Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The question you think no one asks is nothing of the sort...
Obviously there is what we all need to do to stay safe well beyond what any law can do for us, but to suggest any of those sorts of realities means we don't have the laws we do for the sake of public safety? Ridiculous that...
What's next? We do away with airport security checks because we can die in so many other ways too and/or can't prevent all other forms of terrorism? Also ridiculous...
Well, in this gun debate, that is one of the last things to be addressed. Culture of violence? A mentality of "you disrespect me, you die".
Laws restricting already exist in alot of cities where gun violence is high. Baltimore, Newark, Oakland, and when Mayor Daley got strict with gun laws, the murder rate went up in Chicago. Detroit has been tightening with gun control. It has long been synonymous with murder. Criminals and even regular people will disregard gun laws. Even "gun control" doesn't guarantee safety. The only way to get every gun off the street is through a dictatorship, and people will revolt in that instance.
The "know it all's do NOT know how many shootings there are in "gun free zones" and how utterly ridiculous the laws for these "zones" are!
If there`s a shooting in a gun free zone where did the bullets come from? We need to do nothing because everything is going well.
Body Counts Don`t Matter
Very true. Gun-Free Zones are specifically chosen for attack because the killer knows nearly everyone (except possibly security personnel) in that "zone" is unarmed.
Who did the LV killer shoot at? The unarmed audience at an outdoor music festival.
Handguns would not have helped them in that particular incident.
I would amend your statement slightly, Until LOCAL legislators look deeper into the problem.
Take away the 5 WORSE cities and our rates become VERY LOW compared to the rest of the world as many want to claim..
The United States is3rd in Murders throughout the World.But if you take out just 5 'left-wing' cities: Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC, St Louis and New Orleans -- the United States is 4th from the bottom, in the ENTIRE World, for Murders.
These 5 Cities are controlled by DEMOCRATS. They have The Toughest Gun Control Laws in the USA.Do you think maybe the Democrats just might have something to do with all the gun violence……or would it be absurd to draw any conclusions from this data?
The previous Federal AW ban was left to expire because there was no evidence it did anything to prevent crime related to firearms.
True or false?
The final report concluded the ban’s success in reducing crimes committed with banned guns was “mixed.” Gun crimes involving assault weapons declined. However, that decline was “offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with [large-capacity magazines].”
Ultimately, the research concluded that it was “premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun crime,” largely because the law’s grandfathering of millions of pre-ban assault weapons and large-capacity magazines “ensured that the effects of the law would occur only gradually” and were “still unfolding” when the ban expired in 2004.
And aside from the numbers, again, the issue and/or concern goes well beyond the simple statistics. Many people -- most I believe -- just don't accept the rationale that attempts to justify the sale, purchase or possession of such weapons by average citizens, weapons that don't have much to do with the more generally accepted reasons a typical gun owner wants or uses guns.
The final report concluded the ban’s success in reducing crimes committed with banned guns was “mixed.” Gun crimes involving assault weapons declined. However, that decline was “offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with [large-capacity magazines].”
Ultimately, the research concluded that it was “premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun crime,” largely because the law’s grandfathering of millions of pre-ban assault weapons and large-capacity magazines “ensured that the effects of the law would occur only gradually” and were “still unfolding” when the ban expired in 2004.
And aside from the numbers, again, the issue and/or concern goes well beyond the simple statistics. Many people just don't accept the rational that attempts to justify the sale, purchase or possession of such weapons by average citizens, weapons that don't have much to do the more generally accepted reasons a typical gun owner wants or uses guns.
Don't forget, since the ban was based on looks alone, many people just switched what they bought. It was a worthless, stupid law.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
