The facts say that the us has 133 mass killing instances out of a total 318 million population. Do math and tell me how that metric compares to the other countries listed.
I'm setting up a straw man? LOL. I was actually told in this very thread that less guns = less freedom. If anything your entire post is a straw man. I never said anything about individual cities.
Quoting this for future reference when you decide what's posted here in the future from Politifact has too much "liberal bias."
New CA LAw is to take guns away from the mentally ill. That's a start Next step is to take guns away fro everyone besides those that would need them like Law Enforcement I don't care about the 2nd amendment or you stupid hunters
My point is that most guns aren't constitutionally protected. Concealed weapons should be banned. Most murders are by someone the victim knows. The idea of criminals killing criminals is a false narrative. It's more criminal killing people they know. Good for you. You are 6 times more likely to be killed by a gun than you are in Mexico.
Mexico having strict gun laws don't really work because its neighbor have very lax gun laws. More than 250,000 guns are illegally smuggled into Mexico from the US every year.
Where did you get the data that Chicago has one of the highest gun related homicide rate in the country? It's certainly not great, but it's also no where close to being the worst & much better than that of Detroit & New Orleans etc. Actually in neighboring Indianapolis (a very gun friendly state & city), the murder rate is higher than that of Chicago's. Also, let's not forget that Houston's murder rate is catching up and getting very close to that of Chicago's as well. Also let's not forget that NYC & LA also have very strict gun control laws and also one of the lowest murder rates among major cities in the US.
My point was that gun violence is very concentrated in this country. Those few major cities ramp up our rating as a violent country. I don't watch the local news much anymore but whenever there was a news story about a death by gunfire it sure looked and sounded like drug dealers killing each other.
Here's one link: http://www.takepart.com/photos/gun-homicides/gun-homicides-america-where-bullets-are-flying
In 2014, Chicago led in murders but was 6th in murder rate. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/03/america-s-2014-murder-capital.html
And its police and judicial system are just about the most corrupt in the Western Hemisphere, so there's that, too.
This is so awesomely typical for you: "Hey, I don't really have any facts or knowledge about this, but I was on facebook the other day and I *think* that...." Your other old bullsh!t canard, which I haven't seen you bust out in a long time, was the "I don't really believe what I just posted, I just started this thread to promote discussion...."
Did you see the link I posted? Chicago ranked third or fourth back in 2013. All the cities I mentioned were in the top ten. Most of this death by gunfire comes out of impoverished urban areas. I daresay most of the action is crime on crime. Maybe you should be my publicist? You're right though, discussion is a terrible thing...
The sign on the left isn't meant to prevent massacres. It's meant to do two things: 1) prevent situation escalation 2) prevent accidental death; which is statistically FAR more likely than anything else... especially with children around.
And for the umpteenth time, the keystone kops of the pro gun movment unleash The Chicago Gambit This sad specimen of an argument is invalid on so many levels, and all that jazz. According to the pro-gunners - Chicago like it's an example of why "ALL GUN CONTROL ALWAYS NEVER WILL ALWAYS NEVER WORK" - all they have to do is merely mention the word, or the murder rate, like above, and all arguments are magically refuted. It basically goes "Yeah, well, sorry about them dead kids but CHICAGO!" First, The most obvious question this begs is "then what the **** are you so damned afraid of" incredibly modest measures like closing gun show loopholes and better background checks? If none of this will presumably have any impact at all on anything why is it necessary to go to battlestations to defend FORT GUN FREEDOM every time even the most regulation is posited? Why don't you save your energy? Don't bother to answer, I know why Second The case of Chicago's high murder rate is a result of many things (most notably,widespread organized high rise ghettoization by Daley in the 50's and 60's, though that's another topic). But the relative inefficacy of it's gun control proves the case for gun control on a national level rather than a local level. Why? Because despite Chicago's restrictive firearms policy, other than a few wealthy enclaves most of the counties that border Chicago have no such policy and instead are relative bazaars of gun availability like Dupage County or across the border in Indiana. Firearm manufacturers/distributors know this of course and naturally flood the area with tons of supply, knowing full well they will make their way to the South and West sides. This same example holds true in DC with respect to Virginia. Contrast this of course with New York City and its astoundingly low rate of gun violence - why? Because getting a gun in Westchester or Connecticut or New Jersey is really not that easy. Gun restrictiosn, when not hamstrung by geography or other factors, are perfectly capable of being effective, as the literal thousands if not millions of countervailing datapoints to Chicago show. Third - this chart pretty much says all that needs to be said about hte efficacy of gun restrictions in the US. Spoiler Why is it that the data as a whole, when incorporating all of the data points, New York Chicago etc....is overwhelmingly in favor of restricting guns? Read on for more.. Fourth - the reason why the above is true is the principal fact that has, to my knowledge, never been refuted, despite all of the best efforts, which is that the correlation between guns and gun related shootings is holding steady at a solid 100%, and reducing the supply of guns - shockingly - reduces shootings and gun violence. If you don't believe that it's possible to make guns less available, you more or less are rejecting the laws of supply and demand. And there is no way to answer this argument. You have lost this debate. It's not worth having anymore. The Repubs decided after Newtown that good faith on this issue was no longer necessary. C'est la vie.
My post was in response to a request for statistics - nothing more (considering it is my only post in this thread). It was posted that Chicago was in the top 4 for murder rate. My post showed they weren't. Considering i am not debating anything, I have not lost anything.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-cards="hidden" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">.<a href="https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton">@HillaryClinton</a> is pushing new gun controls after Oregon shooting <a href="http://t.co/frn2JKRldO">http://t.co/frn2JKRldO</a></p>— PBS NewsHour (@NewsHour) <a href="https://twitter.com/NewsHour/status/651042263930421249">October 5, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">EXCLUSIVE: <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/UCCShooting?src=hash">#UCCShooting</a> shooter said he was 'born bad,' say sources <a href="http://t.co/GdWyqS0Hn8">http://t.co/GdWyqS0Hn8</a> <a href="http://t.co/OuM6WCY3ri">pic.twitter.com/OuM6WCY3ri</a></p>— People magazine (@people) <a href="https://twitter.com/people/status/651039150653706240">October 5, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
