Gun Control

[b0b3rt]

Oh, boy, this is gonna be fun.

Luduan:
I honestly have no idea how many citizens who own guns go to shoot at ranges. But you're wrong when you say shooting at a human is more difficult then shooting at a human target. In a typical situation for a break in, unless you live in a mansion, there's going to be a few yards distance between you and the intruder if you are on opposite sides of the room. Now, for somebody who has gone practicing even a minimal amount of times will be able to hit somebody in the chest from 5 yards.

For the other issue, I direct you to Kennesaw.
Also look up crime statistics for Concealed Carriers in Florida. In one year, 315,000 carriers and 5 incidents of fire-arm crime (looking up link now).

Jrrrrrrr:
You're putting words in my mouth so much it's not even funny. But to address your points, I'll have you look at Switzerland and Israel. Guns are heavily ingrained into both cultures, yet they have very low crime rates (both violent and theft). In Israel, teachers are armed and school shootings are practically unheard of. Citizens carry firearms on the streets.
One time, a group of 3 terrorists tried to machine gun a throng of people before being shot down. The 1 terrorist that survived complained that they hadn't known that the citizens were armed and that it "wasn't fair" (link).
So basically, guns and gun culture have nothing to do with our murder rate. I have, however, already shown that Concealed Carriers (at least in Florida) are considerably safer citizens then the average person who lives in Florida without a permit (link).

Akuchi:
Because if you're trying to defend yourself, I'd imagine you'd be safest with a dead assailant rather then an injured one.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Oh, boy, this is gonna be fun.

I wouldnt be this arrogant if I were you, considering how embarassing every post of yours in this thread has been and especially considering how laughable this post of yours is.

Luduan:
I honestly have no idea how many citizens who own guns go to shoot at ranges. But you're wrong when you say shooting at a human is more difficult then shooting at a human target. In a typical situation for a break in, unless you live in a mansion, there's going to be a few yards distance between you and the intruder if you are on opposite sides of the room. Now, for somebody who has gone practicing even a minimal amount of times will be able to hit somebody in the chest from 5 yards.

For the other issue, I direct you to Kennesaw.
Also look up crime statistics for Concealed Carriers in Florida. In one year, 315,000 carriers and 5 incidents of fire-arm crime (looking up link now).

Are you serious? You really think that shooting a stationary target, with as much time as you want to aim, with nothing to make you scared for your life, is HARDER that shooting a moving person who is also trying to shoot you? Next time you're in a firefight for your life, come back and tell us how much easier it was compared to shooting a target. I'm sure our boys in Iraq would love to hear about how easy shooting an armed attacker is.

A person might start 5 yards away, but by the time you find your weapon, draw it, aim and shoot you could very easily be dead. Especially if the criminal knows what theyre doing. Home invasions dont just happen. They are almost always carefully coordinated. Having a gun does not automatically make you safe, and you STILL havent provided any evidence showing that it does.

Akuchi:
Because if you're trying to defend yourself, I'd imagine you'd be safest with a dead assailant rather then an injured one.

I'm not going to speak for her but I'm pretty sure that she isn't interested in killing people. Why are you still obsessed with this fallacy that having a gun automatically makes you safe?

Jrrrrrrr:
You're putting words in my mouth so much it's not even funny. But to address your points, I'll have you look at Switzerland and Israel. Guns are heavily ingrained into both cultures, yet they have very low crime rates (both violent and theft). In Israel, teachers are armed and school shootings are practically unheard of. Citizens carry firearms on the streets.
One time, a group of 3 terrorists tried to machine gun a throng of people before being shot down. The 1 terrorist that survived complained that they hadn't known that the citizens were armed and that it "wasn't fair" (link).
So basically, guns and gun culture have nothing to do with our murder rate. I have, however, already shown that Concealed Carriers (at least in Florida) are considerably safer citizens then the average person who lives in Florida without a permit (link).

I'm not putting words in your mouth. Can you please show me where I did that? I literally just said the same exact thing to you...this reminds me of the scene in Harold and Kumar where Harold calls JD a cockboy, then JD responds by saying "oh yeah?...COCKBOY!"

In Israel, there are suicide bombings. The United States is not surrounded by people who use suicide as a weapon against us. Our country's neighbors are quite fond of us, wheras Israel's neighbors.....well lets just say that they don't really like Israel much. Israelis have a legitimate case for needing weapons in self-defense.

