Gun Control is Completely Useless.

Niflmir

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
Colpy said:
Yeah right. Gun densities are dropping......

Gun sales at record levels, according to FBI background checks - CNN

Americans buy record numbers of guns for Christmas - Telegraph



Guns in the United States: Facts, Figures and Firearm Law

While we are at it.......gun sales (from background checks) in the USA:

2011: 10,037,110 (3,217 per 100,000)
2010: 8,753,555 (2,835 per 100,000)
2009: 8,927,138 (2,907 per 100,000)
2008: 8,426,245 (2,771 per 100,000)
2007: 7,530,727 (2,499 per 100,000)
2006: 7,361,033 (2,467 per 100,000)
2005: 6,935,952 (2,346 per 100,000)
2004: 6,599,292 (2,253 per 100,000)
2003: 6,333,371 (2,182 per 100,000)
2002: 6,347,492 (2,206 per 100,000)

(from The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence)


So much for THAT idea!!!!!!
Click to expand...

You do know what density means right? Because I don't really see anything in your post that relates to number of guns per square kilometer.

I will bring up the fact in passing that background checks are a horrible proxy for ownership rates.

Now if you really care to bite my red herring, find density numbers that start at your original date of when Florida passed its concealed carried laws in the 80s through to the dates you just listed.
 
Colpy

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
Niflmir said:
You do know what density means right? Because I don't really see anything in your post that relates to number of guns per square kilometer.

I will bring up the fact in passing that background checks are a horrible proxy for ownership rates.

Now if you really care to bite my red herring, find density numbers that start at your original date of when Florida passed its concealed carried laws in the 80s through to the dates you just listed.
Click to expand...

Oh COME ON!!!

Quick math lesson:

Density per square mile would be the number of guns divided by the number of square miles.

The number of square miles is constant (as the USA is neither growing nor shrinking).

The number of guns, as demonstrated by ever-increasing new gun sales, is steadily increasing. (Guns last a long LONG time.)

Therefore the ONLY possible correct answer to the question of density per square mile is that it is INCREASING, not decreasing.....
 
Niflmir

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
Colpy said:
Oh COME ON!!!

Quick math lesson:

Density per square mile would be the number of guns divided by the number of square miles.

The number of square miles is constant (as the USA is neither growing nor shrinking).

The number of guns, as demonstrated by ever-increasing new gun sales, is steadily increasing. (Guns last a long LONG time.)

Therefore the ONLY possible correct answer to the question of density per square mile is that it is INCREASING, not decreasing.....
Click to expand...

Yes, but people are not spread over the country evenly. For instance, in Canada, only 20% of people live in rural areas, and that number is ever decreasing in a process known as urbanization. Hmmm, urbanization, did I mention that earlier?



Now, since the majority of murders happens in urban environments, a place where people are less likely to own firearms because of a lack of sportsman activities, your insistence on using the entire area of the country to compute urban densities of firearms just seems silly.
 
Colpy

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
Niflmir said:
Yes, but people are not spread over the country evenly. For instance, in Canada, only 20% of people live in rural areas, and that number is ever decreasing in a process known as urbanization. Hmmm, urbanization, did I mention that earlier?



Now, since the majority of murders happens in urban environments, a place where people are less likely to own firearms because of a lack of sportsman activities, your insistence on using the entire area of the country to compute urban densities of firearms just seems silly.
Click to expand...

Sigh

If the number of people in the countryside is shrinking rapidly, and the numbers of people in urban areas is rising sharply, and the number of guns is rising sharply, there are only TWO mathematical possibilities...

The number of guns in cities is rising sharply.

The remaining rural people are literally buried in guns.

:)

seriously, the move to the cities does not leave the guns behind....the density of firearms per urban square mile is rising, in any coherent evaluation.
 
Niflmir

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
Colpy said:
Sigh

If the number of people in the countryside is shrinking rapidly, and the numbers of people in urban areas is rising sharply, and the number of guns is rising sharply, there are only TWO mathematical possibilities...

The number of guns in cities is rising sharply.

The remaining rural people are literally buried in guns.

:)

seriously, the move to the cities does not leave the guns behind....the density of firearms per urban square mile is rising, in any coherent evaluation.
Click to expand...

Yes, those are the two possibilities. As I said at the outset, if you are willing to accept explanations without evidence, then clearly you can accept the second explanation. Everybody knows that red necks have a gun rack in the back of their pickup truck.

To be frank, in the data I saw from the 80s to current times, the gun ownership rate (estimated from gun related suicide rates) was pretty flat. However, the US crime rate shows an impressive fluctuation from the 60s, peaking in the mid 90s and now decreasing. What was it about people that grew up in the 60s?
 
B

bluebyrd35

Council Member
Aug 9, 2008
2,373
0
36
Ormstown.Chat.Valley
Colpy said:
Yeah right. Gun densities are dropping......

Gun sales at record levels, according to FBI background checks - CNN

Americans buy record numbers of guns for Christmas - Telegraph

Guns in the United States: Facts, Figures and Firearm Law

While we are at it.......gun sales (from background checks) in the USA:

2011: 10,037,110 (3,217 per 100,000)
2010: 8,753,555 (2,835 per 100,000)
2009: 8,927,138 (2,907 per 100,000)
2008: 8,426,245 (2,771 per 100,000)
2007: 7,530,727 (2,499 per 100,000)
2006: 7,361,033 (2,467 per 100,000)
2005: 6,935,952 (2,346 per 100,000)
2004: 6,599,292 (2,253 per 100,000)
2003: 6,333,371 (2,182 per 100,000)
2002: 6,347,492 (2,206 per 100,000)

(from The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence)


So much for THAT idea!!!!!!



Is THAT supposed to be a serious response???

I proved it....gun ownership goes up, gun laws are significantly eased, seven million Americans are licensed to carry concealed pistols, millions more require no license to carry, murder rates drop............

Deal with it.
Click to expand...

No you didn't..... those charts show simply murders by firearms,,,,,it does not show DEATHS by firearms. Nor do they show - injuries specifically by firearms, nor robberies involving firearms, etc. etc. etc. Even criminals are smart enough to shoot to wound in a state with the death penalty. Deal with it!! The stats you rely on are faulty!! Crickey, accidental deaths of young children by firearms are higher than those of cops killed in the line of duty!!
 
taxslave

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
Niflmir said:
Yes, those are the two possibilities. As I said at the outset, if you are willing to accept explanations without evidence, then clearly you can accept the second explanation. Everybody knows that red necks have a gun rack in the back of their pickup truck.

To be frank, in the data I saw from the 80s to current times, the gun ownership rate (estimated from gun related suicide rates) was pretty flat. However, the US crime rate shows an impressive fluctuation from the 60s, peaking in the mid 90s and now decreasing. What was it about people that grew up in the 60s?
Click to expand...

All I remember is we had lots of (usually) good drugs. And at least where I grew up a lot fewer laws. Or at least ones that anyone paid attention to.
Funny thing is that in the 50s, 60, 70s almost everyone had a rifle in a rack in their truck and one could park in front of the bar all night without locking your truck and nothing was ever stolen.
 
B

bluebyrd35

Council Member
Aug 9, 2008
2,373
0
36
Ormstown.Chat.Valley
CDNBear said:
We haven't yet. Why do you have such a low opinion of your fellow Canadians?

The culture of being able to protect yourself?

I dig that culture.
Click to expand...

LOL It is not the majority of Canadians for sure, only the Bush "wanna-be" politicians we accidentally acquired, that scare the hell out of the average Canadian.

Luckily so far, the average Canadian has not found it necessary to protect themselves. How magnificent is that!!

A few numbnuts feel arming youngsters & criminals with guns smuggled from the south, is an excuse to make it legal to support a gun industry in this country. I look on the gun culture,akin to the cigarette culture. Dangerous and ridiculous. These are artifacts produced for one reason......to KILL. This is what they are being used for. A very sick attitude.

I notice the US is right up there with gun related homicides and shootings, with countries at war, against aggression or drugs. Oddly enough the average Canadian has no wish to imitate that way of life.

Have you thought of moving to the US......much closer to your notion of the perfect culture, I gather.
 
L Gilbert

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
bluebyrd35 said:
These are artifacts produced for one reason......to KILL. This is what they are being used for. A very sick attitude..
Click to expand...
Right. That's like saying a shovel is built for one purpose only .... to KILL. Have to murder those spuds somehow, right. never mind that we use our shovel for concrete work, rearranging soil position, etc.
A knife can be used to spread butter, open letters, etc. But it's only purpose is to KILL, too, right?
:rolleyes: Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
 
CDNBear

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
bluebyrd35 said:
LOL It is not the majority of Canadians for sure, only the Bush "wanna-be" politicians we accidentally acquired, that scare the hell out of the average Canadian.
Click to expand...
Really? They haven't changed the gun laws except to remove the registry.

Luckily so far, the average Canadian has not found it necessary to protect themselves.
Click to expand...
I can list hunderds of news reports that would prove that wrong.

How magnificent is that!!
Click to expand...
It's a lie, is what it is.

A few numbnuts feel arming youngsters & criminals with guns smuggled from the south, is an excuse to make it legal to support a gun industry in this country.
Click to expand...
It is legal to support a gun industry in this country. It always has been.

I look on the gun culture,akin to the cigarette culture. Dangerous and ridiculous.
Click to expand...
I don't know what a gun culture or a cigarette culture is. But I look at guns and tobacco the same. With reverence and the need for respect and responsibility.

These are artifacts produced for one reason......to KILL.
Click to expand...
Tobacco was produced to kill? That's news to me. My people have been trading tobacco for thousands of years.

Besides that, bows and arrows were made to kill, so were knives and spears.

Are they next on your list?

This is what they are being used for. A very sick attitude.
Click to expand...
You shouldn't subscribe to silly conspiracy theories.

Oddly enough the average Canadian has no wish to imitate that way of life.
Click to expand...
I agree. There isn't a single person posting in this subject that does want that.

Have you thought of moving to the US......much closer to your notion of the perfect culture, I gather.
Click to expand...
I bet you do 'gather' that. But your posts are so full of manure and idiocy, that it really doesn't matter what you 'gather'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom