Anti gunners, tell us that this woman has no right to own a gun to stop this from happening again...

[Natural Citizen]

Anyone who can pass a basic background check can own as many guns as they want

The brilliant men who wrote the Constitution disagree.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It proved nothing except that Kellerman , like you, thinks that it's only self defense if the piece of shit criminal ends up dead.

If you didn't have to kill him, how much of a threat could he have actually been?

And here is the perfect example that there are such things as stupid questions

 

[Skull Pilot]

Anyone who can pass a basic background check can own as many guns as they want

The brilliant men who wrote the Constitution disagree.

So what?

I have no problem with felons or anyone with a criminal record being denied a firearm

With rights come responsibilities

 

[Skull Pilot]

And suicide doesn't count because you cannot say with any reliability that if there wasn't a gun in the home that a person would not have committed suicide since half of all suicides use methods other than guns

But here's the thing. You have a much higher percentage of possibly surviving a suicide by other methods.... Gun suicides are almost always fatal.

SO what?

Suicide by definition is fatal

 

[Natural Citizen]

So what?

I have no problem with felons or anyone with a criminal record being denied a firearm

With rights come responsibilities

Well. There's a lot of federal laws on the books. Many of which are clearly unconstitutional. Some of the most honest, most informed citizens in America have no idea just how many there are. They're so ambiguous, too. The reality is that darned near every American commits a couple felonies or misdemeanors each and every day. Their only saving grace is that the government prosecutes them arbitrarily, if at all.

Anyway. I'm of the view that if we're going to support the Constitution, then, we have to support it fully. If we're going to reject the Constitution, then, that rejection, too, must be a full rejection.

There simply is no in-between in terms of the Constitution and the right to liberty against government-over-man.

People have largely forgotten why the 2nd exists in the first place. My view on it is why even have a 2nd at all if we're just going to voluntarily expel the most important fundamental guarantees of our Constitional liberties in the name of empowering the federal government to infringe on them.

Very, very, few conservatives left in America today. Very few. Most who take claim to the label are more often very confused and rabid statists. I think that if we want to be good conservatives we have to first ask what the role of government should be. The Framers asked the question, they had a revolution, and they wrote a Constitution. What they decided was that the role of the government should be to protect Individual liberty. Not infringe on it. If we want to be good conservatives, we have a very good guide. It's the Constitution. The federal government is not the guide. The Framers knew it. And conservatives used to know it. As I said, though, there are very, very, few conservatives left in America. And most who claim to be conservatives are most often a far, far, greater threat to the Constitution and Individual liberty than those on the left whom they label the biggest threat.

The NRA recently said that we should should place armed men from the government in schools to run a surveillance program and to submit children to involuntary warrantless searches. Many who identify as conservative likely support that, too. We sure do train em to submit and relinquish their liberties young these days.

Sadly, the Constitution just isn't popular in America anymore. It's a shame. Good men died for it. Brilliant men wrote it. And we're just gonna piss one of the greatest documents in the history of the world away in the name of empowering the government to infringe on its fruits in the name of security. If I recall correctly, the Framers warned us about that, too.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So what?

I have no problem with felons or anyone with a criminal record being denied a firearm

With rights come responsibilities

Well. There's a lot of federal laws on the books. Many of which are clearly unconstitutional. Some of the most honest, most informed citizens in America have no idea just how many there are. They're so ambiguous, too. The reality is that darned near every American commits a couple felonies or misdemeanors each and every day. Their only saving grace is that the government prosecutes them arbitrarily, if at all.

Anyway. I'm of the view that if we're going to support the Constitution, then, we have to support it fully. If we're going to reject the Constitution, then, that rejection, too, must be a full rejection.

There simply is no in-between in terms of the Constitution and the right to liberty against government-over-man.

People have largely forgotten why the 2nd exists in the first place. My view on it is why even have a 2nd at all if we're just going to voluntarily expel the most important fundamental guarantees of our Constitional liberties in the name of empowering the federal government to infringe on them.

Very, very, few conservatives left in America today. Very few. Most who take claim to the label are more often very confused and rabid statists. I think that if we want to be good conservatives we have to first ask what the role of government should be. The Framers asked the question, they had a revolution, and they wrote a Constitution. What they decided was that the role of the government should be to protect Individual liberty. Not infringe on it. If we want to be good conservatives, we have a very good guide. It's the Constitution. The federal government is not the guide. The Framers knew it. And conservatives used to know it. As I said, though, there are very, very, few conservatives left in America. And most who claim to be conservatives are most often a far, far, greater threat to the Constitution and Individual liberty than those on the left whom they label the biggest threat.

The NRA recently said that we should should place armed men from the government in schools to run a surveillance program and to submit children to involuntary warrantless searches. Many who identify as conservative likely support that, too. We sure do train em to submit and relinquish their liberties young these days.

Sadly, the Constitution just isn't popular in America anymore. It's a shame. Good men died for it. Brilliant men wrote it. And we're just gonna piss one of the greatest documents in the history of the world away in the name of empowering the government to infringe on its fruits in the name of security. If I recall correctly, the Framers warned us about that, too.

There is no black and white in the real world only shades of grey

There is no all or none and all rules have exceptions

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Finally, you see the light. Now if only your little buddy would as well and stop with this "More Guns" bs. We have enough guns. We have plenty of guns. And they don't change a danged thing in the long run.

FYI I've never said anything else.

I have always said that guns do not cause crime

And if guns don't change a damned thing then why not have more?

If guns don't change a damned thing why do you want more regulation?

The fact is that 99.999% of people who own guns will never commit a crime

Easy answer. In the Rural areas, Gun Regulations aren't needed that much. Lower Population Densities have less gun problems per capita. Meanwhile, the higher Population Densities don't really have any more per capita either but with more people per square inch, gun problems are intensified many times over. What we need is to follow the original intent of the 1791 Constitution and allow the States and lesser Governments to make their own laws to better fit their own needs. What I see is both fringe sides want to impress on everyone else their own views. I grew up in a very rural area and we did have a couple of deaths with guns but they were hunting accidents. Not bad for almost 20 years, you get right down to it. We did have one murder where the Mayor was shot by his jealous Mistress when he refused to leave his wife. No amount of gun regulations would have prevented those. You will find that anger issues are lower in a low population area.

Meanwhile, inner cities have a very special problem where guns become very dangerous if allowed to be in too many numbers on the streets. And yes, this includes criminals as well as civilians. Hence the need for CCW but not Open Carry. We already have too many petty arguments that are being settle by someone going out and getting his gun and coming back into the building and shooting someone or others. For every hero that stops a bad guy, you will find many more that try to settle a petty argument with a gun. Anger issues are higher in a high population area. Therefore, the Large Population Areas need different laws.

More or less guns have no affect in this case. But the one size fits all gun laws or the lack thereof can't be allowed to happen.

No you're still wrong because gun violence in urban areas is not evenly distributed.

70% of all murder take place in very small pockets of large urban areas.

We all know where these places are but no one cares as the violence is for the most part young minorities killing other young minorities.

It has nothing to do with population density and everything to do with generational poverty

And yet, those areas are some of the highest population density areas. They are also the most depressed for jobs as well. Crime comes into those types of areas. And it's not just criminal on criminal. There are more innocents that are stuck there being murdered than criminals being killed. I already stated how it can be nearly stopped but you don't want to do that because it does initially cost more until the community is self sufficient. You just want to be able to point your fingers at it and say, "See, I told you so".

You don't know what you are talking about......

Reality Check: More Minnesotans Own Guns, Violent Crime Remains Low

ST. PAUL, Minn. (WCCO) — Minnesota set a record last year for the number of gun background checks the FBI conducted in the state.

More people are carrying guns than ever before, but the crime rate remains relatively low. WCCO’s Pat Kessler is looking at the numbers, and giving them a Reality Check.

We took a hard look at the numbers, and found: Minnesota has a high rate of gun ownership, and a relatively low rate of violent crime.

Minnesota’s violent crime rate hit a 50-year low in 2016, according to the FBI.

And in 2017, the state set a new record for firearms background checks.

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System reports it processed nearly 683,544 checks on gun buyers in 2017. That includes: 473,975 permits, 94,383 handguns and 125,516 long guns.

You left out all the other factors. More guns had nothing to do with it. But the work that the Police and Communities have done to lower crime in the inner cities is the real reason. Not the number of guns. There NEVER has been a relationship of having more guns to lowering crime EVER.

 

[2aguy]

FYI I've never said anything else.

I have always said that guns do not cause crime

And if guns don't change a damned thing then why not have more?

If guns don't change a damned thing why do you want more regulation?

The fact is that 99.999% of people who own guns will never commit a crime

Easy answer. In the Rural areas, Gun Regulations aren't needed that much. Lower Population Densities have less gun problems per capita. Meanwhile, the higher Population Densities don't really have any more per capita either but with more people per square inch, gun problems are intensified many times over. What we need is to follow the original intent of the 1791 Constitution and allow the States and lesser Governments to make their own laws to better fit their own needs. What I see is both fringe sides want to impress on everyone else their own views. I grew up in a very rural area and we did have a couple of deaths with guns but they were hunting accidents. Not bad for almost 20 years, you get right down to it. We did have one murder where the Mayor was shot by his jealous Mistress when he refused to leave his wife. No amount of gun regulations would have prevented those. You will find that anger issues are lower in a low population area.

Meanwhile, inner cities have a very special problem where guns become very dangerous if allowed to be in too many numbers on the streets. And yes, this includes criminals as well as civilians. Hence the need for CCW but not Open Carry. We already have too many petty arguments that are being settle by someone going out and getting his gun and coming back into the building and shooting someone or others. For every hero that stops a bad guy, you will find many more that try to settle a petty argument with a gun. Anger issues are higher in a high population area. Therefore, the Large Population Areas need different laws.

More or less guns have no affect in this case. But the one size fits all gun laws or the lack thereof can't be allowed to happen.

No you're still wrong because gun violence in urban areas is not evenly distributed.

70% of all murder take place in very small pockets of large urban areas.

We all know where these places are but no one cares as the violence is for the most part young minorities killing other young minorities.

It has nothing to do with population density and everything to do with generational poverty

And yet, those areas are some of the highest population density areas. They are also the most depressed for jobs as well. Crime comes into those types of areas. And it's not just criminal on criminal. There are more innocents that are stuck there being murdered than criminals being killed. I already stated how it can be nearly stopped but you don't want to do that because it does initially cost more until the community is self sufficient. You just want to be able to point your fingers at it and say, "See, I told you so".

You don't know what you are talking about......

Reality Check: More Minnesotans Own Guns, Violent Crime Remains Low

ST. PAUL, Minn. (WCCO) — Minnesota set a record last year for the number of gun background checks the FBI conducted in the state.

More people are carrying guns than ever before, but the crime rate remains relatively low. WCCO’s Pat Kessler is looking at the numbers, and giving them a Reality Check.

We took a hard look at the numbers, and found: Minnesota has a high rate of gun ownership, and a relatively low rate of violent crime.

Minnesota’s violent crime rate hit a 50-year low in 2016, according to the FBI.

And in 2017, the state set a new record for firearms background checks.

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System reports it processed nearly 683,544 checks on gun buyers in 2017. That includes: 473,975 permits, 94,383 handguns and 125,516 long guns.

You left out all the other factors. More guns had nothing to do with it. But the work that the Police and Communities have done to lower crime in the inner cities is the real reason. Not the number of guns. There NEVER has been a relationship of having more guns to lowering crime EVER.

No... you don't get it. It is a fact, from 25 years of actual experience, that Americans owning and carrying guns does not increase the gun murder rate, the gun crime rate, or the violent crime rate. Law abiding people do not increase gun crime. That means your entire premise, the basis of your argument is wrong. The facts, the truth and reality of law abiding gun owners proves you don't understand what is going on.

And if you want actual research into gun ownership helping to lower the crime rate, I will list it for you...

Do Right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime? - Crime Prevention Research Center


Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns, John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, Journal of Legal Studies, 1997

The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis by William Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen, published in Economic Inquiry, April 1998 (Copy available here)

The Concealed‐Handgun Debate, John R. Lott, Jr., Journal of Legal Studies, January 1998

Criminal Deterrence, Geographic Spillovers, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns by Stephen Bronars and John R. Lott, Jr., American Economic Review, May 1998

The Impact of Gun Laws on Police Deaths by David Mustard, published in the Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Privately Produced General Deterrence By BRUCE L. BENSON AND BRENT D. MAST, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say By FLORENZ PLASSMANN AND T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness By CARLISLE E. MOODY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Safe-Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime By JOHN R. LOTT, JR., AND JOHN E. WHITLEY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001 — see Table 3 on page 679

Confirming More Guns, Less Crime by Florenz Plassmann and John Whitley, published in the Stanford Law Review, 2003

Measurement Error in County-Level UCR Data by John R. Lott, Jr. and John Whitley, published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, June 2003, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 185-198

Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime” by Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok, published in Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, 4 (1): Article 1, 2004

Abortion and Crime: Unwanted children and out-of-wedlock births, John R. Lott, Jr and John Whitley, October 2006.– page 14, Table 2.

