# When seconds count....



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

This homeowner was fortunate that she was able to hold off an intruder until the police finally arrived. I can only imagine how terrified she must have been.

https://www.nbc4i.com/news/u-s-worl...int-waiting-for-deputies-to-arrive/2051814134


----------



## hiddensprings (Aug 6, 2009)

Years ago when my children were little and my husband was deployed with the Army, I had a man try to break into my house at 1:00 in the morning. Luckily for me, my neighbor and his friend were sitting in his backyard and saw the guy jump the fence. He called the police and the friend chased the guy, and my neighbor came to my door to see if I was OK. Scared the crap out of me even though the guy didn't get in. And, that is when I went and bought a pistol and learned to use it. Hubby had guns in the house but I didn't know how to use them. I didn't grow up around guns. I didn't want to feel that unsafe again


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

hiddensprings said:


> Years ago when my children were little and my husband was deployed with the Army, I had a man try to break into my house at 1:00 in the morning. Luckily for me, my neighbor and his friend were sitting in his backyard and saw the guy jump the fence. He called the police and the friend chased the guy, and my neighbor came to my door to see if I was OK. Scared the crap out of me even though the guy didn't get in. And, that is when I went and bought a pistol and learned to use it. Hubby had guns in the house but I didn't know how to use them. I didn't grow up around guns. I didn't want to feel that unsafe again


No one should ever have to feel unsafe, despite what politicians think.


----------



## geo in mi (Nov 14, 2008)

"Hello, 911. What is my emergency"? I'm holding a guy at gunpoint and my nose itches. Should I go ahead and pull the trigger now so I can scratch my nose, or should I wait until you get here"

geo


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

This is the kind of news the national media needs to report.

They only want to talk about the misuse of firearms, so as to give the impression they somehow cause all the problems.

Reality has always been guns save lives and reduce crime.

Virginia's Governor is making headlines for wanting more "gun control" now when none of the laws being proposed would have made a difference in the latest incident.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

It's strange to me no one has mentioned the "mass shooting" that just took place in Darwin, *Australia*. I guess to do so would require the admission that even total gun bans can't stop them.

https://7news.com.au/news/crime/darwin-shooting-man-arrested-after-opening-fire-in-cbd-c-148808
"Four people are confirmed dead, and one is injured, after a shooting at a Darwin hotel.
Twenty gunshots from a shotgun were fired at approximately 5.45pm local time on Tuesday.

It was *60 minutes of terror* as a gunman reportedly moved between five suburban locations.
As he "calmly" went along his way he fired off many shots, according to witnesses."

Note that it only took an hour for police to stop the shooting, since no one else there had the needed tools to protect themselves.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

geo in mi said:


> "Hello, 911. What is my emergency"? I'm holding a guy at gunpoint and my nose itches. Should I go ahead and pull the trigger now so I can scratch my nose, or should I wait until you get here"
> 
> geo


Lol well that should be in the humor thread !


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2009)

sure, why not make some more laws ? then we can graduate more lawyers to interpret them .
If you are religious or not,. laws basically follow the ten commandments. God didn't make volumes of laws.
just ten simple guidelines.. 
all the laws in the world won't stop anyone from killing. or stop anyone from speeding,. or rape..
and the list goes on..
there are enough laws. just enforce the ones that exist and let's see how that works out ..
......jiminwisc.....


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Laws do stop and prevent a portion of illegal acts.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Laws do stop and prevent a portion of illegal acts.


What gun laws have prevented shootings?


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2009)

laws work only on the people who are law abiding.
outlaws will still do as they please.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> laws work only on the people who are law abiding.
> outlaws will still do as they please.


Thanks for agreeing that laws do work. I tend to believe it is more about the level of consequences that results in how well they work.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Thanks for agreeing that laws do work. I tend to believe it is more about the level of consequences that results in how well they work.


You twisted his meaning, but you knew that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Laws do stop and prevent a portion of illegal acts.


You've used that line before but it's still not true.
It won't be true the next time you repeat it either.



painterswife said:


> *Thanks for agreeing* that laws do work. I tend to believe it is more about the level of consequences that results in how well they work.


Same old silly word games.
Patterns just don't change, do they?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> laws work only on the people who are law abiding.
> outlaws will still do as they please.


Yep.


painterswife said:


> Thanks for agreeing that laws do work. I tend to believe it is more about the level of consequences that results in how well they work.


That's the fallacy of the death penalty.
"If we give out the ultimate punishment, that HAS to work, right?"

But it doesn't work 100% and nothing will.
The best we can do is try.
Even if we executed immediately after sentencing, 2 things are guaranteed.

1) Innocent people will be put to death.
2) Those intent on murder will do it anyway, because their minds were made up, no matter what the consequences.
No law can change #2.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Yep.
> 
> 
> That's the fallacy of the death penalty.
> ...


I never said that laws stopped anything 100 percent.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> Yep.
> 
> 
> That's the fallacy of the death penalty.
> ...


I feel certain that the death penalty, properly applied, reduces repeat offences.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

painterswife said:


> Laws do stop and prevent a portion of illegal acts.


It's always been against the law to murder. I keep waiting for it to slow down but it hasn't.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> It's always been against the law to murder. I keep waiting for it to slow down but it hasn't.


You are in luck. It has gone down.

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#nat1970


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Thanks for agreeing that laws do work. I tend to believe it is more about the level of consequences that results in how well they work.


Then maybe we should reinstate public hangings.
Think of the lives that would save.
Make child molestation a hanging offense, as well as murder.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> You are in luck. It has gone down.
> 
> https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#nat1970


I wonder how that compares to the number of firearms in the private sector?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> I wonder how that compares to the number of firearms in the private sector?


Feel free to provide that information.


----------



## whiterock (Mar 26, 2003)

Murder rate seems to be going up in Dallas. Not that I want to live there.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I feel certain that the death penalty, properly applied, reduces repeat offences.


Yes, but that wasn't debatable, it was _*prevention*_ that was the logic I questioned.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Cornhusker said:


> Then maybe we should reinstate public hangings.
> Think of the lives that would save.
> Make child molestation a hanging offense, as well as murder.


Yeah, it might reduce the numbers but a real sicko won't be deterred, only caught and eliminated.
As I agreed with YH, the execution DOES prevent a RE-occurance of a crime. Of course the crime of an innocent person being executed should be factored in as well.
Who wants to plead guilty for that and go to the gallows?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

painterswife said:


> I never said that laws stopped anything 100 percent.


No, it was I that brought it up.
But it IS the reason that many wish to infringe on rights, giving assurances that just one more infringement will solve the problem.
Even a large reduction is usually unattainable.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> No, it was I that brought it up.
> But it IS the reason that many wish to infringe on rights, giving assurances that just one more infringement will solve the problem.
> Even a large reduction is usually unattainable.


That is your opinion. I am fine with it reducing occurrences.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

'


painterswife said:


> That is your opinion. I am fine with it reducing occurrences.


Yes, it is my opinion, based on statistics of the past.
And I realize that many are "fine with it" - passing restrictive laws to save lives.
But it comes at a cost of freedom which many will fight to keep.
I believe that is the central debate in many of today's controversial issues, don't you agree?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> '
> 
> Yes, it is my opinion, based on statistics of the past.
> And I realize that many are "fine with it" - passing restrictive laws to save lives.
> ...


You would fight to have the right to murder someone?


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Murder? That’s interesting. Are people who murder EVER considering the rights of their victims? 

Gun or baseball bat or antifreeze in her coffee. 

The laws don’t matter if your intent it to end someone’s life.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

painterswife said:


> You would fight to have the right to murder someone?


Can't say that I would. I have been enraged enough to contemplate the idea though. Thank God, He talked some sense into me first.
But that very question has been asked many times before, with mixed results for the answers.
Am I right?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> Yes, but that wasn't debatable, it was _*prevention*_ that was the logic I questioned.


You can't "prevent" crime very well using any method other than teaching kids not to commit them.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> Yeah, it might reduce the numbers but a real sicko won't be deterred, only caught and eliminated.
> As I agreed with YH, the execution DOES prevent a RE-occurance of a crime. Of course the crime of an innocent person being executed should be factored in as well.
> Who wants to plead guilty for that and go to the gallows?


No innocent person should ever be punished. That's why we turn so many guilty ones free.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> You would fight to have the right to murder someone?


I think it's more a right of self defense and defending your loved ones.
That's funny coming from someone who supports abortion though


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> I think it's more a right of self defense and defending your loved ones.
> Speaking of the right to murder, are you still in favor of abortions?


I am pro-choice and abortion is not murder.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> I am pro-choice and abortion is not murder.


