If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   City of Chicago turns to Twitter for gun control ideas. No, really   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 254
    More: Asinine, Chicago, NBC Chicago, Twitter, police superintendent, murder rate, WGN, systemic problems, drive-by shootings  
•       •       •

3566 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Oct 2012 at 4:58 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



254 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-03 11:38:58 AM
https://twitter.com/WhatIfChicago
 
2012-10-03 12:03:54 PM
On Sunday, almost 200 people took to the streets of Chicago in an anti-violence rally

Impressive.
 
2012-10-03 01:35:03 PM
I remember Mayor Dinkins in NYC invited people to come to City Hall and suggest ideas on how to make the city less craptastic back in 1992 or so. I'm not sure if people showed up to City Hall, but they showed up to the polls in November '93.

But that might have been just because of a fat-free Frozen Yorurt scandal.
 
2012-10-03 01:38:38 PM
Adam Levine @AdamLevine23

@WhatIfChicago led nation initiative in getting drugs federally regulated so there would be no black market to fund gangs? + Revenue as well


+1
 
2012-10-03 01:40:09 PM
Yeah, because all of the 400 homicides so far this year involved guns--guns owned by registered owners.

"Wanting to reduce homicides" does not equal "gun control ideas" subs.
 
wee [TotalFark]
2012-10-03 01:50:10 PM
Darn good thing guns are so hard to get in Illinois...
 
2012-10-03 02:52:02 PM

Timmy the Tumor: Yeah, because all of the 400 homicides so far this year involved guns--guns owned by registered owners.

"Wanting to reduce homicides" does not equal "gun control ideas" subs.


Yeah, but you can't get a good politics thread by saying things that are true and make sense.

They should just ban abortion. Perhaps the renewed value for human life and personal accountability will spread to other aspects of people's behavior as well.
 
2012-10-03 03:51:51 PM

Timmy the Tumor: Yeah, because all of the 400 homicides so far this year involved guns--guns owned by registered owners.

"Wanting to reduce homicides" does not equal "gun control ideas" subs.


The city isn't asking for ideas to reduce homicides.

From their twitter page:

"PROBLEM: HOW DO WE GET ILLEGAL GUNS OFF CHICAGO STREETS?"

They're framing it as a gun control question.
 
2012-10-03 04:11:48 PM

Fark It: "PROBLEM: HOW DO WE GET ILLEGAL GUNS OFF CHICAGO STREETS?"


Why is the answer always "Make them more illegal"?

That keeps not working, and we keep doing it.

And no, I'm not suggesting everybody in Illinois go around with a Peacemaker strapped to their hip, but something isn't working when we can't even enforce the laws that already exist and some people's answer to that problem is to make new laws.
 
2012-10-03 04:15:07 PM

Calmamity: Fark It: "PROBLEM: HOW DO WE GET ILLEGAL GUNS OFF CHICAGO STREETS?"

Why is the answer always "Make them more illegal"?

That keeps not working, and we keep doing it.

And no, I'm not suggesting everybody in Illinois go around with a Peacemaker strapped to their hip, but something isn't working when we can't even enforce the laws that already exist and some people's answer to that problem is to make new laws.


They have no answers. This is them punting and putting Chicago's problems with gang violence on the shoulders of the NRA, gun owners, etc.
 
2012-10-03 05:00:41 PM

Barfmaker: On Sunday, almost 200 people took to the streets of Chicago in an anti-violence rally

Impressive.


Unfortunately, most of them got shot.
 
2012-10-03 05:02:52 PM
What are the demographics of these people being shot? It seems to be all gang related.. Meaning that if they had knives they would still be killing each other just in less numbers as it's a more intimate way of killing someone.

Seems like it's war on drugs related rather than gun law related.
 
2012-10-03 05:04:00 PM

Calmamity: Fark It: "PROBLEM: HOW DO WE GET ILLEGAL GUNS OFF CHICAGO STREETS?"

Why is the answer always "Make them more illegal"?

That keeps not working, and we keep doing it.

And no, I'm not suggesting everybody in Illinois go around with a Peacemaker strapped to their hip, but something isn't working when we can't even enforce the laws that already exist and some people's answer to that problem is to make new laws.


With the rare exception of a few big cities, gun regulations have been relaxing over the past 25 years
You can find an excellent visualization of that here.
 
2012-10-03 05:05:04 PM
Solution: gun owners should be limited to 140 guns or fewer.
 
2012-10-03 05:08:24 PM
OMFWTFBBQ #WhatIfChicago #handgun #bangbang #bleeding
 
2012-10-03 05:08:39 PM
jesus left chicago and he headed down to new orleans
 
2012-10-03 05:08:51 PM
Chicago probably just needs more guns because there aren't enough to keep everyone safe.

How about requiring everyone to have a gun and open carry it?
 
2012-10-03 05:09:36 PM
gun violence is the symptom of the problem...war on drugs is the cause, take the profit motive out of organized crime and you end crime and gun violence,
 
2012-10-03 05:10:34 PM
Why is escalating crime and gun control always used in the same sentence? Criminals committing crimes do not care if their guns are legal so long as the gun gets the job done. Please exercise common sense. Also, Illinois has astringent gun regulations already.
 
2012-10-03 05:10:41 PM
fark... leave well enough alone. It's just the people on the south side exercising their right to population control. Why interfere?
 
2012-10-03 05:10:50 PM

Fark It: "PROBLEM: HOW DO WE GET ILLEGAL GUNS OFF CHICAGO STREETS?"

They're framing it as a gun control question.


Remove all gun control laws. Problem as phrased - solved.
 
2012-10-03 05:14:02 PM
Chicago is a great city full of peaceful black people.
 
2012-10-03 05:14:34 PM

Calmamity: Fark It: "PROBLEM: HOW DO WE GET ILLEGAL GUNS OFF CHICAGO STREETS?"

Why is the answer always "Make them more illegal"?

That keeps not working, and we keep doing it.

And no, I'm not suggesting everybody in Illinois go around with a Peacemaker strapped to their hip, but something isn't working when we can't even enforce the laws that already exist and some people's answer to that problem is to make new laws.


Pass concealed carry in IL.
 
2012-10-03 05:14:46 PM
gun control means you hit what you shoot at and put it down for good.

1. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns.

2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Life is expensive.

3. Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.

4. If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough nor using cover correctly.

5. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal movement are preferred.)

6. If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long gun and a friend with a long gun.

7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived.

8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and running.

9. Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be more dependent on "pucker factor" than the inherent accuracy of the gun.

10. Use a gun that works EVERY TIME.

11. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.

12. Always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.

13. Have a plan.

14. Have a back-up plan, because the first one won't work.

15. Use cover or concealment as much as possible. The visible target should be in FRONT of your gun.

16. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.

17. Don't drop your guard.

18. Always tactical load and threat scan 360 degrees.

19. Watch their hands. Hands kill. (In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them).

20. Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.

21. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.

22. Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet.

23. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.

24. Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.

25. Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with a "4."
 
2012-10-03 05:15:04 PM
In the Ghettooooo! data.whicdn.com
 
2012-10-03 05:15:37 PM
@WhatIfChicago Detroit thanks you for taking the pressure off them.
 
