It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Study finds no increase in violence in states that adopt more lenient concealed carry laws

page: 4
24
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 03:49 PM
link   
There's always hardest gang in town, doesn't matter your status lol, hardest gang.
Right now in my world it is cops on paper memorandums lol.
...but they are not much behind civilian gangs....I'd say the bad guys run the world not cops...and I don't really mean bad guys, just guys made to look bad.




posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: face23785




The majority of gun deaths in the US are suicides


Guns are barely protective at best and are in fact the primary engine of suicide.


If this were true, the US would be #1 in the world in suicides. We're not.


The US is #2 in the world for gun suicides.


"Barely protective" as in what? That there aren't thousands of DGUs every year? Even CDC admitted to such.


Later studies disagree with the CDC's study from 20 years ago.

From Wikipedia:

"A 2004 study surveyed the records of a Phoenix, Arizona newspaper, as well as police and court records, and found a total of 3 instances of defensive gun use over a 3.5 month period. In contrast, Kleck and Gertz's study would predict that the police should have noticed more than 98 DGU killings or woundings and 236 DGU firings at adversaries during this time.[36]

A 1995 study led by Arthur Kellermann, which examined 198 home invasion crimes in Atlanta, Georgia, found that in only 3 of these cases did victims use guns for self-protection. Of these three, none were injured, but one lost property. The authors concluded that "Although firearms are often kept in the home for protection, they are rarely used for this purpose."[37]

A followup study in 1998 by Arthur Kellermann analyzed 626 shootings in three cities. The study found that "For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides."[38]

The Gun Violence Archive, which uses a methodology of counting incidents reported and verified by law enforcement or media, reports substantially lower numbers of defensive gun use in the US than studies based on polls. 1,980 and 2,043 incidents were reported and verified in 2016 and 2017, respectively.[39]



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: chr0naut
And yet according to the WHO, the majority of suicides globally are by self inflicted poison, with Europe being the highest suicide prone region.

Now, how would you like to spin that into somehow being the fault of firearms accessibility?

To be honest, I would rather someone go out instantly with a bullet than agonizingly painful and dragged out by poison.


What about not committing suicide?


well, we could make a law against it .....you know, making it illegal.


As you know, and like with drugs, ineffective.

We could remove access to an 'enabler'.



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: chr0naut


Guns are barely protective at best


Based on all of your knowledge and experience in firearms...

How many fire fights have you been in to make this determination?


Only three.



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut


What about not committing suicide?

Great idea! Now, what can we do to stop people from committing suicide?

How about making it illegal? There's a good idea... oh, wait, how are we going to prosecute someone who committed suicide? They're dead by definition.


It's already a thing and is a deterrent prior to someone committing suicide (actually any deterrent to anything that is ineffective is not actually a deterrent).


How about just making their life seem a little better? You know, things like a better economy so they can not worry every month about how to make ends meet? Maybe a little less government looking over their shoulder to try and restrict ever move they make? And we could maybe figure out a way to make mental health care more affordable...


Excellent ideas.


oh, wait, no, that's what the big orange mean guy is doing.


Really?

He said that after the Florida shooting but his budget blueprint slashed $665 million from Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration and cut the funding of the National Institute of Mental Health by 30%, a half a billion dollar decrease (He did, however, increase funding to the Department of Veterans Affairs, which does spend some of its money on interventions for at-risk veterans).

Last year, Trump also signed a bill to make it easier for people to buy guns, including those with mental illness, so no help there.

Trump also rolled back legislation Obama had put in place after Sandy Hook, that was to fund Social Security's Administration sending records of beneficiaries with severe mental illness to the FBI, for background checking and monitoring.

On the whole Trump has NOT done what you suggest, it was only talk.


OK, I give up. How do we get people to not commit suicide?

TheRedneck

As you previously suggested, we make their lives (and everyone else we can) better and increase support services for those with mental issues.

... we could also limit access to firearms.

edit on 10/12/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: face23785




The majority of gun deaths in the US are suicides


Guns are barely protective at best and are in fact the primary engine of suicide.


If this were true, the US would be #1 in the world in suicides. We're not.


