Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So you're ok with trampling some people's rights to bear arms?Maybe because they believe that it couldn't possibly make gun violence worse. And doing something is better than doing nothing.
That is the purest example of why progressives are all about form and display over function and effectiveness. So by doing SOMETHING you trample on the rights of others without regards to the constitution or common sense.
Not allowing people the right their 4th amendment protections couldn't possibly make police work harder, so we might as well scrap those too.
Doing something is almost always worse than doing nothing if the something has no effect on the problem. In the first, you are proposing a feel good non-solution to the problem, and in the 2nd, all you are doing is likely trampling on the freedoms and rights of people who are NOT part of the problem.
So you're ok with trampling some people's rights to bear arms?That is the purest example of why progressives are all about form and display over function and effectiveness. So by doing SOMETHING you trample on the rights of others without regards to the constitution or common sense.
Not allowing people the right their 4th amendment protections couldn't possibly make police work harder, so we might as well scrap those too.
Doing something is almost always worse than doing nothing if the something has no effect on the problem. In the first, you are proposing a feel good non-solution to the problem, and in the 2nd, all you are doing is likely trampling on the freedoms and rights of people who are NOT part of the problem.
The only people who should lose the right to bear arms are the ones convicted of a felony by a jury of their peers (or a judge should they choose a bench trial) or if they are adjudicated by a judge to be of mental defect.
That is not "trampling rights" that is using due process to remove a person's rights. Trampling rights is something a gun grabbing asshat like Cuomo as his buttbuddies in the NY legislature did via the NY SAFE Act.
You seem to be implying that the violence rates in some of the urban areas you've cited is somehow BECAUSE of their "strict" gun laws.
You'd be wrong about that. Never said that, never implied it. I said the high violence rate in some areas is due to the PEOPLE living there and their actions, not the availability or access to firearms.
In doing so, I simply pointed out that your statement that "easy access to firearms" results in firearms that "end up doing more harm than good" is not based in reality.
You were saying something about being wrong???
Of course it's based in reality. If more guns meant more safety we would be the safest nation in the world. But we're not.
Hence, they are doing more harm than good. Do you need me to draw you a picture?
So you're ok with trampling some people's rights to bear arms?
The only people who should lose the right to bear arms are the ones convicted of a felony by a jury of their peers (or a judge should they choose a bench trial) or if they are adjudicated by a judge to be of mental defect.
That is not "trampling rights" that is using due process to remove a person's rights. Trampling rights is something a gun grabbing asshat like Cuomo as his buttbuddies in the NY legislature did via the NY SAFE Act.
So you support making the laws more sound and ensuring that loopholes are closed and criminals/mentally unstable are truly weeded out?
I don't see what those laws will accomplish.
They why do you think people like Cuomo and most gun grabbers on this site support them?
Maybe because they believe that it couldn't possibly make gun violence worse. And doing something is better than doing nothing.
You're just too thick to get the point. Next.Well, you missed MY point. Criminals can get guns from areas where guns are easiest to get, it doesn't matter if they live in Chicago or wherever. Get it?
Your point is wrong. First, you have no evidence that criminals travel to areas with fewer gun control laws in order to buy them legally. NO evidence, because it doesn't happen. Criminals simply do not buy firearms legally. Therefore, no laws, rules and restrictions you impose on law abiding citizens will make a damn bit of difference other than to ensure the good guys have a disadvantage against the bad ones.
Brilliant plan...
Further, let's for a moment say that you were right...that criminals get guns from areas where guns are easiest to get. If that's true, WHY DON'T WE SEE THE HIGH MURDER RATES IN AREAS WITH LESS GUN CONTROL LAWS???
Sorry, your point is not only wrong, it's ridiculous on its face.
You'd be wrong about that. Never said that, never implied it. I said the high violence rate in some areas is due to the PEOPLE living there and their actions, not the availability or access to firearms.
In doing so, I simply pointed out that your statement that "easy access to firearms" results in firearms that "end up doing more harm than good" is not based in reality.
You were saying something about being wrong???
Of course it's based in reality. If more guns meant more safety we would be the safest nation in the world. But we're not.
Of course, the flip side isn't true either. America ranks 103rd on the list of countries by murder rate and most of those countries with a higher murder rate have a virtual ban on civilian firearm ownership. Thus, less guns does not mean more safety either.
Once again, it's the PEOPLE, not the firearms.
And to be clear, I never said more firearm meant more safety. Though if you're facing a thug or crazy that is armed, a firearm is EXACTLY what one may need to be safe.
Hence, they are doing more harm than good. Do you need me to draw you a picture?
You'd be wrong again. If you were right, why would there be 102 countries, most of which that have banned guns, with a higher murder rate than the US. Why would so many countries with virtual bans on civilian firearm ownership have a higher rate of violence than America...countries like the UK???
Sorry, the facts simply do not support your argument.
Of course it's based in reality. If more guns meant more safety we would be the safest nation in the world. But we're not.
Of course, the flip side isn't true either. America ranks 103rd on the list of countries by murder rate and most of those countries with a higher murder rate have a virtual ban on civilian firearm ownership. Thus, less guns does not mean more safety either.
Once again, it's the PEOPLE, not the firearms.
And to be clear, I never said more firearm meant more safety. Though if you're facing a thug or crazy that is armed, a firearm is EXACTLY what one may need to be safe.
Hence, they are doing more harm than good. Do you need me to draw you a picture?
You'd be wrong again. If you were right, why would there be 102 countries, most of which that have banned guns, with a higher murder rate than the US. Why would so many countries with virtual bans on civilian firearm ownership have a higher rate of violence than America...countries like the UK???
Sorry, the facts simply do not support your argument.
How many of those countries are 1st world countries? You're comparing apples to oranges. How about a link to your stats so we can both look at the same data?
By your answer, that's a resounding YES!!!So you're ok with trampling some people's rights to bear arms?That is the purest example of why progressives are all about form and display over function and effectiveness. So by doing SOMETHING you trample on the rights of others without regards to the constitution or common sense.
Not allowing people the right their 4th amendment protections couldn't possibly make police work harder, so we might as well scrap those too.
Doing something is almost always worse than doing nothing if the something has no effect on the problem. In the first, you are proposing a feel good non-solution to the problem, and in the 2nd, all you are doing is likely trampling on the freedoms and rights of people who are NOT part of the problem.
The only people who should lose the right to bear arms are the ones convicted of a felony by a jury of their peers (or a judge should they choose a bench trial) or if they are adjudicated by a judge to be of mental defect.
That is not "trampling rights" that is using due process to remove a person's rights. Trampling rights is something a gun grabbing asshat like Cuomo as his buttbuddies in the NY legislature did via the NY SAFE Act.
The only people who should lose the right to bear arms are the ones convicted of a felony by a jury of their peers (or a judge should they choose a bench trial) or if they are adjudicated by a judge to be of mental defect.
That is not "trampling rights" that is using due process to remove a person's rights. Trampling rights is something a gun grabbing asshat like Cuomo as his buttbuddies in the NY legislature did via the NY SAFE Act.
So you support making the laws more sound and ensuring that loopholes are closed and criminals/mentally unstable are truly weeded out?
I support nothing until Cuomo and the NY State legislature gives me my rights back. until then any form of gun control should be rejected.
They why do you think people like Cuomo and most gun grabbers on this site support them?
Maybe because they believe that it couldn't possibly make gun violence worse. And doing something is better than doing nothing.
The problem is that your version of "doing something" only ensures that law abiding citizens are put at a tactical disadvantage against the thugs and crazies that couldn't give two shits about your rules.
Now why would you want to give the bad guys an edge? Is that not insane?
Of course, the flip side isn't true either. America ranks 103rd on the list of countries by murder rate and most of those countries with a higher murder rate have a virtual ban on civilian firearm ownership. Thus, less guns does not mean more safety either.
Once again, it's the PEOPLE, not the firearms.
And to be clear, I never said more firearm meant more safety. Though if you're facing a thug or crazy that is armed, a firearm is EXACTLY what one may need to be safe.
You'd be wrong again. If you were right, why would there be 102 countries, most of which that have banned guns, with a higher murder rate than the US. Why would so many countries with virtual bans on civilian firearm ownership have a higher rate of violence than America...countries like the UK???
Sorry, the facts simply do not support your argument.
How many of those countries are 1st world countries? You're comparing apples to oranges. How about a link to your stats so we can both look at the same data?
"1st world"? What the fuck does THAT mean?
Sorry, you don't get to make up your own definitions to suit your bias. Not allowed. But feel free to look up any source you like of countries by intentional homicide rates. You'll find America doesn't make the list of the top 100.
Further, there are plenty of links out there showing how the UK (1st world enough for ya?) has a higher rate of violence than the US...a rate that skyrocketed AFTER they banned firearms...oops.
The United Kingdom is the violent crime capital of Europe and has one of the highest rates of violence in the world, worse even than America, according to new research.
UK is violent crime capital of Europe - Telegraph
A comparison of UK and US violent crime:
NationMaster - Crime stats: United Kingdom vs United States
How about once, just once, you consider that laws should be based on actual results and not intentions. Whatda think???
America ranks 103rd on the list of countries by murder rate and most of those countries with a higher murder rate have a virtual ban on civilian firearm ownership
Maybe because they believe that it couldn't possibly make gun violence worse. And doing something is better than doing nothing.
The problem is that your version of "doing something" only ensures that law abiding citizens are put at a tactical disadvantage against the thugs and crazies that couldn't give two shits about your rules.
Now why would you want to give the bad guys an edge? Is that not insane?
What is my version of "doing something"?
How many of those countries are 1st world countries? You're comparing apples to oranges. How about a link to your stats so we can both look at the same data?
"1st world"? What the fuck does THAT mean?
Sorry, you don't get to make up your own definitions to suit your bias. Not allowed. But feel free to look up any source you like of countries by intentional homicide rates. You'll find America doesn't make the list of the top 100.
Further, there are plenty of links out there showing how the UK (1st world enough for ya?) has a higher rate of violence than the US...a rate that skyrocketed AFTER they banned firearms...oops.
The United Kingdom is the violent crime capital of Europe and has one of the highest rates of violence in the world, worse even than America, according to new research.
UK is violent crime capital of Europe - Telegraph
A comparison of UK and US violent crime:
NationMaster - Crime stats: United Kingdom vs United States
How about once, just once, you consider that laws should be based on actual results and not intentions. Whatda think???
You don't know what a 1st world country is? Maybe I should rethink your ability to even have this conversation if that simple concept is too much for you.
But you did in fact make a very specific statement -
America ranks 103rd on the list of countries by murder rate and most of those countries with a higher murder rate have a virtual ban on civilian firearm ownership
Where did you get this information from? Where is this list? Don't tell me to Google it. I want to see the exact list you are looking at.
The problem is that your version of "doing something" only ensures that law abiding citizens are put at a tactical disadvantage against the thugs and crazies that couldn't give two shits about your rules.
Now why would you want to give the bad guys an edge? Is that not insane?
What is my version of "doing something"?
Please, enlighten us. Show us what new laws, rules and regulations you would put into place that would make any difference whatsoever. Keep in mind we already have THOUSANDS of laws on the book that criminals ignore. What are you proposing that will change that? What are you suggesting we do that will not infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens to defend themselves in an effective and timely manner. Give us the scoop on your idea that will not violate the Constitution.
The floor is yours.
What is my version of "doing something"?
Please, enlighten us. Show us what new laws, rules and regulations you would put into place that would make any difference whatsoever. Keep in mind we already have THOUSANDS of laws on the book that criminals ignore. What are you proposing that will change that? What are you suggesting we do that will not infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens to defend themselves in an effective and timely manner. Give us the scoop on your idea that will not violate the Constitution.
The floor is yours.
For starters, I would enforce background checks on ALL gun sales, even between private parties.
"1st world"? What the fuck does THAT mean?
Sorry, you don't get to make up your own definitions to suit your bias. Not allowed. But feel free to look up any source you like of countries by intentional homicide rates. You'll find America doesn't make the list of the top 100.
Further, there are plenty of links out there showing how the UK (1st world enough for ya?) has a higher rate of violence than the US...a rate that skyrocketed AFTER they banned firearms...oops.
The United Kingdom is the violent crime capital of Europe and has one of the highest rates of violence in the world, worse even than America, according to new research.
UK is violent crime capital of Europe - Telegraph
A comparison of UK and US violent crime:
NationMaster - Crime stats: United Kingdom vs United States
How about once, just once, you consider that laws should be based on actual results and not intentions. Whatda think???
You don't know what a 1st world country is? Maybe I should rethink your ability to even have this conversation if that simple concept is too much for you.
But you did in fact make a very specific statement -
America ranks 103rd on the list of countries by murder rate and most of those countries with a higher murder rate have a virtual ban on civilian firearm ownership
Where did you get this information from? Where is this list? Don't tell me to Google it. I want to see the exact list you are looking at.
Please, tell us EXACTLY what constitutes "1st world" country, who supports that definition and which countries qualify. Or are we just supposed to go with your "because I say so"?
Secondly, why are you ignoring the links I did provide. The UK not 1st world?
Third, as to the list of countries by murder rate...are you retarded or something? You can't manage a simple internet search? Hell, even Wiki has the list:
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lastly, why have you completely overlooked that outside of the four cities I mentioned earlier, America would have among the LOWEST murder rates in the world...DESPITE ALL THE FIREARMS! It just burns your ass that rational people have no problem with guns and don't need your meddling. If you really care about violence, move to South Chicago and lend a hand. Those folks really do need help.
Please, enlighten us. Show us what new laws, rules and regulations you would put into place that would make any difference whatsoever. Keep in mind we already have THOUSANDS of laws on the book that criminals ignore. What are you proposing that will change that? What are you suggesting we do that will not infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens to defend themselves in an effective and timely manner. Give us the scoop on your idea that will not violate the Constitution.
The floor is yours.
For starters, I would enforce background checks on ALL gun sales, even between private parties.
How will you force criminals to comply?
For starters, I would enforce background checks on ALL gun sales, even between private parties.
How will you force criminals to comply?
I'll ask them nicely, Just like the way we enforce the law against murder.
What is my version of "doing something"?
Please, enlighten us. Show us what new laws, rules and regulations you would put into place that would make any difference whatsoever. Keep in mind we already have THOUSANDS of laws on the book that criminals ignore. What are you proposing that will change that? What are you suggesting we do that will not infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens to defend themselves in an effective and timely manner. Give us the scoop on your idea that will not violate the Constitution.
The floor is yours.
For starters, I would enforce background checks on ALL gun sales, even between private parties.
