Plus, we'd probably name it Columbia instead, and we all know how that turned out.  

Well.. As long as no more than 10% have sore throats or herpes flare-ups at the same time, I think plague is nothing to worry about.

Normalized for race is the phrase that makes me question the most.  Likewise removing suicide is probably a good thing, but while you are at it, remove justified shootings as well (self defense), as many of us feel they are not a bad thing, but the whole reason why we want ownership in the first place.  

 

We would need a hot pocket factory on a barge to tow behind and hourly air drops of booze.

QFE

How about total number of murders too.  Getting kill by a knife makes just a dead as getting killed by a bullet.

Common sense has debunked every lie the Left has ever told, but they are too dumb to realize it

It doesn't serve their purpose to do math correctly. There have been multiple studies showing tightening of gun control laws do not have any positive impact. At best, nothing happens, at worst, the violent crime rates go up. The CDC did one in 2013, and I believe one over 10 years ago, Mauser at Frazier College(?) in Canada, Colin Greenwood at Cambridge, UK, and at least one more I can't think of at the moment. The list is from memory, so the names might be slightly misspelled.  Colin Greenwood had a great presentation at a New Zealand conference in 2006 which examined the history of gun control in England, and it's failure.

The best case for this is shown in Australia. There is a website by , 'Australian Institute of Criminology' which releases the official crime statistics for Australia. Last summer they had a chart on the website showing murder rates in the country, beginning in the late 1960s through today. There has been a steady reduction in the rates over time, only interrupted right after the 1997 ban, when the rate jumped way up, peaking at the highest ever recorded in Australia. The rate then dropped over a few years to the lowest ever recorded, then bounced up to get back onto the downward trend line which started in the 1960s. At best you can say the law introduced instability in the murder rates for a period of time before returning to the established trend. The highest recorded rate, and the lowest recorded rate occurred after the ban.  The anti-gun people will pick a year before the ban law and the year with the lowest rate after the ban law, and say the law had a wonderful impact.

They also claim there has been no mass murders after the ban, but there have been several mass murders by arson. The two which were acknowledged on the website had about 35 or 36 victims. For some reason they don't include the one case where there were over 170 victims.

Sorry if I'm vague, I'm at a computer where I don't have all of my notes, or book marks to the links with the exact numbers.

I guess the author of that op-ed piece glanced over the part "As our study could not determine cause-and-effect relationships, further studies are necessary to define the nature of this association" or "Ecological studies of associations are inherently weak, however; correlation does not imply causation.  This fundamental limitation is beyond the power of the authors to redress."

Anti gun nuts - see what you want to see, hear what you want to hear, believe what you want to believe...

I think it would tell us what we already know - those who don't care about the consequences of their actions also don't care about the letter of the law. Therefore no amount of "common sense" gun laws will affect that segment of the population or impact the crimes they perpetrate.

"sensible regulation"

Tell that to every tin pot dictator who started with "sensible regulation" and ended up with mass graves.

Extreme?  Yes.

Possible?  Yes.

It's a fallacy to believe otherwise.

As I recall from the FBI crime stat reports suicide typically accounts for 60% of gun-related deaths.

If I'm I'm figuring right, they're saying AZ has a mortality rate of 3605 per 100,000 people over 3 years.  There are 6.5 million people in AZ.  Extrapoliting the data, the are claiming that 235,000 people died of a gunshot wound in the past 3 years, JUST IN ARIZONA.

Right?  Right?





Nevermind, I'm a moran.

AND when looking at criminal use vs legal use of guns, you need to get rid of the samples that reflect a gun being used in self defense when running the numbers for criminal uses.

Well, removing suicides really screws up their "correlation", so does examining overall per capita homicide rates for the four years they chose. LA and MD take up 1 and 2, followed by a lot of southern states. That's even still using their legislative ranking. I bet if we examined CCW per capita, it would do some interesting things with the data as well.

Basically cherry picked horseshit.

