California politicians say you can't have guns, cops say you are on your own...nice...

[jknowgood]

Why aren't there more cops?

About what you would expect...

Los Angeles Police Department Doesn't Have Enough Qualified Recruits

Fewer people are applying to join the LAPD and, of those who do, a significantly higher number of them are being disqualified from consideration. Officials say budget cuts have slashed the advertising used to draw recruits while other departments are luring top talent with higher salaries than the LAPD offers.

Since the decline began several months ago, the LAPD is down more than 100 officers. The department needs to hire about 350 officers a year to make up for normal attrition, and officials say they could remain understaffed for years if the current trend holds. Earlier this year, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Chief Charlie Beck celebrated the 10,000-officer milestone, a target the city has sought to attain since the L.A. riots in 1992.

"Our entire plan is getting screwed up.... We don't see an end to it," said LAPD Asst. Chief Sandy Jo MacArthur, who oversees recruitment and training for the department. "It is a very big red flag for us. Once you start losing ground, it is so hard to climb back."

The attrition means fewer police officers available for patrol duty and other functions, officials say.

Also, the number of women and blacks -- and especially black women -- making it into the training academy has dropped considerably. That leaves the department far short of diversity goals in recent academy classes; the goals were put in place decades ago to counter discriminatory hiring practices. None of the 30 rookies who recently graduated from the academy, for example, were black and only five were women.

Officials pointed to several other factors they said are contributing to the shortage.

To start, not enough people want to join the LAPD. The department needs about 865 people each month to begin the lengthy application process to become a cop -- a large crop that inevitably gets whittled down as people drop out or are disqualified. Currently, the LAPD is getting between 600 and 700 new applicants, said John Dunlop, chief of the personnel department's backgrounds division. The LAPD is facing tougher competition from other law enforcement agencies for top candidates.

Although the LAPD has the advantage of a strong reputation, some other agencies pay significantly higher starting salaries, Dunlop and MacArthur said. The base starting pay for an LAPD recruit is $48,462.

Budget cuts also have forced the personnel department to do away with nearly all of the billboard advertisements and commercials on radio and television stations that it used to rely on to spread the word that the LAPD was hiring, said Bruce Whidden, a spokesman for the personnel department. Also gone are $1,000 recruitment incentives the office used to pay to current officers and others whenever someone they convinced to apply completed the academy.

So your link says it all comes down to less pay. You can't expect to get quality recruits at near minimum wage pay.

Wow, and this is happening in a liberal Utopia. Lol

 

[Brain357]

Lott is a disgraced researcher for many reasons as you already know. Only gun nuts believe his work.

Nope…..you guys have tried to smear him and Kleck and you haven't succeeded…smearing the guys who show you are wrong is not disproving their research….but keep trying…..

He can't be taken seriously.

Shooting Down the Gun Lobby’s Favorite “Academic”: A Lott of Lies | Armed With Reason

Yes…you can't destroy the research so you have to smear the researcher……and of course that still leaves the other 40 years of research on defensive gun use and the other 12 studies on concealed carry……..and smear, smear away……..it can't hide the truth, the facts or the reality….

It is mostly smearing his research actually. I don't think you really have 12 valid studies that don't involve lott. You are getting them from his website.

No…they are smearing Lott….his research has been attacked and he has defended it and I have posted it over and over……they can't take out his research so they have to go after him…...

The link goes after his research in many, many ways. He has been debunked, only gun nuts who want to ignore the facts believe. He uses surveys that don't even exist.

 

[jknowgood]

And here are the first signs of the coming tide...

Overall Crime Rate Increases in Los Angeles for First Time Since 2003

After 12 straight years of declining crime in Los Angeles, the city experienced an uptick in criminal acts in the first part of 2015, the mayor and police chief announced Wednesday.

Violent and property crimes — known as Part I crimes — were up 12.7 percent for the first half of 2015 compared to the same time in 2014. Violent crimes alone were up 20.6 percent.

Wait. How was it declining so long with strict gun control and liberal policies?

They backed of killing each other...since it is obvious that gun control laws don't keep them from getting guns. Criminals decide when they want to kill people...and when they do they decide wether to use guns or not...in every country in the world, Britain, France, the rest of Europe and Japan.....their criminals get guns when they want or need them.

