guns

[Fugu]

PREFACE:

 

The second amendment is not about crime.

 

Where do you live?

 

In a state with shall issue permitting that has low crime, but I was speaking nationally.

 

Here's the data

 

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

 

There's a continuing downward trend if you look at the data.

 

Here it is from Joe Biden:

 

November 17, 2005

Statement

 

Floor Statement: We Need to Invest in COPS

 

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, yesterday the U.S. Senate approved the conference report to accompany H.R. 2862… I rise to explain that I am voting for this bill reluctantly because I feel that some of the funding priorities set forth in the bill will leave our communities more vulnerable to terrorist attacks traditional crime.

 

… This bill slashes funding for the Justice Assistance Grant and the COPS Program. And, for the first time, the Congress has decided to zero out the COPS hiring Program. I believe that this decision is a terrible mistake on so many levels, and I fear that our Nation's citizens will be less safe from traditional crime and terrorism as a result. …

 

Back in 1994 when we passed the legislation that created the COPS Program, our crime rates were at all-time highs… We added over 100,000 officers to patrol our neighborhoods, and we expanded crime prevention programs such as community policing programs across the nation.

 

What was the ultimate result? Crime rates for violent crime, murder and rape were all reduced, and today they remain at all-time lows. Many law enforcement experts and local officials credit the COPS Program for helping to achieve these results.

 

Feel free to do your own research.

 

And you base this statement on what?

 

The articles I read about a year and a half after each state passes shall issue and nothing bad happens w/ crime stats.

 

Michigan's in the news now, there's a recent example for you. Crime went down. Correlation or causation? Either way it disproves the theory that more guns = more crime, doesn't it. The anti gunners and the media would be screaming “we told you so” if crime went up in a state after shall issue passed.

 

Florida's recent castle doctrine extension was an issue where the VPC et al predicted gutters flowing with blood - there was no negative outcome there, either.

 

Prove me wrong if you can.

 

At least I’m basing it on something.

 

Sorry, your stories don't have the weight of fact.

 

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/pdcrm/pdcrm20.htm

 

There's so much information out there about this, you're just being lazy if you don't go look at it on your own. Afraid your preconceived notions will be challenged?

Do you have any idea how many shooting take place in Los Angeles County every day, that are not publicized? Apparently not.

 

That can't be true, California has very strict gun laws so you shouldn't have any gun crime.

 

We were talking about LAWFUL citizens shooting others on accident, or over parking spaces. You are talking about CRIMINALS, who don't follow laws, and who don't get permits or buy their guns legally. You are worrying about the wrong people. Get the criminals, don't pester the law abiding with stupid laws, or worse, disarm them by law.

 

BUY, BUY, BUY!!!!

 

It's down something like 20% today.

 

Listen to the 9-1-1 tape again, Horn was clearly aware of the new changes in the law.

Horn thinking the new law applies doesn't make it so. Go read the Texas statute on castle doctrine, then the old one that’s been around forever pertaining to self defense. They’re all in the thread here about the Horn shooting.

 

By the way, as far as I have been able to ascertain Horn’s case is still pending, so don’t speak too soon.

 

Had it been a case of vigilante justice or unjustifiable homicide, the cop who witnessed it would have at least arrested him.

 

And yes, he did take away those burglars’ right to due process.

 

He exercised his legal right to self defense. It just so happened that in doing so, the attackers were killed. Being a criminal is hazardous. The single greatest predictor of being murdered is having a criminal record. Look it up.

 

Feel free to go out and enforce the law yourself, since you apparently have all the answers and solutions.

No thank you. I'm underpaid enough and nobody shoots at me at this job. I don’t have anywhere near all the answers, but I’ve got them for the issues that come up in these threads- the crime misdirection.

 

The important question, “Why are Americans murderous?” I have few answers for, but nobody wants to talk about that.

 

Don't take this all personally but you've clearly mixed up the ideas of self defense and vigilantism, that's all. The derogatory terms you choose clearly indicate you have some animosity towards anyone who'd take responsibility for defending themselves. Why is that?

