Read that then compare the crime rate of Utah to Chicago. Yet the gun grabbers just don't get it.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

Read that then compare the crime rate of Utah to Chicago. Yet the gun grabbers just don't get it.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

You're not seriously comparing crime rates of a mostly-rural Utah with super-urban Chicago, are you? Try fitting the entire population of Utah into a single city and then tell me nothing would need to change.

While I disagree with those who would blanket-deny people's RKBA, simplistic comparisons like yours are just as silly.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

 

Yep, you're right. Salt lake city would instantly go into meltdown and be gang ridden holes of murder despite our gun laws.

Sorry. No way.

 

Yep, you're right. Salt lake city would instantly go into meltdown and be gang ridden holes of murder despite our gun laws.

Sorry. No way.

SLC is tiny compared to Chicago. There's no more than 3 blocks here that may be considered high density.

Thinking it's just gun laws that's different between the two is overly simplistic.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

 

Yep, you're right. Salt lake city would instantly go into meltdown and be gang ridden holes of murder despite our gun laws.

Sorry. No way.

SLC is tiny compared to Chicago. There's no more than 3 blocks here that may be considered high density.

Thinking it's just gun laws that's different between the two is overly simplistic.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

I'm with Jarhead on this one. I believe it IS the gun laws that makes the difference. Even if you packed all the people in Utah into one city, there would be a very large amount of people carrying guns and having them in their house. Nobody wants to get shot, not even criminals. I there is more guns legally carried by Utah residents, there will be less crime.

Since Chicago has only recently allowed good people to carry guns, it was only criminals that could. That equals easy targets for criminals. Hence more crime.

(Sent from iSnurd)

 

Crime Rates are directly proportionate to the amount of those in the population dependent on Welfare. Guns have very little to do with it.

Outlaw welfare and you might just save lives. No mystery to the problem Welfare= lack of responsibility and respect...Exhibit A is That of an Indian Reservation, very productive and proud people till Welfare showed up...Not many Indian Reservations with Huge Urban Population but crime is rampant as is Alcoholism, drug abuse, and kids not knowing who papa is (just exactly the same problems as in Chicago or Detroit)....Welfare is the Catalyst not the size of the city. Not that hard to figure out.

 

Crime Rates are directly proportionate to the amount of those in the population dependent on Welfare

As I was pondering this, I actually came up with the same thought.

No mystery to the problem Welfare= lack of responsibility and respect

I would also add to that an attitude of entitlement to something for nothing that lifelong welfare brings. But, going back to my original silly post, whether or not you can make the argument about murder rates, it certainly disproves that high levels of gun ownership leads to rampant violence and crime, and it also shows that many gun owners take responsibility to be safe and to obtain training.

One thing I find interesting - if you can find the stomach for it, spend some time on the Brady website (side note - we keep a printed copy in our first aid kit in case we need to induce vomiting). They would love to be able to show that the states that score lowest have horrible rates of gun related violence. Since they can't, they go one better, blaming the high gun crime rates in other states on the gun friendly laws in states like Utah, Arizona and Alaska. Bless their little hearts.

 

I think guns are directly attached to the welfare state. The same sense of entitlement says the police will do their ugly work for them.

When people learn that THEY should be responsible for their OWN well being, both financially and physically, you see less crime.

 

There is no direct correlation between legally possessed guns per capita in higher population densities and higher crime. On the contrary, the reverse is true. Higher legally possessed guns per capita in high population densities is correlated with lower crime statistics.

Contrast those states with gun friendly laws with those that have the strictest, anti-gun laws and you'll find that the cities of LA, Chicago, New York, Washington D.C. have higher per capita crime rates than do SLC, Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, etc.

From the FBI:

Preliminary figures indicate that, as a whole, law enforcement agencies throughout the nation reported a decrease of 5.4 percent in the number of violent crimes brought to their attention for the first 6 months of 2013 when compared with figures reported for the same time in 2012. The violent crime category includes murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. The number of property crimes in the United States from January to June of 2013 decreased 5.4 percent when compared with data for the same time period in 2012. Property crimes include burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Arson is also a property crime, but data for arson are not included in property crime totals. Figures for 2013 indicate that arson decreased 15.6 percent when compared to 2012 figures from the same time period.

So, as gun ownership has skyrocketed under Obama, crime continues its steady decline. How can that be? Doesn't more guns, especially in those highly populated areas equate to MORE crime? The simple answer is no.

But then the facts are seldom as thought provoking as ignorant, unsupported, emotionally driven comments by the misguided... :raisedbrow:

 

There is no direct correlation between legally possessed guns per capita in higher population densities and higher crime. On the contrary, the reverse is true. Higher legally possessed guns per capita in high population densities is correlated with lower crime statistics.

Contrast those states with gun friendly laws with those that have the strictest, anti-gun laws and you'll find that the cities of LA, Chicago, New York, Washington D.C. have higher per capita crime rates than do SLC, Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, etc.

From the FBI:

Preliminary figures indicate that, as a whole, law enforcement agencies throughout the nation reported a decrease of 5.4 percent in the number of violent crimes brought to their attention for the first 6 months of 2013 when compared with figures reported for the same time in 2012. The violent crime category includes murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. The number of property crimes in the United States from January to June of 2013 decreased 5.4 percent when compared with data for the same time period in 2012. Property crimes include burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Arson is also a property crime, but data for arson are not included in property crime totals. Figures for 2013 indicate that arson decreased 15.6 percent when compared to 2012 figures from the same time period.

So, as gun ownership has skyrocketed under Obama, crime continues its steady decline. How can that be? Doesn't more guns, especially in those highly populated areas equate to MORE crime? The simple answer is no.

But then the facts are seldom as though provoking as ignorant, unsupported, emotionally driven comments by the misguided... :raisedbrow:

Crime, and particularly violent crime has been on the decline for several decades now. Gun restrictions have come and gone, but they have far less to do with crime stats than the basic demographics, namely there's fewer and fewer males between the ages of 18 and 34 (prime criminal demo), and thanks to Roe v. Wade, fewer unwanted children were born thus reducing the number of disconnected boys who tend to turn to crime.

Look at the top 10 murder capitals of USA per capita and you'll find 7 out of 10 are in states with less restrictive gun laws (MS, LA, OH, TN, AL, GA). Big cities with gun restrictions like LA, NY, Chicago, or DC don't even make the top 10.

Furthermore, if you look at the 10 most dangerous small cities (pop. 50-75K) in the country, they're all in gun-friendly states, like FL, TN, NC, AR, and GA.

Now, you *could* argue that since gun laws seem to have very little bearing on the crime rates we might as well not impinge on people's liberty via various restrictions. However, to claim that higher gun ownership is a panacea to crime reduction would be ignorant.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

 

Ooops, dupe...

 

True, crime has been on the decline for several decades and it all started when states started moving to shall issue. Each year gun sales went up....Each year more law abiding citizens are carrying and each year violent crime drop. In England when they essentially banned firearms crime rates exploded, Australia too. I think we could compare Juarez or Mexico City to Chicago....except now firearm ownership is up and people are now allowed to carry in Chicago. Guess what happened in Chicago
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... n-56-Years

Thinking that law abiding people with firearms has nothing to do with low cime rates is....... well, just silly

 

True, crime has been on the decline for several decades and it all started when states started moving to shall issue. Each year gun sales went up....Each year more law abiding citizens are carrying and each year violent crime drop. In England when they essentially banned firearms crime rates exploded, Australia too. I think we could compare Juarez or Mexico City to Chicago....except now firearm ownership is up and people are now allowed to carry in Chicago. Guess what happened in Chicago
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... n-56-Years

Thinking that law abiding people with firearms has nothing to do with low cime rates is....... well, just silly

Violent crime rates across OECD have been in constant decline since the 70's. The reason England and Australia appear to have higher per capita violent crime rates is because they count even simple assault into their crime stats, whereas FBI only includes battery and above. Their trends actually mimic ours, ie they're in decline. This has been thoroughly debunked by Snopes, PolitiFact, and others.

While there's no doubt there's stories of people using their guns to defend against crime, those numbers are negligible and simply don't have the volume to make a blip in statistics of a nation with population of 330,000,000+.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

 

While there's no doubt there's stories of people using their guns to defend against crime, those numbers are negligible and simply don't have the volume to make a blip in statistics of a nation with population of 330,000,000+.

Do you happen to have a cite for those "negligible numbers" that also includes instances in which a shot wasn't fired by the defender?

 

While there's no doubt there's stories of people using their guns to defend against crime, those numbers are negligible and simply don't have the volume to make a blip in statistics of a nation with population of 330,000,000+.

Do you happen to have a cite for those "negligible numbers" that also includes instances in which a shot wasn't fired by the defender?

No, but crime rates have been steadily declining even in places with gun restrictions, and while number of guns has increased, number of households with guns has seen steady decline, suggesting that it's simply folks who already own guns buying up more. As a matter of fact, number of households with guns has been in a steady 4 decade decline. If you wanna jump on correlations, you might draw a conclusion that reduced gun ownership has brought about reduced gun rates. That's likely just as much bull as claims to the contrary.

