29 Dec

What America would look like with strict gun laws

                                       

Following the Newtown massacre there has been an outcry from the left for more and tougher gun laws. Sen. Dianne Feinstein has proposed another assault weapons ban with more teeth than the previous ban. Exactly what are consequences of tough gun laws? Let us construct a hypothetical place with some strict gun laws:

Let’s regulate the sale, possession and use of firearms.

Let’s regulate ammunition.

Let’s insist that those possessing firearms have a Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card.

Let’s ban automatic firearms, short-barreled shotguns and short-barreled rifles.

Let’s ban assault weapons.

Let’s ban magazines that can hold more than 10 or 12 rounds of ammunition.

Let’s deny gun ownership to those who have been convicted of a felony or an act of domestic violence, are the subject of an order of protection, have been convicted of assault or battery or been a patient in a mental institution within the last five years, have been adjudicated as a mental defective, or are illegal immigrants.

For want of a better name, let’s call a place with gun laws like this- Chicago. Now let’s see what might happen were these to go into effect nationally.

The national murder rate was 4.7 per 100,000 in the US in 2011.

Nationally there were 14,612 homicides in 2011.

In 2011 the murder rate in Chicago was 15.7 per 100,000. This year Chicago’s murder rate this year is estimated to be 19.7 per 100,000. Among global cities Chicago is Number One with a bullet.

Chicago just celebrated its milestone 500th murder in 2012 despite an assault weapons ban and a firearms ID card and ban on large capacity magazines.

Chicago now has the nickname “The Murder Capital”

The exact number of gang members in Chicago is guesswork but ranges from 68,000 to 150,000 members in 70 to 100 gangs. Politicians and social justice activists do not acknowledge that the vast majority of gang members are illegal aliens. As a result, Chicago, with its large Hispanic gang presence, provides safe havens to criminals and dangerous crime zones to law-abiding citizens.

Although law enforcement officials estimate that the Latin Kings are the largest crime gang in Chicago, other observers believe MS-13 or Surenos (Mexican Mafia gang) or Barrio 18 may have the most gang members. The city also has black crime gangs, whose power is being diminished by the sheer number of Hispanic gang members. The black gangs, with a majority of their members U.S. citizens, appear to be joining forces to combat the Hispanic gangs.

With shootings a daily experience, Chicago has become the murder capital of America. On September 30, 2012, the Chicago Sun Times reported that, thus far this year, the city had 395 killings and 2,090 woundings, including70 stabbings; and this may be a lowball count. In one recent weekend, the city had five killings and 30 woundings. Many of the victims were innocent bystander adults and children.

Rahm Emanuel wants America to be like Chicago.

This is Chicago:

There’s something appropriate about Rahm Emanuel presiding over the Murder Capital of the US:

It was there that Emanuel, then Clinton’s chief fund-raiser, repaired with George Stephanopoulos, Mandy Grunwald and other aides to Doe’s, the campaign hangout. Revenge was heavy in the air as the group discussed the enemies – Democrats, Republicans, members of the press – who wronged them during the 1992 campaign. Clifford Jackson, the ex-friend of the President and peddler of the Clinton draft-dodging stories, was high on the list. So was William Donald Schaefer, then the Governor of Maryland and a Democrat who endorsed George Bush. Nathan Landow, the fund-raiser who backed the candidacy of Paul Tsongas, made it, too.

Suddenly Emanuel grabbed his steak knife and, as those who were there remember it, shouted out the name of another enemy, lifted the knife, then brought it down with full force into the table.

”Dead!” he screamed.

Strict gun laws would make America look like Chicago. We could expect murders to quadruple, from 14,612 to nearly 61,000 per year. Four times the gangs, violence and murder. Who wouldn’t want that?

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment, Freedom, Liberal Idiots, Politics, propaganda bureau, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Saturday, December 29th, 2012 at 1:49 pm
| 1,783 views

93 Responses to What America would look like with strict gun laws

  1. mathman says: 1

    But you don’t understand!
    This is an action consistent with what one HEARTS.
    Murder is illegal. Well, that really helps. How do so many end up murdered, if it is illegal?
    What is an assault weapon, anyway? A car? A plane? A knife? We have seen assaults from all of the foregoing in the past year.
    Make it against the law, and folk will stop doing it. Sure. Worked in DC. No guns were legal, and we had 5 X the national average of death by gun.
    “Take everybody’s guns away and hide them in the sand.” SNL, 1980, parody of Mondale campaign.
    Just how do you take 280 million guns away?
    Good cases make bad law–old adage.
    We kill 50,000 a year with automobiles. Should those be banned too?
    Just asking.

    ReplyReply
  2. Randy says: 2

    Facts do not matter to Tom, Cary, Gregand other liberals. It doesn’t matter what the subject.

    ReplyReply
  3. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says: 3

    A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, wich would INCLUDE their own goverment –George Washington. Molon Labe

    ReplyReply
  4. Cary says: 4

    Once again misrepresenting the liberal position so you don’t have to change anything. Pathetic. Yeah I know, facts suck.

