Deltaboy1984
Member
I see it as statically with in the plus and minus the range.
I get what you're saying and to a certain extent I agree.This chart illustrates some of what I was talking about. If you listen to many people and to at least one big organization in the "firearms community", higher firearms ownership rates and more lax gun laws make for lower violent crime rates. Based on that, a look at this chart would perhaps make one think that St. Louis is in a state with very strict gun laws and Stockton is in a state with fewer gun laws, for example. The truth of the matter is, it doesn't matter. More guns do not equal less crime, neither do they equal more.
Oh, I agree. Honestly I think these statistics could probably be very different if gun owners actually did what they're supposed to do (IMO) as responsible citizens and get good, professional, at least annual training and carry their guns regularly. Unfortunately, the vast majority get no training at all or if they do, they only get whatever their state minimum training is to get a carry permit, which in most cases is very nearly worthless. Imagine if half the gun owners in the US were attending professional training classes for handgun and fighting rifle at least once a year and practicing with those weapons at least once a month. Imagine if those people were habitually carrying a pistol. That, I think, would make an actual difference. That's not going to happen though.The thing is if someone in a bad area buys a gun and trains extensively with it, goes to classes, learns MMA and stays in good shape they will be in a better position to respond to a lethal threat than if they did not.
Sure. More training would always be better.Oh, I agree. Honestly I think these statistics could probably be very different if gun owners actually did what they're supposed to do (IMO) as responsible citizens and get good, professional, at least annual training and carry their guns regularly. Unfortunately, the vast majority get no training at all or if they do, they only get whatever their state minimum training is to get a carry permit, which in most cases is very nearly worthless. Imagine if half the gun owners in the US were attending professional training classes for handgun and fighting rifle at least once a year and practicing with those weapons at least once a month. Imagine if those people were habitually carrying a pistol. That, I think, would make an actual difference. That's not going to happen though.
Hopefully I didn't mislead with my other posts. I'm 100% pro people owning guns and 100% against mandatory training in order to do so. I view it as being similar to voting. A person is certainly allowed to vote without educating themselves on the issues and candidates that they're voting for, and I support their right to do that. A free person should not be required to take a class or read certain things in order to vote. However, a responsible free person will educate themselves on the issues before voting, not because it's required but because it's the right thing to do. Same with gun ownership. I believe it is every able bodied American citizen's responsibility as a free person to own and become competent with a military pattern, detachable magazine fed rifle. It should not be a requirement, but it is their responsibility.However sometimes even an untrained individual can still be successful depending on circumstances and that individuals mindset and willingness to take the fight to them.
I've heard of cases as well as been on calls where an elderly person with no training at all has managed to kill, wound or at least drive off the person trying to victimize them. Luck was also sometimes a factor.
Are we supposed to deny people teeth and claws just because they don't train a lot?
I disagree with that. The vast majority of states, including all of what would normally be considered "gun friendly" states, have strong preemption laws which make local regulation null and void. In fact, all of the states other than CA and NJ, that are represented by the cities on that chart have complete state preemption of firearms law. There are certainly cities within those states that attempt to violate state law by regulating firearms, but they do not, by any stretch of the imagination, have the same impact with their illegal regulations that the state does with it's unconstitutional but legal ones.
Seems pretty self explanatory. Many states have blatantly unconstitutional laws on the books. Those laws are null and void in theory as well but in reality, the consequences for breaking them in most cases aren't worth it. Local regulations that violate state law however have much less severe consequences and are generally worth breaking. In fact, several people have obtained some significant payouts because they sued a city over their illegal rules and won. In addition, the courts have generally upheld state level unconstitutional laws but have not sided with cities that attempt to violate state law (with a few exceptions).Can you explain how a law or regulation can be "unconstitutional but legal"? If a state law violates the US Constitution it is "legal" but if a local law violates a state law it is "null and void"?
I'm aware of that. I'm not sure what your point is? You said this,BTW, WA has a preemption law, and a good state constitution (plus shall-issue CC permits, etc.). Despite that we haven't been considered a "good" firearms state for some years. Of course there is a bill in the state legislature right now to kill the preemption law (and continue to ignore the state and US Constitutions)...meantime there are any number of local laws restricting firearms.
which simply isn't correct. Local laws cannot have as much impact as state laws because in the majority of cases, local laws are not upheld. They might have some impact in some cases, but nowhere near as much as state law.While I don't entirely disagree, local laws have at least as much impact as state laws.
Seems pretty self explanatory. Many states have blatantly unconstitutional laws on the books. Those laws are null and void in theory as well but in reality, the consequences for breaking them in most cases aren't worth it. Local regulations that violate state law however have much less severe consequences and are generally worth breaking. In fact, several people have obtained some significant payouts because they sued a city over their illegal rules and won. In addition, the courts have generally upheld state level unconstitutional laws but have not sided with cities that attempt to violate state law (with a few exceptions).
I'm aware of that. I'm not sure what your point is? You said this, which simply isn't correct. Local laws cannot have as much impact as state laws because in the majority of cases, local laws are not upheld. They might have some impact in some cases, but nowhere near as much as state law.
I couldn't really say why WA was rated the way that it was in the list you mention. This is off topic, but my guess would be that it might have something to do with the direction that WA seems to be heading. Most of those lists that I've seen have been at least partially nonsense as far as I could tell. Just someone's personal opinion. Anyway, I wasn't saying that any state with a preemption law was a "good" state. I just said that most (probably all) states that are generally considered "good" have preemption laws.OK, trying to keep it simple: if state laws get upheld and local laws don't then why isn't WA considered a "good" state? It (at least at present) has a gun-friendly state constitution, a preemption law, shall-issue CC, no magazine capacity limits (again, at present), silencers (or suppressors if you prefer) are legal, etc. Yet a few years back I saw us as #40 on a "best to worst" list.
We're on the same page and I understood what you meant. I actually added a sentence a few mins later in parentheses to put that out there, but apparently I was too late.Hopefully I didn't mislead with my other posts. I'm 100% pro people owning guns and 100% against mandatory training in order to do so. I view it as being similar to voting. A person is certainly allowed to vote without educating themselves on the issues and candidates that they're voting for, and I support their right to do that. A free person should not be required to take a class or read certain things in order to vote. However, a responsible free person will educate themselves on the issues before voting, not because it's required but because it's the right thing to do. Same with gun ownership. I believe it is every able bodied American citizen's responsibility as a free person to own and become competent with a military pattern, detachable magazine fed rifle. It should not be a requirement, but it is their responsibility.
Yes and no. At least in my opinion.That's sort of a different subject though. The point is, having more untrained or poorly trained people with guns (which describes the vast majority of gun owners in the US) in a society does not automatically reduce the overall violent crime rate. Yes, occasionally one gets lucky, but that doesn't make it a trend. Just to be clear, it also doesn't automatically increase violent crime either, it just doesn't matter that much. Like I said before, the "gun community" has spent far too much time and energy attempting to defend gun ownership based on reductions in violent crime rates. Eventually that's going to backfire.
I'm curious what the response of many here would be if there was a "trend", say over the course of 20 years, of an increase in firearms homicides. Would you change your mind about gun laws and firearms ownership?
Exactly. Statistically, governments murder far more of their people than civilians do.The 2A is not predicated on violent crime rates, nor should it be.
True. The problem is that many (I might even venture to say most) in the firearms community think that the statistics prove that more firearms in private hands automatically reduces crime. It's easy to point to examples of places where private firearms ownership is very common and that have very low crime rates and say "look!, more guns=less crime". The flip side is also true though. It's very easy for anti gun people to find places with extremely low or almost totally non existent private firearms ownership rates that also have very low violent crime rates and point to them and say "see! no guns=less crime".The only point in bringing statistics up to anti-gun people is that they claim they want to pass gun control laws to reduce violent crime; not only is there no evidence to support their ideas, but there is evidence to refute them.