It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: underduck
Consider that if you remove the cesspool cities of Detroit, Memphis, Jackson and Atlanta from the data then the murder rate by guns would be sooo much lower. I am sure there are a couple more big crap cities that are influencing the data but I do not know which those are off the top of my head.
originally posted by: underduck
a reply to: SlapMonkey
Now we can debate suicides being relevant but accidents are damn sure relevant.
originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: PhoenixOD
That is why I don't believe that guns are the common thread in violent crime. While defensive gun uses far outnumber criminal uses, even by conservative standards, I dont believe that guns necessarily prevent crime.
originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: PhoenixOD
I think education, healthcare, economic liberty and opportunity, as well as overall culture determines the levels of criminality in society.
originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: projectvxn
In fact as another poster pointed out murder rates are down in many first world countries that dont have guns also. So to say its only happening because of the amount of guns in the us is ridiculous.
originally posted by: WeAreSound
The international comparisons show conclusively that fewer gun owners among civilians per capita produce not only fewer murders by firearm, but fewer murders per capita over all.
originally posted by: GogoVicMorrow
a reply to: ArnoldNonymous
60 in kentucky. Not sure you have to continue paying to renew but i sont know anyone thats had one more than a year or two.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Do you have the specific reason(s) as to why the rate is dropping, then? I mean, like I originally said in reply to the OP, correlation does not create causation, but it's unscientific to outright say it's ridiculous to make that correlation when you don't show any evidence to support your comment nor to negate the study's.
Do you have the specific reason(s) as to why the rate is dropping, then? I mean, like I originally said in reply to the OP, correlation does not create causation, but it's unscientific to outright say it's ridiculous to make that correlation when you don't show any evidence to support your comment nor to negate the study's.