    Here’s what America looks like WITHOUT stricter gun CONTROL (not elimination) laws:

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/us-shooting-deaths-sandy-hook_n_2348466.html

    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/14/1337221/a-timeline-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us-since-columbine/

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/19/seven-facts-about-the-u-s-gun-industry/

    But there’s really no purpose in arguing with you. Congress makes the laws and the President will push in our favor. You may have a vote, but for the most part you were outnumbered across the board. Those are the people I’ll be giving my voice to more in 2013… the ones who matter when it comes to making policy.

    ReplyReply
  5. johngalt says: 5

    @Cary:

    Cary, I would ask you to examine, objectively, the areas touted by liberals and liberal/progressives as their “posterchilds” of liberal living. Then come back and tell us, honestly, how the high taxation, strict gun control, and out of control spending are making those areas better places to live.

    If you wish to make the specific state or local area you live in a cesspool, by all means, go right ahead. But please quit advocating for the adoption of those failed policies nationwide. Many of us not only do not need the government “help”, we don’t want it. And that includes “help” with our crime problems by taking away rights that we hold dear.

    ReplyReply
  6. retire05 says: 6

    @Cary:

    The Washington [Com]post claims that states with stricter gun laws have fewer gun related deaths. Too bad you didn’t bother to check with the FBI stats that would have told you that the WP claim is actually false. Just as California has stricter gun laws than Texas, it also has almost double the gun related murders than Texas, yet doesn’t have twice the population to account for that.

    Also, notice anything about the ThinkProgress time line? Everyone of those mass shootings were committed after the passing of the Gun Free School Zone Act; almost everyone of those incidents took place in a gun “free” zone, including Fort Hood where soldiers were not allowed, because of a Clinton Executive Order, to wear their sidearms while on base, the one exception being Tucson; almost everyone of the shooters killed themselves.

    Perhaps instead of more stringent gun laws we need to repeal the Gun Free School Zone Act, which only makes a school a target rich environment.

    ReplyReply
  7. retire05 says: 7

    Gun deaths and injuries have dropped sharply in California, even as the number of guns sold in the state has risen, according to new state data.

    Dealers sold 600,000 guns in California last year, up from 350,000 in 2002, according to the records of sale talllied by the California Attorney General’s office.

    During that same period, the number of California hospitalizations due to gun injuries declined from about 4,000 annually to 2,900, a roughly 25 percent drop, according to hospital records collected by the California Department of Public Health.

    Firearm-related deaths fell from about 3,200 annually to about 2,800, and 11 percent drop, state health figures show.

    The number of California injuries and deaths attributed to accidental discharge of firearms also ha fallen. The number of suicide deaths involving firearms has remained roughly constant.

    http://www.sacbee.com

    Perhaps our resident gun grabbers would like to explain how the number of gun related injuries and deaths in California has decreased, in spite of the number of guns being sold has gone up markedly.

    ReplyReply
  8. Taqiyy. says: 8

    The exact number of gang members in Chicago is guesswork but ranges from 68,000 to 150,000 members in 70 to 100 gangs.

    Yet plumbers, electricians, architects, lawyers, and legal gun owners are all counted down to the number, every detail about them, including their home addresses, because they are all required to be “registered”.

    Yikes.

    Oh, and apparently it is now legal for newspapers to publish the home addresses of every legal gun owner, with an interactive google map included.

    The legal guns will be taken first, their owners either convinced, coerced, or confined, or worse.

    And then? Fiscal Cliff. Collapse of the dollar. We can’t afford to go after all the gangs!

    EBT cards all suddenly say “insufficient funds”, or worse, nothing because there is no electricity. And the dollar can’t even buy you a gumball.

    And then? A Joel chapter 2 horde from every city in America to every place where people have the sense to either farm, store food and supplies, or raise livestock.

    ReplyReply
  9. Petercat says: 9

    @Taqiyy.: #8
    But before that happens, a law will be passed making “hoarding” illegal, and people who have stocked up on food and other supplies will be required to turn over to the state all of their goods beyond one week’s worth.
    Those who do not will be called “enemies of the people” and arrested, or killed when they fight.
    When money becomes worthless, the .22LR will become the new currency.

    ReplyReply
  10. FAITH7 says: 10

    People, mostly the Liberals who want to prove a point have very short memories… Columbine is ‘always’ put in the forefront when it comes to a debate over the 2nd Amendment, and gun control against Law abiding US Citizens who happen to own guns….

    ….Columbine “started with explosives” as a mode of mass murder…

    Columbine High School, Littleton, Colo.
    “On April 20, 1999, at about 11:15 a.m., Columbine students Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold entered the cafeteria and left two duffel bags containing improvised explosives. They then exited to their cars in the parking lot. The bombs didn’t explode, so Harris and Klebold, armed with four guns, several weapons and more improvised explosives, began their attack by shooting from an outdoor stairway, as well as lighting and throwing explosives. They moved between outside and the lobby and hallways, randomly shooting anyone in sight and setting up more explosives.

    ” [...] Yet the attacks could have been much worse, as 59 of the 89 improvised explosives on the school grounds didn’t go off.

    http://investigation.discovery.com/investigation/crime-countdowns/school-murders/school-murders-04.html

    PEOPLE WHO PLAN TO MURDER WILL PLAN THE MURDER …DATE – TIME – PLACE…. [THEN] WILL CHOOSE THE [METHOD] IN ORDER TO CARRY THE MURDERS OUT….

    THE PEOPLE WHO PLAN AND EXECUTE MASS MURDER ARE [BROKEN] IN SOME WAY TO BEGIN WITH…THERE IS A DISCONNECT WITH ANY RATIONAL THINKING….

    ReplyReply
  11. DrJohn says: 11

    @Cary:
    Cary

    Mother Jones left out all of the shootings that were stopped by a legal gun.

    http://www.humanevents.com/2012/12/19/ann-coulter-we-know-how-to-stop-school-shootings/

    Nidal Hasan was stopped by bullet. As John Lott points out, these people typically commit suicide when encountering armed resistance.

    ReplyReply
  12. Nathan Blue says: 12

    @Cary: WaPo, huffPo, MotherJones, and ThinkProgress are not legitimate news sources. They’re liberal rags written for the explicit purpose of allowing under-thinking libs to run forward under the false assumption they now have “facts” on their side.

    Learn how to conduct proper data analysis instead of allowing state-run propaganda machines to brainwash you. It’s a bit harder than gleaning “facts” from the above news sources, sources that don’t respect you and assume you’ll buy whatever they tell you.

    And libs complain about FOX news . . .

    ReplyReply
  13. Nathan Blue says: 13

    @Cary: Oh, and yes . . . you don’t need to remind us that the idiots are in charge.

    We are well aware, and thanks to bad logic and the exploitation of the poor in the way of buying their votes, the far-left libs that have infected Washington will be hard to get rid of.

    We are outnumbered by people who don’t know enough to vote, i.e., the ignorant ones being herded to the voting booths by community organizers.

    ReplyReply
  14. Cary says: 14

    @Nathan Blue:

    Well… I’m glad six other people responded with thoughtful (if misguided) comments before you answered with this predictable BS.

    Like I said, it’s futile arguing here. Changes are coming, and you won’t like them no matter how small they are.

    ReplyReply
  15. retire05 says: 15

    @Nathan Blue:

    You have to understand that liberals, in their desire to advance their “progressive” agenda, will apply the title of “journalist” to any left winger with a computer keyboard and a thesaurus. Unable to differentiate between an op-ed writer and a true journalist, they use those sources that defend their own positions.

    History is rife with those who claimed the mantilla of “journalist” that swayed the opinions of the uninformed; Walter Duranty, Walter Lippman, Walter Cronkite (seems to be something about the name Walter, doesn’t it). All three Walters felt it was their purpose to create opinion in the great unwashed masses that they felt were too stupid to understand what was good for society, and therefore for the great unwashed masses. Call it Elitism on Steroids, if you will.

    So people like Cary will refer to those owners of thesauruses accepting the trash that is written as fact. Remember, Marx and Engles understood well the power of the written word. It doesn’t have to be honest, or even based in fact, it just has to be convincing.

    ReplyReply
  16. retire05 says: 16

    @Cary:

    Yes, Cary, changes are coming.

    Americans are finally beginning to understand that they alone are responsible for their personal safety. The record number of guns being sold is not because police protection is just seconds away. They understand the real meaning behind the term “first responder.”

    Perhaps you are encouraged because you think there will be a gun grab by an overbearing, oppressive administration, backed up by a clueless Congress. In order for that to happen, you are going to have to approve warrentless searches of people’s homes, which is going to backfire on every pot head in the nation. Is that what you want? For the police to be able to enter your home, sans a warrent, and search it for firearms? Think that isn’t going to affect you on the left who tend to honor only those laws you agree with?

    ReplyReply
  17. Nathan Blue says: 17

    @Cary: I’m dead-on and you know it. I’m a Moderate, so don’t assume you know what “changes” I’ll be happy/unhappy about.

    If you are coming here just to project your own misguided angst, I don’t know what to tell you. It is futile arguing here, or anywhere about politics. If you were to dialog, you might come across as intelligent instead of just being another lib provocateur, looking to piss people off.

    I come here because I want a different perspective than what is being broadcast by all of the liberal news sources you cited (Again, they are liberally biased . . . take a minute to process this . . .), sourced that saturate the mainstream. For you to post those links is just spitting in most of FA readers’ eyes.

    I find the major issue I have in discussing politics with libs is that they won’t admit the bias coming from news sources they prefer. FA has some bias, of course, but subjectivity is part of these discussions and should be respected in small doses.

    But really, I stop listening to people like you when you ignore criticism of the sources you use. It’s a gross double standard that just doesn’t make sense. I take everything I read/hear with a grain of salt, and I suggest you do the same, even from sources that seem to support your opinions.

    Anyway, I spoke no BS–my reasoning is sound and it was addressing your bold use of entertainment-based media sources and espousing irrefutable “facts.” That’s just bad scholarship, all around. I would say the same of anyone using FOX news. The rebuttals to your “facts” by other posters were simple questions of veracity. That’s good scholarship, and you don’t seem to have any response to their challenges.

