Yes I’m sure it’s just a coincidence. Maybe it’s because the economy was doing so well.:dubious:
OK so pretend you are a rapist murderer. All things being the same, are you going to attack the woman leaving the gun store or the one leaving Bed Bath and Beyond?
Of course not, well at least if we ignore the Fast and Furious debacle.
I’m almost sure Obama wanted to lesson crime, but he probably hoped to do so by taking guns off the streets, not by putting 40 million extra on the streets. But crime went down anyway, quite a bit.
So, you’ve got nothing in the way of proof other than a smiley face and silliness, gotchya.
Ok, thanks for clarifying that a bit.
I figure in the end it doesn’t matter, crime went down. It probably has zilch to do with the number of guns on the street, and probably even less to do with who’s in the White House. If you’re making that claim, the onus to prove it is on you. I’ll repeat: Everything I’ve seen on the subject shows that there’s not much in the way of correlation, the two numbers don’t seem to have a relationship.
If you do want to try to prove that, it’s probably best to do it in another thread, as it’s not directly related to this one.
You don’t see the strong negative correlation? Lots more guns being carried concealed to which probably helps with crime too.
I mean who wants to mug a guy if he’s likely packing?
You can start a new thread if you want. But this is my thread about Obamas gun sales and I think it’s worth noting some of the good things that have come from it.
There was a big boost in gun sales back in 2008 too.
So Obama waits five years through multiple shooting sprees until someone decides to gun down a bunch of first-graders and then provides some half-hearted lip service for a weak AWB bill - that vindicates the NRA’s repeated refrain of “the government is going to come knocking on your door for your guns!” since 2008? That’s a pretty thin straw to grasp, but entirely consistent with the strength of your arguments throughout this thread. It only holds water if you are, in fact, paranoid.
I think the NRA literature said that Obama/the liberals would go after assault weapons first, which is just what they did, like they did before, which is what the NRA said they would do before.
Sort of, the NRA was right twice, but from here on the dope I was able to learn that a large number of anti-gunners think exactly like the NRA used to say they think and that things like the AWB are just first steps towards their ultimate goals.
And from the Dope I was able to learn that a large number of pro-gunners are macho idiots who shouldn’t be allowed a stapler let alone a weapon or terrified bunnies worried that the minute they leave the house without a weapon the Scary Killer Rapist Muggers will pounce. The difference here is that you automatically extrapolate the most extreme position to be the majority position and I don’t.
I know many responsible gun owners, some of which are relations, and none of them go on about how they need to be ready to defend themselves at every moment. They keep their guns safe and maintained and out of sight unless in use (or being prepared for use), and I suspect most gun owners are the same. You seem to think that any gun control proponent who doesn’t claim to want to remove all guns everywhere is lying. Am I wrong?
There is no demonstrable link between economic conditions and crime, especially violent (as opposed to property) crime:
The problem with this sort of analysis is that very few homicides are the result of a person attacking a stranger for psychosexual gratificication, so even if such people are dissuaded by concealed weapons (which is possible, of course), the effect on overall homicide rates would be low.
Can I assume you think the one’s to carry concealed are not responsible? Based on that, do you think an increased in concealed carry would be associated with increased or decreased homicides?
No I don’t think all of them are lying. I do think some of them are, while the rest are willing stooges for the ones that are lying, or the one’s that will tell you outright that their goals are to get rid of most/all guns.
The rape/murder was but one example so it’s effect would be relatively low. Now look at a bunch of other crimes that would be deterred if criminals thought they were more likely to get shot in the process, it might add up to a greater overall effect. Right?
Right. I made that objection because you only referenced homicide figures, and homicides are dominated by two categories: gang and drug related killings, and murder of intimate partners, neither of which is likely to be affected by more guns in circulation.
The concept of deterrence of other crimes, and even some homicides, is plausible, though proving it is another matter.