infinitys_7th
Member
How are they going to keep it secure when there's a flag stuck in the barrel?
With the bolts attaching it to the vehicle?
How are they going to keep it secure when there's a flag stuck in the barrel?
That's BS, why they a need an armed personal vehicle with a gun turret just to transfer guns? I don't buy that excuse as this is not a third world country like parts of the middle east or africa
Context isn't an argument. You kinda have to actually put forth reasons for why it matters.
the context says I'm right
uhhh the context and understanding of chicago being in a state surrounded by other states with gun laws that are much more lax is exactly the kind of context that's missing from ben 'piss comes from the balls' shapiro's tweet.
That's BS, why they a need an armed personal vehicle with a gun turret just to transfer guns? I don't buy that excuse as this is not a third world country like parts of the middle east or africa
The point is that those areas are safer, proportionately, than Chicago.
Lax gun laws wouldn't change that, since guns flow freely across municipal borders. Besides, speaking on a more macro scale, the most dangerous states are almost universally red states with lax gun laws. Finally, Chicago's gun homicide rate is still lower than top 10 most dangerous gun crime states (depending on the year you're looking at), all of whom have lax gun laws.The point is that those areas are safer, proportionately, than Chicago.
Lax gun laws wouldn't change that, since guns flow freely across municipal borders. Besides, speaking on a more macro scale, the most dangerous states are almost universally red states with lax gun laws. Finally, Chicago's gun homicide rate is still lower than top 10 most dangerous gun crime states (depending on the year you're looking at), all of whom have lax gun laws.
It's a stupid point that always gets brought up in this discussion. Anyone with an inkling of knowledge into the subject doesn't take it seriously.
I don't care about the cooked homicide number that includes suicides and accidents and police shootings. What is the actual murder rate by gun?
The statistic you are citing was cooked by Vox:
https://medium.com/@bjcampbell/ever...tween-gun-ownership-and-homicide-1108ed400be5
There is some excellent statistical analysis and decoupling of extraneous data (suicides and accidents) regarding gun crime in that article.
No one takes it seriously that one of the most violent cities in the country is actually less violent than the bulk of the population.
Is it possible to imagine that there are places in the US that have super high gun ownership and super low crime? Because there are. The number of guns in a given area isn't an indicator of high crime statistics, but high crime statistics might be a good indicator that you should have a gun if you live in an area that bad. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away, and all of that.
Thanks for posting this, very interesting read. Most of my issues with the so-called "sensible gun control" laws are covered (ie. not using actual data to arrive at a conclusion). I am tired of seeing politicians pass "feel good" laws just so they can gain the support of all the clueless people who don't know anything about the subject (the "fully semi-automatic" ban zealots).I don't care about the cooked homicide number that includes suicides and accidents and police shootings. What is the actual murder rate by gun?
The statistic you are citing was cooked by Vox:
https://medium.com/@bjcampbell/ever...tween-gun-ownership-and-homicide-1108ed400be5
There is some excellent statistical analysis and decoupling of extraneous data (suicides and accidents) regarding gun crime in that article.
No one takes it seriously that one of the most violent cities in the country is actually less violent than the bulk of the population.
he might want it repealed but I doubt it could happen as much as trump wants to repeal the media's 1st amendment righthttp://chicago.cbslocal.com/2018/03/27/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment/amp/
Can't make a thread yet but darn pretty important.
Our lefties ain't hiding it anymore.
he might want it repealed but I doubt it could happen as much as trump wants to repeal the media's 1st amendment right
I guess I can't see the endgame like you can. But even with all the mass shooting there has been, the 2nd amendment is still standing. . Our politics is so partisan that the repeal of the 2nd would be taken away is very far-fetched as neither side see eye to eye with the other side for it to even happen.It's important since it ain't some paranoid conspiracy that some of the left says about gun owners. Many people now DEFINITELY KNOW that the end game is gun confiscation.
Can't the democrats just let go of 2nd Amendment so we can just go on with our lives?
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2018/03/27/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment/amp/
Can't make a thread yet but darn pretty important.
Our lefties ain't hiding it anymore.
All these goddamn leftist trying to take away our guns!It's important since it ain't some paranoid conspiracy that some of the left says about gun owners. Many people now DEFINITELY KNOW that the end game is gun confiscation.
Can't the democrats just let go of 2nd Amendment so we can just go on with our lives?
Mass shootings are literally, in the grand scheme of things, so infrequent and so rare compared to literally any other kind of violence that the only way I can see them being such a focus is they generally involve white people,
These school shootings are uniquely American. The tiniest risk to children are unacceptably high.
Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for U.S. teens. Six teens ages 16 to 19 die every day from motor vehicle injuries. Per mile driven, teen drivers ages 16 to 19 are nearly three times more likely than drivers aged 20 and older to be in a fatal crash.
11 teens die every day from texting and driving, where's the March to stop that?
Raise the legal age to acquire a learner's permit to drive to 18. That instantly saves more kids within that age range than any amount of gun control would:
https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/teen_drivers/index.html
Or are you okay with that specific "tiniest risk to children"?
11 teens die every day from texting and driving, where's the March to stop that?
Guns and cars have completely different utilization, regulations, fears, and perceptions.
Guns and cars have completely different utilization, regulations, fears, and perceptions.
We can still make cars safer, but user error is the biggest flaw of daiy automobiles.
