[Poll] Gun control - How much?

[Sociobiology]

The city of Chicago, I believe that's all I have to say. High amount of Gun-Control and a high amount of crime. Also, you do raise a somewhat legitimate concern. Which is why I support a small amount of Gun-control, but it is quite clear that gun ownership keeps crime rates to a minimum, at the very least it decreases it.

Since you can bring outside guns into every other city in America, and very few of them have Chicagos crime problem, it could be argued that Chicagos draconian gun control makes it's crime problem more severe than need be.

Or it could have high crime because it is a huge densely populated city and population density has a known correlation with increased crime rates. Or it could be the water or a thousand other causes, which is why people do STUDIES to find out.

[Sociobiology]

a single place vs multiple studies of the entire country.

do you know what cherry picking data is?



again no evidence of this.

You say that I'm cherry-picking data, yet you only show me two articles apparently "proving" your argument.

five articles, the second is a list of multiple papers, you could have at least looked at the links.
also notice the difference between studies/papers and raw incomplete data you used.

If you want me to go search the Internet for an article that proves my point, which is what you're doing, then I can. However, you seem dead-set on not changing your mind due to your self-righteous ego, meaning it'd be a waste of my time.

oh pot thou art a kettle.
I am always willing to change my mind if presented with a sound scientific argument, are you?

[Big Jim P]

Since you can bring outside guns into every other city in America, and very few of them have Chicagos crime problem, it could be argued that Chicagos draconian gun control makes it's crime problem more severe than need be.

Or it could have high crime because it is a huge densely populated city and population density has a known correlation with increased crime rates. Or it could be the water or a thousand other causes, which is why people do STUDIES to find out.

And it could be because the average citizen is restricted from the best means of self defense available.

[The United Dark Republic]

Total
murders"
2007 14831
2008 14180
2009 13636
2010 12996
2011 12664

"Total
firearms"
2007 10086
2008 9484
2009 9146
2010 8775
2011 8583

Handguns
2007 7361
2008 6755
2009 6452
2010 6009
2011 6220

Rifles
2007 450
2008 375
2009 348
2010 358
2011 323

Shotguns
2007 455
2008 444
2009 418
2010 373
2011 356

"Firearms
(type
unknown)"
2007 1820
2008 1910
2009 1928
2010 2035
2011 1684

"Knives or
cutting
instruments"
2007 1796
2008 1897
2009 1825
2010 1704
2011 1694

"Other
weapons"
2007 2095
2008 1938
2009 1864
2010 1772
2011 1659

"Hands, fists,
feet, etc."
2007 854
2008 861
2009 801
2010 745
2011 728


Interesting notes:
Total murders show a steady downward trend, including those related to firearms. So much for the "epidemic" of gun violence.

Rifles have the least number of murders associated with them, followed by shotguns. Hands fists feet etc, other weapons, and knives are far more likely to be used in the commission of murder. So much for the value of the "assault rifle ban"

Conclusion: That further gun-control measures are pointless as gun crime is already on the decrease, that rifles (including assault rifles) are less likely to be used in the commission of murder than any other category, thus an assault rifle ban is pointless.

Final conclusion: The use of the "gun-crime epidemic" to support further gun-control measures is based on either, ignorance, willful stupidity or a malicious intent to uselessly disarm the population at large.

2007 10086
2008 9484
2009 9146
2010 8775
2011 8583
Source: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/index.html

You were saying?

and you think that disproves the above studies?
Is statistics not your thing?

It seems as if I've found an article that contradicts your belief that more gun-control leads to less crime rates.

http://www.theacru.org/harvard_study_gu ... roductive/

Again, there are many more of these on the Internet, all you have to do is search.

[Sociobiology]

and you think that disproves the above studies?
Is statistics not your thing?

Both of the studies you linked are from sources with known anti-gun bias. My source is the FBI crime stats. I would say mine are stronger.

no because it is raw data with no control of other factors.

Also does not actually refute my claim even if it was true. showing a country wide decrease in homicide does not disprove local ownership increases local homicide.
Do you know anything about statistics.

[Big Jim P]

Both of the studies you linked are from sources with known anti-gun bias. My source is the FBI crime stats. I would say mine are stronger.

no because it is raw data with no control of other factors.

Also does not actually refute my claim even if it was true. showing a country wide decrease in homicide does not disprove local ownership increases local homicide.
Do you know anything about statistics.

Yes. I am using a larger sample that you are. Deal with it.

[Sociobiology]

and you think that disproves the above studies?
Is statistics not your thing?

It seems as if I've found an article that contradicts your belief that more gun-control leads to less crime rates.

http://www.theacru.org/harvard_study_gu ... roductive/

Again, there are many more of these on the Internet, all you have to do is search.

ah no, you have and editorial quoting a supposed study, it does not even have a link to the supposed study.
please learn how sources work.

[Big Jim P]

It seems as if I've found an article that contradicts your belief that more gun-control leads to less crime rates.

http://www.theacru.org/harvard_study_gu ... roductive/

Again, there are many more of these on the Internet, all you have to do is search.

ah no, you have and editorial quoting a supposed study, it does not even have a link to the supposed study.
please learn how sources work.

Please show an increase in crime due to the loosening of carry restriction (AKA the "blood in the streets" cries so common among GCAs).

[MaPa Kettleville]

There is an even bigger irony here than squabbling about cherry picked data to back positions.

This past week past president of the US Jimmy Carter stated in an interview that the US Government is not a democracy anymore but rather it is now an Oligarchy.

Although Abraham Lincoln signed legislation to end slavery, the US Government has created slaves out of every tax payer in that the only backing the Federal reserve Notes have anymore is the taxpayers ability to pay the debts of the federal Government. That debt is now admittedly over $16 Trillion Dollars and some Congressmen state it is over $32 Trillion Dollars. To put that in common terminology, it would take 4 generations of taxpayers paying the debt to erase it and that is if the Federal Government didn't spend anything during those 4 generations. It also means that at least one of those generations hasn't been born yet so they are being taxed without representation. i.e. economic slavery.

Perhaps all the numerous gun laws have empowered the government to the point it feels as if it is free to spend at will and burden future generations with a debt. Who has the authority and ability to stop the House, Senate, President and Supreme Court from the out of control spending spree each seems to be conducting?

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

[Sociobiology]

no because it is raw data with no control of other factors.

(Image)

Also does not actually refute my claim even if it was true. showing a country wide decrease in homicide does not disprove local ownership increases local homicide.
Do you know anything about statistics.

Yes. I am using a larger sample that you are. Deal with it.

a larger sample of something else.
And no attempt to measure correlation.
I know you think you have something but you don't a decrease in homicide does not disprove my claim.

a bucket still moves more water than a spoon even in a draining pool.

[Sociobiology]

ah no, you have and editorial quoting a supposed study, it does not even have a link to the supposed study.
please learn how sources work.

Please show an increase in crime due to the loosening of carry restriction (AKA the "blood in the streets" cries so common among GCAs).

why would I try to show something I never claimed, in fact something I specifically said was not true.
Did you even read any of my posts?

[Internationalist Bastard]

There is an even bigger irony here than squabbling about cherry picked data to back positions.

This past week past president of the US Jimmy Carter stated in an interview that the US Government is not a democracy anymore but rather it is now an Oligarchy.

Although Abraham Lincoln signed legislation to end slavery, the US Government has created slaves out of every tax payer in that the only backing the Federal reserve Notes have anymore is the taxpayers ability to pay the debts of the federal Government. That debt is now admittedly over $16 Trillion Dollars and some Congressmen state it is over $32 Trillion Dollars. To put that in common terminology, it would take 4 generations of taxpayers paying the debt to erase it and that is if the Federal Government didn't spend anything during those 4 generations. It also means that at least one of those generations hasn't been born yet so they are being taxed without representation. i.e. economic slavery.

Perhaps all the numerous gun laws has empowered the government to the point it feels as if it is free to spend at will and burden future generations with a debt. Who has the authority and ability to stop the House, Senate, President and Supreme Court from the out of control spending spree each seems to be conducting? It's like a teenager with their parents credit cards on a spending spree at the mall. The parents are helpless to stop the teen from spending because the law enforcement, courts, etc are in favor of the teen spending.

And like the government, if you smack your kid and tell him to stop suddenly your horrible.

