Summations Only

Of course if you could tak them away from the killers.How would you do that and still preserve the gun as a useful 21st century invention that the constitution guarantees will beavailable to citizens?????

Were the founders time travelers or seers?Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Well, it failed.The average age of an adult offender convicted of homicide is 35 years.

I think so...They realized that power corrupts and that the time ALWAYS has come when a nation is temporarily open to fascism or the internal strife, as we see in the Middle East today.Here in America, we have raised up whole inner cities in everyone of our major metropolises, where the criminal element has illegal unregistered guns, the prisons full of recruits being initiated in hate against the system, and courts and laws that ham string the enforcement of Law and Order.The day may come when corporations will be called the enemy, and idle people already paid tribute of Welfare and other programs will just rise up against a defenseless suburban educated hard working tax paying Middle Class, as happened in Venezuela.Our forefathers realized we all need to be Minutemen who are aware that this is a nation of the people, by the people,...Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

The lower the prevalence of guns the less killers there will be. Are you suggesting that the present interpretation of the constitution facilitates high prevalence of guns and the high homicide rate associated with that?

...most killers...The average age is immaterial to the point made, that MORE killings are caused by people under age 25 than any other category on the chart. The Rate of homicides by people between 17 and 25 is over double the rate for all the other people in every other category of Age Classification.The FACTS in America are that 70% of all these killers, old and young, have been raised fatherless, by Single Mothers most supported by Welfare and any other way they can make a buck while sitting on their stoop in the inner city. It is Truth like this which the prophets of old used to predict the future, since they were well aware of stubborn hard heads who had ears, but would NEVER admit to these observations nor see what was coming, as they made light of the FACTS, and ignore the unavoidable consequences that would come, sooner or later.Welfare now costs America $1 Trillion annually, and the Food Stamp program is being enlarged and advertised more widely.
The Welfare System pays to create more fatherless families of potential criminals and anti-social people as the urban areas push responsible people out of the mainstream, and allow Democratic politicians to buy more power with every election using tax payer money to feed the criminal element.The hand writing is on the wall, Y, V, H, H.Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

Your assumption is false.
The Murder rate has been declining for centuries though the number of guns has grown enormously at the same time. And,... today when guns of all kinds have been available, the Murder Rate since 1999 has fallen to half the numbers from 1960-1995. The FALL and decline of Murder in America, while gun ownership has reached a high is the result of ABORTIONS which cut the number of fatherless Welfare babies born into the inner city since 1973.Donohue and Levitt studyMain article: The Impact of Legalized Abortion on CrimeSteven Levitt of the University of Chicago and John Donohue of Yale University revived discussion of this claim with their 2001 paper "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime". Donohue and Levitt point to the fact that males aged 18 to 24 are most likely to commit crimes. Data indicates that crime in the United States started to decline in 1992. Donohue and Levitt suggest that the absence of unwanted children, following legalization in 1973, led to a reduction in crime 18 years later, starting in 1992 and dropping sharply in 1995. These would have been the peak crime-committing years of the unborn children.

Oh. Another evidence denier. Why am I not suprised?Researchers at Harvard have found a clear link between gun prevalence and homicide rates internationally as well as at the region, state, city and home level.

quote:

---

1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).

​

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

​

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.

​

2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

​

We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

​

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.

​

3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

​

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).

​

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

​

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.

​

4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

​

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

​

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.

---

LinkFortunately gun prevalence isn't the only contributory factor. Fortunately development of Western societies over the centuries (developments like not letting people starve, things like the welfare safety net) have greatly alleviated many of the things that make societies most violent. Yet as you have yourself pointed out before such programmes there were many many more murderers......Why was that?

Sounds like a Seinfeld saying: Close talker
Double-dipper
High talker
re-gifter
Low talker
Bad breaker-upper Evidence denierErr, sorry about the interruption, . . . carry-on.List of Seinfeld sayings | WikiSein | Fandom

Hang on to those university professor who conclude that guns kill people, NOT ythe kids of Single Eelfare Mothers crammed together with their own kind, and all hanging out in the same criminal neighborhoods and schools.The REASON the murder Rate fell after Roe Vs Wade (1972) is that ABORTIONS reduced the number of fatherless killers we were growing in the country during the next 20 years:The effect of legalized abortion on crime (sometimes referred to as the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis) is the theory that legal abortion reduces crime.The Chart CLEARLY shows that AFTER Johnson's WELFARE, but BEFORE abortions, pre-1972, the Murder Rate had increased as their kids grew up between 1970 and 1990.The abortions between 1972 and 1995 shows the Murder Rate drop for those kids who had grown up by 1995 through 2010: You seem unclear on this chart or else it is YOU who the denier.