 

Have you ever looked at the collective records of people licensed to carry concealed weapons? I know in Los Angeles that's only a few famous / very rich or whatever, but look at other places. Permits can be revoked for non violent offenses like DUI, and in some cases misdemeanors like petit theft. 1% or less of permits are ever revoked.

 

You'd have a lot less work if everyone was as law abiding as permit holders.

 

By the way, why do we need all these armed citizens on the streets, when according to you crime and murder is at an all time low?

 

The Second Amendment's not about crime. I do not have to justify my decision to be prepared to defend myself to any man or to the government, and I don't (or I guess shouldn’t) have to ask permission.

 

Concealed permits essentially are an infringement, but they’re one I can live with provided they are reasonable and in that way I guess I’ve agreed to ask permission. Most states’ requirements are OK, a few are silly.

[Fugu]

If Fugu has his way, those same 'unskilled idiots' will be walking the streets with guns .

 

I advocate that anybody who's going to carry a gun get training. Lots of training from good instructors, and that they get lots of practice. BUT - the fact is that most do not. The fact is that many people who carry guns legally are untrained. The fact also is that the vast majority of them don't do anything wrong, or stupid, or dangerous with those guns.

 

The extremely low number of permit revocations supports that.

 

I double dog dare you to go find figures on crimes committed by lawful permit holders and come back and post them.

[Flyer5]

How about this situation? To all the Anti-gun people if you ever find yourself in a position that someone carrying legally has a chance to save your bacon.Make sure you let them know that you are uncomfortable with private citizens carrying guns and you would rather take your chances without them . That would be your choice then . Situations happen every year unfortunately that change peoples minds at shopping malls and other public places .

 

 

Still as far as the 2 burglars not having the chance at due process . I still don't have a sympathetic bone in my body . If you have never had something irreplaceable stolen from your property then you may not understand . They steal with no remorse and must accept the consequences. The more private guns the more risk thieves have of being shot . I may sound cold but thieves are very low on my list . I have seen elderly people lose there entire life savings because they have little faith in banks,because of the time they grew up in . Them I feel bad for . The criminals that get capital punishment instantly while caught in the act not so much . Dave

[russell_bynum]

If Fugu has his way, those same 'unskilled idiots' will be walking the streets with guns .

 

I advocate that anybody who's going to carry a gun get training. Lots of training from good instructors, and that they get lots of practice. BUT - the fact is that most do not. The fact is that many people who carry guns legally are untrained. The fact also is that the vast majority of them don't do anything wrong, or stupid, or dangerous with those guns.

 

The extremely low number of permit revocations supports that.

 

I double dog dare you to go find figures on crimes committed by lawful permit holders and come back and post them.

 

I've talked to a few LEO's at the local range and they say that LEO firearms training is very good, but there's usually very little in the way of recurring training other than the requirement to re-qualify once a year. They say that many officers only fire their weapons twice a year...once when they go to the range to practice the week before they re-qualify, and once when they re-qualify.

 

Many of the permit-holders that I know are at the range at least once a month, and a bunch of them are doing competition shooting like IDPA to stay sharp. In those cases, Joe Blow citizen with a permit probably stands a better chance of using their weapon effectively than Officer Joe Blow the cop who hasn't fired his weapon in 11 months.

 

I'm not saying that's always the case, but the assumption that the civilian permit holder is just some clueless schmuck who's more likely to shoot himself in the foot than do any good and every cop is the The Waco Kid is not necessarily true either.

[Lawman]

The Anatomy of a Mismatch

 

http://www.womenboxing.com/womens2.htm

 

[DiggerJim]

More states now have shall issue permits than ever before in history, yet crime and murder are at all time lows

 

The number of permits issued today does not correlate with the number of people who carried weapons 150 years ago when no permits were issued. Do you have a number on how many people carried 150 years ago vs. how many people carry today?

Hmmmm....let's see, with 235 million guns in the U.S. and more than 76 million legal gun owners now but only 27 million "free" people (plus 4 million slaves not likely to be allowed to carry) in 1860, women & children included, I'd say it's a safe bet that more people carry now then did 150 years ago.

[DavidEBSmith]

I'd say it's a safe bet that more people carry now then did 150 years ago.

