pickupyourpistol: charcoalbuddy:pickupyourpistol:charcoalbuddy:pickupyourpistol:charcoalbudd
pickupyourpistol: charcoalbuddy: pickupyourpistol: charcoalbuddy: pickupyourpistol: charcoalbuddy: pickupyourpistol: charcoalbuddy: pickupyourpistol: h6p28d9p: durkin62: h6p28d9p: dermoosealini: hey America, how those thoughts and prayers working out? Not good, @dermoosealini . Turns out emotional sentiments that don’t suggest any type of preventative action are pretty useless. In other news, politicians have discovered that they can’t get their way a hundred percent of the time and they might have to resort to the horrors of “compromise.” Only time will tell if this train of realizations continue and politicians realize that a majority of society will always place more importance about their fellow living beings than the ownership of an inanimate object. Until then, back to you with news and hot takes. More guns is correlated with less murders. Gun free zones account for virtually all mass attacks. Someday people will learn that sacrificing, lives, freedoms, and responsibility isn’t worth the false sense of security that comes with capitulation to the state. Hahaha, tell that to the 17th century when gun dueling was allowed. So many people died. The most notable among they were; Charles Dickson, Charles Lucas, Stephen Decatur, and Jonathan Cilley. President Jackson’s duel and kill count ranges on anywhere from 5 to a hundred, depending on what source you consult! It got so bad that they had to pass several laws prohibiting it. This included the 1728 Mass. Acts 516 and Article II, Section 9 of the Oregon constitution. So no, guns do not lead to less murder. 1728 Mass. Acts 516: https://law.duke.edu/gunlaws/1728/massachusetts/467694/ Article II, Section 9 Oregon Constitution:https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/Pages/OrConst.aspx Dude. When you have to reference shootings from 400 years ago it an indication that you truly do not understand gun statistics. The chart above clearly shows that while gun ownership in America is at an all time high, gun homicides are at a 20 year low. This chart compares the number of accidental firearm fatalities. The red line is the number of private firearms in the United States, in units of 100,000. At the end of 2013, the estimate was 363.3 million. The green line is the number of fatal firearm accidents, or unintentional firearm fatalities, in the United States. The number in 2013 was the lowest recorded, 505. The absolute numbers are important, but the rate of unintended firearm fatalities per 100,000 population is a better measure of safety. Please post a chart showing the percentage of americans who possess firearms, compared with the crime/homicide/death rates. Number of guns is an absolutely useless statistic. Plot the number of Americans who possess firearms against the crime/homicide/death rate? And do you know what it would show? Heres a hint: If there was a single gun owner or 70 trillion gun owners it would show the EXACT same gun homicide drop over the past 20 years! Jesus folks, this isn’t rocket science. That’s some stellar data analysis right there. Look it up. The percentage of Americans who own guns is dropping slowly but surely over time. As is homicide rates, suicide, all that other stuff. I know the statistics on gun ownership. It’s still estimated that 100,000,000 Americans own 350,000,000 firearms. What is the statistical significance if 90,000,000 or 110,000,000 people owned 350,000,000 firearms? It doesn’t change the fact that the number of firearms in the US is at an all time high and gun homicides have dropped to an all time low over 20 years. A 10% variation in the number of Americans owning guns isn’t going to result in a 50% drop in gun homicides, is it? Or are just the killers giving up their guns? The point is the rate is dropping, which contradicts your charts. Why are you not understanding this? If the rate of homicides, suicides, gun violence are decreasing, and the percentage of armed Americans is decreasing, that’s called a correlation. Causation? Not necessarily. but correlation yes. Contrary to your charts, which show a useless comparison that is a demonstrably false correlation. BTW, this chart does not contradict my chart. My chart depicts the number of guns in the US. Your chart proclaims the number of gun owners has gone down (which no one believes). You don’t have to spend much time on google to understand firearms sales in the US skyrocketed under oblomo. Yes, some people went and bought guns because of Obama, but that was primarily people who already owned guns and thought he was coming to take their guns away. Obama might have been one reason, but he wasn’t the primary reason it spiked. It started