More than 500 Gun Store Burglaries Expected This Year, Says ATF

Oh look... more post hoc nonsense.

 

Sometimes there is good reason to believe that what happens first causes something that happens later (as in the case of smoking and lung cancer). It's not always a post hoc fallacy.

>>>MOD EDIT Flamebait Removed<<<

 

More accurately it would be described as a reason to refrain from continually releasing violent individuals back into society where they can do the most harm.

 

Pray tell how did the study determine that the mere presence of a firearm within the home, served to increase the chances of a burglary attempt being made, than if there were no firearm within the home to be had?

 

Even if true, so what?

 

Gun owners are helping to arm dangerous criminals.

 

Criminals are Arming Criminals by committing Crimes, Breaking and Entering into Gun stores and stealing Guns, same as they Rob Banks, steal Cars, Car Jacking and other Crimes, how does more Gun Control help prevent Crime ?????

It doesn't.

 

Blaming the crime victims huh? Typical leftest. How about criminal parasites stop committing robberies, ya think?
100% criminals fault and no one else.

 

By owning guns, right? Therefore gun owners shouldn't own guns to keep them from getting stolen? Is that your takeaway?

Did you see in the study where the thieves target white neighborhoods because "white people are more likely to hunt"? That, along with the claim that the guns aren't stolen for personal use but to be resold, tells us that the thieves are focusing on high value, fungible, easily portable property for quick resale. Hunting rifles and shotguns, the kind of guns used by white people who hunt, aren't very useful as a firearm to a criminal. They, like the other items stoken in 86%, are just a quick source of cash.

Blame the victim. How liberal of you.

 

Following that line of logic, ownership of any form of property could be considered an act of aiding and abetting a criminal, by making such available so that it may be procured for an act of theft.

 

Unsupportable nonsense.

 

That nails it, nothing more needs to be said.

 

Other kinds of property are not used as weapons in most homicides. Additionally, guns are not very useful in the daily lives of most people so it is hard to justify the risk of owning them. But I think you are starting to realize why places with more legal guns also have more problems with illegal guns. More legal guns in circulation = more opportunities for criminals to obtain guns.

Maybe someday smart guns will solve the problem. A stolen smart gun could be remotely disabled by the owner. Such technology could also reduce gun accidents.

 

Not so, many types of "property" are commonly used in Homicides, tools, specifically hammers, screwdrivers.

Also, States like Vermont have very high Gun ownership, and very low Crime, and the very strict Gun Laws of Washington D.C. have done nothing to prevent Crime.

Guns are very useful in the daily lives of many people.

 

Guns generally lead to more homicides in urban areas of the US and more suicides in rural areas. Vermont has a high gun suicide rate. So both kinds of areas are negatively affected by guns albeit in different ways.

I think you're mistaken about Washington, D.C.:
"Our data suggest that restrictions on access to guns in the District of Columbia prevented an average of 47 deaths each year after the law was implemented. (N Engl J Med 1991;325:1615–20.)"
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199112053252305

Of course, more deaths could have been prevented if Washington, D.C. didn't share an open border with Virginia where guns are easily accessible due to lax laws.

How are guns useful in your daily life? Do you need to hunt to put food on the table?

 

Yes, I have always been an avid hunter and have hunted in many Countries, to put food on the table, wild game tastes much better than store bought meat.
Wild game is killed and eaten fresh, it does not lay in fridges and banged about in transport.

 

We certainly don't eat an elk all at one time here. Plenty of freezer time for the game I kill.

 

Other kinds of property, however, do facilitate other forms of crime. Thus meaning by the logic presented, ownership of any form of property could be considered an act of aiding and abetting a criminal, since ownership would allow for acquisition by theft.

Motor vehicles capable of doing three to four times faster than the legally posted speed limit are not very useful in the daily lives of most people, so it is hard to justify why they are owned.

It is not the fault or responsibility of areas with laxer restrictions pertaining to firearms firearms, for the criminal misuse of firearms in areas with greater levels of restrictions.

How will so-called "smart firearms" reduce firearm-related accidents if the one using them is the designated legal owner? Will the firearm demonstrate greater levels of intelligent thought than the person who is operating it?

 

The obvious question of "so what?" applies with regard to the above. What ultimate, meaningful difference does it make if someone chooses to end their own existence, and utilize a firearm for that purpose? That is their decision to make.

Meaning it required the implementation of a complete and total prohibition on the ownership of firearms, in order to achieve what is only a hypothetical decrease in the number of firearm-related deaths, and a minute one at best.

Why does the state of Virginia not experience the same levels of firearm-related violence as the district of columbia?

Their value in a self defense role has already been proven, time and time again. You have been involved in those discussions, so there is no reason to continue rehashing established points regarding reality vs perception about the frequency of legal and legitimate use. It has been proven that legally owned firearms are used more often for defensive purposes than criminal offenses.

 

More post hoc nonsense.

 

I doubt there are 500 gun stores in all of japan. Probably not more than 50. We have thousands.

 

Obtuse ?
Is it deliberate ?

Of course nobody eats an entire Elk or Moose or large Northeastern Deer in one sitting, however, when hunting Guinea hens and other small birds, I have roasted anywhere from 1- 6 depending on the size of the bird.

On larger game, while preparing the meat for quartering and packing out, I never could resist cutting out and cooking up choice steaks and roasts for eating at the campsite.

 

You wrote "Wild game is killed and eaten fresh, it does not lay in fridges and banged about in transport. Not entirely true, as you acknowledge below.

Who could?

 

What this has to do with canadian gun control is beyond me

 

This is not the post on Canadian Gun Control, It is the "More than 500 Gun Store burglaries expected this year says ATF...."


Do try and keep up, and relevancy,
You opened the door to that line when you questioned the need for Guns by asking if you needed Guns to put food on the table.