[Geodyssey]

Originally Posted by Reiver

The murder rate in Chicago is 18.26 per 100,000.
The Firearm Injury Death Rate of Wyoming is 25.9 per 100,000.

Once again, credit for your attempt at playing with statistics...

The murder rate in Wyoming for 2017 was 2.6 per 100,000.

I'd just like to repeat those facts:

The murder rate in Chicago is 18.26 per 100,000.
The Firearm Injury Death Rate of Wyoming is 25.9 per 100,000.

Once again, credit for your attempt at playing with statistics...

The murder rate in Wyoming for 2017 was 2.6 per 100,000.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by billethkid

So because Chicago has a SIGNIFICANTLY bigger denominator they have less of a problem??????

One can find (or make) any statistic to support any given narrative.

Non statistic example?

Driving along one notes that every barn has arrows in it and arrow is in the bullseye. Narrative? Very good marksmen live there.

Then they come upon a guy that is painting bullseyes around arrows already in the barn!!!

yes, murder rate is more important than murder count. Do you want to live in a neighborhood with 1 person is killed every year (that has a population of 10) or do you want to live in a neighborhood with 100 people killed every year that has a population of 10 million? You are much more likely to not murdered in the city with 10 million.

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by Ptmckiou

It’s very simple. The USA has the highest per capita gun ownership of any other country on the planet. Thereby, by your logic, the USA should be by far the safest country to live on the planet. That is not true. It’s not even close to being true. Consequently, your logic is flawed.

Another thing many like to cherry pick….”Chicago with the strongest gun laws…” Strong gun laws mean nothing in overall statistics, when anyone can drive a few miles to another nearby state and get their weapons with less strict gun laws. Thereby, cancelling out any statistical value to one small area having strict gun laws. It becomes irrelevant, unless all are following the same strict laws. Like our forefathers implied, I’m all for every citizen of the USA to carry a musket. No problem at all. I am against any citizen owning a gun that enables them to kill “faster” without reloading using bullets that explode inside a persons body Lessing their survivability, and it decapitating childrens heads. This type of weaponry is absurd to be accessible by someone not trained and lack maturity to handle them.

Please educate yourself on gun laws pertaining to legally purchasing them. You cannot travel to another state and legally purchase a handgun from a gun shop or a private seller and take it back to your home state. You can legally purchase one from a gun shop, but it must be sent by the licensed selling dealer to a licensed gun dealer in hour home state where you must pass a background check before taking possession. In the case of legally buying a hand gun from a private seller, the seller must take the gun to a licensed gun shop in that state and it must then be sent to an FFL in buyer's home state where a background check must be completed before taking possession.

In the case of buying a rifle or shotgun in another state, it is legal under federal law. However, it must be legal under state law in the state where the long gun is purchased. It also must be legal in the purchaser's state for him/her to own that type of long gun. The selling FFL will check applicable laws and will know if the sale is legal to that person according to the buyer's state gun laws. The same is true for the private seller, the state laws must be complied with.

So, your statement that if a gun is prohibited in the buyer's home state he/she can go to another state and legally buy it is totally incorrect.

If you believe that only black powder muskets are allowed, then the 1st Amendment should only apply to primitive printing presses. Not to the internet, radio or television.

[terenceanne]

Don't blame the politicians all the time - it's the people who vote for them who are the real culprits.

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by Pballer

I can see needing a semi-automatic for the "sport" of hunting. Make sure the animal has no chance.

Isn't that the purpose of hunting, making sure the animal has no chance? The vast majority of hunters eat what they kill, so if you used a less lethal gun to hunt with you won't eat.

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by CFrance

Nobody so far had said anything about banning guns. Why bring it up?

Banning private ownership of all firearms is the goal of the gun control organizations, look it up. They know that trying to enact a total ban on all guns won't fly so one gun is targeted and demonized creating cries for it's banning. Ban that one and another will become the target. It's called incrementalism, a small bite here and another one there and pretty soon all guns are banned.

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by bp243

So, if the shooting numbers aren’t due to people with legal guns, what is your solution to the issue?

First off lets enforce existing laws. Under federal law convicted felons and not allowed to possess guns and the law proscribes mandatory prison time, This prison time is supposed to be served in addition to prison time for the primry crime. Too often this crime is plea bargained away.