Of course it's murder. It just happens to be legal.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Of course it's murder. It just happens to be legal.


It is not murder. Murder is a legal term.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Feel free to provide that information.


Looks like the amount of guns in people's hands might have something to do with lower violent crime rates.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> I am pro-choice and abortion is not murder.


You can call it what you want, it's barbaric.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I think your first graph does not really tell the story you wish it does. That is the number of guns owned not the number of people that own guns.

In reality, the percentage of households that own guns has changed very little over those years.
https://www.statista.com/statistics...eholds-in-the-united-states-owning-a-firearm/


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> You can call it what you want, it's barbaric.


Well, that is your opinion and the majority do not agree.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I never said that laws stopped anything 100 percent.


They don't stop anything, any percent.
People do what they do regardless of the laws.

Just like the "laws" here say "*no* sockpuppets".
Does that stop anyone aside from those who actually follow the rules?
Or does it only stop those who wouldn't do it in the first place?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

painterswife said:


> I am pro-choice and abortion is not murder.


How about that?
That "funny" question got asked.........

Of course deciding who is "human" and who isn't, is tougher than it looks, ain't it?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They don't stop anything, any percent.
> People do what they do regardless of the laws.
> 
> Just like the "laws" here say "*no* sockpuppets".
> ...


 I disagree that laws don't stop things. There is no law against sock puppets just rules. I guess you forgot that Federal and State governments write the laws.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> How about that?
> That "funny" question got asked.........
> 
> Of course deciding who is "human" and who isn't, is tougher than it looks, ain't it?


Not tough for me at all.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

painterswife said:


> Not tough for me at all.


And not for me, usually.
An end of life, terminal situation is the hardest IMO.
Despite one's personal determination though on who, what, when or where there is "life" it does make a difference in how you view the laws that affect those decisions.
IOW, it isn't as simple as fighting for a "right".


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> And not for me, usually.
> An end of life, terminal situation is the hardest IMO.
> Despite one's personal determination though on who, what, when or where there is "life" it does make a difference in how you view the laws that affect those decisions.
> IOW, it isn't as simple as fighting for a "right".


 For the most part, I know where my line is. I would not have an abortion over 12-14 weeks unless there are medical reasons. I would get 2 or 3 opinions before pulling the plug of a loved one. I, however, don't feel the need to maintain the life of any human tissue that has no higher brain activity.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> It is not murder. Murder is a legal term.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> For the most part, I know where my line is. I would not have an abortion over 12-14 weeks unless there are medical reasons. I would get 2 or 3 opinions before pulling the plug of a loved one. I, however, *don't feel the need to maintain the life of any human tissue that has no higher brain activity*.


Those poor Democrats


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> I don't and you don't have to read mine. I am trying to understand why you repeat the same things ( SSDD and silly word games) and tell me you don't care but continue to repeat the same things. Why do you feel the need to repeat that and bring up that I was once a sock puppet instead of dealing with the discussion at hand?


The discussion at hand (for this post) was defending oneself from those who would do one harm.
It morphed into an abortion argument.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> The discussion at hand (for this post) was defending oneself from those who would do one harm.
> It morphed into an abortion argument.


It did. It is the discussion at hand at this point though.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> It did. It is the discussion at hand at this point though.


Instead of arguing a point none of us are going to change our minds on, maybe we should go back to talking about shooting bad guys?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> Instead of arguing a point none of us are going to change our minds on, maybe we should go back to talking about shooting bad guys?


I have no problem with that.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

painterswife said:


> I think your first graph does not really tell the story you wish it does. That is the number of guns owned not the number of people that own guns.
> 
> In reality, the percentage of households that own guns has changed very little over those years.
> https://www.statista.com/statistics...eholds-in-the-united-states-owning-a-firearm/


Maybe the crooks didn't see that website and think it's the other way around. 

Don't let the secret out.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> Maybe the crooks didn't see that website and think it's the other way around.
> 
> Don't let the secret out.


 LOL. Thanks, I needed that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> painterswife said: ↑
> I think your first graph does not really tell the story you wish it does. That is the number of guns owned not the number of people that own guns.
> 
> In reality, the percentage of households that own guns has changed very little over those years.
> https://www.statista.com/statistics...eholds-in-the-united-states-owning-a-firearm/


If you want to discuss reality you will have to admit crime has dropped to 1960's level in spite of (or because of) the increase in the number of guns and the number of states allowing concealed carry.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

painterswife said:


> For the most part, I know where my line is. I would not have an abortion over 12-14 weeks unless there are medical reasons. I would get 2 or 3 opinions before pulling the plug of a loved one. I, however, don't feel the need to maintain the life of any human tissue that has no higher brain activity.


That's a reasonable position to have and not far from mine.
I would probably modify the "brain activity" standard to "no chance of higher brain activity".
Of course as YH pointed out, that might mean trouble for some of the population here now........


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> That's a reasonable position to have and not far from mine.
> I would probably modify the "brain activity" standard to "no chance of higher brain activity".
> Of course as YH pointed out, that might mean trouble for some of the population here now........


I would continue this discussion but others really want to go back to the Original topic of the thread.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

painterswife said:


> I would continue this discussion but others really want to go back to the Original topic of the thread.


I understand.
No biggie.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> I think your first graph does not really tell the story you wish it does. That is the number of guns owned not the number of people that own guns.
> 
> In reality, the percentage of households that own guns has changed very little over those years.
> https://www.statista.com/statistics...eholds-in-the-united-states-owning-a-firearm/


Due to the last administrations incessant call for gun control and a national registry, I am inclined to believe many of the people polled said they don't have guns when asked, or just declined to answer.
It's nobody's business


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> Due to the last administrations incessant call for gun control and a national registry, I am inclined to believe many of the people polled said they don't have guns when asked, or just declined to answer.
> It's nobody's business


That would mean we can't use your graph or mine. Back to square one.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2009)

abortion: I am neither nor against it. it is not up to me to tell someone else what to do .
If it applied to me then you would hear me squawk ..
It doesn't matter how many guns a person owns.
it takes only one gun to shoot someone.
arguing about abortion, guns, politics and religion never gets settled. nobody is going to change their minds.
there is such a fine line between law and rule that it doesn't even require definition ...
people tend to bend the definition of right and wrong just enough to suit themselves..
......jiminwisc......


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> It is not murder. Murder is a legal term.


So, in states that define it as illegal you would then be apposed to abortion?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So, in states that define it as illegal you would then be apposed to abortion?


Please read post # 58


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Please read post # 58


Right.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Right.


Feel free to start another thread and I will continue the discussion.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So, in states that define it as illegal you would then be apposed to abortion?


I think we saw at the start of this thread, whether something is illegal or not, relying on the gov't boys to come to our rescue and make things right, is NOT a good option.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

At any rate, all the graphs show more guns don't equal more violent crime.


painterswife said:


> That would mean we can't use your graph or mine. Back to square one.


Either way, it appears more guns don't equal more violent crime.
That's just a lie told by the gun grabbers.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Here's a good article on Defensive Gun Use.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> At any rate, all the graphs show more guns don't equal more violent crime.
> 
> Either way, it appears more guns don't equal more violent crime.
> That's just a lie told by the gun grabbers.


Who here said that? Or are you moving goal posts in an attempt to back your posts?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

farmrbrown said:


> I think we saw at the start of this thread, whether something is illegal or not, relying on the gov't boys to come to our rescue and make things right, is NOT a good option.


Police get there in time to draw a chalk outline around your carcass.
They can't be everywhere.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Who here said that? Or are you moving goal posts in an attempt to back your posts?


Sigh.
You gotta stop jumping in front of the arrows.
I didn't say anybody here said that.
By "Gun Grabbers" I'm referring to the politicians and their anti gun lobbies, agenda driven, anti constitution groups and the grossly uninformed, uneducated and ignorant.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Cornhusker said:


> Sigh.
> You gotta stop jumping in front of the arrows.
> I didn't say anybody here said that.
> By "Gun Grabbers" I'm referring to the politicians and their anti gun lobbies, agenda driven, anti constitution groups and the *grossly uninformed, uneducated and ignorant.*


Dont sugarcoat it man....say what you really mean.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

mreynolds said:


> Dont sugarcoat it man....say what you really mean.


I need to come out of my shell?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> *Who here said that?* Or are you moving goal posts in an attempt to back your posts?


Who said anyone here said it?
You get in such a rush to argue that you don't take the time to read what is stated.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

I think the wall is cracking. I hope you head bangers jump back before it falls.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Please keep discussion to GC standards.


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Well, that is your opinion and the majority do not agree.


At times the majority believed people could be enslaved and women had no right to vote...


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

A mentally disenfranchised man shoots a pregnant lady in the gut and she is graveyard dead.
Better gun laws must be passed even if it saves "just one life" and "for the children" says the pointy headed cable shouter.
It is discovered that the woman wasn't heading to Dollar Bills, as previously thought, but on her merry way to an abortion mill when she was murdered.
"Eh, Judgy," says the DA, "we're going to drop the double homicide and mark this one down to murder for one. Let's go half off on the sentencing and call it crazy Wednesday in Enlightened County."
"But hey just a rootin tootin' second there!" says the bewildered hubby. "That was my baby! I demand justice!"
"Well, " says the judge, "the law states it's nuthin until your wifey says it's sumthin', so I am instructing the clerk to remove one pound of flesh from the pound you seek, eh, so to speak. I'm also ordering that all guns possessed by nuts and fruits be rounded up and melted into jail bars. On 2nd thought, take the guns from the fruits and the bullets from the nuts. Don't want to go too heavy on infringing.
You may proceed with extreeeme prejudice. Uh, Baliff, you can keep your pistol right where it is, and stand a little closer.
What this country needs is more common sense. Court adjourned, let's eat."


----------



## Grey Mare (Jun 28, 2013)

It is known by now that my family stands by our 2nd amendment right and we will defend it. I have already explained many times why I have a concealed carry permit and why I shoot. I am also now learning long range shooting with a .338 Lapua, which is very therapeutic for me to go out and do this with the hubby, as I focus on the task at hand. 

However...200,000 times a year women use a gun to defend against SEXUAL ABUSE, approximately 270 million civilian firearms in the USA, and 3 out of 5 polled felons say that they will not mess with an arms citizen. If you wish to read more: https://americangunfacts.com/


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> I think your first graph does not really tell the story you wish it does. That is the number of guns owned not the number of people that own guns.
> 
> In reality, the percentage of households that own guns has changed very little over those years.
> https://www.statista.com/statistics...eholds-in-the-united-states-owning-a-firearm/





Cornhusker said:


> At any rate, all the graphs show more guns don't equal more violent crime.
> 
> Either way, it appears more guns don't equal more violent crime.
> That's just a lie told by the gun grabbers.





painterswife said:


> Who here said that? Or are you moving goal posts in an attempt to back your posts?


In a way, PW, you are right, it’s not the number of guns owned that affect crime rate. Haypoint’s chart covered the _keeping_ of arms, but, really, it’s the _bearing_ of arms that makes a difference.

If this forum’s picture function worked, I would post the chart, but you’ll just have to live with a link.

All while the violent crime rate has been decreasing, the number of concealed carry permits has been skyrocketing.

There is no panacea, but putting in would-be criminals’ minds that there is a very real chance that their next victim just might have them out-armed, and out-trained, is a pretty strong deterrent.

They may be able to rationalize away the risk of not being able to get away and/or escaping punishment if caught, but the reality of attacking People who _bear arms_ is much more immediate.

https://crimeresearch.org/2018/08/n...s-biggest-increases-for-women-and-minorities/


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> In a way, PW, you are right, it’s not the number of guns owned that affect crime rate. Haypoint’s chart covered the _keeping_ of arms, but, really, it’s the _bearing_ of arms that makes a difference.
> 
> If this forum’s picture function worked, I would post the chart, but you’ll just have to live with a link.
> 
> ...


Here is another study for you.
https://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21/violent-crime-increases-right-carry-states/

"*States with right-to-carry concealed handgun laws experience increases in violent crime, according to Stanford scholar"
*
Playing the study and chart game is really a waste of time. I bet I can counter every one you provide.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2009)

that's right. charts and surveys can be manipulated to show any conclusion they choose.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Here is another study for you.
> https://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21/violent-crime-increases-right-carry-states/
> 
> "*States with right-to-carry concealed handgun laws experience increases in violent crime, according to Stanford scholar"
> ...


The ones we provided were in reference to unadulterated crime rates, numbers of guns, and CCW rates.

