STUDY: States With Loose Gun Laws Have Higher Rates Of Gun Violence - Polidicks

[URL="http://www.infoplease.com/us/statistics/crime-rate-state.html"]http://www.infoplease.com/us/statistics/crime-rate-state.html[/URL] With the exception of New York and Massachusettes, the top 10 ranked states from [URL="http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/AmericaUnderTheGun.pdf"]America Under The Gun[/URL] have less than half the violent crime of 8 of the 10 bottom ranked states (again there are two outliers but I forget which ones. Feel free to compare for yourself though). The bottom ranked states have an average gun ownership (amount of gun owners vs. total population) of 45.44%, while the top ranked states have an average gun ownership of 24.28%. Almost double the rate of gun ownership among the population. [URL="http://usliberals.about.com/od/Election2012Factors/a/Gun-Owners-As-Percentage-Of-Each-States-Population.htm"]See here.[/URL] I will check education stats when I have time, but I suspect to see a similar trend.

[QUOTE=FlakAttack;40159768][URL]http://www.infoplease.com/us/statistics/crime-rate-state.html[/URL][/QUOTE] I can't help but notice that every single button on the top of that page is fake, just an image that doesn't go anywhere. Even the searchbar.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40158387]How about this as criticism then, you're flaunting around as gospel about how wrong America is a study that uses less than 500 samples of SUBJECTIVE accounts for either side, that cannot be considered anywhere near nationally representative.[/quote] Well firstly, I did call on you to provide a source of information which not only refutes mine, but is also less wrong too. [quote]Now please do not get angry, but this is solely the results of this particular study. I am happy to see the results of other studies to see if the results contradict this.[/quote] You have cited the following as a rebuttal: [quote]Let's see, you criticize my dismissal of discredited and/or biased sources, then back your argument up doing the exact same thing.[/quote] The point I am making is you rarely cite sources to back up your objections to a source. You criticize the source maker itself instead of finding sources with which to falsify it, and rarely the content of it. [quote]Honestly, this whole part is laughable. You claim I'm "not trying to find out the truth" yet for the last at least 4 months whenever a debate on this subject has come up you're either ignored or dismissed every source that has come up to counter you, while all the while reinforcing the "slippery-slope fallacy" by encouraging incremental gun confiscation. Need I remind you of the time you dismissed and derailed an ENTIRE THREAD, in which you were later banned, simply because John Lott was brought up ONCE, in ONE argument, as an aside rather than a main point?[/quote] I've been looking at multiple sources to see what's going on. As far as I am aware, the pro-gun lobby is a vile thing which not only seeks to suppress scientific research, but has the control of several politicians. The fact they blame anything and everything which isn't a firearm raises warning bells too. [quote]Get off your fucking high horse, you're in honestly no better of a position than I when it comes to "finding the truth," considering you've been considered one of the most ignorant stonewalls on this topic. You're in absolutely no position for misplaced arrogance. Not to mention "we" don't pay anything, you're British and I'm Canadian, neither of us is actually from America, neither of us are part of any "we" that results from goings-on there.[/quote] If you are Canadian, what gives you the idea you can understand the Second Amendment and its importance, yet if I am British and say its importance is not justified I get dismissed on grounds I am a foreigner. [quote]It's happened in Britain, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, South Africa, Germany, France, Norway, and was attempted in New York and California. It's been both pushed and supported by numerous gun control groups and vocal advocates. In Canada, we are always one election away from having millions of guns prohibited and confiscated, and thousands more are confiscated due to arbitrary prohibition each day as their owners die and their estates are settled. Yes, someone is going to try and take my guns away, considering that was the blatant goal of the man who wrote our gun control legislation, Alan Rock, who was quite vocal in his intentions to make Canada "The world's first gun-free nation" and believed that only the police and military should have access to guns.[/QUOTE] Well the good news is a lot of people tend to support legislation in a democracy, hence if you implement gun control, you are doing what the people want. The world is changing and you need to accept that. [editline]4th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Ridge;40159889]I can't help but notice that every single button on the top of that page is fake, just an image that doesn't go anywhere. Even the searchbar.[/QUOTE] What?

[QUOTE=Ridge;40159889]I can't help but notice that every single button on the top of that page is fake, just an image that doesn't go anywhere. Even the searchbar.[/QUOTE] [I][URL="http://i.imgur.com/A6xKl9x.gif"]Bravo[/URL][/I]. Another quality post that is completely pertinent to current discussion.

