Challenge to those in favor of more gun control.

a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

You seem adamant that banning AW's won't do a thing.

Am I? Can you quote me where I said that, then? I'll wait.

Again, I can understand that you could be right, but it seems like you can't concede that I may also be right.

Really? Did you miss that part where I point blank said

I didn't say there was zero fluctuation, I said there was little to no statistical impact.

That's a pretty blunt acceptance there there was a change to the numbers. It's just not a significant one.

a reply to: Shamrock6

you still have not answered the relevance question.

point is that he was in a mental health place and may have been committed and if so the nics system should have caught him. You really need some tact bro. Be yourself is all that you can do though.

a reply to: howtonhawky

you still have not answered the relevance question.

I did. Just because you can't understand the answer doesn't mean the answer wasn't given.

point is that he was in a mental health place and may have been committed and if so the nics system should have caught him.

Whether he was committed or not is irrelevant. He wasn't adjudicated as mentally incompetent to the point of not being able to purchase a firearm, which is the only thing that NICS looks for.

You really need some tact bro.

I'm not your bro, guy. I'm sorry that you find direct answers to your attempts at snippy comments so upsetting, but I dunno what to tell you. How is this relevant?

Be yourself is all that you can do though.

How is this relevant? For somebody who's so worried about relevance, you sure seem to like being irrelevant.

The guy had been in and out of mental health treatment several times and the police had been called on him around a dozen times.

The nics system needs to catch these people or else we really do not need the system at all.

I have had the understanding that as long as one voluntarily takes their medicine prescribed in the mental hospital then they are not committed. I also remember something about how repeat visits to the mental hospital is diagnosed usually and committed. This guy should not have been able to get his guns legally the system failed at some point.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Whether he was committed or not is irrelevant. He wasn't adjudicated as mentally incompetent to the point of not being able to purchase a firearm, which is the only thing that NICS looks for.

wrong
if one has been committed to a mental health place then they can not buy weapons legally,bro.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

Funny that the murder rate actually dropped after Chicago passed their first piece of gun legislation.

No it didn't.

It took nearly 20 years for the homicide number to drop below what it was in 1982 and stay below that number, which was 670. And, ironically, it's continued to go down in the years since SCOTUS struck down Chicago's ban.

Does Chicago have the strictest gun laws in the country? It did after Mayor Jane Byrne pushed through the ban on firearms not already registered with Chicago police in March 1982. The city’s ban lasted until 2010, when the Supreme Court struck it down by a majority vote of 5-4. Two years later, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago struck down as unconstitutional the state’s ban on carrying concealed firearms. In 2013, the General Assembly passed a law making Illinois the last state to grant its residents the right to concealed carry. Right now, New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco have stricter gun laws on the books, experts say.

Handy little chart

Do me a favor.

Count how many years had 800+ murders in the 10 years preceding the 1982 legislation.

Now count how many years have 800+ murders in the 34 years AFTER the legislation.

Forget it, I'll tell you. 8 of the 10 years prior to the legislation had 800+ murders. That's only occurred 6 times in the 34 years after the ban went into effect.

You're smart, why do you think the murders went down (in aggregate)?

Another funny anecdote, MORE legislation has been passed since 2010, and coincidentally the murders have been trending down from that point as well. HMMMMMMMMMMMMM.....

I didn't pull this out of my ass, I looked at the date YOU provided.

Tell you what, if it makes you feel better I’ll trade you a 1911 for a 3D printer that prints in metal.


Have you figured it out yet that MAYBE you need to identify the real problem instead of being focused on the object used? Because all the regulations in place or that could be in place doesn’t stop desire whether that desire is legal or not.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

You seem adamant that banning AW's won't do a thing.

Am I? Can you quote me where I said that, then? I'll wait.

Again, I can understand that you could be right, but it seems like you can't concede that I may also be right.

Really? Did you miss that part where I point blank said

I didn't say there was zero fluctuation, I said there was little to no statistical impact.

That's a pretty blunt acceptance there there was a change to the numbers. It's just not a significant one.

You are correct, you didn't say no change. I apologize.

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

Funny that the murder rate actually dropped after Chicago passed their first piece of gun legislation.

No it didn't.

