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.
Its much harder to find somebody to illegally sell you a gun than it is to just go to a store and buy one. If I was really driven to get one and I asked around enough then I'm sure I could find one. But its a much harder process, that means it is a deterrent and are you honestly going to claim that it wouldn't stop anybody from getting a gun?Interesting... Thank for the link... What do you think of these studies?Generally speaking, when legal gun ownership goes up, crime goes down.Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?Chicago has lots of gun regulations.I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break"Dangerous guns".I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.
No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.
"Dangerous people".
Getting closer there. Two problems, though.
1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.
2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.
You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.
Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?
How well are they working?
From Tuesday of last week:
23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago
Based on data from a 2012 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report (and additional data from another Wonkblog article “There are now more guns than people in the United States”), the number of privately owned firearms in U.S. increased from about 185 million in 1993 to 357 million in 2013.
Adjusted for the U.S. population, the number of guns per American increased from 0.93 per person in 1993 to 1.45 in 2013, which is a 56 percent increase in the number of guns per person that occurred during the same period when gun violence decreased by 49 percent (see new chart below). Of course, that significant correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation, but it’s logical to believe that those two trends are related. After all, armed citizens frequently prevent crimes from happening, including gun-related homicides, see hundreds of examples here of law-abiding gun owners defending themselves and their families and homes.
Meanwhile, criminals don't obey gun laws. Obviously. What deters criminals is not knowing if their intended targets are armed. In places where gun ownership is heavily regulated, criminals can be sure their targets are defenseless.
Obviously.
A landmark, comprehensive review of studies looking at the effectiveness of gun control laws in 10 countries was published in 2016. Researchers at Columbia University reviewed 130 studies to compile an overall picture of how effective laws limiting firearms were in reducing deaths.
The authors concluded “the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related deaths in certain countries”, and “some specific restrictions on purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with reductions in firearm deaths”.
More recently, further studies on gun control in the US have been released that show stricter laws by US state, and states nearby, are associated with reduced suicide and homicide rates.
And those studies are crap.....they even fall apart with simple questions.....such as how does universal background checks lower gun crime rates when criminals ignore them?
Well there's an easy answer to that... background checks don't stop the criminals that ignore them. They stop the people who don't get guns because they don't pass a check and they don't have resources to get an illegal firearm.
Sorry.....you are wrong.
If they have the resources to buy a gun from a gun store they can get an illegal gun as well.
The only reason you guys want universal background checks is to demand gun registration....which is what you need in order to confiscate guns in the future.
You can lie about this all day long, but we aren't democrat party members...so sell that crap to them, not us. They will believe you, we know the truth.
I don't know... what do you think?Oh, you mean like this guy?Interesting... Thank for the link... What do you think of these studies?Generally speaking, when legal gun ownership goes up, crime goes down.Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?Chicago has lots of gun regulations.I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break"Dangerous guns".I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.
No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.
"Dangerous people".
Getting closer there. Two problems, though.
1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.
2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.
You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.
Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?
How well are they working?
From Tuesday of last week:
23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago
Based on data from a 2012 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report (and additional data from another Wonkblog article “There are now more guns than people in the United States”), the number of privately owned firearms in U.S. increased from about 185 million in 1993 to 357 million in 2013.
Adjusted for the U.S. population, the number of guns per American increased from 0.93 per person in 1993 to 1.45 in 2013, which is a 56 percent increase in the number of guns per person that occurred during the same period when gun violence decreased by 49 percent (see new chart below). Of course, that significant correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation, but it’s logical to believe that those two trends are related. After all, armed citizens frequently prevent crimes from happening, including gun-related homicides, see hundreds of examples here of law-abiding gun owners defending themselves and their families and homes.
Meanwhile, criminals don't obey gun laws. Obviously. What deters criminals is not knowing if their intended targets are armed. In places where gun ownership is heavily regulated, criminals can be sure their targets are defenseless.
Obviously.
A landmark, comprehensive review of studies looking at the effectiveness of gun control laws in 10 countries was published in 2016. Researchers at Columbia University reviewed 130 studies to compile an overall picture of how effective laws limiting firearms were in reducing deaths.
The authors concluded “the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related deaths in certain countries”, and “some specific restrictions on purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with reductions in firearm deaths”.
More recently, further studies on gun control in the US have been released that show stricter laws by US state, and states nearby, are associated with reduced suicide and homicide rates.
And those studies are crap.....they even fall apart with simple questions.....such as how does universal background checks lower gun crime rates when criminals ignore them?
Well there's an easy answer to that... background checks don't stop the criminals that ignore them. They stop the people who don't get guns because they don't pass a check and they don't have resources to get an illegal firearm.
A newspaper columnist is crying foul after a gun store rejected his application to purchase a firearm following a background check that uncovered his "admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife."
"Gun manufacturers and the stores that sell them make their money in the dark," the Chicago Sun-Times' Neil Steinberg wrote in his column following his failed attempt to purchase a rifle.
"Congress, which has so much trouble passing the most basic gun laws, passed a law making it illegal for the federal government to fund research into gun violence. Except for the week or two after massacres, the public covers its eyes. Would-be terrorists can buy guns. Insane people can buy guns. But reporters ... that's a different story," he added.
The owners of Maxon Shooter's Supplies in Des Plaines, Ill., however, maintained Steinberg's application was rejected not because he's in media, but for the simple reason that a background check raised several red flags.
"Mr. Steinberg was very aggressive on the phone with Sarah, insisting he was going to write that we denied him because he is a journalist. 'Journalist' is not a protected class, [by the way]," the store said in an explanation made available to the Washington Examiner's media desk.
"We contacted his editor and said that, while we don't normally provide a reason for a denial, in this case to correct the record before you publish, here's why; we pasted a couple links of press accounts of his past behavior and his admission of same. He's free to believe or disbelieve that's why he was denied, but that is why he was denied," the statement added. "There was no 'We'll see you in court!!!!' type of language from us – we simply want to set the record straight. That it undermined his thesis and rendered the column incoherent isn't really our problem, is it?"
Steinberg explained he tried to buy an AR-15 rifle this month following a mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., which claimed the lives of 49 victims, so that he could give a firsthand account of how easy it is to purchase a firearm in the United States.
Since the shooting in Orlando, several newsrooms have produced similar stories bringing attention to the fact that many privately owned gun shops have efficient operations in place by which a customer with a clean record can purchase a firearm in a short amount of time.
Steinberg decided on Maxon Shooter's as a suitable candidate for his experiment.
He claimed he had hang-ups about financially contributing to an industry he despises, but decided anyway to make the trek to the gun store, which he referred to as the "Valley of Death."
He wrote that after introducing himself to the store's staff, he informed them he planned "to buy the gun, shoot at their range, then give it to the police." Steinberg said he was dissuaded of that idea after a salesman, Mike, suggested he sell the firearm back to the store.
Forty percent of gun transactions in the U.S. have "no background checks," the columnist continued, repeating a claim that earned three Pinocchios from the Washington Post's fact checker. "Here, I had paperwork."
"Our transaction took nearly an hour because we chatted. Mike used to read newspapers but doesn't anymore because of opinion writers like me. He knew whether it was legal to bring the gun to Chicago — it's not. He was friendly, candid, so I asked difficult questions. Did he ever feel guilty about the people killed by the guns he sells? No, he said, that's like asking a car dealer if he felt guilty if someone gets drunk and kills somebody in a car he sold. It seemed a fair answer. I asked him if I could quote him in the newspaper, and he said no, I couldn't, so I'm not quoting him," he wrote.
Steinberg submitted his paperwork and waited. And then he got the call.
"At 5:13 Sarah from Maxon called. They were canceling my sale and refunding my money. No gun for you. I called back. Why? 'I don't have to tell you,' she said. I knew that, but was curious. I wasn't rejected by the government? No. So what is it? 'I'm not at liberty,' she said," he wrote.
Steinberg told the woman he suspected his application was rejected because he's in media. She denied the charge.
Maxon Shooter's explained later in a statement to the Chicago Sun-Times that it rejected Stenberg's application because a background check had, "uncovered that Mr. Steinberg has an admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife," he wrote.
Great question. My quick answer would be gang culture and poverty rate. May I ask you why the red states of Alaska and Missouri have higher murder rates than Illinois?Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?Chicago has lots of gun regulations.I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break"Dangerous guns".I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.
No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.
"Dangerous people".
Getting closer there. Two problems, though.
1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.
2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.
You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.
Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?
How well are they working?
From Tuesday of last week:
23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago
Chicago has extreme gun control...Houston does not. Why does Chicago have a higher murder rate than Houston?
