07-14-2014 07:46 AM
4,617 ... 116117118119120 ...
tools
  1. Live2ride883's Avatar
    08-20-2013 10:03 AM
  2. Live2ride883's Avatar
    According to the link below the three teens that killed Chris Lane will be tried as adults...


    No Cookies | Herald Sun
    08-20-2013 09:23 PM
  3. Fairclough's Avatar
    The fundamental point is if they didn't have a gun it wouldn't of occurred. You could say they could of used a knife but that would require them to have balls and walk up to him.

    Posted via Android Central App
    msndrstood likes this.
    08-20-2013 09:59 PM
  4. Live2ride883's Avatar
    The fundamental point is if they didn't have a gun it wouldn't of occurred. You could say they could of used a knife but that would require them to have balls and walk up to him.

    Posted via Android Central App
    If people didn't have cars there would be no drunk drivers, I don't see this as an issue about the proliferation of guns in the US. This is a senseless crime and in this case the individuals that committed the crime will be tried and punished. Hopefully as severely as the law will allow.

    But I do have to wonder if you would be making such a big deal out of this if Chris Lane wasn't an Australian?

    I don't think criminals should have guns, but yet I don't think that any society should allow themselves to be disarmed because of the actions of those same criminals either. I am pretty sure the animals involved in this have had previous run ins with law enforcement, but we'll find out more in the coming weeks and months.
    08-20-2013 10:12 PM
  5. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    The fundamental point is if they didn't have a gun it wouldn't of occurred. You could say they could of used a knife but that would require them to have balls and walk up to him.

    Posted via Android Central App
    I think its more of a cultural problem. Its cool to be a criminal. People punish success nowadays too. I also hold the parents accountable. If the guns are to blame, than the spoon made me fat.



    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    Fairclough and Smitty_82 like this.
    08-20-2013 10:35 PM
  6. Fairclough's Avatar
    I'm in a law lecture at the moment so this is a rushed reply. In short, I brought it up as it was the latest news of a shooting in America out on the news, previous was Zimmerman. Hence probably yes as he was Australian hence why it made it to our news.

    Secondly people are required to jump through loops to get a driving liscene, in gun terms it would be going to the range for almost 2 years before you can use it by yourself. Than still with restrictions on where you can go and how you use it etc. To be honest I think the whole issuing system needs a overhaul.

    I do agree its a cultural issue but not for the reason criminals are cool, but its cool to have a gun and thus every views it's a need or a right.

    Posted via Android Central App
    msndrstood likes this.
    08-20-2013 10:51 PM
  7. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    I'm in a law lecture at the moment so this is a rushed reply. In short, I brought it up as it was the latest news of a shooting in America in out news, previous was Zimmerman. Hence probably yes as he was Australian hence why it made it to our news.

    Secondly people are required to jump through loops to get a driving liscene, in gun terms it would be going to the range for almost 2 years before you can use it by yourself. Than still with restrictions on where you can go and how you use it etc. To be honest I think the whole issuing system needs a overhaul.

    I do agree its a cultural issue but not for the reason criminals are cool, but its cool to have a gun and thus every views it's a need or a right.

    Posted via Android Central App
    No one I know that carries do it to be cool. I do know a lot of thugs that are like that because of a criminal image. Like the rapper role models. They don't have guns to look cool, they have them to place themselves above victims that they know will not carry guns. They do it for an edge. If no guns were ever to exist, they would use knives.


    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    08-20-2013 11:10 PM
  8. Fairclough's Avatar
    Its easier to fight a knife than a gun is it not? A knife would mean close quartered attack where the victim a chance to manipulate the attack while with a gun that proximity is generally restricted. E.g right now next to me there is a nerf gun game while I wait for a tutorial on the oval, they can attack from a distance. While if it was with toy knifes they would have to be close up where they can defend more.... Unless someone was planning to throw the knife where its slower, easier to miss etc.

    Posted via Android Central App
    msndrstood likes this.
    08-20-2013 11:33 PM
  9. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    Its easier to fight a knife than a gun is it not? A knife would mean close quartered attack where the victim a chance to manipulate the attack while with a gun that proximity is generally restricted. E.g right now next to me there is a nerf gun game while I wait for a tutorial on the oval, they can attack from a distance. While if it was with toy knifes they would have to be close up where they can defend more.... Unless someone was planning to throw the knife where its slower, easier to miss etc.

