Right-to-carry gun laws linked to increase in violent crime, research shows

November 17, 2014 by Clifton B. Parker
Research co-authored by law Professor John Donohoe finds that right-to-carry gun laws are linked to an increase in violent crime. Credit: Vartanov Anatoly/Shutterstock

New Stanford research confirms that right-to-carry gun laws are linked to an increase in violent crime.

Right-to-carry or concealed-carry laws have generated much debate in the past two decades – do they make society safer or more dangerous?

While there is no federal law on concealed-carry permits, all 50 states have passed laws allowing citizens to carry certain concealed firearms in public, either without a permit or after obtaining a permit from local government or law enforcement.

Recently published scholarship updates the on this issue. Stanford law Professor John J. Donohue III, Stanford law student Abhay Aneja and doctoral student Alexandria Zhang from Johns Hopkins University were the co-authors of the study.

"Trying to estimate the impact of right-to-carry laws has been a vexing task over the last two decades," said Donohue, the C. Wendell and Edith M. Carlsmith Professor of Law, in an interview.

He explained that prior research based on data through 1992 indicated that the laws decreased . But in 2004, he noted, the National Research Council issued a report that found that even extending this data through 2000 revealed no credible statistical these particular laws reduced crime.

'Totality of the evidence'

Now, Donohue and his colleagues have shown that extending the data yet another decade (1999-2010) provides the most convincing evidence to date that right-to-carry laws are associated with an increase in violent crime.

"The totality of the evidence based on educated judgments about the best statistical models suggests that right-to-carry laws are associated with substantially higher rates" of aggravated assault, rape, robbery and murder, said Donohue.

The strongest evidence was for aggravated assault, with data suggesting that right-to-carry (RTC) laws increase this crime by an estimated 8 percent – and this may actually be understated, according to the researchers.

"Our analysis of the year-by-year impact of RTC laws also suggests that RTC laws increase aggravated assaults," they wrote.

The evidence is less strong on rape and robbery, Donohue noted. The data from 1979 to 2010 provide evidence that the laws are associated with an increase in rape and robbery.

The murder rate increased in the states with existing right-to-carry laws for the period 1999-2010 when the "confounding influence" of the crack cocaine epidemic is controlled for. The study found that homicides increased in eight states that adopted right-to-carry laws during 1999-2010.

Research obstacles, next step

"Different statistical models can yield different estimated effects, and our ability to ascertain the best model is imperfect," Donohue said, describing this as the most surprising aspect of the study.

He said that many scholars struggle with the issue of methodology in researching the effects of right-to-carry laws. But overall, his study benefits from the recent data.

Donohue suggested it is worth exploring other methodological approaches as well. "Sensitive results and anomalies – such as the occasional estimates that right-to-carry laws lead to higher rates of property crime – have plagued this inquiry for over a decade," he said.

Explore further: Restrictive concealed weapons laws can lead to an increase in gun-related murders

More information: Aneja, Abhay and Donohue, John J. and Zhang, Alexandria, "The Impact of Right to Carry Laws and the NRC Report: The Latest Lessons for the Empirical Evaluation of Law and Policy (September 4, 2014)." Stanford Law and Economics Olin Working Paper No. 461. Available at SSRN: ssrn.com/abstract=2443681 or dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2443681

Related Stories

Social host laws tied to less underage drinking

October 28, 2014

Teenagers who live in communities with strict "social host" laws are less likely to spend their weekends drinking at parties, according to a study in the November issue of the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs.

Universal helmet laws may help save young motorcyclists

October 29, 2014

(HealthDay)—A new study suggests that state laws requiring "universal" motorcycle helmet use—instead of helmet laws just for certain ages—may lower the rates of traumatic brain injuries in young riders.

Recommended for you

New paper answers causation conundrum

November 17, 2017

In a new paper published in a special issue of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, SFI Professor Jessica Flack offers a practical answer to one of the most significant, and most confused questions in evolutionary ...

Chance discovery of forgotten 1960s 'preprint' experiment

November 16, 2017

For years, scientists have complained that it can take months or even years for a scientific discovery to be published, because of the slowness of peer review. To cut through this problem, researchers in physics and mathematics ...

155 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Doug_Huffman
2.1 / 5 (19) Nov 17, 2014
Donohue has been impeached. Which part of "shall not be infringed" is unclear? ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Sigh
3.9 / 5 (15) Nov 17, 2014
Donohue has been impeached.

Impeached? Does he hold public office and has he been accused of unlawful conduct?

Which part of "shall not be infringed" is unclear?
How is this relevant? Donohue is not an official who imposed some regulation that infringes your second amendment rights.

I didn't even notice any policy recommendation in the article. Donohue reports on his results and draws attention to something that needs further investigation before anyone jumps to conclusions. Even if he HAD made a policy recommendation, wouldn't that be covered under freedom of speech? Is the right to bear arms so holy that it may not even be discussed? Not even empirical data regarding the consequences of this right?
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (18) Nov 17, 2014
The question always remains: is a right sacrosanct even beyond the point where all the facts say it isn't sensible to have it?

You run into the same problem as with a religious belief. It must not be changed - no matter what the facts say. And the kind of defenses that are erected and rationalisations fielded sound more and more alike.
bearly
2.3 / 5 (15) Nov 17, 2014
This is just more of the obama era propaganda. I thought PhysOrg was above that.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
No matter what the liberal agenda or "scientific studies" say the US Constitution and Bill of Rights are the law of the land.
Modernmystic
4 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2014
The question always remains: is a right sacrosanct even beyond the point where all the facts say it isn't sensible to have it?


This may be an interesting question, but a moot one at this time because, in fact, the right does exist....and it does say shall not be infringed.

Besides this is a highly debatable issue...

http://www.washin...page=all

http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Concealed-Carry-Permit-Holders-Across-the-United-States.pdf
pntaylor
4 / 5 (12) Nov 17, 2014
The question here and in all such studies is: Are violent crimes being committed, by those who are exercising their right to carry? In states which require a permit, I doubt it. In states which allow any damned fool to pick up a gun and carry it, yeah, I can see a problem.
Modernmystic
3.7 / 5 (12) Nov 17, 2014
Moreover these studies are inherently flawed because they don't take into consideration the number of crimes PREVENTED by someone carrying a firearm.
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (17) Nov 17, 2014
This may be an interesting question, but a moot one at this time because, in fact, the right does exist....and it does say shall not be infringed.

So? It's an amendment. Amendments can be repealed (e.g. the 18th via the 21st). Some amendments are pretty weird by today's standards to the point that they would probably be repealed the instant someone would think about applying them (e.g. the 13th where it says that you CAN still have slavery or involuntary servitude as a punishment for a crime)

I don't see where the sacrosanct status of the second one should be derived from.
Shootist
2.9 / 5 (10) Nov 17, 2014
Which is exactly why the places, in the US, with the least gun control has the least violent crime and crimes against property (per 100,000 population)..

Modernmystic
3.4 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2014
So? It's an amendment. Amendments can be repealed


Indeed, I'm well aware of this process. However, in answer to your "So?" question, no one has actually done it yet. So again it's an interesting academic question, but moot....

A constitutional convention is a tricky thing, because when you have one you open up the ENTIRE constitution to review...not just one specific amendment.

I don't see where the sacrosanct status of the second one should be derived from.


