[oldnemesis]

(08-21-2011 11:22 PM)Dash Global Wrote:  

Where have you found statistics on violent crime success rate or failure when the victim was armed?!?!? Please post them.

Dude, you started making things up. This is usually a bad sign that you have nothing to counter the statistics I posted. But, just in case, let's do a quick fact check:

1. Gun owners typically argue that there is direct connection between availability of guns to general population and violent crime (typical slogan "more guns - less crime"). Do you agree with that?

2. Gun owners lobby for the less restrictive laws regulating weapon ownership, with the rationale is that if there are less restrictions on gun purchase and ability to carry one (i.e. CCW or having it in your vehicle), then more citizens will carry/drive guns and will be able to protect themselves - which is supposed to lead to less crime. Do you agree with that?

Note that even the most fanatic gun owners did not suggest forcing everyone to own a gun. A lot of people, me included, aren't buying guns just because we don't need them. It is not because we are restricted in some way, so this will not change even if they start selling guns in your local grocery store.

Now, the FBI violent crime statistics contradicts with claims 1 and/or 2. Which means the agenda of gun owners is wrong, and more available guns do not mean less crime. I don't know why the whole TX is not carrying as it seems quite easy there, but so far it is sufficient to state a fact that despite having more permissive gun laws, the violent crime in TX is higher than in CA which has much more restrictive gun laws.

Quote:

So tell me how owning a gun will DECREASE your chances of surviving a violent crime. Cant wait to hear this one! haha

You're getting childish. Is it because you run out of arguments? This is not daycare, and you're not talking to your girlfriend. If you cannot handle yourself to have a civilized discussion without gimmicks, you better not have it at all.

But again, I'll give you benefit of the doubt and come up with an explanation.

When the population is unarmed, the robber might go out with just a knife, or with no weapons at all. Even if there is a confrontation, there is usually little risk to his life as long as he chooses his victims carefully. Therefore carrying a gun has little benefit for him, but a risk is high (societies which outlaw gun ownership usually have pretty harsh penalties for illegal carrying).

However when a potential victim may be armed, a reasonable criminal just has to be armed - it is matter of his survival. And any victim could be armed, so if there is even a chance the victim has a gun, the criminal has to shoot first, and what would be robbery ended up as assault or homicide.

This theory is actually supported by the facts. For example, the robbery rate for CA is much higher than in TX (CA 173 vs TX 153). However the aggravated assault rate in TX is well over this difference (299 TX vs 270 CA). So while it is just a theory, at least it is supported by hard facts published by a trusted neutral source.

(08-22-2011 02:28 PM)Dash Global Wrote:  

Oldnemesis thinks trained professional hit men are out to kill people and carrying a firearm will do you no good! lmfao!

Don't worry about me, watch your back. You know, no guns for you in Korea, so all those dangerous criminals would have a free ride to rob and rape you. I really surprised you actually decided to go there, such a criminal-friendly society preying on innocent citizens who cannot even carry a gun to protect themselves. Think about hiring a bodyguard or two, should be good investment.

This is another thing nobody yet explained: how do those gun owners travel? If one needs to keep their gun around them 24/7 just to feel safe, it is impossible in most popular travel destinations. Don't they travel at all, or their mindset suddenly changes as soon as they leave the USA?

[thekiller]

@oldnemesis-I've actually taken a statistics course so I'm always highly dubious of ANY statistics or polls I read (even if they support my views) unless I know the sample conditions and/or poll questions.
I could throw stats at you from 100s of pro-gun sites but I'm sure you'd just ignore those, so lets go with the good old http://www.census.gov:
Texas is ranked #15 in violent crimes with a rate of 516.
California is ranked #14 in violent crimes with a rate of 533.
and the Highest State? It's not really a state so they don't rank it as #1, but they list it and it's rate is over DOUBLE the state they rank as number 1. Our nation's capital, WHICH HAVE THE MOST RESTRICTIVE GUN LAWS IN THE US:
District of Columbia, my #1 with a rate of 1,508.

Whose your Daddy now?

If that's not enough, let's look at this another way, you seemed really concerned with Concealed Carry Types like myself. You and Kona seem to think violence is more likely to happen, but the statistics show:
The General Public is 5.7 times MORE likely to be arrested for a violent offense than a concealed carry permit holder.
The General Public is 13.5 times MORE likely to be arrested for non violent offenses than said concealed carry permit holder.
Seems like Concealed Carry Permit Holders are more likely to be upstanding citizens, no?

Some more food for thought.
Do you think more kids would have died at Columbine had 1 or more teachers had the ability to concealed carry that day, or less?
Do you think that loony in Norway would have been able to leisurely stalk and kill 49 people had a few of them had a gun?
During the Rodney King Riots, do you know which downtown stores DIDN'T get looted? The ones with the shotgun toting Korean store owners on the roofs.

Class dismissed.

[oldnemesis]

(08-23-2011 10:49 AM)thekiller Wrote:  

@oldnemesis-I've actually taken a statistics course so I'm always highly dubious of ANY statistics or polls I read (even if they support my views) unless I know the sample conditions and/or poll questions.

That's just baloney. The statistics I referred to did not come from some stupid "poll", it came from FBI UCR. If you actually looked on it, you'd see it yourself. And if you think that UCR is biased against gun owners, you better come up with some strong evidence as I'm definitely not going to take just your word for that.

Quote:

I could throw stats at you from 100s of pro-gun sites but I'm sure you'd just ignore those, so lets go with the good old http://www.census.gov:

I do not ignore anything as long as it comes from an unbiased or authoritative source, and you provide the link to the source. So please provide the link to the stats you're referring to, then we can talk.

Quote:

and the Highest State? It's not really a state so they don't rank it as #1, but they list it and it's rate is over DOUBLE the state they rank as number 1. Our nation's capital, WHICH HAVE THE MOST RESTRICTIVE GUN LAWS IN THE US:
District of Columbia, my #1 with a rate of 1,508.

This is not even funny. Do you know DC is not a state, and you're conveniently comparing the statistics for the whole state (which includes both rural areas very few people live in, and the cities with higher concentration of people and therefore higher rate of crime) with a single city? This is so incredibly lame that I can't believe you're serious.

Quote:

If that's not enough, let's look at this another way, you seemed really concerned with Concealed Carry Types like myself. You and Kona seem to think violence is more likely to happen, but the statistics show:

Link please. Sorry, but your "do you know" arguments have zero weight to me unless accompanied by the evidence. Unfortunately after you used the lame NRA DC vs state argument, your words have very little credibility as you're obviously retyping propaganda.

PS. And you still failed to explain why TX with its gun-friendly laws have more violent crime than CA.

[Dash Global]

@theKiller

I love how Oldnemesis ignored your food for thought goodies. That pretty much lays this whole discussion to rest lol

[Moma]

I agree with old nem on this. I still don't see the purpose of being armed as it will just result in more homicides. This will put the power into the ordinary man to be able to blast on somebody who pisses him off. It's easier for one person to kill more people with a gun than it is to kill the same amount with knives or fists.

Now in regards to your Columbine and Norway examples, killa, you are taking extremes. You have to look at overall statistical spread.

Hype people love to point at extreme cases and say "Oh, if the regular person had a gun they would be able to take the law into their own hands"

The Norway man was a normal man I gather (meaning he had no criminal record prior). He was obviously a secret sociopath. You have sociopaths in every society and by allowing guns to be easily accessible, means you make it easier for sociopaths to kill people.

How many massacre issues has America had involving someone just going apeshyt with the guns?

I can recall three off the top.

1) The disgruntled worker on the New York Subway in the 90's who just dumped on all the passengers.

2) Columbine

3) The Asian kid in Virginia.

And permitting teachers to be armed..are you for real?

Why not just abolish police and just let citizens run they own shyt?

Let the strongest survive.

And after guns, what next should be permissible?

[Dash Global]

Gun laws or not, people that want to HAVE a gun and USE them will.

All someone will have to do is literally walk down the street to the local drug dealer and purchase an ILLEGAL firearm.

Outlawing guns will only put law abiding citizens at a DISADVANTAGE.

Which in essence will be putting MORE power into the criminals hands.

[Moma]

(08-25-2011 09:12 AM)Dash Global Wrote:  

Gun laws or not, people that want to HAVE a gun and USE them will.

All someone will have to do is literally walk down the street to the local drug dealer and purchase an ILLEGAL firearm.

Outlawing guns will only put law abiding citizens at a DISADVANTAGE.

Which in essence will be putting MORE power into the criminals hands.

As old nem said, if a criminal knows that EVERYONE is packing, he will SHOOT to kill. There's no deterrent like the fear of death.

If he knows that there is a crime for packing heat, well, he may be fine, I'll do my time if I get caught.

But if he knows that the little old lady has a piece on her, he will shoot to kill.

What do you think of that?

And a regular criminal will have a lot more experience and a lot less compunctions about pulling and blasting than a regular law abiding citizen.

What do you think?

[Dash Global]

(08-25-2011 09:16 AM)Moma Wrote:  

(08-25-2011 09:12 AM)Dash Global Wrote:  

Gun laws or not, people that want to HAVE a gun and USE them will.

All someone will have to do is literally walk down the street to the local drug dealer and purchase an ILLEGAL firearm.

Outlawing guns will only put law abiding citizens at a DISADVANTAGE.

Which in essence will be putting MORE power into the criminals hands.

As old nem said, if a criminal knows that EVERYONE is packing, he will SHOOT to kill. There's no deterrent like the fear of death.

If he knows that there is a crime for packing heat, well, he may be fine, I'll do my time if I get caught.

But if he knows that the little old lady has a piece on her, he will shoot to kill.

What do you think of that?

And a regular criminal will have a lot more experience and a lot less compunctions about pulling and blasting than a regular law abiding citizen.

What do you think?

You are conveniently leaving out the other side of it.

If someone knows another person is packing he will be less likely to target that person, over some one that is un-armed.

[Moma]

(08-25-2011 09:37 AM)Dash Global Wrote:  

(08-25-2011 09:16 AM)Moma Wrote:  

(08-25-2011 09:12 AM)Dash Global Wrote:  

Gun laws or not, people that want to HAVE a gun and USE them will.

All someone will have to do is literally walk down the street to the local drug dealer and purchase an ILLEGAL firearm.

Outlawing guns will only put law abiding citizens at a DISADVANTAGE.

Which in essence will be putting MORE power into the criminals hands.

As old nem said, if a criminal knows that EVERYONE is packing, he will SHOOT to kill. There's no deterrent like the fear of death.

If he knows that there is a crime for packing heat, well, he may be fine, I'll do my time if I get caught.

But if he knows that the little old lady has a piece on her, he will shoot to kill.

What do you think of that?

And a regular criminal will have a lot more experience and a lot less compunctions about pulling and blasting than a regular law abiding citizen.

What do you think?

You are conveniently leaving out the other side of it.

If someone knows another person is packing he will be less likely to target that person, over some one that is un-armed.

If a person is a criminal, there are just going to take stronger measures to make sure that they are not taken out in the process.

If EVERYONE is packing, does that mean it will reduce gun related homicides?

[Dash Global]

(08-25-2011 09:38 AM)Moma Wrote:  

(08-25-2011 09:37 AM)Dash Global Wrote:  

(08-25-2011 09:16 AM)Moma Wrote:  

(08-25-2011 09:12 AM)Dash Global Wrote:  

Gun laws or not, people that want to HAVE a gun and USE them will.

All someone will have to do is literally walk down the street to the local drug dealer and purchase an ILLEGAL firearm.

Outlawing guns will only put law abiding citizens at a DISADVANTAGE.

Which in essence will be putting MORE power into the criminals hands.

As old nem said, if a criminal knows that EVERYONE is packing, he will SHOOT to kill. There's no deterrent like the fear of death.

If he knows that there is a crime for packing heat, well, he may be fine, I'll do my time if I get caught.

But if he knows that the little old lady has a piece on her, he will shoot to kill.

What do you think of that?

And a regular criminal will have a lot more experience and a lot less compunctions about pulling and blasting than a regular law abiding citizen.

What do you think?

You are conveniently leaving out the other side of it.

If someone knows another person is packing he will be less likely to target that person, over some one that is un-armed.

If a person is a criminal, there are just going to take stronger measures to make sure that they are not taken out in the process.

If EVERYONE is packing, does that mean it will reduce homicidal crime?

You do realize most murders are not random and involve two things?

Drugs and what many refer to as "crimes of passion".

People involved with the drug trade will ALWAYS have guns. This alone is connected to atleast 80% of homicides in one form or another.

Then you have crimes of passions. Generally involving relationships gone bad.

The homicides you are talking about account for such a small percentage that it is not even worth mentioning, much less trying to base your argument off of lol

[oldnemesis]

(08-25-2011 08:51 AM)Dash Global Wrote:  

@theKiller
I love how Oldnemesis ignored your food for thought goodies. That pretty much lays this whole discussion to rest lol

Dash, official FBI statistics is food for though. Someone's ideas not supported by facts is not. But I know, it doesn't matter - you guys should be already giving each other high-fives.

Summary: as I said above, most gun owners are so boringly predictable - they just keep posting some propaganda without any supportive evidence, and when countered with valid arguments, they ignore it and just posted more propaganda. It isn't even funny that despite a lot of posts here nobody yet answered the question I asked in the first post: if guns prevent violent crime, how come TX with all those permissive gun laws has more violent crime than CA which more restrictive laws?

But hey, it is naive to expect an answer, I know. Hopefully you survive Korea, those violent criminals probably are waiting right at the airport to rob gun-stripped visitors.

[oldnemesis]

(08-25-2011 09:16 AM)Moma Wrote:  

It's easier for one person to kill more people with a gun than it is to kill the same amount with knives or fists.

Exactly. Apparently this is something most gun owners refuse to understand, despite numerous examples of contrary. An ordinary dude with a guy who goes crazy and doesn't care about his own life will do MUCH more damage with a gun than if he just had a knife. Ironically, he'll shoot gun owners first, just in case.

Quote:

If he knows that there is a crime for packing heat, well, he may be fine, I'll do my time if I get caught.
But if he knows that the little old lady has a piece on her, he will shoot to kill.
What do you think of that?

You expect too much from them. NRA propaganda doesn't cover this stuff, and it should be obvious right now that none of them formed their own opinion (with a pleasant exception of Jim Kirk who showed significantly more knowledge than your average dumb keep-your-hands-away-from-my-guns). Not to mention for most Americans questioning something which is sacred for them (be it religion, party affiliation or guns) typically shuts off their logical brain completely, and they react like a 4yo brat watching his favorite cartoon when you tell him it is time to go to bed. I should have known better than to start this discussion.

(08-25-2011 09:05 AM)Moma Wrote:  

How many massacre issues has America had involving someone just going apeshyt with the guns?

School shootings in the USA. Looks like there were more school shootings in the USA than in the rest of the world combined.

I can also remember three recent cases similar to Virginia Tech, all were local and high-profile here in Bay Area.

The first was an Asian middle-aged temporary worker (H1B), who, after being fired from his job, went back home, brought a gun and shoot all the coworkers.

Second was an Indian dude who apparently murdered his whole family and the family of his brother, including two babies.

And the third is a very recent one, a dude got jealous and shot his wife and her friend, then committed a suicide.

Now in Russia all those three issues would probably lead to nothing at all. Maybe a fight, maybe even some broken bones. But here in US, a combination of guns available to anyone and the people who are easy to lose their temper result in this kind of stories.

[Dash Global]

(08-26-2011 11:21 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(08-25-2011 08:51 AM)Dash Global Wrote:  

@theKiller
I love how Oldnemesis ignored your food for thought goodies. That pretty much lays this whole discussion to rest lol

Dash, official FBI statistics is food for though. Someone's ideas not supported by facts is not. But I know, it doesn't matter - you guys should be already giving each other high-fives.

Summary: as I said above, most gun owners are so boringly predictable - they just keep posting some propaganda without any supportive evidence, and when countered with valid arguments, they ignore it and just posted more propaganda. It isn't even funny that despite a lot of posts here nobody yet answered the question I asked in the first post: if guns prevent violent crime, how come TX with all those permissive gun laws has more violent crime than CA which more restrictive laws?

But hey, it is naive to expect an answer, I know. Hopefully you survive Korea, those violent criminals probably are waiting right at the airport to rob gun-stripped visitors.

You should read this article that was published in the Harvad Jounal. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go...n29346290/

It goes into HEAVY detail about all the MISCONCEPTIONS you and many people have on gun laws and their affect in reducing crime and murders.

(Goes and gets the popcorn waiting on nemisis ATTEMPT at coming up with a rebuttal on a 20+ page report with tons of data destroying his notion of gun laws and their affect on society)

[Dash Global]

Nemsis, where'd ya go buddy? haha

The wait on your rebuttal is killing meh!