2012-10-03 05:15:41 PM

Ambitwistor: Solution: gun owners should be limited to 140 guns or fewer.


Look at the communist, whittling away my rights as a gun owner. MY RIGHTS DON'T HAVE CAPS COMMIE BOY.
 
2012-10-03 05:16:12 PM
Execute gang members.

Are the cops in Chicago so corrupt that they forgot to be regular-corrupt and do things like take hoods down a dark alley and shoot them in the face?
 
2012-10-03 05:17:19 PM
okay bullet is coming out now
 
2012-10-03 05:17:57 PM

PallMall: Execute gang members.

Are the cops in Chicago so corrupt that they forgot to be regular-corrupt and do things like take hoods down a dark alley and shoot them in the face?


I could live with this.
 
2012-10-03 05:19:07 PM
Relax arms and shoulders. Take a full breath, exhaling slowly while increasing pressure on the trigger...
 
2012-10-03 05:19:18 PM
quit prosecuting old ladies for having guns just for protection?

(parenthetical CSS - a coworker who quit his job and became a cop, told us about a suckful experience where an old lady was arrested for having a gun, which she kept for protection rather than random shootouts. She had taken in a young relation, but tried to discipline him, whereupon he ratted her out to the cops for said gun. Cops knew that taking her to jail was stupid and unjust, but the law is what it is.)
 
2012-10-03 05:20:37 PM
An armed society is a polite society.
 
2012-10-03 05:20:53 PM

Duke_leto_Atredes: 24. Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.

25. Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with at least ".40."

(don't want anyone thinking .380 or 9mm fit the bill)

Exception: .357 Magnum - revolver - as a backup to your backup.

Also, you forgot to mention VOLUME (although you were almost there). This is where "pucker factor" comes in.. if you're sending hundreds of bullets downstream... your target (if you miss) will have already shiat him/herself and will be frozen behind the nearest form of cover.

/ that is all.
 
2012-10-03 05:21:04 PM

MyPenIsHuge: Also, Illinois has astringent gun regulations already.


www.lolwut.com
 
2012-10-03 05:21:10 PM
Start with a new mayor... One not so "corrupty"
 
2012-10-03 05:23:07 PM

bim1154: I could live with this.


That's what I'm talking about. They already know what neighborhoods are bad... load up the neighborhood with cops and start a curfew. If any thugs are seen out after curfew, shoot them in the face!

The law abiding citizens will be obeying the curfew, so are less likely to be witnesses.

Rinse, repeat.
 
2012-10-03 05:23:44 PM
"Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun..."


― Sammy "the Bull" Gravano
 
2012-10-03 05:24:03 PM
Why would Chicago seek help from terrorists?
 
2012-10-03 05:24:47 PM

Pockafrusta: Start with a new mayor... One not so "corrupty"


But the dickweeds of Chicago love electing corrupty mayors. It's a tradition.
 
2012-10-03 05:25:15 PM
Why do they always think that by adding more laws to the crappy laws they already have will make it work?

I like how more ppl died with in the same week of the recent Batman Theatre shooting --- yet no one really gave a crap then.
 
2012-10-03 05:25:19 PM

Duke_leto_Atredes: gun control means you hit what you shoot at and put it down for good.

1. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns.

2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Life is expensive.

3. Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.

4. If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough nor using cover correctly.

5. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal movement are preferred.)

6. If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long gun and a friend with a long gun.

7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived.

8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and running.

9. Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be more dependent on "pucker factor" than the inherent accuracy of the gun.

10. Use a gun that works EVERY TIME.

11. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.

12. Always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.

13. Have a plan.

14. Have a back-up plan, because the first one won't work.

15. Use cover or concealment as much as possible. The visible target should be in FRONT of your gun.

16. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.

17. Don't drop your guard.

18. Always tactical load and threat scan 360 degrees.

19. Watch their hands. Hands kill. (In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them).

20. Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.

21. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.

22. Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet.

23. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.

24. Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.

25. Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with a "4."


Bravo!!
Bravo!!!
Well said.
 
2012-10-03 05:25:59 PM
Or give cops tasers and claw hammers.

Step 1: Taser the thug
Step 2: Hit them in the head with the claw hammer
Step 3: Hit them in the mouth with the claw hammer
Step 4: Leave them in the gutter

Enough thugs see their hommies in the ditch with head trauma.. they'll decide that maybe being gangsta isn't very cool.
 
2012-10-03 05:26:51 PM

Barfmaker: On Sunday, almost 200 people took to the streets of Chicago in an anti-violence rally

Impressive.


I live in Chicago - these rallies are a joke - a bunch of (mostly if not all black) church members and activists walking in a circle wearing signs that say "Don't Kill People" (essentially). The other thing they're doing here is campaigns against silence - you know, BE a snitch. Like the gang mentality is suddenly going to do a turnaround.

I'm sure that'll turn around some gang-banging blackie to a life of obedience.

There's only one thing that will work: Round up anyone in a gang (this will net you 95% blacks and 4.999% hispanics...0.001% whites), no matter how young, line them up against a wall and shoot them all down. Period. No matter whether they've picked up a gun or not. And do this immediately - no warning, no delays, no "due process" which is a joke anyway. Preemptively.

If I sound racist then I welcome all you dumb f*cks to come to Chi-town. Listen to the news and log the murders....99.9% black. F*ck "politically correct" - I call 'em by the numbers - my conclusions are 100% empirically based. The black communities are to be avoided - this would be your Englewood, your Humboldt Park, etc.

I'm not sure there exists anything such as a "black parent" - only "black breeders" - obvious by the behavior of their taint-stains they call children. Hell, if we took the guns and knives away, they'd probably be throwing feces at each other.

I equally despise the white trash that gets involved in this s*it, but....at least around here they're few and far between (in the news, at least).
 
2012-10-03 05:27:07 PM
Tough one! How will white people solve this?
 
2012-10-03 05:29:26 PM
userserve-ak.last.fm

Yo Dawg, I put a gun control law on your gun control laws so you can get killed by thugs with illegal guns while you're getting killed by thugs with illegal guns. 
 
2012-10-03 05:29:48 PM

wee: Darn good thing guns are so hard to get in Illinois...


THIS. When I moved to IL (Chicago) it was a culture shock. Having lived in Kansas for 8 years prior, I had multiple firearms and had a conceal-carry card.

Which means nothing in IL, the ONLY state with no way to conceal-carry, you need a FOID card to even get a shotgun shell at Walmart...and yet hghest murder rate in the U.S.

Sh*t...at the very least allow the law-abiding citizens to carry. An armed society is a polite society.
 
2012-10-03 05:30:06 PM

MoronLessOff: Pass concealed carry in IL.


Honest question: how would that help? The gang members have proven without a shadow of a doubt that they have no problem attacking, shooting, and killing other armed people (e.g. other gang members), so how would lawful citizens carrying guns change that?
 
2012-10-03 05:30:31 PM

Vectron: Tough one! How will white people solve this?


We just move to the north side.
 
2012-10-03 05:34:29 PM
PallMall
Execute gang members.

Are the cops in Chicago so corrupt that they forgot to be regular-corrupt and do things like take hoods down a dark alley and shoot them in the face?


Other countries do it. if you get returned to them (deported whatever) with gang tats and such...you die.

My ICE pal swears he heard the gunshot after they dropped off a repeated violent offender in his own country.
the guy had been sobbing as they took him off the plane.

why can't we do that here?
It's not like they're gonna go straight and cure cancer or anything
 
2012-10-03 05:35:35 PM
Oh... I don't know... how about:

1. Cutting the number of Aldercreatures in half (Chicago's city council)
2. Cut the budget of the remaining Aldercreatures in half.
3. Fire all the meri-clout-oriously promoted bosses in the CPD.
4. Hire a few hundred more cops with the money saved and buy the needed equipment to keep them safe.
5. Profit?

I know... crazy... one can dream though right?
 
2012-10-03 05:37:23 PM

natas6.0: PallMall
Execute gang members.

Are the cops in Chicago so corrupt that they forgot to be regular-corrupt and do things like take hoods down a dark alley and shoot them in the face?

Other countries do it. if you get returned to them (deported whatever) with gang tats and such...you die.

My ICE pal swears he heard the gunshot after they dropped off a repeated violent offender in his own country.
the guy had been sobbing as they took him off the plane.

why can't we do that here?
It's not like they're gonna go straight and cure cancer or anything


That's what I'm talking about!

It's apparently a war-zone. Send in some National Guard troops with heavy artillery. Start kicking doors and shooting the resistance. If they don't come out, squirt a few hellfire missiles into their bunker.
 
2012-10-03 05:37:41 PM

Egalitarian: quit prosecuting old ladies for having guns just for protection?

(parenthetical CSS - a coworker who quit his job and became a cop, told us about a suckful experience where an old lady was arrested for having a gun, which she kept for protection rather than random shootouts. She had taken in a young relation, but tried to discipline him, whereupon he ratted her out to the cops for said gun. Cops knew that taking her to jail was stupid and unjust, but the law is what it is.)


How about this exchange. It's basically former mayor Daley taking his ball and going home because "fark you guys."

Still, another reporter asked: If the senior citizen had followed the handgun ban, isn't it possible he would be dead right now? That's what his family is saying.

"What I'm just saying: access to guns," the mayor said. "You're more likely to get killed by someone walking down the street with a gun. Access to guns."

But what about the senior citizen, Daley was asked-will he be charged with violating the ban?

"I don't know," the mayor said. "Thank you very much."

He grabbed his papers from the podium and walked out of the room.


Link
 
2012-10-03 05:38:00 PM
@WhatIfChicago used both hands. #2ndAmendmentProblems
 
2012-10-03 05:38:23 PM

PallMall: Duke_leto_Atredes: 24. Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.

25. Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with at least ".40." (don't want anyone thinking .380 or 9mm fit the bill)

Exception: .357 Magnum - revolver - as a backup to your backup.

Also, you forgot to mention VOLUME (although you were almost there). This is where "pucker factor" comes in.. if you're sending hundreds of bullets downstream... your target (if you miss) will have already shiat him/herself and will be frozen behind the nearest form of cover.

/ that is all.


I've always had a thing for 10mm.
 
2012-10-03 05:39:21 PM
step 1. sterilize anyone receiving food stamps or subsidized housing
step 2. wait ~20 years

watch the crime rate drop to nearly 0
 
2012-10-03 05:40:06 PM

Huck Chaser: MoronLessOff: Pass concealed carry in IL.

Honest question: how would that help? The gang members have proven without a shadow of a doubt that they have no problem attacking, shooting, and killing other armed people (e.g. other gang members), so how would lawful citizens carrying guns change that?


It probably wouldn't solve much. Most of the people who applied for and were granted a CCW probably wouldn't live in the areas affected. That said, I'd at least like to have the option to carry in IL, if not Chicago, and I don't even own a handgun. There's a reason 49 states have CCW laws on the books.
 
2012-10-03 05:40:54 PM

Huck Chaser: MoronLessOff: Pass concealed carry in IL.

Honest question: how would that help? The gang members have proven without a shadow of a doubt that they have no problem attacking, shooting, and killing other armed people (e.g. other gang members), so how would lawful citizens carrying guns change that?


That's the problem. It's like they think they are immune from bullets. I read where the cops corner some piece of shiat and have him surrounded, yet he goes down in a hail of gunfire. Like others have said, start exterminating the farkers on the spot when found and leave them lay there. No if, ands or buts about it.. The politicians don't give a rat's ass and just come up with the occasional "Operation Get Down Tonight" and arrest a few, turn them loose a few hours later or like they sometimes do, have a "Summit".
 
2012-10-03 05:41:14 PM

serial_crusher: Timmy the Tumor: Yeah, because all of the 400 homicides so far this year involved guns--guns owned by registered owners.

"Wanting to reduce homicides" does not equal "gun control ideas" subs.

Yeah, but you can't get a good politics thread by saying things that are true and make sense.

They should just ban abortion. Perhaps the renewed value for human life and personal accountability will spread to other aspects of people's behavior as well.


Did you just make a case for trickle down morality?
 
2012-10-03 05:41:53 PM

LaughingRadish: I've always had a thing for 10mm.


10mm = 0.39"

ytrewq.com
 
2012-10-03 05:43:18 PM

Huck Chaser: MoronLessOff: Pass concealed carry in IL.

Honest question: how would that help? The gang members have proven without a shadow of a doubt that they have no problem attacking, shooting, and killing other armed people (e.g. other gang members), so how would lawful citizens carrying guns change that?


How would it make it worse? Certainly it hasn't been the experience in all the other states that allow some form of concealed carry that violence is worse when it's enacted. If you can't show that something would actually make the situation worse, why not allow it? In other words, err on the side of more freedom, not less.

BTW, Alan Gura is working on cases that touch on the "bear" part of "keep and bear", so Illinois may be forced to allow some kind of carry in the future.
 
2012-10-03 05:43:47 PM

Barfmaker: On Sunday, almost 200 people took to the streets of Chicago in an anti-violence rally

Impressive.


Yes, quite impressive! Why that's a whole less than 1 live person, who knew a dead person, that gave enough of a shiat to stop watching BET and put on shoes to go outside.
 
2012-10-03 05:45:30 PM

Barfmaker: On Sunday, almost 200 people took to the streets of Chicago in an anti-violence rally

Impressive.


Yes, quite impressive! Why that's a whole less than 1 live person, who knew a dead person, that gave enough of a shiat to stop watching BET and put on shoes to go outside.

Probably needed a pack of Newports anyway
 
2012-10-03 05:46:56 PM

PallMall: LaughingRadish: I've always had a thing for 10mm.

10mm = 0.39"

[ytrewq.com image 274x234]


Meh. My preferred weapon is a 76mm:

i46.tinypic.com
 
2012-10-03 05:46:58 PM

Huck Chaser: MoronLessOff: Pass concealed carry in IL.

Honest question: how would that help? The gang members have proven without a shadow of a doubt that they have no problem attacking, shooting, and killing other armed people (e.g. other gang members), so how would lawful citizens carrying guns change that?


Will this solve the Gang on Gang murders... nope... not really my problem to be honest.

