[Glock]

Here is the abstract from a November 2013 study published in the peer-reviewed journal, Applied Economics Letters:

Quote:

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).

An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates, Applied Economics Letters
Volume 21, Issue 4, 2014.

Very interesting. This study supports the common-sense conclusion: giving law-biding citizens the ability to defend themselves from criminals (who themselves don't obey gun laws) makes people safer from murder.

As if on cue, CNN has story announcing that the Robertsons of Duck Dynasty fame are releasing their own produce line of firearms.

[Pacesetter20]

An armed society is a polite society.

[Aliblahba]

Agreed. However, this won't change the minds of liberal anti-gun zealots. They are fueled by fear, stupidity, arrogance, or power. While its good to see the facts reported, these cases aren't to be used for debate, unfortunately. Much stronger stimuli must be deployed.

[assman]

Take a look at this line of gun owners who are now required by Connecticut law to register certain firearms and magazines.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12/...rs-chills/

How many criminals stood in line to register their illegally owned firearms? Gun control is about people control.

[Glock]

(01-02-2014 01:45 PM)assman Wrote:  

Take a look at this line of gun owners who are now required by Connecticut law to register certain firearms and magazines.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12/...rs-chills/

How many criminals stood in line to register their illegally owned firearms? Gun control is about people control.

Wow, good point.

[Screwston]

[Aliblahba]

The last time there was an attempt to disarm on American soil.....






   


A lot of shit went down..........







   

Then a bunch of old dudes wrote about it somewhere. I don't think its taught in school anymore. Kids nowadays are preoccupied............








   

[assman]

(01-02-2014 02:12 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

The last time there was an attempt to disarm on American soil.....

A lot of shit went down..........

The socialists understand that they cannot confiscate firearms on a large scale today without triggering civil war. They have a long-term strategy:
1. Eliminate undocumented private firearms transactions. That is what the big push for 'universal background checks' is really about, and why the Democrats rejected Senator Coburn's proposal for a pure background check. The left doesn't care about the background check, what they care about is mandating that every firearm transaction is on a federal form. Similar laws have already been passed in the most anti-gun states. Of course criminals will not fill out federal or state forms when buying guns, so once again, this law targets those who would abide by the law.

2. Register firearms. Once all transactions are on federal forms, a future gun-related killing (committed by someone who is willing to break the law against murder, and thus couldn't give a shit about the numerous gun laws they had to break) will be used to justify a federal gun registry. Of course, gun registries do nothing to prevent or solve crime, as Canada discovered, because . . wait for it . . . criminals don't register their guns. Who woulda thunk it?

3. Once the government has a registry, they will make gun ownership onerous. We'll see license renewals (like DC has), registration fees, taxes, etc. They will price folks out of ownership. This will also give them a list of people to target for harassment via IRS, etc, not to mention small-scale confiscation via medical records (used an anti-depressant for a few months several years ago? No guns for you! This will be critical because the people the state most desperately wants to disarm are ex-military).

4. Indoctrinate the youth against guns. There are countless examples of this, where children are being suspended from school because they brought a water gun to school, or made a gun symbol with their fingers, or drew a picture of a gun, etc. Brainwashing the next generation to hate/fear guns reduces the need for confiscation and all the risks inherent to that.

Etc.

The best way to kill a frog without resistance is to very slowly heat the water that it's in. That is the gun control strategy in America. Every step along the way will be sold to a gullible American public as 'reasonable' or 'sensible' or 'commonsense', and for our protection, and "for the children", and it will indeed seem that way to those who cannot see (or refuse to believe) what is behind the curtain.

[Hencredible Casanova]

(01-02-2014 01:45 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

Agreed. However, this won't change the minds of liberal anti-gun zealots. They are fueled by fear, stupidity, arrogance, or power. While its good to see the facts reported, these cases aren't to be used for debate, unfortunately. Much stronger stimuli must be deployed.

I don't think sensible liberals care to take away guns from guys like you. It's finding a way to get them out of the hands of criminals and making the country safer that's the real challenge. We have extremely liberal gun laws compared to every other industrialized nation but worse crime rates by far. I don't think any well-informed person suggests that taking guns out of the hands of responsible, law abiding Americans is the answer. Many of them live in places that aren't so safe, so they have to make sure they're not putting them and their families at risk.

Also, gun crime on college campuses is relatively rare. It's the gun crime on the streets of America's cities - big and small- that's a huge problem.

Personally, I think it's all about the zip code of where you live. America looks bad on a whole because we have extremely different neighborhoods in a particular city that get averaged out on the statistics. But many people in affluent parts of major cities rarely, if ever, see violent crime and never venture into the bad areas. Those neighborhoods rank up there with the finest in the world by every measure. Then there's folks that live in suburbs that are also relatively safe. I've met people that grew up places where they never bothered to get house keys.

[Flavius Aetius]

(01-02-2014 02:34 PM)assman Wrote:  

3. Once the government has a registry, they will make gun ownership onerous. We'll see license renewals (like DC has), registration fees, taxes, etc. They will price folks out of ownership.

And then comes the friendly government gun buyback programs. "Cant afford to pay your gun taxes, fees--there is a new government program to "help" struggling gun owners just like you."

You bring in your legally purchased AR-15/shotgun and get a $100 gift card to walmart. Insert a random cop talking to the local media about how great this is for the community, etc and you are done.

[Screwston]

You can always buy used guns while its still legal and never register them to your name. Nobody knows you have them if you don't fill out a bill of sale.

[assman]

(01-02-2014 03:31 PM)houston Wrote:  

You can always buy used guns while its still legal and never register them to your name. Nobody knows you have them if you don't fill out a bill of sale.

