I don't understand this on guns?

[Mario]

Your misleading presentation is solely your responsibility.

There is nothing misleading about my presentation.

I conceded nothing as per your argument. Good gun control is operating the mechanism safely, not restricting it's availability to lawful citizens.

In some parts of the country, where AR 15s are restricted,(1) owning one for self defense is illegal and can put an undo burden on the lawful citizens defending themselves. The guy who lawfully owned one in Oklahoma, (2) defending himself and his home, and killed 3 punks bent on doing him harm, are two examples of nonsense gun laws(1) and common sense gun laws.(2)

Ignorance to me, is every stupid gun law thought up by a liberal.

From your link on firearms homicides in 2014 were not all lies, nor are they all a bad thing as I suspect you infer from the data.
Homicides can be divided into many overlapping legal categories, including murder, manslaughter, justifiable homicide, killing in war, euthanasia, and capital punishment, depending on the circumstances of the death.
The example I cited above on the homeowner killing 3 bad guys are considered homicides, but for the good.

Ignorant, liberal conceived gun laws, should be bypassed and ignored. Some states gun laws are total crap. I named those cities and states in a previous post above. More power to the states that give gun owners more rights, instead of less rights.

You have no right to tell a gun owner how he or she should protect themselves, or what they can own, or how they can transport it.
Liberal gun laws are and always have been, nonsense! Reading over the new California gun laws, shows me why 5 million people have left the state under Jerry Brown's fiasco in Sacramento.

Countries with strict gun laws allow criminals to have their way with unarmed citizens and the carnage is every bit as bad there as anywhere. Many crimes are covered up or go unreported. Those people do not enjoy the freedom that we do in the US. They are slaves, not free men.

Those countries aren't winning, they are been overrun by low life scum from other countries, raping and murdering sovereign citizens.
The very reason why Trump was elected and why Le Pen needs to win and Merkle needs to be replaced.
Sure all rights need to have balance, but restricting lawful citizens to the point of being made prey, by criminals and terrorists, is asinine! Allowing the government to be intrusive and to know all that you own, is not Freedom.
The less government in my business, the better I like it and the better for most people.

Government is a necessity at times, but inherently evil in much of its actions. Gun control and healthcare are but two examples of that evil.

 

[VanceMack]

You are proving my point without meaning to. There have to be better ways in identifying and dealing with the serious mental issues that are obviously too prevalent in our society than just waiting for them to act out. A classic case was the one in California where the young man drove around shooting people at random, even though he was posting his craziness on the web and having been visited by police shortly before he snapped, heck his parents were trying to get him committed because he refused to take his meds to keep him "normal". For starters if someone is on meds to keep them from going full blown nuts then maybe they should be monitored closely to ensure that they are taking those meds. I am sure there are many good ideas out there, but as we know many just say that there is nothing we can do and that we can only wait and see how it turns out for better or worse so hence should not even try. I would also suggest that we change the way people are taught on the subject, right now there is no one even addressing the issue and getting people to realize that if they know someone that really seems to be on the edge they should report it, and then again report it to whom and what can be done? It is a complicated subject but if we do nothing then we are doomed to keep seeing it repeated over and over again, that is not acceptable.

Not sure what point it is that you think you are making. Thats why I asked...now what? People claim the problem is a lack of coverage. Nope...thats not the case. Lack of access. Un uh. So...what then? What is the 'problem' and how do you propose to 'fix it'? Be specific.

 

[Mario]

And how would you advocate dealing with the 'underlying cause'? Kleybold and Harris both were from fairly well to do families and had insurance and medical/clinical treatment. Now what?

Its important to realize...people with mental health conditions still have capacity and ability to reason. Kleybold and Harris made choices. They werent 'insane'. There would have been no justification to lock them away forever.

Point being...there are no easy 'dartboard' answers. We are never going to live in a 'safe' environment. It doesn't exist.

