Because of no right to own firearms...

[RetiredGySgt]

Notice the actual rate of non fatal accidental shootings...from the CDC, which does not support what you posted...

Nonfatal and Fatal Firearm-Related Injuries -- United States, 1993-1997
CDC non fatal gun accident.....

1993... 104,390
1994... 89,744
1995... 84,322
1996... 69,649
1997... 64,207
2001.... 17,696

2002... 17,579

2003... 18,941

2004... 16,555

2005... 15,388

2006... 14,678

2007... 15,698

2008... 17,215

2009... 18,610

2010... 14,161

2011... 14,675

2012... 17,362

2013... 16,864

2014..... 15,928

From your own cite. You really have a reading problem.

The overall percentage decline in nonfatal and fatal firearm-related injury rates in the U.S. population from 1993 through 1997 is consistent with a 21% decrease in violent crime during the same time (4). Since 1950, unintentional fatal firearm-related injury rates have declined. NEISS data also suggest a decline since 1993 in the rate of nonfatal unintentional firearm-related injuries treated in hospital EDs. Most of these nonfatal injuries occurred among males aged 15-44 years, were self-inflicted, and were associated with hunting, target shooting, and routine gun handling (i.e., cleaning, loading, and unloading a gun) (5). Additional investigation should focus on factors that may have contributed to the decrease, such as gun safety courses and information campaigns, the proportion of the population that uses guns for recreational purposes, and legislation.

I guess you forgot this post right dumb ass?

For one, it wasn't my cite. And another, it shows a gradual decrease in non lethal firearms shootings. It doesn't say whether it's from attempted suicide or attempted homicide or accidental. But what it does show is that NYC is back to the level it once was in the 1950s. If you presented the murder rate, it would also be back at the same rate as the 1950s. And they did it without dumping more guns on the street for it's citizens. More guns has never been the answer. NYC has found their own answer by increasing funding for the Cops, getting those cops into the high crime areas and working closely with the citizens in those areas. It's worked so well, it's attracting industry back into NYC and putting people back to work which also is the enemy of crime. Now, if we could only get Chicago to do the same.

And Deblasio is gutting the cops budget and removing the programs that allowed that success.

And you know this how? You will notice the crime rate is continuing to go down each year. Imagine that. Could you be wro,.,,,,,,,,, incorrect there Fonz?

You keep arguing that crime is going up and accidental shootings are going up then you post this. shizo much?

 

[2aguy]

Wrong..... again.

It was done by Guilliani and they are living off of the techniques he used.....and since our gun murder rate in this country dropped 49%, and our gun crime rate dropped 75% as more Americans bought, and carried guns, law abiding citizens carrying guns does not increase the gun crime rate....

The democrats are the ones releasing violent criminals back onto the streets you doofus....and de blasio is setting up the city to go back to the bad old days before Guilliani....

Don’t Take the Wrong Lessons from NYC’s Murder Drop

New York City’s formerly high-crime neighborhoods have experienced a stunning degree of gentrification over the last 15 years, thanks to the proactive-policing-induced conquest of crime. It is that gentrification which is now helping fuel the ongoing crime drop. Urban hipsters are flocking to areas that once were the purview of drug dealers and pimps, trailing in their wake legitimate commerce and street life, which further attracts law-abiding activity and residents in a virtuous cycle of increasing public safety.

The degree of demographic change is startling.

In Brooklyn’s Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood, for example, the number of white residents rose 1,235 percent from 2000 to 2015, while the black population decreased by 17 percent, reports City Lab.

In Bushwick, Brooklyn, the number of whites rose 610 percent over that same decade and a half; the black population was down 22 percent. Central Harlem’s white population rose 846 percent; the black share dropped 10 percent. In 2000, whites were about three-quarters of the black population in Brownsville-Ocean Hill; by 2015, there were twice as many whites as blacks.

In 2000, whites were one-third of the black population in Crown Heights North and Prospect Heights; now they exceed the black population by 20,000. The Brooklyn Navy Yards has now been declared the next cool place to be by the tech industry. Business owners are moving their residences as well as their enterprises to the area.


This demographic transformation has enormous implications for crime.

A black New Yorker is 50 times more likely to commit a shooting than a white New Yorker, according to perpetrator identifications provided to the police by witnesses to, and victims of, those shootings.

Those victims are overwhelmingly minority themselves.

When the racial balance of a neighborhood changes radically, given those crime disparities, its violent-crime rate will as well. (This racial crime disparity reflects the breakdown of the black family and the high percentage of black males — upwards of 80 percent in some neighborhoods — being raised by single mothers.)

----

The high-crime areas of Baltimore and Chicago have not been gentrified. Baltimore is experiencing its highest per capita murder rate for the third year in a row. While Chicago’s homicide numbers are down somewhat this year, thanks to the aggressive use of shot-spotter technology, they remain at a level far higher than in the past decade.

I didn't state that any one Mayor over another. Your statement of "Wrong" is just plain wrong. If you wish to give Guliani the credit, that's fine by me. But it's been a long haul that took one of the murder capitals of the world and dropped it from that list. They did it through raised taxes, more cops on the street and beats, better training and working closer with the communities. You stated that high tech is moving into a once high crime area. Why is that? The City got rid of most of the crime and that left a large pool of workers that could be used. And that is how you defeat crime. Not by putting "More Guns" on the street.

The Other Cities need to follow suit. But first, they need to find the funding to do it. NYC is a special case. There is a lot of money there and places where they could raise taxes to gain those funds and that is exactly what they did. All the meanwhile, your bunch screamed, "You lousy Socialists" at them. They are getting results no matter who originated it.

More guns on the streets don't work in high crime areas. More cops on the corner does.

Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens doesn't increase the crime rate, doofus. More Americans owning and carrying guns led to a drop in the gun crime rate of 75%....the gun murder rate dropped 49%....the violent crime rate dropped 72%......

Letting violent gun criminals out of jail drives the gun crime rate.....and New York used to have stop and Frisk...they got rid of that...... as de blasio ends all of the policies that worked, the crime rate in New York is going to go up...

No, but it does increase the accidental shootings which are also way out of control. Placing weapons in the hands of people that are ill suited to handle them just begs for gun accidents. It may be a right but is it wise.

Stop and Frisk was used way too much. It made the "People" feel like they were prisoners and not Citizens. There is a little thing called "probable cause" involved that was ignored. It became a "Us" against "Them" situation. What NYC did was to try and get their cops into the rougher neighborhoods and work with the "Citizens" to regain the trust and to clean up those areas. this, in turn, started attracting industry so the jobs started coming back. If a person is working and making a decent living they are too busy to be a criminal is the thought and it's a good one. And they are doing it with promoting fewer guns.

Notice the actual rate of non fatal accidental shootings...from the CDC, which does not support what you posted...

Nonfatal and Fatal Firearm-Related Injuries -- United States, 1993-1997
CDC non fatal gun accident.....

1993... 104,390
1994... 89,744
1995... 84,322
1996... 69,649
1997... 64,207
2001.... 17,696

2002... 17,579

2003... 18,941

2004... 16,555

2005... 15,388

2006... 14,678

2007... 15,698

2008... 17,215

2009... 18,610

2010... 14,161

2011... 14,675

2012... 17,362

2013... 16,864

2014..... 15,928

From your own cite. You really have a reading problem.

The overall percentage decline in nonfatal and fatal firearm-related injury rates in the U.S. population from 1993 through 1997 is consistent with a 21% decrease in violent crime during the same time (4). Since 1950, unintentional fatal firearm-related injury rates have declined. NEISS data also suggest a decline since 1993 in the rate of nonfatal unintentional firearm-related injuries treated in hospital EDs. Most of these nonfatal injuries occurred among males aged 15-44 years, were self-inflicted, and were associated with hunting, target shooting, and routine gun handling (i.e., cleaning, loading, and unloading a gun) (5). Additional investigation should focus on factors that may have contributed to the decrease, such as gun safety courses and information campaigns, the proportion of the population that uses guns for recreational purposes, and legislation.

