[bigred875]

Originally Posted by Stoneman

And where's YOUR citing, Ben? For every link you find stating this, I can find one saying just the opposite. One case in point comes to mind right quick...New Hampshire. Our violent crime rate ain't exactly skyrocketting...

Here's a link that briefly explains why more people carrying guns could interupt what could otherwise be a disaster on an unknown scale. And wouldn't ya know it, in New Hampshire...

The only one injured? The shooter...

he wont find a single source

[beet]

+1
Even when I was a kid shit like this happened. Only it was not big news? Everything is blown way up in the news now.

Originally Posted by TheIglu

There are so many places for help these days it's rediculous. The chances were there, he was on a dead end road that was going to end badly, one way or the other.

There are FUCKED up people. I've known kids like this. We all have (unless you are completely oblivious). When they end up in jail for murder, or diddling some kid or whatever, you think "Yeah, they were fucked in the head. ".

You can't 'fix' everybody. Some people are just not able to live in society. Speculate all you want about the "if's" and "they shoulda" but I'll be comfortable in knowing that in our country of 300 million people, I will NOT be surprised when ONE is fucked up every month or two and does something like this. Nor will I give up any of my personal freedoms for it.

What can I say, we were due.

[benVFR]

Jay I think it completely flew over your head that I wasn't arguing the gun control laws have necessarily had an effect. Reading comprehension.

The gun control laws are a single variable which just doesn't prove anything one way or the other. They don't provide any conclusive evidence.

By the way your ANECDOTE doesn't mean shit. Gun owner stories prove absolutely nothing. I could get you 10 stories of relatives who don't have guns, and none of them have ever been assaulted. Does that prove anything? NO!

If you want meaningful data I would direct you to the Department of Justice website. There is reams and reams of crime data there, you could waste days looking at it.

I didn't ask BigRed for a cite, I asked him to link to these articles instead of copying them to the board.

1) He loves these guys, he should be directing click traffic to their sites
2) It's borderline copyright violation, you could easily get a nasty letter from one of these sites one of these days.

If you want cold hard data follow this link:

Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime & Justice Data Online

You can cross reference the data those tables come up with against gun laws and you'll see theres very little correlation between lax gun laws & crime or strict gun laws and crime.

New Hampshire is safe, but it's not cause the gun laws are relaxed, as other states with relaxed laws are in the top 5 most dangerous.

So while this VA Tech case is no reason to yell for stricter gun laws, it's also no reason to yell for more guns.

[bigred875]

1. which guys?
2. you have no clue what you are talking about
3. your link is related to homicides not gun related crimes.
4. which states? you can measure these stats by state...has to be done based on cities...
5. nobody is yelling for more guns...the yelling is from those who want tougher laws.

once again ben you make a lengthy post without saying a goddamn thing....glad to see the college education is paying off.....

if you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with bullshit...right ben

[TheIglu]

Originally Posted by bigred875

once again ben you make a lengthy post without saying a goddamn thing....glad to see the college education is paying off.....

Hey, I'm college educated and I think my post did quite well.

[bigred875]

Originally Posted by TheIglu

Hey, I'm college educated and I think my post did quite well.

...Ben should take some notes

[benVFR]

It seems to me you're ALWAYS yelling for more guns.

How about you provide anything to back up what you're saying?

I do think the presence of cities is a huge factor, I agree with you there. NH, VT, and ME are extremely safe places to live, and they have no large cities.

But look at the top 5 most violent states. DC is the worst place to live, but it's not a state, it's just a big urban area. Outside of DC all the most dangerous places have lax gun laws.

Who cares whether I cite homicides versus gun related crimes? The stats at the DOJ back up that a gun is the most frequently used weapon to commit a homicide. (Big surprise)

Prove your believe that lax gun laws stop gun related crimes, if not all crimes. After all carrying a gun will deter any crime right? If most homicides are gun related crimes, the states with lax laws should have noticeably lower crime. And they don't. Across the board there is either no correlation or the case is stronger that the lax gun law states have more crime.

[rebelpacket]

FYI, 99.9% of responsible gun owners that carry, never ever draw and fire on someone. 99.9% of responsible gun owners, avoid situations that would require them to draw their guns.

Of the people with CCW permits, only a small number regularly carry. Many people with CCW's dont' even have handguns anymore. Some of us are paranoid, and stockpile weapons, munitions, MRE's for the day we all hope will never come. Many of us don't. Doesn't make anyone better or worse.

