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.
As the murder rate in the US is ~4.5/100k and would be lower if not for Chicago, you prove my point.[/QUOTE]You need to check your math. The murder rate in Chicago is about 20 in 100,000.Murder rates there are much higher than places outside of there, so... yes.[QUOTE="alang1216, post: 15039815, member: 49658
It also means 100%-1. What's your point, that almost 1/2 of the people in a democrat voting district in a democrat controlled inner city are adding to the murder rate?
By necessity.
Would you rather vaccinate your children or treat their illness?Criminal law, by its nature, is enforced after the law is broken.
Irrelevant to the conversation.You can't kill 10 people with your right to go to church, have an abortion, or report the news.
I responded to what was necessary - nothing you posted after what i quoted was relevant.Why don't you try reading a whole post for once?Irrelevant. The law is not enforced until after it is broken.That's an oversimplification. Plenty of crimes are charged against people who "broke laws" but have not yet created any victimsCriminal law, by its nature, is enforced after the law is broken.
I responded to what was necessary - nothing you posted after what i quoted was relevant.Why don't you try reading a whole post for once?Irrelevant. The law is not enforced until after it is broken.That's an oversimplification. Plenty of crimes are charged against people who "broke laws" but have not yet created any victimsCriminal law, by its nature, is enforced after the law is broken.
Ah. You understand you cannot counter my point. Good.Would you rather vaccinate your children or treat their illness?Criminal law, by its nature, is enforced after the law is broken.
Are gun control laws enforced before or after thy are broken?Actually, it was a perfect example of something being criminalized to prevent greater harm -- the goal of gun control laws.I responded to what was necessary - nothing you posted after what i quoted was relevant.Why don't you try reading a whole post for once?Irrelevant. The law is not enforced until after it is broken.That's an oversimplification. Plenty of crimes are charged against people who "broke laws" but have not yet created any victimsCriminal law, by its nature, is enforced after the law is broken.
No. It's not. Rights are rights.It's totally relevant.Irrelevant to the conversation.You can't kill 10 people with your right to go to church, have an abortion, or report the news.
I didn't bring up Chicago, .Why are 2nd Amendment fanatics so obsessed with Chicago? I don't get it. It's the only city they ever bring up. Chicago Chicago Chicago!
When you tell me how to predict with 100% accuracy who will and who won't commit a crime let me knowWould you rather vaccinate your children or treat their illness?Criminal law, by its nature, is enforced after the law is broken.
Actually, that isn't true.....the survey the anti gunners use to show gun ownership down is the General Social Survey....it is run by an anti gunner who wants to use his research to encourage politicians to enact more gun control.....
With millions of guns being sold, and record sales months more people are just not answering the questions of unknown pollsters on wether they have a gun in the home......
Shooting the messenger?
Different national polls tend to show slightly different rates of gun ownership. The latest household gun ownership rate in the General Social Survey, in 2014, was 32 percent. The October 2015 Gallup survey showed a higher rate of 43 percent, including guns kept on property outside the home.
But the downward trend in gun ownership remains consistent across the national polls. According to Gallup, gun ownership has fallen by about 10 percentage points since its peak in 1993. The General Social Survey shows a 20-point drop since the mid-1970s.
Congress earmarked $2.6 million from the CDC's budget, the exact amount that had previously been allocated to the agency for firearms research the previous year. The CDC can do gun research, just $2.6 million less than before.Are you really pushing the lie that the CDC can't do gun research....I have had several threads that have listed actual gun reserach by the CDC......
Classic straw man argument.Focus on actual gun criminals instead of taking guns away from normal gun owners.....
I can't think of a better use of my tax dollars than to ensure gun owners have some level of knowledge. Police or FBI approved trainers can teach classes at night or on weekends at local high schools. A written or oral exam to pass.Mandatory training....who pays for it? How does the poor person afford several hundred dollars in training fees in order to exercise a Constitutional Right....? Do you have an answer for that? Or do you think we should charge a tax for voting too.....?
Is there anything that won't infringe on the rights of the law abiding? Are we powerless to prevent gun crime since we can only react after the fact?Thee things do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns and infringe on the rights of the law abiding.Are you OK with gun registration, background checks and mandatory training?
So... no.
Anything else?
All rights carry restrictions with them. I need a photo id to vote in VA.Tell me how you think it constitutional for the state to require some arbitrary level of knowledge before it allows someone to exercise their rights.I can't think of a better use of my tax dollars than to ensure gun owners have some level of knowledge.Mandatory training....who pays for it? How does the poor person afford several hundred dollars in training fees in order to exercise a Constitutional Right....? Do you have an answer for that? Or do you think we should charge a tax for voting too.....?
Be sure you apply your answer to the exercise of all rights.
Sure - things that do not restrict the exercise of their right.Is there anything that won't infringe on the rights of the law abiding?Thee things do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns and infringe on the rights of the law abiding.Are you OK with gun registration, background checks and mandatory training?
So... no.
Anything else?
It is illegal to commit a crime with a gun. Not an infringement.
It is illegal for a felon to buy/own/possess a gun. Not an infringement.
Etc.
Criminal law, by its nature, is enforced after the law is broken.Are we powerless to prevent gun crime since we can only react after the fact?
That's an oversimplification. Plenty of crimes are charged against people who "broke laws" but have not yet created any victims. The goal of those in support of gun control is to prevent victims. DUI laws were created to stop injuries and fatalities from accidents involving alcohol. To do that, we criminalized driving drunk, not just crashing. The DUI arrest itself is not the goal. The prevention of harm is the goal.
Similarly, more than just locking someone up after they shoot a room full of people is required to stop people from shooting rooms full of people. You can make laws designed to prevent crime. We do it every day. Only disingenuous gun-rights martyrs think otherwise.
Yes... restrictions inherent to the right itself, such as being able to prove who you are when you vote.All rights carry restrictions with them. I need a photo id to vote in VA.Tell me how you think it constitutional for the state to require some arbitrary level of knowledge before it allows someone to exercise their rights.I can't think of a better use of my tax dollars than to ensure gun owners have some level of knowledge.Mandatory training....who pays for it? How does the poor person afford several hundred dollars in training fees in order to exercise a Constitutional Right....? Do you have an answer for that? Or do you think we should charge a tax for voting too.....?
Be sure you apply your answer to the exercise of all rights.
But, what if the state were to require some arbitrary level of knowledge before it allows someone to vote?
Report the news?
Go to church?
Have an abortion?
Again:
Tell me how you think it constitutional for the state to require some arbitrary level of knowledge before it allows someone to exercise their rights.
You can't kill 10 people with your right to go to church, have an abortion, or report the news.
As the murder rate in the US is ~4.5/100k and would be lower if not for Chicago, you prove my point.You need to check your math. The murder rate in Chicago is about 20 in 100,000.Murder rates there are much higher than places outside of there, so... yes.[QUOTE="alang1216, post: 15039815, member: 49658
It also means 100%-1. What's your point, that almost 1/2 of the people in a democrat voting district in a democrat controlled inner city are adding to the murder rate?
By necessity.
I responded to what was necessary - nothing you posted after what i quoted was relevant.Why don't you try reading a whole post for once?Irrelevant. The law is not enforced until after it is broken.That's an oversimplification. Plenty of crimes are charged against people who "broke laws" but have not yet created any victimsCriminal law, by its nature, is enforced after the law is broken.
Actually, it was a perfect example of something being criminalized to prevent greater harm -- the goal of gun control laws.
