Are rising gun sales the reason for declining crime?

[rightwinger]

Let's look at the logic of the Left.
Ok...Guns possession and ownership is outlawed. Government officials insist that if people are prohibited weapons, crime will be virtually nil.
Are so fucking stupid to believe that criminals will obey such a law?
If gun ownership were made illegal here, it would be open season on law abiding people. Crime would sky rocket.
Ever hear of the term "mutually assured destruction"?
Having certain weapons is a deterrent to any aggressor in that the aggressor knows in the back of their mind that if they attack they too may be destroyed.
The same thing applies to an armed citizenry. If criminals know they may be faced with a person who is carrying, they will hesitate to commit an otherwise easy crime.
Take away that concern and criminals have nothing to fear. They already are laughing at the criminal justice system.
When government cannot do the job of protecting the sheep from the wolf, the sheep have to protect themselves.
If that offends you in some way or leads you to believe that anyone who does carry or wishes to carry a firearm is a "gun nut" then you'll just have to be pissed off about it.
In the mean time when a crook decides to take me on, he's going to take a dirt nap and there aren't 12 people in this area who'd convict me of anything. Why? Because they don't want to be next.
As a matter of fact, the DA here would not even bring charges.
Example, two brothers who own a store here faced two armed robbers in their store. The one brother went into the back room of the storre to call 9-1-1, the other took out his .40cal Sig Sauer and sent these two pricks to their eternal home. The best part...The DA not only refused to bring charges, he referred to the brothers as "heroes". So there.

Oh yes......the Dodge City solution to fighting crime

How often do you see criminals caught because some citizen had a gun vs some citizen had a surveillance camera?

Violent crime is not just armed robbery, it is murder, it is rape

Most murders are domestic violence or someone you know. Arming more women and encouraging family shootouts will not reduce the murder rate. 75% of murders are the result of guns. What has reduced domestic violence murders? It's those liberal, tree hugging anti domestic violence laws

Ahh yes...We can always count on a liberal weenie to trot out the all or nothing straw man card.
Tell me genius, in states where concealed carry is permitted, where are your "Dodge City" shoot outs?
Surveillance? Hey sunshine, that for AFTER they take the victim to the morgue....
The right to bear arms levels the playing field in that the criminal may be the one parallel to the ground. Or would deter the attempt at the crime altogether.
You will have to post a link proving your premise that "most murders are domestic violence"..
What does the type of violent crime have to do with anything?
States that permit concealed carry also have "Castle" laws and imminent danger of physical harm laws which allow the use of deadly force as long as the victim has a "reasonable" belief he or she is about to be attacked. Interpretation of those laws are very broad in that DA's do not tend to prosecute and if they do, juries tend to acquit.
Some states, including New York have preemptive strike laws which allows a person who reasonably believes another is about to commit a violent crime to use deadly force to prevent such crime.
Article 35 - Penal Law - Defense of Justification
S 35.10 Justification; use of physical force generally.
The use of physical force upon another person which would otherwise
constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the
following circumstances:

6. A person may, pursuant to the ensuing provisions of this article,
use physical force upon another person in defense of himself or a third
person, or in defense of premises, or in order to prevent larceny of or
criminal mischief to property, or in order to effect an arrest or
prevent an escape from custody. Whenever a person is authorized by any
such provision to use deadly physical force in any given circumstance,
nothing contained in any other such provision may be deemed to negate or
qualify such authorization.
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person
under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) He reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to
use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not
use deadly physical force if he knows that he can with complete safety
as to himself and others avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating;
except that he is under no duty to retreat if he is:
(i) in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to
section 35.30; or
(b) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or
attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or
robbery; or
(c) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or
attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the
use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of
section 35.20.
Your view is one of the many which you libs are famous for..That view is looking to government to protect you.
Reality....The police are not there to prevent crime. They are there to investigate and then go catch the bad actors.
If the opposite were true, there would indeed be a cop on every street corner. That is not practical. Therefore the law permits citizens the right of self preservation.
Weapons allow us to have a better shot at deterring and preventing crime. And in the case of a criminal act, the right and ability to fight back.
IMO Dodge City would be an unarmed citizenry where only criminals have weapons and they prey on the rest of us.