The problem, I believe, is that its become such a hassle to get a CCW, and use it now adays, that people simply don't want to deal with it. For example:

I can walk into a grocery store in CT with my glock 30 neatly holtered and my shirt tucked into my pants. If, by some freak accident, I happen to let just a little of my firearm show while picking up something from the bottom shelf, and someone calls the police, *bamf* I'm out of my permit, and I can no longer carry a weapon. (I think in VT you can carry in the open, right?)

Thats a huge responsibility to be thinking about. I just want to get my damn deli meat and some canned peaches, but all I can think about is making sure that my shirt is long enough to cover my gun. So more than half the time, I leave the gun at home, and enjoy a care-free trip to the store. Well, thats one less armed citizen in the 7-11 next time someone tries to knock it over.

I know thats off topic. But if I could carry my weapon concealed (without fear of reprisal should it be viewed by the public), I'd never be without it. I bet you a number of other CCW's in CT (and states with similar laws) would be as well.

[hessogood]

In NH you can openly carry without a permit. You need a permit to conceal. In vermont you can carry and conceal with no permit.

[bigred875]

seems to me you never know what you are talking about....reading comprehension. I dont even own a gun.

I'll do some homework for you, but this is not new information...just look at Boston and NYC...

NCPA - Policy Report 176 - Myths About Gun Control

"20 percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6 percent of the population - New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C. - and each has a virtual prohibition on private handguns."

"Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws."

"New York has one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation - and 20 percent of the armed robberies. Even more troublesome is the fact that the places where gun control laws are toughest tend to be the places where the most crime is committed with illegal weapons"

Fraser Institute - Gun Laws do Not Reduce Criminal Violence According to New Study

"Disarming the public has not reduced criminal violence in any country examined in this study."

I cant find the one i wanted to post, but you get the idea...

your turn...post links

"Who cares whether I cite homicides versus gun related crimes? " again you are not saying anything.... It matters because there are is more then homicide when talking about violent crimes... What you are saying here is that you are more likely to get into a traffic accident if you are in a car...

"Prove your believe that lax gun laws stop gun related crimes, if not all crimes. " do your own homework smart guy...you are supposed to be the informed one...

you can start by comparing violent crime stats from LA and NYC with Austin and ATL

[benVFR]

There are studies from both side but the point is from either side they can be debated, both sides have issues with the research, and both sides manipulate the data they choose.

You can't take 2 studies and use them as anything meaningful, just like I can't take 2 from the other side. (And I can bury this thread in a mountain of links very quickly if I want to, it's a waste of time.)

There is no consensus at all in the wide range of studies out there.

NYC is a bad one for you to cite. Even if it is still more dangerous then Austin and Atlanta (very different demographics and city size anyway), NYC has had drastic reductions in crime at the same time the gun laws were made more strict & the police force was enlarged.

Widen your view and you will see Texas and Georgia do not have lower overall crime rates then California and New York. Different? Yes. Better overall? No. New York has the best case at being the safest with the lowest crime.

Rates per 100,000 in 2005. (Newest data available, all from US DOJ)

California
Violent Crimes: 526.3
Murders: 6.9
Forcible Rapes: 26.0
Robberies: 176.1
Aggravated Assault: 317.3
Property Crimes: 3,322.6
Burglaries: 693.3
Larceny: 1,916.5
Motor Vehicle Theft: 712.8

Georgia:
Violent Crimes: 448.9
Murders: 6.2
Forcible Rapes: 23.6
Robberies: 154.8
Aggravated Assualt: 264.3
Property Crimes: 4,172.3
Burglaries: 931.0
Larceny: 2,751.1
Motor Vehicle Theft: 490.2

Texas
Violent Crime: 529.7
Murders: 6.2
Forcible Rapes: 37.2
Robberies: 156.6
Aggravated Assault: 329.8
Property Crimes: 4,332.0
Burglaries: 961.6
Larceny: 2,961.7
Motor Vehicle Theft: 408.7

New York
Violent Crime: 445.8
Murders: 4.5
Forcible Rape: 18.9
Robbery: 182.7
Aggravated Assault: 239.7
Property Crime: 2,108.5
Burglaries: 353.3
Larceny: 1,569.6
Motor Vehicle Theft: 185.6

WHY on earth haven't all the criminals moved to NY with it's strict gun control laws? They're missing out on preying on all those unarmed sheep!

Why on earth all those armed women in Texas raped so much more often?

Why don't all those armed citizens in GA and TX contribute to lower property crime?

Look at the data yourself instead of reading something that's being fed to you by someone with a set viewpoint. When you read something from a policy group or a think tank that has a viewpoint they're paid to push they just pick and choose what supports their agenda.