 

Well, more people live here than did 150 years ago. What proportion of people carried then versus now?

[Shaman97]

I'll go back in my groundhog hole now and wait for the clock radio to start playing Sonny & Cher.

 

Here you go...

[smiller]

Wrong song. C'mon... you heard it enough times didn't ya...

[Shaman97]

Wrong song. C'mon... you heard it enough times didn't ya...

You bet i heard it enough (WABC in NYC)

 

[tallman]

http://floridacapitalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080326/CAPITOLNEWS/803260367&theme=

About time they showed some common sense.

Why should Judges be allowed to, when they're in a courtroom, with metal detectors and armed deputies, and the average citizen be denied the same right to bring a gun to work?

[Lawman]

http://floridacapitalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080326/CAPITOLNEWS/803260367&theme=

About time they showed some common sense.

Why should Judges be allowed to, when they're in a courtroom, with metal detectors and armed deputies, and the average citizen be denied the same right to bring a gun to work?

 

Sen. Don Gaetz, R-Niceville, said that in the western Panhandle, "our idea of gun control is a steady aim."

 

 

[tallman]

I believe that would be accurate for most of the Panhandle/Big Bend region.

Except for our Twin Citadels of Higher Learning in Tallahassee and Gainesville where the liberal bias on campus will make this the cause d'jour.

[Agent_Orange]

[g_frey]

Because judges are better than the rest of us.

[4wheeldog]

I'd say it's a safe bet that more people carry now then did 150 years ago.

 

Well, more people live here than did 150 years ago. What proportion of people carried then versus now?

 

From the history reading I have done, as opposed to watching old westerns, most folks that had firearms handy were most likely to have long guns. The original concealed carry laws actually were written to deal with knives, not guns. Handguns were not that easy to conceal, with the exception of novelty guns such as derringers.

 

Keep in mind that the hoglegs available to folks in the old west weighed 4 lbs or better, and got in the way if you were working. And most folks had plenty of hard, physical labor to perform on a daily basis.

 

I am sure that if you could look at actual records, most gunfights were fought with long guns, and were not spur of the moment.......Why would you use a handgun if a shotgun or rifle was available? The skill required to use a handgun well is much greater than for a long gun.

 

All the above pertains to the wild west.......I doubt if many people in the "Civilized" east used guns for much other than hunting.

[MotorinLA]

…Back in 1994 when we passed the legislation that created the COPS Program, our crime rates were at all-time highs… We added over 100,000 officers to patrol our neighborhoods, and we expanded crime prevention programs such as community policing programs across the nation…

 

Could it be that crime is down because there are more LEOs on the streets, not that there are more citizens carrying guns?

 

It is hard to determine many of these things, because there are too many variables being changed at the same time.

 

We were talking about LAWFUL citizens shooting others on accident, or over parking spaces. You are talking about CRIMINALS, who don't follow laws, and who don't get permits or buy their guns legally. You are worrying about the wrong people. Get the criminals, don't pester the law abiding with stupid laws, or worse, disarm them by law.

 

To clarify, I’m not opposed to legal gun ownership by law abiding citizens. I am also not opposed to people using guns to protect themselves in their homes or on their private property. What I have an issue with is a large number of people carrying guns in public places. One of the things that is emphasized in police training (at least in SoCal) is that in every situation a police officer responds to there is at least one gun… the one the officer brings to that situation. As a result, there is a heavy emphasis on gun retention in officer training. There is also lots of training in the use and deployment of your gun. There are many restrictions that must be followed. This is not the case for most citizens that obtain a permit for CCW. Being able to carry gun is certainly not the same as knowing how to use it effectively and appropriately.

 

I speculate that part of the reason we have as few public shootings involving private citizens as we do now, is because it is hard in most places to obtain a permit for CCW. As a result, the people that do obtain them are probably more qualified (willing to train, go to the range, have the right mindset) than the average person. No matter what your arguments, I personally don’t believe that flooding the streets with armed citizens is the right solution.

 

We were talking about LAWFUL citizens shooting others on accident, or over parking spaces. You are talking about CRIMINALS, who don't follow laws, and who don't get permits or buy their guns legally. You are worrying about the wrong people. Get the criminals, don't pester the law abiding with stupid laws, or worse, disarm them by law.

