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

The EU had a much lower rate of firearm homicides BEFORE an idiotic gun registry was imposed as well

weak argument

 

And these countries have always, without even one exception, experienced significantly lower firearm-related homicide rates than the united states, even prior to implementing their registration requirements. You have no evidence to suggest otherwise, to conclusively show that these nations had firearm-related homicide and violence levels that were anywhere near comparable to the united states at any point in their history.

Furthermore, your citation does not even answer the question that was presented to you. Where has it been shown, conclusively, that the national registries of any country outside the united states, has been utilized for solving any of the firearm-related offenses committed in that location? Where is the actual proof that shows these registries were the sole reason any of these crimes were solved, and that without the registries being in place they would remain unsolved?

 

Please show your evidence that they had lower rates of gun homicide prior to registration.

 

Why limit it to gun homicides? It's the homicide rate in total that counts. Having people simply switch means with no impact to overall rates doesn't mean that society is safer.

Look at those US/UK homicide rate ratios prior to 1990s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade

 

Uh....the US has a higher rate of homicide than the UK every year in the 90's.

 

RATIO

In the 70s and 80s the US to UK ratio was 9 to 1 or worse. Now it's 4.5:1. How did the US improve in relation to the UK when they have bans and we don't?

 

It's also a post hoc fallacy, arguing that correlation = causation.

 

The statement was never that the firearm-related homicide rates of foreign nations were reduced within said nations after the enactment of national registration requirements. That is not even related to the discussion in question.

Rather the statement that was made, was that the various countries around the world have always, without even one exception, experienced significantly lower-firearm-related homicide rates than the united states, even prior to implementing their registration requirements.

You were presenting the argument in a way that suggested it was these registration requirements that were contingent upon the lower firearm-related homicide rates existing in these nations. That is not the case. The truth is and has always been that every single country around the world, even prior to or after mandating that all private firearms be registered with their government, have always maintained levels far lower than those experienced by the united states, and no implementation of new restrictions played any part in this.

 

No evidence? Ok got it.

 

There is no need to present evidence of an argument that was never made in the first place.

Pertaining to yourself, however, there is indeed a need to present evidence to sustain your own argument. You have openly claimed that national registries of firearms have assisted police officers of various foreign nations in solving various firearm-related offenses within their countries. The manner in which you present the argument suggests that these registries were instrumental in such a feat, and that it could not possibly be done in any other fashion. Whether or not that is truly the extent of your argument is of no importance. However you have made the claim that these registries to benefit police officers. Since this is your argument, it is your requirement to demonstrate that such is actually the case. Present all evidence you have that shows national firearm registries have a legitimate purpose, and do indeed assist in solving various crimes that involve firearms. Show that a firearm being registered makes it possible to solve a crime, and that records of the last known legal owner help identify who used the firearm illegally.

 

There is no need to present evidence. Hey....this is easy. LOL

 

do you ever actually answer the questions put to you rather than engaging in evasive nonsense? I understand that many gun banners do this because crime control isn't their real goal for trying to restrict the rights of other citizens.

 

As we all know, and as proven time and time again in this forum, the anti-gun side cannot sustain an argument regarding gun control without fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

<ignore> is your friend, and does not mind being used.

 

Not so called "Gun Extremists" it is the Courts that are to blame in handing out light sentences and early releases to Violent Offenders that soon re-offend.

 

Carpet bombing Englewood would be a better start, or end.

 

The use of sarcasm in the absence of a relevant answer has been noted.

 

Prove it.

 

Meanwhile Update Chicago: After a lull in body count for March largely due to inclement weather, the bangers are literally neck and neck with last years homicide rate. Confirmed kills now at 165 and counting after one of the "hottest shootings" in the history of the month of April. Nothing like a sanctuary city with strict gun control.

 

Yeah we need national gun control to deal with this

 

And virtually all it committed by minorities and Democrats. The rest of us not so much. Sounds like that there is where the control needs to be.

 

Except in the states which have the most gun deaths where it is committed by republican trumpers

 

Except that is your fantasy. Chicago, Newark, Philly, Camden, Gary, Birmingham etc etc and so on.

 

Alaska, Louisiana, Wyoming, ....etc

 

And zip codes within those states. Minorities and Democrats. Next.

 

Actually they are republican trumper strongholds