[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;40160015][I][URL="http://i.imgur.com/A6xKl9x.gif"]Bravo[/URL][/I]. Another quality post that is completely pertinent to current discussion.[/QUOTE] Ah, I see now. The page just has zero functionality with Google Chrome. Works fine in IE.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40159640]Statements like this are why I made a point earlier about your support of firearms prohibition. There was nothing wrong prior to the bans, and the insinuation of such can be indicative support for them. Also, I should note that these bans were enacted without any evidence supporting them, they were knee-jerk reactions to mass shootings, with no basis. Nothing was wrong, and there was no reason for it to be removed, and the biggest issue is the way confiscation is conducted in Canada it is tantamount to theft, as the estate receives no compensation when the government confiscates the firearm, and the firearm cannot be passed down, and there is a very limited market of other grandfathered individuals to whom the gun can be sold. If the government doesn't steal the gun directly, they've robbed the estate of the gun's value by limiting the market it can be sold to, since it cannot be passed down.[/QUOTE] nothing is wrong with people using guns to kill each other ok then, i guess this discussion is over.

I don't know if it's true or not but banning standard capacity magazines isn't going to get rid of more than 5% of gun violence tops...

[QUOTE=NoDachi;40151346]The thing is. I've never been given a study that has opposed my side of the argument. I'm not even being hyperbolic.[/QUOTE] No, you have. You've been given tens, if not hundreds. Actually, this thread is a fantastic example of how people with very strong convictions can perceive reality that is warped exclusively to fit that conviction.

[QUOTE=archangel125;40162047]No, you have. You've been given tens, if not hundreds. Actually, this thread is a fantastic example of how people with very strong convictions can perceive reality that is warped exclusively to fit that conviction.[/QUOTE] I've been given hundreds of studies on what exactly. Its hardly unreasonable not to doubt the credibility of.. [QUOTE=DaCommie1;40152693]I know it's going to be hypocritical of me to criticize sourcing anti-gun groups and I'm about to source pro-gun sites to back up my criticisms of Kellermann, but I've found some scholarly articles from other locales, and one of the pro-gun site's studies has a doctoral name for the counter, not to mention not all studies or criticism papers are available free, and/or easily sourced on google. [url]http://www.tbuckner.com/KELLERMANN.htm[/url] [url]http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kellerman-schaffer.html[/url] (Blatant pro-gun source, but has a Ph.D endorsement on the study) [url]http://guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html[/url] (Pro-gun, no researcher's name attached, therefore on professional endorsement) [url]http://www.haciendapub.com/medicalsentinel/public-health-and-gun-control-review-part-i-benefits-firearms[/url] Other locations talking of known Kellermann criticisms: [url]http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Arthur-Kellermann[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann[/url] A notable point, which brings, in my opinion, much of his work into question.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Protocol7;40162017]I don't know if it's true or not but banning standard capacity magazines isn't going to get rid of more than 5% of gun violence tops...[/QUOTE] I seriously doubt it's even gonna do that. It's just going to make lots of law-abiding citizens into paper criminals.

[QUOTE=archangel125;40162047]No, you have. You've been given tens, if not hundreds. Actually, this thread is a fantastic example of how people with very strong convictions can perceive reality that is warped exclusively to fit that conviction.[/QUOTE] Sometimes research is ignored when its unfavourable, especially when it comes from biased sources like government agencies. Then favourable research, which is not only objective and scientific, but has come from a self-published person whose research consisted of standing around and making the occasional glance, is used to give a strong argument as to why your side, which stands in a minority and is often lampooned by the media or foreigners, is correct.

[QUOTE=The Baconator;40156903]Poverty is the lead cause of crime in any society /Sociology fact But that doesnt mean we cant talk about guns though[/QUOTE] That's really one of the big factors that expose a lot of the extreme liberals as hypocrites. There's a lot of bad gang violence in those areas dealing with the black market drug trade. You know, drugs that aren't legal. For some reason, people have the stubborn idea that guns wouldn't fall into the same category if they were illegal. Your average, non-murdering citizen probably wouldn't go through all the bullshit to obtain a handgun illegally. BUT people in these high poverty areas who are already connected, won't have a problem.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40159920]Well firstly, I did call on you to provide a source of information which not only refutes mine, but is also less wrong too. You have cited the following as a rebuttal: The point I am making is you rarely cite sources to back up your objections to a source. You criticize the source maker itself instead of finding sources with which to falsify it, and rarely the content of it. I've been looking at multiple sources to see what's going on. As far as I am aware, the pro-gun lobby is a vile thing which not only seeks to suppress scientific research, but has the control of several politicians. The fact they blame anything and everything which isn't a firearm raises warning bells too.[/quote] To the above: Gun control and mass shootings: [quote]Bringing into Question the issue of gun control legislation following school shootings: [I]Mass Shootings in Schools: The Worst Possible Case for Gun Control[/I] American Behavioral Scientist (June 2009), 52 (10), pg. 1447-1464 Gary Kleck [/quote] About defensive gun use: [quote] [I]The effect of perceived risk and victimization on plans to purchase a gun for self-protection[/I] Gary Klecka, Tomislav Kovandzicb, Corresponding author contact information, E-mail the corresponding author, Mark Saberb, Will Hausera a College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, The Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306–1127, United States b Criminology Program, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX 75080–3021, United States Results The estimated effect of perceived risk and prior victimization changed from being nonsignificant when household gun ownership was the dependent variable (as in most prior research) to being increasingly strong, and statistically significant, when gun ownership of the individual respondent for defensive reasons was measured. Further, once the causal order issue was side-stepped, risk and victimization showed even stronger, significant positive effects on planning to get a gun. [/quote] Criticisms of Kellermann's suicide findings: [quote][I]Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership[/I]: [Letter] The New England Journal of Medicine327. 26 (Dec 24, 1992): 1878-1881. [/quote] Those pages are awash with letters from academics criticizing Kellermann. Kleck estimates, given data from the National Self Defence Survey, that Defensive Gun Uses occur between 760,000 and 3.5 million times per year, with [url=http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/Crime_and_Justice_gundefense_2000.pdfsome critics saying that number is closer to 300,000-1.3 million.[/url] (Page 48/56, study page 409, in the summary. Incidentally, this paper also criticizes Lott's study on CCW laws) [quote][I]Carrying Guns for Protection: Results from the National Self-Defense Survey[/I] Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency (May 1998), 35 (2), pg. 193-224 GARY KLECK; MARC GERTZ [/quote] With data from the [url=http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1]UCR[/url] putting aggravated assault numbers at 1.1 million in 1992, and 750,000 in 2011, and murder at 23,000 in 1992 and 14,000 in 2011, assuming all cases of assault and murder involved the use of a firearm, which they didn't, it is within the estimates of the initial NSDS to believe that there are more defensive than offensive gun uses, and also within the upper range of critics' estimates. It is also within estimates of the original NSDS if you include UCR data for robbery and forcible rape, and assume each incident involved the offensive use of a firearm. Further study on self-defence with a firearm: [quote][I]Firearms and Self-Defense[/I] The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (January 1995), 539 (1), pg. 130-140 David McDowall [/quote] Which, while offering an abstract conclusion that is ambiguous and takes into account both sides of the argument, it does state that if data from the NCVS is to be believed, firearm use for self defence could be rare, though effective when it occurs. [quote]If you are Canadian, what gives you the idea you can understand the Second Amendment and its importance, yet if I am British and say its importance is not justified I get dismissed on grounds I am a foreigner.[/quote] Ask an American, I never said you can't understand because you're foreign, though I may have said I don't think your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is correct. I base my interpretation off of the text of the amendment, as well as quotes and opinions of the founding fathers at the time, however barring getting a time machine and asking George Washington what it meant, officially interpretation is up to the courts, who have ruled that the 2nd covers guns that could be conceivably used as part of a militia, as well as the ownership and use of guns for the protection of oneself. [quote]Well the good news is a lot of people tend to support legislation in a democracy, hence if you implement gun control, you are doing what the people want. The world is changing and you need to accept that. [/QUOTE] Yet you seem to have a hard time accepting that America likes its guns, constantly mocking US gun owners and gun rights activists. Moreover, in Britain and Canada, and some US media corporations as well, there is evidence of media bias against guns and their ownership, going so far as to skirt the line of slander in Canada, to insinuate that gun owners are wife-beaters, gangsters who shoot up shopping malls, and murderers-in-waiting. I've also heard, though have not backed up with my own research (and on this topic, it could be difficult), that the Canadian Coalition for Gun Control was provided funding for its foundation and expansion by the Canadian government, Liberal at the time, so they could lobby the government for gun control to give it legitimacy on the floor of parliament. I have found that throughout the commonwealth mostly, gun control groups have been vicious towards gun owners, some slanderous (Australia), they either lie, embellish the truth, or fabricate numbers (Canada), that they are the ones who have the sole ear of a number of politicians and even whole political parties (NDP and Liberal, Canada), and that they exaggerate the presence or prevalence of the gun lobby in the nation, attempting to demonize pro-gun groups as supporters of violence against women, inner-city youth, and that they are a "threat to national values."

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;40150964]oh wow another post classifying facepunch as a hivemind god damn these posts are old[/QUOTE] it's kind of like a hivemind with an unusually high amount of imposters.

Just because certain states have more gun violence than others doesn't mean the general crime rate is high. The UK has little gun violence but their general rate of violence is immensely huge while here is not so bad.