NRA Commentary Admits The Odds Of Needing A Gun To Defend Yourself Are Infinitesimal

Why does it matter where illegal guns come from when they are illegal?
Interstate transfer of guns w/o FFL involvement is already against the law -- how do you make it more illegal and what effect will it have?

 

Heh.
Please describe a gun law that, without violating the rights of the law abiding, will lower suicide, the vast majority of gun-related deaths?

 

I don't even have to look that far. 10 million people outside of Chicago in the state of Illinois. Meaning Chicago makes up 1:6 the population and is responsible for 2/3 of all the murders. Simply looking at states ownership rates and saying more murder more guns is irresponsible journalism. You also have to consider ownership rates. Chicago less than 5 percent legal gun owners but more than 2/3 the murders? Where is the answer for that?

 

My answer is this: we are talking about cities, not states. Try again.

 

Math is math. Just looking at states as an indicator that proliferation means more homicides is lazy thinking. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that when you pull out the population and murders from large urban centers and compare it to the rest of the rational middle American country that 70 percent or more of us belong to, the murder rate falls to European modern society levels. It's only in liberal controlled, gun controlled mega cities that we have a homicide problem.

- - - Updated - - -

Math is math. Just looking at states as an indicator that proliferation means more homicides is lazy thinking. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that when you pull out the population and murders from large urban centers and compare it to the rest of the rational middle American country that 70 percent or more of us belong to, the murder rate falls to European modern society levels. It's only in liberal controlled, gun controlled mega cities that we have a homicide problem.

 

First off, let's cut the NRA bull about "gun free zones" http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/10/08/report-conservative-medias-gun-free-zone-myth-i/206037

http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/10/04/on-cnn-mark-kelly-debunks-myth-that-gun-free-zo/205955

Secondly, If you're going to assert that licensing and registration of gun purchases is wrong, then please logically and factually explain why? Also, you may want to know that according to the FBI homicides in the USA are back down to 1950's levels. Look it up, because it ain't funny.

 

Robbery, assault, and other violent offenses occur all over the world. The nation of Germany for example has experienced an upswing of violent offenses that have been attributed to the influx of refugees.

 

Then you are saying the teaching staff at Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech and Columbine were all eligible to legally carry concealed weapons while on campus, and simply refrained from doing so?

Because there is no beneficial purpose in maintaining an ever-changing and growing list of more than one hundred million names of individuals who are complying with the law, simply because they choose to exercise their constitutional rights by owning a firearm.

Are you attempting to claim that this was a particularly violent time in the united states?

 

Ah media matters, a left wing butt wipe. But ok. No you are half right about the UCC shooting as you are allowed to carry on the campus, BUT NOT INSIDE THE BUILDINGS which is where the shooting began . Yes, that little tidbit is in your own article. But I guess that fact wont be good enough for you either. The students are not allowed to carry inside, so yes those buildings are gun free zones.

Newtown- Gun free zone
Aurora movie theater- Gun free zone
Planned Parenthood- Gun free zone
San Bernardino- The workplace was a gun free zone, and Cali has some of the strictest gun laws in the country
Fort Hood-Only MP were allowed to carry guns on base, Islamic psychopath takes advantage of troops that were not allowed to truly defend themselves
Virginia Tech massacre- Gun Free zone
Columbine- gun free zone


Got any left wing excuses for that? got anymore BS trying to claim something is a lie, when it is not? Come on, i'll wait.

I agree with background checks, and the legal exchange of legal guns, but I do not agree with having to register your weapon. The government does not need a database of who owns what and neither do liberals considering they like to abuse that info and invade peoples privacy like they did in New York. The government as a whole does not need that info. And to be honest I feel the same way about having to constantly register your vehicle lol.

And if homicides are that low, especially during a time when a record amount of gun are being bought, then what the hell is the problem? My beef with liberals and their dumb gun policies is that they attack the wrong people. I am for harsher gun laws, but my approach is aimed at the criminals who own and use guns and the jackasses that sell them the weapons. I need not worry about making it harder for law abiding citizens to buy or carry a weapon, they are not the problem.

 

Simple:
There is no sound argument for the necessity of the state to know who owns each of the 356,000,000 gun in the US.
Absent that necessity it is impossible to show that licensing and registration pass strict scrutiny.
Any restriction on a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution that cannot pass strict scrutiny violates the constitution.
There you go.

 

Year Homicide
rate per 100,000
1950 4.6
1951 4.4
1952 4.6
1953 4.5
1954 4.2
1955 4.1
1956 4.1
1957 4.0
1958 4.8
1959 4.9
This includes all homicides not just those committed with a firearm.
"FBI homicides in the USA are back down to 1950's levels. Look it up, because it ain't funny"
Homicides are down, even though we have more than twice as many people, and it ain't funny?
Kind of proves we're safer with more guns than with less.

 

... and millions upon millions more guns.

 

Really.

Give me a law that will reduce suicide, then give me one that will reduce accidents.

By the way, gun accidents are currently lower than they have ever been since the statistic was first recorded. They're right below fatal bicycle accidents.

 

Ask Canada.

 

Which has had how many mass shootings compared to America???

 

Which is a has a land mass larger than the US with a population that is surpassed by just California.

Not really the point though. The point was Canada attempted to register guns, at great expense, and it was a complete failure.

Even you said in a previous thread that many Australians buried guns instead of turning them in. Were those law-abiding Australians or were they more likely criminal types?

How many criminals in Australia turned in their guns do you think?

 

Stop and think: if we are twice the population as you say, AND WE HAVE MORE GUN LAWS IN PLACE, and the homicide rate is BACK DOWN to 1950'S LEVEL, that means that gun control WORKS. IF IT DIDN'T, THEN THE HOMICIDE RATE WOULD CONTINUE TO RISE WITH THE POPULATION.

GOT THAT? Hope so.

 

All you've done is try to put forth NRA propaganda as a "fact"....case in point this BS about "gun free zones" http://reverbpress.com/politics/battlegrounds/good-guy-with-a-gun-john-parker-umpqua/

Sorry, but your opinion, supposition and conjecture is No substitute for FACTS. That's why Media Matters pisses off folk like you, because they DOCUMENT what they assert. You can't.

 

The united states also has far more firearms ownership than ever before, far more places in which firearms can be carried either openly or concealed, and far more firearms in general circulation, with most estimates placing the current number above the population in terms of size. Statistically there are approximately new forty one thousand firearm purchases being made per day in the united states.

 

Regardless of what you attempt to claim, and what you post that you believe supports your position, you have presented absolutely no evidence to show that mass shootings are not occurring in locations where firearms are legally prohibited. All you have is the claim that it is NRA propaganda, with no proof to actually back up your claim.

Firearms have been prohibited on both schools and military establishments since the early nineteen nineties by federal law. That is why there is always news coverage whenever a state moves to enact legislation to allow the legal carrying of concealed firearms on school grounds by those who are licensed to do so.

 

Let me see if I understand you correctly.

You're saying that gun laws deter more criminals from killing than the laws and punishments for murder, regardless of the weapon used?

What gun control laws are effective at preventing murder? That would be a fun read.

 

Not just our opinion either

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/09/20/hard-evidence-does-gun-control-work

 

Ok.

Explain to me how someone who is willing to ignore the law and associated penalties against murder will be deterred by a gun control law.

 

You are not going to deter determined murderers. That is a strawman argument. What it stops is bravado murders for "disrespecting" someone or the frightened kid on his first robbery or the angry partner in a wild argument

If the guns are not freely available the murder rate drops - that is shown in study after study.

Tell me - if guns are kept off the streets how then do your casual or beginning criminal get a gun? You can't exactly walk down a street yelling "Guns!! Wanna Buy me some guns!!"

 

You do not understand what "homicide rate" means.
You also cannot prove that gun control is the reason the homicide rate dropped to 1950s level.