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.
I disagree with the argument that Stand Your Ground laws would make much of an impact. What does, perhaps surprisingly to some but not to gun owners, is concealed carry. Look at Florida as an example. They went from being a may-issue state - meaning that they might give you a cc permit, which in reality rarely happened - to being a shall-issue state - meaning that unless there's a reason to deny you, you get the permit. Their homicide rate fell from being 4% above the national average, to being 36% below the average in the years immediately following the change. They were one of the first states to start issuing permits, in 1986 or 87.
At the same time, gun crime committed by concealed carry permit holders remained consistent, at 0.02 percent. This means that despite letting regular civilians carry, not just the police or the well-connected, resulted in no increase in crimes committed with a gun by permit holders.
Wikipedia has a gif at this link that shows how concealed carry has been expanded since that time. Crime, in general, has decreased since then, though there have been spikes and some fluctuation in types of crime. While it would be unconstitutional, it would be really interesting to see what would happen if only cc holders had guns.
You say the silliest things, but I expected nothing more from you.
I've noticed that many anti firearms types here really like to pass over valid counters to their positions by posts like the one you quoted here. One line insults that lead NOWHERE. Just recently I had a response to a opinion receive a full half page tirade that didn't address a single thing but was full of insults and call for me to just shut up.
The CD equivilant of "shouting down" perhaps? We have quite enough of this I don't agree with you so you are a (insert whatever colorful term you like). The issue I question here requires at least a modicum of real world know to properly address.
Just labeling the opposing view with smear terms doesn't cut it.
No the data doesn't. As your CDC data is flawed. Just like your logic. Maybe your logic is derived from your data? Similar to how I can argue automobile fatalities. Im arguing on the basis of protecting life. There is no break down on car deaths related to intentional targeting, just like the CDC doesnt display intentional targeting. There is no break down on type of vehicle involved where a death resulted. Neither does the CDC display what type of weapon was used where a death has resulted. There is no break down of How many were car suicides. Just like the CDC doesnt display how many were gun homicides.
The argument at hand is GUN DEATH that you are pushing. Not stand your ground. Nor the results of stand your gound instances, or police action, or intentional suicide or negligent discharge.
Just like my car statistics from IIHS does not show vehilces in disrepair being gross negligence by the owner of the automobiles, the types of vehicles used, frequency of use, common use, nor the intent whether negligent, purposeful, or lack of ability.
Then you had better get on it with contacting the CDC and asking for a break down of those deaths... State by State. Where they literally shoot themselves in the foot on their data is stating SUICIDE by firearm significantly outweighs homicide or negligence ("accidents") UCR data shows criminal enterprise for 2015 being 9,616 CDC shows 21k and change for suicides. How much do you want to bet on suicide makes up for more than justified homicide-stand your ground, negligent discharges ("accidents")
You see gun deaths and run with it. Thats what is amusing you feel justified because the end phrase is "Gun Deaths". The subject at hand is Criminal use of a firearm. Not suicide. Suicide is a separate issue want to open a thread pertaining to suicide go for it.
Suicides are irrelevant. We are talking criminal misuse of a firearm.
The slaughtering of innocent people. This is what stand your ground deters.
If you want to discuss suicides open a thread pertaining to suicides.
The CDC data is flawed. Especially in terms of rates.
How about published figures? Rates are meaningless without supporting numbers that break down suicides from homicides from justified use of lethal force from negligence ("Accidents")
Legitimate numbers.
Say the UCR data on Florida shows for 1,111 murders for 2016, yet their table 12 doesn't even list Florida murders and weapons used in Florida murders.
Simple, binary question: When you argue that the implementation of a national "stand your ground" law will result in a decrease in crime and gun violence because of deterrence do you (a) have any empirical data whatsoever to support your conclusion; or (b) base your conclusion exclusively on conjecture?
If (a), let's see the data.
Quote:
California however, home of some of the toughest gun laws, takes the lead in firearm homicide rates. Your data your point moot. How about Illinois? Home of Chicago with the strictest gun laws in the country. Illinois has 799 murders according to 16 UCR data. 762 of those 799 were committed in Chicago. Shows your stricter and "empirical" data once again... SIGNIFICANTLY flawed.
Care to explain Flint, Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore I can keep going, California the leader in murder comitted by a firearm if you want to speak in terms of empirical support?
Go on. 799 murders committed in 16 in Illinois. 762 of which occurred in Chicago. Strictest gun laws.
Same with California? The leader in fire arm homicide according to "empirical" FBI UCR Data for 2016?
Despite strong gun laws, firearms are still readily available in the places that you name because they are sold in adjacent States with little regulation and are easily transported over state lines. Throw in socioeconomic factors applicable to these particular urban areas, and it should be no surprise that places like Chicago and Detroit have the vast majority of firearm deaths compared to suburban and rural areas surrounding them. And despite the high crime in Chicago, Illinois (with its strict gun laws) is still towards the bottom of the firearm death per capita table. Cherry-picking 4 high-crime cities and pointing out that they have gun violence doesn't prove anything, much less that restrictions on guns don't work. Unlike Chicago, it is not easy to transport guns across the border in Australia or Britain and look at their firearm-related statistics.
California is the "leader" in deaths by firearm because of its population. Per capita, California is on the bottom of the firearm mortality list with only 7.7 deaths per 100,000. Either you knew that and were being disingenuous or you're just too dumb to understand how statistics work.
What a softball. Now lets see if you can answer my question: (a) or (b).
Stand your ground reduces crime because you speculate a former DA's subjective opinion would be that it does, if we were asked.
Why rely on statistics and studies when we could have asked Mills Lane about his opinion? Is there anything else I might ask him to settle some tough debates? What's his position on man's effect on climate change? When do fetuses become "human"? What color is God's beard?
Why is 762 Fire arm homicides occurring in Chicago? Chicago has Strict gun laws. Firearm related crime (in theory) Shouldn't be occurring should it?
Why is California the leader in firearm homicides? 1,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri
I guess I understand now why gun nuts have to post 60% of the OPs on here - they don't believe in statistics, reality, experience or common sense.
As has been made clear, states and regions (the Northeast, for example) have 1/2, 1/4 or even 1/10th the violent crime as the worst regions (the South - and some parts of the West)....
Texas has 300% more violence (largely gun) than MA. Why? Are people from Texas natural born killers? Are they wife beaters and child abusers in bulk compared to others?
Well - truth is THEY ARE "Texas is ranked second in the nation for domestic violence incidents"
So when ANYONE says gun laws don't work - they are repeating a falsehood.....also called lies.
Is craigiri suggesting Texas transplanted to California? Table 12 of UCR murder shows California in the lead at 1,368 with tough gun laws... arbitrary bans... If Texas is 300% higher for murder and violence than MA...
That makes Liberal Bastion California for year 2016 having 1,368 murders via firearm, and MA 85 murders with a firearm, California has 1,609% higher murders via firearm. Is it Texan Transplants to California? Or are Californians natural born killers? Craigiri did try to politicize it comparing Mass to Texas...
What about those gun laws that don't work? There are more gun laws in California than any other state. Save for NY... Is that a lie that gun laws don't work when Strict Gun laws have higher murder rates via guns?
And where are the concentrations of firearm murders occurring?
Counties and Cities with strict gun control measures?
Rural areas with stand your ground no duty to retreat?
Want to politicize it and compare Democrat to Republican concentrations? We can do that, but it will only spark up more vitriol and look horrible for one political party...
Want to break it down to isolated incidents?
Pay me for 3 days worth of my labor rate to research it. Ill do all of the above for you...
Then we can have an even more honest discussion on stand your ground vs relying on police arriving to gun free zones and stricter gun laws.
Why is 762 Fire arm homicides occurring in Chicago? Chicago has Strict gun laws. Firearm related crime (in theory) Shouldn't be occurring should it?
Why is California the leader in firearm homicides? 1,368
Is craigiri suggesting Texas transplanted to California? Table 12 of UCR murder shows California in the lead at 1,368 with tough gun laws... arbitrary bans... If Texas is 300% higher for murder and violence than MA...
That makes Liberal Bastion California for year 2016 having 1,368 murders via firearm, and MA 85 murders with a firearm, California has 1,609% higher murders via firearm. Is it Texan Transplants to California? Or are Californians natural born killers? Craigiri did try to politicize it comparing Mass to Texas...
What about those gun laws that don't work? There are more gun laws in California than any other state. Save for NY... Is that a lie that gun laws don't work when Strict Gun laws have higher murder rates via guns?
And where are the concentrations of firearm murders occurring?
Counties and Cities with strict gun control measures?
Rural areas with stand your ground no duty to retreat?
Want to politicize it and compare Democrat to Republican concentrations? We can do that, but it will only spark up more vitriol and look horrible for one political party...
Want to break it down to isolated incidents?
Pay me for 3 days worth of my labor rate to research it. Ill do all of the above for you...
Then we can have an even more honest discussion on stand your ground vs relying on police arriving to gun free zones and stricter gun laws.
I appreciate that you doubled-down on your fantasy that California has a lot of gun violence because you don't understand the importance of distinguishing between incidents and incidents per capita. Keep embarrassing yourself.
I've noticed that many anti firearms types here really like to pass over valid counters to their positions by posts like the one you quoted here. One line insults that lead NOWHERE. Just recently I had a response to a opinion receive a full half page tirade that didn't address a single thing but was full of insults and call for me to just shut up.
