Firearms

[TheProwler]

Firearms aren't always just for personal protection but for a hobby, whether it be just target shooting or hunting, so I would not be fine with highly restrictive gun laws.

You can target shoot with pellet guns and you hunt with long guns. So what about highly restrictive handgun laws?

[PLAYER57832]

Firearms aren't always just for personal protection but for a hobby, whether it be just target shooting or hunting, so I would not be fine with highly restrictive gun laws.

You can target shoot with pellet guns and you hunt with long guns. So what about highly restrictive handgun laws?

Hand guns represent a significantly different sporting experience.

Shotguns versus rifles and even various types of rifles also make a difference. Black powder is yet another group, and semi-automatics are another.

Note that I am not stepping in to argue one way or the other on this, but that IS the debate. One problem I have with a lot of this is that the debate of those wanting guns and those against them differ significantly.

MY experience is primarily rural, with hunters and sportsmen, along with a few ex military folks thrown into the mix. (well.. maybe more than a few) The places where handguns are limited are mostly big cities, places with heavy crime and/or domestic violence issues. In those specific areas, restricting handguns does matter. Whether it matters as much elsewhere is more debatable.

[Lootifer]

To answer you and BBS: I have no strong opinion on the US gun debate; in fact I am an advocate for moving the crime debate away from the gun debate as the two are only very loosly correlated (if at all). But no one wants to actually fix crime, they just either HATE DEM GUNS or HATE DEM HIPPY LIBERALS, and like to blather about a whole lot of rhetoric.

Just a hypothetical; in a world without (or so low that its negligible) crime; would you be fine with highly restrictive gun laws?

I completely agree with you wanting to move to a crime based debate instead.

Firearms aren't always just for personal protection but for a hobby, whether it be just target shooting or hunting, so I would not be fine with highly restrictive gun laws.

On the opposite note, let me ask you the inverse of that question, in a world without (or so low that its negligible) crime; would you be fine with very few restrictive gun laws?

Id be happy with very few restrictions, in that scenario; but i'd be surprised if there was a particularly high level of gun ownership.

Also bear in mind im from NZ, we hunt a lot here so you can assume that when I say very restrictive gun laws I mean you can still own a hunting rifle or whatever

So you might agree that a natural way to bring gun ownership down would be to reduce crime through other methods? I'd also support finding ways to reduce crime as opposed to finding ways to leave crime as is and just make it harder to own a gun.

Yeah I agree. Though I do find American gun culture very, hrmmm, worrying?

[PLAYER57832]

To answer you and BBS: I have no strong opinion on the US gun debate; in fact I am an advocate for moving the crime debate away from the gun debate as the two are only very loosly correlated (if at all). But no one wants to actually fix crime, they just either HATE DEM GUNS or HATE DEM HIPPY LIBERALS, and like to blather about a whole lot of rhetoric.

Just a hypothetical; in a world without (or so low that its negligible) crime; would you be fine with highly restrictive gun laws?

I completely agree with you wanting to move to a crime based debate instead.

Firearms aren't always just for personal protection but for a hobby, whether it be just target shooting or hunting, so I would not be fine with highly restrictive gun laws.

On the opposite note, let me ask you the inverse of that question, in a world without (or so low that its negligible) crime; would you be fine with very few restrictive gun laws?

Id be happy with very few restrictions, in that scenario; but i'd be surprised if there was a particularly high level of gun ownership.

Also bear in mind im from NZ, we hunt a lot here so you can assume that when I say very restrictive gun laws I mean you can still own a hunting rifle or whatever

So you might agree that a natural way to bring gun ownership down would be to reduce crime through other methods? I'd also support finding ways to reduce crime as opposed to finding ways to leave crime as is and just make it harder to own a gun.

Yeah I agree. Though I do find American gun culture very, hrmmm, worrying?

Seems like your worry is more about what you think American gun culture is, rather than what it actually is.

Among other issues, those opposed to guns here tend to mix rifles and hand guns together, mix anti-hunting with anti-violence.

[Lootifer]

What I find worrying is this right to defend yourself which is very closely linked to gun ownership. While I fully endorse the right to defend yourself; I dont think you get immunity from making terrible decisions just because you were defending yourself.

I suppose its not gun culture per se, but, as mentioned, the defending yourself with gun culture.

[patrickaa317]

Ok, then "generally" you are wrong. Conceal and carry laws just allow a person to carry a gun and does not change the ability to purchase one. Just changes what you can do with one, once purchased.

I think you'll find that where people are allowed to conceal and carry more easily, the laws allowing you to purchase handguns are less restrictive too. You probably just haven't looked it up to verify.

And that's fine about statistics, it is your right not to research to see if facts back up your thoughts or if you just want to know what you think is correct. All I need is a .01% of a chance of me or my family to be in danger to justify an opportunity of self-protection. If you are ok with a certain percentage of error with you and your family, you are braver than I. You can call me paranoid or whatever, I would rather be called self prepared.

You don't need to compare your percentages of your family being in danger to mine....I live in Canada in an area where people aren't carrying handguns around everywhere. I just need to use common sense and it's pretty easy to stay out of dangerous situations.

