Show this to an anti-gun rights activist

www.nraila.org...

RTC = Right to Carry

Since 1991, 23 states have adopted RTC laws, replacing laws that prohibited carrying or that issued carry permits on a very restrictive basis; many other federal, state, and local gun control laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive; and the number of privately-owned guns has risen by about 90 million.2 There are more RTC states, gun owners, people carrying firearms for protection, and privately owned firearms than ever before. In the same time frame, the nation's murder rate has decreased 46 percent to a 43-year low, and the total violent crime rate has decreased 41 percent to a 35-year low.3 RTC states have lower violent crime rates, on average, compared to the rest of the country (total violent crime by 24 percent; murder, 28 percent; robbery, 50 percent; and aggravated assault, 11 percent).4

Studying crime trends in every county in the U.S., John Lott and David Mustard concluded, "allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes. . . . [W]hen state concealed handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by 8.5 percent, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent."5

So ya, Mr. Liberman and Ms. Clinton, ill have my 2nd amendment and fries, thank you.

[edit on 29-3-2010 by demonseed]

My Lib Ed Professor (very liberal) actually estimated about 70% of Americans wanted gun control. I laughed inside.
Some Leftists are just oblivious to this kind of information. ALTHOUGH, I don't go to the NRA for balanced discussion on gun rights.

Originally posted by Moonsouljah
My Lib Ed Professor (very liberal) actually estimated about 70% of Americans wanted gun control. I laughed inside.
Some Leftists are just oblivious to this kind of information. ALTHOUGH, I don't go to the NRA for balanced discussion on gun rights.

I agree the NRA are a pro gun crew so they are only going to say the pro's of gun ownership, but hey. I cant say i disagree with them. And they do have statistics to back themselves up....

Yeah, most criminals are cowards, so once the odds get over a certain value that they might encounter armed opposition, they change their minds and maybe try legal means to support themselves.

reply to post by demonseed


The truth and facts do not matter to these people. It is like a religion they are weak of heart this is why they do not see the truth. And no amount of statistics is going to fill the void they have. Why don't they outlaw knives? Even the simplest of truths escapes them.

This debate don't concern me because i'm not an american. I'm from the ''socialist'' country up north.

But to be fair, should'nt the statistics for accidental death by firearms, and suicide be also given ? I'm sure that if everyone carry a gun, there's bound to be more accident, missed shot hitting a innocent, kids killed by playing with daddy's gun ?

It would be interesting to see the numbers for those stats.

reply to post by grandnic

The 2002 edition of Injury Facts from the National Safety Council reports the following statistics [1] :

* In 1999, 3,385 children and youth ages 0-19 years were killed with a gun. This includes homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries.
* This is equivalent to about 9 deaths per day, a figure commonly used by journalists.
* The 3,385 firearms-related deaths for age group 0-19 years breaks down to:Four teen boys
o 214 unintentional
o 1,078 suicides
o 1,990 homicides
o 83 for which the intent could not be determined
o 20 due to legal intervention
* Of the total firearms-related deaths:
o 73 were of children under five years old
o 416 were children 5-14 years old
o 2,896 were 15-19 years old

Source

Fewer by far than those who accidentally drown in pools and suicides arent very valuable since the tool used doesnt created the desire to kill oneself. Shoelaces, kitchen knives and cars are far more readily available in most homes than a gun.

Overall accidental death stats

[edit on 30-3-2010 by thisguyrighthere]

reply to post by demonseed


One question.

What is the proof that the rise in gun ownership is tied to the decline of murders? Correlation is not causation, after all.

Naturally I have a few thoughts of the subject of gun control
GUN CONTROLS AND RESULTS:

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were Rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5
Million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and Exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a
Total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves Were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million Political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and Exterminated
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981,
100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and Exterminated.
------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and Exterminated.
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one
Million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded Up and exterminated.
-----------------------------
Defenceless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century Because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------
Not long ago gun owners in Australia were forced By new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by Their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more Than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
List of 7 items:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent Australia-wide,
Assaults are up 8.6 percent Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.

Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the
Criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in Armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in The past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey Is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of The ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how Public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense Was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.


The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens'.
Without them, we are 'subjects'.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they Knew most Americans were ARMED!

[edit on 30-3-2010 by DaddyBare]

[edit on 30-3-2010 by DaddyBare]

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by demonseed
Correlation is not causation, after all.

Nope, it's not.

Folks might want to remember that when they get up on their "ban barrel shrouds to save the children" high horses.

Self-Defense killings on the rise

Open carry deters robbery

Criminals say they fear armed homeowner more than cops

reply to post by demonseed


Amen brother! S+F! I don't care what anybody else has to say a criminal considering any type of crime involving victim would be far less likely to try anything at all if they knew or thought their probable victim was packing heat!

I think that the numbers speak for themselves. I'm sure that guns (or lack of gun control) is not the only factor at play here, but the murder rate in the US compared to other countries is revealing.

Gun Deaths - International Comparisons
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident)

USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10
Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
England/Wales (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03
Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02
Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0

Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International. Westport.

The complete study can be found here



[edit on 30-3-2010 by grandnic]

reply to post by grandnic


I see you conveniently omitted Mexico from your tally...
17,900 drug-related killings since December 2006
just this morning another 16 children were killed there... 10 in one group 6 in another...

Mexico has much stricter gun laws that does the US

im in favor of SOME gun control. everyone should be entitled to guns but not criminals there should be a screening test for people who want guns and there should be harsher penalties for gun related crimes.

the last thing we need are a bunch of idiots with guns
o wait....

[edit on 30-3-2010 by ashanu90]

Originally posted by DaddyBare
reply to post by grandnic

 

I see you conveniently omitted Mexico from your tally...
17,900 drug-related killings since December 2006
just this morning another 16 children were killed there... 10 in one group 6 in another...

Mexico has much stricter gun laws that does the US

The study only gave the stats for a few country, and I'm sure that all of them have strict gun control laws. I'm usualy not for government control of everything but I find it absurd that you can buy a gun at walmart without showing proof that you are a responsible person. I know some stupid persons that I would not want to be near them if I know that they pack a handgun in their pocket.

Whats so bad anyway about having your background checked if you want to buy a machine gun ? What do you even need a machine gun for ? I have a weapon a home, legally bought and registered, I use it a few time each year to go hunting and pratice shooting but I don't feel I need a 9mm in my pants.

I didn't realize this article was about Canadian gun control.....

I'm for people having guns. I myself don't own one but would like to. I think they are extremely interesting machines. But some of this stuff doesn't make sense to me so if I'm wrong please tell. I'm trying to understand.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were Rounded up and exterminated.

Didn't quote everything.

Are you saying that if the people would have had guns they would have been able to stop any of these tragedies from happening? They would have been able to stop a trained and organized military? It would have certainly helped their odds. Examples of groups of people deterring corrupt governments through force are few. A modern day example of this would be insurgents in Iraq or Afghanistan in my opinion. (I'm not saying the US is corrupt, just making the point that the insurgents cant push back the US military. Just bad placing for that sentence ]

Amen brother! S+F! I don't care what anybody else has to say a criminal considering any type of crime involving victim would be far less likely to try anything at all if they knew or thought their probable victim was packing heat!

I could agree with that, yes, If and only if, you could also say that a junkie hopped up on drugs would have enough sense to think that through. In fact you could not say that of any criminal. That's why most of them are in prison. Because they're idiots. So no, I change my position, they would not be less likely to try something.

I look at guns all the time. On the internet, at the store, everywhere. I plan to get one soon. I love them. But I don't think that every American should have one. Hell there are some cops that should not have them. I think that everyone should pass a series of exams to get one. Including psych evaluation. After all we are responsible Americans right?

[edit on 3/30/2010 by 3vilscript]

[edit on 3/30/2010 by 3vilscript]

Originally posted by 3vilscript
I'm for people having guns. I myself don't own one but would like to. I think they are extremely interesting machines. But some of this stuff doesn't make sense to me so if I'm wrong please tell. I'm trying to understand.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were Rounded up and exterminated.

Didn't quote everything.

Are you saying that if the people would have had guns they would have been able to stop any of these tragedies from happening? They would have been able to stop a trained and organized military? It would have certainly helped their odds. Examples of groups of people deterring corrupt governments through force are few. A modern day example of this would be insurgents in Iraq or Afghanistan in my opinion. (I'm not saying the US is corrupt, just making the point that the insurgents cant push back the US military. Just bad placing for that sentence

]

Amen brother! S+F! I don't care what anybody else has to say a criminal considering any type of crime involving victim would be far less likely to try anything at all if they knew or thought their probable victim was packing heat!

I could agree with that, yes, If and only if, you could also say that a junkie hopped up on drugs would have enough sense to think that through. In fact you could not say that of any criminal. That's why most of them are in prison. Because they're idiots. So no, I change my position, they would not be less likely to try something.

I look at guns all the time. On the internet, at the store, everywhere. I plan to get one soon. I love them. But I don't think that every American should have one. Hell there are some cops that should not have them. I think that everyone should pass a series of exams to get one. Including psych evaluation. After all we are responsible Americans right?

[edit on 3/30/2010 by 3vilscript]

[edit on 3/30/2010 by 3vilscript]

You could have all the tests you want, but it would not matter. Want to know why?

Look at driving. The driving test is designed so people are required to be able to correctly use a vehicle before they can drive.
Well... as mentioned motor vehicles are the number one cause of death in America.

This would just be another useless tax on our selves for something that really wouldn't matter.

If you see a retard holding a gun, dont hang out with that guy. If he's doing stupid # with it like aiming it at his friends as a joke.. call the cops.

Try the simplest approach first. Only if it fails or doesn't work in a certain case should you alter the approach.

reply to post by 3vilscript


"Are you saying that if the people would have had guns they would have been able to stop any of these tragedies from happening?"

Yes! I believe it would have to a great degree. Why do you think their govt's wanted them disarmed beforehand? Imagine being an enforcement officer for a totalitarian regime that forgot to disarm it's citizenry. If 1 in 10 people statistically were armed that means you got 10 doors you can kick in to grind the tenant's children into soilent green for the "greater good" before your career was over. Not a great career path. About the same odds as a burglar/home invader in the south (we see about once a month on the local news that another good citizen has cleansed the gene pool of some more excrement. A cop friend tells me it happens more than it makes the news too.)
To look at it from another angle. Would you rather hunt rabbits, or tigers? If you were hunting rabbits you take any old .22 an plink away. They die real easy. Worst case scenario one might smudge your shoe as it ran by. Now tigers... different story. They have teeth, and if you don't hunt them slowly, and carefully you will find yourself the hunted, and worse case scenario is that we only find little pieces of you. Sure you might get lots, and lots of tigers since you're such a prepared, and supported hunter, but in your mind you know it only takes 1 mistake, and you're dead. Totalitarian regimes can't control tigers because they could never find enough hunters. First they must turn them into rabbits so they can hire any sniveling coward with an inferiority complex to go plink them with minimal effort or risk.
It isn't about could a neighborhood of gun totin' rednecks be combat effective against a well armed, trained, and supported regular army. It's about economy of scale, a battle of atrition. It would simply cost too much in time, ammo, supplies, and man power to fight that many pitched battles. Sure you might win every battle, but at what cost? You would also have the martyr effect. Some people would witness your cruelty, and pick up their dead neighbor's gun, convert from rabbit to tiger, and start trying to shoot you too. By the time you got all the tigers you wouldn't have much of a society to rule over anymore, and you'd be broke on top of it.

You could have all the tests you want, but it would not matter. Want to know why? Look at driving. The driving test is designed so people are required to be able to correctly use a vehicle before they can drive. Well... as mentioned motor vehicles are the number one cause of death in America. This would just be another useless tax on our selves for something that really wouldn't matter. If you see a retard holding a gun, dont hang out with that guy. If he's doing stupid # with it like aiming it at his friends as a joke.. call the cops. Try the simplest approach first. Only if it fails or doesn't work in a certain case should you alter the approach.

Okay, I'll bite. Your right that driving exams are for the most part useless. But does that say something about the driving exams or does it say something about the people. Maybe some people should not be allowed to drive? Maybe with a more comprehensive exam you could find out who those drivers are. And if it can save the life of 1 innocent person is it not worth it? Because, as you say, the simplest approach is not working. The same with guns. The simplest approach, not hanging out with people who carry guns, calling the cops, etc., Is not working. So what then should we do?

Yes! I believe it would have to a great degree. Why do you think their govt's wanted them disarmed beforehand?

I think maybe they did it because it would be simpler, but I don't think it would have stopped them if they didn't. Let's say it's true, and the civilians are not separated from their guns. And let's also assume that the government military is totally incompetent and can't subdue the people. I think the government would send a plane with bombs. And then what?

Now these scenarios are too simple. They would never play out like this. Because almost in all cultures and countries whenever something like this has happened it has been because of "the tyranny of the majority" usually the majority is in favor of the corrupt government in the beginning and slowly their rights are taken away for reasons like security and peace. Or along those lines.

Now I'm not against guns as I stated before. But I don't see why a responsible American would not want to go through a more difficult process of buying one. If indeed your plans are not to use it for criminal purposes then why not. Criminals are able to buy guns very easy, and that is just unacceptable.