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:
As has been the point all along, the NRA is leading gun owners down a path that will lead to a gross overreaction by the currently accepting minority. Change will come, its just a matter of the manner.
As has been the point all along, the NRA is leading gun owners down a path that will lead to a gross overreaction by the currently accepting minority. Change will come, its just a matter of the manner.
As has been the point all along, the NRA is leading gun owners down a path that will lead to a gross overreaction by the currently accepting minority. Change will come, its just a matter of the manner.
Personally, guns scare the **CENSORED** out of me. I choose not to keep them. I weighed the desire to have one to defend myself and my family in my home against the responsibility for it's use and educating my family (mainly children) about them and decided against ownership. I choose other ways to safeguard my family and home. Even so, I am totally pro gun. Have many friends and co-workers who have them as well as concealed carry permits. I honestly feel safer knowing that many responsible and fairly well trained Floridians carry. The random nut jobs who tragically misuse them while legally owning and carrying (understand this was not the case in the movie theater shooting to begin with) is not enough to shake that belief. That said, I strongly dislike the SYG law as I understand it. My opinion is if you choose to take on the responsibility of discharging your firearm at another human you have to be right. Period. Doesn't matter how you feel or interpret what you are experiencing imo. If it turns out you were wrong, and another human losses his/her life (or is seriously wounded), you should spend a significant part of the rest of your life in prison (again imo). Glad I got that of my chest.
on syg, the standard is the way it is because the focus is the killers state of mind as opposed to whether in hindsight the killer was wrong, but you make a fair point .. interesting timing too, I just read that the judge had to send the jury back in the loud music case