    My second response was a tad brusque, but I’ve heard too many libs think that their temporary majority justifies the extermination of all differing parties and viewpoints, and I thought you may have been going that direction. I’m not convinced that is what you think, but I tend to engage that topic vehemently when it appears, only because it’s justified so many evils in the past. Pelosi made similar remarks about Obamacare, something like “some of you may not like it, but it’s coming any way . . . ha ha!” Now that one issue has split the nation, and if you think Obama’s winning of a second term truly solidified a “victory,” think again. They created a bad-blooded feud that will persist for decades.

    We’re adults discussing how best to take care of our nation and society, not children quibbling over who won the backyard soccer game. That’s my only point, and if you have thoughtful ideas to input, please do. Otherwise, stopping picking a fight.

    ReplyReply
  18. Nathan Blue says: 18

    @retire05: I laugh when I see the “opinion” section of a newspaper. It’s all opinion, now!

    Sad

    ReplyReply
  19. Nan G says: 19

    Maybe ”strict gun laws,” would codify what has, up until now, merely been good manners:

    IT IS THE DUTY OF A GENTLEMAN TO PROVIDE COVERING FIRE WHILE THE LADY RELOADS

    ;)

    ReplyReply
  20. Scott in Oklahoma says: 20

    @Cary (#4)- Until you can demonstrate how more laws will stop the killings by criminals who don’t give a rat’s ass about the law in the first place, your arguements for gun control are meaningless wastes of random electrons and what little credibility you might have once had is tainted forever. I have seen bags of hammers that displayed more intelligence and common sense.

    Oh yeah, notice I did spell your name correctly…

    ReplyReply
  21. inthemiddle says: 21

    @Cary:If the change’s that are coming are anything like what we’ve been forced to accept for the past 4 years, then we are screwed as a country. And not just Conservatives, Liberals, Democrats, Republicans or whatever one’s political views are, it’s going to be an across the board screw. The Left doesn’t seem to get that higher taxes are paid by everyone not just the rich “right”.

    Read an interesting article about the evil filthy rich Mitt Romney. The article mentioned how the media not once bitched about the mega filthy rich John Kerry when he was running for Prez. Can any of Obama’s supporters answer that question honestly?

    ReplyReply
  22. Cary says: 22

    @Nathan Blue:

    We’re adults discussing how best to take care of our nation and society

    If that were true, our position wouldn’t be misrepresented here. If that were true, we wouldn’t be reading stereotyping descriptions of those who see things differently than you. If you really believe your statement is true, you’re simply delusional.

    If you really think that law abiding citizens deserved to live unrestricted under the law, then Conservatives would be supporting non-Christians in their right to worship when and where they want, they’d allow gay couples the same marriage rights as they have, and they’d allow women their own private decisions when filling prescriptions on health care plans they pay into… NONE of this is happening.

    You’re not interested in the good of the Nation as a whole, you’re interested in keeping your way of life exactly as it is, with no adjustments or sacrifices.. God forbid you should change anything – from using a different lightbulb to having to wait a little longer to get a gun…. it’s not about the Nation, it’s about you. Fewer and fewer people are buying into your dishonesty anymore. (By “you” I’m referring to the Conservative position that has been widely expressed on this site.)

    Picking a fight? The fight was brought to us. We’re not rolling over for you, we’re fighting back. Of course you don’t like it. Of course, when the changes are made you’ll adopt them as Conservative values, as you always have.

    I used to come here in a effort for a reasonable dialogue, and found that the responses to my ideas were no different than they are now that I’ve stopped censoring myself or carefully choosing my words. Please don’t try to sell me some bull that you’re open to a dialogue. You’re open to getting me to agree with you, not to considering anything I’ve ever had to say here. Sell that crap to somebody else, I’m not buying it.

    We liberals always prevail in the end, even if you do slow us down. But more and more of America is on to you. Time to catch up or fall away.

    Happy New Year.

    ReplyReply
  23. Curt says: 23

    @Cary:

    We liberals always prevail in the end, even if you do slow us down. But more and more of America is on to you. Time to catch up or fall away.

    Remember that quote people…this is how the liberals think.

    Sie gehorchen oder sonst

    ReplyReply
  24. Tom says: 24

    @Curt:

    Remember that quote people…this is how the liberals think.

    Sie gehorchen oder sonst

    Give me a break, Curt. Cary offered an opinion. Some of your regular commenters, whom you probably just happen to agree with, offer up straight up lies or nonsense on a regular basis and yet you never seem to descend from Mt. Olympus to admonish them.

    Don’t worry, Retire will respond for you.

    ReplyReply
  25. Nathan Blue says: 25

    @Cary: Unfortunately, everything you said fits the liberal stereotype to a tee, especially the quote cited by Curt.

    If you really think that law abiding citizens deserved to live unrestricted under the law, then Conservatives would be supporting non-Christians in their right to worship when and where they want, they’d allow gay couples the same marriage rights as they have, and they’d allow women their own private decisions when filling prescriptions on health care plans they pay into… NONE of this is happening.

    Complete melodrama, and the very thing you are accusing Conservatives of: wrapping them up in a bunch of presupposed talking points that you can slam on. The problem is, none of the responses I’ve read fit what you are saying about Cons. Instead, you’re following a cultural narrative handed to you by the media and entertainment for the past three decades or so. That’s not being open-minded, but rather being less critical than you should be. The Cons have been used as the straw man for all that ails the county. I’m not saying there aren’t things to criticize about Cons/Reps–of course there are, but that’s part of the democratic process.