[oldnemesis]

(08-27-2011 12:20 AM)Dash Global Wrote:  

You should read this article that was published in the Harvad Jounal. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go...n29346290/

You missed the point again. Here we're having a discussion where we:
- Explain our own opinion on a subject.
- Stand up behind it by answering questions, and explaining how does it fit the real-life events (and if it doesn't, why it doesn't).

However since you do not have your personal opinion, and your opinion on a subject comes from the third party propaganda, you simply cannot stand up behind it. Which makes the discussion with you as meaningful as a discussion with a tape recorder who'd be playing the same slogans again and again. This is why you lost all the credibility as opponent.

Personally I see very little value in a "read-this-article" type of discussion, when you start linking the articles from NRA (the irony there is that I can bet you didn't read the article yourself, as if you did, it sounds much less convincing comparing to if you read the quotes). At the same time you're carefully avoiding any personal experience questions. For example, you haven't answered whether you really feel much insecure now in Korea where you don't have your guns with you. Nor you mentioned any experience with violent crime there. This alone speaks a lot about not only how much your opinion really worth, but also the strength of your character.

Please don't bother me anymore with your propaganda, it will be ignored.

[Dash Global]

(08-28-2011 03:53 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(08-27-2011 12:20 AM)Dash Global Wrote:  

You should read this article that was published in the Harvad Jounal. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go...n29346290/

You missed the point again. Here we're having a discussion where we:
- Explain our own opinion on a subject.
- Stand up behind it by answering questions, and explaining how does it fit the real-life events (and if it doesn't, why it doesn't).

However since you do not have your personal opinion, and your opinion on a subject comes from the third party propaganda, you simply cannot stand up behind it. Which makes the discussion with you as meaningful as a discussion with a tape recorder who'd be playing the same slogans again and again. This is why you lost all the credibility as opponent.

Personally I see very little value in a "read-this-article" type of discussion, when you start linking the articles from NRA (the irony there is that I can bet you didn't read the article yourself, as if you did, it sounds much less convincing comparing to if you read the quotes). At the same time you're carefully avoiding any personal experience questions. For example, you haven't answered whether you really feel much insecure now in Korea where you don't have your guns with you. Nor you mentioned any experience with violent crime there. This alone speaks a lot about not only how much your opinion really worth, but also the strength of your character.

Please don't bother me anymore with your propaganda, it will be ignored.

LOL No rebuttal as expected. I atleast thought you would try to discredit it in someway shape or form. Its hard to discredit all those statistics and numbers. Cant really fault you for avoiding the article which pretty much destroys your more guns = more crime / homicides theory.

Now on to the rest of your post.

I did explain my opinions. I will share them again for you.

I believe im safer having a personal firearm.

-someone breaks into my home with a deadly weapon im sure as fuck safer and will be better able to defend myself with a gun.

I believe banning firearms from law abiding people is pointless and has a negative affect more than a positive affect. AKA you will see a rise in crime if you ban firearms.

-criminals like easy targets that will put up the least resistance. if they know you are not packing you are an easy target.

I believe such laws would put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage compared to the criminals. They will breaks laws and own guns no matter what laws are in place.

-criminals dont obey laws. what makes you think they will start now? criminal + gun > citizen - gun. easy math

Ill answer what ever question you want me to answer. Ask away. I enjoy these discussions.

As to your Korean questions.

I dont necessarily feel un-safer without my gun. You can pretty much walk down any street at any hour and not really worry about getting mugged ect. It is a different culture here. Now this doesnt mean something cant pop off. In which case I would like to have my gun for protection. I hope I dont encounter any violent crime while im here as I dont have my usual safety net to help me get out of a jam. Ill just be shit out of luck if someone draws a weapon on me, or if somehow I get cornered by numerous dudes looking to inflict harm on me. I just gotta hope this doesnt happen. So do I wish I had my piece here? Sure. I dont like to take chances and HOPE nothing bad happens to me.

[oldnemesis]

(08-28-2011 05:17 PM)Dash Global Wrote:  

LOL No rebuttal as expected. I atleast thought you would try to discredit it in someway shape or form. Its hard to discredit all those statistics and numbers.

Sorry, but you disqualified yourself from being an opponent worthy any significant time investment, mostly because you did not show any respect for my time.

Quote:

I did explain my opinions. I will share them again for you.
I believe im safer having a personal firearm.