    Posted via Android Central App
    When gangs attack they never fight fair or one on one. Its always a crowd. Whether its a knife or a fist or a gun. Dead is dead.Everyone has a plan until they get hit. They are cowards that use numbers against victims. There were gang kids a couple of months ago that killed another because he rose above the influence. He didn't want to join their gang. They beat him to death.

    The media loves addressing racial deaths and gun deaths but only a minor few picked up on this.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    08-20-2013 11:45 PM
  10. Live2ride883's Avatar
    I'm in a law lecture at the moment so this is a rushed reply. In short, I brought it up as it was the latest news of a shooting in America out on the news, previous was Zimmerman. Hence probably yes as he was Australian hence why it made it to our news.

    Secondly people are required to jump through loops to get a driving liscene, in gun terms it would be going to the range for almost 2 years before you can use it by yourself. Than still with restrictions on where you can go and how you use it etc. To be honest I think the whole issuing system needs a overhaul.

    I do agree its a cultural issue but not for the reason criminals are cool, but its cool to have a gun and thus every views it's a need or a right.

    Posted via Android Central App
    Actually getting a drivers license is pretty easy, you study a book take and pass a written test (the questions are multiple choice). Then you practice driving with a parent, or you take a state approved driving class with a professional drivers ed business. Then you take a test with a state examiner. In Ohio you can get you drivers learning permit at 15 1/2, and take your test at the age of 16. In other states this may be different.

    Federal law prohibits dealers from selling rifles and their ammunition to anyone they have reason to believe is under the age of 18(no federal restrictions on non dealers), federal law also prohibits dealers from selling handguns to anyone they have reason to believe is under the age of 21( non dealers cannot sell handguns to anyone under the age of 18)

    Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

    Driving is a privilege (sp), and yes in the US owning a firearm is a right enumerated by our constitution. What right can be more important that the right to defend yourself, your property and those that you love?
    08-20-2013 11:53 PM
  11. Live2ride883's Avatar
    Regardless of the weapon held/used it is the intent of the user that matters. A knife in my pocket, is no more dangerous to you or anyone else than the pistol I carry on my belt.
    08-20-2013 11:59 PM
  12. Aquila's Avatar
    intent of the user
    This is the problem. Culture of jerks. Not the toys the jerks play with.
    08-21-2013 12:03 AM
  13. Aquila's Avatar
    I'm not usually a reader of The Verge and generally I think Bloomberg is a tool, but here's three cheers to one thing Bloomy did right: Aspiring rapper's Instagram photos lead to largest gun bust in New York City history | The Verge

    Thankful for one less ****** bag off of the streets.

    This is the type of weapons regulation I want to see more of: get these criminals in jail and the illegal guns off of the street. What sucks, and seriously needs to be addressed, is that only 1 in 7 of the guns here had been reported stolen. That 85% on the street is either being smuggled in or is coming from legal owners who either don't know they were robbed (I find this somewhat unlikely), or did a cash sale to a criminal. Of course, that sale is legal approximately everywhere, so the original owner did nothing wrong.

    Toughest question: How do we prevent that sale from taking place without infringing upon the rights of the lawful citizen? I'd like to stop that sale from happening every time... but, if that sale can be stopped even 1/2 times, that's over a 60% drop in firearm access to criminals. What's it take to make that happen?
    08-21-2013 02:28 AM
  14. Fairclough's Avatar
    Actually getting a drivers license is pretty easy, you study a book take and pass a written test (the questions are multiple choice). Then you practice driving with a parent, or you take a state approved driving class with a professional drivers ed business. Then you take a test with a state examiner. In Ohio you can get you drivers learning permit at 15 1/2, and take your test at the age of 16. In other states this may be different.
    First I would like to point out, which one was created with the intention to destroy life, a car or a gun?
    Secondly, even with a potential weapon (car) you require two years of training, supervised usage, than once that two years is up you still have a probation. Now, this could be restricted time zones, blood alcohol reading (P platers which is about 3 years think) require a 0 reading, if any greater they start from scratch, some states aren't allowed over 250kw till their 25. Now a real weapon created for loss of life has less restrictions. I view that owners should have to prove why they need, undergo correct training, prove they adequate storage facilities and be limited to what weapons they can obtain, its the only way slaughters will stop occurring.
    Regardless of the weapon held/used it is the intent of the user that matters. A knife in my pocket, is no more dangerous to you or anyone else than the pistol I carry on my belt.
    I would beg to differ, you could shoot me from 20m away if you wanted to.. a knife you would have to right up to me and confront me.