    You’re not interested in the good of the Nation as a whole, you’re interested in keeping your way of life exactly as it is, with no adjustments or sacrifices.

    Romney lost because he told Americans that they had to make adjustments and sacrifices–the entire Rep establishment has been saying as much. His “47%” comment was about this. How do you convince 47% of people that they have to ante up? Obama went into poor, depressed neighborhoods and promised them stuff. He promised you all the “stuff” you threw up above: Gay Marriage, women’s rights, etc. You will get a buzz by “beating” those backwards Cons. That’s your motivation. You’ve been convinced that it’s about beating bad people: the Cons/Reps. That kind of ignorant bigotry is what Obama feeds on and propagates.

    “Keeping things the way they are” is a farce the Dems use to get votes. If you really think that’s what this is about, consider yourself handily indoctrinated by the Left.

    It’s about keeping freedom for all, and the cost of letting radicals like Obama into such a high office will be felt for decades to come.

    ReplyReply
  26. John Galt says: 26

    Sorry to say it, but I think we are headed here: http://www.bob-owens.com/2012/12/what-youll-see-in-the-rebellion/

    ReplyReply
  27. Nathan Blue says: 27

    @Tom: Uh, Curt’s comment was pertinent because Cary just accused Cons of following stereotypes by putting using stereotypes . . . and than went on to fit the Liberal stereotype.

    No break given, I’m afraid.

    ReplyReply
  28. Cary says: 28

    @Tom:

    I’m giving up, bud. Better things in 2013 for me. Curt, the main perpetrator of stereotyping, doesn’t even define the word properly. My statement reflects what we’ve seen through American history – progress is made and the people who fought against it inevitably adopt is as their own values, that way they don’t think they lost. Nevermind the difference between describing liberals as “hippies who believe the world can be rainbows and unicorns someday if only there was enough hashish to go around” and listing the actual Conservative political platforms they desperately cling to and have repeatedly stated themselves here on this site. Good luck mixing with these selfish fools and Happy New Year!

    I’ll let the crazies have the last word, it’s their site after all.

    ReplyReply
  29. John Galt says: 29

    As Eleanor Roosevelt wrote at the time:

    We in the U.S.A., who have long boasted that, in our political life, freedom in the use of the secret ballot made it possible for us to register the will of the people without the use of force, have had a rude awakening as we read of conditions in McMinn County, Tennessee, which brought about the use of force in the recent primary. If a political machine does not allow the people free expression, then freedom-loving people lose their faith in the machinery under which their government functions.

    In this particular case, a group of young veterans organized to oust the local machine and elect their own slate in the primary. We may deplore the use of force but we must also recognize the lesson which this incident points for us all. When the majority of the people know what they want, they will obtain it.

    Any local, state or national government, or any political machine, in order to live, must give the people assurance that they can express their will freely and that their votes will be counted. The most powerful machine cannot exist without the support of the people. Political bosses and political machinery can be good, but the minute they cease to express the will of the people, their days are numbered.

    This is a lesson which wise political leaders learn young, and you can be pretty sure that, when a boss stays in power, he gives the majority of the people what they think they want. If he is bad and indulges in practices which are dishonest, or if he acts for his own interests alone, the people are unwilling to condone these practices.

    When the people decide that conditions in their town, county, state or country must change, they will change them. If the leadership has been wise, they will be able to do it peacefully through a secret ballot which is honestly counted, but if the leader has become inflated and too sure of his own importance, he may bring about the kind of action which was taken in Tennessee.

    ReplyReply
  30. Hard Right says: 30

    ‘Gun Control Fails,’ Say Statistics from … Gun-Control Advocates

    http://pjmedia.com/blog/gun-control-fails-say-statistics-from-gun-control-advocates/?singlepage=true

    ReplyReply
  31. Hard Right says: 31

    @Curt:

    Resistence is futile, you Vill be assimilated!
    Scratch a liberal find a fascist.

    More inconvenient facts to irritate leftists.
    About that gun law enforcement thing…
    http://minx.cc/?post=336126

    And cary, we presented you with fact after fact. You presented unsupported and irrational claims based entirely on emotion. You threw out many strawmen which we destroyed. Your arguements were rife with bigotry. In short you wish to infringe on the rights of others simply because you hate their right and see firearms owners as beneath you.
    Yet you call us lunatics.

    ReplyReply
  32. Cary says: 32

    @Hard Right:

    ” ” “

    ReplyReply
  33. retire05 says: 33

    In order not to disappoint our resident troll, Tom, who apparently wants me to respond to Cary’s absurd post #22, I am more than happy to lend my voice in response. But we need to take Cary’s post, one item at a time.

    If that were true, our

    (progressives)

    position wouldn’t be misrepresented here.