 

Unfortunately, a large number of the guns used by criminals come from people that bought them legally and had them stolen in thefts and burglaries. More guns poorly stored in private residences and cars, equals more guns available to criminals.

 

BUY, BUY, BUY!!!!

 

It's down something like 20% today.

 

Sorry dude, my crystal ball must need some Windex.

 

Don't take this all personally but you've clearly mixed up the ideas of self defense and vigilantism, that's all. The derogatory terms you choose clearly indicate you have some animosity towards anyone who'd take responsibility for defending themselves. Why is that?

 

Maybe from your perspective. Vigilantism is by definition when a person or group bypasses the judicial system and denies someone the right to be tried in a court for his/her crime. There is a reason that law enforcement is separate from the judiciary, so that every person will have the opportunity to have their day in court.

 

Whether or not our judicial system works is a completely different discussion.

 

You tout the 2nd Amendment, but fail to look at the parts of our Constitution that protect peoples other rights, like the 6th Amendment - the right to have a trial.

 

I advocate that anybody who's going to carry a gun get training. Lots of training from good instructors, and that they get lots of practice. BUT - the fact is that most do not. The fact is that many people who carry guns legally are untrained. The fact also is that the vast majority of them don't do anything wrong, or stupid, or dangerous with those guns.

 

The extremely low number of permit revocations supports that.

 

I double dog dare you to go find figures on crimes committed by lawful permit holders and come back and post them.

 

As I replied earlier, I believe that part of the reason there are as few problems with permit holders now is that they are generally more qualified than the general public. I don't know what you do for a living, but having contact with the public on a daily basis I can state with some certainty that there are definitely some people out there that should not be allowed to carry guns. I know you disagree, but I really don’t think that giving the general populous the right to carry guns publicly is the right answer.

[DavidEBSmith]

I doubt if many people in the "Civilized" east used guns for much other than hunting.

 

Actually, I've often been struck by the old advertisements for pocket pistols that seem to assume that every prosperous businessman would have a little gun in his vest next to his pocket watch. If you go to a gun museum like the one in Cody, you see a phenomenal number of little guns like these or these.

[steve.foote]

No matter what your arguments, I personally don’t believe that flooding the streets with armed citizens is the right solution.

 

Well, no matter what your arguements, I personally do believe that flooding the streets with armed citizens is the right solution. Fortunately, we don't have to agree on this point.

 

As for the difficulty of getting a CCW permit here in Georgia? No problemo. Fill out a form, get your finger prints recorded, and write a check. If you don't have a criminal record, they have to issue it.

 

Not everywhere is like southern California.

[Matts_12GS]

Well, no matter what your arguements, I personally do believe that flooding the streets with armed citizens is the right solution. Fortunately, we don't have to agree on this point.

 

Not everywhere is like southern California.

 

I agree with you Steve, maybe it's like carrying a tire kit or a cell phone for breakdowns... It's better to have and not need than to need and not have.

[tallman]

Crime rate is down because there are more criminals in jail than ever before.

[4wheeldog]

I doubt if many people in the "Civilized" east used guns for much other than hunting.

 

Actually, I've often been struck by the old advertisements for pocket pistols that seem to assume that every prosperous businessman would have a little gun in his vest next to his pocket watch. If you go to a gun museum like the one in Cody, you see a phenomenal number of little guns like these or these.

 

They are nice museum pieces, and they were available. But they are not found in large numbers,(Accounting for the high prices in your examples), and I doubt that many were actually carried or used......Thus my use of the term "Novelty". They tended not to be of much use unless you were close enough to touch someone.

[4wheeldog]

Crime rate is down because there are more criminals in jail than ever before.

 

The guy that wrote "Freakenomics" makes a case for the crime rate dropping as a following wave of the availability of abortions. His arguement is that unwanted children tend to grow up deprived, raised by the unwilling and unskilled, resulting in greater numbers of criminals.

 

Paying folks to have kids is generally a bad idea. Allowing them the option of not having kids tends to improve the quality of the crop.

[Dave McReynolds]

They tended not to be of much use unless you were close enough to touch someone.

 

Being shot by one of the little things in a part of your body that couldn't be cut off, like your stomach, was in many cases a death sentence in those days before antibiotics. So I think they took them more seriously than we might think. I suppose in these days of superbugs, we should start taking things like more seriously again.

[Fugu]

Could it be that crime is down because there are more LEOs on the streets, not that there are more citizens carrying guns?

 

Certainly. I have already said that I don’t know if there being more guns now than ever before in the hands of private citizens is a cause, or if it’s coincidence. I was responding to a challenge on crime being at an all time low. Whatever the cause for the lower crime is, one thing is abundantly clear: guns do not cause crime, and they are not correlated to an increase in crime. Get it? I’m not saying they are magic and stop crime, I’m just pointing out that there is no evidence they contribute to increased crime. Reference the CDC report on the impact (or more accurately the lack thereof) of the so called Clinton gun ban. They could not find any impact. Note that California still has very similar laws in effect. If they don’t work nationally, why would they work in CA? Differentiate between no impact and negative impact. At worst, they are no impact.

 

PS the second amendment is not about crime

 

Being able to carry gun is certainly not the same as knowing how to use it effectively and appropriately.

 

I have training in all of those things. Many do not. It bugs me that there are willfully untrained people out there carrying. They should all get to a quality school and learn and practice.

 

BUT: The facts are clear. Those people you and I both wish would get some good training are not a hazard by any measure. They don’t commit crimes, they don’t shoot innocent bystanders, and they don’t get in gunfights over parking spaces.

 

It’s a mind bender, especially for people who have taken responsibility to get some training – when you do so, you learn first how unprepared you are, then you start to remedy it and hopefully you continue to learn forever. These folks are making an informed decision to be untrained, yet they do fine. I don’t know why, but it is the case.

 

it is hard in most places to obtain a permit for CCW. As a result, the people that do obtain them are probably more qualified

 

Sorry, that’s not true at all in my experience. The first permit I got required only a background check. The next required an 8 hour classroom session, no shooting. The third, ditto. The fourth I didn’t even show up in person – sent the paperwork in the mail, got my permit back. That one required actual shooting training, but at a very basic level. I sent in completion certificates from classes, and I know for a fact they did not contact the school to verify them.

 

I would estimate, having been around shooting sports, and having spent quite a bit of time at schools, defensive pistol leagues and the like that perhaps 15% of people with concealed handgun permits actually get quality training beyond the state required class if applicable. It’s a damn shame, but again – these people don’t cause crime, they don’t shoot themselves or others on accident. They are the good guys. Many of them are great shooters but don't know much about the other more important aspects of self defense.

 

Unfortunately, a large number of the guns used by criminals come from people that bought them legally and had them stolen in thefts and burglaries. More guns poorly stored in private residences and cars, equals more guns available to criminals.

 

Storage is a big issue. On the one hand, I want my guns ready and available. On the other hand I don’t want them to be easy pickings for criminals. My guns are mostly locked in the safe when I’m home, totally locked in the safe when I’m not.

 

There’s always a but, though isn’t there? The problem with legislating storage is one approach won’t work for everyone. I have no kids. I have no friends locally with kids. What’s safe for my guns when I’m home is very different for somebody with kids.

 

The biggest issue with where you’re going with this line of thought is that you cannot punish the law abiding for the acts of criminals. Even contemplating restricting gun ownership or legislating storage methods because criminals might steal them is a major error in logic. Attack the criminals, don't hamper the law abiding.

 

You tout the 2nd Amendment, but fail to look at the parts of our Constitution that protect peoples other rights, like the 6th Amendment - the right to have a trial.

 

Oh, no- you’ll find I respect all of the Bill of Rights, but my moral compass puts some things in order for me quite neatly. While I firmly believe even the worst scumbag has the right to competent legal defense and a trial, if that scumbag is putting my life in danger, priority #1 is my right to live and in that moment, I don’t care about whether they ever see a courtroom.

 

Your thinking here works great if we’re talking about property theft alone, but not if my life’s at risk.

 

As I replied earlier, I believe that part of the reason there are as few problems with permit holders now is that they are generally more qualified than the general public.

 

Washington State requires nothing but a background check. No problems w/ permit holders there. With all due respect, I think your view of this is tainted by the fact that you don’t encounter any permit holders in LA so your working knowledge of the permit system isn’t real great.

 

I don't know what you do for a living, but having contact with the public on a daily basis I can state with some certainty that there are definitely some people out there that should not be allowed to carry guns

 

I just deal with business people now, but for a while I got to meet plenty of neat folks who liked to burn down houses for money, lie about theft for money, leave accident scenes, etc. I got to go to their homes and see their squalor. It’s nothing like being a cop I’m sure, but I can sympathize with where you’re coming from. I once had my life threatened for less than $4000, which sort of puts things in perspective- to some unhinged moron, I’m not worth the price of a used KLR650. I’m still more concerned about the people unfit to have kids, too stupid to vote, and waaaay to stupid to drive. They do much more damage.

 

Even talking about deciding who is and who is not allowed to exercise their basic rights is a slippery slope of monumental proportions. We cannot allow our government to start down it, ever.

[velomoto]

Crime rate is down because there are more criminals in jail than ever before.

If in fact crime rate is down (sorry, I haven't seen the stat source), then consider how could this possibly be the case with all those illegal aliens flooding the country from the Mexican border?

[Fugu]

If in fact crime rate is down (sorry, I haven't seen the stat source)

 

A link to the stats has been provided already. Here it is again:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

 

 

Here's an article from a few years ago:

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0825/p01s01-usju.html

 

This wiki has lots of nifty graphs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

 

You could always use Google and bring something to this conversation. Perhaps if somebody had done that they could have challenged the "all time low" wording I ill-advisedly copied. Lowest in decades would have been a better choice of words than the wording I used.

[Lawman]

Crime rate is down because there are more criminals in jail than ever before.

If in fact crime rate is down (sorry, I haven't seen the stat source), then consider how could this possibly be the case with all those illegal aliens flooding the country from the Mexican border?

 

Is it safe to assume that you see gun rights advocates as also being racist?

[Paul_Burkett]

Perhaps the crime rate is down in areas that allow weapons and areas that ban guns are aren't able to take up the slack.

[velomoto]

Crime rate is down because there are more criminals in jail than ever before.

If in fact crime rate is down (sorry, I haven't seen the stat source), then consider how could this possibly be the case with all those illegal aliens flooding the country from the Mexican border?

 

Is it safe to assume that you see gun rights advocates as also being racist?

Sorry - I don't follow your logic...

[velomoto]

You could always use Google and bring something to this conversation. Perhaps if somebody had done that they could have challenged the "all time low" wording I ill-advisedly copied. Lowest in decades would have been a better choice of words than the wording I used.

Sure one can ALWAYS use Google but instead of bringing something different to the conversation what I really wanted to see was what the conversation was being based upon.

 

In any case, after reviewing the FBI and Wiki data I would question the basis for the statement that there has been any significant reductions in the amount of crime over the past several years. Instead it appears the major reduction in crime appeared from the early 90's until '02 to '03 and since then crime has fluctuated slightly from year to year. Yeah - I know this won't sit well with those who are ardent Clinton haters, but I didn't create the tables or graphs.

 

But as long as we're speculating on the drop in crime which started in the Clinton years and continuing until Bush came into office... Perhaps there's a link to the war in Iraq??? With all those National Guard and Army Reserves over seas there are LOTS of jobs which need doing until they return. Yeah, yeah I know all the legal requirements for companies needing to give a job back to the returning vet's but if there's the other side of reality which an employer needs to deal with: getting the job done.

 

BTW, I don't know if anyone ELSE noticed, but in the 2007 FBI stats the crime with the greatest percentage drop from 2006 was... ARSON!!! Like that's the result of more guns! Second greatest drop was in motor vehicle theft - yet another example of guns reducing crime!

[Fugu]

In any case, after reviewing the FBI and Wiki data I would question the basis for the statement that there has been any significant reductions in the amount of crime over the past several years.

 

Question it all you want, since nobody said "the last several years".

 

Crime is on a continuing downward trend. It's at 1970's levels.

 

Instead it appears the major reduction in crime appeared from the early 90's until '02 to '03 and since then crime has fluctuated slightly from year to year.

 

Yes, and in that timeframe we've had the Clinton gun ban, the the repeal of the Clinton gun ban, more and more guns in private hands and many states going to shall issue concealed handgun permits with little to no effect on crime, certainly no adverse effect.

 

But as long as we're speculating on the drop in crime

 

You're the only one speculating. Crime has been dropping, it continues a downward trend, and overall it's at low levels when viewed historically in the scope of the records we have. Speculating would be comparing to the early 1900s, a time frame for which records are tough to find, but going back about 40 years, things are very good right now, and there are more guns in the hands of citizens.

 

Perhaps there's a link to the war in Iraq???

 

300 million US residents, 1.5 million soldiers have been deployed in the war on terror total - that's not how many are gone now, that's how many have gone.

 

That's not going to impact any stats. 1% of males (assuming all deployed are male for simplicity), 0.05% of the population overall.

 

b]ARSON!!![/b] Like that's the result of more guns! Second greatest drop was in motor vehicle theft - yet another example of guns reducing crime!

 

The second amendment isn't about crime, so it doesn't matter if guns reduce crime.

 

But, you cannot show with anything substantive that the increase in the number of guns in general, or the increase in the number of concealed permits has had any negative effect on crime rates.

 

Do you understand the difference between saying they reduce crime and saying they do not increase crime? Because it sure seems like you don't.

[velomoto]

But as long as we're speculating on the drop in crime

 

You're the only one speculating.

No actually I'm not. Many have speculated (suggested, proclaimed, etc. etc) a recent decrease in crime which was due to an increased number of handguns. I don't believe there is a causal relationship between the number of handguns and the drop in crime - you're allowed to believe what ever you'd like.

 

If you'd prefer to argue that more handguns have not resulted in an increase in crime - that's fine too.

[velomoto]

b]ARSON!!![/b] Like that's the result of more guns! Second greatest drop was in motor vehicle theft - yet another example of guns reducing crime!

 

The second amendment isn't about crime, so it doesn't matter if guns reduce crime.

Unfortunately so many different ideas and concepts are being discussed in the 19 (20?) pages of this thread it's easy to get confused. You're absolutely right the 2nd amendment is not about crime - my discussion was directed to earlier comments about the inferred relationship between guns and crime.

[tallman]

How about California compared to rest of US?

http://www.threestrikes.org/fbi_crimerates_pg1.html

Huge decreases in Cali AFTER the 3 strike laws.

Like I said, because more criminals are i jail...

[tallman]

Of course, there are other causes.

 

New research, by Rick Nevin, Senior Advisor etc... shows that trends in childhood lead exposure explain crime rate trends over several decades in the US, Britain, Canada, France Australia, Finland, Italy Germany, and New Zealand.

 

Enjoy.

http://www.centerforhealthyhousing.org/Nevin2007LeadandCrimeStudy.pdf

[Lawman]

My most heartfelt sympathy for those who live in such fear and/or paranoia. Hopefully a gun will provide the comfort, security or strength you need.

 

And may those who choose to live in blissful ignorance and believe it could never happen to them or their loved ones never find they were mistaken..

 

Here's a perfect example of an innocent person being injured by an untrained common person who some say should not be allowed access to a gun..

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5653636.html

[Fugu]

Here's a perfect example of an innocent person being injured by an untrained common person who some say should not be allowed access to a gun.

 

Oh that's just terrible. They should have asked the armed man to wait for the police to arrive so he could be arrested and be given a fair trial.

 

The poor home invader... first he's got to be armed to protect himself from gun nuts, then these people were so self centered as to resist his efforts to improve his own financial situation. I'm sure they had insurance, they should have just let him have the stuff and hoped he didn't harm them in return. Just because he forced his way into their home while armed they assumed he was a bad guy. I'm sure he was just turning his life around.

[smiller]

Boy, that one has it all... a defensive gun use that both deters a crime and injures a family member. I wonder how statisticians deal with that...

