Let Freedom Reign!


 
HomeHome  PublicationsPublications  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 Gun Control

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 21 ... 39  Next
AuthorMessage
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5958

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   9/21/2012, 10:57 am

Heretic wrote:
No, I never said you said them. I highlighted the very fact that you hadn't with "maybe you do recognize that the inanimate objects do in fact play a part (read that carefully, out loud if need be) in such a tragedy."
My apologies - I missed that.





Heretic wrote:

Ten seconds that could have made a very significant difference in someone's life. But ya know... details...
If you look back to the earlier portions of this thread, you all seemed to think that the situation in the theater was pure chaos and that no one was able to think straight, and you all ridiculed the notion that even if another person in the theater had been armed, he wouldn’t have been able to respond properly and would have made the situation worse. In light of your opinions of the mental state of all those really stupid and incompetent people in that theater, I can’t see how you can claim that 10 seconds one way or the other would have made a shit’s worth of difference because, according to you, those people were little more than fish in a barrel.




Heretic wrote:

"An inanimate object plays no part whatsoever until an animate object, i.e., a person, decides to animate said object by either using it or misusing it," right?
Correct. Kind of like dead teenagers and fast automobiles.
Will a car ban be your next crusade?
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3095

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   9/21/2012, 11:43 am

happy jack wrote:
I can’t see how you can claim that 10 seconds one way or the other would have made a shit’s worth of difference because, according to you, those people were little more than fish in a barrel.

You seriously claiming it wouldn't have made a difference? That an extra ten seconds might not have made a difference? In what reality does rate of fire not have any effect in a shooting?

happy jack wrote:
Correct. Kind of like dead teenagers and fast automobiles.
Will a car ban be your next crusade?

Are professional NASCAR cars street legal? How 'bout the ones with the giant tires and spoilers? OH NOES!! OBAMA TOOK YER CARS TOO!! Shocked What will you do?

No, I'm quite comfortable with the regulation on owning, driving, and operating vehicles. And a car ban would absolutely cripple the economy; it would have an actual downside. What would happen if we banned some of the bigger guns and clips? Oh right. You'd have a few less things to fire at the range. And Stormtrooper accuracy, apparently. It may not be as bad as a complete economic shutdown and collapse, but I imagine it's pretty close. Laughing
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5958

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   9/21/2012, 12:37 pm

Heretic wrote:
In what reality does rate of fire not have any effect in a shooting?

The rate of fire using an AR-15 is the same as the rate of fire using any semi-automatic weapon, even those not covered under the very silly assault weapons ban - one pull of the trigger, one shot
We've been over that countless times.
How much longer until it sinks in?
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   9/21/2012, 12:53 pm

happy jack wrote:
I can’t see how you can claim that 10 seconds one way or the other would have made a shit’s worth of difference because, according to you, those people were little more than fish in a barrel.
Really now.
Fact is it made a big difference in the Gabby Giffords shooting.
Instead of using the standard 15 round clip, Jared Loughner used a high-capacity 33-round magazine in his Glock-19. Without the need to reload as quickly, Loughner was able to effectively hold bystanders at bay while shooting 20 people. It was only AFTER he ran out of ammo that bystanders were able to subdue him while he tried to reload.
Only a gun worshiping fucking idiot would think that 10 seconds would not make a difference.
There's no way Loughner would have shot 20 people using a 15 round clip.


Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5958

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   9/21/2012, 1:02 pm

edge540 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
I can’t see how you can claim that 10 seconds one way or the other would have made a shit’s worth of difference because, according to you, those people were little more than fish in a barrel.
Really now.
Fact is it made a big difference in the Gabby Giffords shooting.
Instead of using the standard 15 round clip, Jared Loughner used a high-capacity 33-round magazine in his Glock-19. Without the need to reload as quickly, Loughner was able to effectively hold bystanders at bay while shooting 20 people. It was only AFTER he ran out of ammo that bystanders were able to subdue him while he tried to reload.
Only a gun worshiping fucking idiot would think that 10 seconds would not make a difference.
There's no way Loughner would have shot 20 people using a 15 round clip.



But, edge, as you said, it was total chaos in the theater:


edge540 wrote:

Yeah I can see it now. Psycho shooter enters dark theater, pops smoke cannister, and starts firing his AR 15. Wanabe Rambo one pulls his manhood out to return fire, missing the psycho shooter and instead shooting two innocent people. Wanabe Rambo two joins the fray by pulling his manhood out, starts shooting wildly and in a hail of gunfire takes out Wanabe Rambo one and three more people in the dark smoke filled theater. Psycho shooter calmly continues shooting his AR 15 killing more people while Wanabe Rambo two keeps on missing wildly taking down four more innocents.
Meanwhile, psycho shooter runs out of ammo and heads out the back door, goes home, has a cold one and watches live on Fox News the ensuing shootout between Wanabe Rambo two and the SWAT team.

How could a group of panicked, helpless people in a dark and smoke-filled theater manage to subdue someone with a weapon?
And, also according to you, if one of those theatergoers happened to be armed, God forbid, even more carnage would have ensued.
10 seconds, 10 schmeconds.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5958

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   9/21/2012, 1:20 pm

Heretic wrote:


happy jack wrote:
Correct. Kind of like dead teenagers and fast automobiles.
Will a car ban be your next crusade?

Are professional NASCAR cars street legal? How 'bout the ones with the giant tires and spoilers? OH NOES!! OBAMA TOOK YER CARS TOO!! Shocked What will you do?
I honestly don’t know whether professional NASCAR cars are street legal. I do know, however, that the cars that are currently street legal do a pretty fine job of wiping out a good number of teenagers, among others. So, you can ban NASCAR cars on the street, but the conventional cars, when misused, will still manage to do a fine job of reducing the population. And the guns that were not covered under the assault weapons ban are also capable of wiping out a good number of teenagers, among others. Again, of course, it is not the guns themselves that do the dirty deeds, but the sick fucks who misuse those guns.
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   9/21/2012, 1:46 pm

happy jack wrote:
edge540 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
I can’t see how you can claim that 10 seconds one way or the other would have made a shit’s worth of difference because, according to you, those people were little more than fish in a barrel.
Really now.
Fact is it made a big difference in the Gabby Giffords shooting.
Instead of using the standard 15 round clip, Jared Loughner used a high-capacity 33-round magazine in his Glock-19. Without the need to reload as quickly, Loughner was able to effectively hold bystanders at bay while shooting 20 people. It was only AFTER he ran out of ammo that bystanders were able to subdue him while he tried to reload.
Only a gun worshiping fucking idiot would think that 10 seconds would not make a difference.
There's no way Loughner would have shot 20 people using a 15 round clip.



But, edge, as you said, it was total chaos in the theater:


edge540 wrote:

Yeah I can see it now. Psycho shooter enters dark theater, pops smoke cannister, and starts firing his AR 15. Wanabe Rambo one pulls his manhood out to return fire, missing the psycho shooter and instead shooting two innocent people. Wanabe Rambo two joins the fray by pulling his manhood out, starts shooting wildly and in a hail of gunfire takes out Wanabe Rambo one and three more people in the dark smoke filled theater. Psycho shooter calmly continues shooting his AR 15 killing more people while Wanabe Rambo two keeps on missing wildly taking down four more innocents.
Meanwhile, psycho shooter runs out of ammo and heads out the back door, goes home, has a cold one and watches live on Fox News the ensuing shootout between Wanabe Rambo two and the SWAT team.

How could a group of panicked, helpless people in a dark and smoke-filled theater manage to subdue someone with a weapon?
And, also according to you, if one of those theatergoers happened to be armed, God forbid, even more carnage would have ensued.
10 seconds, 10 schmeconds.