    Cary’s position, whether here or on other websites, most certainly has never been “misrepresented”. The position of progressives has been represented for generations. It can be found in the writings of many who considered themselves to also be “progressives”, yet, for all their writings and blatherings, those “positions” have been soundly discounted by most Americans.

    we wouldn’t be reading sterotying descriptions of those who see things differently from you

    Cary throws out that oh, so typical accusation of being sterotyped. But I doubt if he even knows where the term “sterotype” originated. So let’s look at the beginnings of the accusation that is so beloved by the progressives (since people like Cary are not really “liberal”):

    Walter Lippman coined the word “sterotype” to place American citizens into classifications. But it is a false meme. No one is really “sterotypical” in the true sense of the word as every human has individual traits. Lippman also believed that the American public was too uninformed, and too stupid, to understand what was really going on around them. He was hailed as a “journalist” but was not. He was an opinion maker. He understood that through his reporting of events, he could sway public opinion. A journalist is someone who makes public a journal, via news articles, of facts as they actually happened; Lippman believed that that was not enough to sway the public to accept what was “good for them” and consequently, reporters had to influnce the public, not just inform.

    Lippman supported the Cuban revolution, and advised that Cuba would never become a satellite of the USSR, or turn Communist. He also believed that the average American needed to be lead, referring to them as the “herd,” by university professors, those who claimed expertise in certain fields and the elected representatives of the Federal Goverment. Lippman believed that the elite “class”, due to their higher educational levels, were much better suited to nudge Americans into accepting not what they actually wanted, but what the elite felt was for the “greater good.” While Lippman was widely read, and widely supported by the very elite class that he felt should be in control of everyday American’s lives, his disdain for the general public was not a secret.

    Now, here is the paragraph in Cary’s diatribe that interested me the most:

    If you really think that law abiding citizens deserved to live unrestricted under the law

    Here is where Cary shows his total lack of knowledge about the U.S. Constitution. It contains no restrictions on law abiding citizens, and only contains restrictions on the federal goverment. The entire Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, addresses the ability of the private citizen to live unrestricted while persuing happiness. Nowhere does the Constitution address the “common good” but instead, guarantees a person’s right to lead their lives unrestricted by the government, except in those powers specifically granted to the Federal Government. Even the term persuit of happiness deals with individual freedom, not the freedom of the collective.

    Now we go to the part of Cary’s paragraph that accuses conservatives of actions for which he offers no examples:

    Conservatives would be supporting non-Christians in their right to worship when and where they want

    Cary offers no examples of where conservatives have tried to stop anyone who is non-Christian from pacticing their beliefs. If a bunch of Wiccans want to get together in some dark, wooded area of a national park to pray to the Moon God, you will not see some conservative/Christian group suing, in federal court, to prevent the activities of the Wiccans. Quite the contrary; conservatives believe that the national park belongs to all, and the Wiccans are free to sing their songs to the Moon God all they want. The same cannot be held for the atheists in our midsts, who will take to the federal courts to prevent any exhibition of Christianity from the public’s view. It would seem that the progressives that Cary wants to represent are the very ones that are guilty of what Cary accuses conservatives of. “Live and let live” is not a motto of the atheist.

    they’d allow gay couples the same marriage rights as they have,

    Cary had to redefine the argument for gay marriage by adding the term “couple” into the mix. Why is that? It is quite simple; without a caveat, there is no argument for same sex marriage. I challenge Cary, or any progressive on this board, to name the state that questions an individual’s sexial proclivity on a marriage license. If a gay person wants to marry, under the same guidelines as is applied to the rest of society, can any progressive, including Cary, show me where that is illegal?

    and they’d allow women their own private decisions when fillling perscriptions on heath care plan they pay into

    Not one woman in the United States is prohibited from purchasing a health care insurance plan that covers the birth control methods they want. That is not even up for discussion. What is being said that that these women, who want birth control methods/abortions covered by their health care plan have the right to demand that from their employers who cover the majority of the cost of the insurance plan. It is the demand that, although those health care insurance plans are provided to them either free, or at reduced cost, due to the money spent by the employers to provide them, the employee has the right to demand the amount of free/reduced cost benefits are provided to them. It is simply telling employers how much free/reduced cost stuff they are required to give to those who accepted the job knowing the limitations of benefits. If the employee doesn’t like the level of benefits they are given, as free individuals, they have the right to seek employment that better suits their needs, or purchase other health care insurance plans that meet their needs, not deman the level of giveaways. The Federal Government provides food stamps for low/no income families. Those families do not have the right to demand even greater benefits from the taxpayer if they decide the dollar amount of food stamps doesn’t meet their needs, yet Cary thinks a different standard should be applied to private employers.

    Shall I continue, or will Tom’s demands be sated by this?

    ReplyReply
  34. Cary says: 34

    @retire05:

    I can’t even take this response seriously. Do you actually believe this stuff you typed? Thanks for the laugh, though! I wish you the best in the New Year.

    Okay, I did say you could have the last word… so make up something really good now! I’ll bet you can’t top this previous comment!

    ReplyReply
  35. retire05 says: 35

    @Cary:

    Instead of lobbing your insults, why don’t you dispute what I said in response to your post #22?

    You see, Cary, intellectual people understand that ridicule is not a response, it is only an out for those who have no response. Saul Alinsky understood this, and so the progressives have capitalized on that tactic for years.

    If you have any dispute with what I wrote, provide it in the intellectual way you claim to subscribe to.

    ReplyReply
  36. Cary says: 36

    @retire05:

    No.