The US is #2 in the world for gun suicides.


That actually doesn't support your assertion at all. You claimed that guns were the primary driver of suicides. If that were true, the U.S., which has more guns or guns per capita than any other country, would lead the world in suicides overall, not just gun suicides. The fact that we don't lead either disproves your point. It's elementary statistics.


"Barely protective" as in what? That there aren't thousands of DGUs every year? Even CDC admitted to such.




Later studies disagree with the CDC's study from 20 years ago.

From Wikipedia:

"A 2004 study surveyed the records of a Phoenix, Arizona newspaper, as well as police and court records, and found a total of 3 instances of defensive gun use over a 3.5 month period. In contrast, Kleck and Gertz's study would predict that the police should have noticed more than 98 DGU killings or woundings and 236 DGU firings at adversaries during this time.[36]

A 1995 study led by Arthur Kellermann, which examined 198 home invasion crimes in Atlanta, Georgia, found that in only 3 of these cases did victims use guns for self-protection. Of these three, none were injured, but one lost property. The authors concluded that "Although firearms are often kept in the home for protection, they are rarely used for this purpose."[37]

A followup study in 1998 by Arthur Kellermann analyzed 626 shootings in three cities. The study found that "For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides."[38]

The Gun Violence Archive, which uses a methodology of counting incidents reported and verified by law enforcement or media, reports substantially lower numbers of defensive gun use in the US than studies based on polls. 1,980 and 2,043 incidents were reported and verified in 2016 and 2017, respectively.[39]


There's a lot of problems here. Firstly, there's been more than one CDC study. I love Wikipedia for casual reading, but it's not a reliable source for this kind of thing. The more recent CDC study I'm talking about is linked in a thread in my sig, if you're curious about doing some reading and getting informed. It was commissioned by President Obama after the Newtown shooting, despite the gun control lie that the CDC isn't allowed to study gun violence (they actually are, and they did).

You're also confusing DGUs with defensive shootings. Not every DGU results in a shot fired. Additionally, the Gun Violence Archive is an incomplete and unreliable source for counting DGUs or even just defensive shootings. For one, relying on media reports is terrible methodology. Defensive shootings don't make the news at near the rate that criminal shootings do, for two reasons: (1) bad news sells better and (2) many in the media are pro-gun-control and their bias creeps into the story selection.

Finally, Kellerman's "study" has gaping holes in its methodology and has been picked apart by John Lott, among others. I doubt you're open to reading anything by him because of gun control propaganda about him being on the NRA payroll and other nonsense, despite there being zero evidence to support that oft-repeated lie, so I won't bother with a link. I'll just give you an example. Analyzing defensive shootings in cities gives you skewed results because a lot of cities have very restrictive gun laws. Part of the problem was mentioned earlier in the thread, cities put a ton of red tape in place so it costs a fortune to get a permit, so poor people in the highest crime neighborhoods can't afford to even have a gun. Of course you won't get many defensive shootings. Analyzing 3 cities is hardly a comprehensive study.

Anyway, the point of the OP still stands. We're told by gun control advocates that more people carrying guns would make everyone less safe. This is demonstrably false according to this new, comprehensive study.



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: face23785




The majority of gun deaths in the US are suicides


Guns are barely protective at best and are in fact the primary engine of suicide.


If this were true, the US would be #1 in the world in suicides. We're not.


The US is #2 in the world for gun suicides.


That actually doesn't support your assertion at all. You claimed that guns were the primary driver of suicides. If that were true, the U.S., which has more guns or guns per capita than any other country, would lead the world in suicides overall, not just gun suicides. The fact that we don't lead either disproves your point. It's elementary statistics.


You are ignoring all the other reasons for suicide like socio-economic and drug abuse ones.

You can't reduce real world data sets to single cause and effect. Plotted on a table, most real world statistics distribute in a bell curve due to a variety of ancillary inputs. If there were only a single cause and a single effect, that's elementary arithmetic, not statistics.



"Barely protective" as in what? That there aren't thousands of DGUs every year? Even CDC admitted to such.




Later studies disagree with the CDC's study from 20 years ago.

