So they either have easier access to guns due to lax guns laws or interstate gun trafficking. So we should look at big cities in other countries where guns are much better controlled and compare them with US cities where criminals do have easy access to guns. By doing that we can better understand how guns affect crime in big cities. Washington, D.C. 18 homicides per 100,000 Sydney 1 per 100,000 London 1.6 per 100,000 People in London and Sydney should be happy that they aren't negatively affected by the lax gun laws of a neighboring state such as Virginia.
free citizens enjoy being able to exercise their second amendment rights without being hassled by scum bag politicians . almost all those homicides in DC are committed by people who already break numerous laws to have guns
Why didn't you include LA, NYC or Chicago in your comparisons? Those big cities are all in states with strict gun laws where the largest source of criminal guns is those cities' respective states? You've ignored that fact every single time it's been pointed out to you and understandably so, as it completely destroys your argument.
You are going to claim that the restrictions on firearms for the states of New York and California are lax? Los Angeles, California 6.6 per 100,000 Chicago, Illinois 15.6 per 100,000 Boston, Massachusetts 8.1 per 100,000 Chelsea, Massachusetts 10.4 per 100,000 Each of these cities are located in states with strict firearm-related restrictions. The ATF has stated that the majority of firearms found in the possession of criminal individuals were acquired within the state of residence, rather than neighboring states with different restrictions. So pray tell why are their homicide rates so high? The cities of London and Sydney are not part of the united states, and are of no relevance to the discussion. What they do is their own business. You are not simply comparing apples to oranges, you are comparing apples to cinder blocks.
Your claim is that in cities with strict gun control crime is worse when there are nearby areas with lax gun laws. That has been proven false. Your obfuscation proves you know your claim is false.
In case you have not noticed; London and Sydney are nowhere near Virginia, Your knowledge of Geograhics is somewhat lacking. Virginia does not have lax gun laws. All Federal laws apply.
You're the one that is trying to dishonestly obfuscate my argument. I have said that cities with strict gun laws are negatively affected by interstate gun trafficking. Virginia was a major source of illegal guns for the northeastern US before the passage of its one handgun a month law. You have failed miserably to provide even one example of a city that has strict gun control and is not affected by gun trafficking from other places where the violence is just as bad as cities like D.C.
You've yet to address that these cities are more affected by guns from their own state, showing that those strict internal laws aren't even capable of keeping their own criminals from getting more guns locally than from any adjacent state.
Then pray tell why is this not still the case? The ATF has stated more than fifty times that this claim is entirely incorrect. It is nothing more than intellectual dishonesty. https://www.atf.gov/about/firearms-trace-data-2015 Pick a state. Pick any single state on the list where the ATF has run traces on firearms taken from criminals. In each and every instance, the largest number of firearms held by criminals came from the state of residency, and not from any other state with supposedly laxer firearm-related restrictions. This means that states such as California and New York, even with every current restriction they have in place, have sold more firearms to criminals than the states of Nevada, Virginia, or any other state where firearms were traced back to.
Gun control just encourages more crime - especially gun crime. The use of silencers should be encouraged to reduce the risk of hearing loss.
Actually, it's a very carefully worded claim : "You have failed miserably to provide even one example of a city that has strict gun control and is not affected by gun trafficking from other places where the violence is just as bad as cities like D.C.". If even a single firearm is traced from a "lax" state to a "strict" city, then he can claim that the strict city has been "affected" by gun trafficking. It's deliberately designed to be both true and deceptive. You'll note he's never addressed our repeated point that each of those cities in strict states are affected most by gun trafficking inside that strict state.
one of the hallmarks of the anti rights movement is how hard a time its members have in actually answering straightforward, honest questions. Its more proof that the gun ban movement is the most dishonest political movement in the USA
How do such claims hold up to evidence presented by the ATF, showing that firearms have been trafficked from state of California, to the state of New York? Will it be claimed that the firearm-related restrictions of the state of California are simply not strict enough?
That's not his point. A single gun is sufficient for him to continue to make his claim. As worded, it means nothing.
Claiming it does not make it so. What is this FBI data that you claim proves me wrong? You could benefit from lessons in learning how to make a persuasive argument.
If it were a matter of one gun being trafficked then we would not even being having this discussion. So what big cities with strict gun laws are not significantly affected by guns being trafficked from other places in the mainland USA? Does my wording of the question satisfy you this time?
Yeah, a little over 1% of illegal guns traced came from California. That doesn't do much to support your side's arguments.
What state was the largest source of illegal guns trace to New York, California, Illinois and Maryland, respectively.
Then address why the largest number of firearms found in possession of criminals within the state of New York, were originally purchased in the state of New York, and not from any other states with supposedly lax firearm-related restrictions. https://www.atf.gov/docs/163552-nyatfwebsite15pdf/download Read the evidence for yourself. No other state in the united states, not a single one of them, comes close to being responsible for the number of firearms found in criminal possession as the state of New York itself. Even the state of Virginia does not come close to the numbers.
the problem with constantly bashing gun banners with facts concerning crime issues is meaningless when the real goal of gun banners is not to decrease crime but to ban the guns of honest owners. that is why gun banners appear impervious to factual arguments
What percentage of the guns could be traced to New York? How does that compare with states that have laxer gun laws?
its shows that stupid laws that are directed at honest citizens should be eliminated. we already have a federal law that bans every type of person who can constitutionally be banned from having second amendment rights from possessing firearms. State laws ban every harmful thing one can do with a firearm. that's all we need