I wouldn't use the word "sacrosanct", but since the US courts have ruled the police DO NOT in fact have an obligation to protect citizens I think it's still a valid one in this country.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 17, 2014
A constitutional convention is a tricky thing, because when you have one you open up the ENTIRE constitution to review.

Again: So? How does the process have any bearing on whether something is sensible or not.
If you open up all the constitution then the stuff that is sensible will stay and the stuff that is not sensible will not - how is that wrong?

but since the US courts have ruled the police DO NOT in fact have an obligation to protect citizens

Which is probably a ruling that would do well to be revisited. Again: not exactly an impossible process to initiate.
If the safety of citizens is furthered by the repeal of the second amendment at the cost of putting "protection of citizens" into the cops' job contract then I can't help but see this as anything but a win-win for every person living in the US. Wouldn't you?
kochevnik
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2014
The link to violent crime would be that a thug now has a bullet in his head. This is a casual relation, not merely a correlation. Problem-reaction-solution. Of course guns are linked to crime, just as police would be linked with crime would be if they did their jobs. Dead criminals can also be linked with mortuaries and the Vegas desert
Scottingham
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2014
Considering the population that needs to hear this research is also want to believe that the world is 6000 years old, I don't see it having much of an impact.
Guy_Underbridge
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2014
I find it funny that the subject of gun regulation causes such a commotion, but never a word about all the standing and respected regulations on carrying a blade weapon (knife, sword, etc). I guess blade manufacturers need better lobbyists.
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (2) Nov 17, 2014

If you open up all the constitution then the stuff that is sensible will stay and the stuff that is not sensible will not - how is that wrong?


It's not right or wrong, I wasn't making a judgment on it...just saying that it hasn't been done. So, no matter how much research you have you're going to have to do something that's only been done about a dozen times in the 200+ year history of the country.

Which is probably a ruling that would do well to be revisited. Again: not exactly an impossible process to initiate.


It actually is virtually impossible. It's a supreme court decision, and you're going to have to wait for some justices to die before you have a prayer of re-visiting it. Even then the supreme court RARELY changes a previous decision. However, yes, I agree that holding the police to protecting citizens can only be a good thing.
MR166
4 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2014
"The murder rate increased in the states with existing right-to-carry laws for the period 1999-2010 when the "confounding influence" of the crack cocaine epidemic is controlled for."

This little innocuous sentence is the key to the results. You can obtain any results that you desire with "adjustments".

Please show me some data showing the percentage of legally owned hand guns that have been used in a crime. I think that you will find the numbers to be very low.
kochevnik
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2014
I find it funny that the subject of gun regulation causes such a commotion, but never a word about all the standing and respected regulations on carrying a blade weapon (knife, sword, etc). I guess blade manufacturers need better lobbyists.
Indeed knife fights can be much more lethal than attacks involving guns. Knife banning is already being discussed in parts of Europe, then I imagine it will be pens and scissors until everyone is eating microwave meals exclusively and signing documents with crayons

@MR166 Sometimes I wish I could pick your cool perspectives with the cool perspectives of the "progressives" and have one cool, polished perspective, instead of these fractured forums where everyone is part enlightened and part crackhead. Even the most astute people seem to have some kind of brain damage on the Internet. Or the Hegelian dialectic has just gone out of control there. Hopefully someone will make a study someday
Modernmystic
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 17, 2014
I find it funny that the subject of gun regulation causes such a commotion, but never a word about all the standing and respected regulations on carrying a blade weapon (knife, sword, etc). I guess blade manufacturers need better lobbyists.
Indeed knife fights can be much more lethal than attacks involving guns. Knife banning is already being discussed in parts of Europe, then I imagine it will be pens and scissors until everyone is eating microwave meals exclusively and signing documents with crayons


I believe the reason for this is that the level of lethality is significantly greater with minimal training. Granted all you have to do with a knife is stab someone, but my guess is (because I've never been in a knife fight) is that it's not as easy as it may sound. Pointing and pulling a trigger is much easier and more lethal.
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2014
If the safety of citizens is furthered by the repeal of the second amendment

But the safety of citizens are not furthered by such a repeal.
Taking away the right of an individual to defend himself from common criminals also takes away his defense from state criminals.
History has shown that no state that truly wants to protect the lives and liberty of their citizens would take away their right of self defense.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2014
"protection of citizens" into the cops' job contract

To what extent would the police and the state have to 'protect' citizens?
How many police are required to protect an individual?
Our German friend seem sympathetic to police states.
"In hell, the Germans are the police, the English are the chefs, ...In heaven, the Germans are the engineers, the English are the police, ...."
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (3) Nov 17, 2014
It's hearsay and anecdotal, but I have heard from many US servicemen and tourists that the polizei are NOT to be trifled with at all. Much more harsh than here in the states.
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2014
Ryg self defense is a major part of gun ownership. If the criminal element could be 100% sure that the general population was defenseless the result would be anarchy.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (24) Nov 17, 2014
Is this a surprise?

Those who "need" guns to be equal to the rest of us are exactly the folks who should not be permitted to have them.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2014
If the criminal element could be 100% sure that the general population was defenseless the result would be anarchy.


No, the result would by a police state.

the polizei are NOT to be trifled with at all.

They have that heritage to fall back on from the 30s and DDR days.
The US does not have a national police. Local and state govts control their police and many are opposing the national govt lack of enforcement of immigration laws that lead to violent crime.
Criminal illegal aliens are usually just released by the US govt.
The US federal govt sold weapons that were smuggled into Mexico for the sole purpose to trying to impose more restrictive laws in the US. It was called Fast and Furious and no Federal govt agent has yet been punished and the news media cover up for the Holder and Obama.
Just another example of how 'liberals' must lie to push their socialist agenda.
MR166
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2014
Yea Gkam give em hell. Those 70 year old grandmothers should grow some balls and fight like real men.
Gimp
3.6 / 5 (14) Nov 17, 2014
This article is pure and simple propaganda, researched and printed for the left wing anti gun folks to try and use as their argument against guns. There are so many disclaimers given and picking and choosing of statistical methods, that ANY argument could be made using this logic.

I propose that the death of Elvis Presley has increased the number of Alien abductions by 200% in Southern Mississippi based on the data sets this man used.
gkam
1.6 / 5 (20) Nov 17, 2014
Sorry Gimp, but I read this this morning:
http://www.salon....um=email
teslaberry
2 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2014
The question always remains: is a right sacrosanct even beyond the point where all the facts say it isn't sensible to have it?


the question remains; can you trust a government that lies to your face about spying on EVERY COMMUNICATION YOU HAVE and that has put into law through the patriot act and NDAA rules that allow them to classify you arbitrarily as a 'belligerent' person, who they can throw into jail or worse without due process.

gun control advocates are useful idiots and/or paid spokesmen for government tyranny.

Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2014
is a right sacrosanct even beyond the point where all the facts say it isn't sensible to have it?


Especially for those cases !!

For example, the protection under constitution of free speech would not be necessary for mild and agreeable speech,.... it is especially necessary for those cases where it is in fact not agreeable.

That is what 'a right' in the context of Freedom means,..... that it is irreverent that a particular enjoyment of a right is 'agreeable' to others, or that there may be social consequences.

