I have a theory about this but it usually doesn’t go over very well. First, superimpose a plot of the black population in the USA over time with the violent crime rate to look at violent crime from a pure numbers basis. Second, the residual effects of the welfare state. Ever since the advent of the welfare state under Lyndon Johnson, the black population has been regressing to African-type behavior. During the 100 years from 1865-1965, the blacks made great strides and became valuable contributors to society in the USA from a statistical basis. After the reward of government cheese for being a single-parent, you saw the complete destruction of urban society in the USA. I believe that blacks highly express a gene for “nomadic behavior” (i.e. selfishness, the placement of self over society - although historically it has meant that people migrate to food and water resources) and the welfare state allows this undesirable trait (from a society point of view) to flourish.
Why are the cities under democrat control with gun laws the most violent? More then 80 percent of gun deaths occur in democrat run districts.
Care to back that with real statistics. the homicide rate in New York city is 6.4 per 100k the homicide rate in Oklahoma city it 9.9 It would appear your premise is flawed and as for your misleading statement using stats is little more than NRA lies. more than 20% of all Americans live within 300 miles of New York City. Add California and Illinois and that percentage swells to over 40%. More of everything occurs in places where there are more people. DUH!
Is that crime rate before or after Republican Mayor Giuliani? Republicans have local control of more government and cover more people then the Dems do, good try though.
I am at a loss to understand your point. It was my impression that your position was that More Guns means More Violence, but you seem to contradict yourself and acknowledging that more guns leads to reduction in crime. Am I missing something? Also, pointing out that Finland and France have ridiculous restrictions on guns seems superfluous without a contrasting it to their violent crime rate. May I assume that you are planning on expanding on that?
Where did I ever say more guns leads to less crime. There has never ever been a demonstrable relationship between the number of guns and overall crime rates. So, you are missing something. If crime numbers have gone down why are more and more guns being sold? If there was a direct relationship that linked increasing crime increasing gun demand and then subsequent decreases in crime should lead to a reduce in gun demand. and France and Finland have relatively high ownership rates but very low gun violence rates. Since I relatively certain guns work the same in France and Finland as they do in the Us we need to look at differences that bring about such a markedly low rate of gun violence despite the high ownership rates. The difference is regulation. May I now assume you will make the small effort at doing a little independent research?
dadoalex You said as much on 8 April in your post to this thread, and I quote: We dont live in a closed system of limited variables (i.e. more guns less/more crime). I do not know why gun ownership is on the rise with empirical certainty. My guess is that over the last few years of personally following the subject (25+) there have been several gun ban scares which have pushed up gun sales. Furthermore, the Media Establishment certainly doesn't help with their sensationalizing gun violence stories which might be fanning the flames and fear that things aren't hunky-dory in Mayberry ignoring the downward crime rates trend. Making matters worse, HeinyFeiny and the rest of the Brady Bunch grabbing onto every tragedy and calling for change also doesn't help alleviate the fear. Condescending tone aside, your call for my doing my own independent research is also irrelevant. You are the one who introduced the topic; I was just asking where you were going with it. Your argument was incomplete at best, unfounded at worse.
Ahhh after awhile you'll learn....ole alex has short terse irrelevant remarks with even less proof of facts and penchant to redirect by attacking your statements. A gutter fighter at it worst eh?
Please. You "indignation" serves nothing. Head on down to your local community college. You know that place where you only need 60 more credits to "graduate." Sign up for an introductory statistics class. Pass the final. Then you'll have some foundation for discussion.
Yep there's the truth, then lies and finally statistics. However since you put your faith in stats look at this -- http://www.gallup.com/poll/161813/f...link&utm_term=All Gallup Headlines - Politics Kind of blows that whole 90% argument all to hell.
I see your willingness to repeat your masters lies. Still, that does nothing to demonstrate you understand the topic.
The other truth is, that the left thinks that if we miraculously get rid of guns, that the violence will end. NO; more guns in the right hands creates a balance of power that defuses violence. If only the wrong people gain access to firearms, then the world is theirs to terrorize.
Here is the basic trends of homocide---similar to violent crime---in the US: Notice how crime began to increase by 350% after the early 1960's. The first big gun control laws didn't hit until 1968.
Perhaps you should refer to the OP. BTW.... Affectations may be cute in movies and may make hoodie wannnabes look tough but, on a message board, they just look dumb. The "eh" and the "?" are redundant in the context of the comment. I've worked with people from Canada, Maine, and New Hampshire and while they often toss in an "eh" during a conversation they never do it in written communication. Sorry. Nothing personal. But it does make it hard to take you seriously.
Perhaps you should explain why when confronted by the statement that "The other truth is, that the left thinks that if we miraculously get rid of guns, that the violence will end...." Your singular, irresponsible answer for the poor kid who might die in the projects from other than gun violence is "gun violence will." That sounds terribly like a prejudice against guns and a lack of concern for all victims of violent crimes...eh?
When confronted by a "conservative" with any statement that begins with "the left thinks" I tend to ignore the statement. You do not represent what the "left" thinks and I don't propose to represent what the "left" thinks. I present what I think.
Well in actuality you haven't ignored anything and it's because you don't understand why others find fault with your supposed logic. However that is beside the point, you still haven't answered the simple request of why people like you think if we get rid of guns that violence will end? Really it's simple question. are you gonna misdirect all the time or will you eventually explain how your plan of addition gun control will prevent all violent crimes against the poor projects victims? And what you think means what?
try to follow this if you can.... If there are no guns there can be no gun violence. there are no "phasers" so there is no "phaser" violence. Is this hard to understand?