[Big Jim P]

Yes. I am using a larger sample that you are. Deal with it.

a larger sample of something else.
And no attempt to measure correlation.
I know you think you have something but you don't a decrease in homicide does not disprove my claim.

a bucket still moves more water than a spoon even in a draining pool.

And you are still ignoring the fact that the whole "blood in the streets" argument hasn't come to pass, even though GCAs constantly warn us that it will.

[The United Dark Republic]

It seems as if I've found an article that contradicts your belief that more gun-control leads to less crime rates.

http://www.theacru.org/harvard_study_gu ... roductive/

Again, there are many more of these on the Internet, all you have to do is search.

ah no, you have and editorial quoting a supposed study, it does not even have a link to the supposed study.
please learn how sources work.

You must not know how to read, or you completely disregarded the link that is no more than 15 lines within the article. However, I'm going to relieve you of this hassle and give you the link that actually is within the article. Ironically, it's from Harvard, which if I'm not mistaken, you used as one of your statistical proofs as well.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/org ... online.pdf

[Big Jim P]

Please show an increase in crime due to the loosening of carry restriction (AKA the "blood in the streets" cries so common among GCAs).

why would I try to show something I never claimed, in fact something I specifically said was not true.
Did you even read any of my posts?

Apparently about as much as you read mine.

[New Macedonia propper]

[quote="The United Dark Republic";p="25649801"][quote="Sociobiology";p="25649709"]

ah no, you have and editorial quoting a supposed study, it does not even have a link to the supposed study.
please learn how sources work.[/quote]
You must not know how to read, or you completely disregarded the link that is no more than 15 lines within the article. However, I'm going to relieve you of this hassle and give you the link that actually is within the article. Ironically, it's from Harvard, which if I'm not mistaken, you used as one of your statistical proofs as well.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/org ... online.pdf[/quote]
Their is tons of Gun control in The UK,so much that less than ten percent of the population owns some sort of Firearm(including antiques like Muskets).Edit:I forgot to mention they have extremely low crime rate

[MaPa Kettleville]

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

"For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

[The United Dark Republic]

You must not know how to read, or you completely disregarded the link that is no more than 15 lines within the article. However, I'm going to relieve you of this hassle and give you the link that actually is within the article. Ironically, it's from Harvard, which if I'm not mistaken, you used as one of your statistical proofs as well.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/org ... online.pdf

Their is tons of Gun control in The UK,so much that less than ten percent of the population owns some sort of Firearm(including antiques like Muskets).Edit:I forgot to mention they have extremely low crime rate

I don't know how much weight your statement carries, for when the UK went from strict gun-control to an outright ban, the amount of crime rates rose significantly. Their crime rates were actually higher than the United States. According to the article I cited.

[Sociobiology]

ah no, you have and editorial quoting a supposed study, it does not even have a link to the supposed study.
please learn how sources work.

You must not know how to read, or you completely disregarded the link that is no more than 15 lines within the article.

Your right I'm sorry, most scientifically literate authors put a link to a paper at the end of the article.

lets see what we have 1991, older than mine but that in and of itself is not definitive.

No control for population density, which I have already talked about is a known confounding factor, so already problematic.

comparing international data, which is different than what I used, and the paper itself claims makes correlation impossible.

considers only murder rates, not violent crime rates, so not really going to refute my sources.

and you (and the author you quote) should really read more than the segment title, the conclusion of the paper is that other unknown factors*
overwhelm gun ownership and make it unlikely that gun has any effect one way or the other.

*(shown by later papers to include things like population density which I already talked about.) which were included in the papers I linked.
and by including the factors this paper did not know about they were able to show actual correlation.

so care to try again?

Edit: Oh and I never claimed in correlated with overall crime, just violent crime.

[Sociobiology]

why would I try to show something I never claimed, in fact something I specifically said was not true.
Did you even read any of my posts?

Apparently about as much as you read mine.

not my fault you keep using a strawman.

[The United Dark Republic]

You must not know how to read, or you completely disregarded the link that is no more than 15 lines within the article.

Your right I'm sorry, most scientifically literate authors put a link to a paper at the end of the article.

lets see what we have 1991, older than mine but that in and of itself is not definitive.