There is no end to factual and scientifically derived social statistics, that justifies limiting rights, if the people allow such a government to form. It is a constant threat due to such lazy thinking.

The greatest threat to personal liberty is the liberal progressive and their army of statisticians.
gkam
2 / 5 (24) Nov 17, 2014
Somebody tell teslaberry who imposed the Bush Police State on us.

Remember when we could fly without being searched? Remember when we were not suspects in our own country?
Noumenon
3 / 5 (10) Nov 17, 2014
If the safety of citizens is furthered by the repeal of the second amendment at the cost of putting "protection of citizens" into the cops' job contract then I can't help but see this as anything but a win-win for every person living in the US. Wouldn't you?


How can cops protect citizens from crime before the crime actually occurs? They can only respond after the fact.

Your progressive-liberal mentality is irresponsible.

-------------

Gun control laws are only effective against law abiding citizens, and thus redundant.
saposjoint
3 / 5 (2) Nov 17, 2014
Sorry Gimp, but I read this this morning:
http://www.salon....um=email


That piece was written luridly, with factual errors sprinkled through it indicating that the writer either doesn't check his sources, or is ignorant of the errors.

In any case, the redneck truck driver from Tupelo is dead, thank God.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2014
Somebody tell teslaberry who imposed the Bush Police State on us.

Remember when we could fly without being searched? Remember when we were not suspects in our own country?


Why didn't Obama undo it in the six years he's been in office, if it "was Bushs' fault" as you say? Sounds like you need to be told that Obama even expanded the NSA's data collection.
mooster75
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2014
Moreover these studies are inherently flawed because they don't take into consideration the number of crimes PREVENTED by someone carrying a firearm.

If the crime rate is increased by an action, why does that matter? Any crime prevention would show up in the statistics as well.
mooster75
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2014

If the safety of citizens is furthered by the repeal of the second amendment at the cost of putting "protection of citizens" into the cops' job contract then I can't help but see this as anything but a win-win for every person living in the US. Wouldn't you?

The police may be great at solving crime cases, but prevention is beyond their ability, unless Minority Report comes to pass.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2014
Those who "need" guns to be equal to the rest of us are exactly the folks who should not be permitted to have them.


Spoken gibberish like a true mush-headed liberal.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (2) Nov 17, 2014
Those who "need" guns to be equal to the rest of us are exactly the folks who should not be permitted to have them.


Like the police?
gkam
1.2 / 5 (19) Nov 17, 2014
Police do not need guns to be equal to the rest of us, they need them to stop crime. Do you own a gun?
Modernmystic
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 17, 2014
Police do not need guns to be equal to the rest of us, they need them to stop crime.


Oh the irony....

You aren't too good at thinking out your statements or arguments are you?

WHY do they need them to stop crime? Why not a knife, a bat, or a sword?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Noumenon
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 17, 2014
Police do not need guns to be equal to the rest of us, they need them to stop crime.


Police don't stop crimes, they apprehend criminals,... and a criminal is by definition one who had already committed a crime. Legal gun owning citizens stop themselves from being victimized by crime.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Nov 17, 2014
Ryg self defense is a major part of gun ownership. If the criminal element could be 100% sure that the general population was defenseless the result would be anarchy.

The same might be said about the government....
tadchem
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2014
"Trying to estimate the impact of right-to-carry laws has been a vexing task over the last two decades," he said. Since over 2 decades of empirical data has not settled the issue decisively, this suggests to me that the issue of gun violence is far more complex than can be attributed to a single variable such as permits.
gkam
1 / 5 (19) Nov 17, 2014
Some folk need guns because they are SCARED.

Therapy would be cheaper for society than guns.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2014
"Trying to estimate the impact of right-to-carry laws has been a vexing task over the last two decades," he said. Since over 2 decades of empirical data has not settled the issue decisively, this suggests to me that the issue of gun violence is far more complex than can be attributed to a single variable such as permits.


Culture is the single most important factor in violent crime, or any crime really. If you watch a movie where the hero shoots 200 people with a machine gun everyone says to themselves "well that makes sense", if they see a movie where the "hero" is a child rapist I think people would have a very different reaction.

The Swiss have fully automatic weapons in a majority of households and don't have near the gun violence we have in America. So we can definitively say that guns qua guns or access to guns are NOT the problem Q.E.D.
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2014
Some folk need guns because they are SCARED.


Do you want police protection because you're scared?
gkam
1.2 / 5 (17) Nov 17, 2014
I'm not scared.

Are you?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (12) Nov 17, 2014
Heres a gun control debate om c-span featuring the author, with a rather polarizing title and a peculiar sponsor.

"JANUARY 16, 2014
Gun Policy Debate
A debate was held on gun policy. Stanford Law Professor John Donohue spoke in favor or gun control legislation. Civil rights attorney Don Kilmer spoke for the rights of gun owners.

"Guns in America: A Year After Sandy Hook" was an event co-sponsored by the Stanford University Department of Theater and Performance Studies and Stanford Continuing Studies."
http://www.c-span...y-debate
The question always remains: is a right sacrosanct even beyond the point where all the facts say it isn't sensible to have it?
Luckily, here in the US we are privy to the facts and have made the decision as a society that self-protection is a basic right, and that guns are necessary for self-protection.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident"
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 17, 2014
I'm not scared.

Are you?


I think you're scared to answer the question.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (13) Nov 17, 2014
I'm not scared.

Are you?


I think you're scared to answer the question.
Gutless is not quite the same thing as scared is it?
gkam
1.4 / 5 (18) Nov 17, 2014
Otto, please stop your adolescent behavior. I am a Vietnam Vet. Who are you? Just a name-caller, with no achievements?
Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2014
Some folk need guns because they are SCARED.


What does this mean? Did you have a gun in vietnam? Were you scared? If so, then you had a brain. What has happened since?

Is it irrational to be concerned ("scared" as you childishly put it) to be victims of violence, and take measures to protect your family, by means that puts you at advantage over the criminal?

ryggesogn2
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2014
Some women who are afraid of someone stalking them carry a firearm in their purse, regardless of whether it is legal. Many police will encourage them to do so, (but get training).
In MA, a license is required to carry pepper spray. 'Liberals' want to deny women the right to defend themselves. Why do 'liberals' wage war on women?
gkam
1 / 5 (15) Nov 17, 2014
Noum, if you live in a war zone, move.

And no, I was not scared because I did not face combat. I was disgusted.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (13) Nov 17, 2014
Otto, please stop your adolescent behavior. I am a Vietnam Vet
Correction, you are someone who claims to be what he is not. You claim to be an engineer but we know you are not. You claim nonsense facts like plutonium raining down on idaho. Now you are claiming to be a vietnam vet.

What does being a vet have to do with you knowing anything at all about nukes or anything else for that matter? More bullshit.

I had a cousin who was a compulsive liar. He couldnt help but imbellish his stories with outrageous nonsense because he felt inadequate I suppose. And he WAS a vet. Is that your problem? You feel inadequate?
gkam
1.3 / 5 (16) Nov 17, 2014
I showed you where to find my picture and name at the Air Force Flight Test Center, and will let you see my picture in the 553d Reconnaissance Wing, Igloo White, building and operating the Electronic Battlefield for Sec Def McNamara.

Who were you again? Except for the trait of lying in your family, we know nothing about you.
Doug_Huffman
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2014
Donohue has been impeached.

