FBI Data Again Shows More Guns = Less Crime

[Lepisosteus platyrhincus]

wanna deliever one of those autos to me ?
lol jk

 

[Knowdafish]

Originally Posted by Knowdafish
How does the minimum wage and economic crisis REDUCE the (violent) crime rate?

Well, and increase in the minimum wage will help to reduce the amount of poverty in the country. The more money people have, the less they are likely to be to commit a crime.

Maybe, maybe not! Statistical evidence of this?

I wasn't claiming an economic crisis would reduce the crime rate, it was a combined sentence stating that all those factors will have an influence, either positively or negatively, on the crime rate.

1) Death from a bullet in the head absolutely stops ALL criminal activity!

Hence why I said that the only answer for those criminals is CAPITAL punishment, i.e. the death sentence. Only I don't think they deserve to sit on death row for 20-30 years.

When I said a "bullet in the head" I wasn't talking about capital punishment! I was talking about people with guns defending themselves! Hence a bullet to the head!! Do you know anywhere in the U.S. that has a firing squad for a death sentence? I think there is one state which allows you to chose this by the way.


2) The "ends" do not justify the "means".

So you're saying that, if someone was going on a shooting rampage, killing innocent people left and right, then killing that person (the means) could not be justified by all the lives that you could have saved (the ends)?

Nope! Not even close! Go back to what you originally posted and think about it.




1) Fully automatic weapons are already commonly available? Really? Where?

I'll bet you I could find an automatic weapon in less than an hour where I live. Legally or not.

But that doesn't make them "commonly available"! If they were so "commonly available" why don't all the bad guys have them and use them?


If "everyone" was armed wouldn't "everyone" be on par with "everyone" else? Wouldn't the violent crime rate actually drop?

Not necessarily. It would probably increase initially, as those people who would LIKE to be able to commit crimes would now have the means to. But once most of them killed themselves off by getting shot trying to rob the gas station, then the crime rate would probably drop drastically. Especially once news spread of criminals everywhere being dropped left and right by armed citizens who happened to draw a gun and do what needed be done.

EXACTLY! You just proved my point that if everyone was armed the crime rate would be reduced because everyone would be on par with everyone else! Thank you!

.


__________________

 

[Thalan]

Over all in that ten year span violent crimes have dropped 13% where as property crimes have dropped 14%. So you may be able to argue that guns have an effect on violent crimes, but what is the reason for an even larger drop in crimes where gun ownership has no bearing?

Gun ownership has a bearing in all crimes violent or not. If the fact that I'm armed would prevent you from attacking me would you try to pick my pocket or sneak into my house? Just because there is no threat to the victim does not mean that an armed "victim" would not alter the event.

 

[Bderick67]

Yeah right, your sitting at work with a loaded pistol is really going to prevent some punk kid for stealing your car that sits out in the parking lot. Or from someone breaking into your home that they have been casing for weeks in order to steal from ya while your away and then burning down the house for the fun of it. Or better yet some computer hacker stealing your identity and draining your bank account.

 

[Conner]

Maybe, maybe not! Statistical evidence of this?

I have no statistical evidence, and I really don't care enough to go dig some up. Its an opinion based on a semi-educated guess. Which is what most of my posts are. If you disagree, good for you.

When I said a "bullet in the head" I wasn't talking about capital punishment! I was talking about people with guns defending themselves! Hence a bullet to the head!! Do you know anywhere in the U.S. that has a firing squad for a death sentence? I think there is one state which allows you to chose this by the way.

I agree about people with guns defending themselves i.e. bullet in the head. But I also think that, if that isn't achieved, anyone convicted of a violent crime, then given a specific period of time to appeal that conviction, should then be summarily executed, by whatever means necessary.

We worry WAY TO DAMN MUCH about whether or not its painful when we put a violent criminal to death! Who gives a rats ass if it hurts! It SHOULD!

1) Fully automatic weapons are already commonly available? Really? Where?

But that doesn't make them "commonly available"! If they were so "commonly available" why don't all the bad guys have them and use them?

I think they are a lot more commonly available than you think, people just aren't buying them, because they draw a lot of attention, especially when used for a crime. A handgun, which is CHEAPER and EASIER to CONCEAL, also draws less attention when used in a robbery than an AK-47 or an Uzi.

EXACTLY! You just proved my point that if everyone was armed the crime rate would be reduced because everyone would be on par with everyone else! Thank you!

I never disagreed with you. Actually, that was the whole point I've been trying to make the entire time I've been commenting on this thread. I was just pointing out that it would increase initially, because of the reasons that I stated.

And Bderick67, if you're walking down the street, someone approaches you and attempts to mug you, don't you think pulling a gun on them will stop them? And don't you think it will make them more wary of attempting to mug others? If they learn that the people they try to mug are likely carrying handguns, then they are less likely to try to mug anyone. They may be less likely to rob a store, because one of the customers might be armed.

And in your other example, nothing is likely to stop someone who's been casing your house for weeks and breaks in while your away. Unless you pay a cop or a friend with a gun to hide in your house while you're away...

 

[Bderick67]

And Bderick67, if you're walking down the street, someone approaches you and attempts to mug you, don't you think pulling a gun on them will stop them? And don't you think it will make them more wary of attempting to mug others? If they learn that the people they try to mug are likely carrying handguns, then they are less likely to try to mug anyone. They may be less likely to rob a store, because one of the customers might be armed.

And in your other example, nothing is likely to stop someone who's been casing your house for weeks and breaks in while your away. Unless you pay a cop or a friend with a gun to hide in your house while you're away...

I'm not saying guns don't have an effect on some crimes. I am saying they do not have an effect on all crime, which so many seem to want to believe.

And in your first example, I would think that most muggers are going to be muggers, it's just they may find that more deadly force will be needed to get done what they want done.

 

[Knowdafish]

Déjà Vu, All Over Again: "More Guns, Less Crime" Friday, September 17, 2010 Paul Helmke and Dennis Henigan -- spokesmen for the beleaguered Brady Campaign these days -- are old enough to know what a phonograph record is, so for their benefit we'll put it this way: At the risk of sounding like a "broken record," gun ownership has risen to an all-time high, and violent crime has fallen to a 35-year low. Coinciding with a surge in gun purchases that began shortly before the 2008 elections, violent crime decreased six percent between 2008 and 2009, according to the FBI. This included an eight percent decrease in murder and a nine percent decrease in robbery.
Since 1991, when total violent crime peaked, it has decreased 43 percent to a 35-year low. The murder rate, less than half what it was in 1980, is now at a 45-year low. Throughout, the number of guns that Americans own has risen by about four million a year, including record numbers of the two types of firearms that the Brady folks would most like to see banned -- handguns and the various firearms they call "assault weapons."
Predictions that increasing the number of guns would cause crime to increase have been proven profoundly lacking in clairvoyance. One of our favorite gems comes from the Brady outfit, when it was known as the National Council to Control Handguns: "There are now 40 million handguns. . . . the number could build to 100 million. . . . the consequences can be terrible to imagine," the group warned in the mid-1970s.
"Terrible consequences" indeed, for gun control supporters. The number of handguns has reached almost 100 million; waiting periods, purchase permits, and prohibitions on carrying firearms for protection have been dismantled in state after state; gun ownership has soared; and violent crime has plummeted.


http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=6026

 

[Bderick67]

​

​

.​

 

[Warborg]

In before the lock:

I do think it's weird that people want to ban guns just because someone(s) was killed by one.

Are we going to ban cars too? I know people have used cars to run over and kill people.

What about candlesticks, bats, ropes? There are many...many ways that people have been killed.

 

[ScatMan]

And in your first example, I would think that most muggers are going to be muggers, it's just they may find that more deadly force will be needed to get done what they want done.

true, but they will likely have a very short career if they make a habit or mugging armed people.