If that premise is true' date=' then it can't be proven that it does not.[/quote']

 

And so, I have no problem with believing what I believe.

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Forum Runner

What are the ratios of criminal on criminal homicides vs. Criminal on non-criminal in each state or non-criminal on non-criminal? What about city comparisons? Texas and California are very different. It's not just about the numbers.

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Forum Runner

 

You are correct. Texas has a CCDW law and California has multiple cities with heavy gun control. Otherwise their populations and ethnic diversities are almost identical.

Summed up propaganda by MSM as well:

 

Almost all of the summary reports on gun violence covered by the media normalize the data to the “percentage of 1,000” ratio. It appears as though they have to, since the unadjusted numbers would be far under 1 percent in most cases. For example, Rhode Island had 16 gun-related homicides in 2010. With a population of 1,052,567, the unadjusted total number of gun-related deaths relative to the State’s population would be 0.0000152.

 

By using the “percentage of 1,000” ratio, it now shows Rhode Island’s gun-related deaths as 1.52/1K. How it is presented, as a matter of public perception to drive opinion, is very different.

 

The “percentage of 1,000” ratio is also used to skew the statistics heavily against sparsely populated states. Alaska had only 19 gun-related homicides in 2010; with a population of 710,231, its adjusted total is 2.7 gun-related homicides per thousand (2.7/1K). Meanwhile, in the first two months of 2010, the City of Chicago had 27 gun-related homicides (Crime Summary Chicago 2010, January-February, 2010, Research and Crime Division, Chicago Police Department).

 

Despite the fact that more people were killed in the first two months in one Illinois city than in the entire State of Alaska for the full year, Illinois’ adjusted gun-related homicide total is only 2.8 per thousand (population of 12,830,632 with 364 gun-related homicides). The “percentage of 1,000” makes densely populated states appear more safe, despite substantially higher gun-related homicide totals, and sparsely populated states as unsafe.

You are correct. Texas has a CCDW law and California has multiple cities with heavy gun control. Otherwise their populations and ethnic diversities are almost identical.

 

Very true. Both desert climates in multiple parts of the state, both border a mexico and have heavy hispanic community. I have family that lives in Sugarland, TX and went to one of the most diverse High Schools in th country. I always hear how Cali is diverse and since I lived there, I can vouch for it. As states, they have some of the biggest economies in the world. Seems like they are similar besides the LA and San Fran.

To answer a couple of questions, yes, I should be able to be as well armed as a foot soldier in the Military. The fact is that it is already against the law for me to be that well armed. Yes, I should certainly be as well armed as the police.

 

LOL at this statement!

 

Well by god, I should be able to have a missile in my backyard! Tell me why not?! 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about me not being allowed to have it! I'm just bearing arms.

Since I don't have time to read through all of this thread right now, I will answer a couple of things in PP92's first few posts.

 

Your fear of AK-47s, IMO, is based solely on what you've had force fed to you via the president and the media. It looks mean, so it's a horribly vicious rifle. An assault weapon, at that (which it isn't) and no one needs one. The hunting rifles you support are capable of doing much more damage.

Remember the L.A. riots? If those store owners didn't have their AK's, their businesses would have been looted and burned. If I'm limited, the criminals won't be. I don't want to find myself in that situation.

 

 

3 bullets? You better hope you're never in a situation where you have to use you gun to protect yourself or your family with only three bullets. It's completely different form shooting targets at the range. Criminals move and shoot back.

 

All I really have time for now.

When the constitution was written I sincerely doubt they had the weaponry of 2013 in mind when they wrote it.

Simply cannot be definitively proven that they deter crime. You think a criminal is deterred by a hypothetical?

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Forum Runner

 

So, please elaborate on how my links are wrong where they show one state having significant decrease is rape in women, robberies, and violent crime in general, as well as FBI stats for the past two decades showing gun ownership rising but violent crime dropping 50% in the entire nation?

 

I would say yes, a criminal is detered by the thought of the hypothetical of a woman having a gun. My link regarding FL proves it.

When the constitution was written I sincerely doubt they had the weaponry of 2013 in mind when they wrote it.

 

When the constitution was written, it was the least debated amendent. They didn't think about the fire power. Their thinking was they don't want to subjects to a tyrannical government, rather be citizens and ensure the governmnet stays subservient to their masters -- which would be us. Therefore, we must have access to the same weapons a government may use upon us.

LOL at this statement!

 

Well by god, I should be able to have a missile in my backyard! Tell me why not?! 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about me not being allowed to have it! I'm just bearing arms.

 

Nice, open minded, educated statement. I am sure that you know exactly what arms police have, so I am sure you know what I am talking about:rolleyes: Everything the police have should be without a doubt available to private, law abiding citizens. The police don't use explosives Jack. Of course the missle comparison is ridiculous.

Since I don't have time to read through all of this thread right now, I will answer a coup things in PP92's first couple of posts.

 

Your fear of AK-47s, IMO, is based solely on what you've had force fed to you via the president and the media. It looks mean, so it's a horribly vicious rifle. An assault weapon, at that (which it isn't) and no one needs one. The hunting rifles you support are capable of doing much more damage.

Remember the L.A. riots? If those store owners didn't have their AK's, their businesses would have been looted and burned. If I'm limited, the criminals won't be. I don't want to find myself in that situation.

 

 

3 bullets? You better hope you're never in a situation where you have to use you gun to protect yourself or your family with only three bullets. It's completely different form shooting targets at the range. Criminals move and shoot back.

 

All I really have time for now.

 

 

No. My fear of AK-47s and all guns in general for that matter have nothing to do with the president. It has to do with me going to my brother-in-law's house to see his weapons cache and then me wondering what the hell does he need all of that weaponry for.

 

To your last part, let me go further, three criminals will never come into my house ever. Not in my neighborhood. Not gonna happen. And if it does it won't be three ninjas who can catch bullets in their teeth.What am I, Jason Bourne? It will be some pill heads who think I have pills. I don't know how familiar you are with Danville, Ky but uh......home invasions very rarely happen. And when it does it is usually the drug dealer getting his PS3 stolen from him by the crackheads he let in to case his house when they were getting their rocks.

LOL at this statement!

 

Well by god, I should be able to have a missile in my backyard! Tell me why not?! 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about me not being allowed to have it! I'm just bearing arms.

 

I would have no issue with this.

 

Would people do it? Probably not. Most couldn't afford it. Everyone in Kentucky can open carry over the age of 18. How many gun raging radicals openly carry? Hardly any.

 

Quit freaking out.

When the constitution was written, it was the least debated amendent. They didn't think about the fire power. Their thinking was they don't want to subjects to a tyrannical government, rather be citizens and ensure the governmnet stays subservient to their masters -- which would be us. Therefore, we must have access to the same weapons a government may use upon us.

 

And at that time there was a visible enemy still trying to take control of the country. I don't think we need to worry about Great Britain anymore.

Nice, open minded, educated statement. I am sure that you know exactly what arms police have, so I am sure you know what I am talking about:rolleyes: Everything the police have should be without a doubt available to private, law abiding citizens. The police don't use explosives Jack. Of course the missle comparison is ridiculous.

 

Then what is the point of having cops if we can arm ourselves better than the local police department? Why not just take care of ourselves and our families?

Then what is the point of having cops if we can arm ourselves better than the local police department? Why not just take care of ourselves and our families?

 

They're there to catch speeders. You know....