Guns and Pie

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

You'll notice that I use Wikipedia as a reference, not a source. Anything I quote from Wikipedia is backed up by a source that is not Wikipedia. That's what all those numbers are in the square brackets. In fact, encyclopedias, not just Wikipedia, are not accepted as academic resources. But they offer a handy collection of real sources in one place and that's why I like to go there.

Another great thing about Wikipedia is that it's community policed. That's why Limbaugh was only "dead" for a short time.

Really? Because I keep hearing gun ownership has an inverse affect on crime.

Nope, they pretty much stayed the same kind of ignorant. They were ignorant when Bush misused 9/11 to invade the wrong country, they were ignorant when he convinced them he was a Conservative, they were ignorant when Bush and Congress (both parties) shoved the PATRIOT act down the American peoples' throats, despite the fact that it did more to curb our freedoms than any anti-gun liberal has ever done, and they ignorantly went out and bought up guns and ammunition because they drank the kool-aid that said Obama was going to take their guns. These are the same ignorant fools who kept their mouths shut for 8 years of out of control spending, but are outraged to the point of carrying guns to peaceful speaking events now that a (black) Democrat is doing it. You're absolutely right, they were ignorant then and now.

BTW, sure wish the NRA would get as worked up about the PATRIOT act as they are about 2A. Right now the President doesn't have to take your gun away, he can just make you--an American citizen--and your gun disappear without access to a lawyer, he can keep you indefinitely, and he doesn't even have to say where you are. Why weren't gun owners buying up guns and ammunition when that Marxist bit of legislation was passed by a Republican controlled Congress (not that it needed to be, the Dems were all too happy to join in) and signed by a Republican President? Oh...right. He wasn't a Democrat.

The NRA will not be diverting its efforts (as much as you may wish they would) as it is not their issue. As a true liberal I am also against the Patriot Act, but I do not feel it is the NRAs responsibility to divert funds to fight that also. They are a firearms owners organization, not a civil liberties organization and legislation is only a part of what they do in the service of firearms owners. They will allow the ACLU or some other organization with that expertise fight that battle and they will fight the battles they are expert at. If you wish to change it, then join the NRA as a life member and go to the annual meetings and vote. Otherwise your opinions are just idle chit chat.

Gun owners were not buying up guns then because they (mistakenly) think that when a pro-gun President is in the White House it is time for a snooze fest. They do not pay attention and do not read. Big surprise. Just like no one pays attention or reads the health care bill. The vast majority of the population of the US, gunowners or not, are completely ignorant of the political process and what is contained in laws. They form their "opinions" based on sound bites and catchy titels...which is why some people supported something so stupendously idiotic as the AWB, it is why some people actually thought the Brady Bill imposed a waiting period and some people think machine guns are illegal. Ignorance is its own explanation.

The gun debate has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans per se. John Dingle, one of the staunchest supporrters of firearms rights and Democrat. Vermont is full of Democrats and even more liberal "Progressives" and they wouldn't even dare to mention a gun control law in Montpelier. Howard Dean, DNC Chair, and former Vermont Governor is strongly PRO Gun. I am sorry I cannot make it so simple for you Mox. Sorry I do not fit your sterotypes, I am a true liberal and do not believe in those.

More guns, in the hands of law abiding citizens in society = less crime. More guns in sock drawers = more guns in sock drawers.

Firearms ownership, a gun in someone's sock drawer, does nothing for crime rates, up or down. Concealed carry does, but that is not the same, is it? Firearms ownership by more people results in more NRA members, more donations to the NRA and more difficulty in passing anti-gun legislation, all good things to be sure.