The Impact of Banning Juvenile Gun Possession By Thomas B. Marvell, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001 — page 707, fn. 29

Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement By John R. Lott, Jr. and William Landes, published in The Bias Against Guns

More Readers of Gun Magazines, But Not More Crimes by Florenz Plassmann and John R. Lott, Jr. — many places in the text.

“More Guns, Less Crime” by John R Lott, Jr. (University of Chicago Press, 2010, 3rd edition).

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody, Thomas B. Marvell, Paul R Zimmerman, and Fasil Alemante published in Review of Economics & Finance, 2014

“An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates” by Mark Giusa published in Applied Economics Letters, Volume 21, Issue 4, 2014

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..

“The Debate on Shall Issue Laws, Continued” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 6, Number 2 May 2009

“Did John Lott Provide Bad Data to the NRC? A Note on Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang” by Carlisle e. Moody, John R Lott, Jr, and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 10, Number 1, January 2013

“On the Choice of Control Variables in the Crime Equation” by Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Volume 72, Issue 5, pages 696–715, October 2010.

“The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws: A Critique of the 2014 Version of Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang,” Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, Econ Journal Watch, January 2018: 51-66.

More Guns, Less Crime: A Response to Ayres and Donohue’s 1999 book review in the American Law and Economics Review by John R. Lott, Jr.

Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime Revisited: Clustering, Measurement Error, and State-by-State Break downs by John R. Lott, Jr.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Easy answer. In the Rural areas, Gun Regulations aren't needed that much. Lower Population Densities have less gun problems per capita. Meanwhile, the higher Population Densities don't really have any more per capita either but with more people per square inch, gun problems are intensified many times over. What we need is to follow the original intent of the 1791 Constitution and allow the States and lesser Governments to make their own laws to better fit their own needs. What I see is both fringe sides want to impress on everyone else their own views. I grew up in a very rural area and we did have a couple of deaths with guns but they were hunting accidents. Not bad for almost 20 years, you get right down to it. We did have one murder where the Mayor was shot by his jealous Mistress when he refused to leave his wife. No amount of gun regulations would have prevented those. You will find that anger issues are lower in a low population area.

Meanwhile, inner cities have a very special problem where guns become very dangerous if allowed to be in too many numbers on the streets. And yes, this includes criminals as well as civilians. Hence the need for CCW but not Open Carry. We already have too many petty arguments that are being settle by someone going out and getting his gun and coming back into the building and shooting someone or others. For every hero that stops a bad guy, you will find many more that try to settle a petty argument with a gun. Anger issues are higher in a high population area. Therefore, the Large Population Areas need different laws.

More or less guns have no affect in this case. But the one size fits all gun laws or the lack thereof can't be allowed to happen.

No you're still wrong because gun violence in urban areas is not evenly distributed.

70% of all murder take place in very small pockets of large urban areas.

We all know where these places are but no one cares as the violence is for the most part young minorities killing other young minorities.

It has nothing to do with population density and everything to do with generational poverty

And yet, those areas are some of the highest population density areas. They are also the most depressed for jobs as well. Crime comes into those types of areas. And it's not just criminal on criminal. There are more innocents that are stuck there being murdered than criminals being killed. I already stated how it can be nearly stopped but you don't want to do that because it does initially cost more until the community is self sufficient. You just want to be able to point your fingers at it and say, "See, I told you so".

You don't know what you are talking about......

Reality Check: More Minnesotans Own Guns, Violent Crime Remains Low

ST. PAUL, Minn. (WCCO) — Minnesota set a record last year for the number of gun background checks the FBI conducted in the state.

More people are carrying guns than ever before, but the crime rate remains relatively low. WCCO’s Pat Kessler is looking at the numbers, and giving them a Reality Check.

We took a hard look at the numbers, and found: Minnesota has a high rate of gun ownership, and a relatively low rate of violent crime.

Minnesota’s violent crime rate hit a 50-year low in 2016, according to the FBI.

And in 2017, the state set a new record for firearms background checks.

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System reports it processed nearly 683,544 checks on gun buyers in 2017. That includes: 473,975 permits, 94,383 handguns and 125,516 long guns.

You left out all the other factors. More guns had nothing to do with it. But the work that the Police and Communities have done to lower crime in the inner cities is the real reason. Not the number of guns. There NEVER has been a relationship of having more guns to lowering crime EVER.

No... you don't get it. It is a fact, from 25 years of actual experience, that Americans owning and carrying guns does not increase the gun murder rate, the gun crime rate, or the violent crime rate. Law abiding people do not increase gun crime. That means your entire premise, the basis of your argument is wrong. The facts, the truth and reality of law abiding gun owners proves you don't understand what is going on.

And if you want actual research into gun ownership helping to lower the crime rate, I will list it for you...

Do Right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime? - Crime Prevention Research Center


Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns, John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, Journal of Legal Studies, 1997

The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis by William Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen, published in Economic Inquiry, April 1998 (Copy available here)

The Concealed‐Handgun Debate, John R. Lott, Jr., Journal of Legal Studies, January 1998

Criminal Deterrence, Geographic Spillovers, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns by Stephen Bronars and John R. Lott, Jr., American Economic Review, May 1998

The Impact of Gun Laws on Police Deaths by David Mustard, published in the Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Privately Produced General Deterrence By BRUCE L. BENSON AND BRENT D. MAST, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say By FLORENZ PLASSMANN AND T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness By CARLISLE E. MOODY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Safe-Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime By JOHN R. LOTT, JR., AND JOHN E. WHITLEY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001 — see Table 3 on page 679

Confirming More Guns, Less Crime by Florenz Plassmann and John Whitley, published in the Stanford Law Review, 2003

Measurement Error in County-Level UCR Data by John R. Lott, Jr. and John Whitley, published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, June 2003, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 185-198

Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime” by Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok, published in Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, 4 (1): Article 1, 2004

Abortion and Crime: Unwanted children and out-of-wedlock births, John R. Lott, Jr and John Whitley, October 2006.– page 14, Table 2.

