Hi, Rucker61. That's not difficult to do. How does that change the number of gun deaths which occur in the United States of America each year? Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n un-shot.
The actual risk is one of some 45,000 gunshot deaths occurring in the United States of America in a year. The risk to each individual so killed is 1.00. What denominator would change that probability? What denominator would change the loss to, and grief of, the deceased's family and friends? Regards, stay safe 'n well . . . 'n un-shot.
So by that logic, the risk of death to those who died from alligator attacks is also 1. Are you claiming that by your accounting methods the odds of being killed in either type of attack are the same?
Actually most homicide victims are 'hard targets' aka armed gang-bangers. Some might call it good-riddance. How did you reach this conclusion? A law such as expanding back-ground checks could reduce number of guns in criminal hands, but why would it create soft targets? You mean that those criminals who fail the back ground check become soft targets? The article defines them as kids and teens (1-19 yr olds). I think most people consider teens 'children'.
Hi yet again, Rucker61. I have stated what I have stated, nothing more and nothing less. While I'm at it, the choice of a denominator provides all sorts of possibilities for 'spin'. Consider the difference between using 45,222 as the numerator and, say, the number of people living in the United States of America in the year 2020 versus using the total number of h. sapiens who have ever lived on this planet below the line. I think our chat has pretty much run its course. I'll end my responses to it now. Regards, best wishes to you and yours.
In your own post, you show how background checks are worthless. They do not prevent gang members from obtaining firearms. I am not opposed to background checks, but living in Los Angeles, I see it as part of a slippery slope. Until recently, no CCWs were issued to ordinary citizens. That means that only cops and criminals are armed. Soft targets. When I was about 10, my mother and I heard a gang fight right outside our front window. We sat in the dark hoping that they didn't come in or heed a hostage for them the police got there. We were on the phone calling the police, but they never answered.
It would make it more difficult, because now they can shop on-line and buy from private sellers and then sell to gang-bangers.
You are incorrect. Criminals can get guns easier than lawful gun buyers. They don't have to pay for a DROS or wait 10 days. Here in L.A., I have to go through a background check to buy ammo. Are we safer as a result?
I don't have any issues buying more guns. I just walk into a store and buy one. Much safer when gang-bangers can buy all the ammo they need. That's your argument, right?
You already made my argument for me. Killers are not affected by gun laws and we are no safer. Results speak for themselves.
Nope Whether or not you want to admit it, it is harder for criminals to buy ammo. I can walk into a store and pick some up, and they can't . They have call a guy named Hakeem and hope he has some. Is it fool-proof? No, obviously not, but I don't see any point in making it easier for them.
I don't have to admit results. 100% of criminals that want a gun and ammo have it already. These laws only affect those of us doing things legally. Did you know that L.A. prohibits the sale of ammo 2 weeks out of the year? Even if you have a spotless background, your purchase is denied.
Isn't it nice when you can just pull 'stuff' right out of the seat of your pants. How is it making your life so difficult,? If buying ammo from the black market is so much easier than going to a store, or buying -on-line, then why don't you get it from the black market?
I did not pull results out of my pants. When useless laws affect the average citizen, I object even though my life is not made more difficult. I have been making my own ammo since I was a child. I can afford the extra fees and wait an hour to buy ammo if I needed to. I took family to the range yesterday and easily put 1000 rounds downrange. These laws disproportionately affect the poor, who live in neighborhoods where they are more likely to be a victim of violent crime. They are the ones that can't afford these additional fees. Can the poor people afford to practice marksmanship? If they don't own a car, how can they legally transport their firearm to the range? You can't say that these laws do not hinder the rights of low income citizens, and you can't say they prevent criminals from getting guns and ammo. Can you look at the cities with strict gun control and show how these laws made good people safer? Gun control is not from a position of concern for human life.
I always find it ironic that people focus on a very specific type of murder that is fairly statistically insignificant, but they ignore all the murders and deaths due to liberal policing and prosecuting priorities. It's irrational emotional nonsense. We saw a major spike in homicides and drug overdoses and yet Democrats support reducing police budgets, opening the border, letting criminals of jail, and not prosecuting criminals. All while clamoring about disarming law abiding gun owners. Hint: you're doing it wrong. Why are you not concerned with the trauma resulting in liberal epicenters and our southern border?
True but it’s not because democrats are concerned about improving public safety. Democrats want to stress people and the system, they want crime and violence so people feel unsafe and think the system is broken. If people are happy, safe, secure in their jobs, feel good about the future then they won’t allow a change to the system, there is no opportunity for the govt to take over. The system has to be broken for the democrats to “build back better”. It wasn’t broken so they are deliberately breaking it.
