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

[Skull Pilot]

You don't know what you are talking about..... you make stuff up in your mind and then you post it as if it is true..... it isn't.

This is the truth...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

And the decrease had NOTHING to do with the number of guns. No study has ever been accredited to prove that. Never. What has affected the decrease has been the better law enforcement, working with the Community and getting jobs back into depressed areas. You know, the very things that you would rather spend millions on lobbying for "More Guns" than investing in America. You keep trying to scare people into buying more guns. Well, cupcake, it's worked pretty well in the past but it's slowly being seen as it really is and that is fear. And I don't feel particularly fearful today. Now, stop making shit up.

At best guns are neutral.

More guns doesn't mean less crime nor just as more guns doesn't mean more crime

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

 

[2aguy]

You don't know what you are talking about..... you make stuff up in your mind and then you post it as if it is true..... it isn't.

This is the truth...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

And the decrease had NOTHING to do with the number of guns. No study has ever been accredited to prove that. Never. What has affected the decrease has been the better law enforcement, working with the Community and getting jobs back into depressed areas. You know, the very things that you would rather spend millions on lobbying for "More Guns" than investing in America. You keep trying to scare people into buying more guns. Well, cupcake, it's worked pretty well in the past but it's slowly being seen as it really is and that is fear. And I don't feel particularly fearful today. Now, stop making shit up.

At best guns are neutral.

More guns doesn't mean less crime nor just as more guns doesn't mean more crime

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.

Wrong..... the problem in the cities isn't law abiding gun owners shooting each other. The problem is that democrat judges, who were primarily defense lawyers before becoming judges, are letting repeat, violent criminals out of jail over and over again, and as we saw with the muslim terrorist camp, they are releasing violent gun criminals out on bail, over and over again.

The Rights of citizens do not change based on where they live. As more American own and carry guns our gun murder rate went down 49%...... you have no rational argument for your point of view.

There are 2.4 million times a year where Americans use their guns to stop violent crime...according to the CDC...so no, you can't even get that number Right since there were 11,004 gun murders, with 70-80% of the victims being criminals engaged in criminal activity, often having been released over and over again.

You make up things, and then pretend they are true. Nothing you state is even remotely accurate or truthful where law abiding gun ownership is concerned.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And the decrease had NOTHING to do with the number of guns. No study has ever been accredited to prove that. Never. What has affected the decrease has been the better law enforcement, working with the Community and getting jobs back into depressed areas. You know, the very things that you would rather spend millions on lobbying for "More Guns" than investing in America. You keep trying to scare people into buying more guns. Well, cupcake, it's worked pretty well in the past but it's slowly being seen as it really is and that is fear. And I don't feel particularly fearful today. Now, stop making shit up.

At best guns are neutral.

More guns doesn't mean less crime nor just as more guns doesn't mean more crime

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

You have never lived there and make assumptions based on the area you live in. And you want laws passed accordingly to that. Glad our Courts are smarter than you are.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And the decrease had NOTHING to do with the number of guns. No study has ever been accredited to prove that. Never. What has affected the decrease has been the better law enforcement, working with the Community and getting jobs back into depressed areas. You know, the very things that you would rather spend millions on lobbying for "More Guns" than investing in America. You keep trying to scare people into buying more guns. Well, cupcake, it's worked pretty well in the past but it's slowly being seen as it really is and that is fear. And I don't feel particularly fearful today. Now, stop making shit up.

At best guns are neutral.

More guns doesn't mean less crime nor just as more guns doesn't mean more crime

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.

Wrong..... the problem in the cities isn't law abiding gun owners shooting each other. The problem is that democrat judges, who were primarily defense lawyers before becoming judges, are letting repeat, violent criminals out of jail over and over again, and as we saw with the muslim terrorist camp, they are releasing violent gun criminals out on bail, over and over again.

The Rights of citizens do not change based on where they live. As more American own and carry guns our gun murder rate went down 49%...... you have no rational argument for your point of view.

There are 2.4 million times a year where Americans use their guns to stop violent crime...according to the CDC...so no, you can't even get that number Right since there were 11,004 gun murders, with 70-80% of the victims being criminals engaged in criminal activity, often having been released over and over again.

You make up things, and then pretend they are true. Nothing you state is even remotely accurate or truthful where law abiding gun ownership is concerned.

The Murder rate went down in the Urban areas and they did NOT have more citizens carrying guns. Guns had nothing to do with it. It was the change in the way the Cops went about their business, the Public's trust in the Police, the Community cooperation, the bringing back of jobs and more. There isn't ONE single thing that shows more guns made a difference one way or another in the Murder rate. But I will agree on one thing. With more guns, the suicide by gun rate did go up but they would have probably have found other methods to be successful there without guns so guns really didn't do anything other than make it quick and almost painless. Now, quit making shit up.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And the decrease had NOTHING to do with the number of guns. No study has ever been accredited to prove that. Never. What has affected the decrease has been the better law enforcement, working with the Community and getting jobs back into depressed areas. You know, the very things that you would rather spend millions on lobbying for "More Guns" than investing in America. You keep trying to scare people into buying more guns. Well, cupcake, it's worked pretty well in the past but it's slowly being seen as it really is and that is fear. And I don't feel particularly fearful today. Now, stop making shit up.

