Now the crime rate in Chicago will fall!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Do i have to point out you listed cities to make a point about states. The subject is states. You do realize everyone of those cities is headed by liberal democrats don't you. It's like you are in a nose dive and clicked on the after burners.

Nature Boy, you gotta stop biting off on this nonsense. Let the low information posters have it to themselves.

It doesn't matter. There will always be a "top 10" If the crime rate in Rockford falls to -0- because of concealed carry there will be ANOTHER city to take its place in the "top 10" The only way to reduce the "top 10" would be to have less than 10 cities in the USA. Then you would have the "top 8" ...or whatever. It is like expecting the FBI "!0 Most Wanted" list to be reduced to 9. When they catch number 1, number 11 moves up to the top 10!!!!!!!!!

The stats are meaningless presented as they are. Ignore them. When she gives us the "before and after concealed carry" stats of each of those cities then we will have something to debate or even answer. Until then, she is more effective arguing the rules of TOS about someone...for whatever reason THAT occupies her time.

In fact the "before and after" stats have been presented to the legislatures of all the states and the result has been concealed carry in every state.

Oh goodness. The response I got. So long, so awe inspiring!

I was responding to Darnell.

Edited April 6, 2013 by Gary and Alla

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Speaking of someone letting another poster take up too much of their time...

[Darnell 8,478]

Gary, I'm not so convinced that Evylin understands the metrics involved with shootings, how things are counted. I would suggest a 'soft pedal' with her, as correlation of facts with statistical sampling methods , she not understand this (based on her responses).

[Penny Lane 8,159]

I not understand this. You smart men explain please? I confused.

[Darnell 8,478]

That's OK, Evylin... it doesn't seem to be an issue you have interest in, so why to make the attempt?

[Penny Lane 8,159]

You smart. I not. Please help.

[Darnell 8,478]

ha ha ha and lol ..

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I'm with you, Gary, really !

Even when you are presented with before and after stats, you would see that concealed carry had different effects on each jurisdiction, but in the studies conducted so far, it is always a reduction. Memphis may have LESS of a reduction than Nashville, or Dallas for example, but when isolated to study concealed carry in a scientific manner one can say that crime was REDUCED in both places. Crime reductions are generally regarded as good things.

Other interesting points which will probably no impact Democrats ..that will not vote for a woman as President..is that the reductions always favor women. When broken down by gender, the reductions favor women considerably. This is because a weaker or more vulnerable victim gains more advantage from a firearm. A big, Husky 35 year old man is not as attractive a crime target as a 90 pound elderly woman in any case. Who benefits more from the potential of being armed?

I guess the people against gun control want more women assaulted. Right? Must be.

When divided by race, minorities WIN. Minorities are often steered by Democrat social programs to live in areas with higher crime rates than white affluent people who are not dependent on Government. Who sees a larger % reduction in crime? Inner city, high crime areas that had a "lot of crime to lose" I do not think the new law in Illinois is going to have a huge impact on crime in Bannockburn, IL or Barrington Hills, IL but it may have a large impact on Rockford, Chicago, Joliet, Waukegan

It would appear that being opposed to concealed carry, at least by the scientific stats, is simply racist and sexist and means a person wants more black children killed and more women assaulted and raped. One could easily come to that conclusion.

I not understand this. You smart men explain please? I confused.

I am comfortable with your confusion. Please stay on the side of the issue opposing me.