Murder rate drops as Gun sales soar.

[Coyote]

You can compare crime rates in one city before handgun carry to after handgun carry. And then you can see whether that rate of decline is more or less than the national average would have predicted. I dont have the time to do the research but I believe the answer is (having seen it quoted elsewhere) that crime declines more in areas with handgun carry than in areas without it.

Yes you can do that - but you also have to factor in other crime prevention changes that the city put in place because any one of them or all together may be responsible. Detroit is a particularly good example of this because they've taken very strong measures to reduce crime and they've had strong results.

 

[Coyote]

They are not pleas. They are actual examples.

They are also not testimonials because you can hear the actual 911 calls.

I don't mean that - they are individual examples, and in that they are like testimonials - that alone doesn't justify laws or changes in laws if you are trying to argue reducing crime. It reduces crime and is successful for that one person, but overall? What about the criminal who decides that - since he has no way of knowing someone is armed - he's just going to shoot his victim first before he even knows he's there?

I am making another arguement. The argument is that you have the ability to defend yourself if you have a gun and you are trained how to use it.

You have a lot less ability to defend yourself if you don't.

Statistics show that a gun is used in self defense about 2.5 million times/year in America.

I believe in personal responsibility, and when it come down to it, you are responsible for yourself.

I don't disagree.

I do think however, that, like buying a car - when someone buys a gun for the first time, they need to show that they know how to use it safely and responsibly or get the necessary training.

 

[GunsBeerFreedom]

I don't mean that - they are individual examples, and in that they are like testimonials - that alone doesn't justify laws or changes in laws if you are trying to argue reducing crime. It reduces crime and is successful for that one person, but overall? What about the criminal who decides that - since he has no way of knowing someone is armed - he's just going to shoot his victim first before he even knows he's there?

I am making another arguement. The argument is that you have the ability to defend yourself if you have a gun and you are trained how to use it.

You have a lot less ability to defend yourself if you don't.

Statistics show that a gun is used in self defense about 2.5 million times/year in America.

I believe in personal responsibility, and when it come down to it, you are responsible for yourself.

I don't disagree.

I do think however, that, like buying a car - when someone buys a gun for the first time, they need to show that they know how to use it safely and responsibly or get the necessary training.

You don't need a license to buy a car. In fact, all you need is money/credit. You don't even need a license to drive on private property, only on government roads.

 

[CMike]

I don't mean that - they are individual examples, and in that they are like testimonials - that alone doesn't justify laws or changes in laws if you are trying to argue reducing crime. It reduces crime and is successful for that one person, but overall? What about the criminal who decides that - since he has no way of knowing someone is armed - he's just going to shoot his victim first before he even knows he's there?

I am making another arguement. The argument is that you have the ability to defend yourself if you have a gun and you are trained how to use it.

You have a lot less ability to defend yourself if you don't.

Statistics show that a gun is used in self defense about 2.5 million times/year in America.

I believe in personal responsibility, and when it come down to it, you are responsible for yourself.

I don't disagree.

I do think however, that, like buying a car - when someone buys a gun for the first time, they need to show that they know how to use it safely and responsibly or get the necessary training.

STOP THE PRESSES!!!

I agree to a point. I think everyone that has a firearm needs to be trained on how to safely use it.

To get my Concealed Pistol's License I had to go through a class portion, and then a range portion. I also had to get fingerprinted.

 

[Coyote]

I am making another arguement. The argument is that you have the ability to defend yourself if you have a gun and you are trained how to use it.

You have a lot less ability to defend yourself if you don't.

Statistics show that a gun is used in self defense about 2.5 million times/year in America.

I believe in personal responsibility, and when it come down to it, you are responsible for yourself.

I don't disagree.

I do think however, that, like buying a car - when someone buys a gun for the first time, they need to show that they know how to use it safely and responsibly or get the necessary training.

STOP THE PRESSES!!!

I agree to a point. I think everyone that has a firearm needs to be trained on how to safely use it.

To get my Concealed Pistol's License I had to go through a class portion, and then a range portion. I also had to get fingerprinted.

 

[GunsBeerFreedom]

STOP THE PRESSES!!!

I agree to a point. I think everyone that has a firearm needs to be trained on how to safely use it.

To get my Concealed Pistol's License I had to go through a class portion, and then a range portion. I also had to get fingerprinted.

But you didn't to vote. You didn't have to pass a test to exercise any other right you posses, why this one?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

STOP THE PRESSES!!!

I agree to a point. I think everyone that has a firearm needs to be trained on how to safely use it.

To get my Concealed Pistol's License I had to go through a class portion, and then a range portion. I also had to get fingerprinted.

But you didn't to vote. You didn't have to pass a test to exercise any other right you posses, why this one?

Because it's pretty hard to kill someone by voting wrong.

 

[GunsBeerFreedom]

STOP THE PRESSES!!!

I agree to a point. I think everyone that has a firearm needs to be trained on how to safely use it.

To get my Concealed Pistol's License I had to go through a class portion, and then a range portion. I also had to get fingerprinted.

But you didn't to vote. You didn't have to pass a test to exercise any other right you posses, why this one?

Because it's pretty hard to kill someone by voting wrong.

The need to pass a certification, or installment of a fee, is done purely to discourage the exercise of a right. At which point it no longer is a right.

Your vote can do a lot more than a gun can. Why do you think there were so many laws and special fees that applied to voting that didn't apply to anything else during the Jim Crow days?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

But you didn't to vote. You didn't have to pass a test to exercise any other right you posses, why this one?

Because it's pretty hard to kill someone by voting wrong.

