Ammo can be easily made anyhow, and you better hope trump builds the wall to prevent ammo coming across the border like drugs are.
Nope. You will have to repeal the 2A if you want to prohibit ammo. Btw, we know how effective prohibition has been. Care to buy some heroin?
No that would be illegal. Would the heroin problem be better or worse if it were as legal to buy as ammo?
The real answer is you don't know and is only your "opinion". LOL. Meanwhile in Chicago the current score is now at 788 confirmed. Can the bangers reach the 800 mark before the shot clock runs out for 2016? All of this in a city with strict gun control and now WITHOUT stop and frisk. LOL
Well my opinion is based on the vast scientific literature on addiction and considering the fact that no country on earth has even attempted this I would say the evidence is on my side. LOL Chicago is 17th on the gun homicide list by the way.
And they are currently seventeenth on the list, while enforcing absolutely no firearm-related laws. Therefore we can conclude that doing absolutely nothing does indeed amount to something.
Yeah, we've seen how successful you libs and your literature have been in reducing crime and addiction. LOL Chicago, Gary, Camden, Philly etc etc and every cesspool libs dominate are just full of LMAO success stories.
Indeed they do not. They are enforcing neither federal nor state level regulations pertaining to firearms.
Not in zip codes where minorities predominate. The all time record for shootings in the history of the city was set this year. Yeah a real good 17th LOL. The rest of the city knows how to behave. Libs not so much. Besides they're killing each other.
I await your evidence that they have never enforced a single firearm law. Words have meaning. Care to retract your statement?
Firstly, it was not said that the city of Chicago never enforces a single firearm-related law. Rather it was stating that they are not enforcing the laws that exist on the federal or state level. There is a difference in the two standards. http://chicagoreporter.com/thousand...-being-dismissed-cook-county-criminal-courts/ From January 2006 through August 2013, thousands of cases involving a weapons violation were thrown out in Cook County’s criminal courts, The Chicago Reporter found. More than 13,000 cases that included a gun violation have been dismissed during that period, shows the Reporter’s analysis of records maintained by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County. In fact, more felony cases involving a gun–from illegal possession to unlawful sale to a felon–have been thrown out than cases with any other type of charge. The politics of gun violence in Chicago could be inadvertently driving the dismissals, said Rely Vilcica, a former judge in Romania and now an associate professor of criminal justice at Temple University. So much pressure is mounting about gun violence that public officials are now saying, “We cannot do nothing about guns,” said Vilcica, who similarly examined dismissed gun cases in Philadelphia. The high volume of dismissed cases point to a broken criminal justice system, critics say. But where is it breaking down? Is it among police officers who, under pressure to make gun-related arrests, might be filing charges that don’t hold up in court? Or is it among prosecutors who might be allowing thousands of weak cases–only to dismiss them later to preserve their conviction rate? Or might it be that judges are agreeing to suppress evidence because of a bad arrest? “What ends up being plausible is all of it has the potential to be true,” said Roseanna Ander, executive director of the University of Chicago’s Crime Lab, which studies the way gun offenses are prosecuted in Cook County’s criminal courts. “But what is the bulk of it?” The number of dismissed felony gun-related cases has grown from 845 in 2006 to 2,109 in 2012, the Reporter analysis shows. The trend has continued during the first seven months of this year, during which more gun cases were thrown out than in either 2006 or 2007. The Reporter provided the state’s attorney’s office with a summary of its findings, along with the methodology used in the data analysis. Sally Daly, the office’s director of communications, did not refute the methodology but maintained that the numbers are inflated. “The data being reported was not obtained from or reviewed in detail by the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office,” Daly wrote in a statement. “We do not believe that the data paints an accurate picture of actual gun case dismissals.” According to the state’s attorney’s office, just 12 percent–or 625 out of 5,260–of gun possession cases have been thrown out during the past two years. But the figure only includes cases in which gun possession was the lead charge and excludes some cases involving multiple charges. Fabio Valentini, the chief of the state’s attorney’s office’s criminal prosecutions bureau, said an “overwhelming” number of the dismissed cases were based on a judge’s decision to