Impeached? Does he hold public office and has he been accused of unlawful conduct? [ ... ]


It means, in this context, discredited, as in caught in previous academic impropriety. The argument between Donohue and the author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws is old.

To be clear, I have carried a gun since 1996. Good people ought to be armed as they will, with wits and guns and The Truth.
RobertKarlStonjek
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 17, 2014
Only in the USA does the right to act out wild west fantasies even need to be investigated.

Those people with a gun in their home are around 100 times more likely to suffer a death or injury from a hand gun than those who have no gun.

Here are the stats. Murders per 100,000 people per year:
0.04 UK, Norway, Romania
0.11 Australia
0.20 Germany, Netherlands, Ukraine
0.51 Canada
0.94 Israel
4.70 USA

That's right. Countries that have strict gun laws have between one fifth (Israel) and one hundredth (UK) the fire arm murder rate of the USA. In other words it is safer in Israel than the USA...

Therefore guns, especially in the hands of Americans, are very dangerous.

http://en.wikiped...ath_rate
gkam
1.6 / 5 (20) Nov 17, 2014
Many of us do not need those artificial spines or penile substitutes.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2014
That's right. Countries that have strict gun laws have between one fifth (Israel) and one hundredth (UK) the fire arm murder rate of the USA.


First, I suggest you compare apples with apples. Compare similar populations with similar populations. Compare Norway with Wisconsin, for example.

Next, you can't exclude murders by other means in countries that restrict firearms.

BTW, just about everyone in Israel is armed, carrying their service weapons on the beach, etc.
Gun control is people control.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2014
act out wild west fantasies


This is what was so great about the movie 'Quigley Down Under". Quigley was hired by a British landowner drive off the Aborigines in Australia. Quigley was an expert with a Sharps 45-110 rifle.
The Brit was a tyrant with wild west fantasies and in the final showdown, the Brit felt he was an expert a quick-draw pistols and wanted a showdown with Quigley. Bruised and beaten, Quigley easily beat the Brit on the draw and killed him. The Brit thought Quigley only used a rifle, but Quigley noted as the Brit died, he didn't have much use for pistols, but didn't say he didn't know how to use one.
Firearms are tools. Dangerous tools that must be respected.
Cars are tools. Dangerous tools that must be respected.
I support "must grant" cc permits and training for those those permits.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2014
More fun with stats:

Murder rates in Bermuda, Barbados, are higher than in the US.
http://en.wikiped...ide_rate

"The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609. "
"n the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677. "
http://www.dailym...U-S.html
gkam
1.2 / 5 (19) Nov 17, 2014
Weak folk have all kinds of excuses for their guns.

Let's offer them counseling, instead.
Dr_Who
1 / 5 (2) Nov 18, 2014
I don't need an excuse for my guns or my opinions and would council you to mind your own advice. :)
yep
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 18, 2014
Forks make people fat....

They ought to be illegal to prevent people from eating so much. Obesity is at epidemic proportions 1 in 5 people die in America every year from obesity http://ajph.aphap...3.301379

When will America's deadly love affair with forks end?

People got all sorts of excuses like chopsticks don't fit in their hands right, we know the're just weak mkay.
RobertKarlStonjek
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2014
& ryggesogn2 "compare apples with apples"

OK, Europe with the USA. Europe has more than twice the population of the USA.
But the USA is still 25 times higher than Europe.

But it is not just murder rate that the USA excels in (due to guns)
Let's look at Suicides instead of murders:
0.18 UK
0.62 Australia
0.71 Israel
0.94 Germany
1.60 Canada
3.15 Switzerland
6.30 USA

Accidents with guns:
0.01 UK
0.02 Germany
0.03 Israel
0.04 Canada
0.05 Australia
0.10 Switzerland
0.30 USA

The only statistic that the USA scores much the same as most other countries is murder, suicide and accident PER GUN OWNED

Those who own guns for hunting or sports target shooting are the least likely to be a problem. It is mums and dads in the suburbs, young hot heads and petty criminals (organised criminals tend to kill other organised criminals, not members of the general public).
RhoidSlayer
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 18, 2014
the people that run their mouths are usually no where near the front lines
they don't have to travel or live with the animals in the wrong part of town and they don't get threatened daily
people get busted carrying concealed weapons all the time
but they'd rather get busted by the police than caught without any chance of defense
Selena
Nov 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2014
ompare apples with apples"

That is not apples with apples.
Compare US states with EU states.

PER GUN OWNED

Many have more than one firearm. Some have dozens.
akalinin
2 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2014
Warning Warning Will Robinson! Phys.org has been taken over by Obots spewing junk science!
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 18, 2014
I'm not scared. Are you?


I think you're scared to answer the question.
Gutless is not quite the same thing as scared is it?

Otto, please stop your adolescent behavior. I am a Vietnam Vet.

Did you have a gun in vietnam? Were you scared? If so, then you had a brain. What has happened since?

And no, I was not scared because I did not face combat.

Then why did you mention you're a Vietnam vet in the above context ?

Why do you not like nuclear power? Are you scared?
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 18, 2014
"As a man and his wife were traveling back to their Hartford, Ala., home recently, they were confronted by a group of men reportedly carrying weapons. According to WTVY, however, members of the aggressive gang were not the only ones packing heat that night.

Upon recognizing the threat he and his wife faced, the man reportedly fired one shot at the group. While no one was killed, the gun owner's bullet struck one of the men in his nose, resulting in what police described as a non-life threatening injury."
"The show of force was enough to cause the group to disperse and keep the couple safe from what could have otherwise been a deadly encounter. Authorities have provided few additional details, though it is clear that the gun owner responsible for neutralizing the approaching thugs will likely face no charges."
Read more at http://www.wester...kc3ki.99
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 18, 2014
"

Israel is to ease controls on carrying weapons for self-defence after a deadly Palestinian attack on a Jerusalem synagogue, Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch said on Tuesday.

"In the coming hours, I will ease restrictions on carrying weapons," he said in remarks broadcast on public radio, indicating it would apply to anyone with a licence to carry a gun, such as private security guards and off-duty army officers."
https://uk.news.y...#3g0NXtV
gkam
1.3 / 5 (16) Nov 18, 2014
"Why do you not like nuclear power?"

Because I understand it. We do not need three million degree Neutrons to boil water. It is inappropriate and very dangerous, as we have repeatedly seen. Can we store the waste in your house? Got a huge one?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 18, 2014
Many of us do not need those artificial spines or penile substitutes.
I am assuming you already have those appliances.
gkam
1 / 5 (16) Nov 18, 2014
Yup, them new "enable-the-Goobers" gun laws sure are smart! Now everybody who is SCARED has several, so nobody is buying them any more. The gun stores are full, . . of guns, not customers.

They'll have to come up with a Commie scare or fears of "Ter'ists!".

I just wonder why the gun nuts never outgrew them, like the rest of us.
yep
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2014
Guns are the great equalizer.
How is crime in Australia more the ten years after the gun ban?
Assaults up 200%
Robbery and Armed Robbery up 20%
Murder by Gun down 10% by Knife up 10%
Rape up 51%
http://www.aic.go...ics.html
That sure worked! Good job Australian Gubment.

Guns save peoples lives and prevent rape every day it just does not make big headlines.
https://www.googl...&t=h

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin

And from the numbers that appears accurate.
Some of you need some perspective, I hope that helps, but I doubt it maybe a little home invasion would?

gkam
1 / 5 (17) Nov 19, 2014
Let's choose a place, . . Australia, and make it Gunville, and use it to let all the macho adolescents blow each others' tiny brains out in their silly games. With no real lives of their own, gun nuts have dreams of bravery and power.
cjn
3 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2014
This "study" ignores the fact that a majority (and probably vast majority) of gun crime results from people who are not legally carrying firearms -as in "right-to-carry" need not apply. In my current state of residence, the two urban centers and their resident counties (Baltimore, PG County) account for 80% of the murders in the state (309 of 387). These crimes are largely minority-on-minority crimes, and they are done with illegally-obtained handguns. BS "studies" like this pretend that its the hillbilly yokels LEGALLY carrying their firearms which leads to higher crime rates, when in fact, the crime is centralized in largely minority areas and mostly affects a small segment of the overall population. In dishonestly omitting this reality, we are wrongly attributing causality to the innocent while ignoring and accepting the horrors that poverty and drug crime are inflicting on a population which can't escape.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (19) Nov 19, 2014
cjn, we do NOT trust you with man-killers.
pandora4real
1 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2014
The US refuses to be realistic and deal with this so, in until they do, those who have never owned a gun should get one and a concealed carry permit. Here's the logic. I, personally, would never shoot anyone that was unarmed. If someone produces a gun, you shoot them instantly. It's your word against theirs, so make sure they're dead. Studies have demonstrated that most with a permit to carry or where they have the right can't win a gunfight. As you can tell by the comments they're delusional and that extends to their skills. So, we'd only be shooting the usual suspects who are also, very often, environmental terrorists.

Personally, I would love to see dueling legalized. That's the easiest way to deal with these retrograde types. Most are cowards and/or can't shoot straight.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (20) Nov 19, 2014
" If someone produces a gun, you shoot them instantly. It's your word against theirs, so make sure they're dead."
---------------------------------------------

You must be REALLY SCARED!!

Stay out of our town!!
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2014
The US refuses to be realistic and deal with this

Deal with what?
I, personally, would never shoot anyone that was unarmed.

Define armed? Was Michael Brown armed when he robbed a convenience store, beat up a cop and tried to take his weapon?
Big, tough bullies aren't very big or tough when shot by a 100 lb woman with a .38 or even a .22 pistol.
When bullies aren't sure if they will be shot by their potential victims, they will be less likely to assault.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (19) Nov 19, 2014
"Personally, I would love to see dueling legalized. That's the easiest way to deal with these retrograde types. Most are cowards and/or can't shoot straight."
-------------------------------------

You must be 15 years old.

I enlisted in the service in 1965 and volunteered for the war in 1967. What did you do?

And I got expert on the range my first day, having outgrown my fascination with guns as a youth. We are waiting for the rest of you to do the same.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2014
You must be 15 years old.


Actually, I was thinking you were 15 years old,... making the issue one about being "scared".

Truth is, the reasons one chooses to own a gun is their own business and not yours. No one asked you for your advise. You're not any better than others at making such decisions. One would be stupid to rely on 'someone else' to make decisions concerning protection of their own family. In a free society that allows gun ownership, you're not entitled to impose your opinion onto others.

cjn
5 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2014
gkam:
I enlisted in the service in 1965 and volunteered for the war in 1967. What did you do?

And I got expert on the range my first day, having outgrown my fascination with guns as a youth. We are waiting for the rest of you to do the same.


BS. No military range allows you to qualify with a rifle on your "first day". I do know this from personal experience.

Despite "outgrow[ing your] fascination with guns", you lack of maturity is apparent from your continual low-brow assaults on others. This fact alone has me questioning your claimed experiences.
gkam
1 / 5 (15) Nov 19, 2014
"you're not entitled to impose your opinion onto others."

Yes, I am, when it comes to MY safety from those who need guns to be equal to the rest of us. Like many in rural areas, I grew up with guns, and outgrew my fascination with them decades ago. After the war, I realized civilian guns were for those SCARED of life and of others.
gkam
1 / 5 (14) Nov 19, 2014
BS. No military range allows you to qualify with a rifle on your "first day". I do know this from personal experience.
-------------------------------------------
You must have been drafted into the Army. We got one day on the range in Air Force Basic, then once each year.

mooster75
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2014

BS. No military range allows you to qualify with a rifle on your "first day". I do know this from personal experience.

I'm sure he meant first day of qualifying. I'll bet you're a biblical literalist as well.
gkam
1 / 5 (14) Nov 19, 2014
We were not supposed to be combatants, but folk who did the complicated stuff, electronic reconnaissance, which meant over the battlefields 24/7/365 for years, without a drop in coverage. We lost 22 of us "non-combatants" in our 553 Recon Wing while I was in it.

We got one extra day with our M-16's, with handfuls of clips, just learning to spray in all positions in full auto. Those guns would only be brought out if we were under attack.

We were a classified group. Not even the secret parts of the service got to see our stuff. We Comm guys had to fix their Crypto, because they could not see our equipment.
JoeBlue
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2014
The CDC did a study on this in like 2007. It was found to be a myth....

BS. No military range allows you to qualify with a rifle on your "first day". I do know this from personal experience.
-------------------------------------------
You must have been drafted into the Army. We got one day on the range in Air Force Basic, then once each year.

Your personal experience means absolutely nothing on any regard. Unless you want to start providing your credentials.
JoeBlue
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2014
We got one extra day with our M-16's, with handfuls of clips, just learning to spray in all positions in full auto. Those guns would only be brought out if we were under attack.

We were a classified group. Not even the secret parts of the service got to see our stuff. We Comm guys had to fix their Crypto, because they could not see our equipment.


Seeing as how you are 70, you could not have possibly ever had your hands on a full-auto M16 in service. Full-auto M16's only existed with the SOG's and LRRP guys after '67. Just from reading your posts and what you have said so far, there is no way you were involved with SOG's or LRRP's.

Also they are not clips, they are magazines.
gkam
1 / 5 (14) Nov 19, 2014
If cjn goes to 1stwave online, he can see one of the sites for Batcats, those of us in the 553d Reconnaissance Wing, with my name and picture on it. Our BatCat emblem was done for us by Milton Caniff, and is still used by an Air Force SOG, the 353d.
ryggesogn2
5 / 5 (1) Nov 19, 2014
For the record:
"Production of the AR-15 rifle was licensed to to Colt Manufacturing Company in 1959. Early Colt AR-15s, their magazines, and their operators manuals were also marked with Armalite's name. The AR-15 was selectable for full and automatic fire. The AR-15 was to have had the same effective range as the M14 rifle, but it was most effective at a range of 215 yards (200 meters) or less.

The US Air Force completed tests of the AR-15 in January 1961. The US Air Force push, led by the Commander of US Air Force Strategic Air Command, was to replace the existing M2 carbines then in use by the USAF Air Police with the AR-15. The US Air Force attempted first to purchase 8,500 rifles in 1961, but had the funding denied. Not until August 1962 was the contract formally awarded to Colt. The last of the weapons were received in 1963 and the weapon was standardized the AR-15."
http://www.global...tory.htm
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2014
"you're not entitled to impose your opinion onto others."