No plea bargaining for lesser charges. No parole for criminals who use a gun in their crime, prosecute straw purchasers which hardly ever happens. We have so-called "Hate Laws", why don't we have extra special punishment for using a gun in a crime? Reinstate capital punishment for murderers and swift implementation of the punishment. The government used the RICO act to bring down organized crime, why isn't it being implemented against inner city gangs who are responsible for the majority of mass killings.
Sadly, it is easier to emotionally react and demand the ban of the tool instead of actually doing something meaningful against the transgressors.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by forebubba

What's the address of your cave?

Assault weapons, by definition, are capable of "select fire". In other words, "fully automatic"...

I'll ask again. When was the last time an assault weapon was used in a crime?

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

yes, murder rate is more important than murder count. Do you want to live in a neighborhood with 1 person is killed every year (that has a population of 10) or do you want to live in a neighborhood with 100 people killed every year that has a population of 10 million? You are much more likely to not murdered in the city with 10 million.

Once again, you use a false narrative...

What "neighborhood" has 10 Million people?

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI

Please educate yourself on gun laws pertaining to legally purchasing them. You cannot travel to another state and legally purchase a handgun from a gun shop or a private seller and take it back to your home state. You can legally purchase one from a gun shop, but it must be sent by the licensed selling dealer to a licensed gun dealer in hour home state where you must pass a background check before taking possession. In the case of legally buying a hand gun from a private seller, the seller must take the gun to a licensed gun shop in that state and it must then be sent to an FFL in buyer's home state where a background check must be completed before taking possession.

In the case of buying a rifle or shotgun in another state, it is legal under federal law. However, it must be legal under state law in the state where the long gun is purchased. It also must be legal in the purchaser's state for him/her to own that type of long gun. The selling FFL will check applicable laws and will know if the sale is legal to that person according to the buyer's state gun laws. The same is true for the private seller, the state laws must be complied with.

So, your statement that if a gun is prohibited in the buyer's home state he/she can go to another state and legally buy it is totally incorrect.

If you believe that only black powder muskets are allowed, then the 1st Amendment should only apply to primitive printing presses. Not to the internet, radio or television.

Yes, Yes, Yes!!! Why this is such a foreign concept to so many people is maddening...

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI

First off lets enforce existing laws. Under federal law convicted felons and not allowed to possess guns and the law proscribes mandatory prison time, This prison time is supposed to be served in addition to prison time for the primry crime. Too often this crime is plea bargained away.

No plea bargaining for lesser charges. No parole for criminals who use a gun in their crime, prosecute straw purchasers which hardly ever happens. We have so-called "Hate Laws", why don't we have extra special punishment for using a gun in a crime? Reinstate capital punishment for murderers and swift implementation of the punishment. The government used the RICO act to bring down organized crime, why isn't it being implemented against inner city gangs who are responsible for the majority of mass killings.
Sadly, it is easier to emotionally react and demand the ban of the tool instead of actually doing something meaningful against the transgressors.

I agree with most of what you say, except, I believe politicians don't want to solve the gun shootings problem (in general) it is too juicy every election cycle. And it helps keep the based ****ed off at the other side.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI

First off lets enforce existing laws. Under federal law convicted felons and not allowed to possess guns and the law proscribes mandatory prison time, This prison time is supposed to be served in addition to prison time for the primry crime. Too often this crime is plea bargained away.

No plea bargaining for lesser charges. No parole for criminals who use a gun in their crime, prosecute straw purchasers which hardly ever happens. We have so-called "Hate Laws", why don't we have extra special punishment for using a gun in a crime? Reinstate capital punishment for murderers and swift implementation of the punishment. The government used the RICO act to bring down organized crime, why isn't it being implemented against inner city gangs who are responsible for the majority of mass killings.
Sadly, it is easier to emotionally react and demand the ban of the tool instead of actually doing something meaningful against the transgressors.

I've repeated this, ad nauseam, but it's continually ignored...

[spd2918]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

How else would WE celebrate Independence Day, but murder each other.

WE didn't murder each other. Some nutjob did shoot people. Don't let the act of a crazy person determine my freedoms, thank you very much.