"Tim" wrote in message
...

On Friday, September 13, 2013 6:15:41 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 9/13/13 7:10 AM, Tim wrote:



Kates and Mauser clarify that they are not suggesting that gun
control causes nations to have higher murder rates, rather, they
"observed correlations that nations with stringent gun controls
tend to have much higher murder rates than nations that allow
guns."



http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/b...ence-with-ban/


That's an absurd posit on the part of Kates and Mauser. There are

decades of evidence showing that the United States, with virtually
no

gun controls, has among the highest rates of murder by gun in the

western world.


For every statement, poll, or study, there's always an opposing view,
Harry. You should know that...

-------------------------------


Hard statistics have value but some of these gun issue polls are
really questionable. The University of Chicago does a poll every two
years trying to get an idea of overall gun ownership numbers. They
call something like 2000 people and ask, "Do you own a firearm".

Who, in their right mind, is going to answer someone asking a question
like that based on a telephone call from an unknown "pollster", and
if they do, how reliable are their answers?

Without a national gun registry the only way to estimate the growth or
decline of gun ownership is to look at the manufacturer's production
numbers.
Some, like S&W have been at full capacity for the past 5 years,
indicating a strong demand for their products. Additionally, new
applications for permits have been at record levels. Despite this,
gun related homicides nationally are declining.

On Friday, September 13, 2013 8:20:09 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:


Some, like S&W have been at full capacity for the past 5 years,
indicating a strong demand for their products. Additionally, new
applications for permits have been at record levels. Despite this,
gun related homicides nationally are declining.

Which would seem to disprove the title of this thread, and the supposed statistical link claimed by the study.

On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 08:06:26 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, September 13, 2013 8:20:09 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:


Some, like S&W have been at full capacity for the past 5 years,
indicating a strong demand for their products. Additionally, new
applications for permits have been at record levels. Despite this,
gun related homicides nationally are declining.

Which would seem to disprove the title of this thread, and the supposed statistical link claimed by the study.

Some dimwits aren't smart enough to realize that these two ideas are
not at odds with one another. You can have both a declining homocide
rate and a higher rate of homicide in regions with higher gun
ownership.

Some people have the academic credentials and investment into the
subject matter to make claims and some people do not.

Why don't you dimwits leave the thinking to those with brains enough
to do so.

"jps" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 08:06:26 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, September 13, 2013 8:20:09 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:


Some, like S&W have been at full capacity for the past 5 years,
indicating a strong demand for their products. Additionally, new
applications for permits have been at record levels. Despite this,
gun related homicides nationally are declining.

Which would seem to disprove the title of this thread, and the
supposed statistical link claimed by the study.

Some dimwits aren't smart enough to realize that these two ideas are
not at odds with one another. You can have both a declining homocide
rate and a higher rate of homicide in regions with higher gun
ownership.

Some people have the academic credentials and investment into the
subject matter to make claims and some people do not.

Why don't you dimwits leave the thinking to those with brains enough
to do so.

-------------------------

Let's see. The title of your post was, "Higher gun ownership equals
higher rate of homicide".

This dimwit is simply saying that at a national level:

a. Gun manufacturing has been up for the past 5 years (indicating
strong demand).
b. Permit applications have been at record levels (both new
applications and renewals).
c. Nationally, gun related gun homicides have been declining.

I'll leave it to you academic geniuses to study and determine the
correlation.

On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 07:29:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" nowayalso.jose.com
wrote:



"jps" wrote in message
.. .

On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 08:06:26 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, September 13, 2013 8:20:09 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:


Some, like S&W have been at full capacity for the past 5 years,
indicating a strong demand for their products. Additionally, new
applications for permits have been at record levels. Despite this,
gun related homicides nationally are declining.

Which would seem to disprove the title of this thread, and the
supposed statistical link claimed by the study.

Some dimwits aren't smart enough to realize that these two ideas are
not at odds with one another. You can have both a declining homocide
rate and a higher rate of homicide in regions with higher gun
ownership.

Some people have the academic credentials and investment into the
subject matter to make claims and some people do not.

Why don't you dimwits leave the thinking to those with brains enough
to do so.

-------------------------

Let's see. The title of your post was, "Higher gun ownership equals
higher rate of homicide".

This dimwit is simply saying that at a national level:

a. Gun manufacturing has been up for the past 5 years (indicating
strong demand).
b. Permit applications have been at record levels (both new
applications and renewals).
c. Nationally, gun related gun homicides have been declining.

I'll leave it to you academic geniuses to study and determine the
correlation.


The percentage of population owning guns is going down. Has been for
decades. If your assumptions are right, then more guns are being
purchased by those who aleady own guns, so the NRA and Fox News are
doing their jobs well.

