|
Post by Donnie on Aug 30, 2008 10:05:49 GMT -6
Again, provide some source to verify your claim. Department of Justice crime statistics or Disaster Center (which has nice summaries of the DOJ numbers) www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm Gun laws have no positive effect. Defensive gun use (about 2 million per yeatr) reduces the actual number of shootings. What matters is who has the guns. With more gun laws, fewer law-abiding people have guns. Criminals still have guns because criminals break laws, that is who they are. With fewer gun laws, the balance shifts in favor the law abiding.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Aug 30, 2008 20:28:24 GMT -6
Again, provide some source to verify your claim. Department of Justice crime statistics or Disaster Center (which has nice summaries of the DOJ numbers) www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm Gun laws have no positive effect. Defensive gun use (about 2 million per yeatr) reduces the actual number of shootings. What matters is who has the guns. With more gun laws, fewer law-abiding people have guns. Criminals still have guns because criminals break laws, that is who they are. With fewer gun laws, the balance shifts in favor the law abiding. The stats you provided do not show a corresponding link between the amount of gun laws and the shootings. Again provide a source (hint: I have a hard time accepting a .com source. Try a .gov source) that shows that gun laws are corralated to the number of shootings. I do not and will not accept your premise until you prove it by gov stats. Think about it for a second: If you relax the gun laws to the point of nonexistant, then you make it easier, not harder, for a criminal to obtain a gun. For instance, if you remove the law requiring a background check, then any John Doe can walk into a wal-mart, and buy a gun for a crime. I don't see how that helps the law abiding.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Aug 31, 2008 18:09:53 GMT -6
The stats you provided do not show a corresponding link between the amount of gun laws and the shootings. Again provide a source (hint: I have a hard time accepting a .com source. But they eliminate your premise.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Sept 1, 2008 12:20:02 GMT -6
Again provide a source (hint: I have a hard time accepting a .com source. Try a .gov source) that shows that gun laws are corralated to the number of shootings. There is no such correlation. That is, more gun laws do not reduce the number of shootings. That is my point. Remember, it was you who claimed that more gun laws reduce shootings. Here is a source that has the capability of setting you straight: www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Sept 1, 2008 21:03:59 GMT -6
It was a manjor increase in gun LAWs that conincided with the large increase in homicide and violent crime in general. . You are wrong. Here is a direct quote from you where you claim that "increase in gun laws that coincided with the large increase in homicide and violent crimes in general" Now I want you to prove your statement by providing stats showing an increase between Gun laws (x) and and violent crimes (y). Btw, a correlation can be negative. In statistics, it is called a regression, which means as X decreases, so does y. Again, if your premise is true, then we could expect violent crimes to decrease as the number of gun laws decrease. And that is based on the inverse of your own statement. If you cannot provide those statistics, you are defending a faulty point, and more importantly, wasting my time. .
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Sept 3, 2008 9:39:58 GMT -6
are these cities with concealed carry options or not? Well, lets start with Baltimore. As far as I know Baltimore does not have concealed carry options. maybe their shootings would go down if "bad" shooters had to worry about "good" shooters shooting back. and being concealed weapons, "bad" shooters just wouldn't know who the "good" guys are. just a thought. now before you go off on me about providing stats, I'm perfectly OK with the obvious logic of the above, and have no desire to convert you. but if you were truly interested you might try checking crime stats of states/cities who offer concealed carry options with crime stats of states/cities who don't and draw your own conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Sept 3, 2008 19:30:31 GMT -6
Well, lets start with Baltimore. As far as I know Baltimore does not have concealed carry options. maybe their shootings would go down if "bad" shooters had to worry about "good" shooters shooting back. and being concealed weapons, "bad" shooters just wouldn't know who the "good" guys are. just a thought. now before you go off on me about providing stats, I'm perfectly OK with the obvious logic of the above, and have no desire to convert you. but if you were truly interested you might try checking crime stats of states/cities who offer concealed carry options with crime stats of states/cities who don't and draw your own conclusions. That actually might be a very interesting query. However, I am not sure it holds. For example, the 'bad' guys still shoot at police even though it is a certainty the police will shoot back. In this case, knowing the officers are armed does not deter the bad guys from shooting. Given that some bad guys shoot at police who are definately armed, do you think the bad guys will hesitate to shoot at an average guy who might be armed? However, you do raise an interesting point. If I was going to shoot and/or rob somebody, I certainly would not pick a prey who might be armed. Instead, I would search for an easier hit, or plan the attack to maximize surprise. Who wouldn't?
