Guns and Alcohol: Gun Owners Drink More and Take More Risks

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

It seems to me that you are not looking to engage in a detailed debate seeing that you are trying to tell me that you believe that Pakistan is as safe for its residents as Vermont. I need to ascertain whether you honestly believe that. If you do, there is no point in engaging in a debate with you. If you don't, then why don't you start the debate by telling me how it is possible that a place with a constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms and no accompanying regulations around that right happens to be less safe than any place in the US? It is you that is making the claim that all it takes for people to be safe is for people to be armed.

Pakistanis are armed. But they're not safe. Somalis are armed. They're not safe either. How come?

People in the Chicago inner cities are armed but not safe

People in the rural GA are just as heavily armed if not more, and are very safe

Wonder why that is -- Can't be the guns that's a constant ????

iI can start a list-- 1. Number of Government dependent 1 family households is way different.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

It seems to me that you are not looking to engage in a detailed debate seeing that you are trying to tell me that you believe that Pakistan is as safe for its residents as Vermont. I need to ascertain whether you honestly believe that. If you do, there is no point in engaging in a debate with you. If you don't, then why don't you start the debate by telling me how it is possible that a place with a constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms and no accompanying regulations around that right happens to be less safe than any place in the US? It is you that is making the claim that all it takes for people to be safe is for people to be armed.

Pakistanis are armed. But they're not safe. Somalis are armed. They're not safe either. How come?

I do not have any such "belief". You are making a claim which is unsupported by, well, anything. I am not going to debate something that does not exist, nor am I going to invent a reason to debate myself.

Why don't you...

1. Show me. I am unfamiliar with laws of those countries. Show me. Please show me the law that allows Somalis and Pakistanis, ALL Somalis and Pakistanis to be armed.

2. Show me crime statistics for those countries (last 3 years are sufficient)

3. YOU explain the alledged differences.

4. Explain how a gun law will fix the differences.

I would be glad to engage in debate, give me something to debate.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Define "heavily armed". The US is heavily armed (now appr. a gun per person). No other country is. Finland has a third the rate of arms per capita as the US. About the same as the rest of Western Europe and Canada.

With that, I gotta ask: Proving whose point? Gary's? Gary keeps telling us that more guns translate into more safety. Are you saying that other factors are actually determining whether or not a place is safe? I mean they have more guns in Yemen than Finland and yet I doubt we're going to claim with a straight face that Yemen is safer than Finland.

So yeah, Gee Hot Rod, seems to me that rather than me proving someone else's point, you are actually not only questioning Gary's theory but blowing a big fat hole into it.

To summarize: More guns ≠ More safety.

No I do not. This is very simple.

Vermont allows ANYONE to carry concealed handguns. Vermont has very low crime. Period. If it is not because of GUNS, tell me what it is. If it is something else, tell me how you fix it with a GUN LAW.

The ABILITY of all Vermonters to carry guns reduces the crime rate. I have no idea how many guns are in the hands of Vermonters, because there are no permits required, NO ONE KNOWS. Are there "more" guns in the hands of Vermonters? How the hell would I know? How the hell would a criminal know? How the hell do you KNOW if a Vermonter is carrying a gun? There is ONE WAY to find out and no one seems to be interested. There may be MORE people carrying guns in Florida but many less peoplea are ALLOWED to carry guns in Florida. (for example) One can easily see than perhaps 2% of Floridians are ALLOWED to carry guns, but 100% of Vermonters are ALLOWED to carry guns. For the same reason that Police use plain clothes offiers to protect public transport, for the same reason that Sky Marshalls are NOT uniformed, the likihood of the presence of a firearm in the hands of a good guy prevents crime.

That's it.

Now, YOU say that Somalia and Pakistan allow ANYONE to legally carry firearms concealed...just like Vermont. Right? Show me.

You say their crime rates are worse than Vermont. Show me.

In other words, if you want to debate...DEBATE.

THEN tell me what the differences is. THEN tell me how you fix the difference with a gun law.