There are two things that would have to be true for this theory to work: number of households owning guns increase corresponding to crime decrease, and only states with less restrictive gun laws experiencing crime reduction while those with increased gun restrictions increasing. Neither is true.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

 

Do you happen to have a cite for those "negligible numbers" that also includes instances in which a shot wasn't fired by the defender?

No,...

So your point is?

How about estimates of between 300,000 and 6,000,000 annually? There is a least one citation for that figure.

Researchers at the Cato Institute have reviewed eight years worth of news reports about shooting in self-defense and conclude, "the vast majority of gun owners are ethical and competent, and tens of thousands of crimes are prevented each year by ordinary citizens with guns."

Criminals will often flee the scene when they discover that their intended target has a gun. With no shots fired, no injuries, and no suspect in custody, news organizations may report nothing at all. Thus, it is important to remember that news reports can only provide us with an imperfect picture of defensive gun use in America. Second, when a citizen is able to shoot an attacker or hold a rapist or robber until the police arrive, it is very likely that more than one crime has been prevented because if the culprit had not been stopped, he could have targeted other citizens as well. The bottom line is that gun owners stop a lot of criminal mayhem every year.

How many guns are registered in America? That's a seemingly obvious question without a straightforward answer. There's no universal gun registry, and thus not a simple way to pin down the exact number of firearms in the U.S.

So, where do you get figures to indicate the number of households owning guns? Some liberal survey skewed to reflect a certain political agenda?

Survey data shows self-reported gun ownership peaked at 53 percent in 1973 before seeing a fairly steady decline to 32 percent in 2010, the most recent year available. He cautioned singling any one year out, saying the numbers are better judged in the context of a whole: the 1970s averaged about 50 percent, the 1980s averaged 48 percent, the 1990s at 43 percent and 35 percent in the 2000s.

Is a survey an actual accounting or simply a reflection of the truthfulness or lack thereof of the respondents? Note the key phrase "self-reported gun ownership..." Many gun owners believe that it is nobody's business what or how many guns they own and many refuse to report accurately their gun ownership status.

Without facts, figures, or citations, you're just another set of lips flapping in the breeze.

 

Without facts, figures, or citations, you're just another set of lips flapping in the breeze.

[Golly gosh gee willickers], I love you!

Bromance, folks. Bromance.

 

Do you happen to have a cite for those "negligible numbers" that also includes instances in which a shot wasn't fired by the defender?

No,...

So your point is?

How about estimates of between 300,000 and 6,000,000 annually? There is a least one citation for that figure.

Researchers at the Cato Institute have reviewed eight years worth of news reports about shooting in self-defense and conclude, "the vast majority of gun owners are ethical and competent, and tens of thousands of crimes are prevented each year by ordinary citizens with guns."

Criminals will often flee the scene when they discover that their intended target has a gun. With no shots fired, no injuries, and no suspect in custody, news organizations may report nothing at all. Thus, it is important to remember that news reports can only provide us with an imperfect picture of defensive gun use in America. Second, when a citizen is able to shoot an attacker or hold a rapist or robber until the police arrive, it is very likely that more than one crime has been prevented because if the culprit had not been stopped, he could have targeted other citizens as well. The bottom line is that gun owners stop a lot of criminal mayhem every year.

How many guns are registered in America? That's a seemingly obvious question without a straightforward answer. There's no universal gun registry, and thus not a simple way to pin down the exact number of firearms in the U.S.

So, where do you get figures to indicate the number of households owning guns? Some liberal survey skewed to reflect a certain political agenda?

Survey data shows self-reported gun ownership peaked at 53 percent in 1973 before seeing a fairly steady decline to 32 percent in 2010, the most recent year available. He cautioned singling any one year out, saying the numbers are better judged in the context of a whole: the 1970s averaged about 50 percent, the 1980s averaged 48 percent, the 1990s at 43 percent and 35 percent in the 2000s.

Is a survey an actual accounting or simply a reflection of the truthfulness or lack thereof of the respondents? Note the key phrase "self-reported gun ownership..." Many gun owners believe that it is nobody's business what or how many guns they own and many refuse to report accurately their gun ownership status.

Without facts, figures, or citations, you're just another set of lips flapping in the breeze.

Fact remains that violent crime has been declining across the board and not just in states with looser gun laws. Another fact is that large cities that have strictest gun laws don't even appear in the top 10 list, which is dominated by cities in states with few gun restrictions. If your claims were anything but wishful thinking, the inverse would be true.

Dismissing the survey as biased without substantiating the source of their bias is just silly. When facts don't fit your personal views dismiss facts - great approach.

