Yep. Every single idea proposed by the left has one common goal; to grow government dependence. This is no different. [MENTION=67925]Galileo[/MENTION] how about answer my question: Why do you hate the poor?
Pick any of those you want and tell me where ny, la, and Chicago fall per capita. Holy cow - - - Updated - - - My goal is to save lives. It always has been
As I posted, violent crime of all types are highly correlated to city size, the larger the city the higher the crime rates (table 16 of the UCR) USA avg violent crime rate is 385, murder 5.0 Chicago: 903.8 violent crimes per 100,000 people, murder rate 17.5 - that's much, much higher than the USA average New York City: 586 and 4.1 - much more violence than avg but less murder LA: 634, 7.1 - but that's LA proper, add in the surrounding neighborhoods which make up greater LA (its all one big urban smear) and the violence goes through the roof (for example, Compton is 997 & 13.1) Where is your data? Whats your source?
Where do they rank among smaller cities? They should be per capita the most violent places in the US.....yes?
Don't you gun banners ever do any real research? FBI UCR Table 16 Violent crime rate for city size per 100,000 people 1,000,000 and over (Group I subset) 687.1 500,000 to 999,999 (Group I subset) 836.0 250,000 to 499,999 (Group I subset) 708.2 GROUP II (100,000 to 249,999) 471.0 GROUP III (50,000 to 99,999) 337.9 GROUP IV (25,000 to 49,999) 293.8 GROUP V (10,000 to 24,999) 269.8 GROUP VI (under 10,000) 297.5 METROPOLITAN COUNTIES 258.4 NONMETROPOLITAN COUNTIES3 190.1
You present a false dichotomy. In fact, both options can be true. A gun can be a good option for self defense, and increase the likelihood of being a homicide or suicide victim in some cases and places. Apparently, however, your elitist views are so superior that they justify punishing the poor for their incorrect thinking. Maybe it's not that you hate the poor, as some people accuse you of, but that you look down on them like a father looks upon toddlers, and deem them unworthy of taking care of themselves.
Didn't work so well in Mexico, though. It's next to impossible to legally own a gun in Mexico, yet it doesn't seem to stop the cartels from obtaining military weaponry (not military style, but actual military weaponry)
Point is the same. Outlawing guns only disarms the law-abiding. Also, Mexicans are our largest single group of immigrants.
Some laws are almost impossible to enforce, like a law that would outlaw over 300 million guns...... Unless of course you want a police state with video surveillance of the entire public, and a secret police that enforces laws.....
If all the gun control people say there is a middle ground, and all of the pro-gun people say there isn't, then there isn't.
You brought up those cities claiming they were not violent. I showed you they were much more violent than the national average. The data shows a clear correlation with violence and city size. That's the FBI UCR data, compiled from crime reports from all cities and districts in the nation. The USA has a lot of large cities, and a lot of urban people. That is what drives the national average. The problem is the collapse of the inner cities, solve that problem (poor education, failed city govt, corruption, poor job opportunity, failed family and social order) and you solve the symptom (violence).
the fact is-the gun control movement is like a malignancy. It never stops. You cannot appease that movement with compromise Its based on dishonesty and even if crime was reduced to zero, the gun control movement wouldn't stop
Galileo in post # 75 said that all guns should be outlawed. It was what I was replying to in post #134. So, yes, there are people who want to outlaw all guns. You might not be one of them, but you can't speak for the other 320 million people in America. There is a middle ground. We are pretty much on it today. We have some restrictions on guns, but law-abiding people don't have too much problem getting guns. Other than adding more relevant records to the NICS (such as mental health and illegal drug records), and possibly opening up the NICS to the public, I don't see much more reasonable gun control that the middle ground could agree to.
Gun banners in the USA and other places have a nasty habit of claiming they aren't gun banners but rather they only want the NEXT "reasonable restriction" Sarah Brady made that claim to my face at Cincinnati City Council 27 or so years ago. She denied she wanted ANYTHING other than a waiting period and background check. The minute that was passed, she was crusading for "assault weapon bans" In other words I don't trust gun restrictionists. Its my experience that ANYONE who thinks the way to deter CRIMINALS is by passing laws that restrict the ability of honest gun owners to own, buy, possess or obtain firearms of any type, is ultimately a gun banner and won't stop until guns are banned
Someone on the anti-gun side lied? I'm shocked. They're anti-gun. They oppose citizens having guns. They will not stop until they remove guns from the citizenry.