This is not what we are discussing in this thread. We're talking about the effect increased or decreased availability of firearms has on society as a whole. It is NOT about you and how you personally feel. This is why we operate on crime statistics affecting the whole states, and the statistics says that "more available guns" does not mean "less crime"; in fact it means "more crime". This is the point. How you personally feel is irrelevant, the statistics is about 70 million people, and you're just one of them.

Quote:

I believe banning firearms from law abiding people is pointless and has a negative affect more than a positive affect. AKA you will see a rise in crime if you ban firearms.

This is more meaningful, but now I repeat my question again (and again): how do you explain the fact that FBI violent crime statistics does not support your beliefs? How do you explain the fact that UK murder rate is significantly less than US murder rate?

Quote:

I dont necessarily feel un-safer without my gun. You can pretty much walk down any street at any hour and not really worry about getting mugged ect. It is a different culture here.

Congratulations! You're showing some understanding. Yes, it is about culture as well, there is no gun culture and people are less inclined to resolve their issues with violence. This is the direct effect of restricting guns, the only thing is that the effect is not immediate, it takes at least a generation to change things.

Quote:

So do I wish I had my piece here? Sure. I dont like to take chances and HOPE nothing bad happens to me.

So do you feel less secure in Korea than in US?

[Dash Global]

@Nemisis

So you believe more guns = more violent crime?

or

Tougher gun laws = less violent crime?

Your in for a treat.

Took some time and reviewed data based on some of the debates in this thread. This is research going over JUST the stats for America. International stats are even more convincing. lol Maybe Ill post them tomm......

All stats are from the FBI's Crime Statistics for 2009 (2010 is not completely finalized yet) and from the FBI's NICS.

First lets look at gun laws in comparison to violent crimes.

Tough Gun Laws & Violent Crimes per 100,000

Washington DC - 1,346

New York - 385

New Jersey - 312

California - 472

Illinois - 497

Massachusetts - 457

This comes out to an average of 578 per 100,000

Lax Gun Laws & Violent Crime per 100,000

Texas - 490

Arizona - 408

Florida - 613

Georgia - 426

Kentucky - 259

New Mexico - 619

This comes out to an average of 469 per 100,000


Now lets look at the states with the most guns / gun purchases in comparison to violent crime. (FBI's NICS)

States with the most guns / purchases and Violent Crimes per 100,000

Kentucky - 259

Utah - 213

Montana - 254

Wyoming - 258

Alaska - 408

West Virginia - 297

South Dakota - 185

North Dakota - 201

Arkansas - 518

Alabama - 450

This comes out to a 301 average of violent crimes per 100,000

States with the least guns / gun purchases and Violent Crimes per 100,000

Washington DC - 1,346

New Jersey - 312

Hawaii - 275

New York - 385

Rhode Island - 253

Massachusetts - 457

Maryland - 590

California - 472

Delaware - 637

Florida - 613

These come out to an average of 534 violent crimes per 100,000

Add all this onto the fact that Violent Crime deceased by 6% from 2008 - 2009 and firearm purchases rose by 10% and the answer is clear.

More guns do not = more violent crimes

neither does

Tougher gun laws = less violent crimes

If anyone still has any doubts, I could post the International statistics which are WAY more damning than the ones I just posted....

Shit, im hongry. Time for some grub.

[/thread]

[oldnemesis]

(08-29-2011 08:33 PM)Dash Global Wrote:  

@Nemisis
So you believe more guns = more violent crime?

No, that's what NRA likes to say (and argue with themselves).
What I believe - and what is supported by the evidence - is that more restrictive gun laws mean less violent crime.

Quote:

Tougher gun laws = less violent crime?

Exactly.

Quote:

Washington DC - 1,346

You're losing your credibility right here. If you compare states, compare states. If you compare cities, then compare cities. So if you're talking about DC, then you should talk about St. Louis, Houston and Detroit. Of course NRA loves this argument, but their propaganda is targeting complete retards (like GWB), so take it with grain of salt.

Quote:

This comes out to an average of 578 per 100,000

No, it doesn't. First you should calculate the median, not the average - as I said, at average you and Bill Gates own 25 billion dollars each. Second, you should take in account the population and the population density. You cannot commit a violent crime alone, and generally the denser the population the more violent crime per capita is committed; compare the crime in Houston and some small town in TX.

But even with average if you count states only, you end up with 425 instead of 578.

