20/20 Friday (WARNING: Gun Control thread!)

[shanek]

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/2017427/detail.html

Yes, folks, armed robbery is a dangerous profession.

Of course:

There is no word on whether any charges would be filed against Jalaq.

In a free society, this shouldn't even be a question.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Backpedal again, DM. And ignore every other single point I made while you're at it.

Did it ever occur to you that I may simply not have gotten around to it?

Looks like you are jumping the gun a bit aren't you?

You're just a woo-woo.

Well shoot, a woo-woo? Haven't been called that since the third grade....

You assert one thing, until it's refuted, then you assert the exact opposite to cover for it.

Evidence?

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

shanek

How about a book? Or is that too much trouble for you?

Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America by Gary Kleck, professor of Criminology at FSU. The figure is from the National Firearms Defensive Use Survey, Spring, 1993.

Well I could go out, buy a book, spend a couple days reading through finding your proof for you or you could stop using proof surrogates and give me a link....

Y'know, real skeptics actually check the source to see instead of making baldfaced assertions about it. But FYI, when Lott started the study, he was in favor of gun control. OOPS!!!

Yes just like certain creationists claim they adhered to evolution....just like cetain spiritualists claimed they were "skeptical at first".

Not like this would be the first pro-gun lobyist that slanted the data.

This is the thoroughly debunked Kellerman "data" again.

Just one link in a Google search of the many sites that point out how bad Kellermann's numbers are:

http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/43_to_1_fallacy.htm

Hardly what I would call a thorough debunking. The man does not really refute anything but commit perfectionist either/or fallacies. I.e. Kellermann's data cannot show gun avaliability to increase suicide rates because there are other plausible causes. This ignores the fact that Kellermann is not saying that gun availability is the only cause and the pro-gun lobbyist is thus saying: either guns are the sole cause or no cause at all. Lastly pointing to other cultures with higher suicide rates also avoids the issue, as culture can play a part too.

Besides, the article was irrelevant to the issue anyways. The issue was on the statements made by the Colorado Association for Robbery Investigations about what to do if a robber comes in, an article about Kellerman doesn't even apply.

And I hope you are not applying it to the article I presented By Kellermann, because it wasn't saying there is an increase in suicides in a home with guns, but an increase in homocide. Thus either way your response is a non seq.

More people are injured doing this than confronting the burglar with a gun.

So I guess the police department is lying about it....

Geez...it's like a creationist pulling out Paluxy River...This is more bogus Kellerman data.

Yes that you've fail to show as bogus. (what was that someone said about dismissing sources beforehand?). Published in a prestidgious Medical Journal....was Paluxy published in a prestigious biological or scientific journal?

Self-defense is no solution??? You, sir, are an IDIOT!!!!!

LOL. Calm down tiger.

When taken to the extreme when you wish to rely on self-defense more then law enforcement, it becomes vigilantiaism which is no solution.

YOU FSCKING LIAR!!!! THEY CITED COURT CASES!!!!!! The "Sharon P." case; Riss v. City of New York; Janice Lancaster...did you actually bother to read it? Or is that too much for your pathetic little brain to let in information that just may possibly diagree with your delusions???

ROFL. Well there goes radicalism....

You make me SICK!!!

Well hopefully that doesn't get me shot.

Then explain why police pretty much everywhere are in favor of concealed carry.

http://www.guntruths.com/Myths/most..._favor_gun_.htm

A 1992 poll by the National Association of Chiefs of Police demonstrated overwhelming support for private firearms ownership. They resoundingly rejected gun control as effective crime control. A more recent survey of San Diego's rank-and-file officers emphatically mirrored these results, as did an even more comprehensive study in Pennsylvania.

So Dr.Kellermann is not reliable but "guntruths.com" is?

Why? You haven't commented on anything else, except to call it names. But people like you can't argue the data, because you'll lose, so you insult the sources.

Well I'm sorry but I don't really consider a "study" by the "Journal of Libertarian Studies" titled: "Anarcho-Capitalism" in reference to the wild west, to be a reliable historical source.

More BS. Firearm ownership has risen in the US over the last several years.

Well it couldn't be because there are simply more people now could it?

