More Guns, Less Crime

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I like guns........period........and I can have as many as I can afford.......My guns shoot paper.....and what ever varmit tries to kill my show chickens.

Heh-heh... This post actually demonstrates the cultural divide that hallmarks the gun debate in the US. I'll betcha that most people who are really passionate about gun rights know what "show chickens" are, while most people who are really passionate about gun control have never heard the term.

Why don't you just go ahead and say what you really, REALLY mean, Andy?

You mean, aside from the fact that 3/4 of the population are not passionate about the issue either way? Sure.

Most people who are passionately anti-gun were born raised and live in regions where hardly anyone, outside of military or police, have ever handled a firearm. It's rare, among that demographic, for people to own firearms, even for home protection, or to shoot recreationally or competitively, or to hunt. It is certainly not a common implement of ordinary life for that demographic. They've gone their whole lives without guns, so they don't understand people who have guns. And the majority of those people are non-rural: mostly suburban or urban. And most people who live in, say, New Haven, CT or Brooklyn, NY would not have lived on a farm or participated in 4-H and thus would not know what "show chickens" are. (I had to Google it: I thought it had something to do with strippers.)

On the other side of the cultural divide, many (not all) people who are passionately pro-gun rights hail from regions where firearms are very much part of the every-day culture. Not exclusively, but that a lot of that demographic is concentrated in either the South-eastern or (non-coastal) Western states. And they simply do not understand why anyone would want to intrude into their lives to restrict their gun use or ownership. Speaking ill about civilian citizen gun-ownership to that demographic is like speaking ill about hockey to a Canadian: you just don't do it unless you're Chuck Norris. (Who wouldn't do it anyway 'cause he's a Texas Ranger). Plus, more people are part of or comfortable/familiar with rural culture in the Deep South than, say, the largely urban or suburban areas of the North-East. So they'd be more likely than the Northerners to have heard the term "show chickens".

So the people, on either side, who tend to use demonizing labels about the others often - not always - tend to do so as a symptom of this cultural divide. Why do Hindus hate Muslims who eat beef? Why do Muslims hate Hindus who eat pork? They do because, in large part culturally, they simply don't understand each other, so they demonize each other.

That's what I really, really mean.

[Layton 0]

Um no.... I really have show chickens. Silkies. Have little powder puffs on their butts and looks like they have top hats on. They cost money. So if the varmits try to eat them they have to be eliminated. The 3 S law applies when you live in the country. Shoot Shovel and Shut up

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I guess I'm just trying to say, why not just come out and make your argument on this? It's a reasonable one. Why dance around?

I've addressed the argument in the past, in similar thread titles. People who have been here in Speaker's Corner for a while know that, including most of those who make a big brouhaha about it every time. This particular thread was sort of like a booster shot - a subsequent reminder that the trend still holds, and is not a fluke.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Most people who are passionately anti-gun were born raised and live in regions where hardly anyone, outside of military or police, have ever handled a firearm. It's rare, among that demographic, for people to own firearms, even for home protection, or to shoot recreationally or competitively, or to hunt. It is certainly not a common implement of ordinary life for that demographic. They've gone their whole lives without guns, so they don't understand people who have guns. And the majority of those people are non-rural: mostly suburban or urban. And most people who live in, say, New Haven, CT or Brooklyn, NY would not have lived on a farm or participated in 4-H and thus would not know what "show chickens" are. (I had to Google it: I thought it had something to do with strippers.)

On the other side of the cultural divide, many (not all) people who are passionately pro-gun rights hail from regions where firearms are very much part of the every-day culture. Not exclusively, but that a lot of that demographic is concentrated in either the South-eastern or (non-coastal) Western states. And they simply do not understand why anyone would want to intrude into their lives to restrict their gun use or ownership. Speaking ill about civilian citizen gun-ownership to that demographic is like speaking ill about hockey to a Canadian: you just don't do it unless you're Chuck Norris. (Who wouldn't do it anyway 'cause he's a Texas Ranger). Plus, more people are part of or comfortable/familiar with rural culture in the Deep South than, say, the largely urban or suburban areas of the North-East. So they'd be more likely than the Northerners to have heard the term "show chickens".

And yet..... Which area has more gun crime?

A. The people that know what a show chicken is.
B. The people who live in regions where hardly anyone, outside of military or police, have ever handled a firearm.

[tharv17 0]

I gotta be honest I originally thought he meant Slow chickens.

