Violent crime down, while gun sales are up

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I took exception at you pushing fear that people are going to be meat on a table, just like I take exception that people use images of cleaning childrens' brains off of walls. In other words either side of the conversation. Just above you mention the anti 2A stuff going on. Sorry, but it is something that people are talking about, and perhaps are brainwashed over, but that is on minds and creates responses.

The whole point is that a stupid response by a pro-2A person, even if they are right, is as toxic as anything that the anti 2A folks can do or say. Insisting that you're right and then going and playing ostrich just means that your rights will be pulled away while your head is in the sand.

That's why dnewton's comments are so great. Those who wish to argue and try to logically remove our rights can only be defeated by equal logic that is rational and true. What dnewton put up is very much that way. I prefer using intelligent discourse. Fanaticism of blown out brains or being meat on someone's table does nothing.


You can keep citing statistics and abiding by your own made-up rules of engagement if you wish. That has not worked very well here in NJ has it? The NJ2AS and ANJRPC has been doing that for years. Have you been paying attention to the impact? Yet again, there's another anti-2A bill on his desk awaiting his signature. He may yet veto the 10 round mag limit but even if he does it is only a temporary reprieve. There have been over 75 firearms bills proposed in NJ in the last 18 months. Some are even contradictory. This agenda does not come from people who are ignorant of the facts and simply need to be educated. This is their crusade and they will not stop until they get what they want. All the efforts to educate people using facts and statistics did not slow down the antis one bit. Anyone who values their rights should be afraid.

I'll continue to call and write my representatives demanding that my rights be respected. I'll continue to vote for and encourage other gun owners to vote for candidates that respect our rights. I'll continue to point out to gun owners that our rights are not some cafeteria plan and must be fought for in their entirety. You do what you like.
 
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Shannow
I agree with pottymouth in sentiment, in that discussing same will be used (by some) to start colouring the second amendment in shades of grey, deligitimising it a little at a time.

I get that. What's troublesome is when people immediately assume that anyone who wants to talk about this stuff is a gun grabber that needs to be defended against.

It makes sense from a psychological standpoint. It's moral psychology 101: as soon as something trips our moral sensibilities, we (as in human beings) immediately flip into a mode in which we treat everything other than total unconditional agreement as a threat that must be repelled. Completely understandable. Just... really unfortunate I guess.


Bolded for emphasis. This is the problem there can be discussions without it being irrational or an attack on rights. Why? Because those discussing these topics ARE trying to make an attack on rights.

You can play ostrich all you want, but unfortunately it has to be discussed, because there is enough bad news out there that otherwise things will just be legislated away while others' heads are in the sand. Like it or not, it is a discussion area, whether a tactic for attack or because it is something that folks are genuinely interested in.

Thus why we must have reasonable arguments against this stuff. I made an argument against dnewton's medical one because I think it brings up concepts of licensure, insurance, etc. But it doesn't make such discussions any less valuable or critical to having a strong and understandable argument against the knew-jerk anti types. Telling them that they will be meat on a table, when statistics and reality clearly shows otherwise, is just another knee-jerk that doesn't do anyone favors. Not asking for justification here, just making the point that discussion WILL be a part of life at this point, so EVERYONE darn well have a strong one that the antis can't or talk around.
 
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Shannow
I agree with pottymouth in sentiment, in that discussing same will be used (by some) to start colouring the second amendment in shades of grey, deligitimising it a little at a time.

I get that. What's troublesome is when people immediately assume that anyone who wants to talk about this stuff is a gun grabber that needs to be defended against.

It makes sense from a psychological standpoint. It's moral psychology 101: as soon as something trips our moral sensibilities, we (as in human beings) immediately flip into a mode in which we treat everything other than total unconditional agreement as a threat that must be repelled. Completely understandable. Just... really unfortunate I guess.


If you really did get Shannow's point, you wouldn't follow it with the bolded sentence. Take a look east. Don't think that this will stop at the Delaware Water Gap.
 
