Chris Matthews: Gun Control Speech Coming Soon
-
Leg, this is really going nowhere. I still can't tell by what you wrote that you understand any of the points I'm making. You're just repeating the same stuff you said before, which I don't think is very convincing.
For instance, I really don't think saying "18th amendment" over and over is the slam dunk you think it is. I hardly see how it's relevant to the discussion. All that would mean is that making things illegal, no matter if it's booze or gun clips or drunk driving, doesn't have any effect on anything, so there's no point. This is a ridiculous argument to make. The whole point is to identify behavior that we want to reduce the incidence of and punish it accordingly. Ex: drunk driving is illegal, but people still drink and drive. We don't imagine drunk driving is going to stop when we make it illegal, so you wouldn't argue with someone who wants to make drunk driving illegal by saying, "DRUNK DRIVING WILL NOT DISAPPEAR JUST BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL." Well, no shit. So let's stop making that argument, especially in caps. I want to like you.
Can you agree that the threat of penalty reduces the incidence of drunk driving, and that police can pull over drunk drivers and arrest them and charge them before they have a chance to cause hard to someone else, and themselves? This is all we're talking about here. Making extended clips illegal would reduce their use, and allow prosecutors to punish the people who continue to use them more harshly, often before they're used.
If law abiding citizens have no real use for extended clips since they're hunters and sportsmen and use guns for protection, than this law would overwhelmingly punish people who aren't law-abiding.
And I'll try the football metaphor one more time. I'm not saying "eliminate the facemask", as you contend. I'm saying make the facemask illegal, since the facemask - while certainly a way to tackle someone - isn't the type of tackling we want in our game because it poses needless risk to the players. There are plenty of other ways to tackle people, within the rules, and we accept a certain amount of risk when we play the game. However, we've decided to not allow helmet to helmet, facemasks, or horse collars. Those will be penalized.
And speaking of fantasies, can you make an argument for why law-abiding citizens would need extended magazines? I'm not sure I'm convinced by your dream of being able to play John McClane at an unfolding crime scene. That would mean your argument is: whatever type of weapon or ammo anyone could obtain, I want to be able to obtain an equal or greater amount in the event we have to throw down.
This seems a little silly to me, but at least it's finally an argument for leaving the law the way it is. Do you have any others, or is that it?
PS - Most criminals are buffoons and lowlifes. Buffoons and lowlifes can do great damage. Catching them is important too.
Leg, this is really going nowhere. I still can't tell by what you wrote that you understand any of the points I'm making. You're just repeating the same stuff you said before, which I don't think is very convincing.
For instance, I really don't think saying "18th amendment" over and over is the slam dunk you think it is. I hardly see how it's relevant to the discussion. All that would mean is that making things illegal, no matter if it's booze or gun clips or drunk driving, doesn't have any effect on anything, so there's no point. This is a ridiculous argument to make. The whole point is to identify behavior that we want to reduce the incidence of and punish it accordingly. Ex: drunk driving is illegal, but people still drink and drive. We don't imagine drunk driving is going to stop when we make it illegal, so you wouldn't argue with someone who wants to make drunk driving illegal by saying, "DRUNK DRIVING WILL NOT DISAPPEAR JUST BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL." Well, no shit. So let's stop making that argument, especially in caps. I want to like you.
oh. my. god. You're right, this is going nowhere. I have yet to make the claim that criminalizing various things don't have ANY effect. I've repeated (and you've repeatedly missed) that they don't have the intended effect. It's often the opposite effect. Which is why I've repeated the 18th amendment, tossed in some Columbine and so on. Please, come down from the tower - it's not as bad as you think.
Also comparing the gun/weapons ban argument to drunk driving is apples and oranges. Drunk drivers are rarely looking to commit an additional crime while drunk driving. The same can't be said for those looking to commit murder while using an illegal weapon/magazine. Also there's the cost/benefit rationalization of each of these that aren't even in the same ballpark.
Can you agree that the threat of penalty reduces the incidence of drunk driving, and that police can pull over drunk drivers and arrest them and charge them before they have a chance to cause hard to someone else, and themselves? This is all we're talking about here. Making extended clips illegal would reduce their use, and allow prosecutors to punish the people who continue to use them more harshly, often before they're used.
There aren't repeat DUI offenders? Shocking.
