New university study: concealed weapons permits lower murder rates

[rearman]

What the future holds...

New York City confiscating rifles and shotguns:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/06/new-york-city-confiscating-rifles-and-shotguns/

That is exactly why you never register a firearm. That is exactly what the Nazis did. They forced all Jews to register their firearms. Then they knew where all the firearms owning Jews were. It went downhill from there.

As I recall, Germany already had a registry by the time the Nazis came to power (sold to the public as a safety measure, no doubt, and one that would NEVER be used to disarm the people). The Nazis used the registry to target groups for disarmament prior to extermination.

The only rational (albeit entirely unconstitutional) purpose for a registry is disarmament of the law abiding citizenry. The anti-crime rationale is laughable and obviously so to anyone with two brain cells to rub together (but if one needs data, see Canada's very expensive and futile experiment with firearms registration).

 

[Ocelot]

Tail Gunner, you neglected to quote the bottom line of that article.

spokesperson said: “These figures are misleading. Levels of police recorded crime statistics from different countries are simply not comparable since they are affected by many factors, for example the recording of violent crime in other countries may not include behaviour that we would categorise as violent crime.

“Violent crime in England and Wales has fallen by almost a half since a peak in 1995 but we are not complacent and know there is still work to do.

Even if true (in regard to the UK), it is irrelevant. I posted the article to refute the erroneous notion that "Many European nations have higher violent crime rates per capita than the U.S."

In addition to the UK, the article also discussed violent crime rates from Austria (with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people), followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland, Holland, and France. So the article still supports the point that I made. It if highly unlikely that all of theses nation use methodologies different than those used in the U.S.

In addition, your observation actually bolsters my point. If these statistics from different nations are not comparable, then how can Hencredible Casanova have possibly made the statement that he did (that "Many European nations have higher violent crime rates per capita than the U.S.")? The answer is that, by your own logic, he cannot.

At least I made the effort to support my assertion.

I've never heard someone argue your position. None of the figures I've seen has the US with a lower homicide and violent crime rate than western European countries. See for yourself .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide

Homicide is a very misleading statistic to use. If someone breaks into my home, armed, and I shoot them in self defence, a homicide has occurred. People against gun control are not necessarily claiming there will be an increase in homicides - the difference will be which party is killed.

 

[Tail Gunner]

Tail Gunner, you neglected to quote the bottom line of that article.

spokesperson said: “These figures are misleading. Levels of police recorded crime statistics from different countries are simply not comparable since they are affected by many factors, for example the recording of violent crime in other countries may not include behaviour that we would categorise as violent crime.

“Violent crime in England and Wales has fallen by almost a half since a peak in 1995 but we are not complacent and know there is still work to do.

Even if true (in regard to the UK), it is irrelevant. I posted the article to refute the erroneous notion that "Many European nations have higher violent crime rates per capita than the U.S."

In addition to the UK, the article also discussed violent crime rates from Austria (with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people), followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland, Holland, and France. So the article still supports the point that I made. It if highly unlikely that all of theses nation use methodologies different than those used in the U.S.

In addition, your observation actually bolsters my point. If these statistics from different nations are not comparable, then how can Hencredible Casanova have possibly made the statement that he did (that "Many European nations have higher violent crime rates per capita than the U.S.")? The answer is that, by your own logic, he cannot.

At least I made the effort to support my assertion.

I've never heard someone argue your position. None of the figures I've seen has the US with a lower homicide and violent crime rate than western European countries. See for yourself .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide

There is plenty of evidence that the U.S. has a lower violent crime rate than most of Europe (which was your original point). When you exclude urban areas in the U.S., the murder rate is also very similar to Europe. So, 99% of the land mass of the U.S. is mostly murder-free.

Are we really going to strip ourselves of our liberties because gangsters and illegal aliens want to kill each other? That is exceedingly blue pill.

It is true that all countries in Southern and Western Europe had lower murder rates than the U.S. But it might be worthwhile to parse the U.S. number if we continue to make such comparisons.

In over 52% of the murders in the US in 2011 in which the race of the murderer was known, the murderer was black. Over half of the victims of murder were also black. But blacks are only 13.6% of the population. Put all that together, and the murder rate in the US for non-blacks was more like 2.6 per 100,000 in 2011.

As Peter Baldwin put it in his book, The Narcissism of Minor Differences, "Take out the black underclass from the statistics, and even American murder rates fall to European levels."

A rate of 2.6 would put us below the Southern European countries of Albania (4.0) and Montenegro (3.5), and in the neighborhood of the Western European countries of Liechtenstein (2.8) and Luxembourg (2.5).

The Government Accountability Office estimated that 25,064 criminal aliens (non-U.S. citizens) were arrested for homicide in the U.S. Compare that number to the total number of homicides in the U.S. in 2011: 14,612. The criminal aliens committed their murders over a number of years, but that is still a high percentage of all murders in the U.S. that are committed by non-citizens.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/listening_to_the_latest_media.html

 

[Hencredible Casanova]

Tail Gunner, you neglected to quote the bottom line of that article.

spokesperson said: “These figures are misleading. Levels of police recorded crime statistics from different countries are simply not comparable since they are affected by many factors, for example the recording of violent crime in other countries may not include behaviour that we would categorise as violent crime.

“Violent crime in England and Wales has fallen by almost a half since a peak in 1995 but we are not complacent and know there is still work to do.

Even if true (in regard to the UK), it is irrelevant. I posted the article to refute the erroneous notion that "Many European nations have higher violent crime rates per capita than the U.S."

In addition to the UK, the article also discussed violent crime rates from Austria (with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people), followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland, Holland, and France. So the article still supports the point that I made. It if highly unlikely that all of theses nation use methodologies different than those used in the U.S.

In addition, your observation actually bolsters my point. If these statistics from different nations are not comparable, then how can Hencredible Casanova have possibly made the statement that he did (that "Many European nations have higher violent crime rates per capita than the U.S.")? The answer is that, by your own logic, he cannot.

At least I made the effort to support my assertion.

I've never heard someone argue your position. None of the figures I've seen has the US with a lower homicide and violent crime rate than western European countries. See for yourself .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide

There is plenty of evidence that the U.S. has a lower violent crime rate than most of Europe (which was your original point). When you exclude large urban areas in the U.S., the murder rate is also very similar to Europe. So, 99% of the land mass of the U.S. is mostly murder-free.

"When you exclude large urban areas..."

I don't. Neither does any reputable reporting agency.

That's too comical to be taken seriously. That's like saying the UK is a very safe country, when you exclude LONDON.

Now we have guys that design their own stats. Great.

 

[rearman]

Homicide is a very misleading statistic to use. If someone breaks into my home, armed, and I shoot them in self defence, a homicide has occurred. People against gun control are not necessarily claiming there will be an increase in homicides - the difference will be which party is killed.

For truly laughable data, look at what gun control advocates count as 'gun deaths' - the 'gun death' figure they tout is ~30k annually.

Let's break that down:
~60% is suicide
~30% (or ~70% of the non-suicides) is felons killing felons

The remaining 10% includes:
-non-felons (first time felons) committing murder
-police killing perps (even the death of the older brother Boston marathon bomber is included in their 'gun deaths' figure)
-lawful self-defense against an attacker
-accidental deaths

You can't stop someone who is intent on killing themselves. Guns or no guns, people who are looking for the exit will find it. Japan and some of the northern European countries have very high suicide rates - no guns necessary.

Once you remove the suicides, there are a lot of 'gun deaths' that most people are pretty OK with - e.g., felons killing felons (eliminates a criminal and saves a lot of taxpayer dollars), lawful self-defense, etc.

 

[It_is_my_time]

Tail Gunner, you neglected to quote the bottom line of that article.

Even if true (in regard to the UK), it is irrelevant. I posted the article to refute the erroneous notion that "Many European nations have higher violent crime rates per capita than the U.S."

In addition to the UK, the article also discussed violent crime rates from Austria (with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people), followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland, Holland, and France. So the article still supports the point that I made. It if highly unlikely that all of theses nation use methodologies different than those used in the U.S.

In addition, your observation actually bolsters my point. If these statistics from different nations are not comparable, then how can Hencredible Casanova have possibly made the statement that he did (that "Many European nations have higher violent crime rates per capita than the U.S.")? The answer is that, by your own logic, he cannot.

At least I made the effort to support my assertion.

I've never heard someone argue your position. None of the figures I've seen has the US with a lower homicide and violent crime rate than western European countries. See for yourself .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide

There is plenty of evidence that the U.S. has a lower violent crime rate than most of Europe (which was your original point). When you exclude large urban areas in the U.S., the murder rate is also very similar to Europe. So, 99% of the land mass of the U.S. is mostly murder-free.

"When you exclude large urban areas..."

I don't. Neither does any reputable reporting agency.

That's too comical to be taken seriously. That's like saying the UK is a very safe country, when you exclude LONDON.

Now we have guys that design their own stats. Great.

In the violent areas where the most murders happen, many of the murders are by illegally owned guns, and many of the residents live in gun restriction zones.

Sort of an example of why we don't want gun control. The war zone in Chicago is an excellent example. They have gun control and I wouldn't dare step foot into the rough areas of that city.

 

[Hencredible Casanova]

Even if true (in regard to the UK), it is irrelevant. I posted the article to refute the erroneous notion that "Many European nations have higher violent crime rates per capita than the U.S."

In addition to the UK, the article also discussed violent crime rates from Austria (with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people), followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland, Holland, and France. So the article still supports the point that I made. It if highly unlikely that all of theses nation use methodologies different than those used in the U.S.

In addition, your observation actually bolsters my point. If these statistics from different nations are not comparable, then how can Hencredible Casanova have possibly made the statement that he did (that "Many European nations have higher violent crime rates per capita than the U.S.")? The answer is that, by your own logic, he cannot.

At least I made the effort to support my assertion.

I've never heard someone argue your position. None of the figures I've seen has the US with a lower homicide and violent crime rate than western European countries. See for yourself .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide

There is plenty of evidence that the U.S. has a lower violent crime rate than most of Europe (which was your original point). When you exclude large urban areas in the U.S., the murder rate is also very similar to Europe. So, 99% of the land mass of the U.S. is mostly murder-free.

"When you exclude large urban areas..."

I don't. Neither does any reputable reporting agency.

That's too comical to be taken seriously. That's like saying the UK is a very safe country, when you exclude LONDON.

Now we have guys that design their own stats. Great.

In the violent areas where the most murders happen, many of the murders are by illegally owned guns, and many of the residents live in gun restriction zones.

Sort of an example of why we don't want gun control. The war zone in Chicago is an excellent example. They have gun control and I wouldn't dare step foot into the rough areas of that city.

What do you think is the solution to solving the crime problem of illegally owned guns and the murders that result?

 

[Combored]

What the future holds...

New York City confiscating rifles and shotguns:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/06/new-york-city-confiscating-rifles-and-shotguns/

That is exactly why you never register a firearm. That is exactly what the Nazis did. They forced all Jews to register their firearms. Then they knew where all the firearms owning Jews were. It went downhill from there.

As I recall, Germany already had a registry by the time the Nazis came to power (sold to the public as a safety measure, no doubt, and one that would NEVER be used to disarm the people). The Nazis used the registry to target groups for disarmament prior to extermination.

The only rational (albeit entirely unconstitutional) purpose for a registry is disarmament of the law abiding citizenry. The anti-crime rationale is laughable and obviously so to anyone with two brain cells to rub together (but if one needs data, see Canada's very expensive and futile experiment with firearms registration).

 

[It_is_my_time]

I've never heard someone argue your position. None of the figures I've seen has the US with a lower homicide and violent crime rate than western European countries. See for yourself .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide

There is plenty of evidence that the U.S. has a lower violent crime rate than most of Europe (which was your original point). When you exclude large urban areas in the U.S., the murder rate is also very similar to Europe. So, 99% of the land mass of the U.S. is mostly murder-free.

"When you exclude large urban areas..."

I don't. Neither does any reputable reporting agency.

That's too comical to be taken seriously. That's like saying the UK is a very safe country, when you exclude LONDON.

Now we have guys that design their own stats. Great.

In the violent areas where the most murders happen, many of the murders are by illegally owned guns, and many of the residents live in gun restriction zones.

Sort of an example of why we don't want gun control. The war zone in Chicago is an excellent example. They have gun control and I wouldn't dare step foot into the rough areas of that city.

What do you think is the solution to solving the crime problem of illegally owned guns and the murders that result?

Well since the current administration handed out illegal guns to drug dealers in Mexico, the answer probably doesn't lie in the govt.

The best bet is to embrace guns as a means of self protection and something to be highly respected. If the criminals know the people are likely armed they will more likely pass on trying to make them victims and look for an easier route.

IMO, the #1 thing that our society could do to stop all the violence....

Get fathers back in the household and knock off this "you go girl" nonsense and "you don't need a man" crap.

 

[Tail Gunner]

Tail Gunner, you neglected to quote the bottom line of that article.

Even if true (in regard to the UK), it is irrelevant. I posted the article to refute the erroneous notion that "Many European nations have higher violent crime rates per capita than the U.S."

In addition to the UK, the article also discussed violent crime rates from Austria (with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people), followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland, Holland, and France. So the article still supports the point that I made. It if highly unlikely that all of theses nation use methodologies different than those used in the U.S.

In addition, your observation actually bolsters my point. If these statistics from different nations are not comparable, then how can Hencredible Casanova have possibly made the statement that he did (that "Many European nations have higher violent crime rates per capita than the U.S.")? The answer is that, by your own logic, he cannot.

At least I made the effort to support my assertion.

I've never heard someone argue your position. None of the figures I've seen has the US with a lower homicide and violent crime rate than western European countries. See for yourself .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide

There is plenty of evidence that the U.S. has a lower violent crime rate than most of Europe (which was your original point). When you exclude large urban areas in the U.S., the murder rate is also very similar to Europe. So, 99% of the land mass of the U.S. is mostly murder-free.

"When you exclude large urban areas..."

I don't. Neither does any reputable reporting agency.

That's too comical to be taken seriously. That's like saying the UK is a very safe country, when you exclude LONDON.

Now we have guys that design their own stats. Great.

The fact that 99% of the land mass of the U.S. is very safe is quite relevant to the discussion.

What is comical is to create public policy dictated by fools murdering each other. Gang violence in urban areas is a direct result of liberal welfare policies that destroyed family structures in poor urban areas. No sane person will allow their rights to be taken away by the same numbskulls (liberals) who created the murder problem in the first place.

 

[Glock]

Here we go again. There's been another mall shooting in the U.S. Of course, like most of the recent bad shootings, it happened in a place with extremely strict gun control -- Maryland. You can read about it here.

 

[purpley]

If I wasn't leaving here for a much safer country (Japan) in less than two months, then I would have definitely gotten my permit to carry by now. I am just hoping to make it out of Philadelphia alive for the time being.

 

[Scott Free]

The best argument I have ever come across for having firearms is from Cesare Beccaria. I refer to this quote very often when debating the topic with my well-meaning liberal friends.

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty... and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree."

-Cesare Beccaria