Gun control advocates are lying to us again. Color me unsurprised

[friendly_iconoclast]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/14/more-guns-more-crime-new-research-debunks-a-central-thesis-of-the-gun-rights-movement/

More guns, more crime: New research debunks a central thesis of the gun rights movement


http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/november/donohue-guns-study-111414.html

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 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.

Let's just see about that, shall we?

First off, the crime statistics are obtained from the FBI's "Crime In The United States"
reports, and rates are per 100,000 inhabitants:

1999

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/1999/table5_state99.xls

2010

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl05.xls

M = Murder and non-negligent homicide
AA = Aggravated assault

The first number is the 1999 rate, the second the 2010 rate

The following states are the eight that passed shall-issue laws in the period 1999-2010
The disinterested reader will notice that there was only *one* increase
in aggravated assault rates and *one* increase in murder rates, in two different states.

Passed 1999-2010

Colorado

M 4.6 2.4
AA 219.2 212.4


Minnesota

M 2.8 1.8
AA 146.5 136.4

Missouri

M 6.6 7.0
AA 336.6 321.7

Kansas

M 6.0 3.5
AA 259.5 272.1

Michigan
M 7.0 5.7
AA 375.7 321.0

Nebraska

M 3.6 3.0
AA 325.9 183.6


New Mexico

M 9.8 6.9
AA 622.2 457.1

Wyoming
M 2.3 1.4
AA 186.0 151.9

I think this tells us all we need to know about John Donahue and those that
tout his 'findings'...

[NYC_SKP]

1. Statistics 101: Correlation is not causation.

And if your methodology sucks, your findings suck.

[friendly_iconoclast]

3. Also: Don't claim something that can be disproved with a few minutes research...

[petronius]

17. A change in the overall rate doesn't disprove the findings about one factor

affecting that rate, since the overall rate is the result of multiple factors. Consider a hypothetical outcome X that is controlled by factors A, B, C, and D. If factors A, B, and C have a positive impact on X and D has a negative impact, it would be correct to say that D increases the rate of X. Even in the case of an actual decline in X, it would still be correct to say that D led to an increase - one would just need to be clear about what that increase was relative to. The paper probably makes that distinction clearly, a press release and interview not so much...

[friendly_iconoclast]

20. Perhaps so, but the interview was taken as gospel and treated accordingly...

...by people that heard what they wanted to hear.

Note also that your nuanced approach was not taken by Donahue, et al- it wasn't claimed that "these laws impeded an observed decline in aggravated assaults and murders",
they implied strongly (if not flat-out asserted) that there was an increase
in those crimes when there clearly was not.

[msongs]

2. gun owners murder people by the thousands each year. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

5. Is there something you wanted to say about the OP?

[shedevil69taz]

6. what percentage of those murders

are committed by people already prohibited by existing laws from possessing a firearm?

[sarisataka]

10. Am I behind?

Is there a quota I should be meeting?

Or do you mean thouands of murders are committed by people using guns? That would be accurate without implying guilt by association- a very thin association at that. After all that would be as dishonest an implication as claiming a Hispanic person is probably an illegal because many Hispanics have tried to come here illegally.

[friendly_iconoclast]

13. non-gun owners murder people by the thousands each year. nt

[HALO141]

14. Which gun owners, exactly? n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

16. A good question that they'll never answer n/t

[HALO141]

18. True but their silence says a lot. n/t

[shedevil69taz]

19. Well good luck on trying

to dis-invent the firearm...now if you have real word solutions to VIOLENCE...I think that would be a better approach to the problem...

[friendly_iconoclast]

21. Remember, we are dealing with animists that think lifeless objects impel...

...human behavior

[bowens43]

4. blah blah blah blah ......guns kill period. no guns no gun violence

it's a mindbogglingly simple concept, ALL incidents of gun violence involve a gun.

of course gun/death fetishists and the death merchants will continue to brain wash the weak minded.

[NYC_SKP]

7. No water, no drownings!

I think you're onto something!

[VanillaRhapsody]

9. So how do we feel about Nuclear Weapons?

[friendly_iconoclast]

11. Those that don't have nuclear weapons will never use them

[friendly_iconoclast]

8. The truly weak minded are those that can't do math...

...and believe only those that tell them what they want to hear.

I trust you're not like that?

[friendly_iconoclast]

12. Good luck with Prohibition 3.0- the first two didn't work so well...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

34. "no guns no gun violence"

No alcohol no alcohol related

* DUIs

* domestic violence

* child abuse

* sexual assault

* liver disease

* assaults

* workplace accidents

* under-aged drinking deaths



Some moral crusades are bigger than others. Perhaps you should get started on this one because you have your work cut out for you.

[friendly_iconoclast]

15. Looks like the supporters of this pious fraud can't actually address the OP, ...

...and are falling back upon declarations of faith...

[HockeyMom]

22. Responsible citizens defending themselves against:

loud music in gas stations, line cutters in pizza parlors, seafood salesmen, cell phones in movie houses, estranged wives in hospital beds, and of course, teenagers in hoodies.

That is just in ONE STATE. Want to guess where? SHALL Issue.

[shedevil69taz]

23. I'll bet you anything

You can find just as many instances of legitimate defensive gun uses in the same state...course those hardly ever make the news.

[HockeyMom]

24. Like 30% justifable homicides increase?

include the latter "teenagers in hoodies"?

[Straw Man]

25. Do you understand what "justifiable" means?

Like 30% justifable homicides increase?

Are you claiming that this means more killings? It could just as easily mean fewer people charged for defending themselves against violent assaults.

[HockeyMom]

26. In the eye of the beholder

Like teenagers with hoodies.

[gejohnston]

28. if that teenager in hoodie was beating your head in the sidewalk,

it would be legitimate self defense even in duty to retreat New York. The fact that eye witnesses and forensics overwhelmingly showed that to be the case makes you point, well, pointless.
The loud music wasn't, never was, and nobody outside of Dunn or his lawyer said it was. Again, pointless.
Claiming self defense and showing it are two different things. Basic truths:
Never take the media accounts at face value. Why?
1) they look for stories, not the truth
2) the report irrelevant facts when still under investigation, assuming they are professional
3) most of the time, they are intellectually lazy and stupid, especially when it comes to legal issues

In short, they always get it wrong.
AFAIK, none of the others have gone to trial, nor do we actually know the facts about.
BTW, Scott was acquitted of manslaughter, justifiable homicide. The dead teen was white.
http://rochester.twcnews.com/content/news/490556/roderick-scott-claims-self-defense-in-teen-s-shooting/

[HockeyMom]

30. These morons

are looking for ANY excuse. Be happy that I have never been on any jury in Florida. Actually, maybe they just might WANT me because I go against the grain in this state. I hope I will be out of this state before that ever happens.

No "duty to retreat"? Hell, do I have a RIGHT to flee if I so choose? I have been telling that to my gunner husband for 40 years. Sorry, dear, you also have to NO "duty" to protect me because I am an adult. Go your own way, and I will go mine. At our ages, I bet I can run faster than you can run to get your gun.

Give it up. My husband did a LONG time ago trying to change my mind.

[gejohnston]

32. you should disqualify yourself from juries

are looking for ANY excuse. Be happy that I have never been on any jury in Florida. Actually, maybe they just might WANT me because I go against the grain in this state. I hope I will be out of this state before that ever happens.

Are you saying that you would ignore the facts and evidence and vote your personal prejudices or partisan politics? If so, I don't want you on any jury anywhere on this fucking planet. You vote the facts and evidence, nothing else matters. If it conflicts with pre conceived ideas or personal politics, tough shit.

No "duty to retreat"? Hell, do I have a RIGHT to flee if I so choose?

Yes you do, and most try to even in Florida. That is human instinct. DTR only applies if it is possible to do so safely.

I have been telling that to my gunner husband for 40 years. Sorry, dear, you also have to NO "duty" to protect me because I am an adult.

No duty to (fill in the blank) that can go a long ways. I don't have a duty to volunteer with animal rescue, Red Cross, or ARES, but I choose to. I don't have a duty to help homeless (fellow vets and civilians alike) but I do.

Go your own way, and I will go mine. At our ages, I bet I can run faster than you can run to get your gun.

If he is a 20 something meth head.......

[Straw Man]

29. No, some things are objective.

In the eye of the beholder

Like teenagers with hoodies.

There's nothing violent about a hoodie. Anybody who shoots someone for wearing a hoodie deserves to be in prison.

[Eleanors38]

31. emm, the state which went for Obama twice?

[DonP]

27. Ummm, how can "more guns = more crime" if ther are no new gun owners?

We're constantly reminded by our "moral and intellectual betters" that all those new gun sales ... are to the same gun humpers (us) and we are all just stockpiling more guns to fondle. (Just got a Savage Axis and installed a Timney trigger today. So I'm guilty of at least part time fondling.)

Hell, it's an article of faith for the worshippers at Castle Bansalot that gun ownership is rapidly falling because when the Bloomie brigade calls and asks, nobody says they own guns..

So if it's just the fewer people buying more guns, are they all just shooting more people every year? Something about that whole line of thinking seems pretzel like.

But the again it's about what you'd expect from the source.

[Eleanors38]

33. Why, it's the WaPo! wattasurprise.

Boy! the editorializing about "more guns = less crime," as if no one person, no one group, no one newzpaper, network, magazine ever, ever asserted "more guns = more crime" over the last, oh, 20 years. Talk about a GOP-type frame: Paw away your own crap, and point to the "other side" as the source of smell.

Funny, I never thought Levy & Mustard's one book set the tone of debate for the whole nation.

[ileus]

35. Controllers gotta control....truth be damned.

[jimmy the one]

36. statistics for dummy's

icon: The first number is the 1999 rate, the second the 2010 rate

Duh, did nobody on the pro gun side see the glaring flaw in icon's self-study criticism of donnyhoo? Duh, icon, that would be fine & dandy if all those states had passed shall issue ccw in 1999. BUT THEY DIDNT. One might've, or he's adding pre shall issue years to compare, dunno.
Kansas & Nebraska passed siccw in 2006, so here are violent crime stats from 2005 to 2013, & note how violent crime rates in Kansas & Nebraska indeed both rose a few years from the siccw start year (2006 states might be indicative of siccw if passed early in 2006, but if later in 2006 then 2007 would be first year of siccw stats, why I include 2005). I know I show violent crime not aggravated assault - don't have time to go that detailed - but I'll bet it pans out with what donnyhoo says:

Kansas (siccw 2006 -- edit: siccw allowed jan2007, so first yr rose from 425 to 452):
2005 2006 2007 ... 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
389.4 425.0 452.7 414.2 406.6 370.8 355.7 356.7 327.5
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/Rate%20and%20Rank%20of%20Violent%20Crime%20for%2050%20US%20States.html
edit: http://www.kslegresearch.org/Publications/2014Briefs/2014/K-1-ConcealedCarry.pdf

Nebraska (siccw passed (edit april1) 2006)
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
287.3 281.8 302.4 310.7 289.4 278.3
(edit): April 1, 2006 Yesterday Nebraska legislature passed a Shall Issue law for licensing the carrying of concealed handguns by adults who pass a background check and a safety class

Michigan (siccw 2002 iirc):
2001 2002 2003 2004 ...2005 2006 2007 ... 2008 2009 2010
553.9 540.7 511.3 492.2 553.8 562.4 536.0 513.7 499.8 493.0

Missouri (siccw ~2003 passed),
2002 2003 ..2004 2005 2006 ....2007 2008 2009 2010
539.0 490.8 490.1 525.7 545.6 504.9 498.8 492.9 457.7
Note also that St Louis delayed siccw till a couple years later, ~2005, & the following year had the HIGHEST violent crime rate in the country, number one, I suspect reflected in the 545.6 figure above.
Note also it doesn't matter that some years are below, since donnyhoo's figures encompass the time shall issue was in effect.

Geez, you don't really need be an expert on statistics to see how flawed icon's critique is, I figured it about a minute. How come all you pro gun people swallowed his deception hook line & sinker? So eager to add another page to the 2nd amendment mythology, eh?
He's done this before too, taken the first year & the last year while ignoring everything in between, you'd think he'd learn. Like taking the murder rates approx. 1960's 4% & now ~4% and saying there was no increase in murder rates in between, dismissing about half the 2.5 million gun deaths during then.

icon: I think this tells us all we need to know about John Donahue and those that
tout his 'findings'...

Ha, can't stop laughing! according to who, you???? where did you do your probability & statistics study icon? that popular book 'statistics for dummies'?

[beevul]

37. I refuse to have my rights limited...

I refuse to have my rights limited, based on statistics.

And I'm by no means alone or even in a minority, in that.

[jimmy the one]

38. icon down, icon down

beevul: I refuse to have my rights limited...I refuse to have my rights limited, based on statistics. And I'm by no means alone or even in a minority, in that

Fantastic. But no support for icon's opening post? his premise? his study? what you replied to?
.. or are you, & by no means are you alone, tossing poor icon under the bus?

[beevul]

39. Hes fully capable of defending his own posts.

And, Jimmy, you who so likes to so dishonestly misuse the reply system so that others do not know you are replying to them, I was talking to You, not him.

Maybe you would like it better, or understand it better, if I respond to you, in a reply to him.

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. Thanks, but I feel no need to defend myself against a word salad...

...that has straw as the main ingredient

[jimmy the one]

48. I'm feeling ill

beevul: And, Jimmy, you who so likes to so dishonestly misuse the reply system so that others do not know you are replying to them, I was talking to You, not him.

Well aware you replied to my post, that was my point, since my post was an in depth debunk of the poor iconic blunder.
Why didn't you realize that, slow today?
Then you cop out & say 'hes fully capable of defending his own posts', pfffft, I asked whether you supported icon's OP premise, that Donahue was wrong since icon said so? Do you support icon's OP or not? simple y or n question.

beevul: Maybe you would like it better, or understand it better, if I respond to you, in a reply to him.

You make me sick.

[beevul]

52. "You make me sick."

"You make me sick."

Gee, don't like it so much when others turn your tactics against you, eh?

I recommend you spend some time with a mirror.

And as for you being "sick", I doubt very much that I have anything to do with it, or that its anything new.

[friendly_iconoclast]

54. Let that sort have their tantrums- it's about all they have left to bring to the table

It seems only middle-schoolers (or their emotional equivalents) remain to advocate gun control here at DU.

[kioa]

41. If there is an issue with the statistics, then lets simplify.

1) How many violent crimes were committed by legal CCW holders while they were carrying at the time.
2) How many violent crimes were committed by non-CCW holders during the same timeframe?

If #1 is higher than #2, then evidence exists that CCW is the cause of increased insistences of violent crime.
If not, then there isn't evidence that CCW increases violent crime.

[jimmy the one]

47. another statistics for dummy's case

kioa: If there is an issue with the statistics, then lets simplify.
1) How many violent crimes were committed by legal CCW holders while they were carrying at the time.
2) How many violent crimes were committed by non-CCW holders during the same timeframe?
If #1 is higher than #2, then evidence exists that CCW is the cause of increased insistences of violent crime.
If not, then there isn't evidence that CCW increases violent crime.

Another one who thinks by reading 'statistics for dummies' he's an expert on probability & stats.
Since only about 2 or 3% on average carry concealed firearms, your conditions above are inapplicable. Of course there will be far less violent crime committed by ccw holders. since over 95% don't carry concealed.
Furthermore, some states do not require a person to reveal whether he is a ccw holder once he is apprehended, & thus any crime he commits doesn't count as being committed by a ccw holder.
Lotsa criminals can carry concealed firearms & get away with it, due lax ccw laws in shall issue states, since cops are far less likely to respond to a report that a guy is carrying a concealed firearm if somebody sees him with it or knows he has one. That is a big consideration which gets overlooked, that shall issue ccw enables criminals & potential criminals to get away with carrying, whereas in may issue states cops can request to see permit.
Some violent crime gets committed by 'potential' or 'latent' criminals who legally get ccw permits, then commit crimes while carrying, which go unsolved as they are not identified. And then there's unreported crime, where people don't report they were victimized, done by 'legal beagles' carrying concealed.

[kioa]

49. If you read 'statistics for dummies' you would learn about the term "per capita"

Fortunately, people who have heard of the term has already done studies.

After you finish the "per capita" chapter of 'statistics for dummies', I suggest you read those studies.

When you do so you will find that "Texas CHL holders were less likely to commit any particular type of crime than the general population, and overall were 13 times less likely to commit any crime."
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

Now all you have to do is repost this sentence "Of course there will be far less violent crime committed by ccw holders.", while eliminating the rest of your post & you will finally be getting somewhere.

[jimmy the one]

50. per capita for dummies

kioa: If you read 'statistics for dummies' you would learn about the term "per capita"

So you admit you've read it then? I haven't actually, didn't need to since I took statistics & probability in college, albeit just a C grade, tack on another 21 credits in math including differential & integral calculus & non Euclidean geometry (horn toots).

You mention 'per capita' yet that was the rub in your conditions set out in your previous post, which I debunked, that is you neglected to use 'per capita' and used total violent crime instead. So you're hardly the one to be harping on me about failure to understand what per capita means.

kioa: After you finish the "per capita" chapter of 'statistics for dummies', I suggest you read those studies.
When you do so you will find that "Texas CHL holders were less likely to commit any particular type of crime than the general population, and overall were 13 times less likely to commit any crime."
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

Has little to do with what happens on average after shall issue is enabled. Your texas stat also doesn't take into account unreported crime committed by ccw holders, or committed by legal ccw holders who commit crimes & don't get caught.

[kioa]

55. Thanks for the riveting personal story.

Per Capita would be assumed by most adults attempting to have an intelligent discussion.
Do you also need someone to explain to you that you need to unzip your fly before taking a leak?

Has little to do with what happens on average after shall issue is enabled.

.
If the implication that CCW increases crime, then the only relevant variable is the crime rate of CCW holders.
i.e. The crime rate of CCW holders has everything to do with the crime rate of....ya know....the effects of holders of CCW's.

Your texas stat also doesn't take into account unreported crime committed by ccw holders

Nor does it take into account unreported crimes by non-CCW holders.
Great argument.
Really.

[jimmy the one]

56. unexpected compliment vs ad hom

Last edited Thu Dec 4, 2014, 01:27 PM - Edit history (1)

on edit, change from beevul to kioa: Your texas stat also doesn't take into account unreported crime committed by ccw holders

kioa: Nor does it take into account unreported crimes by non-CCW holders.

... unreported & unsolved crime by ccw holders would include firearm related violent crime, like robbery or aggr assault or burg or car theft or rape et al with a gun they have on their person, whereas unreported & unsolved crimes by non ccw holders would involve violent crime NOT committed with a firearm, probably moreso on a PER CAPITA basis as a rate (in some fashion, hard to say exact).
It isn't usually the law abiding gun owner who passes a ccw test & gets a permit, it's moreso smart ccw carriers who get away with their crimes by subterfuge intimidation &/or clandestine savvy, imo. Criminals love states with scant gun control.

kioa: Great argument. Really.

Thanks; wish I could say the same about your own lame arguments.

kioa: Do you also need someone to explain to you that you need to unzip your fly before taking a leak?

Lame argument followed up by lame ad hominem. You & buddy icon need grow up.

[kioa]

57. That's not an ad hominem.

Way to finish strong.

unreported & unsolved crime by ccw holders would include firearm related violent crime,

Likewise non-ccw holders can commit unreported & unsolved firearm related crime.

[beevul]

58. Sorry Jimmy...

beevul: Your texas stat also doesn't take into account unreported crime committed by ccw holders

Incorrect.

[friendly_iconoclast]

59. Check out what young James inadvertently posted on another thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172155609#post24

Pro gun Texas only has ~6% lower murder rate than gun control California

gun ownership rate
California murder rate 4.6 .... ....................... 21.3
Texas murder rate .... 4.3 ............................ 36

That from the poster vigorously defending the notion that "More guns, more crime"
while ridiculing anyone who dared say otherwise...

[beevul]

60. I just found it funny...

I just found it funny, after I very recently told him " you who so likes to so dishonestly misuse the reply system so that others do not know you are replying to them", he attributes to me, words I never said, in a reply to someone else.


Funny, but not "funny haha".

[jimmy the one]

62. recommended reading

kioa asked, & I called it ad hom: Do you also need someone to explain to you that you need to unzip your fly before taking a leak?
kioa That's not an ad hominem.

Yes it is ad hominem, veiled ad hominem.

kioa: ... unreported & unsolved crime by ccw holders would include firearm related violent crime, Likewise non-ccw holders can commit unreported & unsolved firearm related crime.

Unreported is estimated using fbi NCVS (national crime victimization survey) but is not included on fbi uniform crime reports, which by definition is reported crime.

the icon: Check out what young James inadvertently posted on another thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172155609#post24
Pro gun Texas only has ~6% lower murder rate than gun control California
gun ownership rate
California murder rate 4.6 .... ....................... 21.3
Texas murder rate .... 4.3 ............................ 36

At least you linked it, but you deceive by taking my quotes out of context & by just citing California & Texas, you're a con artist. And where you get off saying I posted that inadvertently? I generally accept fbi crime statistics.

in context, what I wrote: Pro gun Texas only has ~6% lower murder rate than gun control California which has ~9% lower murder rate than pro gun florida.
The best way to compare California, is with only 3 other comparable states, new York, florida, & texas, somewhat conveniently two pro gun, two gun control. 2013 stats:
Florida murder rate. .. 5.0 ... gun ownership rate 24.5% (due in part retirees)
California murder rate 4.6 .... ....................... 21.3 .. (icon only listed calif here...
Texas murder rate .... 4.3 ............................. 36 ... and texas here)
New York murd rate.. 3.3 ...............................18
-- so calif/ny 3.95 avg edges out texas/flor 4.65

icon: That from the poster vigorously defending the notion that "More guns, more crime"...

Overall yes, more guns more crime, and how in the world did you miss the bottom there, where it has calif/ny edging out texas/flor by 3.95 to 4.65, thus demonstrating for the 4 largest states that indeed, more guns means more crime. And which big state had the highest murder rate? pro gun florida. Which big state had the lowest murder rate? gun control new York (with the lowest gun ownership rate to boot).
I suggest an additional read for you, icon. You too kioa.

The Complete Idiot's Guide to Statistics, 2nd EditionMay 1, 2007 by Donnelly Jr., Ph.D., Robert A.
Paperback $12.99 $19.95 $4.67used & new(121 offers) Kindle Edition $10.99
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_11/180-3439802-9433302?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=statistics+for+dummies&sprefix=statistics+%2Cstripbooks%2C247

[friendly_iconoclast]

63. You "proved" your point by combining pairs of states together...

...and declaring the rates of one pair vs. another demonstrates the truth of what you claim.

IOW: "More guns equals more murders, except when it doesn't"

I must say, you've done a marvelous job of convincing those that already agree with you.
As for everyone else, well...time for you to reread Frank Luntz.

Luntz is scum, but he's forgetten more about
peddling bullshit than you'll ever know- which is evident from your (ahem)...work... here:

Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear

http://www.amazon.com/Words-That-Work-What-People/dp/1401309291/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1417841258&sr=1-1&keywords=frank+luntz

[friendly_iconoclast]

42. ALL those states' violent crime rates are below what they were before shall-issue...

...and you would have known that if you'd bothered to read the
actual statistics you are fond of banging on about.

The disinterested reader will also note that wasn't what was under discussion...



When one employs that sort of argument, it helps greatly when your strawman
doesn't actually make your opponents arguments for them:


http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/5tabledatadecpdf/table_5_crime_in_the_united_states_by_state_2013.xls

Violent crime rates in 2013, per 100,000 inhabitants

Kansas 339.9

Nebraska 262.1

Michigan 449.9

Missouri 433.1


All that shouting and handwaving for nothing....

[otohara]

43. Color You Uninterested

in deaths by guns.

You only care about those who die other ways.

[beevul]

44. Color you focused on death by gun.

You don't care about those who die other ways.


I have to conclude, as you surely have, that making random unsupported assertions about people you disagree with on this issue, because you disagree with them on this issue, is a total riot.

Aint it great?

[friendly_iconoclast]

46. Gun control advocates: The only people that express dismay when crime rates decline...

As seen from certain replies in this thread, some do not react well when
one of their favorite arguments gets countered with solid evidence...

[pablo_marmol]

65. The fact that The Controllers have *never* shown *any* interest

in what a fairly long list of highly credentialed liberal criminologists have to say on the issue of gun violence speaks volumes.

Among other things, it demonstrates that they're more interested in posing righteous than being righteous.

[friendly_iconoclast]

45. Most people would be happy to hear about declining rates of murder and violent crime

Why are you all angsty about the news?

[jimmy the one]

51. mature some

icon: ALL those states' violent crime rates are below what they were before shall-issue......and you would have known that if you'd bothered to read the actual statistics you are fond of banging on about.

That's it? that's your rebuttal? a tap dance? blowing smoke at the same time?
.. rebut that you blundered citing 1999 as start year & 2010 as end year, ignoring all the years in between.
.. and come back when you grow up.

[friendly_iconoclast]

53. If shall-issue made the rates rise, why did they subsequently decline...

...when the number of permit holders stayed the same or increased?

<f_i goes on about his business, wonders what sort of handwaving and bafflegab
will be produced in response...>

[ileus]

61. Is there ever a cause that regressives don't lie about?

[friendly_iconoclast]

64. Pious fraud doesn't just emanate from churches/temples/mosques/synagogues...

[jimmy the one]

66. MORE GUNS MORE TOTAL CRIME

icon above: California murder rate 4.6 ........... 21.3
Texas murder rate .... 4.3 ............................ 36
That from the poster {jimmy} vigorously defending the notion that "More guns, more crime" while ridiculing anyone who dared say otherwise...

let's delve further into icon's critical braggadocio (taken out of context as well);
.. total crime rate, violent crime rate & property crime rate for 2013.
.. Texas & florida pro gun states, calif & new York guncontrol states, these 4 states are the most populated states in America, with similar & comparable urbanity & demographics:

--pop,mil..tot rate..vcr..prop..mur..Rape..Robb..Aslt..Burg..Larc..car-thft
Texas 26.5- 3,658- 399- 3,258- 4.3- 28- 120- 246- 721- 2,287- 248-
Florida 19.5- 3,565- 460- 3,105- 5.0- 24- 118- 312- 710- 2,216- 178-

California 38.3- 3,054- 396- 2,658- 4.6- 19- 139- 232- 605- 1,621- 431-
New York 19.7 2,214- 389- 1,824- 3.3- 13- 138- 234- 287- 1,458- 78-
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/2013%20Rate%20and%20Rank%20of%20Crime%20and%20Imprisionment%20by%20US%20States.html

To sum up, total crime rates - texas indeed has the highest, along with having the highest gun ownership rates. Then comes florida with the 2nd highest gun ownership rates, followed by California with 3rd highest gunownership rates with new York doing best, with the lowest gun ownership rates.
Amazing stuff eh icon? MORE GUNS MORE CRIME holds very true.

And a bonus, texas edged out California with a higher 2013 violent crime rate than California (albeit straight parity)

[friendly_iconoclast]

67. Too bad for people like you that overall crime rates are dropping...

...and worse for your sort, there is less support for gun control then ever