mnealtx 0 #1 December 20, 2007 I find it funny that, 40 years ago, ANYONE could walk into the local hardware store and buy a gun, or via mail order, and there were not the number of killings we have today. Could it just POSSIBLY be a cultural issue (gangs/drugs/lack of respect for the law/lack of responsibility) and not an availability issue? Discuss.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #2 December 20, 2007 I belive you are right. In the UK the overwhelming culture is one of lack of respect and violence. Until the culture changes its important to restrict the access to firearms both legal and illegal. Sad but true. Nb, I'm not in favour of a ny form of gun ban but at this point feel that it is necessary to restrict their access.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vpozzoli 0 #3 December 20, 2007 QuoteI find it funny that, 40 years ago, ANYONE could walk into the local hardware store and buy a gun, or via mail order, and there were not the number of killings we have today. Discuss. You might want to actually check some facts before making such broad statements. Here is a link to help you http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm Ciao. Vale Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #4 December 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteI find it funny that, 40 years ago, ANYONE could walk into the local hardware store and buy a gun, or via mail order, and there were not the number of killings we have today. Discuss. You might want to actually check some facts before making such broad statements. Here is a link to help you http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm Ciao. Vale Number of murders in the 1950's and into the 1960's were below 10k/year, and started climbing in the late 60's. If it were all about the guns as some claim, the numbers should have been high and started dropping in the late 60's and beyond as availability of guns decreased. It shows again that the availability of guns isn't the issue....thanks for the supporting info.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vpozzoli 0 #5 December 20, 2007 Quote Quote Quote I find it funny that, 40 years ago, ANYONE could walk into the local hardware store and buy a gun, or via mail order, and there were not the number of killings we have today. Discuss. You might want to actually check some facts before making such broad statements. Here is a link to help you http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm Ciao. Vale Number of murders in the 1950's and into the 1960's were below 10k/year, and started climbing in the late 60's. If it were all about the guns as some claim, the numbers should have been high and started dropping in the late 60's and beyond as availability of guns decreased. It shows again that the availability of guns isn't the issue....thanks for the supporting info. You're a riot. Have you checked the link I sent you? How do you explain the sharp rise in the 70's and 80's, especially if you cross reference the number of homicides per capita with the breakdown by weapon type here? http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm Guess what, the sharp increase in homicides during that period is entirely attributable to homicides by handgun. Homicides by other weapons have actually been declining steadily ever since. The same can be said about the sharp decline in the late 90's that is entirely due to the sharp decline in the number of homicides by handgun. Incidentally, the rate of homicides today is the same as in the second half of the 60's. Guess what, the second half of the 60's is 40 years ago, which completely falsifies your initial statement. Care to comment on that or would you prefer to ignore this basic fact? Tell me, do you think that guns are easier to come by today than they were, say, in 1980 or is the exact opposite true? This is too easy. Ciao, Vale Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #6 December 20, 2007 Since we're hosting the nit-pick brigade...where in my initial post did I mention handguns? The FACT remains that even after the restrictions on ownership and acquisition of the GCA '68, the numbers of killings ROSE (thanks again for the supporting information, btw). I'll state again, since you can't seem to grasp it - if it were ONLY about the availability of weapons, killings would have been HIGHER before GCA '68 and would have been declining since. The fact that this is NOT true lends credence to the concept of societal issues being the root cause rather than availability of weapons.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vpozzoli 0 #7 December 20, 2007 Quote I'll state again, since you can't seem to grasp it - if it were ONLY about the availability of weapons, killings would have been HIGHER before GCA '68 and would have been declining since. Who's saying it is ONLY about the availability of weapons? So far as I can tell, you are. Google strawman if you don't know what it means. And you still haven't commented on your initial premise being completely false. Ciao, Vale Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #8 December 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteI find it funny that, 40 years ago, ANYONE could walk into the local hardware store and buy a gun, or via mail order, and there were not the number of killings we have today. Discuss. You might want to actually check some facts before making such broad statements. Here is a link to help you http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm Ciao. Vale I'm not getting your point. Could you say more about his statement and your reply and than just "You might want to actually check some facts before making such broad statements"? thanks. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vpozzoli 0 #9 December 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteI find it funny that, 40 years ago, ANYONE could walk into the local hardware store and buy a gun, or via mail order, and there were not the number of killings we have today. Discuss. You might want to actually check some facts before making such broad statements. Here is a link to help you http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm Ciao. Vale I'm not getting your point. Could you say more about his statement and your reply and than just "You might want to actually check some facts before making such broad statements"? thanks. Sure. He claims that 40 years ago it was easier to get your hands on a gun (possibly true) but there were fewer killings than there are today. If you look at the actual data, you see that the actual situation with regards to homicide trends in the last 40 years is much more complex and, incidentally, the homicide rate today is exactly the same as 40 years ago. Further examination of the data shows that handguns played a significant role in the homicide rates over time, but please keep in mind that I'm in no way claiming it is "only about guns". He claims that I do, but that's just another strawman. I'm merely pointing out the fact that guns are a factor, not necessarily the only one. That, and that his initial premise is manifestly false. Cheers, Vale Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SwampThing 0 #10 December 20, 2007 Guess what, the sharp increase in homicides during that period is entirely attributable to homicides by handgun. Homicides by other weapons have actually been declining steadily ever since. The same can be said about the sharp decline in the late 90's that is entirely due to the sharp decline in the number of homicides by handgun. Quote Please site your source? The link provided stipulate homicides, no method that I see. The Pessimist says: "It can't possibly get any worse!" The Optimist says: "Sure it can!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites vpozzoli 0 #11 December 20, 2007 Quote Guess what, the sharp increase in homicides during that period is entirely attributable to homicides by handgun. Homicides by other weapons have actually been declining steadily ever since. The same can be said about the sharp decline in the late 90's that is entirely due to the sharp decline in the number of homicides by handgun. Quote Please site your source? The link provided stipulate homicides, no method that I see. Ooops, wrong link! Here is what I actually meant to link http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm There's a ton of different sections that break it down by different factors such as gender, race, circumstances etc. etc. Definitely very interesting reading material. Cheers, Vale Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #12 December 20, 2007 QuoteWho's saying it is ONLY about the availability of weapons? So far as I can tell, you are. I am bringing that idea to the table, yes. Gold star for you - there's hope yet!! QuoteGoogle strawman if you don't know what it means. Rather like you did, by injecting handgun info into the argument, you mean? QuoteAnd you still haven't commented on your initial premise being completely false. Ciao, Vale I do not feel my initial premise is false, that is why I opened it up for discussion. Basic data appears to support it, as I've stated above (twice now). As an aside: You may to look at the history of concealed carry law - especially timeline of states going to 'shall issue' instead of 'may issue' or 'no issue'. This also ties in with Wright/Rossi's study which shows that criminals avoid places where they know the occupants are armed.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dannydan 0 #13 December 20, 2007 food for THOUGHT!!! Its ALL about CONTROL in the future peeps.... The worm has and IS turning! You'll see! :DD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites vpozzoli 0 #14 December 20, 2007 Quote Rather like you did, by injecting handgun info into the argument, you mean? OK, so now handguns are not a type of gun. Point taken. Quote I do not feel my initial premise is false, that is why I opened it up for discussion. Basic data appears to support it, as I've stated above (twice now). OK, so your initial premise was, in your own words: I find it funny that, 40 years ago, ANYONE could walk into the local hardware store and buy a gun, or via mail order, and there were not the number of killings we have today. Actual data shows that 40 years ago there was exactly the number of killings that you have today, so care to explain how that does not prove your initial statement false but rather, as you claim, supports it? Ciao, Vale Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #15 December 20, 2007 QuoteQuote Rather like you did, by injecting handgun info into the argument, you mean? OK, so now handguns are not a type of gun. Point taken. Quote I do not feel my initial premise is false, that is why I opened it up for discussion. Basic data appears to support it, as I've stated above (twice now). OK, so your initial premise was, in your own words: I find it funny that, 40 years ago, ANYONE could walk into the local hardware store and buy a gun, or via mail order, and there were not the number of killings we have today. Actual data shows that 40 years ago there was exactly the number of killings that you have today, so care to explain how that does not prove your initial statement false but rather, as you claim, supports it? Ciao, Vale 12,240 (1967) vs 16,692 (2005) - what's a mere 36% increase among friends, eh? Maybe you should try an AMD processor instead of Intel? I'll try once again to explain it, since you can't seem to understand the premise, and then I'm through with you. I submit that cultural/societal issues, rather than the availability of a weapon, is the primary driving factor for crime.