MAP SHOWS HIGH GUN OWNERSHIP = LOW CRIME

30+ sounds about right. But how many were drug related? Gang related? Can't find stats on any of those.

14 huh? why were there 30 by november 15, 2012?

http://www.sws.ci.austin.tx.us/news/murder-30 Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

You are 100% correct. Tried to rely on my memory from a newspaper article earlier this month but obviously have a faulty memory. However, as shown in the article you cited, I stand by my opinion that the overwhelming majority of the homicides in Austin were not gang or drug cartel related.

You are 100% correct. Tried to rely on my memory from a newspaper article earlier this month but obviously have a faulty memory. However, as shown in the article you cited, I stand by my opinion that the overwhelming majority of the homicides in Austin were not gang or drug cartel related. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

have no info on from where most homicides derive

have always heard if you are to be murdered chances are its usually gonna be by someone who knows you

as to the implement of choice, if someone is in a murderous rage...you just might get choked to death if a gun isnt handy, ever hear of a butcher knife?

as to a planned, lying in wait, murder of you by your best friend, live in, business partner or evil child from your own loins, i doubt an absence of gun availability would change that murder stat. appreciably

perhaps the only statistic open to change if guns were confiscated would be accidental shootings, and those are, i would imagine, quite few.

although the offset there would be a much more aggressive criminal class, with a corresponding increase in many types of crime including murder

have no info on from where most homicides derive

have always heard if you are to be murdered chances are its usually gonna be by someone who knows you

as to the implement of choice, if someone is in a murderous rage...you just might get choked to death if a gun isnt handy, ever hear of a butcher knife?

as to a planned, lying in wait, murder of you by your best friend, live in, business partner or evil child from your own loins, i doubt an absence of gun availability would change any murder stat. appreciably Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

I believe you are right on your statement that in most cases the murderer knows the victim.

Okay. you want to kill me and are standing 10 feet from me. With a gun my chances for survival, unless you are a terrible shot, are as close to zero as you can get. With a butcher's knife, I have multiple possibilities to save my life since in all liklihood you would have to come very close to me in order to kill me -- run, pick up some object with which to defend myself, or maybe even simply evade your lunge at me and overpower you. And I'll definitely take my chances if someone wants to choke me.

In such circumstances how many lives would be saved if no gun was present? I'm sure each one of us would have differing opinions on that. I know one person who would say zero. I would say more than 0%, less than 100%.

How many of those gun deaths were caused by legal gun owners, or guns stolen from legal gun owners who did not properly secure their gun?

How many of those gun deaths were caused by legal gun owners, or guns stolen from legal gun owners who did not properly secure their gun? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

how would you find out that statistic?

I believe you are right on your statement that in most cases the murderer knows the victim.

Okay. you want to kill me and are standing 10 feet from me. With a gun my chances for survival, unless you are a terrible shot, are as close to zero as you can get. With a butcher's knife, I have multiple possibilities to save my life since in all liklihood you would have to come very close to me in order to kill me -- run, pick up some object with which to defend myself, or maybe even simply evade your lunge at me and overpower you. And I'll definitely take my chances if someone wants to choke me.

In such circumstances how many lives would be saved if no gun was present? I'm sure each one of us would have differing opinions on that. I know one person who would say zero. I would say more than 0%, less than 100%. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

how many lives are saved and how much property is protected , all afforded by guns, from keeping the criminal element at bay by creating within them uncertainty as to what might confront them?

additionally, the right to bear arms is, what i think, a real check on tyranny, albeit a not so easily assessed but a non-the-less real effect in my estimation, if just by keeping in freedom loving americans minds their birthright and legacy and as a not so subtle reminder and bar to scoundrels and control freaks who always know the best.

the right to keep and bear arms helps secure the remaining rights in the bill of rights. these rights should be seen as an interlocking whole, one protecting the other. sure times have changed and nuclear weapons we dont have and reasonable restrictions can apply but not to such an extent that the right is abrogated.

now gun confiscators talk, and their talk is without merit in my estimation. how many net murders would be stopped if all guns were confiscated from those whose habit is to obey laws? I say none. i say murders would increase.

That's a lotta hypotheticals, pahdnah!

Opinion is what it is. But so far, your way ain't working... I think that's the crux of this biscuit.

More guns does not equal less crime. And certainly not less murders.

But so far, your way ain't working... I think that's the crux of this biscuit. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

i may have opinion and yours is just one too.

and my considered opinion is you're as far off base as it is possible for an adult human to be

And you're entitled to it.

However, facts are also facts. are you going to argue the facts presented so far? Do you believe, in spite of the facts and figures, places with more guns have fewer murders than those with less guns? Is that what you consider an opinion?

Therefore we should have more guns so we can... What, kill the murderers first?

ahhh, we do disagree...

And you're entitled to it.

However, facts are also facts. At least that's my opinion. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

i agree with a fact being a fact, its seldom a liberal thinks so

Antagonistic aren't we?

As long as we stick to the facts, then nobody needs to know what kind of...

Antagonistic aren't we?

As long as we stick to the facts, then nobody needs to know what kind of... Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

what the heck fact or facts are you talking about? the whole exchange with you is perplexing

Read the posts above regarding murder rates. Those are the facts to which I refer. This thread is about the relationship between guns and crime. Not whether the second amendment ensures our protection against tyranny. I was simply trying to stick to the topic of the thread.

I said it was my opinion that your way of unlimited gun ownership just wasnt working in terms of keeping crime and murders down. Facts presented earlier are what I base my opinion on.

if you want to discuss the many virtues of firearm ownership, please start another thread.

Ive no desire to get into a shitfight with you, so please get your hackles down. There are plenty of other subjects over which you can become perplexed, amigo.