    Toughest question: How do we prevent that sale from taking place without infringing upon the rights of the lawful citizen? I'd like to stop that sale from happening every time... but, if that sale can be stopped even 1/2 times, that's over a 60% drop in firearm access to criminals. What's it take to make that happen?
    You could adopt the Australian Gun policy, Gun's aren't banned outright here - their just heavily restricted to what class you can obtain and the reasons why you can get one. If your businesses genuinely needs a weapon, e.g in the livestock business. You would be issued with a license. However if your after something a little more powerful, you than have to apply to appropriate gov bodies outlining why you need a more powerful weapon and to go up a class. As for collectors, they can have any class of weapon on the condition that they unable to be used or ever reassembled correctly to be used. Over here we have check ups, so the police would aloud to drop by and check that your guns are all where you say they, secured, meeting the regulations. E.g if you got a recreation license if you meeting the required amount of time spent at the range. This prevents, lets say Guns going on the black market.

    We did have one issue, where it turned out deceased peoples gun's weren't being collected, however, they have been giving a two month period of time to a) Register the Guns under their name or b) hand them in before prosecution starts.

    Under my family, we gave ours into the government in their gun by back scheme. Since the scheme has been in place we have not had a single massacre in almost 15 years. Prior to it we have 4 in 4 years? Because if you think about it, doing a massacre with a knife is bloody hard, while with a gun you can do it from a distance and with ease. I view policies should be tightened if not outrightly banned with the exception of live stock use etc.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Actually getting a drivers license is pretty easy, you study a book take and pass a written test (the questions are multiple choice). Then you practice driving with a parent, or you take a state approved driving class with a professional drivers ed business. Then you take a test with a state examiner. In Ohio you can get you drivers learning permit at 15 1/2, and take your test at the age of 16. In other states this may be different.
    First I would like to point out, which one was created with the intention to destroy life, a car or a gun?
    Secondly, even with a potential weapon (car) you require two years of training, supervised usage, than once that two years is up you still have a probation. Now, this could be restricted time zones, blood alcohol reading (P platers which is about 3 years think) require a 0 reading, if any greater they start from scratch, some states aren't allowed over 250kw till their 25. Now a real weapon created for loss of life has less restrictions. I view that owners should have to prove why they need, undergo correct training, prove they adequate storage facilities and be limited to what weapons they can obtain, its the only way slaughters will stop occurring.
    Regardless of the weapon held/used it is the intent of the user that matters. A knife in my pocket, is no more dangerous to you or anyone else than the pistol I carry on my belt.
    I would beg to differ, you could shoot me from 20m away if you wanted to.. a knife you would have to right up to me and confront me.

    Toughest question: How do we prevent that sale from taking place without infringing upon the rights of the lawful citizen? I'd like to stop that sale from happening every time... but, if that sale can be stopped even 1/2 times, that's over a 60% drop in firearm access to criminals. What's it take to make that happen?
    You could adopt the Australian Gun policy, Gun's aren't banned outright here - their just heavily restricted to what class you can obtain and the reasons why you can get one. If your businesses genuinely needs a weapon, e.g in the livestock business. You would be issued with a license. However if your after something a little more powerful, you than have to apply to appropriate gov bodies outlining why you need a more powerful weapon and to go up a class. As for collectors, they can have any class of weapon on the condition that they unable to be used or ever reassembled correctly to be used. Over here we have check ups, so the police would aloud to drop by and check that your guns are all where you say they, secured, meeting the regulations. E.g if you got a recreation license if you meeting the required amount of time spent at the range. This prevents, lets say Guns going on the black market.

    We did have one issue, where it turned out deceased peoples gun's weren't being collected, however, they have been giving a two month period of time to a) Register the Guns under their name or b) hand them in before prosecution starts.

    Under my family, we gave ours into the government in their gun by back scheme. Since the scheme has been in place we have not had a single massacre in almost 15 years. Prior to it we have 4 in 4 years? Because if you think about it, doing a massacre with a knife is bloody hard, while with a gun you can do it from a distance and with ease. I view policies should be tightened if not outrightly banned with the exception of live stock use etc.
    08-21-2013 03:21 AM
  15. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    Drugs are restricted heavily here. It stops people from becoming drug addicts here.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    Live2ride883 likes this.
    08-21-2013 08:18 AM
  16. msndrstood's Avatar
    Drugs are restricted heavily here. It stops people from becoming drug addicts here.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    And that is working so well.

    Sent via Note II
    Serial Fordicator likes this.
    08-21-2013 08:42 AM
  17. Fairclough's Avatar
    Actually on drugs, studies have shown the legalisation doesn't actually affect the usage, its highly inelastic. Price would be considerably cheaper about 1/10th of the cost etc. Its illegal mainly to protect health care systems and people being in their for abuse and safety. The laws prevent those sitting on the fence from using it. As many people don't use it do it legal nature too. Would you allow a high pilot to drive?

    As for guns the banning has worked. If you look at my previous comments with graphs countries with stricter gun laws actually performs a lot better. Note we haven't had a massacre since our laws were passed. How many has the US had in the past few years?

    Posted via Android Central App
    08-21-2013 09:20 AM
  18. Fairclough's Avatar
    I thought I would reattach some pictures I showed before.
    Note guns are legal here, they have restrictions. These were in response to massacres listed on the graph. We actually had a ridiculously large gun loving nation, when you had pearl harbor we had the obviloration of Darwin by the japanese which drove this culture furthermore entrenched in culture. My former school, when it was under another name and merged with its rival school (it split to boarders / day students in 2 different locations) was situated in the main street of the CBD they used to use rifles in the city for practise. Thats how gun crazy we were. By 1996 a man armed with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle shot 35 dead and 21 injured. I would of been about 2 years old. John Howard (former PM / known for his strong relationship with Bush) banned automatic loading guns, requirements for genuine need and purpose of use, enforced safe storage of firearms and ammunition and mandated training and reporting. Half a billion dollars later our goverment started buying guns back, were Hundreds of thousands of firearms were handed in voluntarily. 700,000 guns were bought back, in the US terms that's 40 million guns.

    As for the sarcasm, yeah the laws seam to be working... Last time I checked the states has more deaths by guns per capita than a country in war. I hear the states are less safe than the Gaza strip.
    Attached Thumbnails Firearms and self-defense-353-guns-300x0.jpg   Firearms and self-defense-1995-2006-2.png   Firearms and self-defense-1995-2006-1-1-.png  
    08-21-2013 09:27 AM
  19. Fairclough's Avatar
    I know this is a long read, but it is more than worth it. John Howard is the man who put gun laws in Australia, if you cant be bothered reading it all cut the last 1/4.

    I Went After Guns. Obama Can, Too.
    By JOHN HOWARD
    Published: January 16, 2013

    Obama to Put Everything Ive Got Into Gun Control (January 17, 2013)

    For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.
    IT is for Americans and their elected representatives to determine the right response to President Obamas proposals on gun control. I wouldnt presume to lecture Americans on the subject. I can, however, describe what I, as prime minister of Australia, did to curb gun violence following a horrific massacre 17 years ago in the hope that it will contribute constructively to the debate in the United States.

    I was elected prime minister in early 1996, leading a center-right coalition. Virtually every nonurban electoral district in the country where gun ownership was higher than elsewhere sent a member of my coalition to Parliament.

    Six weeks later, on April 28, 1996, Martin Bryant, a psychologically disturbed man, used a semiautomatic Armalite rifle and a semiautomatic SKS assault weapon to kill 35 people in a murderous rampage in Port Arthur, Tasmania.

    After this wanton slaughter, I knew that I had to use the authority of my office to curb the possession and use of the type of weapons that killed 35 innocent people. I also knew it wouldnt be easy.

