Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No not all are, only a small fraction, but the fraction is relatively consistent. I don't have a CCP, but I do own firearms.
Indeed you probably have a better chance of being robbed by someone not even in the US (because people are remarkably lax with electronic security). However they have little chance of stealing your guns via the Internet, they may steal your identity, your Steam Account, your Credit Card information, but until we get matter teleportation they're not going to be stealing your physical assets. Someone at the end of a phone line, or at your doorstep can steal your physical assets.
Cool, the third study that is not in agreement with either of the other two. You know what you call three datapoints that share no correlation? Random.
Seriously even the Times states most surprisingly the Western Mountain States and South experienced a drop in firearms ownership. This I struggle to believe, in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and the Dakota's?
Here's the facts.
We know NICS has been processing the highest numbers of gun purchases in it's 17 year history
We know concealed carry permit ownership is at it's highest level since such a thing came into being (and half a dozen states no longer require a CCP for residents to concealed carry, so there are fewer people bothering with CCP's in those states)
We know that three surveys have minimal correlation to each other
We do not know whether the three surveys correlate to any other possible factor (because this has not been performed) for example public trust of government
We know that of all segments persons who own guns include those with the least trust of government and/or authority (if they trusted government and/or authority they would not have a gun).
Why would we think that the surveys that seem to run counter to all other evidence are accurate?
I mean sure they could be, but there is little real hard and concrete reason to think so. The reason that surveys are stating gun ownership is reducing but people are buying more guns is that it resolves the conflict that the surveys are reporting one thing and other sources reporting another. If you just take the stance that we cannot trust any of the facts prima facie it means we have no real way to interpret the conflicting data points. We know NICS is hard data, it's all recorded regardless of an individuals input, we know Concealed Carry Permits are hard data, it's all available from State Databases. Surveys are soft data, the hope is that people give honest answers, but people do not and never have given accurate data (even when not being actively deceptive).
No one cares about steali by your guns, and even you admit a small percentage of gun owners also CCW. So when CCW goes up, it is a safe bet that it is people who already own guns getting them rather than people buying their first gun.
And at the end of the day, this connection that more guns means less crime is just nonsense.
Not everyone needs to have a concealed carry permit, for concealed carry to be a deterrent for criminals. The question you just asked is a question that I bet street toughs ask themselves all the time. Who's armed, and who isn't?
The safe assumption for criminals would be to just assume that everyone is, and choose to live a clean life.
Haha, so you are telling me there is no crime because bad guys fear people might be carrying guns? I highly doubt someone planning on robbing someone cares, especially if they too are armed.
No one cares about steali by your guns, and even you admit a small percentage of gun owners also CCW. So when CCW goes up, it is a safe bet that it is people who already own guns getting them rather than people buying their first gun.
And at the end of the day, this connection that more guns means less crime is just nonsense.
Why is is nonsense? You can't prove that is isn't a contributing factor in the reduction of crime.
Tell me this, can admit that that the idea that more guns, means more violence, is complete nonsense, because the data clearly shows we have more gun, and less crime.
Haha, so you are telling me there is no crime because bad guys fear people might be carrying guns? I highly doubt someone planning on robbing someone cares, especially if they too are armed.
Criminals indicated that they make decision to commit crime against certain people based on the speculation that they are armed. I previously provided the link.
It does. We know guns sales have been surging, and certainly a significant portion of those sales may be people who already own firearms. On the other hand, looking at anecdotal evidence, the number of NRA instructors certified to teach the basic NRA classes has increased by nearly 66% over the past five years. Experienced gun owners adding to their collections generally don’t drive demand for introductory courses. New gun owners do. Also, there has been an increase in the number of women who have guns as well.
I still think it's a safe assumption to say that 2/5ths of American households have firearms. In my community, (far suburb of Chicago), I would wager closer to half the homes.
No one cares about steali by your guns, and even you admit a small percentage of gun owners also CCW. So when CCW goes up, it is a safe bet that it is people who already own guns getting them rather than people buying their first gun.
If no one cares about stealing guns, then why have people including you called for prosecutions of gun owners whose guns are stolen and used in crimes failing to report them stolen? Wouldn't that be someone caring about the theft of guns?
