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

Yes, raw data is always so silly and has no actual meaning.

Silly Silly

I am the very model of a modern Major-General,
I've information vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical
From Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical.

 

On a tree by a river a little tom-tit
Sang "Willow, titwillow, titwillow"
And I said to him, "Dicky-bird, why do you sit
Singing 'Willow, titwillow, titwillow'"
"Is it weakness of intellect, birdie?" I cried
"Or a rather tough worm in your little inside"
With a shake of his poor little head, he replied
"Oh, willow, titwillow, titwillow!"

 

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

 

Twice aint thrice as nice.

 

Problem is you are thrice bested and will never admit it.

Over 300 Million diverse firearms in private hands, Millions of concealed carry permits, and those licensees are of the most law abiding citizens and few licenses are revoked for criminal behavior.

Untold numbers of licensed and registered machine guns and destructive devices and the only criminal act was conducted by a Police Officer.

You ignore the real facts.

 

Didn't I ask you a simple question.Why can't you refer to one credible empirical study that supports the 'more guns=less crime' hypothesis? Be truthful now

 

You do not need a study to prove
1 + 1 = 2
The millions of Gun Licenses and their Good record as well as the tiny fraction of those licenses revoked for crimes speaks louder than any study.

 

That's a pathetic attempt! Let's try again. We know that the NRA is heavily influential on politicians (e.g. $7 million of influence on John McCain). Why haven't they been able to counter the significant scholarly research supporting the 'more guns=more crime hypothesis? If its so obvious that 'more guns=less crime', why can't you support your position with statistical analysis?

 

Minnesotans are nice family oriented people and raise their children with love and direction, so it is not surprising.

 

The evidence is in, Police Reports, Prison Populations, Ghetto Neighborhoods, Gangs, illegal drugs, Prostitotion, all these factors are the reasons why we have high criminality.

Those are people already prohibited from owning firearms, why not prosecute the guilty ?

 

Have mass shootings declined?

 

Yes.

 

Another pathetic dodge. Why hasn't Lott and co derived credible 'more guns=less crime' analysis? Why hasn't the NRA been able to 'buy' scholarly research which correctly tests gun prevalence hypothesis?

 

In schools also?

 

Again simple facts, over the last decade and a half the number of guns vastly increased and during the same time period, violent crime significantly decreased. I would say facts can be called as evidence.

 

Yes, in Schools also, We have more Schools than any other Country, and yet, School shootings are quite and infrequent, rare as well as the people that commit School shootings.

 

Nope, raw data to hide from your failure to refer to the evidence correctly. No one assumes that guns are the only crime impacting variable. It is true, mind you, that I haven't met folk more ignorant of the evidence as pro-gunners. That's a fact for you!

 

When you can prove that gun control will actually prevent and control crime in a substantial manner,
I will come on board with it.

 

The problem is guns in the hands of the wrong people. How to resolve this?

 

Not in recent history. There has obviously been a spike.

 

You will never refer to the evidence. Let's not play pretend now. You have an ideological position and you bore me with it via tabloid grunt

 

You are the Grunt-er, I refer to evidence in hand, you refer to being rather dense, ipso facto.

I have a wealth of field experience.

 

You have ideology and you have tabloidism. I have never seen you refer to evidence with any validity. You're a godsend to the NRA mind you. They might have to buy fewer politicians with such sheepishness

 

You are a consumate Politician and would never agree with me, regardless if I used evidence or whiskey soaked roasted pigs.

Now if I agreed wholeheartedly with your belated position, you would be with me and form a mutual admiration society, regardless of my facts or the lack thereof.

 

Nope. I adopt an evidence-based approach and you don't. I therefore have contempt for your approach. I'm sure you're a jolly decent chap.

Why aren't you annoyed that the NRA spends so many millions on manipulating politicians? Why aren't you a supporter of individualism?