Yet: http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/study-gun-homicide/ utter nonsense
It's not "utter nonsense" though, its a good and fair point, but you have to at least consider the whole article and not just the one point you want to extract from it, right? if one is being fair? This is the second half of the article, its pretty hard to miss:"The new study found U.S. firearm homicides peaked in 1993 at 7.0 deaths per 100,000 people. But by 2010, the rate was 49% lower, and firearm-related violence -- assaults, robberies, sex crimes -- was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993, the study found.Those drops parallel an overall decline in violent non-fatal crime, with or without a gun, the study said. In fact, gun-related homicide rates in the late 2000s were "equal to those not seen since the early 1960s," the study found.Explanations for the drops the past 20 years aren't clear, the study said. "Researchers have studied the decline in firearm crime and violent crime for many years, and though there are theories to explain the decline, there is no consensus among those who study the issue as to why it happened," the researchers say in a summary. Despite the decline, the United States still has a higher rate of homicide than other developed countries, the study says. But America doesn't have a higher rate for all other crimes.The United States also has a higher rate of gun ownership than any other developed country, the study said."In case anyone missed the highlighted parts:"Those drops parallel an overall decline in violent non-fatal crime, with or without a gun, the study said."""Researchers have studied the decline in firearm crime and violent crime for many years" (note the "and")"though there are theories to explain the decline, there is no consensus among those who study the issue as to why it happened,"The reason there is "no consensus" is because the reasons are myriad - social circumstances, economy etc -- BUT . . . . . BUT. . as obvious as this point should be, maybe someone can explain why it is a good thing to have the MOST GUNS in the country with the most homicides for developed countries:"Despite the decline, the United States still has a higher rate of homicide than other developed countries, the study says. But America doesn't have a higher rate for all other crimes. The United States also has a higher rate of gun ownership than any other developed country, the study said."Why would that be reasonable? As illustrated above . . . it is NOT for self defense (hint: its for MONEY)Here you go:"According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 467,321 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm in 2011.[1] In the same year, data collected by the FBI show that firearms were used in 68 percent of murders, 41 percent of robbery offenses and 21 percent of aggravated assaults nationwide. Most homicides in the United States are committed with firearms, especially handguns."If there is no gun in this movie theater, no one dies. The justification for the gun (the implication was "self-defense" by virtue of the permit) makes no sense given the statistics. Saying there is less gun violence NOW without saying there is less violence overall is less than fair, particular given the role that guns play in violence.' This should not be that difficult a set of facts to accept, but as I mentioned there is more at play . . . fear that ANY concession equals "they will take my guns and my other rights away too" . . . a fear INTENTIONALLY driven by the NRA for the benefit of SELLERS not constitutional theorists:
Yet: http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/study-gun-homicide/ utter nonsense
It's not "utter nonsense" though, its a good and fair point, but you have to at least consider the whole article and not just the one point you want to extract from it, right? if one is being fair? This is the second half of the article, its pretty hard to miss:"The new study found U.S. firearm homicides peaked in 1993 at 7.0 deaths per 100,000 people. But by 2010, the rate was 49% lower, and firearm-related violence -- assaults, robberies, sex crimes -- was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993, the study found.Those drops parallel an overall decline in violent non-fatal crime, with or without a gun, the study said. In fact, gun-related homicide rates in the late 2000s were "equal to those not seen since the early 1960s," the study found.Explanations for the drops the past 20 years aren't clear, the study said. "Researchers have studied the decline in firearm crime and violent crime for many years, and though there are theories to explain the decline, there is no consensus among those who study the issue as to why it happened," the researchers say in a summary. Despite the decline, the United States still has a higher rate of homicide than other developed countries, the study says. But America doesn't have a higher rate for all other crimes.The United States also has a higher rate of gun ownership than any other developed country, the study said."In case anyone missed the highlighted parts:"Those drops parallel an overall decline in violent non-fatal crime, with or without a gun, the study said."""Researchers have studied the decline in firearm crime and violent crime for many years" (note the "and")"though there are theories to explain the decline, there is no consensus among those who study the issue as to why it happened,"The reason there is "no consensus" is because the reasons are myriad - social circumstances, economy etc -- BUT . . . . . BUT. . as obvious as this point should be, maybe someone can explain why it is a good thing to have the MOST GUNS in the country with the most homicides for developed countries:"Despite the decline, the United States still has a higher rate of homicide than other developed countries, the study says. But America doesn't have a higher rate for all other crimes. The United States also has a higher rate of gun ownership than any other developed country, the study said."Why would that be reasonable? As illustrated above . . . it is NOT for self defense (hint: its for MONEY)Here you go:"According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 467,321 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm in 2011.[1] In the same year, data collected by the FBI show that firearms were used in 68 percent of murders, 41 percent of robbery offenses and 21 percent of aggravated assaults nationwide. Most homicides in the United States are committed with firearms, especially handguns."If there is no gun in this movie theater, no one dies. The justification for the gun (the implication was "self-defense" by virtue of the permit) makes no sense given the statistics. Saying there is less gun violence NOW without saying there is less violence overall is less than fair, particular given the role that guns play in violence.' This should not be that difficult a set of facts to accept, but as I mentioned there is more at play . . . fear that ANY concession equals "they will take my guns and my other rights away too" . . . a fear INTENTIONALLY driven by the NRA for the benefit of SELLERS not constitutional theorists:
Yet: http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/study-gun-homicide/ utter nonsense
It's not "utter nonsense" though, its a good and fair point, but you have to at least consider the whole article and not just the one point you want to extract from it, right? if one is being fair? This is the second half of the article, its pretty hard to miss:"The new study found U.S. firearm homicides peaked in 1993 at 7.0 deaths per 100,000 people. But by 2010, the rate was 49% lower, and firearm-related violence -- assaults, robberies, sex crimes -- was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993, the study found.Those drops parallel an overall decline in violent non-fatal crime, with or without a gun, the study said. In fact, gun-related homicide rates in the late 2000s were "equal to those not seen since the early 1960s," the study found.Explanations for the drops the past 20 years aren't clear, the study said. "Researchers have studied the decline in firearm crime and violent crime for many years, and though there are theories to explain the decline, there is no consensus among those who study the issue as to why it happened," the researchers say in a summary. Despite the decline, the United States still has a higher rate of homicide than other developed countries, the study says. But America doesn't have a higher rate for all other crimes.The United States also has a higher rate of gun ownership than any other developed country, the study said."In case anyone missed the highlighted parts:"Those drops parallel an overall decline in violent non-fatal crime, with or without a gun, the study said."""Researchers have studied the decline in firearm crime and violent crime for many years" (note the "and")"though there are theories to explain the decline, there is no consensus among those who study the issue as to why it happened,"The reason there is "no consensus" is because the reasons are myriad - social circumstances, economy etc -- BUT . . . . . BUT. . as obvious as this point should be, maybe someone can explain why it is a good thing to have the MOST GUNS in the country with the most homicides for developed countries:"Despite the decline, the United States still has a higher rate of homicide than other developed countries, the study says. But America doesn't have a higher rate for all other crimes. The United States also has a higher rate of gun ownership than any other developed country, the study said."Why would that be reasonable? As illustrated above . . . it is NOT for self defense (hint: its for MONEY)Here you go:"According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 467,321 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm in 2011.[1] In the same year, data collected by the FBI show that firearms were used in 68 percent of murders, 41 percent of robbery offenses and 21 percent of aggravated assaults nationwide. Most homicides in the United States are committed with firearms, especially handguns."If there is no gun in this movie theater, no one dies. The justification for the gun (the implication was "self-defense" by virtue of the permit) makes no sense given the statistics. Saying there is less gun violence NOW without saying there is less violence overall is less than fair, particular given the role that guns play in violence.' This should not be that difficult a set of facts to accept, but as I mentioned there is more at play . . . fear that ANY concession equals "they will take my guns and my other rights away too" . . . a fear INTENTIONALLY driven by the NRA for the benefit of SELLERS not constitutional theorists:
Yet: http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/study-gun-homicide/ utter nonsense
It's not "utter nonsense" though, its a good and fair point, but you have to at least consider the whole article and not just the one point you want to extract from it, right? if one is being fair? This is the second half of the article, its pretty hard to miss:"The new study found U.S. firearm homicides peaked in 1993 at 7.0 deaths per 100,000 people. But by 2010, the rate was 49% lower, and firearm-related violence -- assaults, robberies, sex crimes -- was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993, the study found.Those drops parallel an overall decline in violent non-fatal crime, with or without a gun, the study said. In fact, gun-related homicide rates in the late 2000s were "equal to those not seen since the early 1960s," the study found.Explanations for the drops the past 20 years aren't clear, the study said. "Researchers have studied the decline in firearm crime and violent crime for many years, and though there are theories to explain the decline, there is no consensus among those who study the issue as to why it happened," the researchers say in a summary. Despite the decline, the United States still has a higher rate of homicide than other developed countries, the study says. But America doesn't have a higher rate for all other crimes.The United States also has a higher rate of gun ownership than any other developed country, the study said."In case anyone missed the highlighted parts:"Those drops parallel an overall decline in violent non-fatal crime, with or without a gun, the study said."""Researchers have studied the decline in firearm crime and violent crime for many years" (note the "and")"though there are theories to explain the decline, there is no consensus among those who study the issue as to why it happened,"The reason there is "no consensus" is because the reasons are myriad - social circumstances, economy etc -- BUT . . . . . BUT. . as obvious as this point should be, maybe someone can explain why it is a good thing to have the MOST GUNS in the country with the most homicides for developed countries:"Despite the decline, the United States still has a higher rate of homicide than other developed countries, the study says. But America doesn't have a higher rate for all other crimes. The United States also has a higher rate of gun ownership than any other developed country, the study said."Why would that be reasonable? As illustrated above . . . it is NOT for self defense (hint: its for MONEY)Here you go:"According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 467,321 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm in 2011.[1] In the same year, data collected by the FBI show that firearms were used in 68 percent of murders, 41 percent of robbery offenses and 21 percent of aggravated assaults nationwide. Most homicides in the United States are committed with firearms, especially handguns."If there is no gun in this movie theater, no one dies. The justification for the gun (the implication was "self-defense" by virtue of the permit) makes no sense given the statistics. Saying there is less gun violence NOW without saying there is less violence overall is less than fair, particular given the role that guns play in violence.' This should not be that difficult a set of facts to accept, but as I mentioned there is more at play . . . fear that ANY concession equals "they will take my guns and my other rights away too" . . . a fear INTENTIONALLY driven by the NRA for the benefit of SELLERS not constitutional theorists:
Yet: http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/study-gun-homicide/ utter nonsense
It's not "utter nonsense" though, its a good and fair point, but you have to at least consider the whole article and not just the one point you want to extract from it, right? if one is being fair? This is the second half of the article, its pretty hard to miss:"The new study found U.S. firearm homicides peaked in 1993 at 7.0 deaths per 100,000 people. But by 2010, the rate was 49% lower, and firearm-related violence -- assaults, robberies, sex crimes -- was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993, the study found.Those drops parallel an overall decline in violent non-fatal crime, with or without a gun, the study said. In fact, gun-related homicide rates in the late 2000s were "equal to those not seen since the early 1960s," the study found.Explanations for the drops the past 20 years aren't clear, the study said. "Researchers have studied the decline in firearm crime and violent crime for many years, and though there are theories to explain the decline, there is no consensus among those who study the issue as to why it happened," the researchers say in a summary. Despite the decline, the United States still has a higher rate of homicide than other developed countries, the study says. But America doesn't have a higher rate for all other crimes.The United States also has a higher rate of gun ownership than any other developed country, the study said."In case anyone missed the highlighted parts:"Those drops parallel an overall decline in violent non-fatal crime, with or without a gun, the study said."""Researchers have studied the decline in firearm crime and violent crime for many years" (note the "and")"though there are theories to explain the decline, there is no consensus among those who study the issue as to why it happened,"The reason there is "no consensus" is because the reasons are myriad - social circumstances, economy etc -- BUT . . . . . BUT. . as obvious as this point should be, maybe someone can explain why it is a good thing to have the MOST GUNS in the country with the most homicides for developed countries:"Despite the decline, the United States still has a higher rate of homicide than other developed countries, the study says. But America doesn't have a higher rate for all other crimes. The United States also has a higher rate of gun ownership than any other developed country, the study said."Why would that be reasonable? As illustrated above . . . it is NOT for self defense (hint: its for MONEY)Here you go:"According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 467,321 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm in 2011.[1] In the same year, data collected by the FBI show that firearms were used in 68 percent of murders, 41 percent of robbery offenses and 21 percent of aggravated assaults nationwide. Most homicides in the United States are committed with firearms, especially handguns."If there is no gun in this movie theater, no one dies. The justification for the gun (the implication was "self-defense" by virtue of the permit) makes no sense given the statistics. Saying there is less gun violence NOW without saying there is less violence overall is less than fair, particular given the role that guns play in violence.' This should not be that difficult a set of facts to accept, but as I mentioned there is more at play . . . fear that ANY concession equals "they will take my guns and my other rights away too" . . . a fear INTENTIONALLY driven by the NRA for the benefit of SELLERS not constitutional theorists:
