Comments on: Response to “A few thoughts…” post by Rich http://spotonpolitics.com/blog/2009/10/14/response-to-a-few-thoughts-post-by-rich/ Mon, 14 May 2012 00:18:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Chris http://spotonpolitics.com/blog/2009/10/14/response-to-a-few-thoughts-post-by-rich/comment-page-1/#comment-6 Chris Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:07:02 +0000 http://spotonpolitics.com/blog/?p=21#comment-6 You are incorrect my friend, though the NRA likes to toot it's own horn in regards to gun ownerships affects on crime rates, the numbers don't back them up. If gun ownership reduced crime rates as they suggest here (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=18) then why do the statistics for crime fall in states without RTC at roughly the same rates over the same period of time. I get this info from analyzing lots of numbers and trends from the FBI Crime in the US report issued every year. (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius) Crime is more a function of social and economic trends and tends to be higher in areas of higher population density. Gun ownership tends to be irrelevant except in terms that can be twisted to suggest otherwise. The NRA equates the drop in violent crime over the last 20 years to an increase in RTC states, but many experts relate the drop in crime to easing of economic burdens on individuals and strangely enough abortion rates. (It is theorized that legalized abortion has had a direct causal reduction in crime rates.) Crime rates remain higher in states with lower median income (Florida, South Carolina, and Louisiana) and lower in relatively wealthier states (New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Wisconsin) and strangely enough out of the states I mentioned only Connecticut, New York, New Jersey and Wisconsin have restricted gun ownership. The NRA has uses trends to support their claims but reality doesn't back them up, on the FBI website there is 14 years worth of data that shows trends in all 50 states and US Territories and proves the NRA's claims regarding gun ownership are incorrect. They are seeing what they want to see and attributing a causal effect where there is none. And as far as assault rifles are concerned, there is no practical reason a private citizen should have one and you have not suggested anything suggest otherwise. As far as concessions go, I understand, but it is a bullshit argument. You are correct that the left want to take all of the guns and may not be satisfied until they have them, that is no excuse for not making good policy and ensuring that the laws are exactly what you call 'sensible and enforceable.' Chris You are incorrect my friend, though the NRA likes to toot it’s own horn in regards to gun ownerships affects on crime rates, the numbers don’t back them up. If gun ownership reduced crime rates as they suggest here (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=18) then why do the statistics for crime fall in states without RTC at roughly the same rates over the same period of time. I get this info from analyzing lots of numbers and trends from the FBI Crime in the US report issued every year. (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius)

Crime is more a function of social and economic trends and tends to be higher in areas of higher population density. Gun ownership tends to be irrelevant except in terms that can be twisted to suggest otherwise. The NRA equates the drop in violent crime over the last 20 years to an increase in RTC states, but many experts relate the drop in crime to easing of economic burdens on individuals and strangely enough abortion rates. (It is theorized that legalized abortion has had a direct causal reduction in crime rates.)

Crime rates remain higher in states with lower median income (Florida, South Carolina, and Louisiana) and lower in relatively wealthier states (New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Wisconsin) and strangely enough out of the states I mentioned only Connecticut, New York, New Jersey and Wisconsin have restricted gun ownership.

The NRA has uses trends to support their claims but reality doesn’t back them up, on the FBI website there is 14 years worth of data that shows trends in all 50 states and US Territories and proves the NRA’s claims regarding gun ownership are incorrect. They are seeing what they want to see and attributing a causal effect where there is none.

And as far as assault rifles are concerned, there is no practical reason a private citizen should have one and you have not suggested anything suggest otherwise. As far as concessions go, I understand, but it is a bullshit argument. You are correct that the left want to take all of the guns and may not be satisfied until they have them, that is no excuse for not making good policy and ensuring that the laws are exactly what you call ‘sensible and enforceable.’

Chris

]]> By: Rich http://spotonpolitics.com/blog/2009/10/14/response-to-a-few-thoughts-post-by-rich/comment-page-1/#comment-5 Rich Wed, 14 Oct 2009 04:12:23 +0000 http://spotonpolitics.com/blog/?p=21#comment-5 Chris, Thanks and welcome to the blog! I am working on a good follow up but its getting late and I wanted to make a few quick points in case anybody actually reads this. I agree with most of your points but feel I need to point out a few things, 1. The vast majority of gun owners do not want to get rid of all gun laws, we only want sensible and enforceable ones. 2. The right cannot give in anymore to the left on this issue as no concession is ever given back. 3. Statisitics show very clearly that "shall issue" states have lower crime rates and that the use of these laws has resulted in no increase in crime or firearm violence. 4. While you may feel there is no need for an "assault" rifle, others may and you can not show any reason to ban them as they are no more or less effective than any other semi-automatic weapon (full auto being illegal for all intents and purposes). I'll post a more detailed analysis tomorrow, its late and I feel I am only ranting. That and the wife says that if I don't stop punding on this keyboard she wil shoot me herself and nullify all my arguments. Rich Chris,

Thanks and welcome to the blog! I am working on a good follow up but its getting late and I wanted to make a few quick points in case anybody actually reads this.

I agree with most of your points but feel I need to point out a few things,

1. The vast majority of gun owners do not want to get rid of all gun laws, we only want sensible and enforceable ones.

2. The right cannot give in anymore to the left on this issue as no concession is ever given back.

3. Statisitics show very clearly that “shall issue” states have lower crime rates and that the use of these laws has resulted in no increase in crime or firearm violence.

4. While you may feel there is no need for an “assault” rifle, others may and you can not show any reason to ban them as they are no more or less effective than any other semi-automatic weapon (full auto being illegal for all intents and purposes).

I’ll post a more detailed analysis tomorrow, its late and I feel I am only ranting. That and the wife says that if I don’t stop punding on this keyboard she wil shoot me herself and nullify all my arguments.

Rich

]]>