And yet, you want to argue with me, as a pro gun firearm owner who wants stricter regulation on how we obtain guns. I'm ok with owning and carrying. It's the ability for literally ANYONE to walk up and purchase in some places and circumstances that really gets me. You want to argue that rural Idaho has a low crimerate so those big cities are doing it wrong.

You break it down to anti-gun vs pro-gun without looking at the idea that the guy didn't shoot people with a banana. He didn't kill people with a car. He didn't murder people with an illegally obtained firearm. He used a legally purchased weapon. But availability isn't even a part of the problem to NRA supporters and people like you who want to say "my guns never killt nobody"

Mental health is a factor everywhere. Violent TV and games are a factor everywhere. Violence and crime is not the same everywhere and the biggest factor seems to be availability of weapons. I didn't say gun laws because those aren't inherently effective. It's the ready availability that is different.
It's like you're trolling me or something. I'll bite. Take a bottle of marbles. Put them on a 10 inch dish with sides. Put four marbles in the dish, and randomly tilt the dish one way then another. record how many times the marbles touch. Now, put 12 marbles in the same dish and do the experiment again. Record the number of times the marbles touch.

Also, I grew up in rural South Carolina, and lived for 2 years just outside Chicago. You run into more people when there are more people around. Don't make this so easy for me.

"Ride Like a Pro Jerry Palladino
4 months ago
Now In the state of FL. and many other states, this 18 year old could NOT, purchase a gun to protect herself and her baby. She would now be a helpless victim, punished for a crime, someone else committed. That's how politicians keep you safe. "


HOME OWNERS WITH GUNS VS INTRUDERS FAIL COMPILATION
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-WvD2_swno
Um, just because you are running into more people does not mean you are spending more time in contact with any 1 person. I mean, is walking by someone considered contact? Or are you talking about actually talking with them, doing business with them, relating with them and thus opening potential for tense situations?

Touching is not the same as having substantive interaction. And it is substantive interaction that is of concern as that is what builds the potential for angst.

Even more to the root of this, you haven't soundly defined your base measurement unit and thus your analyses cannot be relied on.
Um, most incidents where a gun is used in self defense do not result in anyone being shot. The gun being point is usually deterrent enough.

Furthermore, trying to compare this to alien abductions must be the lamest attempt to discredit the data I can imagine. The only way to obtain reliable data is to ask people and to compare it to police reports... which would be about the same as just asking people.

You have no proof that the data is unreliable, you have only conjecture. Furthermore, at 2.5 million times per year, it is not a rare occurrence.

So, the accusations has been made, the false analogy has been made, back it up with something that show the numbers are inaccurate.

What measurement unit are you even talking about. I'm specifically talking about crime-rate in metropolitan areas. If that isn't a defined enough metric for you, then I think this discussion is done because you won't be happy until you manipulate the numbers to show what you want them to show.

Also, minor correction here:
The weapon being present or visible is deterrent enough in most cases. I have defended myself by shouting "I'm armed" at someone pursuing me, and he immediately changed direction. I wasn't actually carrying that day, but the threat of a weapon stopped a would be assailant who was screaming at me about something. Almost no one wants to be shot.

What strict gun laws here? I can open carry without a license, without any training, permit, or registration requirements. The only notable restrictions come from being banned in many government buildings and in a few private establishments here and there. And that it must actually be visible. Not a thing stopping one in Wisconsin from open carry virtually anywhere else. Or concealed carry, for that matter, beyond the required permit and several hours of training (which is a pretty standard requirement nationwide). But the murder rate in Milwaukee is higher than in most places with tighter restrictions, and isn't that far off the mark from Chicago, also with tighter restrictions.

We were asked us to consider at two places, and I suppose then infer that fewer gun laws means less murder per capita. Okay, the opposite: more gun laws means more murder. Just two different ways of reaching the same conclusion. I gave some examples of places - that are more direct comparisons than an entire mostly-rural state versus a large city - with similar lax laws that show the opposite. Not sure what we're supposed to take away from the initial comparison, when we can make other comparisons that flip the Idaho-Chicago bit upside down.

Population density indicates common big city problems that you aren't going to find in an area with only 21 people per square mile. One of those problems is a typically higher violent crime rate. I've been to Boise a few times. I've been to Chicago many times. They are similar in that they are both cities in America. That's about it. Boise doesn't have the same gang and drug turf problems that Chicago does, for example. But while we're here:

Crimes per 100,000 residents. Source; FBI UCR

"The numbers for 2017 haven’t been released, but the 2016 rate was 244 violent crimes per 100,000 residents. Violent crime includes murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery and aggravated assault."

That's about half of Chicago's rate but not exceptionally low. Also a bit worse than the rate of Madison, WI, at about the same population.

Comparing Idaho to Chicago is hardly a comparison at all. I think we're being asked to infer that the difference is because of gun laws, when there are a lot of other factors.

Not any longer. The concealed carry ban was deemed Unconstitutional several years back. Open carry is not allowed, however. I don't think you can purchase within the city itself but there are shops in the neighboring suburbs, some within a mile of the city limits. I think a license is required for in-state purchases.

A 25% 'defense' rate means that 1 out of every 4 people facing a violent crime of some sort just happened to have been carrying a firearm, and then used or brandished it successfully to stop the assailant instead of standing there crapping their pants. Unless 3/4 of those were convenience store employees, I struggle to suspend my disbelief.

Unless, that is, most of those 2.5 million crimes were foiled in Idaho.

But...

Do you have a link to that? Curious to see the peer-reviewed study on that number. I went with 2.5M because that's what was provided, but I'd like to see how that was determined. 2.5M sounds very high.

Anecdotally, I think I can explain what paladin means. When we lived in Atlanta our tension and stress levels were pretty high, simply because of the relative crush of people. It didn't require actual personal interaction, such as conversation. Just being in the mass of bodies at the airport was enough to raise the tension a bit. Daily traffic on I-85 to and from work. I didn't interact with any of those other drivers, yet the tension was there.

Then we moved to a comparative Mayberry. Nearly all that stuff washed away. Room to breathe. Less noise. Less crush of people. "Getting away" now meant a few minutes drive or ten minute bike ride to get out in the country. It's just... different. If you haven't lived in both situations then maybe it won't make sense. If you have, then you might know what I mean. Now we're living a couple miles in the country and it's just night and day from the big city.

That's what I'm getting at: we can't reliably compare a whole state to a single city on an issue like this. There are just too many big differences to try to equate any one statistic on any one factor, and that's one of the differences.

For what it's worth, I'm not anti-gun. I'm pro-responsible, -trained, and -safe ownership. I'm anti-OhMyGodIMustHaveAFirearmToBeSafe! That can lead to some people thinking they're buying a gun for personal safety, and then not taking the steps to actually be safe with it. Like not locking it away from kids and others who should not have access, not taking any safety classes, not spending time at the range, etc.

And why not? I mean, in's just a number of crimes. Nowhere is stated that those crimes are destibuted equally among people. In fact it is quite probable that there are many people like shop keepers, guards, couriers, etc who become targets of some street burglars on regular basis and fend them off with a gun.

Forgive me. I haven't been there in about 20 years. My point is only moderately changed by the change in laws since they are still strict, but they're right on the border to Wisconsin and I knew a few places just north of the border to get almost any flavor of firearm you could want. I lived in Waukegan back then...
Edit: we seem to be of virtually the same mind when it comes to firearms. Better training needs to be required, and a few more barriers to purchase, particularly at gun shows couldn't hurt. But please, get a firearm if you want to safely and responsibly own it.

I don't see myself being dragged into politics, especially on a platform like this. But I will say that I think it's a leap to assume that the perpetrator was only ever upset about losing this game. I think it's more likely losing was a trigger setting off a cascade of prior issues that had gone unnoticed or unchecked. If I recall correctly the gunman brought these 2 pistols into the tournament prior to losing? I have a concealed carry permit myself and I don't know anyone who carries two pistols. That's unreal even for most criminals. So if he brought two pistols prior to the loss would that not indicate intent before hand? Or at least it seems some sort of contingency to losing had been thought of before?

In the states we have a legal/common term called crime of passion. Basically someone commits a violent act immediately in the moment without malice aforethought or premeditation. They act on impulse. Such crimes are considered a lesser degree than premeditation, for obvious reasons I'd like to think.

That's my meager 2 cents. Ultimately investigators can only go on facts and statements from close contacts given the perp committed suicide. Another mental health issue, unaddressed until too late. Free healthcare for those who can't afford it? In America? Lol.

You didn't read and/or didn't understand the argument brought forth in the article I posted. You're riding through this thread with eyes and ears closed. Your soliloquy needs an audience, but no one else on the stage.

The 1995 data has been shown to be highly unreliable here. Hundreds of thousands of surveyed people claimed to have shot i.e. penetrated an attacker in self defense. But neither were these encounters ever reported to the police, nor did the hypothetical attackers ever turn up in an ER.

In all likelihood, the surveyed people were (as always, needlessly) scared shitless of Billy Clinton "taking their guns away", so they were making shit up to claim that they'd "need" "their" guns for "self defense", that's what gave you that 2.5 million vast overestimate that people have been pathetically heralding for nigh a quarter of a century.

Less than one percent of US gun owners ever find themselves in the position to use their guns for self defense, but while those things are around, there's plenty of opportunity to shoot themselves, family members, visitors, or neighbours, have your kids shoot you, etc. That is what the actual statistics tell you, however hard you try to falsify them.

That's fine. Could very well be. I have asked flatiron to provide a source for the peer-reviewed study that came up with that number since he or she was the one who presented it as a fact. Maybe we'll get that link and can take a look at how it was determined.

Until then, I am skeptical at the claim but remain willing to be shown otherwise.

I was 'there' back in 1987-88, at Great Mistakes. Boot camp and a couple schools. Didn't really live there, since you're a bit isolated on base. My weekends were usually spent going back north to visit home instead of hanging out locally.

Read a few articles agreeing with you, that the problem was one of proximity. I can see that, though it's curious that those articles generally give a pass to in-state purchases. That may have something to do with IL's licensing requirements that the neighbor states don't have, though.

But it's also curious that the neighboring states don't suffer those problems to the same extent Chicago itself does. Those that do show higher crime have it concentrated in a couple specific cities and not necessarily statewide. I think that goes back to something I've been repeating, that each situation has more factors than simply gun laws. For example, if a city doesn't have a long-established gang / drug / crime area such as Chicago's South Side, then it figures that those problems won't be as entrenched and that law enforcement might have a better handle on dealing with it before it balloons into a bigger problem. That Madison and Milwaukee are only an hour apart and have such widely different numbers while operating under the same rules lends support to the notion that each case is different.