Extremists on this board?

If I’m not mistaken for about the last 25 years Washington D.C. has what is probably the most restrictive gun laws in the country as in “You can’t own a gun”. However in 2005 Washington was ranked at 47 in the country for murder. In fact if you spend just a short time on the internet researching this you will find countless pieces on the impact of gun bans on gun related crime. The bottom line is that an armed populace does have a direct impact on crime. The latest example is the gentleman in Pasadena TX. Who shot and killed two burglars. No mater what else may be debated about this incident, the one thing that is absolutely beyond debate is that these two hoods will not be back to do any more harm. They will not graduate to armed robbery or home invasion. They will not be moving to gladiator school. They will not be costing us any more money. They will not be. The ranks of the bad guys has just diminished by two and if they are diminished by a rate that exceeds their rate of growth then the unavoidable results is that they cease to exist. So yes, it seems to me that an armed populace does have an indisputable and inescapable impact on crime.

Saying "more guns = less crime" is saying you're willing to put all logic aside.
Click to expand...

Talk about putting logic aside, Gezzz. I think the most straight forward logic is going to give you better answers. Try this one for instance. If the good decent people out number and out gun the thugs, the thugs will soon go the way of the Snail Darter and the DoDo. I suppose one of the most obvious examples of this is the “surge” that the U.S. has recently employed on Iraq. Geeee, who’d a thunk it, more troops, more guns, fewer psyco killers.

I think this is logic that is utterly undeniable, absolutely inescapable. And you don’t have to engage in all sorts of mental gymnastics and contortions to arrive at the conclusions.
 
Saying "more guns = less crime" is saying you're willing to put all logic aside.
Look at the state of Florida, one of the most gun populated states, and one of the highest gun crime states. So before you spew that junk to a fence swinger, think about what you're saying...change the item at hand. "More cars = less accidents"?
Click to expand...

Wow. Ok, the level of disconnect here is amazing. Either you don't understand the nature of analogies or you don't understand the documented correlation between guns and crime.

See if this helps you understand: "When was the last time a car prevented an accident?
 
Saying "more guns = less crime" is saying you're willing to put all logic aside.
Click to expand...


You couldn't *possibly* be more incorrect.

John Lott PROVED - beyond any shadow or shred of any doubt, that More Guns = Less Crime, using impeccable, triple-regression-analyzed data. Did you read his book of that name? It may be counterintuitive the the average uneducated person (thus appearing to "put logic aside"), but the FACTS bear out that the opposite of what is intuitive for you and most people is true. Read the book. READ. THE. BOOK. (or come up with your own study to try to controvert the incontrovertible). No one, but no one, has been able to successfully dispute his proven findings that shall-issue CCW laws reduce violent crime, including MPSs.

So now that you are armed with the ability to obtain the truth, then only way "extremism" could continue to exist is if you persist is making false statement from here forward.
 
BerettaCougar said:
I'm guess you are previous (or current) military, please tell me how you being in the military within the last 30 years or so has been beneficial to protecting the constitution. What do you do EXTRA that no other freedom loving American does? Don't pull the military card, Thanks.
Click to expand...
It is painfully obvious that you are not, nor have you ever been a part of the military... Or you would know that answer.
(I)f the majority of the people of your state or city wish to give up their right to firearm ownership, then it is up to that city/state. Local government does have the legal right to pass laws, please do not forget that.
Click to expand...
Only true to a point. The majority does not have the right to force the minority to give up basic fundamental rights. To enforce this precept, we have the Second Amendment.

Does that view make me an extremist? Then I happily lie down with the Framers of this nation.
 
More guns= more crime?

On another thread, a member suggested that more guns= less crime is false, and the statement that "more guns= more crime" is more logical. He used Florida as an example, stating that Florida has high gun ownership and high crime.

I thought we could take a look at that:

Florida has a murder rate of 6.2
Illinois has a murder rate of 6.1, yet has much more restrictive gun laws
California, with more restrictive laws, has a murder rate of 6.8
In fact, 21 states have a higher murder rate than Florida.
North Dakota gets spot 52 with a murder rate of 1.1.

Florida has a Violent Crime rate of 708, ranked fourth in the nation. (Florida is ranked fourth in population as well. Coincidence?)
Washington DC, with a complete ban on all guns, has a violent crime rate of 1459, the highest in the nation.
Maryland, with a violent crime rate of 703, grabs the 5th highest spot.
North Dakota grabs spot 52, with a rate of 98.2.

I think that looking at the above numbers, it can be said that there is little correlation between gun laws and crime. Perhaps there is something else there.