    Our challenges were different from Americas. Australia is an even more intensely urban society, with close to 60 percent of our people living in large cities. Our gun lobby isnt as powerful or well-financed as the National Rifle Association in the United States. Australia, correctly in my view, does not have a Bill of Rights, so our legislatures have more say than Americas over many issues of individual rights, and our courts have less control. Also, we have no constitutional right to bear arms. (After all, the British granted us nationhood peacefully; the United States had to fight for it.)

    Because Australia is a federation of states, the national government has no control over gun ownership, sale or use, beyond controlling imports. Given our decentralized system of government, I could reduce the number of dangerous firearms only by persuading the states to enact uniform laws totally prohibiting the ownership, possession and sale of all automatic and semiautomatic weapons while the national government banned the importation of such weapons.

    To make this plan work, there had to be a federally financed gun buyback scheme. Ultimately, the cost of the buyback was met by a special one-off tax imposed on all Australians. This required new legislation and was widely accepted across the political spectrum. Almost 700,000 guns were bought back and destroyed the equivalent of 40 million guns in the United States.

    City dwellers supported our plan, but there was strong resistance by some in rural Australia. Many farmers resented being told to surrender weapons they had used safely all of their lives. Penalizing decent, law-abiding citizens because of the criminal behavior of others seemed unfair. Many of them had been lifelong supporters of my coalition and felt bewildered and betrayed by these new laws. I understood their misgivings. Yet I felt there was no alternative.

    The fundamental problem was the ready availability of high-powered weapons, which enabled people to convert their murderous impulses into mass killing. Certainly, shortcomings in treating mental illness and the harmful influence of violent video games and movies may have played a role. But nothing trumps easy access to a gun. It is easier to kill 10 people with a gun than with a knife.

    Passing gun-control laws was a major challenge for my coalition partner: the rural, conservative National Party. All of its members held seats in nonurban areas. It was also very hard for the state government of Queensland, in Australias northeast, where the National Party was dominant, and where the majority of the population was rural.

    The leaders of the National Party, as well as the premier of Queensland, courageously supported my governments decision, despite the electoral pain it caused them. Within a year, a new populist and conservative political party, the One Nation Party, emerged and took many votes from our coalition in subsequent state and federal elections; one of its key policies was the reversal of the gun laws.

    For a time, it seemed that certain states might refuse to enact the ban. But I made clear that my government was willing to hold a nationwide referendum to alter the Australian Constitution and give the federal government constitutional power over guns. Such a referendum would have been expensive and divisive, but it would have passed. And all state governments knew this.

    In the end, we won the battle to change gun laws because there was majority support across Australia for banning certain weapons. And today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate. The Australian Institute of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996. The American Law and Economics Review found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres each with more than four victims causing a total of 102 deaths. There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996.

    Few Australians would deny that their country is safer today as a consequence of gun control.

    John Howard was prime minister of Australia from 1996 to 2007.
    msndrstood likes this.
    08-21-2013 09:57 AM
  20. Live2ride883's Avatar
    Your family made the decision to trade in your guns at a government buy back scheme, and that's your choice to make.

    There are gun buy back scheme's all over the place here in the US, most give you pennies on the dollar vs the value of the gun. A S&W MP 40 that I paid 700.00 for might get me 100.00 or less in a government buy back scheme. In some area's by city statute any guns turned into the police or sheriff that were not used in a crime cannot be destroyed and have to be sold at a public auction. Which defeats the purpose of getting the gun off the streets. I think it would be a safe bet that they make more at that public auction than they paid for the guy thru the buyback scheme.

    There was a buyback in Seattle a few months ago and private collectors were offering 2-3 times the amount of cash that the county was offering, and it is totally legal.

    What you cannot do is un-invent the firearm. I think it would be a very dangerous situation to be in if only the government, police and criminals have firearms.

    I think we can agree that criminals should not have access to firearms. But since I am not a criminal, I should not be forced to surrender my weapons.

    One other thing in the discussion between the difference between a knife, and a gun. If you stab somebody with a knife or shoot them with a gun but do not kill them you are still going to be charged with assault with a deadly weapon.
    08-21-2013 01:30 PM
  21. Fairclough's Avatar
    Actually the buy back was a pretty generous offer with its price, basically under the law you basically had to get a licence or get rid of it. If the US in operated a similar law it would actually be great. If you do the maths out government paid over $714 per gun to buy it back in 1996! So your out of pocket loss argument under such a scheme is basically redundant. You rather sell it back anyways than have an unlicensed firearm and getting it confiscated. The guns were destroyed not resold, a quick type into YouTube will show you that.

    Your missing the point, every massacre we had and America has had were done by LAW ABIDING CITIZENS WHO BOUGHT THEIR WEAPONS LEGALLY.

    The fact is prior to the law in 18 years 102 dead from massacres. Post law for 16 years no one dead from massacres.

    Now one night argue a ar15 is not a military weapon, well its been used for the past 4 massacres. It was used to kill 35 people in Port Arthur.

    It is a given if you kill you would be charged with using a weapon with a knife. Its a fact it is a lot harder to do so with a knife though than a gun, particularly automatic and semi autos.

    If you don't need a gun, you shouldn't have a gun.

    Posted via Android Central App
    08-21-2013 06:19 PM
  22. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    Our most crime stricken city has the highest gun control. Our supreme court has stated many times the police are not responsible for your safety. As far as mass shootings, i blame the media. They glamorize the shootings and plaster these asshats all over the news, but you NEVER hear about when armed citizens stop a would be shooter. I'm still trying to figure out why you obsess with pushing gun control on a country you don't live in and know only what you see on the media.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    Live2ride883 likes this.
    08-21-2013 09:28 PM
  23. Fairclough's Avatar
    I push it for own team mates safety who study there. A lot of athletes from my school and the league of schools go their to study and race competitively. We know their 30x more likely to die there than here.

    So you blame the media for the fact your 30x more likely to be shot? I personally think the media doesn't control that

    Our mass shootings were in the news too.... It stopped with real gun control. The track record speaks for itself.

    Posted via Android Central App
    msndrstood likes this.
    08-21-2013 11:45 PM
  24. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    The reason why people get shot here is not guns. Its the mentality. This country holds no one responsible. Our first act is to pop out a tit and put it in a mouth.

    When a criminal has more rights than a victim, you know your country has turned to s.....

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    08-21-2013 11:53 PM
  25. JHBThree's Avatar
    Actually the buy back was a pretty generous offer with its price, basically under the law you basically had to get a licence or get rid of it. If the US in operated a similar law it would actually be great. If you do the maths out government paid over $714 per gun to buy it back in 1996! So your out of pocket loss argument under such a scheme is basically redundant. You rather sell it back anyways than have an unlicensed firearm and getting it confiscated. The guns were destroyed not resold, a quick type into YouTube will show you that.

    Your missing the point, every massacre we had and America has had were done by LAW ABIDING CITIZENS WHO BOUGHT THEIR WEAPONS LEGALLY.

    The fact is prior to the law in 18 years 102 dead from massacres. Post law for 16 years no one dead from massacres.

    Now one night argue a ar15 is not a military weapon, well its been used for the past 4 massacres. It was used to kill 35 people in Port Arthur.

    It is a given if you kill you would be charged with using a weapon with a knife. Its a fact it is a lot harder to do so with a knife though than a gun, particularly automatic and semi autos.

    If you don't need a gun, you shouldn't have a gun.

    Posted via Android Central App
    Your post just proved that any laws here wouldn't work. It is impossible to regulate guns here to the extent that Australia did. Any comparison is irrelevant.

    There IS significant data from multiple US municipalities that gun bans don't work and actually result in higher crime rates.

    A previous poster linked to Chicago trying to prove a point, but they fail due to one huge reason: despite the violence in Chicago, the crime rate is actually lower than it ever has been. Homicides by guns are lower than they were last year by a significant amount. All of this despite the fact that Chicago's handgun ban was overturned by the courts. Yes, you're reading that correctly. Violence, especially gun violence, is occurring at a LOWER rate now than when the city had a handgun ban.

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
    08-22-2013 12:00 AM
4,617 ... 116117118119120 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Larva Cartoon - FREE and FUNNY Application
    By liontyping in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-21-2014, 11:03 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-25-2013, 07:33 AM
  3. POI information and Gallery
    By robjulo in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 11:00 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 04:28 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD