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.
There has been NO increase in the gun homicide rate nor the nonfatal gun crime rate during the time that Americans increased gun ownership by 50%. I fact, it's quite the opposite.
And, again, that does not mean that there's no correlation. Just no observed correlation.
Quote:
So, WHY are some demanding gun control/bans when there's NO evidence whatsoever that gun ownership rate is related to gun crime rates?
Why not arbitrarily insist on reducing the rate of cell phone ownership, instead?
I don't assert that.
What is wrong with your brain?
Nothing. Nothing at all. I can clearly see that as the number of guns Americans own has increased by 50%, the rate of gun homicides has DECREASED by 50% and the rate of nonfatal violent gun crimes has DECREASED by 76%.
Nothing. Nothing at all. I can clearly see that as the number of guns Americans own has increased by 50%, the rate of gun homicides has DECREASED by 50% and the rate of nonfatal violent gun crimes has DECREASED by 76%.
The US admits that 95% of the weapons submitted to the US for tracking were in fact from the US. There is an unstuck in what percent of the weapons seized by the Mexicans are represented but it is a minimum of 35% and may well be much higher. And that is from primarily US sources. The big question mark is that there are no really good numbers of Mexican guns or even of those gotten by the government. So I find it fascinating that you know what neither the Mexican or US government can find out.
Source? lol, how about common sense. Yea, there's all sorts of US made weapons in cartel hands. But you expect me to swallow they are coming from retail sources? Standard, civilian grade ARs? Aside from the AK 47, the M16/M4 is the most common weapon in the world. In wide use all over the planet. Because the rifles are from the US, were made here, does not mean they were shipped directly to the cartels from here. That doesn't take a PhD to figure out.
The poster I was responding to is claiming the cartels are using retail sources here in the US. Are you claiming the same? That's just ridiculous. So, they're buying retail, civilian grade ARs and then ...what? Converting them in their armories in Mexico? The US made weapons they have are military grade. Set up for select fire out of the crate. These types of firearms are not on the retail market in the US. These weapons were either stolen from military stores or diverted up from South/Central American military sources after being sold to those forces with the blessing of the US government. The cartels aren't placing bulk weapons orders for military hardware through US firearms retail outlets.
I worked for the Army for close to 20 years. In the time I spent on that one depot alone the stuff that came up missing would boggle your mind. Small arms, ammunition, explosives, all manner of Cat 1 and 2 material. Of everything that came up missing ONE item was recovered. An M14 rifle that was one of 20 stolen. It was recovered in Canada a year later. Another big question mark is just how much actually goes missing from government/military stockpiles? Those numbers are not available. Not to the public at large anyway. But, from what I personally know vanished from one installation, in one state, from one branch of service,I can state without reservation the numbers are staggering. And that lends zero credibility to a claim the cartels are using retail firearms sources, or even that stolen civilian firearms make up a large number of their hardware inventory.
"It's fascinating that I know what the US and Mexican governments do not?" Do you actually believe they are just stumped? That it's some big mystery? Scooby Doo! Where are you??!!
Because it's not the soldiers who are the tyrants. It's the government that's giving them the orders. It's the government that would be destroyed in the event of a civil war and a new one instituted. The same way we fought and won our independence from Great Britain.
There's a reason why the Democrats when they controlled all 3 branches of the federal government haven't used the military and law enforcement agencies to forcibly confiscate every civilian owned firearm in the United States as much as they would like to. Same for states like California and New York. They'd be committing suicide in a civil war they could never win. Because of the 2nd Amendment they'd be met with overwhelming force by armed civilians, along with both active duty and retired military and law enforcement personnel. Which is the intended purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Which has served us well since it's inception.
Even if you were to abolish the 2nd Amendment the people would still not peaceably give up their arms. There's just too many of us out there that are armed that know that if the 2nd Amendment were eliminated the government must have a nefarious purpose in mind. No matter how many laws that are passed, the government can not protect it's citizens from a violent criminal attack or from those who are on a suicide mission. Politicians know this to be a fact. The only other reason for passing laws that only affect the law abiding is the ultimate goal of enslaving them to an agenda that they would find unacceptable. Giving them a reason to revolt by force if necessary.
Laws are there for the purpose of punishing people after they've committed a crime. They certainly don't deter anything otherwise there'd be no crime. The issue with laws is that good people don't need them and bad people don't follow them. We already have enough laws that address every criminal act imaginable. Any additional laws are nothing more than feel good legislation advocated by grandstanding politicians to give the impression that they are at least doing something. When in reality all that they will accomplish is to further erode our civil liberties.
Again, this argument holds no water when one talks out of both sides of their mouth.
Chalk up yet another person who believes it's OK to give government the authority to restrict private citizens' guns.
Despite the long history of governments who were given that authority, using it to disarm their citizens and leaving them helpless before criminals, rapists, murderers etc., letting crime rates soar. And the many governments who then went on to commit huge massacres of their own people.
Historians have concluded that Americans would be much better off, safer, and more prosperous if government had NO authority to restrict guns in any way, than if we gave govt that authority. Even if some madman occasionally brought a bunch of guns to a restaurant, concert, etc.
And no one has yet tried to refute their conclusions on this forum.
Yet hysterical Democrats who know that, inexplicably keep calling for government "gun control" anyway.
Anyone want to guess why they do that?
Cool story bro.
Links?
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.
