cOoTeR

More Guns, Less Crime in Virginia

11/27/2012

Virginia Commonwealth University Professor Thomas Baker has crunched the numbers in the state of Virginia, and has determined that gun sales in the state have climbed 73% since 2006, while the number of violent crimes involving guns has declined by more than 27%.

For years, we've heard the shrill voices of those who hate your guns. "More guns on the street means more crime!" "More guns equals more murder!" and so on. And yet, clearly that's not the case. So now the gun ban crowd is changing its tune.

Andrew Goddard, a gun control advocate in Virginia, told WTOP radio, "It's quite possible that you can sell a whole lot more guns and crime is still going down. But is the crime going down because more people are buying guns, or is the crime going down because the crime is going down?"

I don't know anyone who thinks a decline in violent crime can be attributed to a single factor. That's not the point. The point is that, despite Goddard's new assertion, the anti-gunners have been telling us that what's happening in Virginia is impossible. The point is people like Andrew Goddard think that Virginians would be safer with Chicago-style gun control laws, even though that flies in the face of logic and reality.

The point is, gun owners and the NRA have been right all along. It's the criminals, not the law-abiding gun owners, who are the issue. More guns, less crime isn't just "quite possible," it's a fact.

http://home.nra.org/iphone.aspx/blog/342

But that's not really how it works. You're making the assumption of guilt to prove innocence, not -- how it's written into law.

How do we prove all the food in restaurant adverts are real? Or that Sylvester Stallone really didn't kill all those people?

I really don't care either way, but people are making a big deal over this are the silly ones. He was using it in a dramatic manner for news purposes, not in the offense of committing a crime. I'd rather have that law on the books if only for it to be used as an excuse to be able to tack on some additional consecutive time during sentencing if an extended magazine was used in the commission of a crime.

So illegally using a firearm part for "dramatic manner" is ok but any other use is bad? I thought guns themselves were bad but its ok for him to have it?

Yes, because as the only logical solution to fight guns is with "more guns", the only logical solution to a "people" issue is to throw "more people" at it.

Why do we need to fight guns? We need to be able to fight bad people with guns using good people with guns. The only way a gun ban would work is if every gun on the planet didn't exist then we would have no gun violence just violence with a different tool so less guns solves nothing. Bad people will always find a way to aquire guns taking guns away from good people or not allowing good people to have a gun in certain areas makes those people and places easy targets.

Ill tell you what I always told my brother, what your career comes down to is this, you are selling your time. Get a good education so you can sell it to the highest bidder. No matter what interest you pursue in life it wil eventually become just a job that you do for money.

Of course, my brother didn't listen to me, went to school for police science and works for a box store.

Box store? Is that code for a brothel?

I had a friend that went to MMI and become a well trained mechanic. After a few years him and a buddy left the dealerships they were at and opened their own shop. They were doing really well with steady business. But eventually he got burnt out and decided to enlist in the army. They closed up shop and I asked him why and he said the money was good but turning your hobby into your career kind of takes the fun out of it.

I understand that your planning on a higher level than he was at but it may still fit. I'd think your best bet would be try to get ahold of some manufactures of bikes and components. In Ohio your going to be limited to Honda (they don't build bikes here but sometimes test them near Marysville), Showa, or Harley if you travel. I can't think of anyone else off hand. Maybe look into R+D there's a place beside the Honda plant called TRC that does all sorts of testing but most of the engineers there work for Honda. You could get into tires those are always changing but the closest would be Goodyear and they aren't really known for motorcycle tires. You could contact Don Guhl of Guhl motorsports, he is the go to guy for getting the computer on your bike reflashed. They do a lot of performance stuff there and are a small enough shop that you can probably get in and talk to them about your career choice and how to go about it. They are in Pennsylvania somewhere.

About a month ago someone started a thread about this same exact topic you may want to dig that up so people don't have to repeat what they said in there.

In those 10yrs.. the population also increased by 1.3M... so while gun crime did rise per capita, the weapons ban likely wasn't the only contributing factor. A lot of other legislation may've been passed in those 10yrs.

The per capita rate is still less than the US.. so...

So if the crime went up per capita after the ban how can you expect it to go better here? We obviously are more violent so less guns won't help.

Stats are bad mmmkay.

Harvard -- totally leftwing and biased, nothing good or academic comes from there, but please continue to quote sites like "Rense.com" -- totally credible Chevy.

And then when Cooter did post some credible numbers, the UK was better, which didn't help bolster that argument.

Speaking of profiling, it's funny you lump Mags and I together, since everyone is familiar with my firearm background. But hey, you guys keep ignoring the cold hard numbers in favor of your fantasy hero-scenarios and telling everyone how right you are and how wrong everyone else is that would dare question how simply obvious the solution of "more guns" solves this problem.

Let's look at before and after numbers. Yes its from 09 but the stats still there.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

http://www.13wham.com/news/local/story/Webster-firefighters-shot/Aov0V53ztUC4bKegOnofrg.cspx

^^^ Proof we need more guns. Either FF's need an armed escort, or they need a 9mm in one hand, the fire hose in the other, and be able to somehow carry people out of buildings with "guns ablazin'"

Yeah its crazy how those guns light fires and start shooting people on their own.

Just going to throw it out there. Title 21 of the United States Code allows for seizures of vehicles used in smuggling illegal persons or contraband. It also allows for vehicles that have been constructed or modified with hidden compartments to be seized even without a charge of smuggling issued against the owner/ operator. Factory voids in the vehicle don't count as hidden compartments unless used as such. A lockbox or safe doesn't count as a hidden compartment unless used to convey illegal contraband.

There was a guy who bought one of those really fast speeds boats. He got inspected by customs and they discovered a hidden secret compartment built into the boat. The owner of the boat informed them of several other hidden compartments on the boat. Due to the several hidden compartments and the amount of power the boat had compared to its size they were able to prove the boats primary purpose was smuggling. They seized his boat and several others built by the company that built his.

This, the equivalent stat would be 1.15 per 100,000, which ruins your argument.

Yeah I was half asleep running on 4 hours of sleep last night. But the Mexican stat is still there.

Uhm...not arguing or anything (I didn't check the links on my phone) but two of your statistics are per 100,000 and one is per 1,000,000. Typo?

That's the way its listed, per million in the UK and the others as 100,000.

Research accounts for that... Hence why I defer to those that did the statistical analyses.

Just because I can cite sources and case studies that prove things contrary to your opinion does not make me a troll... It makes your arguments weak. This is also why I don't claim to have a solution, because I'm not an expert and all the armchair politicians on here aren't either.

I don't care about how much of a badass or Ricky Rambo someone thinks they are with their CCW or arsenal of home weapons... It's a different ball game when they're actually in the crisis situation and have to decide to pull the trigger or not, if they're not from a military or police background.

http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/ohio/columbus.html#.UNWaO-bCteY

Columbus violent crime rates are 74.71% higher than the national average.

But

http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/illinois/chicago.html#.UNWatubCteY

Chicagos violent crime rates are 148.31% higher than the national average even though Chicago has more strict gun laws.

See I can pull stats also I just feel its a waste of time because you will just ignore them.

Research accounts for that... Hence why I defer to those that did the statistical analyses.

Just because I can cite sources and case studies that prove things contrary to your opinion does not make me a troll... It makes your arguments weak. This is also why I don't claim to have a solution, because I'm not an expert and all the armchair politicians on here aren't either.

I don't care about how much of a badass or Ricky Rambo someone thinks they are with their CCW or arsenal of home weapons... It's a different ball game when they're actually in the crisis situation and have to decide to pull the trigger or not, if they're not from a military or police background.

Here's some stats for you.

http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/murders-fatal-violence-uk.html

Murder rates per year in the UK 11.5 per 1,000,000.

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/08/20/mexico-murders-hit-271-in-2011/

In Mexico 27,199 in 2011 or 24 per 100,000.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

In America 16,799 in 2011 or 5.5 per 100,000.

Guns are not legal in the UK or Mexico yet their murder rates are higher than in the US? So how does restricting guns help?

Harvard Injury Control Research Center

Homicide

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

Did you ever think there are more guns there because there is more crime in those areas already?

Let's look at the crime rates in Chicago and the homicides. Pretty high regardless of the strict gun laws. L.A. same thing.

I carry a gun to level the playing field because badguys will always have them.

They (I assume you mean the people in need of mental health that commit these offenses) choose the most convienient crowded public areas. Why drive 50 miles to the nearest military base when the school or movie theater is 5miles away?

I'm no psychologist or have the background on this, but I'd surmise an element of the paranoia is attacking the people they perceive as "public", the common man. There is an element of terrorism to it. Engaging military people is combat. Terrorism is doing it to the least suspecting and unengaged.

Well, if that's the psychological warfare you want to play -- I don't necessarily agree that it makes a difference to someone with mental health issues, deterrents are only valid for sane and logical people -- but to your point, why not let kids defend themselves in school? You really want a deterrent, let criminals think that even those outside positions of authority in schools can carry. If a child can demonstrate competency with a weapon, that would be a great bullying deterrent as well.

You're the one that said ALL teacher didn't have to be armed... so if not all of them are, it's pretty easy to guess which ones aren't. Jerry, the 6'5" muscular gym teacher, or Ethel, the 66 yr old librarian? I know which one I'd have the upper hand in the reflex and strength department if they ever got close enough -- even if Ethel was packing.

That's why cops never get attacked and killed in the line of duty, right? You're proving your own point... we're not dealing with people "in their right mind".

I haven't formulated a reasonable solution yet. It takes time to do research on these things and make compromises -- that's why I don't jump on the internet right away and proclaim "Here is the solution to this problem". I'm humble enough to know that I don't have a solution nor am I experienced or educated enough to come up with one at the moment.

We can have a discussion about it and offer options and opinions, but to proclaim "I'm right and all others that disagree are koolaid drinking pussy lib-douches" really doesn't help come to a solution, nor does it paint said proclaimer as the most intelligent being. I'm not saying YOU are proclaiming that, but there are a lot of people that take that stance. It's simple-minded and the reason things don't get solved in this country.

So you think they attack a place because its close? Then why not gas stations or banks as a common place for suicidal gun attacks? There are more of those than schools so people are closer to these than schools in general.

When it comes down to it all we have in these schools are legal deterrents to protect these kids. Obviously this doesn't suffice in todays society. You need protection on top of it. I'd be all for every kid carrying a gun. I carried a knife with me all the way through high school as did most people in my school. Also during gun week for deer most of us had a shotgun and boxes of slugs in our cars and trucks. never had a stabbing or shooting at my school because we all used these items as tools like they are. Give the kid a psych test and competency along with legal training why not other then as you mentioned who would fund this?

So you can tell by people if they are carrying a firearm? You've got talent and could probably get rich off of that skill if you really had it.

Most cops aren't just attacked when killed in the line of duty normally they are responding to something else and surprised by the weapon.

The current plans in schools is call the cops to bring a gun to the school when a shooting happens and hope the shooter doesn't move room to room. Why not already have a trained gunman waiting in a few of those rooms? When do these people give up in these shootings? It is consistently when more people with guns are near and about to get near them.

That's right you have no solution all your doing is saying everyone's solution is wrong just to be the troll you are.

^^This^^^ ....reading comprehension is strong with this one

Banning guns was and always will be, unable to thwart crazy fuggars from committing violence.

Weak, helpless or innocent are targets......not those that can and will fight back. Most cold blooded killers are cowards and opportunists, and that is how it has always been.....and will continue to be. Police state and martial law is on its way, it is on its way. If we became more like Switzerland, this country would shape up real fast.

Anonymous carry....that just might work!!!!

Agree. A simple perception that random good people have weapons is a huge deterrent vs. a weapon free zone. Fracking stupid. I'm more comfortable knowing where I work, several people pack heat and even if I get shot/killed trying to defend myself or someone, there's more backup just around the corner.

All of this ^^^^^^^.

Them finding out who's carrying if records were required to be kept it shouldn't be kept on school grounds. It can be hidden how many teachers health records were you aware of in school?

Tax dollars going up. Allowing the teachers to voluntarily carry will have a minor affect on taxes to pay for the training. Similar to the required trainings they do anyways such as cpr.

Ok, so now we're just down to how much people want their property taxes to go up (in Ohio at least), or whether the school decides to supports sports or a few cops on the beat. And, what if the school/community decides they don't want guns around their kids or to pay for multiple armed personnel at the school? If another massacre happens do you just shrug it of and say, well, they got what was coming to them?

Ok, so what's stopping a cold blooded planned killing from occurring in an unarmed classroom? Socially engineer your way into the school the day of, or hide a weapon the day prior to be retrieved in between classes, bring it to the classroom that is reasonably expected to be unarmed (or known to be unarmed via research), lock the door, pop the teacher first (just in case), and you have an entire classroom at your picking.

I can paint as many hypothetical situations where it wouldn't work for as many as you can surmise that it would be a deterrent.

They'd find out. It wouldn't be a secret long... one student office aid asked to file records of the teachers with CCWs and it's blabbed to the entire student body. Or one hacker breaks into the school database and has the same information.

Regardless, it's moot in an unarmed classroom per the hypothetical above.

You seriously think that a teacher wants blood on their hands for killing students? "But three of them rushed me?" Ok, explain how little Jessica, sitting in the front row, the 4.0 student on her way to Harvard got killed when she wasn't a part of the melee...

I'm just trying to get your vision on how this would go if teachers were armed, or additional security personnel? The guy in Columbine exchanged fire with Harris and Klebold.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/DEPUTIES_TEXT.htm

Cross-fire, collateral damage, etc... either way, the psycho gets what he wants, innocent people killed.

As far as a school or parents not being comfortable with armed staff its not well they got what the deserve it would be tragic proof that more could have been done?

So your saying that since 1 class room that is in armed could be attacked none of them should be armed? Your not making any sense just proving my point that unarmed people are targeted and the teacher should be armed to prevent an attack.

Where are you getting this what happens if the teacher is attacked? It's not really relevant. If a group of people kids or not are attacking a teacher and trying to cause harm the teacher should be able to defend them self. Who in their right mind is going to attack an armed person? If they do they need to be shot.

Yes we can go round and round with your what ifs from left field all day but they are irrelevant.

What is your plan to fix these shootings since what has been said here is so wrong? Just continue the same shit how's that worked out so far?

Edit.... Also you can't lock the door of a classroom to keep people in due to their design and fire codes requiring a panic bar type release.

I never claimed it would, the point was to refute the claim that an armed guard would've stopped anything. Columbine happened, and armed guard was on premises; therefore that theory has been proven invalid on that case study.

It has nothing to do with promoting and discouraging an AWB.

Why do you think they choose schools and malls and movie theaters for these attacks over police stations (there have been attacks in those but less common than the fore mentioned places) or military bases and recruiter offices?

It's because they know that there are no guns to fight them there (schools and malls ect.) Who would attack a place with multiple armed people. Only the really bat shit crazy ones and they would be less successful than attacking a group of unarmed people.

I agree a single armed guard is inadequate, you need several but what school budget has room for several armed guards? Especially in this society where the "it can't happen to me" mentality is rampant.

If no teacher in the school wants to be armed, fine just make everyone think they are all armed. That will help prevent these shootings. Having multiple armed people that the students don't know who's armed or not will be the best defence if a shooter does show up.

What's the point of having an armed guard then? If you don't expect a gunfight, why do you need a firearm? Just give the guy a taser and be done w/ it.

I still don't know how you can force some teachers who don't WANT to be armed to arm them. I'm opposed to it for the simple fact that all the teachers in the system now were not informed that would be part of the job requirement, and some don't feel comfortable with it. The 99.9999999999% of the time a firearm wouldn't be necessary requires a ton of precautions so kids don't access them. I had an English teacher that was just shy of 327yrs old... the smallest girl in the class could've easily overpowered her in a quick manner -- so now what if you get a group that wants to bumrush the teacher. If they just tackle a teacher, is that justification for lethal self-defense? Teachers shooting midschoolers? You just want to make the legal assumption they were going after the weapon and it's justifiable? How many scenarios do you want to run? Or would you just be in favor of mandating it and "seeing how it plays out"?

There is no logic to what you say.

1. I'm pointing out a single known guard is inadequate and not tactically sound.

2. I never said ALL TEACHERS HAD TO BE ARMED.

3. A ton of precautions? Such as keeping your gun on your hip? That's hard I carry a gun sometimes 2 pretty much every day (at least 5 times a week) and have never had to worry about anyone getting my gun. A teacher with a concealed gun that the students don't know if they have it or not doesn't need to worry either.

4. A group that wants to bum rush a teacher? Where did you come up with that? Yes being attacked by multiple people would justify deadly force if the person being attacked felt they were in danger of death or serious bodily harm regardless of if they were armed or not.

What is it with that line of reasoning? Clinton AWB huh? That makes a lot of sense. Ya know, since apparently the armed security guard (a sheriff deputy named Neil Garder) must've only been armed with a single shot musket? Is that what sheriff deputies are issued?

The reason the armed sheriff deputy in Columbine wasn't able to stop two armed kids was because of Clinton's AWB...

No its proof the AWB will not prevent school shootings.

Columbine had an armed guard...

"An" armed guard completely unsuspecting of a shooting. 1 armed guard is just the first target. What is needed is armed teachers. They also need to do away with these bullshit policies of hide under a desk and wait to be shot. Fuck that kids need to run and be provided with more than one way out other than a couple of main hallways. Such as emergency exits in the rooms on the exterior of the building. If there was a fire the kids don't wait for the fire department to come for them they leave the building.

I read it and I didn't really see anywhere that it said they were going to fight the ban too hard.

I'm all for having secret armed teachers. The problem with an armed guard or policeman is smaller schools will only have 1. Now in that case jumping him or her in an ambush style attack takes that protection out and provides the attacker with more ammo and an extra weapon.

Go with an MSR Whisperlite universal for multi fuel capability . That's what i use when I'm hunting. Stove of the year..

The msr is awesome that's what I have. The jet boil is also awesome my dad has one but I think they are normally over priced and a little large. For that price I'd own one.

No panties in a bunch, man. I just hate hearing responses that someone like the OP that has limited knowledge and is impressionable and hears comments like it seems it is always the left fork seal because it is leaned that way all the time. That reference was less like "Seems" and more opinion and could have been seen as something to worry about.

Also, the piston inside isn't what gets scratched and causes a leak. It is the fork tube that can get a knick from road debris, etc and with even the smallest knick, can cause oil to pass and leak.

The fact is if he has that many miles, it probably needs seals. Always do both at the same time as then the fluids are fresh and seals new to start fresh and at square one. Doing just one isn't the choice and the other fork fluid is probably gray matter at this stage...

I was confused on the nomenclature I thought the tube was the larger female part of the fork and the piston was the shiny male part that moves in and out of the larger part.