2 cheerleaders were shot in a Texas supermarket parking lot

so

 

Do you have any evidence to support that? Also you must be aware that the Federal and State government supports these criminals in Baltimore and Chicago with subsidized health care, food, housing, utilities, phones and cash, which gives them the cushion to go out and terrorize the surrounding communities. They don't even have to work or knuckle down to make ends meet. So if you want strong rule, apply it here, where it belongs, where criminals are being bred and loosed on society. And leave the grace of other peoples liberty alone.

 

What are the twenty five most dangerous cities in the USA and which party runs them
https://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/25-most-dangerous-cities-in-the-us-1118227/

 

Facts are facts where criminals get the bulk of their weapons from, and the law in Indiana states that a citizen can just sell them to criminals because there is no need for a background check.

unrealistic.

Indeed. Nothing is perfect. But the let citizens just sell weapons to other people without a clue if they are thugs, terrorists or psycho's shows that this causes high amount of homicide.
Who knew, right? Who the hell could have ever guessed that this would happen?

 

The predominantly red states with weak gun laws, are to be found at the top of the list where the homicides occur.
And the gun laws are predominantly made at state level.

 

It's not needed, since I can prove the opposite. And I add, you've debunked nothing.

 

So what. The predominantly red states with their weak gun laws typically got high homicide rates. And the gun laws are predominantly made at state level.
And I so I view it at state level were nothing has been ruled unconstitutional with states with much stronger laws.

Is this new to you? I think I've repeated this like 50 times to you.

 

Wrong.

whenever someone asks why those states where guns are easier to get doesn’t have the high crime levels of Chicago, you run and hide. All you’re done is source that people are right and you’re making things up over and over.

why? Isn’t that embarrassing?

 

I already have done so.

utter nonsense. People even get subsidized this and that while they also have a full time job... so they can make ends meet.

 

yeah and I am LMAO because you are trying to defend a facade and the facts don't work for you.

 

Firstly, there are no States with gun laws that are strong enough to 'solve' the problem. It's illegal within very broad limits to restrict the number of firearms any one person can own, let alone the type, it's illegal to require owners to have training, it's illegal to require them to be safely stored in the home. It's illegal to require firearms serial numbers to be registered on a national database or to require private owners to register private sales. The sale of ammunition within very broad limits is unrestricted and in general firearms may be carried at any time in any public place by their owners. (The list goes on.) My point is that given this kind of 'wide open' legal framework there are virtually no effective legal means of significantly reduce guns deaths in America. And remember also, the only changes I advocated for from the above list was mandatory training and properly securing firearms in the home!

Secondly you keep talking like 'criminals' (as in career offenders) as being the problem They are not! Almost all mass shooting killers are not career criminals. A significant number have had one or two runs ins with the law prior to committing their crimes but they did not come to notice prior to their crimes for violent offenses or persistent criminal conduct. Secondly something like 68% or mass shooting is the US (research site available) involve the shooter killing at least one family member! So they basically start as domestic violence related killings even if they then extend outside the home afterwards. For that matter 91% of all women killed with firearms in the western world die in America! (91 f'ing %). For children the rate is 96%! And overall the gun death rate is the US is 11 times higher (as a % of the population) than the rest of the world. (Research available). The vast majority of these people were not killed by career 'criminals', not even close. Criminals don't as a rule don't target civilians, they target each other. Civilian just get caught in the cross fire, which I'm sure is a huge consolation to their loved ones - not!

So once again the problem isn't career criminals. The problem is widespread domestic violence and high rates of gun suicide and accidental shootings. Yes, putting all criminals in jail forever would reduce the gun death rates in the US but I have to warn you now, to be effective it would have to be all 'criminals' i.e. even people convicted of misdemeanors like traffic offenses! This is because because there is a clear statistical link between people who come to police attention for minor matters and subsequent convictions for serious gun crime. (Research available.) Try running that idea up the flag pole and see who salutes amongst your friends and neighbors!

The real reason people keep harping on about 'criminal's being the problem? Because they have no other solution to offer, even when they know its only a partial fix that wont solve the US's overarching issues with pervasive gun crime. As I've said before until there is some kind of Constitutional amendment there IS NO SOLUTION. (I have a better chance of becoming the next world heavy weight power lifting champion than there is of that ever happening.)