The difference between you and me is that if someone wants to stir shit with you, you're in a gun fight. If someone wants to stir shit with me, I'm in a fist fight.

I do not think access to handguns have caused the increase in gangs, illegal drug organizations or a lack of morals in the youth culture.

I said "gang violence". Pretty hard to have a drive-by shooting without a gun.

I said "more powerful illegal drug organizations". Making it easier for criminals to have guns makes them more powerful.

I said "greater lack of morals". Kids see people getting their heads blown off and are desensitized and they lower their morals.

Many areas (Chicago, LA, Detroit, Washington DC) have restrictive gun laws and have some of the highest gun crime, while areas in Kentucky, Montana, Texas have some of the most lax gun laws yet have some of the lowest gun crime rates. If you feel More Guns = More Crimes, then you'll have to explain to me the difference between Chicago and Houston. Here's some information to help you in your research:

I think you can toss those stats out the window. I've driven from state to state - it would be easy for gang members to bring handguns purchased in Texas up to Chicago. So the Chicago laws only mean the criminals will drive to Texas to pick up guns and take them back to Chicago.

I have no doubt that if criminals think the regular citizens are packing a handgun, they might hesitate to rob them or whatever. It's just too bad it is such a concern for everyone. Even the criminals must be paranoid.



If you want to quote statistics like those, you should really compare the stats of America to countries like Canada where the guns laws are country-wide.

I don't think conceal and carry laws are a direct impact on easier to acquire handguns. These are mutually exclusive though there is probably some common ground between them but one is not a direct cause of another.

Believe it or not but the majority of criminals do not have guns. And when confronted with a gun, those that do will run before getting into what you call a 'gun fight'. It isn't like the O.K. Corral like you want to picture.

Gang-violence only consists of drive bys? Really? Nice attempt on that.
Less restrictive gun laws do not increase illegal drug violence, these are also mutually exclusive. Check out what the cartels are doing in Mexico where the gun laws are not comparable to the States.
Agreed with kids being subject to getting heads blown off lowers the morals in the country. This is a result of Hollywood, not Smith&Wesson. Smith&Wesson, Remington, Ruger, etc do not endorse Hollywood's decision to air gun violence. If you believe otherwise, please post some information to back up your thoughts.

Do you know what federal law is on gun purchases from other states? To sum it up: Under no circumstances is it legal to purchase/sell any handgun/rifle/shotgun face to face from a resident of any other state without involving a FFL in the buyers home state. Nice thoughts on sneaking across state lines though. Don't fall for the rhetoric that gets hyped up, do some validations on your own time. I know you don't want to but if you want to continue to discuss this, please don't try to throw things out there that simply are not true.

How is comparing two cities within the same country that have very similar demographics but different gun laws worse than comparing two countries completely different in size. As Wikipedia states:

Comparing crime rates between countries is difficult due to the differences in jurisprudence, reporting and crime classifications. National crime statistics are in reality statistics of only selected crime types. Data is collected through various surveying methods that have previously ranged between 15% and 100% coverage of the data. A 2001 Statistics Canada study concluded that comparisons with the U.S. on homicide rates were the most reliable. Comparison of rates for six lesser incident crimes was considered possible but subject to more difficulty of interpretation. For example, types of assaults receive different classifications and laws in Canada and the US, making comparisons more difficult than homicides. At the time, the U.S. crime of aggravated assault could be compared to the sum of three Canadian crimes (aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and attempted murder). This comparison had a predicted bias that would inflate the Canadian numbers by only 0.1%. The study also concluded that directly comparing the two countries' reported total crime rate (i.e. total selected crimes) was "inappropriate" since the totals include the problem data sets as well as the usable sets.[20] For reasons like these, homicides have been favored in international studies looking for predictors of crime rates (predictors like economic inequality).

[patrickaa317]

Firearms aren't always just for personal protection but for a hobby, whether it be just target shooting or hunting, so I would not be fine with highly restrictive gun laws.

You can target shoot with pellet guns and you hunt with long guns. So what about highly restrictive handgun laws?

You can also use blow guns and atlatls. You could also drive a scooter rather than a car. Do you drive a scooter?

[patrickaa317]

To answer you and BBS: I have no strong opinion on the US gun debate; in fact I am an advocate for moving the crime debate away from the gun debate as the two are only very loosly correlated (if at all). But no one wants to actually fix crime, they just either HATE DEM GUNS or HATE DEM HIPPY LIBERALS, and like to blather about a whole lot of rhetoric.

Just a hypothetical; in a world without (or so low that its negligible) crime; would you be fine with highly restrictive gun laws?

I completely agree with you wanting to move to a crime based debate instead.

Firearms aren't always just for personal protection but for a hobby, whether it be just target shooting or hunting, so I would not be fine with highly restrictive gun laws.

On the opposite note, let me ask you the inverse of that question, in a world without (or so low that its negligible) crime; would you be fine with very few restrictive gun laws?

Id be happy with very few restrictions, in that scenario; but i'd be surprised if there was a particularly high level of gun ownership.

