Are Gun Control Laws Constitutional

[Uncensored2008]

No, murder is the taking of a human life. Don't need a firearm for that.

Why not focus on reducing the murder rate? Isn't that a more rational goal?

Of course, we tend to see an inverse correlation between murder rates and the level to which civilians are restricted from owning firearms. Over 100 countries have murder rates higher than the US, yet all of those countries have a near total ban on civilian firearm ownership. Even within the US, places with the most gun control also have the highest murder rates. Where firearm ownership is the highest and laws the least restrictive, the murder rate is low. Clearly, there is no link between gun control and reducing murder rate.

So, be honest, do you really wish to see less 'taking of human life' or do you just not like icky guns?

He doesn't like "icky liberty"

He and his party are dedicated to ending it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Hence...the Constitution is meaningless in the small minds of some. The consequence of this is rule by elite, but then consequences mean nothing to the left.

You are mistaken. Wry is not ignorantly stumbling into consequences. Wry is like most of the left, looking for order. When a ruler tells the subjects what to do and when to do it, things are orderly. Peasants in nice neat lines awaiting toilet paper. Peasants standing at attention while the glorious party has parades. Order, nice and neat, People having the purpose of obeying the party rulers, (indistinguishable from the crown of the last dark ages.) People directed like cogs in a wheel to the benefit of the party and it's rules.

Liberty is just so messy, people doing what they want with no central planning at all, it gives Wry the vapors.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Thank you so much.

Why do you believe the Constitution should be meaningless?

The Constitution is not consistent with the top down rule he and his party desire.

 

[gipper]

Hence...the Constitution is meaningless in the small minds of some. The consequence of this is rule by elite, but then consequences mean nothing to the left.

You are mistaken. Wry is not ignorantly stumbling into consequences. Wry is like most of the left, looking for order. When a ruler tells the subjects what to do and when to do it, things are orderly. Peasants in nice neat lines awaiting toilet paper. Peasants standing at attention while the glorious party has parades. Order, nice and neat, People having the purpose of obeying the party rulers, (indistinguishable from the crown of the last dark ages.) People directed like cogs in a wheel to the benefit of the party and it's rules.

Liberty is just so messy, people doing what they want with no central planning at all, it gives Wry the vapors.

The consequence of their belief is tyranny. They will never understand that though.

 

[Flash]

I believe each state should constitute what they term as a militia and the requirements for membership and training.

US Code defines the militia as able bodied men not under the orders of the State or Federal government so if the state organizes a group it is not a militia.

By the way, since the Supreme Court had ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right the same as the right to free speech and freedom of religion should you belong to a government controlled organization before being allowed those rights?

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
The consequence of their belief is tyranny. They will never understand that though.

He understands it fine, he DESIRES tyranny. Tyranny is neat and tidy. Think of Mao and the nice uniforms the peasants wore. Order, anyone not neat and presentable was shot. A sparkling sea of grey, all dressed identical to reinforce the sacred belief of the left that people are just parts. If one is not functioning, destroy it and put another in it's place.

Liberty is messy, Wry wants to put an end to that.

 

[Wry Catcher]

My goal is to reduce gun violence in America; gun violence is the taking of a human life by another.

No, murder is the taking of a human life. Don't need a firearm for that.

Why not focus on reducing the murder rate? Isn't that a more rational goal?

Of course, we tend to see an inverse correlation between murder rates and the level to which civilians are restricted from owning firearms. Over 100 countries have murder rates higher than the US, yet all of those countries have a near total ban on civilian firearm ownership. Even within the US, places with the most gun control also have the highest murder rates. Where firearm ownership is the highest and laws the least restrictive, the murder rate is low. Clearly, there is no link between gun control and reducing murder rate.

So, be honest, do you really wish to see less 'taking of human life' or do you just not like icky guns?

I am honest, you seem to be another liar by omission. Murder rates in western democracies are far lower than those in our country. Post the stats, most of those nation-states who have outlawed guns are not democracies and not anywhere you would want to live.

Why carve out just "western democracies"? Why discount the 100+ countries with total gun control and yet high murder rates. I see you also ignored the correlation in the US with strict gun control and high murder rates. Seems you're the one lying by omission!

Anyway, I'm glad to have cleared up the definition of murder for you. You're welcome.

Which came first, high murder rates or efforts to control guns? Correlation does not prove causation:
Consider:

• Post Hoc (Because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other)
• joint effect (A purported cause and effect are both the effects of a joint cause)
• Insignificant (The purported cause is insignificant compared to others)
• Wrong Direction (The direction between cause and effect is reversed)
• Complex Cause (The cause identified is only part of the entire cause)

Without supporting evidence, one may also assume more guns easily obtained result in more murders. If you had ever read a coroner's report you would notice murder is never used as a term to describe a death. The phrase, "at the hands of another" is the proper form.

I didn't carve out 'Western Democracies' I simply used an apples and apples comparison.

 

[2aguy]

My goal is to reduce gun violence in America; gun violence is the taking of a human life by another.

No, murder is the taking of a human life. Don't need a firearm for that.

Why not focus on reducing the murder rate? Isn't that a more rational goal?

Of course, we tend to see an inverse correlation between murder rates and the level to which civilians are restricted from owning firearms. Over 100 countries have murder rates higher than the US, yet all of those countries have a near total ban on civilian firearm ownership. Even within the US, places with the most gun control also have the highest murder rates. Where firearm ownership is the highest and laws the least restrictive, the murder rate is low. Clearly, there is no link between gun control and reducing murder rate.

So, be honest, do you really wish to see less 'taking of human life' or do you just not like icky guns?

I am honest, you seem to be another liar by omission. Murder rates in western democracies are far lower than those in our country. Post the stats, most of those nation-states who have outlawed guns are not democracies and not anywhere you would want to live.

Why carve out just "western democracies"? Why discount the 100+ countries with total gun control and yet high murder rates. I see you also ignored the correlation in the US with strict gun control and high murder rates. Seems you're the one lying by omission!

Anyway, I'm glad to have cleared up the definition of murder for you. You're welcome.

Which came first, high murder rates or efforts to control guns? Correlation does not prove causation:
Consider:

• Post Hoc (Because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other)
• joint effect (A purported cause and effect are both the effects of a joint cause)
• Insignificant (The purported cause is insignificant compared to others)
• Wrong Direction (The direction between cause and effect is reversed)
• Complex Cause (The cause identified is only part of the entire cause)

Without supporting evidence, one may also assume more guns easily obtained result in more murders. If you had ever read a coroner's report you would notice murder is never used as a term to describe a death. The phrase, "at the hands of another" is the proper form.

I didn't carve out 'Western Democracies' I simply used an apples and apples comparison.

And of course you won't explain how it is that more Americans now own and carry guns......and our gun murder rate decreased...via the FBI table 8: homicides, and the CDC......

4.7 million Americans carried guns in the United States in 2007........13 million Americans now carry guns in 2016...and our gun murder rate went down....

And you know what....we aren't even talking causation...it doesn't matter if people carrying guns lowered the crime rate or not....

The fact is...as more Americans have started carrying guns.....your belief that more crime would be created was wrong...completely wrong....

The FBI, the CDC show that you are wrong......and yet you cling to your non truth and false reality.

 

[2aguy]

My goal is to reduce gun violence in America; gun violence is the taking of a human life by another.

No, murder is the taking of a human life. Don't need a firearm for that.

Why not focus on reducing the murder rate? Isn't that a more rational goal?

Of course, we tend to see an inverse correlation between murder rates and the level to which civilians are restricted from owning firearms. Over 100 countries have murder rates higher than the US, yet all of those countries have a near total ban on civilian firearm ownership. Even within the US, places with the most gun control also have the highest murder rates. Where firearm ownership is the highest and laws the least restrictive, the murder rate is low. Clearly, there is no link between gun control and reducing murder rate.

So, be honest, do you really wish to see less 'taking of human life' or do you just not like icky guns?

I am honest, you seem to be another liar by omission. Murder rates in western democracies are far lower than those in our country. Post the stats, most of those nation-states who have outlawed guns are not democracies and not anywhere you would want to live.

Why carve out just "western democracies"? Why discount the 100+ countries with total gun control and yet high murder rates. I see you also ignored the correlation in the US with strict gun control and high murder rates. Seems you're the one lying by omission!

Anyway, I'm glad to have cleared up the definition of murder for you. You're welcome.

