|
joether -> RE: Gun Sales Increase, Violence Declines The 2nd Amendment Protects the Rest! (10/31/2015 7:07:23 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
How about some ARMS FACTS for a change?
Let's have some facts for a change.....
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Gun-Haters Seize the Moment
People do not hate guys. They hate the morons whom wield them but suffer from a range of problems. Like paranoia, schizophrenia, psychotic aggression and 'anger management problem' individuals. The sort of people whom are often ignorant of facts, loose with evidence, and heaping amounts of conspiracy theories.
That you can not seem to understand the problem people have with firearms shows a list of missing facts from your 'evidence' pile....
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Leftist anti-gun zealots in D.C., N.Y. and L.A. should admit, once and for all, what they really want: the outlawing of privately-owned firearms by American citizens.
Just after 'Righties' admit that by keeping good gun control from becoming law, that they help the lawless, criminals and terrorists acquire firearms with considerable ease. That way, more fear can be generated towards the good citizens at large.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
“Over the past five years, there’s been a steady increase in firearms sales and concealed carry permits. Plus, more people that have never owned a gun are also purchasing them for the first time.
Yes, President Obama has done wonders for the Firearm Industry. The industry was facing an economic depression in 2008. Thanks to President Obama, that industry is doing much better. Even turning a good profit. You should thank him for the ARRA of 2009!
That there are people turning the minimal age to own a firearm, would show an increase in firearm owners. But your 'OK' with a few white lies in your 'facts', rights? No need to be honest right?
Did all those people that got firearms, get them for the reasons you think they did? Or for other reasons? You are assuming here that a person whom buys a guy automatically shares your political views. That would be quite the heavy amount of....EVIDENCE...to cough up to support your 'facts'....
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Yet, during this same period, the violent crime rate has steadily decreased.
Can you show a direct correlation to between the two concepts? In the same amount of time, the economy has gotten better, provided more jobs, lowering unemployment, got people access to healthcare, and better chances to make positive changes in their lives. Its often shown that a person whom can 'make ends meet' lawfully are very unlikely to produce crimes; thereby lowering the effective crime rate. Massachusetts has over three times the population of New Hampshire. New Hampshire has a higher percentage of people with guns. Yet, in the same time from, both have had the same crime rate. Oh, and the rate of firearm ownership in New Hampshire has increased during that time.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
“These numbers clearly point out that it was a myth to begin with when the gun prohibition lobby claimed that more weapons in private hands would lead to more crime.
Let's remove the ACA, have a national economic recession or depression for a few years, and see how well those firearms 'facts' of yours hold up?
With more firearms in circulation, more firearms are finding their ways into the hands of the criminal elements. Yet, that phenomenon does not seem to take place in the Australia nation, whom enjoys very good firearms laws. Nor The United Kingdom, or many other places.
Oh, and we are the only industrialize nation suffering from a mass shooting every few weeks. Not to mention many people in each state dying from firearms due to homicide, accident, and suicide. Our veterans suffer a heavy toll from suicide. Because having easy access to firearms and hard access to good healthcare, is your platform. Lets make sure we are talking Firearm Facts, right, RealOne?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
When asked why certain groups can’t seem to connect the dots, Workman replied, “The progressive mindset is one of denial.
The dots to what? You haven't shown any real evidence so far. Just a pile of gun nut bullshit and conspiracies!
'Denial' would be the first of five steps of grief. That would mean at the fifth state, Acceptance, that the nation is hell bent on self destruction. Yeah, the 'Wild West' mentality sounds really great, until you calculate in the human equation. Then it breaks down the whole of society around it pretty quickly. That you are using a cut/paste job here, shows you really haven't stopped and considered things long term. You can not even understand the end game. Not a really good path for the nation. But why burden you with having to think for yourself? Better to let someone else do it, and just babble out the bullshit, right?
Say a lie long enough, and you'll think its true. Worked for the Nazis.....
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Without an evolution of thought or a process of maturity, they can’t deal in a logical adult way with proof that everything they believed about guns being bad was wrong. The core of their foundations would be shaken to the ground.
Yeah, and if you believe this load of bull, I have some farmland in Alpha Centauri I can sell you.....
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Workman pointed out, “Following Australia’s Port Arthur Massacre, authorities confiscated a majority of guns. Of course, shortly thereafter homicides shot through the roof.
And in the 19 years since? Yeah, homicides with firearms shot downward and stayed that way. Why is that?
It's rather simple: Attrition. Yes, in the first few years, there are many guns. But as time went on, there were less firearms entering the public and black markets for consumption. This increased the price for firearms up considerably. As time exceeded five years, to acquire a firearm for criminal purposes was much further reduced. Yes, there are firearm deaths here and there. Its a big country and unscrupulous people smuggle in contra ban all the time. Your saying you support criminal behavior and terrorism?