[DiggerJim]

Oh that's just terrible. They should have asked the armed man to wait for the police to arrive so he could be arrested and be given a fair trial.

Or he might have been like these guys linky --- I expect Dr. Petit would have given most anything to have his wife shoot the bad guys even if he got shot too. Especially as he heard them rape her & his daughters.

[Lawman]

"Hayes’ criminal record dates back to 1980 and includes more than two dozen convictions for burglary, larceny, marijuana possession, theft of a firearm and escape from custody, Harris said. Komisarjevky also has multiple convictions for burglary and larceny."

 

Maybe someday, if I live long enough, I'll become enlightened and understand why we tolerate this..but I don't think so..

[Paul_Burkett]

Maybe someday, if I live long enough, I'll become enlightened and understand why we tolerate this

Too often the solution to criminal behavior is to find out why the criminal does what ever he did to become a criminal, then if we can isolate his weakness, perhaps something Freudian, then eliminate or ban that behavior, then it will never happen again. Rather than have absolute laws and penalties, we have therapists and lawyers finding new ways to get their clients off the hook for their crimes. A friend of mine, while serving as a Marine at the American Embassy in Syria in the '80s saw a man hanging in the plaza for two days. He asked one of the Syrian people what happened, he was told that the person had raped and killed a woman and although he was simple minded, they hung him just the same. They told him that sane or crazy, you pay for what you do in their country. It sounds barbaric and I do not think that we should follow their system entirely, but there has to be a definite cause and affect system in place.

[steveknapp]

Oh that's just terrible. They should have asked the armed man to wait for the police to arrive so he could be arrested and be given a fair trial.

Or he might have been like these guys linky --- I expect Dr. Petit would have given most anything to have his wife shoot the bad guys even if he got shot too. Especially as he heard them rape her & his daughters.

 

That's just awful.

[Matts_12GS]

"Hayes’ criminal record dates back to 1980 and includes more than two dozen convictions for burglary, larceny, marijuana possession, theft of a firearm and escape from custody, Harris said. Komisarjevky also has multiple convictions for burglary and larceny."

 

Maybe someday, if I live long enough, I'll become enlightened and understand why we tolerate this..but I don't think so..

 

Ya know, the death penalty ends recidivism...

for the Petits

[velomoto]

How about California compared to rest of US?

http://www.threestrikes.org/fbi_crimerates_pg1.html

Huge decreases in Cali AFTER the 3 strike laws.

Like I said, because more criminals are i jail...

I'm sorry, I thot the CW was that more guns would solve the problems of the world...

[Matts_12GS]

I'm sorry, I thot the CW was that more guns would solve the problems of the world...

 

It's ok, you must have thought that because you think the second amendment is about crime...

 

It's not.

 

Just another community service I provide. Have a great day!

[lawnchairboy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammurabi

 

Hammurabi had it right.

[Lawman]

Sort of ironic that many in this country call Singapore barbaric while we fail to take action to stop the forseeable slaughter of the innocent..

[Fugu]

I'm sorry, I thot the CW was that more guns would solve the problems of the world...

 

It's ok, you must have thought that because you think the second amendment is about crime...

 

Please don't interrupt the heated argument he's having with his strawman.

[Knifemaker]

The gun is a tool. Over the many years of the guns existence it has been used to feed the hungry masses, the guns concepts have put a man in space, and yes, because of many various “reasons” man has used this tool to end the lives of other men.

 

Like any other tool man has created the gun can be used wrong….remember Lizzy Bordon and her ax, how about the wheel a great tool now used by many of drunk driver to also end the lives of the innocent. The gun, like other basic tools, such as the hammer, the knife, the wheel, and numerous others can end the lives of others if misused by man.

 

Get off the high horse and come to reality and point the finger not at the tool but the man using it. Such is life, man deals with everything except what the real problem is because he is the problem. Can you change man? Doubtful, because man is truly the only untamed beast in this world. Our basic instincts of survival put us on the highest level of the evolutionary chart allowing us to make these tools but not allowing all of us to use these tools properly and for the right reasons. Heck of a catch 22 is it not? Teach your children well and teach them right.