[ToTheLeft]

Well, I still feel the way I feel despite your "statistics", which aren't very strong. They don't even begin to budge my logic, reasoning, and personal convictions and beliefs.

And you keep saying that we don't bring statistics, what part of, there is no way to statistically prove this, do you not understand? This isn't science dude, this is life, with people. There is no control, there is just a TON of variables. There is NOTHING scientific about this at all man. You can give me statistics that say that AIDS kills people and we should cure AIDS, that's scientific. There is a control, people who don't have AIDS, and Variables, people who are infected, and die. The same cannot be said for a world that is safer with guns. There is no control to base it off of, just a ton of variables that YOU FEEL are right, and I feel are wrong.

[matshark]

There isn't facts to back up our reasoning because not everyone has guns. You can't prove a hypothetical situation. There is a place for reasoning and the hypothetical and you obviously can't get that through your head.

but you can certainly look at what happens when there are MORE guns in the hands of civilians vs. when there are FEWER which is what i've done, and then you can make logical claims based on those facts.

for example: if car A produces X amount of force when striking car B at Y mph, resulting in Z amount of damage, and produces E amount of force at F mph resulting in G damage, and E<X, F<Y,G<Z, then perhaps car A hitting car B produces less damage than Z for all ranges of mph <F.

and that is EXACTLY what i've done with my stats and study findings.

1. when gun ownership (including carrying) goes up, crime goes down (specifically concealed carry)
2. when citizens are properly trained, accidents go down.
3. if gun ownership and training goes up, crime and accidents will go down.

its really pretty self-explanatory.

and im STILL the ONLY one who has shown support for the claims i've made.

[ToTheLeft]

for example: if car A produces X amount of force when striking car B at Y mph, resulting in Z amount of damage, and produces E amount of force at F mph resulting in G damage, and E<X, F<Y,G<Z, then perhaps car A hitting car B produces less damage than Z for all ranges of mph <F.

...

and im STILL the ONLY one who has shown support for the claims i've made.

Yes, you just now provided your only relevant, solid evidence for anything. Unfortunately, it has NOTHING to do with guns.

[matshark]

Well, I still feel the way I feel despite your "statistics", which aren't very strong. They don't even begin to budge my logic, reasoning, and personal convictions and beliefs.

And you keep saying that we don't bring statistics, what part of, there is no way to statistically prove this, do you not understand? This isn't science dude, this is life, with people. There is no control, there is just a TON of variables. There is NOTHING scientific about this at all man. You can give me statistics that say that AIDS kills people and we should cure AIDS, that's scientific. There is a control, people who don't have AIDS, and Variables, people who are infected, and die. The same cannot be said for a world that is safer with guns. There is no control to base it off of, just a ton of variables that YOU FEEL are right, and I feel are wrong.

my statistics (which were gathered independently and by verifiable and approved research methods) are MUCH stronger than your unsupported logic/reasoning and personal convictions and beliefs.

and if you have no statistics to back up your claims on a subject that is both quantifiable and verifiable, you lose. plain and simple.

there is a control. crime levels without guns. there is a variable, crime levels WITH guns. furthermore, the statistics are correlated across countries and continents. when studies are published in peer reviewed journals, they HAVE to be done correctly. certainly to high enough standards that people who just dont want to believe them cant toss them aside as rubbish.

[matshark]

for example: if car A produces X amount of force when striking car B at Y mph, resulting in Z amount of damage, and produces E amount of force at F mph resulting in G damage, and E<X, F<Y,G<Z, then perhaps car A hitting car B produces less damage than Z for all ranges of mph <F.

...

and im STILL the ONLY one who has shown support for the claims i've made.

Yes, you just now provided your only relevant, solid evidence for anything. Unfortunately, it has NOTHING to do with guns.

you've apparently not read ANYTHING that i've posted in support for my claims... because if you read the corrallary underneath it, you would see exactly how it had something to do with guns. thats ok, you are well within your rights to ignore things you dont want to accept or even look at with an open mind.

[ToTheLeft]

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

United States in 1999 Total Homicides- 5.70 Fire Arm Related- 3.72 % of households with firearms- 39.0

Over 65% of the homicides committed were with firearms, and 3.72 of every 100,000 people die from firearms.

Compare that with...

Finland
Australia
New Zealand
Belgium
England
Sweeden
Greece
and The Netherlands

All of which have lower % of handgun ownership, and, believe it or not, LESS FIREARMS HOMICIDES. Both by percentage and sheer volume. The countries on that list that have high rates of homicide are war stricken or historically VERY violent (N. Ireland for example)

Yay statsitics (Wasn't tough to find, either...)

[ToTheLeft]

for example: if car A produces X amount of force when striking car B at Y mph, resulting in Z amount of damage, and produces E amount of force at F mph resulting in G damage, and E<X, F<Y,G<Z, then perhaps car A hitting car B produces less damage than Z for all ranges of mph <F.

...

and im STILL the ONLY one who has shown support for the claims i've made.

Yes, you just now provided your only relevant, solid evidence for anything. Unfortunately, it has NOTHING to do with guns.

you've apparently not read ANYTHING that i've posted in support for my claims... because if you read the corrallary underneath it, you would see exactly how it had something to do with guns. thats ok, you are well within your rights to ignore things you dont want to accept or even look at with an open mind.

Where is your open mind?

All I hear is ignorant arrogance from you, and nothing to begin to convince me that your ridiculous statistics are worth anything at all.

[matshark]

well its about time...

ill reply after i get back from the baseball game...

Go Flames!

[ALUmnus]

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

United States in 1999 Total Homicides- 5.70 Fire Arm Related- 3.72 % of households with firearms- 39.0

Over 65% of the homicides committed were with firearms, and 3.72 of every 100,000 people die from firearms.

Compare that with...

Finland
Australia
New Zealand
Belgium
England
Sweeden
Greece
and The Netherlands

All of which have lower % of handgun ownership, and, believe it or not, LESS FIREARMS HOMICIDES. Both by percentage and sheer volume. The countries on that list that have high rates of homicide are war stricken or historically VERY violent (N. Ireland for example)

Yay statsitics (Wasn't tough to find, either...)

Those are just gun crimes. You make guns illegal, criminals will find something else to kill people with, like spoons or superpowers. And that's from 1999, not only old but sort of random.

I am hereby calling TTL to sign up for the next Ruckus in a Cage when it comes to Roanoke. Maybe he can square off with the self-promoting shark-guy.

[ToTheLeft]

I am hereby calling TTL to sign up for the next Ruckus in a Cage when it comes to Roanoke. Maybe he can square off with the self-promoting shark-guy.

Why on Earth would I do that? I never claimed to be an MMA fighter or have any fighting prowess at all.

[jcmanson]

Yeah, but it would be fun to watch

[Realist]

The problem with citing these stats that supposedly show that gun prevalence equals lower crime rates (or violent crime rates, whichever you prefer), is that there are so many other variables that in that equation that it can't be relied upon. Different cultures propogate more/less crime, that would be probably a even bigger influence on crime rates. I'm betting that the swiss probably don't have music videos and tv shows that glorify capping someone (I don't know, but I would guess).


Maybe matshark can run us a multiple regression on crime levels with enough variables that would lend some credence to what he is trying to state, but what he is showing so far is complete nonsense (statistically speaking).


For the record, I fall somewhere in the middle ground of the two arguements.

[flameshaw]

HMO,

The gun store I went to today did not have any Glock 27's, had about every other model. Will let you know if I see one at the show this weekend.

Thanks! What was the price range for the others?

About $625.00 they were for the competiton barrels as I recall.

[matshark]

I am hereby calling TTL to sign up for the next Ruckus in a Cage when it comes to Roanoke. Maybe he can square off with the self-promoting shark-guy.

Why on Earth would I do that? I never claimed to be an MMA fighter or have any fighting prowess at all.

i fight for the competition, not to settle 'arguments' or anything like that. disagreements between individuals should be able to be handled rationally, logically and intellectually. just because i think TTL's views on this subject are rediculous doesn't imply that i would justify or even want it to come to blows. that's just absurd.

the only time i condone violence outside of a sporting arena (which is combat under mutual consent and under that context i would not classify it as violence, but rather competition) is for the defending of one's own personal safety, property or loved ones.

so while the suggestion may be amusing, and might be fun to watch for you guys, its really not feasible or plausible. sorry to disappoint...lol

now, on to his sources...

[matshark]

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

United States in 1999 Total Homicides- 5.70 Fire Arm Related- 3.72 % of households with firearms- 39.0

Over 65% of the homicides committed were with firearms, and 3.72 of every 100,000 people die from firearms.

Compare that with...

Finland
Australia
New Zealand
Belgium
England
Sweeden
Greece
and The Netherlands

All of which have lower % of handgun ownership, and, believe it or not, LESS FIREARMS HOMICIDES. Both by percentage and sheer volume. The countries on that list that have high rates of homicide are war stricken or historically VERY violent (N. Ireland for example)

Yay statsitics (Wasn't tough to find, either...)

Those are just gun crimes. You make guns illegal, criminals will find something else to kill people with, like spoons or superpowers. And that's from 1999, not only old but sort of random.

ALUmnus is correct. gun crime rates don't help with the issue at hand because we are trying to determine if more guns in the hands of law abiding civilians results in less crime.

we need to look at stats that show the crime rate before and after a specific event or change in laws etc... to see the effect it had. for example: Kennesaw, GA

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=55288

Kennesaw, GA enacted a law REQUIRING every head of household to "own and maintain a gun" back in March 1982. This was in response to a handgun ban in Morton, Ill.

"Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender."

lets look at the numbers:

"The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law."

Kennesaw:
1981 Population: 5242
Crime Rate in 1981: 4,332 per 100,000
National Avg. 1981: 3,899 per 100,000
Difference: 11% higher than National Avg.

2005 Population: 28,189 (537% higher than 1981)
Crime Rate in 2005: 2,027 per 100,000 (53% lower than 1981)
National Avg. in 2005: Not Given

The most telling statistic: ZERO residents involved in fatal shootings either as attackers, defenders or victims.

Morton Grove:
1981 Population: Not given, but greater than 22,202
Crime Rate in 1981: Not given
National Avg. 1981: 3,899 per 100,000
Difference: Not given

2005 Population: 22,202
Crime Rate in 2005: 2,268 per 100,000 (higher than Kennesaw, even though it has fewer people)
National Avg. in 2005: Not Given

"the city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent."

"Police Lt. Craig Graydon said: "When the Kennesaw law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime … and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then. We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area." Kennesaw is just north of Atlanta."

Exhibit 1: Mandatory to have guns, total crime dropped by 53%, ZERO people killed by guns in the 25 YEARS since the law went into effect.

the argument could be made that enacting a mandatory ownership law has actually helped the town grow by making it a more attractive place to live.

[matshark]

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:y_ ... cd=4&gl=us

"For over twenty years it has been illegal for teens to buy guns and, despite such gun control, the African-American teenage male homicide rate in Washington, DC is 227 per 100,000 - 20 times the US average![5] The US group for whom legal gun ownership has the highest prevalence, middle-aged white men, has a homicide rate of less than 7 per 100,000 - about half of the US average.[6]

If the "guns-cause-violence theory is correct why does Virginia, the alleged "easy purchase source of all those illegal Washington, DC guns, have a murder rate of 9.3 per 100,000, one- ninth of DC's overall homicide rate of 80.6?[7 ]Why are homicide rates lowest in states with loose gun control (North Dakota 1.1, Maine 1.2, South Dakota 1.7, Idaho 1.8, Iowa 2.0, Montana 2.6) and highest in states and the district with draconian gun controls and bans (District of Columbia 80.6, New York 14.2, California 12.7, Illinois 11.3, Maryland 11.7)?[7] The "guns- cause-violence and "guns exacerbate violence theories founder. Again, the causes of inner city violence are family disruption, media violence, and abject poverty, not gun ownership."




"Compared to about 35,000 gun deaths every year (includes ALL gun deaths such as gang activity, accidents, etc...), 2.5 million good Americans use guns to protect themselves, their families, and their livelihoods - there are 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun - five lives are protected per minute - and, of those 2.5 million protective uses of guns, about 1/2 million are believed to have saved lives.[2]"





"To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long-discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."[17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby"

"Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse . From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes. Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies."






"Nationally, good citizens use guns about seven to ten times as frequently as the police to repel crime and apprehend criminals and they do it with a better safety record than the police.[3] About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent person are loss than 1 in 26,000.[27] Citizens intervening in crime are less likely to be wounded than the police.

We can't explain why the civilian record is better than the police, but the simple truth remains - citizens have an excellent record of protecting themselves and their communities and NOT ONE of the fear mongering fantasies of the gun control lobby has come true."




"California has been studied and we discover that the counties that have the lowest rates of concealed weapon licensees have the highest rates of murder and the counties with the highest rates of concealed license issuance have the lowest rates of murder.[27]"

[Purple Haize]

As cliched as it sounds GUN's dont kill people, people kill people. The same goes for cars, knives, beatings etc. Objects are truly inanimate and can only become lethal when acted upon by a person. Arguments made about the number of gun deaths are very skewed. What is the object? to protect humans? If that is the case then why don't we look at the other causes of people being killed by other people? You will find that guns are not #1 on that list. A gun is a gun and can be used to help or hurt people. Sure there will be idiots who own guns, but idiots also drive cars, both of these objects, when used improperly kill humans.
As for shooting a firearm, they are right who say that the adrenaline gets so amped it is hard to aim and thus the stories of Police shooting 50 rounds and hitting the victim 4 times. I was able to fire an M-16 back in high school and was horrible at it until the DI talked to me about my breathing etc. After that I was MONEY! I also owned a gun when I lived in Chicago. one nite someone DID break into the apartment and I came out of my room brandishing my firearm. The burglar looked at me and took off. Of course I think if he would have said bOO i would have pooped my pants and ran into my room!
Currently we have shotgun ON MY SIDE OF THE BED, Mrs Purple is Very trusting, but have not had to use it. When we first moved into the neighborhood, we saw two guys walking down the road with shotguns, breaches open, having a good time. we also have a guy who likes to walk with a side arm on his hip when he walks the dogs (ours included)
Finally, I have never felt safer then when i was in Israel all the Israeli's of military age (and beyond) carried their M16's and/or a side arm. Not a lot of nonsense there. They have to resort to bombs but that is another story!!
And finally, a revolver is the best way to go for personal defense. Less chance of malfunction and plenty of stopping power!

[ALUmnus]

All this Christmas reading is hard on the eyes. I keep waiting for Peter Parker to join in the colored bonanza.

[JDUB]

All this Christmas reading is hard on the eyes. I keep waiting for Peter Parker to join in the colored bonanza.

i was just thinking that

[Hold My Own]

I dont think I posted this in this thread yet but here's an update:

I got my concealed weapons license a few months ago...REALLY easy class taught by a guy out in bedford, so that was pretty fun




I went to the gun show today and picked up a lot of ammo and holsters for my Glock...I also picked up my first 12 Gauge Shotty Pump...it holds 8 shells and it's pretty sick looking solid black, swat style...I think that's going to be my home defense weapon so I can just keep my Glock in my car the whole time.

[AZjonz]

Shotgun is the better home option as you're less likely to penetrate the walls and you don't have to be quite the marksman to hit your target. And let's be honest, the sound of a shotgun pump is quite dinstinct and unmistakable. You hear that noise in the dark and you know it's time to dance.

I use a Winchester Model 42 .410 for home protection. Awesome shotgun even though it is a small guage. They are actually collectibles that bring in a nice sum of money, so I'm thinking about getting a new one. If you have to use it in self defense, you might not see it for a while until everything is settled (law stuff). I like the one you mentioned. I might go that route.

No handgun, yet. I have a 2 year old son that gets into everything. I'm thinking about getting a fingerprint lock that unlocks by recognizing your fingerprint. You can add 50 (or more) scans of your fingerprint. That way you can swipe it in a hurry and the safe is more likely to recognize you. If I get that then I will feel more comfortable with a hand gun. Anybody else use these safes?

BTW- I got to see in person a demonstration of a fully automatic 9mm handgun. Just amazing. I liked it more than the 50 cal.being fired.

Nice job getting the concealed weapons permit. I plan on eventually getting one and hopefully the wife, too.

[Hold My Own]

Thanks...you def should take it with you're wife...are you local? Either way this class is great for women b/c it starts at the very basics


I love the Pump I just bought...CHEAP too but from what I've been reading they are very reliable and it's about the smallest Shot Gun you can own without making it shorter yourself....I'm just debating if I should keep it in it's case or keep it out....I guess I could unzip it quick enough if i need to...no kids to worry about just a dog...and he lacks an index finger


I'd love to see an Auto 9mm...that has to be several thousand dollars



Oh and you're right about the pump...i started to pump it and it gave me flashbacks of Rainbow 6...crazy sound

[flamesbball84]

Shotgun is the better home option as you're less likely to penetrate the walls and you don't have to be quite the marksman to hit your target. And let's be honest, the sound of a shotgun pump is quite dinstinct and unmistakable. You hear that noise in the dark and you know it's time to dance.

I use a Winchester Model 42 .410 for home protection. Awesome shotgun even though it is a small guage. They are actually collectibles that bring in a nice sum of money, so I'm thinking about getting a new one. If you have to use it in self defense, you might not see it for a while until everything is settled (law stuff). I like the one you mentioned. I might go that route.

No handgun, yet. I have a 2 year old son that gets into everything. I'm thinking about getting a fingerprint lock that unlocks by recognizing your fingerprint. You can add 50 (or more) scans of your fingerprint. That way you can swipe it in a hurry and the safe is more likely to recognize you. If I get that then I will feel more comfortable with a hand gun. Anybody else use these safes?

BTW- I got to see in person a demonstration of a fully automatic 9mm handgun. Just amazing. I liked it more than the 50 cal.being fired.

Nice job getting the concealed weapons permit. I plan on eventually getting one and hopefully the wife, too.

If that fingerprint lock is like every other type of finger print lock, then when your kid starts figuring out more complex problems might want to get a different lock hten because fingerprint scanners are relatively easy to manipulate: all you have to do is get something the person has touched that left a good fingerprint (like the back of a CD/DVD, for example) and hold it up to the lock to unlock it.

My brother used to work at Kroger, they had fingerprint scanners at every time clock and you had to get your finger scanned everytime you clocked in and out, so people who didnt want to go to work and still get paid would get one of their co-workers to get like a CD with their fingerprint on it so they could get clocked in and out without having to go to work. Computers with the fingerprint scanner things are also notoriously easy to manipulate as well.

[AZjonz]

Thanks...you def should take it with you're wife...are you local? Either way this class is great for women b/c it starts at the very basics


I love the Pump I just bought...CHEAP too but from what I've been reading they are very reliable and it's about the smallest Shot Gun you can own without making it shorter yourself....I'm just debating if I should keep it in it's case or keep it out....I guess I could unzip it quick enough if i need to...no kids to worry about just a dog...and he lacks an index finger


I'd love to see an Auto 9mm...that has to be several thousand dollars



Oh and you're right about the pump...i started to pump it and it gave me flashbacks of Rainbow 6...crazy sound

No not local, but I would be if Lynchburg or the surrounding area had my job. I plan on taking the classes here in AZ though. I asked about the price of a fully auto 9mm and was told $6-8k. I'm not sure what the going rate is, but that doesn't surprise me. Youtube it and watch a demo. You'll likey. I'm going to go look at more shotguns. This thread has me wanting to buy.

[AZjonz]

Shotgun is the better home option as you're less likely to penetrate the walls and you don't have to be quite the marksman to hit your target. And let's be honest, the sound of a shotgun pump is quite dinstinct and unmistakable. You hear that noise in the dark and you know it's time to dance.

I use a Winchester Model 42 .410 for home protection. Awesome shotgun even though it is a small guage. They are actually collectibles that bring in a nice sum of money, so I'm thinking about getting a new one. If you have to use it in self defense, you might not see it for a while until everything is settled (law stuff). I like the one you mentioned. I might go that route.

No handgun, yet. I have a 2 year old son that gets into everything. I'm thinking about getting a fingerprint lock that unlocks by recognizing your fingerprint. You can add 50 (or more) scans of your fingerprint. That way you can swipe it in a hurry and the safe is more likely to recognize you. If I get that then I will feel more comfortable with a hand gun. Anybody else use these safes?

BTW- I got to see in person a demonstration of a fully automatic 9mm handgun. Just amazing. I liked it more than the 50 cal.being fired.

Nice job getting the concealed weapons permit. I plan on eventually getting one and hopefully the wife, too.

If that fingerprint lock is like every other type of finger print lock, then when your kid starts figuring out more complex problems might want to get a different lock hten because fingerprint scanners are relatively easy to manipulate: all you have to do is get something the person has touched that left a good fingerprint (like the back of a CD/DVD, for example) and hold it up to the lock to unlock it.

My brother used to work at Kroger, they had fingerprint scanners at every time clock and you had to get your finger scanned everytime you clocked in and out, so people who didnt want to go to work and still get paid would get one of their co-workers to get like a CD with their fingerprint on it so they could get clocked in and out without having to go to work. Computers with the fingerprint scanner things are also notoriously easy to manipulate as well.

Thanks for the info. I'll def ask those qustions. I wonder if those safes have a safeguard for that or not. I'll probably check out other options then. I thought this would be the best option, but it sounds as if it has issues, too.