There are many factors in crime, and gun restrictions seem to play very little role. For example, Utah has had Stand Your Ground law since 1994 and there hasn't been any effect on violent crime rates, whether up or down. Yet when Florida enacted theirs, they saw a 30% uptick of murders (not gun deaths, murders) year over year. States are different, cultures are different, and this idea that one size fits all is ridiculous.

I just don't get the need to justify why I like & keep guns, and I particularly dislike the tendency to make stuff up and resort to "truthiness" and wishful thinking.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

 

Do you happen to have a cite for those "negligible numbers" that also includes instances in which a shot wasn't fired by the defender?

No,...

So your point is?

How about estimates of between 300,000 and 6,000,000 annually? There is a least one citation for that figure.

Researchers at the Cato Institute have reviewed eight years worth of news reports about shooting in self-defense and conclude, "the vast majority of gun owners are ethical and competent, and tens of thousands of crimes are prevented each year by ordinary citizens with guns."

Criminals will often flee the scene when they discover that their intended target has a gun. With no shots fired, no injuries, and no suspect in custody, news organizations may report nothing at all. Thus, it is important to remember that news reports can only provide us with an imperfect picture of defensive gun use in America. Second, when a citizen is able to shoot an attacker or hold a rapist or robber until the police arrive, it is very likely that more than one crime has been prevented because if the culprit had not been stopped, he could have targeted other citizens as well. The bottom line is that gun owners stop a lot of criminal mayhem every year.

How many guns are registered in America? That's a seemingly obvious question without a straightforward answer. There's no universal gun registry, and thus not a simple way to pin down the exact number of firearms in the U.S.

So, where do you get figures to indicate the number of households owning guns? Some liberal survey skewed to reflect a certain political agenda?

Survey data shows self-reported gun ownership peaked at 53 percent in 1973 before seeing a fairly steady decline to 32 percent in 2010, the most recent year available. He cautioned singling any one year out, saying the numbers are better judged in the context of a whole: the 1970s averaged about 50 percent, the 1980s averaged 48 percent, the 1990s at 43 percent and 35 percent in the 2000s.

Is a survey an actual accounting or simply a reflection of the truthfulness or lack thereof of the respondents? Note the key phrase "self-reported gun ownership..." Many gun owners believe that it is nobody's business what or how many guns they own and many refuse to report accurately their gun ownership status.

Without facts, figures, or citations, you're just another set of lips flapping in the breeze.

Fact remains that violent crime has been declining across the board and not just in states with looser gun laws. Another fact is that large cities that have strictest gun laws don't even appear in the top 10 list, which is dominated by cities in states with few gun restrictions. If your claims were anything but wishful thinking, the inverse would be true.

Dismissing the survey as biased without substantiating the source of their bias is just silly. When facts don't fit your personal views dismiss facts - great approach.

There are many factors in crime, and gun restrictions seem to play very little role. For example, Utah has had Stand Your Ground law since 1994 and there hasn't been any effect on violent crime rates, whether up or down. Yet when Florida enacted theirs, they saw a 30% uptick of murders (not gun deaths, murders) year over year. States are different, cultures are different, and this idea that one size fits all is ridiculous.

I just don't get the need to justify why I like & keep guns, and I particularly dislike the tendency to make stuff up and resort to "truthiness" and wishful thinking.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

someone has been drinking too much of the kool-aid.

Even if what you said about Florida is true [depends on whose expert you ask] it clearly isn't true in other states who've enacted similar laws.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

Even if what you said about Florida is true [depends on whose expert you ask] it clearly isn't true in other states who've enacted similar laws.

That's precisely my point: we have a similar statute on books in Utah yet it has had no discernible impact on crime rates. In other words, there's something else at play and it's not as simple as some folks seem to imply. Demographics, culture, poverty, etc. have far greater impact on violent crime rates than gun ownership.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

 

Even if what you said about Florida is true [depends on whose expert you ask] it clearly isn't true in other states who've enacted similar laws.

That's precisely my point: we have a similar statute on books in Utah yet it has had no discernible impact on crime rates. In other words, there's something else at play and it's not as simple as some folks seem to imply. Demographics, culture, poverty, etc. have far greater impact on violent crime rates than gun ownership.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

Except the example you used in florida was about stand your ground laws, not gun ownership. This particular law should have very little effect on how many people own or even carry guns. despite it being an important legal protection for those of us who do carry firearms for self defense.

 

So I'm guessing none of you are T.R....

 

So I'm guessing none of you are T.R....

he prob wont say.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk

 

That much I knew. I was mostly posting that comment because of how heated a debate, that is only tangentially related to the topic article, seems to have gotten on this thread.

 

T.R?