 

That's window dressing. This is about the over abundance of criminal behavior in inner cities, not those who do right. If you have a job, you aren't out vandalizing, rioting, robbing and killing as a rule.

 

I was born into a family of gun owners. We lived and breathed it. None of us, and no one we knew ever used a gun to kill or commit a crime. We traded and bought and sold guns privately like baseball cards. It was nothing but a way of life in freedom. Gun crimes, like all crimes, have nothing to do with guns and laws. It has everything to do with how people are raised.

 

There is no evidence that private sales of firearms in one state effects gun crimes in another. If you worry about your criminals getting guns, stop turning out criminals. Clean up your own act.

 

most gun banners get their "information" from prime time entertainment: I cannot tell you how many cop or law and order type shows have comments about "weak gun states" being responsible for guns in NYC (usually ) or chicago.

 

It's against the law to transfer firearms across state lines, you are already breaking a law you didn't know existed.

 

So, not sure what you are complaining about.

 

Its not filed off if you use a dremmel tool and take off the underlying layers. Your video does not do that, it makes light surface alterations as shown with a ****ing buffer.
That's not grinding the metal away. You end up with a depression in the metal, and a nice flat spot inside that depression. An actually flat spot, not one you've merely buffed out a little.
A depression carved out of the metal, removing the underlying compressed material from the stamping.

 

mass shootings comprise a minuscule number of the murders each year. gun banners fixate on them because those mass shootings aren't dominated by felons in inner cities.

 

most of those howling for more gun laws are rather poorly educated in what laws actually exist

 

Correct but that wasn't the main thrust of my post. I stated the problem was attributable to issues like domestic violence and suicides etc. And as I also noted the issue is that as things stand there is no way to significantly reduce the levels of gun violence in the US because legally none of the measures that could be put in place to do so are allowed. And that includes the standard fallback position for many people of 'locking up criminals'. You can't lock up people forever if they commit any sort of crime nor can you lock up people simply because they have or had a mental illness at some point in their lives. And using such people as scapegoats is pointless because they are NOT the main source of the problem to begin with.

As I pointed out before 'locking up criminals' is the usual throwaway suggestion offered up by people who have no other solution to offer. It wouldn't have a significant impact but it's all they have to offer. That's OK though, point being of course that there is no other solution! Name one thing that could currently lawfully be done to significantly reduce gun deaths in the US aside from putting more people in jail. Be my guest because so far I haven't been able to think of any!

(P.S. Perhaps there may be something but if so it has to be so obtuse/complex that it would probably be found to be 'unconstitutional on appeal.) I await your suggestions with interest.

 

I like increasing the chances of when a mass shooter, active shooter, or just your garden variety armed robber attacks a citizen, the citizen is able to deploy some serious stopping power on the criminal. I also would like police shooting ranges to offer low cost instruction and range time for citizens

 

As you yourself noted mass shooting incidents are rare and represent only a tiny proportion of US gun fatalities so having an armed citizen in place to stop them while a good thing will also be rare. In other words it won't make any real difference to the death toll. The free shooting ranges for training would be good but again you can't force people to take advantage of them. Hell, I'd be happy to outsource the training programs to shooting organizations and accredited private citizens then have the States fund them if only it was compulsory - which of course they can't be. Cost is not the real issue if your taking about a firearms training course anyway. That only really goes up when gun owners spend a lot of time at the range or out in the field.

So again both ideas just really fiddle around the edges of the problem and won't have any real impact.

 

I know it's a minor amount of deaths and I also know why the left accentuates the news about them. but one of the reasons why we don't get much news about people stopping them is that when a would be mass shooter is killed before he can kill a bunch of people, the incident isn't listed as a mass shooting

 

Given the sheer scale of gun deaths in America it's not 'minor' it's just not a large % of the total. But again the above doesn't go to the heart of the matter i.e that there's no way to noticeably reduce the death toll. Perhaps tinker around the edges yes. Do something that has a meaningful impact? No.

And as for stopping mass shootings before they happen? There's no really way to quantify that. But again since such shootings are rare to begin with (and only in the US would once a day or so be considered 'rare') the chances that a citizen can intervene to actively prevent one are also likely to be rare. After all how many people in the US secretly consider grabbing a gun and going on a shooting spree every year but then stop themselves and never do it. Answer? There's no way to tell.