Yeah you're right jack, if some Rambo wanabe theatergoers had been armed, the only one that would've been shot is the Psycho shooter. Yep.
Happens all the time.

Moar guns!...we need moar guns!
Quote :


After Bullets Hit Bystanders, Protocol Questions

Chang W. Lee/The New York Times

Investigators near the body of Jeffrey T. Johnson, the gunman, who was shot at 16 times by the police and was hit at least 7 times.

By MICHAEL WILSON

Published: August 25, 2012
The morning after a shooting at the Empire State Building left two people dead and nine passers-by injured, normality returned. More Photos »

All the yelling and cries of pain occurred out of camera view, just north of where the gunman, Jeffrey T. Johnson, collapsed and died: nine bystanders were struck, cradling bloody arms or lying on the sidewalks and curbs.

The police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, confirmed on Saturday that all nine were wounded by police bullets, bullet fragments or shrapnel from ricochets. Mr. Kelly also confirmed that the shooter, Mr. Johnson, never fired another shot after killing a former co-worker, Steven Ercolino, moments earlier.

“We had a witness that said that Johnson fired at the police,” Mr. Kelly said Saturday. “But the final count of the shells, it appears that that is not the case.”

It was the second time in two weeks that police officers fired fusillades on the crowded streets of Midtown — 28 shots fired between the two episodes — and with it, there were once again questions of police protocol in urban settings. In the first shooting, no bystanders were struck when officers fired 12 shots at a man with a knife just south of Times Square.

The nanosecond speed at which a shooting plays out is followed by hours of analysis, second-guessing and study.
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   9/21/2012, 4:48 pm

happy jack wrote:
I can’t see how you can claim that 10 seconds one way or the other would have made a shit’s worth of difference ....
10 seconds, 10 schmeconds.
And here I thought you could kill 10 people in 10 schmeconds.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   9/21/2012, 4:54 pm

happy jack wrote:
If you look back to the earlier portions of this thread, you all seemed to think that the situation in the theater was pure chaos and that no one was able to think straight, and you all ridiculed the notion that even if another person in the theater had been armed, he wouldn’t have been able to respond properly and would have made the situation worse.
Yes,had another person going to the movie that night had the foresight to wear full body armor,a gas mask,and been armed with a weapon capable of piercing body armor everyone would have lived happier ever after. santa


Last edited by Artie60438 on 9/21/2012, 4:55 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5958

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   9/21/2012, 4:55 pm

edge540 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
I can’t see how you can claim that 10 seconds one way or the other would have made a shit’s worth of difference ....
10 seconds, 10 schmeconds.
And here I thought you could kill 10 people in 10 schmeconds.

You can, if you schmoot quickly and accurately.
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   9/22/2012, 11:05 am

happy jack wrote:
edge540 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
I can’t see how you can claim that 10 seconds one way or the other would have made a shit’s worth of difference ....
10 seconds, 10 schmeconds.
And here I thought you could kill 10 people in 10 schmeconds.

You can, if you schmoot quickly and accurately.
Yep
Thanks Mitt,
So now 10 seconds one way or the other does make a shit’s worth of difference. cheers
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3095

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   9/22/2012, 11:39 am

happy jack wrote:
I honestly don’t know whether professional NASCAR cars are street legal.

I know. They're not, FYI. Presumably because they hate America and freedom. And fun.

happy jack wrote:
I do know, however, that the cars that are currently street legal do a pretty fine job of wiping out a good number of teenagers, among others. So, you can ban NASCAR cars on the street, but the conventional cars, when misused, will still manage to do a fine job of reducing the population.

And I acknowledged that fact when:

I wrote:
No, I'm quite comfortable with the regulation on owning, driving, and operating vehicles. And a car ban would absolutely cripple the economy; it would have an actual downside. What would happen if we banned some of the bigger guns and clips? Oh right. You'd have a few less things to fire at the range. And Stormtrooper accuracy, apparently. It may not be as bad as a complete economic shutdown and collapse, but I imagine it's pretty close.

