TexasCHLforum.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac ... 9c675f3539

I've been banned from the Reddit gun politics subreddit, so sorry you get to read my rants.

When I looked at this article, I didn't realize I was reading from the gun politics subreddit as it is an anti gun subreddit. It started out like "hey we are really going to look into it, not be biased, give you the facts". After a few paragraphs I noticed the bent towards anti gun and by the end I was laughing.

In their article there is a big elephant in the room. They don't talk about it and neither will I. But it is a really big elephant and no one ever talks about it, if they do, they are immediately labeled something and everyone hates them for the rest of their lives.

That said. They mention Chicago, St Louis and New Orleans. One has tough gun laws and the other two don't, Chicago has a lower murder rate than the other two. Here is the latest list. https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/blog/ ... ate-cities.

What is interesting is that high murder rates correlate in cities with and without strict gun laws. Washington DC and Camden NJ stand out in my mind. If gun laws work, then they would not be on the list. California is on the list, Texas is not.

So it would seem that gun laws have no effect on murder rates. Criminals get guns any way they can and murder people.

So if your NOT a criminal where do you want to live: in a city with a high murder rate where you can't get a license to conceal carry or in a city with a high murder rate, but a city where you can at least shoot back.

If you look at the list. I think its about the people not the weapon. That is where the truth lies. I'll give my analysis four American flags

I don't see your post as a rant.

I see it for what it is: Factual and interesting.

I liked it.

Thanks!

Abraham wrote:I don't see your post as a rant.

I see it for what it is: Factual and interesting.

I liked it.

Thanks!

One would think pointing out Mexican gun bans and gun murder rates in Mexico in a Gun Politics reddit forum wouldn't get you banned either.

philip964 wrote: One would think pointing out Mexican gun bans and gun murder rates in Mexico in a Gun Politics reddit forum wouldn't get you banned either.

Well, they sure taught you a lesson about having a viewpoint other than theirs'!

Speaking of cherry picking data, the Post article ignores Camden and Newark, both in NJ. NJ has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country and a bleak history of prosecuting otherwise innocent people whose only "crime" is the violation of those gun laws. Granted that in several of those prosecutions, the public outcry about them forced a reversal but the charges were filed and without the publicity, the gun-law violators would have faced stiff sentences. And all the while, the murder rates and Camden and Newark were high as was the fact that there is a significant amount of gun violence. Exactly how much is unclear since NJ shields that information from public scrutiny.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... n/2113737/

chasfm11 wrote:Speaking of cherry picking data, the Post article ignores Camden and Newark, both in NJ. NJ has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country and a bleak history of prosecuting otherwise innocent people whose only "crime" is the violation of those gun laws. Granted that in several of those prosecutions, the public outcry about them forced a reversal but the charges were filed and without the publicity, the gun-law violators would have faced stiff sentences. And all the while, the murder rates and Camden and Newark were high as was the fact that there is a significant amount of gun violence. Exactly how much is unclear since NJ shields that information from public scrutiny.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... n/2113737/

I agree with most of your post except the use of the misnomer "gun violence". That is a Anti's phrase that is used to mislead ignorant persons.

An inanimate object, such as a firearm, is INCAPABLE of committing violence. That two word phrase should NEVER be used by those of us who support the 2nd Amendment and the right of defense of self and others. Don't give others any slack by misusing words.

OldCurlyWolf wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:Speaking of cherry picking data, the Post article ignores Camden and Newark, both in NJ. NJ has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country and a bleak history of prosecuting otherwise innocent people whose only "crime" is the violation of those gun laws. Granted that in several of those prosecutions, the public outcry about them forced a reversal but the charges were filed and without the publicity, the gun-law violators would have faced stiff sentences. And all the while, the murder rates and Camden and Newark were high as was the fact that there is a significant amount of gun violence. Exactly how much is unclear since NJ shields that information from public scrutiny.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... n/2113737/

I agree with most of your post except the use of the misnomer "gun violence". That is a Anti's phrase that is used to mislead ignorant persons.

An inanimate object, such as a firearm, is INCAPABLE of committing violence. That two word phrase should NEVER be used by those of us who support the 2nd Amendment and the right of defense of self and others. Don't give others any slack by misusing words.

Since most violence is from "alcohol violence " why dont they ban alcohol or have people submit a background check and wait a week or 2 before picking it up? This should be the New Democratic Campaign!

look up your osn facts. any liberal rag is aimed at fooling and pacifying the mindless and tries to piss off the mindful as a course of their normal business.

Gun Violence
car violence
abortion violence
drug violence
medical violence
hammer violence
knife violence

Also the very popular cricket bat & golf club & pointy stick violence

The ever popular shod foot violence.

OldCurlyWolf wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:Speaking of cherry picking data, the Post article ignores Camden and Newark, both in NJ. NJ has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country and a bleak history of prosecuting otherwise innocent people whose only "crime" is the violation of those gun laws. Granted that in several of those prosecutions, the public outcry about them forced a reversal but the charges were filed and without the publicity, the gun-law violators would have faced stiff sentences. And all the while, the murder rates and Camden and Newark were high as was the fact that there is a significant amount of gun violence. Exactly how much is unclear since NJ shields that information from public scrutiny.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... n/2113737/

I agree with most of your post except the use of the misnomer "gun violence". That is a Anti's phrase that is used to mislead ignorant persons.

An inanimate object, such as a firearm, is INCAPABLE of committing violence. That two word phrase should NEVER be used by those of us who support the 2nd Amendment and the right of defense of self and others. Don't give others any slack by misusing words.

So is "violence committed with guns" better? Gun crimes? I do understand the point that some groups use this phrase to try to distort the fact that there are human actions responsible, not the inanimate object. But I have to confess to be being more than a little frustrated by a barrage of "you cannot say that word." I rail against politically correct speech. Because someone else has hijacked a word or a phrase for their purposes, does it then become off limits to anyone else? The concept that I was trying to communicate was that NJ grossly distorts laws about guns, wielding them mightily against people who are not otherwise criminals and giving a pass to those who have long rap sheets. If we are in agreement with that concept, let's just agree to agree.