More people carrying gun over last 10 years-Blood in the Streets?

I wanted to post this to show how wrong the perception is that the increased number of people owning and carrying guns for protection over the last 10 years is causing an increase in violent crime.

The quote is from a US Department of Justice / FBI report
2006 Crime in the US and the link is for an entire page of that report.

" A comparison of estimates from 2006 and 1997 shows a 13.3 decrease
in the estimated number of violent crimes and a 13.6 percent decrease in estimated property crime offenses for the 10 year period." FBI report.

www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_01.html

Please note that in the last 10 years, many states have become "shall issue" states, that is they are legally obliged to issue a license to carry a firearm to any qualified individual applying for one, and that the number of people owning and carrying firearms legally has risen
significantly over the ten year period.
Thanks for reading this.
mark

Gun Control advocates are wrong...again....

just in case someone pisses you off in the parking lot. Its right there in the second amendment. And as any patriotic american will tell you there ain't no fucking background check or any other namby pamby bullshit in the second amendment. The founding fathers obviously meant for us to blow the fuck out of one another; its right there in the second amendment.

here who has advocated any of your hyperbolic nonsense. The only place any of the stuff you are spewing ever comes from is in the tiny minds of those who are too learning disabled to understand fact vs. fiction or those who wish to propagandise the subject, which are you?

interpret the second amendment. Allow me. I have the right to own a weapon for the purpose of protecting our country. And such was the case and mindset in the 18th century. My issue isn't with gun ownership, it is with a document, one sentence, which can so easily be manipulated and "interpreted." For political purposes? A constitutional convention might be in order.

I chuckle at your notion that only those who disagree with you are the only one's who might "propagandize" the subject. That's funny.

I am foursquare in favor of gun ownership and private useage thereof. I am also in favor of constitutional guidance which is not subject to interpretation. So lets change the amendment.

Against OTHER parts of the Bill of Rights???

After all, you argued the same argument against the 2nd amendment..


People, it is a BILL OF RIGHTS, stop picking and choosing over it like a cheap Chinese buffet, I will take some of this, and NONE of that, and neither shall you....


Man O man..what a tyrant...

Supermajority, being necessary for constitutional amendment at a constitutional convention, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

"So lets change the amendment."

The reason you want to change the amendment is?


And more importantly, youd change its meaning from what to what, exactly?

And so on?

What does "security" mean if it is not to be enjoyed by each and every one of us?

I know the present administration has it wrong. But that's just it, they are wrong.

that would make a 13 year old schoolgirl giggle.

is where you find statements which are "not subject to interpretation". Single, two letter words are subject to interpretation.

You make insane comments complete with foul language. You are truly representative of those who think banning guns is the answer to gun violence. Thank you for providing ANOTHER fine example of the ignorance on your side of the debate.

Silly post which adds no value to the conversation, and has no basis in reality, other then there are Wal-marts, and there IS a second amendment. Neither of which has anything to do with blowing people away because you are pissed off at them. Interesting what the founding fathers intended, and that ain't it. Most patriotic Americans probably know this as well.


Lame...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Idiot
Need I say more?

Do you think maybe you said too much already?

are that way because they feel they would kill the first person who pissed them off if they had access to a gun. They are seething, angry, barely in control, and they believe everyone else is the same.

Thoughts on this?

mark

into another thread, and still believe there's some weight to it. It is a good thing some antis do not have a firearm.

It is real.

I think that most people who advocate stringent firearms regulations are highly intelligent, and are simply cognizant of the unfortunate but certain fact that much of any given population is stupid as a bag of hammers. And/or chronically drunk.

And also aware that any given population also includes a good dose of psychopathic, sociopathic, depressed, delusional or otherwise at risk / risky individuals. And children. And women-hating men.

And they have done a risk assessment, and decided it is wise to take steps to reduce the risks and costs to the community, and to individuals in the community, in particular vulnerable individuals, that are associated with widespread easy access to firearms.

I'm sure you have thoughts on that, but I doubt I'd find them interesting. Given what's in the post I'm replying to, I doubt I'd call them thoughts.

...In grade school, my IQ tested at 149, so you are wrong on the "stupid"
portion of your post. I have also been a published poet, non-fiction writer and had visual art work displayed in shows as a photographer and a painter. I worked for about 15 years as a professional musician, went back to college in my 40's, just retired from working in a psychiatric institution with many of the psychopathis, sociopathic, depressed and delusional people you mentioned.
I learned to shoot in the Cub Scouts at age 10.
I served in the Army (82d Airborne Division) in the late '60's till 1971.
I own 5 rifles, 3 of them military type semi autos.
I own 11 handguns right now. (Numbers are subject to change-I buy, trade and sell them pretty frequently.)
I have a License to Carry a Firearm, and I do so every time I leave my home.
I don't drink or use illegal drugs, don't smoke or gamble.
I don't hate women, although I'm not fond of my first wife, and I am very happily and exclusively married for over 15 years.

Since you are so angry, I am very glad you choose not to own a gun-I believe in freedom of choice.

I also suggest you seek counselling for anger management.

"Everything you know is wrong".

mark

if I had actually said what you seem to have thought I said.

What I said was:

I think that most people who advocate stringent firearms regulations are highly intelligent, and are simply cognizant of the unfortunate but certain fact that much of any given population is stupid as a bag of hammers.

What you replied:

In grade school, my IQ tested at 149, so you are wrong on the "stupid" portion of your post.

You see, if I had said that YOU were stupid, or if I had even said that PEOPLE WHO OPPOSE FIREARMS CONTROL are stupid, you might actually have said something relevant.

I didn't say any such thing. I wasn't talking about people who oppose firearms control.

I was talking about reasons for advocating that there not be widespread easy access to firearms.

One of the reasons for supporting firearms control is that there are a lot of stupid people in the world. Stupid people tend to do things like leave their firearms lying around where other people can steal them, or let their children get hold of their firearms and shoot each other, or mistake their children for turkeys and shoot them, or accidentally shoot their spouses when they think the gun isn't loaded, or imagine they are not going to get caught if they use a firearm to rob a bank.

Other reasons for advocating that there not be widespread easy access to firearms are that there are a lot of chronically drunk people, psychopathic people, sociopathic people, depressed people and delusional people. Such people are often dangerous to themselves and other people, and allowing them access to firearms is reasonably regarded as unwise.

There is significant and elevated risk when people in all these categories have easy access to firearms -- stupid people being one kind of people who present an elevated risk to the public and to other individuals when they have firearms.

Did you read beyond my first sentence? Even if you didn't, it's an amazement to me how you could have thought I was talking about you, or anything other than what I was actually and obviously talking about.

So hey, if your intent was to demonstrate that you're not stupid, well, it kinda didn't work.

You certainly did manage to demonstrate that you will stop at nothing to achieve your ends though, didn't you? Baseless insult being about your only weapon.

I suggest that you take a short course in manners. Not that I think it would help.

But reading comprehension, you might get something out of some intensive coaching of that kind.

Now, as to the blind arrogance that makes some people think it is within their power to make complete strangers angry at the drop of a hat, there's probably not much can be done about that.

Not that I actually think the blind arrogance that undoubtedly exists is the reason for the stream of insults such as your post contains. Neither you nor anyone else actually thinks I'm angry. Allegations of psychological disturbance are just the first blunt instrument that springs to the mind of many men when faced with women who are smarter than they are and won't do as they're told. And we smart uppity women find it pathetic, but mildly amusing.

...I have never been called a watermelon before.

I have to think about it.

mark

Fascinating.

Oh, to be a parody of one's self ...

http://www.google.ca/search?num=30&hl=en&safe=off&q=FREUD+MISOGYNY&btnG=Search&meta=

Hell, even his apologists have to acknowledge the elephant.

http://www.petertatchell.net/psychiatry/freud.htm

There is also a strong element of misogyny in Freud's theories which often results in a male-centred view of sexuality. Nevertheless, while Freud can be justifiably criticised for developing a male-orientated psychoanalysis, his theories are also a reflection of social reality: the domination of masculinity and the subjection of women which existed in Europe at the turn of the century when he was beginning to articulate his conceptions of sexual desire.

And how some people do just long for the good old days. Uppity women got what they deserved back then.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n25_v47/ai_17774519/pg_2

By that time Freud had developed and published virtually all his theories including those of infant sexuality, the Oedipal complex, and the interpretation of dreams (the last being dated 1900 but actually published in 1899). Therefore, given Freud's known abuse of cocaine, scholars looking for the origins of his theories must seriously consider their roots as extending into the white powder as well as into theological hermeneutics, mythological traditions, and literary exegesis.