And probably why you chose to ignore it.

I wrote:
Any possible solutions? Even see a problem that warrants mitigation?

At least the argument for gun control is, at its core, an attempt to save lives. The argument against? Better target practice. Shocked

happy jack wrote:
Again, of course, it is not the guns themselves that do the dirty deeds, but the sick fucks who misuse those guns.

So, again...

I wrote:
Here's to hoping rocket launchers and full-autos end up in Wal-Mart and Cabella's soon.

For/against? And why? If "it is not the weapons themselves that do the dirty deeds, but the sick fucks who misuse those them," there's no reason to say no, right?

happy jack wrote:
The rate of fire using an AR-15 is the same as the rate of fire using any semi-automatic weapon, even those not covered under the very silly assault weapons ban - one pull of the trigger, one shot
We've been over that countless times.
How much longer until it sinks in?

Factoring in clip size and an average reload time... All guns are the same? You can accurately fire the same amount of bullets with any semi-automatic weapon in a specified amount of time?
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5958

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   9/22/2012, 2:58 pm

Heretic wrote:

At least the argument for gun control is, at its core, an attempt to save lives.

What good is an “attempt” to save lives if it does nothing to actually save lives? (See ‘Chicago’.)



Heretic wrote:

The argument against? Better target practice. Shocked

No, the argument against gun control is that law-abiding citizens should have the right to have the means to defend themselves against those who would use weapons against them. And those who would use weapons against them would use those weapons regardless of how many laws are enacted. The only people who would obey gun control laws are those who are law-abiding to begin with, and they are not the ones we need to worry about. The legal ramifications of violating gun control laws do not in the least bit deter someone who is willing to violate the laws against homicide.
The function of the police is not to protect every citizen every second of every day. The function of the police (too often, unfortunately), is to show up after the fact and draw chalk lines around the body. Law-abiding citizens should have the right to have the means to defend themselves when the police cannot do it for them.




Heretic wrote:

Factoring in clip size and an average reload time... All guns are the same? You can accurately fire the same amount of bullets with any semi-automatic weapon in a specified amount of time?

Pretty much. As I mentioned earlier, I can dump an empty magazine and slap in a fresh one in easily under 5 seconds, and I in no way consider myself to be any sort of expert. Someone more adept at the process can probably do it in 2 – 3 seconds. As far as rate of fire, all semi-autos are identical. They will all fire as rapidly as the shooter can pull the trigger.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3095

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   9/24/2012, 11:38 am

happy jack wrote:
What good is an “attempt” to save lives if it does nothing to actually save lives?

Which would be an argument worth having. It'd be even better if you could demonstrate that citizens are dying because they don't have access to extended clips, semi-auto rifles, guns shows etc rather than just legally registered/purchased handguns. That would be really interesting.

But I'm glad you're finally interested in statistics. I wonder... will you apply your new found interest in reality elsewhere?

happy jack wrote:
(See ‘Chicago’.)

The musical? Not a fan.

happy jack wrote:
No, the argument against gun control is that law-abiding citizens should have the right to have the means to defend themselves against those who would use weapons against them.

Good try, but I never said we should ban all guns... I'm the guy who thinks the world is going to devolve into a Mad Max/The Road type hellscape within the century, remember? I'm just trying to discuss how/why we determine where to draw the line in the sand between handguns and nukes. Assuming again that you're not for their sale in vending machines at CVS...

happy jack wrote:
The only people who would obey gun control laws are those who are law-abiding to begin with, and they are not the ones we need to worry about.

You're right. We totally didn't need to worry about John Holmes, 'cause legal gun owners have never murdered anyone. I feel safer already. So glad we have a healthcare system totally equipped to handle undiagnosed mental illness.

happy jack wrote:
The legal ramifications of violating gun control laws do not in the least bit deter someone who is willing to violate the laws against homicide.

