Do white people benefit the most from gun-control?

Show me the successful model and I will consider it. We don't need to make bold experiments that could result in many people dying. Anything that will work has been tried somewhere

 

I was just demonstrating some redicularity there.

 

It is ridiculous

 

Prohibition has been tried numerous times, and numerous times it has failed miserably. Perhaps it is finally time for the society of the united states to experience the full, overwhelming weight and cost of their desire to see illicit substances made legal for recreational use, and comprehend just what they are asking for. As those indulging in such substances die off in large numbers through overdosing, and left to decay where others must walk through their daily lives, the significance of their decisions will be made quite clear to them. No one will be able to claim ignorance, and that they had no idea of just how dangerous the use of such substances was. Eventually there will be no one left to become addicted or die of overdoses, and the matter will solve itself. That is ultimately what is desired, is it not?

If individuals wish to knowingly engage in reckless and criminal behavior, they will suffer the consequences of their actions one way or another. They are obviously being done no favors by their government fighting so hard to keep them alive through prohibitions and regulations, so perhaps it is time for a change of pace, and the consequences of their decisions made as plain as day. When children have to see their parents, siblings, and friends laying dead in the streets and on sidewalks as their bodies decompose while others have to walk over them, they will understand the true societal cost of the use of illicit substances. They will no longer question what is wrong with the recreational use of illicit substances, as they will understand why such narcotics were prohibited in the first place.

If the public does not wish to accept that there are certain substances that should not be used, then allowing them to experience the folly of their decisions is the most logical course of action. The more the matter is resisted and fought, the more they are glamorized and desired by the public. It would be the most logical course of action to engage in, seeing as how everything else has failed.

 

between 88 and 92 percent of Americans want universal background checks.

9 percent of Americans are felons.

Who is it that don't want any control on sales of firearms?

Well... clearly, people who want to buy firearms who can't pass background checks
and people who want to be able to sell firearms to them.

 

was this another telephone survey of democrat voters?

perhaps you missed the recent presidential election demonstrating the 'accuracy' of polls.

 

Just WoW !
Some people should be arrested, those are the ones robbing and raping and hurting people, selling illegal drugs to children, or turning young people on to heroin, or other drugs, then making them pay by prostitution etc..

As a Lawman, I saw this Evil up close, and everyday Law Abiding people need Guns to defend against these Monsters in society.

Gun Control will never deter Criminals or Criminal activities or prevent Crime in any way, Gun Control is a false security and a childish game of make believe based on hysteria and hyperbole, no facts and blind statistics.

 

I dont think drug legalization would be quite that hellish if we taxed certain substances and used that revenue to fund drug education and rehabilitation programs. Coupled with the dynamic that legalization or decriminalization opens society back up to the drug user (so they can work, operate in public) so they can try to avoid the desperation of poverty that their black market dependent lifestyle drives them into, I really dont see how it would be any worse than alcohol, nicotine or scrip drugs.

There may even be less damaging alternatives innovated (like vaping) if the substances are more available for enterprising research.

 

Gosh, a genius observation.

Anything done a small scale would have limited result.

What other nebulous observations do you wish to share?

Here's part of one:

https://news.vice.com/article/ungas...-after-decriminalization-drugs-weed-to-heroin

 

How many people were killed with firearms in Japan last year? They have one
third our population and we had something close to 35,000 firearm fatalities last year.

I know you are more comfortable with rantiful rhetoric than you dop facts but try.

 

How many is an acceptable amount?

According to the member Vegas Giants, the only acceptable annual number of firearm-related deaths is absolutely zero. Thus meaning even the nation of Japan has too many firearm-related deaths each year to be considered acceptable.

The nation of Japan also experiences far more suicides than the united states each year. Is it more acceptable that they are killing themselves rather than each other, when the end result is still death?

 

Itis hard to see evidence when you are rolling around on the ground kicking your feet with your hands over your eyes insisting evidence doesn't exist of anything you disagree with.

 

In Japan, 29,442 people committed suicide in 2012.

In USA, 40,600 people committed suicide in 2012.

So you would be wrong.

First, figure out what "more" means and then "far more" and get back to me.

 

You are more comfortable with someone killing someone else?


HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH!

 

While the rest of us know that a dozen firearms deaths is a lot better than 35,000 deaths.

 

Just as it is equally hard to present evidence of that which does not exist, such as how firearm-related restrictions supposedly discourage or otherwise prevent the commission of crimes. The city of Chicago attempted a total prohibition on handgun ownership for decades, yet almost one hundred percent of their annual homicides were committed with handguns.

 

'Almost one hundred percent' will be any number you invent.

A city is surrounded by a state.

Like Chicago.

Look at any map.

If a state does not have the same gun regulations as the city, the city cannot help to prevail.

 

While I agree with much of what you wrote, I would suggest most people with Pollyanna visions of a gun free world, have been sold a bill of goods based on a repetitive emotional appeal and propoganda supported by auhoritateive manufactured causal associations that guns are responsible for inciting evil to build support among those that are devoid of critical thinking and defer to others the basis for truth; a truth they accept by the number of media voices and number of those they feel might know more than they. What many do not see is the underlying hidden agenda of political/financial dominance, power, and ideological control. The gun control issue is the proverbial foot in the door for normalizing the view that individual rights are priveleges bestowed by a benevolent government that can control how those privileges are granted and administered, where those having maximum privelege are those that support the centers of power the perpetuation of that power... the antithesis of the vision the FF had. We see the hidden agenda arising from everything from what you can consume (salt, large soft drinks) to your personal privacy (domestic surveillance sold ostensible to protect us from terrorism). There is not only an attack on self defense rights, but an ongoing erosion of rights. It is a theme that has been visible in every society that transitioned from the absolutism of a monarchy rule to another form of government where one segment of society seeks to attain and maintain power over another. Allow the erosion of gun rights and the erosion of others will follow... the history of rise gun control in Britian and the increase in loss of individual rights that followed, and is still occurin is a good lesson in how this strategy works.

http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2010/tle558-20100221-07.html
http://www.guncite.com/journals/okslip.html

Lest one think the erosion among the Brits is not continuing, see the following article
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...ternet-conservatives-government-a7744176.html

We have seen the admission in the last few days by a couple of anti gun rights of hidden agendas in regard to UBC, where when asked how such would be enforced, the response eventually emerged that gun registration would by required... the denied, but revealed slippery slope strategy.

Regardless of which party dominates here in the US, I will oppose any erosion of fundamental rights.

 

Meaning that there is no actual evidence possessed by yourself, that proves conclusively that firearm-related restrictions amount to an actual impact on firearm-related offenses being committed. All that has been presented by yourself is telling others that they are incorrect, and leaving it at that.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...0304-column_1_legal-handguns-gun-violence-ban

According to the Chicago Tribune newspaper, the murder rate for the city of Chicago rose by one hundred and fifty six percent, whereas the rest of the country experienced an increase of only thirty two percent. Despite having a total handgun prohibition, the city of Chicago experienced an increased homicide rate that was more than five times greater than anywhere else in the united states.

Then there is the following evidence.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp



Prior to the implementation of the total handgun prohibition, handguns were involved in less than forty percent of the homicides in the city of Chicago. After the implementation, the rate increased to seventy five percent, meaning three out of every four murders involved handguns which the city had prohibited from ownership under all circumstances.

Which is factually correct, thus demonstrating that cities are devoid of a legitimate reason for even attempting such a course of action, as five minutes worth of travel time will render such efforts useless.

It has been acknowledged. However it has also been pointed out that the suicide rate per one hundred thousand individuals is higher in the nation of Japan than the united states.

 

The NRA has been spinning propaganda for close to fifty years.

The biggest being that people who are working for reasonable gun control measures
are suggesting that there should be no guns.

It is a fact that most NRA member support background checks yet the board of the
NTA- who earn close to a million dollar a year salary- continue to represent the gun
manufacturers who of course best interest is to sell more firearms.

Because 300 million isn't enough.

 

Oh really?

When someone in a forum admits he was wrong, I don't usually miss it.

I guess I have to do a Ctrl-F and look for "wrong".

 

We are back to you saying almost one hundred percent of murders committed in Chicago were committed with handguns.

So to you almost one hundred percent means most?

Let me know and than I can say "so what"?, most murders in the USA are committed using handguns, Chicago is no different, and I guess you forgot I was the guy saying we need to do background checks and you are the guy saying you'll sell firearms to anyone.

 

Correlation does not imply causation.

Especially when the correlation happens ten years later.

80 percent of the murders in Chicago have been tied to gangs.

Smarter persons would look at the GANG activity and in particular the increase of drugs and the drug trade.

They would also suggest that handguns are MORE AVAILABLE now than in 1980, and they are legal, and the rate is higher today than ten years after the ban.