Quote:

Lax Gun Laws & Violent Crime per 100,000
This comes out to an average of 469 per 100,000

So it is already larger. Much larger. And if you add TN with its 667 (makes me wonder why you excluded it, but added KY) you end up with even higher number.

Now, how you gonna explain the fact that states

Quote:

States with the most guns / purchases and Violent Crimes per 100,000

This is useless statistics as more gun purchases is not the same as more gun owners. I don't know a single gun owner who owns just one gun; indeed most of my friends own at least three, some own much more than that.

Quote:

Kentucky - 259
Utah - 213
Montana - 254
Wyoming - 258
Alaska - 408
West Virginia - 297
South Dakota - 185
North Dakota - 201
Arkansas - 518
Alabama - 450

Note that you listed the least populous states in the US. And then you gonna compare it with DC. What does it say about your methodology?

Quote:

Add all this onto the fact that Violent Crime deceased by 6% from 2008 - 2009 and firearm purchases rose by 10% and the answer is clear.

No, it is not clear. Violent crime per capita decreased everywhere in the USA pretty much at the same rate, even in DC. Claiming that firearm ownership rose evenly across all the states is a huge speculation, so linking it with firearm purchases is as credible as linking it with global warming.

So next time use your own brain instead of getting your facts from NRA. They are manipulating you.

[Dash Global]

Odnemisis

The District of Colombia has its OWN gun laws.

Bro, answer me this.

How is it that DC has some of the STRICTEST if not THE STRICTEST gun laws in the United States yet it has almost 3 times the violent crime of most other US cities?!?!?

[Pilgrim37]

Major Riot Fail

This guy's obviously bunked off Physics class!

[Pilgrim37]

(08-09-2011 06:56 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

@Speakeasy

European minorities feel disenfranchised? These guys get free schooling, free healthcare, access to welfare and unemployment benefits. How much more of a helping hand can you give them? How can you make it any easier for them?

Maybe the problem is not disenfranchised youths, maybe the problem is welfare grabbing, self entitled "victims" who never bothered to integrate? Maybe "the man" is not always to blame?

Maybe we could hold these fucking degenerates responsible for their own actions for a change instead? Or is that too much to ask?

Exactamente!

[oldnemesis]

(08-30-2011 05:57 PM)Dash Global Wrote:  

The District of Colombia has its OWN gun laws.

So does NYC.
So does Chicago.
So probably do a lot of other cities I don't know about.

I am extremely disappointed that you continued the strategy described above. Instead of addressing points raised by me - which were actually a response to your message - you just posted even more bullshit.

Quote:

Bro, answer me this.
How is it that DC has some of the STRICTEST if not THE STRICTEST gun laws in the United States yet it has almost 3 times the violent crime of most other US cities?!?!?

I told you to always verify what you read on NRA web site. Their articles are written for dumb rednecks who do not know how to use google. Don't become one.
Here is the list of US cities by crime rate. Sort it by the violent crime rate, and you'll get the following:

1. Missouri, St. Louis 20.7
2. Michigan, Detroit 19.67
3. Tennessee, Memphis 18.06
4. California, Oakland 16.79
5. Maryland, Baltimore 15.13
6. New York, Buffalo 14.59
7. Ohio, Cleveland 13.95
8. Missouri, Kansas City 13
9. California, Stockton 12.67
10. District of Columbia, Washington 12.65

So as you can see, DC is the TENTH city in this list. Now look at top three cities, do they have the strictest gun laws? Could you own a gun in St. Louis? If yes, how you explain why it has almost twice the violent crime comparing to "gunless" DC, especially considering that it has significantly lower population?

[Dash Global]

um i got my crime stats straight from the FBI website (i wasnt comparing cities....)

what does all those cities have in common? in that group there is strict gun law states/cities and lax ones.

this goes to show you that gun laws have NOTHING to do with violent crime rates.

it all comes down to the demographics of a place which is CLEARLY seen in just a quick glance at the cities with the highest crime rates. (poverty, ethnic makeup, ect) criminals will get guns regardless of what ever laws are in place.

but i dont expect you to realize that.

there is no conclusive evidence to show a direct link to gun laws and violent crimes (in the us) its the opposite in europe and other parts of the world.

we are just gonna have to agree to disagree on dis one.

we arent changing anyones minds anytime soon! lol

[Jim Kirk]

That's it. I'm buying another Glock tomorrow.