arma virumque cano (et alia)
Pretty minor change. Hopefully, logic and decency will trump the whining of the political hack police chiefs.They know that guns in civilian hands do more harm than good.;-)
Absolutely right. Guns in civilian hands ALWAYS do more harm than good. Totally correct. The more armed gunsucks, the more crime, murder, and accidental shootings.
"The more armed gunsucks, the more crime, murder, and accidental shootings." Strange, gun crime and deaths seem to be declining while the number of permits holders seems to be increasing. While it cant be proven that one causes the other, it would certainly seem to contradict your assertion.
No, ss, since it can't be proven that one causes the other, it's just a likely that the crime rate is going down IN SPITE of the increase in permit holders. And that would mean that if gun ownership and permit holders were decreasing, crime would be declining even more than it is.
And that would mean that if gun ownership and permit holders were decreasing . . . A safe hypothesis for you, given the fact that it's unlikely ever to be tested.
It is most certainly not "just as likely". Does empirical data mean nothing to you? If you're going to form a hypothesis, every bit of data that works against your hypothesis makes it less likely to be true. You don't forever remain at a 50% chance of being right.Would you say it's "just as likely" man-made carbon emissions are cooling the earth, and it would be hotter without it?
"No, ss, since it can't be proven that one causes the other, it's just a likely that the crime rate is going down IN SPITE of the increase in permit holders." Mike, since the recurring theme here seems to link more guns with more gun crime, and that therefor, a reduction in gun ownership would result in less crime, how can you suggest that an increase in people carrying guns can still result in less crime? POd Lib made the assertion that more armed people equates to an increase in more crime, murder, and shootings, which I disagreed with since the data shows the opposite. I would also disagree with your contention that gun ownership is decreasing. The common assertion among gun control advocates is that current gun owners are buying all of the extra guns being produced by manufacturers. And I'm sure there is a percentage in which that is correct, since I myself have bought more guns recently. But lets look at the state of Illinois for some data. In Illinois, to purchase a firearm, you have to have a Firearm Owner's Identification card, or FOID for short. The FOID is good for ten years, so a person can use it for multiple gun purchases. However, while the population of Illinois is growing very slowly, "Illinois’ three-year population growth numbers are just as disheartening. From 2010 to 2013, Illinois added just 42,000 people. In contrast, Indiana, half the size of Illinois, added more than 80,000." http://illinoispolicy.org/illinois-sputtering-population-growth/#sthash.ZNvZcgX9.dpuf The number of applications for these FOIDs required to buy firearms in the state have been increasing at a much higher rate over a long period of time. In 2002 there were over 225,000 FOID applications, and has increased to over 320,000 in 2011. While a percentage of these applications must be attributed to renewals, this clearly shows an increase in firearms ownership in the state at a higher rate than growth in the general population. If your assertion that gun ownership is falling over a long period of time, then these numbers would be falling, or at least be increasing at a lower rate than population growth. https://data.illinois.gov/Public-Safety/ISP-Firearm-Owners-Identification-FOID-Application/vvq4-faea And the increase still seems to be accelerating,"The Illinois State Police (ISP), Firearms Services Bureau, (FSB) has received a record number of FOID card applications since May 2012. For example, in January 2013, the ISP FSB, received 61,172 FOID applications. As a comparison, in January 2012, the ISP FSB, received 31,655, which had been the highest number of FOID applications received during the month of January in years prior to 2012."http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/
TS: "It is most certainly not "just as likely". "Really? What was said was that causation cannot be proven between increased gun sales and decreased crime. I said it's just as likely that crime went down IN SPITE of increased gun sales, that it would have gone down even more if gun sales had also decreased.Exactly what "empirical data" am I ignoring?
Listen Mike, generally speaking if two things have a correlation there are a number of different causation scenarios. One is that there is no causation. Another is that there is causation corresponding with the correlation. Saying there is a causation opposite of the correlation is at best a remote possibility- not "just as likely". Even then, you'd have to find broader data that contradicts the first set, or errors in the data. you'd still need something to support it, something which you don't have.
Mikeb, you can claim that the decrease in overall violent crime and specifically in homicide rates in in spite of our gun laws, but the fact remains that loosening gun laws hasn't resulted in an increase. That invalidates your narrative.
"Exactly what "empirical data" am I ignoring?"The US has the highest imprisonment rate in the world. I wonder if that has anything to due with decreased crime? There are more guns in America than ever before, but crime is down, so your claim that more guns equals more crime is full of bullshit.
Because people who are a problem were just waiting around to get permission to have a loaded gun in their cars?
They just don't want to lose the income stream from permits.
Must be a good income stream if that many permits are being issued!