An armed criminal doesn't care how much you can bench press, especially since guns are effective at distances which you cannot close before being shot.

Your statements in this thread indicate that you have received a liberal mainstream media “education” on guns and crime. Before you make any more incorrect assumptions, you really should read this from top to bottom:

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-fa...5-0-screen.pdf

Some cliffs notes:
More lawful gun owners=less crime (In the US and abroad)
Less lawful gun owners=more crime (In the US and abroad)
These are facts supported by decades of statistics.

Attached are two graphs taken from the above file that you may find interesting. Regarding the second graph, guess what sort of laws were passed in England in 1968?

 

Brett,

I'm an avid and stubborn supporter of the 2nd Amendment. I've been shooting, hunting, and collecting/owning firearms for well over half my life (since I was 9). I believe that US citizens (who aren't convicted felons) should have full latitude to pursue ownership of firearms (any type) through legal channels.

However, I think that there are a great number of factors that need to be considered and accounted for when attempting to draw a clear correlation between gun ownership and crime of any sort. Now, I haven't read the link you cited, but does the source take this into consideration when making their arguments and drawing their graphs? Or, does it simply look at crime rates, compare it to gun ownership, and conveniently draw its conclusion?

 

If you actually read the document I don't think you would call any of the info it provides “convenient conclusions”. It is a 101 page document covering multiple issues that lists the citation for every single statistic listed, 482 citations in total.

I’m sure there are areas of it that could be questioned. If you have a problem with any of the info it provides, please list specifically what concerns you have about the accuracy of the data shown so we can all delve into it further. I have heard the “It’s too complex of a problem with many factors..." line way too much lately regarding divisive issues and it’s getting a bit tiring, we are not all idiots. (This isn’t directed specifically at you, so please don't take offense).

 

I didn't label it anything, nor am I doubting its legitimacy. I'm simply asking you (since I assume you've read it) whether it provides the type of thorough analysis that I (or you) would consider appropriate for such conclusions?

 

Um, the fact that I posted a link to the entire document as a resource for the uneducated, took time to post specific graphs from the document, and then wrote the summary statements that I did, means that yes, I do consider it thorough and appropriate. I wouldn't have posted otherwise, as I don't feel the need to post a weak counterpoint just for the sake of being disagreeable.

I have no idea what you would consider appropriate though, so instead of trying to go back and forth with me on the hypotheticals of a document you haven't even looked, just read the paper and decide for yourself.

 

Your interpretation of my motives is way off.

 

You are trying way too hard, Travis.

 

No, I'm thinking.

 

A few economists (I think out of Colorado maybe?) authored a study that showed a correlative effect between the number of guns per capita in a region and lower crime rates.

I'm going to dig that up.

 

it's the real world - far too many variables - you can't make a correlation.

but i agree people should have their guns if they want them.

- chuck