It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
zorba wrote: »
My wife was just asking me today "when did people stop carrying guns as a matter of course?".
I have no idea... What's the Cliff notes version?
cpj wrote: »
I think Sam is referring to the crazy folks that commit the mass shootings. Of course we've rabbit trailed this, as we usually do.
If the discussion is specifically about the mass shootings, it has (in my opinion ) ZERO to do with murders in general. Because the mass shootings represent a tiny, TINY fraction of a percent of murders in general. Almost to the point (mathematically) of being insignificant.
alphasigmookie wrote: »
The point of the graph was to point out that the murder rate is currently relatively low historically for the nation and trending down which goes against your hypothesis that murder rates are primarily driven by "devaluation of human life". You claim the US is "headed in the wrong direction", but the numbers don't support that claim. I will concede that these past 15 years or so also goes against the hypothesis about income inequality as well, although I never said it was the ONLY factor, clearly there are many factors at play.One positive factor that I think can be at least partially credited with the drop in murder rates in this country is the significant rise in laws allowing citizens to carry guns and defend themselves in their homes.http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/07/10/report-number-of-concealed-carry-permits-surges-as-violent-crime-rate-drops/
coolgunguy wrote: »
That is one factor, I'm sure. More readily available medical care, higher quality medical care and better training for first responders can also be counted. To be truly comprehensive, the graph would have to show violent injuries vs. deaths as a ratio over the same time span. I submit that a significant portion of the current decline is simply due to better trauma care.
samzhere wrote: »
In the thread about the Charleston killings, snake proffered a question about how we prevent nut jobs from getting guns.
To that, Bigslug replied: In direct answer to Snake's post#15: The question is "How do we keep guns out of the hands of the whack jobs without infringing on the rights of everyone else?" The answer is "We don't. We kill the whack jobs when they appear".
Which is likely a good way to deal with these things at the last measure. But prior to that, we are faced with this problem too often.
The liberals and antigunners want to simply outlaw all guns -- we know that but it's not going to happen in our lifetimes.
The matter of background checks comes up but the problem is this: Due to, guess who, the liberals, matters of psychiatric illnesses are prevented from being entered into a person's public record where it could be accessed for potential background checks for a gun purchase. Thus the liberals have themselves prevented any meaningful way to have a nutjob's problems be a factor.
This of course still doesn't prevent the nuts from being given a gun by their parents, duh. All I can say there is to make the laws about this pretty severe, getting you 10 years in the slammer if you provide a gun to a felon or psych.
What are your thoughts on this? As snake so correctly says, we don't want to intrude on the ability of law abiding people to access guns, but we do, I think, need to explore ways to keep such creeps from easily accessing guns as well.
I dunno -- your thoughts? Thanks.
mohican wrote: »
So in parts of the west that wanted to appear civilized about the 1880s or so. In the East outside of the Appalachians and parts of the south probably about 1840 or so. Whenever they were rid of most of the bandits and hostile wagon burners.
In areas where people started to equate going unarmed with law and order and modernity. In places that placed less value, the practice of carrying guns never lessened.
Temporary Price Reduction
Give a Gift
PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE
Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.