Also, the gun homicide rate they have for Mississippi is HIGHER than the overall per capita rate that I found, that seems unlikely.

A buddy had this posted on FB.

yes that's usually the trick.

then it look like, well, exactly what you expect it to.

That is useless without a color key.


Do you even graph bro?

Having numerous relatives who are very much anti-gun liberals I have particular insight into the psyche of these people. There are really three types of liberals when it comes to the 2A debate:
1) Elite Leftist Liberal - this wealthy policy maker or power broker wants to eliminate the individual right to keep and bear arms for the same reason all maniacal power hungry fascists do - because a disarmed populace poses no resistance to their end-game schemes.

2) The Naive Liberal - this individual, usually someone who is financially well off and lives a life sheltered from crime, wants to eliminate the individual right to keep and bear arms because they reason if no guns existed then the tens of thousands of people injured and/or killed annually by firearms would not be hurt/killed. This group sees no value or practical use to firearms other than as weapons used to maim/kill innocent school kids, and to them the thought of the government becoming tyrannical and using its power over a disarmed populace to round up dissenters or malcontents is a laughable fantasy of "paranoid right-wingers." The Naive Liberal also firmly believes the police are a readily available resource who will come to their rescue should criminals ever encroach into their white suburban oasis.

3) The FUDD Liberal - this individual, typically a middle income unionized worker, doesn't necessarily want to eliminate the Second Amendment because he too enjoys hunting with his trusty bolt action rifle and wants to preserve America's hunting heritage. But the FUDD Liberal doesn't think the population needs "assault weapons" or firearms capable of shooting numerous rounds rapidly from a detachable magazine. Therefore the FUDD Liberal isn't opposed to certain constraints on the Second Amendment if the effect is to reduce crime. The FUDD Liberal has a better sense of the reality of law enforcement response times, but believes the likelihood of needing a firearm to defend yourself or your home is so remote as to be a non-factor. And even then if on the rarest of rare occasions they found themselves in a situation requiring defense of their home from a criminal, their trusty 410 shotgun will get the job done.    

I have numerous #2s and #3s in my family. You won't convince the #2s and #3s to change their positions on guns or the Second Amendment if your arguments are always about self defense, defending your home from criminals, preparation for a war against a tyrannical government run amok, or just because the 2A says I can. These types of liberals just don't see those as real problems.

Mentally ill people are responsible for a great number of deaths nobody seems to give a shit about them though. We just let them roam freely through society. Drug related crimes are another biggie, but we are focused on keeping gangs and other shitbags flowing in money from the black market drug trade because we can't stand the thought of somebody putting something in their body... but you can terminate your pregnancy if you want and don't you dare fucking question it... because it's your body. Makes a lot of fucking sense. Not.

Didn't correct for percentage of state population composed of Obama's sons.

Your buddy is obviously a racist

If this was true the streets here would be running red with blood...
All my neighbors own guns, mostly own more than one including EBR's and most have there CCW license..

A study can say what ever you want it to..

They're trying to relate the "number of gun laws" inversely to the murder rate. Silly how PA and MI are rated in the same quartile as NY, whereas NC is rated as having fewer gun laws.

Overall this may be true, but it's much easier for me to buy guns in PA and MI than it is for me to buy them in NC. In NC you actually need a pistol permit just to buy a fucking handgun. In PA all you need is money...no waiting period, no BS, just a background check.


Study is definitely shady as hell for anyone who is familiar with the state laws.

Did you see their "scoring" system for ranking each state? These people can't suffocate in their sleep soon enough.

The study includes ALL firearms homicides, i.e., includes suicides along with murder / manslaughter / negligence.

Therefore, all this study shows is that: in States with higher rates of firearms ownership, people committing suicide are more likely to use a firearm than in States with lower rates of firearms ownership.

For example: California (3.4/100K) has a similar rate of murders committed with firearms with Virginia (3.1/100K).

Maryland has a much higher rate of murders committed with firearms (5.1/100K) than Virginia.