What it WILL slow down quite a bit is the violence committed against the law abiding citizens that are in the downtown areas that are getting beaten and robbed for their iPhones or just for being at the wrong place at the wrong time... like Grant Park in broad daylight for example.

As most Chicago Cops will tell you: When seconds count the police are minutes away. Usually 30-45 minutes away due to understaffing.
 
2012-10-03 05:48:19 PM

JRoo: Chicago probably just needs more guns because there aren't enough to keep everyone safe.

How about requiring everyone to have a gun and open carry it?


Because that does not work either. With the bonus of having average idiots being armed.
 
2012-10-03 05:48:33 PM

dittybopper: Huck Chaser: MoronLessOff: Pass concealed carry in IL.

Honest question: how would that help? The gang members have proven without a shadow of a doubt that they have no problem attacking, shooting, and killing other armed people (e.g. other gang members), so how would lawful citizens carrying guns change that?

How would it make it worse? Certainly it hasn't been the experience in all the other states that allow some form of concealed carry that violence is worse when it's enacted. If you can't show that something would actually make the situation worse, why not allow it? In other words, err on the side of more freedom, not less.

BTW, Alan Gura is working on cases that touch on the "bear" part of "keep and bear", so Illinois may be forced to allow some kind of carry in the future.


My point was just that it's an entirely different debate. Gang members killing gang members and lawful citizens owning and carrying guns really don't have anything to do with each other.
 
2012-10-03 05:48:44 PM

REKnight: Will this solve the Gang on Gang murders... nope... not really my problem to be honest.


Unless said murder involves a spray of bullets. Those things really don't care who they hit.
 
2012-10-03 05:49:26 PM

somemoron: Why would Chicago seek help from terrorists?


For the same reason their politicians hang out with them and go to their churches?
 
2012-10-03 05:50:25 PM
how about enforcing existing laws and not creating useless laws just to make the anti-second amendment people happy?

Or...if you're committing a crime with a hand gun, the cops must shoot to kill. Or if you are convicted of a crime that involved a hand gun there is a minimum sentence of no less than five years on a chain gang. Or, other methods that go after those who commit crimes with guns as opposed to treating everyone who owns a gun as a potential criminal who needs their guns taken away before they kill someone.
 
2012-10-03 05:50:39 PM
 
2012-10-03 05:52:30 PM
"PROBLEM: HOW DO WE GET ILLEGAL GUNS OFF CHICAGO STREETS?"

Pffft, that's easy. Just make them all legal. Then there are no illegal guns on the streets.

Oh, you mean violence? That's a totally different issue. More gun laws obviously isn't working, none of these are legal guns in the first place.
 
2012-10-03 05:53:00 PM

PallMall: LaughingRadish: I've always had a thing for 10mm.

10mm = 0.39"

["Close Enough" image]


10 mm *is* 0.39", but "10mm bullets" are either 0.400" or 0.401" in diameter, so you don't even have to round up.
 
2012-10-03 05:56:01 PM

Huck Chaser: MoronLessOff: Pass concealed carry in IL.

Honest question: how would that help? The gang members have proven without a shadow of a doubt that they have no problem attacking, shooting, and killing other armed people (e.g. other gang members), so how would lawful citizens carrying guns change that?


It'd give them an option other than "die in place with no chance to ever try to take your killer with you."
 
2012-10-03 05:58:01 PM

dittybopper: Meh. My preferred weapon is a 76mm:

[i46.tinypic.com image 640x480]


Well, make sure you bring extra shot. Don't want those Johnny Reb sons-a-bishes getting to you with those muskets!!
 
2012-10-03 05:58:54 PM

ScottRiqui: 10 mm *is* 0.39", but "10mm bullets" are either 0.400" or 0.401" in diameter, so you don't even have to round up.


ytrewq.com
 
2012-10-03 06:00:28 PM
I suppose it doesn't matter that this spike in gun violence comes *2 years after* Chicago's handgun ban was struck down by the supreme court?


/Chicagoan
//who doesn't own or want to own a gun
 
2012-10-03 06:02:04 PM
cdn.wegotthiscovered.com
 
2012-10-03 06:02:13 PM
Get caught committing a violent crime with a gun? Cut off the trigger finger.
 
2012-10-03 06:02:15 PM

ProfessorOhki: REKnight: Will this solve the Gang on Gang murders... nope... not really my problem to be honest.

Unless said murder involves a spray of bullets. Those things really don't care who they hit.


True as far as it goes, but I don't go into the areas that these things happen in.

Unfortunately due to the understaffing of CPD these areas are expanding and the thugs are getting bolder in where they kill people. Just a few months back some thug killed another thug at one of the river crossings on UPPER Wacker Dr.

As mentioned by myself and others, concealed carry isn't going to solve this problem on it's own, but will allow those that are inclined to defend themselves and their loved ones should it come to it, why take that away from someone?
 
2012-10-03 06:02:17 PM

PallMall: Well, make sure you bring extra shot. Don't want those Johnny Reb sons-a-bishes getting to you with those muskets!!


What a properly dressed Southern Gentleman might bring to the fight:

i135.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-03 06:02:24 PM

jonny99: I suppose it doesn't matter that this spike in gun violence comes *2 years after* Chicago's handgun ban was struck down by the supreme court?


/Chicagoan
//who doesn't own or want to own a gun


Well, when they come for you, pray real hard... maybe Jesus will rain down fire and brimstone from the sky to smite them.
 
2012-10-03 06:03:21 PM

Secret Master of All Flatulence: Huck Chaser: MoronLessOff: Pass concealed carry in IL.

Honest question: how would that help? The gang members have proven without a shadow of a doubt that they have no problem attacking, shooting, and killing other armed people (e.g. other gang members), so how would lawful citizens carrying guns change that?

It'd give them an option other than "die in place with no chance to ever try to take your killer with you."


The people being killed in Chicago are, with very VERY few exceptions, gang members themselves, and therefore are probably armed already anyway.
 
2012-10-03 06:04:32 PM

cig-mkr: Get caught committing a violent crime with a gun? Cut off the trigger finger.


OR NOT.

/we'd have to pay for welfare trigger fingers - what with their inability to feed themselves without them (or whatever BS gets put in to the welfare law)
 
2012-10-03 06:05:20 PM

jonny99: I suppose it doesn't matter that this spike in gun violence comes *2 years after* Chicago's handgun ban was struck down by the supreme court?


/Chicagoan
//who doesn't own or want to own a gun


For a "Chicagoan" you don't keep up do you? That's o.k., you can go walk the walk with Father Pfleger and his crowd.
 
2012-10-03 06:05:22 PM

Huck Chaser: MoronLessOff: Pass concealed carry in IL.

Honest question: how would that help? The gang members have proven without a shadow of a doubt that they have no problem attacking, shooting, and killing other armed people (e.g. other gang members), so how would lawful citizens carrying guns change that?


A subsequent failure of predictions of concealed weapons permit holders committing any statistically significant amount of violent crime may finally convince lawmakers that impeding legal firearm ownership is not a viable means to address violent crime and thus they may pursue measures of combating crime that are actually effective.
 
2012-10-03 06:05:29 PM

Secret Master of All Flatulence: PallMall: Well, make sure you bring extra shot. Don't want those Johnny Reb sons-a-bishes getting to you with those muskets!!

What a properly dressed Southern Gentleman might bring to the fight:

[i135.photobucket.com image 600x800]


Now THAT, is what I'm talking about.

Well done, sir.
 
2012-10-03 06:06:03 PM

Huck Chaser:
The people being killed in Chicago are, with very VERY few exceptions, gang members themselves, and therefore are probably armed already anyway.


Unfortunately, we don't keep gangmembers in very small geographic areas where only other gangmembers live. They operate in areas that have innocent civilians living there too. They should be able to defend themselves from the criminal scum.
 
2012-10-03 06:08:08 PM
"The city has gone wild. It's no longer just gang killing, it's random killing," Trotter told the AP.

So why not have nonlicensed conceal carry? Gun violence has always gone down when people are allowed to defend themselves with permits for concealed carry and some of the lowest murder rates in the nation have been in Vermont where concealed carry has been a second amendment right for decades. If people are being randomly shot then they should be allowed to shoot back. It will mean that all the democrats from Hizzoner Emanuel won't be able to use a CCW as political pay back like they've been doing there and NYC and many other democrat machine towns but it will save lives.
 
2012-10-03 06:09:30 PM

Dimensio: A subsequent failure of predictions of concealed weapons permit holders committing any statistically significant amount of violent crime may finally convince lawmakers that impeding legal firearm ownership is not a viable means to address violent crime and thus they may pursue measures of combating crime that are actually effective.


ytrewq.com
 
2012-10-03 06:09:37 PM

PallMall: Now THAT, is what I'm talking about.

Well done, sir.


Why, thank you, sir.

I'm a perfectly law-abiding, rational human being. I'm also very good at portraying myself as being "Heavily Armed, Easily Bored, and Off My Medication." I used to have a crack house across the street from me. They never gave me any problems, because they knew if they did, my response would be...uhhh..."colorful". Something about them watching me carry uncased beltfeds in and out of the house on a weekly basis for my weekly range trips...
 
2012-10-03 06:10:34 PM
Increase bullet prices? That's what they did to cigarettes to get people to stop smoking.
 
2012-10-03 06:11:10 PM
I'll take a shot at this...

How about we let the honest people own guns to protect themselves from the bad guys who already have them?
 
2012-10-03 06:12:25 PM

Secret Master of All Flatulence: Why, thank you, sir.

I'm a perfectly law-abiding, rational human being. I'm also very good at portraying myself as being "Heavily Armed, Easily Bored, and Off My Medication." I used to have a crack house across the street from me. They never gave me any problems, because they knew if they did, my response would be...uhhh..."colorful". Something about them watching me carry uncased beltfeds in and out of the house on a weekly basis for my weekly range trips...


I think there should be one of you on every street.

You know.. just in case shiat hits the fan.
 
2012-10-03 06:12:30 PM

jonny99: I suppose it doesn't matter that this spike in gun violence comes *2 years after* Chicago's handgun ban was struck down by the supreme court?


Unless a statistically significant percentage of homicides were committed with use of a handgun purchased through legal means in the city of Chicago since the McDonald v. Chicago ruling, and unless an explanation is provided for similar rates of homicide in the years before the ruling, then no, the increase in "gun violence" is entirely irrelevant to the overturning of the city's Unconstitutional prohibition upon civilian firearm ownershp.
 
2012-10-03 06:12:44 PM
Well removing the projects and moving the intrenched gang members areound the city have contributed to the violence. Not sure how that is going to change any time soon.
 
2012-10-03 06:13:11 PM

xynix: Chris Rock talks about gun control...


Mr. Rock is evidently unaware that ammunition is easily manufactured by private citizens.
 
2012-10-03 06:13:28 PM

Secret Master of All Flatulence: Huck Chaser:
The people being killed in Chicago are, with very VERY few exceptions, gang members themselves, and therefore are probably armed already anyway.

Unfortunately, we don't keep gangmembers in very small geographic areas where only other gangmembers live. They operate in areas that have innocent civilians living there too. They should be able to defend themselves from the criminal scum.


You're absolutely right, of course. However, the scenario I always imagine is...

Two gang members are surrounded by a small crowd of civilians. The gang members pull guns and start firing at each other. You then have two options:

1) The civilians run for cover.
2) Some percentage of the civilians pull their own (legal) weapons.

The only way option 2 is better than 1 is if BOTH a) the civilian shooters are somehow magically able to instantly tell who the gang members are and who their fellow civilians are, and b) shoot the gang members with 100% accuracy.
 
2012-10-03 06:16:16 PM

PallMall: Dimensio: A subsequent failure of predictions of concealed weapons permit holders committing any statistically significant amount of violent crime may finally convince lawmakers that impeding legal firearm ownership is not a viable means to address violent crime and thus they may pursue measures of combating crime that are actually effective.

[ytrewq.com image 480x360]


Are you suggesting that my stated hypothetical scenario is unlikely? What of the many vocal opponents of legal recognition of same-sex unions who altered their stance following the failure of any disaster resulting from such legal recognition in Canada and in certain states in the United States?

I am certain that opponents of such an expansion of liberty are entirely rational, and are simply misguided, and that they will be willing to acknowledge their error and alter their position when confronted with supporting data contrary to their beliefs, just like creationists.
 
2012-10-03 06:16:23 PM

Duke_leto_Atredes: gun control means you hit what you shoot at and put it down for good.

1. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns.

2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Life is expensive.

3. Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.

4. If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough nor using cover correctly.

5. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal movement are preferred.)

6. If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long gun and a friend with a long gun.

7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived.

8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and running.

9. Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be more dependent on "pucker factor" than the inherent accuracy of the gun.

10. Use a gun that works EVERY TIME.

11. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.

12. Always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.

13. Have a plan.

14. Have a back-up plan, because the first one won't work.

15. Use cover or concealment as much as possible. The visible target should be in FRONT of your gun.

16. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.

17. Don't drop your guard.

18. Always tactical load and threat scan 360 degrees.

19. Watch their hands. Hands kill. (In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them).

20. Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.

21. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.

22. Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet.

23. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.

24. Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.

25. ...


better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six.
 
2012-10-03 06:16:58 PM

DaCaptain19: Barfmaker: On Sunday, almost 200 people took to the streets of Chicago in an anti-violence rally

Impressive.

I live in Chicago - these rallies are a joke - a bunch of (mostly if not all black) church members and activists walking in a circle wearing signs that say "Don't Kill People" (essentially). The other thing they're doing here is campaigns against silence - you know, BE a snitch. Like the gang mentality is suddenly going to do a turnaround.

I'm sure that'll turn around some gang-banging blackie to a life of obedience.

There's only one thing that will work: Round up anyone in a gang (this will net you 95% blacks and 4.999% hispanics...0.001% whites), no matter how young, line them up against a wall and shoot them all down. Period. No matter whether they've picked up a gun or not. And do this immediately - no warning, no delays, no "due process" which is a joke anyway. Preemptively.

If I sound racist then I welcome all you dumb f*cks to come to Chi-town. Listen to the news and log the murders....99.9% black. F*ck "politically correct" - I call 'em by the numbers - my conclusions are 100% empirically based. The black communities are to be avoided - this would be your Englewood, your Humboldt Park, etc.