Yes, I am, when it comes to MY safety from those who need guns to be equal to the rest of us.


Why, are you scared?

It makes more sense to protect ourselves from criminals than legal gun owners.

Why do mush-headed liberals need protection from law abiding citizens, and yet wish to deny those law abiding citizens the same protection from criminals?

....to be equal to the rest of us


Only a liberal would want citizens to be "equal" to criminals. The idea is to be overwhelmingly of greater force.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (16) Nov 19, 2014
If you do not have a legal permit to carry your equalizer, then YOU are the criminal.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2014
If you do not have a legal permit to carry your equalizer, then YOU are the criminal.


Well that is a truism. Again the point is not to be "equal", but to be overwhelming of greater force. Why do bed-wetting liberals always want everyone to be equal?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2014
With no real lives of their own, gun nuts have dreams of bravery and power
@gkam
i am a "gun nut"
i love firearms, especially Muzzle-loaders (which the gov't tried to take as an anti-aircraft weapon! WTF?)
i am also retired from the Army, served in the first and second gulf war and afghanistan, as well as korea, boznia and other hostile places
i don't particularly like killing, but i will also not let my family be defenseless, because a restraining order is just a piece of paper
After the war, I realized civilian guns were for those SCARED of life and of others
or for those not willing to lay down and become a statistic

don't assume that your personal conjecture is equivalent to omniscience or that it speaks for everyone (or about everyone)

personally, i fear nothing except Blue Bell going out of business and me not getting my favorite ice cream...

p.s. most of my career was as a non-combatant as well
paramedic firefighter - SAVING lives
gkam
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 19, 2014
Stump, firearms are truly fun. I was stupid enough as a young kid to make my own cannons for 12 gauge shotgun shells. I do not worry about you. Unless you carry. I trust NOBODY carrying a weapon, especially one not issued or required.

It only takes one instant of carelessness, one event of infuriation, one impulse of depression, one act of childhood interest, and a life can be lost unnecessarily.
mooster75
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2014
If you do not have a legal permit to carry your equalizer, then YOU are the criminal.

Permits are required everywhere now? I had no idea.

edited to add: or any ability to see the word "carry"; sorry...
Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (12) Nov 19, 2014
With no real lives of their own, gun nuts have dreams of bravery and power
@gkam
i am a "gun nut"


I with you on that one Captain-Skippy. Down here we are practically born with guns. You get a strange look in my little town if you don't have a gun most times. Shoot even Mrs-Ira-Skippette has two pistols, and one shotgun and one rifle, and she is a hippie-Skippette.

And not one of us ever had anybody want to shoot us, so we are not scared. And not one of us ever thinks about shooting somebody else. It's just what we do, and we don't think much about it. The right to own and carry a gun is safe down here though, don't stand much of a chance of that changing anytime soon.
Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (12) Nov 19, 2014
If you do not have a legal permit to carry your equalizer, then YOU are the criminal.

Permits are required everywhere now? I had no idea.

edited to add: or any ability to see the word "carry"; sorry...


Not down they aren't, not open carry. All you got to do is be a resident and over 21. No permit to open carry. You can still get the permit for concealed carry if you want, but Louisiana is a "shall issue" state. That means all you got to do is ask and if you ain't been in trouble, they got to give him to you right then not later.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2014
Unless you carry
@gkam
i do carry, and i can say that i am far more qualified to carry than most people are

i've been through CQB training and i've put criminals away, and i have been in hostile situations which required the use of a firearm, which gave me experience, which, BTW, tempers my use and "need" as you have called it
it is a last resort choice
It only takes one instant of carelessness, one event of infuriation, one impulse of depression, one act of childhood interest, and a life can be lost unnecessarily
which is why the CORE problem should be addressed, and the fascination with the tool should be noted for what it is

Criminals will find a weapon regardless, that is why screwdrivers, knives, hammers and cars (and maybe even cell phones) kill more people a year than guns, but i don't see people clamoring to ban them

i will not give up my guns
i live in a hostile area and i use them for food
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2014
I trust NOBODY carrying a weapon, especially one not issued or required.
@gkam
another point i would like to make: just because i am not carrying my badge officially anymore does not mean that i cannot be called up in the future

I have already been recalled back to active duty once... so it CAN happen again

also... this kind of thinking only works under the assumption that you can have police protection whenever you need it

this never works in real life... one reason is because no one wants to pay for cops... especially when they think they are "not needed" (even though most law enforcement org's are woefully understaffed, much like ambulances and fire departments)

and i will tell you... carrying a firearm is MUCH easier than carrying a cop...
especially some of the dough-balls i have seen lately

and-last point
I would never ask someone else to do something i am not willing to do myself
so i protect MY family
period
MR166
2 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2014
Hey Capt. i think that we have finally found some come common ground on the rights of a mentally competent person to own a firearm. That being said, can the very same government (populace) that wants to take your gun away be trusted to give you the correct information about global warming when they control the data and sources of information? Their ultimate goal is to strip you of your rights and take your wealth in the form or carbon taxes.
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2014
@gkam

After the war, I realized civilian guns were for those SCARED of life and of others.


Or possibly for those people who watch the news. Some people live in areas that SHOULD make them scared.

The world is full of crazy people and for you to suggest that people are arming themselves simply because they are weak is a fallacy. For most it is merely a logical survival strategy in a world where police can respond to emergencies in 7 minutes or less 80% of the time. In a desperate situation 7 minutes is eons.

I live in a moderate sized Canadian city and the news is replete of stories of home invasions at wrong address, home robberies, rapists entering homes, drunks entering homes looking for more booze etc.

More than a few people here have ended up dead or with permanent and life altering injury simply because they are not allowed to defend themselves with anything other than a key chain or book bag.
rockwolf1000
4 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2014
@gkam

Please show us how a single mother, a senior, a teenager or anyone else for that matter should not fear criminal persons. Many of those criminals have spent much time in jail or prison where they are able to lift weights and perfect combat techniques. These people are experienced at causing harm and few people in the general public are in a position to fight off these people even if it was a one on one fight which is often not the case. Ownership of a firearm is not necessarily based on fear or making things equal its simply a survival strategy.

rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2014
I like guns too. I like hunting because it helps bolster my independence, and puts high quality meat in my freezer while controlling animal populations. I like shooting because its fun a challenging like golf or darts. As a machinist, I like guns because they are comprised of interesting mechanisms and production methods which I enjoy studying. I'm an antique buff too and like looking at old guns and considering their chain of ownership. I am also a history buff and firearms have been an important part of human history for 5 centuries now so that draws my interest as well.

Then there is the (slight) possibility I will need a gun to defend my life, my family, my home, my country.

It has nothing to do with the jacked up 500 horse power pick up truck mentality (SDS - Small Dick Syndrome) that some people have.
gkam
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 19, 2014
rocky, . . thanks for the fine response.
yep
5 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2014
Let's choose a place, . . Australia, and make it Gunville, and use it to let all the macho adolescents blow each others' tiny brains out in their silly games. With no real lives of their own, gun nuts have dreams of bravery and power.


Reads like gkam has some transference issues and a narrow perspective on reality.

