What psses me off in the gun control debate
I watch and read a lot of news concerning Gun Control and have a peeve with pro-gunners in their debates with anti-gunners. Why isn't there a massive effort to ask the anti-gunner politicians in CA, IL, NY, and Washington D.C, etc., two questions. First, since they have realistically already outlawed gun ownership in their states, why do they continue to have the highest gun violence in the U.S.? Second, since their model for gun control obviously doesn't work, why are they trying to outlaw guns in states with low gun crime which have easy access to CHL's. Yes, I know they'll say the guns come from VA.
Well, if not from VA they'll come from Mexico. Cocaine is outlawed and yet tons of it are shipped in to the US each year. Outlawing things just drive up their price.
We forum members know the real answer is for disarmament of the citizenry --not for our safety and security. I'm convinced a lot of the voters are totally ignorant of this and readily drink the cool-aid from the MSM and liberal politicians. I've yet to see Fox News make this point while questioning their anti-gun guests.
I think the above mentioned Lt. Gov., and politicians like him, should be asked the questions I've raised concerning the high gun crime rate in states where guns are outlawed.
Well, if not from VA they'll come from Mexico. Cocaine is outlawed and yet tons of it are shipped in to the US each year. Outlawing things just drive up their price.
We forum members know the real answer is for disarmament of the citizenry --not for our safety and security. I'm convinced a lot of the voters are totally ignorant of this and readily drink the cool-aid from the MSM and liberal politicians. I've yet to see Fox News make this point while questioning their anti-gun guests.
I think the above mentioned Lt. Gov., and politicians like him, should be asked the questions I've raised concerning the high gun crime rate in states where guns are outlawed.
0
-
That would be a good question.
I have been going over crime report analysis from the Texas DPS. I think we should remove the GUN from the "Gun Control Debate".
Let's talk VIOLENT CRIME (Murder, Rape, Robbery, Agg Assault). Texas has experienced a DECREASE in crimes per 100,000 population. This is over a 15 year period. This same period as the time frame for CHL.
In 1997 there were 1,328 murders and in 2011 there were 1,089 and this is with a 25% increase in population. Murder was 1% of violent crime in 2011 and of this a firearm was used 66% of the time.
Perhaps we could all look into our home state statics on violent crime (particularly CA, IL, NY) see if we could draw any conclusions.0 -
Absolutely. Let the facts be damned.
But how do you argue with "if one child's life can be saved", when we can't produce the thousands that may have averted a violent crime with a firearm.0 -
They have an answer to the first question- the response is always tat they are near states where guns are easy to purchase, and "straw purchasers" buy the guns and bring them to the cities/states with gun control- which is why we need laws on the federal level.. 0 -
I know.
What if we compare the violent crime stats in the forbidden zone with the States they complain about we could find the difference.
I don't see how NY could have MORE guns smuggled in from VA than VA has amongst its own people.
If they do perhaps they should enforce their borders. And leave the rest of us alone.0 -
You mean the 'anti-gun' debate don't you. It's not about 'gun control'![xx(] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
You mean the 'anti-gun' debate don't you. It's not about 'gun control'![xx(]
Honestly, I've not seen or heard much national "debate" on the subject, just propoganda in the MSM from Liberal mayors and governors. Ultimately, IMHO, it's about who controls the guns, the citizenry or the government.0 -
Part of Marxism is to deny people self-esteem, self respect and dignity. They have been unknowingly working on this since LBJ in the mid-sixties passed the "Great Society." People have become so accustomed to letting the government take care of things that they are basically helpless in their own defense. The entire gin control debate is to disarm the citizens of this country so the government will be the only ones with firearms-excluding thugs and hoodlums who ply the streets.
That specifically is what they ought to target along with those that have mental problems that have a violent propensity. If they pass guns laws to disarm law abiding citizens, we will have no defense for our families and will live barricaded within our homes, the economy will suffer (preplanned), unemployment will continue to increase along with crime and we'll see more murders of innocents. Never have we seen this activity in our government but we have seen it-or history of-in other countries just before total government takeover and control. I believe this is where our current administration is trying to take us.0 -
quote:It is really about the ultimate goal of PEOPLE CONTROL!
if this were true the crime rate in the top 10 most violent cities would be near ZERO !!
i believe it is more about Constitution control !! control the second amendment today, the first tomorrow and all the rest after that that. [:(!]0 -
i believe it is more about Constitution control !! control the second amendment today, the first tomorrow and all the rest after that that. [:(!]
I agree, the 2nd ammendent was not, nor should ever be about hunting. It was and should always be about controlling the politicians. Once they completely subvert it, they will have 100% control of the populace.
Any gun owner that agrees with any part of gun control, including background checks, does not see the road we are on. And like the saying goes. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.0 -
not to knock you down, but gun ownership is far from being outlawd in those states I live in NY. yes they are trying to cut black guns and I hate it, and maybe their goal is to kill all guns I dont know. But say gun ownership is illegal is wrong, and thats part of the problem both sides spew falicies like they would taking a dump. When both sides can not have an accurate conversation nothing that makes sense will ever get done. Pro gunners are just as bad stating their case at times then anti gunners. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by us55840
quote:Originally posted by casper1947
Absolutely. Let the facts be damned.
But how do you argue with "if one child's life can be saved", when we can't produce the thousands that may have averted a violent crime with a firearm.
So if its all about saving just one childs life.....what about the 50time million lives murdered under Roe v Wade?
50 million less mouths I have to feed that would be on welfare0 -
quote:Originally posted by us55840
My point that it is a nothing about saving anyones life. That is just an emotional string the firearm abolitionists use to support their position.
Much the same way obummer used emotional positions to sucker votes for getting elected twice.
Thats fine all I am saying is the marjority of women that have abortions are low income something like 60% of which 83% of women that have them are not married. So chances are that 60% are the ones you'll end up paying for. So people want to gripe about abortion but yet dont want to pay for the children that are not aborted. kind of an oxy moron you cant have it both ways. Not that I am for abortion I am not, dont like the idea besides in rape or health to the mother. But I also see the fact that I would be paying for around 500k more poor kids every year. Most people want to sit here and slam abortion but come tax time dont want to pay for them0 -
quote:Originally posted by nards444
not to knock you down, but gun ownership is far from being outlawd in those states I live in NY. yes they are trying to cut black guns and I hate it, and maybe their goal is to kill all guns I dont know. But say gun ownership is illegal is wrong, and thats part of the problem both sides spew falicies like they would taking a dump. When both sides can not have an accurate conversation nothing that makes sense will ever get done. Pro gunners are just as bad stating their case at times then anti gunners.
My friend, I learned to agree to disagree years ago. Having said that, move to TX and learn what it's like to buy and sell guns without the paper chase and hoops you have to jump thru in order to enjoy 2nd amendment rights required in NYC.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Steve02c5
quote:Originally posted by nards444
not to knock you down, but gun ownership is far from being outlawd in those states I live in NY. yes they are trying to cut black guns and I hate it, and maybe their goal is to kill all guns I dont know. But say gun ownership is illegal is wrong, and thats part of the problem both sides spew falicies like they would taking a dump. When both sides can not have an accurate conversation nothing that makes sense will ever get done. Pro gunners are just as bad stating their case at times then anti gunners.
NYC is far from the rest of the state.
My friend, I learned to agree to disagree years ago. Having said that, move to TX and learn what it's like to buy and sell guns without the paper chase and hoops you have to jump thru in order to enjoy 2nd amendment rights required in NYC.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Steve02c5
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
You mean the 'anti-gun' debate don't you. It's not about 'gun control'![xx(]
Honestly, I've not seen or heard much national "debate" on the subject, just propoganda in the MSM from Liberal mayors and governors. Ultimately, IMHO, it's about who controls the guns, the citizenry or the government.
Those who control the narrative control the argument!!![:(]
It is not about 'gun control', it is about individual civil rights!
And "anti-gun legislation" which violates these 'rights'![;)]0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
15 comments