Ending the Myth that America is Dangerous because of Gun Ownership

That's pretty accurate. I noticed that North Padre Island is still white. That's because nobody lives there.

 

damn, thatwuzfunnnnnny

 

So i did some actual Homework. It was actually quite hard because media post only murders per 100,000 and not the actual murders. I had to build a spread sheet and do the math myself.
30 Cities over 250,000. Ranked by murder rate by fire arm. (2012 Data)
Were talking a total population of 19 million people Committed OVER 6,250 of the total murders. in the US. Cities like Camden NJ, and Flint MI didnt even make the list because their population was so low even though their murder rates are so high. Huge ghetto towns.

So in summary over half the murders in the US occurred in the largest cities in the country. I bet if you just took the top 30 Murder rates per 100,00 regardless of population size. You would find out more than 10,000 murders occurred in even less of a population area than i researched.

This without a doubt proves that 90% of America is extremely safe and that only our worst ghettos are a problem.

 

Interesting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE

 

Provide supporting evidence for that assertion, keeping in mind that Australia has more gun owners now than they did before implementing registration.

Right, because it would be so easy for criminals to obtain replacement weapons if we could identify straw purchasers (which would be easy with registration in place)...

 

Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Cambodia....how did those work out for the citizens? MILLIONS murdered by their own government.

Easy how? Criminals RARELY leave firearms at crime scenes.

 

So you want to compare the US to those, rather than first-world democracies? Yeah, that makes sense...

What does that have to do with anything?
Whether a gun is left at the crime scene, tossed in a lake, has the barrel filled with concrete, etc has nothing to do with the fact the criminal now has to obtain another weapon - which would be much harder if straw purchases were not an option.

 

...watch for more empty-handed logic

 

Ayuh,.... Empty Headed is more like it,....

 

Logician prior to world war 2 hitler was times man of the year. For all the things he was that are evil, and their are many, Germany was a 1st world country prior to world war 2. Their economy had boomed in the 1930's. They were at least on par with pre war America. So yes using Germany's and Austria's disarmament of the Jews is a fair assessment to the dangers of gun registration. Chinese civilians were also disarmed by first the japenese and then by Mao. I don't think anyone would call china a third world county these days. China also massacred thousands of citizens. Russia for all it's treatment of its peasants of the time was still an economic and political powerhouse of the time. When Stalin massacred his people Russia would have still have been a top 20 economic power in the world. So yes using those countries gun registrations and confiscations is extremely relevant to the gun control questions of today.

 

Yes, it does make sense actually. Id rather not join the nearly 200 million people murdered by their own government in the past century.

You are probably in the same group that thought planes would never be used in terrorist attacks. "Oh that would never happen in America noooooo not hereeeeeeeee"

Straw purchases already hold a 10 year prison sentence and people do it anyway. Registration doesnt affect that one bit because, as dumb as criminals are, they usually arent dumb enough to leave the weapon at the crime scene....so what purpose would there be to registration????????????????

Canada has long-gun registration and they SCRAPPED IT because it didnt do JACK (*)(*)(*)(*) to lower crime and it just ended up being insanely expensive. So basically its a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing worthless idea. Not that liberals give a flying (*)(*)(*)(*) about wasting money....

 

What will really bake your noodle is that the Gun Crime Rate in Canada went up after ban. Not by much mind you, but it did go up. Of course thats all relative as the ban was put in place in the early 1900's.

 

Let's recap...

1) Nazi Germany relaxed gun controls for all citizens except for Jews (gun control that was implemented by Allied countries such as the US after WW1)... And yet you believe that similar steps (singling out a single demographic for additional controls) could be legislated despite the fact that SCOTUS would clearly see it as a violation of the 2nd and 14th amendments. This is clearly an unfounded slippery slope fallacy.

2) You believe it is valid to compare the US to communist countries and/or dictatorships, rather than other first-world democracies. This is clearly a false analogy fallacy.​

All this fearmongering to avoid a simple background check that licensed dealers have already proven would only impact criminals... I wonder why?

 

I don't believe it is rational to compare the US to third world countries rather than countries we actually have something in common with. I guess I think more of the US than you do.

Actually, I found the only surprising thing about 9/11 was that it wasn't done by the same type of right-wing domestic terrorists who committed the Oklahoma City bombing. Instead, it was committed by the people we armed and trained during the Reagan years.

People perform straw purchases despite it being illegal because there is no risk of getting caught when you can't prove they ever had the gun. Registration would close that loophole. It's really not that difficult a concept.

Long guns are not the primary type of firearm used in crimes. This is not news. Your assertion that this proves anything about it's viability for all types of firearms is a nivana fallacy.

 

Yep you think a whole lot about the US except for that pesky Constitution.

