Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-27-2015, 03:55 PM
 
Location: Ireland
896 posts, read 1,865,022 times
Reputation: 364

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by legal_eagle View Post
In conclusion, the last gun store in SF is closing but there are still a lot places to buy a gun.
Good news on the store closing, but bad news that there are a lot of places in the US where one can buy a gun.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-27-2015, 04:28 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
702 posts, read 954,331 times
Reputation: 1498
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
The amount of guns in private hands has doubled in the last decade
More paranoid weirdos with massive basement arsenals. Fact: Fewer individuals and households own guns today than in decades past. The number of guns is irrelevant. How many people have guns is what matters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
The amount of people carrying in public has increased dramatically over the last 20 years.
And as I showed you in the graph above, the fewest gun deaths are in Massachusetts, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut. Stricter gun laws correlate with fewer gun deaths. More permissive gun laws correlate with more gun deaths.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
People who have a carry permit are much less likely to commit a crime than average citizens. Women are the fast growing group of gun owners.
Irrelevant. We're talking about the probability of death by gun. (which is highest in the states with the most permissive gun laws).

Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
Gun ownership has become even more socially acceptable and over 60% of Americans feel federal gun laws are either adequate or too strict.
According to Gallup, 47 percent of Americans believe that gun laws should be more strict. (but public opinion is irrelevant for the purposes of our argument, we're talking about what's right).


Post data, or stop talking out of your butt please. Pick one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2015, 04:47 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,824,055 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by ketch89 View Post
More paranoid weirdos with massive basement arsenals. Fact: Fewer individuals and households own guns today than in decades past. The number of guns is irrelevant. How many people have guns is what matters.



And as I showed you in the graph above, the fewest gun deaths are in Massachusetts, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut. Stricter gun laws correlate with fewer gun deaths. More permissive gun laws correlate with more gun deaths.



Irrelevant. We're talking about the probability of death by gun. (which is highest in the states with the most permissive gun laws).



According to Gallup, 47 percent of Americans believe that gun laws should be more strict. (but public opinion is irrelevant for the purposes of our argument, we're talking about what's right).


Post data, or stop talking out of your butt please. Pick one.
I think it is funny that you post a poll that contradicts your previous data you posted showing gun ownership is on the incline.

Not to mention a more recent poll showing 59% of people want gun laws to stay the same or be less sever
Together, this means a strong majority (59%) of Americans are opposed to further restrictions on the Second Amendment.

Read more: CNN Poll Offers Bad News For Gun Controllers, Anti-Gun Candidates | The Daily Caller

All while more people are carrying a gun than ever.
http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/...ted-States.pdf

If gun laws worked then why do cities with the strictest gun laws have the highest crime? Places like Baltimore, Chicago, jersey city, etc?

Here is some more good reading for you linking crime to things like poverty, education, access to treatment, etc
Limited access to quality hospitals may be a contributing factor to firearm deaths. Often, victims of gunshots or other violent crimes need immediate medical attention, which may be more difficult to receive in rural areas. "If you have a hospital with a Level III trauma center, your likelihood of surviving an injury like a gunshot wound is far higher than if you lived near a basic hospital," Roman said.
Economic factors also appear to be related to firearm deaths. The poverty rate in eight of the 10 states with the most gun violence was above the national rate of 15.8%. Mississippi, New Mexico, Louisiana, and Arkansas, the states with the four highest poverty rates in the country, were among the states with the most gun violence.
Educational attainment rates also tended to be lower in states with the most gun violence. The share of adults with at least a bachelor's degree was lower than the national rate of 29.6% in all 10 states on this list.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ence/71003050/


And you are still failing to show a state that passed specific gun laws and how they markedly reduced crime outside of the national average. This lack response is noted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2015, 04:54 PM
 
1,250 posts, read 1,489,233 times
Reputation: 1057
Sad
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2015, 04:56 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
702 posts, read 954,331 times
Reputation: 1498
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
If gun laws worked then why do cities with the strictest gun laws have the highest crime? Places like Baltimore, Chicago, jersey city, etc?
Gun laws can't give a city an economy (or fix longstanding social issues). Point stands - states with stricter gun laws have fewer gun deaths.

