Texas governor stirs controversy

[joepole]

>How can you say fewer lives would have been lost when only 1 man had a gun as opposed to 100 people having a gun, when our own nations history tells the exact opposite story?

Because it's a reasonable assumption that none of the other likely-to-be-armed students wanted to go on a murderous rampage and it's a logical conclusion that if any other student had killed Cho before he could finish fewer lives would have been lost.

[BrainSmashR]

Originally Posted by joepole

>How can you say fewer lives would have been lost when only 1 man had a gun as opposed to 100 people having a gun, when our own nations history tells the exact opposite story?

Because it's a reasonable assumption that none of the other likely-to-be-armed students wanted to go on a murderous rampage and it's a logical conclusion that if any other student had killed Cho before he could finish fewer lives would have been lost.

Homicide is the 14th leading cause of death in America today.
Accident is the 3rd leading cause of death, of the accident category, firearm accidents are the 8th leading cause of death.

....and your contention is because there are NOT enough guns on the street.

I'm glad you admitted this was total assumption....I can't find death stats for the 1800's when most men carried a firearm, but I'll be sure to let you knwo when I do

[Al Swearengen]

WRONG WRONG WRONG
In March 2000, WorldNetDaily reported that since Australia's widespread gunban, violent crime has INCREASED in the country. WND reported that, although lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:
.Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
.Assaults are up 8.6 percent
.Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent
.In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent
.In the 25 years BEFORE the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily
.There has been a dramatic increase in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly

The violent crime stats are EVEN WORSE in Great Britain!
__________________

The above is an excerpt from an earlier post of mine where I was replyin to someone else's opinion that "fewer guns equals fewer deaths". It just doesnt work that way...period...end of story! Theres a school in Utah I think where the students with concealed carry permits are encouraged to wear their guns on campus, so lets just have a little hypothetical scenario here. Ok, lets say a "Cho" type murderous a$$hole shows up one at school one mornin and starts shootin people...with me so far? Ya followin me so far? Ok, "Cho" pulls his gun and gets off a few shots and kills a few of his poor, hapless classmates and instructors...but other students and instructors draw their own weapons and tuck "Cho" in for a dirtnap! Total body count? Four dead, includin the aforementioned murderous a$$hole...as opposed to, say, 30 or 50 dead...maybe even more.

The sad truth is that when one of these nuts snaps and decides to go on a shootin spree, be it on a school campus, the post office, your local Luby's cafeteria, or where ever, everyone who is NOT armed is basically just the proverbial "fish in the barrel", whose options amount to hidin under a table, playin dead, beggin the crazy bastard not to shoot em, or runnin and gettin shot in the back! These nutcases KNOW that their victims cant fight back, which is why they can kill so many of them. Different ballgame altogether when there are citizens carryin lawfully concealed guns. Nice try Brain, but you're full of schit! Ya might try doin some research first next time.

[BrainSmashR]

Hey that's great....how about stats for this country?

BTW, I did NOT say fewer guns equals fewer deaths, I said MORE guns DOES NOT equal fewer deaths.

Now check out this "hypothetical" scenario. Everytime someone gets pissed off they reach for their guns....you know, like every western story you've ever heard.

[Al Swearengen]

Originally Posted by BrainSmashR

Hey that's great....how about stats for this country?

BTW, I did NOT say fewer guns equals fewer deaths, I said MORE guns DOES NOT equal fewer deaths.

Now check out this "hypothetical" scenario. Everytime someone gets pissed off they reach for their guns....you know, like every western story you've ever heard.

On the contrary, more guns do indeed equal fewer deaths. And America's crime rates, violent or otherwise, have been steadily dropping since concealed weapons carry by licensed citizens, along with adoption of the "Castle Doctrine" by the states have become more prevalent. People who are licensed to carry concealed weapons must meet the criteria. Those citizens understand that carrying a concealed weapon means they have a much greater responsibility to conduct themselves with restraint, and draw and use their guns ONLY when they or someone else is threatened with death or grave bodily harm, NOT because they get "pissed off". Those who do NOT understand this likely dont meet the licensing criteria anyway.

[Al Swearengen]

BTW, I'm a Louisiana resident in possession of a concealed weapons permit issued by the State of Florida, Department of Agriculture, which is good for 5 years. As of January 5th of 07, I can carry a concealed weapon in 30 states, Kansas being the latest, all of which have reciprocity agreements with Florida.

[LateNight]

but Al, I thought you were a terrible shot, and worked better closer in ?