No my point is that there are enough of them EVERYWHERE (grabbers) that are pushing the discussion by outlets and means that, like them or not, do exist and many people listen to.

Not discussing this means that you're allowing a free for all with these folks, who have MANY peoples' ear unfortunately.

Like it or not, these discussions are upon us. There have been pro 2A successes in many states recently, but it doesn't mean that is guaranteed everywhere, or that other sentiments won't transition to those places who have seen successes recently.

I disagree with the sentiment that not being willing to discuss aspects will somehow magically win people more freedoms, or better protect those which we already have.

Originally Posted By: pottymouth

I'll continue to call and write my representatives demanding that my rights be respected. I'll continue to vote for and encourage other gun owners to vote for candidates that respect our rights. I'll continue to point out to gun owners that our rights are not some cafeteria plan and must be fought for in their entirety. You do what you like.


Guess what, bud, I do exactly the same. It doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of attacks out there, and people performing them; and that making the "meat on a predator's table" argument and then saying "that's that", will fix. Like it or not, we have to take real and rational facts on the attack here, and ensure that they are clearly and cleverly stated to all without the fanaticism that gives pro-2A folks a bad name. It may be the stupidest thing ever, but fanaticism of the anti-2A folks creates fear and sentiment in a lot of the middle-groung population against gun ownership. Fanaticism of the pro-2A folks makes them more and more disliked, it sure seems to me.
 
If we take a moment to regroup and look at the thread title, we can use that to forecast some hypothesis here ...

- Fact: violent crime is down (I show this distinctly in the data)
- Fact: gun sales are up (easily proven via all kinds of market data)
- Fact: there is correlation between crime down and gun sales up, but where correlation is easy to see, we CANNOT assume direct causation; it would need to be proven via hard data. I, for one, believe that the anecdotal data is overwhelmingly massive and cannot be ignored, but my training does not allow me to just jump to conclusions.
- Fact: doctors kill waaaaaayyyyyy more people by accident than guns kill people in total; it is the third leading cause of death in the US. Homicide does not even make the top 15.

If you review my list of atrocities, you'll see that for each gun event, I can show you an event of equal horror that never had a firearm present. The common thread is the human condition; the contributor is an act of murder. Tools are just a means to an end. Take one away and another will precipitate into use.

The anti-gun establishment does not want to take away my gun rights; they want to take away my gun rights. They want to alter my ability to provide, protect and serve. If we could eradicate firearms of all manners from the face of the planet, I'd still want a knife ... a knife for hunting to feed my family; a knife to protect my family; a knife to serve my community as a law enforcement officer. And I want my knife to be bigger and sharper so as to ensure success over beast or villain. Every sovereign person has a right to do these things; provide, protect, serve.

In the (not so distant) future we'll be having this same discussion about light-sabers and phasers ...


DON'T FOCUS ON THE EMOTION; LOOK AT THE FACTS.
People kill people; objects are tools.
 
Just because sales are up, doesn't mean the distinct number of gun owners are up. Its much more likely that people are hoarding guns and ammo, as that seemed to be the response to Obama election and re-election and each nationally covered school/public shooting.

More guns in the same hands - doesn't seem like a way to conclude that more people are armed and therefore crime is down.
 
Originally Posted By: surfstar
Just because sales are up, doesn't mean the distinct number of gun owners are up. Its much more likely that people are hoarding guns and ammo, as that seemed to be the response to Obama election and re-election and each nationally covered school/public shooting.

More guns in the same hands - doesn't seem like a way to conclude that more people are armed and therefore crime is down.

I know plenty of new gun owners. Old timers aren't buying up all that stuff. You must have seen that nonsense poll that shows gun ownership is down since the 70s. The fatal flaw is that many people aren't going to admit they have guns in the house when polled. Which makes good sense.
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Every sovereign person has a right to do these things; provide, protect, serve.

DON'T FOCUS ON THE EMOTION; LOOK AT THE FACTS.
People kill people; objects are tools.


Outrageously succinct, can't be improved!
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Every sovereign person has a right to do these things; provide, protect, serve.