Looking at Florida, the highest murder rates were found in the following counties:

Okeechobee 15.5 (Just west of Palm Beach)
Madison 15.1 (includes Tallahassee)
Duval 13.1 (Includes Jacksonville)
Orange 11.2 (includes Orlando)
Hendry 10.3 (Just west of Ft Lauderdale)

Absent those 5 counties, Florida's murder rate drops significantly from 6.2 to 5.4.

If you notice, the areas with the highest crime rates are the ones which contain the highest population density of poor people. I could just as easily say that poor people= more crime.
 
So if the majority in my local area wins, regardless of what the Constitution says, can my town have a vote to reinstate slavery? Segregation? Can my state vote to require that all jobs pay the same hourly rate, regardless of education or experience?
 
The premise of the OP's opinion is nonsensical. That just about covers it for me. More guns do mean less crime. THAT's the logical approach! Oh, yeah, that should be "fewer", not "less" crimes, and it's "pursue" not persue. :)
 
StoegerCougar said:

I'm guess you are previous (or current) military, please tell me how you being in the military within the last 30 years or so has been beneficial to protecting the constitution. What do you do EXTRA that no other freedom loving American does? Don't pull the military card, Thanks.
Click to expand...

So many things I could list, but I think you probably would fare better with simple pictures...

so:

These guys weren't impressed with your Constitutional Rights, comprende?

image


Hey...apropos of nothing, here's me, stationed in Augsburg, Germany at the time.

Ronniewall2.jpg


You have my vote for the single most reprehensible, disrespectful, and just plain stupid post I've seen here...and I've been here awhile.
 
Violent crime is, and always has been, predominant in urban centers with high populations living in poverty. It tends to spike during periods of social strain (like during war). If I'm mistaken violent crime has been, and is on, the fall, not the rise. But hey, falling crime rates don't get ratings or sell newspapers. Cops and NFL players getting killed does.
 
You know, more food also means more crime. If criminals don't eat they won't have energy to attack anyone. So we should have harsher, stricter control and penalties on food ownership and possession. If there's no food - they'll be no crime (because everyone will be dead). There should be a 10 day waiting period for all food that can be held with one hand and concealed easily (twinkies, oranges, most vegetables) and a 3 day wait on "long food" (french bread, turkeys, cakes). There also should be a ban on all food containers that can hold over ten items of food (tupperware, freezer bags). Folding food (New York style pizza), silent food (anything that doesn't crunch), and "millitary style" food (MRE's) should be totally banned.

Make sense? Neither does the idea that less guns equal less crime.
 
Look at the state of Florida, one of the most gun populated states, and one of the highest gun crime states.
Click to expand...

Florida restored the right to armed self-defense in 1987.

Since then, here's what the violent crime rate has done:

violent_graph.gif


In 2006, the crime rate was nearly a third lower than it was in 1997:

violent_percent_changes.gif


The reason the crime rate is still high in Florida is that it started off higher still.

To deny that there is "less crime" in Florida is to deny straightforward reality.
 
Sterno, nail on the head. And very funny as well.

Jackie Mason was on Penn & Teller's Gun Control Special and he said we should ban chairs because more people have died from sitting in chairs than anything else.
 
Look at the state of Florida, one of the most gun populated states, and one of the highest gun crime states.
Click to expand...
You’re not considering Florida demographics. I would contend that Florida’s crime rate would be higher if the citizens could not keep and bear arms.

Some of us here are so fixed on this failed idea that having a gun will automatically make you inviolable. Somehow having a gun on your hip or (like some extremist here think) an automatic rifle on your back will make you incapable of being shot or stabbed yourself.
Click to expand...
Do you have an example of this ? Can you point to any post in any thread where someone said this ?

if the majority of the people of your state or city wish to give up their right to firearm ownership, then it is up to that city/state.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t anybody teach civics any more ?
 
Doesn't a lot depend on the character and integrity of the people who own the guns? Seriously, in my case, the number or type of guns that I might possess has zero bearing on my likelihood of using one of my guns inappropriately. You could give me a tank and I would not use it inappropiately. I am pretty sure that this is also true of most TFLers. The character of the gun owner is what anti-gunners always overlook. Their legislation invariably assumes that a gun owner is incapable of controlling himself or his guns. It is this ARROGANT stance on the part of anti-gunners which causes offense to people who own guns and enjoy shooting. I like to shoot badass military guns because it's just plain fun. I'm a grownup and understand that owning/using these guns is a major responsibility. Wait…why do I have to remind myself that I am a grownup in this context? Oh yeah, because anti-gunners seem to think that they are the only adults in the land and that the rest of us gun owners are little boys who want their toys. That is the arrogance that really gets me going! The debate ends up being about who is more mature: the gun owner or the person who has eveolved to such a high degree that he no longer feels the need for silly things like guns.

BTW I have personally converted a handful of anti-gunners with but a single trip to the range. "Here. Shoot this…" Suddenly the Second Amendment makes a lot more sense…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top