Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

[homersapien 11,367]

Y'all can spin it all you want but if we are having gunfights on the highway there's something seriously wrong with our culture.

And as I said, I don't feel nearly as threatened by our government as I do some random armed yahoo.

Exactly! IT's the PEOPLE, not the gun, or the knife, or whatever they choose to use.

If you are worried about the random armed yahoo, become one too, so you can shoot the other one before he shoots you.

But you can't talk restriction or changes to counter those PEOPLE without it automatically going into ban all guns and the government wants to take them away.

For instance lets look at those convicted of domestic violence.

An American woman’s chances of experiencing physical violence of some form at the hands of her male partner are more than one in three, and when a gun is present in a domestic violence situation, the risk of homicide increases by 500 percent.

http://nytlive.nytim...g-womens-lives/

Now while there is a federal law in place in regards to ownership it suffers from the boyfriend loophole in many states in the US.

“[it’s] called the “boyfriend loophole,” Lindsay Nichols, senior attorney at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, explained to Women in the World. “[For] a couple who has never been married – they don’t live together, they don’t have children together – gun prohibition won’t kick in. Even if there’s been a violent assault that does lead to a criminal conviction, [an abuser] will be able to get a gun

http://nytlive.nytim...g-womens-lives/

Then in states where they try and fight the boyfriend loophole the NRA steps in, like in LA.

The provision would have allowed those accused of abusing "dating partners" to be charged with domestic abuse battery, not just "household members." Sport said she was told the NRA "didn't want to increase the pool of people who will dispossessed of their firearms," so the group opposed that provision, among to others.

http://www.nola.com/...ot_strippe.html

So the NRA is OK with the dispossession of those that beat their own children, but thinks those that beat their girlfriends children (as long as they don't live together) is OK? That is a PEOPLE issue. So this was what happened:

• Removes "dating partner" as an extension of the definition of a victim of domestic abuse battery. Domestic abuse battery only pertains to scenarios when the victim is a "household member," which refers to spouses, family members or co-habitants (within five years of the incident)

I like this one also, cause this a group of people that should have guns:

• Removes a provision prohibiting a person convicted of stalking from possessing a firearm.

Also this is a favorite, cause we don't want these guys blocking at Auburn University but we do believe they should have guns:

• Removes a provision adding strangulation to the definition of "serious bodily injury" regarding second-degree battery. Strangulation is often a red flag that abuse could lead to more lethal form.

Then in many states such as Alabama where when convicted of domestic abuse you are not allowed to have a gun, well then nothing is actually done to take the firearm of the criminal. In the city of Dallas they are taking actions to enforce that (of course this doesn't work if guns are not registered which people on this very forum have said they are against due to conspiracy of they gonna take my gun for no reason):

http://www.nbcnews.c...program-n366796

So here is a prime of example of the type of gun changes I would like to see made that impacts the PEOPLE ISSUE. I want to see the boyfriend loophole eliminated and the confiscation of weapons from these people. This isn't a ban guns, overturn the second amendment thing. It is a address the people issue, just like those with background checks and mental illness.

Excellent post!

You are right. The first response to ANY gun control legislation is objection to the banning and/or confiscation of guns as if that's the real issue. The political battle is being waged around common sense issues that rarely get discussed. That's because the NRA and their friends work so hard to define the issue as a single, straw man argument. (watch)

Hell, look at the loopholes in the background check system - private sales and gun shows exempt? What a joke.

Look, I think we need common sense closing of loopholes. I absolutely agree on the BoyFriend Loophole. The trouble is, we have laws on the books no one is enforcing. These laws almost always fall on legal gun owners and do ZERO to those who would actually use a gun in a crime.

IF YOU WANT TO FOCUS ON CRIMINALS GETTING GUNS, I THINK YOU WOULD GET ALL BUT 100% SUPPORT FROM EVERYONE.

The problem in the past has been just the opposite. The laws are designed to harass law abiding citizens that own guns that have never and will never be used in a crime and leave criminals completely alone. This is MY OBJECTION TO MORE LEGISLATION. If you want to concentrate on CRIMINALS, ABUSERS, DRUG CARTELS, I am all in support of 100% doing that. Leave the rest of us alone tho. We arent commiting crimes and will never commit any crimes.

Your talking out of both sides of your mouth. You say you're OK with common sense changes to the gun laws but opposed to more legislation.

And again with the "laws should be restricted to criminals instead of me" argument. :-\ You really ought to think more about your posts.

Absolutely not. I am okay with ANY LEGISLATION that goes after the Criminals or the Mentally Ill. I oppose any legislation that instead goes after law abiding citizens and leaves the Criminals and Mentally Ill Alone.

Gee, that's just what I had in mind. :-\

Still drinking this long past the game?

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Well the open carry group may be a bunch of yahoos and I will say there are better ways of going about it. However I have yet nor do I expect to hear about one of them physically harming someone. On the other hand we have a federal government that is actively working to curtail the constitutional rights of citizens or at least the political enemies of this administration. The bureaucracy continually seeks more power and control. They get people to give up their rights in the name of safety and security. I fear that a hell of a lot more than a small group of people.

Don't you dare defend Watkins and his merry band of jackasses. They've been know to drop dox on people and threaten them with murder.

http://www.motherjon...omen-moms-texas

A Schoolteacher in the Crosshairs

A top target for gun extremists has been the women of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, the grassroots group that began after Sandy Hook and has since merged with Michael Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns under the Everytown banner. The battle has grown particularly ugly in Texas, where gun groups such as Open Carry Texas have conducted demonstrations showcasing their right under state law to openly carry rifles in public. The sight of groups of (mostly) men carrying semi-automatic rifles along a busy road or inside the local Jack in the Box has prompted bystanders to call police. In response, Open Carry Texas has begun making open-records requests, identifying callers and threatening to publicize their personal information.

On April 10, Brett Sanders, a member of Open Carry Texas in Plano, a midsize city in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, posted a video on YouTube highlighting the name and cellphone number of a woman who'd called the police after seeing heavily armed men on her way to a shopping mall. The post drew condemnation not only for outing the woman but also because it was misleading: It claimed that the woman had called 911, though she'd called the nonemergency line of the Plano PD. And the footage it used came from friendly-looking demonstrations elsewhere—not from the one that the woman encountered. ("Feel free to contact me when you work for a real news organization," Sanders replied to my request for comment.)

The woman—a high school teacher who asked not to be identified—quickly got pummeled with text messages and voicemails, copies of which she provided to Mother Jones. Callers told her she was a "stupid bitch" and "mother****ing whore."

"They fought for their right to carry guns," said another. "You're a piece of s***." One caller threatened to come after her with a gun.

Over the next four days she received nearly two dozen such calls and text messages. Someone put her information into a phony profile on a large e-commerce site, and she got a barrage of calls about agricultural products and security systems.

"I really felt strongly about not changing my cellphone number—I'm not going to be intimidated," she told me. "But it just got to the point where it's not worth it."

[Editor's note: The teacher since changed her number; Mother Jones has redacted her name.]

A fifth-generation Texan from a small town, the teacher in Plano grew up hunting. She is not, as her antagonists claimed, a member of Moms Demand Action (though she now plans to join). But given the rapid rise of Moms, gun extremists tend to view any woman who lands in their crosshairs as part of what has become, as one state leader for Moms puts it, "kind of the new black helicopters for these guys."

According to Plano police records, two other people called in with concerns about the demonstration that day—both men. No member of Open Carry Texas publicized their information.

The attack left the teacher worried for the safety of her family: "I felt that if I walked out someone was going to be standing there." But in hindsight, she says, "I think they are very weak men. They use their guns because that's all they have. If you know what I mean."

Open Carry Texas has insisted that it plans to continue exposing people who call police about its armed demonstrations. "Gun control bullies are all up in arms over this video published by one of our members," the group stated in a Facebook post on April 13, since deleted from its page. "If you don't want your name publicized, simply don't make a false 911 call against law abiding gun owners."

Well I believe he also supported Watkins groups efforts to harass the police in the Dallas area by showing up armed, yelling stuff at them in attempts to anger and distract, not listening to their directions when asking them to give them room, and them warning motorist of efforts to curtail drinking and driving.

I have actually heard that call, and the dispatcher even tells her to use 911 next time to make these reports.

Also shouldn't forget about them threatening individuals for exercising their rights to protest

http://freakoutnation.com/2015/05/images-open-carry-group-in-texas-threatens-freddie-gray-protesters-with-stupidity/

[DKW 86 7,419]

Absolutely not. I am okay with ANY LEGISLATION that goes after the Criminals or the Mentally Ill. I oppose any legislation that instead goes after law abiding citizens and leaves the Criminals and Mentally Ill Alone.

Gee, that's just what I had in mind. :-\

Still drinking this long past the game?

Apparently you have never read anything on this. In Chicago, a PERFECT EXAMPLE, they have the most restrictive gun laws in America aimed at getting guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. They have done just that. The problem is that the criminals just ignore the law, I know Mentally Disabled People think that just writing a law means that people will actually obey it. I mean we actually have laws THAT CRIMINALS DONT OBEY! Who would have thunk that? Everybody with a brain. Prohibition, The War On Drugs, etc have all shown us that writing laws really doesnt mean people will actually follow them. Writing new laws does not equal following new laws. This UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED FACTseems to go unacknowledged by those on the Extreme Left. In Chicago they have disarmed the city population and have almost literally opened the doors for rampant violent gun crime. Most years Chicago leads the US in gun deaths.

Write laws like "2 Strikes" for Gun Crimes.

Add another 20 years to any crime committed with a gun.

By all means add some sanity to Mental Health Provisions.

MAKE ANY THE OWNER CIVILLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY CRIME COMMITTED WITH THEIR GUN.

I and many many more would support these changes. But mindlessly going after law abiding citizens for crimes they will never ever commit shows what your true thinking might really be, and THAT has ZERO to do with gun safety.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Absolutely not. I am okay with ANY LEGISLATION that goes after the Criminals or the Mentally Ill. I oppose any legislation that instead goes after law abiding citizens and leaves the Criminals and Mentally Ill Alone.

Gee, that's just what I had in mind. :-\

Still drinking this long past the game?

Apparently you have never read anything on this. In Chicago, a PERFECT EXAMPLE, they have the most restrictive gun laws in America aimed at getting guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. They have done just that. The problem is that the criminals just ignore the law, I know Mentally Disabled People think that just writing a law means that people will actually obey it. I mean we actually have laws THAT CRIMINALS DONT OBEY! Who would have thunk that? Everybody with a brain. Prohibition, The War On Drugs, etc have all shown us that writing laws really doesnt mean people will actually follow them. Writing new laws does not equal following new laws. This UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED FACTseems to go unacknowledged by those on the Extreme Left. In Chicago they have disarmed the city population and have almost literally opened the doors for rampant violent gun crime. Most years Chicago leads the US in gun deaths.

Write laws like "2 Strikes" for Gun Crimes.

Add another 20 years to any crime committed with a gun.

By all means add some sanity to Mental Health Provisions.

MAKE ANY THE OWNER CIVILLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY CRIME COMMITTED WITH THEIR GUN.

I and many many more would support these changes. But mindlessly going after law abiding citizens for crimes they will never ever commit shows what your true thinking might really be, and THAT has ZERO to do with gun safety.

How about make gun laws uniform. So then they are the same everywhere. You do know that the guns in Chicago are coming from gun shows in Indiana via a loophole with private sellers right? It is like having different laws in Decatur and Huntsville. There is zero limit to how many weapons a person can buy and there is no background check. Mississippi, Wisconsin, and Ohio are also favorite place for them to go and get weapons due to their lax laws.

This from a gun study that involved interviewing actual inmates in Chicago regarding obtaining guns in Chicago:

More than 60 percent of those guns were imported from outside Illinois, meaning that criminals looked to states with weaker gun laws to obtain their weaponry.

http://www.thetrace.org/2015/09/gun-laws-work-criminals-effectiveness-research/

You do realize also that gun laws in Chicago are getting looser. You can conceal carry there, gun stores will now be allowed there. Hardly disarming the population.

Know how hard it is for a law abiding citizin to get a gun in Chicago? You fill out your FOID for identification. You go take a gun safety course. Pass your safety course and apply for permit. Go to Gander Mountain and buy gun. Register gun within 5 days. Finished. I know several people that went through the process when it was announced CC in the city of Chicago would be allowed.

How about going after the dealers also? The ones that are guilty of providing guns and ignoring the laws. Hit them with harder punishment.

An undercover investigation by New York City at gun shows in Ohio, Tennessee and Nevada found that 74% of the sellers approached by investigators who verbally indicated they were legally prohibited from having guns, were willing to make the sale

http://hcgv.org/?page_id=9

Unfortunately you are right, it does have a high number of gun deaths. Pretty much all isolated in one area that is battling over business. That conceal carry thing was suppose to fix that issue btw. Doesn't appear that is working.

Course if you turn that into per 100,000 then it falls down the list and cities like Birmingham become more dangerous. Guess which states lead the nation in gun deaths per 100,000 residents? Give you a hint, outside of Alaska the top 5 are all in the SEC West. Illinois didn't even make the top 20.

http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/death-by-gun-top-20-states-with-highest-rates/18/

[cooltigger21 0]

OK so people are ignoring or violating laws on the books now. What makes anyone think they won't ignore;or violate the new laws?

[homersapien 11,367]

Absolutely not. I am okay with ANY LEGISLATION that goes after the Criminals or the Mentally Ill. I oppose any legislation that instead goes after law abiding citizens and leaves the Criminals and Mentally Ill Alone.

Gee, that's just what I had in mind. :-\

Still drinking this long past the game?

Apparently you have never read anything on this. In Chicago, a PERFECT EXAMPLE, they have the most restrictive gun laws in America aimed at getting guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. They have done just that. The problem is that the criminals just ignore the law, I know Mentally Disabled People think that just writing a law means that people will actually obey it. I mean we actually have laws THAT CRIMINALS DONT OBEY! Who would have thunk that? Everybody with a brain. Prohibition, The War On Drugs, etc have all shown us that writing laws really doesnt mean people will actually follow them. Writing new laws does not equal following new laws. This UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED FACTseems to go unacknowledged by those on the Extreme Left. In Chicago they have disarmed the city population and have almost literally opened the doors for rampant violent gun crime. Most years Chicago leads the US in gun deaths.

Write laws like "2 Strikes" for Gun Crimes.

Add another 20 years to any crime committed with a gun.

By all means add some sanity to Mental Health Provisions.

MAKE ANY THE OWNER CIVILLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY CRIME COMMITTED WITH THEIR GUN.

I and many many more would support these changes. But mindlessly going after law abiding citizens for crimes they will never ever commit shows what your true thinking might really be, and THAT has ZERO to do with gun safety.

1. Chicago cannot enforce gun laws that are inconsistent with areas surrounding them. Besides, my understanding is that you can obtain a CCP in Chicago, so that doesn't sound very "restrictive" to me.
   
2. Your logic regarding laws being ignored by criminals eludes me. That's an obvious, universal statement, I don't understand how it specifically relates to gun laws. (And the sarcasm was uncalled for, particularly considering you follow up with several suggestions for new laws. )
   
3. Likewise, "writing new laws doesn't equal following new laws" is just more banality. The issue is whether or not there are new laws that are appropriate and should be passed, such as universal and upgraded background checks. Even most gun owners support this type of legislation.
   

As for your suggestions, I am OK with severe penalties for crimes utilizing guns, but not so much with sentence mandates.

And I am OK with making gun owners responsible for crimes committed with their gun, but this would logically require registration of guns by "law abiding citizens", which I am OK with also.

In spite of it's perhaps primary importance, the idea of preventing people with mental "issues" is very, very tricky. Varying degrees of mental illness are common throughout our population and other than the obvious clinical cases that have been treated, there's no real way of identifying these people. Even the documented cases would involve otherwise private medical records. But many of these "mental risks" are never treated so there are no records to start with.

I don't know what the answer is. I don't see how psychological testing prior to purchase could be practical, but I could be wrong. We take written driver's tests for example, why not written tests for both knowledge and psychological profile?

Another possible tactic would be to provide for an anonymous reporting system in which family members or friends could easily tip-off authorities about an unstable personality who is acquiring guns. But that has the characteristics of a totalitarian system using informants. Even if we limited such a system to reporting actual threats or comments, it would presumably require follow-up by an investigator or detective.

So, it still gets back to restricting extremely easy access which is what we have now.

[DKW 86 7,419]

Tex, homer, you are making MY points. Chicago decided to make it tough on their citizens to get guns. They have no way of enforcing the gun laws outside the city limits of Chicago. Chicago cant do mandate the laws of other jurisdictions and other jurisdiction dont want the failures of Chiacgo.

Last article i read, most of the guns were coming from 1/3 gun shops just outside Chicago police jurisdiction. THAT is the problem. Chicago decided to make guns harder to get and the CRIMINALS just bypassed the laws. The Law Abiding Citizens arent the issue. So why crank down more laws on them? Do you not read what you write? Do you not get that YOUR ANSWER IS CAUSING THE PROBLEM. You dont fix things by CAUSING MORE PROBLEMS FOR EVEN MORE PEOPLE. Go after the crooks. Making the rest of Illinois or Mississippi or WHEREVER look like Chicago is the last thing we need to do.

[DKW 86 7,419]

http://www.thedailyb...er-capital.html

1. Chicago—407

It still tops the list, but Chicago, nicknamed

Chiraq

because of the nonstop violent crimes within its city limits, has seen a decrease in the overall number of murders and rate over the last decade. Murders are slightly down from 414 last year, but have fallen by about one—third since 2003. Fewer dead people doesn’t mean less gun violence though: 327 more people were shot in 2014 than the year before, an increase of 14 percent. So the falling murders might have less to do with decreased violence and more to do with the skill of medical professionals or the lack of proficiency of gunmen.

[homersapien 11,367]

Tex, homer, you are making MY points. Chicago decided to make it tough on their citizens to get guns. They have no way of enforcing the gun laws outside the city limits of Chicago. Chicago cant do mandate the laws of other jurisdictions and other jurisdiction dont want the failures of Chiacgo.

Last article i read, most of the guns were coming from 1/3 gun shops just outside Chicago police jurisdiction. THAT is the problem. Chicago decided to make guns harder to get and the CRIMINALS just bypassed the laws. The Law Abiding Citizens arent the issue. So why crank down more laws on them? Do you not read what you write? Do you not get that YOUR ANSWER IS CAUSING THE PROBLEM. You dont fix things by CAUSING MORE PROBLEMS FOR EVEN MORE PEOPLE. Go after the crooks. Making the rest of Illinois or Mississippi or WHEREVER look like Chicago is the last thing we need to do.

Well if your point was Chicago's laws are ineffective because they don't extend beyond their city limits you didn't do a very good job of expressing it.

The obvious conclusion here is for national level controls, not elimination of local controls.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

http://www.thedailyb...er-capital.html

1. Chicago—407

It still tops the list, but Chicago, nicknamed

Chiraq

because of the nonstop violent crimes within its city limits, has seen a decrease in the overall number of murders and rate over the last decade. Murders are slightly down from 414 last year, but have fallen by about one—third since 2003. Fewer dead people doesn’t mean less gun violence though: 327 more people were shot in 2014 than the year before, an increase of 14 percent. So the falling murders might have less to do with decreased violence and more to do with the skill of medical professionals or the lack of proficiency of gunmen.

Lol nobody denied that. Just pointed out that if you address the population numbers it drops. Notice its ranking on 10-19 year old kids. Cause as I said its the gangs fighting over business and that is the ages they get involved and used.

Gun murders per 100,000 people:

1. New Orleans...........................19.0

2. Memphis...................................9.4

3. Detroit.......................................8.6

4. Birmingham..............................8.4

5. St. Louis...................................8.1

6. Baltimore..................................7.7

7. Jacksonville..............................7.4

8. Kansas City..............................6.8

9. Philadelphia..............................6.2

http://cnsnews.com/n...as-highest-rate

Here are your 20 most dangerous cities in the United States.... No Chicago:

http://kdvr.com/2015/05/08/by-the-numbers-here-are-the-most-dangerous-cities-in-america/

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Tex, homer, you are making MY points. Chicago decided to make it tough on their citizens to get guns. They have no way of enforcing the gun laws outside the city limits of Chicago. Chicago cant do mandate the laws of other jurisdictions and other jurisdiction dont want the failures of Chiacgo.

Last article i read, most of the guns were coming from 1/3 gun shops just outside Chicago police jurisdiction. THAT is the problem. Chicago decided to make guns harder to get and the CRIMINALS just bypassed the laws. The Law Abiding Citizens arent the issue. So why crank down more laws on them? Do you not read what you write? Do you not get that YOUR ANSWER IS CAUSING THE PROBLEM. You dont fix things by CAUSING MORE PROBLEMS FOR EVEN MORE PEOPLE. Go after the crooks. Making the rest of Illinois or Mississippi or WHEREVER look like Chicago is the last thing we need to do.

Well if your point was Chicago's laws are ineffective because they don't extend beyond their city limits you didn't do a very good job of expressing it.

The obvious conclusion here is for national level controls, not elimination of local controls.

Ya same. All I got was Chicago is trying to disarm law abiding citizens and then a bunch of sarcasm about people being stupid thinking laws are not broken... cause we are dealing with things being absolute again (if one person breaks it then it does zero good). Then making laws doesn't help anything. Then some more Chicago is disarming the citizens that obey the law. Some stuff about the left.

[DKW 86 7,419]

Tex, homer, you are making MY points. Chicago decided to make it tough on their citizens to get guns. They have no way of enforcing the gun laws outside the city limits of Chicago. Chicago cant do mandate the laws of other jurisdictions and other jurisdiction dont want the failures of Chiacgo.

Last article i read, most of the guns were coming from 1/3 gun shops just outside Chicago police jurisdiction. THAT is the problem. Chicago decided to make guns harder to get and the CRIMINALS just bypassed the laws. The Law Abiding Citizens arent the issue. So why crank down more laws on them? Do you not read what you write? Do you not get that YOUR ANSWER IS CAUSING THE PROBLEM. You dont fix things by CAUSING MORE PROBLEMS FOR EVEN MORE PEOPLE. Go after the crooks. Making the rest of Illinois or Mississippi or WHEREVER look like Chicago is the last thing we need to do.

Well if your point was Chicago's laws are ineffective because they don't extend beyond their city limits you didn't do a very good job of expressing it.

The obvious conclusion here is for national level controls, not elimination of local controls.

Ya same. All I got was Chicago is trying to disarm law abiding citizens and then a bunch of sarcasm about people being stupid thinking laws are not broken... cause we are dealing with things being absolute again (if one person breaks it then it does zero good). Then making laws doesn't help anything. Then some more Chicago is disarming the citizens that obey the law. Some stuff about the left.

I know you arent this stupid. I never said that not even once. Laws that do ZERO good against those that are breaking the law are a waste of time and an undue burden on the law abiding population. Some of the Lefty Fringe see no problem with that apparently. Imposing YOUR will on others for zero gain is just dumb. Go after those that ACTUALLY DO HARM, IE USE GUNS IN CRIMES, OR ARE OR MENTALLY ILL AND ARE LIKELY TO USE THEM IN WRONG WAYS. Wasting more time and taking $$$ away from medicine for the poor or elderly or kids in school is in itself a crime.

[homersapien 11,367]

Tex, homer, you are making MY points. Chicago decided to make it tough on their citizens to get guns. They have no way of enforcing the gun laws outside the city limits of Chicago. Chicago cant do mandate the laws of other jurisdictions and other jurisdiction dont want the failures of Chiacgo.

Last article i read, most of the guns were coming from 1/3 gun shops just outside Chicago police jurisdiction. THAT is the problem. Chicago decided to make guns harder to get and the CRIMINALS just bypassed the laws. The Law Abiding Citizens arent the issue. So why crank down more laws on them? Do you not read what you write? Do you not get that YOUR ANSWER IS CAUSING THE PROBLEM. You dont fix things by CAUSING MORE PROBLEMS FOR EVEN MORE PEOPLE. Go after the crooks. Making the rest of Illinois or Mississippi or WHEREVER look like Chicago is the last thing we need to do.

Well if your point was Chicago's laws are ineffective because they don't extend beyond their city limits you didn't do a very good job of expressing it.

The obvious conclusion here is for national level controls, not elimination of local controls.

Ya same. All I got was Chicago is trying to disarm law abiding citizens and then a bunch of sarcasm about people being stupid thinking laws are not broken... cause we are dealing with things being absolute again (if one person breaks it then it does zero good). Then making laws doesn't help anything. Then some more Chicago is disarming the citizens that obey the law. Some stuff about the left.

I know you arent this stupid. I never said that not even once. Laws that do ZERO good against those that are breaking the law are a waste of time and an undue burden on the law abiding population. Some of the Lefty Fringe see no problem with that apparently. Imposing YOUR will on others for zero gain is just dumb. Go after those that ACTUALLY DO HARM, IE USE GUNS IN CRIMES, OR ARE OR MENTALLY ILL AND ARE LIKELY TO USE THEM IN WRONG WAYS. Wasting more time and taking $$$ away from medicine for the poor or elderly or kids in school is in itself a crime.

He was paraphrasing the argument that Tigger is making. Actually, you have been making a similar argument that run laws are pointless because criminals don't respect them.

(And the personal insults don't help your case.)