Daley is an authoritarian asshat.

STEP 1. DISARM ALL POLICE
STEP 2. ??????
STEP 3. UTOPIA!

Nothing good comes from guns.

But that being said, given the situation (it was a domestic issue) that incident would have happened anyway.

Hangun a second, I think there's a typo in the headline...

Yes, it was the gun which killed that famous person's relatives!

The estranged husband would have killed those people anyway, regardless of a handgun ban.

I guess we should outlaw alcohol again because of wife beaters and drunk drivers.

gun thread!

ConnieLingus: Nothing good comes from guns.

An elderly person being able to defend themself from young thugs?

atlanta_ufo: I guess we should outlaw alcohol again because of wife beaters and drunk drivers.

No, we should ban CARS because of drunk drivers by the logic of firearm bans.

Real men fight with their fists. Fact. I think this speaks volumes as to the character of the average American male gun enthusiast. *wiggles little finger*
_{that should get things going}

The mayor should conduct the following experiment:

1. Load a hand gun.
2. Place hand gun on table, and point it at self.
3. Do not touch the hand gun.
4. Wait for it to go off.

I won't hold my breath.

My point is, guns need someone to pull the trigger, they don't shoot themselves. And thus, guns do not kill people, people kill people.

Guns are just the tool of choice.

Banning guns does nothing except remove guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens and into the hands of criminals. Criminals will have weapons, if they want them, whether legally, or through the black market. So it is better to have a legal method for getting a gun so that citizens can protect themselves, than to not have it, so only criminals have guns.

/hotter than a 5.56 shell down my fiances shirt
//gun pr0n time
///fark a handgun, me and my AR are just fine

Failing_Junk: ConnieLingus: Nothing good comes from guns.

An elderly person being able to defend themself from young thugs?

Have you seen the old store owner that was maced and how the would-be robbers were running back and forth to escape him shooting blindly at them because he had mace in his eyes.

Link (new window)

If you don't like it, don't live in Chicago.

Go move out to Somalia or Gaza, where you can have as many guns as you want.

Q314: STEP 1. DISARM ALL POLICE
STEP 2. ??????
STEP 3. UTOPIA!

disarm the police? CPD is currently asking for military grade arms because they're being outgunned by the gangs. chicago is a long way from disarming their cops.

heinekenftw: Guns are just the tool of choice.

If they're "just tools," then why do some people treat them like some mythical religious object? You can use a switchblade knife (which is a type of "arm") for self defense, but I've never heard the gun nuts defend your second amendment right to carry a pocket knife.

/and the lord says "Cometh to me sweet AR and bless thy stupid ass Mayors with your 30 rounds of love."

A handgun ban done by city is just plain stupid, anyone can pop outside, buy a gun, and drive back into town with it in their coat pocket. If they wanted to have a functional ban, they would have to do it at the federal level, which currently isn't feasible due to public opinion.

How the heck do they enforce a handgun ban inside a city anyways? You can't have checkpoints or random searches for obvious reasons. The only way I guess it could be useful would be for providing a reason to lock up known offenders or suspects who the cops catch doing other stuff.

At the end of the day, the only way to end gun crime is to get rid of guns. That can only happen when the government and the people have a massive shift in opinion, not something I see happening anytime soon. Even if that were to happen, there wouldn't be any noticeable drop in gun violence in decades given the sheer number of firearms in the United States, making the political viability of such a policy path not so brilliant.

/against guns, but a pragmatist.
//would consider buying a gun in the US
///would rather prefer living abroad, for now.

LocalCynic: heinekenftw: Guns are just the tool of choice.

If they're "just tools," then why do some people treat them like some mythical religious object? You can use a switchblade knife (which is a type of "arm") for self defense, but I've never heard the gun nuts defend your second amendment right to carry a pocket knife.

Don't take a knife to a gun fight.

I'd much rather have a gun than a knife, even an unloaded gun over a knife, with the hopes that the idea of a gun being pointed at a thug, will convince him to behave. It gives me the advantage of keeping him a distance from me.

And besides, guns are fun, when used at places like a range. As I said in another thread, filling a paper target full of holes can be relaxing.

atlanta_ufo: Have you seen the old store owner that was maced and how the would-be robbers were running back and forth to escape him shooting blindly at them because he had mace in his eyes.

LoL, thanks for the link.

Seth'n'Spectrum: which currently isn't feasible due to public opinion

Oh, and a little thing called THE FRIGGIN CONSTITUTION!!!

/fail
//try again

LocalCynic: You can use a switchblade knife (which is a type of "arm") for self defense, but I've never heard the gun nuts defend your second amendment right to carry a pocket knife.

Because a gun is much more effective against a disparity of force or numbers with less training.

ConnieLingus: Nothing good comes from guns.

I was having a discussion with some folks regarding preparations for disasters such as a pandemic. I made a somewhat sarcastic comment that bullets should be added to the list of emergency rations one should keep around the house. Lets just say the comment wasn't appreciated which amused me. The simple facts are that one show know how do defend oneself and you don't bring a knife to a gunfight. If a pandemic or another disaster hits - the police are usually not very helpful.