Yet California and Maryland BOTH have much stricter gun laws and lower rates of firearms ownership.

Gun laws make no difference in the rate of murders committed with firearms in the US.

Gun laws do not reduce the suicide rate, it only shifts the techniques used to other mechanisms.

The above is based on Wikipedia:

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

I did some quick research, seems more people are overdosing on prescription drugs than being murdered by firearms.Lets see a report on prescription drugs, to me that seems to be more of a problem.

They included suicide in their numbers, their argument is automatically invalid.

This was his reply:

Hey guys! Thanks for chipping in with mindful comments...except you DeShazao, that was just dumb. Ha. Clearly I not saying I'm 100% on board with what any article says just because I post it. I do side with limiting the purchase of guns and I would also support any legislation that would keep guns in segregated places, protected and harsher punishment for any gun crime...we all know people get off to easy for a multitude of reasons (beyond breaking laws surrounding firearms). I don't have a single problem with gun ownership, I do think we would have a safer society if people were limited to the guns they can own and for what purpose. I agree with you, Chrissy and think the main problem exists from the home environment. Bottom line is that limitations on future purchases and trying to decrease the firearms that are out there for no other purpose than to kill is not a bad thing and would only make communities holistically healthy. In terms of statistics, people will report the numbers that fit their cause and we can only put trust into non-bias third party research which is rare but it's out there. Again, bottom line in terms of statistics, countries with harsher punishments for breaking laws around firearms and making it more difficult for people to purchase firearms make for a safer society.



My reply was this:

1. Please define what you mean by "segregated places"
2. Provide data or evidence supporting "limiting the purchase of guns". Are you referring to the amount of guns that someone can buy at one time? Within a week? Within a year? Within a lifetime? Do you support limiting the number of firearms a single individual can possess in their home? Support why you feel that "limiting" would help gun violence, and state the reason so.
3. You state "I do think we would have a safer society if people were limited to the guns they can own". I assume that you are referring to the types of guns a person can obtain should be regulated? i.e. handguns, assault rifles, machine guns, etc? If this is what you are getting at let me know, so I can delve further into that discussion.
4. You state " ...limitations on future purchases ... would only make communities holistically healthy". Again, what are you saying when you use the word "limitations"? If you were able to make and pass a law, what would these limitations look like to you? Again, I ask, because before I can have a logical and educated discussion with you, I need to be clear on your viewpoints.
5. In the same sentence, you also state "...trying to decrease the firearms that are out there for no other purpose than to kill is not a bad thing...". Again, are you referring to the types of weapons that I listed above, handguns, machine guns, etc?

Those are just questions I need you to answer before I can get into a debate with you on those particular subjects. Now, you did make a pretty clear statement, that I can and will attempt rebuke. You make the statement "...countries with harsher punishments for breaking laws around firearms and making it more difficult for people to purchase firearms make for a safer society". This is an entirely false premise, and allow me to tell you a few reasons why, and cite a few examples supporting my viewpoint. I hope that by enlightening you with real data, you make come to the conclusion that gun control does not equal less crime.

a. According to the U.N., as of 2005, Scotland was the most violent country in the developed world, with people three times more likely to be assaulted than in America. Violent crime there has doubled over the last 20 years. 3% of Scots had been victims of assault compared with 1.2% in America. Source: Scotland tops list of world's most violent countries, The Times, September 19, 2005

b.“... the major surveys completed in the past 20 years or more provides no evidence of any relationship between the total number of legally held firearms in society and the rate of armed crime. Nor is there a relationship between the severity of controls imposed in various countries or the mass of bureaucracy involved with many control systems with the apparent ease of access to firearms by criminals and terrorists. Source: Minutes of Evidence, Colin Greenwood, Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, January 29, 2003

c. Take a look at Britain for instance. People often say that the have strict gun control and a low crime rate. This is false. Since gun banning has escalated in the UK, the rate of crime – especially violent crime – has risen. Ironically, firearm use in crimes in the UK has doubled in the decade since handguns were banned. Britan has the highest rate of violent crime in Europe, more so than the United States or even South America. Sources: Juristat: Crime Statistics in Canada, 2004 and FBI Uniform Crime Statistics online. Sources: Criminal Victimization in Seventeen Industrialized Countries, Dutch Ministry of Justice, 2001.

