Richm444's Link
There is alot of disinformation being thrown around by those anti 2A Agenda Forces. The facts are on our side and here are the best sources to eviscerate any anti-gun rights arguments:
FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics ATF Firearms Commerce Reports in The United States FBI NICS Statistics
The highlights
1. FBI Crime Stats show a substantial reduction in gun homicides over the last 20 years and that all rifles including AR-15s , AK-47 all other rifles combined with 10 round 30 round hundred round and million round magazines combined approximate 3 percent of all gun homicides.
1995 Gun Homicides 13,700
2015 Gun Homicides 9778
1995 Rifle Homicides 654
2015 Rifle Homicides 258
more people are killed with bare hands , feet and blunt objects that all rifles combined
ATF Commerce Data indicates over 100 million guns were produced over the last 20 years (excluding military)
NICS Data indicates 277 million background checks were conducted in the last 19 years -
So we can conservatively say over 200 million guns were sold in 20 years and yet gun homicides are substantially lower
THERE IS NO GUN VIOLENCE EPIDEMIC - ANY SUCH ASSERTIONS ARE A LIE
FBI – data 2012 - 2016 https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls 2007-2011 https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8 2004-2008 https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2008 2001-2003 https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2003 1999 https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/1999
ATF Reports https://www.atf.gov/news/pr/atf-releases-2017-report-firearms-commerce-us
NICS https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year.pdf/view
ATF Commerce Report Follow Link - the front page has a link at the bottom to click on Referencing the commerce report
Richm444's Link
Richm444's Link
For example, (I dont have it handy, google probably does) there are more guns in the US today than ever, so that would even more strongly suggest that gun laws work to reduce homicide rate - you have MORE guns and LESS homicides during the time in US history WHEN gun laws became more strict. Previous to that, the noted stat, suggests you had FEWER guns available, but MORE homicides per gun, that stat sounds like it says gun laws work to at least reduce homicide rate with a firearm.
I'm pro 2A, that stat just jumped at me...
Maybe the large increase in the number of firearms in the hands of good guys is the reason for the decrease in crime. And maybe the huge increase in the number of concealed carry holders due to it being legal (to some degree at least) in all states contributes to it. It's gotta be tough to be a mugger /carjacker /home invader /rapist when you have to worry if everyone is packing heat.
Maybe gun control like they practice it in cities like Chicago (as Spike pointed out), actually increase crime as it keeps guns disproportionately out of the hands of good guys.
But then for those things to be true, you would have to believe that an evil inanimate object wasn't the cause of the crime.
If someone is willing to commit murder, exactly what can you do to make an obtaining an AR illegal enough for him to say: "OK, now THAT law I'll obey"?
The numbers show that the assault weapon ban between 1994 to 2004 had zero impact on gun homicides.
Will- in short there may be some impact from the gun laws but how much ? I don't know.
The anti-2A people attempt to argue that we are experiencing an epidemic of gun violence and they attribute that largely to our gun culture. However what is abundantly clear is that both such assertions are false and is evident by the data. If gun production and sales have increased by the hundreds of millions and gun homicides have been substantially reduced what other conclusion can we draw?
It may be that more people armed for self defense would deter others from attempting a gun crime on an armed public? It may be that sentencing is harsher for gun crimes and those criminals are off the streets longer ?
Without getting too technical -
Will- there is likely a number of different reasons - variables that gun homicides were reduced. Each variable contributing some degree of the result.
At my job we get a great deal of training in regression analysis (correlation analysis)- Whereby historical data is accumulated and determined if it can be used to predict the future results of other variables. For example crop yield may depend highly on rainfall but also be impacted somewhat by deer and pest population.
Sometimes variables may have a good correlation but yet have absolutely nothing to do with each other and therefore cannot be used as a means to forecast. My instructor gave an example explaining that there is perfect correlation between rainy days in Memphis in the winter and riots in the middle east because there is always rain in Memphis in winter and there are always riots in the middle east.
There are methods and software that measure the impact of each variable but in this case I do not have any analysis or results.
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2018/feb/23/ted-deutch/did-mass-shootings-increase-200-percent-assault-we/
2004 Rifle homicides were 403 In 2015 Rifle Homicides -were 258 and 2016 was 374- So the suggestion that assault rifles have caused more mass shootings and a gun violence epidemic is total utter nonsense based clearly on the homicide data and this does not even address the impact off the Obama Fast and Furious scandal which resulted in Federal Law enforcement being killed
Richm444's Link
This is the stuff that kills me though. For example, does anyone break out use of AR for rifle based homicides. I could see a stat like that being used to black list (pun intended :)) AR's. Or more specific, of the large scale public shootings (schools, concerts, etc) over the last 20 years, how many were with AR's vs shot guns, 30/06 etc... How many also used hand guns. Etc? Perception say's they are increasingly done with AR's. But I dont know that. Michigan the other day was a handgun I think. But the last several schools and concerts I can think of were AR's. That nightclub in FL was an AR. Those folks in CA were an AR. The kid at the church in SC, that was a handgun I think... That's a problem, there are to many to remember them all! Ugh.
The hardest thing about these shooters, is that they seem to be, in most cases outside this last one, pretty tough to ID as a danger via normal means. Frustrating.
They are handy stat's you laid out, and I appreciate them.
I wrestle with this. I'm a gun owner, enjoy my firearms, and have experienced (I'm from MA) how extensive gun laws become more challenging for a law abiding person trying to do the correct thing (Do I really need to have my trigger lock still on the gun until I'm 150 feet from the road, or can I take it off at the truck if the gun is under my control... And will the EPO/LEO that stops to say hi care either way??? those are good examples of the things that ONLY law abiding folks - like everyone on a site like this - is most likely to be).
On the other hand, if me having to take a class, pass some background checks and live a clean life are required for me to own a gun, I'm cool with that. Why shouldn't I be able to pass those? Meaning, be the law abiding person we are and we pass the "checks" and get to enjoy our guns. It's like the kid in third grade who causes an issue the whole class gets punished for. It's inconvenient for "us" but not really an issue.
Over the last few I saw this constant reference to a gun violence epidemic and when I finally looked at the data myself I was blown away - the opposite case was undeniable beyond any doubt.
And even further it shows that all rifles including assault rifle homicides are extremely rare- Unfortunately when an AR is used they play it all over the media- its obvious to me what they are doing.
LoL
You OK with the same standard being used to allow you to enjoy your 1st Amendment Freedoms? How about your 4th and 5th? I mean if you have nothing to hide ...
See why this is a problem? These are natural rights, endowed by our Creator (don't say God for goodness sake) protected by the Federal Government not granted by them. The problem is the right to Keep and Bear Arms was acknowledged by the Founders in case the citizens needed the arms to try again/ start over. If you're a pol, you don't like that.
As for having to take a test and whatnot. As I said above, if you have never done something which should cause you to be flagged, they are at worst an inconvenience. So, lets agree that gun laws dont work to stop criminals. What if they stop a couple shootings/homicides per year per state by LEGAL gun purchasers? Is your right to walk into the local gun shop and buy a gun that day with no licensing or oversight more valuable than those peoples lives?
We may agree to disagree. I dont know. I feel like the right of a free living person to continue doing so, is of more value than my right to own a gun. If I want to exorcise that right, there are responsibilities. I have to be a person in good standing. I should choose to NOT do things like beat up my wife or a guy at a bar. I should choose not to threaten my neighbor like a loon because they cut the grass 2 feet over the property line. I should choose not to be a thief, not to use drugs, not to use alcohol irresponsibly etc etc etc.
If a law is simply that I need to have a through background check, get fingerprinted etc a couple times a decade... to make sure that someone who DOES do those sorts of things (noted above) cant have a gun... Yep. I'm cool with that. If that is a "real" problem, I guess I just dont understand.
We are not figuring out how to stop the bad guys from getting guns regardless, it seems (doesnt seem anyone has a good cure for that)... so if we can stop one or two or three bad things from happening with a little inconvenience, is that bad?
I think it's ok to have to be responsible with our rights.
God didnt come down and write the constitution or bill of rights. Men did. Men who did an amazing job of shaping our country for sure, so we could have cool discussions like this years and years later.
Will, The way to hell is paved with good intentions, and alterations to/regulation of unalienable rights are just the first step.
Freedom is scary and dangerous concept, always has been. Taking freedom can make people safer. The less actions people are free to take, the less chance for injury or death. Take away guns people don't get shot, take away cars people don't get run over, take away pools people don't drown, and on and on.
In my opinion the benefits of freedom out weigh the risks.
For a citizen living positively, how do those things impinge on our rights to carry?
Should anything inhibit that right?
It's sort of a straw man argument, so I apologize in advance for that... But if a guy (or girl) had assaulted their spouse, do they deserve the same rights as a person who has not done so? How about a person convicted of DUI or drug dealing or possession etc?
My sense, is that in cases like that, they do not. They have forfeited that right in FAVOR of folks like "us" who try to live a positive life. Or said differently, who "try to do the right thing".
When I talk with liberal friends, there are outliers who err towards totally banning firearms. There are some who feel like AR style weapons should be banned for the public (forget the specifics of that argument for a second). But the majority just feel like type 2A folks have zero willingness to discuss any level of firearm's access to the point that they (the person who is unsure about guns) feel backed into a corner and only able to push relatively extreme points.
The EXACT OPPOSITE occurs when I talk to my more conservative or passionately in favor or 2A friends.
I think if people (for overly simple purposes Ill label them as L and C - that's really not great, we are all more complex than that thank god!) on the C side, could accept some level of background checks etc and openly discuss that... people on the L side would be super excited and feel like that was a great compromise.
Not everyone will be happy. Extremists on either side of any issue will always find reasons to push crazy ideals. I just don't see something that simple, and which feels like next to zero impingement of our rights would be bad on a larger scale...
Happy to agree to disagree on it. Just my observations as a gun owner who's pretty socially liberal.
The problem isn't citizens living positively. It's the government abusing the limitations imposed on it by the constitution. Choosing not to follow the letter of the law begins when people want to avoid/get around/be reasonable about it.
Our founding fathers understood the abuses of government and many people today don't. Your liberal friends don't have a God, so government stands in his place. Our American rights are founded in a belief that God is the only absolute authority on right and wrong.
If you want to thank God, spell his name right by capitalizing the g. After all, he created all those people you social liberals care about, yet disregard him.
You want one side to concede something on background checks. What is other side going to concede? Concealed carry reciprocity?
If one side gives up something and gets nothing in return, its a loss, not a compromise.
Until that changes, things get worse or more toxic - just my sense though :)
Sorry about that spelling of God Wild Bill. No offense intended.
Help me out though. Regardless of religious beliefs, should the constitution not protect us equally? Sure, I can feel differently about what God is or is not, but didnt the founding fathers put as much effort into that not impacting how we operate on a societal level? That's unrelated to this though, happy to chat on that via PM if you want.
Law does not protect us, it specifies behavioral limits. If law could stop all law breakers, only the basic ten would be needed to work to that end. However, the Bible teaches us that the ten commandments were to act as a ruler, that is, to show us that we do not measure up. God will not judge anyone on whether or not we keep the ten commandments, he has already stated that "all have sinned and fallen short"
It is within the power of human government to deal with the offenders of the law, but it cannot change hearts bent on evil, that is the jurisdiction of God. Liberals keep thinking otherwise, because they think him dead and useless.
Motivation for living a good, righteous / positive life... there are lots of places that could originate. Certainly religiosity or spirituality is a player there. I was thinking more about the interaction of "church and state" so to speak.
Rich - sorry I rode your list of links off the rails. I like the links! Good stat's there for sure.
Which comes full circle to this constant demand that personal rights stand in the way of governments ability to protect individuals. People are sadly willing to live by the edicts of man's governance, rather than the life instructions revealed by their creator. The problems in this world stem from a simple basic error, the ramifications seem endless. BIBLE = Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth.
The eastern mysticism you are fascinated/duped by is precisely what was promised in the garden of Eden. You create, in your own mind, what you want as reality. No, not all good.
"Both sides believe no one is willing to give anything up - which is not true."
You're right, you gave up for our side, just not everyone on our side gave up with you.
"I just don't see something that simple, and which feels like next to zero impingement of our rights would be bad on a larger scale... "
Absolutely true, you don't see the importance of the issue to people who have absolute standards they might be called on to die for, as did the believers in Almighty God, who understood and followed their convictions, thus creating our nation. Simple for you, because you are in your own reality.
I literally dont know a "liberal" who is Godless as you say. They may feel "faith" is driven by different forms. But as quick as you can suggest I'm going to have a hot future when I die, I can point out that "in the name of God" has been used for a lot of bad things. We could talk crusades. We could talk religious persecution. We could talk hate crimes. But we are also both pretty firmly in our camps - so none of that would matter.
I saw a test a kid took in school the other day - thought it was fake so I researched it and found a few articles in various papers. It was true. The "test" this kid took in grade school gave them correct answers for statements like Dinosaurs were here WITH man 6000 years ago. The questions were so fake, so false, that they made someone teaching their kids that a spoon should be called a knife and a phone a TV seem like sane educational strategies for our young people. And it was REAL, in the name of God at a school focused on teaching creationism in S.C..
Westboro babtist church hates more people than any liberal I've ever met... In the name of God.
My only issue with Religion (remember, I have belief's founded in religion/spirituality, they may not be as focused on Christianity as yours, but there is still faith there) is when one group forces "their" correct version on me or other people. (Ha - sorta the issue with folks around the 2A debate!) Especially when, if met with different opinions, people really into their beliefs tend to push those harder and harder on others. For every "Godless Liberal" I can point out and "Hateful conservative". BOTH ARE ABSOLUTELY UNFAIR, SMALL MINDED, HURTFUL and STEREOTYPED to the n'th degree. They are, in short, BOGUS.
That's why, though I appreciate your concerns, I feel 100% calm about who I meet when I pass on. I feel sad thinking about the relationships Ill no longer be able to have with those behind, but, if God is all folks say he is, he's going to treat me based on the life I've lived, and not the house I walk into once or twice a week. That, I'm confident in.
I'm out.
If you want to talk more about this stuff, I'm happy to. I enjoyed our last PM chain about it. I'm being honest when I say that sitting down with you for a cup of joe would be a great experience and I'd learn a lot - about hunting, life, and many things I'm sure. But I'm feeling like we've really turned Rich's thread into something it's not intended to be, so I'm not going to post again to this thread. Again, happy to carry on the discussion via PM if you would like.
Keep well Will
