Mom kills her two teens for being mouthy.

Quote:

If u need speed, u can pound him with a rock
or apply a serrated knife to a carotid artery.

Killers did not wait around until guns were invented
before thay began murdering.

So... since murderers can use anything why let them have access to guns?

Until such time as we can figure out how to disarm the murderers, normal people need to have access to matching firepower to use in self defense.

parados wrote:

So... since murderers can use anything why let them have access to guns?

Its IMPOSSIBLE to stop them; not even in prison.

How many criminals do u know
who have found it impossible to have access to marijuana ?

Y let them have access to marijuana ?

parados wrote:

So... since murderers can use anything why let them have access to guns?

Its IMPOSSIBLE to stop them; not even in prison.
How many criminals do u know
who have found it impossible to have access to marijuana ?

Y let them have access to marijuana ?

RIGHT David.. How many prisoners have guns?

If it is impossible to stop them, then all must have them.

AND YET... your argument fails the laugh test David.

Quote:

Until such time as we can figure out how to disarm the murderers, normal people need to have access to matching firepower to use in self defense.

So the solution is to make it easier for criminals to get guns?

Quote:

Until such time as we can figure out how to disarm the murderers,
normal people need to have access to matching firepower to use in self defense.

So the solution is to make it easier for criminals to get guns?

Let's look at logic then FBM.

Are criminals more likely to have guns if there are more guns?
Are criminals less likely to have guns if there are fewer guns?

If you answer no to either question the give your reasons.

So, if he won't commit a crime until he is ready
and it takes LONGER to get a gun, doesn't that mean less crime will occur?

Let's look at logic then FBM.

Are criminals more likely to have guns if there are more guns?
Are criminals less likely to have guns if there are fewer guns?

If you answer no to either question the give your reasons.

In Florida, which introduced the "shall-issue" concealed carry laws used as a model for other states, one study found that crimes committed against residents dropped markedly upon the general issuance of concealed-carry licenses.[63] However, another study suggests that in most states with shall-issue laws, there were increases in crime of all types.[64]

In his book, More Guns, Less Crime, University of Maryland scholar John Lott's analysis of crime report data claims a statistically significant effect of concealed carry laws on crime, with more permissive concealed carry laws correlated with a decrease in overall crime. Lott studied FBI crime statistics from 1977 to 1993 and found that the passage of concealed carry laws resulted in a murder rate reduction of 8.5%, rape rate reduction of 5%, and aggravated assault reduction of 7%.[65] Yale Law professors John J. Donohue III and Ian Ayres have claimed that Lott's conclusions were largely the result of a limited data set and that re-running Lott's tests with more complete data yielded none of the results Lott claimed.[66] However Lott has recently updated his findings with further evidence. According to the FBI, during the first year of the Obama administration the national murder rate declined by 7.4% along with other categories of crime which fell by significant percentages.[67] During that same time national gun sales increased dramatically. According to Mr. Lott 450,000 more people bought guns in November 2008 than November 2007 which represents a 40% increase in sales, a trend which continued throughout 2009.[65] The drop in the murder rate was the biggest one-year drop since 1999, another year when gun sales soared in the wake of increased calls for gun control as a result of the Columbine shooting.[65] In reporting on Lott's original analysis The Chronicle of Higher Education has said that although his findings are controversial "Mr. Lott's research has convinced his peers of at least one point: No scholars now claim that legalizing concealed weapons causes a major increase in crime."[68]

Published August 29, 2003, in The Chicago Sun-Times

Gun control laws may be partly at fault in massacre
By John R. Lott Jr.

The tragic attack on Wednesday at Windy City Core Supply left six people murdered. What can be learned from the attack? Acting Chicago Police Supt. Phil Cline was already being described in the press as taking ''a swipe at lenient U.S. gun controls.''

The attack took place in a city where new handguns since 1982 are already banned, a giant so-called ''gun-free safe zone.'' Yet, consider the following: Suppose you or your family are being stalked by a criminal who intends on harming you. Would you feel safer putting a sign in front of your home saying ''This Home is a Gun-Free Zone''?

It is pretty obvious why we don't put these signs up. As with many other gun laws, law-abiding citizens--not would-be criminals--would obey the sign. Instead of creating a safe zone for victims, it leaves victims defenseless and creates a safe zone for those intent on causing harm.

Fortunately, legislators around the country are realizing this. In 1985, just eight states had the most liberal right-to-carry laws--laws that automatically grant permits once applicants pass a criminal background check, pay their fees and, when required, complete a training class. Today the total is 35 states. In a new book, The Bias Against Guns, Bill Landes of the University of Chicago Law School and I examine multiple-victim public shootings in the United States from 1977 to 1999 and find that when states passed right-to-carry laws, these attacks fell by 60 percent. Deaths and injuries from multiple-victim public shootings fell on average by 78 percent.

No other gun control law had any beneficial effect. Indeed, right-to-carry laws were the only policy that consistently reduced these attacks.

To the extent attacks still occurred in right-to-carry states, they overwhelmingly happened in the special places within those states where concealed handguns were banned. The impact of right-to-carry laws on multiple-victim public shootings is much larger than on other crimes, for a simple reason. Increasing the probability that someone will be able to protect themselves increases deterrence. Even when any single person might have a small probability of having a concealed handgun, the probability that at least someone will is very high.

Cline is right that the warehouse murderer, Salvador Tapia, was ''somebody that never should have had a gun.'' The problem is that the handgun ban and bans on people being able to carry guns didn't stop Tapia; the rules did stop law-abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves.

People's reaction to the horrific events displayed on TV is understandable, but the more than 2 million times each year that Americans use guns defensively are never discussed--even though this is five times as often as the 450,000 times that guns are used to commit crimes over the last couple of years. Seldom do cases make the news where public shootings are stopped or mothers use guns to prevent their children from being kidnapped. Few would know that a third of the public school shootings were stopped by citizens with guns before uniformed police could arrive.

During 2001, the morning and evening national news broadcasts on the three main television networks carried almost 190,000 words on gun crimes. Not one single segment featured a civilian using a gun to stop a crime. Newspapers were not much better.

Police are extremely important in deterring crime, but they almost always arrive after the crime has been committed. Annual surveys of crime victims in the United States continually show that, when confronted by a criminal, people are safest if they have a gun. Just as the threat of arrest and prison can deter criminals from committing a crime, so can the fact that victims can defend themselves.

Good intentions don't necessarily make good laws. What counts is whether the laws ultimately save lives. Unfortunately, too many gun laws primarily disarm law-abiding citizens, not criminals.

John R. Lott Jr. is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Copyright © The Sun-Times Company

parados wrote:

Let's look at logic then FBM.

Are criminals more likely to have guns if there are more guns?
Are criminals less likely to have guns if there are fewer guns?

If you answer no to either question the give your reasons.

Sorry, but I don't play ball on slanted playing fields. The law is no impediment to criminal gun ownership. The law is only effective against the good guys. Outlawing guns will have absolutely no effect on criminal gun ownership, except, perhaps, to encourage it. The guns already in existence are more than enough to keep criminals supplied for another century, at least. They don't have expiration dates. I have a friend with a 100-yr-old rifle. He still shoots it from time to time.

Outlaw the manufacture and sale of ammunition? No sweat. There are plenty of home reloading kits already out there. Several of my friends have them. Failing that, I've no doubt that our good friends south of the Texas border and their friends even further south would be only too happy to supply ammunition.

Your proposed anti-gun legislation will do nothing but make sitting ducks out of the American family. Your intention is good, but your logic is fail.

Anyway, instead of us going back-and-forth armed with nothing but rhetoric and opinions, I recommend we bring some research to bear on the question.

Quote:

In Florida, which introduced the "shall-issue" concealed carry laws used as a model for other states, one study found that crimes committed against residents dropped markedly upon the general issuance of concealed-carry licenses.[63] However, another study suggests that in most states with shall-issue laws, there were increases in crime of all types.[64]

In his book, More Guns, Less Crime, University of Maryland scholar John Lott's analysis of crime report data claims a statistically significant effect of concealed carry laws on crime, with more permissive concealed carry laws correlated with a decrease in overall crime. Lott studied FBI crime statistics from 1977 to 1993 and found that the passage of concealed carry laws resulted in a murder rate reduction of 8.5%, rape rate reduction of 5%, and aggravated assault reduction of 7%.[65] Yale Law professors John J. Donohue III and Ian Ayres have claimed that Lott's conclusions were largely the result of a limited data set and that re-running Lott's tests with more complete data yielded none of the results Lott claimed.[66] However Lott has recently updated his findings with further evidence. According to the FBI, during the first year of the Obama administration the national murder rate declined by 7.4% along with other categories of crime which fell by significant percentages.[67] During that same time national gun sales increased dramatically. According to Mr. Lott 450,000 more people bought guns in November 2008 than November 2007 which represents a 40% increase in sales, a trend which continued throughout 2009.[65] The drop in the murder rate was the biggest one-year drop since 1999, another year when gun sales soared in the wake of increased calls for gun control as a result of the Columbine shooting.[65] In reporting on Lott's original analysis The Chronicle of Higher Education has said that although his findings are controversial "Mr. Lott's research has convinced his peers of at least one point: No scholars now claim that legalizing concealed weapons causes a major increase in crime."[68]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#Research_on_the_efficacy_of_concealed_carry

Sources cited in link. Let me know if you want more research and statistics to back this up. There's plenty and I'm on vacation. I've got nothing but time.

The question is academic & moot
inasmuch as u CANNOT significantly affect him,

Sorry, but I don't play ball on slanted playing fields.

Your proposed anti-gun legislation will do nothing but make sitting ducks out of the American family. Your intention is good, but your logic is fail.

The question is academic & moot
inasmuch as u CANNOT significantly affect him,

Let me ask you if putting someone in jail affects their ability to commit a crime?