I'm not sure there exists anything such as a "black parent" - only "black breeders" - obvious by the behavior of their taint-stains they call children. Hell, if we took the guns and knives away, they'd probably be throwing feces at each other.

I equally despise the white trash that gets involved in this s*it, but....at least around here they're few and far between (in the news, at least).


Have I been gone that long that Humboldt Park is now considered a black hood? Was always hispanic when I lived in Chicago.
 
2012-10-03 06:17:33 PM

Secret Master of All Flatulence: PallMall: Now THAT, is what I'm talking about.

Well done, sir.

Why, thank you, sir.

I'm a perfectly law-abiding, rational human being. I'm also very good at portraying myself as being "Heavily Armed, Easily Bored, and Off My Medication." I used to have a crack house across the street from me. They never gave me any problems, because they knew if they did, my response would be...uhhh..."colorful". Something about them watching me carry uncased beltfeds in and out of the house on a weekly basis for my weekly range trips...


I would think that such behavior would encourage the stupid to try to break in when they think you're not around to steal some of that stuff.
 
2012-10-03 06:17:55 PM

DaCaptain19: I live in Chicago - these rallies are a joke - a bunch of (mostly if not all black) church members and activists walking in a circle wearing signs that say "Don't Kill People" (essentially). The other thing they're doing here is campaigns against silence - you know, BE a snitch. Like the gang mentality is suddenly going to do a turnaround.

I'm sure that'll turn around some gang-banging blackie to a life of obedience.

There's only one thing that will work: Round up anyone in a gang (this will net you 95% blacks and 4.999% hispanics...0.001% whites), no matter how young, line them up against a wall and shoot them all down. Period. No matter whether they've picked up a gun or not. And do this immediately - no warning, no delays, no "due process" which is a joke anyway. Preemptively.

If I sound racist then I welcome all you dumb f*cks to come to Chi-town. Listen to the news and log the murders....99.9% black. F*ck "politically correct" - I call 'em by the numbers - my conclusions are 100% empirically based. The black communities are to be avoided - this would be your Englewood, your Humboldt Park, etc.

I'm not sure there exists anything such as a "black parent" - only "black breeders" - obvious by the behavior of their taint-stains they call children. Hell, if we took the guns and knives away, they'd probably be throwing feces at each other.

I equally despise the white trash that gets involved in this s*it, but....at least around here they're few and far between (in the news, at least).

 
2012-10-03 06:18:27 PM

Secret Master of All Flatulence: PallMall: Now THAT, is what I'm talking about.

Well done, sir.

Why, thank you, sir.

I'm a perfectly law-abiding, rational human being. I'm also very good at portraying myself as being "Heavily Armed, Easily Bored, and Off My Medication." I used to have a crack house across the street from me. They never gave me any problems, because they knew if they did, my response would be...uhhh..."colorful". Something about them watching me carry uncased beltfeds in and out of the house on a weekly basis for my weekly range trips...


Nothing like the pants-shiattingly excited chatter of 1200 rounds per minute of 8mm Mauser to get peoples' attention!
I approve.
 
2012-10-03 06:18:34 PM
There was, is, and will be only one solution here, legalize victimless crime.
 
2012-10-03 06:19:39 PM
Build a wall around all the bad neighborhoods that is extremely high. Let everyone out and provide housing for them.

Anyone caught with an illegal gun or breaking other laws while using the gun gets put in the walled neighborhoods with a .45. We provide all the necessary supplies such as water, electricity, food, etc.

There will be no drug dealing outside the walls. If you are a drug fiend, you must go inside the wall to get your drugs. Drug users' will not be placed inside the walls but drug dealers will. Drug dealers get a .45 and bullet resistant vest. They only way to get out is to bring the head of somebody else with you. Any drug user who enters will be given an M4 and an option to bring back a head for a one month supply of drugs. There will be a limit of 12 per year.

Anybody committing felonies without the use of the firearm and not directly related to drugs will be placed in a normal prison. If the crime is related to drugs you will be placed in the neighborhoods, but with body armor and an M4. If you manage to stay alive for a year you can leave, or you can leave early with a head.

Gangs will have the opportunity to make money inside the neighborhoods, but can only purchase more ammunition and approved amenities.

Anybody caught escaping will have to run the gauntlet. There will be one long corridor with people 50 yards out on either side. Said ex-escapee will run down the middle. All shooters will have .45s. If a shooter manages to hit the runner, the shooter gets to leave. If the shooter manages to hit another shooter 100 yards away, that shooter gets to leave.

The gauntlet is also reserved for people who commit especially heinous gun related crimes such as mass shootings, killing children, etc. That person will be required to run the gauntlet when he first arrives. If he survives, he is given a .45, but cannot leave for a period of 30 years regardless of the number of heads he gets.

Money can be given to the people in the neighborhoods by family, but only under special rules. 10% will automatically go to the budget of the neighborhoods.
 
2012-10-03 06:19:49 PM

Huck Chaser: Secret Master of All Flatulence: Huck Chaser:
The people being killed in Chicago are, with very VERY few exceptions, gang members themselves, and therefore are probably armed already anyway.

Unfortunately, we don't keep gangmembers in very small geographic areas where only other gangmembers live. They operate in areas that have innocent civilians living there too. They should be able to defend themselves from the criminal scum.

You're absolutely right, of course. However, the scenario I always imagine is...

Two gang members are surrounded by a small crowd of civilians. The gang members pull guns and start firing at each other. You then have two options:

1) The civilians run for cover.
2) Some percentage of the civilians pull their own (legal) weapons.

The only way option 2 is better than 1 is if BOTH a) the civilian shooters are somehow magically able to instantly tell who the gang members are and who their fellow civilians are, and b) shoot the gang members with 100% accuracy.


The gang members are the ones whos pants are falling down and hold their guns sideways.
 
2012-10-03 06:20:07 PM

Huck Chaser:
The only way option 2 is better than 1 is if BOTH a) the civilian shooters are somehow magically able to instantly tell who the gang members are and who their fellow civilians are, and b) shoot the gang members with 100% accuracy.


Guns aren't magic wands. The recent police-involved shooting in NY confirms this. That being said: there's not a problem of too many guns in this country. The problem is that too many guns are in the wrong hands, and the decent people around them in this case are legally precluded from firearms ownership, regardless of recent Supreme Court decisions.
 
2012-10-03 06:23:41 PM

Dimensio: xynix: Chris Rock talks about gun control...

Mr. Rock is evidently unaware that ammunition is easily manufactured by private citizens.


Well, for some definition of "easily", I guess. The government could apply the same excessive tax on reloading components. You could probably get around an excessive tax on smokeless gunpowder by home-brewing some black powder and sticking with cartridges that were originally designed for black powder (like .38 Special or .45 Colt). But if the government got it in its head to tax the hell out of primers, I don't know too many people who can make their own.
 
2012-10-03 06:24:08 PM

LaughingRadish:
I would think that such behavior would encourage the stupid to try to break in when they think you're not around to steal some of that stuff.


Well, there were a few things that prevented that. First, they were home the day my gunsafes were delivered. The truck blocked the entire street, and they needed hydraulics to get them into the house. Secondly, they thought I was crazy enough to boobytrap the house. Thirdly, they knew that if something like that happened, not only would the local, State, and Federal cops be all over them, but both I and my wife would come for them, too. And honestly? I think they feared my wife more than they did me.
 
2012-10-03 06:24:35 PM
farm7.staticflickr.com
 
2012-10-03 06:27:30 PM
We should make crime illegal.

That will solve it. Just ban crime. Like we did with alcohol. We banned it, and now nobody even knows what alcohol is.
 
2012-10-03 06:28:02 PM
Start a fund for any remaining white people so they can have the financial wherewithal to move away from these neighborhoods.
 
2012-10-03 06:31:03 PM

Dimensio: OOGA BOOGA WHAARRRRRGARBLLLL!!!


*facepalm*

After reading your reply, I'm going to suggest that you're a massive, leaking douche-bag who obviously doesn't understand what I was referencing... on Fark.. where NOTHING is obscure.
 
2012-10-03 06:31:09 PM

Huck Chaser: Secret Master of All Flatulence: Huck Chaser:
The people being killed in Chicago are, with very VERY few exceptions, gang members themselves, and therefore are probably armed already anyway.

Unfortunately, we don't keep gangmembers in very small geographic areas where only other gangmembers live. They operate in areas that have innocent civilians living there too. They should be able to defend themselves from the criminal scum.

You're absolutely right, of course. However, the scenario I always imagine is...

Two gang members are surrounded by a small crowd of civilians. The gang members pull guns and start firing at each other. You then have two options:

1) The civilians run for cover.
2) Some percentage of the civilians pull their own (legal) weapons.

The only way option 2 is better than 1 is if BOTH a) the civilian shooters are somehow magically able to instantly tell who the gang members are and who their fellow civilians are, and b) shoot the gang members with 100% accuracy.


And in reality it's

A guy walks into a convenience store, points a gun at the cashier, and begins screaming about needing meth money.

A bystander with a concealed carry shoots and kills the meth addict.

Alternately, the cashier reaches under the counter and pulls out a shotgun and kills the meth head.
 
2012-10-03 06:32:42 PM

marsgwar: Build a wall around all the bad neighborhoods that is extremely high. Let everyone out and provide housing for them.

Anyone caught with an illegal gun or breaking other laws while using the gun gets put in the walled neighborhoods with a .45. We provide all the necessary supplies such as water, electricity, food, etc.

There will be no drug dealing outside the walls. If you are a drug fiend, you must go inside the wall to get your drugs. Drug users' will not be placed inside the walls but drug dealers will. Drug dealers get a .45 and bullet resistant vest. They only way to get out is to bring the head of somebody else with you. Any drug user who enters will be given an M4 and an option to bring back a head for a one month supply of drugs. There will be a limit of 12 per year.

Anybody committing felonies without the use of the firearm and not directly related to drugs will be placed in a normal prison. If the crime is related to drugs you will be placed in the neighborhoods, but with body armor and an M4. If you manage to stay alive for a year you can leave, or you can leave early with a head.

Gangs will have the opportunity to make money inside the neighborhoods, but can only purchase more ammunition and approved amenities.

Anybody caught escaping will have to run the gauntlet. There will be one long corridor with people 50 yards out on either side. Said ex-escapee will run down the middle. All shooters will have .45s. If a shooter manages to hit the runner, the shooter gets to leave. If the shooter manages to hit another shooter 100 yards away, that shooter gets to leave.

The gauntlet is also reserved for people who commit especially heinous gun related crimes such as mass shootings, killing children, etc. That person will be required to run the gauntlet when he first arrives. If he survives, he is given a .45, but cannot leave for a period of 30 years regardless of the number of heads he gets.

Money can be given to the people in the neighborhoods by family, but only under special rules. 10% will automatically go to the budget of the neighborhoods.


You typed that while you were supposed to be doing homework, didn't you?
 
2012-10-03 06:33:13 PM

Vectron: Start a fund for any remaining white people so they can have the financial wherewithal to move away from these neighborhoods.


LOL. Don't be a knave.

White people are rich.
 
2012-10-03 06:35:16 PM
Gun control just means better trigger discipline. Just like how responsible drinking means making sure there's enough for everyone.

/Criminals really don't care about gun control laws. And if they have a gun, I damn sure want a means to be able to shoot back.
 
2012-10-03 06:36:17 PM

Vectron: Tough one! How will white people solve this?


We're thinking about putting up a wall around the South Side. Kind of like the Berlin Wall. Shut out the blacks - they are the problem, not the solution.

/Chicago resident.
 
2012-10-03 06:37:52 PM

PallMall: Vectron: Start a fund for any remaining white people so they can have the financial wherewithal to move away from these neighborhoods.

LOL. Don't be a knave.

White people are rich.


Damn! All this time I thought I was white.
 
2012-10-03 06:38:17 PM
Have I been gone that long that Humboldt Park is now considered a black hood? Was always hispanic when I lived in Chicago.

No, he's crazy, I live 2 blocks from Humboldt Park and is it still mostly hispanic.
 
2012-10-03 06:38:44 PM

DaCaptain19: Vectron: Tough one! How will white people solve this?

We're thinking about putting up a wall around the South Side. Kind of like the Berlin Wall. Shut out the blacks - they are the problem, not the solution.

/Chicago resident.



I love Chicago but some of the youth made me nervous to be around.
 
2012-10-03 06:38:58 PM

DaCaptain19: Vectron: Tough one! How will white people solve this?

We're thinking about putting up a wall around the South Side. Kind of like the Berlin Wall. Shut out the blacks - they are the problem, not the solution.


Black people, in their entirety, are not the problem. White people, in their entirety, are not the problem. Ignorant, sociopathic, violent, criminal SOBs are the problem. Those types of people come in all different ethnicities.
 
2012-10-03 06:39:08 PM

REKnight: Huck Chaser: MoronLessOff: Pass concealed carry in IL.

Honest question: how would that help? The gang members have proven without a shadow of a doubt that they have no problem attacking, shooting, and killing other armed people (e.g. other gang members), so how would lawful citizens carrying guns change that?

Will this solve the Gang on Gang murders... nope... not really my problem to be honest.

What it WILL slow down quite a bit is the violence committed against the law abiding citizens that are in the downtown areas that are getting beaten and robbed for their iPhones or just for being at the wrong place at the wrong time... like Grant Park in broad daylight for example.

As most Chicago Cops will tell you: When seconds count the police are minutes away. Usually 30-45 minutes away due to understaffing.


Or the Red Line at...well, any f*ckin' time! The Red Line is so bad it's the one that gets the Guardian Angels.
 
2012-10-03 06:40:07 PM

fluffy2097: And in reality it's

A guy walks into a convenience store, points a gun at the cashier, and begins screaming about needing meth money.

A bystander with a concealed carry shoots and kills the meth addict.

Alternately, the cashier reaches under the counter and pulls out a shotgun and kills the meth head.


We've been talking about murders. You described a robbery. The vast majority of murders in Chicago are gang-related, and thus don't fit your description of "reality."