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Sept 5, 2008 21:06:36 GMT -6
It was a manjor increase in gun LAWs that conincided with the large increase in homicide and violent crime in general. . You are wrong. Here is a direct quote from you where you claim that "increase in gun laws that coincided with the large increase in homicide and violent crimes in general" Now I want you to prove your statement by providing stats showing an increase between Gun laws (x) and and violent crimes (y). Gun laws began to increase dramatically with in about 1965. I have already given you sources that show what happened with violent crime about that same time. By the way, where are the statistics that support your premise?
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Sept 5, 2008 21:12:31 GMT -6
You are wrong. Here is a direct quote from you where you claim that "increase in gun laws that coincided with the large increase in homicide and violent crimes in general" Now I want you to prove your statement by providing stats showing an increase between Gun laws (x) and and violent crimes (y). Gun laws began to increase dramatically with in about 1965. I have already given you sources that show what happened with violent crime about that same time. By the way, where are the statistics that support your premise? I am not the one who claimed that shootings go up or down based on the number of gun laws. You are, according to the quote above. Thus, the burdon of proof falls on you to defend your statement. When you find the stats that supports YOUR statement, get back to me.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Sept 6, 2008 12:10:07 GMT -6
Didn't you reluctantly agree to my point that restrictions are needed? There was no reluctance on my part whatsoever. I simply think that the current restrictions in place are adequate. quote] I disagree. If murders are going up, how are they adequate? What then, is the claim you made here? Are you denying that you don't want more gun laws?
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Sept 6, 2008 13:27:14 GMT -6
This is why the state of Vermont consistently has one of the lowest murder rates in the United States: "That The People Have A Right To Bear Arms For The Defense Of Themselves And The State" Article 16th of the Constitution of the State of Vermont www.gunownersofvermont.org/
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Sept 6, 2008 13:30:08 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Sept 6, 2008 22:11:04 GMT -6
There was no reluctance on my part whatsoever. I simply think that the current restrictions in place are adequate. quote] I disagree. If murders are going up, how are they adequate? What then, is the claim you made here? Are you denying that you don't want more gun laws? First of all, I want tougher, not neccessarily, more gun laws. Secondly, it was YOU that made foolish claim that gun laws caused the shooting rate to increase. When I called you out on the carpet, you are apparently unable to defend your point by providing statistics. Again, I refuse to accept this claim as fact becasue some dude named Donnie said so on an internet message board. So let me make this really simple for you. Either A) provide the stats that defends your position that gun laws caused the shooting rates to increase, or B) shut the hell up and quit wasting my time.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Sept 7, 2008 10:09:06 GMT -6
First of all, I want tougher, not neccessarily, more gun laws. That is the position that I actively supported for about 30 years. I was wrong and so are you. I made no such claim. I pointed out the fact that an increase in the rate of shooting coincided with a major increase in the number and significance of gun laws. Correlation is not causation. I provided them, you just refuse to look at them. Let me make this simple for you. A) You are wasting your own time and threatening people's health and lives by calling for more gun laws. B) You don't have the power or authority to shut me up.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Sept 7, 2008 17:41:47 GMT -6
It was a manjor increase in gun LAWs that conincided with the large increase in homicide and violent crime in general. You claim about what I said is absolutely false. Since you are apparently having trouble understanding this, have somebody read it to you. Again, here you claimed that the increase in gun laws is linked to the number of shootings. I hope you understand that part. Now, my request was to prove where the number of gun laws coincided with the number of shootings as you claimed (again reread your quote). Still with me? Great! Now, you need to provide stats that supports your claim, which you have not done. Am I going to fast for you? You can get the number gun laws by year and put them into a column. Then you take the number of shootings and put them into another column. Finally, you determine if there is a link between the two. Do you think you can manage that? It is after all the 3rd or 4th time I had to repeat myself. Did you ride on a small bus with padded walls when you went to your gun safety class?