Also bear in mind im from NZ, we hunt a lot here so you can assume that when I say very restrictive gun laws I mean you can still own a hunting rifle or whatever

So you might agree that a natural way to bring gun ownership down would be to reduce crime through other methods? I'd also support finding ways to reduce crime as opposed to finding ways to leave crime as is and just make it harder to own a gun.

Yeah I agree. Though I do find American gun culture very, hrmmm, worrying?

I might as well if I was also subject to outside influences that want to portray it a certain way. It is truly quite different than how it is projected towards foreigners.

[patrickaa317]

What I find worrying is this right to defend yourself which is very closely linked to gun ownership. While I fully endorse the right to defend yourself; I dont think you get immunity from making terrible decisions just because you were defending yourself.

I suppose its not gun culture per se, but, as mentioned, the defending yourself with gun culture.

You are making a giant false leap from gun ownership to making terrible decisions.

The vast majority of gun owners are very responsible people and any classes you take for gun ownership really make sure of this. There are always extremes that get the attention.

[Phatscotty]

Video surveillance from Saturday night captures the moment a would-be thief entered the Marionville, Mo., store where Alexander works. The thief hesitates for a moment and pulls a gun — but not fast enough to dissuade Alexander from pulling his own Walther PPX 9 mm handgun and sticking it in the hapless thief’s mouth.

No one was hurt and no shots were fired.

“One of the policemen told me later, ‘You’re a lucky man,’” Alexander told News-Leader.com Monday. “I said, ‘I think he (the robber) is a little luckier than I am.’ ”

The following surveillance footage comes by way of the store’s owners, Max and Jeannine Dawson:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09 ... -well-for/

[PLAYER57832]

What I find worrying is this right to defend yourself which is very closely linked to gun ownership. While I fully endorse the right to defend yourself; I dont think you get immunity from making terrible decisions just because you were defending yourself.

I suppose its not gun culture per se, but, as mentioned, the defending yourself with gun culture.

You cannot really mix that all up, at least in the US. That is part of the problem.

Most gun owners are utterly responsible, no matter why they own them. The right to defend, though, involves a lot more than just guns. I will say that there are plenty of idiots out there. I am not sure that using an AK-47 (or whatever) is necessarily more dangerous than a pipe bomb or other method. I mean, the building in Oklahoma was taken down with bags of fertilizer.

The best means of real defense is to make sure that people don't have really good reasons to go ballistic. That means more attention to mental health, along with some better social service supports. Beyond that.. some stuff always will happen. Its just life. Humans are emotional beings and will act irrationally at times.

[Phatscotty]

What I find worrying is this right to defend yourself which is very closely linked to gun ownership. While I fully endorse the right to defend yourself; I dont think you get immunity from making terrible decisions just because you were defending yourself.

I suppose its not gun culture per se, but, as mentioned, the defending yourself with gun culture.

You cannot really mix that all up, at least in the US. That is part of the problem.

Most gun owners are utterly responsible, no matter why they own them. The right to defend, though, involves a lot more than just guns. I will say that there are plenty of idiots out there. I am not sure that using an AK-47 (or whatever) is necessarily more dangerous than a pipe bomb or other method. I mean, the building in Oklahoma was taken down with bags of fertilizer.

The best means of real defense is to make sure that people don't have really good reasons to go ballistic. That means more attention to mental health, along with some better social service supports. Beyond that.. some stuff always will happen. Its just life. Humans are emotional beings and will act irrationally at times.

Any room for good parenting or familial supports? I mean, can you really prevent people from divorcing? Because that is a big reason why a kid might go ballistic. Can you really "make sure" that babies are not born out of wedlock? can we guarantee that people don't look at people "funny" so as not to set other people off? can we ensure that people don't disrespect other people? How?

Statistics conclude that the #1 preventative for a person turning to a life of crime is having a father.

[TeeGee]

Australian firearms look similar to this

[PLAYER57832]

What I find worrying is this right to defend yourself which is very closely linked to gun ownership. While I fully endorse the right to defend yourself; I dont think you get immunity from making terrible decisions just because you were defending yourself.

I suppose its not gun culture per se, but, as mentioned, the defending yourself with gun culture.

You cannot really mix that all up, at least in the US. That is part of the problem.

Most gun owners are utterly responsible, no matter why they own them. The right to defend, though, involves a lot more than just guns. I will say that there are plenty of idiots out there. I am not sure that using an AK-47 (or whatever) is necessarily more dangerous than a pipe bomb or other method. I mean, the building in Oklahoma was taken down with bags of fertilizer.

The best means of real defense is to make sure that people don't have really good reasons to go ballistic. That means more attention to mental health, along with some better social service supports. Beyond that.. some stuff always will happen. Its just life. Humans are emotional beings and will act irrationally at times.

Any room for good parenting or familial supports? I mean, can you really prevent people from divorcing? Because that is a big reason why a kid might go ballistic. Can you really "make sure" that babies are not born out of wedlock? can we guarantee that people don't look at people "funny" so as not to set other people off? can we ensure that people don't disrespect other people? How?