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites vpozzoli 0 #16 December 20, 2007 Quote 12,240 (1967) vs 16,692 (2005) - what's a mere 36% increase among friends, eh? Maybe you should try an AMD processor instead of Intel? Yeah, right. Of course one should only look only at the absolute number for murders and not adjust for population, right? I mean, the fact that there were 300 million people in the US in 2005 compared to slightly less than 200 million in 1967 should have absolutely no effect on the absolute number of homicides per year, right? The fact that the homicide rate was 5.6 in 2005 against 6.2 in 1967 should be completely disregarded as it is clearly meaningless, in the sense that it does not support your conclusions so it must not be taken into account. By the way, you keep referring to your conclusions as your premise, I think you got those concepts a bit mixed up. Your premise is that we have more killings today than we had 40 years ago, a statement that is clearly false if you do your math properly (regardless of the brand of CPU you use, it's still garbage in-garbage out). As a matter of fact, there are fewer killings today than there were 40 years ago. As for your conclusion, well, for a start it is based on a false premise, and even if this weren't the case you are still willfully ignoring a very important variable, therefore your conclusion is unsupported. Wanna guess what that variable might be? Ciao, Vale Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #17 December 20, 2007 All of the above, and society in general seeking to match the morals of the LCD. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #18 December 20, 2007 QuoteSure. He claims that 40 years ago it was easier to get your hands on a gun (possibly true) but there were fewer killings than there are today. If you look at the actual data, you see that the actual situation with regards to homicide trends in the last 40 years is much more complex and, incidentally, the homicide rate today is exactly the same as 40 years ago. Further examination of the data shows that handguns played a significant role in the homicide rates over time, but please keep in mind that I'm in no way claiming it is "only about guns". He claims that I do, but that's just another strawman. I'm merely pointing out the fact that guns are a factor, not necessarily the only one. That, and that his initial premise is manifestly false. Cheers, Vale First, I want to thank you for taking the time to review actual data. Regarding what mnealtx said, yes, 40 yrs ago you could walk into a corner store and buy any gun you wanted (except "NFA guns", i.e. Full-Auto, Silencers, and "short-barrel rifles" which require registration/taxation under the 1934 Nat. Firearms Act.) with no federal and typically no state paperwork. No nothing. Similarly, the store owner had no federal licensing or reporting requirements, etc. Wild West. That's the way it had always been. Yes, the per capita rate is the same today as it was in 1967. And yes, as mnealtx stated, the kill # is much higher now than then, ~11.2K v. ~16.9K. You guys can deal with it from there. Yes, it's clear that handgun kills drive the overall US kill rate. Availability of guns must contribute (not cause or be the reason for it - our non-gun kill rate is also very high) to our high gun kill rate. By "availability", I don't just mean ability to purchase. A better term might be "prevalence". I'm not sure people (esp. from other countries) realize how many guns are in the US. One estimate is 90 per 100 people (~200 Million guns). The next highest country is Yemen, with 61 per 100 people (~13 Million guns). See attached pic. More importantly, NONE of those 200 Million (non-NFA) guns are federally registered (a very small number, maybe .3% are state registered). The feds don't keep records of sales/transfers handled by licensed dealers, and there is no paperwork involved in sales between private parties. That is, the authorities have no idea where at least 180 Million guns in the US are. So we not only have the most guns, but unlike most nations, there is also no way to determine where they are. Gun people could lighten up a bit, but so could the other side. The best thing that both sides should do is admit when they're wrong or make an error, quit pitching out micro-PA's, refuse to feed trolls, examine issues from a non-emotional perspective, and read/respond to what is actually posted. It's amazing how someone can ask a specific question, and get a response that has no relation to the post. later "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,625 #19 December 20, 2007 Quote This also ties in with Wright/Rossi's study which shows that criminals avoid places where they know the occupants are armed. Do you believe everything CRIMINALS tell you? James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi apparently did. A lot of ENRON investors lost a lot of money believing criminals.