It took nearly 20 years for the homicide number to drop below what it was in 1982 and stay below that number, which was 670. And, ironically, it's continued to go down in the years since SCOTUS struck down Chicago's ban.

Does Chicago have the strictest gun laws in the country? It did after Mayor Jane Byrne pushed through the ban on firearms not already registered with Chicago police in March 1982. The city’s ban lasted until 2010, when the Supreme Court struck it down by a majority vote of 5-4. Two years later, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago struck down as unconstitutional the state’s ban on carrying concealed firearms. In 2013, the General Assembly passed a law making Illinois the last state to grant its residents the right to concealed carry. Right now, New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco have stricter gun laws on the books, experts say.

Handy little chart

Do me a favor.

Count how many years had 800+ murders in the 10 years preceding the 1982 legislation.

Now count how many years have 800+ murders in the 34 years AFTER the legislation.

Forget it, I'll tell you. 8 of the 10 years prior to the legislation had 800+ murders. That's only occurred 6 times in the 34 years after the ban went into effect.

You're smart, why do you think the murders went down (in aggregate)?

Another funny anecdote, MORE legislation has been passed since 2010, and coincidentally the murders have been trending down from that point as well. HMMMMMMMMMMMMM.....

I didn't pull this out of my ass, I looked at the date YOU provided.

Here are some stats I'd like to see...

Number wounded vs Number dead.... why? Maybe advancements in medical care are keeping people alive who otherwise would be taking a dirt nap.

Economic figures? Correlation between booming economies and lower crime rates?

Prison sentences? Any change in prison sentencing for those most likely to be involved in crime?

Here in Chicago the murder rate is not as high as it used to be... however, the Feds did make some pretty serious busts and break up of gangs in the early 90s, so that could be a factor. Not too mention a lot of the notorious hot spots of violent crime have been gentrified or torn down (i.e., Cabrini Green)>

My point is that you still have to look at the other factors in conjunction with AW bans to draw any real meaningful conclusions. Heck, I'd want to see availability of AW style rifles back in the day... meaning were AR-15s as prevalent. My gut tells me they weren't in terms of popularity. However, it doesn't mean that the gun itself is the cause... but it could explain why ARs might now be more favorable vs a pistol. With that said, we do know that the rate of fire is the same so you can't really say the AR is any more dangerous.

a reply to: howtonhawky

if one has been involuntarily committed to a mental health place then they can not buy weapons legally,bro.

Which means being adjudicated as mentally deficient.

Bro.

a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

Except what you said was that the murder rate dropped after the first piece of gun legislation was passed.

It didn't.

I'm not going all over the map just because now you want to change the parameters of what you said after the fact.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

Funny that the murder rate actually dropped after Chicago passed their first piece of gun legislation.

No it didn't.

It took nearly 20 years for the homicide number to drop below what it was in 1982 and stay below that number, which was 670. And, ironically, it's continued to go down in the years since SCOTUS struck down Chicago's ban.

Does Chicago have the strictest gun laws in the country? It did after Mayor Jane Byrne pushed through the ban on firearms not already registered with Chicago police in March 1982. The city’s ban lasted until 2010, when the Supreme Court struck it down by a majority vote of 5-4. Two years later, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago struck down as unconstitutional the state’s ban on carrying concealed firearms. In 2013, the General Assembly passed a law making Illinois the last state to grant its residents the right to concealed carry. Right now, New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco have stricter gun laws on the books, experts say.

Handy little chart

Do me a favor.

Count how many years had 800+ murders in the 10 years preceding the 1982 legislation.

Now count how many years have 800+ murders in the 34 years AFTER the legislation.

Forget it, I'll tell you. 8 of the 10 years prior to the legislation had 800+ murders. That's only occurred 6 times in the 34 years after the ban went into effect.

You're smart, why do you think the murders went down (in aggregate)?

Another funny anecdote, MORE legislation has been passed since 2010, and coincidentally the murders have been trending down from that point as well. HMMMMMMMMMMMMM.....

I didn't pull this out of my ass, I looked at the date YOU provided.

Here are some stats I'd like to see...

Number wounded vs Number dead.... why? Maybe advancements in medical care are keeping people alive who otherwise would be taking a dirt nap.