Areas in which gun ownership is higher experience more gun related
deaths. That's the conclusion of the study.

Can you separate those thoughts long enough for them to each make
sense?

If you can run a slide rule, you can surely figure this out.

"jps" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 07:29:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" nowayalso.jose.com
wrote:



"jps" wrote in message
.. .

On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 08:06:26 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, September 13, 2013 8:20:09 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:


Some, like S&W have been at full capacity for the past 5 years,
indicating a strong demand for their products. Additionally, new
applications for permits have been at record levels. Despite
this,
gun related homicides nationally are declining.

Which would seem to disprove the title of this thread, and the
supposed statistical link claimed by the study.

Some dimwits aren't smart enough to realize that these two ideas are
not at odds with one another. You can have both a declining homocide
rate and a higher rate of homicide in regions with higher gun
ownership.

Some people have the academic credentials and investment into the
subject matter to make claims and some people do not.

Why don't you dimwits leave the thinking to those with brains enough
to do so.

-------------------------

Let's see. The title of your post was, "Higher gun ownership equals
higher rate of homicide".

This dimwit is simply saying that at a national level:

a. Gun manufacturing has been up for the past 5 years (indicating
strong demand).
b. Permit applications have been at record levels (both new
applications and renewals).
c. Nationally, gun related gun homicides have been declining.

I'll leave it to you academic geniuses to study and determine the
correlation.


The percentage of population owning guns is going down. Has been for
decades. If your assumptions are right, then more guns are being
purchased by those who aleady own guns, so the NRA and Fox News are
doing their jobs well.

Areas in which gun ownership is higher experience more gun related
deaths. That's the conclusion of the study.

Can you separate those thoughts long enough for them to each make
sense?

If you can run a slide rule, you can surely figure this out.

--------------------------

First, there's no need for your snarky comments.

Other than telephone surveys, there's no possible way to determine if
gun ownership is going up or down because there's no national registry
of who owns what. You have to believe that if a stranger calls you
up and asks if you have a gun, that everyone will answer honestly. My
answer would be, "None of your business".

Manufacturing production numbers (yes, and even the resultant company
stock prices) represent a real indicator of guns being sold.
Agreed, many are split between current owners and new owners but
again, those numbers aren't readily available. However, add in the
record number of permit applications, again split between new
applicants and renewals, a logical conclusion is that gun ownership
is going up, despite what random, limited and likely biased surveys
say. If ownership was declining, so would both new permit and renewal
applications. That has not been the case. Where required, the
permit issuing agencies have been swamped. In MA, a new permit
application typically took 6 weeks to process years ago. They are now
taking as much as 6 months due to the backlog.

In article , "Mr.
Luddite" says...


Other than telephone surveys, there's no possible way to determine if
gun ownership is going up or down because there's no national registry
of who owns what. You have to believe that if a stranger calls you
up and asks if you have a gun, that everyone will answer honestly. My
answer would be, "None of your business".

Manufacturing production numbers (yes, and even the resultant company
stock prices) represent a real indicator of guns being sold.
Agreed, many are split between current owners and new owners but
again, those numbers aren't readily available. However, add in the
record number of permit applications, again split between new
applicants and renewals, a logical conclusion is that gun ownership
is going up, despite what random, limited and likely biased surveys
say. If ownership was declining, so would both new permit and renewal
applications. That has not been the case. Where required, the
permit issuing agencies have been swamped. In MA, a new permit
application typically took 6 weeks to process years ago. They are now
taking as much as 6 months due to the backlog.

I don't have any answers, just suspicions about gun ownership.
Here's something from a Boston paper.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2...-toughest-gun-
control-law-made-massachusetts-less-
safe/3845k7xHzkwTrBWy4KpkEM/story.html

I don't know anything about this guy. Sounds like a typical gun nut.
Everybody knows that nobody knows the number of illegal guns.
But he says Mass knows how many legal gun are owned.
?There were nearly 1.5 million active gun licenses in Massachusetts in
1998,? the AP reported. ?In June [2002], that number was down to just
200,000.?
He contradicts you, and jps.

The current figure for legal guns in Mass should be known.
But maybe the NRA got a Fed secrecy act passed so now nobody can get
that info.
I don't believe anything I read about gun ownership.
From the guy above, you, jps, or anybody else.
Because the NRA has made it impossible to get good statistics.
They are slime. Not because guns are inherently bad, but because
the NRA are money-grubbing low-lifes who seek to hide the truth.

Personally, I think most gun purchases are made by people who already
own a gun, and want more guns. Gun nuts.
Criminals get most of their guns from gun nuts.
A much smaller percentage of gun purchases are made by responsible
people - for specific sport use or genuine self-defense concerns.
Criminals also get some of their guns.

With the "general public," I think guns are more and more looked upon as
- excuse the analogy, but it works - cigarettes.
They are found to be increasingly unacceptable.
Like cigarettes, guns won't go away, but will be more highly taxed,
regulated, and suppressed.
And it will make a difference in innocent deaths.
But the NRA will do all they can to keep that from happening.

In article , says...

On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 07:29:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" nowayalso.jose.com
wrote:



"jps" wrote in message
.. .

On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 08:06:26 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, September 13, 2013 8:20:09 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:


Some, like S&W have been at full capacity for the past 5 years,
indicating a strong demand for their products. Additionally, new
applications for permits have been at record levels. Despite this,
gun related homicides nationally are declining.

Which would seem to disprove the title of this thread, and the
supposed statistical link claimed by the study.

Some dimwits aren't smart enough to realize that these two ideas are
not at odds with one another. You can have both a declining homocide
rate and a higher rate of homicide in regions with higher gun
ownership.

Some people have the academic credentials and investment into the
subject matter to make claims and some people do not.

Why don't you dimwits leave the thinking to those with brains enough
to do so.

-------------------------

Let's see. The title of your post was, "Higher gun ownership equals
higher rate of homicide".

This dimwit is simply saying that at a national level:

a. Gun manufacturing has been up for the past 5 years (indicating
strong demand).
b. Permit applications have been at record levels (both new
applications and renewals).
c. Nationally, gun related gun homicides have been declining.

I'll leave it to you academic geniuses to study and determine the
correlation.


The percentage of population owning guns is going down. Has been for
decades. If your assumptions are right, then more guns are being
purchased by those who aleady own guns, so the NRA and Fox News are
doing their jobs well.

Areas in which gun ownership is higher experience more gun related
deaths. That's the conclusion of the study.

Can you separate those thoughts long enough for them to each make
sense?

If you can run a slide rule, you can surely figure this out.

Do you have data to backup your position that gun ownership is declining?

What is a gun related death? Is it anything like a beer related death?

On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 4:28:17 AM UTC-4, jps wrote:
On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 08:06:26 -0700 (PDT), wrote:



On Friday, September 13, 2013 8:20:09 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:





Some, like S&W have been at full capacity for the past 5 years,

indicating a strong demand for their products. Additionally, new

applications for permits have been at record levels. Despite this,

gun related homicides nationally are declining.



Which would seem to disprove the title of this thread, and the supposed statistical link claimed by the study.



Some dimwits aren't smart enough to realize that these two ideas are
not at odds with one another. You can have both a declining homocide
rate and a higher rate of homicide in regions with higher gun
ownership.

Yet Chicago, with its tough gun laws, has a high rate. "Even supporters of the city's gun laws admit they don't address the social problems behind the shootings that continue to plague Chicago—400 so far this year. "You can try to legislate morality but it's really not something you can do," says Jason Ervin, alderman of the 28th Ward, a stretch of Chicago's west side battered by crime and disinvestment."

So guns aren't really the problem, eh?

Some people have the academic credentials and investment into the
subject matter to make claims and some people do not.

Why don't you dimwits leave the thinking to those with brains enough
to do so.

You don't have the credentials to make the statements above. After all, you think that people with an academic background magically don't have an agenda when writing a report. How naïve is that?

On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 07:59:21 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 4:28:17 AM UTC-4, jps wrote:
On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 08:06:26 -0700 (PDT), wrote:



On Friday, September 13, 2013 8:20:09 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:





Some, like S&W have been at full capacity for the past 5 years,

indicating a strong demand for their products. Additionally, new

applications for permits have been at record levels. Despite this,

gun related homicides nationally are declining.



Which would seem to disprove the title of this thread, and the supposed statistical link claimed by the study.



Some dimwits aren't smart enough to realize that these two ideas are
not at odds with one another. You can have both a declining homocide
rate and a higher rate of homicide in regions with higher gun
ownership.

Yet Chicago, with its tough gun laws, has a high rate. "Even supporters of the city's gun laws admit they don't address the social problems behind the shootings that continue to plague Chicago—400 so far this year. "You can try to legislate morality but it's really not something you can do," says Jason Ervin, alderman of the 28th Ward, a stretch of Chicago's west side battered by crime and disinvestment."

So guns aren't really the problem, eh?

Some people have the academic credentials and investment into the
subject matter to make claims and some people do not.

Why don't you dimwits leave the thinking to those with brains enough
to do so.

You don't have the credentials to make the statements above. After all, you think that people with an academic background magically don't have an agenda when writing a report. How naïve is that?

It's not naive. The numbers are the numbers. You just don't want to
face facts.

Doesn't have anything to do with laws, just density of ownership (yes,
double entendre).