The data submitted regarding European countries and Australia... as it was used, would have us believe that England has seen a rise in crime do to gun control. The statistics if looked at in their entirety says something else. The same thing in Australia. The topic of Switzerland leaves out the fact that the Swiss have some of the strongest legislation for gun control in the world.. Most of which has been implemented since a shooting event in 1999.

Cherry picking the statistics and using only parts of it to illustrate a point is not a very convincing way to prove a point..and can come off as silly and completely without merit.

Comparing a densely populated area, such as DC to a sparsely populated area, such as the Dakota's is certainly not taking into account all the mitigating factors. Any conclusions drawn are simply conjecture. Much in the same way concluding that sunny weather and suicide are somehow connected. Both defy logic.

Reducing the available legal weapons..will reduce the available illegal weapons.

Owning weapons.. is statistically shown to be more dangerous then not owning weapons.

I do not know how I can simplify these points, any more then I already have without drawing pictures.

Each claim I have made is backed up by the data I've listed in a previous post. Which is exactly what the original poster requested. The data I listed is clear and concise, from reputable sources... As opposed to blogs and other propagandized information.

So..please forgive my oversight in the event you took anything I wrote in the post as a personal attack or somehow incomplete, irreverent or not clearly resourced.

"Reducing the available legal weapons..will reduce the available illegal weapons.

Owning weapons.. is statistically shown to be more dangerous then not owning weapons."

Talk about cherry picking statistics what about manufacturing your own?

It is illegal to own a handgun in Washington D.C. yet for several years in a row they were the murder capitol of the U. S. how do you account for those statistics. I would be interested to find out where you got your statistics. I got my figures from ABC's Dateline Program. If your statistics are correct then there should be more crime and murders here in South Dakota because we have more guns. Once again the Liberal Socialist argument falls flat.

In Washington D.C. the law abiding citizens don't have weapons but all the crooks do. Why is it that the Liberal Socialists think if you pass a feel good law against something that everyone will comply with the law? It sure as hell don't work with the dope most of them smoke what makes them think it will work with anything else.

Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it. We tried prohibition with booze, it didn't work, so we tried it with drugs, that didn't work either so what the hell makes them think that it will work with guns or anything else. It is absolutely STUPID to do more of the same thing and expect different results yet they continue to do so.

jistme.........


That's right; you cannot answer the question or contribute, so attack. "Me thinkith [you] doth protest too much."

So that is not some random act .. and would this been any different had the dr had a gun in the home ?? ambushed is ambushed .. I live in a great neighborhood but what do I have that needs protected ?? Myself and my daughter and my cell phone and home phone are two powerful tools ... 911

Per capita ?? Your population of your whole state is less then some urban areas ...

actually the statistic on Australia show only a slight increase in crime rate overall after harsher gun control laws were implimented. Could be written up as just about anything. Maybe gun control has little to no impact on crime... Inorder to be accurate on the matter you'd have to check out all the laws/policy changes that have occured, as well as income,welfare, hell even food intake and exercise can affect the mind. Wouldn't it be funny if the U.S.'s higher crime rates were the result of poor nutritiion? It may be impossible to know what impact it has on crime. But to say it drastically reduces or increases due to just gun control would be an overstatement i guess. What do you guys think?

if you make hammers illegal do you think you would drastically reduce the number of houses being built?? (Food for thought)

No problem Garden.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/325/23/1615

Source: New England Journal of Medicine
Effects of restrictive licensing of handguns on homicide and suicide in the District of Columbia

BACKGROUND. Whether restricting access to handguns will reduce firearm-related homicides and suicides is currently a matter of intense debate. In 1976 the District of Columbia adopted a law that banned the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians. We evaluated the effect of implementing this law on the frequency of homicides and suicides. METHODS. Homicides and suicides committed from 1968 through 1987 were classified according to place of occurrence (within the District of Columbia or in adjacent metropolitan areas where the law did not apply), cause (homicide or suicide), mechanism of death (firearms or other means), and time of occurrence (before or after the implementation of the law). The number of suicides and homicides was calculated for each month during the study period, and differences between the mean monthly totals before and after the law went into effect were estimated. RESULTS. In Washington, D.C., the adoption of the gun-licensing law coincided with an abrupt decline in homicides by firearms (a reduction of 3.3 per month, or 25 percent) and suicides by firearms (reduction, 0.6 per month, or 23 percent). No similar reductions were observed in the number of homicides or suicides committed by other means, nor were there similar reductions in the adjacent metropolitan areas in Maryland and Virginia. There were also no increases in homicides or suicides by other methods, as would be expected if equally lethal means were substituted for handguns. CONCLUSIONS. Restrictive licensing of handguns was associated with a prompt decline in homicides and suicides by firearms in the District of Columbia. No such decline was observed for homicides or suicides in which guns were not used, and no decline was seen in adjacent metropolitan areas where restrictive licensing did not apply. Our data suggest that restrictions on access to guns in the District of Columbia prevented an average of 47 deaths each year after the law was implemented.


Source Information

Violence Research Group, Institute of Criminal Justice and Criminology, University of Maryland, College Park 20742-8235.

Your original statement was


DC has 61.40 square miles available to its population. 9378 people occupy each mile.

South Dakota has 75,884.64 miles available to it's population. 9.9 people occupy each mile

Even in Sioux Falls.. The population density is 2201 per mile.

