Arming public reduces crime

You're again misunderstanding what a correlation entails! For a correlation you'd have to refer to multiple countries and find a relationship between gun ownership and crime rates. Good luck with that one!

 

That's not true at all. If you shoot a gun that blows up in your hand, you have every right to sue the gun manufacturer. If you run your car into a store driving drunk, you can't sue the manufactuer. If you drive into a store because a defect from the factory caused it, then you can sue the company.

The same premise goes with a gun. The manufactuer is only liable if it's a default causing injury. They aren't reliable for consumers using their product illegally or inappropriately.

Perhaps you should go to a gun store. Just ammo has gone up 250% since Obama took presidency. I used to get a 1000 round of 7.62 ammo for less than a $100. Now it's $250 for the cheapest ammo. It costs several hundred dollars to go the range and have a good time.
http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd/default.asp
This is the cheapest place to buy ammo pretty much. Gun shows too, but I can't cite them. They are fairly in line with pricing on here though.

The gun manufacturers and suppliers all pay taxes. There is no need for a special tax. I paid $50 in taxes on my last gun. That's outrageous. When I was 15, I could buy a .22 for that.

 

Guns are illegal in Mexico. Just a little excerpt about the crime in another country where guns are illegal.

"Crime in Mexico continues to occur at a high rate and can often be violent. Street crime, ranging from pick pocketing to armed robbery, is a serious problem in most major cities. The low rates of apprehension and conviction of criminals contribute to Mexico’s high crime rate. The homicide rates in parts of Mexico have risen sharply in recent years, driven largely by violence associated with transnational criminal organizations. Ciudad Juarez and other cities along Mexico’s northern border have particularly high murder rates. The Mexican government makes aconsiderable effort to protect U.S. citizens and other visitors traveling to major tourist destinations. Resort areas and tourist destinations in Mexico generally do not see the levels of violence and crime reported in the border region and in areas along major trafficking routes. Nevertheless, crime and violence are serious problems. While most victims of violence are Mexican citizens associated with criminal activity, the security situation poses serious risks for U.S. citizens as well. U.S. citizen victims of crime in Mexico are encouraged to report incidents to the nearest police headquarters and to the nearest U.S. consular office.

The Government of Mexico has taken significant steps to strengthen its law enforcement capabilities at the federal level, which have begun putting organized criminal networks on the defensive. However, state and local police forces continue to suffer from lack of training and funding, and are a weak deterrent to criminals acting on behalf of organized crime and armed with an impressive array of weapons. In some areas, municipal police forces are widely suspected of colluding with organized crime. Significant administration of justice reforms are being undertaken in certain Mexican states, as well as at the federal level; however, judicial systems are often overworked, under resourced, and inefficient. "

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_970.html#crime

 

And a good example of how the US gun market has international negative effects

 

You mean how the US has sold guns to South American governments? Yes that's true. Is it America's fault that the governments have corrupt people in them? Is it America's fault the drug lords can bribe government agents to sell them weapons? Is it America's fault the drug lords in Mexico are getting a vast majority of their guns from south of their border? Is it America's fault that Mexico has outlawed private citizens the right to bear arms. Something that has empowered the drug cartels?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1381630/WikiLeaks-Mexican-drug-gangs-armed-U-S-weapons.html

 

You didn't read the stats I posted did you? If you had, you could very well see a correlation between the numerous countries juxtaposed amongst one another.

 

Nope, haven't seen any stats from you. However, I do know that any cross-country analysis is going to be- at best- useless. You'd need to use some form of vicitimisation survey (as official crime figures aren't of any use) and an internationally consistent measure of gun prevalence. Good luck with that!

 

That seems like more of an opinion than fact. A fact would be something along the lines of my gun holds six bullets.

 

Then don't quote me being wrong about correlation. You obviously failed to read what I posted.

Lots of things should be taken into account. Saying guns are the sole reason would be silly. It doesn't stop the fact the statistics show that nations with strict gun laws like Australia and the UK have much higher burglary offenses.

 

I read "There is certainly a strong correlation between all of the citizens having guns and knowing how to use them and a low crime rate". No such correlation exists, so you either don't understand what correlation entails or you're making stuff up. Being a jolly sort I went for the former.

Note that you haven't referred to any evidence that tests the 'more guns=less burglaries' hypothesis.

