

Comparing guns to cars...

[ Image ]

I'm clearly not enough of a condescending pseudo intellectual fucktard to fit in on this circle jerk of a forum anymore.

Clearly not.  You'll simply have to up your game, child.

[Cocoa Beware]

Remember everyone if you plan on walking somewhere and want to stay dry, make sure its raining first.

And if you love going to the beach but hate sunburns, make sure you don't put on any suntan lotion.

[Mister Agenda]

Someone who carries a gun is three times more likely to be the victim of gun violence than someone who does not.  A woman who lives in a home with a gun is five times more likely to be the victim of gun violence than someone who does not.

Funny how some atheists can religiously cling to their guns.

Frank

Speaking of religious clinging, do you suppose there might be a correlation between being more likely to be a victim of gun violence and desiring to carry or own a gun?

I don't have a gun in this shootout, but it strikes me that there's an unwarranted assumption on the direction of causality in these two statistics.