A fact that so many snowflakes cannot come to grips with and a fact that tells me I need to buy a gun real soon.
I've been looking at various sites and see that since Trump won, gun prices have been dropping dramatically. There must have been a glut in preparation for crooked Hillary. Now companies are having fire sales.
My neighbor just clued me in today about that rebate S&W is offering on their Shield handguns.
He said this is the year to buy and he is buying guns he doesn't even need, to invest in America and to hedge against another loser Democrat in the future.

 

[Casper]

Not sure what point it is that you think you are making. Thats why I asked...now what? People claim the problem is a lack of coverage. Nope...thats not the case. Lack of access. Un uh. So...what then? What is the 'problem' and how do you propose to 'fix it'? Be specific.

I already made a couple of suggestions, I am sure there are plenty of people far better qualified than I to make more and better suggestions, education along with open discussion on the topic instead of sweeping the issue under the rug would be a start.

 

[Slingshot Bob]

There is nothing misleading about my presentation.

I conceded nothing as per your argument. Good gun control is operating the mechanism safely, not restricting it's availability to lawful citizens.

In some parts of the country, where AR 15s are restricted,(1) owning one for self defense is illegal and can put an undo burden on the lawful citizens defending themselves. The guy who lawfully owned one in Oklahoma, (2) defending himself and his home, and killed 3 punks bent on doing him harm, are two examples of nonsense gun laws(1) and common sense gun laws.(2)

Ignorance to me, is every stupid gun law thought up by a liberal.

From your link on firearms homicides in 2014 were not all lies, nor are they all a bad thing as I suspect you infer from the data.
Homicides can be divided into many overlapping legal categories, including murder, manslaughter, justifiable homicide, killing in war, euthanasia, and capital punishment, depending on the circumstances of the death.
The example I cited above on the homeowner killing 3 bad guys are considered homicides, but for the good.

Ignorant, liberal conceived gun laws, should be bypassed and ignored. Some states gun laws are total crap. I named those cities and states in a previous post above. More power to the states that give gun owners more rights, instead of less rights.

You have no right to tell a gun owner how he or she should protect themselves, or what they can own, or how they can transport it.
Liberal gun laws are and always have been, nonsense! Reading over the new California gun laws, shows me why 5 million people have left the state under Jerry Brown's fiasco in Sacramento.

Countries with strict gun laws allow criminals to have their way with unarmed citizens and the carnage is every bit as bad there as anywhere. Many crimes are covered up or go unreported. Those people do not enjoy the freedom that we do in the US. They are slaves, not free men.

Those countries aren't winning, they are been overrun by low life scum from other countries, raping and murdering sovereign citizens.
The very reason why Trump was elected and why Le Pen needs to win and Merkle needs to be replaced.
Sure all rights need to have balance, but restricting lawful citizens to the point of being made prey, by criminals and terrorists, is asinine! Allowing the government to be intrusive and to know all that you own, is not Freedom.
The less government in my business, the better I like it and the better for most people.

Government is a necessity at times, but inherently evil in much of its actions. Gun control and healthcare are but two examples of that evil.

:applaud Amen

 

[kitsune]

A fact that so many snowflakes cannot come to grips with and a fact that tells me I need to buy a gun real soon.
I've been looking at various sites and see that since Trump won, gun prices have been dropping dramatically. There must have been a glut in preparation for crooked Hillary. Now companies are having fire sales.
My neighbor just clued me in today about that rebate S&W is offering on their Shield handguns.
He said this is the year to buy and he is buying guns he doesn't even need, to invest in America and to hedge against another loser Democrat in the future.

Hope you get a good deal on that S&W. And I hope it brings you some peace of mind.

 

[Mario]

Hope you get a good deal on that S&W. And I hope it brings you some peace of mind.

I already have peace of mind. Stopping Hillary was huge! :lol:

If I buy one of those S&Ws, I will also have peace of mind that I supported American workers and American made products.
My neighbor told me about this guy who makes shooting videos, named Jerry Miculek and told me to check him out. I have been and man is he good. Very entertaining and seems like a fun guy to be around. He's having way too much fun and I guess gets paid for all those vids. S&W also sponsors him. Getting paid for having fun, and doing what you love, what a life.

 

[VanceMack]

I already made a couple of suggestions, I am sure there are plenty of people far better qualified than I to make more and better suggestions, education along with open discussion on the topic instead of sweeping the issue under the rug would be a start.

The point is...no one is just sweeping anything under the rug. Mental health concerns are real...and there really isnt much you can do about it beyond institutionalizing (and violating their Constitutional rights) about a third to half the country.

 

[Slingshot Bob]

A fact that so many snowflakes cannot come to grips with and a fact that tells me I need to buy a gun real soon.
I've been looking at various sites and see that since Trump won, gun prices have been dropping dramatically. There must have been a glut in preparation for crooked Hillary. Now companies are having fire sales.
My neighbor just clued me in today about that rebate S&W is offering on their Shield handguns.
He said this is the year to buy and he is buying guns he doesn't even need, to invest in America and to hedge against another loser Democrat in the future.

Do it man, these are my guns They are black powder as I have some old felonies, but in Fl, these are perfectly legal(any one doubts it, I will start a thread) If I could, I would carry, I have had one instance in life, that I bluffed a gun, it worked, thank GOD.

If you can, get armed.

 

[Mario]

Do it man, these are my gunsView attachment 67217171 They are black powder as I have some old felonies, but in Fl, these are perfectly legal(any one doubts it, I will start a thread) If I could, I would carry, I have had one instance in life, that I bluffed a gun, it worked, thank GOD.

If you can, get armed.

Those are nice looking irons. They sort of remind me of guns I've seen in Clint Eastwood western movies. Is that a fairly accurate assumption?

 

[Slingshot Bob]

Those are nice looking irons. They sort of remind me of guns I've seen in Clint Eastwood western movies. Is that a fairly accurate assumption?

They are modern, Italian made repros of an 1858 Remington new model army and a colt army. Both 44 cal. I cast my own bullets from wheel weights I find on the highway.

You put black powder down the chamber, then put a lead ball in the chamber mouth, use the loading lever to ram it home, then put a # 11 percussion cap on the back of each cylinder.

When you pull the trigger, a huge cloud of sulpherous smoke erupts, it is a female dog to clean them, though.

It is a labor of love, not the first choice for CC.

 

[kitsune]

I already have peace of mind. Stopping Hillary was huge! :lol:

If I buy one of those S&Ws, I will also have peace of mind that I supported American workers and American made products.
My neighbor told me about this guy who makes shooting videos, named Jerry Miculek and told me to check him out. I have been and man is he good. Very entertaining and seems like a fun guy to be around. He's having way too much fun and I guess gets paid for all those vids. S&W also sponsors him. Getting paid for having fun, and doing what you love, what a life.

Living the dream :shoot

 

[Casper]

The point is...no one is just sweeping anything under the rug. Mental health concerns are real...and there really isnt much you can do about it beyond institutionalizing (and violating their Constitutional rights) about a third to half the country.

Wow! Even I do not think half or a third of Americans are mentally ill enough to institutionalize.

 

[celticwar17]

I disagree

I am pro gun and have stated some forms of control I support. Each shooting reinforced we need control.

And you do understand your position/opinion, is completely irrelevant to the law. Meaning... just because someone thinks it is best to be able to regulate guns, does not mean you have the constitutionality to do so... it just means you would like to add an amendment.

The reason I bring this up, is because to many people go about their opinions on how laws should be...and then ignore those laws because they think that's how it should be.

 

[Mario]

They are modern, Italian made repros of an 1858 Remington new model army and a colt army. Both 44 cal. I cast my own bullets from wheel weights I find on the highway.

You put black powder down the chamber, then put a lead ball in the chamber mouth, use the loading lever to ram it home, then put a # 11 percussion cap on the back of each cylinder.

When you pull the trigger, a huge cloud of sulpherous smoke erupts, it is a female dog to clean them, though.

It is a labor of love, not the first choice for CC.

That sounds like a lot of work, but entertaining.

Living the dream :shoot

Sure looks like it.

Wow! Even I do not think half or a third of Americans are mentally ill enough to institutionalize.

From what I see on the streets almost daily, they could start a new city, in the desert.

And you do understand your position/opinion, is completely irrelevant to the law. Meaning... just because someone thinks it is best to be able to regulate guns, does not mean you have the constitutionality to do so... it just means you would like to add an amendment.

The reason I bring this up, is because to many people go about their opinions on how laws should be...and then ignore those laws because they think that's how it should be.

There is a constant fight to preserve the US Constitution. It is being whittled away so elites can keep power over the rest of us.

 

[ataraxia]

RE: Adam Lanza case:

BINGO!
We have a Winner!

We can go over the specifics of particular cases, but that's not useful. These are anecdotal reports and scientific conclusions cannot be reached from them.

Multiple large-scale epidemiologic studies have repeatedly shown that the more guns there are in a community, the less safe it is. These are looking at thousands of cases, and looking at broad patterns of gun ownership and crime. We can argue about causes, and factors, etc... but the observation itself cannot be denied.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
https://www.thetrace.org/2015/06/ne...ership-lead-to-higher-rates-of-violent-crime/
Guns Don't Deter Crime, Study Finds

There is a reason the NRA lobbied to block all further research into this. Can't have actual facts interfering with propaganda messages now, can we?

 

[ttwtt78640]

RE: Adam Lanza case:


We can go over the specifics of particular cases, but that's not useful. These are anecdotal reports and scientific conclusions cannot be reached from them.

Multiple large-scale epidemiologic studies have repeatedly shown that the more guns there are in a community, the less safe it is. These are looking at thousands of cases, and looking at broad patterns of gun ownership and crime. We can argue about causes, and factors, etc... but the observation itself cannot be denied.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
https://www.thetrace.org/2015/06/ne...ership-lead-to-higher-rates-of-violent-crime/
Guns Don't Deter Crime, Study Finds

There is a reason the NRA lobbied to block all further research into this. Can't have actual facts interfering with propaganda messages now, can we?

The same "scientific" argument can be made for any tool X crime. The reason is simple - absent the use (availability?) of tool X then that incidence of tool X crime would not have occurred. Crime predates guns thus guns did not cause crime - yet, arguably, did cause "gun" crime. One could use similar logic to say that locks caused breaking and entering - absent the use of a lock there was no need for forced entry.

 

[ataraxia]

The same "scientific" argument can be made for any tool X crime. The reason is simple - absent the use (availability?) of tool X then that incidence of tool X crime would not have occurred. Crime predates guns thus guns did not cause crime - yet, arguably, did cause "gun" crime. One could use similar logic to say that locks caused breaking and entering - absent the use of a lock there was no need for forced entry.

You are trying too hard to convolute the issue. Guns are a tool that makes the job easier. When you make something easier, it's natural for it to happen more often. It's like saying the incidence of international travel is higher today because tool X, airplanes, exist. Absent airplanes, not as much international travel would be occurring.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You are trying too hard to convolute the issue. Guns are a tool that makes the job easier. When you make something easier, it's natural for it to happen more often. It's like saying the incidence of international travel is higher today because tool X, airplanes, exist. Absent airplanes, not as much international travel would be occurring.

Exactly. Yet guns also make defending against a criminal attack easier - thus we issue them to our peace officers. To say that removing guns from all law abiding folks would make crime less dangerous or successful is a theory at best.

Were airplanes the cause of the 9/11 terror attacks or merely abuse of an air transit system lacking adequate security? Nobody doubts that armed agents (or even locked cockpit cabins) would have been able to stop those 911 terrorists yet we ban shampoo and frisk grandmothers and kids using 50K federal airport nannies.

 

[ataraxia]

The same "scientific" argument can be made for any tool X crime. The reason is simple - absent the use (availability?) of tool X then that incidence of tool X crime would not have occurred. Crime predates guns thus guns did not cause crime - yet, arguably, did cause "gun" crime.

The studies were looking at crime in general, not just gun crime.

Some Latin American countries mesh with the N.R.A.’s vision of the promised land. Ditto for some other broken societies like Somalia or the remote outreaches of Afghanistan. Despite the ubiquitous presence of “good guys” with guns, countries like Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Colombia and Venezuela have some of the highest homicide rates in the world. A society that is relying on guys with guns to stop violence is a sign of a society where institutions have broken down. It’s shocking to hear anyone in the United States considering a solution that would make it seem more like Colombia.

As guns proliferate, legally and illegally, innocent people are more terrorized than protected. It's all about how easy it is to kill and terrorize.

In Guatemala, where guns are almost ubiquitous, riding a public bus is a risky business. More than 500 bus drivers have been killed in robberies since 2007. And when bullets start flying, everyone is vulnerable: in 2010 the onboard tally included 155 drivers, 54 bus assistants, 71 passengers and 14 presumed criminals. Some were killed by the robbers’ bullets and some by gun-carrying passengers.

Scientific studies here in the US have repeatedly and very consistently found that communities with more guns have more violent deaths, both homicides and suicides. This includes from all causes: gun-related and by other means. Women and children are more likely to die if there’s a gun in the house. Here in the US today , children playing with their parents' gun is one of the top reasons of accidental death and dismemberment in the pediatric age group: something that doesn't exist in any other developed society in the world today. The NRA, as you know, however, has placed gag orders on pediatricians from discussing gun safety with parents- they were concerned it might spook them and hurt sales. There is a much higher incidence of domestic abuse and intimidation in households with guns in them. The more guns in an area, the higher the local suicide rates. There is absolutely no evidence that having more guns reduces crime. None at all.

If you’re living in a ‘Mad Max’ dystopian world, where criminals have free rein and there’s no functional system of government to stop them, then sure- I’d definitely want to be very well-armed. But we’re not in that circumstance- at least not yet. We’re still sort of a developed, stable country.

There's a reason guns still aren't allowed in GOP convention halls, and they still prefer to rely on secret service to provide the security.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The studies were looking at crime in general, not just gun crime.

Some Latin American countries mesh with the N.R.A.’s vision of the promised land. Ditto for some other broken societies like Somalia or the remote outreaches of Afghanistan. Despite the ubiquitous presence of “good guys” with guns, countries like Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Colombia and Venezuela have some of the highest homicide rates in the world. A society that is relying on guys with guns to stop violence is a sign of a society where institutions have broken down. It’s shocking to hear anyone in the United States considering a solution that would make it seem more like Colombia.

As guns proliferate, legally and illegally, innocent people are more terrorized than protected. It's all about how easy it is to kill and terrorize.

In Guatemala, where guns are almost ubiquitous, riding a public bus is a risky business. More than 500 bus drivers have been killed in robberies since 2007. And when bullets start flying, everyone is vulnerable: in 2010 the onboard tally included 155 drivers, 54 bus assistants, 71 passengers and 14 presumed criminals. Some were killed by the robbers’ bullets and some by gun-carrying passengers.

Scientific studies here in the US have repeatedly and very consistently found that communities with more guns have more violent deaths, both homicides and suicides. This includes from all causes: gun-related and by other means. Women and children are more likely to die if there’s a gun in the house. There is a much higher incidence of domestic abuse and intimidation in households with guns in them. The more guns in an area, the higher the local suicide rates. There is absolutely no evidence that having more guns reduces crime. None at all.

If you’re living in a ‘Mad Max’ dystopian world, where criminals have free rein and there’s no government to stop them, then I’d want to be armed. But we’re not in that circumstance- at least not yet. We’re still sort of a developed, stable country.

There's a reason guns still aren't allowed in GOP convention halls.

OK, from your link #1:

Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the U.S., where there are more guns, both men and women are at a higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

from your link #2:

They set out to gauge the effect of firearm-ownership rates on specific types of violent gun crimes.

from your link #3

A new study, however, throws cold water on the idea that a well-armed populace deters criminals or prevents murders. Instead, higher ownership of guns in a state is linked to more firearm robberies, more firearm assaults and more homicide in general.

I will agree that even a wimpy criminal can become more dangerous by adding a gun (or other weapon) to their MO but that is not going to be stopped by attempts to create a nerf world.

 

[ataraxia]

I see. Here is a summary of what we do, and don't know:

Despite the political firestorm over firearms, some questions about guns are settled science, Hemenway said. He's made a side project of surveying active firearm researchers on the literature in an attempt to learn what areas of research have reached a consensus, and which remain open.

What's known? One, the presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide in that home. "That relationship we really know, no doubt about it," Hemenway said.

... Research on whether other weapons replace guns when guns are unavailable suggests that they do not: Overall homicide rates, not only gun homicides, creep up when guns are in the picture. A 2014 study published in the journal Injury Prevention, for example, found a 0.7 percent increase in overall homicides for every 1 percent increase in household gun ownership.
Guns Don't Deter Crime, Study Finds

What is clear is that more guns do not LOWER the crime rate. They increase it. We can argue about reasons. But the facts are the facts. Your hypothesis that they should lower it by acting as a deterrent makes some sense, I will readily admit. It's logical and seems like it should work. Lots of scientific hypotheses, when first made, make a lot of sense. But then you actually look and see if it holds. That's the difference between scientific facts and hypotheses. That's not what the observations show. Sometimes scientific observations can prove to be very bizarre and counter-intuitive and the opposite of what you thought was going to happen. The observation that the earth is not unmoving and fixed at the center of the universe, but is going around the sun and rotating on its axis, an idea proposed based on observations only a few centuries ago, was very bizarre and counter-intuitive observation when it was first made. People at first were ready to kill the people making those observations because it was messing with the worldview they already had. But in science, observations come first, and trying to justify and find reasons for them follow. It should not work the other way around.

 

[Mario]

RE: Adam Lanza case:


We can go over the specifics of particular cases, but that's not useful. These are anecdotal reports and scientific conclusions cannot be reached from them.

Multiple large-scale epidemiologic studies have repeatedly shown that the more guns there are in a community, the less safe it is. These are looking at thousands of cases, and looking at broad patterns of gun ownership and crime. We can argue about causes, and factors, etc... but the observation itself cannot be denied.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
https://www.thetrace.org/2015/06/ne...ership-lead-to-higher-rates-of-violent-crime/
Guns Don't Deter Crime, Study Finds

There is a reason the NRA lobbied to block all further research into this. Can't have actual facts interfering with propaganda messages now, can we?

I think those studies are flawed, because they don't take many things into account. One of those being God fearing, decent people with high morals. There is a vast difference between high density inner city dwellers and the suburbs or rural areas as to ethnic makeup and overall morals.
In my area, it appears that I am one of the few who doesn't own a gun. A survey was done here, by a church group a couple years ago. After a discussion during one Sunday sermon, on firearms and how they benefited society and whether or not church members should be armed, each church member was tasked with talking about this with others in their community.
A member of that church is a neighbor of mine and she explained the survey to me one day.
The church draws members from several miles away, so there was a lot of territory to cover. My wife and I do not own firearms, but we are considering buying something. I told the survey lady that exact thing. I asked her how many in our rather large, spread out community did, as compared to us. She didn't know at the time, but promised to let me know when the survey was completed.
About a month later, she saw me walking the dog past her house and waved me over. She informed me that their survey results were in and they estimated firearm ownership to be at 90%. I was sort of surprised by the findings.
Our crime rate is very low around here and I think it is because so many are armed and would defend themselves and their property. Plus the ethnicity of the area.

