U.S.is exporting crime and terror to Canada

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Both the examples you give have low crime rates and loose gun laws. Comparing cities that have no jurisdiction to make gun laws is cherry picking.

They were both cities I lived in, as I think I stated before? Moreover, your trying to compare a city to a state.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Sousuke

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

It depends on that person's level of training with the firearm and their situational awareness. Someone is does not have much training, or has poor situational awareness is likely going to be more of a victim.

Anyone else here think he is cherry picking.

They were both cities I lived in, as I think I stated before?

Oh, that's OK then,

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Anyone else here think he is cherry picking.

Oh, that's OK then,

Its pretty logical that someone without much training in the use of a firearm may have the gun turned against them. No?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Moreover, your trying to compare a city to a state.

No, I am not. I asked you to compare California to Vermont. You did not.

[SMOKE 1,426]

It depends on that person's level of training with the firearm and their situational awareness. Someone is does not have much training, or has poor situational awareness is likely going to be more of a victim.

i leaning that a person w/ a firearm is far less likely to be a victim. their experience w/ that firearm & any situational awareness helps their odds of not being victimized.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

No, I am not. I asked you to compare California to Vermont. You did not.

Since homicide has been reduced in every jurisdiction that has implemented concealed carry, why would it be different in Chicago? As Scandal said, this is about ways to reduce the homicide in Chicago. ALLOW good people to carry guns! Would Chicago be happy with 22 homicides instead of 376? That is what it would be with Vermont's rate of homicide.

What if they could have a much lower rate, even if it weren't as low as Vermont? Why would they refuse to try it?

Edited August 7, 2011 by Sousuke

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Its pretty logical that someone without much training in the use of a firearm may have the gun turned against them. No?

How often does it happen? Stats? I would like to see the stats you base this on. Or is it just "logic"? How often does a person have a concealed handgun turned against themselves? How does it relate to their training?

I think the question was simple. Do you think a person carrying a gun is more likely or less likely to be a victim of a crime? Check your stats, process your lgic and give an answer.

I say "less likely"

[SMOKE 1,426]

Its pretty logical that someone without much training in the use of a firearm may have the gun turned against them. No?

not if they pull it with intent to use it. if they pull it for show & have no intent....yes possibly

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

How often does it happen? Stats? I would like to see the stats you base this on. Or is it just "logic"? How often does a person have a concealed handgun turned against themselves? How does it relate to their training?

I think the question was simple. Do you think a person carrying a gun is more likely or less likely to be a victim of a crime? Check your stats, process your lgic and give an answer.

I say "less likely"

I don't deal in absolutes, because absolutes do not exist. It depends on the training and their situational awareness.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I will rephrase.

Why would Chicago have a higher crime rate than Burlington given the same gun laws? (FWIW Chicago DOES have jurisdiction to make firearms laws, Illinois does not have a preemption clause or legislation, this is why Chicago was a defendant in the McDonald case)

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I will rephrase.

Why would Chicago have a higher crime rate than Burlington given the same gun laws? (FWIW Chicago DOES have jurisdiction to make firearms laws, Illinois does not have a preemption clause or legislation, this is why Chicago was a defendant in the McDonald case)

Its a bit too late to rephrase given what you said earlier...but again Socio-economics....

Edited August 7, 2011 by Sousuke

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I don't deal in absolutes, because absolutes do not exist. It depends on the training and their situational awareness.

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)

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

not if they pull it with intent to use it. if they pull it for show & have no intent....yes possibly

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.

[scandal 951]

The data shows me that at least in the US, the legality of guns does not really factor into the crime rate for better or worse.

IE. Legally armed citizens don't appear to affect the crime rate either way.

That's about the way I see it. I tend to agree with those who claim that it's not the law-abiding gun owners who are the problem, it's the criminals. And the criminals don't generally make a habit of caring much one way or the other what the gun restrictions might be in their jurisdiction.

However, I also can't escape the obvious. The USA has much higher gun violence statistics than other developed nations. Why is that? If we rule out the law abiding gun owners, why is it that American criminals are so much more lethal than their Canadian, British, French, German, Australian brethren? I'm sure the answer is complex and rooted in socioeconomic factors, educational system, job opportunities, after school programs and more. But I also believe pretty firmly that the widespread LEGAL access to guns simply results in more guns out there floating around in American society. And that means, one way or another, more of them in irresponsible hands or worse - in criminal hands. Guns are dangerous. The more there are in circulation, the more accidental shootings and intentional homicides. Americans take great pride in their right to bear arms. They also pay a price for that right.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Its a bit too late to rephrase given what you said earlier...but again Socio-economics....

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?