Since when has Germany or Russia ever been a third world country?

Aha! Finally we find the root of your problem...you are a a typical anti-gun liberal sheep. You deny facts because you are anti-gun, and you are anti-gun because Conservatives are pro-gun. Gotcha. Who cares what the FBI, CDC, and DOJ find in their multiple studies, your ideas are better!

And how exactly do you prove it was a straw purchase if its registered? Either the criminal doesnt tell, the criminal lies, you never find the weapon, or the person claims the criminal STOLE it from them. You have the same exact problems as we to do today. And like I said....criminals almost never leave a gun at a crime scene...so again, expensive, ineffective, and POINTLESS. Also an invasion of privacy....but I guess you wouldnt care because the law doesnt affect you.

The irony of this post is both sad and hilarious as hell. The nirvana fallacy is exactly what the anti gunners do....and you right now thinking that registration will solve every murder ever.

Its just asinine, in fact.

 

Pray tell, which part of the Constitution do you believe I have a problem with?

I believe I addressed those seperately. Nice dodge though.

What do previous domestic terror attacks have to do with the gun control agenda?
Seems like you've got a few weird and unsubstanciated gaps in your train of thought there.
BTW, I'm the guy who keeps insisting that lawful citizens should have access to guns if they want them... but that we need to make it more difficult for criminals.

So if guns you purchase (which police would be able to prove) keep getting found in the possession of felons or used in criminal acts, you don't think you could be charged and face trial?

I've routinely said that I'm interested in a solution that would make it more difficult for criminals to obtain firearms. The only one who has spoken in terms of absolutes is you. I agree that speaking in terms of absolutes is asinine. Feel free to stop doing it and then making hypocritical insults about actions only you have undertaken.

When your entire position boils down to nothing but hypocrisy and ad hominems, you might want to rethink your position.

 

Law is the latest tyrant. As with all tyrannies, those who support tyranny only desire more tyranny. More law, More law!!!!!
The anti-gunners will lie and distort everything that is said about our 2nd A Rights. The first step is registration. The next step is a crackdown. The third step is confiscation under some false flag. Then war..................the anti-gunners want a war because they think they can win. How are they going to do that if they aren't armed?
For the powers that be, the anti-gunner is a disposable item, to be used for cannon fodder.

their cause......................... ..
"Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
Sara Brady
Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum
The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.

"If you wish the sympathy of the broad masses, you must tell them the crudest and most stupid things." Author unknown.
good luck with the circular argument!

 

so people in prison for criminal offenses are no longer criminals because they are certainly "well regulated"

 

That guy hasn't been around in a while. You missed a lot of fun with him.

 

My owning a gun imposes no cost on society.

 

Marcus Johnson Jr.'s parents figured a sunny day at a city park was just what their son, a 6-year-old kindergartner, needed while recovering from heart surgery the previous week and a doctor's visit that same day. Instead, the family will bury Marcus on Thursday after the child was shot in the chest and killed......

Aren't guns wonderful...how does one get through the day without a gun...can't imagine....

 

Read the post below...would you consider a child's life...a cost? If there was a way to measure the lives saved...compared to the lives lost...because of guns....you NRA gunnuts would have to give up your weapons in favor of children....I believe the government should put all of you in one State (Texas: Where it is known that no one calls 911...they just reach for their gun)...make it mandatory for each of you to carry a gun....then wait for the survivor...

 

sad day indeed, but how does that affect me? I wasn't there and neither were my guns.
Prove I am a criminal or get your stinking fingers hands off my guns and Rights.

 

No more than I would when the cause of death if drowning via swimming pools.

It will be said only once. Do not go down this route, unless you are fully prepared to discussing the matters of unintended deaths that occur from everyday objects, and how they might be avoided if greater restrictions were placed on what many consider to be the necessities of life.

The claim about said necessities having other uses than killing will not be considered a defense to the discussion of unintended deaths.

There is not. Therefore all you have in speculation and emotional rhetoric. You lack both logic and fact to support your position.

At least one hundred million individuals living in the state of Texas, each of them confirmed as being legally armed? How would you propose keeping them all there, and prevent them from simply leaving?

If you wish to propose ridiculousness, then you must be prepared to engage in a serious discussion regarding your recommendations. What would you do if, under your suggestion, the annual crime and homicide rates for the state of Texas fell, while simultaneously increasing in every other state, because the only firearms present were those held by the criminal element, who was inclined to use them for whatever reason? What would you propose if the number of violent crimes increase in all other states, because the criminal element feels free to act with impunity because there are no victims who can potentially fight back?

Do not attempt to go down a route of discussion, unless you are fully committed to it.

 

I'm sure that the hood rat in that St. Louis ghetto that did this drive by shooting was an NRA member. Pleeeeze.