Moron....you posted the exact opposite in your first post.....you stated accid

Wrong..... again.

It was done by Guilliani and they are living off of the techniques he used.....and since our gun murder rate in this country dropped 49%, and our gun crime rate dropped 75% as more Americans bought, and carried guns, law abiding citizens carrying guns does not increase the gun crime rate....

The democrats are the ones releasing violent criminals back onto the streets you doofus....and de blasio is setting up the city to go back to the bad old days before Guilliani....

Don’t Take the Wrong Lessons from NYC’s Murder Drop

New York City’s formerly high-crime neighborhoods have experienced a stunning degree of gentrification over the last 15 years, thanks to the proactive-policing-induced conquest of crime. It is that gentrification which is now helping fuel the ongoing crime drop. Urban hipsters are flocking to areas that once were the purview of drug dealers and pimps, trailing in their wake legitimate commerce and street life, which further attracts law-abiding activity and residents in a virtuous cycle of increasing public safety.

The degree of demographic change is startling.

In Brooklyn’s Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood, for example, the number of white residents rose 1,235 percent from 2000 to 2015, while the black population decreased by 17 percent, reports City Lab.

In Bushwick, Brooklyn, the number of whites rose 610 percent over that same decade and a half; the black population was down 22 percent. Central Harlem’s white population rose 846 percent; the black share dropped 10 percent. In 2000, whites were about three-quarters of the black population in Brownsville-Ocean Hill; by 2015, there were twice as many whites as blacks.

In 2000, whites were one-third of the black population in Crown Heights North and Prospect Heights; now they exceed the black population by 20,000. The Brooklyn Navy Yards has now been declared the next cool place to be by the tech industry. Business owners are moving their residences as well as their enterprises to the area.


This demographic transformation has enormous implications for crime.

A black New Yorker is 50 times more likely to commit a shooting than a white New Yorker, according to perpetrator identifications provided to the police by witnesses to, and victims of, those shootings.

Those victims are overwhelmingly minority themselves.

When the racial balance of a neighborhood changes radically, given those crime disparities, its violent-crime rate will as well. (This racial crime disparity reflects the breakdown of the black family and the high percentage of black males — upwards of 80 percent in some neighborhoods — being raised by single mothers.)

----

The high-crime areas of Baltimore and Chicago have not been gentrified. Baltimore is experiencing its highest per capita murder rate for the third year in a row. While Chicago’s homicide numbers are down somewhat this year, thanks to the aggressive use of shot-spotter technology, they remain at a level far higher than in the past decade.

I didn't state that any one Mayor over another. Your statement of "Wrong" is just plain wrong. If you wish to give Guliani the credit, that's fine by me. But it's been a long haul that took one of the murder capitals of the world and dropped it from that list. They did it through raised taxes, more cops on the street and beats, better training and working closer with the communities. You stated that high tech is moving into a once high crime area. Why is that? The City got rid of most of the crime and that left a large pool of workers that could be used. And that is how you defeat crime. Not by putting "More Guns" on the street.

The Other Cities need to follow suit. But first, they need to find the funding to do it. NYC is a special case. There is a lot of money there and places where they could raise taxes to gain those funds and that is exactly what they did. All the meanwhile, your bunch screamed, "You lousy Socialists" at them. They are getting results no matter who originated it.

More guns on the streets don't work in high crime areas. More cops on the corner does.

Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens doesn't increase the crime rate, doofus. More Americans owning and carrying guns led to a drop in the gun crime rate of 75%....the gun murder rate dropped 49%....the violent crime rate dropped 72%......

Letting violent gun criminals out of jail drives the gun crime rate.....and New York used to have stop and Frisk...they got rid of that...... as de blasio ends all of the policies that worked, the crime rate in New York is going to go up...

No, but it does increase the accidental shootings which are also way out of control. Placing weapons in the hands of people that are ill suited to handle them just begs for gun accidents. It may be a right but is it wise.

Stop and Frisk was used way too much. It made the "People" feel like they were prisoners and not Citizens. There is a little thing called "probable cause" involved that was ignored. It became a "Us" against "Them" situation. What NYC did was to try and get their cops into the rougher neighborhoods and work with the "Citizens" to regain the trust and to clean up those areas. this, in turn, started attracting industry so the jobs started coming back. If a person is working and making a decent living they are too busy to be a criminal is the thought and it's a good one. And they are doing it with promoting fewer guns.

Notice the actual rate of non fatal accidental shootings...from the CDC, which does not support what you posted...

Nonfatal and Fatal Firearm-Related Injuries -- United States, 1993-1997
CDC non fatal gun accident.....

1993... 104,390
1994... 89,744
1995... 84,322
1996... 69,649
1997... 64,207
2001.... 17,696

2002... 17,579

2003... 18,941

2004... 16,555

2005... 15,388

2006... 14,678

2007... 15,698

2008... 17,215

2009... 18,610

2010... 14,161

2011... 14,675

2012... 17,362

2013... 16,864

2014..... 15,928

From your own cite. You really have a reading problem.

The overall percentage decline in nonfatal and fatal firearm-related injury rates in the U.S. population from 1993 through 1997 is consistent with a 21% decrease in violent crime during the same time (4). Since 1950, unintentional fatal firearm-related injury rates have declined. NEISS data also suggest a decline since 1993 in the rate of nonfatal unintentional firearm-related injuries treated in hospital EDs. Most of these nonfatal injuries occurred among males aged 15-44 years, were self-inflicted, and were associated with hunting, target shooting, and routine gun handling (i.e., cleaning, loading, and unloading a gun) (5). Additional investigation should focus on factors that may have contributed to the decrease, such as gun safety courses and information campaigns, the proportion of the population that uses guns for recreational purposes, and legislation.

Moron...this is what you posted....

No, but it does increase the accidental shootings which are also way out of control. Placing weapons in the hands of people that are ill suited to handle them just begs for gun accidents. It may be a right but is it wise.

Your follow up post confirms that you don't know what you are talking about.....

The overall percentage decline in nonfatal and fatal firearm-related injury rates in the U.S. population from 1993 through 1997 is consistent with a 21% decrease in violent crime during the same time (4). Since 1950, unintentional fatal firearm-related injury rates have declined.

And my stats from the CDC confirm it......please..try harder...

 

[2aguy]

Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens doesn't increase the crime rate, doofus. More Americans owning and carrying guns led to a drop in the gun crime rate of 75%....the gun murder rate dropped 49%....the violent crime rate dropped 72%......

Letting violent gun criminals out of jail drives the gun crime rate.....and New York used to have stop and Frisk...they got rid of that...... as de blasio ends all of the policies that worked, the crime rate in New York is going to go up...

No, but it does increase the accidental shootings which are also way out of control. Placing weapons in the hands of people that are ill suited to handle them just begs for gun accidents. It may be a right but is it wise.

Stop and Frisk was used way too much. It made the "People" feel like they were prisoners and not Citizens. There is a little thing called "probable cause" involved that was ignored. It became a "Us" against "Them" situation. What NYC did was to try and get their cops into the rougher neighborhoods and work with the "Citizens" to regain the trust and to clean up those areas. this, in turn, started attracting industry so the jobs started coming back. If a person is working and making a decent living they are too busy to be a criminal is the thought and it's a good one. And they are doing it with promoting fewer guns.

Notice the actual rate of non fatal accidental shootings...from the CDC, which does not support what you posted...

Nonfatal and Fatal Firearm-Related Injuries -- United States, 1993-1997
CDC non fatal gun accident.....

