M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
No... the broader point - demographics have a far greater effect on crime rates than gun control laws.
IF more guns = more gun crime...why are the 3 safest states Constitutional carry states?
- Thread starter 2aguy
- Start date
Lewdog
Gold Member
Good grief, the argument the OP uses is spurious. The three states mentioned has very small populated cities. The LARGEST city in Maine is 66,000 people. Yes... 66,000 people. Next highest populated city? Lewiston at 36,000. Yes, I'm sure it is the number of people carrying guns that is keeping gun violence down. 
BTW: Maine has elected a Centrist Senator in Republican Susan Collins who has been in office since 1997 and an Independent in Angus King who has been in office since 2013. Both of the Representatives are Democrats in Chellie Pingree & Jared Golden. Oh yes, Maine citizens must be so pro-gun in order to stop gun violence! Or they could be pro-gun for hunting because they literally live in the backwoods and gun violence isn't even in their thoughts whatsoever...
New Hampshire's is Manchester with 110,000 people, with the second largest Nashua at 87,000. The third largest is Concord at 42,000. That's over a 60% drop from the highest to the THIRD highest, showing just how rural New Hampshire really is.
The Senators and Representatives i New Hampshire are both Democrats Jeanne Shaheen & Maggie Hassan (Not a Muslim). The Representatives are ALSO both Democrats Chris Pappas & Ann Kuster.
Vermont's largest city is Burlington at a whopping 42,000 people! What a metropolis! Next largest is SOUTH Burlington at close to 18,000 people.
Let's take a look at Vermont's representatives in Congress in both sides of the house... Independent Bernie Sanders and Democrat Patrick Leahy. In the House they are represented by the long "at large" (because the state is SO SMALL they only get one State Rep.) Democrat Peter Welch.
So do you still think their gun laws were put into place to help fight gun violence and that it is those laws that have deterred gun violence?
BTW: Maine has elected a Centrist Senator in Republican Susan Collins who has been in office since 1997 and an Independent in Angus King who has been in office since 2013. Both of the Representatives are Democrats in Chellie Pingree & Jared Golden. Oh yes, Maine citizens must be so pro-gun in order to stop gun violence! Or they could be pro-gun for hunting because they literally live in the backwoods and gun violence isn't even in their thoughts whatsoever...
New Hampshire's is Manchester with 110,000 people, with the second largest Nashua at 87,000. The third largest is Concord at 42,000. That's over a 60% drop from the highest to the THIRD highest, showing just how rural New Hampshire really is.
The Senators and Representatives i New Hampshire are both Democrats Jeanne Shaheen & Maggie Hassan (Not a Muslim). The Representatives are ALSO both Democrats Chris Pappas & Ann Kuster.
Vermont's largest city is Burlington at a whopping 42,000 people! What a metropolis! Next largest is SOUTH Burlington at close to 18,000 people.
Let's take a look at Vermont's representatives in Congress in both sides of the house... Independent Bernie Sanders and Democrat Patrick Leahy. In the House they are represented by the long "at large" (because the state is SO SMALL they only get one State Rep.) Democrat Peter Welch.
So do you still think their gun laws were put into place to help fight gun violence and that it is those laws that have deterred gun violence?
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,046
- 53,553
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #23
It is quite interesting..how you just flit from one talking point to the other.Actually...i don't conform to some pre-packaged narrative--such as you do.
Population...and rural vs urban settings.
Idaho is also Constitutional carry..and I support this. But your stats have nothing to do with guns..or how they are regulated. IMO.
I bet you think that if large urban areas had Constitutional Carry--violent crime would go down?
I doubt it....but carry on... my lil one trick pony!
Nice try.....but no....
The anti-gun argument has never been....More guns = more gun crime but only in large populations.
The anti-gun argument is More guns = More gun crime, regardless of any other factor including population size....so....even with small populations, according to you anti-gunners, their gun crime rates should be amazingly high....but nice try.
Dipstick.....normal people carrying guns for self defense do not increase the gun crime rate...because they do not use their guns for crime....are you really this dumb? So whether they have to get permits or not, they are not going to drive up the gun crime rate, you simpleton......
Normal people carrying guns, eh? Of course, abnormal people would have the same protections, right? Not that it matters to me..as the cause of crime..and violent crime..has little to do with the availability of weapons anyway. Or the lack there-of. It is our culture.
Your position is a great big NRA boondoggle. As I said, I support Constitutional Carry--but I doubt that the crime stats would be affected one way or the other..with or without CC.