No control for population density, which I have already talked about is a known confounding factor, so already problematic.

comparing international data, which is different than what I used, and the paper itself claims makes correlation impossible.

considers only murder rates, not violent crime rates, so not really going to refute my sources.

and you (and the author you quote) should really read more than the segment title, the conclusion of the paper is that other unknown factors*
overwhelm gun ownership and make it unlikely that gun has any effect one way or the other.

*(shown by later papers to include things like population density which I already talked about.) which were included in the papers I linked.
and by including the factors this paper did not know about they were able to show actual correlation.

so care to try again?

Edit: Oh and I never claimed in correlated with overall crime, just violent crime.

It isn't 1991 study, but that makes little difference.

The point being made is that firearms save ordinary people's lives more often than not by preventing shootings and defending families. Not only in the United States, but throughout the world (in most cases).

Now I don't have the specific statistics on whether firearms have a direct correlation with petty crimes or not, but we're talking about the lives of many people. Which I, personally, find more important and more valuable than trying to make a point.

My job isn't to disprove violence crime in general, rather look at this from a larger perspective. And, not surprisingly, gun ownership tends to decrease murders.

Now you can call it ironic, but I call it factual evidence.

By the way, apology accepted.

[Sociobiology]

Your right I'm sorry, most scientifically literate authors put a link to a paper at the end of the article.

lets see what we have 1991, older than mine but that in and of itself is not definitive.

No control for population density, which I have already talked about is a known confounding factor, so already problematic.

comparing international data, which is different than what I used, and the paper itself claims makes correlation impossible.

considers only murder rates, not violent crime rates, so not really going to refute my sources.

and you (and the author you quote) should really read more than the segment title, the conclusion of the paper is that other unknown factors*
overwhelm gun ownership and make it unlikely that gun has any effect one way or the other.

*(shown by later papers to include things like population density which I already talked about.) which were included in the papers I linked.
and by including the factors this paper did not know about they were able to show actual correlation.

so care to try again?

Edit: Oh and I never claimed in correlated with overall crime, just violent crime.

It isn't 1991 study, but that makes little difference.

The point being made is that firearms save ordinary people's lives more often than not by preventing shootings and defending families. Not only in the United States, but throughout the world (in most cases).

so moving the goal post now, do you have a source for this new claim.

Now I don't have the specific statistics on whether firearms have a direct correlation with petty crimes or not,

violent crime =/= petty crime

but we're talking about the lives of many people.

yes we are, which is why it is important to make sure criminals cannot easily obtain firearms.

Which I, personally, find more important and more valuable than trying to make a point.

As do I which is why I want to try to save lives.

My job isn't to disprove violence crime in general, rather look at this from a larger perspective. And, not surprisingly, gun ownership tends to decrease murders.

which you have yet to demonstrate.

Now you can call it ironic, but I call it factual evidence.

I hope not you actually have to have factual evidence to call it factual evidence.
right now all you have is your opinion. And you know the old saying, "You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts."

Also I have to question whether you know what irony means, either that or I am just not understanding how you are using it.

[Salandriagado]

but one that does not require you actually check to see if they are eligible, AKA one we could require background checks for, as I originally said.

Alright, lets go with a hypothetical. How on earth are you going to stop my cousin who isn't a criminal from giving me a gun?

Make supplying weapons to someone disallowed from owning them a strict liability offence. Cut all of the difficulty in prosecuting: if you were the last person to legally purchase a gun, and you haven't reported it stolen, and it ends up in the hands of a criminal, that's all that's needed to prosecute. No worrying about intent or knowledge: if you're stupid enough to not check, that's your own damn fault.

[Wurtemburg-Baden]

Their is tons of Gun control in The UK,so much that less than ten percent of the population owns some sort of Firearm(including antiques like Muskets).Edit:I forgot to mention they have extremely low crime rate

I don't know how much weight your statement carries, for when the UK went from strict gun-control to an outright ban, the amount of crime rates rose significantly. Their crime rates were actually higher than the United States. According to the article I cited.

The U.S. Has the highest crime rates,check your facts.

[Omega America II]

I don't know how much weight your statement carries, for when the UK went from strict gun-control to an outright ban, the amount of crime rates rose significantly. Their crime rates were actually higher than the United States. According to the article I cited.

The U.S. Has the highest crime rates,check your facts.

And source needed