As to the part I bolded, that's some fairly circular logic, no? Being able to prosecute a crime only happens after the crime - unless we're in that shitty Tom Cruise movie. I kind of see where you're going with this point, but I'm saying if somebody does something bad, with something illegal, the "bad" consequence has already happened. If someone does something that isn't bad with something illegal (shooting 30 holes in a paint can vs. 20) is that really a problem? I say no. The same argument can be made for decriminalizing drugs, etc. If a tree falls in the woods, with nobody around to hear it, does it make a sound?
If law abiding citizens have no real use for extended clips since they're hunters and sportsmen and use guns for protection, than this law would overwhelmingly punish people who aren't law-abiding.
Assuming they're caught yes. 9 times out of 10, it's already after the problem (Loughner, et. al)And I'll try the football metaphor one more time. I'm not saying "eliminate the facemask", as you contend. I'm saying make the facemask illegal, since the facemask - while certainly a way to tackle someone - isn't the type of tackling we want in our game because it poses needless risk to the players. There are plenty of other ways to tackle people, within the rules, and we accept a certain amount of risk when we play the game. However, we've decided to not allow helmet to helmet, facemasks, or horse collars. Those will be penalized.
I meant "facemask" as in the structure. Which you are seeking to eliminate. Which is why I followed with the "removal of the facemask will result in nose/eyesocket tackling." (Unintended consequence - seeing a pattern yet?)
And speaking of fantasies, can you make an argument for why law-abiding citizens would need extended magazines? I'm not sure I'm convinced by your dream of being able to play John McClane at an unfolding crime scene. That would mean your argument is: whatever type of weapon or ammo anyone could obtain, I want to be able to obtain an equal or greater amount in the event we have to throw down.
Magazine size is inconsequential for me personally. I only need the 1 in the chamber.But to address your patronization, that is the foundation of the 2nd Amendment. Laugh it up.
This seems a little silly to me, but at least it's finally an argument for leaving the law the way it is. Do you have any others, or is that it?
Of course it does.
PS - Most criminals are buffoons and lowlifes. Buffoons and lowlifes can do great damage. Catching them is important too.
That takes more than shuffling "the list."
-
Simple question, Steve: do you believe there's an individual right to self-defense in the 2nd Amendment?
Simple question, Steve: do you believe there's an individual right to self-defense in the 2nd Amendment?
Though I don't think it's specific lets play.
OK
I'll say yes!!!!
From whom would I need to protect myself?
Bears?
Indians?
Highwaymen?
British resurgents?
The US government run amuck?
Now what kind of weapons might these dangerous predators have?
Now in order to defend myself shoudn't I have something equal?
Sure I should Heck. And in those days I could.
But that was written in a day when there were no bazookas.
Thgat was a time when six submachine guns would have given the king a quick victory.
Today those situations are archaic.
WSS
-
That didn't work either, Steve.
If you believe there's a right to self-defense in the 2nd Amendment, then your disagreement with me is what you would call "nitpicking." And what I would call "dishonest." Because it would mean that exactly what you called "spinning" would be what you believe, too - that there are parts of the 2nd Amendment that aren't relevant today, and parts that still are.
The 2nd Amendment isn't "outdated" today, is it?
-
That didn't work either, Steve.
If you believe there's a right to self-defense in the 2nd Amendment, then your disagreement with me is what you would call "nitpicking." And what I would call "dishonest." Because it would mean that exactly what you called "spinning" would be what you believe, too - that there are parts of the 2nd Amendment that aren't relevant today, and parts that still are.
The 2nd Amendment isn't "outdated" today, is it?
That didn't work either, Steve.
If you believe there's a right to self-defense in the 2nd Amendment, then your disagreement with me is what you would call "nitpicking." And what I would call "dishonest." Because it would mean that exactly what you called "spinning" would be what you believe, too - that there are parts of the 2nd Amendment that aren't relevant today, and parts that still are.
The 2nd Amendment isn't "outdated" today, is it?
Yep.
Well you're wrong only because you won't address the point Heck.
Parts are relevant and parts aren't?
Great.
You know that's bullshit and I don't have any doubt you'll come up with another snow job.
If you think the founders had a clue about what it'd be like in century 21, you're delusional.
Lets look to the Bible instead.
WSS
-
Leg, let's try this: I keep making the case that you can reduce the incidence of gun crime, prosecute people more effectively, and reduce gun violence at the margins, which saves lives.
Now you seem to be making the case that since it won't stop every crime, or save every life, that it's not worth doing. Take your numbers: you said nine out of ten times it would still happen. To me, a 10% reduction in gun crimes sounds fantastic. I wouldn't imagine we'd get close to that, though it would be really hard to quantify because most of it would be about putting people in jail for illegal possession of a firearm, and the crimes they don't get to commit while in prison. But if you could show that additional gun laws, while preserving 2nd Amendment rights, reduced gun crimes by even 5%, I'd think that's fantastic. That would mean hundreds of lives saved.
In other words, you're saying reducing gun crime rates is not worth doing. Somehow, you even seem to making the case that banning these clips wouldn't do anything, and even may increase gun crimes somehow. That's your "18 Amendment" argument, which I still don't think much of.
As for this, let me try one more time: "Being able to prosecute a crime only happens after the crime - unless we're in that shitty Tom Cruise movie."
Once again, you're missing the obvious stuff here - guns found in searches, possession laws that could trigger parole violations and put people back in jail, etc.
Richmond had a law years ago where the illegal possession of a firearm was an automatic five year sentence. Yes, they used gun laws to take people who have guns illegally off the streets.
This would be no different. If you found someone with these clips, you could prosecute them for having them. You could take dangerous people off of the streets before they do anything. Which is why I made the drunk driving analogy - we arrest a lot of people who are swerving in traffic. They haven't hurt anyone yet, but we know they've got the ability to.
Spielberg's got nothing to do with it.
-
That didn't work either, Steve.
If you believe there's a right to self-defense in the 2nd Amendment, then your disagreement with me is what you would call "nitpicking." And what I would call "dishonest." Because it would mean that exactly what you called "spinning" would be what you believe, too - that there are parts of the 2nd Amendment that aren't relevant today, and parts that still are.
The 2nd Amendment isn't "outdated" today, is it?
Yep.
Well you're wrong only because you won't address the point Heck.
Parts are relevant and parts aren't?
Great.
You know that's bullshit and I don't have any doubt you'll come up with another snow job.
If you think the founders had a clue about what it'd be like in century 21, you're delusional.
Lets look to the Bible instead.
WSS
Well you're wrong only because you won't address the point Heck.
Parts are relevant and parts aren't?
Great.
You know that's bullshit and I don't have any doubt you'll come up with another snow job.
If you think the founders had a clue about what it'd be like in century 21, you're delusional.
Lets look to the Bible instead.
WSS
Oh, God. I don't know that's bullshit; I know the exact opposite. And I've got Supreme Court cases that back me up, and think you're full of shit.
I really love that tactic - "I know that you don't believe what you just wrote!" Except that I do believe it. Because it's true.
If you understand that there's an individual right to self-defense in the 2nd Amendment - which there is - than self-defense is a right and a concept that doesn't fade over time, much like free speech or freedom of assembly.
Americans have a right to individual self-defense in the Constitution. The fact that Jefferson couldn't have imagined heat-seeking missiles and the internet is immaterial.
-
What are you trying to get me to admit? That the British are no longer coming? That we don't need militias anymore?
Yay, Steve.
-
What are you trying to get me to admit? That the British are no longer coming? That we don't need militias anymore?
Yay, Steve.
What are you trying to get me to admit? That the British are no longer coming? That we don't need militias anymore?
Yay, Steve.
No Heck.
I don't expect a straight answer.
That amendment was necessary because the Brits had been confiscating colonists guns.
They rightly feared an uprising.
Flint and Firelocks were state of the art then.
And that's what they were allowed to have.
Spin it anyway you like.
WSS
-
What are you trying to get me to admit? That the British are no longer coming? That we don't need militias anymore?
Yay, Steve.
No Heck.
I don't expect a straight answer.
That amendment was necessary because the Brits had been confiscating colonists guns.
They rightly feared an uprising.
Flint and Firelocks were state of the art then.
And that's what they were allowed to have.
Spin it anyway you like.
WSS
No Heck.
I don't expect a straight answer.
That amendment was necessary because the Brits had been confiscating colonists guns.
They rightly feared an uprising.
Flint and Firelocks were state of the art then.
And that's what they were allowed to have.
Spin it anyway you like.
WSS
Ah, the alternate reality. Where accepted (and centuries old) legal doctrine is "spin" and stuff you make up in your head is the truth.
You really seem to understand this stuff really well. The Constitution didn't establish the unalienable rights and privileges of citizenship, it was only written to deal with the immediate threat of the British.
Really, Steve? I think you've lost this one. You may not understand that you've lost, but you have.
The amendment doesn't say "Until the threat of a British uprising has been quelled, you can keep and bear arms." It doesn't say, "As long as gun technology stays the same in perpetuity, you can have guns." It says, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
There's a right to self-defense in there. Maybe you can't see it, but that's not that important.
-
Is the 1st Amendment outdated because the Framers could have never imagined television? The internet? YouTube?
Is it outdated because the Framers specifically wanted people to be able to speak out against the British?
Or is it about a right, a concept, that is given to the American people and can't be taken away?
-
You really seem to understand this stuff really well. The Constitution didn't establish the unalienable rights and privileges of citizenship, it was only written to deal with the immediate threat of the British.
Really, Steve? I think you've lost this one. You may not understand that you've lost, but you have.
The amendment doesn't say "Until the threat of a British uprising has been quelled, you can keep and bear arms." It doesn't say, "As long as gun technology stays the same in perpetuity, you can have guns." It says, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
There's a right to self-defense in there. Maybe you can't see it, but that's not that important.
But that has nothing to do with this.
It's whether or not you have a right to own a gun as powerful as the government.
You could and should when it was written.
You can't now and probably shouldn't.
You're beyond spin; this is just bickering.
WSS
-
Meanwhile, they don't want to make those magazines smaller now. They want to ELIMINATE THEM ENTIRELY.
Which, renders many guns that use them pretty useless, unless you manually load them with one shot,
making the gun a single shot.
Exactly what I said - step by step, with them parroting nice thoughts, like "gosh, we could cut back on gun crime -
wouldn't it be worth it if it prevent even one gun crime in a decade? Hmmmm?"
More, and more. Get one win, and the go for a bigger win in their war against gun ownership.
****************************
Dear Calfoxwc,
Earlier I alerted you to the fact that inside sources in the U.S. Senate claim Senate Democrats are planning to execute a sneak attack on gun rights as soon as TODAY!
About their plan to sneak Carolyn McCarthy's Magazine Ban into law as an amendment to the Federal Aviation Administration Bill, a routine piece of generally non-controversial legislation.
But after I sent it out I realized my records didn't indicate who your senator was.
So here is the Congressional Switchboard number: 202-224-3121
Just tell them your state and they can connect you to your senators' office.
Make sure your senators know about this scheme and that they must oppose Carolyn McCarthy's Magazine Ban every step of the way whether it's attached as an amendment or not.
And make sure they know you're watching.
Thanks for taking action,
Dudley Brown
Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights
-
Yes, the right to self-defense has everything to do with this. We're having a conversation about whether or not the amendment is "outdated," remember? The reason it's not outdated is because the 2nd Amendment is the declaration of an individual right, not a law addressing the situation in 1789. You're ignoring the former and focusing on the latter because the former invalidates your original argument. It's what you always do - retreat to a minor point and try to pretend that's all we're really talking about. Ex: not is UI extension a good idea, but some people will elect to not work and take an unemployment check. (Oh, and hope you saw the two recent studies on the current effects of unemployment insurance. Synopsis: you were wrong.)
In other words, only by ignoring the reality of what the Amendment means can you make the case that the 2nd Amendment is outdated, and that's what you're doing.
Would you like to relent, or would you like to point out how the plumbing wasn't very good in 1789 either?
-
Leg, let's try this: I keep making the case that you can reduce the incidence of gun crime, prosecute people more effectively, and reduce gun violence at the margins, which saves lives.
Now you seem to be making the case that since it won't stop every crime, or save every life, that it's not worth doing. Take your numbers: you said nine out of ten times it would still happen. To me, a 10% reduction in gun crimes sounds fantastic. I wouldn't imagine we'd get close to that, though it would be really hard to quantify because most of it would be about putting people in jail for illegal possession of a firearm, and the crimes they don't get to commit while in prison. But if you could show that additional gun laws, while preserving 2nd Amendment rights, reduced gun crimes by even 5%, I'd think that's fantastic. That would mean hundreds of lives saved.
In other words, you're saying reducing gun crime rates is not worth doing. Somehow, you even seem to making the case that banning these clips wouldn't do anything, and even may increase gun crimes somehow. That's your "18 Amendment" argument, which I still don't think much of.
As for this, let me try one more time: "Being able to prosecute a crime only happens after the crime - unless we're in that shitty Tom Cruise movie."
Once again, you're missing the obvious stuff here - guns found in searches, possession laws that could trigger parole violations and put people back in jail, etc.
Richmond had a law years ago where the illegal possession of a firearm was an automatic five year sentence. Yes, they used gun laws to take people who have guns illegally off the streets.
This would be no different. If you found someone with these clips, you could prosecute them for having them. You could take dangerous people off of the streets before they do anything. Which is why I made the drunk driving analogy - we arrest a lot of people who are swerving in traffic. They haven't hurt anyone yet, but we know they've got the ability to.
Spielberg's got nothing to do with it.
Leg, let's try this: I keep making the case that you can reduce the incidence of gun crime, prosecute people more effectively, and reduce gun violence at the margins, which saves lives.
Now you seem to be making the case that since it won't stop every crime, or save every life, that it's not worth doing. Take your numbers: you said nine out of ten times it would still happen. To me, a 10% reduction in gun crimes sounds fantastic. I wouldn't imagine we'd get close to that, though it would be really hard to quantify because most of it would be about putting people in jail for illegal possession of a firearm, and the crimes they don't get to commit while in prison. But if you could show that additional gun laws, while preserving 2nd Amendment rights, reduced gun crimes by even 5%, I'd think that's fantastic. That would mean hundreds of lives saved.
I'm saying there are other items that should be more pressing than the marginal reduction of gun crime. Especially when you consider the legislative circus that this issue rolls into town. Committees, concessions, riders, amendments, pork here, pork there. I'm exhausted just thinking about it. That is if - as you say - laws are looking to just "control" crime rather than eradicate it. If these tragic events are the only ones that seem to stir the debate (and they are), then imo the gun control issue is currently solved. I know you like to pull Cabrini Green out of your sleeve every so often when you feel our collective heart strings need a tug, so I'll do it here. The extended magazine law wouldn't put a dent into the gun crime of that pitiful place. I also know you wouldn't ever suggest that 1 life is more important than another, but that's the effective outcome of a law like this.
In other words, you're saying reducing gun crime rates is not worth doing. Somehow, you even seem to making the case that banning these clips wouldn't do anything, and even may increase gun crimes somehow. That's your "18 Amendment" argument, which I still don't think much of.
See previous paragraph.As for this, let me try one more time: "Being able to prosecute a crime only happens after the crime - unless we're in that shitty Tom Cruise movie."
Once again, you're missing the obvious stuff here - guns found in searches, possession laws that could trigger parole violations and put people back in jail, etc.
Richmond had a law years ago where the illegal possession of a firearm was an automatic five year sentence. Yes, they used gun laws to take people who have guns illegally off the streets.
Richmond has a 7-fold higher murder rate than the national average. Oh, and btw - I live here. There are plenty of places where I don't obey stop signs.
Advantage, Criminals. Up 2 sets on Gun laws. Match point.
This would be no different. If you found someone with these clips, you could prosecute them for having them. You could take dangerous people off of the streets before they do anything. Which is why I made the drunk driving analogy - we arrest a lot of people who are swerving in traffic. They haven't hurt anyone yet, but we know they've got the ability to.
Spielberg's got nothing to do with it.
I know you hate anecdotal evidence, but I have several friends on various levels of police forces. Every one of them says when you make the illegal weapons/clips discovery it's usually with the business end pointing in their direction. The "hey look what I found"s are pretty rare Unless it's after a far larger crime is committed/combatted.
-
If you want to use stats, you wouldn't use how Richmond's murder rate compared to the national average, would you? You'd compare it to how it was before that law was passed, and how it was afterwards? Do you want to do that? It was a model of using existing gun laws to reduce gun violence. It's going to make my point, not yours.
“The decade-old program is credited with reducing the number of guns on the streets by 31% in its first year, 1997. By 2007, the city registered 56 murders, down from 112 in 1996, the last full year before the program was implemented. Armed robberies dropped nearly a third.”
So clearly, using gun laws to prosecute criminals can have no effect on crime rates. We can only do it after the fact, right?
And let's not get into the crap you just wrote about mentioning a place where Americans shoot and kill each other at an astounding rate as "tugging at heart strings." That's equal parts asshole and pathetic. I suppose real men don't care about that shit, huh?
And the idea that the government can only focus on one thing at a time is a particularly lame excuse for not doing anything.
And I have friends in the police force, in the FBI, in the Secret Service. So what?
-
Clearly, you have a reading comprehension problem.
Try that last one again, I'll wait.
-
Nah, I'm good with what I wrote.
-
I figured you would be.
Here's something you should read, but wont, so I'll post highlights : http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
* More guns, less crime. In the decade of the 1990s, the number of guns in this country increased by roughly 40 million—even while the murder rate decreased by almost 40% percent.7 Accidental gun deaths in the home decreased by almost 40 percent as well.8
Shaggy?* CDC admits there is no evidence that gun control reduces crime. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has long been criticized for propagating questionable studies which gun control organizations have used in defense of their cause. But after analyzing 51 studies in 2003, the CDC concluded that the "evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these [firearms] laws."9
Who?