    You know damn well that what you wrote was bullshit, as does anyone paying attention.

    Not wasting my time anymore on deliberate liars. I’m not even going to check back to find out what bullshit response you pull out of your ass.

    Bye.

    ReplyReply
  37. Tom says: 37

    @retire05:

    You see, Cary, intellectual people understand that ridicule is not a response, it is only an out for those who have no response.

    You fancy yourself an “intellectual” now? Does your intellectualism allow you to rationalize your dishonesty and your total lack of integrity, your refusal to stand by your statements in debates, or gracefully acknowledge when you’re incorrect? I’m still waiting for you to own up to your factually incorrect statement: “Vehicular homocides are more numerous than gun homocides.”

    Perhaps when you’ve demonstrated the smallest level of humility and honesty, your epic displays of narcissistic bloviation might be good for more than a laugh at your expense.

    ReplyReply
  38. retire05 says: 38

    @Tom:

    I see that you think Cary is so inept that he has to have the liberal posse come to his rescue. No problem. You’re the most dishonest poster on this forum and anyone who has read any of the b/s you put out knows that.

    I asked you five questions, in three different threads, and you refused to answer any of them. Yet, you think you hold the moral authority to slam someone else? Beside liar, fraud, bloviator, you can add coward to your resume, Tommy Troll.

    So why don’t you explain to all of us how the number of passengers (you know, Tommy Troll, the people who were not driving) killed in auto accidents exceeds the number of people murdered by guns, yet you still contend the number of gun murders are higher? Only a brain dead liberal could come up with that kind of math.

    You, Cary, Lib1 and to some extent, the smartest one of your bunch, Larry, are so blinded by your Fabrian socialism that you can only parrot those talking points put out by other left wingers. You are the least intelligent of the bunch, Tom, as you continually exhibit.

    ReplyReply
  39. Tom says: 39

    @retire05:

    I see that you think Cary is so inept that he has to have the liberal posse come to his rescue.

    Not likely. He seems to be having no trouble making you look ridiculous.

    I asked you five questions, in three different threads, and you refused to answer any of them.

    I have zero responsibly to respond to an interrogation by you. I choose to participate in two-way discussions, not helping you to set-up and dispose of your strawmen. Ethically, my responsibility is to what I write, not to what you’re upset that I haven’t written. When I write something that turns out to be factually wrong, I will happily acknowledge that error. You wouldn’t know about that though, as you’ve plainly demonstrated.

    So why don’t you explain to all of us how the number of passengers (you know, Tommy Troll, the people who were not driving) killed in auto accidents exceeds the number of people murdered by guns,

    That’s not what your wrote in the other thread (another attempt at deception, another lie on your part). And it’s not an honest nor logical comparison (accidents/homicides = apples/oranges).

    I would prefer not to engage with you anymore. Life is too short to have discussions with a person who refuses to deal in an honest fashion.

    ReplyReply
  40. retire05 says: 40

    @Tom:

    My, my, Tommy Troll, quite the hypocrite, aren’t you? While you claim the authority to not respond to my questions, you seemed to have no problem harassing others for not responding to your questions. Curt, wasn’t it, that you dealt such a fit toward because you accused him of not answering your questions?

    The fact that you prefer to not engage with me any longer brings me great pleasure. Since I can’t abide stupid people, which you are, so now I can enjoy my New Year’s Eve knowing I will no longer have to tolerate you.

    As you leave, could you take Cary and Lib1 with you to whatever more friendly venues you will relocate to?

    ReplyReply
  41. Nathan Blue says: 41

    @Cary:@Cary: I’m paying attention, and I feel Retire has some points worth engaging.

    I’m concerned that the current “liberal” fall-back plan is merely to accuse someone of lying. Hey, it worked against Romney, eh?

    Seriously, Retire has some good points that are worth dialoging about (though I know we’re all past that, now).

    Food for thought.

    ReplyReply
  42. Tom says: 42

    @Nathan Blue:

    I’m concerned that the current “liberal” fall-back plan is merely to accuse someone of lying

    It’s not just an accusation. It’s been proven. The statement in question was factually incorrect. She could have simply said, “I made a mistake” or “I used the wrong word”, but, like a bad poker player, she decided to double-down on a terrible hand after it’s been exposed. And it’s not the first time. If you think otherwise, please explain, because I don’t make the accusation lightly, so you shouldn’t call it into question without a reason.

    ReplyReply
  43. retire05 says: 43

    According to the CDC’s May 2010 stats on mortality among teenagers aged 12-19 years; United States 1999-2006:

    “motor vehicle fatalities is the leading cause of death to teenagers, representing over one-third of all deaths.

    Motor vehicle accidents accounted for almost three quarters (73 percent) of all deaths from unintentional injury.”

    We know that teenagers aged 12-15 are not allowed to drive, consequently, their deaths would have been caused by someone other than themselves. When you murder someone with a vehicle (vehicular manslaughter/homocide) it is considered murder just as when you murder someone with a gun. Oddly enough, more teenagers are murdered by vehicle than any other method listed, while homicide accounts for 13% of the deaths of teenagers and suicide accounts for 11 percent.

