and Illinois also has 6.2 murders per 100,000 people with Colorado at 3.3. Nebraska at a nice 2.8.
Sure that way you have it in the state where you are more likely to accidentally shoot yourself or be shot by others. Half dozen of one or six of the other.
and I'm too lazy to waste time pulling statistics but I bet the murder by gun is higher in Chicago then any city in Nebraska, all of which have nearly no gun laws (open carry is legal here).
If you go back and look at my post it was CRIME RATE, not firearm related deaths. In that category, Illinois loses to Colorado. Ranking 13th vs 25th.
I am not trying to twist stats nor argue that Chicago has a higher murder rate. Indeed I agree with you. The simple facts are that having a gun and having more guns around results in more gun deaths. Every stat bears that out. Think about it, it is even intuitive. Just like more cars results in more vehicle mishaps. Chicago has more murders because there are more people as well.and I'm too lazy to waste time pulling statistics but I bet the murder by gun is higher in Chicago then any city in Nebraska, all of which have nearly no gun laws (open carry is legal here).
All I'm saying is we can both twist stats however we'd like to make our own points. Of course my points are the valid ones, but i'll never convince you of that
And why I reported the death rate from firearms is because it is actually more pertinent. You stand a better chance of dieing from a gun in Colorado than in Illinois. Doesn't matter if it was accidental or on purpose, you are still just as dead. The idea that more guns = safer just is not born out in the statistics.
What car company that failed is from Illinois, DC or California?The trend is clear - Live in a city dominated by failed domestic car companies and heavily unionized areas your crime rate will be massively high.
Doesn't matter you are still dead. Do you mourn your loved ones when they die accidentally less than if they were killed on purpose?
You mostly spouted off a bunch of stats without understanding that more guns equal more deaths. It is a simple concept. Does not matter how you break down the stats. In CO you stand a better chance of dieing form a gun than you do in Illinois.
I did admit. Why do you not admit that you stand a much higher chance of dieing from a gun in CO than in IL?
What was flawed with them?
Sound more like you are done with a reality. I have no issue if you want to carry a gun. I have no issue if you think that it makes you safe. I do think that you at least owe yourself that your perception is not the reality that any data supports. Places that have more guns have more gun deaths. Simple fact.
You also have a better chance of not being murdered by a gun. Since I don't shoot myself with guns I'd rather be where I'm not likely to be shot by some doped-up-gang-banger.
And that is easily dealt with by staying out of the south side of Chicago. Nothing there but crack and White Sox fans anyway. Since CO has a lot less crappy urban areas than Chicago you will need to be more careful everywhere else. Sicne you have no intention of shooting yourself be wary of the dumb-asses who then seem to be the statistic makers there.
It happened while they were playing video games
http://www.ccitynews.net/news/story/2011/01/former-graduates-son-dies-accidental-shooting
It does matter to Scott. How many are from criminals shooting criminals? How many are from citizens protecting themselves? How many are from police shooting criminals? All these are good uses of a gun that need to be removed from your flawed stats.
Huh?
Quit using flawed statistics so you can see past your bias.
Well good for you. Hope you live a long life in your safe neighborhood. Just don't deny the fact that you also don't want your neighbors to own guns.
No one is arguing. Just pointing out that you are more likely to die from a gun in CO than in Illinois. The stats has consistently shown this for decades. If you cannot see that and somehow have a belief, but are unable to prove different, then you must accept the fact that they are correct.
No one is talking about outlawing anything. That is the problem with a lot of discussion about guns. People get overly emotional about the subject. hence why I call them gun-blankies. All we are discussing is that you are far more likley to die in Colorado form a gun than in Illinois. Sure Illinois has a higher murder rate. But one is still just as dead from when one is accidentally killed by a drunken or stupid legal gun carrier than a malicious criminal one.
Again someone mentions these are flawed. The only thing that seems flawed is that these statistic go against your preconceived notion of of guns make people safer. They don't. Every statistic show that. If you want to say that gun reduce crime that is one thing and there are statistics that show that as well. But guns certainly do not make people safer. Whether the person who does the accidental shooting in CO is a visitor or a resident you are still just as dead. Splitting hairs does nothing to change that simple and basic fact.
FYI you facts are way out of date and not supported by any evidence
Again why does it matter ONLY what the criminals do. YOu can die just easy form a stupid person shooting you than from a criminal and these stats show that in CO there are a lot of accidents
What bias and again why are they flawed. It is a simple stat, death per 100,000 people that involved a gun. No one is trying to make them saying anythign other than you are more likely to die in a place where there are more guns. Even your state of NC has a higher gun death rate than CO.
Where did that come from. Please point out in this thread where I have said anything about restricting gun ownership. You have really shot yourself in the foot with that statement When you cannot find it, because I never said it, please apologize for saying such a stupid statement. You are letting your emotions speak for you instead of logic. You need to be intellectually honest with yourself. More guns = more dead people. Your gun-blankie is not something that will keep you safer, it may stop a crime at some point. But the chances are that you will accidentally be killed by a gun are greater with more guns in your area. I am sorry if those facts make you uncomfortable, but they are the truth.
If you can't see why it matters, then you refuse to understand the flaws in the statistics you continue to use.
Again, your stats are flawed by not going deep enough to understand what the gun was used for. There is a considerable difference between using a gun to defend yourself, thus saving your own life and two gang bangers shooting themselves in the street.
My statement does not come from this thread. It comes from your history of making anti gun posts on this very board. You have posted strong anti gun sentiments in the past. That is what I am basing it on. No apology offered and it never will.
Why don't you actually show what the flaws are. If they are so easy to see I am sure that you can point them out and use words to describe said flaws with supporting evidence.
Why does that matter? Dead is dead. Are you postulating that in CO there are a lot more instances of people shooting other people for defense and thus more bad guys are being killed than in Chicago? How does that jive with the higher crime rate in the Chciago? Here is a hint, it doesn't. Where is the evidence that there are all these shootings of bad guys in CO? Or is it something more simple. That there are bad guys in Chicago in greater numbers and greater crime, but in CO there are more guns and more people, for whatever reason are getting killed by those very same guns?
I have not made ANY anti-gun posts at all. I have questioned, and I think rightfully so, the flawed thinking that you have so aptly demonstrated in this thread that more guns make people safer.
I am not deflecting that at all. Infact I have said I agree that crime in Chicago is higher. But when will you accept the overwhelming evidence and facts that where there are more guns there are also more gun deaths?
It is totaly relevant to the fallacy that guns make people safer.
Again point out one anti-gun statement I have made. You cannot. You are just wrong in that idea as you are in your understanding of guns and deaths. Ignorance and bias is what you are choosing to follow, that is sad for you.So Scott, continue your anti gun ranting. It's so entertaining.
Where did that discussion occur? Certainly not in this thread.
There have been many anti gun comments and postings by you. At this point I don't feel like researching all the posts you have made to find them, but it is sufficient to say that you have illustrated your anti 2nd amendment bias in threads much like this before.
If there are so many it should be trivial to find such statements. I think what concerns you the most is that I am willing to admit that guns are not the cure all that some, like you, think them to be. Sorry if not my not willing to by into the propaganda upsets you. I was not the only one on this thread to supply similiar data. You on the other hand have supplied nothing but your opinion that everyone but you is wrong and when someone disagrees with you then you venture off into even more fantasies.
All evidence to the contrary.
No one is arguing any different. Until you recently brought up the subject of gun control no one was even stating anything about it.
The term is used not to insinuate immaturity. It is being used to accurately describe the feeling that some people get when they have a gun strapped to them. It is meant to convey nothing more than it makes them feel safe, secure and warm. According to John Lennon happiness is a warm gun, yes it is! But lets be realistic.
I called it basically my knife-blankie. It makes me feel safe. I am not insulted by that. It is the truth. I at least can be honest with myself
Offering them in a way that says 'here they are' makes you uncomfortable? I have offered an opinion elsehwere about gun ownership. You are new here so you may not know. Basically I could care less about gun ownership. It is not an issue that I am concerned about. I currently do not own a gun but that is because I see no need to have one. But I still occasionally shoot and was recently discussing buying a new one. Instead I am thinking of getting a motorcycle to add to the growing vehicle collection. It will bring me more joy. But if you listen to Dan and NCPilot you would think that I am some sort of Brady anti-gun guy just because I am willing to look at all the data and see that the propaganda of the pro-gun guys does not always stand up to scrutiny.
.
BLASPEAMER! I put it on my hamburgers
Nice insult Scott. I guess when you are wrong you just naturally revert to insult mode.
And yet you cannot not provide a single quote to prove your ascertain. Just as you cannot supply any facts to back up your claim about guns making you safer.
Not an insult at all. Just an observation about your persistence in calling me a liar without anything to back it up. I think we are done here. You are wholly being unreasonable in your discussion. Anything that does not back up your bigoted views on gun ownership is to be vilified and name called. Nothing that I could say nor what anyone else has or will say will sway you from you incomplete knowledge on the subject. Enjoy your day and try not to get shot in a state that has more gun deaths than CO or IL.
I never called you a liar and it was an insult, I was just not going to wade through your 18+ posts a day to find it. But but one statement is correct. We are done here.
Really? So you do not even hold the DC Vs. Heller is a correct court decision?
That is from pages 54 and 55 of the decision
We really had no idea what her intent was. I postulated earlier that it was a simple mistake. But often times we all make simple mistakes. I felt that a simple warning, additional training or a ticket was the right thing to do in this case.
...
As far as the original news article. The FA doesn't need a permit, she has a Constitutional right to carry. Period. Full stop. 2nd Amendment.
...
But if you truly have no opinion, I'll continue to have one, whether the "black and white" nature of it bothers you or not. See Amendment 1, right before Amendment 2, in the same document.
