-
-
See quotes from DiFi and BO in the idiotic thread you started.
Chicago murder rateComment
-
More data and not just opinion: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319
Liberal media response:
These conclusions don’t line up perfectly with either side’s agenda. That’s a good reason to take them seriously—and to fund additional data collection and research that have been blocked by Congress over politics. Yes, the facts will surprise you. That’s why you should embrace them.Most indices of crime and gun violence are getting better, not worse. “Overall crime rates have declined in the past decade, and violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past 5 years,” the report notes. “Between 2005 and 2010, the percentage of firearm-related violent victimizations remained generally stable.” Meanwhile, “firearm-related death rates for youth ages 15 to 19 declined from 1994 to 2009.” Accidents are down, too: “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”Mass shootings aren’t the problem. “The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths,” says the report. “Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” Compare that with the 335,000 gun deaths between 2000 and 2010 alone.Guns & Ammo response: http://www.gunsandammo.com/2013/08/2...ires-on-obama/Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively. “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.” But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, “because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” Furthermore, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”
http://www.guns.com/2013/06/27/cdc-r...cking-results/Why No One Has Heard This
Given the CDC’s prior track record on guns, you may be surprised by the extent with which the new research refutes some of the anti-gun movement’s deepest convictions.
What are opponents of the Second Amendment doing about the new data? Perhaps predictably, they’re ignoring it. President Obama, Michael Bloomberg and the Brady Campaign remain silent. Most suspicious of all, the various media outlets that so eagerly anticipated the CDC research are looking the other way as well. One must wonder how media coverage of the CDC report may have differed, had the research more closely fit an anti-gun narrative.
It was found that there are vast differences in who is more likely to become a victim of gun violence, with primary factors lying in socioeconomic status and ethnicity. Homicide rates were shown to be significantly higher in African Americans, while suicide rates were higher in Caucasians.
Additionally, the study concluded that high rates of poverty, illicit drug trafficking and substance use all increase the risk of becoming involved in gun violence. In addition, “criminals often engage in violence as a means to acquire money, goods or other rewards.”The study admitted that the results of interventions for reducing gun violence have been mixed, including strategies such as background checks and restriction of certain types of firearms, as well as having stricter penalties for illegal gun use. However, the study did reveal that “unauthorized gun possession or use is associated with higher rates of firearm violence than legal possession of guns.” In other words, law-breaking criminals are the ones most responsible for gun violence, not law-abiding citizens.With the latest gun debate, there has been more emphasis placed on violent video games, movies and other media. However, the study’s findings on the influence of these things were inconclusive.
“The vast majority of research on the effects of violence in media has focused on violence portrayed in television and the movies, although more recent research has been expanded to include music, video games, social media, and the Internet. Interest in media effects is fueled by the fact that youth are spending more time engaging with media that portrays increasing amounts of violence. Although research on the effects of media violence on real-life violence has been carried out for more than 50 years, none of this research has focused on firearm violence in particular as an outcome. As a result, a direct relationship between violence in media and real-life firearm violence has not been established and additional research is necessary.”So basically, the research that Obama called for and the anti-science peeps tried to prevent ended up pointing out how gun laws are ineffective and gun violence is mostly done by people who are criminals and related to poverty or drugs, so the media ignored it largely because it concludes that the messages being blasted by the left are generally mistaken. Talking about what you think will make you feel better about an issue is easier than actually thinking hard about the facts and data to see if it would really help or if you are barking up the wrong tree...The results of this study were surprisingly unbiased for the most part and closely resemble the findings from a similar study conducted following the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, in which the CDC concluded that there was “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.”Comment
-
A google search about a book? What the fuck is that supposed to mean?
Nope. Nitpicked quotes taken out of context from an interview 25 years ago does not consitute an active attempt to sieze all guns.
What about it? That it went down under the city's handgun ban, and has now gone back up since it was overturned?
You're not helping your case here....Comment
-
Can any of the gun-tards in this thread explain to me why the US has a gun homicide rate 20 times higher than other industrialized nations? Because to everyone who isn't full-blown, head-up-their-ass in denial about the facts, it's pretty obvious.
Every country has mentally ill people. Every country struggles with crime, drug addiction and gangs. Every country has violence in video games, on TV and in movies. The only palpable thing that's different between us and them is the prevalence of guns in our country. And you can't have gun violence without guns. So to all of you superior-minded "patriots", why do we have this problem and not them? Explain your reasoning.Comment
-
It's EXACTLY what you asked for.
Of course it does. They'd do it openly in a heartbeat if they had the political capital. They're working on it via more subversive methods now... See current attempts to deny gun manufacturers and resellers credit and banking services through tactics of thuggery and intimidation without ANY legal foundation.
That remark bears no resemblance to reality.Comment
-
A better quest would be to find homicide rates per capita of people in industrialized nations and see how it compares.Comment
-
2011 1M Alpine white/black
1996 Civic white/black
1988 M3 lachs/blackComment
-
I just looked up NJ laws and its more relaxed than CA where I've spent most of my life. I'm Moving back to CA so I would be happy if the law was like NJ. I've been in TX for the last 6 months and its nice not having to worry about regulations that would make me a criminal if I put the wrong accessory on.Comment
-
Last thing I saw on the topic was there were about 9 million CCW holders in the US this was a couple of years ago.
CCW holders are LAW abiding citizens that dont go out of their way to look for trouble, the implications of doing so are not very harmonious with having a Permit.
So you have a tad under 2.7% of the population having a permit to carry, Many people have permits but dont carry all the time or hardly ever . I spent much of the year last year unarmed even though I have a couple of permits, due to my location in a non reciprocal state.
SO to sum it it you have <2% of the population carrying at any given time, that are law abiding (.3% of gun crime is committed by CCW holders) and not going out looking for trouble. Yup thats a great argument you have here.
We have a million plus law enforcement officers in this country too they seem to be doing a great job stopping active shooters too. Since in recent events has shown no matter how opposing force was applied from Law Enforcement or legal CCW holders defending them selves the active shooters tend to flee or off them selves when shit starts to get real with bullets flying back at them. Highlighted by debunking another one of your biased articles in this posting here. This assumes the aggressor picked place to do his deeds that was not a gun free zone where law abiding people are not allowed to carry their weapons and must rely on the state to handle such issues.... That seems to be working rather well huh....
The OR mall incident the shooter took his own life when he saw that a CCW holder had drawn a bead on him and had held his fire because there were other people behind the shooter. The mall it self was gun free zone but IIRC the good citizen didnt see the sign.Last edited by mrsleeve; 05-28-2014, 07:13 PM.The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. -Alexis de TocquevilleOriginally posted by Fusion
The Desire to Save Humanity is Always a False Front for the Urge to Rule it- H. L. Mencken
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants.
William Pitt-Comment
-
You assume too much. I never mentioned anything about more rounds.
You mention your SOP as "leaving". I agree. I teach defensive hand-gun courses and stress-situation management. If you have the ability or means, I almost always suggest putting as much distance between you and whatever the threat is. However, sometimes 'leaving' is not an option.
I do not, "fantasize about how scary and dangerous the world is". I know, for the most part, it's a beautiful place. But there are some times when darkness descends and evil rears its ugly head. Or, as we say in the courses I teach, "the shit has hit the fan". When that happens, you need as many tools at your disposal in order to win or come out alive.
I'm not concerned about Mexico or any other nation invading US soil. Why? Mainly because of the private ownership of guns here. Unlike other countries, the citizens of the US will not have to depend on aid or weapons from foreign nations to oust any dumbasses stupid enough to invade our shores.
Your statement of, "you're not going to be able to do anything with 100 bullets that you cannot do with 10" is false logic. If I ever needed 100 rounds than the shit has definitely hit the fan and hard. But better to have it and not need it, versus the other way around. It's pussies like you who clamored out the door at Martin B Retting Gun Shop in Culver City offering me un-Godly sums of cash because I had guns to defend myself and my family during the Los Angeles Riots back in '92.
I do take issue with your comment, "Try getting out of the same 10 miles from where you were born,...". If you are inferring that I lack depth and knowledge of other countries and cultures because I am geographically challenged. If so, you are mistaken, young padawan. I've traveled to many countries and have seen first-hand the benefits of private gun ownership.
What is it, exactly, that other countries are doing to handle gun crime so effectively? Is it limits on magazine capacity? No. Enforcing, "Gun Free Zones"? Haha, hardly. These limits or bans simply do not work.
Your thinking dictates society should address the tool and not the root problem. Do we ban cars or alcohol in cases of drunk driving? Should we limit pool use among kids, since more kids die every year from drowning than mass shootings? Certainly, no one needs a pool? (My friends in the SF Valley or Palm Springs would beg to differ)
You appear to underestimate the majority of gun owners here in America. We do see a need for, "new thinking" when it comes to taking action against criminals and gun crimes. But that means effective "new thinking". Your rhetoric has all the makings of a media-hyped foundation induced by mass-hysteria and a knee-jerk reaction.
It's obvious to me that you are educated and worldly-wise. Why don't you propose something effective that works in other countries, since us Americans have it, "assbackwards" when it comes to gun crime? I'd love to hear new ideas on the subject, but come to the table with something more than recycled junk from the media.Comment
-
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
New Hawtness: 1995 540i/6 Claptrap
Defunct too: Cirrusblau m30 Project
Defunct (sold): Alta Vista
79 Bronco SHTF BuildComment
Comment