d. Lets look at Australia, another country that has high gun control. Crime has been rising since enacting a sweeping ban on private gun ownership. In the first two years after Australian gun-owners were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms, government statistics showed a dramatic increase in criminal activity. In 2001-2002, homicides were up another 20%. From the inception of firearm confiscation to March 27, 2000, the numbers are:
Firearm-related murders were up 19%
Armed robberies were up 69%
Home invasions were up 21%
The sad part is that in the 15 years before the national gun confiscation:
Firearm-related homicides dropped nearly 66%
Firearm-related deaths fell 50%

Sources: Crime and Justice - Crimes Recorded by Police, Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2000.

e. Guns have essentially been banned in the Philippines. Unfortunately, though illegal, side-street gun makers thrive in the Philippines, primarily hand crafting exact replicas of submachine guns, which are often the simplest type of gun to manufacture. Estimates are that almost half of all guns in the Philippines are illegal. Sources: Filipino gunsmiths are making a killing, Taipei Times, May 7, 2005.

I know I am overwhelming you but please, do answer the first few questions I had for you.

lol.. look like hes butt hurt and watching us rip on him



https://www.facebook.com/jay.branscomb?hc_location=stream



also looks like he's deleting posts that show him to be full of crap...

I would like to see more recent. The sites I've looked at saw places in Europe, declining in violent crimes. I just want to be honest when I debate and not get hammered by recent statistics.

Yikes.

His latest reply:
Good stuff (my name), thanks for sharing and I know and respect your knowledge on the subject. My bottom line, sorry but don't have time to answer all the questions and I don't care that much, is that people obsess over having guns. I think it's unnecessary and not usually to have for protection, it's as a hobby. It's America so people can have them and that will always be protected by the constitution. Clearly you and aren't the kind of people I'm concerned with but I am concerned with accessibility to guns. I wish it took 5 years to get a gun, significant background checks, very serious courses that people must attend to legally own a gun etc. Of course, there will be people who illegally obtain guns but in reflecting on the global data, many other countries have less access to guns and that's a good thing. Doesn't mean they wont be obtained illegally but again, I think making it difficult to get a gun is important...should have been the case all along. I wish there were limitations on how many guns an individual could own. It would mean less guns.



MY reply to him:
1. You say that it is unnecessary and a hobby. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. This is America of course. Obviously, I would have to disagree with you on that one. Yeah, it is a hobby of mine, but does that make it wrong, some how? Yeah, lots of people obsess over guns. Who knows why. Probably for a lot of reasons, power, fascination of complex machines, appreciation of craftsmanship that goes back to the middle ages, hobbies,etc. It doesn't really matter though, as long as nobody is hurting someone else, they can obsess over whatever they want. I obsess over my dog and my wife.

2. It is protected under the Constitution yes, but that is constantly under fire by the far left, and they are actively trying to change the definition of a firearm.

3. Tell me, how do you think a law requiring a lengthy weight time would decrease firearm deaths? Illinois has some of the strictest laws in the books, and it is virtually impossible to get a pistol license. You even have to present your firearms permit to purchase ammunition. Yet, Chicago has one of the highest per capita firearm related murder rates in the country...How come the restrictive gun laws are having the opposite effect on the gun crimes? Washington DC is in the same boat too.

Did you know that the average time it takes a gun from the time a gun is manufactured from to the time that it is used in a commission of a crime, is anywhere between 1 and 12 years on average? Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms as reported by Time Magazine, July 12, 2002

I know it is not the 5 years you stated, but for arguments sake, did you know that the national five-day waiting period under the Brady Bill had no impact on murder or robbery. In fact, there was a slight increase in rape and aggravated assault, indicating no effective suppression of certain violent crimes. Thus, for two crime categories, a possible effect was to delay law-abiding citizens from getting a gun for protection. The risks were greatest for crimes against women. Dr. John Lott Jr., University of Chicago School of Law, 1997.

