U.S. Gun Death Rate Jumps 17 Percent Since 2008 Supreme Court District of Columbia v. Heller

Let me know when you have something to contribute

 

You just do not get it, making anything illegal does nothing at all, Prohibition proved it true, people drank more Alcohol during Prohibition because it was Risky and in vogue.

You will never stop criminals from commiting crimes or having guns or drugs.

You operate on a false premise, street Methamphetamines are illegal and people obtain them anyway, and street drugs are made with very potent harmful toxic chemicals, at least if these drugs were produced by Pharmaceutical companies, and of known dosages and chemical composition as well as remove the profit motive from drug dealers.

 

But it is harder to get meth than if we put no barriers in place

 

I guess the lessons of Prohibition were lost on you.

 

You said ‘I think’ making your post an opinion, one without evidence, and just that,man uninformed opinion.

 

The drug trade is responsible for a huge volume of crime not only of those illegally consuming the drugs, but those fighting over markets, those involved in crime to pay for drugs, and all the costs in enforcing the laws, break down of families, increased poverty, and far more. The drug was was initiated by Nixon to target and marginalize blacks and anti war advocates, and, somewhat, intentionally, create a cycle of poverty and criminality in black communities.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nixon-drug-war-racist_us_56f16a0ae4b03a640a6bbda1
As for decriminalization resulting in more death... killing the drug trade will have benefits, but there may be more if Portugal is any hint...
https://news.vice.com/article/ungas...-after-decriminalization-drugs-weed-to-heroin

 

The fact that such substances are so widespread and freely available suggests that it is not difficult at all.

 

Legalizing meth would result in millions of people dying.

 

Precisely what is the problem with such? Why should anyone care if such should come to pass?

 

Good to see the trolls do not go hungry.

 

Never anything to offer

 

that's probably what causes him to make that statement about you

 

He can not see my posts. Lol

 

Since when did a court decision, of any type supersede all other factors? 2008 saw the US in economic tough times, which due to ineptness and utter stupidity of the Obama administration remained either in straights or stagnation until Trump was elected. Do you realize how idiotic it looks attempting to place undue blame in gun death rise solely on a court decision? Nonsense like this is what destroys what little credibility you may have had...

 

I thought this article gave an interesting angle on things:
http://newsok.com/policy-centers-gun-study-marred-by-omissions-flaws/article/5582259

 

Yep. The VPC is intrinsically corrupt and dishonest in the pushing of their agenda.

 

Factually incorrect

 

And even their numbers show guns are used for self-defense 3x more oven than to commit suicide and 8x more often than to commit murder.

 

But it can be a factor and should be considered as one

 

Show me please.

 

What was presented was an opinion rebuttal to what VPC presented. They did not conclude that any of the information VPC presented was factually inaccurate. Just incomplete. They are not corrupt and dishonest and there is no evidence they are. Here is a piece on a false claim made by a NRA excecutive. I take all this stuff in stride. You can spin both sides any way you want. but to accuse someome of corruption and dishonesty you need facts.....not spin.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/nra-execs-false-gun-claim/

 

I wasn't asking about the specific article. I was asking you to show that Gunner's comment was "Factually incorrect" as you claim it is.

I agree with you, I don't feel the VPC is corrupt and dishonest but I do feel they tend to twist the facts. For that same reason I try not to quote any NRA information as they also tend to twist the facts.

Again, my point was that both you and Gunner make statements about the VPC but neither has actually given proof that their statement is correct. Therefore it will have to remain opinion only.

Rich

 

Factually verified. They are a bunch of liars and charlatans... as are those who defend them.

 

Factually incorrect and you have no evidence to support your baseless claim

 

How is the Heller ruling a factor that possesses any relevance, when the ruling was limited to the matter of the district of columbia prohibiting a person from being able to have their legally owned firearm loaded and functional within the confines of their own home?