CHICAGO=2,707, 109 people are allive and well and living in Chicago

[graham4anything]

and only 11 people out of 2,707, 120 were killed according to that article posted in another thread in Chicago (six of the 11 in one event).

That means that 2,707, 109 people are allive and well and living in Chicago

Smear a whole town, but in fact, that is 0.00000406335
which mean 99.999593665% are safe

if 99.9999593665% of the people are safe and sound in what some here seem to call the dangerous city in what is being hyperbole described as Gunlandia, America, USA it would appear they could rest safe and assured they will wake up in the morning.

Maybe instead of a gun, all people should be packing galoshes for your safety as you have just as good a chance of dying from lighning in a rain storm than you do as being shot

[graham4anything]

1. Pack Galoshes not guns

[img][/img]

[Remmah2]

8. Point of view of rubber boots

They protect you fron the steaming manure pile.

[LAGC]

2. Oh my, are you admitting that the gun violence problem isn't as bad as all that?

Say it ain't so!

[graham4anything]

3. no,I am telling the gun fans that guns are not needed for safety protection

I am not a gun fan whatsoever. 100% of any post I have made in the gun group section is
anti-gun

I have broken the little secrets they keep saying that keep getting obscured by the million dollar suits in the NRA's professional soundbytes

Like Lt. Columbo, I stumbled onto the truth (and it was all thanks to them).

[Decoy of Fenris]

6. Nor is gun control necessary for public safety, using your own logic; see lower in the thread.

Therefore, since you've proven gun control is a logical fallacy and unnecessary, there is no need to legislate? Or are you saying your "Truth" is suddenly not so true?

[graham4anything]

13. all I have to prove is that NRA is spewing lies. One lie knocks down all the others.

therefore everything else is moot after the NRA is dismantled(or heavily taxed).

If you are saying bullets/guns are a vanity item and not any of the aforementioned reasons ad nauseum by the gun fans

then there is no reason not to get rid of bullets or tax each one that is used $1000.00 use tax and any new one $10,000 a bullet.
Payment due for the first group at point it is fired
Payment due for any new bullet at time of purpose

Do like cigarettes.

They used to be 2cents each.
Now it is 50 times greater (or is it 500 times? I don't smoke, haven't since 1983ishor 1984)

thanks you all for proving my point.

I know it's Lt. Columbo like circular.
but you helped prove it.

they are now considered a vanity item. A tonied vanity item.
Like a yacht Mitt Romney might own.

No one wants to ban his yacht, but there is a cost for him to buy it.
(or if you want a democratic example, Teresa Kerry's yachts, or A. Huffington's ship.)

all perfectly legal.

but at a helleva cost to them.

touche'

Next...

[friendly_iconoclast]

17. A heavy tax on a Constitutionally protected activity? Won't fly:

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/460/575/

U.S. Supreme Court
Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota Comm'r, 460 U.S. 575 (1983)

Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v.

Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue

No. 81-1839

Argued January 12, 1983

Decided March 29, 1983

460 U.S. 575

[PavePusher]

10. And how do you propose to compensate those for whom your plan fails? n/t

[Eleanors38]

7. Sounds like data showing % of gun-owners who are criminals!

(hidden or otherwise)

[Remmah2]

4. Chicago, Politicians and Gun Control

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117290408

[Decoy of Fenris]

5. The reverse is also true.

300,000,000 million people in America are not dead; only 9,000 are murdered, which is %3.3^-5 of the total population. Therefore, gun violence is not an epidemic, rendering gun control unnecessary; you have a better chance of being hit by a meteorite twice in your lifetime than being murdered by a firearm.

[PavePusher]

9. I was kinda thinking that getting hit by a meteorite a second time would be a slim chance indeed....

as it would be a prerequisite to live through the first one....

[GreenStormCloud]

11. Let's take a closer look at those stats.

At a rate of 11 per week killed there would be about another 44 who were wounded, as only about 20% die of handgun shootings. Over a lifetime of living in Chicago (50years as an adult) you would run a total risk of 5% of being shot at. But many violent criminals use other means than guns, such a knives and clubs and fists.

In 2010 the FBI reports that Chicago had 28,402 violent crimes. That comes out to a 1% chance in any given year of needing a gun to defend yourself. Over an adult lifetime the odds are that you will be a violent crime victim, and that is plenty of reason to carry a gun.

[ileus]

12. And if you have more family members to protect you multiply the reasons to carry.

[trouble.smith]

14. you have a 1:3,000 chance of being struck by lightning at some point in your life actually

of course, those odds change the second you step out into the storm. that's kind of a metaphor for gun violence in case you missed it. galoshes won't save you from lightning either btw.

[graham4anything]

15. Bravo!If guns remain in their house,one don't get shot in the street & don't get hit by lightning

to expand it

If one stays in their house, they won't get killed by a gun on the street, and won't get hit by lightining

BRAVO!

[img][/img]

[trouble.smith]

16. so ridiculous it isn't worth responding to.