CDZ gun magazine bullet limits...they only effect law abiding gun owners so why do we need them.

[GaryDog]

[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?

Murder rates there are much higher than places outside of there, so... yes.
By necessity.

You need to check your math. The murder rate in Chicago is about 20 in 100,000.

As the murder rate in the US is ~4.5/100k and would be lower if not for Chicago, you prove my point.[/QUOTE]

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!

 

[alang1216]

Criminal law, by its nature, is enforced after the law is broken.

Would you rather vaccinate your children or treat their illness?

 

[GaryDog]

You can't kill 10 people with your right to go to church, have an abortion, or report the news.

Irrelevant to the conversation.

It's totally relevant. A constitutional test for a restriction of a constitutional right involves the state's interest in regulating that right. Protecting the public from harm is a compelling state interest.

Learn a few things about constitutional law if you want to discuss this.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Criminal law, by its nature, is enforced after the law is broken.

That's an oversimplification. Plenty of crimes are charged against people who "broke laws" but have not yet created any victims

Irrelevant. The law is not enforced until after it is broken.

Why don't you try reading a whole post for once?

I responded to what was necessary - nothing you posted after what i quoted was relevant.

 

[GaryDog]

Criminal law, by its nature, is enforced after the law is broken.

That's an oversimplification. Plenty of crimes are charged against people who "broke laws" but have not yet created any victims

Irrelevant. The law is not enforced until after it is broken.

Why don't you try reading a whole post for once?

I responded to what was necessary - nothing you posted after what i quoted was relevant.

Actually, it was a perfect example of something being criminalized to prevent greater harm -- the goal of gun control laws.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Criminal law, by its nature, is enforced after the law is broken.

Would you rather vaccinate your children or treat their illness?

Ah. You understand you cannot counter my point. Good.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Criminal law, by its nature, is enforced after the law is broken.

That's an oversimplification. Plenty of crimes are charged against people who "broke laws" but have not yet created any victims

Irrelevant. The law is not enforced until after it is broken.

Why don't you try reading a whole post for once?

I responded to what was necessary - nothing you posted after what i quoted was relevant.

Actually, it was a perfect example of something being criminalized to prevent greater harm -- the goal of gun control laws.

Are gun control laws enforced before or after thy are broken?
After?
Thank you . Run along.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You can't kill 10 people with your right to go to church, have an abortion, or report the news.

Irrelevant to the conversation.

It's totally relevant.

No. It's not. Rights are rights.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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!

I didn't bring up Chicago, .

 

[Skull Pilot]

Criminal law, by its nature, is enforced after the law is broken.

Would you rather vaccinate your children or treat their illness?

When you tell me how to predict with 100% accuracy who will and who won't commit a crime let me know

 

[2aguy]

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.

And if you think that American gun owners are now responding to any pollster...anonymous, on the phone....to their guns in their home....you are not realistic...especially after news paper organizations published the names and addresses of gun owners after Sandy Hook....

Then there is this....

Is gun ownership really down in America? | Fox News

Surely, gun control advocates such as GSS director Tom Smith view this decline as a good thing. In a 2003 book of mine, I quoted Smith as saying that the large drop in gun ownership would “make it easier for politicians to do the right thing on guns” and pass more restrictive regulations.

Other gun control advocates have mentioned to me that they hope that if people believe fewer people own guns, that may cause others to rethink their decision to own one themselves. It is part of the reason they dramatically exaggerate the risks of having guns in the home.

The Associated Press and Time ignored other polls by Gallup and ABC News/Washington Post.

These polls show that gun ownership rates have been flat over the same period. According to Gallup, household gun ownership has ranged from 51 percent in 1994 to 34 percent in 1999. In 2014, it was at 42 percent – comparable to the 43-45 percent figures during the 1970s.

A 2011 Gallup poll with the headline “Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993” appears to have gotten no news coverage.

The ABC News/Washington Post poll shows an even more stable pattern, with household gun ownership between 44 and 46 percent in 1999. In 2013, the ownership rate was 43 percent.

There are other measures that suggest that we should be very careful of relying too heavily on polling to gauge the level of gun ownership. For example, the nationally number of concealed handgun permits has soared over the last decade: rising from about 2.7 million in 1999 to 4.6 million in 2007 to 11.1 million in 2014.