@gkam
I did not make those statistics up that is why I posted their source, nor did I make up the 1343 individual stories linked above. Maybe you could spend a week or two reading those accounts and you might not be so quick in your assumptions.
yep
5 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2014
Wow, Thanks Rock
Seems like you brought some perspective to the table that I was unable to. At least it was not answered by more narrow thinking.
gkam
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 19, 2014
"Maybe you could spend a week or two reading those accounts and you might not be so quick in your assumptions."
--------------------------------

Oh, stop it. You guys were always out there, like the folk I grew up with. It is the nut about which I worry, the person who carries all the time. It puts everyone else in danger of him making a "mistake".
kochevnik
1 / 5 (2) Nov 19, 2014
Oh, stop it. You guys were always out there, like the folk I grew up with. It is the nut about which I worry, the person who carries all the time. It puts everyone else in danger of him making a "mistake".
So why do you let such a person drive a car? Besides USA hardly cares about life, because of course the US counter-terrorism strategy is to create terrorism, it is to foment terrorism abroad as in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. It is also to feed into terror hysteria at home and to use terrorism as yet another tool by which the US can promote and further its agenda, be it political, economic or social agenda. Just this week the defeat of the overhaul bill for NSA again proves USA prefers fear over discourse or reason. So of course you fear anyone defending themselves just as you feel emboldened being offensive
gkam
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 19, 2014
Because cars are made for and have other purposes. A handgun is for killing human beings.

So why do we let the goobers have man-killers without a license???
gkam
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 19, 2014
" . . the US counter-terrorism strategy is to create terrorism, it is to foment terrorism abroad as in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. It is also to feed into terror hysteria at home and to use terrorism as yet another tool by which the US can promote and further its agenda, be it political, economic or . . . "
----------------------------------------

Hey Ivan. If you have 45 rubles, you can buy a dollar.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2014
Hey Capt. i think that we have finally found some come common ground on the rights of a mentally competent person to own a firearm. That being said, can the very same government (populace) that wants to take your gun away be trusted to give you the correct information about global warming when they control the data and sources of information? Their ultimate goal is to strip you of your rights and take your wealth in the form or carbon taxes
@mr1666
1- your denigration is noted, but ad hominems are useless in this argument
2- i do not get my information about AGW from government sources but from studies
if you can produce equivalent evidence from reputable peer reviewed sources that refutes the studies that i have posted, i would be glad to read them...

oh wait... you are a troll and have no evidence

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2014
It is the nut about which I worry, the person who carries all the time. It puts everyone else in danger of him making a "mistake".
@gkam
don't take my posts as an attack... i am trying to clarify something for you

there is a difference between the "nut" who should not have a weapon and the person who carries all the time
(most places) to get a CC you need to take a class (admittedly, not that big a deal, but then again, i am already well versed in the law and use, etc)

the core problem is NOT the Concealed Carry (CC) it is the criminal and the "criminal mentality" which is glorified by the youth and made to look glamorous in the media, if not downright cool and fun

there is nothing glamorous, cool or fun about killing, even when it is necessary (like when i put food on my table)

you should be pushing for the core problem (violence) to be addressed, not reacting to the tool (guns) with fear and distrust

think about it
MR166
5 / 5 (1) Nov 20, 2014
I would venture to guess that 99% of the shootings in the US are either gang/drug related or bonafied self defense activities arising from criminal activity. Some like the Newtown shooting are due to the government shirking it's responsibility to care for people with mental disorders. That mother was seeking state help for her son at the time. Before anyone starts yelling at me, it was her obligation to keep the guns locked in a safe container considering the circumstances.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (1) Nov 20, 2014
I would venture to guess that 99% of the shootings in the US are either gang/drug related or bonafied self defense activities arising from criminal activity. Some like the Newtown shooting are due to the government shirking it's responsibility to care for people with mental disorders. That mother was seeking state help for her son at the time. Before anyone starts yelling at me, it was her obligation to keep the guns locked in a safe container considering the circumstances.
Almost all these shooters are patients taking psychotropic medications that WARN ABOUT PREDISPOSITION TO VIOLENCE ON THE LABEL. Yet these intoxicated junkies are easily able to grab weapons and mass kill, because AMERICANS CANNOT OR DO NOT READ THE LABEL
kochevnik
1 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2014
Hey Ivan. If you have 45 rubles, you can buy a dollar.

I buy things in roubles, and prices are stable. Now everybody is eliminating their dollars and using gold-backed currency. The Swiss voted to reinstate their franc with gold, Lower rouble means more oil exports for Russia. Russia grew 1.3% despite your Obamanation attempting to start WWIII. Russians & Chinese Are dumping the dollar as europeans start using renminbi. Even your friend Canada opened renminbi exchange last week so they can dump your pathetic TBills and eliminate that whiny, bitchy terroorist-funding third wheel from their consumer economy
gkam
1 / 5 (13) Nov 20, 2014
" That mother was seeking state help for her son at the time."
-------------------------------------

So, . . why did she keep man-killers at home?????

No common sense?

What?
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Nov 20, 2014
Capt. take a look at this article. It seems that the climate simulations that you put so much faith in cannot even correctly model convection or clouds. Yet climate science continues to make dire predictions based on them.

http://hockeyscht...-be.html
gkam
1 / 5 (12) Nov 20, 2014
While we are off-topic, I ask 166 if he plans to capture the market on the Fuel of the Future, nuclear waste? His predictions of such easy power, free, apparently, forever, is proof he should take in all the Plutonium on Earth.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 20, 2014
In Russia, the opposite is true:

"With Murder Rate Far Beyond US Levels, Russia Legalizes Carry of Guns for Self-Defense"
", in the past few years fewer guns equaled more murder in Russia while more guns equaled fewer murders in the US."
http://www.breitb...-Defense
gkam
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 20, 2014
SCARED folk "need" guns.
kochevnik
not rated yet Nov 20, 2014
SCARED folk "need" guns.
Obviously defenseless people will be scared when danger approaches
gkam
1 / 5 (12) Nov 20, 2014
"Obviously defenseless people will be scared when danger approaches"
------------------------------------

I don't live in Russia. I am safe.
barakn
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 20, 2014
I would venture to guess that 99% of the shootings in the US are either gang/drug related or bonafied self defense activities arising from criminal activity.
Wow, was that guess off. "Suicides by gun accounted for about six of every 10 firearm deaths in 2010.., according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention." http://www.pewres...-deaths/
MR166
5 / 5 (1) Nov 20, 2014
"Wow, was that guess off. "Suicides by gun accounted for about six of every 10 firearm deaths in 2010.., according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

What BS!!!!!! Perhaps 6 out of every suicides are by firearm but I even doubt that. How many car "accidents" are really suicides?

Finally if someone wants to commit suicide do you really think that lack of a firearm will really prevent this?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Nov 20, 2014
But 'liberals' demand demand assisted suicide.
But they want a doctor to kill them. They don't have the courage to do it themselves.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 20, 2014
"
Finally if someone wants to commit suicide do you really think that lack of a firearm will really prevent this?"
----------------------------------
Yes, it is a rash and impulsive act, and can be avoided.
MR166
not rated yet Nov 20, 2014
"Yes, it is a rash and impulsive act, and can be avoided."