Its much harder to find somebody to illegally sell you a gun than it is to just go to a store and buy one. If I was really driven to get one and I asked around enough then I'm sure I could find one. But its a much harder process, that means it is a deterrent and are you honestly going to claim that it wouldn't stop anybody from getting a gun?Interesting... Thank for the link... What do you think of these studies?Generally speaking, when legal gun ownership goes up, crime goes down.Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?Chicago has lots of gun regulations.I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break"Dangerous guns".I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.
No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.
"Dangerous people".
Getting closer there. Two problems, though.
1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.
2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.
You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.
Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?
How well are they working?
From Tuesday of last week:
23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago
Based on data from a 2012 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report (and additional data from another Wonkblog article “There are now more guns than people in the United States”), the number of privately owned firearms in U.S. increased from about 185 million in 1993 to 357 million in 2013.
Adjusted for the U.S. population, the number of guns per American increased from 0.93 per person in 1993 to 1.45 in 2013, which is a 56 percent increase in the number of guns per person that occurred during the same period when gun violence decreased by 49 percent (see new chart below). Of course, that significant correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation, but it’s logical to believe that those two trends are related. After all, armed citizens frequently prevent crimes from happening, including gun-related homicides, see hundreds of examples here of law-abiding gun owners defending themselves and their families and homes.
Meanwhile, criminals don't obey gun laws. Obviously. What deters criminals is not knowing if their intended targets are armed. In places where gun ownership is heavily regulated, criminals can be sure their targets are defenseless.
Obviously.
A landmark, comprehensive review of studies looking at the effectiveness of gun control laws in 10 countries was published in 2016. Researchers at Columbia University reviewed 130 studies to compile an overall picture of how effective laws limiting firearms were in reducing deaths.
The authors concluded “the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related deaths in certain countries”, and “some specific restrictions on purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with reductions in firearm deaths”.
More recently, further studies on gun control in the US have been released that show stricter laws by US state, and states nearby, are associated with reduced suicide and homicide rates.
And those studies are crap.....they even fall apart with simple questions.....such as how does universal background checks lower gun crime rates when criminals ignore them?
Well there's an easy answer to that... background checks don't stop the criminals that ignore them. They stop the people who don't get guns because they don't pass a check and they don't have resources to get an illegal firearm.
Sorry.....you are wrong.
If they have the resources to buy a gun from a gun store they can get an illegal gun as well.
The only reason you guys want universal background checks is to demand gun registration....which is what you need in order to confiscate guns in the future.
You can lie about this all day long, but we aren't democrat party members...so sell that crap to them, not us. They will believe you, we know the truth.
Would you also claim that legalizing pot isn't resulting in more people buying pot?
Great question. My quick answer would be gang culture and poverty rate. May I ask you why the red states of Alaska and Missouri have higher murder rates than Illinois?Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?Chicago has lots of gun regulations.I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break"Dangerous guns".I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.
No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.
"Dangerous people".
Getting closer there. Two problems, though.
1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.
2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.
You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.
Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?
How well are they working?
From Tuesday of last week:
23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago
Chicago has extreme gun control...Houston does not. Why does Chicago have a higher murder rate than Houston?
How do the gun regulations in the city of St Louis and anywhere in Alaska compare to that of Chicago? You see how I can just flip your Houston argument around don't you? Each city has its own issues so there isn't a direct line between regulation and murder rate like you were trying to imply. Its one factor in a sea of manyGreat question. My quick answer would be gang culture and poverty rate. May I ask you why the red states of Alaska and Missouri have higher murder rates than Illinois?Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?Chicago has lots of gun regulations.I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break"Dangerous guns".I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.
No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.
"Dangerous people".
Getting closer there. Two problems, though.
1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.
2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.
You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.
Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?
How well are they working?
From Tuesday of last week:
23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago
Chicago has extreme gun control...Houston does not. Why does Chicago have a higher murder rate than Houston?
Missouri has the city of St. Louis driving their gun crime rate....they have had the democrat party in control of that city since 1949.....and it is the democrat party policies on criminals...just like in Chicago, D.C., Baltimore, and other democrat party controlled cities that drives the gun crime rate...
Gun crime is not caused by people owning and carrying guns.....gun crime in our democrat party controlled cities is a direct result of the soft on gun criminals policies of the democrat party in those cities......
Rise in Murders Has St. Louis Debating Why
Jennifer M. Joyce, the city’s circuit attorney, or prosecutor, an elected position, complains that in St. Louis, the illegal possession of a gun is too often “a crime without a consequence,” making it difficult to stop confrontation from turning lethal.
At the same time, deeper social roots of violence such as addiction and unemployment continue unchecked. And city officials also cite what they call a “Ferguson effect,” an increase in crime last year as police officers were diverted to control protests after a white officer shot and killed Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager in the nearby suburb on Aug. 9.
-----------
Now, an overstretched department is forced to pick one neighborhood at a time to flood with officers. Last month, Chief Dotson even asked the state highway patrol if it could lend a dozen men to help watch downtown streets; the agency declined.
----
When the police discover a gun in a car with several passengers, including some with felony records, but no one admits to owning the gun, criminal charges are often impossible, Mr. Rosenfeld said.
In addition, according to a 2014 study by Mr. Rosenfeld and his colleagues, a majority of those who are convicted of illegally possessing a gun but not caught using it in a crime receive probation rather than jail time. Gun laws and enforcement are stiffer in many other cities.
But Alaska also has very loose gun regulation... You are kind of proving my point that there are many other factors involved in crime other than gun laws. They are only part of the equationGreat question. My quick answer would be gang culture and poverty rate. May I ask you why the red states of Alaska and Missouri have higher murder rates than Illinois?Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?Chicago has lots of gun regulations.I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break"Dangerous guns".I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.
No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.
"Dangerous people".
Getting closer there. Two problems, though.
1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.
2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.
You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.
Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?
How well are they working?
From Tuesday of last week:
23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago
Chicago has extreme gun control...Houston does not. Why does Chicago have a higher murder rate than Houston?
Alaska...... long nights, alcohol and drug abuse. Lots of criminals go there as well to hide from the police. You are also looking at more democrat party control in Anchorage, Alaska....
Great question. My quick answer would be gang culture and poverty rate. May I ask you why the red states of Alaska and Missouri have higher murder rates than Illinois?Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?Chicago has lots of gun regulations.I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break"Dangerous guns".I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.
No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.
"Dangerous people".
Getting closer there. Two problems, though.
1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.
2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.
You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.
Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?
How well are they working?
From Tuesday of last week:
23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago
Chicago has extreme gun control...Houston does not. Why does Chicago have a higher murder rate than Houston?
How do the gun regulations in the city of St Louis and anywhere in Alaska compare to that of Chicago? You see how I can just flip your Houston argument around don't you? Each city has its own issues so there isn't a direct line between regulation and murder rate like you were trying to imply. Its one factor in a sea of manyGreat question. My quick answer would be gang culture and poverty rate. May I ask you why the red states of Alaska and Missouri have higher murder rates than Illinois?Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?Chicago has lots of gun regulations.I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break"Dangerous guns".I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.
No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.
"Dangerous people".
Getting closer there. Two problems, though.
1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.
2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.
You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.
Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?
How well are they working?
From Tuesday of last week:
23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago
Chicago has extreme gun control...Houston does not. Why does Chicago have a higher murder rate than Houston?
Missouri has the city of St. Louis driving their gun crime rate....they have had the democrat party in control of that city since 1949.....and it is the democrat party policies on criminals...just like in Chicago, D.C., Baltimore, and other democrat party controlled cities that drives the gun crime rate...
Gun crime is not caused by people owning and carrying guns.....gun crime in our democrat party controlled cities is a direct result of the soft on gun criminals policies of the democrat party in those cities......
Rise in Murders Has St. Louis Debating Why
Jennifer M. Joyce, the city’s circuit attorney, or prosecutor, an elected position, complains that in St. Louis, the illegal possession of a gun is too often “a crime without a consequence,” making it difficult to stop confrontation from turning lethal.
At the same time, deeper social roots of violence such as addiction and unemployment continue unchecked. And city officials also cite what they call a “Ferguson effect,” an increase in crime last year as police officers were diverted to control protests after a white officer shot and killed Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager in the nearby suburb on Aug. 9.
-----------
Now, an overstretched department is forced to pick one neighborhood at a time to flood with officers. Last month, Chief Dotson even asked the state highway patrol if it could lend a dozen men to help watch downtown streets; the agency declined.
----
When the police discover a gun in a car with several passengers, including some with felony records, but no one admits to owning the gun, criminal charges are often impossible, Mr. Rosenfeld said.
In addition, according to a 2014 study by Mr. Rosenfeld and his colleagues, a majority of those who are convicted of illegally possessing a gun but not caught using it in a crime receive probation rather than jail time. Gun laws and enforcement are stiffer in many other cities.