 

[Mario]

I see. Here is a summary of what we do, and don't know:

What is clear is that more guns do not LOWER the crime rate. They increase it. We can argue about reasons. But the facts are the facts. Your hypothesis that they should lower it by acting as a deterrent makes some sense, I will readily admit. It's logical and seems like it should work. Lots of scientific hypotheses, when first made, make a lot of sense. But then you actually look and see if it holds. That's the difference between scientific facts and hypotheses. That's not what the observations show. Sometimes scientific observations can prove to be very bizarre and counter-intuitive and the opposite of what you thought was going to happen. The observation that the earth is not unmoving and fixed at the center of the universe, but is going around the sun and rotating on its axis, an idea proposed based on observations only a few centuries ago, was very bizarre and counter-intuitive observation when it was first made. People at first were ready to kill the people making those observations because it was messing with the worldview they already had. But in science, observations come first, and trying to justify and find reasons for them follow. It should not work the other way around.

I fully disagree with the highlighted sentence. That is no more a fact than global warming, primarily based on human input.
The constant shootings and murders in Chicago are primarily because of the makeup of the population, gang members with no morals, not because guns are prolific. I submit, if all the good people in the hood, took up arms and defended themselves to the teeth, they could wipe out this element of scum. Trouble is, the no logic of Democrat rule of liberal dopes, have moved to disarm the citizens and pass laws severely restricting gun and ammo ownership from those good citizens, which have little to no effect on the gangs and other criminals. Results: heavily armed gangs and disarmed citizens.

 

[ataraxia]

I think those studies are flawed, because they don't take many things into account. One of those being God fearing, decent people with high morals. There is a vast difference between high density inner city dwellers and the suburbs or rural areas as to ethnic makeup and overall morals.
In my area, it appears that I am one of the few who doesn't own a gun. A survey was done here, by a church group a couple years ago. After a discussion during one Sunday sermon, on firearms and how they benefited society and whether or not church members should be armed, each church member was tasked with talking about this with others in their community.
A member of that church is a neighbor of mine and she explained the survey to me one day.
The church draws members from several miles away, so there was a lot of territory to cover. My wife and I do not own firearms, but we are considering buying something. I told the survey lady that exact thing. I asked her how many in our rather large, spread out community did, as compared to us. She didn't know at the time, but promised to let me know when the survey was completed.
About a month later, she saw me walking the dog past her house and waved me over. She informed me that their survey results were in and they estimated firearm ownership to be at 90%. I was sort of surprised by the findings.
Our crime rate is very low around here and I think it is because so many are armed and would defend themselves and their property. Plus the ethnicity of the area.

Oh, please. Very touching story. But it turns out you are more likely to die a violent death in the countryside than in the big cities. Violent deaths are more common in the country than in the cities.

The study doesn’t attempt to explain why injury death is more common in rural areas than large urban ones, but some of the statistics are telling. The risk of firearm-related death showed no difference across the rural-urban spectrum for the population as a whole, but varied when divided up by age — firearm deaths were significantly higher for children and people ages 45 and older, while for people ages 20 to 44, the risk of firearm deaths were much higher in urban areas. I’d wager some of that comes down to differences in gun ownership: more households have firearms in rural areas than in urban ones, and sadly, too many gun owners keep their firearms where their children can reach them. The result can be tragic. At the same time, the bulk of victims killed by homicide are young men, according to FBI statistics. And they are more likely to be shot and killed in the cities due to gang-related violence.

Study Shows That Cities Are Safer Than Rural Areas, Despite Crime | TIME.com

Inter-gang related deaths in the inner cities are the biggest reasons for the higher rates of crime in the cities than in the countryside. If you take those away, you have a much lower risk of dying violently in the city than among those God-fearing country people.