    The CDC goes on to say:

    “From 1999 to 2006, less than 1 percent – or 131,000 deaths, ocurred to teenagers 12-19 years. This represents an average of 16,375 deaths per year for this group.”

    So, if we multipy 16,375 times .73 we get 11,954 teen aged deaths due to vehicle accidents, knowing that those under the age of 16 were not driving and consequently, would not have been responsible for their own death.

    Tom, and the rest of the liberals, do not want to talk about the number of deaths caused by motor vehicles (using their logic that guns cause deaths, not people pulling the triggers of those guns, we can also claim that motor vehicles cause deaths, not the people driving those motor vehicles) because it does fit their gun grabbing agenda.
    So if an object can be the cause of a death, then why didn’t MADD go after the automotive industry for building a product that is capable of killing?

    ReplyReply
  44. Nathan Blue says: 44

    @Tom: Not sure what you are talking about, but the “statement” in question was Retire’s response (#33) to Cary’s scatter-shot of narrow-minded liberal phobias (#22). She said the multi-point defense was:

    You know damn well that what you wrote was bullshit, as does anyone paying attention.
    Not wasting my time anymore on deliberate liars. I’m not even going to check back to find out what bullshit response you pull out of your ass.

    As you can see, there was no dialogue in response to Retire, only a “liar!” accusation.

    I think we may be talking about different posts.

    ReplyReply
  45. Davis says: 45

    Because as we all know, criminals are magic creatures with access to special powers that allows them to wish guns into existence. And thats why using a city ban on assault rifles to make a point about a national ban is in any way sensible.

    Tell me, do you actually believe this sort of shit, or are you just pretending to be an idiot to try and stall the conversation? Assault weapons in Chicago are gotten from other places in the US where they are legal, and brought across state borders. If this ban went national, there’d be no place for criminals to get their assault weapons. No, not even Mexico, because, in case you hadn’t noticed, Mexican criminals use guns they got from the United States.

    ReplyReply
  46. retire05 says: 46

    @Davis:

    We also have laws against illegal entry into the United States. But every day, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of human being are brought into this country illegally; Mexican, Honduran, Chinese, Indian, from every nation in the world. Drugs, like cocaine, are also illegal, and again, they make their way into the United States, often carried on the backs of the humans that are brought here illegally.

    Yet, you think if we abolish weapons in the United States, there will be no more weapons. And you point to the weapons in Mexico, not realizing that many of the weapons obtained by the drug cartels come from China, not just the United States.

    So, what is to prevent the criminals from getting weapons, brought through an insecure border, manufactured in China? Nothing, and the only answer you have is to eliminate “assault” weapons from law abiding citizens in order to prevent criminals from getting their hands on them. The only thing that will acheive is that only the criminals, who are willing to purchase illegal Chinese weapons, will have them while law abiding citizens, who want them for personal protection, will not.

    Obviously, being an idiot is not pretense with you.

    ReplyReply
  47. John Galt says: 47

    @Davis:
    Thank goodness that the war on the poppy has protected us from its nasty byproducts, oh wait.
    Those pesky Mexicans seem to be able to supply the US with wacky tobacky and if the market demand changes to guns, they will find a way. You have so little faith in our lovable Muslim infiltrated communists to the south.

    ReplyReply
  48. rockybutte says: 48

    @Nathan Blue:

    Nathan, don’t try to pass yourself off as a moderate. That’s disingenuous. You’re a conservative. I’m liberal. Cary’s liberal, etc. The news media is owned by multi-national corporations invested in the status quo. They allow occasional liberal slants and commentary to present the appearance of unbiased reporting. Conservatives seize on any liberal slants and commentary as evidence of “liberal bias”. Granted, most reporters tend to be liberal because they have access to information about the military-industrial complex that most of us don’t have, and they tend to dismiss the rigid absolutes of the conservative mind control. I find FA authors interesting because, despite their zeal and intelligence, they seem intent on shielding themselves from any opposing points of view, never conceding points to the liberal way of thinking. I am well aware that there are liberal blogs where much the same could be said. I wonder if a meaningful dialogue can ever be held.

    ReplyReply
  49. Davis says: 49

    @retire05:

    “So, what is to prevent the criminals from getting weapons, brought through an insecure border, manufactured in China?”

    The price. Getting a weapon like that out of China, through Mexico and into America would more than triple its cost, as it goes through a host of middlemen and bribed officials. It would fall out of the price range of approximately 97% of all criminals intending to use high capacity rifles. The rest, those who can afford it, are not interested in home invasion.

    See, drugs get in cause they’re small and can be hidden in most things. Illegals get in because they are human beings, and thus adaptive, being able to make a complex, multiple-step plan for crossing the border. A QBZ-95 is the size of a QBZ-95, and cannot walk by itself. Getting it into the US is complicated and risky. Its not impossible, but its much freaking harder than walking into a gunshow and waltzing out with an SA80A1.

    So, answer me this – if I’m an idiot, and I just easily destroyed your argument basis without even having to use any ambiguous or partisan ideas at all, what does that make you?

    You may proceed to suck it.

    ReplyReply
  50. Davis says: 50

    @John Galt: How is it possible for a man to be so incredibly bigoted, and yet give Mexicans so much credit?

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>