Given that economics and poor communication are major reasons for divorce in the US... absolutely a lot can be done. Beyond that, having supports (and I mean effective supports) goes a very long way to ensuring that bad circumstances don't become terrible.

But, you also operate on some false assumptions. If you are talking about "general" crime, gangs and the like, then poverty has a lot to do with it. Not just poverty, but lack of education, lack of a father. The lack of a father matters not just because of the "male role model" bit, but also because a nearby, supportive father generally means better economics, more people who care about a kid, etc. Those things absolutely matter. Programs that help young men in at risk areas learn what it is to be a father and that teach girls what it takes to be a mother really do work. They wind up paying for themselves many times over, but folks today would rather pay for more jail cells than anything that smacks of treating what they see as less than 100% upstanding folks "soft".

The "ballistic" incidents, though, they have more to do with mental illness than anything else. Someone doesn't shoot 20 kids if they are truly sane.

Statistics conclude that the #1 preventative for a person turning to a life of crime is having a father.

cut this off somehow, don't have time to re-edit.

Yes, fathers are key, but WHY? I get at that above. Its not some esoteric impact that dad's have that moms don't, its pretty basic. If fathers are around, then it means that mom and dad are at least somewhat working together. It means that 2 people care a LOT about the kid, it means there are 2 people to share the work, 2 people to provide financial support, etc.

[Lootifer]

What I find worrying is this right to defend yourself which is very closely linked to gun ownership. While I fully endorse the right to defend yourself; I dont think you get immunity from making terrible decisions just because you were defending yourself.

I suppose its not gun culture per se, but, as mentioned, the defending yourself with gun culture.

You cannot really mix that all up, at least in the US. That is part of the problem.

Most gun owners are utterly responsible, no matter why they own them. The right to defend, though, involves a lot more than just guns. I will say that there are plenty of idiots out there. I am not sure that using an AK-47 (or whatever) is necessarily more dangerous than a pipe bomb or other method. I mean, the building in Oklahoma was taken down with bags of fertilizer.

The best means of real defense is to make sure that people don't have really good reasons to go ballistic. That means more attention to mental health, along with some better social service supports. Beyond that.. some stuff always will happen. Its just life. Humans are emotional beings and will act irrationally at times.

Any room for good parenting or familial supports? I mean, can you really prevent people from divorcing? Because that is a big reason why a kid might go ballistic. Can you really "make sure" that babies are not born out of wedlock? can we guarantee that people don't look at people "funny" so as not to set other people off? can we ensure that people don't disrespect other people? How?

Statistics conclude that the #1 preventative for a person turning to a life of crime is having a father.

Interested in the detail behind this (not doubting, just keen to look at material).

[Phatscotty]

What I find worrying is this right to defend yourself which is very closely linked to gun ownership. While I fully endorse the right to defend yourself; I dont think you get immunity from making terrible decisions just because you were defending yourself.

I suppose its not gun culture per se, but, as mentioned, the defending yourself with gun culture.

You cannot really mix that all up, at least in the US. That is part of the problem.

Most gun owners are utterly responsible, no matter why they own them. The right to defend, though, involves a lot more than just guns. I will say that there are plenty of idiots out there. I am not sure that using an AK-47 (or whatever) is necessarily more dangerous than a pipe bomb or other method. I mean, the building in Oklahoma was taken down with bags of fertilizer.

The best means of real defense is to make sure that people don't have really good reasons to go ballistic. That means more attention to mental health, along with some better social service supports. Beyond that.. some stuff always will happen. Its just life. Humans are emotional beings and will act irrationally at times.

Any room for good parenting or familial supports? I mean, can you really prevent people from divorcing? Because that is a big reason why a kid might go ballistic. Can you really "make sure" that babies are not born out of wedlock? can we guarantee that people don't look at people "funny" so as not to set other people off? can we ensure that people don't disrespect other people? How?

Statistics conclude that the #1 preventative for a person turning to a life of crime is having a father.

Interested in the detail behind this (not doubting, just keen to look at material).

http://thefatherlessgeneration.wordpres ... tatistics/

63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) – 5 times the average.

90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.

85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)

80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes –14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)

71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)

Father Factor in Education - Fatherless children are twice as likely to drop out of school.

Children with Fathers who are involved are 40% less likely to repeat a grade in school.

Children with Fathers who are involved are 70% less likely to drop out of school.

Children with Fathers who are involved are more likely to get A’s in school.

Children with Fathers who are involved are more likely to enjoy school and engage in extracurricular activities.

75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes – 10 times the average.

Father Factor in Drug and Alcohol Abuse - Researchers at Columbia University found that children living in two-parent household with a poor relationship with their father are 68% more likely to smoke, drink, or use drugs compared to all teens in two-parent households. Teens in single mother households are at a 30% higher risk than those in two-parent households.

70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1988)

85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Fulton Co. Georgia, Texas Dept. of Correction)

Father Factor in Incarceration – Even after controlling for income, youths in father-absent households still had significantly higher odds of incarceration than those in mother-father families. Youths who never had a father in the household experienced the highest odds. A 2002 Department of Justice survey of 7,000 inmates revealed that 39% of jail inmates lived in mother-only households. Approximately forty-six percent of jail inmates in 2002 had a previously incarcerated family member. One-fifth experienced a father in prison or jail.

Father Factor in Crime - A study of 109 juvenile offenders indicated that family structure significantly predicts delinquency. Adolescents, particularly boys, in single-parent families were at higher risk of status, property and person delinquencies. Moreover, students attending schools with a high proportion of children of single parents are also at risk. A study of 13,986 women in prison showed that more than half grew up without their father. Forty-two percent grew up in a single-mother household and sixteen percent lived with neither parent

Father Factor in Child Abuse – Compared to living with both parents, living in a single-parent home doubles the risk that a child will suffer physical, emotional, or educational neglect. The overall rate of child abuse and neglect in single-parent households is 27.3 children per 1,000, whereas the rate of overall maltreatment in two-parent households is 15.5 per 1,000.

Daughters of single parents without a Father involved are 53% more likely to marry as teenagers, 711% more likely to have children as teenagers, 164% more likely to have a pre-marital birth and 92% more likely to get divorced themselves.

Adolescent girls raised in a 2 parent home with involved Fathers are significantly less likely to be sexually active than girls raised without involved Fathers.

43% of US children live without their father [US Department of Census]

90% of homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes. [US D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census]

80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes. [Criminal Justice & Behaviour, Vol 14, pp. 403-26, 1978]

71% of pregnant teenagers lack a father. [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services press release, Friday, March 26, 1999]

63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes. [US D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census]

85% of children who exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes. [Center for Disease Control]

90% of adolescent repeat arsonists live with only their mother. [Wray Herbert, “Dousing the Kindlers,” Psychology Today, January, 1985, p. 28]

71% of high school dropouts come from fatherless homes. [National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools]

75% of adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes. [Rainbows f for all God’s Children]

70% of juveniles in state operated institutions have no father. [US Department of Justice, Special Report, Sept. 1988]

85% of youths in prisons grew up in a fatherless home. [Fulton County Georgia jail populations, Texas Department of Corrections, 1992]

Fatherless boys and girls are: twice as likely to drop out of high school; twice as likely to end up in jail; four times more likely to need help for emotional or behavioral problems. [US D.H.H.S. news release, March 26, 1999]

Census Fatherhood Statistics

64.3 million: Estimated number of fathers across the nation
26.5 million: Number of fathers who are part of married-couple families with their own children under the age of 18.
Among these fathers -

22 percent are raising three or more of their own children under 18 years old (among married-couple family households only).
2 percent live in the home of a relative or a non-relative.
2.5 million: Number of single fathers, up from 400,000 in 1970. Currently, among single parents living with their children, 18 percent are men.
Among these fathers -

8 percent are raising three or more of their own children under 18 years old.
42 percent are divorced, 38 percent have never married, 16 percent are separated and 4 percent are widowed. (The percentages of those divorced and never married are not significantly different from one another.)
16 percent live in the home of a relative or a non-relative.
27 percent have an annual family income of $50,000 or more.
85 percent: Among the 30.2 million fathers living with children younger than 18, the percentage who lived with their biological children only.
11 percent lived with step-children
4 percent with adopted children
< 1 percent with foster children

Recent policies encourage the development of programs designed to improve the economic status of low-income nonresident fathers and the financial and emotional support provided to their children. This brief provides ten key lessons from several important early responsible fatherhood initiatives that were developed and implemented during the 1990s and early 2000s. Formal evaluations of these earlier fatherhood efforts have been completed making this an opportune time to step back and assess what has been learned and how to build on the early programs’ successes and challenges.While the following statistics are formidable, the Responsible Fatherhood research literature generally supports the claim that a loving and nurturing father improves outcomes for children, families and communities.
Children with involved, loving fathers are significantly more likely to do well in school, have healthy self-esteem, exhibit empathy and pro-social behavior, and avoid high-risk behaviors such as drug use, truancy, and criminal activity compared to children who have uninvolved fathers.
Studies on parent-child relationships and child wellbeing show that father love is an important factor in predicting the social, emotional, and cognitive development and functioning of children and young adults.
24 million children (34 percent) live absent their biological father.
Nearly 20 million children (27 percent) live in single-parent homes.
43 percent of first marriages dissolve within fifteen years; about 60 percent of divorcing couples have children; and approximately one million children each year experience the divorce of their parents.
Fathers who live with their children are more likely to have a close, enduring relationship with their children than those who do not.
Compared to children born within marriage, children born to cohabiting parents are three times as likely to experience father absence, and children born to unmarried, non-cohabiting parents are four times as likely to live in a father-absent home.
About 40 percent of children in father-absent homes have not seen their father at all during the past year; 26 percent of absent fathers live in a different state than their children; and 50 percent of children living absent their father have never set foot in their father’s home.
Children who live absent their biological fathers are, on average, at least two to three times more likely to be poor, to use drugs, to experience educational, health, emotional and behavioral problems, to be victims of child abuse, and to engage in criminal behavior than their peers who live with their married, biological (or adoptive) parents.
From 1995 to 2000, the proportion of children living in single-parent homes slightly declined, while the proportion of children living with two married parents remained stable.