It should also be noted that by "...comparing homicide rates in 18 states that had waiting periods and background checks before the Brady Bill with rates in the 32 states that had no comparable laws, the difference in change of homicide rates was “insignificant”."Dr. Jens Ludwig , Dr. Philip J. Cook, Journal of the American Medical Association, August 2000

4. I am having a hard time understanding your reasoning behind your statement "there will be people who illegally obtain guns but in reflecting on the global data, many other countries have less access to guns and that's a good thing." Can you delve into this a bit more for me? So you are stating that limiting access to guns causes less crime? If that is so, again, I will have to disagree with you. Though the number of firearms owned by private citizens has been increasing steadily since 1970, the overall rate of homicides and suicides has not risen. Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Gary Kleck, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997. (With supporting data from the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1972 to 1995.)

Also, in Minutes of Evidence, Colin Greenwood, Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, January 29, 2003, the author notes "... a detailed study of the major surveys completed in the past 20 years or more provides no evidence of any relationship between the total number of legally held firearms in society and the rate of armed crime. Nor is there a relationship between the severity of controls imposed in various countries or the mass of bureaucracy involved with many control systems with the apparent ease of access to firearms by criminals and terrorists.”

5. Finally you say that " I wish there were limitations on how many guns an individual could own. It would mean less guns." I assume you are making the argument that privately owned guns are used to commit gun crimes? I am am wrong in the assumption, please correct me. If that is the point you are alluding to, I must also disagree with you. Here are a few statistics supporting my argument:

a. Less than 1% of guns will ever be used during the commission of a crime. FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1994

b. Two-thirds of the people who die each year from gunfire are criminals being shot by other criminals. 94.4% gang murders are committed with guns.Gangs are responsible for between 48% and 90% of all violent crime. Homicide trends in the United States, Bureau of Justice Statistics, January 17 2007 and 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment, FBI, September 2011.

So you are imposing new laws and restrictions on law-abiding citizens and therefore punishing them for the actions of non law-abiding citizens. Please tell me how more-restrictive gun laws would decrease gun crimes, given the above citations.

surely a victory to be proud of.  

Firearm Prohibition in the US would turn out like Alcohol and Narcotic prohibition. Banning things always makes it worse.

I just saw that LC on eBay earlier today. The pic anyway.

Got a link? It's not for sale.

that's super.

my comment was more about facebook stalking antigun people.

Great stuff!  Keep on him!

The numbers are misleading, remove suicide with guns and the numbers will look much different. Guns are not a necessary in suicide only a matter of convenience.   Yes they have and agenda.

Civilized people live there, not people from third world shit holes.

New Orleans actually has the same gun laws as the rest of Louisiana


We sure do have a lot of Obama voters shooting each other, though

Not to go off topic but your comment about Obama supporters in AL reminded me of a comment my sister made to me.  We were in Nashville around college bowl time when she tried to convince me that a lot of people from AL were Obama supporters. I say to her "what, why".  She says they all have BAMA plates on the front of their cars.  Apparently my sis needs to get out more.

So, basically, "Here is a map of cherry picked and manipulated data that makes it look like more gun laws lead to fewer crimes.  Also, I respect your constitutional right to own firearms, but I just don't think you should be allowed to have them unless you jump through a bunch of hoops and wait a long ass time."





Shit, it's too bad we can't make people go through background checks, jump through hoops, get a license, beg permission, and wait five years before they're allowed to vote, exercise their right to free speech, be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures, be protected from double jeopardy or self incrimination, have a speedy and fair trial, or have protection from cruel and unusual punishments.  We could save a lot of time, trouble, and money by just denying people access to their constitutional rights unless they have a really good reason.