But Alaska also has very loose gun regulation... You are kind of proving my point that there are many other factors involved in crime other than gun laws. They are only part of the equationGreat question. My quick answer would be gang culture and poverty rate. May I ask you why the red states of Alaska and Missouri have higher murder rates than Illinois?Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?Chicago has lots of gun regulations.I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break"Dangerous guns".I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.
No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.
"Dangerous people".
Getting closer there. Two problems, though.
1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.
2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.
You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.
Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?
How well are they working?
From Tuesday of last week:
23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago
Chicago has extreme gun control...Houston does not. Why does Chicago have a higher murder rate than Houston?
Alaska...... long nights, alcohol and drug abuse. Lots of criminals go there as well to hide from the police. You are also looking at more democrat party control in Anchorage, Alaska....
Thats a weak excuse and a scapegoat. The nature of cities with dense populations and the problems that they have are very different than rural areas. Republicans run on Rural issues and Dems run on Urban issues which is why they are elected in cities.Great question. My quick answer would be gang culture and poverty rate. May I ask you why the red states of Alaska and Missouri have higher murder rates than Illinois?Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?Chicago has lots of gun regulations.I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break"Dangerous guns".I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.
No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.
"Dangerous people".
Getting closer there. Two problems, though.
1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.
2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.
You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.
Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?
How well are they working?
From Tuesday of last week:
23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago
Chicago has extreme gun control...Houston does not. Why does Chicago have a higher murder rate than Houston?
The one thing the worst cities have in common......the democrat party has been in control of those cities, even in Red States like Missouri, for decades......and they keep releasing violent gun criminals over and over again, and it is those criminals doing 95% or more of the killing with guns. Stop the democrat party from doing this, no new gun laws are needed...we already have all the laws we need to arrest and jail actual gun criminals.
How do the gun regulations in the city of St Louis and anywhere in Alaska compare to that of Chicago? You see how I can just flip your Houston argument around don't you? Each city has its own issues so there isn't a direct line between regulation and murder rate like you were trying to imply. Its one factor in a sea of manyGreat question. My quick answer would be gang culture and poverty rate. May I ask you why the red states of Alaska and Missouri have higher murder rates than Illinois?Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?Chicago has lots of gun regulations.I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break"Dangerous guns".I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.
No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.
"Dangerous people".
Getting closer there. Two problems, though.
1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.
2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.
You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.
Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?
How well are they working?
From Tuesday of last week:
23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago
Chicago has extreme gun control...Houston does not. Why does Chicago have a higher murder rate than Houston?
Missouri has the city of St. Louis driving their gun crime rate....they have had the democrat party in control of that city since 1949.....and it is the democrat party policies on criminals...just like in Chicago, D.C., Baltimore, and other democrat party controlled cities that drives the gun crime rate...
Gun crime is not caused by people owning and carrying guns.....gun crime in our democrat party controlled cities is a direct result of the soft on gun criminals policies of the democrat party in those cities......
Rise in Murders Has St. Louis Debating Why
Jennifer M. Joyce, the city’s circuit attorney, or prosecutor, an elected position, complains that in St. Louis, the illegal possession of a gun is too often “a crime without a consequence,” making it difficult to stop confrontation from turning lethal.
At the same time, deeper social roots of violence such as addiction and unemployment continue unchecked. And city officials also cite what they call a “Ferguson effect,” an increase in crime last year as police officers were diverted to control protests after a white officer shot and killed Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager in the nearby suburb on Aug. 9.
-----------
Now, an overstretched department is forced to pick one neighborhood at a time to flood with officers. Last month, Chief Dotson even asked the state highway patrol if it could lend a dozen men to help watch downtown streets; the agency declined.
----
When the police discover a gun in a car with several passengers, including some with felony records, but no one admits to owning the gun, criminal charges are often impossible, Mr. Rosenfeld said.
In addition, according to a 2014 study by Mr. Rosenfeld and his colleagues, a majority of those who are convicted of illegally possessing a gun but not caught using it in a crime receive probation rather than jail time. Gun laws and enforcement are stiffer in many other cities.
Thats a weak excuse and a scapegoat. The nature of cities with dense populations and the problems that they have are very different than rural areas. Republicans run on Rural issues and Dems run on Urban issues which is why they are elected in cities.Great question. My quick answer would be gang culture and poverty rate. May I ask you why the red states of Alaska and Missouri have higher murder rates than Illinois?Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?Chicago has lots of gun regulations.I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break"Dangerous guns".I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.
No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.
"Dangerous people".
Getting closer there. Two problems, though.
1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.
2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.
You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.
Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?
How well are they working?
From Tuesday of last week:
23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago
Chicago has extreme gun control...Houston does not. Why does Chicago have a higher murder rate than Houston?
The one thing the worst cities have in common......the democrat party has been in control of those cities, even in Red States like Missouri, for decades......and they keep releasing violent gun criminals over and over again, and it is those criminals doing 95% or more of the killing with guns. Stop the democrat party from doing this, no new gun laws are needed...we already have all the laws we need to arrest and jail actual gun criminals.
Good. Guns should be licensed like autos. Anyone can buy one, but they need show They know how to responsibly and safely use it, and that they can at least hit the broadside of a barn. Tbe NRA could make money off it by offering firearms training and certifications. A win win.The filthy ass Democrats have never understood the Bill of Rights, have they?
Elect the asshole Democrats and you get your Constitution rights taken away and they tell you that it is for your own good.
They sure as hell don't understand what the word "infringement" means, do they? Typical for uneducated Liberals.
The only license I need to own a gun is the Bill of Rights. I sure as hell don't need some Democrat Moon Bat politician that have never fired a firearm telling me how to store and keep my firearms.
12020 Democratic Party Platform
Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault
or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal background check
system. We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been
convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale
of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing
requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove
guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will pass
legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes. And Democrats believe that gun
companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will
prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.
Yes....you are a fascist. We know that already.
You shouldn't be allowed to vote until you can pass a test, created by the government and you will need to pay a fee to vote as well.....
Good. Guns should be licensed like autos. Anyone can buy one, but they need show They know how to responsibly and safely use it, and that they can at least hit the broadside of a barn. Tbe NRA could make money off it by offering firearms training and certifications. A win win.The filthy ass Democrats have never understood the Bill of Rights, have they?
Elect the asshole Democrats and you get your Constitution rights taken away and they tell you that it is for your own good.
They sure as hell don't understand what the word "infringement" means, do they? Typical for uneducated Liberals.
The only license I need to own a gun is the Bill of Rights. I sure as hell don't need some Democrat Moon Bat politician that have never fired a firearm telling me how to store and keep my firearms.
12020 Democratic Party Platform
Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault
or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal background check
system. We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been
convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale
of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing
requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove
guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will pass
legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes. And Democrats believe that gun
companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will
prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.
Yes....you are a fascist. We know that already.
You shouldn't be allowed to vote until you can pass a test, created by the government and you will need to pay a fee to vote as well.....
spoken like a true fascist
That is such a fraudulent argument yet you keep making it. Because it isn’t 100% effective, we shouldn’t do it.Its much harder to find somebody to illegally sell you a gun than it is to just go to a store and buy one. If I was really driven to get one and I asked around enough then I'm sure I could find one. But its a much harder process, that means it is a deterrent and are you honestly going to claim that it wouldn't stop anybody from getting a gun?Interesting... Thank for the link... What do you think of these studies?Generally speaking, when legal gun ownership goes up, crime goes down.Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?Chicago has lots of gun regulations.I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break"Dangerous guns".I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.
No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.
"Dangerous people".
Getting closer there. Two problems, though.
1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.
2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.
You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.
Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?
How well are they working?
From Tuesday of last week:
23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago
Based on data from a 2012 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report (and additional data from another Wonkblog article “There are now more guns than people in the United States”), the number of privately owned firearms in U.S. increased from about 185 million in 1993 to 357 million in 2013.
Adjusted for the U.S. population, the number of guns per American increased from 0.93 per person in 1993 to 1.45 in 2013, which is a 56 percent increase in the number of guns per person that occurred during the same period when gun violence decreased by 49 percent (see new chart below). Of course, that significant correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation, but it’s logical to believe that those two trends are related. After all, armed citizens frequently prevent crimes from happening, including gun-related homicides, see hundreds of examples here of law-abiding gun owners defending themselves and their families and homes.
Meanwhile, criminals don't obey gun laws. Obviously. What deters criminals is not knowing if their intended targets are armed. In places where gun ownership is heavily regulated, criminals can be sure their targets are defenseless.
Obviously.