What part of "the murder rate hasg one down since 1200AD don't YOu understand???And the Murder Rate is the lowest, ever, in this Modern Age where guns are everywhere?THAT includes the FACT that the Murder Rate is HALF the number it was between 1965-1995, before legalized abortions elimiate what would have beome the criminal element of twice the size.////Donohue and Levitt study
Main article: The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime
Steven Levitt of the University of Chicago and John Donohue of Yale University revived discussion of this claim with their 2001 paper "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime". Donohue and Levitt point to the fact that males aged 18 to 24 are most likely to commit crimes. Data indicates that crime in the United States started to decline in 1992. Donohue and Levitt suggest that the absence of unwanted children, following legalization in 1973, led to a reduction in crime 18 years later, starting in 1992 and dropping sharply in 1995. These would have been the peak crime-committing years of the unborn children.What abou these University Professors?????
You only read those who agree with you???Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

Why?
Because you are a liberal who feeds into and spins out the Politically Corret nonsense which is then endorses by the Democratic candidtates so as to get your vote.Look at how they "solve" all the problems.They avoid condemining the people reponsible, and they act like a mither who belie taking away the toy is better than smacking the hand of their little darlings:.
.
.
.
.
The Democrat solution for the Gun killings is to do away with the Guns.The Democrat solution for the Drug problem is to do away with the Drug Laws.The Democrat solution for the teenage pregnancies is to do away with the babies.The Democrat solution for the Economic recession is to place a Tax on successful business.The Democratic solution for Unemployment is to extend the Unemployment Checks.The Democrat solution for bank insolvency is to do away with the bankruptcy because they are too big to fail.The Democrat solution for keeping Government Bond rates low is to buy their own bonds.The Democrat solution for War is to do away with the military deterrent.The Democrat solution for poverty is to give them other people’s money.The Democrat solution for Conservative Laws is to assign Liberal judges.The Democrat solution for fat kids is to investigate Fast Food restaurants.The Democrat solution for the school bully is to arrest teachers for grabbing them.

Of course nothing other than the prevalence of guns has changed since 1200AD.....The time of Ghengis Khan. The time of the crusades. Nothing has changed since then that might make societies more civilised and less violent. Nothing at all? So it is your contention that the more guns there are the less homicides there will be based on the trend set since 1200AD?I'll put to you the wise words of Catholic Scientist: I'm not sure what your obsession with abortions has to do with the link between gun prevalence and homicide rates?

Those aren't facts.

And what is the point you are trying to make with this statistic? I have to agree with Straggler on the fact that there are far more variables than you are taking into account when claiming this is all due to single mothers.What about the fact that in those times religious murders were being done all the time?What about the fact that the economy of many nations were not reliant upon one another as it is today, so war between countries and, therefore, patriotism caused individuals to despise those from other countries (tribalism).What about the advancements in medical technology that allowed individuals to recover from far more serious attacks, therefore removing a murder that would have previously happened?What about civil rights movements and showing that there is no difference between the races and many people coming to agree with that fact? See above, perhaps we are better at living with one another because understanding of the human condition is so much more advanced. Stop it!! Stop your racist, inner city fatherless children cause all crime blather. All you do as you spout this off is tout your own ignorance. We understand that you hate people who don't have the luxury of having a father, but your own stats ruin you!You stated that the highest proportion of crime is caused by fatherless children in inner cities. So, you claim the average age of a person who commits homicide is under 25 (It is actually mid-30s, but we'll use your number). Why then, is the homicide rate so high in 1980? We are talking at this point about children born in 1955, a time where divorce or leaving a child fatherless was frowned upon, yet these individuals managed to put up a homicide number that is ridiculously high. Perhaps, it isn't the fatherlessness that is responsible, but other socio-economic factors (See crack epidemic in early 1980s).So, please, I am sick, personally, of hearing your racism bleed through on all of your comments and I would prefer if you could keep your hatred and your vitriol to yourself because no one else should (or I think does):A. Agree with your racist mindset, we should be civilized beyond that point.B. Believe any point you are making because your claims all seem to contradict one another.In your own argument, there are all the tools that I needed to refute your argument. You probably should have noticed that...