Rural vs Urban--now there is where the rubber meets the road as far as the prime causation for violent crime. Not armed vs not-armed.
Of course, abnormal people would have the same protections, right?
No, moron. Are you really this stupid? If you break the law with a gun, you get arrested...till then, you are a normal citizen with the Rights of a normal citizen...
No, moron, the cause of violent crime is fatherless homes.....prisons are filled with the destruction of the welfare state, allowing single teenage girls to have children from multiple males without a father in the home....
I'm amused by your logic that says as long as you don't get caught..you're a "normal citizen"..ROTFLMAO!
You're last paragraph is pure garbage. You take one stat..well..putative stat..since you don't back it up...and tell me that it is the prime cause of violent crime? Stupid!!
I note with amusement that you really don't rebut anything I say..you just pick some small snippet and go on about that. Not a single word about Urban vs Rural..since you have no rebuttal.
You're not really very good at this, you know., Your lock-step friends will feed you lots of 'winners'--but anyone with a brain...just laughs and moves on.
You have no point...again...the anti-gun argument is not....More Guns = More Gun crime if the population is big.......you twit.
The argument is that any time you add more guns the gun crime rate is going to go up...that is their entire argument.....and it isn't even remotely accurate, so you point about rural v urban is just as stupid.
Decivilization in the 1960s
And figure two, Homicide rates in US and England 1900-2000, shows that in the 1960s the homicide rate in America went through the roof.
------
After a three-decade free fall that spanned the Great Depression, World War II, and the Cold War, Americans multiplied their homicide rate by more than two and a half, from a low of 4.0 in 1957 to a high of 10.2 in 1980 (U.S. Bureau of Statistics; Fox and Zawitz: 2007). The upsurge included every other category of major crime as well, including rape, assault, robbery, and theft, and lasted (with ups and downs) for three decades. The cities got particularly dangerous, especially New York, which became a symbol of the new criminality. Though the surge in violence affected all the races and both genders, it was most dramatic among black men, whose annual homicide rate had shot up by the mid-1980s to 72 per 100,000.
----
The rebounding of violence in the 1960s defied every expectation. The decade was a time of unprecedented economic growth, nearly full employment, levels of economic equality for which people today are nostalgic, historic racial progress, and the blossoming of government social programs, not to mention medical advances that made victims more likely to survive being shot or knifed. Social theorists in 1962 would have happily bet that these fortunate conditions would lead to a continuing era of low crime. And they would have lost their shirts.
----
Together with self-control and societal connectedness, a third ideal came under attack: marriage and family life, which had done so much to domesticate male violence in the preceding decades.
The idea that a man and a woman should devote their energies to a monogamous relationship in which they raise their children in a safe environment became a target of howling ridicule. That life was now the soulless, conformist, consumerist, materialist, ticky-tacky, plastic, white-bread, Ozzie and Harriet suburban wasteland.
-------
As the rationalizations for criminality caught the attention of judges and legislators, they became increasingly reluctant to put miscreants behind bars. Though the civil liberties reform of the era did not lead to nearly as many vicious criminals ‘going free on a technicality’ as the Dirty Harry movies would suggest, law enforcement was indeed retreating as the crime rate was advancing. In the United States from 1962 to 1979, the likelihood that a crime would lead to an arrest dropped from 0.32 to 0.18, the likelihood that an arrest would lead to imprisonment dropped from 0.32 to 0.14, and the likelihood that a crime would lead to imprisonment fell from 0.10 to 0.02, a factor of five.[10]
M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
So you agree:Good grief, the argument the OP uses is spurious. The three states mentioned has very small populated cities. The LARGEST city in Maine is 66,000 people. Yes... 66,000 people. Next highest populated city? Lewiston at 36,000. Yes, I'm sure it is the number of people carrying guns that is keeping gun violence down.
Demographics have a far greater effect on crime rates than gun control laws.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,046
- 53,553
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #25
It is quite interesting..how you just flit from one talking point to the other.Actually...i don't conform to some pre-packaged narrative--such as you do.
Population...and rural vs urban settings.
Idaho is also Constitutional carry..and I support this. But your stats have nothing to do with guns..or how they are regulated. IMO.
I bet you think that if large urban areas had Constitutional Carry--violent crime would go down?
I doubt it....but carry on... my lil one trick pony!
Nice try.....but no....
The anti-gun argument has never been....More guns = more gun crime but only in large populations.