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Sept 8, 2008 13:33:36 GMT -6
maybe their shootings would go down if "bad" shooters had to worry about "good" shooters shooting back. and being concealed weapons, "bad" shooters just wouldn't know who the "good" guys are. just a thought. now before you go off on me about providing stats, I'm perfectly OK with the obvious logic of the above, and have no desire to convert you. but if you were truly interested you might try checking crime stats of states/cities who offer concealed carry options with crime stats of states/cities who don't and draw your own conclusions. That actually might be a very interesting query. However, I am not sure it holds. For example, the 'bad' guys still shoot at police even though it is a certainty the police will shoot back. In this case, knowing the officers are armed does not deter the bad guys from shooting. Given that some bad guys shoot at police who are definately armed, do you think the bad guys will hesitate to shoot at an average guy who might be armed? However, you do raise an interesting point. If I was going to shoot and/or rob somebody, I certainly would not pick a prey who might be armed. Instead, I would search for an easier hit, or plan the attack to maximize surprise. Who wouldn't? and since I have always said that there is no guarantee of safety with any defensive weapon, I will still consider "some" bad guys shooting versus "all" bad guys shooting as a definate win here.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Sept 8, 2008 20:11:54 GMT -6
That actually might be a very interesting query. However, I am not sure it holds. For example, the 'bad' guys still shoot at police even though it is a certainty the police will shoot back. In this case, knowing the officers are armed does not deter the bad guys from shooting. Given that some bad guys shoot at police who are definately armed, do you think the bad guys will hesitate to shoot at an average guy who might be armed? However, you do raise an interesting point. If I was going to shoot and/or rob somebody, I certainly would not pick a prey who might be armed. Instead, I would search for an easier hit, or plan the attack to maximize surprise. Who wouldn't? and since I have always said that there is no guarantee of safety with any defensive weapon, I will still consider "some" bad guys shooting versus "all" bad guys shooting as a definate win here. I guess we will never have 'zero' bad guys shooting. So, yes, your point makes sense in that 'some' bad guys shooting is the next best thing. Do you know of any cities that have concealed laws?
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Sept 9, 2008 16:21:38 GMT -6
and since I have always said that there is no guarantee of safety with any defensive weapon, I will still consider "some" bad guys shooting versus "all" bad guys shooting as a definate win here. I guess we will never have 'zero' bad guys shooting. So, yes, your point makes sense in that 'some' bad guys shooting is the next best thing. Do you know of any cities that have concealed laws? most concealed carry laws are state laws, usually with some kind of exemption clause that won't allow cities to opt out, or make more restrictive laws. I believe there are 45 or more states with some form of concealed carry laws and most of those are "shall issue" states. I'm sure the NRA website would have an accurate number
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Sept 9, 2008 16:27:47 GMT -6
I guess we will never have 'zero' bad guys shooting. So, yes, your point makes sense in that 'some' bad guys shooting is the next best thing. Do you know of any cities that have concealed laws? most concealed carry laws are state laws, usually with some kind of exemption clause that won't allow cities to opt out, or make more restrictive laws. I believe there are 45 or more states with some form of concealed carry laws and most of those are "shall issue" states. I'm sure the NRA website would have an accurate number But the person needs a permit to carry a concealed weapon, right? What does the process of getting a permit involve?