1993... 104,390
1994... 89,744
1995... 84,322
1996... 69,649
1997... 64,207
2001.... 17,696

2002... 17,579

2003... 18,941

2004... 16,555

2005... 15,388

2006... 14,678

2007... 15,698

2008... 17,215

2009... 18,610

2010... 14,161

2011... 14,675

2012... 17,362

2013... 16,864

2014..... 15,928

From your own cite. You really have a reading problem.

The overall percentage decline in nonfatal and fatal firearm-related injury rates in the U.S. population from 1993 through 1997 is consistent with a 21% decrease in violent crime during the same time (4). Since 1950, unintentional fatal firearm-related injury rates have declined. NEISS data also suggest a decline since 1993 in the rate of nonfatal unintentional firearm-related injuries treated in hospital EDs. Most of these nonfatal injuries occurred among males aged 15-44 years, were self-inflicted, and were associated with hunting, target shooting, and routine gun handling (i.e., cleaning, loading, and unloading a gun) (5). Additional investigation should focus on factors that may have contributed to the decrease, such as gun safety courses and information campaigns, the proportion of the population that uses guns for recreational purposes, and legislation.

I guess you forgot this post right dumb ass?

For one, it wasn't my cite. And another, it shows a gradual decrease in non lethal firearms shootings. It doesn't say whether it's from attempted suicide or attempted homicide or accidental. But what it does show is that NYC is back to the level it once was in the 1950s. If you presented the murder rate, it would also be back at the same rate as the 1950s. And they did it without dumping more guns on the street for it's citizens. More guns has never been the answer. NYC has found their own answer by increasing funding for the Cops, getting those cops into the high crime areas and working closely with the citizens in those areas. It's worked so well, it's attracting industry back into NYC and putting people back to work which also is the enemy of crime. Now, if we could only get Chicago to do the same.

De blasio has ended all of the techniques that lowered the crime rate......NYC will now turn into a hell hole again.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

From your own cite. You really have a reading problem.

The overall percentage decline in nonfatal and fatal firearm-related injury rates in the U.S. population from 1993 through 1997 is consistent with a 21% decrease in violent crime during the same time (4). Since 1950, unintentional fatal firearm-related injury rates have declined. NEISS data also suggest a decline since 1993 in the rate of nonfatal unintentional firearm-related injuries treated in hospital EDs. Most of these nonfatal injuries occurred among males aged 15-44 years, were self-inflicted, and were associated with hunting, target shooting, and routine gun handling (i.e., cleaning, loading, and unloading a gun) (5). Additional investigation should focus on factors that may have contributed to the decrease, such as gun safety courses and information campaigns, the proportion of the population that uses guns for recreational purposes, and legislation.

I guess you forgot this post right dumb ass?

For one, it wasn't my cite. And another, it shows a gradual decrease in non lethal firearms shootings. It doesn't say whether it's from attempted suicide or attempted homicide or accidental. But what it does show is that NYC is back to the level it once was in the 1950s. If you presented the murder rate, it would also be back at the same rate as the 1950s. And they did it without dumping more guns on the street for it's citizens. More guns has never been the answer. NYC has found their own answer by increasing funding for the Cops, getting those cops into the high crime areas and working closely with the citizens in those areas. It's worked so well, it's attracting industry back into NYC and putting people back to work which also is the enemy of crime. Now, if we could only get Chicago to do the same.

And Deblasio is gutting the cops budget and removing the programs that allowed that success.

And you know this how? You will notice the crime rate is continuing to go down each year. Imagine that. Could you be wro,.,,,,,,,,, incorrect there Fonz?

You keep arguing that crime is going up and accidental shootings are going up then you post this. shizo much?

It appears you have me confused with another poster. You seam to have me confused with 2stupidguy for a strange reason. He is the one that makes those claims. I have shown that in NYC that violent crimes have gone down while accidental firearms accidents have gone up in the last few years. But it's not near as high (by about a 90% reduction from 1993) as it once was either way. And More Guns was not the answer.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

No, but it does increase the accidental shootings which are also way out of control. Placing weapons in the hands of people that are ill suited to handle them just begs for gun accidents. It may be a right but is it wise.

Stop and Frisk was used way too much. It made the "People" feel like they were prisoners and not Citizens. There is a little thing called "probable cause" involved that was ignored. It became a "Us" against "Them" situation. What NYC did was to try and get their cops into the rougher neighborhoods and work with the "Citizens" to regain the trust and to clean up those areas. this, in turn, started attracting industry so the jobs started coming back. If a person is working and making a decent living they are too busy to be a criminal is the thought and it's a good one. And they are doing it with promoting fewer guns.

Notice the actual rate of non fatal accidental shootings...from the CDC, which does not support what you posted...

Nonfatal and Fatal Firearm-Related Injuries -- United States, 1993-1997
CDC non fatal gun accident.....

1993... 104,390
1994... 89,744
1995... 84,322
1996... 69,649
1997... 64,207
2001.... 17,696

2002... 17,579

2003... 18,941

2004... 16,555

2005... 15,388

2006... 14,678

2007... 15,698

2008... 17,215

2009... 18,610

2010... 14,161

2011... 14,675

2012... 17,362

2013... 16,864

2014..... 15,928

From your own cite. You really have a reading problem.

The overall percentage decline in nonfatal and fatal firearm-related injury rates in the U.S. population from 1993 through 1997 is consistent with a 21% decrease in violent crime during the same time (4). Since 1950, unintentional fatal firearm-related injury rates have declined. NEISS data also suggest a decline since 1993 in the rate of nonfatal unintentional firearm-related injuries treated in hospital EDs. Most of these nonfatal injuries occurred among males aged 15-44 years, were self-inflicted, and were associated with hunting, target shooting, and routine gun handling (i.e., cleaning, loading, and unloading a gun) (5). Additional investigation should focus on factors that may have contributed to the decrease, such as gun safety courses and information campaigns, the proportion of the population that uses guns for recreational purposes, and legislation.

I guess you forgot this post right dumb ass?

For one, it wasn't my cite. And another, it shows a gradual decrease in non lethal firearms shootings. It doesn't say whether it's from attempted suicide or attempted homicide or accidental. But what it does show is that NYC is back to the level it once was in the 1950s. If you presented the murder rate, it would also be back at the same rate as the 1950s. And they did it without dumping more guns on the street for it's citizens. More guns has never been the answer. NYC has found their own answer by increasing funding for the Cops, getting those cops into the high crime areas and working closely with the citizens in those areas. It's worked so well, it's attracting industry back into NYC and putting people back to work which also is the enemy of crime. Now, if we could only get Chicago to do the same.

De blasio has ended all of the techniques that lowered the crime rate......NYC will now turn into a hell hole again.

Wow, you get that crystal ball back from the cleaners once again? You may want to send it back to Mama Swarmy and get it calibrated.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I guess you forgot this post right dumb ass?

For one, it wasn't my cite. And another, it shows a gradual decrease in non lethal firearms shootings. It doesn't say whether it's from attempted suicide or attempted homicide or accidental. But what it does show is that NYC is back to the level it once was in the 1950s. If you presented the murder rate, it would also be back at the same rate as the 1950s. And they did it without dumping more guns on the street for it's citizens. More guns has never been the answer. NYC has found their own answer by increasing funding for the Cops, getting those cops into the high crime areas and working closely with the citizens in those areas. It's worked so well, it's attracting industry back into NYC and putting people back to work which also is the enemy of crime. Now, if we could only get Chicago to do the same.

And Deblasio is gutting the cops budget and removing the programs that allowed that success.

And you know this how? You will notice the crime rate is continuing to go down each year. Imagine that. Could you be wro,.,,,,,,,,, incorrect there Fonz?

You keep arguing that crime is going up and accidental shootings are going up then you post this. shizo much?

It appears you have me confused with another poster. You seam to have me confused with 2stupidguy for a strange reason. He is the one that makes those claims. I have shown that in NYC that violent crimes have gone down while accidental firearms accidents have gone up in the last few years. But it's not near as high (by about a 90% reduction from 1993) as it once was either way. And More Guns was not the answer.

