Buried: Father at Newton Meeting who does not want more gun laws

[Spoonman]

Here's some data for you on gun related homicides. You'll actually have to go to the link and do a little work which may be difficult for you. The data below is direct from the report for the year listed.

FBI ? Uniform Crime Reports

1994 - 15,463 (Year the AWB went into effect.)
2004 - 9,326 (Year the AWB lapsed.)
2011 - 8,583 (Last full year of data.)

You tell me when we've had the larger decrease. Again, where is your data?

which proves my point. ending the gun ban showed no increase in gun deaths at all. thank you. you have just proven obama and his gun proposal are totally off base and will not solve the problem. see i knew if i pushed your buttons long enough you would actually post exactly what i wanted you too. see the facts speak for themselves. allowing people to own deadly assault style weapos does not increase the rate of homicides. gun deaths continue to go down.

now the fact still remains that the areas with the toughest gun laws have the highest rate of gun deaths. gun laws do not work

Wrong and wrong.

The rate of gun homicides decreased drastically during the AWB. It continued to decrease after the AWB lapsed but at a much lower rate. The data is right in front of your face and you are arguing against it. You are either up there with bigreb as one of the dumbest posters on this board or you are being obtuse.

Why does Louisiana have the highest rate of gun deaths in the country with the most lax gun laws? You still haven't answered that one.

now we'll peel back the onion a little further. what else went into effect at the time the gun ban was initiated? tougher penalties for crimes using a gun, especially when a murder was involved. when the gun ban was lifted, what stayed in place? you guessed it, those tougher penalties. se the gun ban had no effect. if it had an effect, the rates would have risen when it was lifted. but they didn't, in fact they continued to go down. but the one constant was the tougher penalties and enforcing them. gun control isn;t the answer, penalties for commiting the crime and enforcing them is. see, even you might learn something

 

[AceRothstein]

which proves my point. ending the gun ban showed no increase in gun deaths at all. thank you. you have just proven obama and his gun proposal are totally off base and will not solve the problem. see i knew if i pushed your buttons long enough you would actually post exactly what i wanted you too. see the facts speak for themselves. allowing people to own deadly assault style weapos does not increase the rate of homicides. gun deaths continue to go down.

now the fact still remains that the areas with the toughest gun laws have the highest rate of gun deaths. gun laws do not work

Wrong and wrong.

The rate of gun homicides decreased drastically during the AWB. It continued to decrease after the AWB lapsed but at a much lower rate. The data is right in front of your face and you are arguing against it. You are either up there with bigreb as one of the dumbest posters on this board or you are being obtuse.

Why does Louisiana have the highest rate of gun deaths in the country with the most lax gun laws? You still haven't answered that one.

now we'll peel back the onion a little further. what else went into effect at the time the gun ban was initiated? tougher penalties for crimes using a gun, especially when a murder was involved. when the gun ban was lifted, what stayed in place? you guessed it, those tougher penalties. se the gun ban had no effect. if it had an effect, the rates would have risen when it was lifted. but they didn't, in fact they continued to go down. but the one constant was the tougher penalties and enforcing them. gun control isn;t the answer, penalties for commiting the crime and enforcing them is. see, even you might learn something

Again, larger decrease > smaller decrease. Maybe the decrease since the AWB lapsed would be even larger over the last 9 years if it was still in effect. I'm sure the tougher penalties for crimes has helped. With both assault weapons being available and the tougher penalties, shouldn't we be seeing larger decreases now than we did during the ban?

I noticed that you ignored my question about Louisiana after you falsely claimed that the areas with the strictest laws have the highest rate of gun deaths.

 

[Spoonman]

Wrong and wrong.

The rate of gun homicides decreased drastically during the AWB. It continued to decrease after the AWB lapsed but at a much lower rate. The data is right in front of your face and you are arguing against it. You are either up there with bigreb as one of the dumbest posters on this board or you are being obtuse.