[Lootifer]

Wowzers, thats pretty telling stuff.

My main question on seeing this information is: whats the causal factor at play here? is it lack of father-figures, or, single parent stress (ie lack of dual income), or, some socio-economic effect, or what? (obviously its almost certainly a combination of many things, but getting a feel for whats important and whats only secondary is the best way in tackling the problem).

Either way it's an issue that really needs addressing.

[TheProwler]

I don't think conceal and carry laws are a direct impact on easier to acquire handguns. These are mutually exclusive though there is probably some common ground between them but one is not a direct cause of another.

I never said they were not mutually exclusive. And I never said they had a "direct impact" on each other. You can read what I said in past messages.

Believe it or not but the majority of criminals do not have guns. And when confronted with a gun, those that do will run before getting into what you call a 'gun fight'. It isn't like the O.K. Corral like you want to picture.

Oh, so criminals that carry guns are afraid to use them, while the decent citizens walking around with their defensive handguns are chasing them all over the cities. That sounds accurate.

Gang-violence only consists of drive bys? Really? Nice attempt on that.
Less restrictive gun laws do not increase illegal drug violence, these are also mutually exclusive. Check out what the cartels are doing in Mexico where the gun laws are not comparable to the States.
Agreed with kids being subject to getting heads blown off lowers the morals in the country. This is a result of Hollywood, not Smith&Wesson. Smith&Wesson, Remington, Ruger, etc do not endorse Hollywood's decision to air gun violence. If you believe otherwise, please post some information to back up your thoughts.

Who said "Gang-violence only consists of drive bys"? Not me. But drive by shootings are definitely an example of an escalated form of gang violence.

There is more violence in the illegal drug market due to firearms. Guns escalate the violence.

Do you really think kids only see people getting their heads blown off in movies? They see it in real life. Are you contending that no kids see people shot in real life?

Do you know what federal law is on gun purchases from other states? To sum it up: Under no circumstances is it legal to purchase/sell any handgun/rifle/shotgun face to face from a resident of any other state without involving a FFL in the buyers home state. Nice thoughts on sneaking across state lines though. Don't fall for the rhetoric that gets hyped up, do some validations on your own time. I know you don't want to but if you want to continue to discuss this, please don't try to throw things out there that simply are not true.

I think you're out-of-touch. Criminal dude in Texas buys a gun and sells it to criminal dude from Chicago. Serial numbers are filed off. Chicago dude drives home with no state-to-state border inspections. Nobody knows shit.

You must really be struggling to convince yourself that you're right about some things. But you just said that there's a shit load of homicides in Chicago where there are no gun stores. Obviously a lot of those homicides are from shootings. So where did the guns come from?

How is comparing two cities within the same country that have very similar demographics but different gun laws worse than comparing two countries completely different in size.

Because less restrictive gun laws in one state means guns are more easily attained in all states. There isn't much risk in buying a handgun in a state like Texas and sending it to another state. Getting a handgun into Canada is a lot more risky.

In Toronto last year, a city with a population of over 2.6 million, there were a total of 54 homicides last year. 33 were from shootings. I bet that's a lot less than any American city of that size.

http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/statistics/ytd_stats.php

Oh, and as you quoted: "A 2001 Statistics Canada study concluded that comparisons with the U.S. on homicide rates were the most reliable."


Dude, face it. You feel powerful when you carry your gun. It's fun to shoot. But don't think that less restrictive gun laws actually make things safer.

[TheProwler]

Video surveillance from Saturday night captures the moment a would-be thief entered the Marionville, Mo., store where Alexander works. The thief hesitates for a moment and pulls a gun — but not fast enough to dissuade Alexander from pulling his own Walther PPX 9 mm handgun and sticking it in the hapless thief’s mouth.

No one was hurt and no shots were fired.

“One of the policemen told me later, ‘You’re a lucky man,’” Alexander told News-Leader.com Monday. “I said, ‘I think he (the robber) is a little luckier than I am.’ ”

The following surveillance footage comes by way of the store’s owners, Max and Jeannine Dawson:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09 ... -well-for/

This is the kind of story that makes a lot of the NRA guys pop their load, but the fact is that the store clerk was an experienced soldier and the wannabe robber looked fuckin' drunk and hopeless.

It doesn't always work out that way.

[TheProwler]

Statistics conclude that the #1 preventative for a person turning to a life of crime is having a father.

Interested in the detail behind this (not doubting, just keen to look at material).

That's just one of those stats that can misleading. If there is a father, that almost always will mean a father *and* a mother.

Which means a much better chance for a caring and stable environment.



The stats on *father only* children are probably very insignificant because of a very low occurance.

[patrickaa317]

I don't think conceal and carry laws are a direct impact on easier to acquire handguns. These are mutually exclusive though there is probably some common ground between them but one is not a direct cause of another.

I never said they were not mutually exclusive. And I never said they had a "direct impact" on each other. You can read what I said in past messages.

Believe it or not but the majority of criminals do not have guns. And when confronted with a gun, those that do will run before getting into what you call a 'gun fight'. It isn't like the O.K. Corral like you want to picture.

Oh, so criminals that carry guns are afraid to use them, while the decent citizens walking around with their defensive handguns are chasing them all over the cities. That sounds accurate.

Gang-violence only consists of drive bys? Really? Nice attempt on that.
Less restrictive gun laws do not increase illegal drug violence, these are also mutually exclusive. Check out what the cartels are doing in Mexico where the gun laws are not comparable to the States.
Agreed with kids being subject to getting heads blown off lowers the morals in the country. This is a result of Hollywood, not Smith&Wesson. Smith&Wesson, Remington, Ruger, etc do not endorse Hollywood's decision to air gun violence. If you believe otherwise, please post some information to back up your thoughts.

Who said "Gang-violence only consists of drive bys"? Not me. But drive by shootings are definitely an example of an escalated form of gang violence.

There is more violence in the illegal drug market due to firearms. Guns escalate the violence.

Do you really think kids only see people getting their heads blown off in movies? They see it in real life. Are you contending that no kids see people shot in real life?

Do you know what federal law is on gun purchases from other states? To sum it up: Under no circumstances is it legal to purchase/sell any handgun/rifle/shotgun face to face from a resident of any other state without involving a FFL in the buyers home state. Nice thoughts on sneaking across state lines though. Don't fall for the rhetoric that gets hyped up, do some validations on your own time. I know you don't want to but if you want to continue to discuss this, please don't try to throw things out there that simply are not true.

I think you're out-of-touch. Criminal dude in Texas buys a gun and sells it to criminal dude from Chicago. Serial numbers are filed off. Chicago dude drives home with no state-to-state border inspections. Nobody knows shit.

You must really be struggling to convince yourself that you're right about some things. But you just said that there's a shit load of homicides in Chicago where there are no gun stores. Obviously a lot of those homicides are from shootings. So where did the guns come from?

How is comparing two cities within the same country that have very similar demographics but different gun laws worse than comparing two countries completely different in size.

Because less restrictive gun laws in one state means guns are more easily attained in all states. There isn't much risk in buying a handgun in a state like Texas and sending it to another state. Getting a handgun into Canada is a lot more risky.

In Toronto last year, a city with a population of over 2.6 million, there were a total of 54 homicides last year. 33 were from shootings. I bet that's a lot less than any American city of that size.

http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/statistics/ytd_stats.php

Oh, and as you quoted: "A 2001 Statistics Canada study concluded that comparisons with the U.S. on homicide rates were the most reliable."


Dude, face it. You feel powerful when you carry your gun. It's fun to shoot. But don't think that less restrictive gun laws actually make things safer.

I don't know what your first couple points were anymore. You want to compare gun availability to conceal and carry but don't disagree that they are mutually exclusive.

You damn right most criminals are afraid to use their guns when confronted. It would go from armed robbery to attempted murder if they did; plus most of them are pure cowards that to your point 'feel powerful when they have guns'. Once playing field is even, their true chickenshit-ness usually comes out. There are always exceptions to the norm of course.

I said "gang violence". Pretty hard to have a drive-by shooting without a gun.

You do seem to relate gang-violence directly to drive-bys. I'll give you that you didn't say 'only' but you sure implied it.

A shit ton more kids see people getting their heads blown off from Hollywood, TV, and video games than they do in real life.

Explain to me how the hell a 'criminal dude in Texas' can legally buy a gun? If he could buy a gun, why wouldn't more criminals flock to Texas to purchase said guns rather than dealing with shipping them back to Chicago. And my point exactly, places where there are gun stores, thus guns readily available, have less shootings than the places where there are no gun stores, thus eliminating gun stores does NOT reduce crime.

By the way, I never said I carried, open or concealed. I never will tell people whether I carry or not, frankly it's none of their business. And don't think that more restrictive gun laws make things safer either.

I think for the nuts of it, you should take a conceal/carry class just to access the training material. It puts things into a completely different perspective. Might be a good exercise for you.

We are obviously different people, with different situational instincts and different opinions on the fight or flight side of things. The interesting part about being pro-second amendment is that we do not tell you what you can and cannot do; however the anti-second amendment crowd sure wants to tell the pro-2nd crowd what they should and should not be able to do.

[TheProwler]

Wowzers, thats pretty telling stuff.

My main question on seeing this information is: whats the causal factor at play here? is it lack of father-figures, or, single parent stress (ie lack of dual income), or, some socio-economic effect, or what? (obviously its almost certainly a combination of many things, but getting a feel for whats important and whats only secondary is the best way in tackling the problem).

Either way it's an issue that really needs addressing.

How do you address the fact that some dudes get chicks knocked-up and then take no responsibility for it?

Or that some chicks f*ck around so much that when they get knocked-up, they have no fucking' idea who the father is?


These are the kind of people that do things that result in fatherless children. And these children are fucked. Genetically and otherwise.


What are you going to do? Sterilize the immoral?

[patrickaa317]

Statistics conclude that the #1 preventative for a person turning to a life of crime is having a father and a mother.

Interested in the detail behind this (not doubting, just keen to look at material).

That's just one of those stats that can misleading. If there is a father, that almost always will mean a father *and* a mother.

Which means a much better chance for a caring and stable environment.



The stats on *father only* children are probably very insignificant because of a very low occurance.

Better? This would eliminate the "insignificance of such a low occurrence" by not segregating one from the other.

[patrickaa317]

Wowzers, thats pretty telling stuff.

My main question on seeing this information is: whats the causal factor at play here? is it lack of father-figures, or, single parent stress (ie lack of dual income), or, some socio-economic effect, or what? (obviously its almost certainly a combination of many things, but getting a feel for whats important and whats only secondary is the best way in tackling the problem).

Either way it's an issue that really needs addressing.

How do you address the fact that some dudes get chicks knocked-up and then take no responsibility for it?

Or that some chicks f*ck around so much that when they get knocked-up, they have no fucking' idea who the father is?


These are the kind of people that do things that result in fatherless children. And these children are fucked. Genetically and otherwise.


What are you going to do? Sterilize the immoral?

Is this problem getting better or worse over the years? If it's getting better, then no need to change anything right? It'll eventually level off.

If it's getting worse, then perhaps we should look at what's changed over the years, rather than jumping to a strawman of "sterilize the immoral" argument.

[TheProwler]

I don't know what your first couple points were anymore. You want to compare gun availability to conceal and carry but don't disagree that they are mutually exclusive.

Correct. But lax gun laws will generally mean other lax gun laws. You haven't studied the laws to see the co-relation; even if they are mutually exclusive, there can be an underlying condition that means there is a definite trend: Conceal and carry happens in states with easier to obtain laws.

You should read this stuff from the beginning and concentrate on what was said, not what you misunderstood was said.

You damn right most criminals are afraid to use their guns when confronted. It would go from armed robbery to attempted murder if they did; plus most of them are pure cowards that to your point 'feel powerful when they have guns'. Once playing field is even, their true chickenshit-ness usually comes out. There are always exceptions to the norm of course.

Yeah, and the exceptions put a bullet into the back of your head. Why? Because they can.

Because they have a gun.

I said "gang violence". Pretty hard to have a drive-by shooting without a gun.

You do seem to relate gang-violence directly to drive-bys. I'll give you that you didn't say 'only' but you sure implied it.

No, I didn't.

I just used it as an easy example to illustrate that I am right.

A shit ton more kids see people getting their heads blown off from Hollywood, TV, and video games than they do in real life.

Explain to me how the hell a 'criminal dude in Texas' can legally buy a gun? If he could buy a gun, why wouldn't more criminals flock to Texas to purchase said guns rather than dealing with shipping them back to Chicago. And my point exactly, places where there are gun stores, thus guns readily available, have less shootings than the places where there are no gun stores, thus eliminating gun stores does NOT reduce crime.

By the way, I never said I carried, open or concealed. I never will tell people whether I carry or not, frankly it's none of their business. And don't think that more restrictive gun laws make things safer either.

I think for the nuts of it, you should take a conceal/carry class just to access the training material. It puts things into a completely different perspective. Might be a good exercise for you.

We are obviously different people, with different situational instincts and different opinions on the fight or flight side of things. The interesting part about being pro-second amendment is that we do not tell you what you can and cannot do; however the anti-second amendment crowd sure wants to tell the pro-2nd crowd what they should and should not be able to do.

A shit ton more kids see people getting their heads blown off from Hollywood, TV, and video games than they do in real life.

So? It happens in real life too. Because they have guns.

Explain to me how the hell a 'criminal dude in Texas' can legally buy a gun?

Dude walks into a Gun Store and says "Excuse me good sir, I would like to exchange this money for a gun."

If he could buy a gun, why wouldn't more criminals flock to Texas to purchase said guns rather than dealing with shipping them back to Chicago.

Because they live in Chicago, not Texas.

"Do you want a gun?"

"f*ck yeah!"

"Do you want to move to Texas?"

"f*ck no!"

And my point exactly, places where there are gun stores, thus guns readily available, have less shootings than the places where there are no gun stores, thus eliminating gun stores does NOT reduce crime.

Nope. By eliminating gun stores in one state you are just making the criminals purchase their guns in another state.

The only true test would be to eliminate gun stores in all states.

By the way, I never said I carried, open or concealed. I never will tell people whether I carry or not, frankly it's none of their business. And don't think that more restrictive gun laws make things safer either.

I think for the nuts of it, you should take a conceal/carry class just to access the training material. It puts things into a completely different perspective. Might be a good exercise for you.

We are obviously different people, with different situational instincts and different opinions on the fight or flight side of things. The interesting part about being pro-second amendment is that we do not tell you what you can and cannot do; however the anti-second amendment crowd sure wants to tell the pro-2nd crowd what they should and should not be able to do.

Dude, I am commenting on how I think the gun laws in your country have had an effect on some things. Don't go assuming what I want for myself or anything about my fight or flight instincts or anything about my education.