The Impact of Banning Juvenile Gun Possession By Thomas B. Marvell, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001 — page 707, fn. 29

Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement By John R. Lott, Jr. and William Landes, published in The Bias Against Guns

More Readers of Gun Magazines, But Not More Crimes by Florenz Plassmann and John R. Lott, Jr. — many places in the text.

“More Guns, Less Crime” by John R Lott, Jr. (University of Chicago Press, 2010, 3rd edition).

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody, Thomas B. Marvell, Paul R Zimmerman, and Fasil Alemante published in Review of Economics & Finance, 2014

“An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates” by Mark Giusa published in Applied Economics Letters, Volume 21, Issue 4, 2014

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..

“The Debate on Shall Issue Laws, Continued” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 6, Number 2 May 2009

“Did John Lott Provide Bad Data to the NRC? A Note on Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang” by Carlisle e. Moody, John R Lott, Jr, and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 10, Number 1, January 2013

“On the Choice of Control Variables in the Crime Equation” by Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Volume 72, Issue 5, pages 696–715, October 2010.

“The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws: A Critique of the 2014 Version of Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang,” Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, Econ Journal Watch, January 2018: 51-66.

More Guns, Less Crime: A Response to Ayres and Donohue’s 1999 book review in the American Law and Economics Review by John R. Lott, Jr.

Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime Revisited: Clustering, Measurement Error, and State-by-State Break downs by John R. Lott, Jr.

John Lott has been proven to be full of it. In fact, the places he claimed to have been published rejected his work as being non factual and they were never published. But his work has been published in every half baked extreme right wing site ever produced. You keep trying to use his work and the sites that are based on his work as facts to back up your argument. That means that your argument is false.

Yes, there is no factual study ever made that shows that more guns have increased the criminal rate. But there also has been no factual study ever made that shows that it has decreased the criminal rate either. You keep pulling this same old crap over and over until you get your ass handed to you. Then you let it go for awhile hoping that we will all forget about it. Then you start throwing the same old BS out again. It was wrong then, it's wrong now and it will be wrong the next time you do it.

What I hold is true, the number of guns on the streets has no affect on criminal activity at all. Yes, there might be one or two a year that may be affected one way but there are hundreds that are negatively affected. For every "Good Guy with a Gun" we have at least that many drunks that get into a fight, go to their car,retrieves their gun and goes back into the bar and starts firing away. It pretty well evens out.

Now, let's say that almost everyone were to be open carry armed. We already had that. This is why in 1871, most Western Cities and Towns outlawed any open carry firearms of any kind inside of city limits except by select citizens. The American Public know that having everyone or most everyone open carrying without a license is just a really bad idea. Even in places that allow it, almost no one does it. I can open carry here. I see a few that do. MOST have a distinct hip roll that shows me that they are more into intimidation and small pecker power than defending the streets. Wearing a gun should NEVER be a fashion statement. From what I can see, that's about all you want it for as well. My streets are much safer without every nutcase carrying a gun on their hip. The lesson was hard learned in 1871 and we are no more civilized now than then.

 

[2aguy]

No you're still wrong because gun violence in urban areas is not evenly distributed.

70% of all murder take place in very small pockets of large urban areas.

We all know where these places are but no one cares as the violence is for the most part young minorities killing other young minorities.

It has nothing to do with population density and everything to do with generational poverty

And yet, those areas are some of the highest population density areas. They are also the most depressed for jobs as well. Crime comes into those types of areas. And it's not just criminal on criminal. There are more innocents that are stuck there being murdered than criminals being killed. I already stated how it can be nearly stopped but you don't want to do that because it does initially cost more until the community is self sufficient. You just want to be able to point your fingers at it and say, "See, I told you so".

You don't know what you are talking about......

Reality Check: More Minnesotans Own Guns, Violent Crime Remains Low

ST. PAUL, Minn. (WCCO) — Minnesota set a record last year for the number of gun background checks the FBI conducted in the state.

More people are carrying guns than ever before, but the crime rate remains relatively low. WCCO’s Pat Kessler is looking at the numbers, and giving them a Reality Check.

We took a hard look at the numbers, and found: Minnesota has a high rate of gun ownership, and a relatively low rate of violent crime.

Minnesota’s violent crime rate hit a 50-year low in 2016, according to the FBI.

And in 2017, the state set a new record for firearms background checks.

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System reports it processed nearly 683,544 checks on gun buyers in 2017. That includes: 473,975 permits, 94,383 handguns and 125,516 long guns.

You left out all the other factors. More guns had nothing to do with it. But the work that the Police and Communities have done to lower crime in the inner cities is the real reason. Not the number of guns. There NEVER has been a relationship of having more guns to lowering crime EVER.

No... you don't get it. It is a fact, from 25 years of actual experience, that Americans owning and carrying guns does not increase the gun murder rate, the gun crime rate, or the violent crime rate. Law abiding people do not increase gun crime. That means your entire premise, the basis of your argument is wrong. The facts, the truth and reality of law abiding gun owners proves you don't understand what is going on.

And if you want actual research into gun ownership helping to lower the crime rate, I will list it for you...

Do Right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime? - Crime Prevention Research Center


Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns, John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, Journal of Legal Studies, 1997

The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis by William Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen, published in Economic Inquiry, April 1998 (Copy available here)

The Concealed‐Handgun Debate, John R. Lott, Jr., Journal of Legal Studies, January 1998

Criminal Deterrence, Geographic Spillovers, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns by Stephen Bronars and John R. Lott, Jr., American Economic Review, May 1998

The Impact of Gun Laws on Police Deaths by David Mustard, published in the Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Privately Produced General Deterrence By BRUCE L. BENSON AND BRENT D. MAST, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say By FLORENZ PLASSMANN AND T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness By CARLISLE E. MOODY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Safe-Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime By JOHN R. LOTT, JR., AND JOHN E. WHITLEY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001 — see Table 3 on page 679

Confirming More Guns, Less Crime by Florenz Plassmann and John Whitley, published in the Stanford Law Review, 2003

Measurement Error in County-Level UCR Data by John R. Lott, Jr. and John Whitley, published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, June 2003, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 185-198

Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime” by Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok, published in Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, 4 (1): Article 1, 2004

Abortion and Crime: Unwanted children and out-of-wedlock births, John R. Lott, Jr and John Whitley, October 2006.– page 14, Table 2.