The anti-gun argument is More guns = More gun crime, regardless of any other factor including population size....so....even with small populations, according to you anti-gunners, their gun crime rates should be amazingly high....but nice try.
Dipstick.....normal people carrying guns for self defense do not increase the gun crime rate...because they do not use their guns for crime....are you really this dumb? So whether they have to get permits or not, they are not going to drive up the gun crime rate, you simpleton......
Normal people carrying guns, eh? Of course, abnormal people would have the same protections, right? Not that it matters to me..as the cause of crime..and violent crime..has little to do with the availability of weapons anyway. Or the lack there-of. It is our culture.
Your position is a great big NRA boondoggle. As I said, I support Constitutional Carry--but I doubt that the crime stats would be affected one way or the other..with or without CC.
Rural vs Urban--now there is where the rubber meets the road as far as the prime causation for violent crime. Not armed vs not-armed.
Of course, abnormal people would have the same protections, right?
No, moron. Are you really this stupid? If you break the law with a gun, you get arrested...till then, you are a normal citizen with the Rights of a normal citizen...
No, moron, the cause of violent crime is fatherless homes.....prisons are filled with the destruction of the welfare state, allowing single teenage girls to have children from multiple males without a father in the home....
I'm amused by your logic that says as long as you don't get caught..you're a "normal citizen"..ROTFLMAO!
You're last paragraph is pure garbage. You take one stat..well..putative stat..since you don't back it up...and tell me that it is the prime cause of violent crime? Stupid!!
I note with amusement that you really don't rebut anything I say..you just pick some small snippet and go on about that. Not a single word about Urban vs Rural..since you have no rebuttal.
You're not really very good at this, you know., Your lock-step friends will feed you lots of 'winners'--but anyone with a brain...just laughs and moves on.
I'm amused by your logic that says as long as you don't get caught..you're a "normal citizen"
No, moron....criminals are not normal people to begin with, you dope....
The Criminology of Firearms
In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and some empirical research of its own about guns. The Academy could not identify any gun restriction that had reduced violent crime, suicide or gun accidents.
Why don't gun bans work? Because they rely on voluntary compliance by gun-using criminals. Prohibitionists never see this absurdity because they deceive themselves into thinking that, as Katherine Christoffel has said: "[M]ost shootings are not committed by felons or mentally ill people, but are acts of passion that are committed using a handgun that is owned for home protection."
Christoffel, et al., are utterly wrong. The whole corpus of criminological research dating back to the 1890'sshows murderers "almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behavior," and that "[v]irtually all" murderers and other gun criminals have prior felony records — generally long ones.
While only 15 percent of Americans have criminal records, roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have prior adult records — exclusive of their often extensive juvenile records — with crime careers of six or more adult years including four major felonies. Gerald D. Robin, writing for the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences,notes that, unlike ordinary gun owners, "the average murderer turns out to be no less hardened a criminal than the average robber or burglar."
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,046
- 53,553
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #26
Good grief, the argument the OP uses is spurious. The three states mentioned has very small populated cities. The LARGEST city in Maine is 66,000 people. Yes... 66,000 people. Next highest populated city? Lewiston at 36,000. Yes, I'm sure it is the number of people carrying guns that is keeping gun violence down.
BTW: Maine has elected a Centrist Senator in Republican Susan Collins who has been in office since 1997 and an Independent in Angus King who has been in office since 2013. Both of the Representatives are Democrats in Chellie Pingree & Jared Golden. Oh yes, Maine citizens must be so pro-gun in order to stop gun violence! Or they could be pro-gun for hunting because they literally live in the backwoods and gun violence isn't even in their thoughts whatsoever...
New Hampshire's is Manchester with 110,000 people, with the second largest Nashua at 87,000. The third largest is Concord at 42,000. That's over a 60% drop from the highest to the THIRD highest, showing just how rural New Hampshire really is.
The Senators and Representatives i New Hampshire are both Democrats Jeanne Shaheen & Maggie Hassan (Not a Muslim). The Representatives are ALSO both Democrats Chris Pappas & Ann Kuster.
Vermont's largest city is Burlington at a whopping 42,000 people! What a metropolis! Next largest is SOUTH Burlington at close to 18,000 people.
Let's take a look at Vermont's representatives in Congress in both sides of the house... Independent Bernie Sanders and Democrat Patrick Leahy. In the House they are represented by the long "at large" (because the state is SO SMALL they only get one State Rep.) Democrat Peter Welch.
So do you still think their gun laws were put into place to help fight gun violence and that it is those laws that have deterred gun violence?