[justashooter 430]

From 2005 to 2007, the number of violent crimes dropped from 469.0 per 100,000 population to 466.9 per 100,000 population. 2 fewer violent crimes per 100k is not exactly a staggering drop. You just told me that gun ownership has "skyrocketed," and yet all it can account for (and that's really a big "if," since these numbers speak nothing to cause and effect) is a slight variance.

gun related crime and violent crime in general, with perpetrators legally in the USA has decreased in the last decade or so. the real reason for the decline is roe v wade. simply put, there are fewer legal men between 17 and 35 in society today (as a percentage) than there were in 1980 or 1990. trouble is, the illegal mexican population increases of the last decade are upsetting the balance. yet another reason to send them home or just shoot them where they stand.

legal gun ownership has "skyrocketed", with positive effect toward reducing crime. illegal gun ownership has also increased, largely in the illegal immigrant community, with negative effect toward increasing crime. it's the white elephant in the room on this board. everybody knows that it is there, but nobody is willing to talk about it.

[mox 298]

So we've been aborting our male babies, thus reducing gun crime, but the Mexicans are making up for that shortfall?

That's adorable!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

So we've been aborting our male babies, thus reducing gun crime, but the Mexicans are making up for that shortfall?

That's adorable!

FYI Vermont, the heavily armed liberal bastion of the northeast where ANY person over 18 can carry a concealed handgun (imagine how crazy and irresponsible that is!) had exactly 4 homocides in 2009...for the entire state. This is a 20% drop from last year when we had 5 homocides and the "lowest rate in more than 2 decades" LOL. One or two crimes makes a big difference when crime is virtually non-existant. ALL homocides in 2009 were commited by people who knew each other. Ie....NO innocent bystanders were killed, no one was randomly killed on our streets. The last time there was a "random" homocide in Vermont was 2006.

Vermont has consistently been found to be the "safest state" despite ALWAYS allowing its citizens to be armed. Vermont has never had a law banning the concealed carry of firearms since its admission as the 14th state. Why can't the people in YOUR state handle the freedom of being armed without government supervision?

[mox 298]

Gary, what does your quote of my post have to do with your post?

(and is it possible that one of the contributing factors of a low crime rate in your state has to do with the fact that there's only a tad more than a half million people in Vermont [Vermont is 49th in total population], plus a much more rural landscape than most states?)

Edited January 1, 2010 by mox

[slim 1,525]

- Hold on guys, I'm going to go get my popcorn if we're going to start arguing population and demographics (aka the real causes of gun crime).

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Gary, what does your quote of my post have to do with your post?

(and is it possible that one of the contributing factors of a low crime rate in your state has to do with the fact that there's only a tad more than a half million people in Vermont [Vermont is 49th in total population], plus a much more rural landscape than most states?)

hey, I have to quote someone, you should be flattered.

Vermont's crime rate per 100,000 (which negates population) is the lowest in the country. On occasion we will change places for lowest RATE with North Dakota, consider it a shared title. If rural settings reduce crime more than guns then why are politicians forever trying to restrict guns but do nothing to disband cities? Cities are the cause of crime? we should regulate population density?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Gary, what does your quote of my post have to do with your post?

(and is it possible that one of the contributing factors of a low crime rate in your state has to do with the fact that there's only a tad more than a half million people in Vermont [Vermont is 49th in total population], plus a much more rural landscape than most states?)

so the answer to my question...

"Why can't the people of YOUR state handle the freedom of unregulated concealed carry the way people in Vermont can?" IS...

"Because there are more of us and we live in cities" ?????????

So again, I will pose the question...

Vermont has the lowest crime RATE in the country (per 100,000 population). Vermont allows ANY person over age 18 to carry concealed handguns without a permit. Why would the people in YOUR state not benefit from the same?

Edited January 2, 2010 by Gary and Alla

[mox 298]

By these assertions, Texas should also be right down there with Vermont in crime rate since they have one of the highest gun ownership rates in the nation, they are a "shall issue" state, and have almost no other gun laws to speak of. Furthermore, they have the harshest crime laws of any state, so they shouldn't be burdened by Vermont's comparatively liberal crime laws. Yet they rank 15 in the nation for violent crime. What's different?

[visaveteran 1]

Mox, are you kidding about Texas? The state with the huge border with Mexico. Mexico, the country with bad guys slipping into Texas with drugs and thieves and and an assortment of unsavory men...all carrying guns to address those pesky border guards, the police, the rangers and other fellow drug dealers. Texas...the state with Mexico and other Latino drug cartel border gun fights on a daily basis. THAT Texas?