So you are going to limit my ability to protect myself and save my own life because someone might use a gun ( other than say a razor blade or poison or drugs for that matter ) to kill themselves.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (1) Nov 20, 2014
@gkam I don't live in Russia. I am safe.
We are in your neighborhood, if not buying it outright
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Nov 20, 2014
I wasn't impressed with the quality of this study. The authors seem to have drawn a conclusion at a confidence level of 0.1. It does pretty much refute the idea that RTC laws reduce crime, however the increase is minimal, so the statement that they increase crime is not well founded in my view.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2014
"Liberal Says It's a "Crime" for Latinos and the Catholic Church to be Against Euthanasia"
http://eaglerisin...hanasia/
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Nov 21, 2014
Capt. take a look at this article. It seems that the climate simulations
@mr1666
1- off topic: perhaps you should try this in another thread
2- your link is to a BLOG, not a study
3- with the exception of the Nature article, EVERY SINGLE link in your blog was a self-reference back to the blog site (a key pseudoscience trait)
4- the article did NOT reference any studies
5- there were NO links to reputable peer reviewed sources on that page (except the Nature article)
6- i noticed a lot of CHERRY-picking in their decision to hilight certain points in the article
7- i don't do pseudoscience

I wasn't impressed with the quality of this study.
@DaSchneib
agreed... and i have issues with other points as well
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 21, 2014
"A 62-year-old Washington man was able to retrieve his gun after untying both himself and his wife during a home invasion earlier this week — a heroic act which left one of the bandits dead."
http://dailycalle...er-dead/
Osiris1
5 / 5 (1) Nov 23, 2014
We have a real world example of weapon control in the headlines every day......Ukraine. In the nineties we the American government promised Ukraine that if they gave up their (nuclear) weapons, that we would protect them. THEY DID!! Now comes the Ruddy Russians to terrorize them and WHERE IS UNCLE SAM?? Replace Ukraine with Joe Lunchmeat and his family. Replace nuclear weapons for nations like Ukraine with guns..rifles and pistols for householders like Joe Lunchmeat and his family. Replace Russia with a gang of thugs and rapists invading his house and raping his daughters and wife right in front of Joe...and the police do nothing!...cuz they are busy....or on donut break...or writing parking tickets...or want to 'negotiate' while the crooks are bedding his daughters...like the UN sanctions on Russia. No nation from now on is ever going to trust any other, least of all the USA, to protect them if they give up their nukes. From now on all nations will want the H-bomb.
ryggesogn2
4 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2014
"The countless books on the Third Reich and the Holocaust fail even to mention the laws restricting firearms ownership, which rendered political opponents and Jews defenseless. A skeptic could surmise that a better-armed populace might have made no difference, but the National Socialist regime certainly did not think so—it ruthlessly suppressed firearm ownership by disfavored groups. "
http://www.indepe...control/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Nov 23, 2014
No weapon creates tragedies but moral system of the people or more precisly lack of it. Artificial advantages to some over others is not good for society.


What is an 'artificial advantage'?
Do you think forcing everyone to have the same disadvantage makes a better society?
gkam
1 / 5 (12) Nov 23, 2014
These folk are scared. Therapy would be cheaper for society than all these killings.
MR166
4 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2014
"No weapon creates tragedies but moral system of the people or more precisly lack of it. Artificial advantages to some over others is not good for society."

The lack of a moral system among some segments of society is a poignant argument for allowing the remaining segment to arm themselves. People need a way to protect themselves from career criminals and killers whether they are civilians or part of a government. The founding fathers knew this all to well they created the second amendment.

Throughout history taking the arms of each citizen has be the first goal of every totalitarian regime.
ryggesogn2
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2014
"On November 24 the FBI released stats showing the number of officers killed in the line of duty during 2013 decreased by approximately 40 percent at a time when private gun sales were breaking records."
http://www.breitb...-In-2013
kochevnik
5 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2014
These folk are scared. Therapy would be cheaper for society than all these killings.
Yes gkam you should volunteer your time at 2AM to do regression therapy for gangbangers in Compton liquor and petrol stores. And be sure not to bring anything to defend yourself. Hugs are all you need
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (1) Nov 27, 2014
These folk are scared. Therapy would be cheaper for society than all these killings.

Seems who is scared are the scumbag pigs who shoot first and ask questions later.
http://news.yahoo...259.html

Your entire list of comments in this thread should also be directed toward the coward pigs who regularly kill the citizens they are supposed to be protecting.
ryggesogn2
not rated yet Nov 27, 2014
Looks like 'cant' wants to be put on the police's 'don not protect and serve' list.

cantdrive85
not rated yet Nov 27, 2014
Looks like 'cant' wants to be put on the police's 'don not protect and serve' list.


No, there was a time when they "protected and served", now they just shoot and kill. If they are unable to discern between a threat and a 12 year old boy holding a toy, they shouldn't be hiding behind a badge. This pig deserves prison time.
yep
not rated yet Nov 27, 2014
Protect and Serve was a TV fantasy. Policing in the United States after the civil war was used to replace slavery with Jim Crow laws. With civil rights ending that good ole time, Nixon was more than happy to keep that us and them mentality going with the Drug war because it was already a very effective tool in suppressing minorities, stealing people's land, property and freedom as well growing corporate profits.
http://www.academ...Business
If we followed the science the drug war would have ended before it began with the Army's Panama Canal study fifty years before Nixons war, or every single State are Federal study ever commissioned on the subject that all say these laws cause more harm in society than good. A sacred herb you can grow for a penny a pound like broccoli, worth up to five thousand a pound because of the black market is only going to feed gun violence and destabilize communities.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Nov 27, 2014
unable to discern between a threat and a 12 year old boy holding a toy

They don't know its a toy.
There are too many stupid kids and stupid parents who do stupid things like brandish a air gun that looks just like a real firearm.
Someone who points a real or replica firearm at anyone had better be prepared for getting shot.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Nov 27, 2014
"She was just 17, a charter school graduate. But little Gakirah Barnes was also purported to have killed two in tit-for-tat gang violence now being celebrated by the recording industry."
"A local bishop told the Daily News that he's been working to keep kids out of gangs. But even he is afraid, asking that his name be withheld.

"These days you have to get them as early as possible," he said, suggesting intervention as young as 11."
http://www.thedai...oop.html

The police should just leave these people alone. Let them kill themselves.
kochevnik
not rated yet Nov 27, 2014
You must have a charming family life, ryggie. Are you giving out ropes with a hangman's noose this xmas?
MR166
5 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2014
America has created a welfare society that abhors education and legal employment. Neighborhood gangsters have become their societies leaders. This culture finds it convenient to blame these problems on racism. Government social programs are the racism that created and fosters this society.
ryggesogn2
not rated yet Nov 28, 2014
It's not just the US welfare state. Sweden, Norway, France, UK, and many other socialist states have created ghettos of mainly Muslim minorities that are creating mayhem.
Some are beginning to respond by deporting and cracking down on their lawlessness.
ryggesogn2
not rated yet Nov 29, 2014
"The New York Times journalist who published Darren Wilson's home address wants police protection and has been calling the police nonstop, Gotnews.com has learned."
http://gotnews.co...nonstop/
MR166
not rated yet Nov 29, 2014
Next thing you know she will be applying for a concealed carry permit.
ryggesogn2
not rated yet Nov 29, 2014
Next thing you know she will be applying for a concealed carry permit.

...while writing anti-gun stories.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.