From Wikipedia:

"A 2004 study surveyed the records of a Phoenix, Arizona newspaper, as well as police and court records, and found a total of 3 instances of defensive gun use over a 3.5 month period. In contrast, Kleck and Gertz's study would predict that the police should have noticed more than 98 DGU killings or woundings and 236 DGU firings at adversaries during this time.[36]

A 1995 study led by Arthur Kellermann, which examined 198 home invasion crimes in Atlanta, Georgia, found that in only 3 of these cases did victims use guns for self-protection. Of these three, none were injured, but one lost property. The authors concluded that "Although firearms are often kept in the home for protection, they are rarely used for this purpose."[37]

A followup study in 1998 by Arthur Kellermann analyzed 626 shootings in three cities. The study found that "For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides."[38]

The Gun Violence Archive, which uses a methodology of counting incidents reported and verified by law enforcement or media, reports substantially lower numbers of defensive gun use in the US than studies based on polls. 1,980 and 2,043 incidents were reported and verified in 2016 and 2017, respectively.[39]


There's a lot of problems here. Firstly, there's been more than one CDC study. I love Wikipedia for casual reading, but it's not a reliable source for this kind of thing. The more recent CDC study I'm talking about is linked in a thread in my sig, if you're curious about doing some reading and getting informed. It was commissioned by President Obama after the Newtown shooting, despite the gun control lie that the CDC isn't allowed to study gun violence (they actually are, and they did).

You're also confusing DGUs with defensive shootings. Not every DGU results in a shot fired. Additionally, the Gun Violence Archive is an incomplete and unreliable source for counting DGUs or even just defensive shootings. For one, relying on media reports is terrible methodology. Defensive shootings don't make the news at near the rate that criminal shootings do, for two reasons: (1) bad news sells better and (2) many in the media are pro-gun-control and their bias creeps into the story selection.

Finally, Kellerman's "study" has gaping holes in its methodology and has been picked apart by John Lott, among others. I doubt you're open to reading anything by him because of gun control propaganda about him being on the NRA payroll and other nonsense, despite there being zero evidence to support that oft-repeated lie, so I won't bother with a link. I'll just give you an example. Analyzing defensive shootings in cities gives you skewed results because a lot of cities have very restrictive gun laws. Part of the problem was mentioned earlier in the thread, cities put a ton of red tape in place so it costs a fortune to get a permit, so poor people in the highest crime neighborhoods can't afford to even have a gun. Of course you won't get many defensive shootings. Analyzing 3 cities is hardly a comprehensive study.

Anyway, the point of the OP still stands. We're told by gun control advocates that more people carrying guns would make everyone less safe. This is demonstrably false according to this new, comprehensive study.


While I agree entirely with this, you do need a gun to shoot yourself or someone else. Defensively or otherwise. It's fairly absolute.

edit on 10/12/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: face23785




The majority of gun deaths in the US are suicides


Guns are barely protective at best and are in fact the primary engine of suicide.


If this were true, the US would be #1 in the world in suicides. We're not.


The US is #2 in the world for gun suicides.


That actually doesn't support your assertion at all. You claimed that guns were the primary driver of suicides. If that were true, the U.S., which has more guns or guns per capita than any other country, would lead the world in suicides overall, not just gun suicides. The fact that we don't lead either disproves your point. It's elementary statistics.


You are ignoring all the other reasons for suicide like socio-economic and drug abuse ones.

You can't reduce real world data sets to single cause and effect. Plotted on a table, most real world statistics distribute in a bell curve due to a variety of ancillary inputs. If there were only a single cause and a single effect, that's elementary arithmetic, not statistics.


I didn't ignore or reduce anything. I'm well aware that it's a complex issue with many factors. However, you made the claim that guns are the primary driver. That's straight up false. If that were the case, the country with the most guns per capita would have the highest suicide rate. This doesn't bear out. Guns aren't the primary factor. That's a statistical fact.



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: face23785




The majority of gun deaths in the US are suicides


Guns are barely protective at best and are in fact the primary engine of suicide.


If this were true, the US would be #1 in the world in suicides. We're not.


The US is #2 in the world for gun suicides.


That actually doesn't support your assertion at all. You claimed that guns were the primary driver of suicides. If that were true, the U.S., which has more guns or guns per capita than any other country, would lead the world in suicides overall, not just gun suicides. The fact that we don't lead either disproves your point. It's elementary statistics.


You are ignoring all the other reasons for suicide like socio-economic and drug abuse ones.

You can't reduce real world data sets to single cause and effect. Plotted on a table, most real world statistics distribute in a bell curve due to a variety of ancillary inputs. If there were only a single cause and a single effect, that's elementary arithmetic, not statistics.


I didn't ignore or reduce anything. I'm well aware that it's a complex issue with many factors. However, you made the claim that guns are the primary driver. That's straight up false. If that were the case, the country with the most guns per capita would have the highest suicide rate. This doesn't bear out. Guns aren't the primary factor. That's a statistical fact.


I should have said suicides in the US.



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

He who Shoots First , Shoots Last ..........



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: face23785




The majority of gun deaths in the US are suicides


Guns are barely protective at best and are in fact the primary engine of suicide.


If this were true, the US would be #1 in the world in suicides. We're not.


The US is #2 in the world for gun suicides.


That actually doesn't support your assertion at all. You claimed that guns were the primary driver of suicides. If that were true, the U.S., which has more guns or guns per capita than any other country, would lead the world in suicides overall, not just gun suicides. The fact that we don't lead either disproves your point. It's elementary statistics.


You are ignoring all the other reasons for suicide like socio-economic and drug abuse ones.

You can't reduce real world data sets to single cause and effect. Plotted on a table, most real world statistics distribute in a bell curve due to a variety of ancillary inputs. If there were only a single cause and a single effect, that's elementary arithmetic, not statistics.


I didn't ignore or reduce anything. I'm well aware that it's a complex issue with many factors. However, you made the claim that guns are the primary driver. That's straight up false. If that were the case, the country with the most guns per capita would have the highest suicide rate. This doesn't bear out. Guns aren't the primary factor. That's a statistical fact.


I should have said suicides in the US.


The majority of suicides in the US are by firearm, that's true. But saying firearms are the cause is a whole other matter. No one makes the decision to take their own life because a gun is available. People make that decision, and then they decide on a method. The availability of guns doesn't make more people decide to kill themselves.



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut
The WHO, through their scientific methods and studies of decades of data from dozens of nations, have determined that the primary methods of suicide globally are hanging and poison.

Yes, in the USA, the firearm is the preferred method. Is quick and merciful. For anyone contemplating suicide, I say go with the bullet. You will have no agonizing seconds - minutes or even hours to suffer and regret the results of your choices.

I had a relative who committed suicide several weeks ago, he was an army veteran. He did not use a firearm even though he owned several, he hung himself.

Personally, I feel you are barking up the wrong tree with this correlation. International studies by international institutions using international data seems to have painted the picture clear enough if you ask me.

I have heard and read testimonials from suicide survivors (the ones that came to their senses)
More often than not, it was the barrel pointed at their noggin and that brief thought or visual of the brain matter flying out of their skull at high velocity from a projectile that pulls it off effortlessly that ends up changing their mind.

In any case though, a bullet to the brain is probably the most merciful suicide. I suppose carbon monoxide poisoning comes close, as you tend to just doze off and sleep yourself to death. Or is it an OD of heroin?? Who could say.



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


Excellent ideas.

I'm glad we agree.


Really?

Really.

Since you glanced right by two of the three things I mentioned (better economy and less restrictive regulations), I will presume you agree that Trump has accomplished those two.

Now, I will freely admit nothing has been done yet to really help mental health; however, I assume you understand that Trump's budget is useless unless passed by Congress, he is not able to sign legislation that is not passed by Congress, and he certainly cannot reverse legislation passed by Congress unless Congress first sends him a bill reversing it. It sounds like your beef is with Congress.


we could also limit access to firearms.

So when is the Constitutional Convention?

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 09:05 PM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

The only realistic argument I've seen people make is that the success rate for suicide by firearm is higher than other methods, so they argue that if guns weren't available that fewer people would die because they would have to try a less effective method and statistically more of them should survive.

That makes sense on the surface, but as with most subjects it's more complicated than that. The method people select to commit suicide isn't limited strictly to what's available, there's another element that people overlook and that's the level of commitment of the person making the attempt. People who aren't fully committed choose something like taking a bunch of (generally) non-lethal medication or something like that, and sometimes they will make their attempt in a place where someone is likely to intervene, like in a house with other people in it. They may fail to do proper research to find out the proper way to do their chosen method, leading to the improperly cut wrists and things like that.

On the other hand, of the people who choose to shoot themselves, these are more of your truly committed suicide attempts. Now, if a gun wasn't available, I suspect many of them would go to great lengths to make sure their chosen alternate method is successful. Hanging, for example, has a pretty high success rate. As I recall it's the most effective way after suicide by firearm. People who fail at hanging fail for 2 reasons: they fail to do the proper research and don't set it up right, or they do it in an environment where someone can hear their attempt and intervenes before they die on the noose. I think those really committed people that normally shoot themselves are likely to do the needed research to make sure they hang themselves effectively and won't do it in an environment where they can be interrupted.

I'm making some assumptions here obviously, but I speak from a lot of experience, both personally and from having had to study this at some length. My point is, it's a very complex issue. It can't just be chocked up to "more guns = more suicides".



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785
Well the WHO study also mentions that society and culture even have somewhat of a role to play in the method of opting out. Men and women overall also prefer different methods when going by the numbers.

While numerous factors contribute to the choice of a suicide method, societal patterns of suicide can be understood from basic concepts such as the social acceptability of the method (i.e. culture and tradition) and its availability (i.e. opportunity).6,7 International or intercultural comparisons of suicide methods help increase understanding of the interplay between these two factors and provide a basis for preventive strategies.8–10

Hanging was the predominant method of suicide in most countries included in the analysis (Table 1). The highest proportions were around 90% in men and 80% in women, as observed in eastern Europe (i.e. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania). There were a number of deviations from the predominant pattern. As might be expected, firearm suicide was the most common method in the United States, but was also prevalent in Argentina, Switzerland and Uruguay, although only men used this method in Switzerland. Jumping from a height (designated as falls in the figures) plays an important role in small, predominantly urban societies such as Hong Kong SAR, Luxembourg and Malta. In contrast, in rural Latin American countries (e.g. El Salvador, Nicaragua and Peru), Asian countries (e.g. the Republic of Korea and Thailand) and also in Portugal, poisoning with pesticides was a major problem, notably among women. Poisoning with drugs was common in women from Canada, the Nordic countries and the United Kingdom. It also played an important role in male suicide in these countries.

The well-known differences between men’s and women’s preferred suicide methods can also be seen in Table 1. Violent and highly lethal methods such as firearm suicide and hanging are more frequent among men, whereas women often choose poisoning or drowning, which are less violent and less lethal.

Correspondence analysis for all countries yielded the correspondence maps shown in Fig. 1 for men, and Fig. 2 for women. In the men’s data, the first two dimensions accounted for 84.5% of the inertia; in the women’s data, it accounted for 77.1%. In the figures, pesticides, hanging (and other methods) and firearms form a triangle. In addition, the countries with the highest proportions of pesticide poisoning and firearm suicide listed above also define the triangle apices. Hanging is in an intermediate position since it is more frequent than firearm suicide in almost all countries with a high proportion of pesticide suicide. Conversely, hanging is more frequent than pesticide suicide in almost all countries with a high proportion of firearm suicide. Thus, there are two slopes: one from hanging to pesticide suicide and the other from hanging to firearm suicide. This is the typical arch effect observed in CA. To be safe, we should not interpret these CAs using the second axis. The first axis should be kept in mind, on which the poles are pesticide suicide and firearm suicide (and, to a lesser extent, other poisoning), with hanging and other methods lying in between.

There are tables and graphs and slopes and all kinds of data in that Bulletin. I forgot about how common jumping from a high point actually was, and certain communities are noted for having a higher occurrence for that method of opting out.



posted on Dec, 10 2018 @ 09:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut


Excellent ideas.

I'm glad we agree.


Really?

Really.

Since you glanced right by two of the three things I mentioned (better economy and less restrictive regulations), I will presume you agree that Trump has accomplished those two.


Better economy is a loaded term. Better for whom?

... and anarchy is even less restrictive.

I don't think everyone would describe Trump's changes as less restrictive. Anti-abortion laws (though I actually agree it is a good thing, none the less, they are restrictive). Bans on immigration and travel - restrictive.

Most legislation restricts, just does.


Now, I will freely admit nothing has been done yet to really help mental health; however, I assume you understand that Trump's budget is useless unless passed by Congress, he is not able to sign legislation that is not passed by Congress, and he certainly cannot reverse legislation passed by Congress unless Congress first sends him a bill reversing it. It sounds like your beef is with Congress.


we could also limit access to firearms.

So when is the Constitutional Convention?

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 12:12 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


Better economy is a loaded term. Better for whom?

That question makes no sense unless one believes the economy is a zero-sum game. It is not. It is completely possible for the economy to be better for everyone. More discretionary spending leads to more jobs which lead to more income which leads to more discretionary spending which leads to more jobs which leads to more income which leads to... ad infinitum.


... and anarchy is even less restrictive.

... and too much water will drown you. Shall we restrict water use to 1 ml/day?

That is a strawman argument.


I don't think everyone would describe Trump's changes as less restrictive. Anti-abortion laws (though I actually agree it is a good thing, none the less, they are restrictive). Bans on immigration and travel - restrictive.

Trump has made no changes to abortion laws. None.

Immigration is not the issue here. You asked how we could curb suicide rates in the US, and agreed that getting government out of people's everyday lives was a good idea. That was the discussion.


Most legislation restricts, just does.

Yes, it does.

You appear to be grasping at straws here. If one is to have hope that life is worth living, it makes zero sense to hold the views you have recently espoused. Illegal immigration, which is nothing more than allowing certain people to break the law while holding others to the letter of the law, is not conducive to giving people hope. It does the opposite. It makes people feel they are seen as inferior in the eyes of the law, which leads to feelings of hopelessness. Allowing illegal immigration compounds this problem further in an economic sense, as employers are able to draw from a much larger workforce which depresses wages and creates unemployment among the citizenry. Likewise, minimum wage hikes tend to drive smaller companies out of business or at least cause them to cut back on the number of employees. Every one that closes their doors is that many less jobs, and the ones who simply cut back provide less jobs and more work with less job security for those who manage to keep their jobs. Less disposable income begets less jobs begets less opportunity begets less hope for a better future begets less incentive for companies to open or expand begets less jobs begets... ad infinitum. We just went through 8 years of that cycle.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 06:37 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

www.bbc.com...


Think of New Zealand and what likely comes to mind is beautiful nature - fjords, mountains and magnificent landscapes, vast, empty and endless. But for years already, the country has been struggling with another form of isolation - depression and suicide. A new report by Unicef contains a shocking statistic - New Zealand has by far the highest youth suicide rate in the developed world. A shock but no surprise - it's not the first time the country tops that table. The Unicef report found New Zealand's youth suicide rate - teenagers between 15 and 19 - to be the highest of a long list of 41 OECD and EU countries. The rate of 15.6 suicides per 100,000 people is twice as high as the US rate and almost five times that of Britain.

Good thing you folks don't have gunz. There wouldn't be any kids left.



posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

You're shifting the goal posts. The OP did not make that claim -- namely that concealed carry would reduce crime. The OP only claimed that a study showed that concealed carry did not change anything.

If you want to take this study and start a thread that runs the other way -- See? Concealed Carry doesn't reduce crime you can, but it also doesn't increase it as many on the other have busily claimed it will.

So if it makes no change, then there is no point in restricting it.

If pink sweaters have been banned for fear they increase a net negative, but some states lift that ban and no net positive or negative is realized, then what reason is there to continue to ban pink sweaters?



posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

Oh, for sure, there's other factors besides the one I mentioned. We're both preaching to the choir. It's a very complex subject.







 
24
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join