Tl;dr

 

[rightwinger]

Gun nuts, as usual maintain fantasies that they are somehow protecting our country from invasion and causing criminals to wet their pants

Criminals know there are guns out there, there always have been. And yet, there are still criminals. They know the risks they face.

Most violent crime does not come from strangers. It comes from spouses, acquaintances and drinking buddies. The drop in violent crime has little to do with increased gun ownership. Most of that increase came from people who already owned guns. The drop in violent crime has been happening for over 20 years. For gun nuts to seize on that and claim that they are the reason for the continued downward trend is simplistic

 

[rightwinger]

The overwhelming number of murders is by people you know. Decreasing the murder rate must be done through social programs .......womens shelters, tough domestic violence laws, family counseling........yup, all them liberal programs conservatives vote down in favor of more guns. Almost 60% of women are killed by their partners vs 2% by strangers

http://malini.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=1177

 

[thereisnospoon]

Oh yes......the Dodge City solution to fighting crime

How often do you see criminals caught because some citizen had a gun vs some citizen had a surveillance camera?

Violent crime is not just armed robbery, it is murder, it is rape

Most murders are domestic violence or someone you know. Arming more women and encouraging family shootouts will not reduce the murder rate. 75% of murders are the result of guns. What has reduced domestic violence murders? It's those liberal, tree hugging anti domestic violence laws

Ahh yes...We can always count on a liberal weenie to trot out the all or nothing straw man card.
Tell me genius, in states where concealed carry is permitted, where are your "Dodge City" shoot outs?
Surveillance? Hey sunshine, that for AFTER they take the victim to the morgue....
The right to bear arms levels the playing field in that the criminal may be the one parallel to the ground. Or would deter the attempt at the crime altogether.
You will have to post a link proving your premise that "most murders are domestic violence"..
What does the type of violent crime have to do with anything?
States that permit concealed carry also have "Castle" laws and imminent danger of physical harm laws which allow the use of deadly force as long as the victim has a "reasonable" belief he or she is about to be attacked. Interpretation of those laws are very broad in that DA's do not tend to prosecute and if they do, juries tend to acquit.
Some states, including New York have preemptive strike laws which allows a person who reasonably believes another is about to commit a violent crime to use deadly force to prevent such crime.
Article 35 - Penal Law - Defense of Justification
S 35.10 Justification; use of physical force generally.
The use of physical force upon another person which would otherwise
constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the
following circumstances:

6. A person may, pursuant to the ensuing provisions of this article,
use physical force upon another person in defense of himself or a third
person, or in defense of premises, or in order to prevent larceny of or
criminal mischief to property, or in order to effect an arrest or
prevent an escape from custody. Whenever a person is authorized by any
such provision to use deadly physical force in any given circumstance,
nothing contained in any other such provision may be deemed to negate or
qualify such authorization.
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person
under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) He reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to
use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not
use deadly physical force if he knows that he can with complete safety
as to himself and others avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating;
except that he is under no duty to retreat if he is:
(i) in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to
section 35.30; or
(b) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or
attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or
robbery; or
(c) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or
attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the
use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of
section 35.20.
Your view is one of the many which you libs are famous for..That view is looking to government to protect you.
Reality....The police are not there to prevent crime. They are there to investigate and then go catch the bad actors.
If the opposite were true, there would indeed be a cop on every street corner. That is not practical. Therefore the law permits citizens the right of self preservation.
Weapons allow us to have a better shot at deterring and preventing crime. And in the case of a criminal act, the right and ability to fight back.
IMO Dodge City would be an unarmed citizenry where only criminals have weapons and they prey on the rest of us.

Tl;dr

Facts got ya all lathered up, huh? Just do the right thing and wave the white flag.