The methodology used to produce the *desired* outcome in your link was as follows:


> The synthetic control approach, a research method now widely applied in economics and political science, uses an algorithm that combines crime patterns from several non-RTC states – or during the time before states adopted RTC – to create an artificial or synthetic state.
> 
> Take Texas, which passed RTC laws in 1996. Donohue’s comparison for Texas came from combining data from California – a non-RTC state – and Nebraska and Wisconsin, which hadn’t pass RTC laws at that time. By weighting the violent crime data from these three states for the period from 1986 to 1996, he produced a synthetic crime rate similar to Texas’ crime rate in the 10 years prior to adopting RTC laws.
> 
> ...


Algorithmically generated “synthetic crime rates”.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

"Synthetic crime rates?"
Seriously?
I swear the more smart phones that are used in this world, the dumber the people get! 
Stanford used to be considered where all the smart people go, like MIT and Harvard.
They now expect me to believe a study with "synthetic crime rates"?
I ain't never gonna be THAT stupid.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> If this forum’s picture function worked, I would post the chart, but you’ll just have to live with a link.


It works if you figure out how to get around it:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Here is another study for you.





> The paper’s co-authors are Abhay Aneja, a law student at Stanford and a graduate student in economics at the University of California, Berkeley, and Kyle Weber, a graduate student in economics at Columbia University.


https://crimeresearch.org/2017/07/badly-flawed-misleading-donohue-aneja-weber-study/


> *The flawed and misleading Donohue, Aneja, & Weber Study claiming right-to-carry laws increase violent crime*





> An* unpublished study* by John Donohue, Abhay Aneja, and Kyle Weber has received a lot of attention for supposedly finding some evidence that right-to-carry laws increase overall violent crime rates. It has been covered in Newsweek, The Atlantic, Bloomberg, Vice, Snopes, and many newspapers such as Newsday and the Salt Lake City Tribune. As is typical of Donohue’s work, there is no attempt to mention or respond to prior criticisms, and *he just repeats the same, seriously biased methods and errors*.


SSDD


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Crime rates began dropping about the time concealed carry was starting to be implemented in the 90's. These are actual numbers, not "statistical estimates":








https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=violent+crime+rates+usa+by+year&FORM=HDRSC2


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I'm thinking you might have to reads your studies before you posts your studies...


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

painterswife said:


> Laws do stop and prevent a portion of illegal acts.


 Did laws really stop illegal acts or do they create them?

For instance if I create a law that says you cannot walk on the grass what was not a crime before becomes one did that last stop people from walking on the grass before hand ?no . does it make them criminals now ?yes do they quit walking on the grass now ?
Perhaps .
Every law is a failure of society to work the way it should it’s that simple


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Did laws really stop illegal acts or do they create them?
> 
> For instance if I create a law that says you cannot walk on the grass what was not a crime before becomes one did that last stop people from walking on the grass before hand ?no . does it make them criminals now ?yes do they quit walking on the grass now ?
> Perhaps .
> Every law is a failure of society to work the way it should it’s that simple


You have a point. With no laws there would be no criminals.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Failure of society? Nope. Failure of humans to behave in a respectful manner.

Society is nothing but a construct.

It ALL comes down to the behavior of individuals.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

This was explained to me about the fifth grade in reasonable terms
If the bus lets everybody off on the corner and everybody walks straight into the school across the yard eventually there will be a muddy path from the corner to the door.
Are the people that walked straight from the bus to school bad or evil ? Is it a bad to walk on the grass ?

Of course quickly somebody in class raises their hand and says why isn’t there a sidewalk there ?
Eventually somebody at the school gets tired of replacing the grass or trying to grow grass there and they make a law that says don’t walk there.
And why did they do that? because it’s easier to write a law than build a sidewalk


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I think it was about the same time but the teacher taught us about how a well written laws crafted I believe it was a wise king of Norway but when he levied a tax on incoming cargo is simply made the rule this.
You may Value your cargo on any amount you desire and pay the tax on that amount that evaluation however is what the king will pay you if he desires your cargo.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Bingo. Excellent explanation.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> It ALL comes down to the behavior of individuals.


"We have met the enemy and he is us".


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> painterswife said: ↑
> I think your first graph *does not really tell the story you wish it does*. That is the number of guns owned not the number of people that own guns.
> 
> In reality, *the percentage* of households that own guns has changed very little over those years.


Percentages don't always tell the story you want either.

If there are millions more households and millions more people, then logically there are millions more new gun owners, even if the "percentage" remains the same.

