Why does the POTUS put more energy into Roseburg than Chicago?? 9-30-2015 The homicide toll in Chicago continues to climb at a quick pace this month, making it the city's deadliest September since 2002. By Tuesday night, there were already 60 murders in September, making it the deadliest month of 2015 so far. The month already has more homicides than the traditionally violent summer months. The spike in shooting deaths and gun violence comes after two consecutive weekends with more than 50 people shot. In a 15-hour period beginning Monday night, 14 people were shot, six fatally. Most of those victims were hit during two mass shootings just two miles apart on the South Side. Among those victims, an 11-month old boy, Princeton Chew, was shot in the hip as his mother held him outside their home in the Back of the Yards neighborhood. The baby's pregnant mother, Patricia Chew, and grandmother, Lolita Wells, were shot and killed. Two other relatives were also shot. Mayor Rahm Emanuel and police Superintendent Garry McCarthy addressed the uptick in shootings on Tuesday. A clearly frustrated Emanuel said, "gangbangers can get access to guns at will" and that violence "happens with a frequency that is unacceptable." He continued, "I will probably regret what I say because I am angry at what happened here and I think I speak for everybody who believes that enough is enough." Both Emanuel and McCarthy place the blame on the proliferation of guns and lax gun laws. http://wgntv.com/2015/09/30/murders...he-deadliest-september-in-chicago-since-2002/ (Highlighting my addition). Illinois receives a "B" by the Brady Campaign. 41 states has a worse grade. http://www.bradycampaign.org/2013-state-scorecard 7-6-2015 Chicago, IL — Inside the city limits of Chicago, not a single gun shop can be found — they’ve been outlawed. With is nearly 3 million residents, Chicago has the most stringent gun laws in the nation. Gun laws were so strict, in fact, that in 2010, the US Supreme Court interveined saying the law was going to far. However, city lawmakers were able to “keep the ban” without “legally keeping the ban.” The ban on assault rifles, a high-capacity magazine ban, and nowhere to purchase ammo makes Chicago one of the toughest places in the country to obtain a serviceable and firing weapon, legally. As John Locke stated, self-defense is the first law of nature. Each person owns his or her own life and no other person has a right to take that life. Those who would attempt to stop you from defending yourself, are attacking the very right from which all other rights are derived, protection of one’s own life. What advocates of gun control really mean when they say they want to ban guns is that they only want the government to have guns. After all, who would enforce the ban on guns, and how would it be enforced — without guns? Instead of attacking the hundred and fifty million people in America who legally own guns and who don’t go around shooting children, we should look at the reason that causes people to kill one another. Contrary to the fear mongering, most murders are not committed by law-abiding gun owners who snap and grab the nearest gun. Studies show that the majority of murders committed are by those who already have a criminal record. Whatsmore, a significant percentage of the victims have criminal records themselves. So what’s causing all these shootings? The answer to that question is far too complicated to cover in a single article. However, we can examine one of the main contributing factors. The War on Drugs. When the government makes certain substances illegal, it does not remove the demand. Instead, the state creates crime by pushing the sale and control of these substances into the black markets. All the while, demand remains constant. http://thefreethoughtproject.com/82-shot-15-dead-city-strictest-gun-laws-united-states/ (Highlighting mine). Violent criminals obtain guns illegally so that they can get filthy rich and/or **** and such as they desire. It is an absurd lie to declare that most of these violent criminals are just hungry for some bread, as if they are modern day Jean Valjeans. This is a welfare state, $19 trillion and counting. Facts and logic. Disintegration of the family is at the core of this cultural problem. The violence of the state does not help. The "compassion" of the state would be laughable, if it was not doing so much harm to the hearts, minds, and bodies of my fellow citizens. Sad panda. Making it even more difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain a gun for self-defense, won't magically stop violent criminals from continuing to obtain guns illegally. When little Jimmy is naughty, it makes no sense to punish Jose, Rupert, Ivanka, Joaquin, and Jennifer.
It does by the 10s of thousands each and every year in USA. You should study the news. Talk to people. Meditate so as to connect with the universe. 5-16-2013 California is an interesting example of the deeply confused minds of those who assume they know more about how YOU should live your life than you do. I am of course referring to many of the politicians in Sacramento. After years of trying to regulate California criminals with a never ending stream of gun control laws they have still not given up with the belief that if they make something a crime that criminals will miraculously start obeying the law. In a survey of criminals(read that as FELONS IN PRISON), Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi of the Social and Demographic Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts conducted a study in 1982 and 1983 paid for by the U.S. Department of Justice. (Professor Rossi was a former President of the American Sociological Association.) The researchers interviewed 1,874 imprisoned felons in ten states. 88% of the criminals surveyed by Wright and Rossi agreed with the statement that, “A criminal who wants a handgun is going to get one.”(read this to mean that these felons are not obeying the gun laws and the Legislature cannot figure this out) Wright and Rossi reported that: 81% of interviewees agreed that a “smart criminal” will try to determine if a potential victim is armed. 74% indicated that burglars avoided occupied dwellings, because of fear of being shot. http://libertyfirearmstraining.com/...-armed-citizens-more-than-they-do-the-police/ 2-21-2012 As much as gun control advocates might wish otherwise, their attacks are running out of ammo. With private firearm ownership at an all-time high and violent crime rates plunging, none of the scary scenarios they advanced have materialized. Abuse of responsibility by armed citizens is rare, while successful defensive interventions against assaults on their lives and property are relatively commonplace. National violent crime rates that soared for 30 years from the early 1960s began to decrease markedly since 1993. Last December the FBI reported that murder and other violent crime rates fell again by 6.4% during the first half of 2011 compared with the same period in 2010. A Gallup poll indicates that “Americans’ preference regarding gun laws is generally that the government enforce existing laws more strictly and not pass new laws.” http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...-the-myths-promoted-by-the-gun-control-lobby/ (Highlighting mine).
I googled--love that verb--your exact words, and the following were the first 5 links/articles: http://obrag.org/?p=55738#.VhAky8tdE5s http://www.metronews.ca/news/toront...-guards-could-be-coming-to-union-station.html http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...border-guards-be-coming-to-union-station.html http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/us/u.s.border-patrol.htm http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2...andcuffs-woman-for-questioning-his-authority/ Did any of that help?
none did. seems like these talk about illegal immigrants and canada/mexico borders. nothing on making sure mericans arn't bringing guns into diffirent states.
Again i didn't read this whole thread, but based on some of the reactions ive seen elsewhere I feel like this is relevant As written by a true american, relative, and personal idol, Thomas Jefferson. A lot of the pro-gun defenses I see go little beyond the generic "i want to exercise my second amendment right" argument. This is documentation of the words of a founding father of our government, and by association the constitution itself. Guns of the days when this silly amendment was written were very undeveloped. One bullet one shot. Now technology has changed to the point that we have assault rifles that shoot dozens of rounds a second, with absolutely no purpose other than killing. Black markets and production companies have allowed us to go down the slippery slope of "guns stop guns"... it's sad, insulting and makes me embarrassed to be an american. While because of this it is unrealistic to ask for total gun control, that does not mean that it should continue to be legal for any shlep with a couple bucks to own a firearm. It's time to amend the second amendment, and to advocate otherwise is nothing short of primitive.
So, to that end... why guns? Why is it not bow and arrows? Why is it not crossbows? Slingshots? Bazookas? What makes guns specifically appropriate for the goals of the second amendment? Was it the best choice then? Is it the best choice now?
I love this argument: because it basically says "Criminals are going to break laws" as an argument against having laws.
Fact is, we live in a society with many people with many differing viewpoints. Laws and regulations, therefore, are always going to step on SOMEONE's toes, no matter what they are. But without them, people can be cruel and mean to each other. The real solution is for us to evolve beyond our base instincts and treat each other with kindness and respect. Until then, some laws are going to make our lives less convenient on an individual basis here and there, for the sake the many. This is all in general, of course, and assumes that the laws do actually have some use, again, in the case of gun control, it is ambiguous whether it'd have any real effect. For me, the sadness in all this is that nothing ever changes. The rhetoric is the same, the arguments are the same. One side wants solutions that may or may not work, the other side largely says "don't take my guns, I am law abiding." And every time a shooting occurs, we relive the same arguments, and then we wait for the next one. ~ I just hope the thing happening with my friend's son right now doesn't turn into something. Because if it does, she will surely blame herself (and she already lost her husband to a car accident recently, and now she's lost her son to madness, and honestly she doesn't need her son to go on a shooting spree to top it off). But the fact is she has done everything she can, and there is no real recourse with the current laws as they are - though he is diagnosed with schizophrenia and not medicated, he hasn't broken any laws and is allowed to purchase and own guns.
Guns are point and click with little practice instant deaths. And like pt said, lotta bullets lotta chances to miss.
Incorrect. Violent criminals don't follow the gun control laws now--as well as many hundreds of other laws related to crime. So making more laws still won't stop violent criminals. Ink on paper will never stop violent people from being violent. Nobody in this thread has yet advocated for no laws. Criminals do not have the right to kill me. But I do have the right to defend my own life, and the life of my family.
Ah yes, good 'ol 'murica. God forbid other countries, like belgium, with strict gun laws refuse people to shoot people to defend themselves and see an incredibly low amount of deaths this way. Zero school schootings, very low armed robbery numbers. And overal much lower crime ratings. Who knew right? You pay that price for your armed right to defend yourself in blood every year.
If there were no laws against criminals killing people, would you not want one? Or would you tell me that he is going to try to kill people whether there is a law or not, and adding more laws won't stop him from trying to kill people? Would that be the argument you'd make? ~ I feel like you misunderstand the purpose of laws. Of course people who break the law don't care about it. But it means we have recourse when those laws are broken. For example, if a gun owner doesn't secure his weapons properly, and has them taken, maybe they should be accountable. Even California doesn't currently require you to report a stolen/lost gun, and the NRA has advocated that you do not co-operate with police if your gun shows up at a crime scene. Is this not a case where additional laws might help? (I haven't looked up any studies on this particular case, but it's just an example of something that might help in theory.) The other example is the one I've already outlined. My friend's son, I feel, SHOULD NOT be allowed to have guns. Period. Yes, some laws don't make sense here, but it doesn't mean NO laws work.
You mean your insistence to risk the life of your family for your own stubbornness. I'd be ashamed if I were you.
It was the best and most realistic option then for self defense, and that remains true today. Self defense from a few violent criminals, from organized crime, or even from a tyrannical government. Background checks are very common, and logical. I would like to see them become mandatory, perchance every 5 years. Required gun safety training classes would be fine by me. Many voluntarily take these courses--and others--already. Peeps with serious mental health problems is an area in which a LOT more needs to be done. The situation Sok mentioned above sounds like a disaster about to happen. Which state is it Sok? (I am willing to review its laws and then give my feedback on possible actions that other adults can take right away). Thoughts and prayers to you and yours. Actual assault weapons--machine guns--remain extremely difficult to acquire legally. That is just as it should be. Semi auto is standard, and thus should not be made illegal. Many millions of such weapons are owned by law abiding American citizens now. It would, honestly, be much easier and less costly to deport the 10s of millions of illegals than to confiscate so many guns. I don't mind open carry in the slightest, but my preference is to carry concealed. The state deemed me safe to purchase a killing device--a beautiful, black 9mm Glock--and thus I should not need a special permit to conceal carry. My driver's license is valid in every state, and I hope the legislatures make that happen for gun permits too. But ONLY if all loopholes are closed, such as background checks and such. Savvy?
Arizona. I believe the crux of the issue is that he's coherent enough to appear in Court and act "normal" that the judges are saying he's not a danger to himself to others - so therefore no one can do anything. But when he's outside the Court room, especially alone with his mother, he shows a very different side of himself. Note: I've met him myself while he was on his meds, and he seems perfectly normal, if a bit obsessive about certain things.