increasing after 2004. This is because of the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban, allowing the design, manufacture, and sale of tons of new weapons like AR15′s. New guns flooded the marketplace It’s not just AR15′s and other rifles either, it’s all firearm types. There are simply more companies making guns, and a huge variety of different guns available. How many single-stack 9mm handguns, specifically market for CCW, are there today? How many were there 10 years ago? And yeah, sorry but anyone who doesn’t believe ownership rates are down has never look at the research. There are fewer gun owners. That’s just a fact. Every study I’ve ever seen on the topic of ownership rates shows a downward trend in % of households with guns. Gun owners just happen own a lot more guns than they used to. For example, how many guns do you own? How many, on average, do your friends own? What percentage of gun owners do you know are currently looking for the next gun they want to get? Regarding your other commend asking about the 10% between 1994 and 2004 - yeah that’s probably correct. The Brady Bill and Assault Weapons Ban went into effect in 1994. Since you’re a stickler for charts, your chart depicts gun manufacturing, not gun sales. This chart shows actual gun and ammunition sales: It’s undeniable that oblomo had a huge impact on gun sales, but more importantly, looking at the above chart, neither the Brady Bill nor the Assault Weapons Ban had any affect on sales or manufacturing. According to the FBI less than 300 people are killed each year with ANY type of rifle, and its estimated that less than 100 are killed by the dreaded AR/AK “assault weapons”. The Brady Bill (1993 - 1998) was merely a waiting period and did not restrict anyone from purchasing a firearm and neither it nor the AWB (1994-2004) removed ANY firearms from private ownership. So since people are seldom killed with an AR/AK, no guns were confiscated, and new gun sales didn’t slow when these laws were enacted, how could they be responsible for the substantial drop in gun deaths? And, when the AWB ended, why didn’t gun sales and gun deaths skyrocket back to pre-ban levels? Especially since the chart shows that more and more guns are being manufactured and sold, and as you say, all these new guns were being pushed to gun owners? Instead, gun sales are booming, and gun homicides are drastically lower. All with NO Brady Bill OR assault weapons ban. Fact is, there is study after study that proves the AWB did nothing to curb murder or crime. That’s one of the main reasons it was not renewed in 2004. It had no support because it didn’t do anything. Concerning gun ownership; my question to you is, how do they determine gun ownership has dropped? Simple, they poll Americans and ask, right?. Do you believe, in this era of gun bashing and talk of gun control, everyone is going to be honest when asked? You probably believed the polls when they told you Hillary had a 98% chance of winning the last election, amirite? I only mention this because people aren’t honest when they feel threatened. I don’t know of a single gun owner (and I know a few) who woke up one day after a lifetime of gun ownership and decided to get rid of the only effective means of defense they have for themselves and their families. So who are these people giving up their guns? I would never tell you, a pollster, a neighbor, or a coworker if I owned firearms. Why would I? In fact, since you asked, I don’t own any. Oh, I used to, but not any more… Seriously, you may want to believe it, but you can’t be naive and think everyone is going to be honest about it. In fact, more and more people will start lying if things keep going the way they are… My guess is, only optimistic gun-grabbers will believe it. Ok. your chart depicts gun manufacturing, not gun sales. That’s because I was illustrating a rise in firearms entering the marketplace after the expiration of the AWB…supply follows demand. As this concept is apparently is too complex, I have also attached a Gun Sales chart that lines up pretty much exactly.“looking at the above chart, neither the Brady Bill nor the Assault Weapons Ban had any affect on sales or manufacturing.