[keysjangle 145]

New Years in Hawaii summed up: Homemade bombs and guns being shot off. Great combination when everyone is hammered and hopped up on BBQ pork.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Define "heavily armed". The US is heavily armed (now appr. a gun per person). No other country is. Finland has a third the rate of arms per capita as the US. About the same as the rest of Western Europe and Canada.

With that, I gotta ask: Proving whose point? Gary's? Gary keeps telling us that more guns translate into more safety. Are you saying that other factors are actually determining whether or not a place is safe? I mean they have more guns in Yemen than Finland and yet I doubt we're going to claim with a straight face that Yemen is safer than Finland.

So yeah, Gee Hot Rod, seems to me that rather than me proving someone else's point, you are actually not only questioning Gary's theory but blowing a big fat hole into it.

To summarize: More guns ≠ More safety.

I have no idea if there are more guns in, for example, Florida or Vermont. I do not, and never have, made that claim. I do no tcare. The crime rate is lower in Vermont than Florida, I can show you that if you question it. A higher percentage of Vermonters are ALLOWED to carry concealed guns legally than Floridians. I can show you but you do not question that either.

I have no idea if there more people allowed to carry concealed firearms legally in Yemen than Finland. Show me. I question it. I don't believe anything you are saying, so just link to the data which shows firearms laws for Yemen, Somalia, Finland, Pakistan. You keep adding countries to your claims and have yet to do anything but spout off about nothing. Oh, and assign me a debate position I did not claim.

Show me.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

No I do not. This is very simple.

Vermont allows ANYONE to carry concealed handguns. Vermont has very low crime. Period. If it is not because of GUNS, tell me what it is.

Okay so you do not think that the fact that anyone in Vermont is allowed to carry a concealed firearm is why Vermont has a low crime rate? Are you saying that one has nothing to do with the other? I have thus far been under the impression that you have credited the liberal gun policies of Vermont with its low crime rates.

If it is not because of GUNS, tell me what it is.

Why don't you? Seems that you don't believe it is because of guns either.

[Karee 4,190]

New Years in Hawaii summed up: Homemade bombs and guns being shot off. Great combination when everyone is hammered and hopped up on BBQ pork.

Sounds like Thailand.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Sounds like Thailand.

Or Florida.

Florida woman, boy struck by stray bullets on New Year's Eve

A St. Petersburg woman was shot in the hand and a Jacksonville boy was struck in the foot by stray bullets in separate New Year's Eve incidents.

The woman was injured as she was sitting on a patio at the St. Pete Yacht Club just after midnight, authorities said. She was taken to a nearby hospital to have the bullet removed. The 57-year-old woman has not been identified yet but will be OK, according to MyFoxTampaBay.com.

The 8-year-old boy was struck in the foot while waiting to watch fireworks in downtown Jacksonville just before midnight, Jacksonville.com reports. He was transported to Shands Jacksonville with non-life-threatening injuries, the website reported.

The shootings come a year after 12-year-old Diego Duran was struck in the head by a stray bullet. He spent several months in the hospital. His family now advocates against celebratory gunfire with their "Bullet Free Sky" initiative.

I'm sure more guns would have prevented these needless injuries.

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

Bad example. Why would I use a handgun, open or concealed, to defend myself from a bear when I have a M70 Winchester Safari Grade in .375 H&H?

For purposes of self defense, concealed carry is far more effective overall.

you're moving the lily pads around again. your statement was:

Open carry is idiotic.

your post was about handguns, not long rifles. the fact remains that there are suitable situations where open carry is better. the bear was just one example.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

People in the Chicago inner cities are armed but not safe

People in the rural GA are just as heavily armed if not more, and are very safe

Wonder why that is -- Can't be the guns that's a constant ????

iI can start a list-- 1. Number of Government dependent 1 family households is way different.

Obviously it is demographics, but Gary does say that the crime rate is the crime rate so the Vermont rate is relative to the rest of the US, hence safer. This implies that demographics has nothing to do with it. Vermont has less percentage of the "undesirables" than many other more populated states. And some quick research will show which groups are responsible for the most crimes in the US.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Obviously it is demographics, but Gary does say that the crime rate is the crime rate so the Vermont rate is relative to the rest of the US, hence safer. This implies that demographics has nothing to do with it. Vermont has less percentage of the "undesirables" than many other more populated states. And some quick research will show which groups are responsible for the most crimes in the US.