Actually if we are going by percentages, the data shows the opposite: http://www.norc.org/online/guns01.pdf

Page 9.

Lastly I'd like to point to some facts offered by the Physicians for Social Responsibility:

In 2000 a total of 28,663 people died from firearm injuries.
National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Vital Statistics Report, Volume 50. No. 15, September 16, 2002.

A gun kept in the home is 4 times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting, 7 times more likely to be used in a criminal assault or homicide, and 11 times more likely to be used to commit or attempt a suicide than to be used in self defense.
Kellerman, et al. Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home. The Journal of Trauma; Injury, Infection and Critical Care. Vol. 45, no. 2

The firearms industry is virtually the only manufacturer of a consumer product not required to meet basic product safety standards - in fact, toy guns are more regulated for safety than are real guns.
Consumer Federation of America Foundation. ?Which One is More Regulated?? Brochure printed 2000.

Over 57% of all suicides are committed with a firearm.
National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Vital Statistics Report, Volume 50. No. 15, September 16, 2002.

Cut/stab wounds killed 1,743 Americans in 2000; gunshots killed 28,663 the same year.
Federal Bureau of Investigation, US Department of Justice. ?Crime in the United States 2000.? Uniform Crime Reports. October 2001.

In 1999, for homicides in which the weapon could be identified, 53% of female victims were shot and killed with guns - more than 63% were shot by male intimates. The number of females shot and killed by their intimate acquaintance was more than 4 times higher than the total number murdered by male strangers using all weapons combined. When Men Murder Women, October 2001. Analysis of 1999 Federal Bureau of Investigation Supplementary Homicide Report data. Analysis conducted by Violence Policy Center.

A child or a teenager commits 55% of all unintentional shootings.
Center to Prevent Handgun Violence. Parents, Kids, & Guns: A Nationwide Survey. 1998. Data collected by Peter D. Hart Research Associates. .Survey conducted from October 31 to November 4, 1998.

One out of three handguns is kept loaded and unlocked in the home.
Cook, Philip J. and Jens Ludwig. Guns in America: Results of a comprehensive national survey on firearms ownership and use. Police Foundation, 1996

Only 30% of parents ask the parents of their children?s friends if they keep a gun in the home.
Center to Prevent Handgun Violence. Parents, Kids, & Guns: A Nationwide Survey. 1998. Data collected by Peter D. Hart Research Associates. Survey conducted from October 31 to November 4, 1998.

In a 1998 study, 80% of clinicians stated that they should counsel on firearm safety, but only 30% do so. Of those clinicians who currently counsel, only 20% counsel more than 10% of their patient families.
Barkin, et al. The smoking gun: Do clinicians follow guidelines on firearm safety counseling? Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. 1998;152:749-756

http://www.psr.org/documents/psr_doc_0/program_2/Gun_stats_US_data.doc

And in the case of homicides, the industry ignores the fact that the majority of firearm homicides are perpetrated not by dangerous strangers, but by people known to their assailants-relatives, intimate partners, or acquaintances-usually as the result of a dispute.

i.e. most shootings do not happen via criminals but in the heat of passion by ordinary people who may have acted differently had a gun not been readily available.

http://www.psr.org/home.cfm?id=risks_gun_ownership

 

[shanek]

Evidence?

THE VERY THING I WAS REPLYING TO!!!!! You inferred that LA and NY have higher than normal crime rates because of gun ownership, and when I pointed out that they have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, you said that maybe they had to because of the large crime rates!

You can't have it both ways!

 

[shanek]

Re: shanek

Well I could go out, buy a book, spend a couple days reading through finding your proof for you or you could stop using proof surrogates and give me a link....

What are you blabbering about? Finding my proof for me? I FOUND THE PROOF!!! YOU JUST DON'T WANT TO READ IT!!!

Again, you're just like the woo-woos. Whenever you insist that they educate themselves on the matter, they say, "I can't be bothered to do your homework for you!"

Yes just like certain creationists claim they adhered to evolution....just like cetain spiritualists claimed they were "skeptical at first".

Except that Lott's prior opinions are on record.

Not like this would be the first pro-gun lobyist that slanted the data.

This is hilarious, coming from someone who just got through citing Kellerman.

Hardly what I would call a thorough debunking.

