US Supreme Court upholds individual right to gun ownership

[Asher]

Sure, hit me with one stat that proves banning handguns increases violent crime rates.

I'll tell you upfront such a thing doesn't exist, but there are numerous attempts by gun advocates to pretend there is. The Australia one is particularly infamous.

[Deity Dude]

LOL nice edit of you last post after I put up the challenge. So I guess your NEW point is that all stats are invalid unless they agree with your pre-determined opinion. I think earlier we both agreed to define that as close-minded.

BTW the world is round even though it looks flat to you.

[Deity Dude]

I never said banning hand guns increased violent crime. I said stats show allowing law abiding citizens the rightto carry hand guns reduced violent crime.

One sec and I will give you the FBI report.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
I never said banning hand guns increased violent crime. I said stats show allowing law abiding citizens the rightto carry hand guns reduced violent crime.

One sec and I will give you the FBI report.

You must have trouble reading. No states have eliminated the sales of handguns in any acceptable manner so any FBI reports on the manner aren't going to be relevant to the discussion.

I don't give a flying **** what some states did with their half-assed laws, because that's not what I am talking about. So stats about them are -- quite obviously -- useless.

Why do you think I am not addressing it? Would it be because I've said a dozen times it's irrelevant? At some point I'd hope this would sink in.

[Deity Dude]

Here you go - but to save time I suggest you look at page 7 of this thread in the future.

FBI report:

• For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3%, rape by 2% and robberies by more than 2%.

I do not know any other way to read that stat other than what a normal citizen would consider violent crime goes down after a CCW law is in effect.

[Asher]

In what ****ing way does a concealed handgun law have any relevance to the banning of handguns?

Hello?

Hello?

Am I talking to myself here?

/me knock knock

You seem to be in some other world where we are discussing concealed weapon laws, when we are not. If we were, I'm sure your stats would be fascinating.

BTW, murder/rape rates have been falling all over, regardless of concealed weapon laws. Correlation does not equal causation, but you seem to think it is. Whatever. This is just Stats 101.

Edit: Since 1993, violent crime has decreased every year in Canada. Canada does not permit concealed weapons. Canada's gun laws have gotten stronger since that time. What do you make of that?

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Mr Snuggles


You must have trouble reading. No states have eliminated the sales of handguns in any acceptable manner so any FBI reports on the manner aren't going to be relevant to the discussion.

Nice try but if you know anything about CCW permits in the US. There was a period where the only way to get a handgun was to show a "need". This amounted to a way for states to disregard the 2nd amendment and only issue handgun permits to police officers. Thus only police officers and law breakers had guns.

The thought was that if law abiding citizens had handguns they would be reckless and there would be more problems.

After the crime rate and murder rate escalated in the 70's, more states began to issue permits to law abiding citizens on a "shall-issue basis" (i.e. they met minimum requirements - they passed a safety course, they weren't a felon, they weren't mentally ill)

Since then EVERY STATE that has loosened its restrictions as I described has experienced 3 things:

A: continually lower crime rate, as described above:

and totally counter intuitavely

B: a lower suicide rate where handguns were the method used.

C: there are fewer accidents involving children and handguns

And not ONE STATE has since changed the law once they loosened it.

What you fail to realize is criminals will have guns. The police can not be everywhere. Rational law abiding citizens provide a deterrent to crime, the same way a nieghborhood watch does. As I pointed out earlier FBI stats show that 99.9% of the time a law abiding citizen uses a gun as a tool of self defense NO ONE IS KILLED. Thus it is not unsafe.

Furthermore it adds to safety because 34% of felons surveyed have been driven away, wounded, or captured by armed citizens; 40% have decided against committing crimes for fear their would-be victims were armed.

What does that mean. 1/3 of felons were stopped from committing at least 1 crime that you would count on the police to stop because of an armed citizen. When both the citizen and criminal know that the odds of a cop being at the house are alot less than the odds of the citizen being able to defend his house.

2 out of 5 crimes THAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED were stopped before they were committed because the criminal feared that the person they were trying to vicitmize might be able to defend themselves. And you want to take that away.

[Asher]

Why do you insult me with repeating **** I have already countered with slightly different words?

Your complete lack of understanding of basic statistics infuriating me. As I've said, you basically point to two independent phenomenons and try to draw a causal connection between them. That's just ridiculous.

Murder/violent crime rates are falling in all kinds of states and countries, regardless of the specific handgun laws. Some countries have fallen far further than others. In Canada, where it's far harder to get a handgun than the US, murder rates are FAR lower, and MASSIVELY lower when you only include murders by firearm.

I don't know how you've managed to deceive even yourself about this, but it's kind of disturbing.

[Deity Dude]

You have countered nothing where I keep showing it is a positive deterrent to crime - simliliar to a neighborhood watch.

Again you use the tactic of:

"I'm right because I said I was right"

While I continually show stats that prove you wrong.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
You have countered nothing where I keep showing it is a positive deterrent to crime - simliliar to a neighborhood watch.

YOU HAVE DONE NO SUCH THING AT ALL. I DO NOT KNOW WHY I NEED TO REPEAT THIS.

YOU HAVE NOT DEMONSTRATED A CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO VARIABLES. NOT EVEN CLOSE. IN FACT, ALL EVIDENCE POINTS TO THAT BEING A 'HAPPY COINCIDENCE' BECAUSE THE MURDER AND VIOLENT CRIME RATES ARE FALLING REGARDLESS OF SPECIFIC HALF-ASSED LAWS IN SOME CHERRY-PICKED STATES.

Any further post from you perpetuating the same stupidities I have quite plainly pointed out repeatedly will be considered a crime against humanity.

[SlowwHand]

If in a room you find 2 people. One person dead of a gunshot wound, the other person holding the gun. If you stop at that random sample, 100% of guns are used for murder.
The fact is, crimes against an individual have dropped remarkably since concealed hand gun permits, and prerequisite training, have been installed in Texas.

[Asher]

Originally posted by SlowwHand

The fact is, crimes against an individual have dropped remarkably since concealed hand gun permits, and prerequisite training, have been installed in Texas.

The fact is, crimes against an individual have dropped remarkably since handguns have been strictly controlled in Canada.

OH NOEZ. WHAT HAVE WE HERE.

An example of correlation does not equal causation. This is not proof, nor an argument. The fact that there are examples on both sides of this seem to indicate this is mostly an independent variable in the cases where handguns are not outright banned, but simply different tweaks to their permissibility.

[SlowwHand]

The fact is, a criminal is less likely to accost an individual if he knows the intended victim may blow his face off.

[Asher]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
The fact is, a criminal is less likely to accost an individual if he knows the intended victim may blow his face off.

The fact is, a criminal is more likely to accost an individual if he has a gun to threaten the victim with.

This game is fun, Sloww, but isn't it a bit futile?

[Deity Dude]

Thereis a show on cable TV called "It takes a Thief". 2 ex-theves advise people how to protect their property. Various respectable companies hire ex-hackers to figure out how not to their computer system broken into.

"When violent felons (defined as those convicted of murder, attempted murder, rape or aggravated assualt) were asked "If you could name 3 different things that would have stopped you from committing the crime you committed?" The 2 most common answers were"

A: Getting caught - fear of police
B: The potential victim could defend themself FBI 1996

I have nothing against police, but they are very rarely AT the scene of a crime. They tend to show up afterwards and try and solve it.