Actually you have shown no such thing the ONLY link you provided said accidental shootings went DOWN. Further 2 posted stats that prove that from the Government.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

For one, it wasn't my cite. And another, it shows a gradual decrease in non lethal firearms shootings. It doesn't say whether it's from attempted suicide or attempted homicide or accidental. But what it does show is that NYC is back to the level it once was in the 1950s. If you presented the murder rate, it would also be back at the same rate as the 1950s. And they did it without dumping more guns on the street for it's citizens. More guns has never been the answer. NYC has found their own answer by increasing funding for the Cops, getting those cops into the high crime areas and working closely with the citizens in those areas. It's worked so well, it's attracting industry back into NYC and putting people back to work which also is the enemy of crime. Now, if we could only get Chicago to do the same.

And Deblasio is gutting the cops budget and removing the programs that allowed that success.

And you know this how? You will notice the crime rate is continuing to go down each year. Imagine that. Could you be wro,.,,,,,,,,, incorrect there Fonz?

You keep arguing that crime is going up and accidental shootings are going up then you post this. shizo much?

It appears you have me confused with another poster. You seam to have me confused with 2stupidguy for a strange reason. He is the one that makes those claims. I have shown that in NYC that violent crimes have gone down while accidental firearms accidents have gone up in the last few years. But it's not near as high (by about a 90% reduction from 1993) as it once was either way. And More Guns was not the answer.

Actually you have shown no such thing the ONLY link you provided said accidental shootings went DOWN. Further 2 posted stats that prove that from the Government.

Whatever you say.

 

[Rustic]

More legally held firearms... less crime

 

[Daryl Hunt]

More legally held firearms... less crime

Yet you are against many of the Legal means on firearms. I support universal background checks on firearms sales, allowing more people to get their CCWs (like relaxing some of the BS in NYC), Getting rid of the open carry unless the person has a valid CCW License (and I even wonder if we even need an open carry at all but that's up to the State), making the min age of 21 years old to purchase or own a firearm, holding the firearms owners accountable for the use of their firearms when it's used by someone else in the act of a crime as if they, themselves were actually holding it unless it was previously reported as lost or stolen. But you find those items to be against your nature. Then a crime is done by a person that would have been prevented if those were inacted and you then call me a gun grabber. Well, I hold you responsible as if you were holding the weapon the person used in the crime. More guns are not the answer and never have been. Better trained and more Cops along with better community involvement has always been the answer but you refuse to have one single dime of your tax burden to fund any of that. You just want to sell "More Guns" and that is a economic and not a responsible reason.

 

[2aguy]

More legally held firearms... less crime

Yet you are against many of the Legal means on firearms. I support universal background checks on firearms sales, allowing more people to get their CCWs (like relaxing some of the BS in NYC), Getting rid of the open carry unless the person has a valid CCW License (and I even wonder if we even need an open carry at all but that's up to the State), making the min age of 21 years old to purchase or own a firearm, holding the firearms owners accountable for the use of their firearms when it's used by someone else in the act of a crime as if they, themselves were actually holding it unless it was previously reported as lost or stolen. But you find those items to be against your nature. Then a crime is done by a person that would have been prevented if those were inacted and you then call me a gun grabber. Well, I hold you responsible as if you were holding the weapon the person used in the crime. More guns are not the answer and never have been. Better trained and more Cops along with better community involvement has always been the answer but you refuse to have one single dime of your tax burden to fund any of that. You just want to sell "More Guns" and that is a economic and not a responsible reason.

Crimes are not prevented by any of those things you want.....straw buyers pass current federal background checks which means they will pass any background check for a private sale. Mass shooters can already pass any background check...and the ones who can't steal their guns.

There is no reason to require a license to carry a gun...it is just a tool used by anti gunners to keep the poor from carrying guns....and it is unConstitutional as per Murdock v Pennsylvania....

More guns in the hands of law abiding gun owners have helped lower the gun murder rate, the gun crime rate and the violent crime rate...so you don't know what you are talking about....

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.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

More legally held firearms... less crime

Yet you are against many of the Legal means on firearms. I support universal background checks on firearms sales, allowing more people to get their CCWs (like relaxing some of the BS in NYC), Getting rid of the open carry unless the person has a valid CCW License (and I even wonder if we even need an open carry at all but that's up to the State), making the min age of 21 years old to purchase or own a firearm, holding the firearms owners accountable for the use of their firearms when it's used by someone else in the act of a crime as if they, themselves were actually holding it unless it was previously reported as lost or stolen. But you find those items to be against your nature. Then a crime is done by a person that would have been prevented if those were inacted and you then call me a gun grabber. Well, I hold you responsible as if you were holding the weapon the person used in the crime. More guns are not the answer and never have been. Better trained and more Cops along with better community involvement has always been the answer but you refuse to have one single dime of your tax burden to fund any of that. You just want to sell "More Guns" and that is a economic and not a responsible reason.

Crimes are not prevented by any of those things you want.....straw buyers pass current federal background checks which means they will pass any background check for a private sale. Mass shooters can already pass any background check...and the ones who can't steal their guns.

There is no reason to require a license to carry a gun...it is just a tool used by anti gunners to keep the poor from carrying guns....and it is unConstitutional as per Murdock v Pennsylvania....

More guns in the hands of law abiding gun owners have helped lower the gun murder rate, the gun crime rate and the violent crime rate...so you don't know what you are talking about....

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.

If a straw buyer does this and the weapon is used in a felony, the straw buyer needs to be tried and convicted for the crime that the gun was used for. You get a twofer on that conviction.

And when you can figure out a way to have Firearms protected under the 1st amendment under religious protection then, and only then, Murdock V Penn may apply. Murdock V has absolutely nothing to do with Firearms. It has to do with Religious Pamphlets and books. You might bow down and pray to your AR and print NRA scripture on it and accept it as a religion but outside of your little nutcase cult, no one else does including the Constitution of the United States.

Less than 3% of the population owns over 50% of all the guns in the US. If you do the math, that means there are more households without guns than with by a very wide margin. And you are trying to make us believe that there were 4.7 million people carrying guns on the street legally in 1993. Not hardly. There isn't even a fraction of that number even today. You present figures and the scuew them to your own ends. It's a lie.

Gun violence is down due to better trained, manned and equipped police forces and public awareness. Simple as that. More Guns in the hands of the untrained would only add to the accidental deaths and injuries that have also gone down due to the same reasons that violent crime has gone down. More Guns just adds to the problems. But it does add to the bank accounts to the Gun industry so I guess you find that it's a good thing. You deserve to be tried along with the violent criminals when they use the same guns you helped to make available to them.

 

[Rustic]

More legally held firearms... less crime

Yet you are against many of the Legal means on firearms. I support universal background checks on firearms sales, allowing more people to get their CCWs (like relaxing some of the BS in NYC), Getting rid of the open carry unless the person has a valid CCW License (and I even wonder if we even need an open carry at all but that's up to the State), making the min age of 21 years old to purchase or own a firearm, holding the firearms owners accountable for the use of their firearms when it's used by someone else in the act of a crime as if they, themselves were actually holding it unless it was previously reported as lost or stolen. But you find those items to be against your nature. Then a crime is done by a person that would have been prevented if those were inacted and you then call me a gun grabber. Well, I hold you responsible as if you were holding the weapon the person used in the crime. More guns are not the answer and never have been. Better trained and more Cops along with better community involvement has always been the answer but you refuse to have one single dime of your tax burden to fund any of that. You just want to sell "More Guns" and that is a economic and not a responsible reason.

Crimes are not prevented by any of those things you want.....straw buyers pass current federal background checks which means they will pass any background check for a private sale. Mass shooters can already pass any background check...and the ones who can't steal their guns.