Never argued that either. I'm arguing supply... If there's physically less guns in existence, how can they be used in murders?

happy jack wrote:
The function of the police is not to protect every citizen every second of every day.

Well, it is actually... but between being vilified as evil government workers and dealing with the resulting budget cuts combined with a useless war on drugs and the usual gamut of domestic disturbances... overextended for sure.

happy jack wrote:
Heretic wrote:
Factoring in clip size and an average reload time... All guns are the same? You can accurately fire the same amount of bullets with any semi-automatic weapon in a specified amount of time?

Pretty much.

Good. Then we can both agree that they're pretty much useless.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5958

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   9/24/2012, 4:12 pm

Heretic wrote:


happy jack wrote:
The only people who would obey gun control laws are those who are law-abiding to begin with, and they are not the ones we need to worry about.

You're right. We totally didn't need to worry about John Holmes, 'cause legal gun owners have never murdered anyone.

Holmes may fall under the category of ‘legal gun owner’, but he quite clearly does not fall under the category of ‘law-abiding citizen’.




Heretic wrote:


happy jack wrote:
The legal ramifications of violating gun control laws do not in the least bit deter someone who is willing to violate the laws against homicide.

Never argued that either. I'm arguing supply... If there's physically less guns in existence, how can they be used in murders?

Because guns are not disposable – they do not dissolve into thin air after one use. Any gun currently in existence may be used to kill an infinite number of people, and may be used by more than one person, more than one time.




happy jack wrote:
The function of the police is not to protect every citizen every second of every day.

Well, it is actually... [/quote]

Only as a mission statement. In the real world (mine), it is quite impossible for the police to appear before the fact to protect the innocent from falling victim to violent crime, due in large part to the spontaneity of such crimes.



happy jack wrote:
Heretic wrote:
Factoring in clip size and an average reload time... All guns are the same? You can accurately fire the same amount of bullets with any semi-automatic weapon in a specified amount of time?

Pretty much.

Good. Then we can both agree that they're pretty much useless . [/quote]

Useless?
Hardly.
But I think we can agree that, for all practical purposes, there is very little difference between using one 30-round magazine or three 10-round magazines in the commission of a crime. In the case of a surprise mass slaughter such as the one in Aurora, three 10-round magazines could have been emptied, dumped, and reinserted, emptied, dumped, and reinserted, emptied, dumped, and reinserted before any of the victims would have had the chance to even realize what was happening.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3095

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   9/26/2012, 9:42 am

happy jack wrote:
Holmes may fall under the category of ‘legal gun owner’, but he quite clearly does not fall under the category of ‘law-abiding citizen’.

But he did... until he started pulling the trigger. Again, I'm trying to discuss options to prevent such occurrences, or at the very least, slow them down during the commission of such a crime. Again, I remained unconvinced "MOAR GUNZ!" is the only answer, especially if they legally end up in the hands of the next John Holmes.

happy jack wrote:
Any gun currently in existence may be used to kill an infinite number of people, and may be used by more than one person, more than one time.

And yet we keep making more. How is that supposed to make me feel better? How is that an argument against gun control? Shocked

happy jack wrote:
Useless? Hardly. But I think we can agree that, for all practical purposes, there is very little difference...

I'll still opt for the John Holmes without extended mags every time. And who knows? Maybe his firearm proficiency isn't quite where yours is.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5958

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   9/26/2012, 4:08 pm

Heretic wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Holmes may fall under the category of ‘legal gun owner’, but he quite clearly does not fall under the category of ‘law-abiding citizen’.

But he did... until he started pulling the trigger. Again, I'm trying to discuss options to prevent such occurrences ….

I don’t think it would be effective to legislate against mental illness.





Heretic wrote:
.... or at the very least, slow them down during the commission of such a crime.

You yourself may have provided the answer ….

Heretic wrote:
"MOAR GUNZ!"
…. in the hands of law-abiding citizens.





Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:
Any gun currently in existence may be used to kill an infinite number of people, and may be used by more than one person, more than one time.

And yet we keep making more. How is that supposed to make me feel better? How is that an argument against gun control? Shocked

I’m merely stating facts. If the facts don’t make you feel better, then I’m sorry – there’s not too much I can do about that.




Heretic wrote:


I'll still opt for the John Holmes without extended mags every time. And who knows? Maybe his firearm proficiency isn't quite where yours is.

My firearm proficiency is mediocre at best. But if I was that type of person, I could inflict maximum carnage using only weapons and magazines not covered under the useless so-called “assault weapons” ban.






Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   9/26/2012, 6:46 pm

New Report Debunks Right-Wing Falsehood About Public Mass Shootings
Quote :
An investigation on shooting rampages by Mother Jones could not identify a single mass public shooting that was ended by an armed civilian, a violence prevention strategy that remains popular in right-wing media. In two instances, however, armed individuals who attempted to stop a shooting were wounded or killed. Mother Jones also deduced that successful attempts by armed civilians to stop public shootings in general, not just those incidents involving mass casualties, were rare.

The analysis conducted by Mother Jones, which examined 60 public shootings that have occurred in the United States over the last 30 years, stands in sharp contrast to baseless conjecture by members of the right-wing media that the solution to prevent mass shootings is a greater number of people armed in public.

Quote :
More broadly, attempts by armed civilians to stop shooting rampages are rare -- and successful ones even rarer. There were two school shootings in the late 1990s, in Mississippi and Pennsylvania, in which bystanders with guns ultimately subdued the teen perpetrators, but in both cases it was after the shooting had subsided. Other cases led to tragic results. In 2005, as a rampage unfolded inside a shopping mall in Tacoma, Washington, a civilian named Brendan McKown confronted the assailant with a licensed handgun he was carrying. The assailant pumped several bullets into McKown and wounded six people before eventually surrendering to police after a hostage standoff. (A comatose McKown eventually recovered after weeks in the hospital.) In Tyler, Texas, that same year, a civilian named Mark Wilson fired his licensed handgun at a man on a rampage at the county courthouse. Wilson--who was a firearms instructor--was shot dead by the body-armored assailant, who wielded an AK-47. (None of these cases were included in our mass shootings data set because fewer than four victims died in each.)

Appeals to heroism on this subject abound. So does misleading information. Gun rights die-hards frequently credit the end of a rampage in 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law in Virginia to armed "students" who intervened--while failing to disclose that those students were also current and former law enforcement officers, and that the killer, according to police investigators, was out of ammo by the time they got to him. [emphasis added]

Mother Jones noted that 2012 is already a record year for mass public shootings in terms of the number of killed and injured. The right-wing media's response to each of this year's mass shootings has been the same: "If only more people would have been armed, it would have been prevented."

But even setting aside the fact that the United States already has the most heavily armed private citizenry in the world, and that laws allowing the concealed carrying of firearms in public are increasingly permissive and widespread, the bottom line is that there is no data to support the right-wing media's armed citizen theory.

This actuality has not stopped Fox News, Washington Times columnist Ted Nugent, discredited gun researcher John Lott, and others from continuing to offer unfounded speculation.
>snip<
Looks like everything Heretic has been saying is spot on and has now been corroborated.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   10/9/2012, 5:13 pm

Violence tax proposed in Cook County
Quote :
CHICAGO—
Cook County Board President, Tony Preckwinkle is considering a controversial new violence tax, on guns and bullets.

The Sun-Times reports that the tax would be added to firearms and ammunition sold within Cook County. It has the potential to raise tens of millions of dollars.

Chicago's murder rate continues to rise, up almost 25 percent this year. Nearly one-third of the guns recovered from Chicago's streets are purchased in suburban gun shops. And, the Cook County jail is nearing capacity, with more than 9,000 inmates currently housed there.

Besides the tragic human impact those statistic are having on the city, officials say its also taking a toll on taxpayers.