Snork. Or do I mean snort?


Freud defined women as deficient, immoral and essentially subhuman.


Margaret Sanger, despite the times she lived in, was an anti-racist.

Freud was a pig of the first water, and if you want to join in the chorus of blaming his culture, feel free. But even those who do that acknowledge his piggery.

You, actually, you just adopt it.

On a forum intended for discussions of firearm-related political issues in a country you don't even live in.

Why do you suppose that is?

All I did was invoke his concept of projection, which has withstood the test of time and is almost universally accepted by therapists and clinicians all over the world. I also posted a photograph of the man to give credit for his sound idea. Your accusation that I have adopted his entire world view is completely unsupported by anything I have written on DU - I think it says a lot more about you than it does about me. Projection, perhaps?

Much of what Freud wrote does indeed look bigoted and bizarre today. The next time someone invokes the "gun as penis substitute" idea, I'll refer back to your post.

"that much of any given population is stupid as a bag of hammers. And/or chronically drunk.?

One half of humanity has an IQ under 100. By definition. (And play with the definitions and biases all you like: one half of humanity is below average in intelligence. By definition.)

Apparently, the average IQ in North America is slightly lower.


More frighteningly, one quarter of humanity has an IQ under 90.


Me, I would be rather unhappy if the new bridge in my town were designed by someone with an IQ under 100. I would consider my safety to be at risk if that happened.

Add to this that a lot of people don't have the sense they were born with anyhow.


Do I want someone who can't balance his/her chequebook wandering around in public with a firearm anywhere near me? Someone who can't multiply fractions in his/her head? Someone who, barring involuntary illiteracy (but not barring vision deficits), can't read the editorial page of the local newspaper? Someone who watches reality television? Not really. There's a whole lot of things that people who can't do those things ought not to be doing, and designing bridges and wandering around in public with firearms are two of them.


As for chronically drunk -- do you have the first idea what the incidence of alcohol abuse/dependency is in the US population? Not to mention that since alcohol abuse is quite typically self-medication for a psychological problem (depression, anxiety, psychosis), we're looking at some nicely complex risk factors there in many cases.


You people like to frame these concerns as "doesn't trust his/her fellow citizen".

I say that when I'm looking at someone of considerably below-average intelligence whose blood alcohol level is still over the legal limit for driving after the two-four of beer s/he consumed the day before, I wouldn't "trust" him/her to balance my chequebook or walk my dog. S/he may be a lovely, generous, morally upright individual -- just, sadly, not too bright and not too sober. Why I would "trust" that such a person will not behave unreasonably or unsafely with a firearm, I can't imagine.

And then think what are the odds such people would know (or admit) their limitations?

Scary stuff.

And then think what are the odds such people would know (or admit) their limitations?

http://gagne.homedns.org/~tgagne/contrib/unskilled.html


Now, if you want to pretend to think that I score in the 12th percentile, or bottom quartile, of *anything*, you go right ahead.

Abstract
People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.

It is one of the essential features of such incompetence that the person so afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent. To have such knowledge would already be to remedy a good portion of the offense. (Miller, 1993, p. 4)

In 1995, McArthur Wheeler walked into two Pittsburgh banks and robbed them in broad daylight, with no visible attempt at disguise. He was arrested later that night, less than an hour after videotapes of him taken from surveillance cameras were broadcast on the 11 o'clock news. When police later showed him the surveillance tapes, Mr. Wheeler stared in incredulity. "But I wore the juice," he mumbled. Apparently, Mr. Wheeler was under the impression that rubbing one's face with lemon juice rendered it invisible to videotape cameras (Fuocco, 1996).

"The world is made up for the most part of morons and natural tyrants, sure of themselves, strong in their own opinions, never doubting anything."

- Clarence Darrow

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."

— Bertrand Russell

This says it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3320169&mesg_id=3321098

The average IQ of a cop is about 104, which means that nearly half of all police are of "below-average intelligence"

Should they be "wandering around in public with firearms"?

The next time you speak to a cop, ask them what 3/8 + 2/3 equals, or ask if they watch "Survivor", of if they balance their checkbook.


I think you will find that many law enforcement officers do not meet your high standards.




I do agree completely that anyone who is drunk should not be armed in public, but that is already law in most places.


BTW I wouldn't worry about the guy who designs the bridge, as the designs are typically reviewed by several individuals.


I'd be more worried about the guy who batched the concrete for the pylons, or forged the bolts, or welded the bridge together, after all, these components only receive a random spot check, and statically, half were done by people with a below average intelligence.

Every day we interact with strangers who could put our safety at risk, whether it's the crossing guard who waves us through traffic, the cleaning staff who could be accidentally mixing bleach and ammonia, or the person who installed the breaks on our car. And of course, half of these people have below average intelligence as well.

S/he may be a lovely, generous, morally upright individual -- just, sadly, not too bright and not too sober. Why I would "trust" that such a person will not behave unreasonably or unsafely with a firearm, I can't imagine.

This begs the question as to why s/he should be trusted with any potentially dangerous object. And what of the alcohol itself? Using your standard, shouldn't that also be far more strictly regulated?
You seem to suggesting that alcohol consumption (along with basic stupidity) is a primary cause for the misuse of firearms. Since intelligence cannot be regulated, perhaps severely restricting who can consume alcohol will far more effective. After all, in the United States, the right to drink alcohol is not specifically codified in the BOR, unlike the RKBA.

You may also wish to consider that the application of traditional IQ standards is quite controversial and even being rejected by folk far smarter than you as a not very reliable indicator of intelligence or competency.

It bears remarkable similarities to other arguments I'm not particularly fond of.

It bears remarkable similarities to other arguments I'm not particularly fond of.

Things like ...

It isn't fair! Just because some people are too stupid to drive safely at 150 km/h, that's no reason why *I* shouldn't be allowed to!

On a race track.

I'm not allowed to infer anything from your posts because you never infer anything from mine, right?

:-)

I think most advocates of stringent firearms regulations are somewhat intelligent, largely ignorant people who are blinded by an irrational fear of inanimate objects. Since we are just giving opinions.

David

I think that most people who advocate stringent firearms regulations are highly intelligent, and are simply cognizant of the unfortunate but certain fact that much of any given population is stupid as a bag of hammers. And/or chronically drunk.

Pseudo-intellectual elitism at its' finest. I just never expected for you to pull the mask from your own face so blatantly. So, if the majority ("much" by the way, if you need reminding, means a majority) of people are too stupid to be trusted with firearms, than the same standard must be applied to any object or device which can potentially cause harm, whether it was designed to or not.
Applying your view, automobiles must also be much more stringently controlled, as more folk, at least in the United States, are killed by them than firearms. And what of sharply pointed knives? Well, as I recall the British Medical Journal stated that research has shown knives with sharp points are not really necessary for culinary use. Considering how many serious injuries and deaths are caused by the malicious and irresponsible handling of knives and bladed tools of all types, you must advocate far stricter controls on configuration and ownership as well. I eagerly await to read your sharp-bladed tool control platform! If "reducing risk and cost to the community" is in fact you goal, than you have no choice but to agree. If you attempt to slither away from these logical progressions, it will be clear you goal is otherwise.

In short, you must agree that ANY object which has been demonstrated to have been used as a weapon must be strictly regulated, since in your view the majority of people are either too stupid, intoxicated, or insane to be trusted with ANYTHING that can cause harm. A logical application of you belief would be requiring some kind of intelligence, sanity, and narcotic use test before a person may purchase and own such objects.

And how about the right to vote? Arguably, this could also be construed as a dangerous weapon, certainly the innocent at the receiving end of imperialist aggression must perceive it as such. Unless you believe that every single election everywhere in the world which did not produce a government of your liking must have been rigged, than you must also believe that the majority of people are not smart and/or responsible enough to wield this power as well. You must then concede that your own belief system requires some kind of intelligence standard be applied before this right may be exercised. Just as with firearms ownership, there must also be stringent controls on who may vote and how they do so. Controls no doubt designed and administered by the likes of you.

The obviousness of the dimness of much of the population is evident without you trying to offer the evidence.

("much" by the way, if you need reminding, means a majority)

I seldom need reminding of things that aren't true.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/much


So, if the majority ("much" by the way, if you need reminding, means a majority) of people are too stupid to be trusted with firearms, than the same standard must be applied to any object or device which can potentially cause harm, whether it was designed to or not.