A landmark, comprehensive review of studies looking at the effectiveness of gun control laws in 10 countries was published in 2016. Researchers at Columbia University reviewed 130 studies to compile an overall picture of how effective laws limiting firearms were in reducing deaths.
The authors concluded “the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related deaths in certain countries”, and “some specific restrictions on purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with reductions in firearm deaths”.
More recently, further studies on gun control in the US have been released that show stricter laws by US state, and states nearby, are associated with reduced suicide and homicide rates.
And those studies are crap.....they even fall apart with simple questions.....such as how does universal background checks lower gun crime rates when criminals ignore them?
Well there's an easy answer to that... background checks don't stop the criminals that ignore them. They stop the people who don't get guns because they don't pass a check and they don't have resources to get an illegal firearm.
Sorry.....you are wrong.
If they have the resources to buy a gun from a gun store they can get an illegal gun as well.
The only reason you guys want universal background checks is to demand gun registration....which is what you need in order to confiscate guns in the future.
You can lie about this all day long, but we aren't democrat party members...so sell that crap to them, not us. They will believe you, we know the truth.
Would you also claim that legalizing pot isn't resulting in more people buying pot?
It doesn't stop the people actually using guns to commit gun murder in our cities......and we aren't talking about the background checks that currently fail at gun stores....we are talking what you guys really want...universal background checks on all gun sales.....you want that because then, when they also fail to stop the gun criminals the democrat party keeps releasing, you will come back and demand universal gun registration.....which is the real goal, and universal background checks is just one thing you need to get there.
That is such a fraudulent argument yet you keep making it. Because it isn’t 100% effective, we shouldn’t do it.Its much harder to find somebody to illegally sell you a gun than it is to just go to a store and buy one. If I was really driven to get one and I asked around enough then I'm sure I could find one. But its a much harder process, that means it is a deterrent and are you honestly going to claim that it wouldn't stop anybody from getting a gun?Interesting... Thank for the link... What do you think of these studies?Generally speaking, when legal gun ownership goes up, crime goes down.Chicago has many problems with gun violence, I think its rather simplistic to blame it on gun regulations or claim that gun regulations don't have any effect. Lets say all gun regulations were dropped in Chicago and anybody could easily get and carry whatever kind of gun they wanted. Do you think the violence would go up or down?Chicago has lots of gun regulations.I think you misunderstood me. I was simply making the point that there are people that propose a higher risk than others and there are guns that propose a higher risk than others. There for when regulating it makes sense to consider both as factors. I think the fact that a mentally ill person can't walk into a 711 and buy an uzi is a good thing. Yes extreme example but it sets the premise that regulation makes us safer. So lets agree on that and then move forward to do what is most practical and makes the most sense giving each individual situation.Now you're moving the goalposts. You said nothing about the degree of danger.Of course there are dangerous guns... extreme example... put a musket next to an Auto with a 100 round magazine... are you really going to tell me that the Auto isn't a more dangerous weapon? Give me a break"Dangerous guns".I don't support all the gun legislation proposed as some of it I don't see how it makes a practical impact. But I do see much of it and the inherent intent to keep dangerous guns out of hands of dangerous people. I think its a fair discussion that needs to be taken issue by issue. These blanket attacks are useless to me.
No such thing. Guns are inanimate objects. They don't act; they are acted upon. They are a tool to be utilized.
"Dangerous people".
Getting closer there. Two problems, though.
1. Dangerous people will act dangerously regardless of the tools available or the laws preventing their actions.
2. It really depends on who's defining what's dangerous, doesn't it? To some people, ideas are dangerous and their dissemination must be prevented and those who believe in them must be punished.
You wouldn't want someone with a mental illness to have a .50 Barrett sniper rifle. Are you okay with them having a .22 Derringer? The .50 is far more dangerous a weapon.
Where do you draw the line? Or why don't you just go ahead and admit you don't have a line?
How well are they working?
From Tuesday of last week:
23 shot, 4 fatally, Tuesday in Chicago
Based on data from a 2012 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report (and additional data from another Wonkblog article “There are now more guns than people in the United States”), the number of privately owned firearms in U.S. increased from about 185 million in 1993 to 357 million in 2013.
Adjusted for the U.S. population, the number of guns per American increased from 0.93 per person in 1993 to 1.45 in 2013, which is a 56 percent increase in the number of guns per person that occurred during the same period when gun violence decreased by 49 percent (see new chart below). Of course, that significant correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation, but it’s logical to believe that those two trends are related. After all, armed citizens frequently prevent crimes from happening, including gun-related homicides, see hundreds of examples here of law-abiding gun owners defending themselves and their families and homes.
Meanwhile, criminals don't obey gun laws. Obviously. What deters criminals is not knowing if their intended targets are armed. In places where gun ownership is heavily regulated, criminals can be sure their targets are defenseless.
Obviously.
A landmark, comprehensive review of studies looking at the effectiveness of gun control laws in 10 countries was published in 2016. Researchers at Columbia University reviewed 130 studies to compile an overall picture of how effective laws limiting firearms were in reducing deaths.
The authors concluded “the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related deaths in certain countries”, and “some specific restrictions on purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with reductions in firearm deaths”.
More recently, further studies on gun control in the US have been released that show stricter laws by US state, and states nearby, are associated with reduced suicide and homicide rates.
And those studies are crap.....they even fall apart with simple questions.....such as how does universal background checks lower gun crime rates when criminals ignore them?
Well there's an easy answer to that... background checks don't stop the criminals that ignore them. They stop the people who don't get guns because they don't pass a check and they don't have resources to get an illegal firearm.
Sorry.....you are wrong.
If they have the resources to buy a gun from a gun store they can get an illegal gun as well.
The only reason you guys want universal background checks is to demand gun registration....which is what you need in order to confiscate guns in the future.
You can lie about this all day long, but we aren't democrat party members...so sell that crap to them, not us. They will believe you, we know the truth.
Would you also claim that legalizing pot isn't resulting in more people buying pot?
It doesn't stop the people actually using guns to commit gun murder in our cities......and we aren't talking about the background checks that currently fail at gun stores....we are talking what you guys really want...universal background checks on all gun sales.....you want that because then, when they also fail to stop the gun criminals the democrat party keeps releasing, you will come back and demand universal gun registration.....which is the real goal, and universal background checks is just one thing you need to get there.
Good. Guns should be licensed like autos. Anyone can buy one, but they need show They know how to responsibly and safely use it, and that they can at least hit the broadside of a barn. Tbe NRA could make money off it by offering firearms training and certifications. A win win.The filthy ass Democrats have never understood the Bill of Rights, have they?
Elect the asshole Democrats and you get your Constitution rights taken away and they tell you that it is for your own good.
They sure as hell don't understand what the word "infringement" means, do they? Typical for uneducated Liberals.
The only license I need to own a gun is the Bill of Rights. I sure as hell don't need some Democrat Moon Bat politician that have never fired a firearm telling me how to store and keep my firearms.
12020 Democratic Party Platform
Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault
or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal background check
system. We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been
convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale
of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing
requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove
guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will pass
legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes. And Democrats believe that gun
companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will
prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.
Yes....you are a fascist. We know that already.
You shouldn't be allowed to vote until you can pass a test, created by the government and you will need to pay a fee to vote as well.....
spoken like a true fascist
And you missed that......not surprising.
Comparing literacy tests and poll taxes to new gun laws just can't be grasped by your tiny brain....
Good. Guns should be licensed like autos. Anyone can buy one, but they need show They know how to responsibly and safely use it, and that they can at least hit the broadside of a barn. Tbe NRA could make money off it by offering firearms training and certifications. A win win.The filthy ass Democrats have never understood the Bill of Rights, have they?
Elect the asshole Democrats and you get your Constitution rights taken away and they tell you that it is for your own good.
They sure as hell don't understand what the word "infringement" means, do they? Typical for uneducated Liberals.
The only license I need to own a gun is the Bill of Rights. I sure as hell don't need some Democrat Moon Bat politician that have never fired a firearm telling me how to store and keep my firearms.
12020 Democratic Party Platform
Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition,
close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers and some individuals convicted of assault
or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal background check
system. We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been
convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale
of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing
requirements for owning firearms and “red flag” laws that allow courts to temporarily remove
guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will pass
legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes. And Democrats believe that gun
companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will
prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.
Yes....you are a fascist. We know that already.
You shouldn't be allowed to vote until you can pass a test, created by the government and you will need to pay a fee to vote as well.....
spoken like a true fascist
And you missed that......not surprising.
Comparing literacy tests and poll taxes to new gun laws just can't be grasped by your tiny brain....
Comparing voting - the most critical component of a representative form of government - to firearms Is nothing short of ludicrous.
