More guns=more Murder (with guns)!?!?

victimization in our study was driven by gun-related homicide victimization rates; non-gun-related victimization rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership. Although causal inference is not warranted on the basis of the present study alone, our findings suggest that the household may be an important source of firearms used to kill men, women and children in the United States.
Click to expand...

hrmmmm.........

So basically its their opinion based on their research. That money could have been used for cancer, diabetes or some other medical research. What a waste.

So have any of your household firearms a significant source of the death of men, women or children?
 
Well, let's see. Let's try common sense. New York, Washington DC, Los Angeles: Gun controlled cities where people don't own guns, don't like guns and are afraid of guns. These cities are notorious for high crime rates.

Red States throughout the country, notorious for having small towns with a lot of guns. Involves a lot more people across a much larger area. Far less crime.

These Ivy League anti-gun pseudo intellectuals who don't like guns need to be asked the obvious question. Where would they feel safer? Backwoods, good ol' boy country where everyone owns a gun? Or walking through D.C., LA, or New York City where guns are not allowed?

Apparently, guns have nothing to do with crime rate.
 
Trapp is another misinformed person

If everyone felt as you do and did in the past, who would have sent the Redcoats packing?, Who would have defeated my country and brought America back together?, who would have defeated the Mexicans?, Who would have defeated the Spanards?, The Germans, the Turks, the Germans again, Japanese, and Italians, the North Koreans and China?

Take up knitting, needlework, cooking and quit banging BS in our ears !!!!
 
I live in a rural county. there's probably more guns than people here.. we have almost ZERO violent crime. HOW CAN THAT BE??... DON'T GUNS KILL PEOPLE??? :eek:
 
Don't attack Trapp!

I am a responsible gun owner, but I am willing to take and try to understand
different points of view. Let's be honest, Guns & pistols main function
is to shoot to stop or hurt somebody(except hunting & sports shooting).
If all people are "responsible" and well trained and law abiding, then,
increasing the numbers of guns will not increase violence, murders & other
untoward effects. However, there are a lot of irresponsible, poorly trained,
and criminals, and nutcases out there, therefore, increasing the availability
of guns, logically will increase it's use to cause violence and other crimes.
Obviously, it is not the guns fault, but it's availability and ease and effectiveness makes it the best instrument of choice. If we live in an
earlier age where guns are non existence, it will be knives, bolos, spear
or even stones, or sling shots.
So, Trapp's premise is logical and we don't have to be sensitive about it.
I love my guns but in the hands of irresponsible persons it is deadly and
can kill.
 
all of us at TFL have much in common. we all enjoy our guns and some of us make a hobby of it, others professionally. when these posts turn into hate mail I get confused as to how we can talk to eachother in this manner. aren't we among the dwindling numbers of gun enthusiasts?:confused:
 
Nothing to get in a pissing match about. The folks admitted that the study couldnt make a casual inference to what they were trying to prove. So basically its called blowing smoke up a certain part of your anatomy.

So then the press runs with it like it was the holy grail. Opinion becomes truth.
 
enikkor
I love my guns but in the hands of irresponsible persons... the irresponsible persons... become... deadly...and can kill.
Click to expand...

Good sense says that if the civilians cannot have guns... the criminals will be the only ones who do...

Someone implied that good logic says, "if there weren't any guns.." there would be less crime...
Good sense says that the criminal eliment would "make or smuggle" guns anyway...

Outlawing guns, will NOT make guns go away! It didn't work with Prohibition and it doesn't work with drugs and prostitution... hell, we can't even keep illegal aliens from coming into this country... Outlaw guns??? Indeed! :rolleyes:

It is also good sense to say that it would be preferable to arm EVERY willing and law-abiding citizen, than to have every willing criminal armed as an alternative... :p

If a criminal thinks I might be armed... he will rob someone else...whom he thinks is not armed.