In Switzerland, every man must undergo compulsory military training for a few weeks every year throughout most of their lives. They are literally trained by the government to use weapons responsibly.

Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept. The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.

This is in a very large part due to Switzerland's unique system of national defence, developed over the centuries.

Instead of a standing, full-time army, the country requires every man to undergo some form of military training for a few days or weeks a year throughout most of their lives.

Between the ages of 21 and 32 men serve as frontline troops. They are given an M-57 assault rifle and 24 rounds of ammunition which they are required to keep at home.

Once discharged, men serve in the Swiss equivalent of the US National Guard, but still have to train occasionally and are given bolt rifles.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm

Switzerland and Israel are completely different situations than the one we face in America. You can't even begin to compare the two unless you also want to force Americans to serve in the military. Switzerland and Israel's gun laws promote responsibility and training for their weapons. America's gun policy promotes homicide and accidental death.

I also love how youve just given up on providing sources, but instead have just turned to writing (link) as if that makes your point valid.

 

[Pirika]

Israel faces a situation of permanent conflict. All citizens are forced to serve in the military forces. You cannot compare this situation with the situation in United States.

 

[Janenmori]

If a private citizen is shooting in self-defense, he'd better damn well be shooting to kill. Civilians who actually bother to go to a shooting range are significantly better shots then police, who generally don't bother practicing.
Your arguments make no sense - trained civilians, are, by definition, trained. How have they never been to a shooting range?
You should also realize that 90% of handgun wounds are non-lethal.

I'm not being an idiot, you're completely misrepresenting what I'm trying to say.

You are being an idiot. A police officer is required to practice a specific amount of time with his or her weapon a week. That is why you will find a sophisticated indoor shooting range at almost, if not every police station. And my argument is that most civilians ARE NOT TRAINED AT ALL. Even if they are, they parallel a police officer at best.

Edit: I just realized that you were trying to convince me that a .22 pistol was more deadly then a 9mm?
Was that an accident or are you really that stupid?

A .22 can hit anywhere on your body and shred all of your internal organs. It bounces off of your bones tearing you to pieces in the process. A 9 mm has to hit a vital area to be deadly. If it hits, it does more visible damage, but that does not mean that it is more deadly. .22 calibers kill more people a year than any other kind of firearm.

 

[b0b3rt]

You are putting words in my mouth. I NEVER said having a gun automatically makes you safe.
I also never said it was more difficult to hit a paper target then a human being; I said that somebody who has practiced should, in a typical situation, be able to hit an intruder without much difficulty.
See http://www.guncite.com for statistics on how many criminals are deterred just based on the knowledge that the victim may be armed.

Instead of addressing the points I actually made (like the town of Kenessaw and concealed carry in Florida), you resort to attacks on my and the fact that I forgot to put links in when I was a rush.

You either misunderstand or misrepresent my stance on Israel/Switzerland: I am aware that most of what you said is absolutely true. But it also shows that a well educated, trained "gun culture" has nothing to do with our crime problem.

 

[Trax]

Moreover, as George Will pointed out in an article entitled “Are We a Nation of Cowards?” in the November 15, 1993, issue of Newsweek, while police have an error rate of 11 percent when it comes to the accidental shooting of innocent civilians, the armed citizens’ error rate is only 2 percent, making them five times safer than police.

Just rebutting this statistic somewhat because nobody else did it with any efficiency.

Since when do private citizens have to deal with hostage situations and human shields?

So no, they are not 5 times safer than police.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

I am aware that most of what you said is absolutely true. But it also shows that a well educated, trained "gun culture" has nothing to do with our crime problem.

You are still missing the point. Our gun culture has everything to do with our crime problem in the US. In Switzerland and Israel, they can have loosey goosey gun laws because everybody there has education on how to use guns because of compulsary military training. The average American isnt likely to be a good shot if they are the victim of a home invasion in the dark against an armed assailant (assuming they even get a shot off), whereas in Switzerland if you commit home invasion you are invading the home of an armed soldier with combat training.

If we DID have an educated, trained gun culture then there wouldn't be a problem. However, we obviously dont have that in the United States (which is evidenced by the over 10,000 gun deaths in this country every year).

If you aren't saying that guns keep you safe, then what ARE you arguing?