LOL

[BrainSmashR]

Originally Posted by Al Swearengen

On the contrary, more guns do indeed equal fewer deaths. And America's crime rates, violent or otherwise, have been steadily dropping since concealed weapons carry by licensed citizens, along with adoption of the "Castle Doctrine" by the states have become more prevalent. People who are licensed to carry concealed weapons must meet the criteria. Those citizens understand that carrying a concealed weapon means they have a much greater responsibility to conduct themselves with restraint, and draw and use their guns ONLY when they or someone else is threatened with death or grave bodily harm, NOT because they get "pissed off". Those who do NOT understand this likely dont meet the licensing criteria anyway.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice:
Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993, then slightly increased in 2005.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm#Crime

....and I'm sure the stats for 2006 will reflect the trend is continuing to rise....stay tuned for more details

[Al Swearengen]

Originally Posted by BrainSmashR

According to the U.S. Department of Justice:
Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993, then slightly increased in 2005.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm#Crime

....and I'm sure the stats for 2006 will reflect the trend is continuing to rise....stay tuned for more details

70 Million More Guns…38% Less Violent Crime

Friday, September 22, 2006

Data released by the FBI on Monday showed that in 2005, the nation’s total violent crime rate was 38% lower than in 1991, when violent crime hit an all-time high. Rates of the individual categories of violent crime were also much lower in 2005 than in 1991. Murder was 43% lower, rape 25% lower, robbery 48% lower, and aggravated assault 33% lower. The FBI’s report came on the heels of a Bureau of Justice Statistics crime survey that found that violent crime was lower in 2005 than anytime in the survey’s 32-year history.

Defying the anti-gunners’ claim that more guns means more crime, from 1991-2005 the number of privately owned guns increased by more than 70 million.

The news media often characterize violent crime as a primarily gun-oriented problem, but the FBI’s report showed that only one in every four violent crimes in 2005 was committed with a gun. In 2005, as in previous years, most violent crimes were robberies and aggravated assaults, most of which were committed with knives or bare hands.

Recently, anti-gun politicians and activists have intensified their rhetoric over the “lack” of bans on handguns, so-called “assault weapons”, and .50-caliber rifles; gun registration, gun owner licensing, and mandatory background checks on sales of guns between friends and family members; and limits on the frequency of gun purchases, all of which they say are necessary to reduce the nation’s murder rate. But for the last seven years, the murder rate has been steady¾in the 5.5-5.7 per 100,000 population range¾at all times lower than anytime since the mid-1960s. In 2005, for example, the murder rate was 5.6.

Naturally, anti-gunners will downplay the downward trend in violent crime since 1991, and focus on the fact that the FBI’s report showed a 1% increase in total violent crime, and a 2% increase in murder in 2005, compared to 2004. But those changes are miniscule, compared to the huge decrease in crime over the last 14 years.

The FBI’s report once again confirmed that violent crime rates are lower in states with Right-to-Carry (RTC) laws. In 2005, RTC states had, on average, 22% lower total violent crime, 30% less murder, 46% lower robbery, and 12% lower aggravated assault rates, compared to the rest of the country.

As usual, Washington, D.C., which leads the nation in anti-gun laws, led the nation in murder, with a rate six times higher than the rest of the country. Neighboring Maryland, where gun control advocates have been particularly active recently, once again had the highest robbery rate among the states, but also tied for the unenviable distinction of “first place” in murder among the states. However, despite Maryland’s high crime counts, CeaseFire Maryland, the local Brady Campaign affiliate that recently released a paper demanding an “assault weapon” ban, was unable to point to any crimes in the state involving such a gun.

The FBI’s report must have displeased New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg (R). Despite the mayor’s recent posturing on the gun issue, and his self-laudatory comments about fighting crime, the Big Apple’s murder rate was more than double that of the rest of the state. Similarly, in Philadelphia, where anti-gun politicians are calling for a statewide one-gun-a-month law, the murder rate was more than seven times higher than the rest of Pennsylvania.

Adding to the reasons why voters should “Dump Doyle” in Wisconsin’s upcoming gubernatorial election, their state had the greatest total violent crime rate increase (15.1%) between 2004-2005. Murder was up 25.2%; robbery up 11.2%; and aggravated assault up 20.2%. Wisconsin is one of only two states that prohibits Right-to-Carry entirely, but in 2005, 11 of the 12 states that had the greatest decreases in total violent crime, and 12 of the 14 states with the greatest decreases in murder were Right-to-Carry states. The seven states with the lowest total violent crime rates in 2005, and 11 of the 12 states that had the lowest murder rates, were Right-to-Carry states.

Last, but not least, is good news from Florida, the state that during the last 20 years has been most often attacked by anti-gunners, for (among other reasons) setting the Right-to-Carry and “Castle Doctrine” movements in motion. In 2005, Florida recorded a murder rate 13% lower than the rate for the rest of the country (4.96 per 100,000, vs. 5.67 for the rest of the country). For the record, Florida’s 2005 murder rate was 58% lower than it was in 1986, the last year before the state’s landmark Right-to-Carry law took effect.





Copyright 2007, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
Contact Us | Privacy & Security Policy


The above puts the question to rest once and for all. Again Brain, nice try, but no cigar! Now, if anyone else wants to try recklessly spinning the statistics, be my guest!

[rhertz]

Originally Posted by BrainSmashR

According to the U.S. Department of Justice....and I'm sure the stats for 2006 will reflect the trend is continuing to rise....stay tuned for more details

What were the stat's in the 1700's and 1800's when "the folks" all toted guns? In comparison to 2007 with ever increasing "gun control"? Anyone know?

[LateNight]

Originally Posted by BrainSmashR

Now check out this "hypothetical" scenario. Everytime someone gets pissed off they reach for their guns....you know, like every western story you've ever heard.

more or less guns does not change this scenario.. this happens now as it is.. idiot gets pissed, idiot goes home gets his gun and shoots someone.
If idiot doesn't have a gun, he'll find another way.