Donald Trump

Problem with that is in places that have very strong guns law happen to have rampant gun crime. Go figure.

This is demonstrably untrue. Here are several highly reputable reviews of per capita gun violence by state. Per capita rates should be used as it helps to normalise data, given the most crime of any kind is going to occur where there are the most people, so you can’t base comparisons on nominal rates of crime; i.e. New York is going to have many times the total instances of gun violence than Wyoming because New York City alone has 13x the number of people than the entire state of Wyoming.

The states with very strong gun laws generally have to lowest per capita rates of gun violence. The states with very weak gun laws generally have the highest per capita rates of gun violence. There are a few exceptions, but nonpartisan researchers have attributed relatively higher rates of gun violence in those few states with strict gun laws to gun trafficking (illegal activity, which ironically often starts with legal gun purchases in states with week gun laws) and organised crime (which is aided by state-by-state gun laws, rather than federal-level laws, allowing bad actors to source guns from states where they are easy to acquire and hold, often en masse).




Additionally, states (and countries) that have the highest rates of gun ownership also generally—and unsurprisingly—have the highest rates of gun violence. Here is a rundown of the phenomenon from an Ammo supplier (which is fairly accurate, unfortunately)!


As a side bar some mope tried to carjack judge sotomayors security details vehicle. He got shot for his trouble. Ironically, the judge is a strong advocate of gun control ie anti gun in citizens hands. Yet another case of rules for me but not for thee.

Any politician/celebrity who advocates banning guns should not be able to have any and that goes for their security detail as well.

That incident actually highlights the need for stronger nationwide gun laws, as the person who shot the carjacker (who was an untrained civilian) was part of Sotomayer’s security detail (trained member of security/law enforcement). Even the federal gun laws that the most progressive Democracts want to pass would not restrict gun possession by trained members of law enforcement, government security, or military personal engaged in official duties (unless they have been disqualified due to illegal activity in the course of their duties or private life, like in cases of convictions for domestic violence or instances of gun crime).

It is not a case of “rules for me but not for thee”—Sotomayor and other progressive Democrats support strong gun laws for civilians that have no need to own or use a gun as they are not a member of a “well-(state)regulated militia”.

Perhaps if the US had implemented stronger federal gun laws two decades ago, the attempted assassination of Trump would not have occurred.
 
Your first sentence is nonsense. Britain for example has draconian gun laws and hardly any gun crime; it is largely limited to drug gang rivalry.
I am talking about in the USA. It’s very true. Cities such as New York, Chicago, Washington DC have extremely tough gun laws which they rarely enforce. In those cities it’s very difficult nigh impossible to get a permit unless you are politically connected or have power, hence, my Sotomayor example of rules for these but not for me …
 
I am talking about in the USA. It’s very true. Cities such as New York, Chicago, Washington DC have extremely tough gun laws which they rarely enforce. In those cities it’s very difficult nigh impossible to get a permit unless you are politically connected or have power, hence, my Sotomayor example of rules for these but not for me …
That’s not what you said. You linked tough gun laws with high crime as though one followed the other. You are drawing a general rule from a particular set. Not logical. Then you say the places in your example don’t actually enforce their laws which makes your case a nonsense. Do places that have draconian sexual assault laws have huge numbers of sexual assaults? It’s actually the other way round.
You need a serious rethink about why laws exist and how they work.
 
This is demonstrably untrue. Here are several highly reputable reviews of per capita gun violence by state. Per capita rates should be used as it helps to normalise data, given the most crime of any kind is going to occur where there are the most people, so you can’t base comparisons on nominal rates of crime; i.e. New York is going to have many times the total instances of gun violence than Wyoming because New York City alone has 13x the number of people than the entire state of Wyoming.

The states with very strong gun laws generally have to lowest per capita rates of gun violence. The states with very weak gun laws generally have the highest per capita rates of gun violence. There are a few exceptions, but nonpartisan researchers have attributed relatively higher rates of gun violence in those few states with strict gun laws to gun trafficking (illegal activity, which ironically often starts with legal gun purchases in states with week gun laws) and organised crime (which is aided by state-by-state gun laws, rather than federal-level laws, allowing bad actors to source guns from states where they are easy to acquire and hold, often en masse).




Additionally, states (and countries) that have the highest rates of gun ownership also generally—and unsurprisingly—have the highest rates of gun violence. Here is a rundown of the phenomenon from an Ammo supplier (which is fairly accurate, unfortunately)!




That incident actually highlights the need for stronger nationwide gun laws, as the person who shot the carjacker (who was an untrained civilian) was part of Sotomayer’s security detail (trained member of security/law enforcement). Even the federal gun laws that the most progressive Democracts want to pass would not restrict gun possession by trained members of law enforcement, government security, or military personal engaged in official duties (unless they have been disqualified due to illegal activity in the course of their duties or private life, like in cases of convictions for domestic violence or instances of gun crime).

It is not a case of “rules for me but not for thee”—Sotomayor and other progressive Democrats support strong gun laws for civilians that have no need to own or use a gun as they are not a member of a “well-(state)regulated militia”.

Perhaps if the US had implemented stronger federal gun laws two decades ago, the attempted assassination of Trump would not have occurred.
Yeah Wyoming and Montana are more dangerous and crime ridden than the New York metropolitan area and Chicago. Yeah right. Come on, man…
 
Changing his speech to the RNC on Thursday to concentrate on "unity" over Biden bashing.

Maybe he has been humbled? I'll reserve judgement until I hear it.
Will be interesting to see where he goes from here. His stock speech is mostly lies about his term in office and lies about people he doesn't like. He rambles between these topics with little original material.
 
This is demonstrably untrue. Here are several highly reputable reviews of per capita gun violence by state. Per capita rates should be used as it helps to normalise data, given the most crime of any kind is going to occur where there are the most people, so you can’t base comparisons on nominal rates of crime; i.e. New York is going to have many times the total instances of gun violence than Wyoming because New York City alone has 13x the number of people than the entire state of Wyoming.

The states with very strong gun laws generally have to lowest per capita rates of gun violence. The states with very weak gun laws generally have the highest per capita rates of gun violence. There are a few exceptions, but nonpartisan researchers have attributed relatively higher rates of gun violence in those few states with strict gun laws to gun trafficking (illegal activity, which ironically often starts with legal gun purchases in states with week gun laws) and organised crime (which is aided by state-by-state gun laws, rather than federal-level laws, allowing bad actors to source guns from states where they are easy to acquire and hold, often en masse).




Additionally, states (and countries) that have the highest rates of gun ownership also generally—and unsurprisingly—have the highest rates of gun violence. Here is a rundown of the phenomenon from an Ammo supplier (which is fairly accurate, unfortunately)!




That incident actually highlights the need for stronger nationwide gun laws, as the person who shot the carjacker (who was an untrained civilian) was part of Sotomayer’s security detail (trained member of security/law enforcement). Even the federal gun laws that the most progressive Democracts want to pass would not restrict gun possession by trained members of law enforcement, government security, or military personal engaged in official duties (unless they have been disqualified due to illegal activity in the course of their duties or private life, like in cases of convictions for domestic violence or instances of gun crime).

It is not a case of “rules for me but not for thee”—Sotomayor and other progressive Democrats support strong gun laws for civilians that have no need to own or use a gun as they are not a member of a “well-(state)regulated militia”.

Perhaps if the US had implemented stronger federal gun laws two decades ago, the attempted assassination of Trump would not have occurred.
Some of your stats are extremely deceiving. For example the rate on New York is very low as it takes into account ALL of New York State. I grew up 100 miles north of my city and it’s easy to get a permit especially for your home. Not so when I lived in my city. You are telling me the crime rate, violent crime rate, is worse where I grew up than in my city. No way.

Also I am certain the cdc stats include suicide. While horrible there a difference between that and being victimized by a mope with a gun!!
 
Yeah Wyoming and Montana are more dangerous and crime ridden than the New York metropolitan area and Chicago. Yeah right. Come on, man…
You aren’t arguing with facts, you are arguing with feelings. I have presented facts that refute your claim, which is a common one based on not understanding how crime or statistics works (or how civilisation works, for that matter).

If you have less people, you are generally going to have less crime; if you have more people, you are generally going to have more crime.

So you have to use a different approach to measurement to determine the relative rates of crime given the variance in population levels.

As it turns out, you are actually 11X more likely to be a victim of gun violence in Wyoming than in New York.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.