It costs $143 a day to keep an inmate behind bars, and the financial burden is even heavier on Stroger Hospital. Since Stroger is a Level 1 trauma center, most gun shot victims are taken there. Nearly 70 percent of those patients do not have health insurance, which costs taxpayers $52,000 per patient.

Gun lobbyists say the so-called violence tax is an unfair tax on a constitutional right, that raises prices for legal gun owners and those who can least afford it.
Sounds reasonable to me and good way to raise revenue.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5958

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   10/10/2012, 10:25 am

Artie60438 wrote:
Violence tax proposed in Cook County
Quote :
CHICAGO—
Cook County Board President, Tony Preckwinkle is considering a controversial new violence tax, on guns and bullets.

The Sun-Times reports that the tax would be added to firearms and ammunition sold within Cook County. It has the potential to raise tens of millions of dollars.

Chicago's murder rate continues to rise, up almost 25 percent this year. Nearly one-third of the guns recovered from Chicago's streets are purchased in suburban gun shops. And, the Cook County jail is nearing capacity, with more than 9,000 inmates currently housed there.

Besides the tragic human impact those statistic are having on the city, officials say its also taking a toll on taxpayers.

It costs $143 a day to keep an inmate behind bars, and the financial burden is even heavier on Stroger Hospital. Since Stroger is a Level 1 trauma center, most gun shot victims are taken there. Nearly 70 percent of those patients do not have health insurance, which costs taxpayers $52,000 per patient.

Gun lobbyists say the so-called violence tax is an unfair tax on a constitutional right, that raises prices for legal gun owners and those who can least afford it.
Sounds reasonable to me and good way to raise revenue.

Since we are so eager to tax entirely innocent citizens who are exercising their basic 2nd amendment right, why not tax those who, under the umbrella of the 1st amendment, are exercising freedom of speech/expression by throwing gang signs? They, after all, are contributing more to the violence than those who are legally purchasing firearms and ammunition.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   10/10/2012, 7:20 pm

happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
Violence tax proposed in Cook County
Quote :
CHICAGO—
Cook County Board President, Tony Preckwinkle is considering a controversial new violence tax, on guns and bullets.

The Sun-Times reports that the tax would be added to firearms and ammunition sold within Cook County. It has the potential to raise tens of millions of dollars.

Chicago's murder rate continues to rise, up almost 25 percent this year. Nearly one-third of the guns recovered from Chicago's streets are purchased in suburban gun shops. And, the Cook County jail is nearing capacity, with more than 9,000 inmates currently housed there.

Besides the tragic human impact those statistic are having on the city, officials say its also taking a toll on taxpayers.

It costs $143 a day to keep an inmate behind bars, and the financial burden is even heavier on Stroger Hospital. Since Stroger is a Level 1 trauma center, most gun shot victims are taken there. Nearly 70 percent of those patients do not have health insurance, which costs taxpayers $52,000 per patient.

Gun lobbyists say the so-called violence tax is an unfair tax on a constitutional right, that raises prices for legal gun owners and those who can least afford it.
Sounds reasonable to me and good way to raise revenue.

[b]Since we are so eager to tax entirely innocent citizens who are exercising their basic 2nd amendment right, why not tax those who, under the umbrella of the 1st amendment, are exercising freedom of speech/expression by throwing gang signs? They, after all, are contributing more to the violence than those who are legally purchasing firearms and ammunition.
Sleep
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5958

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   10/11/2012, 9:59 am

Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
Violence tax proposed in Cook County
Quote :
CHICAGO—
Cook County Board President, Tony Preckwinkle is considering a controversial new violence tax, on guns and bullets.

The Sun-Times reports that the tax would be added to firearms and ammunition sold within Cook County. It has the potential to raise tens of millions of dollars.

Chicago's murder rate continues to rise, up almost 25 percent this year. Nearly one-third of the guns recovered from Chicago's streets are purchased in suburban gun shops. And, the Cook County jail is nearing capacity, with more than 9,000 inmates currently housed there.

Besides the tragic human impact those statistic are having on the city, officials say its also taking a toll on taxpayers.

It costs $143 a day to keep an inmate behind bars, and the financial burden is even heavier on Stroger Hospital. Since Stroger is a Level 1 trauma center, most gun shot victims are taken there. Nearly 70 percent of those patients do not have health insurance, which costs taxpayers $52,000 per patient.

Gun lobbyists say the so-called violence tax is an unfair tax on a constitutional right, that raises prices for legal gun owners and those who can least afford it.
Sounds reasonable to me and good way to raise revenue.

[b]Since we are so eager to tax entirely innocent citizens who are exercising their basic 2nd amendment right, why not tax those who, under the umbrella of the 1st amendment, are exercising freedom of speech/expression by throwing gang signs? They, after all, are contributing more to the violence than those who are legally purchasing firearms and ammunition.
Sleep



One of your more well-reasoned responses.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   10/11/2012, 11:24 am

happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:

Sleep
One of your more well-reasoned responses.
It's the most effective way to communicate with a dining room table.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5958

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   10/11/2012, 12:10 pm

Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:

Sleep
One of your more well-reasoned responses.
It's the most effective way to communicate with a dining room table.

Again, one of your more well-reasoned responses.
You didn't happen to be one of Barry's debate advisers, did you?
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   10/11/2012, 12:35 pm

happy jack wrote:
They, after all, are contributing more to the violence than those who are legally purchasing firearms and ammunition.
Bullshit
Those who are legally purchasing firearms and ammunition ARE indeed contributing to the violence:
Quote :
How Federal Law Helps Arm Chicago Street Gangs

By Ian Millhiser on Aug 27, 2012

The weekend, Chicago Sun Times reporter Frank Main published an interview with “Chris,” a Chicago high school student and gang member and gunslinger who explains exactly how easy it is for he and his fellow gang members to obtain firearms, even if they have criminal records:

“I will make a call and say I need a gun. I will ride down the street on my bike and get it — five minutes.” . . . Chris calls them the “gun guys.” The cops have another name for them: “straw purchasers.”

“Gun guys” have clean records allowing them to obtain Illinois firearm owner’s identification cards. With FOID cards, they can legally buy guns at stores in the suburbs.

Then they illegally sell them to gang members banned from owning guns because of their criminal backgrounds.

Most of the guns recovered in crimes in Chicago were bought in suburban gun stores, according to a new University of Chicago Crime Lab study of police gun-trace data.

As Chris points out, many of these straw purchasers’ full-time job is trading on their clean criminal record to buy guns and then resell them at a markup to dangerous felons. Such professional straw purchasers should be easy to catch. Because federal law requires most gun purchasers to undergo criminal background checks before they can buy a firearm, it should be an easy matter for law enforcement to check whether the same person is purchasing guns over and over and over again.

Except that the so-called “Tiahrt Amendments” thwart such checks by requiring the Justice Department to destroy the record of any gun buyer whose purchase was approved within 24 hours. As a result, law enforcement is often blind to straw purchasers who are flooding the streets with guns right under their noses.

Nor is this the only aspect of federal law that “gun guys” can take advantage of. An estimated 10 percent of all guns used in a crime by juveniles were sold at a gun show or flea market where many of the dealers do not have to conduct criminal background checks on their customers. Indeed, federal officials are often forced to charge straw purchasers with paperwork violations due to the absence of an appropriate law criminalizing unlicensed gun trafficking.

As ThinkProgress reported on Friday, 19 people were shot in Chicago last Thursday evening. The night after we published that post, 17 more people were shot — 4 of them fatally.

It's really awesome that the the NRA and the gun loons support protecting the straw purchasers.

We needz moar gunz!
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   

Back to top Go down
 
Gun Control
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 4 of 39Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 21 ... 39  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Let Freedom Reign! :: Nation/Other :: Nation/World-
Jump to: