Reply With Quote
Statistically in the US there are a higher number of crimes per year in states that don't allow concealed carry permits. Fact...
Gun control works here in Australia - I don't know why you Americans don't accept the facts.
Statistically in the US there are a higher number of crimes per year in states that don't allow concealed carry permits. Fact...
Yes, and if gun laws are stricter everywhere (as they should be), the supply doesn't disappear and criminals will still skirt the law. Tighter gun laws in Indiana might help on the margins, but do you honestly think it would move the needle?
NYC cleaned up with tougher gun laws, but also some stronger policing = people moving back into city, unemployment falling, etc. though unfortunately a lot of that was pushed to smaller marginal cities nearby.
Were the states randomly assigned to condition? Did they control for confounding variables? Did they measure any effects? If not this fact does not say anything about the effects of gun control.Statistically in the US there are a higher number of crimes per year in states that don't allow concealed carry permits. Fact...
Facts don't lie
All states that allowed concealed carry permits saw a decrease in crime rates. States weren't randomly assigned. The effects were lower crime rates. One confounding variable could be mental but that still sways heavily into the favor that having concealed carry permits > than banning firearms.
merica
The supply will still shrink. You undermined your position with NYC.
It's funny all the theorycrafting on crime but when it comes to actually studying the issue the NRA and its ilk fight to prevent said study.
People that don't know how to normalize statistics and wave their hand sure do.Facts don't lie
All states that allowed concealed carry permits saw a decrease in crime rates. States weren't randomly assigned. The effects were lower crime rates. One confounding variable could be mental but that still sways heavily into the favor that having concealed carry permits > than banning firearms.
That's dumb. Are we hanging straight month shirts too?
Gun laws have worked in NYC - but it's a bunch of other factors too. Also, as I mentioned, the problem has gotten worse in other cities as poverty's moved out of NYC to the Camdens and similar cities of the world.
NRA is just ... any Republican running for office who opposes the NRA will never win a primary. Unfortunate state of affairs when special interest groups can control the narrative.
There's nothing to try. I'm completely correct. The term arms is used, but the word control appears nowhere. If arms include bombs and tanks, as you suggest, then the second amendment pretty clearly states that the right to bear them will not be infringed. There's no mention of hunting or home protection.
It's illegal for someone who lives in Illinois to buy a gun in Indiana and bring it back. There's a law. Explain for us all again how making more laws stops people that don't give a about laws.
The point is that the law is mind numbingly easy to cir vent.
It also says a 'well regulated militia.'
I meant that the word gun is nowhere in there. You're arguing minutiae to avoid the point. Are automatic weapons, mortars, grenades, and the like arms or not? Should they be made available to the public?
Everyone taking a on FL per par
this place hasn't changed one bit, now it's even worse
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015...n_7816390.html
So more laws mean nothing to lawbreakers. Glad we're all on the same page here.
Which refers to the armed forces. They are necessary to the security of a free state. Again, it's one sentence.
No, you said that arms control was the term they used. And yes, the word gun is nowhere in there, which is why it's curious that you think that the term "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" somehow refers to only guns.
There were no automatic weapons, mortars, grenades or the like used in Orlando, so bringing them up in a conversation about the Orlando attack is a textbook definition of arguing minutiae to avoid the point.
Since a person with three hours could easily kill 49 hostages with any number of weapons, any talk about gun laws is horribly misplaced in this conversation.
Yes, they are arms. And the cons ution clearly states that it is not for the federal government to have any authority to "make them available" to anyone. Cities, towns and states decide what's available based on logic and need, and law-abiding citizens will follow the law, while lawbreakers will be punished.
It does not refer to the military.
Let me speak for myself. If I was vague then fine but I said what I meant now argue.
We are talking about gun control in general. Your dodging like a coward. Fact is that what I mentioned are arms and they should be banned. You just don't want to admit I made a point.
Federalism is dead and regardless:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Keep going with that LaPierre reasoning. So we shouldn't have laws against murder then. Prima facia your reasoning is asinine.
Were arguing. You really are desperate for something you cannot do yourself.Everyone taking a on FL per par
Hay!
Actually it does. Go read it. It says that because the federal government will require a military to provide for the common defense, the federal government will not abridge the right of the people to keep and bear arms to any degree they feel necessary to feel protected from the federal government's army. It's the reason the president is the commander in chief of the military. It's very simple. Changing it would change absolutely nothing in our world, but would likely endanger the country going forward.
Actually you tried to move the goalposts, but I already defeated your argument. The word gun is indeed nowhere in the second amendment. The second amendment does not refer to guns. The second amendment is to protect the people from the government. It has nothing to do with anything else. There are other government agencies that deal with other things, as I'll list below.
No, actually the only reason I posted was because you misquoted the second amendment, which has nothing to do with gun control. You're the one who wants to talk about gun control. I say that someone could kill 49 hostages with a claw hammer in three hours, so bringing up gun control is just as stupid as trying to change the second amendment because someone killed someone with a legal gun.
I've taken on literally every point you've made, and I've eviscerated every single one of them. You want to use a tragic attack to gain political points. You show a complete ignorance of how the cons ution works, as well as ignorance about existing laws, though you think that making more laws will somehow make people who intend to break the law suddenly stop what they're doing. Then, when faced with irrefutable logic that explains why your point of view is misguided, mistaken and illogical, you claim that I'm dodging the conversation. That makes you willfully ignorant. That means that you are so dug in to your political view that you will still act stupidly when faced with logic that is impossible to refute. You're a pigeon on a chessboard, dude. Why that doesn't embarrass the out of you is the only mystery that remains.
Actually, you mentioned automatic weapons, mortars, grenades, tanks and nuclear weapons. Automatic weapons manufactured before 1987 can be owned if you have the right license, which requires a large fee, an extensive background check, and is heavily regulated. Mortars and grenades, and even large fireworks, regulated by the ATF and the consumer product safety commission, are illegal to own. Nuclear weapons also count as explosives and are regulated. A tank can be owned, so long as it is demilitarized.
So the fact is that everything that you mentioned are already banned, so you're standing here waving your arms around for no reason. If that's not a textbook example of someone ignorantly calling for change on the back of a tragedy without full possession of the facts, I don't know what is.
The only thing you've proven is how little you know. Hardly surprising, since you can't seem to learn anything despite the education I've provided for you in this thread.
So you post the preamble to the cons ution. I'm sure you think you're making some striking point, but there's nothing in the preamble that goes against the amendment. Further, do you understand how amendments work? They would supersede the preamble if there were actually a conflict.
No idea what this means. Whoever you stole it from probably thought they were frightfully clever.
Always nice to throw a strawman out there when you're getting your ass handed to you. I already said that we have laws against murder. You have yet to explain why you think passing a law against guns will stop someone intent on committing murder.
I ignored this the first time you used it, because I didn't want to embarrass you, but you're just such a blithering idiot that I don't give a anymore.
The term is "prima facie" and it means "at first look". It means an assumption that looks correct before delving into details. It's a legal term with no relevance whatsoever in this conversation, and you've now used it twice. It only makes you look smart to people stupider than you. I'm sure they're both very impressed.
Here endeth the lesson. Plonk.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