I also never said it was more difficult to hit a paper target then a human being; I said that somebody who has practiced should, in a typical situation, be able to hit an intruder without much difficulty.

Actually, you did say that it was more difficult to hit a paper target than a human being. I quoted it in my last post and I'll quote it again right now:

Oh, boy, this is gonna be fun.

Luduan:
I honestly have no idea how many citizens who own guns go to shoot at ranges. But you're wrong when you say shooting at a human is more difficult then shooting at a human target. In a typical situation for a break in, unless you live in a mansion, there's going to be a few yards distance between you and the intruder if you are on opposite sides of the room. Now, for somebody who has gone practicing even a minimal amount of times will be able to hit somebody in the chest from 5 yards.

 

[Ancien Régime]

Actually I'd rather have Switzerland's system (even though it's compulsory) than our system of defense. It works (unless telling the Wehrmacht to gtfo doesn't meet the standard of "working"), and it has the nice benefit of being highly non-conducive to aggression.

"“As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia.” - James Madison

I'd like some information as to how much training gun-owners voluntarily engage in on average, and it's quality. (as well as how many gun owners have at least some experience with the military)

 

[b0b3rt]

Actually I'd rather have Switzerland's system (even though it's compulsory) than our system of defense. It works (unless telling the Wehrmacht to gtfo doesn't meet the standard of "working"), and it has the nice benefit of being highly non-conducive to aggression.

"“As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia.” - James Madison

I'd like some information as to how much training gun-owners voluntarily engage in on average, and it's quality. (as well as how many gun owners have at least some experience with the military)

You'll find that such statistics are difficult to find, as a representative sample of US gun owners would also be difficult to obtain.
However, the vast majority of guns used in violent crimes are not "legal" guns, so the argument is rather pointless on its face.

 

[Glen]

(link)

 

[Trax]

However, the vast majority of guns used in violent crimes are not "legal" guns, so the argument is rather pointless on its face.

I already pointed out why this is misleading 2 pages or so ago.

I'm really tired of showing a statistic or "fact" up for being a load of bull only to have people repeat it later on.

 

[b0b3rt]

How do you think I feel when I show statistics (cited) and they get totally ignored?

Statistics from http://www.guncite.com
And a few other sources, called google. Guncite is by far the most reliable however (they exist in several locations) .

Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times- more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.
This means that, each year, firearms are used 65 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.[There: all of your arguments are now void.
After Canada's 1977 gun controls prohibited handgun possession for self defense, the "breaking and entering" crime rate rose 25%, surpassing the U.S. rate.
Two-thirds of the people that die each year from gunfire are criminals shooting other criminals.

Less than 1% of all guns will ever be used in the commission of any type of crime (much less violent crime).90% of all violent crime in the U.S. does not involve any gun of any type.

As of 2000, Florida ranked #4 in population but ranked #21 in suicides. Since the right-to-carry law was enacted in Florida the following changes occured. The homicide rate dropped 36%, firearm homicides dropped 37%, and handgun homicides dropped 41%. You can't claim that this was the result of its population, because the population didn't change that drastically that fast.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

bobert, you are still using purposely misleading, irrelevant stats. You have posted the same idiotic crap already and people have already refuted it. You are just going round and round in circles.

From your own source:

"What we can say with some confidence is that allowing more people to carry guns does not cause an increase in crime. In Florida, where 315,000 permits have been issued, there are only five known instances of violent gun crime by a person with a permit. This makes a permit-holding Floridian the cream of the crop of law-abiding citizens, 840 times less likely to commit a violent firearm crime than a randomly selected Floridian without a permit."

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html

The keyword is WITH A PERMIT. Your statistics relating to Florida do not include crimes committed with illegal weapons. Or, they might. I wouldnt know since you didnt actually provide a source (again).

Your statistics also ignore the fact that EVERY crime rate lowered during the same period, even in states that did not enact right-to-carry laws. So yes, the states with guns experienced a drop in crime, but SO DID EVERYBODY ELSE. The guns were obviously not responsible for the drop in crime, because if that were the case then the crime rate in states that kept their gun laws intact would have remained constant, or even increased. You are clearly not experienced enough in statistics to determine the context, so why do you keep bothering? You aren't helping your argument by posting irrelevant, outdated statistics.

And nice, I love how you cite "guncite.com" and "google" to prove your point. hahahahaha

 

[b0b3rt]

bobert, you are still using purposely misleading, irrelevant stats. You have posted the same idiotic crap already and people have already refuted it. You are just going round and round in circles.

From your own source:http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html

The keyword is WITH A PERMIT. Your statistics relating to Florida do not include crimes committed with illegal weapons. Or, they might. I wouldnt know since you didnt actually provide a source (again).

What are you talking about? You just posted from my source. Crimes committed with illegal weapons are totally irrelevant; illegal weapons are impossible to control and if you believe that banning guns will reduce the number of guns currently in the black market then I honestly am at a loss as what to say to such naivety.

Your statistics also ignore the fact that EVERY crime rate lowered during the same period, even in states that did not enact right-to-carry laws. So yes, the states with guns experienced a drop in crime, but SO DID EVERYBODY ELSE. The guns were obviously not responsible for the drop in crime, because if that were the case then the crime rate in states that kept their gun laws intact would have remained constant, or even increased. You are clearly not experienced enough in statistics to determine the context, so why do you keep bothering? You aren't helping your argument by posting irrelevant, outdated statistics.

Since you're so picky about them, show me statistics for the same year as the ones above. You still haven't "refuted" Kenessaw.

And nice, I love how you cite "guncite.com" and "google" to prove your point. hahahahaha

I don't see what's so funny. I said that the statistics came from guncite, and I also found them in many other places using google.

Edit: If allowing people to carry guns does not cause in increase in crime then you have absolutely no justification for banning them. Taking away others rights (which is strange, since you support allowing abortion, allowing drugs, and allowing everything but guns) for your own comfort leads to a repressive society. Will you start censoring the press too?

 

[Force Majeure]

I'm not naive enough to think that simply having a gun will make me safer from a possible attack. To put it in terms that we'll all understand, it's like saying that since my Alakazam knows Focus Blast, it's safe from Weaville.

At the same time, however, I know that it is a constitutionally protected right, and like all of our other constitutionally protected rights, it serves a purpose and that any limitation or change to the Constitution would require a good deal of thoughtful discussion and discourse. Do I support gun rights? Yep. Do I also recognize that a lot of people in the States are fundamentally retarded in their knowledge of how to properly use a gun? Yep. Do I think that guns are too easily obtained by criminals? Yessirree bob, I do.

 

[b0b3rt]

I'm not naive enough to think that simply having a gun will make me safer from a possible attack. To put it in terms that we'll all understand, it's like saying that since my Alakazam knows Focus Blast, it's safe from Weaville.

This is a bad analogy, but you can be damn sure that Weaville isn't switching in without some serious thought.

At the same time, however, I know that it is a constitutionally protected right, and like all of our other constitutionally protected rights, it serves a purpose and that any limitation or change to the Constitution would require a good deal of thoughtful discussion and discourse. Do I support gun rights? Yep. Do I also recognize that a lot of people in the States are fundamentally retarded in their knowledge of how to properly use a gun? Yep. Do I think that guns are too easily obtained by criminals? Yessirree bob, I do.

You support gun rights? Ok, sure.
You think most people who own guns in the US don't know how to use them? Proof?
You think that gun control will make it more difficult for criminals, being criminals, to obtain guns when they already ignore the law? It seems so...

 

[Force Majeure]

You support gun rights? Ok, sure.
You think most people who own guns in the US don't know how to use them? Proof?
You think that gun control will make it more difficult for criminals, being criminals, to obtain guns when they already ignore the law? It seems so...

I don't need proof. It's one of those generalization-type things, based on people I've seen who use guns. And I never said that gun control would make criminals less likely to obtain guns. I've already said that I support gun rights so I don't understand why you are attempting to argue with me.

 

[b0b3rt]

I don't need proof. It's one of those generalization-type things, based on people I've seen who use guns. And I never said that gun control would make criminals less likely to obtain guns. I've already said that I support gun rights so I don't understand why you are attempting to argue with me.

Sorry, I at first misread and thought you said you support gun control; then I realized what you actually said but still thought you supported gun control based on the rest of your message.
And I'm pretty sure that people you've seen use guns aren't a representative sample of the US, everybody (including myself) I have seen use a gun is a safe, proficient shooter.

 

[Force Majeure]

Sorry, I at first misread and thought you said you support gun control; then I realized what you actually said but still thought you supported gun control based on the rest of your message.
And I'm pretty sure that people you've seen use guns aren't a representative sample of the US, everybody (including myself) I have seen use a gun is a safe, proficient shooter.