Again, you moron....
The anti-gun argument is not....
More Guns = More Gun Crime...only if the population is really big.
The entire argument of the anti-gun loons is...
More Guns = More Gun crime...regardless of all other factors...
The smaller popluations of those 3 states does not matter in your theory, they should have more gun crime simply because they have more guns....a smaller population but more gun crime than a non-gun owning state........
Over the last 26 years, 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 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...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 decad
Soooooo...
The anti-gun hypothesis and argument.....
More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.
Actual Result:
In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72%
The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....
In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.
I agree with this..and always have. Gun control laws at best address narrow issues..crime has a multiplicity of causes.
Thus I favor CC..and I also favor registration and background checks
I don't drink either sides kool-ade.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,046
- 53,553
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #28
Good grief, the argument the OP uses is spurious. The three states mentioned has very small populated cities. The LARGEST city in Maine is 66,000 people. Yes... 66,000 people. Next highest populated city? Lewiston at 36,000. Yes, I'm sure it is the number of people carrying guns that is keeping gun violence down.
BTW: Maine has elected a Centrist Senator in Republican Susan Collins who has been in office since 1997 and an Independent in Angus King who has been in office since 2013. Both of the Representatives are Democrats in Chellie Pingree & Jared Golden. Oh yes, Maine citizens must be so pro-gun in order to stop gun violence! Or they could be pro-gun for hunting because they literally live in the backwoods and gun violence isn't even in their thoughts whatsoever...
New Hampshire's is Manchester with 110,000 people, with the second largest Nashua at 87,000. The third largest is Concord at 42,000. That's over a 60% drop from the highest to the THIRD highest, showing just how rural New Hampshire really is.
The Senators and Representatives i New Hampshire are both Democrats Jeanne Shaheen & Maggie Hassan (Not a Muslim). The Representatives are ALSO both Democrats Chris Pappas & Ann Kuster.
Vermont's largest city is Burlington at a whopping 42,000 people! What a metropolis! Next largest is SOUTH Burlington at close to 18,000 people.
Let's take a look at Vermont's representatives in Congress in both sides of the house... Independent Bernie Sanders and Democrat Patrick Leahy. In the House they are represented by the long "at large" (because the state is SO SMALL they only get one State Rep.) Democrat Peter Welch.
So do you still think their gun laws were put into place to help fight gun violence and that it is those laws that have deterred gun violence?
Moron....population doesn't cause gun violence......
Chicago has a smaller population than New York and L.A.
Chicago... 2,716,000
New York.... 8, 623,000
Population of cities 2016:
Chicago........2.7 million
L.A................3.9 million
N.Y................8.5 million
Houston........2.3 million
Baltimore......620,961
Detroit...........672,795
Milwaukee.....595,647
Murder rate 2016:
Chicago........765
L.A.......... .....293
N.Y................335
Houston .......301
Baltimore......318
Detroit...........303
Milwaukee.... 142
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 308,710
- 264,133
- 3,615
This is a tough one.....
States with low population densities will have low murder rates regardless of their carry laws
Cities with dense populations and large numbers of guns see high murder rates
Solution.. ...Cut down on the numbers of guns in populated areas
States with low population densities will have low murder rates regardless of their carry laws
Cities with dense populations and large numbers of guns see high murder rates
Solution.. ...Cut down on the numbers of guns in populated areas
M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
Um.... why?
Lewdog
Gold Member
Good grief, the argument the OP uses is spurious. The three states mentioned has very small populated cities. The LARGEST city in Maine is 66,000 people. Yes... 66,000 people. Next highest populated city? Lewiston at 36,000. Yes, I'm sure it is the number of people carrying guns that is keeping gun violence down.
BTW: Maine has elected a Centrist Senator in Republican Susan Collins who has been in office since 1997 and an Independent in Angus King who has been in office since 2013. Both of the Representatives are Democrats in Chellie Pingree & Jared Golden. Oh yes, Maine citizens must be so pro-gun in order to stop gun violence! Or they could be pro-gun for hunting because they literally live in the backwoods and gun violence isn't even in their thoughts whatsoever...
New Hampshire's is Manchester with 110,000 people, with the second largest Nashua at 87,000. The third largest is Concord at 42,000. That's over a 60% drop from the highest to the THIRD highest, showing just how rural New Hampshire really is.
The Senators and Representatives i New Hampshire are both Democrats Jeanne Shaheen & Maggie Hassan (Not a Muslim). The Representatives are ALSO both Democrats Chris Pappas & Ann Kuster.