There is no reason to require a license to carry a gun...it is just a tool used by anti gunners to keep the poor from carrying guns....and it is unConstitutional as per Murdock v Pennsylvania....

More guns in the hands of law abiding gun owners have helped lower the gun murder rate, the gun crime rate and the violent crime rate...so you don't know what you are talking about....

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.

If a straw buyer does this and the weapon is used in a felony, the straw buyer needs to be tried and convicted for the crime that the gun was used for. You get a twofer on that conviction.

And when you can figure out a way to have Firearms protected under the 1st amendment under religious protection then, and only then, Murdock V Penn may apply. Murdock V has absolutely nothing to do with Firearms. It has to do with Religious Pamphlets and books. You might bow down and pray to your AR and print NRA scripture on it and accept it as a religion but outside of your little nutcase cult, no one else does including the Constitution of the United States.

Less than 3% of the population owns over 50% of all the guns in the US. If you do the math, that means there are more households without guns than with by a very wide margin. And you are trying to make us believe that there were 4.7 million people carrying guns on the street legally in 1993. Not hardly. There isn't even a fraction of that number even today. You present figures and the scuew them to your own ends. It's a lie.

Gun violence is down due to better trained, manned and equipped police forces and public awareness. Simple as that. More Guns in the hands of the untrained would only add to the accidental deaths and injuries that have also gone down due to the same reasons that violent crime has gone down. More Guns just adds to the problems. But it does add to the bank accounts to the Gun industry so I guess you find that it's a good thing. You deserve to be tried along with the violent criminals when they use the same guns you helped to make available to them.

Legal Firearm ownership is very low in urban America, and very high in rural America

 

[Daryl Hunt]

More legally held firearms... less crime

Yet you are against many of the Legal means on firearms. I support universal background checks on firearms sales, allowing more people to get their CCWs (like relaxing some of the BS in NYC), Getting rid of the open carry unless the person has a valid CCW License (and I even wonder if we even need an open carry at all but that's up to the State), making the min age of 21 years old to purchase or own a firearm, holding the firearms owners accountable for the use of their firearms when it's used by someone else in the act of a crime as if they, themselves were actually holding it unless it was previously reported as lost or stolen. But you find those items to be against your nature. Then a crime is done by a person that would have been prevented if those were inacted and you then call me a gun grabber. Well, I hold you responsible as if you were holding the weapon the person used in the crime. More guns are not the answer and never have been. Better trained and more Cops along with better community involvement has always been the answer but you refuse to have one single dime of your tax burden to fund any of that. You just want to sell "More Guns" and that is a economic and not a responsible reason.

Crimes are not prevented by any of those things you want.....straw buyers pass current federal background checks which means they will pass any background check for a private sale. Mass shooters can already pass any background check...and the ones who can't steal their guns.

There is no reason to require a license to carry a gun...it is just a tool used by anti gunners to keep the poor from carrying guns....and it is unConstitutional as per Murdock v Pennsylvania....

More guns in the hands of law abiding gun owners have helped lower the gun murder rate, the gun crime rate and the violent crime rate...so you don't know what you are talking about....

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.

If a straw buyer does this and the weapon is used in a felony, the straw buyer needs to be tried and convicted for the crime that the gun was used for. You get a twofer on that conviction.

And when you can figure out a way to have Firearms protected under the 1st amendment under religious protection then, and only then, Murdock V Penn may apply. Murdock V has absolutely nothing to do with Firearms. It has to do with Religious Pamphlets and books. You might bow down and pray to your AR and print NRA scripture on it and accept it as a religion but outside of your little nutcase cult, no one else does including the Constitution of the United States.

Less than 3% of the population owns over 50% of all the guns in the US. If you do the math, that means there are more households without guns than with by a very wide margin. And you are trying to make us believe that there were 4.7 million people carrying guns on the street legally in 1993. Not hardly. There isn't even a fraction of that number even today. You present figures and the scuew them to your own ends. It's a lie.

Gun violence is down due to better trained, manned and equipped police forces and public awareness. Simple as that. More Guns in the hands of the untrained would only add to the accidental deaths and injuries that have also gone down due to the same reasons that violent crime has gone down. More Guns just adds to the problems. But it does add to the bank accounts to the Gun industry so I guess you find that it's a good thing. You deserve to be tried along with the violent criminals when they use the same guns you helped to make available to them.

Legal Firearm ownership is very low in urban America, and very high in rural America

Population is very high in Urban America and very low in rural America. And then, not all rural people own firearms as well. I will admit that most do but some don't. Meanwhile, MOST Urban households don't own firearms.

I was wondering where you and your little buddy was getting your data from. I finally found it. Lott and Mustards book that was largely discredited that made all the same claims you do. In fact, almost all pro gun writing since then have largely been based on that flawed book although none of them gives reference to it. Hate to break it to you but you have been sold a huge bill of goods based on a book that lied and whose main purpose was to sell a book, not stick with facts and real data.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

More legally held firearms... less crime

Yet you are against many of the Legal means on firearms. I support universal background checks on firearms sales, allowing more people to get their CCWs (like relaxing some of the BS in NYC), Getting rid of the open carry unless the person has a valid CCW License (and I even wonder if we even need an open carry at all but that's up to the State), making the min age of 21 years old to purchase or own a firearm, holding the firearms owners accountable for the use of their firearms when it's used by someone else in the act of a crime as if they, themselves were actually holding it unless it was previously reported as lost or stolen. But you find those items to be against your nature. Then a crime is done by a person that would have been prevented if those were inacted and you then call me a gun grabber. Well, I hold you responsible as if you were holding the weapon the person used in the crime. More guns are not the answer and never have been. Better trained and more Cops along with better community involvement has always been the answer but you refuse to have one single dime of your tax burden to fund any of that. You just want to sell "More Guns" and that is a economic and not a responsible reason.

Crimes are not prevented by any of those things you want.....straw buyers pass current federal background checks which means they will pass any background check for a private sale. Mass shooters can already pass any background check...and the ones who can't steal their guns.

There is no reason to require a license to carry a gun...it is just a tool used by anti gunners to keep the poor from carrying guns....and it is unConstitutional as per Murdock v Pennsylvania....

More guns in the hands of law abiding gun owners have helped lower the gun murder rate, the gun crime rate and the violent crime rate...so you don't know what you are talking about....

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.

If a straw buyer does this and the weapon is used in a felony, the straw buyer needs to be tried and convicted for the crime that the gun was used for. You get a twofer on that conviction.

And when you can figure out a way to have Firearms protected under the 1st amendment under religious protection then, and only then, Murdock V Penn may apply. Murdock V has absolutely nothing to do with Firearms. It has to do with Religious Pamphlets and books. You might bow down and pray to your AR and print NRA scripture on it and accept it as a religion but outside of your little nutcase cult, no one else does including the Constitution of the United States.

Less than 3% of the population owns over 50% of all the guns in the US. If you do the math, that means there are more households without guns than with by a very wide margin. And you are trying to make us believe that there were 4.7 million people carrying guns on the street legally in 1993. Not hardly. There isn't even a fraction of that number even today. You present figures and the scuew them to your own ends. It's a lie.

Gun violence is down due to better trained, manned and equipped police forces and public awareness. Simple as that. More Guns in the hands of the untrained would only add to the accidental deaths and injuries that have also gone down due to the same reasons that violent crime has gone down. More Guns just adds to the problems. But it does add to the bank accounts to the Gun industry so I guess you find that it's a good thing. You deserve to be tried along with the violent criminals when they use the same guns you helped to make available to them.

And yet firearms have tripled and STILL accidents down murders down violent crime DOWN. You are to stupid to breed you keep proving the point.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

More legally held firearms... less crime

Yet you are against many of the Legal means on firearms. I support universal background checks on firearms sales, allowing more people to get their CCWs (like relaxing some of the BS in NYC), Getting rid of the open carry unless the person has a valid CCW License (and I even wonder if we even need an open carry at all but that's up to the State), making the min age of 21 years old to purchase or own a firearm, holding the firearms owners accountable for the use of their firearms when it's used by someone else in the act of a crime as if they, themselves were actually holding it unless it was previously reported as lost or stolen. But you find those items to be against your nature. Then a crime is done by a person that would have been prevented if those were inacted and you then call me a gun grabber. Well, I hold you responsible as if you were holding the weapon the person used in the crime. More guns are not the answer and never have been. Better trained and more Cops along with better community involvement has always been the answer but you refuse to have one single dime of your tax burden to fund any of that. You just want to sell "More Guns" and that is a economic and not a responsible reason.

Crimes are not prevented by any of those things you want.....straw buyers pass current federal background checks which means they will pass any background check for a private sale. Mass shooters can already pass any background check...and the ones who can't steal their guns.

There is no reason to require a license to carry a gun...it is just a tool used by anti gunners to keep the poor from carrying guns....and it is unConstitutional as per Murdock v Pennsylvania....

More guns in the hands of law abiding gun owners have helped lower the gun murder rate, the gun crime rate and the violent crime rate...so you don't know what you are talking about....

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.

If a straw buyer does this and the weapon is used in a felony, the straw buyer needs to be tried and convicted for the crime that the gun was used for. You get a twofer on that conviction.

And when you can figure out a way to have Firearms protected under the 1st amendment under religious protection then, and only then, Murdock V Penn may apply. Murdock V has absolutely nothing to do with Firearms. It has to do with Religious Pamphlets and books. You might bow down and pray to your AR and print NRA scripture on it and accept it as a religion but outside of your little nutcase cult, no one else does including the Constitution of the United States.

Less than 3% of the population owns over 50% of all the guns in the US. If you do the math, that means there are more households without guns than with by a very wide margin. And you are trying to make us believe that there were 4.7 million people carrying guns on the street legally in 1993. Not hardly. There isn't even a fraction of that number even today. You present figures and the scuew them to your own ends. It's a lie.

Gun violence is down due to better trained, manned and equipped police forces and public awareness. Simple as that. More Guns in the hands of the untrained would only add to the accidental deaths and injuries that have also gone down due to the same reasons that violent crime has gone down. More Guns just adds to the problems. But it does add to the bank accounts to the Gun industry so I guess you find that it's a good thing. You deserve to be tried along with the violent criminals when they use the same guns you helped to make available to them.

And yet firearms have tripled and STILL accidents down murders down violent crime DOWN. You are to stupid to breed you keep proving the point.

I already covered where your thesis comes from. And it dates back to 1998 to one specific book that ALL other authors keep repeating. Lott and a co-author wrote it but it was debunked as using false math and incomplete data by every decent expert out there. The first fewyears, authors would spout what you spout giving Lott as the source. But at some point, the authors stopped giving the source and some peopole started accepting it as fact. This is the source of your beliefs. It's been debunked 20 years ago. The problem is, a whole society has been founded on it. This is much like the way Carl Marx founded Communism and marxism. How's it freel to be in that company. Brainwashing is a wonderful thing when it's done for good. But in your case, it's not done for good.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

More legally held firearms... less crime

Yet you are against many of the Legal means on firearms. I support universal background checks on firearms sales, allowing more people to get their CCWs (like relaxing some of the BS in NYC), Getting rid of the open carry unless the person has a valid CCW License (and I even wonder if we even need an open carry at all but that's up to the State), making the min age of 21 years old to purchase or own a firearm, holding the firearms owners accountable for the use of their firearms when it's used by someone else in the act of a crime as if they, themselves were actually holding it unless it was previously reported as lost or stolen. But you find those items to be against your nature. Then a crime is done by a person that would have been prevented if those were inacted and you then call me a gun grabber. Well, I hold you responsible as if you were holding the weapon the person used in the crime. More guns are not the answer and never have been. Better trained and more Cops along with better community involvement has always been the answer but you refuse to have one single dime of your tax burden to fund any of that. You just want to sell "More Guns" and that is a economic and not a responsible reason.

Crimes are not prevented by any of those things you want.....straw buyers pass current federal background checks which means they will pass any background check for a private sale. Mass shooters can already pass any background check...and the ones who can't steal their guns.

There is no reason to require a license to carry a gun...it is just a tool used by anti gunners to keep the poor from carrying guns....and it is unConstitutional as per Murdock v Pennsylvania....

More guns in the hands of law abiding gun owners have helped lower the gun murder rate, the gun crime rate and the violent crime rate...so you don't know what you are talking about....

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.

If a straw buyer does this and the weapon is used in a felony, the straw buyer needs to be tried and convicted for the crime that the gun was used for. You get a twofer on that conviction.

And when you can figure out a way to have Firearms protected under the 1st amendment under religious protection then, and only then, Murdock V Penn may apply. Murdock V has absolutely nothing to do with Firearms. It has to do with Religious Pamphlets and books. You might bow down and pray to your AR and print NRA scripture on it and accept it as a religion but outside of your little nutcase cult, no one else does including the Constitution of the United States.

Less than 3% of the population owns over 50% of all the guns in the US. If you do the math, that means there are more households without guns than with by a very wide margin. And you are trying to make us believe that there were 4.7 million people carrying guns on the street legally in 1993. Not hardly. There isn't even a fraction of that number even today. You present figures and the scuew them to your own ends. It's a lie.

Gun violence is down due to better trained, manned and equipped police forces and public awareness. Simple as that. More Guns in the hands of the untrained would only add to the accidental deaths and injuries that have also gone down due to the same reasons that violent crime has gone down. More Guns just adds to the problems. But it does add to the bank accounts to the Gun industry so I guess you find that it's a good thing. You deserve to be tried along with the violent criminals when they use the same guns you helped to make available to them.

And yet firearms have tripled and STILL accidents down murders down violent crime DOWN. You are to stupid to breed you keep proving the point.

I already covered where your thesis comes from. And it dates back to 1998 to one specific book that ALL other authors keep repeating. Lott and a co-author wrote it but it was debunked as using false math and incomplete data by every decent expert out there. The first fewyears, authors would spout what you spout giving Lott as the source. But at some point, the authors stopped giving the source and some peopole started accepting it as fact. This is the source of your beliefs. It's been debunked 20 years ago. The problem is, a whole society has been founded on it. This is much like the way Carl Marx founded Communism and marxism. How's it freel to be in that company. Brainwashing is a wonderful thing when it's done for good. But in your case, it's not done for good.

Actually RETARD I have Government sources for my facts. Not some book from 20 years ago. Government FACTS show a decline in firearm accidental shootings, A decline in murders a declie in accidental deaths by firearms and MORE firearms in private hands. Do keep up dumb ass

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Yet you are against many of the Legal means on firearms. I support universal background checks on firearms sales, allowing more people to get their CCWs (like relaxing some of the BS in NYC), Getting rid of the open carry unless the person has a valid CCW License (and I even wonder if we even need an open carry at all but that's up to the State), making the min age of 21 years old to purchase or own a firearm, holding the firearms owners accountable for the use of their firearms when it's used by someone else in the act of a crime as if they, themselves were actually holding it unless it was previously reported as lost or stolen. But you find those items to be against your nature. Then a crime is done by a person that would have been prevented if those were inacted and you then call me a gun grabber. Well, I hold you responsible as if you were holding the weapon the person used in the crime. More guns are not the answer and never have been. Better trained and more Cops along with better community involvement has always been the answer but you refuse to have one single dime of your tax burden to fund any of that. You just want to sell "More Guns" and that is a economic and not a responsible reason.

Crimes are not prevented by any of those things you want.....straw buyers pass current federal background checks which means they will pass any background check for a private sale. Mass shooters can already pass any background check...and the ones who can't steal their guns.

There is no reason to require a license to carry a gun...it is just a tool used by anti gunners to keep the poor from carrying guns....and it is unConstitutional as per Murdock v Pennsylvania....

More guns in the hands of law abiding gun owners have helped lower the gun murder rate, the gun crime rate and the violent crime rate...so you don't know what you are talking about....

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.

If a straw buyer does this and the weapon is used in a felony, the straw buyer needs to be tried and convicted for the crime that the gun was used for. You get a twofer on that conviction.

And when you can figure out a way to have Firearms protected under the 1st amendment under religious protection then, and only then, Murdock V Penn may apply. Murdock V has absolutely nothing to do with Firearms. It has to do with Religious Pamphlets and books. You might bow down and pray to your AR and print NRA scripture on it and accept it as a religion but outside of your little nutcase cult, no one else does including the Constitution of the United States.

Less than 3% of the population owns over 50% of all the guns in the US. If you do the math, that means there are more households without guns than with by a very wide margin. And you are trying to make us believe that there were 4.7 million people carrying guns on the street legally in 1993. Not hardly. There isn't even a fraction of that number even today. You present figures and the scuew them to your own ends. It's a lie.

Gun violence is down due to better trained, manned and equipped police forces and public awareness. Simple as that. More Guns in the hands of the untrained would only add to the accidental deaths and injuries that have also gone down due to the same reasons that violent crime has gone down. More Guns just adds to the problems. But it does add to the bank accounts to the Gun industry so I guess you find that it's a good thing. You deserve to be tried along with the violent criminals when they use the same guns you helped to make available to them.

And yet firearms have tripled and STILL accidents down murders down violent crime DOWN. You are to stupid to breed you keep proving the point.

I already covered where your thesis comes from. And it dates back to 1998 to one specific book that ALL other authors keep repeating. Lott and a co-author wrote it but it was debunked as using false math and incomplete data by every decent expert out there. The first fewyears, authors would spout what you spout giving Lott as the source. But at some point, the authors stopped giving the source and some peopole started accepting it as fact. This is the source of your beliefs. It's been debunked 20 years ago. The problem is, a whole society has been founded on it. This is much like the way Carl Marx founded Communism and marxism. How's it freel to be in that company. Brainwashing is a wonderful thing when it's done for good. But in your case, it's not done for good.

Actually RETARD I have Government sources for my facts. Not some book from 20 years ago. Government FACTS show a decline in firearm accidental shootings, A decline in murders a declie in accidental deaths by firearms and MORE firearms in private hands. Do keep up dumb ass

Are you smart enough to corrolate that information into usable data? Or are you going to use the false information that is going around that has been debunked 20 years ago.

The real data is that there are fewer firearms in the hands of normal civilians than there were in 1993. But the 3% that owns over 50% of all firearms has increased a thousand fold.

1993 The Brady Act was passed.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 is named after White House press secretary James Brady, who was permanently disabled from an injury suffered during an attempt to assassinate President Ronald Reagan. (Brady died in 2014). It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The law, which amends the GCA, requires that background checks be completed before a gun is purchased from a licensed dealer, manufacturer or importer. It established the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is maintained by the FBI.


1994

Tucked into the sweeping and controversial Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, signed by President Clinton in 1994, is the subsection titled Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act. This is known as the assault weapons ban — a temporary prohibition in effect from September of 1994 to September of 2004. Multiple attempts to renew the ban have failed.


The provisions of the bill outlawed the ability to “manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon,” unless it was “lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.” Nineteen military-style or “copy-cat” assault weapons—including AR-15s, TEC-9s, MAC-10s, etc.—could not be manufactured or sold. It also banned “certain high-capacity ammunition magazines of more than ten rounds,” according to a U.S. Department of Justice Fact Sheet.

This was all in affect until 1998 where it was allowed to run out. But if you notice, using your own figures, the bulk of the reduction in firearms accidents and murders went down during 1993 to 1998. Firearms were not held very high on the list of society at this point and sales were way down.

Then the onslaught of stripping of laws began happening and the gun culture began to grow. A lot of that had to do with the lie propagated by the Lott Book, "More Guns, Less Crimes". The book was based on bad data and bad math that was from the 70s that was already proven to be false. But the Gun Culture was born.

2003

The Tiahrt Amendment, proposed by Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), prohibited the ATF from publicly releasing data showing where criminals purchased their firearms and stipulated that only law enforcement officers or prosecutors could access such information.


“The law effectively shields retailers from lawsuits, academic study and public scrutiny,” The Washington Post wrote in 2010. “It also keeps the spotlight off the relationship between rogue gun dealers and the black market in firearms.”


There have been efforts to repeal this amendment.

2005 The NRA changed and it became the voice of sales for the Gun Industry.

In 2005, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was signed by President George W. Bush to prevent gun manufacturers from being named in federal or state civil suits by those who were victims of crimes involving guns made by that company.

The first provision of this law is “to prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended.” It also dismissed pending cases on October 26, 2005.

2008 Here is the one that you and others keep misquoting. It only applies to handguns in the home, nothing else.

District of Columbia v. Heller essentially changed a nearly 70-year precedent set by Miller in 1939. While the Miller ruling focused on the “well regulated militia” portion of the Second Amendment (known as the “collective rights theory” and referring to a state’s right to defend itself), Heller focused on the “individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.”

Heller challenged the constitutionality of a 32-year-old handgun ban in Washington, D.C., and found, “The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.”

It did not however nullify other gun control provisions. “The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” stated the ruling.

The older laws are slowly being put back in place as well as new regulations. More and more people are not buying into the lie laid out by Lott of "More Guns Less Crime". It was a lie in 1998 as much as it is a lie today.

 

[2aguy]

More legally held firearms... less crime

Yet you are against many of the Legal means on firearms. I support universal background checks on firearms sales, allowing more people to get their CCWs (like relaxing some of the BS in NYC), Getting rid of the open carry unless the person has a valid CCW License (and I even wonder if we even need an open carry at all but that's up to the State), making the min age of 21 years old to purchase or own a firearm, holding the firearms owners accountable for the use of their firearms when it's used by someone else in the act of a crime as if they, themselves were actually holding it unless it was previously reported as lost or stolen. But you find those items to be against your nature. Then a crime is done by a person that would have been prevented if those were inacted and you then call me a gun grabber. Well, I hold you responsible as if you were holding the weapon the person used in the crime. More guns are not the answer and never have been. Better trained and more Cops along with better community involvement has always been the answer but you refuse to have one single dime of your tax burden to fund any of that. You just want to sell "More Guns" and that is a economic and not a responsible reason.

Crimes are not prevented by any of those things you want.....straw buyers pass current federal background checks which means they will pass any background check for a private sale. Mass shooters can already pass any background check...and the ones who can't steal their guns.

There is no reason to require a license to carry a gun...it is just a tool used by anti gunners to keep the poor from carrying guns....and it is unConstitutional as per Murdock v Pennsylvania....

More guns in the hands of law abiding gun owners have helped lower the gun murder rate, the gun crime rate and the violent crime rate...so you don't know what you are talking about....

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.

If a straw buyer does this and the weapon is used in a felony, the straw buyer needs to be tried and convicted for the crime that the gun was used for. You get a twofer on that conviction.

And when you can figure out a way to have Firearms protected under the 1st amendment under religious protection then, and only then, Murdock V Penn may apply. Murdock V has absolutely nothing to do with Firearms. It has to do with Religious Pamphlets and books. You might bow down and pray to your AR and print NRA scripture on it and accept it as a religion but outside of your little nutcase cult, no one else does including the Constitution of the United States.

Less than 3% of the population owns over 50% of all the guns in the US. If you do the math, that means there are more households without guns than with by a very wide margin. And you are trying to make us believe that there were 4.7 million people carrying guns on the street legally in 1993. Not hardly. There isn't even a fraction of that number even today. You present figures and the scuew them to your own ends. It's a lie.

Gun violence is down due to better trained, manned and equipped police forces and public awareness. Simple as that. More Guns in the hands of the untrained would only add to the accidental deaths and injuries that have also gone down due to the same reasons that violent crime has gone down. More Guns just adds to the problems. But it does add to the bank accounts to the Gun industry so I guess you find that it's a good thing. You deserve to be tried along with the violent criminals when they use the same guns you helped to make available to them.

We already have laws that allow us to arrest straw buyers...prosecutors are not locking them up.....

As to Murdock, you don't understand the ruling.....it directly states that fee cannot be charged for the exercise of a Right....that is any Right......

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Held:
- A municipal ordinance which, as construed and applied, requires religious colporteurs to pay a license tax as a condition to the pursuit of their activities, is invalid under the Federal Constitution as a denial of freedom of speech, press and religion.
- A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.
- The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise

Opinion:
...It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax -- a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution....
... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down...
... It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise...
Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

 

[2aguy]

More legally held firearms... less crime

Yet you are against many of the Legal means on firearms. I support universal background checks on firearms sales, allowing more people to get their CCWs (like relaxing some of the BS in NYC), Getting rid of the open carry unless the person has a valid CCW License (and I even wonder if we even need an open carry at all but that's up to the State), making the min age of 21 years old to purchase or own a firearm, holding the firearms owners accountable for the use of their firearms when it's used by someone else in the act of a crime as if they, themselves were actually holding it unless it was previously reported as lost or stolen. But you find those items to be against your nature. Then a crime is done by a person that would have been prevented if those were inacted and you then call me a gun grabber. Well, I hold you responsible as if you were holding the weapon the person used in the crime. More guns are not the answer and never have been. Better trained and more Cops along with better community involvement has always been the answer but you refuse to have one single dime of your tax burden to fund any of that. You just want to sell "More Guns" and that is a economic and not a responsible reason.

Crimes are not prevented by any of those things you want.....straw buyers pass current federal background checks which means they will pass any background check for a private sale. Mass shooters can already pass any background check...and the ones who can't steal their guns.

There is no reason to require a license to carry a gun...it is just a tool used by anti gunners to keep the poor from carrying guns....and it is unConstitutional as per Murdock v Pennsylvania....

More guns in the hands of law abiding gun owners have helped lower the gun murder rate, the gun crime rate and the violent crime rate...so you don't know what you are talking about....

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.

If a straw buyer does this and the weapon is used in a felony, the straw buyer needs to be tried and convicted for the crime that the gun was used for. You get a twofer on that conviction.

And when you can figure out a way to have Firearms protected under the 1st amendment under religious protection then, and only then, Murdock V Penn may apply. Murdock V has absolutely nothing to do with Firearms. It has to do with Religious Pamphlets and books. You might bow down and pray to your AR and print NRA scripture on it and accept it as a religion but outside of your little nutcase cult, no one else does including the Constitution of the United States.

Less than 3% of the population owns over 50% of all the guns in the US. If you do the math, that means there are more households without guns than with by a very wide margin. And you are trying to make us believe that there were 4.7 million people carrying guns on the street legally in 1993. Not hardly. There isn't even a fraction of that number even today. You present figures and the scuew them to your own ends. It's a lie.

Gun violence is down due to better trained, manned and equipped police forces and public awareness. Simple as that. More Guns in the hands of the untrained would only add to the accidental deaths and injuries that have also gone down due to the same reasons that violent crime has gone down. More Guns just adds to the problems. But it does add to the bank accounts to the Gun industry so I guess you find that it's a good thing. You deserve to be tried along with the violent criminals when they use the same guns you helped to make available to them.

Gun violence is down due to better trained, manned and equipped police forces and public awareness.

And you miss this as well......more Americans own and carry guns....and the predictions of people like you did not happen....gun murder did not go up, gun crime did not go up, violent crime did not go up....the entire argument that people like you make, that Americans with guns increase the gun crime rate was shown to be wrong.......

And as the linked studies show, as more Americans carry guns, they help to lower the crime rate.......especially for the particular victim who uses a gun to stop their own rape, robbery or murder....and since Americans use those legal guns both at home and in public to stop 2.4 million crimes a year, according to the CDC.....those are crimes stopped, which lowers the crime rate....

Please...think before you post.

 

[2aguy]

More legally held firearms... less crime

Yet you are against many of the Legal means on firearms. I support universal background checks on firearms sales, allowing more people to get their CCWs (like relaxing some of the BS in NYC), Getting rid of the open carry unless the person has a valid CCW License (and I even wonder if we even need an open carry at all but that's up to the State), making the min age of 21 years old to purchase or own a firearm, holding the firearms owners accountable for the use of their firearms when it's used by someone else in the act of a crime as if they, themselves were actually holding it unless it was previously reported as lost or stolen. But you find those items to be against your nature. Then a crime is done by a person that would have been prevented if those were inacted and you then call me a gun grabber. Well, I hold you responsible as if you were holding the weapon the person used in the crime. More guns are not the answer and never have been. Better trained and more Cops along with better community involvement has always been the answer but you refuse to have one single dime of your tax burden to fund any of that. You just want to sell "More Guns" and that is a economic and not a responsible reason.

Crimes are not prevented by any of those things you want.....straw buyers pass current federal background checks which means they will pass any background check for a private sale. Mass shooters can already pass any background check...and the ones who can't steal their guns.

There is no reason to require a license to carry a gun...it is just a tool used by anti gunners to keep the poor from carrying guns....and it is unConstitutional as per Murdock v Pennsylvania....

More guns in the hands of law abiding gun owners have helped lower the gun murder rate, the gun crime rate and the violent crime rate...so you don't know what you are talking about....

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.

If a straw buyer does this and the weapon is used in a felony, the straw buyer needs to be tried and convicted for the crime that the gun was used for. You get a twofer on that conviction.

And when you can figure out a way to have Firearms protected under the 1st amendment under religious protection then, and only then, Murdock V Penn may apply. Murdock V has absolutely nothing to do with Firearms. It has to do with Religious Pamphlets and books. You might bow down and pray to your AR and print NRA scripture on it and accept it as a religion but outside of your little nutcase cult, no one else does including the Constitution of the United States.

Less than 3% of the population owns over 50% of all the guns in the US. If you do the math, that means there are more households without guns than with by a very wide margin. And you are trying to make us believe that there were 4.7 million people carrying guns on the street legally in 1993. Not hardly. There isn't even a fraction of that number even today. You present figures and the scuew them to your own ends. It's a lie.

Gun violence is down due to better trained, manned and equipped police forces and public awareness. Simple as that. More Guns in the hands of the untrained would only add to the accidental deaths and injuries that have also gone down due to the same reasons that violent crime has gone down. More Guns just adds to the problems. But it does add to the bank accounts to the Gun industry so I guess you find that it's a good thing. You deserve to be tried along with the violent criminals when they use the same guns you helped to make available to them.

Legal Firearm ownership is very low in urban America, and very high in rural America

Population is very high in Urban America and very low in rural America. And then, not all rural people own firearms as well. I will admit that most do but some don't. Meanwhile, MOST Urban households don't own firearms.

I was wondering where you and your little buddy was getting your data from. I finally found it. Lott and Mustards book that was largely discredited that made all the same claims you do. In fact, almost all pro gun writing since then have largely been based on that flawed book although none of them gives reference to it. Hate to break it to you but you have been sold a huge bill of goods based on a book that lied and whose main purpose was to sell a book, not stick with facts and real data.

You guys keep lying about Lott....and yet his research still stands the test of time.....

And it was Pew, not Lott, that showed that as more Americans own and carry guns the gun murder rate, the gun crime rate and the violent crime rate went down....supporting Lott's argument...