“Clearly you didn’t actually look at either chart? Sales, your chart, plateaued, and manufacturing, my chart, dropped by almost half%? According to the FBI less than 300 people are killed each year with ANY type of rifle, and its estimated that less than 100 are killed by the dreaded AR/AK “assault weapons”. Straw argument. I made zero statements about types of weapons used in crimes, only that manufacturing of certain types of weapons increased after the expiration of the AWB of 1994. The Brady Bill (1993 - 1998) was merely a waiting period and did not restrict anyone from purchasing a firearm Actually it mandated background checks. It put in place a 5 day waiting period for the first 4 years until the background check system was ready. So since people are seldom killed with an AR/AK, no guns were confiscated, Straw argument. I never said guns were confiscated. Ironically, it’s anti-gun control people that claim laws like this remove guns from law abiding citizens. and new gun sales didn’t slow when these laws were enacted, The growth on gun sales slowed, as can be clearly seen in the chart.how could they be responsible for the substantial drop in gun deaths? Straw argument. I never actually said these two laws were responsible for the substantial drop in gun deaths. I merely pointed out that your chart, which implies more guns = less crime, was comparing two incompatible numbers. In fact, i clearly stated that the two measures were separate in my post: “Look it up. The percentage of Americans who own guns is dropping slowly but surely over time. As is homicide rates, suicide, all that other stuff.” And, when the AWB ended, why didn’t gun sales and gun deaths skyrocket back to pre-ban levels? Gun sales did, as evidenced by both charts. The reason gun deaths didn’t skyrocket is unrelated to firearms ownership. The Brady Bill didn’t end; that may or may not be a factor. I would say the biggest factor is probably improvements in technology, communications, mental health awareness, police training, etc. Especially since the chart shows that more and more guns are being manufactured and sold, and as you say, all these new guns were being pushed to gun owners? Straw argument. When did I say they were being pushed to gun owners? What I said was that gun owners tend to own multiple guns, to a degree that was absolutely not the case in the past, and that this accounts for the increase in the number of privately owned guns. Instead, gun sales are booming, and gun homicides are drastically lower. Gun sales are up. Your char lists homicides, not gun homicides. Gun related homicides are not drastically lower. All with NO Brady Bill OR assault weapons ban The Brady Bill is still in effect. Concerning gun ownership; my question to you is, how do they determine gun ownership has dropped? Simple, they poll Americans and ask, right?. Do you believe, in this era of gun bashing and talk of gun control, everyone is going to be honest when asked? The only way the results of polls could be artificially influenced in a way that makes gun ownership drop would be if people who owned guns wrote down that they didn’t own guns. Also honesty in polls goes both ways, you have to take into account people who didn’t own guns but wanted to own them in the future. Also, there is a reason polls include margin of error. The fact that ALL of them show a decrease is statistically significant. If there was somehow foul play involved, some would show and increase and some would show a decrease. All show a decrease, so it is statistical fact. Also, all of the statistics you’ve posted so far as also based on polls, as actual firearm sales figures are not known. Notice that your last chart has the word “ESTIMATE” in it? You can’t invalidate my chart on a ruling that your are somehow immune from. You probably believed the polls when they told you Hillary had a 98% chance of winning the last election, amirite? Straw argument but I’ll indulge. No. Those polls were based on actual ‘votes’, and not the geographic region and available electoral votes. She won the popular vote by roughly the same margin as the polls predicted she would win the election, so the polls themselves weren’t technically wrong - they just didn’t compensate for electoral votes per region. I only mention this because people aren’t honest when they feel threatened. K?I don’t know of a single gun owner (and I know a few) who woke up one day after a lifetime of gun ownership and decided to get rid of the only effective means of defense they have for themselves and their families. Straw argument. I never said anything about anyone giving up their guns. So who are these people giving up their guns? I would never tell you, a pollster, a neighbor, or a coworker if I owned firearms. Why would I? In fact, since you asked, I don’t own any. Oh, I used to, but not any more… Humans are not immortal. Older generations, for example, are more likely to own a gun than a millennial. As boomers die off, the average ownership rate drops. That’s how math works. Seriously, you may want to believe it, but you can’t be naive and think everyone is going to be honest about it. In fact, more and more people will start lying if things keep going the way they are… My guess is, only optimistic gun-grabbers will believe it. K. -- source link