Posted on 02/04/2013 10:18:42 AM PST by RC one
Effective November 14, 2006, a Cook County gun ban Ordinance criminalizes the otherwise lawful possession of many common firearms and large capacity magazines. The law provides for imprisonment up to 6 months, fines, and confiscation and destruction of the enumerated weapons. Owners of such firearms or large capacity magazines have until February 12, 2007 to either remove the affected guns and remove any large capacity magazines from Cook County or surrender them to the police for destruction.
(Excerpt) Read more at isra.org ...
No slave ever owned a high capacity magazine. This is because no slave ever had a gun to put it in. The only people that need these magazines are the slave masters.
• The incidence of multiple perpetrator homicides has risen dramatically over the past decade as evidenced by FBI crime statistics. A “six shooter” puts a person at an extreme disadvantage in basically every conceivable self defense scenario.
• I would also add that there are countless millions of high capacity magazines in circulation. If a criminal wants one, he will have no problem getting one despite any ban. Law abiding citizens, however, will find it increasingly difficult due to increasing prices and will, therefore, find themselves increasingly at a disadvantage in future self defense situations especially when they can anticipate being confronted by multiple assailants.
• To put a finer point on it, given that there are countless millions of high capacity magazines in circulation, do you really think a ban would stop future Jared Loughners or Adam Lanzas from obtaining high capacity magazines once they are committed to acting on their psychotic impulse? No, it won’t. Its only affect will be to put law abiding gun owners at a disadvantage in basically every conceivable self defense scenario.
• Of the 8,583 firearm homicides committed in 2011, rifles of any kind accounted for only 323 deaths or 3.76% of total homicides. Handguns, by contrast, accounted for 6,220 deaths or 72.46% of all firearm homicides.
• If half of those rifles used were assault rifles, we can safely say that assault rifles accounted for less than 2% of all firearms deaths in 2011. The FBI does not specifically keep stats on assault rifles but we can safely assume that not all of the 323 rifles used were assault rifles.
• In 2011, FBI statistics show that you were 5 times more likely to be murdered with a knife than with a rifle of any kind. If we assume that half of the rifles were assault rifles, you were 10x more likely to be murdered with a knife than an assault rifle. Shouldn’t we be banning knives instead of assault rifles? That’s ludicrous obviously but it illustrates how ineffectual an assault rifle ban would be if we were truly interested in reducing the incidence of murder in America.
• If we look at the effect of banning firearms in Australia, we see that the incidence of murder is unchanged and the incidence of virtually all other lesser felonies has dramatically increased. We do see a decrease in the number of people murdered with guns but we see an equal INCREASE in people murdered with knives. Steven King, in typical liberal fashion, fails to mention that when he discusses the decrease in gun murders.
• The incidence of rape has increased by approximately 4% every year following the Australian gun ban. The incidence of assault has increased 5% every year following the ban. What was the point of banning guns? To put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage apparently. That was certainly the only effect.
• Assault rifles killed maybe 150 people in America in 2011. By contrast, leftist governments killed approximately 170 million unarmed civilians in the 20th century which was really not that long ago. I think we ought be more concerned with banning left wing governments than banning assault rifles.
• Situations where I might require an assault rifle:
o A prolonged natural disaster
o Any event marked by prolonged looting
o A riot as seen in LA in 1992-remember Reginald Denny and Fidel Lopez?
o A mass prison break
o A gang attack on my home or business
o Multiple intruders attempting to break into my home
o A pack of wild dogs threatening my livestock.
o A pack of feral hogs which are notoriously dangerous.
o The collapse of western civilization
o The establishment of a tyranny in America
• While we’re on the subject of ineffectual legislation, let’s look at Chicago. Cook County has had a ban on high capacity magazines since 2006 yet over 500 people were murdered in Chicago last year. Their murder rate is going up! How is that possible? High capacity magazines are illegal in Chicago. Assault rifles are also banned in Chicago. How’s that working out?
Why would you allow anyone else to decide what you "need"? What does "need" have to do with the subject at hand. We don't have a Bill of Needs. We have a bill of "Rights" not "Needs". Please do not confuse the two.
If I chose to answer that very same question, my answer would be along the line of, "To protect myself, family and country from people and politicians who think such a question is appropriate".
That was part of a letter I just wrote to my congressman actually who will likely be asked such a question when he declines to vote for any gun control regulations.
bookmark
I note that the ban covers, “all magazines that can hold more than 10 shells.” Gee, that covers most of the guns the “bangers” use, and how many “bangers” are sent to jail every year under that ordinance???
This is not a slam at Chicago, I am looking for an honest answer. Could someone from Illinois give me an answer?
1.) following the ban on assault rifles and high capacity magazines in Chicago, the incidence of homicide increased.
2.)Not only did this legislation fail to make Chicago safer, it actually made them less safe as evidenced by the fact that the homicide rate has increased steadily since 2006.
3.) Criminals were completely unaffected by the legislation; however, law abiding citizens were placed at a disadvantage in the criminal versus law abiding citizen (predator versus prey) dichotomy.
why do we NEED more than one newspaper?
why do we need more then one broadcast network newsreader? CBS NBC and ABC are all the same. They just read press releases and bash conservatives.
Why do we need more than ONE reporter in the WH press pool.
Why do we need more than one local news report.
seems the MSM is overstaffed and UNneeded.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.