Vermont's largest city is Burlington at a whopping 42,000 people! What a metropolis! Next largest is SOUTH Burlington at close to 18,000 people.
Let's take a look at Vermont's representatives in Congress in both sides of the house... Independent Bernie Sanders and Democrat Patrick Leahy. In the House they are represented by the long "at large" (because the state is SO SMALL they only get one State Rep.) Democrat Peter Welch.
So do you still think their gun laws were put into place to help fight gun violence and that it is those laws that have deterred gun violence?
Again, you moron....
The anti-gun argument is not....
More Guns = More Gun Crime...only if the population is really big.
The entire argument of the anti-gun loons is...
More Guns = More Gun crime...regardless of all other factors...
The smaller popluations of those 3 states does not matter in your theory, they should have more gun crime simply because they have more guns....a smaller population but more gun crime than a non-gun owning state........
Over the last 26 years, 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 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...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 decad
Soooooo...
The anti-gun hypothesis and argument.....
More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.
Actual Result:
In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72%
The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....
In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.
Your argument is spurious, and using the 3 states you used is ******* moronic. People in those states don't carry a gun in order to prevent being robbed. They carry a gun in order to keep from being mauled by a bear, pounced on by a mountain lion, or trampled on by a moose.
Those aren't things you worry about in Charlotte, NC.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,046
- 53,553
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #34
Good grief, the argument the OP uses is spurious. The three states mentioned has very small populated cities. The LARGEST city in Maine is 66,000 people. Yes... 66,000 people. Next highest populated city? Lewiston at 36,000. Yes, I'm sure it is the number of people carrying guns that is keeping gun violence down.
BTW: Maine has elected a Centrist Senator in Republican Susan Collins who has been in office since 1997 and an Independent in Angus King who has been in office since 2013. Both of the Representatives are Democrats in Chellie Pingree & Jared Golden. Oh yes, Maine citizens must be so pro-gun in order to stop gun violence! Or they could be pro-gun for hunting because they literally live in the backwoods and gun violence isn't even in their thoughts whatsoever...
New Hampshire's is Manchester with 110,000 people, with the second largest Nashua at 87,000. The third largest is Concord at 42,000. That's over a 60% drop from the highest to the THIRD highest, showing just how rural New Hampshire really is.
The Senators and Representatives i New Hampshire are both Democrats Jeanne Shaheen & Maggie Hassan (Not a Muslim). The Representatives are ALSO both Democrats Chris Pappas & Ann Kuster.
Vermont's largest city is Burlington at a whopping 42,000 people! What a metropolis! Next largest is SOUTH Burlington at close to 18,000 people.
Let's take a look at Vermont's representatives in Congress in both sides of the house... Independent Bernie Sanders and Democrat Patrick Leahy. In the House they are represented by the long "at large" (because the state is SO SMALL they only get one State Rep.) Democrat Peter Welch.
So do you still think their gun laws were put into place to help fight gun violence and that it is those laws that have deterred gun violence?
Again, you moron....
The anti-gun argument is not....
More Guns = More Gun Crime...only if the population is really big.
The entire argument of the anti-gun loons is...
More Guns = More Gun crime...regardless of all other factors...
The smaller popluations of those 3 states does not matter in your theory, they should have more gun crime simply because they have more guns....a smaller population but more gun crime than a non-gun owning state........
Over the last 26 years, 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 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...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 decad
Soooooo...
The anti-gun hypothesis and argument.....
More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.
Actual Result:
In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72%
The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....
In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.
Your argument is spurious, and using the 3 states you used is ******* moronic. People in those states don't carry a gun in order to prevent being robbed. They carry a gun in order to keep from being mauled by a bear, pounced on by a mountain lion, or trampled on by a moose.
Those aren't things you worry about in Charlotte, NC.
again, moron....your argument isn't More Guns = More Gun crime only if the population is big....
So your argument is crap.
M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
Registration lets the state know where to look once it moves from banning the manufacture and sale of new guns to confiscating existing guns.
It serves no other demonstrable purpose.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,046
- 53,553
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #36
Wrong....
Population of cities 2016:
Chicago........2.7 million
L.A................3.9 million
N.Y................8.5 million
Houston........2.3 million
Murder rate 2016:
Chicago........765
L.A.......... .....293
N.Y................335
Houston .......301
Lewdog
Gold Member
Good grief, the argument the OP uses is spurious. The three states mentioned has very small populated cities. The LARGEST city in Maine is 66,000 people. Yes... 66,000 people. Next highest populated city? Lewiston at 36,000. Yes, I'm sure it is the number of people carrying guns that is keeping gun violence down.
BTW: Maine has elected a Centrist Senator in Republican Susan Collins who has been in office since 1997 and an Independent in Angus King who has been in office since 2013. Both of the Representatives are Democrats in Chellie Pingree & Jared Golden. Oh yes, Maine citizens must be so pro-gun in order to stop gun violence! Or they could be pro-gun for hunting because they literally live in the backwoods and gun violence isn't even in their thoughts whatsoever...
New Hampshire's is Manchester with 110,000 people, with the second largest Nashua at 87,000. The third largest is Concord at 42,000. That's over a 60% drop from the highest to the THIRD highest, showing just how rural New Hampshire really is.
The Senators and Representatives i New Hampshire are both Democrats Jeanne Shaheen & Maggie Hassan (Not a Muslim). The Representatives are ALSO both Democrats Chris Pappas & Ann Kuster.
Vermont's largest city is Burlington at a whopping 42,000 people! What a metropolis! Next largest is SOUTH Burlington at close to 18,000 people.
Let's take a look at Vermont's representatives in Congress in both sides of the house... Independent Bernie Sanders and Democrat Patrick Leahy. In the House they are represented by the long "at large" (because the state is SO SMALL they only get one State Rep.) Democrat Peter Welch.
So do you still think their gun laws were put into place to help fight gun violence and that it is those laws that have deterred gun violence?
Again, you moron....
The anti-gun argument is not....
More Guns = More Gun Crime...only if the population is really big.
The entire argument of the anti-gun loons is...
More Guns = More Gun crime...regardless of all other factors...
The smaller popluations of those 3 states does not matter in your theory, they should have more gun crime simply because they have more guns....a smaller population but more gun crime than a non-gun owning state........
Over the last 26 years, 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 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...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 decad
Soooooo...
The anti-gun hypothesis and argument.....
More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.
Actual Result:
In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72%
The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....
In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.
Your argument is spurious, and using the 3 states you used is ******* moronic. People in those states don't carry a gun in order to prevent being robbed. They carry a gun in order to keep from being mauled by a bear, pounced on by a mountain lion, or trampled on by a moose.
Those aren't things you worry about in Charlotte, NC.
again, moron....your argument isn't More Guns = More Gun crime only if the population is big....
So your argument is crap.
That's not my argument. I'm saying YOUR argument that more guns means less gun crime. You can't understand that.
Dan Stubbs
FORGET ---- HELL
- Banned
- #39
You forgot about the National Carry Law, retired Sheriff, Police, Military, and other allowed to CCW without State Permits. They think there are over 600.000 of those out there.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,046
- 53,553
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #40
Good grief, the argument the OP uses is spurious. The three states mentioned has very small populated cities. The LARGEST city in Maine is 66,000 people. Yes... 66,000 people. Next highest populated city? Lewiston at 36,000. Yes, I'm sure it is the number of people carrying guns that is keeping gun violence down.
BTW: Maine has elected a Centrist Senator in Republican Susan Collins who has been in office since 1997 and an Independent in Angus King who has been in office since 2013. Both of the Representatives are Democrats in Chellie Pingree & Jared Golden. Oh yes, Maine citizens must be so pro-gun in order to stop gun violence! Or they could be pro-gun for hunting because they literally live in the backwoods and gun violence isn't even in their thoughts whatsoever...
New Hampshire's is Manchester with 110,000 people, with the second largest Nashua at 87,000. The third largest is Concord at 42,000. That's over a 60% drop from the highest to the THIRD highest, showing just how rural New Hampshire really is.
The Senators and Representatives i New Hampshire are both Democrats Jeanne Shaheen & Maggie Hassan (Not a Muslim). The Representatives are ALSO both Democrats Chris Pappas & Ann Kuster.
Vermont's largest city is Burlington at a whopping 42,000 people! What a metropolis! Next largest is SOUTH Burlington at close to 18,000 people.
Let's take a look at Vermont's representatives in Congress in both sides of the house... Independent Bernie Sanders and Democrat Patrick Leahy. In the House they are represented by the long "at large" (because the state is SO SMALL they only get one State Rep.) Democrat Peter Welch.
So do you still think their gun laws were put into place to help fight gun violence and that it is those laws that have deterred gun violence?
Again, you moron....
The anti-gun argument is not....
More Guns = More Gun Crime...only if the population is really big.
The entire argument of the anti-gun loons is...
More Guns = More Gun crime...regardless of all other factors...
The smaller popluations of those 3 states does not matter in your theory, they should have more gun crime simply because they have more guns....a smaller population but more gun crime than a non-gun owning state........
Over the last 26 years, 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 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...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 decad
Soooooo...
The anti-gun hypothesis and argument.....
More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.
Actual Result:
In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72%
The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....
In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.
Your argument is spurious, and using the 3 states you used is ******* moronic. People in those states don't carry a gun in order to prevent being robbed. They carry a gun in order to keep from being mauled by a bear, pounced on by a mountain lion, or trampled on by a moose.
Those aren't things you worry about in Charlotte, NC.
again, moron....your argument isn't More Guns = More Gun crime only if the population is big....
So your argument is crap.
That's not my argument. I'm saying YOUR argument that more guns means less gun crime. You can't understand that.
And it does...
http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Bartley-Cohen-Economic-Inquiry-1998.pdf
The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis by William Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen, published in Economic Inquiry, April 1998 (Copy available here)
.....we find strong support for the hypothesis that the right-to-carry laws are associated with a decrease in the trend in violent crime rates.....
Paper........CCW does not increase police deaths...
http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Mustard-JLE-Polic-Deaths-Gun-Control.pdf
This paper uses state-level data from 1984–96 to examine how right-to-carry laws and waiting periods affect the felonious deaths of police. Some people oppose concealed weapons carry laws because they believe these laws jeopardize law enforcement officials, who risk their lives to protect the citizenry. This paper strongly rejects this contention. States that allowed law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons had a slightly higher likelihood of having a felonious police death and slightly higher police death rates prior to the law. After enactment of the right-to-carry laws, states exhibit a reduced likelihood of having a felonious police death rate and slightly lower rates of police deaths. States that implement waiting periods have slightly lower felonious police death rates both before and after the law. Allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons does not endanger the lives of officers and may help reduce their risk of being killed
========
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/tideman.pdf
Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say By FLORENZ PLASSMANN AND T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001
However, for all three crime categories the levels in years 2 and 3 after adoption of a right-to-carry law are significantly below the levels in the years before the adoption of the law, which suggests that there is generally a deterrent effect and that it takes about 1 year for this effect to emerge.
=======
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/323313
Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness*
Carlisle E. Moody
College of William and Mary
Overall, right‐to‐carry concealed weapons laws tend to reduce violent crime. The effect on property crime is more uncertain. I find evidence that these laws also reduce burglary.
====
http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Helland-Tabarrok-Placebo-Laws.pdf
Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime”∗ Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok
We also find, however, that the cross equation restrictions implied by the Lott-Mustard theory are supported.
-----
Surprisingly, therefore, we conclude that there is considerable support for the hypothesis that shall-issue laws cause criminals to substitute away from crimes against persons and towards crimes against property.
===========
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Maltz.pdf
Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001
Our results indicated that the direction of effect of the shall-issue law on total SHR homicide rates was similar to that obtained by Lott and Mustard, although the magnitude of the effect was somewhat smaller and was statistically significant at the 7 percent level. In our analysis, which included only counties with a 1977 population of 100,000 or more, laws allowing for concealed weapons were associated with a 6.52 percent reduction in total homicides (Table 2). By comparison, Lott and Mustard found the concealed weapon dummy variable to be associated with a 7.65 percent reduction in total homicides across all counties and a 9 percent reduction in homicides when only large counties (populations of 100,000 or more) were included.43
===============
This one shows the benefits, in the billions of CCW laws...
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Plassmann_Whitley.pdf
COMMENTS Confirming ìMore Guns, Less Crimeî Florenz Plassmann* & John Whitley**
CONCLUSION Analyzing county-level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annual reductions in murder rates between 1.5% and 2.3% for each additional year that a right-to-carry law is in effect. For the first five years that such a law is in effect, the total benefit from reduced crimes usually ranges between about $2 and $3 billion per year. The results are very similar to earlier estimates using county-level data from 1977 to 1996. We appreciate the continuing effort that Ayres and Donohue have made in discussing the impact of right-to-carry laws on crime rates. Yet we believe that both the new evidence provided by them as well as our new results show consistently that right-to-carry laws reduce crime and save lives. Unfortunately, a few simple mistakes lead Ayres and Donohue to incorrectly claim that crime rates significantly increase after right-to-carry laws are initially adopted and to misinterpret the significance of their own estimates that examined the year-to-year impact of the law.
