Here's your chance..

No one needs a study to see there are twice as many guns and half as much violent crime as there was in the 90's. Those two facts alone prove that more guns does not mean more violent crime. Lol.

 

As i have stated before (and will NOT state again), I work off of common sense and I gave you clear reasons why your solutions do not make common sense Idealists rarely get anything done give that accomplishing ideals is an impossibility for the simple reason that humanity is flawed, meaning that ideals cannot be obtained. Humanity will always find a way to f*** them up. Only the best solution possible can be accomplished.

I will let you know that talking to you is getting to be a waste of time. Neither of us is going to budge an inch and repeating everything a million times and expecting a different result is stupid. When you can actually find a way to attack common sense and prove that it doesn't work, let me know. Until then, our conversations are over.

 

Violent crime is not the same as deaths by guns. There are a lot of other facts that apply to crime than apply to gun deaths. There are more deaths by guns now than ever before. Suicide by guns has exploded in recent years. More guns has meant more deaths, no matter what the crime statistics are, and that is a fact/statistic.

Crime includes things like robberies, scams, lying-for-profit, etc. It has very little to do with gun deaths.

 

I've described the scenario about a dozen times in this thread: tip or pistol grip becomes visible.

 

OK so legally, a police officer could not approach if he noticed someone was concealed carry?

 

Yes but we are not talking about that.

 

Why are we not? If people mistakenly believe that carrying a concealed weapon is probable cause to check for a concealed permit.

Then what would prevent the probable cause from checking anyone that carries a concealed weapon because it's illegal for some?

Just like it was illegal for some to be carrying without a permit to begin with.

But I think this line of reasoning is a dead end anyways because just carrying a concealed weapon is not enough probable cause to cause someone to ID themselves

 

Effects of Concealed-Carry Laws on Violent Crime

Summary: There is supportive evidence that shall-issue concealed-carry laws may increase total and firearm homicides. Evidence for the effect of permitless-carry laws on total homicides is inconclusive. Evidence that shall-issue concealed-carry laws may increase violent crime is limited.
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealed-carry/violent-crime.html

You're welcome.

Next.

 

LOL. Addressing the CAUSES of violence is common sense!

Your posts are full of misinformation and false premises. That is not “working off common sense”.

Nobody has ever forced or encouraged you to respond to my posts. It’s all up to you! Don’t complain to me about your time. You chose how to spend it!
SMH.

 

Yeh, facts must be ignored, denigrated, and suppressed by these little authoritarians.

 

You just proved why us continuing to talk is useless.

Good Bye

 

So why continue? I’m learning with every exchange. So are others. Sorry you don’t want to learn.

Any time you want to post an actual study with relevant information I’m happy to discuss it. If you post inaccuracies or false premises I’ll likely correct them for the benefit of third parties. Your time is yours to choose how to spend.

 

Violent crime is the important metric. If one wants to evaluate the effect that guns have on our peaceable society, one must take both the positive and the negative effects into account, and judge them against all crimes.

All you have to do to identify an anti-gun leftist is look for their use of weasel words like "gun crime" and "gun violence". They don't want to take any positive effects that guns have on society into their equation.

If a woman shoots a rapist in the face, she not only prevents her own rape, but untold other rapes that perp would have committed. So, "gun deaths" go up by one, "violent rapes" goes down by how ever many he would have committed. That is a net-positive for society, and might account for part of the decrease in violent crimes over the years.

 

The reason we are not talking about that is because the people who couldn't legally own weapons before the law still can't own weapons, and it was illegal for most up until the law to conceal carry. The number of people who could conceal carry before the law was actually tiny, now that number expands quite a bit.

 

And it remains illegal to carry a gun you have no right to own.

All this will do is allow legal owners to carry without paying fees and jumping through nine hoops.

This will not make it any easier for people to illegally carry than it already was

 

I keep on getting the same old answers. Each answer shows me an example of what the person believes. I have said a million times before that in this world and with the amount of people living in it, you can always find an example that will prove your point. Nonetheless, proving the point is not what is important. What is important are the steps that prevent the norm and not the exceptions. The norm in the U.S. has become that there are more deaths by guns than ever before and more deaths by guns than in most other nations of the same caliber of the U.S. It is not necessarily crimes that we are talking about as suicide is not a crime. Nonetheless, suicide by a gun went up 10% last year above what it was in 2021 and the same occurred in 2021 over 2020.

Guns is the problem. There are at least 4 times more guns in the U.S. than the second nation in the world. More guns mean more bullets and mean more deaths. It is as easy as 2+2 = 4. It is just plain numbers. Have less guns and there will be less deaths. Why people cannot see something so simple as this equation is beyond my ability to understand.

If there were 50% less guns in the U,S,, there will not be more deaths.............there will be less deaths.

Geezus Christ, stating the obvious should not be necessary. Unbelievable.

 

Thanks for answering. I have not read every post on the thread.

Given that carrying a firearm is legal in FL, noticing that someone is carrying a gun is not probable cause for a stop.
IMO, cops should not make a stop unless they are sure they can legally arrest a felon in the act, and draw their gun -- first.
Any other approach is asking for gun fight initiated by the felon. Cops lives matter to much to risk them on the luck of the draw.

A lucky very cop:

 

You mean suicides went up during the force quarantine of the fake pandemic where so many lost their jobs and encountered financial difficulties? Fascinating

 

You can't prove that. If there were 50% less suicidal people in America, then there will be less deaths. But if a person is intent on offing themselves using a particular tool, you can't save them by prohibiting both them and the more responsible users from possessing that tool. There's more than one way to tie a noose.

So, maybe we should focus on the cause of the effect and not the means that produced the effect.

 

The obvious is that there are double the guns, and half the violent crime. I leave the reader to draw his own conclusion from those facts.

In my example above, you are counting the death of the rapist as a tragedy, and giving no weight to the prevented rapes.

 

I think that is known as 'demonstrating absurdity by being absurd'.

 

In the State of Florida, since at least 2020, possibly before, the mere presence of a firearm is not probable cause for anything. So, to the point of this entire going on 400-post thread, which will no doubt reach 1,000 as it seems all firearm related ones do recently (I think the left is completely freaking out post-Bruen), nothing has changed as regards people being armed in public. Police are free to ask anyone anything, just as a perfect stranger is to ask another perfect stranger anything, but the askee is under no obligation to even acknowledge the officer spoke.

 

You don't seem to have any interest in debates with anybody. In fact, you didn't start debating, you started by asking questions, and then got pissy (and not just with me) when you didn't get the answers you wanted.

A few other points for your consideration, or others...

Until we got gobsmacked by the pandemic in 2020, homicides and virtually (if not literally) all crimes were at or near all time lows. Yes, they have gone up, we know that, but I haven't seen definitive final numbers from an authoritative source. But that was a 30-year-long trend of decreases that totaled about 2/3rds, despite more guns going into circulation every year, more States offering concealed carry starting in the late 80s (some with permits, some without), and today it's all of them, 45 have open carry (some with permits, some without), and crime has a very, very long way to go to get back to what it was in the late-80s to early-90s.

Which happens to be the precise time concealed carry for civilians became a thing. Hmm, I wonder if those things might be related in some way. More concealed carriers, less crime. #wow #whowouldthinkit

 

Interesting theory, but for the fact that it's dead wrong. There are way more firearms per capita in the USA in 2023 and way less homicides by any method. And that's after 2 years of increases thanks to the pandemic, defund the police, the summer of riots, people being forced by law to be hermits, getting frustrated by being forcefully cooped up in small apartments, and so much more.

I'll concede that idea of more guns, less crime sounds illogical, but experimentally, that is precisely what the last 30-years taught us actually happens in the real world. Logic says my Buccaneers with Tom Brady should have won 3 Super Bowls in a row, but alas, we just had the one.

That's why they play the games. What logic dictates, which team is better on paper, none of that matters when reality happens.

 

ONCE AGAIN AND FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME, I am not against guns. I am against the kind of guns bought and against who can buy them.

Do you need an AR-15 to prevent a rape? Do you need 10 guns to prevent the rape? The person involved in stopping the rape is likely someone that cares about others and not someone that cares about himself (as most people are). Controlling what guns can be bought and who can buy them has no effect in whether a rape is prevented or not. A fellow rapist is not likely to step up to prevent a rape of another person occurring. A person that is angry at everyone is more likely to react negatively to what HE THINKS IS A RAPE than wait until the rape is actually occurring and making sure that a crime is occurrin, meaning he is more likely to do an injustice (kill an innocent person) than prevent the rape from occurring.

What is this is so difficult to understand by most everyone here? Controlling who gets to buy guns and the kind of guns bought is what I have been talking about from the beginning. We DO NOT NEED to have 4 times more guns than the second nation (of our size) in the world. More guns will not prevent more rapes from occurring but it will give the ability to more people to kill someone.

There were more than 26,000 suicides by gun last year. If those guns were not made available to those people, the suicides would have been less, for the simple reason that a person who is going to kill himself does not want to suffer doing it. A gun is fast, swift and causes no pain. A knife or some other instrument would cause pain before the death occurred. Do not make those guns available to those people, less people would have committed suicide. .