/owns a gun
//all my friends are heading to my place when social order breaks down
///you all realize that banning all guns would require turning the US into a police state right?
////which won't lesson the crime rate
//voted for obama
//slashies!

my spelling sucks tonight....

Seth'n'Spectrum: A handgun ban done by city is just plain stupid, anyone can pop outside, buy a gun, and drive back into town with it in their coat pocket. If they wanted to have a functional ban, they would have to do it at the federal level, which currently isn't feasible due to public opinion.

How the heck do they enforce a handgun ban inside a city anyways? You can't have checkpoints or random searches for obvious reasons. The only way I guess it could be useful would be for providing a reason to lock up known offenders or suspects who the cops catch doing other stuff.

At the end of the day, the only way to end gun crime is to get rid of guns. That can only happen when the government and the people have a massive shift in opinion, not something I see happening anytime soon. Even if that were to happen, there wouldn't be any noticeable drop in gun violence in decades given the sheer number of firearms in the United States, making the political viability of such a policy path not so brilliant.

/against guns, but a pragmatist.
//would consider buying a gun in the US
///would rather prefer living abroad, for now.


What "obvious" reasons are you suggesting for not having said checkpoints?

If you're talking about Constitutional right regarding search and seizure I agree.

Which begs the question, why do you want to get rid of another Constitutional guarantee when you're so willing to uphold another?

Good thing he didn't use a baseball bat to kill her family. I like baseball.

Was watching "Happy Gilmore" earlier today and the big guy was wearing that awsome t-shirt which said: "Guns don't kill people - I kill people" Gonna have to get one of those. Anyway, you can't un-invent something or just pass laws to make them go away. Guns will stop being an issue when they become obsolete, when something better is invented. Horse thieves used to be a big problem in the U.S. during the 1800's, then somebody invented the car. You don't hear much about horse thieves anymore and who ever heard of hanging a car thief? OK, back to watching stupid movies.......

Bocanegra: /against guns, but a pragmatist.

Couple of questions for you. Do you believe that humans have a right to defend themselves? If so, what good is that right without the means to exercise it?

If you chose to answer these questions, please keep in mind that not all people are of able body or have the physical prowess to defend themselves hand to hand or with a improvised weapon.

Q314: STEP 1. DISARM ALL POLICE
STEP 2. ??????
STEP 3. UTOPIA!

STEP 2. is where everyone dies from lack of protection from organized crime.

bigfatdave:
No, we should ban CARS because of drunk drivers by the logic of firearm bans.

This analogy is painfully specious. Cars are transport devices. Guns put holes in things, violently. Which isn't to say guns should be banned but you should firm up that logical rigor before making an ass of yourself again.

Organized crime makes big money on the stuff we outlaw like drugs and hookers. We outlaw guns, its just another revenue stream.

another liberal idea bits the dust

geeeee reality sure sucks, liberals

rohar: Oh, and a little thing called THE FRIGGIN CONSTITUTION!!!

/fail
//try again

Given a shift in public opinion, the constitution can be amended. Hence NAMBLA, lol.Bocanegra: What "obvious" reasons are you suggesting for not having said checkpoints?

If you're talking about Constitutional right regarding search and seizure I agree.

Which begs the question, why do you want to get rid of another Constitutional guarantee when you're so willing to uphold another?

Yes, "obvious" means constitutional rights.
I'm all for certain liberties, just not others. Liberty isn't a single principle, its a collection of different rights which can be given different treatments, but I'm sure you understand.
Just because a right is written into the constitution doesn't give it any added moral weighting, just political status. Times change, people's opinions may or may not change, which rights people give primacy to change, which is why we allow for our constitution to be amended. One day in the future, public opinion might favour the right to live free from the fear of death more than the right to bear arms, and things will change.
That said, like I said, I don't forsee that day coming anytime soon, and in the meantime, as I already mentioned, a city-based hand guy ban is just plain stupid.

TofuTheAlmighty: This analogy is painfully specious.

It is not perfect, but it is not specious either. Cars and guns both have their proper uses and their misuses. It is stupid to call to ban either when someone misuses either.

Failing_Junk: Bocanegra: /against guns, but a pragmatist.

Couple of questions for you. Do you believe that humans have a right to defend themselves? If so, what good is that right without the means to exercise it?

If you chose to answer these questions, please keep in mind that not all people are of able body or have the physical prowess to defend themselves hand to hand or with a improvised weapon.


What are you talking about, I didn't say that.

But to answer your questions, yes, every person should have the right to defend themself against any illegal activity. Guns are the best answer to this, in regard to personal security.

Seth'n'Spectrum: public opinion might favour the right to live free from the fear of death more than the right to bear arms, and things will change.

You realize the people you need to fear don't care about words on paper right?

Reaches for popcorn... goes to bar instead.

Will drink one for each person enjoying this repeat thread. Especially, guns stop government guy and government protects people guy.

Failing_Junk: It is not perfect, but it is not specious either. Cars and guns both have their proper uses and their misuses. It is stupid to call to ban either when someone misuses either.

Cars and guns are both tools, that much is given. What is the purpose of a car? Transport. What is the purpose of a handgun? To put holes in people. Target shooting with a handgun may be fun but that's not why handguns are made; pretending otherwise is sophistry.

The car/gun analogy still fails.

Bocanegra: What are you talking about, I didn't say that.

Sorry, apparently i accidentally quoted your quote instead of Seth'n'Spectrum's post.

Failing_Junk: Seth'n'Spectrum: public opinion might favour the right to live free from the fear of death more than the right to bear arms, and things will change.

You realize the people you need to fear don't care about words on paper right?

We're in the realm of hypotheticals here. Yes, IF guns were banned, yes, criminals would still disobey the law and try to get their hands on them. But, also, IF guns were banned, there would be much less production of guns and therefore much fewer guns, therefore making it much harder for criminals to get guns in the first place. Yes, smuggling would increase, and yes, the odd gun might turn up here or there. But your average alley mugger or 7-11 robber wouldn't have the ability to get their hands on a piece.

/Hypothetical situation is hypothetical.

TofuTheAlmighty: What is the purpose of a handgun?

Target shooting, hunting, collecting, self defense...

There are plenty of proper uses for a firearm. The analogy is valid.

Seth'n'Spectrum: rohar: Oh, and a little thing called THE FRIGGIN CONSTITUTION!!!

/fail
//try again

Given a shift in public opinion, the constitution can be amended. Hence NAMBLA, lol.Bocanegra: What "obvious" reasons are you suggesting for not having said checkpoints?

If you're talking about Constitutional right regarding search and seizure I agree.

Which begs the question, why do you want to get rid of another Constitutional guarantee when you're so willing to uphold another?

Yes, "obvious" means constitutional rights.
I'm all for certain liberties, just not others. Liberty isn't a single principle, its a collection of different rights which can be given different treatments, but I'm sure you understand.
Just because a right is written into the constitution doesn't give it any added moral weighting, just political status. Times change, people's opinions may or may not change, which rights people give primacy to change, which is why we allow for our constitution to be amended. One day in the future, public opinion might favour the right to live free from the fear of death more than the right to bear arms, and things will change.
That said, like I said, I don't forsee that day coming anytime soon, and in the meantime, as I already mentioned, a city-based hand guy ban is just plain stupid.


What other liberties are you not for? I'm very curious as to your response.

I agree with you to a certain extent, that public opinion does give way to Constitutional change (i.e. women's suffrage, ending slavery, etc).

However, I'd like you to find one amendment that takes away the guarantees of another one (aside from Prohibition).

Please provide proof where a LEGALLY owned gun (other than stolen) was used to murder someone.

...

Now provide statistics of how many murders are committed with ILLEGAL guns.


When the number of ILLEGAL guns used for legal purposes is greater than number of LEGAL guns that are used for illegal crimes, I'll rip up my NRA member card.

TofuTheAlmighty: Failing_Junk: It is not perfect, but it is not specious either. Cars and guns both have their proper uses and their misuses. It is stupid to call to ban either when someone misuses either.

Cars and guns are both tools, that much is given. What is the purpose of a car? Transport. What is the purpose of a handgun? To put holes in people. Target shooting with a handgun may be fun but that's not why handguns are made; pretending otherwise is sophistry.

The car/gun analogy still fails.

I'm pretty sure that some guns (.22 caliber target pistols come to mind) are designed expressly for putting holes in paper targets and not people.

Gun porn! Here is my contribution

href="http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=4181127&IDComment= 48374 643#c48374643">Seth'n'Spectrum: But your average alley mugger or 7-11 robber wouldn't have the ability to get their hands on a piece.

You can get drugs anywhere in the US despite the "war" on them. They will start bringing in these right next to the weed:



Its easier to make a full auto then a semi.

Man i am mangling the quotes today.

Luthiel: TofuTheAlmighty: Failing_Junk: It is not perfect, but it is not specious either. Cars and guns both have their proper uses and their misuses. It is stupid to call to ban either when someone misuses either.

Cars and guns are both tools, that much is given. What is the purpose of a car? Transport. What is the purpose of a handgun? To put holes in people. Target shooting with a handgun may be fun but that's not why handguns are made; pretending otherwise is sophistry.

The car/gun analogy still fails.

I'm pretty sure that some guns (.22 caliber target pistols come to mind) are designed expressly for putting holes in paper targets and not people.

It may be more applicable than you think. I'd bet that most if not all the kids that either died or killed someone on the streets never participated in a sanctioned racing event. It's sad, cause in most cities with tracks, lap time isn't expensive.

When you figure out how wrong a car traveling at 120 can go, you start to drive like a grandmother on the streets. I'd assert the same is true of gun range time. The longer you have the opportunity to conceptualise the destructive force of these devices, the less likely one is to use them in anger.

I live in Chicago and feel no need to carry my gun outside my house cause I don't tend to associate myself with drugs or gangs
/Black and over 18
//Lives on the Westside
///Most of the deaths here are people who associate themselves or their kids around that mess