[Merle 458]

Mox, are you kidding about Texas? The state with the huge border with Mexico. Mexico, the country with bad guys slipping into Texas with drugs and thieves and and an assortment of unsavory men...all carrying guns to address those pesky border guards, the police, the rangers and other fellow drug dealers. Texas...the state with Mexico and other Latino drug cartel border gun fights on a daily basis. THAT Texas?

Same situation in Arizona. I think it has a higher violent crime rate than Texas.

[mox 298]

Mox, are you kidding about Texas? The state with the huge border with Mexico. Mexico, the country with bad guys slipping into Texas with drugs and thieves and and an assortment of unsavory men...all carrying guns to address those pesky border guards, the police, the rangers and other fellow drug dealers. Texas...the state with Mexico and other Latino drug cartel border gun fights on a daily basis. THAT Texas?

Heh...you set em up and I'll knock 'em down. My point EXACTLY! Turns out there might just be more to this whole violent gun crime thing than just "more guns equals less crime" yeah?

Vermont has a low crime rate, and very (lower case L) liberal gun laws, but correlation does not imply causation, as can be seen in Texas.

Edited January 3, 2010 by mox

[justashooter 430]

By these assertions, Texas ... shouldn't be burdened by Vermont's comparatively liberal crime laws. Yet they rank 15 in the nation for violent crime. What's different?

more illegal mexicans.

seriously, the reason texas has a higher crime rate is that there are more illegal mexicans.

seriously, the FBI uniform crime statistics indicate that nearly all violent crime, especially among strangers, is committed by males between the ages of 17 and 35. the very real effects of roe v wade include a reduction in the percentage of the legal population within this age bracket. unfortunately, the majority of illegals currently in country are male and fit within this age bracket.

again, unfortunately, the illegals in country are more likely to be involved in violent crime than those of similar age and gender who are natives. the FBI UCS report indicates that an individual is 18 times as likely to be victimised by a hispanic as by a white. incidentally,the individual is 14 times as likely to be victimised by a black as by a white.

[mox 298]

seriously, the reason texas has a higher crime rate is that there are more illegal mexicans.

So let's pull that thread. Remember proofs in junior high geometry?

Given:

- More guns = Less crime

- Illegal immigrants are a primary contributor to the high crime rate in Texas. (thus a lack of illegal immigrants contributes to a lower crime rate in Vermont.)

Therefore:

- We should see an even higher crime rate in a state with illegal immigrants but more restrictive gun laws.

Follow me so far? In other words, if the hypothesis "more guns = less crime" is true, then armed Texans should be keeping the crime rate down through the deterrent effect of guns. If Texas didn't have such open gun laws, we would expect crime to skyrocket.

Therefore, we'd expect to see a state with more restrictive gun laws than Texas to have a higher crime rate, since the "more guns less crime" effect has been effectively negated. A state like California would work perfectly for our needs. Like Texas, California shares a border with Mexico, and like Texas, illegal immigration is out of control. But unlike Texas, California has not only more restrictive gun laws, but MUCH more restrictive gun laws, so we should see a very definitive difference in crime rates.

Let's see where they stand in terms of crime.

California ranks 14 at 533 violent crimes per 100,000 population.

Texas ranks 15 at 516 violent crimes per 100,000 population.

(source: Census Bureau)

As we can see, California has virtually the same crime rate as Texas, even though both states have radically different approaches towards gun control.

"More Guns = Less Crime" Proof fails.

Edited January 3, 2010 by mox

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

By these assertions, Texas should also be right down there with Vermont in crime rate since they have one of the highest gun ownership rates in the nation, they are a "shall issue" state, and have almost no other gun laws to speak of. Furthermore, they have the harshest crime laws of any state, so they shouldn't be burdened by Vermont's comparatively liberal crime laws. Yet they rank 15 in the nation for violent crime. What's different?

That's my question. What is wrong with Texans? what is wrong with people in otehr states. It isn't guns, it isn't population density, it isn't whether people live in cities or not...what is the answer?

Hint:

Vermont's figure is 98.5% in this particular category.