U.S.is exporting crime and terror to Canada

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Given that every jurisdiction that has introduced concealed carry has seen a reduction in the crime rate that existed before the laws were implemented I think it is easy to say that statistically speaking an armed person is less likely to be a victim of crime.

Ironically, the biggest reductions in crime have been among women who are actually less likely to be carrying a gun but are more likely to be "equalized" if they do. (University of Chicago study)

Indeed I am aware of those studies but they are not conclusive when there are so many factors regarding demographics in play. Your vermont is a perfect example. Its gun laws are not the only thing making it unique.

You are a hoot! There is a statute of limitations on re-phrasing?

What does gun control have to do with socio-economics? If you agree the answer is "nothing" then why not let anyone carry a gun?

Yes, when you rephrase after being caught out.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Sousuke

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I'm thinking of a few scenarios. A stolen purse with a handgun before the user gets a hold of it...a safety left on...not loaded etc.

So someone steals her purse then comes back and robs her? For what? He already has her purse! Why would anyone carry a gun in a purse, someone does that? You carry a gun on your person where you control it at all times.

safety on?

An unloaded gun uesed against someone? What?

Indeed I am aware of those studies but they are not conclusive when there are so many factors regarding demographics in play. Your vermont is a perfect example. Its gun laws are not the only thing making it unique.

Yes, when you rephrase after being caught out.

If I apologize first is it Ok and THEN will you answer? Or will you just think of another excuse?

Edited August 7, 2011 by Gary and Alla

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

So someone steals her purse then comes back and robs her? For what? He already has her purse! Why would anyone carry a gun in a purse, someone does that? You carry a gun on your person where you control it at all times.

safety on?

An unloaded gun uesed against someone? What?

Unfortunately many do carry in their purse. Sure unloaded, no chambered round etc. They forget to switch the safety off? Sure.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Sousuke

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Indeed I am aware of those studies but they are not conclusive when there are so many factors regarding demographics in play. Your vermont is a perfect example. Its gun laws are not the only thing making it unique.

But you conclude an armed person is more likely to have ther gun used against them without any study, just "logic"

The statistics you provided were less than inconclusive, they were irrelevent, but you presented them.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

So someone steals her purse then comes back and robs her? For what? He already has her purse! Why would anyone carry a gun in a purse, someone does that? You carry a gun on your person where you control it at all times.

safety on?

An unloaded gun uesed against someone? What?

If I apologize first is it Ok and THEN will you answer? Or will you just think of another excuse?

No need to apologize. And while you'll consider this an excuse, I don't feel you can compare CA to VT. There is a massive population difference, border control is weak, mexican cartels are in play etc.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Unfortunately many do carry in their purse. Sure unloaded, no chambered round etc. They forget to switch the safety off? Sure.

But how would an unloaded gun be used against them?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

But you conclude an armed person is more likely to have ther gun used against them without any study, just "logic"

The statistics you provided were less than inconclusive, they were irrelevent, but you presented them.

They are not stats. I did not conclude an armed person is more likely to have their gun used against them. A poorly trained and or situationally unaware person has a higher chance that they will have their gun used against them.

But how would an unloaded gun be used against them?

A round is later chambered.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

No need to apologize. And while you'll consider this an excuse, I don't feel you can compare CA to VT. There is a massive population difference, border control is weak, mexican cartels are in play etc.

I resent that! OUR border control is even weaker and we have drug smuggling big time!

But it is the STATES that make gun laws. In order to compare different gun laws and their affect, you have to compare different states. You did this with NH and VT, but their gun laws are virtually identical and so are their crime rates. (you also have to remember that for VT 1 or 2 homicides in year make a huge difference in the rate of homicide) but you cannot draw many conclusions from having 1 or 2 more homicides this year than last year, and then 3 less the next year.

They are not stats. I did not conclude an armed person is more likely to have their gun used against them. A poorly trained and or situationally unaware person has a higher chance that they will have their gun used against them.

A round is later chambered.

So there is a struggle, the gun is taken away and the criminal then chambers a round and uses the gun against the gun owner. For what? And the possibility of THIS is why you do not want to answer the question? Seriously?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I resent that! OUR border control is even weaker and we have drug smuggling big time!

But it is the STATES that make gun laws. In order to compare different gun laws and their affect, you have to compare different states. You did this with NH and VT, but their gun laws are virtually identical and so are their crime rates. (you also have to remember that for VT 1 or 2 homicides in year make a huge difference in the rate of homicide) but you cannot draw many conclusions from having 1 or 2 more homicides this year than last year, and then 3 less the next year.

I chose new hampshire because its logical. They are geographically close, their area is similar as is their population. I personally think there is a large difference between conceal carry with and without a permit, but that is my opinion.

So there is a struggle, the gun is taken away and the criminal then chambers a round and uses the gun against the gun owner. For what? And the possibility of THIS is why you do not want to answer the question? Seriously?

I did answer the question, but with a caveat. If you are well trained and situationally aware then you are less likely to be a victim.

[SMOKE 1,426]

A round is later chambered.

dude, i don't know where you're from. where i come from a little kid playing w/ a toy gun knows its usless w/o being loaded & it works by pulling the trigger. by intent i meant... of course it loaded..if its a revolver its immediatley cocked when unholstered & a semi auto is immediatley racked & safety disengaged.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

dude, i don't know where you're from. where i come from a little kid playing w/ a toy gun knows its usless w/o being loaded & it works by pulling the trigger. by intent i meant... of course it loaded..if its a revolver its immediatley cocked when unholstered & a semi auto is immediatley racked & safety disengaged.

Your right of course, I was generally thinking of open carry when I wrote about the unloaded part.

[웃 910]

Gary, if you are serious about your theory then it will work on an individual basis as well as 'an entire society (mostly good people) being armed with guns'.

So, I'll drop you off by yourself with a couple gold necklaces on the east side of Detroit at 11:00pm. You can walk up and down the streets and talk with the people there.

Within a few hours you will have to use that gun. Hopefully they don't fire on you before you fire on them.

The difference is one city (Detroit) is armed AND DANGEROUS and the other city (Burlington) is only armed.

[slim 1,530]

.... an armed person is more likely to have ther gun used against them

"Sure, someone can kill you with your own gun. But, they should have to beat you to death with it because it should be empty."

[Zero Sum 305]

Well, since you're not interpreting, maybe you can post the part that says what you posted.

These things have been explained to you before. The Constitution isn't a Fundamentalist text that is to be taken literally- and reading it makes it clear where a legal framework is established to apply its principles. Public safety and the common good are part of that application.

[The_Dude 1,142]

These things have been explained to you before. The Constitution isn't a Fundamentalist text that is to be taken literally- and reading it makes it clear where a legal framework is established to apply its principles. Public safety and the common good are part of that application.

You're asking him to read something and try and understand the context of it? You silly lib, Slim is immune to your librul speak of logic and comprehension!