 

Well even the studies you have posted show that there clearly is a crime deterent to law abiding citizens owning guns, so you ae being FAR less than honest here.

 

The studies I've referenced demonstrate that the 'more guns, more crime' hypothesis cannot be rejected. Try not to deliberate misrepresent things. Its jolly rude!

 

Talk about rude, you have even admitted before that the studiy verified a deterrent effect, now you have done a 180 degree turn around and called me rude for pointing it out. Now that is rude.

 

Again, you deliberately misrepresent. A shockingly insipid strategy. The studies show that the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis cannot be rejected. Pretty simple really (despite the complex econometric methods required to check for robustness)

 

This is like saying " we have concluded through a lengthy study that gun crime can only be committed where guns actually exist".

It's a nonsense study. The GLARING false premise underlying where you are going with this is that legality controls whether or not a person owns a gun. That has been proven wrong countless times.

 

So are you now saying there is no deterrent effect? Answer the question directly and please avoid the standard dodge.

 

I'm saying that you are deliberately misrepresenting. Seems to be a strategy that you're trying to excel in!

It is ludicrous to refer to deterrence when the 'more guns, more crime' hypothesis isn't rejected. In terms of more specific analysis, where deterrence could perceivably be a significant factor, the results aren't friendly to the gun fanatic's cause. In terms of burglaries, for example, the possible deterrence effect is dominated by a 'loot' effect.

 

Oh, I see. When you stated that "The courts haven't stopped perpetrators from lawsuit though", in response to our conversation about our unique gun industry exemption from civil liabilities, you were actually talking about private citizens? I fail to see the relevance of that, sorry.

As to multiple quotes, I believe most here use the 'multiple quote' choice at the bottom right hand corner of the post you want to respond to. If you hover your mouse over the icon, you'll see what it does. You could also write the code directly into your messages, if you prefer that.

Try it by responding to the rest of my post.

 

As I pointed out previously, there is more to the "Swiss model" than meets the eye. Their model actually makes a strong argument for stricter gun laws. A fact that seldom gets mentioned every time the "Swiss model" comes up. OK?

 

There is more to civil liabilities for industries than simple end use liabilities. The Alcohol and cigarette industries were both found guilty of dishonest marketing to minors in civil court. Even Microsoft was found guilty in civil court of shady marketing practices, I believe.

Robert A. Ricker, a former chief lobbyist and executive director of the American Shooting Sports Council, has come forward and shown that the gun industry has knowingly sold guns to known bad dealers.

''Leaders in the industry have long known that greater industry action to prevent illegal transactions is possible,'' Mr. Ricker said, particularly through a network of manufacturers' representatives who stay in close touch with dealers. But industry officials have ''resisted taking constructive voluntary action,'' he said, and have ''sought to silence others within the industry.''http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/04/u...ibes-bond-of-silence.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm
​

The fact remains that the NRA has managed to assure the firearms market of a unique place in America life as the only consumer product to be both exempt from federal health and safety oversight and beyond the reach of civil redress.

This does nothing to substantiate your assertion that "guns are outrageously expensive, because of government regulations".

You point out none...ZERO... "regulations" that uniquely make guns more expensive. You further hurt your position by referring to the cost of ammo by ignoring the fact that the price of ammo, as all other legal products in this country, are subject to the laws of supply and demand. The Obama administration has done NOTHING to increase the cost of ammo. The cost of ammo has been fueled by a fearful and misinformed public that has tried to buy up all the ammo they can. End of story. You and others only have yourselves to blame for buying into the hysterical propaganda.

The taxes you point out are not unique to guns. THAT's the point, friend.

 

Ayuh,... Only because of the frivolous lawsuits filed by the people You advocate for...

The law shielding the gun manufacturers is another unintended result of leftist attacks...

Unintended consequences are the bane of the leftist social engineering...
The leftist Never admit those Unintended consequences of their actions...

 

Of course there is. People are a lot less likely to wrong another person if they know the person has a gun and knows how to use it. There is just no way I could cite any credible sources to support that though. We'll just call it my opinion.

That's simply because you didn't read my posts.

 

Let's call it then 'blind hope'.

 

Gun lovers could be providing their republic a benefit by loving their republic more than their guns, and assuming the character of a well regulated militia.

Would we need a War on Crime with well regulated militia mingling among the populace during the course of a normal day?

 

Quit doing drugs Reiver. This is total BS.