No, not really. Not at all, actually. Apples and oranges, in fact.


Applying your view, automobiles must also be much more stringently controlled, as more folk, at least in the United States, are killed by them than firearms.

I give up. Did my standard have something to do with how many people are killed by something? Not as far as I know. But I'm sure you knew better. Ah, that meta-cognitive skills problem.


I eagerly await to read your sharp-bladed tool control platform! If "reducing risk and cost to the community" is in fact you goal, than you have no choice but to agree. If you attempt to slither away from these logical progressions, it will be clear you goal is otherwise.

If it is in fact "me" goal, I'm quite capable of stating my own recommendations for achieving it, and mustering "me" own facts and arguments pro and con various methods. Ta very much.

If I attempted to follow your "logical progressions", I'd be needing some of this, methinks:


http://www.fstdt.com/winace/pics/index.htm


In short, you must agree that ANY object which has been demonstrated to have been used as a weapon must be strictly regulated, since in your view the majority of people are either too stupid, intoxicated, or insane to be trusted with ANYTHING that can cause harm.

Of course, you must agree that ANYthing you say is based not on anything I said, but on your desperate attempt to pretend I said something I didn't say for reasons I didn't have.


And how about the right to vote?

Oh, how about the right to post on internet discussion boards?

You might persuade me that a character test should be required for that one.

That should save us from "the likes of you", I'd think.

Referencing a "dictionary" is the refuge of an intellectual layabout. "Much", as you do seem to be reminded, means a majority in common usage. Do you also need to be reminded that dictionaries, electronic or paper, are not particularly accurate in regard to common usage? Amazing that you should be, linguistic "expert" that you seem to believe you are. Hiding behind an "official" definition to camouflage your true intent is rather cheap.

I give up. Did my standard have something to do with how many people are killed by something? Not as far as I know. But I'm sure you knew better. Ah, that meta-cognitive skills problem.

If "reducing risk and cost to the community" is in fact your goal, than you have no choice but to address the issue, regardless of whether or not the automobile issue was stated in your original post. You're the one dousing the slope with water, not I.

Of course, you must agree that ANYthing you say is based not on anything I said, but on your desperate attempt to pretend I said something I didn't say for reasons I didn't have.

It does not make sense, that if "reducing risk and cost to the community" is in fact your purpose, that you would ignore other objects and devices which also cause harm and death and only, it would appear, focus on firearms. I don't pretend anything, only conclude something is amiss by your lack of reference to any other potentially lethal device if the MAJORITY of the population is too stupid, intoxicated, or insane to be trusted.

If it is in fact "me" goal, I'm quite capable of stating my own recommendations for achieving it, and mustering "me" own facts and arguments pro and con various methods. Ta very much.

And you lecture others about "manners"? Jeez! Anyway, I have no doubt that you are capable of such, only unwilling. Why would that be?

... divided by a single language. "Much" means "a majority" ... something I've never heard in my life, a fairly long one at this point, and language being my game.

As for the rest of the talking points ...

Really now, where's the "wall of text", the oblique accusations of insincerity, links to dubious sources to back equally dubious claims, or denigration of intelligence? A person of your skill shouldn't need to resort to lurid graphics. How about a bit of linguistic personal evisceration? After all, isn't that usually what you do to evade a challenge to your belief system?

Oh, and I do believe you have "heard" it. Your use of "much" is rather like a layered cake flavored with deceit.

Now, how about answering a simple question. Do you deny that many objects other than firearms and not designed to inflict injury or death can be used to do so?

... I don't know if they would kill the first person who ticked them off. I do think, however, they would be more likely to kill someone who ticked them off than someone who had broken into their house. Because they empathize more with people who break the law rather than follow it.

-.... most of the people who are committing those crimes aren't supposed to have guns.

rather than to talk to yourself?

... a more interesting (and intellectually stimulating) conversation.

But yes, I did mis-post. I'm guessing that last is not a word, but hey, Shakespeare made them up, too. Why not me?

I was just curious whether the individual in question was intending to address him/herself as "zogby wannabe", because while I don't know what that might be, it struck me that it was probably intended as an insult. So it was all just pretty funny.