Chicago 2017: Homicide, Gun Control, LEO Gone Fetal And The DOJ

Except it works in every first world nation

 

If you basically take away guns or make it as hard as possible to own one, then yes, it will work.

 

You keep claiming that and again and again and again I've shown you the fallacy of the assertion.

NOT ONE of those "first world nations" enacted gun control and ever saw any improvement in public safety. The exact opposite in most cases. Once again, they enacted gun control and their homicide rates increased. We expanded firearms and self-defense rights and our rates decreased. If you enact a law to improve public safety and more people die then your policy is a FAILURE. Your continuing and repetitious claims of "it works in every first world nation" are denials of reality.

 

There is a problem with over-simplification of the issue. To draw an analogy, think of it like losing weight. A guy goes on a diet and doesn't lose weight. So his critics blame the diet. Maybe they don't factor in that the guy's hereditary issues or the fact that he doesn't exercise are relative.

Gun haters presume that if you eliminate guns, you eliminate the problem of homicide. And maybe you could eliminate SOME homicides, but at what cost? The societies that many gun haters cite do not have the same problems the U.S. has:

1) Due to our attitude towards prisoners and criminals, we have the highest number of people in prisons in the world and NO rehabilitation agenda

2) We have massive immigration

3) Our country has massive numbers of different races, religions, cultures, political viewpoints, etc.

4) America has an enormous drug problem and we treat addiction as a crime instead of a medical issue

5) We have people who have declared war against the U.S. walking our streets freely

6) We are bordered by a third world country that exports misery

7) Our population is much larger and diverse than those the anti-gunners cite (at least on average.)

There are things we could do. For example, I'm thinking about starting a ministry to help homeless / dispossessed men to get off the streets. Provide them with a place to get a meal, shower, and help getting their GED, etc. Maybe after a shave, some clean clothes and a nudge in the right direction, they could become productive citizens. I wonder how many pro-gunners would support an effort to rehabilitate those who have gotten locked out of society?

 

Well stated!

I happen to agree with pretty much everything you state above. I even agree that there is more we could do to help our homeless people get off the streets, and that we need to do a better job with treating drug addiction and mental health issues. My wife actually has spent years working in public assistance helping the physically and mentally disabled find gainful employment or at least programs to facilitate their reintegration into society. I think a lot more could be done to help non-violent felons reintegrate into society after they've paid their debt to society and to help with recidivism rates as well.

 

I never once said reducing gun violence was simple. It will require a multi pronged approach that will encompass many of the areas you suggest. The idea that gun control can NOT be a part of that approach is ridiculous

 

No, it's not ridiculous. Gun control does nothing to improve public safety and it undermines Constitutional liberties. There is no place for it in a free society either way.

 

Agreed. Cities with the heaviest gun control statutes have much higher gun-related murders than any other cities in the nation.

Gun control is a failed policy.

 

In most nations that have taken away gun rights, the have also infringed on other civil liberties. The trade is liberty (not just gun ownership) for perceived safety.

 

I'm going to pretend the US is now imposing a gun ban. Guns will be confiscated from everyone who has registered to have them.

Who is now left with the only guns besides police?

 

Exactly! And as Benjamin Franklin once famously said: ""Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

 

That's why a gun ban would be pointless

 

Yep, a amazingly brilliant fellow, one with that uncommon thing, common sense.

 

Really? Attacking one constitutional Right leaves the door open for ALL your rights to come under scrutiny. Remember that the Bill of Rights is limitation on government, not on we, the people. The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.

 

Every right has limits

 

Do you have a 3d printer?

 

Right. Agreed. Gun control offers similar issues. It will NOT curb the illegal sale of black market guns. It's a waste of time and not worth losing civil liberties over something that won't do any good. What happened when we declared war on drugs? Drugs overran America. That has failed.

 

I do not. Is it true they can print me out a glock?

 

Legalize all drugs and you will see what over run America means

 

Legalizing all drugs will bankrupt gangs.

 

And kill Americans

 

What will?

 

Legalizing all drugs

 

What was the intent of the Right to keep and bear Arms?

"[A]ll men are born equally free," and possess "certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity.” George Mason, father of the Bill of Rights

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.” Samuel Adams, American statesman, political philosopher and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States

"The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable." Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356

"The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and hear arms of every description, not merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation! And the acquisition of Texas may be considered the full fruits of
this great constitutional right."
Nunn v. State, 1 Kelly 243 (Ga. 1846) This was the FIRST ruling by a U.S. court over-turning a gun law on Second Amendment grounds


"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

So far, the founding fathers and the courts disagree with you... Do you know what an unalienable Right is?

 

Actually the courts fully agree with me. The second has limits