So you expect people to believe the gun ownership rate fluctuated between 0% and 60% all in one year while the gun murder rate was the stable? I don't think your graph makes much sense.
It makes sense if one, you understand scatter diagrams, and two, realize that the comparison is between different geographical areas (cities/states), their gun ownership rate and the resulting gun homicide rate.
I see you don't understand charts. I'll help. Each of those dots represents a state in the US, along the bottom you see gun ownership as a percentage by state and on the left murder committed with a firearm pe r100k by state. So that dot farthest to the right is a state with 61% gun ownership and a murder rate of 3 per 100k. The dot to the far left has about 3% gun ownership in the state and a murder rate of about 4-5 per 100k. There is no correlation between gun ownership percentage by state and killing someone with a gun.
First of all the only thing that happened was concealed carry became shall issue. Secondly there aren't enough people taking interest in it. And thirdly that doesn't explain why Chicago was such a crime ridden city before the ruling.
34 confirmed kill before the weekend shizer show started. Waiting for the Friday night Saturday morning box scores.
the great majority of them "good riddance". We all know that about 90% of the violence in the US come from a couple of sub-cultures. When you remove them from the statistics, we are 4th from the bottom of the world's countries, when it comes to violent crime.
Heck, Ron, I never understood why the libereal Chicago politicians just don't make the south side of Chicago a "Gun Free" zone. Problem solved!
Except Chicago has roughly a 5-10 percent gun ownership rate (Chicago tribune) the national average is 33-35 percent. Your math doesn't add up at all.
it's illegal to have a handgun in the city of chicago. The guns are not the issue. The issue is the pos's who have the guns, while decent folk can't have one with which to flush the pos's. So the pos's multiply and clog up the sewers.
I have been out of the Country for quite sometime on assignment and not monitoring this discusssion... sorry for not responding sooner. But, in reference to your post, I think you mistook me for another poster.
It is a fact that communities that have a low percentage of gun ownership have a much higher level of crime than communities that have a population that is well armed!!! If you are a criminal and you come into my neighborhood in Western Massachusetts where EVERYONE IS ARMED.....you are looking for a world of hurt!! We have virtually ZERO CRIME where I live. And even my florist is armed!!! AA
U.S. cities have a very low armed population. But the majority of American's live in rural areas and so do I and we are all armed!!! A Gang Banger's worst nightmare is rural America!! AA
A claim you have made repeatedly that is of neither relevance, nor importance. Raw numbers supersede per capita statistics that become diluted with population size. It has been proven that the city of Chicago ranks dead last in terms of enforcing existing firearm-related restrictions. They are quite literally doing absolutely nothing at all to address the countless cases of felons in possession of firearms within their borders. It does not matter how many times you continuously repeat your useless citation, it changes absolutely nothing.
Yeah, just drill down into minority area codes. There are parts of Chicago that are quite safe and don't report a single homicide.
Your per capita argument has been rejected. It has been rejected since it was first presented in an effort to claim that the state of California has fewer firearm-related deaths than any other state, despite the available evidence proving otherwise. Simply because you continue bringing it up as if it were valid, does not mean that it is, nor that it will be given any consideration. The raw numbers undermine your argument, demonstrating a blatant disregard and disinterest in saving the lives of others.
It has been rejected on the basis of simple logic. The per capita argument is devoid of sound reason or logic. The state of California has what are regarded as the strictest firearm-related restrictions in the entire united states. Therefore they have no legitimate excuse, not even population size, to have the annual number of firearm-related deaths that they experience. It undermines your entire argument that firearm-related restrictions work, which you have refused to even attempt to explain how it supposedly works.