The only people who can't get guns....law abiding people who obey gun control laws....the very people who do not use guns to commit crime, and murder......

When criminals decide to back of killing each other, the murder rate goes down.....it also helps to have enough police.....

Your claims as usual are baseless. Crime went down with strict gun control and liberal policies.

Yeah it's worked so well in Chicago.

 

[jknowgood]

They backed of killing each other...since it is obvious that gun control laws don't keep them from getting guns. Criminals decide when they want to kill people...and when they do they decide wether to use guns or not...in every country in the world, Britain, France, the rest of Europe and Japan.....their criminals get guns when they want or need them.

The only people who can't get guns....law abiding people who obey gun control laws....the very people who do not use guns to commit crime, and murder......

When criminals decide to back of killing each other, the murder rate goes down.....it also helps to have enough police.....

Your claims as usual are baseless. Crime went down with strict gun control and liberal policies.

And it is going up under strict gun control and liberal policies.....gun control does not control crime. Criminals get guns when they need or want them and use them when they want or need to.

Our criminal sub culture is more prone to murder each other...if they take a break from doing that it does not come from gun control policies they obviously ignore....

Where do you get all this crazy from?

Yes....to one such as you the truth, facts and reality are crazy....

I'm sure you blame liberals for bad weather too.

Well liberals did make up the global cooling, global warming, or climate change myth.

 

[2aguy]

Nope…..you guys have tried to smear him and Kleck and you haven't succeeded…smearing the guys who show you are wrong is not disproving their research….but keep trying…..

He can't be taken seriously.

Shooting Down the Gun Lobby’s Favorite “Academic”: A Lott of Lies | Armed With Reason

Yes…you can't destroy the research so you have to smear the researcher……and of course that still leaves the other 40 years of research on defensive gun use and the other 12 studies on concealed carry……..and smear, smear away……..it can't hide the truth, the facts or the reality….

It is mostly smearing his research actually. I don't think you really have 12 valid studies that don't involve lott. You are getting them from his website.

No…they are smearing Lott….his research has been attacked and he has defended it and I have posted it over and over……they can't take out his research so they have to go after him…...

The link goes after his research in many, many ways. He has been debunked, only gun nuts who want to ignore the facts believe. He uses surveys that don't even exist.

Brain…..this is why I lost respect for you…Kleck's research is well known, has been gone over with a fine tooth come since it came out in the 90s and nuts like you haven't been able to touch it. Same with Lott's work. You guys make crap up, lie, smear and make up actually fake research that is easily shown to be crap……..and then you prance around saying that Lott and Kleck are the problem……..

The truth, facts and reality show that what you believe is dumb. 40 years of research by Kleck, Lott and a lot of others show you are wrong…..but you hate guns…and nothing will stop you from trying to ban them and get them confiscated…..you have a phobia…….

I get it…..so I will resist your efforts in the ways I can…. I donate to the NRA, the 2nd Amendment foundation and I vote for candidates who won't disarm normal people…..

You do what you have to…...

 

[jknowgood]

You find one…..good job…..here's a cookie.

Well you don't seem to understand that when almost all big cities are run by Dems the ones with the most crime are also dem run by default. What we know is that crime is at historical lows and we have the fullest jails in the world. Doesn't sound so soft in crime to me.

And more Americans than ever before own and carry guns for self defense. The combination of actually locking up criminals and allowing normal people to defend themselves is what reduces the crime rate. Gun control…not so much…attacking police and getting them to stay in their cars….not so much….

And New York…..when it was run by a Republican…the real Republican, Guilliani….the crime rate was brought down, and now that a real liberal is in charge and not following what Guilliani did, the crime rate is going up.

Crime was trending down long before the carry fad.

Nope….crime started the downward trend as states were adopting concealed and open carry laws…it started in the early 90s. And the fact that the crime rate declined as more people carried guns for self defense destroys the entire notion that law abiding citizens, carrying guns for self defense increase the crime rate. Normal, law abiding people, carrying guns are not the crime problem. The criminal sub culture in the United States is the problem, and they do not obey gun control laws.

There has been no significant number of people carrying til the last 5 years. Even now it is a tiny number. To claim it has caused crime to go down is obviously false. There are almost no arrests due to carry. It has however not increased crime.