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #20 December 20, 2007 QuoteQuote This also ties in with Wright/Rossi's study which shows that criminals avoid places where they know the occupants are armed. Do you believe everything CRIMINALS tell you? James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi apparently did. A lot of ENRON investors lost a lot of money believing criminals. Seems fairly basic - if I want to know what a criminal thinks, I interview a criminal....so, in this case, yes. (Especially since I've gotten independent confirmation from a couple of folks that have spent time in prison for burglary.)Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zipp0 1 #21 December 20, 2007 From the looks of those stats, we should just stop selling guns to 18-24 year old black males. I guess that sounds racist, but they are causing most of the trouble. They are 6 times as likely to be victims than whites and 7 times as likely to offend. (so I guess blacks shoot mostly other blacks) -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #22 December 20, 2007 Quote From the looks of those stats, we should just stop selling guns to 18-24 year old black males. I guess that sounds racist, but they are causing most of the trouble. They are 6 times as likely to be victims than whites and 7 times as likely to offend. (so I guess blacks shoot mostly other blacks) Would that possibly be a Quote (gangs / drugs / lack of respect for the law / lack of responsibility) issue? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zipp0 1 #23 December 20, 2007 Quote Quote From the looks of those stats, we should just stop selling guns to 18-24 year old black males. I guess that sounds racist, but they are causing most of the trouble. They are 6 times as likely to be victims than whites and 7 times as likely to offend. (so I guess blacks shoot mostly other blacks) Would that possibly be a Quote (gangs / drugs / lack of respect for the law / lack of responsibility) issue? Sure sounds like it to me. The thing is, if gang members want to kill eachother, I say have at it. They shouldn't even include those numbers in the stats. It makes it look like citizens are shooting eachother, when in fact it is the gang bangers on the fringe of society. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,625 #24 December 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote This also ties in with Wright/Rossi's study which shows that criminals avoid places where they know the occupants are armed. Do you believe everything CRIMINALS tell you? James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi apparently did. A lot of ENRON investors lost a lot of money believing criminals. Seems fairly basic - if I want to know what a criminal thinks, I interview a criminal....so, in this case, yes. (Especially since I've gotten independent confirmation from a couple of folks that have spent time in prison for burglary.) We also know from the US DoJ that guns are a favorite target of thieves, right up there with cash and jewelry. Hard to steal guns if you're avoiding them.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #25 December 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote This also ties in with Wright/Rossi's study which shows that criminals avoid places where they know the occupants are armed. Do you believe everything CRIMINALS tell you? James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi apparently did. A lot of ENRON investors lost a lot of money believing criminals. Seems fairly basic - if I want to know what a criminal thinks, I interview a criminal....so, in this case, yes. (Especially since I've gotten independent confirmation from a couple of folks that have spent time in prison for burglary.) We also know from the US DoJ that guns are a favorite target of thieves, right up there with cash and jewelry. Hard to steal guns if you're avoiding them. Weak sauce, Professor.... re-read the passage of mine you originally quoted, paying careful attention to the last seven words.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 1 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
vpozzoli 0 #11 December 20, 2007 Quote Guess what, the sharp increase in homicides during that period is entirely attributable to homicides by handgun. Homicides by other weapons have actually been declining steadily ever since. The same can be said about the sharp decline in the late 90's that is entirely due to the sharp decline in the number of homicides by handgun. Quote Please site your source? The link provided stipulate homicides, no method that I see. Ooops, wrong link! Here is what I actually meant to link http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm There's a ton of different sections that break it down by different factors such as gender, race, circumstances etc. etc. Definitely very interesting reading material. Cheers, Vale Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #12 December 20, 2007 QuoteWho's saying it is ONLY about the availability of weapons? So far as I can tell, you are. I am bringing that idea to the table, yes. Gold star for you - there's hope yet!! QuoteGoogle strawman if you don't know what it means. Rather like you did, by injecting handgun info into the argument, you mean? QuoteAnd you still haven't commented on your initial premise being completely false. Ciao, Vale I do not feel my initial premise is false, that is why I opened it up for discussion. Basic data appears to support it, as I've stated above (twice now). As an aside: You may to look at the history of concealed carry law - especially timeline of states going to 'shall issue' instead of 'may issue' or 'no issue'. This also ties in with Wright/Rossi's study which shows that criminals avoid places where they know the occupants are armed.