Hearts and prayers, hearts and prayers, hearts and prayers,..........move on.

Seems liberals are just fine with armed men roaming the streets in Chicago.

 

White supremacist roots huh?

Demographics (nationalgangcenter.gov)



Yeah, I'm sure all those black and hispanic gangs are rooted in white supremacist ideology.

 

On the subject of concern for human life, you have no answer. The AR argument is one from a position of profound ignorance and that is why dodges and diversions are the only reaction extremists can muster. You refuted your own argument with your suicide comment. Misery does not come from a gun.

I grew up where armed gangs controlled the neighbor through fear. Why do you support laws that provide them with unarmed victims?

 

Explain:

 

The position of gun control is to reduce the number of people that get killed by guns.

 

Except "gun control" accomplishes none of that.

Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, and one of the highest murder rates. In statistics, we'd call that an inverse relationship.

 

Which does not change the fact that The position of gun control is to reduce the number of people that get killed by guns.

 

Wonderful. The objective of unicorns is to spread joy and magic throughout the universe. Except, only, they don't exist.

Chicago has gun control. They have the highest murder rate. Explain, please.

 

Nothing to explain.

 

Sure there is. Why does Chicago have one of the highest murder rates in the nation as well as one of the strictest gun control law sets?

You need to explain that. Be specific. Avoiding the question just proves you don't know what you're talking about.

 

I grew up where armed gangs controlled the neighbor through fear. Why do you support laws that provide them with unarmed victims?[/QUOTE]
What you advocate results in escalating gun violence, both purposeful and accidental, not the reduction of it.

 

Bwahahaha, no. You did not. That's hilarious.

 

Sorry to hear that. Your impulse to grab for a gun to ensure your safety is misguided.

More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/

 

No actually I don't.

 

Who gives a crap what part is missing! I only quote the parts I respond to. Which is the proper thing to do unless it's taken out of context. I addressed your point and you use this "missing" nonsense to avoid addressing my rebuttal. Thereby validating it.

Looks like you still haven't understood how forums work! You make a point, I rebut it.... and you either address my rebuttal or agree with it. Be it explicitly or implicitly. The latter being what you did here. And if there is some specific point I didn't address and you would like me to, all you have to do is ask. And I'll comment if I have something to comment.

 

Not even in the top 20. But Chicago is not isolated from the rest of the country in any way. So that argument is complete nonsense.

 

I sure do: save as many human lives as possible by eliminating as many guns as possible. Start with those designed to kill a large number of people in the shortest amount of time.

My position on human life couldn't be clearer.

 

Yet results show the opposite. If someone was willing to risk the penalty for murder, wouldn't they also risk the penalty of possessing an illegal firearm? Also, in cities with strict gun control, criminals have an advantage.

When it comes to the 102 pound female against the 220 pound rapist/murderer, which one benefits from gun control?

 

Its the part that is missing that gives full context. What you stated in response to that one sentence might make sense if it was just that one sentence. But it doesn't make sense when you take into account full context. This is proven by the fact that your argument of not knowing how many cases will happen ignores the fact that we do know how many actually do happen. Which is what the second part of my paragraph takes into account and talks about. You are attempting to move the goal posts that I set in order to achieve your own goal.

My goal post shows how many we know happens. Which means we also know how many don't happen.

Your goal is to talk about potentialities that we have no way of knowing. You do this in order to try and instill a fear factor. The Boogey Man is coming to get you unless we do something about The Boogey Man now through legislation in order to stop .... stop potentialities that we have no way of knowing when, or where, or by who. The only real way to stop such potentialities, in the end, is for a complete ban on private gun ownership. You know this. It doesn't matter how many laws you institute, bad people will still use guns to do bad things. The only way to stop them is to ban all guns, confiscate them all, and arrest anyone caught with a gun and give them severe penalties. That is your end goal.

That is the difference between using full context...and using your taken out of context version. Mine relies on known facts. Yours relies on the boogey man effect.

 

Bold: A semi-automatic pistol can kill just as many people as an AR-15 in the same time frame.

But its good to see you admitting that you want all guns banned. Tell me, what's the murder rate in any country that has banned guns? I'll bet you its not zero.

You're not going to solve murder by focusing on objects. That is a fact.

 

More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows
More firearms do not keep people safe, hard numbers show. Why do so many Americans believe the opposite?

• The claim that gun ownership stops crime is common in the U.S., and that belief drives laws that make it easy to own and keep firearms.
• But about 30 careful studies show more guns are linked to more crimes: murders, rapes, and others. Far less research shows that guns help.
• Interviews with people in heavily gun-owning towns show they are not as wedded to the crime defense idea as the gun lobby claims.

It's a good question. Just curious, why do you believe the opposite? More than likely as a rationalization for putting the public at risk.

 

Actually Dems have given a perfect example of how guns save lives with their defunding of police. Less cops = more crime. Guess what all cops in America have in common? Guns. Yet in many parts of the country where places have defunded cops crime has risen. In some places over 100%.

 

Might want to explain that to areas where crime has risen in areas where Dems have defunded police.

 

Which cities have stopped funding police departments? Keep in mind...to defund is to prevent from continuing to receive funds.

 

Besides Seattle and other wackadoo liberal cities?