London murder rate rises higher than NY City

Not doubting what you’re saying but it’s interesting that you feel like your life is in imminent danger at all times and I don’t have that sense of fearful urgency. I don’t think guns should be banned but creating hypotheticals all over the place will just leave a person paranoid.

 

The way this works is you don't know the data for 2017 until 2017 is over. Same goes for 2018. Sometimes you don't have 2016 until 2018. It depends on the volume of data. There's really no point in arguing about the statistics from one month. Although it does warrant concern, it's certainly not indicative of a bigger picture. As for 2017, see the post above referencing the older post. The graph shows New York to have a higher murder rate per 100,000.

EDIT: This thread is done. I say we lock up.

 

If anything, judging from the graph, it seems New York's murder rate has come down to meet London's. Not the other way around. Reality Check: Has London's murder rate overtaken New York's?

 

If there was repetitive crap in that thread, it was the repetitious non-answering of questions by the ban-happy crowd there. For instance, when asked what he would like to see banned, one poster replied that he would like to see all semiautomatic centerfire rifles that accept detachable magazines and have two or more of these features: a folding stock, a grenade/flare launcher, or a flash suppressor, and magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. But when his list was challenged, he folded like the folding stocks he had an irrational fear of.

One poster even made the claim that some NRA people said that if we don't let them have their guns for killing, then they will kill us. Of course, when pressed to produce something to back up his claim, he went the way of the other guy--away. So . . .

 

You've got it backwards, Balbus. You still can't produce a rational argument concerning taking away my right to own a gun that holds more than six rounds.

 

It's your recalcitrant attitude that makes your motivation suspect. I don't like where you're coming from. It's juvenile to parade around telling everyone to stick it if they don't agree with your arguments. You keep bringing up accessories. These are not necessities. You want the freedom to accessorize your 2 weapons. I'm assuming you also don't want AR-15s to be banned again. I believe that your attitude is becoming more militant as you struggle to keep up with Balbus and MeAgain. This thread isn't good for your blood pressure.

Storch, this is what I mean by recalcitrant. Let's remember who is the mod and who is not.

 

And this the problem. No one here can defend their right to own a gun that holds more than six rounds without that defense being interpreted as paranoia. People ask for a rationale for owning a gun, which is basically asking for hypotheticals. And when hypotheticals are provided, out come the name callers and the character assassins. It's an easy trick.

 

I don't mind that where I'm coming from rubs you the wrong way; it's your blood pressure, not mine.

And actually, it's not the arguments of others that I disagree with as much as it is their lack of arguments on the issue, as I've pointed out in my last two posts. That you interpret my asking others to defend their comments as "telling everyone to stick it" kind of exposes you as a being a bit reactive instead of responsive. But that's okay because I'm not here to fix you.

 

Sorry mate but again what are you on about – I’ve given my opinion and it’s that your stance seems less rational, logical or reasonable than MeAgains.

You admit you have no reason for wanting guns that hold more than six bullet.

MeAgain has a reason for wanting to limit civilian guns to six bullets.

Which means you have no rational argument and MeAgain does have rational argument.

If you were standing on a cliff with two others X and Y – now X says jump and you ask why and X replies he has no reason and Y says don’t jump and when asked why explains that the jump is likely to kill you or at the least badly injure you.

Do you take the advice of the person that has no reason and jump or the one that seems to have a very rational reason and don’t jump?

 

Let's see, I remind Balbus that he still can't produce a rational argument concerning taking away my right to own a gun that holds more than six rounds, and you interpret that as an uncooperative attitude toward authority. I see.

 

Lack of justification for such a restriction is a rational argument.

Self defense requirements are an additional rational argument.

Self defense requirements are a reason to want such a weapon.

There is no reason that justifies limitations that draconian.

 

???

I seldom if ever feel like my life is in imminent danger.

People wear seatbelts and keep fire extinguishers because of hypotheticals.

 

So what? If there is no justification for banning them, then there is no justification for banning them.

 

Yeah, I do have a reason for wanting a gun that holds more than six rounds. It's what I decided to have. You don't like that I have one, but that's not my concern. If that bothers you or Meagain, then don't purchase such a gun. But if you think stomping your feet counts as an argument against my right to own my handgun, you're wrong. You lack foresight. Even if you had your way, you would soon be crying about how only one person would be dead if all guns that hold six rounds were confiscated and people only have the right to possess a single shot weapon.

 

It seems to be coming down to who has the burden of proof. When Toggle thinks howitzers and grenade launchers are okay for self-defense, and Storch says casually that some folks own them but he prefers his Glock, it reveals the mentality we're dealing with. Storch thinks that the only reason a person needs to give for owning excess firepower is that he wants to do it. He doesn't need to provide further argument. The justification for banning them is that they're killing people. They're falling into the hands of nut jobs and bad actors. When private decisions like that imperil public safety, the law of public nuisance provides ample justification for regulation--within the bounds of the Constitution, of course. I think the people calling for gun control are concerned about school shootings, gang shootings, other mass shootings, etc. That provides the rationale for limiting firearms to those reasonably necessary for hunting and self defense, because there would therefore be less excess gun power to use in mass shooting. In other words, we think the only weapons people are entitled to are those necessary for hunting or to repel the typical home invader. The burden of proof then should rest on the person claiming the right to own arsenals of assault weapons, grenade launchers, etc., to show why this is necessary for home defense or hunting. Is (s)he preparing for the zombie apocalypse? Toggle, I'm sure, will tell us that the Second Amendment allows us to have all the weapons we want. But the Second Amendment is not a sacred cow. Even Justice Scalia in D.C v. Heller acknowledged reasonable limits, and the Fourth Circuit upheld restrictions on AR-15s and other specific firearms on this basis. In deciding the extent or limits of a reasonable gun control policy, it seems sensible to ask what the minimal requirements for reasonable home defense and hunting are, and what, if any, weapons might be overkill for that purpose.

 

No one is assassinating your character lol

 

Oh you must have missed Kerri's character assassinations. LOL!

 

Then why do you care if guns that can fire six rounds are banned?

The likliehood of being injured in a car wreck is based on stats showing how plausible it is as compared to being shot on any given day. Sure, I might be in a situation where someone tries to shoot me but that stat isn’t nearly as high as being injured in a potential car wreck. The difference is, most car wrecks are accidents. Gun shot wounds are usually deliberate.

And I’m not for banning guns. I just don’t see the need to have high powered rifles as falling under “rights.”

 

Lol okay. I admit, I haven’t read through the thread completely yet.

 

But I don't have, or want, an arsenal. I have a Glock-17. A number of posters here want that to be confiscated. What's your take on that?

And since you've brought up mass shooting, let's look at them more closely and see how they measure up when it comes to the reason for banning a particular weapon.