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dannydan 0 #13 December 20, 2007 food for THOUGHT!!! Its ALL about CONTROL in the future peeps.... The worm has and IS turning! You'll see! :DD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vpozzoli 0 #14 December 20, 2007 Quote Rather like you did, by injecting handgun info into the argument, you mean? OK, so now handguns are not a type of gun. Point taken. Quote I do not feel my initial premise is false, that is why I opened it up for discussion. Basic data appears to support it, as I've stated above (twice now). OK, so your initial premise was, in your own words: I find it funny that, 40 years ago, ANYONE could walk into the local hardware store and buy a gun, or via mail order, and there were not the number of killings we have today. Actual data shows that 40 years ago there was exactly the number of killings that you have today, so care to explain how that does not prove your initial statement false but rather, as you claim, supports it? Ciao, Vale Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #15 December 20, 2007 QuoteQuote Rather like you did, by injecting handgun info into the argument, you mean? OK, so now handguns are not a type of gun. Point taken. Quote I do not feel my initial premise is false, that is why I opened it up for discussion. Basic data appears to support it, as I've stated above (twice now). OK, so your initial premise was, in your own words: I find it funny that, 40 years ago, ANYONE could walk into the local hardware store and buy a gun, or via mail order, and there were not the number of killings we have today. Actual data shows that 40 years ago there was exactly the number of killings that you have today, so care to explain how that does not prove your initial statement false but rather, as you claim, supports it? Ciao, Vale 12,240 (1967) vs 16,692 (2005) - what's a mere 36% increase among friends, eh? Maybe you should try an AMD processor instead of Intel? I'll try once again to explain it, since you can't seem to understand the premise, and then I'm through with you. I submit that cultural/societal issues, rather than the availability of a weapon, is the primary driving factor for crime.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vpozzoli 0 #16 December 20, 2007 Quote 12,240 (1967) vs 16,692 (2005) - what's a mere 36% increase among friends, eh? Maybe you should try an AMD processor instead of Intel? Yeah, right. Of course one should only look only at the absolute number for murders and not adjust for population, right? I mean, the fact that there were 300 million people in the US in 2005 compared to slightly less than 200 million in 1967 should have absolutely no effect on the absolute number of homicides per year, right? The fact that the homicide rate was 5.6 in 2005 against 6.2 in 1967 should be completely disregarded as it is clearly meaningless, in the sense that it does not support your conclusions so it must not be taken into account. By the way, you keep referring to your conclusions as your premise, I think you got those concepts a bit mixed up. Your premise is that we have more killings today than we had 40 years ago, a statement that is clearly false if you do your math properly (regardless of the brand of CPU you use, it's still garbage in-garbage out). As a matter of fact, there are fewer killings today than there were 40 years ago. As for your conclusion, well, for a start it is based on a false premise, and even if this weren't the case you are still willfully ignoring a very important variable, therefore your conclusion is unsupported. Wanna guess what that variable might be? Ciao, Vale Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #17 December 20, 2007 All of the above, and society in general seeking to match the morals of the LCD. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #18 December 20, 2007 QuoteSure. He claims that 40 years ago it was easier to get your hands on a gun (possibly true) but there were fewer killings than there are today. If you look at the actual data, you see that the actual situation with regards to homicide trends in the last 40 years is much more complex and, incidentally, the homicide rate today is exactly the same as 40 years ago. Further examination of the data shows that handguns played a significant role in the homicide rates over time, but please keep in mind that I'm in no way claiming it is "only about guns". He claims that I do, but that's just another strawman. I'm merely pointing out the fact that guns are a factor, not necessarily the only one. That, and that his initial premise is manifestly false. Cheers, Vale First, I want to thank you for taking the time to review actual data. Regarding what mnealtx said, yes, 40 yrs ago you could walk into a corner store and buy any gun you wanted (except "NFA guns", i.e. Full-Auto, Silencers, and "short-barrel rifles" which require registration/taxation under the 1934 Nat. Firearms Act.) with no federal and typically no state paperwork. No nothing. Similarly, the store owner had no federal licensing or reporting requirements, etc. Wild West. That's the way it had always been. Yes, the per capita rate is the same today as it was in 1967. And yes, as mnealtx stated, the kill # is much higher now than then, ~11.2K v. ~16.9K. You guys can deal with it from there. Yes, it's clear that handgun kills drive the overall US kill rate. Availability of guns must contribute (not cause or be the reason for it - our non-gun kill rate is also very high) to our high gun kill rate. By "availability", I don't just mean ability to purchase. A