DON'T FOCUS ON THE EMOTION; LOOK AT THE FACTS.
People kill people; objects are tools.


Outrageously succinct, can't be improved!

But there has to be reasonable amount of force available to a person. And some tools are too dangerous for the general public to own as they could be used for mass murder, and aren't reasonable for personal self defence.
This is why you can't buy hand grenades, or rocket propelled grenades. I think large clips for semi auto guns should be banned too, as they are more useful to kill alot of people than defend yourself in a typical self defense situation.
 
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
I think large clips for semi auto guns should be banned too, as they are more useful to kill alot of people than defend yourself in a typical self defense situation.


Why not just ban killing a lot of people instead? Wouldn't that be more direct and cover killings with all sorts of weapons? In fact, we could make murder of even one person illegal. Then we would have all the bases covered.

So simple, I'm surprised someone didn't think of it earlier.
 
Originally Posted By: IndyIan

But there has to be reasonable amount of force available to a person. And some tools are too dangerous for the general public to own as they could be used for mass murder, and aren't reasonable for personal self defence.
This is why you can't buy hand grenades, or rocket propelled grenades. I think large clips for semi auto guns should be banned too, as they are more useful to kill alot of people than defend yourself in a typical self defense situation.
What if you're in an atypical self defense situation. Just need to die? If you did any research you notice that many, maybe most, police shootings result in more than 10 rounds being fired. The police are encountering the exact same people you're going to encounter.
 
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Every sovereign person has a right to do these things; provide, protect, serve.

DON'T FOCUS ON THE EMOTION; LOOK AT THE FACTS.
People kill people; objects are tools.


Outrageously succinct, can't be improved!

But there has to be reasonable amount of force available to a person. And some tools are too dangerous for the general public to own as they could be used for mass murder, and aren't reasonable for personal self defence.
This is why you can't buy hand grenades, or rocket propelled grenades. I think large clips for semi auto guns should be banned too, as they are more useful to kill alot of people than defend yourself in a typical self defense situation.



Then you would support the concept of limiting the size and capacity of other tools?
- Again, what of the examples of the men and women who killed his kids by means of arson? We should not be able to buy gasoline in 5 gallon containers, and only have access to fuel 2 gallons at a time?
- Or a microwave oven should be so small as to not be able to fit an infant inside of it? Or a clothes dryer for the same reason?
- Perhaps we could construct the size of a vehicle such that only one driver and one passenger can fit, so that people like Susan Smith cannot kill her kids by drowning them in a lake? Had we restricted the capacity of seating, maybe just one child could have been saved? After all, saving a child's life is paramount, and should be chased at any cost, right?
- Likely we should place regulations so that bailing twine has a breaking point in tension lower than the force necessary to strangle a person, and limit the length of the spool such that no one can wrap it around the neck of another. Never mind that the product would then lose all value for it's normal purpose.
- Maybe we should limit the size of pressure cookers and kitchen pots to no more than two quarts, because 5 quarts holds too much gun-powder ... I'll bet the victims of the Boston Marathon event are in support of that, right?
- Might a smaller bathtub have stopped the five successive drowning of the five Yates children? It only takes a few inches of water in a bucket to drown a child; just how did you want to limit the capacity of the bathtub?

Look at your quote above and see what I underlined. You are making an unfair presumption of level of attack. I don't need an RPG to defend myself against another person, but it is completely reasonable to think that I have a right to any means to equal that of government at my same level. If cops carried RPGs in their cars, then I should have one. But they don't, so I don't. But they do carry high-capacity mags, and so I, too, should have access to such.

I cannot speak to the historical means of Canada; I simply am not educated on your laws and country's origins of use of firearms. But here in the States, it was most assuredly the concept of the People having equal access to a means to repudiate Government with force, should it become necessary. After all, we were fresh off a revolution at the time. How well would it have gone for us if the Brits had guns of the era, but we were limited to sticks and rocks? Perhaps we would not have fared as well if we were self-limited to lower capacity powder kegs, or shorter musket barrels, or smaller calibers, or such. It was a foregone assumption that personal firearms were to be of free and immediate access, but tyranny even then was not blind to the concept of controlling the public's means of fighting back, and so the Second Amendment was added to ensure all manner of force equal to the Government was available. The Second Amendment was never about hunting or person-on-person attacks; it was most certainly about the "Right of the People" to hold Government accountable by force, if necessary. The Brits were not confiscating guns because folks were hunting or getting rowdy in a tavern; they were taking guns because they wanted to remove the ability of the People to fight back. Could the Founders have foreseen the mass destruction weapons of the last several decades? I cannot answer that. I admit I don't see the rationale for a local person having access to nukes or a 105mm Howitzer for self-defense. But when it comes to personal defense against villains and tyrants, I'm all for a magazine that holds as much as I think it needs to hold. I firmly believe that individual States should not only have self-controlled National Guard units, but those units should have access to a means of controlling the Federal government. The State Armies should be able to collectively repel the Federal Army. And individual persons should be able to repel individual attacks no matter the source. Person on person; State on State; Nation on Nation. Each level should be able to defend itself, and form collective alliances to repel that which is oppressive.

The majority of mass-shooting suspects are untrained or poorly trained. It really does not matter if they have several 10 round or 20 round magazines; their exchange technique and rate is poor, but more importantly, it's unchallenged. The number one reason most mass-killing shootings are so successful? Because no one is shooting back!

Several years ago I had a conversation with a man who took his family down to the Knob Creek range; for those who don't know it is a VERY popular firearms shoot where all manner of weapons (including a large amount of NFA stuff) is present semi-annually. After being there a while, his wife realized that their young daughter had wandered off and was missing. Did he panic? Nope - he told me "We were in a sea of people who passed a federal background check to own fully automatic weapons, who each is carrying at least two guns per person, and woe unto the first pervert who grabs a little girl and makes her scream for daddy in a place like this ..."
His point? When everyone has a gun, everyone is motivated to be well behaved. Only when there is a distinct disparity in force does the ability of one to control another emerge. That goes for mass tyranny as well as individual self-defense.

Anyone who reads my ramblings understands that I'm all about facts and data. I look at nearly everything from a logical point of view. There exists a difference between possibilities, probabilities, and certainties.
- If you restrict the general public from defending itself, it is possible that most events will go well, but unlikely for all events to go well.
- In some of those events which possibly do not go well, it is probable to produce victim(s) who would like the ability to defend themselves on a level equal to the attack.
- If that ability to defend does exist, there is no guarantee that the outcome will be desirable for the victim, but it is certain that if you do not allow such defense, the disparity will be ever present, and you rely on the hope that good-will is present in all men; an inherently bad assumption that history proves repeatedly to be untrue.

The Second Amendment does not assure equal outcome, but it most certainly recognizes the right to have equal opportunity to repel the aggressor, be it a person or a government. And so limiting access to the tools of that right is a defacto means of smothering that right.

I have no objection to those that choose not to excercise their right. But I will not tolerate those who would take it away; for that I will not stand.

Facts tell me that oppression is ever-present in history, from all levels.
Facts tell me that oppression is best held in check with equal power at any given level.
Facts tell me that more guns does not equal more violence.
Facts tell me that other risks in life far outpace those of firearms.


.
 
I agree that almost anything can be used as a weapon, but I don't see the armed forces issuing pressure cookers or 5 gallon jugs of gas to their soldiers...
They issue an auto/semi auto rifle with a high capacity magazine that can be changed rapidly for a reason, they are the most cost effective weapon they have to kill people in close combat.

While I do agree with the right to own firearms, for the purpose of self defence against criminals, or government, the level of fire power has to be limited. The average costs do outweigh the potential benefits at some point. Your individual right to own extremely deadly weapons on the off chance that you will need them, shouldn't take precedence over the likely chance that someone will use those weapons in mass murder.
 
An armed society is a polite fearful society.

whistle.gif
 
Originally Posted By: surfstar
An armed society is a polite fearful society.

whistle.gif

An unarmed society is a helpless society.

There is no greater fear than helplessness.
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
When everyone has a gun, everyone is motivated to be well behaved. Only when there is a distinct disparity in force does the ability of one to control another emerge. That goes for mass tyranny as well as individual self-defense.


I was frankly astounded at the behavior I witnessed when I attended my first gun show a few years ago. The place was packed; there was a line out the door waiting to get in before it opened. You know what? I didn't hear anyone yelling at someone else. I didn't see any pushing or shoving to get in. A line naturally formed that snaked through the front gallery area without anyone having to tell anyone else where to stand. It was, quite simply, the most well-behaved crowd I've ever observed. I've seen moms and dads at a school play act more inappropriately.

I've been shooting for about 3 years. As a group, the responsible gun ownership crowd is about the most respectful and most helpful I've come across, despite some popular characterizations by certain media groups. I've never felt safer than in the presence of a responsible gun owner, and I strive to be one myself.

I saw a funny video on YouTube once, from one of my favorite channels, sootch00. He goes to safety-check the pistol; he pulls back the slide, sees that it's loaded, and says, "it's loaded, we're safe." He chuckles about it and unloads the weapon for the video, but deep down, there's a lot of truth in that to me.
 
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
I saw a funny video on YouTube once, from one of my favorite channels, sootch00. He goes to safety-check the pistol; he pulls back the slide, sees that it's loaded, and says, "it's loaded, we're safe." He chuckles about it and unloads the weapon for the video, but deep down, there's a lot of truth in that to me.


It's at 1:35, for what it's worth...
 
Originally Posted By: pottymouth
I'll continue to vote for and encourage other gun owners to vote for candidates that respect our rights. I'll continue to point out to gun owners that our rights are not some cafeteria plan and must be fought for in their entirety. You do what you like.


I want to keep my guns too, As does my wife.

She also wants equal pay and the right to have an abortion.

And government sponsored healthcare would be nice too.
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Every sovereign person has a right to do these things; provide, protect, serve.

DON'T FOCUS ON THE EMOTION; LOOK AT THE FACTS.
People kill people; objects are tools.


Outrageously succinct, can't be improved!

But there has to be reasonable amount of force available to a person. And some tools are too dangerous for the general public to own as they could be used for mass murder, and aren't reasonable for personal self defence.
This is why you can't buy hand grenades, or rocket propelled grenades. I think large clips for semi auto guns should be banned too, as they are more useful to kill alot of people than defend yourself in a typical self defense situation.



Then you would support the concept of limiting the size and capacity of other tools?
- Again, what of the examples of the men and women who killed his kids by means of arson? We should not be able to buy gasoline in 5 gallon containers, and only have access to fuel 2 gallons at a time?
- Or a microwave oven should be so small as to not be able to fit an infant inside of it? Or a clothes dryer for the same reason?
- Perhaps we could construct the size of a vehicle such that only one driver and one passenger can fit, so that people like Susan Smith cannot kill her kids by drowning them in a lake? Had we restricted the capacity of seating, maybe just one child could have been saved? After all, saving a child's life is paramount, and should be chased at any cost, right?
- Likely we should place regulations so that bailing twine has a breaking point in tension lower than the force necessary to strangle a person, and limit the length of the spool such that no one can wrap it around the neck of another. Never mind that the product would then lose all value for it's normal purpose.
- Maybe we should limit the size of pressure cookers and kitchen pots to no more than two quarts, because 5 quarts holds too much gun-powder ... I'll bet the victims of the Boston Marathon event are in support of that, right?
- Might a smaller bathtub have stopped the five successive drowning of the five Yates children? It only takes a few inches of water in a bucket to drown a child; just how did you want to limit the capacity of the bathtub?

Look at your quote above and see what I underlined. You are making an unfair presumption of level of attack. I don't need an RPG to defend myself against another person, but it is completely reasonable to think that I have a right to any means to equal that of government at my same level. If cops carried RPGs in their cars, then I should have one. But they don't, so I don't. But they do carry high-capacity mags, and so I, too, should have access to such.

I cannot speak to the historical means of Canada; I simply am not educated on your laws and country's origins of use of firearms. But here in the States, it was most assuredly the concept of the People having equal access to a means to repudiate Government with force, should it become necessary. After all, we were fresh off a revolution at the time. How well would it have gone for us if the Brits had guns of the era, but we were limited to sticks and rocks? Perhaps we would not have fared as well if we were self-limited to lower capacity powder kegs, or shorter musket barrels, or smaller calibers, or such. It was a foregone assumption that personal firearms were to be of free and immediate access, but tyranny even then was not blind to the concept of controlling the public's means of fighting back, and so the Second Amendment was added to ensure all manner of force equal to the Government was available. The Second Amendment was never about hunting or person-on-person attacks; it was most certainly about the "Right of the People" to hold Government accountable by force, if necessary. The Brits were not confiscating guns because folks were hunting or getting rowdy in a tavern; they were taking guns because they wanted to remove the ability of the People to fight back. Could the Founders have foreseen the mass destruction weapons of the last several decades? I cannot answer that. I admit I don't see the rationale for a local person having access to nukes or a 105mm Howitzer for self-defense. But when it comes to personal defense against villains and tyrants, I'm all for a magazine that holds as much as I think it needs to hold. I firmly believe that individual States should not only have self-controlled National Guard units, but those units should have access to a means of controlling the Federal government. The State Armies should be able to collectively repel the Federal Army. And individual persons should be able to repel individual attacks no matter the source. Person on person; State on State; Nation on Nation. Each level should be able to defend itself, and form collective alliances to repel that which is oppressive.

The majority of mass-shooting suspects are untrained or poorly trained. It really does not matter if they have several 10 round or 20 round magazines; their exchange technique and rate is poor, but more importantly, it's unchallenged. The number one reason most mass-killing shootings are so successful? Because no one is shooting back!

Several years ago I had a conversation with a man who took his family down to the Knob Creek range; for those who don't know it is a VERY popular firearms shoot where all manner of weapons (including a large amount of NFA stuff) is present semi-annually. After being there a while, his wife realized that their young daughter had wandered off and was missing. Did he panic? Nope - he told me "We were in a sea of people who passed a federal background check to own fully automatic weapons, who each is carrying at least two guns per person, and woe unto the first pervert who grabs a little girl and makes her scream for daddy in a place like this ..."
His point? When everyone has a gun, everyone is motivated to be well behaved. Only when there is a distinct disparity in force does the ability of one to control another emerge. That goes for mass tyranny as well as individual self-defense.

Anyone who reads my ramblings understands that I'm all about facts and data. I look at nearly everything from a logical point of view. There exists a difference between possibilities, probabilities, and certainties.
- If you restrict the general public from defending itself, it is possible that most events will go well, but unlikely for all events to go well.
- In some of those events which possibly do not go well, it is probable to produce victim(s) who would like the ability to defend themselves on a level equal to the attack.
- If that ability to defend does exist, there is no guarantee that the outcome will be desirable for the victim, but it is certain that if you do not allow such defense, the disparity will be ever present, and you rely on the hope that good-will is present in all men; an inherently bad assumption that history proves repeatedly to be untrue.

The Second Amendment does not assure equal outcome, but it most certainly recognizes the right to have equal opportunity to repel the aggressor, be it a person or a government. And so limiting access to the tools of that right is a defacto means of smothering that right.

I have no objection to those that choose not to excercise their right. But I will not tolerate those who would take it away; for that I will not stand.

Facts tell me that oppression is ever-present in history, from all levels.
Facts tell me that oppression is best held in check with equal power at any given level.
Facts tell me that more guns does not equal more violence.
Facts tell me that other risks in life far outpace those of firearms.


.


Man.

You put a lot of thought and effort in to this, I thank you for a good read.

However there are a lot of people out there that rightfully and legally carry but are nowhere ready mentally to do so.

That is a Fact too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top