For the 100th time in this forum, FBI UCR Table 12. Persuasive argument? LOL, you have yet to make a persuasive argument in any post. All you do is regurgitate the same propaganda from places like VPC, month after month the same debunked crap. Its past embarrassment, its getting into mental illness.
LOL, you can't even provide the link. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-12 How does that refute anything I've said? I can predict what will happen next. Battle3 will try to obfuscate the issue further while providing no clear answer. If you can't dazzle them with logic then baffle them with BS seems to be his MO.
It doesn't, because you've carefully constructed your claim. What you have failed to do, every single time, is address the fact that every single strict gun control state is its own largest supplier of illegal firearms.
Of the seven thousand eight hundred and three firearms recovered in the state of New York for the most recent year the data was available, that were turned over to the ATF to be traced, over seventeen percent were purchased in the state of New York to begin with. The state of Virginia, however, sold just slightly more than five and one half percent of the total amount. The figures are even lower for the other states, with Pennsylvania being the next lowest and just slightly more than five percent, followed by Georgia at being a decimal point lower. The state of Florida is less than four and one half percent, followed by North Carolina at three and one half percent, and then Ohio with less than three percent. Texas is next at one and one third percent of the grand total, more or less equal with the state of Mississippi, and then the state of Virginia as just slightly more than one percent. From there it is nothing but differing degrees of one percent, with the state of Tennessee at the end of the list, with the state of California contributing an even higher amount. How does such compare? Perhaps it should be explained by yourself. If the lax firearm-related restrictions of neighboring states are the problem, why were so many firearms found in criminal possession found to have been sold in the state of New York, in compliance with all of its various permitting and registration requirements for the sale to even be allowed? Why were only sixty one firearms found to have originally been sold in the state of Vermont, despite it possessing some of the supposedly laxest firearm-related restrictions on the map, with no licensing, registration, or one firearm per month purchase limitations, and is practically right next door to the state of New York?
I have provided that link many, many times, and to you more than once. And it wasn't so hard to find was it? Is google so much effort for you that you have to be led by the nose? The Table 12 data clearly shows the high correlation between city size and violent crime rate. Calculate the correlation, it will be very high. Graph the data, the correlation is obvious. Such a strong correlation dominates almost all other factors. And your post proves you know you are wrong - when gun banners shift from their propaganda to attacking the messenger instead of addressing the facts, then you know they have lost and they know it.
So what? It doesn't contradict anything I've said. You keep declaring victory though you've failed to make an adequate argument. As for personal attacks, you don't seem to practice what you preach.
He's pretty well schooled you. If your claims were correct, then there would be almost no firearms from states that have passed idiotic laws that restrict people from owning guns-like MD, CT, NY, NJ and California. but there are large numbers of guns from those states in NY. so your entire premise fails
The data disproves your claim that the problem is states with lax gun laws. Stating facts (such as your monthly regurgitation of the same old gun ban thread topic) is not a personal attack, neither is pointing out the stupidity of people making the same failed argument every month.
LOL, you're the one that keeps making the same failed argument over and over again. There is nothing in that FBI table that refutes anything I've said.
Perhaps not from the FBI, but the ATF itself has stated that the majority of firearms found in possession of criminals did not come from any outside state, but rather from the state of residence in question. It is not the lax restrictions of other states that are being exploited, but rather the restrictions of the home state that are being violated without any regard for the legal consequences.
Probably a model based on New York City's license system, Proof of "NEED" and making the process so expensive, complicated and difficult, and commonly denied, nobody applies.
well if you don't think anyone should be able to own guns , minimal probably means banning 75% of them.
based on the recent DC circuit holding, I suspect the NYC law is going to take a serious hit in the courts
Only if the next court of appeals affirms the ruling, as was done in what came to be known as the Heller ruling. If the court of appeal in question, however, chooses to reverse the ruling, the untied state supreme court will have no reason to take up the case, as there will be no circuit court split in need of being addressed.
You mean if the Court sits en banc and reverses the three judge panel it was a circuit court that ruled against May issue.
Correction noted. However if the full court overrules, there will still be no circuit court split for the united state supreme court to sort out, and the lower ruling will be allowed to stand.
that is why we are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC and not a democracy,the rights of the few are as great as the rights of the many. you want to ban guns or amend the CONSTITUTION, see ARTICAL 5 ,there is a process, a CONSTITUTIONAL process,you socialist need to get over it ,it would take 38 states to ratify a change an the left knows that would be impossable. so what you on the left want to do is ignore the CONSTITUTION ,when it does not work for you. tell me all about guns hull ,just keep whining.
that is a strong possibility. the court did not hear the Heller matter en banc either even though Obama's failed gun banning judge, Merrick Garland wanted an en banc hearing
the gun banners need to also try to figure out how to pass an amendment that properly delegates gun banner powers to the federal government. The stench of the commerce clause nonsense is starting to cause even some moderate judges and academics to gag.
you got that right,they have stretrched the commerce clause to the point where you can read a newspaper through it.
