My entry into the discussion was to point out an ignorant statement comparing the population of Australia and the US, and the fact that gun nuts were wrong when they claimed our previous ban on certain types of gun manufacture would increase our gun crime rate. I made and proved both those points. I have no desire to debate your entire list of talking points. If you care to pick one, and you try to stay on that subject, we can discuss that,
Great. It should be easy to give a link showing that the populations of Australia and the US are similar, or that our crime rate increased as a result of our previous ban on the manufacture of certain types of guns.
Well... she did run on proposed gun restrictions and then committed murder. That's ironic. For what you said to be ironic they would have had to have opposed all restrictions on ownership.
You said: We had a ban on certain types of guns for a while, and the right wing predicted our gun crime rate would soar when it went into effect. I asked you to cite this. You said: That rate fell appreciably between 1994 and 2004, the time that ban was in effect. Fewer guns did mean fewer crimes. I presented the picture, below, and asked you to explain how the 1994 'assault weapon' ban did anything to reduce the number of guns and overall gun-related crime. Well?
So, you have some evidence to prove the Right said that? BTW, the gun ban took not one gun off the street or out of the hands of any law abiding citizen.
No one is asking or expecting to have either of those. I don't think you are on the right track ,it's about the right to ownership, not "weapon control".
I always love the left's hysterical responses to gun rights.. 'But what about tanks, aircraft carriers, and nuclear bombs!!? You gun nuts think those should be legal?' ..as if keeping a snub nose revolver for self defense is the same as dropping nuclear bombs..
What makes you think nuclear weapons qualify as "bearable arms" as the term is used in 2A jurisprudence? What makes you think AR15s do not?
I fail to see much distinction between the two. To me it is not about the right to bear arms but rather which arms we can have. The NRA seems to correlate the 2nd with gun rights but the second amendment does not address guns; it addresses arms, which of course are all weapons. Evidently our society already broke the seal when it said private citizens can not own atomic weapons. Few would argue the benefit this "technically" unconstitulitional ban provides to our "pursuit of happiness". So if we can admit atomic bombs should be banned then how far down the line of weapons do we go? I guess its up to the voters? Well it should be but its not. The NRA makes those decisions for us through our elected officials. This forum is new to me so just trying to get my bearings mostly, but my point is, it is not just about guns but reasonable weapon control. As time goes on voters will likely move the "ban" line back and forth a little (assuming moderates maintain any kind of influence on policy) but thier is nothing wrong with reasonable weapon control as decided by the voters and subsequent politicians.
Poor try to dodge the issue. The data from the FBI UCR shows that the crime rates in the USA dropped >50% since 1991. Over the same period, firearm ownership increased, states dropped gun controls, and states passed stand your ground and castle doctrine laws. https://ucr.fbi.gov/ In the USA, more guns did not result in more crime. That disproves the main gun banner claim that guns cause crime. In Australia, the opposite happened. More gun control, gun bans, fewer guns in the population, and more crime. That disproves the gun banner claim that gun control improves public safety. http://www.abs.gov.au/ And there are other studies and data in the USA that prove gun control is a failure. Learn the data. Learn you are wrong.
Sorry if I missed this somewhere but how do you know these decreases in crime, in the 80 and 90, are due to relaxed gun control laws? The effect is plain to see but the cause is a little trickier. From the movie "freakanomics"; it is thier contention the drop in crime in the nineties is most largely contributed to Roe v Wade. Maybe, maybe not but that is just an example of potential correlations to reduced crime rates.
The term 'arms" was otherwise defined by the court, and does not include every weapon imaginable. This is, of course, nonsense. According to the court - not Congress, not the NRA, but the court: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home... the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time”...extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding....under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition [of a bearable arm]—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html And as limited by the 2nd Amendment. The constitution protects the right to not to go church, the right to kneel during the national anthem, the right to have an abortion, the right to marry whoever you can get to say yes and the right to keep and bear arms with equal veracity - ask yourself, when contemplating a "reasonable restriction", if said restriction or similar, applied to any of these rights, would violate the constitution? if your answer is, yes, then when applied to the right t keep and bear arms, it also violates the constitution.
Please tell me you are not so naive that you believe anything this attention grabbing whore is saying. I don't care if she loved or hated Trump over the years she is the most obvious gutter snipe since Anthony Wiener and Trump should never,never had anything to do with her after her first minute on his reality show.
She was paid $179,000/yr of taxpayer money as salary when she was in the WH. Hell they were going to pay her hush campaign money of $180,000 from Trump campaign donors if she had accepted the Laura Trump deal.
In the scheme of things what percentage of the budget went to pay this whore? It costs more than that to fire up the beast and drive to Virginia. You are tilting at windmills and ignore the fact this woman(?) should never have been allowed near Trump or the White House. That is the real question here. I read on Al Gores internet she owned the sheets Trump pissed on when he went to Russia to sleep with Putin and that is how she got her job.
Who cares. It's over and she is gone. We can maybe dump it into the budget slot where in 2009 Michelle Obama paid 16 staffers $1.4 million. http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...r-first-lady-staff-than-michelle-obama-report
Gun control supporters claim that regulating firearm ownership, restricting the type of firearms allowed, and reducing the number of guns in the population, will improve public safety. With the USA and AUS, we see the opposite. We see it because 2 nations (USA, AUS) with similar social structures and similar economies each ran their own national experiments in gun control over the same period of time (1985 to the present). Each implemented opposite policies - the USA relaxed gun control, made guns more accessible, and private gun ownership skyrocketed. AUS did the opposite. Both were national movements with the full support of their respective peoples and govts, which were strenuously implemented throughout both nations. In both nations, crime trends changed when the policies were implemented. The results were consistent - more guns did not increase violent crime (USA), fewer guns did not decrease violent crime (AUS). There are no other major policies, social changes, or economic changes in those 2 nations during that period which can account for such large shifts in national crime statistics. The abortion claim doesn't hold up. AUS and the USA are equivalent in terms of abortion, but crime rates do not mirror the abortion situation in either country. And in the USA, regional crime rates do not match regional abortion rates. USA crime rates are driven by the huge cities, the FBI UCR shows an extremely strong correlation (+0.6 to +0.8 depending upon the statistical method) between city size and violent crime rate. There is also a racial and economic correlation with crime rates. These correlations do not match the distribution of abortion - the largest cities have the most crime, and the most abortions.