That was just one. You want more?

http://sarahbradycampaign.org/ama6.htm
http://home.earthlink.net/~conserve/myths.htm
http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/kellerman-buckner.html
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2331

On and on and on...it's bad science and bad data.

When taken to the extreme when you wish to rely on self-defense more then law enforcement, it becomes vigilantiaism which is no solution.

Except that time and time again the courts have said that law enforcement has no duty to defend the citizens against attackers. All they're required to do is help mop up afterwards. You are the only one you can depend on to defend yourself, and there is no justification for restricting the means by which people can do so.

ROFL. Well there goes radicalism....

Pointing out how you LIED is radicalism???

Well I'm sorry but I don't really consider a "study" by the "Journal of Libertarian Studies" titled: "Anarcho-Capitalism" in reference to the wild west, to be a reliable historical source.

Oh, but you will accept as gospel the FLAWED data by someone who ADMITS THAT HE'S OUT TO PROVE GUN CONTROL IS NECESSARY???

Well it couldn't be because there are simply more people now could it?

Not the per capita figures; that's what "per capita" means.

Actually if we are going by percentages, the data shows the opposite: http://www.norc.org/online/guns01.pdf

Huh. Looks like you're lying again—those figures only go to 1997. Besides, it comes right out and says that the reason for this is largely due to the decline in household size.

Lastly I'd like to point to some facts offered by the Physicians for Social Responsibility:

More completely refuted data from a source with an admitted bias and agenda. A simple perusal of the FBI Uniform Crime Reports easily debunks their figures.

 

[Richard G]

Lastly I'd like to point to some facts offered by the Physicians for Social Responsibility:

Your relying on doctors to give you expert advice on firearms? Do you likewise go to the gunshop for expert advice on medicine and disease?

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Shanek: Mere denial of a strong, peer reviewed article that apeared in a prestigious medical journal does not count as a valid refutation. The FBI uniform report is compatible with this data, as it gathered self-evluative information from survivors of armed robberies and such, obviously if they survived what they did helped them We are talking about people who did not though and thet obviously couldn't give the FBI a report of what happened to them.

All the debunking cites you listed are not the equivalent to a medical journal but are political cites made to promote political agendas more then the evidence. "righttobeararms.com"/"guncite". Do you have anything equivalent to the testimony of physicians or a medical journal? Apparently not.

Lastly physicians do know about hazards and mortality, hence they are proper experts to turn to when discussing whether or not owning a gun is dangerous.

 

[shanek]

Shanek: Mere denial of a strong, peer reviewed article that apeared in a prestigious medical journal does not count as a valid refutation. The FBI uniform report is compatible with this data,

No, it isn't. The claim was:

i.e. most shootings do not happen via criminals but in the heat of passion by ordinary people who may have acted differently had a gun not been readily available

Forgiving the fact that there are no statistics on what people would have done had it not been for a certain condition, the claim depends on more than 50% of shootings being crimes of passion.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_01/xl/01tbl2-14.xls

According to the crime reports, there were 13,752 murders (only 8,719 of which, FYI, were with a firearm, or 63%) in 2001. Comparing the breakdown of crimes which could in some cases be heat of passion (Rape, other sex offenses, romantic triangle, brawls due to influence of alcohol or narcotics, arguments over money or property, and other arguments) the total of these comes to 4,191, or only 30%. If we get really generous and consider that all of the 1,832 unspecified murders were crimes of passion, then the total rises to 6,023, still only 43%. And not all of those were committed with a firearm. So, even being overly generous to the point of absurdity, it still isn't true that "most shootings do not happen via criminals but in the heat of passion by ordinary people."

All the debunking cites you listed are not the equivalent to a medical journal but are political cites made to promote political agendas more then the evidence. "righttobeararms.com"/"guncite".

You're resorting to argument by authority. Probably because you know you can't argue the data.

Do you have anything equivalent to the testimony of physicians or a medical journal?

Doctors are not criminologists. Lott and Kleck are. And yes, their works were peer-reviewed.

 

[shanek]

Actually, I just found a better table for making my point:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_01/xl/01tbl2-13.xls

Here, I can use the same circumstances above but only consider the firearm murders, since that's what you were referring to. Now, using the same generous reasoning as above, we get 2,438 murders which could potentially be heat of passion out of 8,719 total firearms murders, or only 27%. And when we get absurdly generous and incude all of the unspecifieds, we get 3,531, or 40%.

And both of these figures are less than the proportion of crimes which could potentially be heat of passion overall!

So that seems to make munchy-meat out of your claims.

 

[John Harrison]

And I hope you are not applying it to the article I presented By Kellermann, because it wasn't saying there is an increase in suicides in a home with guns, but an increase in homocide. Thus either way your response is a non seq.

Just a couple of notes about the Kellerman study:

Did you notice that the study found a stronger correlation between "living alone" and being killed, and "renting a residence" and being killed, than it did between "owning a firearm" and being killed. If the study's conclusions are meaningful, banks should be using it to sell mortgages; they'd have a stronger case than gun control advocates.

Of those included in Kellermann's study, about half weren't even killed with a firearm. If someone can tell me how owning a gun makes it more likely that I'll be bludgeoned to death, I'd sure like to hear it.

 

[John Harrison]

Regarding police protection...

"Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public." (Lynch v. NC Dept. Justice)

"A government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen." -- Warren v. District of Columbia (1979)

Here are some other court cases that say the same thing:
Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686 F.2d 616 (1882)
Cal. Govt. Code Sections 821,845,846
Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (S.Ct. Ala. 1985)
Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup. Ct. Penn. 1981)
Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197,185 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982)
Hartzler v. City of San Jose, App., 120 Cal. Rptr 5 (1975)
Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill App 2d 460 (1968)
Keane v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 567 (1977)
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
Marshall v. Winston, 389 S.E. 2nd 902 (Va. 1990)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. App. 1983)
Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984)
Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 477F. Supp. 1262 (E.D.Pa. 1979)
Riss v. City of New York, 293 N.Y. 2d 897 (1968)
Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1977)
Silver v. Minneapolis 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn, 1969)
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansvill, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.)
Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal. Rep 339 (1980)
Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 444 A.2d 1 (1981)
Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978)

 

[Richard G]

Excellent reference Mr. Harrison. Once I made this clear, and showed the proof, to an anti-gun aquaintance of mine, she rushed out to the local gun shop to make a purchase that very weekend.

Reality is quite sobering when you get used to it.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

hat are you blabbering about? Finding my proof for me? I FOUND THE PROOF!!! YOU JUST DON'T WANT TO READ IT!!!

So you have a book I'm suppose to read before I make a critique? Sorry but that doesn't cut it. Provide a link. Can you not provide a link?

Again, you're just like the woo-woos.

What is this baby talk?

Whenever you insist that they educate themselves on the matter, they say, "I can't be bothered to do your homework for you!"

Well basically because we are not supposed to. If you knew basic critical thinking skills you would know that is a proof surrogate i.e. evidence claimed to exist but not presented. Hence the evidence might or might not exist. The burden of proof is on you who is making the claim, not me to disprove you.

Except that Lott's prior opinions are on record.

Where?

This is hilarious, coming from someone who just got through citing Kellerman.

Yeah you dismiss the guy a lot but are yet to bring a solid refutation of him....

That was just one. You want more?

http://sarahbradycampaign.org/ama6.htm
http://home.earthlink.net/~conserve/myths.htm
http://www.shadeslanding.com/firear...an-buckner.html
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/info...tem.asp?ID=2331

On and on and on...it's bad science and bad data.

Describing yourself? you already presented those sites btw.

And I said they are not equivalent to a peer reviewed medical journal. Sorry but "right to keep and bear arms .com" is not a serious source. You seem to be under the impression that you can put up any piece of rubbish as a source and expect me to take it seriously: sorry but some sources are more reliable then others. Expert testimony of physicians and those who write in journals is reliable, editorials on right-wing opinion sites are not.

Except that time and time again the courts have said that law enforcement has no duty to defend the citizens against attackers. All they're required to do is help mop up afterwards. You are the only one you can depend on to defend yourself, and there is no justification for restricting the means by which people can do so.

Alas, there goes vigilantiaism.

Pointing out how you LIED is radicalism???

Because you didn't. You only "YELLED" it over and over like a maniac, as if yelling something out makes it true...

Oh, but you will accept as gospel the FLAWED data by someone who ADMITS THAT HE'S OUT TO PROVE GUN CONTROL IS NECESSARY???

Again get it through your thick head:because his data was in a prestigious medical journal. You seem to think that "The Journal of Libertarian Studies" is a valid historical journal, sorry but it isn't. You seem to likewise dismiss a medical journal, well, on the basis of some obscure ideological sites.

Sorry but in reality the "Journal for Libertarian Studies" is not on par with the New England Journal of Medicine.

Not the per capita figures; that's what "per capita" means.

Your point? You didn't give per capita figures bud.

Huh. Looks like you're lying again?those figures only go to 1997. Besides, it comes right out and says that the reason for this is largely due to the decline in household size.

No it doesn't and no it doesn't. Now it is you who is lying pal. To quote the study:

Similiary the percent of adults living in a household with a gun fell from a high 51% in 1977 to a low of 32-33% in 2000-2001

The study also said this decline was partly due to a decrease in household size. Exagerating the truth now are we?

Anyone who doesn't believe me can look at page nine of the study for themselves.

WTF is wrong with you? Seriously? Accusing me of lying while you lie your ass off? Are you so desperate to argue for your case that you will lie?

More completely refuted data from a source with an admitted bias and agenda. A simple perusal of the FBI Uniform Crime Reports easily debunks their figures.

Yeah and I already refuted this claim in a previous post. The FBI report is based on self-evelauted data from victims, obviously dead/murdered people will not be able to participate in such a study. So the FBI report is not necessarily at odds with Kellermann's report.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

No, it isn't. The claim was:

i.e. most shootings do not happen via criminals but in the heat of passion by ordinary people who may have acted differently had a gun not been readily available

Forgiving the fact that there are no statistics on what people would have done had it not been for a certain condition, the claim depends on more than 50% of shootings being crimes of passion.

Well first off your link didn't work. Very conveniant for you. And I used three different word programs to try and open the file.....

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_01/xl/01tbl2-14.xls

According to the crime reports, there were 13,752 murders (only 8,719 of which, FYI, were with a firearm, or 63%) in 2001. Comparing the breakdown of crimes which could in some cases be heat of passion (Rape, other sex offenses, romantic triangle, brawls due to influence of alcohol or narcotics, arguments over money or property, and other arguments) the total of these comes to 4,191, or only 30%. If we get really generous and consider that all of the 1,832 unspecified murders were crimes of passion, then the total rises to 6,023, still only 43%. And not all of those were committed with a firearm. So, even being overly generous to the point of absurdity, it still isn't true that "most shootings do not happen via criminals but in the heat of passion by ordinary people."

Well maybe I could verify this if your link actually worked. Why do you waste my time with bad links? Are you purposely stalling for time or something?

You're resorting to argument by authority. Probably because you know you can't argue the data.

Umm actually no. I'm responding to your pseudorefutation of expert data based on the presentation of non experts as experts.

Doctors are not criminologists. Lott and Kleck are. And yes, their works were peer-reviewed.

Well present links to them then.

And so what if they are not crimonologists? They are still experts who's testimony is relevant to this discussion of public safety.

 

[shanek]

So you have a book I'm suppose to read before I make a critique?

Yes, I expect you to actually read a book before criticizing it. Silly me.

Sorry but that doesn't cut it.

Your malfunction, not mine.

Well basically because we are not supposed to. If you knew basic critical thinking skills you would know that is a proof surrogate i.e. evidence claimed to exist but not presented.

Except that I have presented the evidence. You just refuse to look at it.

Yeah you dismiss the guy a lot but are yet to bring a solid refutation of him....

I presented numerous very solid refutations of the bogus Kellerman data. I even gave you the links you lust for.

Describing yourself? you already presented those sites btw.

And I'll keep presenting them until you refute them.

[more ad hominems and appeals to authority deleted]

Because you didn't.

Yes, I did, and now you're compounding your lie by denying it. I pointed out the very court cases the cite mentioned—after you said it was nothing more than an editorial. YOU LIED.

Again get it through your thick head:because his data was in a prestigious medical journal.

And that makes him an expert in criminology, how?

Your point? You didn't give per capita figures bud.

Yes, I did. You're lying again.

No it doesn't and no it doesn't. Now it is you who is lying pal.

Oh, am I? From the page 9 of the link, in the top paragraph, the fifth sentence reads:

These declines are partly the result of a decrease in household size.

Now who's lying?

Yeah and I already refuted this claim in a previous post.

No, you invalidly dismissed the data. You did not provide a refutation.

 

[shanek]

Well first off your link didn't work. Very conveniant for you.

There you go lying again. The link works perfectly. I just tried it again to be sure, and I didn't edit the post. The link works.

And I used three different word programs to try and open the file.....

Well, that's not likely to work considering IT'S AN EXCEL FILE!!!!

Well maybe I could verify this if your link actually worked. Why do you waste my time with bad links? Are you purposely stalling for time or something?

It's a good link, as anyone else here can verify. You're just desperate because you know you're losing.

Umm actually no. I'm responding to your pseudorefutation of expert data based on the presentation of non experts as experts.

You're the one citing experts outside their field. I cited actual criminologists, in fact two of the most respected criminologists in the world, whose findings—despite your LIES to the contrary—were peer-reviewed.

Well present links to them then.

I gave you the citations. See, publishers don't like putting books they're trying to sell on the web to download for free; they're funny that way.

Besides, seems like when I do provide a link, you lie and say it's a bad link. I'm sick and tired of playing this game with you.

And so what if they are not crimonologists?

Then they're outside their field of expertise. You're the one claiming their experts; but if they're not criminologists, then they're not experts on this subject.

 

[WMT1]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Yeah and well, a lot fewer civilians in general too. The fact is some burglars are willing to do this and if they know most houses are armed, they will merely come armed themselves. Turning each robbery into a hostage situation very fast. Is it really worth risking yours and your families life in order to save a few possesions? Is that your solution to crime....vigilantiaism?

...

When taken to the extreme when you wish to rely on self-defense more then law enforcement, it becomes vigilantiaism which is no solution.

...

Originally posted by shanek
Except that time and time again the courts have said that law enforcement has no duty to defend the citizens against attackers. All they're required to do is help mop up afterwards. You are the only one you can depend on to defend yourself, and there is no justification for restricting the means by which people can do so.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Alas, there goes vigilantiaism.

Sorry, just gotta ask. Where did you ever get the idea that self defense equates to vigilantism?

 

[John Harrison]

Oops, missed this nugget:

i.e. most shootings do not happen via criminals but in the heat of passion by ordinary people who may have acted differently had a gun not been readily available

Ah, the more guns equals more crime argument. I've posted this before, but apparently it needs to be repeated.

In this report from the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics at: http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ there were 12,740,000 pre-purchase handgun checks between 1994 and 1998 of which 312,000 were rejected for all causes. This would mean that the number of handguns in circulation in the U.S. increased by 12,428,000 over that five year period. In the United States there are approx. one million firearms of all types confiscated every year of which ~65% are handguns or 3,250,000 in the five year period. That would mean that the approx. overall increase in the number of handguns in the United States would be 9,178,000 for the five year period.

It is estimated that there are ~65 million handguns in the U.S. so the net increase of handguns was 9.07%. In the same period, homicide rates dropped 2.7%. Source: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

1994 9.0
1995 8.2
1996 7.4
1997 6.8
1998 6.3

Accidents:

1994 1,356
1995 1,225
1996 1,134
1997 981
1998 866
Suicides:

1994 18,765
1995 18,503
1996 18.166
1997 17,566
1998 17,424

Quick example of Florida:
CCW law was passed in 1987. By 1999 Florida had issued 551,000 permits.

Firearm homicide rates from 94 thru 99 (Couldn't find numbers quickly for earlier than 94, but these should work) Florida Crime Statistics

Firearm homicide rate changes from previous year (All are negative):
1994 -20.8%
1995 -8.7%
1996 -2.7%
1997 -5.0%
1998 -7.0%
1999 -21.9% (I did find that there were 26,807 new permits between 1998 and 1999)

So, we have the gun supply increasing, along with more citizens carrying concealed handguns (ie more readily available guns), and the homicide, accident and suicide rates continue to decrease. Hmmm...