NCPA is a conservative lobbying group that has a non-surprising list of sponsors & funding arrangements. No surprise at all they would find what they found.

Fraser Institute outright tells you their purpose for being is to push for small government, again no surprise.

These are not reliable sources, they just pull data together from other sources and package it to support their viewpoints.

[bigred875]

I dont know why i am going to waste my time...but here goes....

There is no consensus at all in the wide range of studies out there.

NYC has had drastic reductions in crime at the same time the gun laws were made more strict & the police force was enlarged.

Guliani did more then implement guns laws during that time..

...crime rates...from US DOJ

I said nothing about crime rate...i am talking about violent crimes with guns...this whole debate is about guns and the text you posted without providing a link says nothing to support your point. Not to mentioned I said 4 different cities and you cite stats for states...

The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization, established in 1983. The NCPA's goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector. Topics include reforms in health care, taxes, Social Security, welfare, criminal justice, education and environmental regulation.

National Center for Policy Analysis - About Us

The Fraser Institute is an independent research and educational organization with offices in Vancouver, Calgary and Toronto. Our mission is to measure, study, and communicate the impact of competitive markets and government intervention on the welfare of individuals.

Fraser Institute - About the Institute

A source does not become invalid because you do not agree with it.

[joeswamp]

No, the NCPA and Fraser Institute are right wing lobby groups, they are essentially lawyers arguing a position, and you should read them as such. I can show you selected arguments from "Citizens Against Guns" that would be just as biased in the other direction.

The only guy that's seriously argued that CCW laws decrease crime is John Lott, who wrote this book called "More Guns Less Crime". That book was pretty interesting when it was first published but it later came out that Lott faked a lot of his data, and that when the corrected data was run through his model it showed the opposite result. Lott has since been totally discredited, and even the wackiest right wing lobby groups don't reference him anymore. That's why that NCPA link, after cherry picking some misleading statistics, says, "Scholarly studies have not been able to demonstrate any effect of gun control laws."

Some serious statistical work was done in the wake of the Lott debacle and researchers were able to demonstrate that the effect of CCW laws on crime are so small to be basically unmeasurable.

[bigred875]

please provide evidence discrediting my sources......

[bigred875]

you dont need sources to back up common sense....bottom line is if more people had guns on them there would be less people commiting crimes using a gun. Criminals will think twice about mugging someone if the chances were good the victim was also packing. not all, but there would be a significant reduction.

[rebelpacket]

Originally Posted by bigred875

you dont need sources to back up common sense....bottom line is if more people had guns on them there would be less people commiting crimes using a gun. Criminals will think twice about mugging someone if the chances were good the victim was also packing. not all, but there would be a significant reduction.

Not true. Criminals (in general) have little to loose. A citizen with a pistol permit, has much more to loose. I'd be you most gun owners would be EXTREMELY hesitant to use their guns in a situation, simply because of the fear that if they made a bad judgement call (with the laws varying from state to state) that they'd loose the privledge to bear arms for life, or be sued for everything they own in civil court.

But if someone comes busting into my office and I hear gunshots, its a different story. If someone approaches you with a knife and says "Give me your keys", and you get jumped by three people, and they take your gun, your shit out of luck, and now they have your gun.

I own lots of guns. Its not as cut-and-dry as it may seem, no matter how much you argue it.

[Kham]

Originally Posted by bentbryan

Don't ban guns. Ban Asians with guns!


Kham ->

yep asians are crazy mofo... dont mess with them or you'll get "kamikaze"

[bigred875]

Originally Posted by rebelpacket

Not true. Criminals (in general) have little to loose. A citizen with a pistol permit, has much more to loose. I'd be you most gun owners would be EXTREMELY hesitant to use their guns in a situation, simply because of the fear that if they made a bad judgement call (with the laws varying from state to state) that they'd loose the privledge to bear arms for life, or be sued for everything they own in civil court.

But if someone comes busting into my office and I hear gunshots, its a different story. If someone approaches you with a knife and says "Give me your keys", and you get jumped by three people, and they take your gun, your shit out of luck, and now they have your gun.

I own lots of guns. Its not as cut-and-dry as it may seem, no matter how much you argue it.

sure it is... it will not prevent the criminals you are refering to...but there are different degrees of criminals... Knowing that the population is armed is a natural deterant...and will prevent a significatant number of people from commiting crimes.