What are you talking about, Obama has been the best gun salesman ever.

 

[Brain357]

And here are the first signs of the coming tide...

Overall Crime Rate Increases in Los Angeles for First Time Since 2003

After 12 straight years of declining crime in Los Angeles, the city experienced an uptick in criminal acts in the first part of 2015, the mayor and police chief announced Wednesday.

Violent and property crimes — known as Part I crimes — were up 12.7 percent for the first half of 2015 compared to the same time in 2014. Violent crimes alone were up 20.6 percent.

Wait. How was it declining so long with strict gun control and liberal policies?

They backed of killing each other...since it is obvious that gun control laws don't keep them from getting guns. Criminals decide when they want to kill people...and when they do they decide wether to use guns or not...in every country in the world, Britain, France, the rest of Europe and Japan.....their criminals get guns when they want or need them.

The only people who can't get guns....law abiding people who obey gun control laws....the very people who do not use guns to commit crime, and murder......

When criminals decide to back of killing each other, the murder rate goes down.....it also helps to have enough police.....

Your claims as usual are baseless. Crime went down with strict gun control and liberal policies.

Yeah it's worked so well in Chicago.

Violent crime has gone up since chicago got carry. That doesn't seem to be working.

 

[Brain357]

He can't be taken seriously.

Shooting Down the Gun Lobby’s Favorite “Academic”: A Lott of Lies | Armed With Reason

Yes…you can't destroy the research so you have to smear the researcher……and of course that still leaves the other 40 years of research on defensive gun use and the other 12 studies on concealed carry……..and smear, smear away……..it can't hide the truth, the facts or the reality….

It is mostly smearing his research actually. I don't think you really have 12 valid studies that don't involve lott. You are getting them from his website.

No…they are smearing Lott….his research has been attacked and he has defended it and I have posted it over and over……they can't take out his research so they have to go after him…...

The link goes after his research in many, many ways. He has been debunked, only gun nuts who want to ignore the facts believe. He uses surveys that don't even exist.

Brain…..this is why I lost respect for you…Kleck's research is well known, has been gone over with a fine tooth come since it came out in the 90s and nuts like you haven't been able to touch it. Same with Lott's work. You guys make crap up, lie, smear and make up actually fake research that is easily shown to be crap……..and then you prance around saying that Lott and Kleck are the problem……..

The truth, facts and reality show that what you believe is dumb. 40 years of research by Kleck, Lott and a lot of others show you are wrong…..but you hate guns…and nothing will stop you from trying to ban them and get them confiscated…..you have a phobia…….

I get it…..so I will resist your efforts in the ways I can…. I donate to the NRA, the 2nd Amendment foundation and I vote for candidates who won't disarm normal people…..

You do what you have to…...

And this is why I have no respect for you. You don't want truth, you just want more guns. Kleck and lott have been debunked many times over. You choose to ignore it. Most your claims aren't even possible.

 

[Brain357]

Well you don't seem to understand that when almost all big cities are run by Dems the ones with the most crime are also dem run by default. What we know is that crime is at historical lows and we have the fullest jails in the world. Doesn't sound so soft in crime to me.

And more Americans than ever before own and carry guns for self defense. The combination of actually locking up criminals and allowing normal people to defend themselves is what reduces the crime rate. Gun control…not so much…attacking police and getting them to stay in their cars….not so much….

And New York…..when it was run by a Republican…the real Republican, Guilliani….the crime rate was brought down, and now that a real liberal is in charge and not following what Guilliani did, the crime rate is going up.

Crime was trending down long before the carry fad.

Nope….crime started the downward trend as states were adopting concealed and open carry laws…it started in the early 90s. And the fact that the crime rate declined as more people carried guns for self defense destroys the entire notion that law abiding citizens, carrying guns for self defense increase the crime rate. Normal, law abiding people, carrying guns are not the crime problem. The criminal sub culture in the United States is the problem, and they do not obey gun control laws.

There has been no significant number of people carrying til the last 5 years. Even now it is a tiny number. To claim it has caused crime to go down is obviously false. There are almost no arrests due to carry. It has however not increased crime.

What are you talking about, Obama has been the best gun salesman ever.

The number of people with a carry license is still very small.

 

[Brain357]

This is what experts in the field believe:
There's scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won't like it

I also found widespread confidence that a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide (72% agree, 11% disagree) and that a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates (62% vs. 9%). Finally, there is consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide (71% vs. 12%).

Now none of this means we ban guns, but it shows how lott and kleck are not what the majority believe. Real researchers have debunked their studies.

 

[jknowgood]

And more Americans than ever before own and carry guns for self defense. The combination of actually locking up criminals and allowing normal people to defend themselves is what reduces the crime rate. Gun control…not so much…attacking police and getting them to stay in their cars….not so much….

And New York…..when it was run by a Republican…the real Republican, Guilliani….the crime rate was brought down, and now that a real liberal is in charge and not following what Guilliani did, the crime rate is going up.

Crime was trending down long before the carry fad.

Nope….crime started the downward trend as states were adopting concealed and open carry laws…it started in the early 90s. And the fact that the crime rate declined as more people carried guns for self defense destroys the entire notion that law abiding citizens, carrying guns for self defense increase the crime rate. Normal, law abiding people, carrying guns are not the crime problem. The criminal sub culture in the United States is the problem, and they do not obey gun control laws.

There has been no significant number of people carrying til the last 5 years. Even now it is a tiny number. To claim it has caused crime to go down is obviously false. There are almost no arrests due to carry. It has however not increased crime.

What are you talking about, Obama has been the best gun salesman ever.

The number of people with a carry license is still very small.

Considering before Obama not many of mine had a CC, now a good many do and I will soon.

 

[Brain357]

Crime was trending down long before the carry fad.

Nope….crime started the downward trend as states were adopting concealed and open carry laws…it started in the early 90s. And the fact that the crime rate declined as more people carried guns for self defense destroys the entire notion that law abiding citizens, carrying guns for self defense increase the crime rate. Normal, law abiding people, carrying guns are not the crime problem. The criminal sub culture in the United States is the problem, and they do not obey gun control laws.

There has been no significant number of people carrying til the last 5 years. Even now it is a tiny number. To claim it has caused crime to go down is obviously false. There are almost no arrests due to carry. It has however not increased crime.

What are you talking about, Obama has been the best gun salesman ever.

The number of people with a carry license is still very small.

Considering before Obama not many of mine had a CC, now a good many do and I will soon.

It is certainly growing. It is pretty amazing marketing by the gun companies. Crime is at its lowest in recorded history and they still get people thinking they need a gun. Glad many are made in the US.

 

[jknowgood]

Nope….crime started the downward trend as states were adopting concealed and open carry laws…it started in the early 90s. And the fact that the crime rate declined as more people carried guns for self defense destroys the entire notion that law abiding citizens, carrying guns for self defense increase the crime rate. Normal, law abiding people, carrying guns are not the crime problem. The criminal sub culture in the United States is the problem, and they do not obey gun control laws.

There has been no significant number of people carrying til the last 5 years. Even now it is a tiny number. To claim it has caused crime to go down is obviously false. There are almost no arrests due to carry. It has however not increased crime.

What are you talking about, Obama has been the best gun salesman ever.

The number of people with a carry license is still very small.

Considering before Obama not many of mine had a CC, now a good many do and I will soon.

It is certainly growing. It is pretty amazing marketing by the gun companies. Crime is at its lowest in recorded history and they still get people thinking they need a gun. Glad many are made in the US.

I'm not worried, but it would suck if you needed it and it was sitting at home. Doesn't cost anything to carry it.

 

[Brain357]

There has been no significant number of people carrying til the last 5 years. Even now it is a tiny number. To claim it has caused crime to go down is obviously false. There are almost no arrests due to carry. It has however not increased crime.

What are you talking about, Obama has been the best gun salesman ever.

The number of people with a carry license is still very small.

Considering before Obama not many of mine had a CC, now a good many do and I will soon.

It is certainly growing. It is pretty amazing marketing by the gun companies. Crime is at its lowest in recorded history and they still get people thinking they need a gun. Glad many are made in the US.

I'm not worried, but it would suck if you needed it and it was sitting at home. Doesn't cost anything to carry it.

No but sounds like a pain to me. I'm pretty old and have never needed one, nor do I know anyone who has. And then if you are robbed by someone armed what do you do? There is like a 99% chance he just wants money. Pull your gun and have a shootout and you have a 50% chance of surviving. I don't carry lots of valuable so why carry a gun? I understand some have more of a need, but like 99.9% of people will never need one. Selling something people don't need is again amazing marketing. There are also people in jail who thought they were lawfully defending themselves...

 

[Muhammed]

Why aren't there more cops?

About what you would expect...

Los Angeles Police Department Doesn't Have Enough Qualified Recruits

Fewer people are applying to join the LAPD and, of those who do, a significantly higher number of them are being disqualified from consideration. Officials say budget cuts have slashed the advertising used to draw recruits while other departments are luring top talent with higher salaries than the LAPD offers.

Since the decline began several months ago, the LAPD is down more than 100 officers. The department needs to hire about 350 officers a year to make up for normal attrition, and officials say they could remain understaffed for years if the current trend holds. Earlier this year, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Chief Charlie Beck celebrated the 10,000-officer milestone, a target the city has sought to attain since the L.A. riots in 1992.

"Our entire plan is getting screwed up.... We don't see an end to it," said LAPD Asst. Chief Sandy Jo MacArthur, who oversees recruitment and training for the department. "It is a very big red flag for us. Once you start losing ground, it is so hard to climb back."

The attrition means fewer police officers available for patrol duty and other functions, officials say.

Also, the number of women and blacks -- and especially black women -- making it into the training academy has dropped considerably. That leaves the department far short of diversity goals in recent academy classes; the goals were put in place decades ago to counter discriminatory hiring practices. None of the 30 rookies who recently graduated from the academy, for example, were black and only five were women.

Officials pointed to several other factors they said are contributing to the shortage.

To start, not enough people want to join the LAPD. The department needs about 865 people each month to begin the lengthy application process to become a cop -- a large crop that inevitably gets whittled down as people drop out or are disqualified. Currently, the LAPD is getting between 600 and 700 new applicants, said John Dunlop, chief of the personnel department's backgrounds division. The LAPD is facing tougher competition from other law enforcement agencies for top candidates.

Although the LAPD has the advantage of a strong reputation, some other agencies pay significantly higher starting salaries, Dunlop and MacArthur said. The base starting pay for an LAPD recruit is $48,462.

Budget cuts also have forced the personnel department to do away with nearly all of the billboard advertisements and commercials on radio and television stations that it used to rely on to spread the word that the LAPD was hiring, said Bruce Whidden, a spokesman for the personnel department. Also gone are $1,000 recruitment incentives the office used to pay to current officers and others whenever someone they convinced to apply completed the academy.

And I suppose LA isn't the cheapest city to live in.

When you pay the police that little money isn't a big incentive.. So you tend to get recruits who want to be a cop for ulterior motives besides a paycheck. It attracts sadistic control freaks.

 

[jknowgood]

What are you talking about, Obama has been the best gun salesman ever.

The number of people with a carry license is still very small.

Considering before Obama not many of mine had a CC, now a good many do and I will soon.

It is certainly growing. It is pretty amazing marketing by the gun companies. Crime is at its lowest in recorded history and they still get people thinking they need a gun. Glad many are made in the US.

I'm not worried, but it would suck if you needed it and it was sitting at home. Doesn't cost anything to carry it.

No but sounds like a pain to me. I'm pretty old and have never needed one, nor do I know anyone who has. And then if you are robbed by someone armed what do you do? There is like a 99% chance he just wants money. Pull your gun and have a shootout and you have a 50% chance of surviving. I don't carry lots of valuable so why carry a gun? I understand some have more of a need, but like 99.9% of people will never need one. Selling something people don't need is again amazing marketing. There are also people in jail who thought they were lawfully defending themselves...

I may never need a socket set in my car, but if it breaks down on the side of the road. I will be glad I have it.

 

[2aguy]

This is what experts in the field believe:
There's scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won't like it

I also found widespread confidence that a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide (72% agree, 11% disagree) and that a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates (62% vs. 9%). Finally, there is consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide (71% vs. 12%).

Now none of this means we ban guns, but it shows how lott and kleck are not what the majority believe. Real researchers have debunked their studies.

Yeah...they cherry picked those too.....if you look at the guys the anti gunners surveyed.....they aren't guys who actually publish on crime......means a lot to actually work in the field of study....

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Survey-of-Economists_Final.pdf

Introduction

Surveying the academic literature provides one useful way of understanding the relationship between gun ownership and crime.

Alternatively, one can survey researchers who have published peer-reviewed research on the topic.

From August 25th to September 12th 2014, the Crime Prevention Research Center emailed a survey to 50 researchers. Since Gary Becker’s seminal contribution on the economics of crime in the the Journal of Political Economy1 , economists have been deeply involved in research to determine what causes crime and what deters crime.

Therefore, this study was created as the first of its kind, specifically targeting economists who have published peer-reviewed research on the relationship between gun ownership and crime.

The survey showed a great deal of uniformity in researchers’ views on issues such as gun use in crime and self-defense, the risk of gun-free zones, firearms and suicide, and concealed handgun laws. Yet, while researchers from both the United States and Canada have extremely similar views that private gun ownership makes people safer, the few researchers from Australia and Sweden are much more supportive of gun control.

For North American researchers:

88% believe that guns are more frequently “used in self-defense than they are used in the commission of crime;”

91% believe that gun-free zones are “more likely to attract criminals than they are to deter them;”

72% do not believe that “a gun in the home causes an increase in the risk of suicide;”

91% say that “concealed handgun permit holders are much more law-abiding than the typical American;”

and 81% say that permitted concealed handguns lower the murder rate.

Including the researchers from Australia and Sweden lowers these percentages by between 3 and 8 percentage points, but the numbers are still quite high.

 

[2aguy]

And how did Lott pick his choices....vs. the anti gunners who picked people with no actual experience in the field..

Methodology The list of researchers was obtained using JSTOR (www.jstor.org), selecting their Economics subset (632 sources), and doing a full-text search for “gun control” for all years, limited to peer-reviewed books and articles (not book reviews, miscellaneous). We obtained 234 hits. We then obtained copies of all the articles to determine if the articles contained empirical work on the issues of guns and crime or accidents or suicides.

Empirical studies that only tried to explain how politicians voted on gun control or voter behavior were excluded.

The questionnaire sent to researchers was very short, consisting of between six and eleven questions. On average taking the survey took 3 minutes and one second to complete. An email was sent to a list of 53 researchers who had published peerreviewed research on firearms in economics journals from January 1997 to July 2013, though in three cases the email address was no longer valid and we were unable to obtain a current email. Of the valid email addresses, 43 were Americans, 4 were Canadians, 2 were Australians, and one was Swedish.

 

[2aguy]

Yes…you can't destroy the research so you have to smear the researcher……and of course that still leaves the other 40 years of research on defensive gun use and the other 12 studies on concealed carry……..and smear, smear away……..it can't hide the truth, the facts or the reality….

It is mostly smearing his research actually. I don't think you really have 12 valid studies that don't involve lott. You are getting them from his website.

No…they are smearing Lott….his research has been attacked and he has defended it and I have posted it over and over……they can't take out his research so they have to go after him…...

The link goes after his research in many, many ways. He has been debunked, only gun nuts who want to ignore the facts believe. He uses surveys that don't even exist.

Brain…..this is why I lost respect for you…Kleck's research is well known, has been gone over with a fine tooth come since it came out in the 90s and nuts like you haven't been able to touch it. Same with Lott's work. You guys make crap up, lie, smear and make up actually fake research that is easily shown to be crap……..and then you prance around saying that Lott and Kleck are the problem……..

The truth, facts and reality show that what you believe is dumb. 40 years of research by Kleck, Lott and a lot of others show you are wrong…..but you hate guns…and nothing will stop you from trying to ban them and get them confiscated…..you have a phobia…….

I get it…..so I will resist your efforts in the ways I can…. I donate to the NRA, the 2nd Amendment foundation and I vote for candidates who won't disarm normal people…..

You do what you have to…...

And this is why I have no respect for you. You don't want truth, you just want more guns. Kleck and lott have been debunked many times over. You choose to ignore it. Most your claims aren't even possible.

No....they have not been debunked...their research has been lied about by anti gunners who hate guns...and the researchers who have lied about them have been shown as liars.......and we have shown how they cheat in their studies to get the results they want....

 

[2aguy]

And in Conclusion...

Conclusion

The vast majority of researchers who have published refereed articles in economics journals think that gun ownership makes people safer.