The need to pass a certification, or installment of a fee, is done purely to discourage the exercise of a right. At which point it no longer is a right.

Your vote can do a lot more than a gun can. Why do you think there were so many laws and special fees that applied to voting that didn't apply to anything else during the Jim Crow days?

Do you believe that a 5 year old should be able to go and buy a gun at the store?

 

[Toro]

The murder rate has been dropping for nearly 20 years.

 

[GunsBeerFreedom]

Because it's pretty hard to kill someone by voting wrong.

The need to pass a certification, or installment of a fee, is done purely to discourage the exercise of a right. At which point it no longer is a right.

Your vote can do a lot more than a gun can. Why do you think there were so many laws and special fees that applied to voting that didn't apply to anything else during the Jim Crow days?

Do you believe that a 5 year old should be able to go and buy a gun at the store?

No. You get to attain your rights at adult hood. That how our law has worked since the inception of our nation. You don't get to vote until you're an adult, you don't get to make your own decisions, you cannot enter into a contract. Don't try equating age with the restriction on your rights.

 

[GunsBeerFreedom]

The murder rate has been dropping for nearly 20 years.

One could note from your graph that it has increased steadily until they stopped implementing gun control laws.

Not saying that they're related, I'm just saying that it coincides.

 

[ConHog]

STOP THE PRESSES!!!

I agree to a point. I think everyone that has a firearm needs to be trained on how to safely use it.

To get my Concealed Pistol's License I had to go through a class portion, and then a range portion. I also had to get fingerprinted.

But you didn't to vote. You didn't have to pass a test to exercise any other right you posses, why this one?

There certainly should be a test to be able to vote.

 

[The Rabbi]

I am making another arguement. The argument is that you have the ability to defend yourself if you have a gun and you are trained how to use it.

You have a lot less ability to defend yourself if you don't.

Statistics show that a gun is used in self defense about 2.5 million times/year in America.

I believe in personal responsibility, and when it come down to it, you are responsible for yourself.

I don't disagree.

I do think however, that, like buying a car - when someone buys a gun for the first time, they need to show that they know how to use it safely and responsibly or get the necessary training.

STOP THE PRESSES!!!

I agree to a point. I think everyone that has a firearm needs to be trained on how to safely use it.

To get my Concealed Pistol's License I had to go through a class portion, and then a range portion. I also had to get fingerprinted.

There is a subtle difference.
I think everyone ought to learn how to use a firearm and the relevant laws about them. That doesn't mean that I think the state needs to impose a requirement before you can do so. You do so at your own risk.
As to the 5 year old buying a gun, I think in theory it ought to be possible. Most 5 year olds do not have the $300-500 it would take to do so.
My gunsmith tells me about buying his first gun over the counter. He was 14 years old. This was pre-1968. There was never a problem with it.
And once something becomes subject to a permit it is no longer a right.

 

[GunsBeerFreedom]

There certainly should be a test to be able to vote.

At least your consistent in your attempts to restrict freedom.

 

[GunsBeerFreedom]

There is a subtle difference.
I think everyone ought to learn how to use a firearm and the relevant laws about them. That doesn't mean that I think the state needs to impose a requirement before you can do so. You do so at your own risk.
As to the 5 year old buying a gun, I think in theory it ought to be possible. Most 5 year olds do not have the $300-500 it would take to do so.
My gunsmith tells me about buying his first gun over the counter. He was 14 years old. This was pre-1968. There was never a problem with it.
And once something becomes subject to a permit it is no longer a right.

I agree. I think everyone, even if they have no desire to own a firearm, should learn firearms safety. But I don't think it should be mandated.

 

[CMike]

I dint think it should be mandated either ,

 

[Yukon.]

Aren't you the same Jew-hating asshole with the Arafat avatar?

I find your comment to be very offensive.

 

[The T]

gun control opponents have seized the opportunity to point out the irony in the british shotgun rampage.

in rural america, i would think that racking up 30 crime scenes on a shooting spree would get you shot by a concealed carrier or a store or homeowner... at least by a cop.

Not even just rural America. The media goes to great lengths to conceal the facts when a spree killer is stopped by armed citizens, but it happens quite a bit.

Interesting...can you provide us some examples of a spree killer being stopped by armed citizens?

How about a nutjob denying Liberty to citizens while armed> Robberies and so forth. Do your own damned Google search.

Neal Boortz loves these kinda stories...they are entitled : D R T

'Dead Right There'. And they are stories of armed citizens putting an armed THUG 6 feet under where they belong...and keeps them from procreating and polluting the Gene pool.

 

[Cecilie1200]

gun control opponents have seized the opportunity to point out the irony in the british shotgun rampage.

in rural america, i would think that racking up 30 crime scenes on a shooting spree would get you shot by a concealed carrier or a store or homeowner... at least by a cop.

Not even just rural America. The media goes to great lengths to conceal the facts when a spree killer is stopped by armed citizens, but it happens quite a bit.

Interesting...can you provide us some examples of a spree killer being stopped by armed citizens?

Yes, I can. Here's a story in the NY Times. Note that they don't tell you HOW the shooter was stopped.

Coal Town's Hopes Clouded by Killings Of 3 at Law School - NYTimes.com

What they don't tell you is that two other students retrieved their personal firearms from their cars and subdued the shooter.

Here's another one, also from the NY Times.

Witnesses Recount Shooting At Mississippi High School - NYTimes.com

What THIS story doesn't mention is that he was stopped by the armed assistant principal, who got his gun out of his car.

I could go on, but I believe your question has been answered.