I've asked this before in other places and thought I'd bring it here. There was very little, if any, gun control in the late 50's, early 60's. Heck, I believe you could even mail order guns (what would be considered "assault" weapons) without any kind of background check or registering of them. The violent crime rate then was much lower than it is now. 160.9 per 100,000 vs. 386.5 per 100,000. So my question is this. If there is a correlation between more gun control equaling less violence (as gun control advocates like to claim), then wouldn't the reverse be true (less gun control = more violence)? How do you explain the stats from the 1960's in comparison to today then? Because what we find is just the opposite. There has to be some other reason to explain the rise in violence in this country (and yes, it's dropped from it's peak in the 90's), because clearly based on this comparison, it isn't the guns. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
It is when you take out all of the variables. Compare any nation with low ownership rates and you see correlating lower rates of violent crime.
simple is a good thing. truth is simple. wipe away the trash that blocks your view and you will see the simplicity as well.
what an interesting little chart and using it to produce such an obvious misstatement of the facts. Note the chart references "households" with guns not number of guns and then you use that to play a dirty little statistical trick. let me give you an example. You and I constitute all of the households in a survey. We each own one gun. I don't want my gun anymore so I give it to you because I like you soooooo much. You, being a true NRA believer, think you need more guns so you go buy another. statistically.... The number of households with guns has dropped by 50% while the number of guns has increased 50%. Of course I'm certain you didn't mean to be misleading. I'm sure you got this chart right from the NRA and we know they would never mislead anyone on gun ownership.
Wow! How completely irrelevant! Do you have any other completely irrelevant comments we can just ignore?
ignore all you like , but when you ignore all but one of the variables that affect an outcome, you get nonsense. youre welcome to it
No, I did not get from NRA. Why don't you look at the bottom first before you "try" to discredit someone else? (Gallup) It doesn't bode well for you that you weren't savvy enough to pay attention. Who would listen to what you have to say now? I'll respond more later as I have to get back to work from my lunch.
There is one variable that is constant throughout. The increase in the number of guns. Crime numbers have gone down but gun sales have gone up. Poverty numbers have gone down and up but the numbers of guns has continued to climb. Any variable you point at has changed up, down, in relevance, but the one constant over the last 40 years is that the number of guns has gone up. The place to look is at countries with relatively high ownership rates and low gun violence rates Finland Finland "The ownership and use of firearms in Finland is regulated by the country's Firearms Act of 1998. Weapons are individually licensed by local police forces, there is no limit on the number of licenses an individual may hold. Licenses are granted for recreational uses, exhibition or (under certain circumstances) professional use. With the exception of law enforcement, only specially trained security guards may carry loaded weapons in public. There is almost no regulation of air rifles or crossbows, except that it is illegal to carry or fire them in public. Guns are divided into 13 firearms categories and four action categories; some of which are limited. Fully automatic weapons, rockets and cannons (so called "destructive" weapons), for example, are generally not permitted. In November 2007 Finland updated their gun laws, pre-empting a new EU directive prohibiting the carrying of firearms by under-18's by removing the ability of 15- to 18-year-olds to carry hunting rifles under parental guidance. In 2010, after controversial high school shootings in 2008 prompted government review, a constitutional law committee concluded that people over the age of 20 can receive a permit for semiautomatic handguns. Though individuals have to show a continuous activity in a handguns sporting for last two years before they can have a license for their own gun. licensing, training. France: "In France, to buy a weapon, a hunting licence or a shooting sport licence is necessary. Since 1939, guns are divided into eight categories : Category 1 : Military firearms ; According to French law, a military firearm is a weapon which has a gauge used by the army since 1880. Some of them are prohibited, for example, full automatic weapons, but semi automatic rifles or handguns are authorised. Examples of military gauges into category 1 : 9mm, 5.56 NATO, 7.62x39, 7.62 NATO, .45 ACP, .50 BMG, .50 AE. Category 2 : Military material Category 3 : Protections against military gas Category 4 : Civil firearms ; According to French law, a civil firearm is a semi automatic long gun with more of 2 rounds in magazine which don't use a military gauge, or a handgun (pistol or revolver, including all magazine capacities) which doesn't have a gauge used by the army. Examples of civil gauges into category 4 : .22 LR pistol, .357 magnum, .44 magnum, .500 S&W. Category 5 : Hunting firearms. All long guns which don't use a military caliber ; manually operated long guns with a maximum magazine capacity of 10 rounds, and the semi automatic long guns a maximum of 3 rounds. Category 6 : Knives Category 7 : Shooting firearms ; .22 LR rifles, BB guns, etc... Category 8 : Historical firearms ; firearms which have been designed before 1880 and black-powder guns. (Excepted the firearms using black-powder metallic cartridges). France also sets limits on the number of cartridges that can be purchased per year, depending on the purpose of the gun. The total number of firearms owned by an individual is also subject to limits.[26]" Licensing and restrictions on firearm types.
Funny. You didn't try to argue the data, only the source. Gallup does not do polls for free. they do them because people pay for them. people with one ax or another to grind. Between manufacture and import the Us gun market exceeds 8 million per year. This number has been steadily increasing since 2005. Conservatively, this means over 40 million new guns have been added to Us ownership since 2005 Since guns have no expiration date and the number destroyed or confiscated numbers only a few million it is relatively easy to predict that the number of privately owned guns in the US will exceed the number of people in the Us within the next 10 years. more guns = more gun violence.
The truth is never as simple as when it is bent to fit your position and the trash that blocks my view is the untruths spread by the anti gun crowd...eh?
The truth is always simple. You cannot deny that if there were no guns there would be no gun violence. You cannot deny that the only reason for the existence of a gun to commit or threaten gun violence. logic leads to the conclusion that, absent any mitigating factors (your preference) more guns will always lead to more gun violence. Truth is in fact that simple.
Yes it is but yours is not actually truth....it's slight of hand eh? Let me demonstrate your flatulence And you cannot deny there was violence and death before guns....your point stinks Yes I can, Guns are in existence to launch a projectile down a cylindrical barrel at a high velocity, its actual use is determined by the intent of the user. You low information Brady Bunch Kool-Aid drinking gun grabbers are first in line to define a gun as an instrument of killing when in fact it is used far more often for other than taking a life. Meanwhile when confronted by the fact that other instruments (cars, bats, knives, swords, etc) can be used in a violent manner, the Kool-Aid kicks in and the whole point of the intent of the user flows beyond your understanding and the belittling begins. You cannot deny that when in the hands of a bad person intent on killing another, the existence of a knife is to commit violence. Really you make me laugh out loud eh. Logic is not your friend..... in many many places where concealed carry laws were passed, and more guns were owned...gun violence went down. Of course, these factoids are absent the Brady bunch low information web sites so I expect you missed those eh? My truth is....yours isn't quite defined as a truth at this point eh?
Truth is truth, Amen. What you have done is rationalize to escape the truth and you live in a world of self deception. A common error when confronted with facts
Truth does not need explanation. ", Guns are in existence to launch a projectile down a cylindrical barrel at a high velocity, its actual use is determined by the intent of the user. You low information Brady Bunch Kool-Aid drinking gun grabbers are first in line to define a gun as an instrument of killing when in fact it is used far more often for other than taking a life. Meanwhile when confronted by the fact that other instruments (cars, bats, knives, swords, etc) can be used in a violent manner, the Kool-Aid kicks in and the whole point of the intent of the user flows beyond your understanding and the belittling begins. You cannot deny that when in the hands of a bad person intent on killing another, the existence of a knife is to commit violence. " It just is.
