The great gun control bamboozle, race and income discrimination.

It is time for some folks to join the reality we live in. Gun Control as a political topic is generally motivated by events, not by study of numbers. Rising crime due to crack coming to market, spree shooting, and people's reaction to these things drove law making.

Mentally ill man shoots people on a subway the reaction is: A) Extend access to mental health care to those who need it. Not a 72 hour hold and the boot or B) Ban hi - capacity mags.

B) Why, because it is easier. Never mind it takes less than 2 seconds to swap a mag out.

Inner City (impoverished blacks and latinos) murders skyrocket due to drug demand and cash flow negotiations (gang war)

A) Place governmental control on the sale of drugs stopping street level sales B) ban weapons that look scary and are not involved in the vast majority of shootings.

B) Again, easier. Look good, feel good. Inner city murder rates dropped, nope. Your race and income still dictate you probability of being shot.

Gun control is modern Jim Crow. It ignores the root causes of violence in communities most people dont see. After recent shootings at Chicago schools I was pleased to see the victims asking for real community help.

As for income, NYC, Chicago, and San Francisco have strict regulation on carry. I PROMISE you I could get a permit there in less than 30 days by walking into a lawyers office with $30,000 in cash for reelection funds. All legal. If I can do that to get a permit and you can't that is income discrimination.

Jim Crow is over, idiotic gun control is over. Some is reasonable, uniform instruction for CCW sounds great. I support reasonable laws, like most of the NFA.

The days of passing useless laws and having voters accept it as a fix for their problems are gone. Just like Jim Crow poll taxes and voter tests.

when I do that. Lazy bastard.

Or gonna collect one in the crotch .

Period.

Fewer guns and less ammo less readily available would be an absolute good.

Also, if you have, have you shown that this "emboldening" effect out-weights the number of defense gun uses each year? You'd have to prove these two things before your assertion holds any water at all.

Armed criminal with some other implement other than a firearm > unarmed citizen or citizen armed with similar implement
Armed criminal with a gun or any other implement <= citizen armed with a gun

The facts, OTOH, show you to be completely wrong, as usual.

Can you think of anything else?

This graph would show a different trend.



source U.S. Bureau of Justice http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/cv2.cfm


And the trend continues in 2009. Note: the source is the FBI, not a pro-gun organization.

For Release December 21, 2009

Preliminary figures indicate that, as a whole, law enforcement agencies throughout the Nation reported a decrease of 4.4 percent in the number of violent crimes brought to their attention for the first six months of 2009 when compared with figures reported for the same time in 2008. The violent crime category includes murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. The number of property crimes in the United States from January to June of 2009 decreased 6.1 percent when compared with data from the same time period in 2008. Property crimes include burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Arson is also a property crime, but data for arson are not included in property crime totals. Figures for 2009 indicate that arson decreased 8.2 percent when compared to 2008 figures from the same time period.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2009prelimsem/index.html

In case you were unaware, the number of firearms in the United States has skyrocketed since 1973. Also in the period of time many states implemented "shall issue" concealed carry licenses.

I'm not claiming that the reason violent crime fell is due to the increase in the number of firearms. I'm just pointing out that if more guns = more crime, crime would have increased dramatically.

How do you justify to yourself that your ideology is the direct opposite of reality?

I know, you don't give a shit about facts, you just like to drive by spew ignorance and/or stupidity..

I'll decide what's best for my own good, thank you.

..have more common sense than you do.

That includes my collection of curio and relic firearms.

..mixing all that cosmoline with pool water may make an awful mess of things. ;)

I like the smell anyway...

But the slick mess it leaves on my hands is another story all together :P

why must you keep pissing in it? Elitist piss is still piss.

The rest of us outvoted you 15 years ago.

Why are you against self defense?

should remove?

will attack me on another forum and link people here?

for the common good?

and I will GIVE the government my legal firearms.

How well are things going in Mexico?

"Feel good" laws are just that. They convince voters that the politicians they elect are actually worried about reducing crime. Words on paper are inexpensive but all too often merely disarm honest citizens and leave them as defenseless prey to criminal predators.

Good law enforcement including targeting criminal drug gangs is very expensive but far more effective. A judicial system that is merely not just a revolving door, takes the criminal element off the streets and is extremely effective at reducing violent crime. Once again an effective but expensive solution.

When you use a fire extinguisher, you point it at the base of the fire, not the flames. In order to put out the fire, you must extinguish the fuel. The criminal misuse of firearms is the fuel for the fire. Honest citizens with firearms are not the problem.

But if you would like to see the sales of new firearms decrease dramatically, focus your efforts on criminals (the base of the fire).

is the result of political cowardice. Rather than formulating workable public policy, it is simply easier to get a large group of people to rally together against a small group. The Republicans demonize homosexuals, atheists, artists, Muslims, intellectuals, and people who wear plaid pants.

Democrats demonize gun owners because guns to them symbolize all things authoritarian. Unfortunately, there are about a hundred million gun owners in this country. That's a pretty hefty minority and it doesn't do to alienate them. Oopsie.

The entire NFA system. Have to pluck down $200.00 just in taxes to play that game.

And of course that 86 machine gun ban. Didn't really BAN machine guns per say, just said no more NEW machine guns for the lowly people. (Cops can still get them) The result being that the M-16 that used to cost $900.00 (plus your $200.00 tax) in 1985 now costs 15 to 20 THOUSAND.

After Heller, the DC City Council decided that if they couldn't ban handguns from everyone, they would just ban the right to bear arms for self defense for the city's poorest residents (the one most likely to be victims).

Under DC's scheme, a $250 gun will cost you $850 by the time you are through. Oh, and make sure you have a job with 2 or three vacation days to burn. If you have an hourly wage, you must suck up that cost as well.

Think I am exaggerating? One provision pushed through by a Councilwoman, (coincidentally from DC's whitest and wealthiest ward) requires you drive to Maryland or Virginia to take a course on learning how to fire a glock...in order to register a shotgun.

From "The South's Problem in Game Protection," written by one Mr. Charles Askins, and published in Recreation Magazine, May, 1909:

"The only effective way of dealing with the situation was to have legislated three dollar guns out of existence with a five dollar tax, adding to this nearly a like amount on dogs. Hardly a sportsman in the South will disagree with this conclusion. But sportsmen never had a majority vote either in the South or in the North and the South's grave problem is yet unsolved."

Another less epic and more prosaic explanation: such laws may have failed because they would infringe on poor-whites' ability to obtain firearms.

See: OUR VANISHING WILD LIFE: Its Extermination and Preservation, William T. Hornaday, Sc.D., NY, New York Zoological Society, 1913.