Chicago's handgun ban has no apparent effect on rising crime wave

[derby378]

With two months left in the school year, the 21 fatal shootings of young people is on pace to match last year's total of 24. That would mark the second year in a row of alarming levels of violence among schoolchildren -– in the previous two years (2004-2005 and 2005-2006), there were only eight and seven gun fatalities, respectively, according to Chicago Public Schools...

Teenagers in Chicago are 10 times more likely to be the victims of gun violence than Illinois youngsters living outside the city, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. And more than 650 of them were shot and killed between 2002 and 2006...

The surge in violence is especially confounding to criminologists, because the city is one of only two cities, along with Washington, D.C., in the country with a ban on handguns.

"For five years since they enacted the ban, they've made this effort to limit the number of guns available, but it doesn't seem to have an effect," Chicago Crime Commission President Jim Wagner told ABCNEWS.com. "It has not stopped gang members from getting their guns out of state and bringing them back in."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=4704126&page=1

[amdezurik]

1. just goes to show there are to many loopholes

and other ways to aquire guns that are not registered.

[SteveM]

18. I'll think on that while I light up a fatty (nt)

[slackmaster]

19. A loophole is an ambiguity or omission in a law that allows the intent to be evaded legally

Anyone who has an unregistered handgun in Chicago has broken at least one law outright.

[spin]

25. And how will registration reduce crime?

honest people will register their weapons as required by the law. Criminals will ignore the law, as criminals by definition ignore laws.

None of my firearms are registered. I live in Florida. The rules are different here.

[8Kilo1]

65. The answer

to how registration will reduce crime:

Ask yourself how criminals get guns. Unless they're breaking into or robbing gun shops, the answer is they get them from people who legally purchase them. Many of these gun purchasers are doing so to make a buck; they buy guns and put them out on the street for sale. Registration would go a long way in curbing this practice. After all, if guns registered in your name start showing up as being used in crimes--it's a pretty good bet you're an accomplice or accessory to thoe crimes.

[Statistical]

68. The overwhelming majority of illegal guns were stolen from private individuals

Registration would do nothing to stop that.

The truth that antis fail to understand is that gun control doesn't work.

There is no evidence that any form or gun control prevents crime. Period.

Despite that they keep coming up with new inventive methods to harrass the law abiding (the only ones who follow the law) yet doing nothing to stop criminals.

Over the last decade the # of guns in circulation has gone up substantially and violent crime has FALLEN.

In areas with right to carry laws crime rate is lower than in areas with draconian restrictions.

Despite taking away peoples rights in DC, Chicago, LA, New York city and countless other places they continue to have higher crime rates.

When crime goes down those cities see a smaller drop in crime then the rest of the country. It doesn't work and it never has. Maybe in another 20-30 years people will realize that.

[iverglas]

70. really?

The overwhelming majority of illegal guns were stolen from private individuals

If true (and your source is?), what evidence is there to suggest that registration would not encourage safe/secure storage?

Particularly if registration were accompanied by safe/secure storage regulations, as it is in Canada. has anyone suggested that any one measure is a panacea?

Quite a lot of "illegal guns" derive from straw purchases. Do you want to deny that registration cuts down on that practice?


There is no evidence that any form or gun control prevents crime. Period.

And there is none so blind as s/he who will not see.

And, of course, none so amusing as s/he who offers up correlations as proof of cause.

Despite taking away peoples rights in DC, Chicago, LA, New York city and countless other places they continue to have higher crime rates.

Despite doing what they can to reduce unlawful firearms possession/use within their jurisdictions, those cities seem to have forgotten to dig moats and erect walls on their boundary lines ...

[8Kilo1]

72. Sorry, you're wrong...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.htmlnot according to the BATF. They say that stolen guns are the least source of guns used in crimes.

There is no evidence that any form or gun control prevents crime. Period.

Again, you're wrong.

Over the last decade the # of guns in circulation has gone up substantially and violent crime has FALLEN.

Really? http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2428406420070924


Despite taking away peoples rights in DC, Chicago, LA, New York city and countless other places they continue to have higher crime rates.

Actually, cities like Chicago and NYC have lower crime rates than Houston and New Orleans and Miami with lax gun laws.

[jody]

2. What works in Cheyenne may work in Chicago. n/t

[patriotvoice]

4. Ding ding.

:thumbsup:

[-..__...]

3. In other news...

water is wet.

It's just a matter of time for the NRA's lawsuit against Chicagos handgun ban to make it to the SCOTUS and be ruled unconstitutional.

The real icing on the cake however, is that it will result in incorporation and become applicable to the rest of the country.

[jody]

5. Agree, incorporation is the next major milestone after Heller. n/t

[moondust]

6. "getting their guns out of state"

Same thing happened in D.C.--real easy to get guns in Virginia. These bans are doomed from the moment they are passed but that's not a sufficient reason for a city to stop trying to save its youth.

[EstimatedProphet]

9. No, it's just sufficient reason to stop trying to use this method to save their youth.

[moondust]

11. Dead wrong.

They have a responsibility to try whatever means may have an impact in preventing kids from getting their hands on the tools of murder and mayhem and using them on other people. Nobody knows how much worse (or better) the statistics would have been had there not been a ban.

When your oldest kid is beating your younger kid over the head with a baseball bat what do you do? Give him another bat? Give the younger one a bat to "even things up"?

[EstimatedProphet]

17. Whatever means? No, that's the problem.

The strategy isn't working. So following it won't lead to it working. And we do know that it wouldn't work, because we have a model of it not working - DC comes to mind. And whenever people start throwing around the "by any means necessary" line, I get apprehensive. That covers a lot of territory. How about mandatory sequestering of anyone between the ages of 13-21? How about solitary confinement, for that matter? Teen violence would go way down if we did that.

If anyone really, truly, wanted to address the issues leading to violence, then the place to start would be with examining poverty, quality of life, self-esteem - but no one wants to do that. Instead, they want to do a quick fix and pretend the problem is solved. They'd rather put a band-aid on a sucking chest wound than actually do something tangible. If we want to actually address violence in our society we need to address society's ills, because banning guns won't fix the problem.

[tburnsten]

21. Actually you discipline the hell out of your oldest

And you prevent him from playing with clubs for a while. Except that it isn't "children" "getting their hands on guns" that is the problem, it is gangs, gang violence, gang culture, all of it contributes heavily to Chicagos violence and crime rates. It isn't about "children" shooting each other.

[jeepnstein]

24. These aren't ordinary kids...

Gang bangers are a different breed altogether. Life has made them hard. The justice system ignores their gang affiliations. The prospect of going to prison means nothing to them. Until police departments and courts are given the tools to drain the swamp of these guys, the violence will continue. Drugs, gangs, poverty, the disintegration of family structures; all are part of the problem. The fact that some of these kids get a hold of a gun is just a symptom of a very deeply rooted problem.

Banning firearms is easier than facing the reality of gang culture.

[Irreverend IX]

28. There's one piece of legislation that could bring Chicago's gang violence to a screeching halt...

...and that's legalizing drugs. But no politician has anywhere near enough of a backbone to propose that. The government has spent billions and billions of taxpayer dollars trying to eradicate drugs over the last several decades, but any schoolkid can tell you where to get them. What makes you think a ban on guns will be any more effective?

[JonQ]

52. So doing away with our basic rights

is ok, so long as it's "for the children"?

Cops are not allowed to break in to peoples homes on a whim. No doubt as a result of this some criminals go free (and some of those go on to harm "the children"). So if we did away with prohibitions on unjustified search and seizures we could conceivably reduce crime and save some of "the children".

Also some criminals are set free even after having a fair trial or serve their time and harm more people when they get out. If we did away with trials and merely executed all suspected criminals on the spot we could no doubt save a few innocent children from being harmed.

But that society would of course be a terrible thing. Which is why we shouldn't listen to emotional appeals to stifle our rights in exchange for some slight peace of mind.

[tburnsten]

20. Maybe they could go after gangs instead

Or they could always just keep their current approach of using a blanket ban on everyone owning firearms instead of dealing with the actual problems. Not everyone in Chicago is out there murdering children and robbing one another, maybe the problem lies with gangs and not with the entire population of Chicago.

[virginia mountainman]

26. Uhh... As a Virginia Resident...

If "all these" guns are coming from Virginia, and are causing mayhem in DC..

Why are all these "guns" that as you say are "real easy to get" in Virginia, NOT causing PROBLEMS, IN, Virginia??

Why is it so much more peaceful here???

[Howzit]

30. That is an incredibly good question

Ping him/her again

[8Kilo1]

64. Different Problems

As you may or may not know, the city of DC has nearly 600,000 people in an area of about 65 square miles. VA has about 7.7M people in an area of about 43000 square miles. In short, VA has about 12 times the population and about 660 times the area.

There are other differences, of course, in terms of economics.

If we compare DC to, say, Richmond, we don't see much difference in terms of violent crime. In 2008, there were 26.8 murders per 100,000 people for Richmond and 28.2 per 100,000 in DC.

[Statistical]

69. So you agree that gun ban does not work.

Since guns are so easy to get in VA shouldn't the crime rate in Richmond be off the chart?

I mean why take a gun 200 miles to commit a crime when it can be done locally.

One would think that a ban on guns would result in DC having at least 20%-30% lower crime rate than the highest crime location in VA? Right?

Yet it didn't. DC has consistently been one of the highest crime areas of the country. Why?

[iverglas]

71. why make sense when you can spew crap?

I mean why take a gun 200 miles to commit a crime when it can be done locally.

You've maybe heard of the concept of trafficking. Buying in one place, selling in another. You might want to look into this, if it's really new 2 u.


One would think that a ban on guns would result in DC having at least 20%-30% lower crime rate than the highest crime location in VA? Right?

One would think that ... why?

Er, left?

[8Kilo1]

73. Guess What?

The crime rate in Richmond is comparable to DC's.

Why not compare NYC to Richmond?

[mitchleary]

7. what needs to happen is

gun crimes need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law while leaving law abaiding citizens alone. It is ludicrous to think someone who would commit a crime would obey gun laws. i was robbed at gun point and all the felons are too young to own a gun legally. So if a crime is commited with a gun there should be a much more severe penalty.

For the person wanting to stop guns from coming into anywhere... not going happen the way the war on drugs is a joke as well.

Let the law abding citizens have and prosecute the people that use them for illegal activity, robbery, etc.

[-..__...]

8. If the offender has a prior felony conviction...

hand'em over to the feds for prosecution... much stiffer sentence, usually no time off for good behavior, sentence served out of state.

See if that doesn't rattle their cages a bit.

[Obamanaut]

10. A "ban" on anything won't work if people really want to do/use

something.

"With two months left in the school year, the 21 fatal shootings of young people is on pace to match last year's total of 24. That would mark the second year in a row of alarming levels of violence among schoolchildren -– in the previous two years (2004-2005 and 2005-2006), there were only eight and seven gun fatalities, respectively, according to Chicago Public Schools..."

It didn't work for alcohol many years ago, it hasn't worked on mind altering substances, and it does not work for guns.

[moondust]

12. Yeah, ask Great Britain.

Explain to us how their strict gun laws have no effect on gun crime. :rofl:

[-..__...]

14. And as a result...

This is how pathetic the sheeple of the crown have allowed themselves to become...

[derby378]

15. You're kidding me, right?

Please tell me this is a joke...please tell me this is a joke...

[-..__...]

16. I couldn't find any info to confirm if it's a joke or not...

but, since it's indisputable that England's gun/weapons laws are overly strict and an abomination, I have little doubt that the sign/pic
is not a joke.

Sad... isn't it?

[spin]

27. Great Britain is considering banning pointy kitchen knives...

Most fatal stabbings involve a weapon that is easy to obtain and sharp with it - a kitchen knife. Would stopping the sale of long blades with sharp points help save lives?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7508404.stm

[iverglas]

36. do you read things you post?

Or just lift the urls off your favourite internet sites?

Dr Beckett denies that this analogy holds, and says that long pointed knives will not always be replaced by similarly fatal weapons. He cites an unintended effect of the switch from coal gas to non-toxic North Sea gas: fewer suicides.

"People said, 'oh, if you want to commit suicide, you will find a way.' But it did reduce the rate."

Another unintended reduction in suicide rates has been associated with the introduction of catalytic converters to car. And another drop in suicides came, this time intentional, following the reduction in the quantities in which paracetemol can be bought.

Today, Dr Beckett talks about a change in kitchen culture rather than solely about a ban - and that may be the more intriguing possibility.

It remains a grim picture - the doctors would prefer to deal with non-fatal attacks from cleavers or short pointed knives rather than fatal stabbings.

It's nowhere near a complete solution to the complex problem of knife crime - but neither is it meant to be. Why people carry knives and how they are prosecuted remain different questions.

Rather, says Dr Beckett, it's a possibility for design to help save lives. ...

You may consider yourself lucky to live in a society where people walk around with guns rather than knives in their clothing.

The unfortunate truth is that in the UK, there are areas where young people, often living in severely economically depressed communities with decades-long histories of high violence levels, are attacking and being attacked with knives.

Some people see this as a problem -- the deaths and injuries of young people -- and look for a solution.

You look at the situation and see a joke in the making.

Different strokes.

[Howzit]

39. Then they better ban these too:

Add concrete slabs, rocks and anything else that might be used to turn a blunt tipped knife or spoon into pointy one.




While they are at it, ban raw steel bar too, as it can be easily shaped into a stabbing instrument.

http://www.designobserver.com/archives/shiv11.html

http://www.designobserver.com/archives/shiv9.html

http://www.designobserver.com/archives/shiv10.html

[tburnsten]

23. Tsk tsk!

You just aren't evolved enough to understand what's best for you.

[tburnsten]

22. They have a pretty high violent crime rate

That hasn't been affected at all by a shortfall of guns, and actually, they have been having problems with people smuggling in guns from other european countries.


Lack of "gun crime" is not the same as lack of violence.

[benEzra]

32. Considering that the violent crime rate in Britain is higher now than it was before guns were banned

I'd say their gun laws have no effect on violent crime, indeed.

[iverglas]

35. and your farts

have no effect on global temperatures.

Huh. You don't fart for that purpose?

Huh.

How many times are you planning to smear this disingenuous crap around threads about firearms and the UK?

I'd just like to schedule my vacation days. Wouldn't want to miss any of your efforts.


Guns are not banned in the UK.

Expel some more of that hot air now, if you like.

[Yavapai]

53. Ewww! Somebody just passed some ivergas

[JonQ]

45. But wouldn't you rather be stabbed or beaten to death than shot to death?

Guns are evil afterall.

[iverglas]

46. read much?

The assertion was: the violent crime rate in Britain is higher now than it was before guns were banned

Your response is:

But wouldn't you rather be stabbed or beaten to death than shot to death?

Apparently you see a connection.


Actually, there is one.

I'd rather be assaulted with, or robbed by someone wielding, a knife or a fist or a baseball bat, than be assaulted by being shot or robbed by someone wielding a firearm.

My chances of survival would be higher. Who knows, maybe that doesn't matter to you.

Guns are not a matter for rational consideration, after all.

[JonQ]

51. Murders and other violent crime went up

following the ban. And you claim that is a good thing because your chance of getting murdered or seriously injured has decreased.

I have to ask, what reality do you live in?

[iverglas]

54. just reality

Unlike whatever universe this:

And you claim that is a good thing because your chance of getting murdered or seriously injured has decreased.

is truth.

[JonQ]

55. I think I get it

you don't actually read what you write do you? That's why you're always accusing people of setting up strawmen, lying about your claims, making arguments against cases that were never made, etc. You really don't have any clue what was said up-page of your latest comment?

I've been trying to make sense of you from the first time we exchanged words and so far your behavior has been erratic and nonsensical, but this explanation fits.

[JonQ]

60. Ban guns, violent crime increases

do you A) claim it was ineffective and seek new methods, B) claim the purpose of banning guns wasn't to reduce crime (see below) or C) insist that guns be banned even more?

Rational people would go with A. Rational people apparently are not in charge.

[8Kilo1]

63. You might wish to rethink that...

Are violent crimes higher now than before guns were banned?

The answer: no.

Bear in mind, Britain has not banned guns; so that is an error on your part. Second, Britain has gun laws that go back over a century. You are implying that crime rates were lower in the 1800s than today--something that is also in error. Third, if we had the UK's crime rates, we'd be extremely pleased.

Kindly do the research before offering erroneous comments.

[iverglas]

66. well howdy

and best wishes!

What you've said in this thread has been said a brazillion times of course (mainly by moi), including a very recent discussion about the whole DC/Virginia nonsense in another thread.

No matter, you see. It will all need to be said again next week!

Feel free to take a shift. ;)

[Tejas]

40. Ask a country that wants to ban fire extinguishers?

Sure, EXCELLENT idea, we'll get right on that. :sarcasm:

[Tejas]

41. You DO remember who we won independence from........?

Hopefully it's also crossed your mind that WE don't care to live under the same rules as Russia, Canada, Kenya and other oppressive governments.

Is there some reason that YOU do?

[Tejas]

42. English lawmakers hate knives too, you would hope to ban those also?

Come on, let's hear your logic.

[iverglas]

47. enjoying the conversation?

Er ... you do realize you're talking to yourself?

Spares someone else the meaningless rude noise, anyhow.

[jmg257]

13. They never do. Violent crime rates change irregardless of the number of guns available.

There are just too many REAL issues to address that will make an impact instead of stupid laws that say it is illegal to have a gun.

[Howzit]

29. Chicago is now famous for crooked politicians,

but I suspect its handgun ban exists for the same reason as DC's:

Either these lawmakers are stupid, or gun control is not intended to reduce crimes against you the people. It seems logical to me that the intent is to disarm anyone who lives within an hour of DC, votes, and who may become pissed off enough to take action against crooked lawmakers.

This absolves most members of the criminal underclass because they don't care who runs the city, state or country or what laws are passed - they completely disregard all laws anyway and therefore, ironically aren't perceived as a threat by lawmakers.

I don't know anyone so hot headed that they may "take action", but some politicians seem to fear the people enough to want them disarmed - I believe those politicians are not to be trusted - why would they fear the people unless they are planning something normal people will not be able to accept?

[one-eyed fat man]

34. Chicago is now famous?????

Not a damn thing has changed in Chicago politics since Al Capone knocked Mayor Joseph Z. Klenha down the City Hall steps. Chicago has always had the 'best' politicians money could buy. Leastways in Capone's day you knew who owned them!

[Indy Lurker]

31. The murder rate was high this year due to a gang war

An older public housing project that had been taken over by a gang was knocked down this summer. The gang had to find a new home, and did it by moving into other gang territory.

[spin]

33. If so, why not go after gangs not guns? (n/t)

[raimius]

37. That would make sense

...and it would require difficult and expensive LE work. Therefore the city gov. passed a "feel good" law that doesn't significantly change crimes. Unfortunatley, the side effects are very bad for firearms owners.

[spin]

38. Exactly, enforcing laws costs money...

enacting feel good legislation costs very little and makes the politicians look good.

Lets take a look at Baltimore where homicide rates are falling:

Deputy Police Commissioner Debbie Owens says there isn't one reason but several for the drop in the murder rate. So far this year, there have been 81 murders in Baltimore, compared to 127 at this same time last year. The number of shootings in the city is also down 30%. So far in 2008, there have been 192 shootings, compared to 273 by the same date last year.

Owens says what's worked has been targeting and locking up violent offenders, getting guns off the streets and increasing community involvement.
http://wjz.com/local/murder.rate.baltimore.2.738877.html

Strategy Credited With Baltimore Homicide Drop

Baltimore is on pace for its largest single-year decrease in both the percentage and actual number of homicides since at least 1970.

The homicide total for the year is 172, compared to 238 at this time last year. That's a 28 percent decrease.

Police say there are many possible explanations for the drop, including greater coordination between local, state and federal agencies. But they believe a new strategy in the city's toughest neighborhoods is a major factor.

Police officials say the Violent Crime Impact Division's new enforcement teams now consistently focus on the activities of violent criminals known to frequent those areas.
http://wjz.com/local/baltimore.homicide.decrease.2.839881.html

Wow gun control that works!

Welcome to DU

[Codename46]

43. ...butbutbut....depakid said that there's OVERWHELMINGLY OVERWHELMING evidence that says otherwise..

...it's so OVERWHELMING that it can't be bothered to be cited or else you will die from being OVERWHELMED!

[old mark]

44. No one elses handgun ban ever did either -it is an incredibly stupid

policy to adopt after it has been shown to be completely inefective in cities where it has been strictly enforced.
Cities who for years have had strict "handgun control" laws in place and enforced NYC, Philadelphia, DC, Chicago, even LA and SF have high rates of crimes committed with guns despite those laws.
THE FACT IS: People who obey the laws don't commit the crimes - People who commit the crimes don't obey the laws.I know this is very hard for some people to believe, but most gun owners are not drooling thugs just waiting for a chance to kill someone.
Sorry to spoil your dearest fantasy.

mark

[iverglas]

48. that's certainly true

if you actually believe that you fall off the edge of the earth once you reach the territorial limits of the US of A ...

[Pavulon]

49. Geneva is a war zone.

All those guns make the place disaster, more violent crime than Camden, NJ.

Oh wait..no crime. really just about none.

Gun control is for those who like look good feel good or who are to lazy to address root cause.

Mental health and gang/drug violence wipes the vast majority of gun crime out.

Lets ban some shit though, like weed. No one smokes weed now that it is banned.

[iverglas]

50. like I said

... if you actually don't know anything at all about anything outside the borders of the US of A ...


Emphases mine.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/rise-in-gun-crime-forces-swiss-to-reconsider-right-to-bear-arms-446946.html

But the price of eternal vigilance is frequent funerals: in 2005, 48 people were murdered by gunfire in Switzerland - about the same number as in England and Wales, which have a population seven times as large. According to the International Action Network on Small Arms, an anti-gun organisation based in the UK, 6.2 people died of bullet wounds in Switzerland in 2005 per 100,000 of population, second only to the US figure of 9.42, and more than double the rate of Germany and Italy.

Yes, the latter numbers include non-homicide deaths. Some people care about them.


Right-wingery can be found everywhere.

They call it the porcupine approach - millions of individuals ready to stiffen like spines if the motherland is threatened. The fact that all Switzerland's neighbours have been at peace for 60 years cuts no ice with the upholders of the policy.

"An army should be ready ... so soldiers should have weapons and ammunition at home," declares Ulrich Schluer, an MP who sits on a committee on security.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulrich_Schl%C3%BCer

Ulrich Schlüer (born 1944) is a right wing Swiss politician, member of the Swiss People's Party of the canton of Zürich. Schlüer studied History and German language at the University of Zürich, receiving a PhD in 1978. He married in 1970 and is the father of four children.

Schlüer acted as secretary to Swiss far-right politician James Schwarzenbach, and in 1979 founded the nationalist-conservative Schweizerzeit newspaper.

And women?

Annabelle, a women's magazine, was enlisted in the campaign to ban the gun. "We don't know any women who want a weapon in the house," says Lisa Feldmann, the editor. "Women and the younger generation think this is crazy."

Who cares what they think?

[TPaine7]

56. Another emphasis:

But the price of eternal vigilance is frequent funerals: in 2005, 48 people were murdered by gunfire in Switzerland - about the same number as in England and Wales, which have a population seven times as large. According to the International Action Network on Small Arms, an anti-gun organisation based in the UK, 6.2 people died of bullet wounds in Switzerland in 2005 per 100,000 of population, second only to the US figure of 9.42, and more than double the rate of Germany and Italy.

Of course advocacy groups are unbiased sources.

Someone should cite the NRA in response; I would if I had the time and interest.

Oh, wait--only anti-gun advocacy groups are unbiased. I almost forgot.


--------------------------------------------

On another front, notice the subtle mind trick--only compare gun murder rates. It will always be true that eliminating guns will eliminate gun murders. That's elementary logic--a truism. Truisms can never fail. So if you accept the mindset, you will always see the "need" to eliminate guns.

Of course you could perform the same trifling exercise with shoes. Let's say that a certain number of people are stomped to death by shod feet in America. You could stop all of those "shoe deaths" by eliminating shoes. Furthermore, a poor country with few (or even no) shoes would have fewer "shoe deaths." Obviously.

[iverglas]

57. relevance?

Of course advocacy groups are unbiased sources.

The source in question is the souce for these figures:

6.2 people died of bullet wounds in Switzerland in 2005 per 100,000 of population, second only to the US figure of 9.42, and more than double the rate of Germany and Italy.

The credibility of the source would be in issue if there were no way to verify what it said.

Are you suggesting that what it said is a lie?

If not, what is the relevance of any bias the source may have?

What the fuck is your point?


On another front, notice the subtle mind trick--only compare gun murder rates. It will always be true that eliminating guns will eliminate gun murders. That's elementary logic--a truism. Truisms can never fail. So if you accept the mindset, you will always see the "need" to eliminate guns.

Of course you could perform the same trifling exercise with shoes. Let's say that a certain number of people are stomped to death by shod feet in America. You could stop all of those "shoe deaths" by eliminating shoes. Furthermore, a poor country with few (or even no) shoes would have fewer "shoe deaths." Obviously.

Let's say you're a purple Leprechaun with orange hair and you're standing on your head and whistling Dixie.

You might have a point somewhere, if you were.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

59. oh my

what a little prima donna, eh?

Yes, I'm sure the masses are assembled waiting to drink in your "points".

Me, I don't have a clue what it was supposed to be, unless it was the obviously dull one I have already hypothesized.

[JonQ]

61. Clearly they need to ban guns even more

until these criminals get the message guns should be banned and banned again as many times as it takes.

[derby378]

62. That'll teach 'em!

[iverglas]

67. oh look

it's the kiddie gun porn again. (Some Asian women do just look so ... young, don't they?)

What point was it making this time?