The right to bear arms

mcgruff10 said:

Last-12-Exit said:

mcgruff10 said:

Last-12-Exit said:

mcgruff10 said:

I posted the same article in another thread:
hmmmmmmm.......
SHOCK: AS AMERICANS BOUGHT 170 MILLION GUNS, VIOLENT CRIME FELL 51%
by AWR HAWKINS31 Aug 2015
On August 28, the NRA presented ATF and FBI data showing Americans have purchased “170 million new guns” since 1991, and violent crime has fallen “51 percent.”

The NRA tweeted, “Since ’91, Americans have acquired over 170 million new firearms and violent crimes have declined by 51%.”

This information squares with the findings of a Congressional Research Service (CRS) study covering the slightly shorter period of time from 1994 to 2009. For those years, CRS found that Americans purchased approximately 118 million firearms, and the 1993 “firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide” rate of 6.6 per 100,000 fell to 3.6 per 100,000 by the year 2000. It eventually fell all the way to 3.2 per 100,000 in 2011.

That is more than a 50 percent reduction in “firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide.”

Then, in 2009—the year the CRS study ended—Obama took office and gun sales began their climb to record levels, which made covering the gap between the 118 million guns that had been purchased by 2009 and the “170 million new guns” that Americans would own by 2015 an easy gap to bridge.

Breitbart News previously reported that there were 21,093,273 background checks for firearms in 2013 alone. And each of those checks were on buyers who could have legally purchased multiple firearms.

The overarching message is simple—more guns, less crime. Americans have purchased “170 million new guns” since 1991, and violent crime has decreased as gun ownership has increased.

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

Wow. More guns equals less crime. What a concept. I wonder why the government doesn't pass out free guns to everybody if more guns actually means less crime.

Why do you dispute every single piece of evidence that is presented to you? You have the ex wife syndrome again.

I dispute it because the numbers are not relative. If crime has been down since 2007, should we correlate that to smart phones? Or maybe it's the popularity of Breaking Bad? Perhaps it's the dominance the NFC had over the AFC in the 90s?

By the way, I'm not disputed every single piece of evidence. I'm disputing the authors premise of more guns equals less crime.

so you aren't disputing the numbers but the authors opinion? way to bring up only one sentence from the article and not the numbers that prove that even though there's more guns in america, crime went down for that time period.

Stickman12 said:

chime said:

Coming from a country where the majority of our police force don't carry guns you can imagine which side of the debate I'm on.

I did spend a year living in the US (Indiana) and the attitude to guns was so alien to me. I had never seen a gun and have no desire to ever hold one.

Anyway I caught this documentary this weekend http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/requiem-for-the-dead-american-spring-2014/synopsis.html

"More than 32,000 people die from gun violence every year in America, an average of 88 people per day. REQUIEM FOR THE DEAD: AMERICAN SPRING 2014 highlights a few of the estimated 8,000 individuals who died from gunfire that spring, drawing exclusively on found media – news accounts, police investigations and social media – to shine a light on little-known stories of tragic loss, bringing the victims to life in their own words and images.

From a Facebook status update to a post on Instagram, from a newspaper headline to on-the-scene video, REQUIEM FOR THE DEAD details victims’ lives in the moments leading up to the shootings and shows how each death reverberates in the lives of others."

These were spouses who were asked for a divorce and then committed murder/suicide (one killing his wife and himself, one killing his wife, kids and himself), siblings killing siblings (12 killing a 16 year old and I think 15/16 killing an 18 year old ... on purpose), as well as a 12 year old accidentally killing a friend, one a gentleman who accidentally discharged him weapon and it traveled across his home and hit his wife who was sitting in another room etc. These weren't illegal firearms. These weren't (until the incident in question) criminals. Most would likely have passed mental health checks. Mental health isn't a constant ...

I'm from Indiana and can tell you that Indiana is one of the most pro gun states in the country. I'm interested what experiences you had with guns while you were here. Good and bad.

mcgruff10 said:

Last-12-Exit said:

It's idiotic to keep comparing Nazi Germany to the United states. And many handguns could fall into the military grade weapons. Why so fear full of trying that kind of policy? Give it 6 or 7 years so real data can be analyzed and go from there.

because you are banning guns! it's beyond obvious that you have no clue what you are talking about when we are discussing firearms. my 12 gauge shotgun...used by the military. my ww2 rifles...used by the military. my ar15...used by the military. my 9mm...they use that caliber in the military.
all guns can technically be used by the military. my .308 bolt action rifle...used by the military. where does it stop?
what is a high capacity clip according to you? more than five rounds? ten? 20?
I get that you have a complete disdain for guns but in order to have any sort of discussion you have to be open minded. However you are not accepting of any statistical evidence, constitutional rights or supreme court decisions supporting gun rights.
a heavy tax on ammo? why? so i have to pay for more to go to the range and shoot because some asshole broke the law? that's like saying one of my students was on an inappropriate site on the computer so my my entire district is going to ban computer use in the classroom.

like i said, ex wife syndrome.