Why does Louisiana have the highest rate of gun deaths in the country with the most lax gun laws? You still haven't answered that one.

now we'll peel back the onion a little further. what else went into effect at the time the gun ban was initiated? tougher penalties for crimes using a gun, especially when a murder was involved. when the gun ban was lifted, what stayed in place? you guessed it, those tougher penalties. se the gun ban had no effect. if it had an effect, the rates would have risen when it was lifted. but they didn't, in fact they continued to go down. but the one constant was the tougher penalties and enforcing them. gun control isn;t the answer, penalties for commiting the crime and enforcing them is. see, even you might learn something

Again, larger decrease > smaller decrease. Maybe the decrease since the AWB lapsed would be even larger over the last 9 years if it was still in effect. I'm sure the tougher penalties for crimes has helped. With both assault weapons being available and the tougher penalties, shouldn't we be seeing larger decreases now than we did during the ban?

I noticed that you ignored my question about Louisiana after you falsely claimed that the areas with the strictest laws have the highest rate of gun deaths.

which had nothing to do with the ban. now lets go back to you percentage numbers you lik so much. with the ban, 15,000 murders a year with 150,000 guns in the public. so with a gun ban 10% of guns are killing people. step to today no gun ban, 8,000 murders ayear and 300,000 guns or 2.6% of guns causing a murder. numbers don't lie, gun bans don't work. we are better off without them

 

[AceRothstein]

now we'll peel back the onion a little further. what else went into effect at the time the gun ban was initiated? tougher penalties for crimes using a gun, especially when a murder was involved. when the gun ban was lifted, what stayed in place? you guessed it, those tougher penalties. se the gun ban had no effect. if it had an effect, the rates would have risen when it was lifted. but they didn't, in fact they continued to go down. but the one constant was the tougher penalties and enforcing them. gun control isn;t the answer, penalties for commiting the crime and enforcing them is. see, even you might learn something

Again, larger decrease > smaller decrease. Maybe the decrease since the AWB lapsed would be even larger over the last 9 years if it was still in effect. I'm sure the tougher penalties for crimes has helped. With both assault weapons being available and the tougher penalties, shouldn't we be seeing larger decreases now than we did during the ban?

I noticed that you ignored my question about Louisiana after you falsely claimed that the areas with the strictest laws have the highest rate of gun deaths.

which had nothing to do with the ban. now lets go back to you percentage numbers you lik so much. with the ban, 15,000 murders a year with 150,000 guns in the public. so with a gun ban 10% of guns are killing people. step to today no gun ban, 8,000 murders ayear and 300,000 guns or 2.6% of guns causing a murder. numbers don't lie, gun bans don't work. we are better off without them

How do you know the decrease had nothing to do with the ban? Please provide real evidence, not just your opinion.

 

[Spoonman]

Again, larger decrease > smaller decrease. Maybe the decrease since the AWB lapsed would be even larger over the last 9 years if it was still in effect. I'm sure the tougher penalties for crimes has helped. With both assault weapons being available and the tougher penalties, shouldn't we be seeing larger decreases now than we did during the ban?

I noticed that you ignored my question about Louisiana after you falsely claimed that the areas with the strictest laws have the highest rate of gun deaths.

which had nothing to do with the ban. now lets go back to you percentage numbers you lik so much. with the ban, 15,000 murders a year with 150,000 guns in the public. so with a gun ban 10% of guns are killing people. step to today no gun ban, 8,000 murders ayear and 300,000 guns or 2.6% of guns causing a murder. numbers don't lie, gun bans don't work. we are better off without them

How do you know the decrease had nothing to do with the ban? Please provide real evidence, not just your opinion.

even without the ban the decrease continues. proof that the ban was not necessary for the decrease

 

[Dubya]

now we'll peel back the onion a little further. what else went into effect at the time the gun ban was initiated? tougher penalties for crimes using a gun, especially when a murder was involved. when the gun ban was lifted, what stayed in place? you guessed it, those tougher penalties. se the gun ban had no effect. if it had an effect, the rates would have risen when it was lifted. but they didn't, in fact they continued to go down. but the one constant was the tougher penalties and enforcing them. gun control isn;t the answer, penalties for commiting the crime and enforcing them is. see, even you might learn something

Again, larger decrease > smaller decrease. Maybe the decrease since the AWB lapsed would be even larger over the last 9 years if it was still in effect. I'm sure the tougher penalties for crimes has helped. With both assault weapons being available and the tougher penalties, shouldn't we be seeing larger decreases now than we did during the ban?

I noticed that you ignored my question about Louisiana after you falsely claimed that the areas with the strictest laws have the highest rate of gun deaths.

which had nothing to do with the ban. now lets go back to you percentage numbers you lik so much. with the ban, 15,000 murders a year with 150,000 guns in the public. so with a gun ban 10% of guns are killing people. step to today no gun ban, 8,000 murders ayear and 300,000 guns or 2.6% of guns causing a murder. numbers don't lie, gun bans don't work. we are better off without them

Number don't lie, but people do. There aren't 300,000 guns in 2011 and there weren't 8,000 murders. It's more like 300,000,000 guns and 8,583 murders by firearms. There were also over 20,000 suicides by gun from what I recall.

 

[AceRothstein]

which had nothing to do with the ban. now lets go back to you percentage numbers you lik so much. with the ban, 15,000 murders a year with 150,000 guns in the public. so with a gun ban 10% of guns are killing people. step to today no gun ban, 8,000 murders ayear and 300,000 guns or 2.6% of guns causing a murder. numbers don't lie, gun bans don't work. we are better off without them

How do you know the decrease had nothing to do with the ban? Please provide real evidence, not just your opinion.

even without the ban the decrease continues. proof that the ban was not necessary for the decrease

But it was a much larger decrease during the ban.

If the banned never happened, homicide by gun may not have decreased as much as it did for those 10 years.

If the banned didn't lapse, the decrease over the last 9 years may have been even greater based on the data from the previous 10 years.

You are one dense motherfucker.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Louisiana's homicide rate would be low if it wasn't for New Orleans,
Illinois would too if not for Chicago,
Michigan if not for Detroit,
and on down the line...

We have a cities problem, not a gun problem.

 

[skookerasbil]

Louisiana's homicide rate would be low if it wasn't for New Orleans,
Illinois would too if not for Chicago,
Michigan if not for Detroit,
and on down the line...

We have a cities problem, not a gun problem.

indeed.......but only if you view the world from Realville.................


Stuff Black People Don't Like - SBPDL: Guns Don't Kill People; Dangerous Minorities Do -- The Chicago Edition

 

[skookerasbil]

Louisiana's homicide rate would be low if it wasn't for New Orleans,
Illinois would too if not for Chicago,
Michigan if not for Detroit,
and on down the line...

We have a cities problem, not a gun problem.

By the way bro......most to the point and astute post Ive seen this year from anybody. If every American saw it, the whole gun debate goes away inside of 24 hours.


The most hysterical thing about it is, these lovers of government havent a clue that the Pols shout out the rhetoric on gun control, leave the room and with a wink and a nod, support the savages knocking each other off. Talk about rampant levels of naive...........its all over in these forums.

 

[Dubya]

Louisiana's homicide rate would be low if it wasn't for New Orleans,
Illinois would too if not for Chicago,
Michigan if not for Detroit,
and on down the line...

We have a cities problem, not a gun problem.

You have a cities problem because we have an open market for guns in this country.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Louisiana's homicide rate would be low if it wasn't for New Orleans,
Illinois would too if not for Chicago,
Michigan if not for Detroit,
and on down the line...

We have a cities problem, not a gun problem.

You have a cities problem because we have an open market for guns in this country.

Is the 'open market for guns' available to other parts of the country besides cities?
(That's a rhetorical question, BTW)
Why then does the carnage seem to be concentrated in the cities?
If it were the availability of guns from this 'open market', wouldn't the death toll be a little more widespread?

 

[Spoonman]

How do you know the decrease had nothing to do with the ban? Please provide real evidence, not just your opinion.

even without the ban the decrease continues. proof that the ban was not necessary for the decrease

But it was a much larger decrease during the ban.

If the banned never happened, homicide by gun may not have decreased as much as it did for those 10 years.

If the banned didn't lapse, the decrease over the last 9 years may have been even greater based on the data from the previous 10 years.

You are one dense motherfucker.

and with the ban lifted the numbers continued to decrease. the ban did nothing.