The Impact of Banning Juvenile Gun Possession By Thomas B. Marvell, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001 — page 707, fn. 29

Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement By John R. Lott, Jr. and William Landes, published in The Bias Against Guns

More Readers of Gun Magazines, But Not More Crimes by Florenz Plassmann and John R. Lott, Jr. — many places in the text.

“More Guns, Less Crime” by John R Lott, Jr. (University of Chicago Press, 2010, 3rd edition).

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody, Thomas B. Marvell, Paul R Zimmerman, and Fasil Alemante published in Review of Economics & Finance, 2014

“An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates” by Mark Giusa published in Applied Economics Letters, Volume 21, Issue 4, 2014

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..

“The Debate on Shall Issue Laws, Continued” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 6, Number 2 May 2009

“Did John Lott Provide Bad Data to the NRC? A Note on Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang” by Carlisle e. Moody, John R Lott, Jr, and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 10, Number 1, January 2013

“On the Choice of Control Variables in the Crime Equation” by Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Volume 72, Issue 5, pages 696–715, October 2010.

“The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws: A Critique of the 2014 Version of Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang,” Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, Econ Journal Watch, January 2018: 51-66.

More Guns, Less Crime: A Response to Ayres and Donohue’s 1999 book review in the American Law and Economics Review by John R. Lott, Jr.

Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime Revisited: Clustering, Measurement Error, and State-by-State Break downs by John R. Lott, Jr.

John Lott has been proven to be full of it. In fact, the places he claimed to have been published rejected his work as being non factual and they were never published. But his work has been published in every half baked extreme right wing site ever produced. You keep trying to use his work and the sites that are based on his work as facts to back up your argument. That means that your argument is false.

Yes, there is no factual study ever made that shows that more guns have increased the criminal rate. But there also has been no factual study ever made that shows that it has decreased the criminal rate either. You keep pulling this same old crap over and over until you get your ass handed to you. Then you let it go for awhile hoping that we will all forget about it. Then you start throwing the same old BS out again. It was wrong then, it's wrong now and it will be wrong the next time you do it.

What I hold is true, the number of guns on the streets has no affect on criminal activity at all. Yes, there might be one or two a year that may be affected one way but there are hundreds that are negatively affected. For every "Good Guy with a Gun" we have at least that many drunks that get into a fight, go to their car,retrieves their gun and goes back into the bar and starts firing away. It pretty well evens out.

Now, let's say that almost everyone were to be open carry armed. We already had that. This is why in 1871, most Western Cities and Towns outlawed any open carry firearms of any kind inside of city limits except by select citizens. The American Public know that having everyone or most everyone open carrying without a license is just a really bad idea. Even in places that allow it, almost no one does it. I can open carry here. I see a few that do. MOST have a distinct hip roll that shows me that they are more into intimidation and small pecker power than defending the streets. Wearing a gun should NEVER be a fashion statement. From what I can see, that's about all you want it for as well. My streets are much safer without every nutcase carrying a gun on their hip. The lesson was hard learned in 1871 and we are no more civilized now than then.

If you look at the list, he isn't the only one on it.....and no, he hasn't been disproved....when anti gunners don't want to look at the actual research, they say that Lott has been disproved without doing anything to disprove him.

You make statements that you simply make up..... Lott hasn't been rejected you dope. He is the guy still standing after all the attempts by anti gun extremists to take him out.

You don't know what you are talking about, but you keep talking.

Since the 1990s it is a fact that more Americans own and carry guns...as proven by the number of concealed carry permits... which can actually be checked since they are actual records...... since the 1990s the gun murder rate has gone down, not up, the gun crime rate has gone down, not up, the violent crime rate has gone down, not up. That shows that law abiding people who own and in 17.25 million cases, carry guns, does not increase any of those crime rates. That is a fact. That destroys the entire premise of the anti gun movement and shows that controlling law abiding citizens is the wrong focus for crime control.

Actually controlling criminals, with long prison sentences, and dealing with generational fatherless homes are how you deal with actual gun crime.

And as I showed you those western analogies do not hold up to actual research.... Tombstone, the one you guys always bring up was noted for the violations of their gun control laws, since the ones enforcing them, the Earps, one was killed by a criminal breaking that law, and another was maimed by a criminal breaking that law, and Doc Holiday completely ignored that law.... you don't know what you are talking about.

Nothing in actual experience supports anything you say about guns, gun ownership and gun crime. Not one thing.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And yet, those areas are some of the highest population density areas. They are also the most depressed for jobs as well. Crime comes into those types of areas. And it's not just criminal on criminal. There are more innocents that are stuck there being murdered than criminals being killed. I already stated how it can be nearly stopped but you don't want to do that because it does initially cost more until the community is self sufficient. You just want to be able to point your fingers at it and say, "See, I told you so".

You don't know what you are talking about......

Reality Check: More Minnesotans Own Guns, Violent Crime Remains Low

ST. PAUL, Minn. (WCCO) — Minnesota set a record last year for the number of gun background checks the FBI conducted in the state.

More people are carrying guns than ever before, but the crime rate remains relatively low. WCCO’s Pat Kessler is looking at the numbers, and giving them a Reality Check.

We took a hard look at the numbers, and found: Minnesota has a high rate of gun ownership, and a relatively low rate of violent crime.

Minnesota’s violent crime rate hit a 50-year low in 2016, according to the FBI.

And in 2017, the state set a new record for firearms background checks.

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System reports it processed nearly 683,544 checks on gun buyers in 2017. That includes: 473,975 permits, 94,383 handguns and 125,516 long guns.

You left out all the other factors. More guns had nothing to do with it. But the work that the Police and Communities have done to lower crime in the inner cities is the real reason. Not the number of guns. There NEVER has been a relationship of having more guns to lowering crime EVER.

No... you don't get it. It is a fact, from 25 years of actual experience, that Americans owning and carrying guns does not increase the gun murder rate, the gun crime rate, or the violent crime rate. Law abiding people do not increase gun crime. That means your entire premise, the basis of your argument is wrong. The facts, the truth and reality of law abiding gun owners proves you don't understand what is going on.