Not to mention the disparity of poverty...
The poverty percent in South Dakota is 12.9%.
The poverty level in DC is 18.3%

I'm sure both these statistical differences have more to do with the crime rate differences then the available weaponry.

The same claim can be made for the state of South Dakota and the State of Oregon.

Population of South Dakota = 781,919
Population of Oregon = 3,700,758

population per square mile SD = 9.9, Ore = 35.6

Gun control:
Oregon
Rifles and Shotguns

* Permit to purchase rifles and shotguns? No.

* Registration of rifles and shotguns? No.

* Licensing of owners of rifles and shotguns? No.

* Permit to carry rifles and shotguns? No.


Handguns

* Permit to purchase handgun? No.

* Registration of handguns? No.

* Licensing of owners of handguns? No.

* Permit to carry handguns? Yes. A permit is required if concealed.


Other Requirements

* Is there a State waiting period? No.

South Dakota:
Rifles and Shotguns

* Permit to purchase rifles and shotguns? No.

* Registration of rifles and shotguns? No.

* Licensing of owners of rifles and shotguns? No.

* Permit to carry rifles and shotguns? No.


Handguns

* Permit to purchase handgun? No. 48-hour waiting period. Police record made of purchases from dealers.

* Registration of handguns? No.

* Licensing of owners of handguns? No.

* Permit to carry handguns? Yes.

Oregon clearly has looser State laws regarding weapons and waiting periods.

Crime statistics:

Oregon had a reported incident rate of violent crime of 350.7 per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 28th highest occurrence for Violent Crime among the states.

South Dakota had a reported incident rate of 166.8 per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 47th highest occurrence for Violent Crime among the states.

So.. Does this mean that South Dakota's tougher gun laws lend itself to less crime?

According to how the spun statistics you brought up reads? It does!

According to how I read the statistics? It doesn't mean nothing, as it pertains to this discussion.

Figures don't lie but liars figure. Don't talk rate of murders per 100,000 people talk total numbers and then see where the bodies stack up. We have a smaller population so 2 murders would skew our figures, in Portland however 2 murders would be a drop in the bucket. Once again explain how Washington D.C. ended up the murder captiol of the U.S. several years running, I guess those were drug o.d.s

U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment

Second Amendment - Bearing Arms

Amendment Text | Annotations

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

--------------------------------

what part of -- right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

is so hard to understand

---------------------------------

Main Entry: in·fringe
Pronunciation: in-'frinj
Function: verb
Inflected Forms: in·fringed; in·fring·ing
Etymology: Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- in + frangere to break
transitive verb : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed —U.S. Constitution amendment II>; especially : to violate a holder's rights under (a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade name) intransitive verb : ENCROACH —in·fring·er noun
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

----------

to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

en·croach (n-krch)
intr.v. en·croached, en·croach·ing, en·croach·es
1. To take another's possessions or rights gradually or stealthily: encroach on a neighbor's land.
2. To advance beyond proper or former limits: desert encroaching upon grassland.
3. Football To commit encroachment.

-----------

setting limits on gun ownership for legal us citizens is unconstitutional

how many liberties will you give up for a false sense of security

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty. - Benjamin Franklin

yep

but soon someone will call ol' ben an idiot

too bad you are ignoring the studies that show that the term "bear arms" refers to a joining the military

Change military to the word MILITIA and you will have it right. And what is a militia? An armed group of citizens.

Not what I am talking about.

Relative to the "bear arms" meanings, one study found "...that the overwhelming preponderance of usage of 300 examples of the 'bear arms' expression in public discourse in early America was in an unambiguous, explicitly military context in a figurative (and euphemistic) sense to stand for military service".[58] Further, the Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles declares that a meaning of "to bear arms" is a figurative usage meaning "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight".

The United States Declaration of Independence uses the expression "bear arms" in the sense of military duty on a ship.


In Amyette v. State the Tennessee Supreme Court stated in 1840 that the term "bear arms" "has a military sense, and no other" and further stated "A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane

also

"Regarding a meaning of "the People" in another context, the U.S. Supreme Court commented in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990),

"the people" seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution and contrasts with the words "person" and "accused" used in Articles of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating criminal procedures. This suggests that "the people" refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community"

Both can be found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#.22The_People.22

wikipidia is user based and is not always accurate

beside a citizen is of the national base

what part of -- right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

is so hard to understand

---------------

peo·ple (ppl)
n. pl. people
1. Humans considered as a group or in indefinite numbers: People were dancing in the street. I met all sorts of people.
2. A body of persons living in the same country under one national government; a nationality.
3. pl. peo·ples A body of persons sharing a common religion, culture, language, or inherited condition of life.
4. Persons with regard to their residence, class, profession, or group: city people.
5. The mass of ordinary persons; the populace. Used with the: "those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes" Thomas Jefferson.
6. The citizens of a political unit, such as a nation or state; the electorate. Used with the.
7. Persons subordinate to or loyal to a ruler, superior, or employer: The queen showed great compassion for her people.
8. Family, relatives, or ancestors.
9. Informal Animals or other beings distinct from humans: Rabbits and squirrels are the furry little people of the woods

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/people

its still supreme court rulings. They can be looked up.

How is being in a milita not being in a military? A militia is a volunteer military.