 

[AceRothstein]

even without the ban the decrease continues. proof that the ban was not necessary for the decrease

But it was a much larger decrease during the ban.

If the banned never happened, homicide by gun may not have decreased as much as it did for those 10 years.

If the banned didn't lapse, the decrease over the last 9 years may have been even greater based on the data from the previous 10 years.

You are one dense motherfucker.

and with the ban lifted the numbers continued to decrease. the ban did nothing.

Except lead to an greater increase. You really can't be this stupid.

 

[Spoonman]

Louisiana's homicide rate would be low if it wasn't for New Orleans,
Illinois would too if not for Chicago,
Michigan if not for Detroit,
and on down the line...

We have a cities problem, not a gun problem.

yep, that is absolutely the problem. it is not your legal gun owner who is the problem. its inner city crime. the majority of those guns aren't obtained legally. most are already obtained on the black market. because half of the people who have them would never be able to buy one legally. the laws prevent nothing. the laws only inconvenience legal gun owners.

 

[Spoonman]

But it was a much larger decrease during the ban.

If the banned never happened, homicide by gun may not have decreased as much as it did for those 10 years.

If the banned didn't lapse, the decrease over the last 9 years may have been even greater based on the data from the previous 10 years.

You are one dense motherfucker.

and with the ban lifted the numbers continued to decrease. the ban did nothing.

Except lead to an greater increase. You really can't be this stupid.

there is proof with no law rates drop. when the ban was in place it dropped but then from 1999 to 2005 there was an increase every year. end the ban, the rates started to drop again. take off your blinders, stop drinking your koolaid

 

[AceRothstein]

Louisiana's homicide rate would be low if it wasn't for New Orleans,
Illinois would too if not for Chicago,
Michigan if not for Detroit,
and on down the line...

We have a cities problem, not a gun problem.

yep, that is absolutely the problem. it is not your legal gun owner who is the problem. its inner city crime. the majority of those guns aren't obtained legally. most are already obtained on the black market. because half of the people who have them would never be able to buy one legally. the laws prevent nothing. the laws only inconvenience legal gun owners.

The issue is that someone is buying these legally at some point but since there is no registry or tracking, they easily end up in the hands of criminals.

 

[AceRothstein]

and with the ban lifted the numbers continued to decrease. the ban did nothing.

Except lead to an greater increase. You really can't be this stupid.

there is proof with no law rates drop. when the ban was in place it dropped but then from 1999 to 2005 there was an increase every year. end the ban, the rates started to drop again. take off your blinders, stop drinking your koolaid

You are going to talk about blinders and drinking kool aid? The person that is arguing against a massive drop from 1994-2004 not existing. You're a joke.

 

[Spoonman]

Except lead to an greater increase. You really can't be this stupid.

there is proof with no law rates drop. when the ban was in place it dropped but then from 1999 to 2005 there was an increase every year. end the ban, the rates started to drop again. take off your blinders, stop drinking your koolaid

You are going to talk about blinders and drinking kool aid? The person that is arguing against a massive drop from 1994-2004 not existing. You're a joke.

i'll bet you like the goofey grape. well that and the point that even when the ban was lifted and the number of deadly assault weapons mushroomed the numbers still continued to drop. that and the fact that the number of deaths per gun is far lower no ban then it was with the ban. funny how you like to say numbers and percents matter, well until they make you look like a fool that is. jokes on you my friend

 

[Spoonman]

Louisiana's homicide rate would be low if it wasn't for New Orleans,
Illinois would too if not for Chicago,
Michigan if not for Detroit,
and on down the line...

We have a cities problem, not a gun problem.

yep, that is absolutely the problem. it is not your legal gun owner who is the problem. its inner city crime. the majority of those guns aren't obtained legally. most are already obtained on the black market. because half of the people who have them would never be able to buy one legally. the laws prevent nothing. the laws only inconvenience legal gun owners.

The issue is that someone is buying these legally at some point but since there is no registry or tracking, they easily end up in the hands of criminals.

yep all of the guns that holder sent to mexico and ended up back here were purchased legally. get some facts jack and lose the spin. you spin so much you have you own gravity