I would argue that Vermont has a lower percentage of undesirables than most cities, never mind states.

Spooky, you and I both made this argument earlier, and it was simply dismissed as if it didn't matter. It matters, it matters a whole lot. If you live in a state with a very low population where your closest neighbor is not within eyesight, and most people have the same worldly posessions in their home as their neighbor, earn about the same money as their neighbor and they're all packing heat, then there is absolutely no reason for one person to rob or attack the other. Now, triple the population, with 9 percent of it unemployed, very little money, very few posessions, some with low grade education, packing heat and watch the crime rate skyrocket.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

That's very interesting, +1 for you!

Please, educate me on WHY it is NOT like that in Vermont. And you KNOW it isn't. So explain the DIFFERENCE(S) between Vermont, where anyone CAN carry guns (legally), vs. St. Louis.

Then explain to be how you would correct those differences with gun laws.

I appreciate your educating me and would like to learn more from you. This is SO interesting.

Ok, here we go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Missouri

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Vermont

Now that I posted that, I'll answer your question as I have before in some other post when you keep trying to hammer this point home. Vermont has 626,011 people living there, you make up about .20% of the US population, I believe Spooky and Big dog touched on this before. Missouri has 6,021,988, that's roughly 5 million plus more people in our state, yet we can get weapons all the same. Yet we have large areas or crime as well. But let me stay on topic.

The answer is simple, it's all about the people. I touched on this a couple of threads back, but you started crying racism and we had to stop. Point blank, if you flooded any bad neighborhood with guns, you would have more shootouts. This is why most of the places with high crime areas have the most restrictive gun laws, example: DC has close to your population, but has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, you know why? Because DC has a lot of bad areas, I was stationed there back in 2000, and giving people guns there wouldn't help at all. Now if you want me to expound on this I can but I want to make sure you can handle it, because when I break it down to the color of your skin will play a part in it, you might get offended.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Ok, here we go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Missouri

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Vermont

Now that I posted that, I'll answer your question as I have before in some other post when you keep trying to hammer this point home. Vermont has 626,011 people living there, you make up about .20% of the US population, I believe Spooky and Big dog touched on this before. Missouri has 6,021,988, that's roughly 5 million plus more people in our state, yet we can get weapons all the same. Yet we have large areas or crime as well. But let me stay on topic.

The answer is simple, it's all about the people. I touched on this a couple of threads back, but you started crying racism and we had to stop. Point blank, if you flooded any bad neighborhood with guns, you would have more shootouts. This is why most of the places with high crime areas have the most restrictive gun laws, example: DC has close to your population, but has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, you know why? Because DC has a lot of bad areas, I was stationed there back in 2000, and giving people guns there wouldn't help at all. Now if you want me to expound on this I can but I want to make sure you can handle it, because when I break it down to the color of your skin will play a part in it, you might get offended.

I hate that I can only +1 something like this once.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I would argue that Vermont has a lower percentage of undesirables than most cities, never mind states.

Spooky, you and I both made this argument earlier, and it was simply dismissed as if it didn't matter. It matters, it matters a whole lot. If you live in a state with a very low population where your closest neighbor is not within eyesight, and most people have the same worldly posessions in their home as their neighbor, earn about the same money as their neighbor and they're all packing heat, then there is absolutely no reason for one person to rob or attack the other. Now, triple the population, with 9 percent of it unemployed, very little money, very few posessions, some with low grade education, packing heat and watch the crime rate skyrocket.

This is a big part of the problem. And my statement wasn't about gun control at all. It was simply the truth about some important reasons why Vermont has less crime period. It's not racist, it's statistics.

[Teddy B 17,252]

This is a big part of the problem. And my statement wasn't about gun control at all. It was simply the truth about some important reasons why Vermont has less crime period. It's not racist, it's statistics.

To say demographics doesn't matter is simply being ignorant.

Throw some heroin and crack cocaine into the mix and the numbers skyrocket evemn more.

Edited January 4, 2013 by Teddy B