And you could immediately save 3-5 teens between 16-18 by raising the legal age to obtain a permit.
We know they are "worse users" than the rest of the population, so if user error is the biggest flaw then eliminating an unnecessary privilege granted by society seems like a good solution if your goal is to save lives within a group by restricting unnecessary privileges.
And you could immediately save 3-5 teens between 16-18 by raising the legal age to obtain a permit. Teens who die regardless of regulation against distracted driving much the same as students who die in a mass shooting regardless of extant restrictions.
We know they are "worse users" than the rest of the population, so if user error is the biggest flaw then eliminating an unnecessary privilege granted by society seems like a good solution if your goal is to save lives within a group by restricting unnecessary privileges.
No teen needs to drive a car - it would certainly not impact teens from low-income families, as they are generally unable to afford even a cheap used car. At worst, you are inconveniencing middle and upper class families. Why is that unacceptable based on "fears and perceptions"? Why are the privileges of the wealthy teens worth 3-5 lives a year?
I needed and bought myself a beater car at 16 to drive to work.
You guys have a poor and unconvincing argument saying that pepole don't care about deaths, or that cars are more dangerous. A more effective stall tactic is to say that we shouldn't jump to regulation due to our fears, because doing so nets us that Florida law where they suddenly found 300million for something that doesn't actually stop mass shootings at school.
But that too is a moot point.
some people would be fucking idiots to make that claim unless their literal only way of getting food is through hunting.
...and "need" based arguments do not apply in conversations about rights.
Rosa Parks didn't "need" to ride in the front of the bus. But she had that RIGHT! How other people assess whether she needs to exercise that right is completely meaningless.
In that case, I no longer under obligation to provide validation through need, as owning guns is also a right.
do you think this "right" is still necessary in this day and age? imho, NOIn that case, I no longer under obligation to provide validation through need, as owning guns is also a right.
100%. According to the CDC research, guns are used in self defense in the USA a half million times a year (low end).do you think this "right" is still necessary in this day and age? imho, NO
hmm....and why would that be? b/c that "self-defense" defense you claim are being attacked by guns? guns fight guns?100%. According to the CDC research, guns are used in self defense in the USA a half million times a year (low end).
That's exactly what I am saying. I am on your side I think. Nobody has to justify a "need" for firearms. Ownership of the era's weapons of self-defense is a human right, coming from God and enshrined in our law.
If/When the CDC does research on Baseball Bats post it. They did research on guns. Found that you US citizens use guns in self defense 500,000 times a year. Ban guns and you leave people defenseless. And the said self defense, not self defense against other guns.hmm....and why would that be? b/c that "self-defense" defense you claim are being attacked by guns? guns fight guns?
what are the stats on other weapons for defense like baseball bats, knives, swords, jump rope, cars, etc.?
ban guns then this garbage mentality won't be rampant as you see. how does EU/JP/Australia enact these laws? are the murder/attack rates drastically high in those countries? do YOU see a problem with gun owners and their gun "rights"??
hmm....and why would that be? b/c that "self-defense" defense you claim are being attacked by guns? guns fight guns?
what are the stats on other weapons for defense like baseball bats, knives, swords, jump rope, cars, etc.?
ban guns then this garbage mentality won't be rampant as you see. how does EU/JP/Australia enact these laws? are the murder/attack rates drastically high in those countries? do YOU see a problem with gun owners and their gun "rights"??
do you think this "right" is still necessary in this day and age? imho, NO
...and "need" based arguments do not apply in conversations about rights.
Rosa Parks didn't "need" to ride in the front of the bus. But she had that RIGHT! How other people assess whether she needs to exercise that right is completely meaningless.
You are the one who claimed the "tiniest risk to children" is worth removing rights from a population of 330,000,000. Now I have given you a situation where removing rights and privileges from a much smaller group (16-18) saves proportionately more lives.
No one said cars are more dangerous - your justification was that "the tiniest risk to children" must be eliminated, and now you are refusing to eliminate risk to children. You can't have your emotional appeal cake and eat it too.
Some people would claim that they need guns as much as you needed to work at 16.
11 teens die every day from texting and driving, where's the March to stop that?
"banning all guns" isn't the only infringement on the Second Amendment. Every restriction on firearms ownership infringes on it. And we've had enough. Not one more restriction.In the context of guns, not cars, or swimming pools, or anti-vaccine, or whatever.
I never said remove rights, I said add regulation. I'm not interested in banning all guns. School shootings are the trigger to enact action, but everything else affiliated with gun deaths will also be targeted.
But you already knew that.
"banning all guns" isn't the only infringement on the Second Amendment. Every restriction on firearms ownership infringes on it. And we've had enough. Not one more restriction.
"banning all guns" isn't the only infringement on the Second Amendment. Every restriction on firearms ownership infringes on it. And we've had enough. Not one more restriction.
"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."
I don't care about the cooked homicide number that includes suicides and accidents and police shootings. What is the actual murder rate by gun?
The statistic you are citing was cooked by Vox:
https://medium.com/@bjcampbell/ever...tween-gun-ownership-and-homicide-1108ed400be5
There is some excellent statistical analysis and decoupling of extraneous data (suicides and accidents) regarding gun crime in that article.
No one takes it seriously that one of the most violent cities in the country is actually less violent than the bulk of the population.