The CD equivilant of "shouting down" perhaps? We have quite enough of this I don't agree with you so you are a (insert whatever colorful term you like). The issue I question here requires at least a modicum of real world know to properly address.
Just labeling the opposing view with smear terms doesn't cut it.
Ill debate with TEPLimey And any others who want to have a legitimate discussion...
Its actually productive...
NV my advice is to allow them to leave their ignorance on display. Let it come back to bite them in the rear like I just did with craigiri suggesting Texas is 300% higher rate for violence, possibly trying to score political points, suggesting Texans are natural born killers, and I posted Californias numbers of 1,368 MA 85 did the math, 1,609% higher than MA...
Would craigiri suggest then, Texan transplants to California are responsible if only Texas is 300% higher?
I appreciate that you doubled-down on your fantasy that California has a lot of gun violence because you don't understand the importance of distinguishing between incidents and incidents per capita. Keep embarrassing yourself.
Oh Im not embarrasing myself. I posted published numbers. 1,368 murders with a firearm in California.
Are you suggesting the FBI UCR data is wrong?
The FBI is lying?
Well, if you want to be discussing per capita, then wouldn't California have more incidents per capita?
Or are those individual victims meaningless, because population of the collective > individual tragedies?
Thats an interesting proposition you want to change gears to now
Kind of reinforces you are not arguing to protect the lives of innocent people by denying them the right to keep and bear arms...
Just because 1,368 happened doesn't diminish their value-since life is precious, because the states population in a per capita stance diminishes the frequency of occurrence.
Same with Chicago and Illinois numbers. 799 Murders with a firearm for the state of Illinois but 762 occurred in Chicago. Guess Chicago shouldnt have access to the means of defense and their citizens should not have the right to keep and bear arms to defend themselves from evil.
This is interesting. You are now doubling down to destroy your own narrative and write off 1,368 per California because I did not adjust per 100k or per 1 million?
Ill debate with TEPLimey And any others who want to have a legitimate discussion...
Its actually productive...
NV my advice is to allow them to leave their ignorance on display. Let it come back to bite them in the rear like I just did with craigiri suggesting Texas is 300% higher rate for violence, possibly trying to score political points, suggesting Texans are natural born killers, and I posted Californias numbers of 1,368 MA 85 did the math, 1,609% higher than MA...
Would craigiri suggest then, Texan transplants to California are responsible if only Texas is 300% higher?
Thing is, arguing numbers is just a game. I've looked for honest numbers regarding firearms related shootings and have been as yet totally unable to find any that are not skewed. They all agglomerate all shootings under one roof. They're worthless for debate or discussion either way.
When I find any that actually separate LE and citizen involved crime stoppages from actual criminal use I'll be the first to know and you'll be the second, rest assured.
Well, if you want to be discussing per capita, then wouldn't California have more incidents per capita?
Or are those individual victims meaningless, because population of the collective > individual tragedies?
Thats an interesting proposition you want to change gears to now
Kind of reinforces you are not arguing to protect the lives of innocent people by denying them the right to keep and bear arms...
Just because 1,368 happened doesn't diminish their value-since life is precious, because the states population in a per capita stance diminishes the frequency of occurrence.
Same with Chicago and Illinois numbers. 799 Murders with a firearm for the state of Illinois but 762 occurred in Chicago. Guess Chicago shouldnt have access to the means of defense and their citizens should not have the right to keep and bear arms to defend themselves from evil.
This is interesting. You are now doubling down to destroy your own narrative and write off 1,368 per California because I did not adjust per 100k or per 1 million?
You cited California as leading the country in "firearm homicide rates" in order to argue that its tough firearm laws don't work. That isn't true. It leads the country in firearm homicides because of its large population, but has one of the lowest firearm homicide rates in the USA, which is likely attributable to its strict gun control laws.
I'm not dismissing the import of 1,368 deaths, but to cite that number as proof that gun control laws don't work is intentionally misleading because, statistically, the opposite is true.
Now, can you answer my question: When you argue that the implementation of a national "stand your ground" law will result in a decrease in crime and gun violence because of deterrence do you (a) have any empirical data whatsoever to support your conclusion; or (b) base your conclusion exclusively on conjecture?
DC does not have a stand your ground law. Try again.
I'll leave that to someone else. Your view is so narrow that you can't see how my previous post adds to the discussion. I see you keep dismissing everyone else's arguments as well. Sooner or later they will give up this discussion with you and you can go about your way feeling that you won a gun control debate with a bunch of 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.
Just recently I had a response to a opinion receive a full half page tirade that didn't address a single thing but was full of insults and call for me to just shut up. 