Economic figures? Correlation between booming economies and lower crime rates?

Prison sentences? Any change in prison sentencing for those most likely to be involved in crime?

Here in Chicago the murder rate is not as high as it used to be... however, the Feds did make some pretty serious busts and break up of gangs in the early 90s, so that could be a factor. Not too mention a lot of the notorious hot spots of violent crime have been gentrified or torn down (i.e., Cabrini Green)>

My point is that you still have to look at the other factors in conjunction with AW bans to draw any real meaningful conclusions. Heck, I'd want to see availability of AW style rifles back in the day... meaning were AR-15s as prevalent. My gut tells me they weren't in terms of popularity. However, it doesn't mean that the gun itself is the cause... but it could explain why ARs might now be more favorable vs a pistol. With that said, we do know that the rate of fire is the same so you can't really say the AR is any more dangerous.

You're 100% right. There are so many factors that go into EVERYTHING regarding any subject it's not possible to draw 100% concrete Cause/Effect.

Chicago is an annoying dog whistle though that gets brought up ANYTIME someone mentions gun regulation. They point to Chicago like the gun regulations are the reason why murders are high (even though in context they're very low).

Can you say for certainty that the regulations caused the drop? Absolutely not. Can you say for certainty that the regulations didn't hurt (cause an increase), yes you can.

the kid was too young to legally buy himself a beer...
heck he was too young to legally buy himself a handgun.
but, he could legally buy himself an assault rifle..

ya know what..... gee, kids still manage to get a hold of alchahol and then drive drunk and kill others... maybe we don't need an age restriction on that one either, since, well, ya know, it's not preventing all those teen drunk drivers out there!!! and I don't believe I've ever heard of a drunk driver killing 18 people.

a reply to: Ahabstar

Yep.

3d printers are next.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

Except what you said was that the murder rate dropped after the first piece of gun legislation was passed.

It didn't.

I'm not going all over the map just because now you want to change the parameters of what you said after the fact.

Murders in Chicago in 1981: 877
Murders in Chicago in 1982 (year 1st regulation was passed): 670
Year in which the murders in Chicago finally eclipsed the previous year's count prior to regulation: 1991.

You win, it took a decade to return to the number of murders that the city had prior to legislation! You're right, there wasn't a drop right after the legislation was passed, we don't count that decade! The 1980's didn't exist.

Again, YOU PROVIDED THE DATA FOR THIS!!!!

a reply to: howtonhawky

Your understanding would be incorrect. Although its more a technicality, I suppose.

In Texas you have the following commitment types:

- Voluntary, where you go in on your own and commit yourself.
- 2 week, where you have been ajudicated and commited by the court for a 2 week commitment
- 72 hour. The initial commitment where the cops take you in and get a doctor to agree to the 72 hours
- 90 day. After 2 weeks you go back to court if the doctors don't release you. At this point you may get 3 months extended
- Annual - same as the 90 day, but its the next step
- 46.02 and 46.03. These are criminal commitments. You eat your kids cause your crazy? You'll be 46.02 (its the criminal code)

All of the above require a doctor to commit you to the facility. All except Voluntary indicate that you are there by court order. All patients have a right to refuse medication,a nd it requires a different court order to force meds. In the state of Texas this is a signed agreement by the patient, known as the I-9 form.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: howtonhawky

if one has been involuntarily committed to a mental health place then they can not buy weapons legally,bro.

Which means being adjudicated as mentally deficient.

Bro.

yep i think we are on the same page now.
One of the quickest ways and most likely ways to be involuntary committed is to go to a mental health place and not accept their medicine.
Yet another failure of the system thinking that the pills make one responsible enough to own firearms.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

i think the part about the court order to take meds has a work around they use often and that is the 3 day stay will turn into the two week stay if no meds taken. Also there has to be some emergency clause cause they will shoot you up quickly if they claim you are outta line. Luckily i have never taken those types of pills. Thanks for the clairity

Why do you feel the need? You can’t own a nuke. People that own those types of weapons are mentally defective. We need to stop coddling them and call them what they are. a reply to: neo96

a reply to: soundguy

Why do you feel the need?

I don't have to justify myself to you or anyone else.

That's a great thing about inalienable rights.