 

[rightwinger]

Ahh yes...We can always count on a liberal weenie to trot out the all or nothing straw man card.
Tell me genius, in states where concealed carry is permitted, where are your "Dodge City" shoot outs?
Surveillance? Hey sunshine, that for AFTER they take the victim to the morgue....
The right to bear arms levels the playing field in that the criminal may be the one parallel to the ground. Or would deter the attempt at the crime altogether.
You will have to post a link proving your premise that "most murders are domestic violence"..
What does the type of violent crime have to do with anything?
States that permit concealed carry also have "Castle" laws and imminent danger of physical harm laws which allow the use of deadly force as long as the victim has a "reasonable" belief he or she is about to be attacked. Interpretation of those laws are very broad in that DA's do not tend to prosecute and if they do, juries tend to acquit.
Some states, including New York have preemptive strike laws which allows a person who reasonably believes another is about to commit a violent crime to use deadly force to prevent such crime.
Article 35 - Penal Law - Defense of Justification
S 35.10 Justification; use of physical force generally.
The use of physical force upon another person which would otherwise
constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the
following circumstances:

6. A person may, pursuant to the ensuing provisions of this article,
use physical force upon another person in defense of himself or a third
person, or in defense of premises, or in order to prevent larceny of or
criminal mischief to property, or in order to effect an arrest or
prevent an escape from custody. Whenever a person is authorized by any
such provision to use deadly physical force in any given circumstance,
nothing contained in any other such provision may be deemed to negate or
qualify such authorization.
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person
under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) He reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to
use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not
use deadly physical force if he knows that he can with complete safety
as to himself and others avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating;
except that he is under no duty to retreat if he is:
(i) in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to
section 35.30; or
(b) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or
attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or
robbery; or
(c) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or
attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the
use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of
section 35.20.
Your view is one of the many which you libs are famous for..That view is looking to government to protect you.
Reality....The police are not there to prevent crime. They are there to investigate and then go catch the bad actors.
If the opposite were true, there would indeed be a cop on every street corner. That is not practical. Therefore the law permits citizens the right of self preservation.
Weapons allow us to have a better shot at deterring and preventing crime. And in the case of a criminal act, the right and ability to fight back.
IMO Dodge City would be an unarmed citizenry where only criminals have weapons and they prey on the rest of us.

Tl;dr

Facts got ya all lathered up, huh? Just do the right thing and wave the white flag.

Too long; didn't read

 

[thereisnospoon]

Gun nuts, as usual maintain fantasies that they are somehow protecting our country from invasion and causing criminals to wet their pants

Criminals know there are guns out there, there always have been. And yet, there are still criminals. They know the risks they face.

Most violent crime does not come from strangers. It comes from spouses, acquaintances and drinking buddies. The drop in violent crime has little to do with increased gun ownership. Most of that increase came from people who already owned guns. The drop in violent crime has been happening for over 20 years. For gun nuts to seize on that and claim that they are the reason for the continued downward trend is simplistic

It is painfully obvious that you the inescapable truth and with no possibility of a rebuttal, simply repeated yourself. Great job!
Meanwhile you can go unarmed and hope you'll not become a victim.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Tl;dr

Facts got ya all lathered up, huh? Just do the right thing and wave the white flag.

Too long; didn't read

Lazy...Ya got bitch slapped.

 

[TruthSeeker56]

There is a direct correlation to the election of Barack Obama and the decline in the crime rate

He has kept us safe

That may be the FUNNIEST thing I have read in here since I joined.

 

[rightwinger]

There is a direct correlation to the election of Barack Obama and the decline in the crime rate

He has kept us safe

That may be the FUNNIEST thing I have read in here since I joined.

It has as much statistical validity as the increase in gun sales driving down the violent crime rate

There is direct correlation between the election of Obama and declining crime rate

 

[rightwinger]

Gun nuts, as usual maintain fantasies that they are somehow protecting our country from invasion and causing criminals to wet their pants

Criminals know there are guns out there, there always have been. And yet, there are still criminals. They know the risks they face.

Most violent crime does not come from strangers. It comes from spouses, acquaintances and drinking buddies. The drop in violent crime has little to do with increased gun ownership. Most of that increase came from people who already owned guns. The drop in violent crime has been happening for over 20 years. For gun nuts to seize on that and claim that they are the reason for the continued downward trend is simplistic

It is painfully obvious that you the inescapable truth and with no possibility of a rebuttal, simply repeated yourself. Great job!
Meanwhile you can go unarmed and hope you'll not become a victim.

Even better...


I can hand out flyers telling about new increases in gun sales. That will make the robbers pee their pants