Which came first, high murder rates or efforts to control guns? Correlation does not prove causation:
Consider:

• Post Hoc (Because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other)
• joint effect (A purported cause and effect are both the effects of a joint cause)
• Insignificant (The purported cause is insignificant compared to others)
• Wrong Direction (The direction between cause and effect is reversed)
• Complex Cause (The cause identified is only part of the entire cause)

Without supporting evidence, one may also assume more guns easily obtained result in more murders. If you had ever read a coroner's report you would notice murder is never used as a term to describe a death. The phrase, "at the hands of another" is the proper form.

I didn't carve out 'Western Democracies' I simply used an apples and apples comparison.

Without supporting evidence, one may also assume more guns easily obtained result in more murders.

And here.....you are wrong....the actual evidence shows you are wrong....on every aspect of the gun issue....

From 2014…..and I added 2011……

2006

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

2006 fbi table 8

Murder by firearm….

2006-- 10,225
2007 10,129
2008-- 9,528
2009-- 9,199
2010- 8,874
2011-- 8,653
2012-- 8,897
2013-- 8,454
2014-- 8,124

 

[2aguy]

My goal is to reduce gun violence in America; gun violence is the taking of a human life by another.

No, murder is the taking of a human life. Don't need a firearm for that.

Why not focus on reducing the murder rate? Isn't that a more rational goal?

Of course, we tend to see an inverse correlation between murder rates and the level to which civilians are restricted from owning firearms. Over 100 countries have murder rates higher than the US, yet all of those countries have a near total ban on civilian firearm ownership. Even within the US, places with the most gun control also have the highest murder rates. Where firearm ownership is the highest and laws the least restrictive, the murder rate is low. Clearly, there is no link between gun control and reducing murder rate.

So, be honest, do you really wish to see less 'taking of human life' or do you just not like icky guns?

I am honest, you seem to be another liar by omission. Murder rates in western democracies are far lower than those in our country. Post the stats, most of those nation-states who have outlawed guns are not democracies and not anywhere you would want to live.

Why carve out just "western democracies"? Why discount the 100+ countries with total gun control and yet high murder rates. I see you also ignored the correlation in the US with strict gun control and high murder rates. Seems you're the one lying by omission!

Anyway, I'm glad to have cleared up the definition of murder for you. You're welcome.

Which came first, high murder rates or efforts to control guns? Correlation does not prove causation:
Consider:

• Post Hoc (Because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other)
• joint effect (A purported cause and effect are both the effects of a joint cause)
• Insignificant (The purported cause is insignificant compared to others)
• Wrong Direction (The direction between cause and effect is reversed)
• Complex Cause (The cause identified is only part of the entire cause)

Without supporting evidence, one may also assume more guns easily obtained result in more murders. If you had ever read a coroner's report you would notice murder is never used as a term to describe a death. The phrase, "at the hands of another" is the proper form.

I didn't carve out 'Western Democracies' I simply used an apples and apples comparison.

No....you exclude the countries that show you are wrong.....here is an accurate look....

The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to "Developed" Countries

Why Turkey and Chile and Bulgaria? Well, those countries are OECD members, and many who use the "developed country" moniker often use the OECD members countries as a de facto list of the "true" developed countries. Of course, membership in the OECD is highly political and hardly based on any objective economic or cultural criteria.

But if you're familiar with the OECD, you'll immediately notice a problem with the list Fisher uses. Mexico is an OECD country. So why is Mexico not in this graph? Well, it's pretty apparent that Mexico was left off the list because to do so would interfere with the point Fisher is trying to make. After all, Mexico — in spite of much more restrictive gun laws — has a murder rate many times larger than the US.
----
More Realistic Comparisons Involve a Broader View of the World

Why not use the UN’s human development index instead? That would seem to make at least as much sense if we’re devoted to looking at “developed countries.”

So, let’s do that. Here we see that the OECD’s list contains Turkey, Bulgaria, Mexico, and Chile. So, if we're honest with ourselves, that must mean that other countries with similar human development rankings are also suitable for comparisons to the US.

Well, Turkey and Mexico have HDI numbers at .75. So, let’s include other countries with HDI numbers either similar or higher. That means we should include The Bahamas, Argentina, Costa Rica, Cuba, Panama, Uruguay, Venezuela, Russia, Lithuania, Belarus, Estonia, and Latvia.

You can see where this is going. If we include countries that have HDI numbers similar to — or at least as high as — OECD members Turkey and Mexico, we find that the picture for the United States murder rate looks very different (correctly using murder rates and not gun-deaths rates):

Wow, that US sure has a pretty low murder rate compared to all those countries that are comparable to some OECD members. In fact, Russia, Costa Rica and Lithuania have all been invited to begin the process of joining the OECD (Russia is on hold for obvious political reasons). But all those countries have higher murder rates than the US. (I wonder what excuse Fisher will manufacture for leaving off those countries after they join the OECD.)

Things get even more interesting if we add American states with low murder rates.

And why not include data from individual states?

It has always been extremely imprecise and lazy to talk about the “US murder rate” ''


The US is an immense country with a lot of variety in laws and demographics. (Mexico deserves the same analysis, by the way.)

Many states have murder rates that place them on the short list of low-crime places in the world.

Why do we conveniently ignore them?

The US murder rate is being driven up by a few high-murder states such as Maryland, Louisiana, South Carolina, Delaware, and Tennessee. In the spirit of selective use of data, let's just leave those states out of it, and look at some of the low-crime ones:

 

[Wry Catcher]

The second amendment is clear. Every American can keep and bear arms and the stinking government can't infringe on this right.

However thanks to progressives, the Constitution is just about meaningless. Americans are ruled by a small criminal elite, who have gained near total power.

Yes the state can infringe on it. Thats what "regulated" basically means.

You need to understand history, to know the meaning of the word militia. Militia meant EVERY able bodied man. In your uninformed nut job world, you think militia means the government run military...WRONG!!!

The amendment continues with the words 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." This clearly means the big unlimited government you love, run by elitists and criminals, can't impose gun control laws.

I know this is a waste of time, because liberals are uninformed and propagandized. So there's that.

1792 Militia Act of 1792, setting forth standards for the May 2 Act, (1792 Militia Act of 1792 was passed by the Second Congress, allowing the president to call out members of the states militias.) including a] each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of age 18 and under age 45… b] provide himself with a good musket,…bayonet and belt,… not less than twenty four cartridges.; c] exempting all elected officials and employees of the government.


George Mason, Father of the Bill of Rights: "I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, [NY: Burt Franklin,1888] p.425-6)


The Constitution gave Congress the power to raise and support a national army, and to organize “the Militia.” This is because an army didn’t naturally exist, while “the Militia” only had to be organized: it always existed. (See enumerated powers in Article 1,Section 8.)

They don't learn this in government school.

Huh?:

• George Mason is dead
• The Organized Militia is the National Guard and the Naval and Coast Guard Reserve.
• the Militia today is not middle aged fat guys untrained and not under the leadership of Officers Appointed by the State.
• We no longer live in the 18th Century
• LIes by Omission are damn lies
• PC lies by Omission (See: Art I, sec 8, and clause 15 and 16 (omitted in the post above by PC)

Why is it sooooooo simple to prove you to be an ignorant dolt?

Oh...right....because you're an ignorant dolt.


Today, federal law defines “the militia of the United States” to include all able-bodied males from 17 to 45 and members of the National Guard up to age 64, but excluding those who have no intention of becoming citizens, and active military personnel. (US Code Title 10, sect. 311-313)
[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311]



Soooo......
Does that neon light flashing IDIOT over your head keep you awake at night?

Gee, have you taken a moment to read clause 15 and 16 in Art. I, sec 8 of COTUS? Are all of those millions of able-bodied men between 17 and 45 supervised by officers appointed by the State? Are they trained by said officers according to the discipline prescribed by the Congress? Or does that phrase you claim simply mean these are the person who are eligible for a draft, to be conscripted in times of national emergencies to "execute the laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"?

 

[Wry Catcher]

My goal is to reduce gun violence in America; gun violence is the taking of a human life by another.

No, murder is the taking of a human life. Don't need a firearm for that.

Why not focus on reducing the murder rate? Isn't that a more rational goal?

Of course, we tend to see an inverse correlation between murder rates and the level to which civilians are restricted from owning firearms. Over 100 countries have murder rates higher than the US, yet all of those countries have a near total ban on civilian firearm ownership. Even within the US, places with the most gun control also have the highest murder rates. Where firearm ownership is the highest and laws the least restrictive, the murder rate is low. Clearly, there is no link between gun control and reducing murder rate.

So, be honest, do you really wish to see less 'taking of human life' or do you just not like icky guns?

I am honest, you seem to be another liar by omission. Murder rates in western democracies are far lower than those in our country. Post the stats, most of those nation-states who have outlawed guns are not democracies and not anywhere you would want to live.

Why carve out just "western democracies"? Why discount the 100+ countries with total gun control and yet high murder rates. I see you also ignored the correlation in the US with strict gun control and high murder rates. Seems you're the one lying by omission!

Anyway, I'm glad to have cleared up the definition of murder for you. You're welcome.

Which came first, high murder rates or efforts to control guns? Correlation does not prove causation:
Consider:

• Post Hoc (Because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other)
• joint effect (A purported cause and effect are both the effects of a joint cause)
• Insignificant (The purported cause is insignificant compared to others)
• Wrong Direction (The direction between cause and effect is reversed)
• Complex Cause (The cause identified is only part of the entire cause)

Without supporting evidence, one may also assume more guns easily obtained result in more murders. If you had ever read a coroner's report you would notice murder is never used as a term to describe a death. The phrase, "at the hands of another" is the proper form.

I didn't carve out 'Western Democracies' I simply used an apples and apples comparison.

Without supporting evidence, one may also assume more guns easily obtained result in more murders.

And here.....you are wrong....the actual evidence shows you are wrong....on every aspect of the gun issue....

From 2014…..and I added 2011……

2006

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

2006 fbi table 8

Murder by firearm….

2006-- 10,225
2007 10,129
2008-- 9,528
2009-- 9,199
2010- 8,874
2011-- 8,653
2012-- 8,897
2013-- 8,454
2014-- 8,124

Fortunately I know what the meaning of assume is. One might easily assume the murder rate fell a result of the election of President Obama.

 

[2aguy]

My goal is to reduce gun violence in America; gun violence is the taking of a human life by another.

No, murder is the taking of a human life. Don't need a firearm for that.

Why not focus on reducing the murder rate? Isn't that a more rational goal?

Of course, we tend to see an inverse correlation between murder rates and the level to which civilians are restricted from owning firearms. Over 100 countries have murder rates higher than the US, yet all of those countries have a near total ban on civilian firearm ownership. Even within the US, places with the most gun control also have the highest murder rates. Where firearm ownership is the highest and laws the least restrictive, the murder rate is low. Clearly, there is no link between gun control and reducing murder rate.

So, be honest, do you really wish to see less 'taking of human life' or do you just not like icky guns?

I am honest, you seem to be another liar by omission. Murder rates in western democracies are far lower than those in our country. Post the stats, most of those nation-states who have outlawed guns are not democracies and not anywhere you would want to live.

Why carve out just "western democracies"? Why discount the 100+ countries with total gun control and yet high murder rates. I see you also ignored the correlation in the US with strict gun control and high murder rates. Seems you're the one lying by omission!

Anyway, I'm glad to have cleared up the definition of murder for you. You're welcome.

Which came first, high murder rates or efforts to control guns? Correlation does not prove causation:
Consider:

• Post Hoc (Because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other)
• joint effect (A purported cause and effect are both the effects of a joint cause)
• Insignificant (The purported cause is insignificant compared to others)
• Wrong Direction (The direction between cause and effect is reversed)
• Complex Cause (The cause identified is only part of the entire cause)

Without supporting evidence, one may also assume more guns easily obtained result in more murders. If you had ever read a coroner's report you would notice murder is never used as a term to describe a death. The phrase, "at the hands of another" is the proper form.

I didn't carve out 'Western Democracies' I simply used an apples and apples comparison.

And of course.......states are not the same...

And why not include data from individual states? It has always been extremely imprecise and lazy to talk about the “US murder rate” The US is an immense country with a lot of variety in laws and demographics. (Mexico deserves the same analysis, by the way.) Many states have murder rates that place them on the short list of low-crime places in the world. Why do we conveniently ignore them? The US murder rate is being driven up by a few high-murder states such as Maryland, Louisiana, South Carolina, Delaware, and Tennessee. In the spirit of selective use of data, let's just leave those states out of it, and look at some of the low-crime ones:



We see that OECD members Chile and Turkey have murder rates higher than Colorado. Perhaps they should try adopting Colorado’s laws and allow sale of handguns and semi-automatic rifles to all non-felon adults. That might help them bring their murder rates down a little.

But you know that’s not the conclusion we're supposed to come to.Comparisons can never work in that direction.

The comparisons should only be used to compare the US to countries with restrictive gun laws and low murder rates.

Comparisons with countries that have restrictive gun laws (and/or few private guns) and murder rates similar to or higher than US rates (i.e., Latin America, the Caribbean and the Baltic States.)

Nevertheless, we have yet to see any objective reason why only OECD countries should be included or why countries similar in the HDI to Turkey and Mexico should be excluded.

 

[2aguy]

No, murder is the taking of a human life. Don't need a firearm for that.

Why not focus on reducing the murder rate? Isn't that a more rational goal?

Of course, we tend to see an inverse correlation between murder rates and the level to which civilians are restricted from owning firearms. Over 100 countries have murder rates higher than the US, yet all of those countries have a near total ban on civilian firearm ownership. Even within the US, places with the most gun control also have the highest murder rates. Where firearm ownership is the highest and laws the least restrictive, the murder rate is low. Clearly, there is no link between gun control and reducing murder rate.

So, be honest, do you really wish to see less 'taking of human life' or do you just not like icky guns?

I am honest, you seem to be another liar by omission. Murder rates in western democracies are far lower than those in our country. Post the stats, most of those nation-states who have outlawed guns are not democracies and not anywhere you would want to live.

Why carve out just "western democracies"? Why discount the 100+ countries with total gun control and yet high murder rates. I see you also ignored the correlation in the US with strict gun control and high murder rates. Seems you're the one lying by omission!

Anyway, I'm glad to have cleared up the definition of murder for you. You're welcome.

Which came first, high murder rates or efforts to control guns? Correlation does not prove causation:
Consider:

• Post Hoc (Because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other)
• joint effect (A purported cause and effect are both the effects of a joint cause)
• Insignificant (The purported cause is insignificant compared to others)
• Wrong Direction (The direction between cause and effect is reversed)
• Complex Cause (The cause identified is only part of the entire cause)

Without supporting evidence, one may also assume more guns easily obtained result in more murders. If you had ever read a coroner's report you would notice murder is never used as a term to describe a death. The phrase, "at the hands of another" is the proper form.

I didn't carve out 'Western Democracies' I simply used an apples and apples comparison.

Without supporting evidence, one may also assume more guns easily obtained result in more murders.

And here.....you are wrong....the actual evidence shows you are wrong....on every aspect of the gun issue....

From 2014…..and I added 2011……

2006

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

2006 fbi table 8

Murder by firearm….

2006-- 10,225
2007 10,129
2008-- 9,528
2009-- 9,199
2010- 8,874
2011-- 8,653
2012-- 8,897
2013-- 8,454
2014-- 8,124

Fortunately I know what the meaning of assume is. One might easily assume the murder rate fell a result of the election of President Obama.

Wrong....it has been going down since the 1990s...when states began passing concealed carry laws...

And nice dodge.....I pointed out we weren't discussing causation.....

We are talking about the fact that your entire point is wrong....more Americans are now actually carrying guns on their person for self defense....and the crime rate did not go up....showing that your point is wrong..completely wrong....

We do not have a gun problem...we have a criminal problem since they are the ones shooting each other.....

Normal people owning and carrying guns does not increase the gun murder rate.....so what you say is wrong.

Britain confiscated guns from normal people...and their gun crime and murder rate stayed the same.....

Again...thug culture, not access to guns is the issue.

 

[Wry Catcher]

My goal is to reduce gun violence in America; gun violence is the taking of a human life by another.

No, murder is the taking of a human life. Don't need a firearm for that.

Why not focus on reducing the murder rate? Isn't that a more rational goal?

Of course, we tend to see an inverse correlation between murder rates and the level to which civilians are restricted from owning firearms. Over 100 countries have murder rates higher than the US, yet all of those countries have a near total ban on civilian firearm ownership. Even within the US, places with the most gun control also have the highest murder rates. Where firearm ownership is the highest and laws the least restrictive, the murder rate is low. Clearly, there is no link between gun control and reducing murder rate.

So, be honest, do you really wish to see less 'taking of human life' or do you just not like icky guns?

I am honest, you seem to be another liar by omission. Murder rates in western democracies are far lower than those in our country. Post the stats, most of those nation-states who have outlawed guns are not democracies and not anywhere you would want to live.

And of course you are a liar. The gun murder rate in Britain and the other Western Democracies have never been as high as in our country...in fact...our non gun murder rate is higher than the entire murder rate of Britain...

And of course you can't explain how it is that after Britain confiscated guns from law abiding citizens in the 1990s....the gun crime rate did not change....in fact, it went up...it spiked for years after ward before returning to where it was before the confiscation...

Also....violent crime increased in Britain.....in fact it went up 27% last year, and the gun crime rate went up 4% last year...

our gun murder rate is not created by law abiding people owning and carrying guns.....it is created by a thug culture located in our inner cites, driven by single teen mother hood and democrat social policies...culture, not guns.

And again....more Americans now own guns....and our gun murder rate went down, not up. As the stats from the FBI table 8 show...as do the stats from the CDC...

You continue to limit your focus based on assumptions which do not prove your point. I know very little about violent crime in Britain, I do know that crime increases during times when an economy of a nation or region slows, unemployment increases and young men have nothing productive to do.

I have never suggested the stupidity that "law abiding people owning and carrying guns" commit murder, nor that guns must be confiscated from this group of people or that they should be punished for wanting to own and possess a gun. That you're incapable of accepting that fact, and must continue the meme that the regulation of guns is the first step to the elimination of guns because that's what Hitler did is why I take nothing you post seriously.

 

[Wry Catcher]

My goal is to reduce gun violence in America; gun violence is the taking of a human life by another.

No, murder is the taking of a human life. Don't need a firearm for that.

Why not focus on reducing the murder rate? Isn't that a more rational goal?

Of course, we tend to see an inverse correlation between murder rates and the level to which civilians are restricted from owning firearms. Over 100 countries have murder rates higher than the US, yet all of those countries have a near total ban on civilian firearm ownership. Even within the US, places with the most gun control also have the highest murder rates. Where firearm ownership is the highest and laws the least restrictive, the murder rate is low. Clearly, there is no link between gun control and reducing murder rate.

So, be honest, do you really wish to see less 'taking of human life' or do you just not like icky guns?

I am honest, you seem to be another liar by omission. Murder rates in western democracies are far lower than those in our country. Post the stats, most of those nation-states who have outlawed guns are not democracies and not anywhere you would want to live.

Why carve out just "western democracies"? Why discount the 100+ countries with total gun control and yet high murder rates. I see you also ignored the correlation in the US with strict gun control and high murder rates. Seems you're the one lying by omission!

Anyway, I'm glad to have cleared up the definition of murder for you. You're welcome.

Which came first, high murder rates or efforts to control guns? Correlation does not prove causation:
Consider:

• Post Hoc (Because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other)
• joint effect (A purported cause and effect are both the effects of a joint cause)
• Insignificant (The purported cause is insignificant compared to others)
• Wrong Direction (The direction between cause and effect is reversed)
• Complex Cause (The cause identified is only part of the entire cause)

Without supporting evidence, one may also assume more guns easily obtained result in more murders. If you had ever read a coroner's report you would notice murder is never used as a term to describe a death. The phrase, "at the hands of another" is the proper form.

I didn't carve out 'Western Democracies' I simply used an apples and apples comparison.

And of course you won't explain how it is that more Americans now own and carry guns......and our gun murder rate decreased...via the FBI table 8: homicides, and the CDC......

4.7 million Americans carried guns in the United States in 2007........13 million Americans now carry guns in 2016...and our gun murder rate went down....

And you know what....we aren't even talking causation...it doesn't matter if people carrying guns lowered the crime rate or not....

The fact is...as more Americans have started carrying guns.....your belief that more crime would be created was wrong...completely wrong....

The FBI, the CDC show that you are wrong......and yet you cling to your non truth and false reality.

There are lies, damn lies and statistics.

 

[IsaacNewton]

There is only a tiny number of firearms that are legal for the public to own.

They are, like everything else, subject to regulation.

Da Comrade.

Just as with the privilege of the press. A publisher may only report on a tiny number of things. Anything that is harmful to the party is subject to regulation.


You of the anti-liberty left are engaged in a full blown war to end civil rights and the United States Constitution.

Your inner self lies and memes are leaking out again Chucky. Better get the seals checked. You are thinking of your socialist boss Ronald Reagan. Your comrade Reagan is gone. You have to stick with your current god Kim Jung Un.

 

[Contumacious]

Post your opinion to these simple questions:

Do you believe Adam Lanza, Dylann Roof and Jared Lee Loughner (among too many others) had the absolute right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun prior to the murders they committed?

Should each state be granted the power to require all residents or visitors to their state, who want to own or possess a gun, to be licensed by the state?

This is a stupid thread.

You know they are not.

We are going to buy our firearms legally from Colt or in the blackmarket .


We will NOT be deprived - we will not be disarmed


LONG LIVE THE BLACKMARKET.

This is a stupid thread.

You know they are not. The 2A provides no regulatory authority.

We are going to buy our firearms legally from Colt or in the blackmarket .


We will NOT be deprived - we will not be disarmed

 

[Little-Acorn]

Are Gun Control Laws Constitutional


That's like asking if slavery is Constitutional in the U.S. today.

The answers are identical in both questions. And for the same reason.

But for one difference: The Constitutional amendment that forbade slavery, carries an exception written into its text. The one that forbade so-called "gun control", does not.

 

[2aguy]

My goal is to reduce gun violence in America; gun violence is the taking of a human life by another.

No, murder is the taking of a human life. Don't need a firearm for that.

Why not focus on reducing the murder rate? Isn't that a more rational goal?

Of course, we tend to see an inverse correlation between murder rates and the level to which civilians are restricted from owning firearms. Over 100 countries have murder rates higher than the US, yet all of those countries have a near total ban on civilian firearm ownership. Even within the US, places with the most gun control also have the highest murder rates. Where firearm ownership is the highest and laws the least restrictive, the murder rate is low. Clearly, there is no link between gun control and reducing murder rate.

So, be honest, do you really wish to see less 'taking of human life' or do you just not like icky guns?

I am honest, you seem to be another liar by omission. Murder rates in western democracies are far lower than those in our country. Post the stats, most of those nation-states who have outlawed guns are not democracies and not anywhere you would want to live.

And of course you are a liar. The gun murder rate in Britain and the other Western Democracies have never been as high as in our country...in fact...our non gun murder rate is higher than the entire murder rate of Britain...

And of course you can't explain how it is that after Britain confiscated guns from law abiding citizens in the 1990s....the gun crime rate did not change....in fact, it went up...it spiked for years after ward before returning to where it was before the confiscation...

Also....violent crime increased in Britain.....in fact it went up 27% last year, and the gun crime rate went up 4% last year...

our gun murder rate is not created by law abiding people owning and carrying guns.....it is created by a thug culture located in our inner cites, driven by single teen mother hood and democrat social policies...culture, not guns.

And again....more Americans now own guns....and our gun murder rate went down, not up. As the stats from the FBI table 8 show...as do the stats from the CDC...

You continue to limit your focus based on assumptions which do not prove your point. I know very little about violent crime in Britain, I do know that crime increases during times when an economy of a nation or region slows, unemployment increases and young men have nothing productive to do.

I have never suggested the stupidity that "law abiding people owning and carrying guns" commit murder, nor that guns must be confiscated from this group of people or that they should be punished for wanting to own and possess a gun. That you're incapable of accepting that fact, and must continue the meme that the regulation of guns is the first step to the elimination of guns because that's what Hitler did is why I take nothing you post seriously.

Britain and Australia did it as well and New York and Chicago have banned guns at different points as well.....

And you are wrong.....as more Americans own and carry guns our gun murder rate went down....as shown by the FBI table 8, homicides...and the CDC...

So again.....normal people owning and carrying guns does not increase the crime rate, the violent crime rate, the gun crime rate or the gun murder rate...

So laws mandating licensing law abiding gun owners, and registering guns and universal background checks will do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and are unnecessary to punish actual criminals.