Mom kills her two teens for being mouthy.

That's funny. The shooting in Chicago is the result of lax gun laws but the shooting in Az can't be attributed to gun laws at all.

I wonder why the murder rate in Pheonix is almost the same as Chicago? Must be the difference in gun laws.

If conceal/carry reduces gun murder then we would expect that the states without conceal/carry would have the highest gun murder rate per population and those with conceal/carry would have the lowest.


BUT...


https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdGhycDRPQlN1dTBoMzJWOTk0Uk9DRVE&hl=en#gid=0

And the conceal/carry map
http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html

Why are Ill and Wi not even close to the highest gun murder rate?

Why does Az have a higher murder rate then Ill?

The real question is, if your logic actually held water, why do they have any gun murder rate at all? Could it be that...criminals...have guns there, despite laws prohibiting such?

Did you even look at the stats you posted? Why do NY and MD, with their much, much tighter gun control laws, have much higher rates than AZ? MD's rates are twice AZ's, and both NY's and MD's laws are much closer to what you advocate.

Logic fail. Reload and try again.

The real question is, if your logic actually held water, why do they have any gun murder rate at all? Could it be that...criminals...have guns there, despite laws prohibiting such?

Which logic of mine are your referring to? I never said that conceal/carry affects the ability of criminals to get guns. Lott argued that conceal/carry reduces crime and murder. Do you agree that Lott is wrong?

Did you even look at the stats you posted? Why do NY and MD, with their much, much tighter gun control laws, have much higher rates than AZ? MD's rates are twice AZ's, and both NY's and MD's laws are much closer to what you advocate.

For reasons other than conceal/carry. But then I never argued that conceal/carry reduces crime and the stats support that. I only pointed out that Lott's argument is rather silly.

of their getting KILLED or grievously wounded on-the-job, if the (angry) victim
is well armed and he knows that it is LEGAL
for him to defend himself by slaughtering those criminals.

Incarcerated felons, during interviews in prison,
have indicated that thay care A LOT whether
thay will survive robberies that thay perpetrate.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

of their getting KILLED or grievously wounded on-the-job, if the (angry) victim
is well armed and he knows that it is LEGAL
for him to defend himself by slaughtering those criminals.

Quote:

So then why are the 2 states without conceal/carry not the ones with the highest murder rate?

I understand that
D.C. and Chicago had very dangerous murder rates.
(I am not an expert on statistics.)

Quote:

Are you arguing that criminals in other states are too stupid to not realize that others might be carrying guns?

Re-state your question ?

Quote:

Incarcerated felons, during interviews in prison,
have indicated that thay care A LOT whether
thay will survive robberies that thay perpetrate.

So let me ask again. Why do the states without conceal/carry have lower murder rates than other states?

I will always look at it from an INDIVIDUAL PERSPECTIVE, to wit:
when a victim is violently beset with
the depredations of criminals or of animals,
he need not stop to consider what is best for society.
Survival is very INDIVIDUAL.

When a victim of crime is attacked by predators
he has a right to fight back, and to be as successful
as possible, regardless of how the predators
are armed or if thay r UNARMED.
The victim can be killed by UNARMED predators
or by those bearing sharp or blunt weapons.
We know that because it has already happened too many times.


There is only one way that a petite old lady
or a child can defend himself or herself from
violent predators: guns of adequate power
with competent ammuntion. No citizen has the duty
to lay down and submit to murder, for the good of society.

I support "equal protection of the laws" Parados.

I guess that means you support the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Crime and Self-Defense


* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[12]



* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16]



* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]


* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]



* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]



* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]



� 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

� 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"

� 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

Please don't take this as an aggressive response, but you do know what a 'straw man argument' is, don't you? They're notorious for clouding an issue and preventing progress in a dialog.

Saying the population would be more protected if there were more guns available is like saying all countries should have nuclear weapons.

Is it not the same argument?

I am sorry if I disturbed your dialog.

I guess I don't think it's possible to have a meaningful dialog with gun proponents.

As long as those with criminal intent have access to guns, a wise law-abiding citizen who cares enough about his/her life and those of his/her loved ones would be well advised to own a gun and train in its proper use. You can't back down a gun-toting criminal with a knife, can you?

Gotcha. I imagine my previous posts may come across as those of a rabid gun nut to some, but I'm not. I respect your position, and don't think it's actually all that far from mine. I have a couple of friends who are rabid gun nuts, but I just can't work up that much interest in it.