(I said that public opinion is irrelevant, because it's irrelevant. You're not arguing that the majority is ALWAYS right, are you? That's absurd.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2015, 04:58 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,824,055 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by ketch89 View Post
Gun laws can't give a city an economy. Point stands - states with stricter gun laws have fewer gun deaths.

(I said that public opinion is irrelevant, because it's irrelevant. You're not arguing that the majority is ALWAYS right, are you? That's absurd.)
The cause or solution to crime has nothing to do with guns. Instead of dealing with these issues, like drugs, economy, education, etc. you would rather place blame on a couple of pounds of steel and plastic.

You maybe should do a little studying
https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/logic_causation.html


Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2015, 04:59 PM
 
Location: Canada
6,141 posts, read 3,373,816 times
Reputation: 5790
Quote:
Originally Posted by northsider View Post
Good news on the store closing, but bad news that there are a lot of places in the US where one can buy a gun.
Yes. Good news on that front//however, "Straw Purchasers" loopholes, and "Gun Shows" that shirk background checks will flourish!! That's unfortunate because until such loopholes get plugged..responsible gun owners will constantly be blamed ..and 2nd Amendment proponents ( NRA) will continue to demonize Government for any regulations..

.It boggles my mind that simply regulating ( keeping guns out of the hands who are high risk to own) is somehow against 2nd Amendment?? Course it's now 21st Century..NOT the 19th Century..gun's have changed..lethal ability of said guns have changed..actual rationale for writing in such amendment has changed....

YET for some..wishing to live in the 19th Century is somehow their "Utopia" of freedom???????? SO given that 2nd Amendment..Regulated Militia..is somehow dropped when defending 2nd Amendment....Regulation is a Dirty word for most advocates for proliferations of LETHAL weapons..Yet thousands are murdered monthly by such...Kind of makes one's mind bend a little
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2015, 05:02 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
702 posts, read 954,331 times
Reputation: 1498
Gun sales are irrelevant.

The number of people who own guns as a percentage of the population is what matters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2015, 05:04 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,824,055 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyndarn View Post
Yes. Good news on that front//however, "Straw Purchasers" loopholes, and "Gun Shows" that shirk background checks will flourish!! That's unfortunate because until such loopholes get plugged..responsible gun owners will constantly be blamed ..and 2nd Amendment proponents ( NRA) will continue to demonize Government for any regulations..

.It boggles my mind that simply regulating ( keeping guns out of the hands who are high risk to own) is somehow against 2nd Amendment?? Course it's now 21st Century..NOT the 19th Century..gun's have changed..lethal ability of said guns have changed..actual rationale for writing in such amendment has changed....

YET for some..wishing to live in the 19th Century is somehow their "Utopia" of freedom???????? SO given that 2nd Amendment..Regulated Militia..is somehow dropped when defending 2nd Amendment....Regulation is a Dirty word for most advocates for proliferations of LETHAL weapons..Yet thousands are murdered monthly by such...Kind of makes one's mind bend a little
If you want to stop high risk people from having guns then ban black males between 18-35 from having guns, which is exactly anti gun Bloomberg proposed.

Gun haven't changed, they are not anymore lethal today than they were 60 years ago.

Regulated in the 18th century meant 'in working order'.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2015, 05:09 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
702 posts, read 954,331 times
Reputation: 1498
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
If you want to stop high risk people from having guns then ban black males between 18-35 from having guns, which is exactly anti gun Bloomberg proposed.

Gun haven't changed, they are not anymore lethal today than they were 60 years ago.

Regulated in the 18th century meant 'in working order'.
What made sense 200 years ago is irrelevant.

Argue for today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:20 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top