America's Gun Violence

1158159161163164189

Comments

  • unsungunsung Posts: 7,725
    ponytd said:

    unsung said:

    Well good, the first part anyway.

    The second part is why we won't register.

    Unfortunately there us a State Senator in my State that thinks that an accusation of assault is enough to have your guns taken away and she has introduced legislation to do so.

    What kind of assault? And just an accusation? That gets into a big gray area. For instance, an accusation of domestic assault that doesn't lead to a formal charge because the spouse was too afraid too press charges should exclude that person from being able to own a firearm. But what about a guy who was out at a party, maybe he was drinking, maybe not, but somebody started a fight with him because he mistook him for somebody else and while in the course of him defending himself, he kicked the other guys ass and the guy who got beat up accused him of assault. Should that person not be allowed to purchase a firearm?

    Be interested to see that bill and the language involved.
    Yes,
    ponytd said:

    unsung said:

    Well good, the first part anyway.

    The second part is why we won't register.

    Unfortunately there us a State Senator in my State that thinks that an accusation of assault is enough to have your guns taken away and she has introduced legislation to do so.

    What kind of assault? And just an accusation? That gets into a big gray area. For instance, an accusation of domestic assault that doesn't lead to a formal charge because the spouse was too afraid too press charges should exclude that person from being able to own a firearm. But what about a guy who was out at a party, maybe he was drinking, maybe not, but somebody started a fight with him because he mistook him for somebody else and while in the course of him defending himself, he kicked the other guys ass and the guy who got beat up accused him of assault. Should that person not be allowed to purchase a firearm?

    Be interested to see that bill and the language involved.
    A simple accusation. I will find a link.
  • unsungunsung Posts: 7,725
    CM189191 said:

    dropped this in the wrong thread earlier

    I don't have two free hours, care to explain the highlights?
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    During the 8 years he was president, Barack Obama’s administration experienced an explosion in gun sales, with annual background checks more than doubling between 2008 and 2016. In the eighteen months leading up to the 2016 election, gun sales set one new record after another.

    So when a pro-Second Amendment candidate won the election most observers figured that gun sales would at last begin to drop. But it hasn’t worked out that way.

    Conventional wisdom held that the sharp rise in gun sales over the course of Obama’s presidency was supposedly driven, at least in part, by the threat of gun control. That’s why everyone expected gun sales to decline after Trump’s victory. Yet, the average monthly gun sales from November through February are up from the already very high level in October.

    In fact, there was a large increase in gun sales immediately following the election. November had a record-setting month for FBI background checks. On Black Friday, there was a single day record of 185,713 checks. While December sales were not quite at record levels, they were still the second highest monthly total ever. January’s and February’s sales data slipped below last January’s and February’s, but they were still the second highest January and February sales on record.

    Anecdotal stories right after the election suggested that people — particularly minorities — might be buying guns out of fear of a Trump presidency. The National African-American Gun Association saw a 7% increase in members just over the Thanksgiving weekend. NBC News contacted gun storeowners who reported seeing up to four times as many black and minority customers. The Liberal Gun Club says that its membership is up 10%. Many news stories quote liberals saying that they bought a gun for the first time after the election.

    There were other signs that gun control was losing popularity. “Miss Sloane,” a pro-gun control movie, flopped miserably in December. Despite being heavily advertised and promoted in the mainstream media, the film’s second weekend saw an average of fewer than 10 viewers per day per movie theater.

    In November, Nevada narrowly passed a ballot initiative that imposes background checks on private transfers. And the victory of less than one percentage point came only as a result of $20 million in spending personally funded by Michael Bloomberg. This amounts to an incredible $35.30 per vote. The same initiative lost in Maine by 4 percent despite similar massive spending. So much for the oft-repeated claim that 80 to 90 percent of Americans favor such laws.

    Yet, there is broader statistical evidence that liberals at least temporarily changed their views on guns. Gun sales in November right after the election rose most sharply in the most heavily Democratic states. Among the seven states (plus the District of Columbia) that the New York Times categorizes as consistently voting for Democrats, there was a 20.6% increase in background checks from October to November. By contrast, there was only a 4.5% increase among the 19 states that the Times labeled as consistently Republican.

    Excluding California, there was still a 13.1% increase in gun sales in the other heavily Democrat states and DC. This was still almost 3 times the increase in heavily Republican states.

    But California’s massive 44% increase in sales in November and December was undoubtedly due in large part to new regulations banning the sale of certain guns after December 31st. January’s sales in California plummetted so much that they were down 28% below the level in October.