At best guns are neutral.

More guns doesn't mean less crime nor just as more guns doesn't mean more crime

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".

 

[Skull Pilot]

At best guns are neutral.

More guns doesn't mean less crime nor just as more guns doesn't mean more crime

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

You have never lived there and make assumptions based on the area you live in. And you want laws passed accordingly to that. Glad our Courts are smarter than you are.

You don't know where I've lived do you?

FYI I lived in the two largest cities in MA for a combined 15 years

I used to work in Boston when the Combat Zone wasn't gentrified One of the main reasons I got my carry permit was because I had to work late nights in that part of the city

ANd I don't want any laws passed it's YOU who want to do that

Anyone who can pass a basic background check can own as many guns as they want and they should not need additional permits to legally carry

 

[Skull Pilot]

At best guns are neutral.

More guns doesn't mean less crime nor just as more guns doesn't mean more crime

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".

Bullshit,

If it was population density alone as you say then even the affluent areas that are densely populated would have the same level of violence as the poor neighborhoods

 

[JoeB131]

This woman was violently assaulted by an ex boyfriend..... he was choking her in her own apartment....twice her size and weight, no one to help her.

Tell us again how the preferred outcome is him killing her, rather than her using a gun to stop him....

Maybe she should pick better boyfriends..

Again, gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy.

Not worth the risk.

 

[Skull Pilot]

This woman was violently assaulted by an ex boyfriend..... he was choking her in her own apartment....twice her size and weight, no one to help her.

Tell us again how the preferred outcome is him killing her, rather than her using a gun to stop him....

Maybe she should pick better boyfriends..

Again, gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy.

Not worth the risk.

Again that has been debunked over and over

 

[JoeB131]

Again that has been debunked over and over

Stomping your little feet and saying "I don't want it to be true!" doesn't debunk anything.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Again that has been debunked over and over

Stomping your little feet and saying "I don't want it to be true!" doesn't debunk anything.

A statement by the Authors of the study you love to quote


"Mortality studies such as ours do not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm. Cases in which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house known to be armed are also not identified…A complete determination of firearm risks versus benefits would require that these figures be known."


A small sample study of a very small geographic area dos not yield valid data

 

[JoeB131]

A statement by the Authors of the study you love to quote


"Mortality studies such as ours do not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm. Cases in which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house known to be armed are also not identified…A complete determination of firearm risks versus benefits would require that these figures be known."


A small sample study of a very small geographic area dos not yield valid data

It also doesn't include cases where domestic abusers threaten their spouses, children or pets with guns, or waive guns around, or a lot of other scenarios.

What it did prove.

That for every bad guy killed in a home invasion, 43 household members died from suicide, murder or accidents.

 

[Skull Pilot]

A statement by the Authors of the study you love to quote


"Mortality studies such as ours do not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm. Cases in which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house known to be armed are also not identified…A complete determination of firearm risks versus benefits would require that these figures be known."


A small sample study of a very small geographic area dos not yield valid data

It also doesn't include cases where domestic abusers threaten their spouses, children or pets with guns, or waive guns around, or a lot of other scenarios.

What it did prove.

That for every bad guy killed in a home invasion, 43 household members died from suicide, murder or accidents.

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

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

 

[JoeB131]

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?

 

[JoeB131]

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.

 

[2aguy]

At best guns are neutral.

More guns doesn't mean less crime nor just as more guns doesn't mean more crime

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.

Wrong..... the problem in the cities isn't law abiding gun owners shooting each other. The problem is that democrat judges, who were primarily defense lawyers before becoming judges, are letting repeat, violent criminals out of jail over and over again, and as we saw with the muslim terrorist camp, they are releasing violent gun criminals out on bail, over and over again.

The Rights of citizens do not change based on where they live. As more American own and carry guns our gun murder rate went down 49%...... you have no rational argument for your point of view.

There are 2.4 million times a year where Americans use their guns to stop violent crime...according to the CDC...so no, you can't even get that number Right since there were 11,004 gun murders, with 70-80% of the victims being criminals engaged in criminal activity, often having been released over and over again.

You make up things, and then pretend they are true. Nothing you state is even remotely accurate or truthful where law abiding gun ownership is concerned.

The Murder rate went down in the Urban areas and they did NOT have more citizens carrying guns. Guns had nothing to do with it. It was the change in the way the Cops went about their business, the Public's trust in the Police, the Community cooperation, the bringing back of jobs and more. There isn't ONE single thing that shows more guns made a difference one way or another in the Murder rate. But I will agree on one thing. With more guns, the suicide by gun rate did go up but they would have probably have found other methods to be successful there without guns so guns really didn't do anything other than make it quick and almost painless. Now, quit making shit up.

There isn't ONE single thing that shows more guns made a difference one way or another in the Murder rate.

