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.
The fallacy with all that is that you are implying that people now lie but used to tell the truth. In fact there is almost certainly some lying...both ways...but there is no reason to believe the lying has changed over the years which still says that gun ownership is down over time.
Then you think with all the guns being sold that the same people are just buying more guns? Not more people are buying?
I've seen many a study that suggests better economic times help promote sales -- of all things -- as well as less crime. Careful, in any case to think any one factor among a good many is cause for what is essentially a conclusion almost impossible to make when so many factors and variables are influencing the results at the same time; more jobs, more money, more or less depression, more law enforcement officers, more private security guards/measures, more guns, more gun control laws, more drugs, more or less gangs, etc.
Of course this is what makes all efforts to single out specific cause/effect conclusions so difficult and also why the debate continues (and/or goes nowhere)...
I've seen many a study that suggests better economic times help promote sales -- of all things -- as well as less crime. Careful, in any case to think any one factor among a good many is cause for what is essentially a conclusion almost impossible to make when so many factors and variables are influencing the results at the same time; more jobs, more money, more or less depression, more law enforcement officers, more private security guards/measures, more guns, more gun control laws, more drugs, more or less gangs, etc.
Of course this is what makes all efforts to single out specific cause/effect conclusions so difficult and also why the debate continues (and/or goes nowhere)...
I have no idea about other areas, but most of those arrested around here for any crime seem to have meth on them.
Well, there is that gun law in Kennesaw,GA. My point was that no one is addressing WHY murders are being committed.
In many cases, some of those individuals don't know who their fathers are. If they don't know who their fathers are, it is likely the mothers don't know either. This says alot about the promiscuity among many women.
By the way, what do you mean by "days of equal rights"? Are you saying equal rights is the problem?
What do you mean by "promiscuity among many women?" Are you saying women are the problem?
Classic case of being a sexist probably without really even knowing it...
Last time I checked, it takes two to make babies, both men and women. Or at least I don't know many women who can have a baby on their own, only have heard of one in all my years. So why is this a promiscuous woman problem? Any more or less than for a man problem?
I'll leave the "promiscuous" part alone, but there too it isn't always really just promiscuity that is causing unwanted pregnancies or children with deadbeat parents or no parents at all...
The equal rights comment was, honestly, a dig at the 1960s era and the Democrats of that era who created an underclass and then convinced said underclass that they were on their side.
Democrats "who created an underclass." This just keeps getting better and better...
I've seen many a study that suggests better economic times help promote sales -- of all things -- as well as less crime. Careful, in any case to think any one factor among a good many is cause for what is essentially a conclusion almost impossible to make when so many factors and variables are influencing the results at the same time; more jobs, more money, more or less depression, more law enforcement officers, more private security guards/measures, more guns, more gun control laws, more drugs, more or less gangs, etc.
Of course this is what makes all efforts to single out specific cause/effect conclusions so difficult and also why the debate continues (and/or goes nowhere)...
Then break the shootings down to specifics instead of approaching with a broad generalization. Categorize them and address the specifics. A 1 size fits all approach will not work.
There is a range down here that has a "ladies night" where women do not have a range fee. I brought my sister there a few times. I figured maybe a few women would be there... pfft...
The first time after they announced and advertised ladies night, there was a line that went out of the door and halfway around the building to get in. 26 lanes in a 2 story range.
The outdoor range that I go to every weekend, the rim fire gallery is mostly children with parents present, 200 yards rifle range would be 2/3rds women, pistol gallery 80% women, shotgun trap and skeet ranges, half women, long range rifle range about a third comprised of women.
When GSSF events are held about half are women.
IDPA matches about a third are women.
3 gun matches, about a 1/4 are women.
Maybe you mentioned where you are from before, but where is "down here" exactly? Curious what other forms of entertainment women can choose down there where the shooting range seems to be getting some interest among the ladies, and how many are there with men like you taking your sister a few times.
The fallacy with all that is that you are implying that people now lie but used to tell the truth. In fact there is almost certainly some lying...both ways...but there is no reason to believe the lying has changed over the years which still says that gun ownership is down over time.
Except Gallup and Pew are working on a joint study as to why their figures do not correspond within error, AND, why all other indicators of gun ownership appears to be increasing (sales, concealed carry applications, training enrollments, etc.), but their polls appear to result in decreasing gun ownership.
When the pollsters are jointly studying their poll results, you gotta have significant doubt in their results accuracy.
More lawful owners, less crimes committed against them. Seems to be a "trend" that armed law abiding citizens = deterrence to criminal element.
It's intelligent to point out democrats have no legitimate plan nor productive way to address the issues. If they want to champion and grandstand on gun legislation, I'll take them serious when Baltimore, Detroit, New Orleans, St. Louis, Chicago, Los Angeles etc start to have a decrease a significant decrease in their homicides.
In otherwords... don't worry about what I'm doing in my back yard, when yours is inundated with and plagued with death. Your rules, your city, keep them there.
I especially don't want to hear any legislation proposed by ANY Californian. Jerry Brown revokes the mandatory 10 year enhancement for committing a crime while being armed. And a jury let a killer go on the basis of, oh he didn't know he was handling a firearm...
That and not holding the BLM, more specifically the agent, accountable for that pistol walking.
I get out plenty. I just don't associate with anyone bent on curbing rights to fit their agenda. Agree to disagree fine, but hold the opinion the rights of all should be curtailed of current and future generations for the actions of few. No.
I know you can't tell, but you are waffling from suggesting crime is a function of where Democrats hold office and/or because of Democrats to something else entirely now, and this is why it seems that "intelligent discussion" with you is so difficult, all over the place...
It is NOT intelligent to draw these cause/effect conclusions like you do or to think it is the fault of Democrats that there is no real legitimate or productive way to address the gun violence issue. All sides are frustrated with the problem and lack of solutions, or should be. Seems some are just more resigned to accept things as they are than others, and yes that difference can very often lead to ideas and notions that are not too intelligent at all.
Some for example think it is intelligent to ban certain types of weapons. Others think more people carrying guns will help. One man's "intelligence" is another man's crazy, but that's not the fault of either side any more than the drug problem can be blamed on Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives, not if an "intelligent discussion" is to be had anway.
It is also not intelligent to pretend I take whatever position you choose to assume regardless of what my position actually is! If I want to address you directly, I consider your words, not those of others. If you want to address Jerry Brown, then address Jerry Brown, not me as if I am Jerry Brown. If I want to address you, I will address you, and NOT make up whatever arguments or positions I decide for you.
That is at least some of the basic protocol that allows for intelligent discussion anyway...
Democrats "who created an underclass." This just keeps getting better and better...
You think otherwise? The 1960s Democrats were as racist as you could get.
Then again, you think the "ghettos" from 1910 were the same as the ghettos from circa the 1960s, so you haven't studied much about it. Read up on Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis, then do some reading on the early 1900s ghettos. There is a vast world of difference between the two cultures.
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.