You missed a small but critical piece of information I presented, CCW rates of gun owners are small, but consistent. If CCW rates were say 5% in 2007, then consistent means that today they are around 5%. How could the number of gun owners holding CCW rise from 4.6M to 12.8M remaining consistent and the number of gun owners not increase?
If many more women are getting CCW's and rates of gun ownership in women are higher now that at any time on record, how are you claiming that just as many men are removing guns from their possession, and the statistics do show a large growth of both of these in the female segment, how can all of them be current owners and not new owners. Finally if someone has owned guns for say 20 years and not felt the need to obtain a CCW in the first decade, what is different in the second decade that prompted the change?
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
And at the end of the day, this connection that more guns means less crime is just nonsense.
That has nothing to do with my argument, however it's clear that as crime rates are decreasing, more guns does not equal more crime, since we know there are more guns being sold in the US than at any time in the past 30-40 years, there is zero evidence that the total number of guns is falling. If risks are not increasing because of the quantity of guns, then there is nothing to see here, the number of guns in the population is irrelevant to crime rates.
Haha, so you are telling me there is no crime because bad guys fear people might be carrying guns? I highly doubt someone planning on robbing someone cares, especially if they too are armed.
You just refuse to face reality, don't you? Since you value higher education so highly, here's an article from Duke: TEN MYTHS ABOUT GUN CONTROL
Research conducted by Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi,6 for a landmark study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, points to the armed citizen as possibly the most effective deterrent to crime in the nation. Wright and Rossi questioned over 1,800 felons serving time in prisons across the nation and found:
81% agreed the "smart criminal" will try to find out if a potential victim is armed.
74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot.
80% of "handgun predators" had encountered armed citizens.
40% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed.
34% of "handgun predators" were scared off or shot at by armed victims.
57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by police.
Will this change your totally unfounded opinion that criminals don't care if their victims are armed? Probably not since the study flies in the face of your belief.
If no one cares about stealing guns, then why have people including you called for prosecutions of gun owners whose guns are stolen and used in crimes failing to report them stolen? Wouldn't that be someone caring about the theft of guns?
You missed a small but critical piece of information I presented, CCW rates of gun owners are small, but consistent. If CCW rates were say 5% in 2007, then consistent means that today they are around 5%. How could the number of gun owners holding CCW rise from 4.6M to 12.8M remaining consistent and the number of gun owners not increase?
If many more women are getting CCW's and rates of gun ownership in women are higher now that at any time on record, how are you claiming that just as many men are removing guns from their possession, and the statistics do show a large growth of both of these in the female segment, how can all of them be current owners and not new owners. Finally if someone has owned guns for say 20 years and not felt the need to obtain a CCW in the first decade, what is different in the second decade that prompted the change?
That has nothing to do with my argument, however it's clear that as crime rates are decreasing, more guns does not equal more crime, since we know there are more guns being sold in the US than at any time in the past 30-40 years, there is zero evidence that the total number of guns is falling. If risks are not increasing because of the quantity of guns, then there is nothing to see here, the number of guns in the population is irrelevant to crime rates.
About the only error I can find in your argument is ccw rate in sass that went from no/may issue to shall issue. In my county for example in California. We have a few million people and maybe a couple hundred ccw permit because of the draconian issuance practices. If the law was changed here to shall issue and everyone who wanted a permit got one, tens of thousands of people would apply because of pent up demand.
About the only error I can find in your argument is ccw rate in sass that went from no/may issue to shall issue. In my county for example in California. We have a few million people and maybe a couple hundred ccw permit because of the draconian issuance practices. If the law was changed here to shall issue and everyone who wanted a permit got one, tens of thousands of people would apply because of pent up demand.
This is why I don't live in the banana republic that is Ca.
Why is is nonsense? You can't prove that is isn't a contributing factor in the reduction of crime.
Tell me this, can admit that that the idea that more guns, means more violence, is complete nonsense, because the data clearly shows we have more gun, and less crime.
It is a non sequitur, you can't prove either way what the effect is. If someone buys 8 guns, does that person become 8 times more safe? More guns doesn't mean more gun owners.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