=============
http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content...An-Exercise-in-Replication.proof_.revised.pdf
~ The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws on Crime: An Exercise in Replication1
Carlisle E. Moody College of William and Mary - Department of Economics, Virginia 23187, U.S.A. E-mail: cemood@wm.edu Thomas B. Marvell Justec Research, Virginia 23185, U.S.A. Paul R. Zimmerman U.S. Federal Trade Commission - Bureau of Economics, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Fasil Alemante College of William and Mary, Virginia 23187, U.S.A.
Abstract: In an article published in 2011, Aneja, Donohue and Zhang found that shall-issue or right-to-carry (RTC) concealed weapons laws have no effect on any crime except for a positive effect on assault. This paper reports a replication of their basic findings and some corresponding robustness checks, which reveal a serious omitted variable problem. Once corrected for omitted variables, the most robust result, confirmed using both county and state data, is that RTC laws significantly reduce murder. There is no robust, consistent evidence that RTC laws have any significant effect on other violent crimes, including assault. There is some weak evidence that RTC laws increase robbery and assault while decreasing rape. Given that the victim costs of murder and rape are much higher than the costs of robbery and assault, the evidence shows that RTC laws are socially beneficial.
=======
States with lower guns = higher murder....and assault weapon ban pointless..
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2013.854294
An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates
Mark Gius
Abstract
The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates. Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997).
Taking apart ayre and donahue one....
“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..
Abstract
“Shall-issue” laws require authorities to issue concealed-weapons permits to anyone who applies, unless the applicant has a criminal record or a history of mental illness. A large number of studies indicate that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one study, an influential paper in the Stanford Law Review (2003) by Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue iii, implies that these laws lead to an increase in crime. We apply an improved version of the Ayres and Donohue method to a more extensive data set. Our analysis, as well as Ayres and Donohue’s when projected beyond a five-year span, indicates that shall-issue laws decrease crime and the costs of crime. Purists in statistical analysis object with some cause to some of methods employed both by Ayres and Donohue and by us. But our paper upgrades Ayres and Donohue, so, until the next study comes along, our paper should neutralize Ayres and Donohue’s “more guns, more crime” conclusion.
Summary and Conclusion Many articles have been published finding that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one article, by Ayres and Donohue who employ a model that combines a dummy variable with a post-law trend, claims to find that shall-issue laws increase crime. However, the only way that they can produce the result that shall-issue laws increase crime is to confine the span of analysis to five years. We show, using their own estimates, that if they had extended their analysis by one more year, they would have concluded that these laws reduce crime. Since most states with shallissue laws have had these laws on the books for more than five years, and the law will presumably remain on the books for some time, the only relevant analysis extends beyond five years. We extend their analysis by adding three more years of data, control for the effects of crack cocaine, control for dynamic effects, and correct the standard errors for clustering. We find that there is an initial increase in crime due to passage of the shall-issue law that is dwarfed over time by the decrease in crime associated with the post-law trend. These results are very similar to those of Ayres and Donohue, properly interpreted. The modified Ayres and Donohue model finds that shall-issue laws significantly reduce murder and burglary across all the adopting states. These laws appear to significantly increase assault, and have no net effect on rape, robbery, larceny, or auto theft. However, in the long run only the trend coefficients matter. We estimate a net benefit of $450 million per year as a result of the passage of these laws. We also estimate that, up through 2000, there was a cumulative overall net benefit of these laws of $28 billion since their passage. We think that there is credible statistical evidence that these laws lower the costs of crime. But at the very least, the present study should neutralize any “more guns, more crime” thinking based on Ayres and Donohue’s work in the Stanford Law Review. We acknowledge that, especially in light of the methodological issues of the literature in general, the magnitudes derived from our analysis of crime statistics and the supposed costs of crime might be dwarfed by other considerations in judging the policy issue. Some might contend that allowing individuals to carry a concealed weapon is a moral or cultural bad. Others might contend that greater liberty is a moral or cultural good. All we are confident in saying is that the evidence, such as it is, seems to support the hypothesis that the shall-issue law is generally beneficial with respect to its overall long run effect on crime.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Iran Says Any Country Can Pass Through Strait of Hormuz Except US and Israel. US Media Twisting Story- Started by munkle
- Replies: 0
-
-
Mary Fong Lau, the driver who killed family of four at a bus stop, receives probation and no jail time- Started by 1srelluc
- Replies: 8
-