Do you know how much it costs to get a firearm in that nation? Quite a few tens of thousands of dollars. After you just got your 1911 for $34,000, would you go rob a convenience store for $132? Course not, that would be foolish. If anything, you wouldn't want anyone to know you had a gun! Unlike the honest and law abiding public, the criminals in society would steal/kill that person while they slept for the gun.
What you ad your 'cut/paste' guy believe are not within the realm of reality, but a total fantasy lacking serious facts and evidence.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Gun Sales Increase, Florida Violence Declines
In mid-December, Florida surpassed the one million mark for concealed carry permits. Even though one in every 17 Floridians now holds a permit allowing them to carry a concealed firearm—with 55% of them being over 50 years of age—the Florida Department of Law Enforcement has reported: “The overall violent crime rate has had a significant decrease of 56.7% [from] 1991 to 2011. Florida’s population increased 43% during that period.”
Again show the correlation here. Your saying 'A' and 'B' things together in one paragraph and assuming one has to be making the other true. Yet, 'A' has no evidence supporting that it helps 'B' to be true, or vise versa. So you have people acquire firearms. The economy got better not because of it, but due to many other facts at the state, federal, and international areas. Again, people enjoying good prosperity are less likely to commit crime of a violent nature (thus needing a firearm to protect against). This is easy to show in any college level macro economics class....
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Florida is undeniably a safer place, as are its law-abiding citizens, especially since the 2005 passage of what is known as “stand your ground” legislation.
If Florida is so safe, then people do not need guns. If people need guns to feel safe, then what are they feeling safe from, verse all the things they still are unsafe from? Last I checked, having a gun doesn't product those old folks from cancer. Or any number of health conditions that kill people every year. Florida has been relatively a safe place due to a huge number of factors. Yes, firearm ownership may hold an 'X%' level. But your trying to say that 'X%' level is a few percentage points. Yet, show no evidence supporting that argument.
We are talking on FACTS, RealOne. Not gun nut 'facts'.
'Stand Your Ground' is just Republicans pushing for political points. In practical application it serves up a number of events that have force the courts in Florida to handle justice and law differently from other states. The law, as understood allows me to kill someone to whom I feel threatened by. Seeing as I'm alive, and their now dead, my argument is going to hold up so much better in court. It allows criminal behavior to flourish. Which is 'OK' by you, since it makes more US Citizens fearful and feel the need to get firearms. That is what is called 'being unscrupulous' and loose with ethical standards....
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Chicago Sees Huge Spike in Crime
Increase in homicides, violence related to strict anti-gun laws
What is the crime rate for firearms in Alice Spings, Australia? If you look at the map, one has to go some considerable distance just to get to the area. Crime rate involving firearms is pretty low. Now consider the area of Chicago's city limits. Which has the greater area by which one has to cross from a 'less restriction on firearms' to 'strict firearm laws'?
That would be Chicago. Where do the grand majority of firearms originate in Chicago's criminal scenes? From OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS. Imagine that! So if the area was far wider, say, a large state area, the amount if firearms involved in the city might be reduced.
You forget RealOne, that your not dealing with moronic conservatives on this board that accept what the NRA states like the Holy Bible to fundie Christians. That you can not admit the reality of circumstances that exist with Chicago and the surrounding areas, shows a real lack of honesty. That's the part that undermines your 'Facts' and 'Evidence' bearing weight for consideration into a discussion.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Yet for all his anti-gun bluster, Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s former chief of staff, has been a dismal failure. As The American Spectator, a conservative-oriented news magazine, noted on July 24, “If more gun control is all it takes to prevent tragedies, then Chicago ought to be the safest city in the United States as it has had the strictest municipal gun laws in the country for the past 30 years.”
How about this, we ban all the firearms for thirty years. After all, if your 'FACTS' are true, there should be no change in violence with deadly weapons during that time. There are many countries that have restrictive firearm laws. All of them show a reduction in firearm related destructive practices. That's one of those big 'FACTS' that seems absent from your cut/paste job and those 'FACTS' you keep mentioning.
In fact, we should see increase violence with firearms as the years go by!
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
The National Self-Defense Survey—one of the most comprehensive studies of U.S. firearms and violence ever done—conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994 found the following:
(A) • The rate of defensive gun use can be projected nationwide to be approximately 2.5 million per year—one defensive gun use for every 13 seconds.
(B) • Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during the National Self Defense Survey the defender believed that someone “almost certainly” would have died had the gun not been used for protection—a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. In another 14.2% of cases the defender believed someone “probably” would have died if the gun hadn’t been used in defense.
(c) In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses the attacker either threatened or used force first—disproving the longstanding myth that legal gun owners are more likely to initiate violence.
• In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker. In 64.2% of these gun defense cases the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.
(D) • In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare—well under 10%. This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.
• In over half of these gun-defense incidents the defender was facing two or more attackers—and three or more attackers in over 25% of these cases. No means of defense other than a firearm—martial arts, pepper spray or stun guns—gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.
• In 79.7% of these gun defenses the defender used a concealable handgun. 25% of gun defenses occurred away from the defender’s home.
What year is it, RealOne? 2015. What is 2015 - 1994 = ? That's right, 21 years! Got one of those reports for 2015?
(A) the majority of this number comes from LAW ENFORCEMENT using firearms. Actually, the number is not even accurate. It was a compiling of several other studies that showed a range. Gun nuts, tend to throw out honesty and facts in favor of pushing ideology. That 2.5 million mark was the LIBERAL range level (i.e. the highest point). The low end, or conservative total was about 120-180K.
(B) Yes, when facts are light, lets go with belief! After all, everything in the Holy Bible is TOTALLY TRUE, right? Or any of the other religions books mankind has seen? Yes the belief that if someone had a gun it saved a life. An if they had a platoon of US Marines is full battle gear; they (the marines) would have saved the life too. Maybe we should walk around with armed guards by our sides?
We really can not re-play the situation with the removal of arms. That would involve time traveling and removal of matter from different people. Two things the US Government does not have access to, that we know of.
(C) Again, your assuming all the people were non-Law Enforcement. If you actually read that study, you'll find most of the individuals whom researches looked at, were in law enforcement, rather than just ordinary US Citizens with guns doing their good deed for society at large.
What do we call someone just moments before they were convicted of 1st-3rd degree murder/manslaughter whom were first time offenders with no prior criminal record? "A honest and law abiding citizen with a gun." Such an 'inconvenient FACT' in your 'arguments' here.....
(D) A recent case showed up on the boards here: a Mr. Short. Mr. Short killed his three daughters and wife, before turning the shotgun on himself. Killed the daughters in their rooms, then the wife as she was dialing 911 in their bedroom; then walks to the garage for the final blow. The shotgun was there to protect the family from someone that had intent to do them harm.
In another example, the husband shot his wife before killing himself. She, the chapter president of the NRA in their area had a sidearm on her hip at the time. The husband caught her by surprise, killed her and then himself.
In a third case, a man challenged a very depressed woman. He gave her his gun and said "If your so depressed, kill yourself", believing she was bluffing. Before he could say/do anything, she stated "I'm going to do it, and your going to watch me do it!". She killed herself moments later. He got convicted and went to jail.
There are many cases like this. All of them factual. All of them tragic in one form or another. But you to not care about these cases. It interferes with your 'FACTS' on firearms. Because a person is many more times likely to be injured or killed with a firearm in the house, then they are to be effected by the criminal element with direct or indirect use of violence towards them.
You want to have a REAL discussion with firearms?
Lets put it into the actual lab. Test all the myths from both sides and see what is true and what is bullshit. Not a single gun nut on this board has even stated they would try the process. In fact, they would only go along if the final result showed their viewpoints to be true. In other words, none of you can handle facts that shows your myths and beliefs are full of bullshit.
I've watched Democrats and Republicans use the same statistic to arrive at totally opposite viewpoints. All sides have been doing this for every twenty years. Has gotten us no where. Its time for science to step in, and settle questions in each area methodically and with peer review. The Center of Disease Control and many universities have wanted to create such studies and learn what information can be gained from things. Be it good or bad. Yet, the NRA and other such groups do everything within their power to deny this research from taking place. If they have nothing to fear, why go to such lengths to keep it from taking place?
We understand many things are dangerous. From tobacco use to airline crashes. The US Government studies all of these things. Through research and testing over a prolonge period of time have we understood more about each subject. For instance auto crashes. We have learned how to make cars safer, build better roads, and design traffic laws that promote good behaviors and penalize bad behaviors. As a result, the number of Americans that would have died in auto accidents has decreased.
Why not do this with firearms? We all want to keep the criminal elements from obtaining them. We want our society to be safer without having to create laws that are 'feel good in nature' but do very little to combat the problems the society faces. Through good testing and multiple layers of ethics and retestings, will be arrive at better ways to protect citizens.
Unlike all the gun nuts (including yourself RealOne) I'm perfectly fine with doing all this testing. Maybe your 'side' will be proved correct. Maybe my side will be proved correct. Maybe some combination in between exists. All of you (including yourself RealOne), are DEATHLY afraid to try such things. Its funny a people with guns whom are afraid of science. You do know that modern day firearms are created using science, right? And all the ammunition? And all the counter measures to these? Yet, totally afraid of putting fact to myth in order to have better firearm laws that allow for good private ownership while lowering the chances law-breakers (i.e. first time offenders), criminals and terrorists acquire firearms.
|
|
|
|
