How To Argue For Gun Control.

Actually it's 2.93% if we assume a crowd of 20,000.
And that's acceptable to you so you can play with your guns?

How is that an exaggeration? You claim you can hit more targets faster with a semi automatic than you can with a machine gun, even into a crowd of 20,000 people. Then you claim that, "The simple answer is machine guns tend to have more ammo and is psychologically devastating to hear automatic fire directed towards you."

 

Trump is certainly not a declared Nazi, but as to him being racist, I'll let his record speak on it's own.
Further, he thinks there are good Nazis.

Point taken with the cross, can they burn it in a field if they have permission? Or maybe in a public area as a form of free speech?

 

Do you have any proof that gun laws don't work. And please supply us with double blind experiments that conclusively prove this claim.

You may be right, Soulcompromise may be right.
As it may be hard to prove either view we should error on the side of caution, as many guns have no purpose but to kill as rapidly as possible, overthrown our government, or shoot up watermelons for fun.
So if we error on the side of caution and stiffen our gun laws possibly saving many lives...you can't live with that...you have to have your fun shooting trees and old wine bottles...and so what if a few men, women, and children die?

You're having fun.

​

 

I'm glad we can agree that no innocent deaths related to guns is acceptable.
However, saying that because only 3% of the innocent people in that crowd were killed or wounded, and that is acceptable, negates your previous statement, as there were 58 innocent deaths in that 3%, and well or 500 wounded
You're playing games with statistics.

I'm glad you agree that the psychological effect of machine guns is not due to the noise they make, but rather to the greater chance of being hit by the amount of firepower generated per second. That's how repressive fire works, fear of being hit, not the noise.
Hence the number of dead and wounded in Las Vegas.

 

The statue was being legally removed by order of the city council, which had deemed it racist and inappropriate. Charlottesville is a leading liberal town and the decision to remove the statue, as voted on, upset the white nationalists who vowed to make it a symbol of their racist agenda. They provoked the conflict. There was no conflict until they showed up.

Spencer and his allies made clear their intention to provoke others when they illegally marched with burning torches the night before their legal protest, and when they violated the terms of their legal protest the next day.
Anyone who supported their protest after the act they put on an Friday night knew what they were doing and knew why the protest against the removal was organized. It wasn't due to the aesthetics of the statue.
Anyone with a brain knew the statue had come to represent racism, at least for the purposes of Spencer's protest.
There were no good people protesting the removal of that statue Friday night or Saturday, unless you consider those outsiders who disputed the legal removal of a statue by the citizens of the town it was in, and that had come to represent racism.

You can't erroneously yell fire in a crowed movie theater.
The problem at Charlottesville was that the police didn't have the balls to cancel the Saturday march after the illegal Nazi show that was put on Friday night.

 

Your study was inconclusive in every category except suicide which showed a decrease.
In addition it tested for all forms of violence, not just violence by guns.

No gun control law violates the 2nd amendment except the complete banning of civilian guns and the 2nd didn't prohibit that until 2008 with The District of Columbia vs Heller.
Prior to 2008 citizens only had the right to own weapons if connected with an organized lawful militia or while in service to the government.
In other words, a town such as Washington D.C. could prohibit any civilian from owning or carrying a weapon in their jurisdiction and by extension the federal government could do the same if it so desired.
From 1787 until 2008, 221 years, you had no right to own a firearm outside of those outlined exceptions.

 

The surrounding states are not Chicago. Chicago has unique problems that are increased by the importation of guns from other areas.
For example, I can live on a very peaceful street in my town. But if I go a few blocks away the environment can radically change. Guns might not be a problem on my street, but a few blocks away they can be.

Buyback campaigns are only ineffective if the motivation for turning in the guns is not sufficient to overcome the motive to keep them.
Make it worthwhile and people will turn in their guns and then go elsewhere to secure more and turn them in for the ample reward.

For example, provide me twice as much money as the gun would cost me on the open market and I'll go to gun shows, buy new guns and turn in as many as you'll pay me for.

 

No it couldn't.
You still don't understand rate of fire.
Maybe if I get around to it I'll do the math for you, but I might not waste my time.

 

Actually no it wasn't.

The Oath Keepers, formed by a disbarred lawyer, encourage their members to violate the Constitution.
The U.S. Army has been forbidden to interact or acknowledge them when they assemble outside of recruitment centers.
They ignored police orders in Ferguson.
They have threatened a U.S.District judge, and threatened an armed blockage in the arrest of Kim Davis.
One of their members was fired for assaulting Don Lemon of CNN on live TV and boasted that "I'm also a killer. I've killed a lot, and if I need to I'll kill a whole bunch more."[51]
They have also participated in other illegal activities.

I don't know what the tgere are.


Members of ANTFA weren't there illegally, they also have a right to assemble.