Murder rates dropping as more states allow concealed weapons

page: 3
44
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: underduck

Consider that if you remove the cesspool cities of Detroit, Memphis, Jackson and Atlanta from the data then the murder rate by guns would be sooo much lower. I am sure there are a couple more big crap cities that are influencing the data but I do not know which those are off the top of my head.




posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 01:16 PM
link   
The murder rate has been dropping in the UK as well and we don't have legalized guns.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: wulff

I don't know why we don't blame the murder rates dropping on Obama, he gets the blame for everything else?
None of the good stuff. Of course, I don't believe this study counts people killed in mass shootings and crime has gone down because people have nothing left to steal.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: underduck

Consider that if you remove the cesspool cities of Detroit, Memphis, Jackson and Atlanta from the data then the murder rate by guns would be sooo much lower. I am sure there are a couple more big crap cities that are influencing the data but I do not know which those are off the top of my head.



I am not really sure what you are suggesting. That we just remove those cities from the data because they are influencing it?



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: underduck
With 30,000 deaths per year due to guns...


Not sure if you are aware but the majority of those are attributed to suicide.


It might be interesting to see those numbers diced up but that doesn't change my point.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
Consider that if you remove the cesspool cities of Detroit, Memphis, Jackson and Atlanta...


How did you miss Chicago?

Is that you Rahm?



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: underduck
It might be interesting to see those numbers diced up but that doesn't change my point.


They are a statistical null for me. If someone wants to kill themselves by firearm why is that a firearm death?

Do you keep track of jumpers and differentiate them from the ones that choose to off themselves with hanging?



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: wulff
A dramatic spike in the number of Americans with permits to carry concealed weapons coincides with an equally stark drop in violent crime, according to a new study, which Second Amendment advocates say makes the case that more guns can mean safer streets.

The study by the Crime Prevention Research Center found that 11.1 million Americans now have permits to carry concealed weapons, up from 4.5 million in 2007. The 146 percent increase has come even as both murder and violent crime rates have dropped by 22 percent.

Between 2007 and the preliminary estimates for 2013, murder rates have fallen from 5.6 to 4.4 per 100,000.
When criminals think THEY may become the victims they go after the 'softer targets'.
As much as anti-gun people want to admit, the statistics are showing drop in murder since states tired of the left attacking the constitution fight back!

Source PDF File ( Direct Download)

Murder and violent crime rates are dropping across the western world irrespective of the gun culture. So you absolutely cannot attribute a drop in crime to gun ownership or not.

OMG the danger of looking beyond your own borders.

What you can do is compare crime rates country to country over the same time period. When you do that the US stands out as a beacon of gun crime !!



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
They are a statistical null for me. If someone wants to kill themselves by firearm why is that a firearm death?
Do you keep track of jumpers and differentiate them from the ones that choose to off themselves with hanging?


I understand that stance but it's not necessarily mine. My point is that this study is garbage.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 02:21 PM
link   
The way I see it people have two choices:

1. They can carry and protect their own snip.

2. Dial 911 and wait for the police to come save you, and clean up the mess.

The choice is yours.

You must choose wisely.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




They are a statistical null for me. If someone wants to kill themselves by firearm why is that a firearm death?


That is a great question.

When someone overdoses on pills is that 'Pill death', or 'pill violence' ?

A suicide is a suicide no matter how they want to label it.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: underduck

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus


originally posted by: underduck

With 30,000 deaths per year due to guns...




Not sure if you are aware but the majority of those are attributed to suicide.




It might be interesting to see those numbers diced up but that doesn't change my point.


Actually, it should--just because you choose not to change your point doesn't mean that suicide data, if removed from overall gun deaths, changes things. Self-inflicted firearms accidents and suicides should not be considered in this debate if we are keeping things honest.

Furthermore, it's good to note that even the FBI, who publishes crime statistics, notes that it's pointless to compare our stats with those of other countries like the UK (or any others) because the way these crimes are defined and catalogued differ greatly, creating numbers that are quite different from the reality if all countries' firearm crimes were counted the exact same way.

If we are to utilize scientific data, we need to ensure that it is on the same level across the board, or else comparisons are pointless.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

My point is that this study (standing alone and not in comparison with other countries) is worthless. It's horribly biased and it doesn't lay out all of the figures.

"Self-inflicted firearms accidents and suicides should not be considered in this debate if we are keeping things honest."

I don't think that is fair to the debate at all. They certainly exist and are certainly part of the overall problem. Now we can debate suicides being relevant but accidents are damn sure relevant.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: underduck
Do we lump car accident deaths with road rage murders and call it vehicle violence?



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: underduck
They certainly exist and are certainly part of the overall problem. Now we can debate suicides being relevant but accidents are damn sure relevant.


Why? Those are unintentional.

People accidentally drown in their swimming pool more than they accidentally shoot themselves or others yet we do not have buzz phrases like 'pool related deaths', they are simply called drowning accidents.

Homicide by firearm is a totally different statistical situation then either suicide or accidental firearm death.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: underduck
Do we lump car accident deaths with road rage murders and call it vehicle violence?


You could if you were looking at vehicle violence as a whole but this example isn't comparable at all.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: NonsensicalUserName

I think universal background checks are a good idea. If you have proven you cannot be trusted with drugs/alcohol in your system or if you have ever used a firearm in a negative way, you do not deserve to own one.

Mandatory weapons training might be taking it a little too far. Just because I don't have a piece of paper signed by some federal oaf doesn't mean I don't know how to use a firearm.



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: underduck
An accident is not violence, there is no ill intent there. It's an accident.

You are walking through the woods with your hunting buddy, he/she trips and wacks his head on a tree, gun goes flying, hits the ground and goes off shooting you in the leg. Are you really gonna say that is the same as if your buddy turned around, said "Piss off" and shot you in the leg on purpose?

Two completely different things, yet in the disingenuous stats they are treated as the same thing. They wouldn't be the same in the eyes of the law, so why should they be allowed to be lumped in the same when agenda whores are pushing the law?
edit on Thu, 10 Jul 2014 19:55:10 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: ArnoldNonymous


I agree with you except for the mandatory weapons training. How many people do you know think they know all there is about a subject but are just dumb as dirt? With mandatory training we can all rest assured that the dude carrying in public has some training to help him not be such a knucklehead.

I assume you are talking about training for concealed carry and such...



posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: underduck

Oh heavens no! My point was that a few cities can skew the data badly, which suggests that gun violence in the rest of america is ... really low compared to the "average".





new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join