There is one thing that you are desperately trying to ignore..... The fact is that as more Americans own and carry guns... the gun murder rate did not go up. And gun ownership and the carrying of guns went up a lot, and the gun murder rate did not go up. This shows that law abiding people, who own and carry guns for self defense, do not increase the gun murder rate, the gun crime rate or the violent crime rate...... This is the exact opposite of what you anti gunners have been pushing in order to ban and confiscate guns.... your core belief, the thing that drives your madness is that more guns = more gun crime. That is not true. That is a lie.

Your entire point is baseless...... Law abiding people owning and carrying guns doesn't increase any crime of any kind.

 

[2aguy]

At best guns are neutral.

More guns doesn't mean less crime nor just as more guns doesn't mean more crime

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 keep making things up out of your ass...

There are more innocents that are stuck there being murdered than criminals being killed.

Nothing based in fact, truth or reality supports what you just posted...nothing. All of the research into murder shows that 70-80% of people murdered....with guns even....... are criminals engaged in the criminal lifestyle. Of the other murder victims? A large number of them are friends and family of the criminals caught in the crossfire....

There are two ways to stop this, one short term, the other long term and cultural.

1) Lock up violent gun offenders for long periods of time...decades if not longer.

2) Get teenage girls to stop having babies without fathers.

Those are the solutions... you don't want to deal with them because they don't include taking guns away from law abiding gun owners.

 

[2aguy]

At best guns are neutral.

More guns doesn't mean less crime nor just as more guns doesn't mean more crime

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.

 

[2aguy]

This woman was violently assaulted by an ex boyfriend..... he was choking her in her own apartment....twice her size and weight, no one to help her.

Tell us again how the preferred outcome is him killing her, rather than her using a gun to stop him....

Maybe she should pick better boyfriends..

Again, gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy.

Not worth the risk.

Again, gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy.


And that is a lie.... you know it is a lie, you have been shown the very research by the guy who posted that lie, where he changed that number and you still post it....

This is why there can be no compromise with anti gun extremists like you. The facts, the truth and reality do not support what you believe....so you lie and use emotion to get what you want.

Here is the truth about that number...




Nine Myths Of Gun Control

Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." [17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.

The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count.

Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. [3]

Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold.

Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. [2]

Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," [18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.


Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse .


From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes

Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.


-----

Here is the paper Kellerman did to change his number.....

NEJM - Error

After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7;

------------



Public Health and Gun Control: A Review



Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don¹t.

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one¹s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."8

In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5

Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns.

Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected ‹ not the burglar or rapist body count.

Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."5

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example,

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested,

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and

17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required.
Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6

 

[2aguy]

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 is jumping off of a building or stepping in front of a train...which is how the Japanese do it...and they have a higher suicide rate than we do.

Fact Check, Gun Control and Suicide



There is no relation between suicide rate and gun ownership rates around the world. According to the 2016 World Health Statistics report, (2) suicide rates in the four countries cited as having restrictive gun control laws have suicide rates that are comparable to that in the U. S.: Australia, 11.6, Canada, 11.4, France, 15.8, UK, 7.0, and USA 13.7 suicides/100,000. By comparison, Japan has among the highest suicide rates in the world, 23.1/100,000, but gun ownership is extremely rare, 0.6 guns/100 people.

Suicide is a mental health issue. If guns are not available other means are used. Poisoning, in fact, is the most common method of suicide for U. S. females according to the Washington Post (34 % of suicides), and suffocation the second most common method for males (27%).

Secondly, gun ownership rates in France and Canada are not low, as is implied in the Post article. The rate of gun ownership in the U. S. is indeed high at 88.8 guns/100 residents, but gun ownership rates are also among the world’s highest in the other countries cited. Gun ownership rates in these countries are are as follows: Australia, 15, Canada, 30.8, France, 31.2, and UK 6.2 per 100 residents. (3,4) Gun ownership rates in Saudia Arabia are comparable to that in Canada and France, with 37.8 guns per 100 Saudi residents, yet the lowest suicide rate in the world is in Saudia Arabia (0.3 suicides per 100,000).

Third, recent statistics in the state of Florida show that nearly one third of the guns used in suicides are obtained illegally, putting these firearm deaths beyond control through gun laws.(5)

Fourth, the primary factors affecting suicide rates are personal stresses, cultural, economic, religious factors and demographics. According to the WHO statistics, the highest rates of suicide in the world are in the Republic of Korea, with 36.8 suicides per 100,000, but India, Japan, Russia, and Hungary all have rates above 20 per 100,000; roughly twice as high as the U.S. and the four countries that are the basis for the Post’s calculation that gun control would reduce U.S. suicide rates by 20 to 38 percent. Lebanon, Oman, and Iraq all have suicide rates below 1.1 per 100,000 people--less than 1/10 the suicide rate in the U. S., and Afghanistan, Algeria, Jamaica, Haiti, and Egypt have low suicide rates that are below 4 per 100,000 in contrast to 13.7 suicides/100,000 in the U. S.