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) shows that the number of gun purchases has grown dramatically over time –doubling from 2006 to 2014.

---------------


Gun industry, Bloomberg media square off over female gun owner data

Putting a pin in the balloon of rising female gun ownership, the Trace, a journalism start up funded by Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety, consulted the General Social Survey. A project of the University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center, the GSS has conducted a sociological survey since 1972 to collect historical data on everything from government spending to race relations.

When it comes to gun ownership by women, the pollsters noted the number has averaged about 11 percent over the past three decades with slight dips, to as low as 9.1 percent in 1989, and slight increases, to as high as 13.7 percent in 1982.

“There’s been no meaningful directional change in the percent of women owning guns,” said Tom Smith, the director of the GSS.

However, the National Shooting Sports Foundation on Thursday posted a rebuttal to the article, citing the GSS itself was flawed when it came to gun data– much as they did last yearwhen the survey noted a decline in gun ownership numbers despite eight straight years of increasing firearms sales that set all-time records.

The NSSF contends GSS isn’t actually counting the number of firearms in each household. Rather it is enumerating the number of individuals willing to talk to a stranger at their front door about how many firearms they own. The two concepts, holds the trade group, are vastly different.

“It is a staple of gun control politics to work to diminish both the size and the ever increasing diversity of the firearm-owning American citizenry,” noted Larry Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel. “The Trace provides just the latest example.”

Besides noting the trade group’s own studies in female gun ownership rates, the NSSF also bemoaned the outlet for discounting previous articles in the mainstream media.

“The Trace also asks its readers to discount CBS News, Fox News, Ad Age and dozens of local reporters nationwide (collectively, a ‘credulous press’) who have actually gone to firearms retailers and ranges to report that they see evidence of more and more women buying guns and taking up target shooting as a recreational activity,” wrote Keane.

 

[2aguy]

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......

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.

That is not true...just a quick search for CDC gun research found this....

This is some gun research from the CEC in 2006....

Violence-Related Firearm Deaths Among Residents of Metropolitan Areas and Cities --- United States, 2006--2007

And this one....

Source of Firearms Used by Students in School-Associated Violent Deaths --- United States, 1992--1999

And this one....

http://www.thecommunityguide.org/violence/viol-AJPM-evrev-firearms-law.pdf

And this one....

Surveillance for Fatal and Nonfatal Firearm-Related Injuries --- United States, 1993--1998

And this one....

Firearm Homicides and Suicides in Major Metropolitan Areas — United States, 2006–2007 and 2009–2010

And this one...

Indoor Firing Ranges and Elevated Blood Lead Levels — United States, 2002–2013

And this one....

Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children -- 26 Industrialized Countries


==================

The Deleware study of 2015...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/25/us/cdc-gun-violence-wilmington.html?_r=0

When epidemiologists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention came to this city, they were not here to track an outbreak of meningitis or study the effectiveness of a particular vaccine.



They were here to examine gun violence.

This city of about 70,000 had a 45 percent jump in shootings from 2011 to 2013, and the violence has remained stubbornly high; 25 shooting deaths have been reported this year, slightly more than last year, according to the mayor’s office
.-------



The final report, which has been submitted to the state, reached a conclusion that many here said they already knew: that there are certain patterns in the lives of many who commit gun violence.

“The majority of individuals involved in urban firearm violence are young men with substantial violence involvement preceding the more serious offense of a firearm crime,” the report said. “Our findings suggest that integrating data systems could help these individuals better receive the early, comprehensive help that they need to prevent violence involvement.”

Researchers analyzed data on 569 people charged with firearm crimes from 2009 to May 21, 2014, and looked for certain risk factors in their lives, such as whether they had been unemployed, had received help from assistance programs, had been possible victims of child abuse, or had been shot or stabbed. The idea was to show that linking such data could create a better understanding of who might need help before becoming involved in violence.

 

[2aguy]

Focus on actual gun criminals instead of taking guns away from normal gun owners.....

Classic straw man argument.

Not a straw man argument...it is the actual argument........you guys focus on laws that only effect normal gun owners and their access to guns...we focus on the actual shooters....who get caught carrying illegal guns and are then released back onto the streets to keep shooting......we can already stop them....we just have to have prosecutors and judges who will lock them up.

 

[2aguy]

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.....?

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.

If it is free maybe...but no........when you are talking about limiting a right in the hope that the police and FBI...can take time and energy away from actual criminal control...and won't find reasons to withhold classes...sorry, not the way to do it....

So a written or oral exam....I take it you are fine with the same for blacks and voting?

 

[2aguy]

Are you OK with gun registration, background checks and mandatory training?

Thee things do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns and infringe on the rights of the law abiding.
So... no.
Anything else?

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?

What other crime do you prevent before it has happened....murder? We made it against the law to commit murder...do we stop them before they happen or after they happen....?

Same with guns...we have laws that state you cannot use a gun to commit a crime, or buy, own or carry a gun as a felon.........and if you break those laws you are arrested....

That is how all laws work...you guys seem to think that guns are different...that you can stop the crime before it happens....and since you focus on that....... actual gun violence and the actual gun criminals are never addressed.

 

[2aguy]

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.....?

I can't think of a better use of my tax dollars than to ensure gun owners have some level of knowledge.

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.
Be sure you apply your answer to the exercise of all rights.

All rights carry restrictions with them. I need a photo id to vote in VA.

And we have restrictions on guns...you have to be 18 to buy a long gun and 21 to buy a hand gun....you can't commit crimes with guns...if you are a felon you can't buy, own or carry a gun......

We have lots of laws....you guys just don't want them enforced...you would rather create more paperwork and hoops for law abiding gun owners.

 

[2aguy]

Are you OK with gun registration, background checks and mandatory training?

Thee things do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns and infringe on the rights of the law abiding.
So... no.
Anything else?

Is there anything that won't infringe on the rights of the law abiding?

Sure - things that do not restrict the exercise of their right.
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.

Are we powerless to prevent gun crime since we can only react after the fact?

Criminal law, by its nature, is enforced after the law is broken.

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.

You can't carry a gun if you are drunk, if you do you are arrested.....It is against the law to shoot up a room full of people....if you do you can be arrested....

How do you stop a law abiding citizen, who passes a 2 federal background checks and one background check at his work plus a 10 month FBI investigation with 2 interviews by trained FBI interrogators, plus an under cover agent researching them.....from going into an Orlando Night club and killing 49 people.......

How do you do more than that? And that effort failed......

We have laws that prevent crime...if you use a gun to commit a crime you go to jail...so 99% of the population does not use a gun to commit a crime....

320,000,000 people in the country....and less than 8,124 use a gun to commit a crime......those gun laws work........

 

[2aguy]

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.....?

I can't think of a better use of my tax dollars than to ensure gun owners have some level of knowledge.

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.
Be sure you apply your answer to the exercise of all rights.

All rights carry restrictions with them. I need a photo id to vote in VA.

Yes... restrictions inherent to the right itself, such as being able to prove who you are when you vote.

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.

Yeah...it is against the law already to kill 10 people......we have laws that say so.......

If you want to save people...get rid of gun free zones.....allow more people to conceal carry guns...those actually work.

 

[2aguy]

[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?

Murder rates there are much higher than places outside of there, so... yes.
By necessity.

You need to check your math. The murder rate in Chicago is about 20 in 100,000.

As the murder rate in the US is ~4.5/100k and would be lower if not for Chicago, you prove my point.

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![/QUOTE]


I live here......and it is an example of extreme gun control.....and why it fails.

 

[2aguy]

Criminal law, by its nature, is enforced after the law is broken.

That's an oversimplification. Plenty of crimes are charged against people who "broke laws" but have not yet created any victims

Irrelevant. The law is not enforced until after it is broken.

Why don't you try reading a whole post for once?

I responded to what was necessary - nothing you posted after what i quoted was relevant.

Actually, it was a perfect example of something being criminalized to prevent greater harm -- the goal of gun control laws.

And yet 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s.....357,000,000 guns in private hands in 2016.....and the gun murder rate fell 49%............so the greater harm is prevented as more people own and carry guns...........the goal is achieved....