Add in the fact many people would lie to anyone asking questions about "gun ownership", and the "synthetic estimates" greatly increase those numbers.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Grey Mare said:


> It is known by now that my family stands by our 2nd amendment right and we will defend it. I have already explained many times why I have a concealed carry permit and why I shoot. I am also now learning long range shooting with a .338 Lapua, which is very therapeutic for me to go out and do this with the hubby, as I focus on the task at hand.
> 
> However...200,000 times a year women use a gun to defend against SEXUAL ABUSE, approximately 270 million civilian firearms in the USA, and 3 out of 5 polled felons say that they will not mess with an arms citizen. If you wish to read more: https://americangunfacts.com/





painterswife said:


> Here is another study for you.
> https://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21/violent-crime-increases-right-carry-states/
> 
> "*States with right-to-carry concealed handgun laws experience increases in violent crime, according to Stanford scholar"
> ...


I'm pretty sure even the guy who dreamed up this farce doesn't believe it.
Like most liberal "research", he started with the desired result then created a farcical, complex way to arrive at his predetermined destination. 
The most telling attribute of anti-gunners is their willingness to ignore facts, lie and spread those lies as if they were truth.
Even though most of what the antis do or say can be debunked, gullible people will still spread their false information to scare other gullible people.
Just more dishonesty from the radical far left.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I see some of you are having a good time with the study I posted. Good for you. I see you missed the point though a few got it. We can easily play study and graph wars. They don't matter because they are all looking to take a side. Just like I pointed out earlier with one posters graph. They can show multiple things from both points of view, and not one of those graphs or studies has all the information just the bits and pieces that help out what they wanted to show in the first place.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I see some of you are having a good time with the study I posted. Good for you. I see you missed the point though a few got it. We can easily play study and graph wars. They don't matter because they are all looking to take a side. Just like I pointed out earlier with one posters graph. They can show multiple things from both points of view, and not one of those graphs or studies has all the information just the bits and pieces that help out what they wanted to show in the first place.


Some graphs use facts. Some use those charts. Some charts show lies. You choose those.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> *They don't matter* because they are all looking to take a side.


They do matter because some were based on actual facts while others were "estimates" from anti-gun sources.



painterswife said:


> They can show multiple things *from both points of view*, and not one of those graphs or studies has all the information just the bits and pieces that help out what they wanted to show in the first place.


Again, yours was "estimates".
The chart I posted was actual crime figures.

Not a "point of view".
Just actual data.

You can keep pretending yours wasn't just the normal propaganda, but you're not fooling anyone.



painterswife said:


> I see you missed the point though a few got it.


We all "got it".
We've seen it all before.
We will see it again tomorrow.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

I think you can substitute "facts" and "charts" in the following sentence.

"*Lies, damned lies, and statistics*" 

"......is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments. It is also sometimes colloquially used to doubt statistics used to prove an opponent's point.

The phrase was popularized in the United States by Mark Twain (among others), who attributed it to the British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." However, the phrase is not found in any of Disraeli's works and the earliest known appearances were years after his death. Several other people have been listed as originators of the quote, and it is often erroneously attributed to Twain himself.[1]" ~Wikipedia


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They do matter because some were based on actual facts while others were "estimates" from anti-gun sources.
> 
> 
> Again, yours was "estimates".
> ...


I get amused with the pie charts on our federal government spending. One group will use the "facts and numbers" to prove the Feds spend 60+% of the budget on defense. What they don't tell you is that chart, while accurate in and of itself only includes discretionary spending (1/3 of the budget) leaving out "mandatory spending" which makes up the other two thirds!


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Add in the fact many people would lie to anyone asking questions about "gun ownership", and the "synthetic estimates" greatly increase those numbers.


Send a government employee to a firearm owner's porch/cell phone/email/etc and ask them how many guns they own.

Even when visiting with neighbors "over the fence" I do not recall a single moment when one of them openly revealed the number of firearms they had in their house. I'll include co workers, acquaintances and some family.
We'll discuss a specific model, and we have shared backyard shooting ranges with select long guns and hand guns on the bench, but what and how many is like yor wife's bra size and hair color, nobody else's business.


----------



## Grey Mare (Jun 28, 2013)

I agree, it isn't anyone's business how many firearms I have or keep or where in the house they are at. Simple, don't like them don't buy one. STOP blaming the firearm...blame the idiot who is doing the shooting and make stricter laws to impede them from owning one or stricter mental health laws.


----------