And if you want actual research into gun ownership helping to lower the crime rate, I will list it for you...

Do Right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime? - Crime Prevention Research Center


Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns, John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, Journal of Legal Studies, 1997

The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis by William Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen, published in Economic Inquiry, April 1998 (Copy available here)

The Concealed‐Handgun Debate, John R. Lott, Jr., Journal of Legal Studies, January 1998

Criminal Deterrence, Geographic Spillovers, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns by Stephen Bronars and John R. Lott, Jr., American Economic Review, May 1998

The Impact of Gun Laws on Police Deaths by David Mustard, published in the Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Privately Produced General Deterrence By BRUCE L. BENSON AND BRENT D. MAST, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say By FLORENZ PLASSMANN AND T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness By CARLISLE E. MOODY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Safe-Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime By JOHN R. LOTT, JR., AND JOHN E. WHITLEY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001 — see Table 3 on page 679

Confirming More Guns, Less Crime by Florenz Plassmann and John Whitley, published in the Stanford Law Review, 2003

Measurement Error in County-Level UCR Data by John R. Lott, Jr. and John Whitley, published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, June 2003, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 185-198

Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime” by Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok, published in Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, 4 (1): Article 1, 2004

Abortion and Crime: Unwanted children and out-of-wedlock births, John R. Lott, Jr and John Whitley, October 2006.– page 14, Table 2.

The Impact of Banning Juvenile Gun Possession By Thomas B. Marvell, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001 — page 707, fn. 29

Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement By John R. Lott, Jr. and William Landes, published in The Bias Against Guns

More Readers of Gun Magazines, But Not More Crimes by Florenz Plassmann and John R. Lott, Jr. — many places in the text.

“More Guns, Less Crime” by John R Lott, Jr. (University of Chicago Press, 2010, 3rd edition).

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody, Thomas B. Marvell, Paul R Zimmerman, and Fasil Alemante published in Review of Economics & Finance, 2014

“An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates” by Mark Giusa published in Applied Economics Letters, Volume 21, Issue 4, 2014

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..

“The Debate on Shall Issue Laws, Continued” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 6, Number 2 May 2009

“Did John Lott Provide Bad Data to the NRC? A Note on Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang” by Carlisle e. Moody, John R Lott, Jr, and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 10, Number 1, January 2013

“On the Choice of Control Variables in the Crime Equation” by Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Volume 72, Issue 5, pages 696–715, October 2010.

“The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws: A Critique of the 2014 Version of Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang,” Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, Econ Journal Watch, January 2018: 51-66.

More Guns, Less Crime: A Response to Ayres and Donohue’s 1999 book review in the American Law and Economics Review by John R. Lott, Jr.

Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime Revisited: Clustering, Measurement Error, and State-by-State Break downs by John R. Lott, Jr.

John Lott has been proven to be full of it. In fact, the places he claimed to have been published rejected his work as being non factual and they were never published. But his work has been published in every half baked extreme right wing site ever produced. You keep trying to use his work and the sites that are based on his work as facts to back up your argument. That means that your argument is false.

Yes, there is no factual study ever made that shows that more guns have increased the criminal rate. But there also has been no factual study ever made that shows that it has decreased the criminal rate either. You keep pulling this same old crap over and over until you get your ass handed to you. Then you let it go for awhile hoping that we will all forget about it. Then you start throwing the same old BS out again. It was wrong then, it's wrong now and it will be wrong the next time you do it.

What I hold is true, the number of guns on the streets has no affect on criminal activity at all. Yes, there might be one or two a year that may be affected one way but there are hundreds that are negatively affected. For every "Good Guy with a Gun" we have at least that many drunks that get into a fight, go to their car,retrieves their gun and goes back into the bar and starts firing away. It pretty well evens out.

Now, let's say that almost everyone were to be open carry armed. We already had that. This is why in 1871, most Western Cities and Towns outlawed any open carry firearms of any kind inside of city limits except by select citizens. The American Public know that having everyone or most everyone open carrying without a license is just a really bad idea. Even in places that allow it, almost no one does it. I can open carry here. I see a few that do. MOST have a distinct hip roll that shows me that they are more into intimidation and small pecker power than defending the streets. Wearing a gun should NEVER be a fashion statement. From what I can see, that's about all you want it for as well. My streets are much safer without every nutcase carrying a gun on their hip. The lesson was hard learned in 1871 and we are no more civilized now than then.

If you look at the list, he isn't the only one on it.....and no, he hasn't been disproved....when anti gunners don't want to look at the actual research, they say that Lott has been disproved without doing anything to disprove him.

You make statements that you simply make up..... Lott hasn't been rejected you dope. He is the guy still standing after all the attempts by anti gun extremists to take him out.

You don't know what you are talking about, but you keep talking.

Since the 1990s it is a fact that more Americans own and carry guns...as proven by the number of concealed carry permits... which can actually be checked since they are actual records...... since the 1990s the gun murder rate has gone down, not up, the gun crime rate has gone down, not up, the violent crime rate has gone down, not up. That shows that law abiding people who own and in 17.25 million cases, carry guns, does not increase any of those crime rates. That is a fact. That destroys the entire premise of the anti gun movement and shows that controlling law abiding citizens is the wrong focus for crime control.

Actually controlling criminals, with long prison sentences, and dealing with generational fatherless homes are how you deal with actual gun crime.

And as I showed you those western analogies do not hold up to actual research.... Tombstone, the one you guys always bring up was noted for the violations of their gun control laws, since the ones enforcing them, the Earps, one was killed by a criminal breaking that law, and another was maimed by a criminal breaking that law, and Doc Holiday completely ignored that law.... you don't know what you are talking about.

Nothing in actual experience supports anything you say about guns, gun ownership and gun crime. Not one thing.

It's already proven that Lott used Voodoo Math to prove his logic. That was done in the 1990s. And all of your other cites circle back to Lott as the source of their ideas. We already went through this. Using Lott as a source is just a waste of bandwidth. And going through the paces of proving it once again is also a waste of bandwidth. But I can do it if you really want it done. You keep doing this over and over. You get your ass handed to you. Then you wait for a time period. Then you make the same outlandish claims, get your ass handed to you again. Then you wait another time period......repeat as necessary. Just stop making shit up and using Lott who also just makes shit up as well so you can keep making shit up. But if you wish, we can post the information that debunks Lott. But I would rather go on to other items of interest and so would others.

Only one in seven CCW owners actually carry a gun at all. Most only carry it when they think they need it. Carrying that gun is a hassle at times and can get into legal problems very easily even with a legal CCW. You think just because there is a upswing in the CCW licenses that there is an upswing in legal guns on the streets. Actually, there are about the same as before. Most CCW licensees don't feel the need to have a fashion statement nor have their johnny feel bigger like you do.

Then you go off on the increase in the number of Gun in the Private Hands. In reality, there are no more guns per household than before either. But some households have more guns than before. Instead of having 5 guns, some households might have 20 or 30. You are using Lotts figures on that one. This is one of the reasons it was disproven by many already. You are just making shit up again.

There has not been one single accredited study done that has shown the number of guns in the private hands to have affected the violent crimes either up or down one way or another. More Guns is not the answer nor is it even a factor.

As for the Earps, the Earps approached the Corral without the guns raised. They didn't anticipate it would go into a full blown shootout. It did. Had the Earps had their weapons raised in a ready position things would have fared better for the Earps. But they were there to collect the weapons, not to arrest the cowboys. As for Doc Holliday, he normally carried a hideout gun like almost every person that frequented a saloon. The law denied the wearing of a visible weapon. He was breaking no laws. In the performance of his duties as a Law Enforcement Officer, he was duly sworn in and was armed with a Shotgun. Doc was completely legal. The Cowboys had 3 choices. They could surrender their firearms and enter the city, leave town or do what they did. No one needed to die that day. But the ONLY reason it became part of the Western Lore was because of how famous the Earps already were. Otherwise, it wouldn't have even gotten a tiny mention in history. In Dallas, you got one warning. If the Town Marshal there saw you with a gun on your hip after that, he just gunned you down with no warning, no chance to draw, nothing. Today, we don't even know that Dallas Texas Marshals name. This was done because they got tired of having their towns and cities shot to pieces and their citizens killed and maimed by drunken cowboys stray shots when everyone was armed. BTW, it may or may not have been legal to carry a hideaway gun but if you used it, you were usually hung for it regardless. The Wild Wild West lasted from about 1866 to 1871 until the West decided it had enough. And you want it to go back that way? We already learned that lesson.

 

[jon_berzerk]

 

[2aguy]

You don't know what you are talking about......

Reality Check: More Minnesotans Own Guns, Violent Crime Remains Low

ST. PAUL, Minn. (WCCO) — Minnesota set a record last year for the number of gun background checks the FBI conducted in the state.

More people are carrying guns than ever before, but the crime rate remains relatively low. WCCO’s Pat Kessler is looking at the numbers, and giving them a Reality Check.

We took a hard look at the numbers, and found: Minnesota has a high rate of gun ownership, and a relatively low rate of violent crime.

Minnesota’s violent crime rate hit a 50-year low in 2016, according to the FBI.

And in 2017, the state set a new record for firearms background checks.

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System reports it processed nearly 683,544 checks on gun buyers in 2017. That includes: 473,975 permits, 94,383 handguns and 125,516 long guns.

You left out all the other factors. More guns had nothing to do with it. But the work that the Police and Communities have done to lower crime in the inner cities is the real reason. Not the number of guns. There NEVER has been a relationship of having more guns to lowering crime EVER.

No... you don't get it. It is a fact, from 25 years of actual experience, that Americans owning and carrying guns does not increase the gun murder rate, the gun crime rate, or the violent crime rate. Law abiding people do not increase gun crime. That means your entire premise, the basis of your argument is wrong. The facts, the truth and reality of law abiding gun owners proves you don't understand what is going on.

And if you want actual research into gun ownership helping to lower the crime rate, I will list it for you...

Do Right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime? - Crime Prevention Research Center


Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns, John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, Journal of Legal Studies, 1997

The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis by William Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen, published in Economic Inquiry, April 1998 (Copy available here)

The Concealed‐Handgun Debate, John R. Lott, Jr., Journal of Legal Studies, January 1998

Criminal Deterrence, Geographic Spillovers, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns by Stephen Bronars and John R. Lott, Jr., American Economic Review, May 1998

The Impact of Gun Laws on Police Deaths by David Mustard, published in the Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Privately Produced General Deterrence By BRUCE L. BENSON AND BRENT D. MAST, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say By FLORENZ PLASSMANN AND T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness By CARLISLE E. MOODY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Safe-Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime By JOHN R. LOTT, JR., AND JOHN E. WHITLEY, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001 — see Table 3 on page 679

Confirming More Guns, Less Crime by Florenz Plassmann and John Whitley, published in the Stanford Law Review, 2003

Measurement Error in County-Level UCR Data by John R. Lott, Jr. and John Whitley, published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, June 2003, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 185-198

Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime” by Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok, published in Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, 4 (1): Article 1, 2004

Abortion and Crime: Unwanted children and out-of-wedlock births, John R. Lott, Jr and John Whitley, October 2006.– page 14, Table 2.

The Impact of Banning Juvenile Gun Possession By Thomas B. Marvell, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001 — page 707, fn. 29

Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement By John R. Lott, Jr. and William Landes, published in The Bias Against Guns

More Readers of Gun Magazines, But Not More Crimes by Florenz Plassmann and John R. Lott, Jr. — many places in the text.

“More Guns, Less Crime” by John R Lott, Jr. (University of Chicago Press, 2010, 3rd edition).

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody, Thomas B. Marvell, Paul R Zimmerman, and Fasil Alemante published in Review of Economics & Finance, 2014

“An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates” by Mark Giusa published in Applied Economics Letters, Volume 21, Issue 4, 2014

“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..

“The Debate on Shall Issue Laws, Continued” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 6, Number 2 May 2009

“Did John Lott Provide Bad Data to the NRC? A Note on Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang” by Carlisle e. Moody, John R Lott, Jr, and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, Volume 10, Number 1, January 2013

“On the Choice of Control Variables in the Crime Equation” by Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Volume 72, Issue 5, pages 696–715, October 2010.

“The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws: A Critique of the 2014 Version of Aneja, Donohue, and Zhang,” Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, Econ Journal Watch, January 2018: 51-66.

More Guns, Less Crime: A Response to Ayres and Donohue’s 1999 book review in the American Law and Economics Review by John R. Lott, Jr.

Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime Revisited: Clustering, Measurement Error, and State-by-State Break downs by John R. Lott, Jr.

John Lott has been proven to be full of it. In fact, the places he claimed to have been published rejected his work as being non factual and they were never published. But his work has been published in every half baked extreme right wing site ever produced. You keep trying to use his work and the sites that are based on his work as facts to back up your argument. That means that your argument is false.

Yes, there is no factual study ever made that shows that more guns have increased the criminal rate. But there also has been no factual study ever made that shows that it has decreased the criminal rate either. You keep pulling this same old crap over and over until you get your ass handed to you. Then you let it go for awhile hoping that we will all forget about it. Then you start throwing the same old BS out again. It was wrong then, it's wrong now and it will be wrong the next time you do it.

What I hold is true, the number of guns on the streets has no affect on criminal activity at all. Yes, there might be one or two a year that may be affected one way but there are hundreds that are negatively affected. For every "Good Guy with a Gun" we have at least that many drunks that get into a fight, go to their car,retrieves their gun and goes back into the bar and starts firing away. It pretty well evens out.

Now, let's say that almost everyone were to be open carry armed. We already had that. This is why in 1871, most Western Cities and Towns outlawed any open carry firearms of any kind inside of city limits except by select citizens. The American Public know that having everyone or most everyone open carrying without a license is just a really bad idea. Even in places that allow it, almost no one does it. I can open carry here. I see a few that do. MOST have a distinct hip roll that shows me that they are more into intimidation and small pecker power than defending the streets. Wearing a gun should NEVER be a fashion statement. From what I can see, that's about all you want it for as well. My streets are much safer without every nutcase carrying a gun on their hip. The lesson was hard learned in 1871 and we are no more civilized now than then.

If you look at the list, he isn't the only one on it.....and no, he hasn't been disproved....when anti gunners don't want to look at the actual research, they say that Lott has been disproved without doing anything to disprove him.

You make statements that you simply make up..... Lott hasn't been rejected you dope. He is the guy still standing after all the attempts by anti gun extremists to take him out.

You don't know what you are talking about, but you keep talking.

Since the 1990s it is a fact that more Americans own and carry guns...as proven by the number of concealed carry permits... which can actually be checked since they are actual records...... since the 1990s the gun murder rate has gone down, not up, the gun crime rate has gone down, not up, the violent crime rate has gone down, not up. That shows that law abiding people who own and in 17.25 million cases, carry guns, does not increase any of those crime rates. That is a fact. That destroys the entire premise of the anti gun movement and shows that controlling law abiding citizens is the wrong focus for crime control.

Actually controlling criminals, with long prison sentences, and dealing with generational fatherless homes are how you deal with actual gun crime.

And as I showed you those western analogies do not hold up to actual research.... Tombstone, the one you guys always bring up was noted for the violations of their gun control laws, since the ones enforcing them, the Earps, one was killed by a criminal breaking that law, and another was maimed by a criminal breaking that law, and Doc Holiday completely ignored that law.... you don't know what you are talking about.

Nothing in actual experience supports anything you say about guns, gun ownership and gun crime. Not one thing.

It's already proven that Lott used Voodoo Math to prove his logic. That was done in the 1990s. And all of your other cites circle back to Lott as the source of their ideas. We already went through this. Using Lott as a source is just a waste of bandwidth. And going through the paces of proving it once again is also a waste of bandwidth. But I can do it if you really want it done. You keep doing this over and over. You get your ass handed to you. Then you wait for a time period. Then you make the same outlandish claims, get your ass handed to you again. Then you wait another time period......repeat as necessary. Just stop making shit up and using Lott who also just makes shit up as well so you can keep making shit up. But if you wish, we can post the information that debunks Lott. But I would rather go on to other items of interest and so would others.

Only one in seven CCW owners actually carry a gun at all. Most only carry it when they think they need it. Carrying that gun is a hassle at times and can get into legal problems very easily even with a legal CCW. You think just because there is a upswing in the CCW licenses that there is an upswing in legal guns on the streets. Actually, there are about the same as before. Most CCW licensees don't feel the need to have a fashion statement nor have their johnny feel bigger like you do.

Then you go off on the increase in the number of Gun in the Private Hands. In reality, there are no more guns per household than before either. But some households have more guns than before. Instead of having 5 guns, some households might have 20 or 30. You are using Lotts figures on that one. This is one of the reasons it was disproven by many already. You are just making shit up again.

There has not been one single accredited study done that has shown the number of guns in the private hands to have affected the violent crimes either up or down one way or another. More Guns is not the answer nor is it even a factor.

As for the Earps, the Earps approached the Corral without the guns raised. They didn't anticipate it would go into a full blown shootout. It did. Had the Earps had their weapons raised in a ready position things would have fared better for the Earps. But they were there to collect the weapons, not to arrest the cowboys. As for Doc Holliday, he normally carried a hideout gun like almost every person that frequented a saloon. The law denied the wearing of a visible weapon. He was breaking no laws. In the performance of his duties as a Law Enforcement Officer, he was duly sworn in and was armed with a Shotgun. Doc was completely legal. The Cowboys had 3 choices. They could surrender their firearms and enter the city, leave town or do what they did. No one needed to die that day. But the ONLY reason it became part of the Western Lore was because of how famous the Earps already were. Otherwise, it wouldn't have even gotten a tiny mention in history. In Dallas, you got one warning. If the Town Marshal there saw you with a gun on your hip after that, he just gunned you down with no warning, no chance to draw, nothing. Today, we don't even know that Dallas Texas Marshals name. This was done because they got tired of having their towns and cities shot to pieces and their citizens killed and maimed by drunken cowboys stray shots when everyone was armed. BTW, it may or may not have been legal to carry a hideaway gun but if you used it, you were usually hung for it regardless. The Wild Wild West lasted from about 1866 to 1871 until the West decided it had enough. And you want it to go back that way? We already learned that lesson.

Moron, no one proved Lott wrong.... you idiot.

And again......as more Americans now own and carry guns, over the last 25 years our gun crime rate has gone down 75%.... our gun murder rate has gone down 49%.... our violent crime rate has gone down 72%... that is a fact. This shows that your entire premise that more guns = more gun crime is completely wrong and without any basis in real world experience.

And again.... Tombstone is the example that gun control targeting law abiding citizens doesn't effect the behavior of criminals.

You talk and talk and talk and have nothing truthful to say.