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Sept 10, 2008 9:49:57 GMT -6
most concealed carry laws are state laws, usually with some kind of exemption clause that won't allow cities to opt out, or make more restrictive laws. I believe there are 45 or more states with some form of concealed carry laws and most of those are "shall issue" states. I'm sure the NRA website would have an accurate number But the person needs a permit to carry a concealed weapon, right? What does the process of getting a permit involve? except for I believe Vermont or New Hampshire, I forget which one, most states will require a permit. Will Heller affect this? I don't know, probably not. It will be different for every state. most probably require the basic prints and photos, background check, minimum age, normal restriction requirements, (dopers, felons ect) some kind of proffeciency class and legal class. not a whole lot different the average hunter education classes most states require also.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 12, 2008 13:28:46 GMT -6
This is why the state of Vermont consistently has one of the lowest murder rates in the United States: "That The People Have A Right To Bear Arms For The Defense Of Themselves And The State" Article 16th of the Constitution of the State of Vermont www.gunownersofvermont.org/and vermont and alaska are the only states that do not require a permit to carry.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 12, 2008 13:32:27 GMT -6
most concealed carry laws are state laws, usually with some kind of exemption clause that won't allow cities to opt out, or make more restrictive laws. I believe there are 45 or more states with some form of concealed carry laws and most of those are "shall issue" states. I'm sure the NRA website would have an accurate number But the person needs a permit to carry a concealed weapon, right? What does the process of getting a permit involve? not in alaska or vermont. alaska does however, require a permit for non residents, whereas in vermont, anyone who can legally own a gun can carry it, regardless of where they're from
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Sept 12, 2008 19:29:20 GMT -6
Since you are apparently having trouble understanding this, have somebody read it to you. Again, here you claimed that the increase in gun laws is linked to the number of shootings. I hope you understand that part. Now, my request was to prove where the number of gun laws coincided with the number of shootings as you claimed (again reread your quote). Still with me? Great! Now, you need to provide stats that supports your claim, which you have not done. Am I going to fast for you? You can get the number gun laws by year and put them into a column. Then you take the number of shootings and put them into another column. Finally, you determine if there is a link between the two. The statistical exercise that you propose could not be used to determine if there was a link between the two. It would only show that one coincided with the other. You really ought to learn the difference between "coincided with" and "linked to".
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Sept 12, 2008 19:30:55 GMT -6
not in alaska or vermont. alaska does however, require a permit for non residents, whereas in vermont, anyone who can legally own a gun can carry it, regardless of where they're from And almost everyone in Vermont can legally own a gun.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Sept 12, 2008 20:53:04 GMT -6
Since you are apparently having trouble understanding this, have somebody read it to you. Again, here you claimed that the increase in gun laws is linked to the number of shootings. I hope you understand that part. Now, my request was to prove where the number of gun laws coincided with the number of shootings as you claimed (again reread your quote). Still with me? Great! Now, you need to provide stats that supports your claim, which you have not done. Am I going to fast for you? You can get the number gun laws by year and put them into a column. Then you take the number of shootings and put them into another column. Finally, you determine if there is a link between the two. The statistical exercise that you propose could not be used to determine if there was a link between the two. It would only show that one coincided with the other. You really ought to learn the difference between "coincided with" and "linked to". You give new meaning to the term 'godsmacked'. Let me make this simple for you. You claimed gun laws coincided with shootings. So I asked to you to prove and gave you the steps to do it. Then you say that will show that one coincided with the other. That is EXACTLY what you claimed, and EXACTLY what I asked you to prove. Prove the gun laws coincided with the shootings. By your own admission, you said my statistical exercise would accomplish that, so get to it sport. Come back to me when you show one coincides with the other.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Sept 12, 2008 21:29:44 GMT -6
You claimed gun laws coincided with shootings. So I asked to you to prove and gave you the steps to do it. Really. So how does the word "linked" fit in? You clearly have little knowledge of the history that I lived through.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Sept 12, 2008 22:34:01 GMT -6
You claimed gun laws coincided with shootings. So I asked to you to prove and gave you the steps to do it. Really. So how does the word "linked" fit in? You clearly have little knowledge of the history that I lived through. Do you have trouble deciding which end to use when you take a crap? I just want to know on statistics do you support your claim that gun laws coincided with shootings?. Come back to me when you show one coincides with the other.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Sept 14, 2008 9:34:15 GMT -6
I just want to know on statistics do you support your claim that gun laws coincided with shootings? You already know, because I told you on this thread.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Sept 14, 2008 9:42:22 GMT -6
I just want to know on statistics do you support your claim that gun laws coincided with shootings? You already know, because I told you on this thread. Again prove your point that shows gun laws coincided with shootings as you have claimed. How do I make that clearer for you?
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Sept 14, 2008 17:15:49 GMT -6
Again prove your point that shows gun laws coincided with shootings as you have claimed. How do I make that clearer for you? The increase in gun laws began with the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, Violent crime, including murder, increased steadily after that.
|
|