I'm not saying that gun crime will stop if everyone is packing....but it will certainly decrease it...

criminals do not commit crimes they think will get them killed or arrested....not even the strung out desperate ones...they do it because they think they will get away with it. If they know that people are packing even the dumb ones know that their odds of getting away with it narrow and that in itself will prevent it crime from happening.

[benVFR]

BigRed,

I honestly can't do it at work but for every statistic in the NCPA paper you posted the DOJ database I linked before disproves and/or shows that NCPA is manipulating the statistics. Those statistics can be manipulated for either side.

It's a lot of work, if you're not willing to look at data yourself rather then believe a thinktank I may go through the numbers at home tonight.

Basically almost all states have "easy" gunlaws. There are two few with strict gun laws (5-6 at most?) to really say anything about gun control. But it doesn't prove lots of guns reduces crime.

For the current data only 2 of the 15 highest murder states have "strict" gun control laws.

In the 15 states with the lowest murder rates 2 have "strict" gun laws.

For example a quick one. NCPA said Hawaii had huge murder growth after they banned laws. They were looking at the 2 years after the ban. In the many years since Hawaii became extremely safe, it's in the top 5 for lowest murder rates now and has been for a long time.

In each and every statistic in that paper they looked at a very small time window, and if you look at a larger window their argument no longer looks true.

Several of them they don't even quote years, so there is no way to check, if you check based on current data their numbers don't match up. For example the one about NYC, Chicago, DC, and Detroit is simply not true. The entire states those cities are in added up do not make up 20% of the murders in the country, so it's impossible for the cities to contain 20% of the murders. (Note that "fact" has no cite and no year)

Even look through their cites.. it's just a web of think tank position papers citing each other. No hard data except for the ones where they cite the exact same DOJ database I've been looking at.

[Billy]

I say we all lay down our guns and learn kung fu

[bigred875]

Originally Posted by benVFR

BigRed,

I honestly can't do it at work but for every statistic in the NCPA paper you posted the DOJ database I linked before disproves and/or shows that NCPA is manipulating the statistics. Those statistics can be manipulated for either side.

It's a lot of work, if you're not willing to look at data yourself rather then believe a thinktank I may go through the numbers at home tonight.

Basically almost all states have "easy" gunlaws. There are two few with strict gun laws (5-6 at most?) to really say anything about gun control. But it doesn't prove lots of guns reduces crime.

For the current data only 2 of the 15 highest murder states have "strict" gun control laws.

In the 15 states with the lowest murder rates 2 have "strict" gun laws.

For example a quick one. NCPA said Hawaii had huge murder growth after they banned laws. They were looking at the 2 years after the ban. In the many years since Hawaii became extremely safe, it's in the top 5 for lowest murder rates now and has been for a long time.

In each and every statistic in that paper they looked at a very small time window, and if you look at a larger window their argument no longer looks true.

Several of them they don't even quote years, so there is no way to check, if you check based on current data their numbers don't match up. For example the one about NYC, Chicago, DC, and Detroit is simply not true. The entire states those cities are in added up do not make up 20% of the murders in the country, so it's impossible for the cities to contain 20% of the murders. (Note that "fact" has no cite and no year)

Even look through their cites.. it's just a web of think tank position papers citing each other. No hard data except for the ones where they cite the exact same DOJ database I've been looking at.

fine, i'll conceed...i dont feel like doing all that work....your numbers are better then my numbers.. but the point of this thread still stands...harsher gun laws would not have prevented the vtech incident and the people pushing for for stricter gun laws are ignoring the real problem...the criminals.

My position of more people with guns equals less crime sticks. Lax gun laws do not reflect gun ownership, I maintain my position that an armed public is a crime deterant.

[Kham]

Originally Posted by BadBoyBilly

I say we all lay down our guns and learn kung fu

and throw knife and stars just like movies. that might work.

[Kham]

my common sense, means i dont need stats to prove , tells me that it depends on number of type of people per capita. extreme example, give them crazy kids guns and they will shoot each other. with folks like in NH and similiar places have lots of $$$ with big house, good job, responsible, got a lot to loose. they wouldn't do stupid shit with or without guns and they're not crazy like asain (so Brian would shutup).

[richw]

Wait

what's that over there



Its the 1000 pound Gorilla that no one speaks of.
SSSSHHH you can't say that



Get your statistics then overlay an....NO DON'T SAY IT


YOU CAN'T SPEAK THAT TRUTH

ethnic racial map on your crime violence statistics



o shit now I have to go to rehab

[elwood206]

come on guys, its a beautiful day for ride, its 4/20, everyone just chill the fuck out. arguing is for the winter months.