Good sense also tells us that when EVERYONE in the world, "beats their swords into plowshares", decent law-abiding folk will follow suit... :rolleyes:

THERE IS REALLY NO NEED FOR STATISTICS... except to lend support to GOOD SENSE...

...WHICH SPEAKS, QUITE WELL, FOR ITSELF!!!

Trouble is... nobody's listening... :mad:
 
Last edited:
research done in Texas

http://www.txchia.org/sturdevant2000.htm

On January 1, 1996, the Texas Concealed Handgun Law went into effect. This law states that the Texas Department of Public Safety (TXDPS) "shall issue" a concealed handgun license (CHL) to any Texas resident who meets the application requirements for character (background check) and training. This is an analysis of arrest data for Texas concealed handgun licensees that was performed on data from the subsequent years of 1996 - 2000. A comparison was made with the arrest data for the entire Texas population for the same time period, showing that, on average: male Texans who are over 21 years old and are not CHL holders are 7.7 times more likely to be arrested for commission of a violent crime than male Texans with a CHL; and female Texans who are over 21 years old and are not CHL holders are 7.5 times more likely to be arrested for commission of a violent crime than female Texans with a CHL. Of the violent crime cases that have been adjudicated, approximately 26% of CHL holders who were arrested were convicted, and 44% are cleared of the violent crimes for which they were arrested.
Click to expand...

I guess looking at the chart the assumption that I draw is if we are really interested in decreasing crime we males should get a sex change and undergo hormone therapy :eek:
 
Texans who are over 21 years old and are not CHL holders are 7.7 times more likely to be arrested for commission of a violent crime than male Texans with a CHL
Click to expand...
As much as I hate to say it, I think we can all see the glaring holes in this figure.

Of course people without a CHL are more likely to committ a crime. CHL holders had to undergo a background check. This confirmed that they were non-offenders. That means the catagory of non-CHL holders includes every single previous offender, felon, mentally unstable person, etc. Of course that catagory is going to be more likely to committ a crime. The highest indicator of whether you will committ a felony is if you have committed one before. All the people in the CHL holder group have not committed a felony.

I don't like scewed data on either side of the debate. I want to be presented with truthul facts and I only want to present truthul fact.
 
I guess looking at the chart the assumption that I draw is if we are really interested in decreasing crime we males should get a sex change and undergo hormone therapy
Click to expand...

My point is that the studies are pretty much useless. As I pointed out in my last remark of the post. Its all about the criminals, people who have no respect for the law. There are also people who just snap one day. There will also be crazy people. How do laws regulate this kind of behavior? Its obvious they don't.

Laws do not prevent crime. They do establish a social norm of acceptable behavior. If laws and police prevented crime we should have been crime free long ago.

We have also learned that making things illegal and prohibiting them still exacts a cost on society.

So let's not put the burden on law abiding firearms who are for the vast majority not running amok in the streets robbing and killing people. lets put that burden on those that misuse firearms for criminal purposes.

its been said many times....freedom isnt free. We can choose to accept that freedom comes with prices or establish a society like the Minority Report where you are arrested before you commit the crime.

Do you choose freedom?

or a structured society with thought police and a higly regulated life for your own protection?
 
More forks=more Fat (with forks)!?!?

This just in ....dee dee dee dee dee deeeeet News Flash!

A recent study highlighted that obesity among Americans is at an all time high. The cause... forks! Forks make people fat. If we could just outlaw or at least heavily regulate the ownership of forks, America would once again return to the home of the brave and land of the skinny.

Senator Ted Kennedy was quoted as saying, "I know I'm a porker but its not because I'm such a drunk, its because of those darn forks! I and the Hildebeast will be introducing legislation for fork control in an upcoming session."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was not available for official comment, but did bug her eyeballs out even further than the usual two inches and agreed that Sen. Kennedy was indeed the man for the job.
 
There are lies, damn lies and statistics. Even Lott's statistics are misinterpreted and misused.

Math is perfect. Like guns, it is a wonderful tool. Unfortunately, like guns, it can also be misused for nefarious purposes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top