    Still January’s and February’s numbers show that this increase in gun sales in heavily Democratic states was a temporary phenomenon. Excluding California, comparing October with the November through February, background checks increased for both heavily Democratic and Republican states, but the increase for non-California heavily Democratic states was just 0.3%. For heavily Republican states

    On the other hand, heavily black states also experienced larger post-election sales and the trend continued through February. Comparing background checks in October to the average monthly rate in November through February, the 25 states with the highest percentage of blacks had more than twice the relative increase in gun background check compared to October relative to the 25 states where blacks are relatively underrepresented. (The 25 most heavily black states averaged 18% black and the 25 least black states averaged just 3.3% black.) Monthly gun sales in November through February increased by 8.2% in the heavily black states but actually fell by 2.7% in the other ones.

    These changes fit in with general national trends in gun use and ownership. The number of concealed handgun permits has soared from about 4.6 million in 2007 to 14.5 million in 2016. And over the last four years some data indicates that permit-holding has been increasing about 75% more quickly among minorities than among whites. The number of women with permits has increased twice as quickly as the number of men with permits.

    According to a December 2014 PEW poll, 57 percent of Americans believe that gun ownership “protects people from becoming victims of crime.” Thirty-eight percent believe that it “puts people’s safety at risk.” That’s an 8-percentage point increase in positive views from just two years earlier. Except for Democrats as a whole, every group identified by PEW had come to view gun ownership more positively.

    The two groups with the largest attitudinal shifts were blacks and women. Compared to two years before, nearly twice the percentage of blacks answered that gun ownership does more to protect them than harm them. It rose from 29 to 54 percent. For women, the increase was 11 percentage points.

    Gallup polls have also shown remarkable changes over time. In 2000, only 35% of respondents thought that guns in the home made them safer. By the end of 2014, that answer was shared by 63% of people. Even 41% of Democrats answered that way.

    The sale numbers imply that while the sudden increase in gun sales in Democrat states was likely temporary, a more fundamental change might be occurring for blacks. Why Republicans keep buying guns at high rates is still a question. It surely doesn’t fit the mantra that “fear drives gun sales.”

    As women and minorities come to support gun ownership in increasing numbers, gun control advocates will find themselves facing an uphill battle.



    John R. Lott, Jr. is a columnist for FoxNews.com. He is an economist and was formerly chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission. Lott is also a leading expert on guns and op-eds on that issue are done in conjunction with the Crime Prevention Research Center. He is the author of nine books including "More Guns, Less Crime." His latest book is "The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies (August 1, 2016). Follow him on Twitter@johnrlottjr.


    interesting read.
    it dosen't matter to me what a man dose for a living you understand..
    as long as his interest's don't conflict with mine.
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 2,713
    unsung said:

    CM189191 said:

    dropped this in the wrong thread earlier

    I don't have two free hours, care to explain the highlights?
    it should skip forward to the relevant / amusing part at 1:23:30
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16
  • dudemandudeman Posts: 1,311
    rgambs said:

    dudeman said:

    rgambs said:

    dudeman said:

    More rules to be ignored by criminals.

    That's a cop-out, plain and simple.
    No, it's not. It's the unfortunate reality of the situation.
    Yes, it is.
    Instead of thinking through the consequences and benefits of a game-changing rule, you just say, "criminals will ignore it".
    The entire point of registration is that we will then know who the criminals are and we can take them down.

    Who is going to buy guns legally to sell them illegally if we ACTUALLY catch and punish those doing it?
    Wouldn't enforcing the laws that we already have make more sense than adding more laws?

    I'll help. The answer is yes.

    Buying guns illegally is illegal. Selling guns illegally is illegal. Illegal interstate gun trafficking is already illegal. As is murder, assault, armed robbery and a litany of other gun-related crimes.

    Giving the necessary resources and funding to local and state law enforcement would go a long way to curtail criminal gun activity.

    If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
  • unsungunsung Posts: 7,725
    Well I have been informed that you can't talk of busting gang members because now apparently that is racist talk.

    No, nobody here said it, that I have seen. It was on a local news report.
  • unsungunsung Posts: 7,725
    CM189191 said:

    unsung said:

    CM189191 said:

    dropped this in the wrong thread earlier

    I don't have two free hours, care to explain the highlights?
    it should skip forward to the relevant / amusing part at 1:23:30
    He was wound up. Well, Minnesota has some big issues.
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 8,839
    dudeman said:

    rgambs said:

    dudeman said:

    rgambs said:

    dudeman said:

    More rules to be ignored by criminals.

    That's a cop-out, plain and simple.
    No, it's not. It's the unfortunate reality of the situation.
    Yes, it is.
    Instead of thinking through the consequences and benefits of a game-changing rule, you just say, "criminals will ignore it".
    The entire point of registration is that we will then know who the criminals are and we can take them down.

    Who is going to buy guns legally to sell them illegally if we ACTUALLY catch and punish those doing it?
    Wouldn't enforcing the laws that we already have make more sense than adding more laws?

    I'll help. The answer is yes.

    Buying guns illegally is illegal. Selling guns illegally is illegal. Illegal interstate gun trafficking is already illegal. As is murder, assault, armed robbery and a litany of other gun-related crimes.

    Giving the necessary resources and funding to local and state law enforcement would go a long way to curtail criminal gun activity.

    We have been around and around on this, I don't feel like continually pointing out the obvious.
    Here in Ohio I can buy hundreds of guns and sell them to anybody I want without any paperwork. It doesn't matter if a gang member uses them to kill people, there is no way to hold me responsible.
    The laws are designed to allow me to do it and are therefore insufficient.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 8,839
    rgambs said:

    dudeman said:

    rgambs said:

    dudeman said:

    rgambs said:

    dudeman said:

    More rules to be ignored by criminals.

    That's a cop-out, plain and simple.
    No, it's not. It's the unfortunate reality of the situation.
    Yes, it is.
    Instead of thinking through the consequences and benefits of a game-changing rule, you just say, "criminals will ignore it".
    The entire point of registration is that we will then know who the criminals are and we can take them down.

    Who is going to buy guns legally to sell them illegally if we ACTUALLY catch and punish those doing it?
    Wouldn't enforcing the laws that we already have make more sense than adding more laws?

    I'll help. The answer is yes.

    Buying guns illegally is illegal. Selling guns illegally is illegal. Illegal interstate gun trafficking is already illegal. As is murder, assault, armed robbery and a litany of other gun-related crimes.

    Giving the necessary resources and funding to local and state law enforcement would go a long way to curtail criminal gun activity.

    We have been around and around on this, I don't feel like continually pointing out the obvious.
    Here in Ohio I can buy hundreds of guns and sell them to anybody I want without any paperwork. It doesn't matter if a gang member uses them to kill people, there is no way to hold me responsible.
    The laws are designed to allow me to do it and are therefore insufficient.
    Yes, it's illegal. Blah blah de dah.
    That isn't really relevant to solving the problem, the world doesn't work on the honor system.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • unsungunsung Posts: 7,725

  • unsungunsung Posts: 7,725
    ponytd said:

    unsung said:

    Well good, the first part anyway.

    The second part is why we won't register.

    Unfortunately there us a State Senator in my State that thinks that an accusation of assault is enough to have your guns taken away and she has introduced legislation to do so.

    What kind of assault? And just an accusation? That gets into a big gray area. For instance, an accusation of domestic assault that doesn't lead to a formal charge because the spouse was too afraid too press charges should exclude that person from being able to own a firearm. But what about a guy who was out at a party, maybe he was drinking, maybe not, but somebody started a fight with him because he mistook him for somebody else and while in the course of him defending himself, he kicked the other guys ass and the guy who got beat up accused him of assault. Should that person not be allowed to purchase a firearm?

    Be interested to see that bill and the language involved.
    Been busy at work, here is a story on it, it includes the bill number.


    http://www.thepoliticalherald.com/illinois-bill-would-authorize-gun-confiscation-without-owners-input/
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 5,559
    unsung said:

    Well I have been informed that you can't talk of busting gang members because now apparently that is racist talk.

    No, nobody here said it, that I have seen. It was on a local news report.

    Looks like you've been misinformed. Do you think there's no discussion of busting up gangs when cities accross the country have specific anti-gang task forces within their department? You don't think people working in communities who are involved in dealing with gang issues work with the police?
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 2,713
    unsung said:

    CM189191 said:

    unsung said:

    CM189191 said:

    dropped this in the wrong thread earlier

    I don't have two free hours, care to explain the highlights?
    it should skip forward to the relevant / amusing part at 1:23:30
    He was wound up. Well, Minnesota has some big issues.
    yuge, one might say
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16
  • unsungunsung Posts: 7,725

    unsung said:

    Well I have been informed that you can't talk of busting gang members because now apparently that is racist talk.

    No, nobody here said it, that I have seen. It was on a local news report.

    Looks like you've been misinformed. Do you think there's no discussion of busting up gangs when cities accross the country have specific anti-gang task forces within their department? You don't think people working in communities who are involved in dealing with gang issues work with the police?
    Gamgs in Chicago cut deals with alderman. Busting them doesn't happen often, negotiations do.
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 5,559
    unsung said:

    unsung said:

    Well I have been informed that you can't talk of busting gang members because now apparently that is racist talk.

    No, nobody here said it, that I have seen. It was on a local news report.

    Looks like you've been misinformed. Do you think there's no discussion of busting up gangs when cities accross the country have specific anti-gang task forces within their department? You don't think people working in communities who are involved in dealing with gang issues work with the police?
    Gamgs in Chicago cut deals with alderman. Busting them doesn't happen often, negotiations do.
    Here's a link from me:
    https://www.google.com/amp/abc7chicago.com/amp/news/weekend-raids-by-chicago-police-net-120-arrests/1716977/

    Do you have one?
  • unsungunsung Posts: 7,725
    Bunch of low level nobodys.

    Police chief negotiates with actual somebodys.

    http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/701192
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 5,559
    unsung said:

    Bunch of low level nobodys.

    Police chief negotiates with actual somebodys.

    http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/701192

    The description of it doesn't sound like a negotiation, it sounded like victims talking to offenders and the offenders listening. Seems like it had support from the locals, too. I'm not sure what your issue is. Maybe you want greater police intervention? I also didn't see a reference to gun violence in the article, which you seem to think the press is fixated on.
  • unsungunsung Posts: 7,725
    Well that wasn't the subject. I already posted numerous "gun" violence titled articles.
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 5,559
    unsung said:

    Well that wasn't the subject. I already posted numerous "gun" violence titled articles.

    Then what was the subject?
  • rssesqrssesq Fairfield CountyPosts: 3,299
    classic
    unsung said:


    "Apology made to whoever it pleases, still they got me like Jesus." Chuck D
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 36,244
    unsung said:

    Well I have been informed that you can't talk of busting gang members because now apparently that is racist talk.

    No, nobody here said it, that I have seen. It was on a local news report.

    Are you sure you've really got the context right there? I'd like to know what "talk of busting gang members" means in the context of the news story.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 2,713
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16
  • unsungunsung Posts: 7,725
    Sorry, Rolling Stone is fake news.
  • rssesqrssesq Fairfield CountyPosts: 3,299
    #FNEWS
    =) ;)
    "Apology made to whoever it pleases, still they got me like Jesus." Chuck D
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 5,559
    trumpers now say those are fake judges.
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,525
    Interesting...
    "the number of fatal firearms accidents dropped 17 percent from 2014 to 2015 to 489, the lowest total since record-keeping began in 1903. That’s about three-tenths of 1 percent of the 146,571 total accidental deaths from all other listed causes, which are up 8 percent from 2014 to 2015. It should be noted that the decrease, which was the largest percentage decline of any category, came in a year that saw record firearms sales to many millions of Americans."
    http://www.nssfblog.com/unintentional-firearms-fatalities-fall-17-percent/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=bulletpoints&utm_term
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New JerseyPosts: 11,762
    PJPOWER said:

    Interesting...
    "the number of fatal firearms accidents dropped 17 percent from 2014 to 2015 to 489, the lowest total since record-keeping began in 1903. That’s about three-tenths of 1 percent of the 146,571 total accidental deaths from all other listed causes, which are up 8 percent from 2014 to 2015. It should be noted that the decrease, which was the largest percentage decline of any category, came in a year that saw record firearms sales to many millions of Americans."
    http://www.nssfblog.com/unintentional-firearms-fatalities-fall-17-percent/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=bulletpoints&utm_term

    Who s gonna be first to discredit these numbers?
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,525
    mcgruff10 said:

    PJPOWER said:

    Interesting...
    "the number of fatal firearms accidents dropped 17 percent from 2014 to 2015 to 489, the lowest total since record-keeping began in 1903. That’s about three-tenths of 1 percent of the 146,571 total accidental deaths from all other listed causes, which are up 8 percent from 2014 to 2015. It should be noted that the decrease, which was the largest percentage decline of any category, came in a year that saw record firearms sales to many millions of Americans."
    http://www.nssfblog.com/unintentional-firearms-fatalities-fall-17-percent/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=bulletpoints&utm_term

    Who s gonna be first to discredit these numbers?
    I'm all ears.
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 8,256
    Fox News keeping us informed of what's really important.

    Teen on his way to spring break in Florida busted with 7 cases of beer, marijuana in truck, cops say - Fox News
    https://apple.news/AElui6Xu4RmS9flV_bSXdRQ
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 2,713
    edited March 21
    PJPOWER said:

    Interesting...
    "the number of fatal firearms accidents dropped 17 percent from 2014 to 2015 to 489, the lowest total since record-keeping began in 1903. That’s about three-tenths of 1 percent of the 146,571 total accidental deaths from all other listed causes, which are up 8 percent from 2014 to 2015. It should be noted that the decrease, which was the largest percentage decline of any category, came in a year that saw record firearms sales to many millions of Americans."
    http://www.nssfblog.com/unintentional-firearms-fatalities-fall-17-percent/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=bulletpoints&utm_term

    So how many preventable deaths is that?
    How is that in relation to other causes; like terrorism, car accidents or overdoses?
    Or compared to other countries?
    What's the standard here? How many preventable deaths are acceptable?

    I get skeptical when people talk in percentages, don't provide real numbers, or any perspective. This is cherry picking data.
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16
Sign In or Register to comment.