suppress evidence because a gun was intercepted in a way that violates the Fourth Amendment. Under that scenario, the prosecutor’s office would have no choice but to throw out the charge. “We’d have nothing to pursue the case on,” Valentini said. The Reporter requested to exmaine the records of a process known as “felony review,” in which the state’s attorney’s office weighs the merits of each felony charge before pursuing the case. The request was denied. A similar request made by Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle was also denied, the Reporter learned. But Valentini said a high number of simple gun-possession cases do pass the muster of felony review “because it’s a simple charge.” But he didn’t provide specifics. In researching the outcome of gun cases, Crime Lab’s Anders said she’s heard varied explanations. “There’s lots of narrative that police are bringing bad cases,” she said. “But there are also judges who don’t think it’s ‘a real crime’ because [the defendant] didn’t pull the trigger.” In her observation, Chicago police and the state’s attorney’s office are not only aggressively pursuing gun cases but bringing in additional investigative resources to make sure they’re strong and will stand up in court. Still, the outcome is often “a crap shoot,” she said. “Sometimes nothing happens. Sometimes the hammer comes down.” Anders pointed to a growing body of research that it’s the certainty, not the severity, of the punishment that is most likely to change behavior–in this case, deterring people from carrying guns in the first place. Vilcica said her own research found that dismissals reached 75 percent among simple gun possession cases in Philadelphia in 2005 and 2006, and it sent a message to defendants that they could carry guns with impunity. “They’ll think, ‘I got through this, and nothing happened to me,’ ” she said. Her research also found that those same defendants were almost four times more likely to be convicted of an additional crime than defendants charged in other crimes. But not all consequences of the high dismissal numbers may necessarily be negative, said Arthur Lurigio, professor of psychology and criminal justice at Loyola University Chicago. “In letting the case go, you may look at it as maybe they’re being lax,” Lurigio said. “In another way, they are protecting constitutional rights.” Thousands of cases being dismissed is the evidence that their laws are going unenforced.
Really? Now lets see if you have the courage to admit you are flat out wrong. This is your quote "And they are currently seventeenth on the list, while enforcing absolutely no firearm-related laws. Therefore we can conclude that doing absolutely nothing does indeed amount to something. " You said enforcing absolutely no firearm related laws. Does that mean some laws? Does it mean even a single law? Be honest now or this will haunt you forever
Show us how many firearm-related convictions the city of Chicago has to its name for the last year such data has been made available. Are you asking if the city of Chicago is enforcing no laws whatsoever? Or is the matter still related exclusively to firearm-related restrictions? Being haunted about occasional errors in grammatical structure would suggest significant insecurity.
If I give you this data will you admit you are wrong. Actually if you look you posted it yourself already. LOL You said they enforced absolutley NO firearm related laws. Those are your words not mine. Are you right or wrong? Just admit you're wrong and we will move on
If you can prove conclusively that the city of Chicago is indeed prosecuting individuals who commit firearm-related offenses, an admission will indeed be made. Show us what evidence you have that this is occurring. But be forewarned. If prosecution rates compared to criminal offenses does not even amount to one percent, it will be regarded as an absence of enforcement. There is quite literally no sane justification for the city to only seek prosecution of one out of every criminal found in possession of a firearm at the time of their arrest. They are ranked seventeenth in enforcement out of how many exactly?
You are already hedging. You are not a man of your word. ABSOLUTELY NO FIREARMS LAWS ENFORCED (your words) now means they must be greater than one percent. They are and I can provide that but you will just change what you mean again....and again. Your words do not have any literal meaning....they can mean whatever you want them to. And that is a child's debate.
If something is statistically minute, to the point of being an insignificant measure, it is realistically no different than not existing at all. Out of ninety evaluated cities when it comes to the enforcement of firearm-related restrictions, the city of Chicago is ranked dead last in terms of enforcing either federal or state level firearm-related restrictions. Dead last means they have the fewest enforcements out of any other measured city. In all practical terms they are quite literally doing nothing at all.
