You need to learn that sound doesn't pass through walls, it rebounds...Ever heard of an echo? That's why a shot outside an apartment is not often heard on the other side of an apartment complex. Your ignorance is amazing. No the difference is that I'm honest and you hide behind what you read, not experience. 44 instances a year is hardly something that is even noticeable. Yet your solution is to try to take another's rights away. There are approximately 37000 deaths and 2.5 million injuries from auto accidents, maybe we should ban all cars. http://asirt.org/initiatives/informing-road-users/road-safety-facts/road-crash-statistics HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Typical gun banner, finally got you too admit that you think less guns in civilian hands means less crime. How about tougher crime enforcement and any felony has mandatory sentences so bleeding heart liberal judges cannot reduce sentences because they feel for the criminal. Also gang bangers, even minors, face the same sentences.
Not all sounds rebounds. You're the ignorant for claiming that sound can't pass through walls. If that were true then there would be no point in talking about the STC rating of a wall. Why don't you google that? You could actually learn something about the subject. Cars are also useful for transportation. Guns are not useful for much in today's world. You have to look at the big picture. False dichotomy. Both gun control and tougher crime enforcement can save lives.
Any compliance with firearm-related restrictions in other countries is due purely to economic limitations, not because of a respect for the law. The mass shooting in the city of Munich in the nation of Germany is an example of such. The Glock firearm used cost approximately four thousand five hundred euros to obtain, which is approximately nine times higher than its cost in the united states. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/worl...-buy-gun-for-munich-mass-murder-a3330406.html
Firearms do not legally have to be useful for anything beyond self defense purposes. The united state supreme court has stated such. Then why have they not actually done such?
Saying "guns are not useful for much in today's world" is a statement of abject ignorance, and reveals you ill-equipped you are for this discussion. If there was even one example of a city, county, state, or nation ever enacting gun control and seeing any kind of reduction in homicide or violent crime rate, you'd have something to base that statement on. As no such example exists, your assertion amounts to wishful thinking.
Your the one claiming that a suppressed firearm may not be heard through walls...I'm pointing out that firearms are often not heard less than 100 yards away because sound does not penetrate walls easily. So if guns were useful other than for crime then you wouldn't oppose them. Police and military use guns. I hunt with mine...I have secured more than 600 lbs of meat for less than the price of a box of ammo. I have also donated over a thousand lbs to feed the homeless. So my guns have done more good than your useless rhetoric. Gun control doesn't work...Chicago, Detroit, NYC, LA all heavily gun controlled and all have massive crime rates. You're logic is flawed.
Really ? Guns are not useful in todays World ? Guns are of use in hunting, putting down livestock, sick and injured farm animals, rabid animals, protection from coyotes and other dangerous beasts. Defense against human predators and dangerous criminals.
Really ? Gun control saves lives ? Joe Felon wants a Gun. Joe Felon hits Officer Mellonhead with a bat and kills him and takes his Glock 17, ammo, equipment, radio, shotgun , M-16, etc and goes on a killing and robbery spree. Gee Whiz ! Gun control really works ! It stopped a Felon from buying a Gun, in a Gun store, 6 So instead, he killed Officer Mellonhead, got a Machine Gun and other Guns !!!! Gun control in action !!-
And where are criminals in those cities getting their guns? Mostly from states with lax gun laws. When Virginia passed its one handgun a month law the number of illegal guns seized by the police in cities like NYC that could be traced back to Virginia went down significantly. Gun control can work if it's consistent enough across the nation. That's why we need strict gun control at the federal level.
It is not the job of one state to look after another state. If the state of New York cannot make its own laws work, because neighboring states have different laws, then that is the fault of the state of New York, and not any others. They chose to enact a useless proposal, therefore it is their fault and their fault alone that it is failing. Which ultimately means nothing. Law enforcement officers could have simply been unable to successfully find any significant number of firearms successfully trafficked in from the state of Virginia, or the serial numbers could have been obliterated and thus rendered impossible to trace. Thus meaning that you are establishing the case for why no states should even bother trying to craft their own firearm-related restrictions, as they will simply be subverted by traveling to a neighboring state. What is either not realized, or simply not understood, however, is that there will be no new federal level restrictions on firearms in the united states for a very long time. Even when Barack Obama was in office, and the liberal democratic party held a super majority in the house and senate, they refused to even hear the proposal of any new firearm-related restrictions. Stop calling for new restrictions to address an existing problem, and start dealing with it. Find those that are creating the demand for illegal firearms, and remove them from the equation. With no demand, there is no supply. It is basic economics.
Interesting claim. The ATF seems to have data that shows that New York is its own biggest source of criminal's guns, with three times the number of guns traced there than from any other state. https://www.atf.gov/about/firearms-trace-data-2015 Please provide a cite for this claim, as Virginia passed that law in 1993.
According to the ATF, this is incorrect. https://www.atf.gov/docs/163552-nyatfwebsite15pdf/download According to the ATF for the year provided, one thousand three hundred and fifty firearms submitted for tracing came from the state of New York itself. Only four hundred and forty one came from the state of Virginia. That means more than three times as many firearms were illegally procured right in the state of New York, despite it supposedly having restrictions that are supposed to be sufficient enough to stop this from happening. Also of interest is the fact that firearms sold in the state of California have also been trafficked to the state of New York. How exactly does this happen? With the restrictions currently in place, why do any firearms come from the state of California?
And selling a gun purchased in VA to someone in of from NY without involving -2- FFL dealers and a background check is a federal felony.
What you always fail to address - and the huge flaw in your argument - is that crime in these "lax gun law" states is low. You claim places like DC and Maryland have such high violent crime rates because Virginia has "lax gun laws", and DC and Maryland criminals get guns from Virginia. Yet Virginia does not have nearly the crime rates of DC or Maryland. Why not? If lax gun laws are the problem, why doesn't Virginia have far higher violent crime rates than DC? The answer is that your argument is wrong.
He never acknowledges how wrong he is with "And where are criminals in those cities getting their guns? Mostly from states with lax gun laws."
Wanting more gun control as a crime prevention method, would be the same as the same as making restrictions on Marriage, in order to prevent or discourage Prostitution. It just won't work.
Straw man. Like I've said before, guns make already existing problems worse. If you pour gasoline on a fire then the fire is going to get bigger. If you pour gasoline where there is no fire then there will still be no fire. However, lax gun law states are negatively affected in a different way- they tend to have high gun suicide rates which contribute to overall higher suicide rates.
The obvious question of "so what?", must be asked with regard to the above. Assuming it is indeed an accurate statement, what ultimate, meaningful difference does such make? If someone wishes to end their own existence, that is ultimately their determination, and their determination alone to make. It is not a decision that involves yourself, or anyone else. Beyond that, the ATF has proven that the majority of firearms recovered for tracing originate from within the state itself, rather than being trafficked in from outside states. That ultimately means the laws of the state of New York are inadequate to prevent members of the criminal element from procuring firearms, despite all the need for licensing and registration.
You fail again. If lax gun laws make guns more available to criminals and thereby increase gun crime, then you would expect the worst states to be the states with lax gun laws - not their neighboring states. Virginia should be the murder capital, not DC. You cannot argue this point, and so you resort to your usual mentally blank dodge.
There is no dodge. I'm saying that some states are more negatively affected by lax gun laws because they have more violent criminals per capita. There are more people likely to misuse guns in such states.
Full of it. I have personally responded to many countless suicides here and in other Countries, firearms were dead last in the suicide hit parade, hanging was number one, I saved one, and she tried to jump in front of a N.Y.C. elevated train. My cousin commited suicide with a bolt action rifle. You will not prevent suicide with Gun control as people commit suicide by many means and women in general do not like the mess a Gun makes.
You mean certain states just happen to attract and develop more criminals than other states, and those criminal friendly states just happen to be the most gun hating and "progressive" states. Sounds like your theory is backwards, and the answer is more lenient gun laws.