Eh, I live in Indiana. What can I say? :P

I really only use guns for hunting, so I'm not really all about this whole "protecting myself" thing.

 

[Trax]

How do you think I feel when I show statistics (cited) and they get totally ignored?

I can't say I've noticed this, however, I will address your post.


Incidentally, in order to avoid being a hypocrite, here is the source for homicide rates I posted earlier ITT, I think it's the best source as it is from the Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends.

Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times- more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.
This means that, each year, firearms are used 65 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.[There: all of your arguments are now void.]

No, they're most certainly not.

.5 I can't actually find where this statistic is on the link you provided, I can't be bothered sifting through a bunch of other links, providing a direct link (and page number etc if appropriate) would be really good, when I provide a statistic I don't tell you to "look it up".

1. There are around 12000 Homicides with a Firearm per year, the number can be higher but I chose the 2005 statistic due to it being the most recent (source). There are also 3 non-fatal shootings for each fatal one (source).

2. Defending yourself from a robbery is not the same as defending yourself from a Homicide, we both know this, if you're comparing defense against Rape, Homicide, Robbery, Armed Robbery, Kidnapping and Assault to Homicides performed, it's obvious why that isn't a reasonable or fair comparison.

After Canada's 1977 gun controls prohibited handgun possession for self defense, the "breaking and entering" crime rate rose 25%, surpassing the U.S. rate.

USA is at 2,461 per 100,000 people. (source)
Canada is at 875 per 100,000 people (source)

I don't think it's surpassing the US rate right about now.

Two-thirds of the people that die each year from gunfire are criminals shooting other criminals.

How do we define criminals shooting other criminals, I mean if you steal my TV and I argue with you about it and end up shooting you, technically we're both criminals. Just because a criminal shoots another criminal it doesn't mean that it was right or just.

Less than 1% of all guns will ever be used in the commission of any type of crime (much less violent crime).90% of all violent crime in the U.S. does not involve any gun of any type.

As for less than 1% of guns will ever be used in crime. I can't find where that is from, but it's entirely irrelevant.

Joining the dots on violent crime rate and non-fatal gun related crime rate tells me that it's more like 25% of these serious violent crimes (not including homicides) are done with a gun. Unfortunately I can't find a proper breakdown on this statistic so I can say "xyz% of aggravated assaults are done with a gun" or similar.



We're agreed that licensed gun owners aren't very dangerous, however there's a general problem with guns in circulation The United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) conducted analyses of 1530 criminal investigations involving firearms traffickers, initiated from July 1996 to December 1998. The study found that firearms stolen from federally licensed dealers, residences and vehicles were involved in 26% percent of the trafficking investigations (ATF 2000).

This link also points out that almost 10,000 people who should not have bought guns were able to in a 2.5 year period meaning 4000 guns in the wrong hands per year.


On the theft of firearms 341,000 incidents of firearm theft occurred per year, 1987-92 meaning (based on trends observed in above charts) around 160,000 - 200,000 thefts of firearms per year more recently, this matches up to be around 40-55% of the total of violent gun related crimes, and remember that a firearm can be stolen and then used in more than one crime and more than one firearm can be stolen per theft.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Bobert, since you are running out of arguments, I might as well just drive a stake in it and call this thread over:

What are you talking about? You just posted from my source. Crimes committed with illegal weapons are totally irrelevant; illegal weapons are impossible to control and if you believe that banning guns will reduce the number of guns currently in the black market then I honestly am at a loss as what to say to such naivety.

I posted something from your source to prove that it was irrelevant.

Let me break this down for you: If there are fewer guns, then there will be fewer illegal guns as well. If there are no guns to steal, if there is 100x fewer guns coming into the country, then the methods of getting a gun by any means have just become significantly harder. You would have to turn to the blackest of markets to find one. As much as youre trying to make it seem like guns are something that people can just find laying on the road every day, that is not the reality.

And we all know that the black market is something that everybody has access to. Obviously, if there were gun laws, the residents of East Bumblefuck, Ohio would have an easy time getting a gun!!

I don't see what's so funny. I said that the statistics came from guncite, and I also found them in many other places using google.

Its funny because you provided a source, but not the actual page where the information you cited was. Saying that you "googled it" doesn't actually show me where the information is. If you just said "I googled it" on a report in the real world, you would get charged with plagiarism. Or even worse, fraud.

Since you're so picky about them, show me statistics for the same year as the ones above.

Ok, I will. I'm glad you asked.

The Florida gun law you are questioning occured in 2000. Here is an article regarding crime rates in the United States overall, since the 1990s:

Recently, however, the homicide rate has stagnated.[8] While the homicide rate decreased continuously between 1991 and 2000 from 9.8 homicides per 100,000 persons to 5.5 per 100,000, it has remained level through 2005. In the years between 2000 and 2005 the homicide rate has remained at an all-time low between 5.5 and 5.7 homicides per 100,000 individuals. Despite the recent stagnation of the homicide rate, however, property and violent crimes overall have continued to decrease, though at a considerably slower pace than in the 1990s.[8] Overall, the crime rate in the U.S. was the same in 2004 as in 1969, with the homicide rate being roughly the same as in 1966. Violent crime overall, however, is still at the same level as in 1974, despite having decreased steadily since 1991.[7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

Violent crime has been on the decline in the United States since 2000, including the places where gun laws have remained stagnant. Florida's gun laws are obviously not the cause of the drop in crime there.

You still haven't "refuted" Kenessaw.

The gun law took place in 1982:
Years: 1981 1982 1985
Total Burglaries in Kenessaw, Georgia: 54 35 32
(source, as well as a nice report on how gun activists misrepresent the numbers:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1995/07/kennesaw-00006.phpWow, a drop of 19 robberies 3 years after the law took place. That is so significant. Kenessaw's laws forcing people to carry a gun has no punishment for violating it. This also refuses to take into account that crime rates have dropped universally across the US, so the numbers are even less significant.

 

[b0b3rt]

Bobert, since you are running out of arguments, I might as well just drive a stake in it and call this thread over:



I posted something from your source to prove that it was irrelevant.

Let me break this down for you: If there are fewer guns, then there will be fewer illegal guns as well. If there are no guns to steal, if there is 100x fewer guns coming into the country, then the methods of getting a gun by any means have just become significantly harder. You would have to turn to the blackest of markets to find one. As much as youre trying to make it seem like guns are something that people can just find laying on the road every day, that is not the reality.

And we all know that the black market is something that everybody has access to. Obviously, if there were gun laws, the residents of East Bumblefuck, Ohio would have an easy time getting a gun!!



Its funny because you provided a source, but not the actual page where the information you cited was. Saying that you "googled it" doesn't actually show me where the information is. If you just said "I googled it" on a report in the real world, you would get charged with plagiarism. Or even worse, fraud.



Ok, I will. I'm glad you asked.

The Florida gun law you are questioning occured in 2000. Here is an article regarding crime rates in the United States overall, since the 1990s:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

Violent crime has been on the decline in the United States since 2000, including the places where gun laws have remained stagnant. Florida's gun laws are obviously not the cause of the drop in crime there.


The gun law took place in 1982:
Years: 1981 1982 1985
Total Burglaries in Kenessaw, Georgia: 54 35 32
(source, as well as a nice report on how gun activists misrepresent the numbers:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1995/07/kennesaw-00006.phpWow, a drop of 19 robberies 3 years after the law took place. That is so significant. Kenessaw's laws forcing people to carry a gun has no punishment for violating it. This also refuses to take into account that crime rates have dropped universally across the US, so the numbers are even less significant.

If you look up recent statistics for Kenessaw (http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Kennesaw&state=GA), you'll find that all of it's crime rates are significantly lower then the rest of the country. Meanwhile, before the law was enacted, the crime rates were significantly higher.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Half of the cities in the United States have crime rates that are lower than average. What is your point? A small town in Georgia is hardly representative of the rest of the country. There are plenty of cities with crime rates as low, if not lower than Kenessaw that do have gun laws.

For example: Kenessaw, Georgia has a higher rate of burglaries than Albuquerque, New Mexico. From your own cityratings source, Kenessaw has a rate of 89/25183 = .0035 and Albuquerque has a rate of 1096/513124 = .0021. (My source is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate)

Gun laws have proven to work in the past and there is no reason to believe that they won't in the future, end of story.

and p.s. you dont have to quote my page-long post just to write a 2 sentence response. It is just annoying and distracting.