This is no longer the case in several states, which have adopted 'universal background checks' (i.e., precursor for registration). So if you buy a used gun in one of those states, the buyer and seller are required to complete paperwork. That paperwork will find it's way into a registry.

If/when the government wants to disarm you:
1. they know about that gun you purchased
2. if you say you sold it, they'll ask you to produce the sale paperwork, and if you don't have that, you've committed a crime

[vinman]

I tell all of my friends to arm themselves, and buy ammo. I'll help train them for free. It's better to be a responsible gun owner, than an irresponsible victim. When seconds count the cops are always minutes away.
   

And liberal politicians are the worst. A lot have protective details with guns, and there are many with their own guns, but the peasants should be unarmed. Your protection is your business.

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/ju...z2pHDWtKiX

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politi....html?_r=0

[Glock]

(01-02-2014 03:52 PM)vinman Wrote:  

I tell all of my friends to arm themselves, and buy ammo. I'll help train them for free. It's better to be a responsible gun owner, than an irresponsible victim. When seconds count the cops are always minutes away.

Too true. I have a book entitled Dial 911 and Die. It's a very interesting read. The book contains stories of people who are victims of horrific violent crimes who subsequently tried to hold the police responsible for not protecting them. All of them get their cases thrown out. The moral of the book is that the police have no obligation to prevent crime or protect you, and they cannot do so.

Some of the stories shock the conscience. Some of the crime victims really could have been saved by the police, but there is still no legal recourse for them at all. You must protect yourself.

[Aliblahba]

Guns don't do any good without bullets:

Quote:

Because of heightened EPA regulations, Doe Run Company's Herculaneum lead smelter in Herculaneum, Missouri—the last U.S. smelter of its kind—is closing its doors on December 31, 2013.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/...ad-Smelter




http://floppingaces.net/2013/11/14/obama...mmunition/

[assman]

(01-02-2014 03:57 PM)Consul Wrote:  

Too true. I have a book entitled Dial 911 and Die. It's a very interesting read. The book contains stories of people who are victims of horrific violent crimes who subsequently tried to hold the police responsible for not protecting them. All of them get their cases thrown out. The moral of the book is that the police have no obligation to prevent crime or protect you, and they cannot do so.

Some of the stories shock the conscience. Some of the crime victims really could have been saved by the police, but there is still no legal recourse for them at all. You must protect yourself.

Yep. SCOTUS has ruled more than once that the police have no duty to protect you. The police carry guns to protect themselves, not the citizenry.

Yet people still argue that we shouldn't have guns and instead rely on the police for our protection. Ridiculous.

You can rely on the police for one of two things:
1. draw a nice chalk outline around your body because you chose to remain unarmed
2. haul off the body of your attacker after you took care of the problem

[Tytalus]

Thanks for sharing!!

[Tail Gunner]

(01-02-2014 02:54 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

(01-02-2014 01:45 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

Agreed. However, this won't change the minds of liberal anti-gun zealots. They are fueled by fear, stupidity, arrogance, or power. While its good to see the facts reported, these cases aren't to be used for debate, unfortunately. Much stronger stimuli must be deployed.

We have extremely liberal gun laws compared to every other industrialized nation but worse crime rates by far.

Many European nations have higher violent crime rates per capita than the U.S.

Quote:

It means there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe.

Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland.

By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population.

France recorded 324,765 violent crimes in 2007 – a 67 per cent increase in the past decade – at a rate of 504 per 100,000 population.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/l...urope.html

Quote:

I don't think any well-informed person suggests that taking guns out of the hands of responsible, law abiding Americans is the answer.

Agreed. I'm glad that you agree that ninety percent of all liberal politicians are not well-informed.

[Snowplow]

Even in the 90's when I was in kindergarten, at a private school, they were trying to push the no gun thing. I got in trouble for drawing a gun. I don't remember much of what happened except for the teacher saying I couldn't draw that. She confiscated it and gave it to my mom. I'll have to see if she remembers it.

[Vicious]

Tail Gunner, you neglected to quote the bottom line of that article.

Quote:

spokesperson said: “These figures are misleading. Levels of police recorded crime statistics from different countries are simply not comparable since they are affected by many factors, for example the recording of violent crime in other countries may not include behaviour that we would categorise as violent crime.

“Violent crime in England and Wales has fallen by almost a half since a peak in 1995 but we are not complacent and know there is still work to do.

[commiejoe]

I'm too lazy to google this, so maybe someone else will:

How many gun shops have been held up? (robbed at gun point)
or
How many gun shops/gun shows/firing ranges have experienced a crazed shooter? (akin to mall or school shootings)

I was just trying to think of a situation where almost everyone would be armed, and it would be common knowledge that they were armed.
If everyone was armed everywhere, what would the crime stats be like?
Switzerland?
http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swi...hat-works/

[assman]

Detroit police chief: Legal gun owners can deter crime

Looks like when this police chief stopped blindly believing the hype and looked at the reality, he got a clue.

[Tex Pro]

What the future holds...

New York City confiscating rifles and shotguns:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/06/new-yo...-shotguns/

[assman]

(01-03-2014 06:04 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

Tail Gunner, you neglected to quote the bottom line of that article.

Yes, it is difficult to make apples to apples comparisons when comparing countries. But the differences go in both directions.

Comparing England (or UK) murder rates with the US: More complex than you thought

"We count and report crimes based on initial data. The Brits count and report crimes based on the outcome of the investigation and trial. Yep, that says what I meant it to say."

[Aliblahba]

(01-03-2014 10:30 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

What the future holds...

New York City confiscating rifles and shotguns:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/06/new-yo...-shotguns/

I completely endorse this.