better term might be "prevalence". I'm not sure people (esp. from other countries) realize how many guns are in the US. One estimate is 90 per 100 people (~200 Million guns). The next highest country is Yemen, with 61 per 100 people (~13 Million guns). See attached pic. More importantly, NONE of those 200 Million (non-NFA) guns are federally registered (a very small number, maybe .3% are state registered). The feds don't keep records of sales/transfers handled by licensed dealers, and there is no paperwork involved in sales between private parties. That is, the authorities have no idea where at least 180 Million guns in the US are. So we not only have the most guns, but unlike most nations, there is also no way to determine where they are. Gun people could lighten up a bit, but so could the other side. The best thing that both sides should do is admit when they're wrong or make an error, quit pitching out micro-PA's, refuse to feed trolls, examine issues from a non-emotional perspective, and read/respond to what is actually posted. It's amazing how someone can ask a specific question, and get a response that has no relation to the post. later "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #19 December 20, 2007 Quote This also ties in with Wright/Rossi's study which shows that criminals avoid places where they know the occupants are armed. Do you believe everything CRIMINALS tell you? James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi apparently did. A lot of ENRON investors lost a lot of money believing criminals.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #20 December 20, 2007 QuoteQuote This also ties in with Wright/Rossi's study which shows that criminals avoid places where they know the occupants are armed. Do you believe everything CRIMINALS tell you? James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi apparently did. A lot of ENRON investors lost a lot of money believing criminals. Seems fairly basic - if I want to know what a criminal thinks, I interview a criminal....so, in this case, yes. (Especially since I've gotten independent confirmation from a couple of folks that have spent time in prison for burglary.)Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #21 December 20, 2007 From the looks of those stats, we should just stop selling guns to 18-24 year old black males. I guess that sounds racist, but they are causing most of the trouble. They are 6 times as likely to be victims than whites and 7 times as likely to offend. (so I guess blacks shoot mostly other blacks) -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #22 December 20, 2007 Quote From the looks of those stats, we should just stop selling guns to 18-24 year old black males. I guess that sounds racist, but they are causing most of the trouble. They are 6 times as likely to be victims than whites and 7 times as likely to offend. (so I guess blacks shoot mostly other blacks) Would that possibly be a Quote (gangs / drugs / lack of respect for the law / lack of responsibility) issue? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #23 December 20, 2007 Quote Quote From the looks of those stats, we should just stop selling guns to 18-24 year old black males. I guess that sounds racist, but they are causing most of the trouble. They are 6 times as likely to be victims than whites and 7 times as likely to offend. (so I guess blacks shoot mostly other blacks) Would that possibly be a Quote (gangs / drugs / lack of respect for the law / lack of responsibility) issue? Sure sounds like it to me. The thing is, if gang members want to kill eachother, I say have at it. They shouldn't even include those numbers in the stats. It makes it look like citizens are shooting eachother, when in fact it is the gang bangers on the fringe of society. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #24 December 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote This also ties in with Wright/Rossi's study which shows that criminals avoid places where they know the occupants are armed. Do you believe everything CRIMINALS tell you? James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi apparently did. A lot of ENRON investors lost a lot of money believing criminals. Seems fairly basic - if I want to know what a criminal thinks, I interview a criminal....so, in this case, yes. (Especially since I've gotten independent confirmation from a couple of folks that have spent time in prison for burglary.) We also know from the US DoJ that guns are a favorite target of thieves, right up there with cash and jewelry. Hard to steal guns if you're avoiding them.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #25 December 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote This also ties in with Wright/Rossi's study which shows that criminals avoid places where they know the occupants are armed. Do you believe everything CRIMINALS tell you? James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi apparently did. A lot of ENRON investors lost a lot of money believing criminals. Seems fairly basic - if I want to know what a criminal thinks, I interview a criminal....so, in this case, yes. (Especially since I've gotten independent confirmation from a couple of folks that have spent time in prison for burglary.) We also know from the US DoJ that guns are a favorite target of thieves, right up there with cash and jewelry. Hard to steal guns if you're avoiding them. Weak sauce, Professor.... re-read the passage of mine you originally quoted, paying careful attention to the last seven words.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
