Reality Check: More Minnesotans Own Guns, Violent Crime Remains Low

Fact: the number of guns in civilian Hanse has increased dramatically in the US over the last decade and a half.
Fact; violent crime, pariularly, associated with fire arms has dramatically decreased over the last decade and a half.

 

Fact: more guns=more crime cannot be rejected. Evidence is a damn nuisance for the ideological limited

 

Even if the Bible is a work of fiction historically for the most part, it still contains very sound Philosophical points and a foundation for sound living.

 

The evidence is Millions of Licensed Law Abiding Citizens that do not get into trouble, in fact have a better record that Police that often have far more difficulty obeying laws.

 

Interesting. Where I live empirical evidence would indicate otherwise. I own more guns than most people I know and during the time I have lived here there has never been a crime committed in my home or on my property. More guns = Less crime.

 

I suspect as Obama dumped more and more Muslim "refuges" into Minnesota gun sales went up very fast. Wisely so. Yet Minnesota is a VERY Democrat state. Democrats tend to be for gun control UNTIL they believe THEY are in danger. Then they are rushing to buy AR15s, double stack 9mms and cheap 12 gauge pump shotguns. When it comes down to it, they only want YOU defenseless, not themselves.

 

I was talking with a fellow here, Democrat, who was ranting about mass shootings and demanding gun control laws on assault rifles. I replied, "I thought you own an AR15, don't you? Do you only have 10 round magazines?" He proceeded to explain that while he does have 30 round magazines he only has ONE AR15 so, somehow, that's ok and therefore didn't 100% contradict everything he had just said demanding gun control and banning "assault rifles."

 

Provide one empirical study that supports the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis. Try to avoid the discredited Lott paper!

 

The odds of an innocent person being shot and killed by police is 6 times higher than by a civilian, though there are probably 50 times more armed citizens. But it is not a fair comparison given police are often thrust into surprise extremely dangerous situations more often than civilians. However, the other reason is that when police start shooting at someone they rapid fire a large number of bullets, while civilians tend to only fire once - either missing or the person hit surviving.

Most lethal shootings by civilians in self defense are virtually point-blank 1 shot to chest center such as Zimmerman. In the same situation, most police would have fired at least 5 rounds and possibly emptied the magazine. Armed citizens tend to shoot to STOP the attacker or threat. Most police shoot to KILL the attacker or threat. BIG difference.

 

Ok, again, what better than a study than hard facts ?

1. Licensed Machine Guns, many legally owned in Private hands, yet no Legally owned Machine Guns have been used in Crime, one was a Police Officer, and does not count....

2. Millions of licensed Citizens with Concealed carry permits and those revoked for criminal behavior are a tiny fraction.

 

I'm not interested in your tabloidism. The fellow has referred to 'more guns=less crime'. If its a credible position it should be a straighforward proposition to support it through empirical evidence.

 

No other nation has our record of mass slaughter and the entire world knows.

 

Well, for sure -- Thomas Jefferson loved the Bible, but he did take his x-acto knife to all the miracles, to have his own copy his way, condensed down to morals and philosophy.

 

No need to take a knife to the pages, however, things as the example of King Solomon and the two women, now that is critical thinking in action !

 

I posted facts as evidence

 

And you hid like a frightened kiddywink from the empirical evidence

 

Evidence of what? I simply posted two facts.

 

Tabloidism ?

You edited my comment to turn it into Tabloidism.

I posted facts;

" Ok, again, what better than a study than hard facts ?

1. Licensed Machine Guns, many legally owned in Private hands, yet no Legally owned Machine Guns have been used in Crime, one was a Police Officer, and does not count....

2. Millions of licensed Citizens with Concealed carry permits and those revoked for criminal behavior are a tiny fraction. "

 

Tabloidism as you take particular details in order to pretend overall theme. Why do you think there isn't credible research supporting the 'more guns=less crime' hypothesis?

 

I was referring specifically to my piece of the planet. My gun numbers have gone up and I still have not had a crime committed in my yard or home. It was tongue-in-cheek in an otherwise very serious discussion.

To answer the bigger question: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-1
This chart from the FBI shows how violent crime has dropped over the last 20 years.
As we know, gun ownership has gone up during the same period.
This would seem to indicate that more guns does not equate to more crime.

 

So you can't actually refer to one paper that concludes gun prevalence reduces crime rates?

 

So you are dismissing the link I provided to the FBI web site?

 

Its a table, not a hypothesis test. Bit obvious really

 

Indeed, indeed. I am sure you think you understood what you thought I said or possibly meant but what you think you heard and what I actually said may have indeed been three different things.
But that's a bit obvious. Really!

 

I understand you perfectly. You simply do not know how to refer to evidence with any validity. Boring me with raw data was decidedly silly