Statistically I do not know where a majority of the gun crime in the US takes place and can only assume that it takes place in the most populated portions of the country, the northeast corridor and coastal california.

As for more guns less crime I think in an urban environment the argument does not work. More people means more opportunities for crimes of passion, revenge crimes, things of that nature. There are more people in cities so therefore more chances for someone to do something rash. If guns are more available in these situations you will have more shootings. Since guns are designed to kill you will have more homicides, as you already do.

I live in NYC and have lived in two other cities, both with populations over ten million. I see no reason for anyone in these cities to have a gun and do not see gun ownership as a way to stave off crime. I feel very comfortable here and that is not because I am armed but because I have full faith in the NYPD.

As for parts of the country where they have show chickens I have no opinion, I have never lived there. If some animal was about eat one of my show chickens I would probably shoot it. Seems reasonable. For me though I live in adensely populated place with different issues than other parts of the country.

[rehmwa 2]

You can't just come here and state that you have a personal position on it that you follow and that everyone else gets to decide for themselves......!!!!!!


sheeeeeeeeeeeshh


this is Speaker's Corner - you HAVE to get outraged that anyone else might possibly feel different than you and then advocate taking away their choice for their own good


didn't you read the memo

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

As for more guns less crime I think in an urban environment the argument does not work. More people means more opportunities for crimes of passion, revenge crimes, things of that nature. There are more people in cities so therefore more chances for someone to do something rash. If guns are more available in these situations you will have more shootings. Since guns are designed to kill you will have more homicides, as you already do.

If your theory were sound, cities like Chicago and NYC that illegally denied people their rights should enjoy much lower murder rates than cities in California, Florida, Texas. And since the number of guns owned by Americans continues to rise, we should be seeing more and more violence.

Neither of these is true. You using the same sort of reasoning given in opposition to more liberal CCW laws - there will be blood on the street as everyone settles their disputes with a Colt. And in fact nothing changes. Some have tried to argue that CCW permits lower crime which is a much harder claim to prove, but it's quite clear that they don't raise crime.

Crime comes and goes with the economy, and more notably with the number of 15-30 year old men in the population.

If you look back in history in this forum, you'll find no shortage of threads. Save us all some time and do some reading.

I live in NYC and have lived in two other cities, both with populations over ten million. I see no reason for anyone in these cities to have a gun and do not see gun ownership as a way to stave off crime. I feel very comfortable here and that is not because I am armed but because I have full faith in the NYPD.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

More people means more opportunities for crimes of passion, revenge crimes, things of that nature.

The data does not back your opinion. The majority of gun crimes are from black males age 16-15.

Quote

If guns are more available in these situations you will have more shootings.

Here is some data that proves you wrong

http://www.freep.com/article/20110731/NEWS06/107310482/Part-1-10-years-after-concealed-weapons-law-unclear-why-many-state-were-gun-shy

Quote

I see no reason for anyone in these cities to have a gun and do not see gun ownership as a way to stave off crime.

So everyone should just agree with you? Never mind the Constitution?

Quote

I feel very comfortable here and that is not because I am armed but because I have full faith in the NYPD

You do know that the SC has ruled that the police have no duty to protect you?

And I guess that all these people might disagree with you

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/crime_prevention/crime_statistics.shtml

This as well

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/03/29/nyc-murder-rate-up-20-percent-so-far-in-2010/

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I live in NYC... and do not see gun ownership as a way to stave off crime. I feel very comfortable here and that is not because I am armed but because I have full faith in the NYPD.

News:

Almost 50 shot in violence-filled weekend in New York

"After a bloody holiday weekend that left dozens shot in New York City -- including two police officers and at least one innocent victim who died of her wounds..."

Full story: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/09/shootings-leave-dozens-wounded-in-new-york-city.html

Um, I think there might be a problem with your personal security plan...

[Plover 0]

Once again the moderators here have chosen to delete a bunch of perfectly innocent messages. So now it's time for some payback once again. Tsk tsk. It's too bad they continue this program of self-induced punishment. It would be so easy if they just left those innocent messages alone, and public. But, when they fucka wit me, I fucka wit them. So here we go again.

[toolbox 0]

[rwieder 0]

Hey John, what's up? I thought you got banned for life. Ya must've got a reprieve or something? Ah well good to hear from you. Behave & they might let you stay for a while. Take Care!
Best-
Richard