* Concealed Carry v. Waiting Period Laws. In 1976, both Georgia and Wisconsin tried two different approaches to fighting crime. Georgia enacted legislation making it easier for citizens to carry guns for self-defense, while Wisconsin passed a law requiring a 48 hour waiting period before the purchase of a handgun. What resulted during the ensuing years? Georgia's law served as a deterrent to criminals and helped drop its homicide rate by 21 percent. Wisconsin's murder rate, however, rose 33 percent during the same period.36
Opposite effects? No way!As for Richmond, I posted their rate vs the national average knowing exactly how you'd respond. Some advice, if someone asks you to play pool for money, and you beat them in the 1st game, walk away.
Continuing in Richmond: I'd point to it's recent gentrification in those years the law was enacted as a causative agent in the decline of it's gun crime rate. Why? Because that's what happened. As the data I posted (and what's readily available on that site that you wont read) tougher laws don't do much for reducing crime. In the case of Richmond, at best, the stricter gun laws got to coast on the effects of what was really happening in the city. Which, I wouldn't expect you to know, not being in the area, and armed only with a google search. I can also point to "frickin" Guiliani's years in NY as doing the same thing. Also the town of Cape Charles, VA had the same thing happen, but on a much smaller scale (and it was the gays that saved the day! Oh my!).
It's cruel, heartless, and quite inhumane, but the only effective way of removing/ reducing crime in an area is forcing the criminals out of the area with tax hikes etc. Go check up on Richmond's personal property tax increases during those same years.
While you've got Google open, slide down I-95 about 25 minutes and check out lovely Petersburg, VA. "Despite increases in violent crimes over the last 15 years, it really is a lovely place to live and we think this whole violent crime thing is about to turn around." Oops.
(You can find "tale of two cities" articles all over the net, brah. Arlington, VA vs DC ; Tampa, FL vs St Pete)
As for Cab Green, I was paying you a compliment. Lighten up.
Sure, luck means a lot in football. Not having a good quarterback is bad luck. -Don Shula -
That's a great argument, Leg. On one hand, changing gun laws in Richmond had no effect, and you have to look at other reasons why the crime rate decreased.
On the other hand, changing gun laws entirely account for the crime changes in Wisconsin and Georgia.
Anyone looking at this argument honestly would call bullshit. In order to make that case, you'd have to show the number of crimes deterred by people with newly acquired concealed weapons, not overall crime rates over an undefined period in two different areas of the country. It doesn't even pass the laugh test.
Also, you seem to think you played me by posting specious statistics, and you came back to lay the hammer down on me by ...not posting anything to counter those statistics. Except a ridiculous theory about how gentrification entirely explains the drop in gun crime.
And using the total number of guns in America vs. crime rates doesn't tell you much of anything either. It wouldn't even be as useful as pointing out that America has some of the loosest gun laws in the developed world, some of the highest rates of ownership, and we have the highest rates of gun crimes and gun violence by a long shot.
As for Richmond, their case was a national story, and is well known. It's not about gentrification, which takes years. They got immediate results from using existing gun laws to take guns and criminals off the streets. Other cities tried to emulate it. You must know this, but don't want to yield the point.
As for Cabrini-Green, I think I used it as an example of a really violent place over a year ago, maybe even two years ago, and I can't imagine where your compliment was. It was about as lame as your argument against banning armor-piercing bullets: calling me "Tipper" and noting that a cop invented them. Wow. I stand corrected!
But hey, if we only talk about this problem after a national tragedy, it must be solved, right?
Guess we shouldn't have talked about militant Islam after 9/11, or the future of the space program after the second shuttle blew up, or talk about child protection laws after a girl gets abducted and killed by a repeat offender on parole.
So, though I don't think much of any of these arguments and think you're pedaling backwards trying to argue that nothing can be done about gun violence because all gun laws - and not some, but all, no matter what they are or how they're crafted - actually increase crime, and your steadfast refusal to admit that targeted reductions in gun crime rates are possible, and, if they are, come from increasing the number of concealed carry permits, I've enjoyed the conversation.
-
Actually, he just dissed your assertions.
You libs grab onto any evidence to prove your political stances legitimacy,
and ignroe all the evidence that disproves it.
Amazing. And very invalid...
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login