Reality Check: More Minnesotans Own Guns, Violent Crime Remains Low

Probably better race relations since the 80s. There were also a lot of inner city ghettos back then.

Maybe England will get to experience America's past for themselves, since they don't have that history.

 

The fact is, a gun is only dangerous in the hands of someone who is willing to commit murder.

Increasing the supply of firearms does not increase the supply of people who want to kill other people.

This is why people like him do their studies in a crackhouse in Philly when they want to determine how "dangerous" guns are, instead of places like Oak Ridge, TN where there are more guns than people: but zero murders.

Guns are far more prevalent in rural America, yet rural America has far fewer murders per capita than in massively "gun controlled" Baltimore, DC, and other places where owning a legal firearm is a major pain in the ass.

 

Also, race relations aren't any better, and the ghettos are still there, just larger now.

 

Gentrification has been taking place in about half those cities.

 

The other variables of course. Crimniology doesn't assume that guns are somehow the dominant variable in explaining crime rates. It bores me that I have to state the obvious to you people.

Now if you had a sensible comment to make you'd have a paper which, including the latest data, rejects the gun hypothesis. Present it, or stop boring me

 

Given your use of the Express, I know of your irrelevance.

 

Is one of those variables how many murderers there are in a given square mile perhaps?

If a gun were placed into your hand, would you be more likely to murder someone?

 

Nope. Isn't it a shame that you don't actually know the evidence or how it is undertaken?

 

I notice you didn't want to answer my other question. I wonder why? Just kidding, I know why.

Well then give me some examples I'm just dying to learn what you have to teach me.

 

Have the interracial and intra racial crime percentages changed all that much?

 

It was a grunt question. We could refer to the psychological experimentation into the impact of guns. We could refer to the hormonal analysis. I don't. I simply refer to the quantitative analysis.

That you need to be taught is the problem. Why don't you know the evidence?

 

Lots of race comments by pro-gunners. Have they progressed from the racist origins of gun control? I'm not so sure

 

That's a good question. The gun control position assumes there is a significant number of people in the population who are more likely to commit murder if they have a gun.

However, let's look at it from the other side. If someone is inclined to commit murder, wouldn't you think it likely that they'd do it anyway eventually even if they didn't have gun. It might not be the same victim, of course. And, in general, nothing can be done about a murderer until they kill someone. So, looking at this from that perspective, we might not expect taking away guns to reduce the homicide rate all that much. We also know that shootings killing more than 1 or 2 victims at the same time are rare and make up only a tiny percentage of the overall gun homicide numbers.

So let's think about this: a murderer who's probably only going to kill one person, who probably can't be stopped until he kills one person, and you think he's less likely to kill without a gun. Well it will probably just take them LONGER to kill, but at some time it will happen.

Think about this mathematically. If not having a gun reduces the chance of a murderer killing a particular victim by 90%, that's still not really doing anything. It might just be 10 years until there is a victim instead of one year. Same homicide rate, assuming the murderer is caught.

(of course I suppose this depends somewhat on the proclivity of the person in question to commit murder, ironically then gun control would do little to stop the individuals most prone to commit murder)

 

If the theory is that improvements in race relations are to be credited with the 50% reduction in the homicide rate since the 1990s, it seems obvious to compare interracial crime then and now. If it was white on white and black on black crime then as it is today, it would seem unlikely that improvements in race relations are the reason for the decline.

 

Step back a moment. Don't you find it worrying that so many pro-gunners are insistent on making racist comment? Shouldn't the pro-gunning position be based on something more straightforward? Evidence of course controls for economic factor

 

Some people make the claim often here that 13%?of the population are responsible for 50% of the homicides, referring to our Black population, and I correct them every single time that only a tiny fraction of that demographic is actually committing homicides, so it's only 0.02% 8 the people who are responsible for the homicides. Yes, it's annoying.

 

Didn't you mention to them the stupidity of combining racist comment with ignorance of the scholarly research? If not, you have a goal! Good luck

 

So that demographic should have guns?
It's only a tiny fraction of the people, like you said, so why should the guns matter?

Or do you think that a tiny fraction of a demographic can end up having big consequences for everyone else?

 

That's what I figured. You have nothing.

 

Reminds me of a Bible proverb: "Give a silly answer to a silly question, and the one who asked it will realize that he's not as smart as he thinks."

 

Reminds me of people who use the bible to pretend relevance.

 

I'll refer you to the proverb immediately preceding that one.

 

Rights aren't lost because of the actions of 0.02% abusing them.

Can? Yes. Is it right for that to happen? It likely depends on the details.

 

Gun control supporters believe they are.

 

I'd refer you to the Express and the Mail. Your chosen sources