But I'll ignore that for a moment and respond to you anyway. If people who would otherwise would use intimidation to commit a robbery (e.g. the meth addict from your scenario) start fearing that a bystander or the cashier might kill them, they may start killing those bystanders and cashiers preemptively, before they have a time to react, let alone fight back.

Beyond that, I would rather hand over my wallet and phone than take a human life, so I don't support responding to robberies with deadly force anyway.
 
2012-10-03 06:42:05 PM

cig-mkr: Get caught committing a violent crime with a gun? Cut off the trigger finger.


Immediate execution. China style - walk 'em out back and shoot them...then bill the breeder for the cost of the bullet.
 
2012-10-03 06:42:16 PM

Huck Chaser: I would rather hand over my wallet and phone than take a human life, so I don't support responding to robberies with deadly force anyway.


Good. You won't resist then when I slit your hypothetical throat because you could possibly identify me in a lineup.

/you gotta be smart to think like a dumbass
 
2012-10-03 06:44:51 PM

redmid17: Huck Chaser: MoronLessOff: Pass concealed carry in IL.

Honest question: how would that help? The gang members have proven without a shadow of a doubt that they have no problem attacking, shooting, and killing other armed people (e.g. other gang members), so how would lawful citizens carrying guns change that?

It probably wouldn't solve much. Most of the people who applied for and were granted a CCW probably wouldn't live in the areas affected. That said, I'd at least like to have the option to carry in IL, if not Chicago, and I don't even own a handgun. There's a reason 49 states have CCW laws on the books.


You do have an option. I'm a Chicagoan and I carry my S&W Shield .40 cal with me wherever I go. You don't have a LEGAL option, but f*ck that.
 
2012-10-03 06:47:42 PM

fluffy2097: Huck Chaser: I would rather hand over my wallet and phone than take a human life, so I don't support responding to robberies with deadly force anyway.

Good. You won't resist then when I slit your hypothetical throat because you could possibly identify me in a lineup.


Statistically speaking, that never happens, and I choose not to spend my life being afraid of boogie men.
 
2012-10-03 06:47:47 PM

Secret Master of All Flatulence: DaCaptain19: Vectron: Tough one! How will white people solve this?

We're thinking about putting up a wall around the South Side. Kind of like the Berlin Wall. Shut out the blacks - they are the problem, not the solution.

Black people, in their entirety, are not the problem. White people, in their entirety, are not the problem. Ignorant, sociopathic, violent, criminal SOBs are the problem. Those types of people come in all different ethnicities.


You don't live in Chicago, do you? Nope, if you did you'd be thinking the same thing all us Chicagoans think but don't say.
 
2012-10-03 06:52:09 PM

hundreddollarman: /Criminals really don't care about gun control laws. And if they have a gun, I damn sure want a means to be able to shoot back.


Funny how many people say this, yet how often do you hear about some lone hero taking out the bad guys?

Oh... never? Hmm. And yet how often do you hear about some dumbass wannabe hero shooting himself, his spouse, etc? All the time? Yeah.

Maybe it's time to find a better excuse why guns should still be legal.
 
2012-10-03 06:52:46 PM

Huck Chaser: fluffy2097: And in reality it's

A guy walks into a convenience store, points a gun at the cashier, and begins screaming about needing meth money.

A bystander with a concealed carry shoots and kills the meth addict.

Alternately, the cashier reaches under the counter and pulls out a shotgun and kills the meth head.

We've been talking about murders. You described a robbery. The vast majority of murders in Chicago are gang-related, and thus don't fit your description of "reality."

But I'll ignore that for a moment and respond to you anyway. If people who would otherwise would use intimidation to commit a robbery (e.g. the meth addict from your scenario) start fearing that a bystander or the cashier might kill them, they may start killing those bystanders and cashiers preemptively, before they have a time to react, let alone fight back.

Beyond that, I would rather hand over my wallet and phone than take a human life, so I don't support responding to robberies with deadly force anyway.


"points a gun at the cashier" DOES NOT EQUAL "intimidation"

If you or anyone else points a gun at me, you or they mean to KILL ME.

Let me say that again: If you or anyone else points a gun at me, you or they mean to KILL ME.

To think otherwise is naivety of the highest order. You have every right to hand over your wallet and hope they don't pull the trigger.

You however DO NOT have a right to take away my opportunity to defend myself or my loved ones.

So lets review. You have a right to be a victim, you DO NOT have a right to make me a victim.
 
2012-10-03 07:00:06 PM

MrEricSir: hundreddollarman: /Criminals really don't care about gun control laws. And if they have a gun, I damn sure want a means to be able to shoot back.

Funny how many people say this, yet how often do you hear about some lone hero taking out the bad guys?

Oh... never? Hmm. And yet how often do you hear about some dumbass wannabe hero shooting himself, his spouse, etc? All the time? Yeah.

Maybe it's time to find a better excuse why guns should still be legal.


Incidents of successful defensive firearm usage aren't as interesting, news-wise - especially the ones where the "good guy" doesn't end up having to shoot anyone. There are plenty out there if you look, though.
 
2012-10-03 07:01:59 PM

REKnight: To think otherwise is naivety of the highest order. You have every right to hand over your wallet and hope they don't pull the trigger.


I haven't lived in Chicago for a while, but here in DC they just beat you to death...or at least bad enough to leave you as dead. Just happened again not long ago to a guy walking home from his neighborhood bar in Capital Hill. They caught the kids because they got nabbed for badly beating someone else that same night....after the guy handed over his wallet and phone.
 
2012-10-03 07:03:54 PM

Huck Chaser: Statistically speaking, that never happens, and I choose not to spend my life being afraid of boogie men.


That's why most people carry guns so they wont have to be afraid
 
2012-10-03 07:04:11 PM
a 15-year-old boy who was shot twice after he was the target of at least ten rounds

Imagine how many they could kill, if they did not hold the gun sideways.
i79.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-03 07:04:36 PM

DaCaptain19: Barfmaker: On Sunday, almost 200 people took to the streets of Chicago in an anti-violence rally

Impressive.

I live in Chicago - these rallies are a joke - a bunch of (mostly if not all black) church members and activists walking in a circle wearing signs that say "Don't Kill People" (essentially). The other thing they're doing here is campaigns against silence - you know, BE a snitch. Like the gang mentality is suddenly going to do a turnaround.

I'm sure that'll turn around some gang-banging blackie to a life of obedience.

There's only one thing that will work: Round up anyone in a gang (this will net you 95% blacks and 4.999% hispanics...0.001% whites), no matter how young, line them up against a wall and shoot them all down. Period. No matter whether they've picked up a gun or not. And do this immediately - no warning, no delays, no "due process" which is a joke anyway. Preemptively.

If I sound racist then I welcome all you dumb f*cks to come to Chi-town. Listen to the news and log the murders....99.9% black. F*ck "politically correct" - I call 'em by the numbers - my conclusions are 100% empirically based. The black communities are to be avoided - this would be your Englewood, your Humboldt Park, etc.

I'm not sure there exists anything such as a "black parent" - only "black breeders" - obvious by the behavior of their taint-stains they call children. Hell, if we took the guns and knives away, they'd probably be throwing feces at each other.

I equally despise the white trash that gets involved in this s*it, but....at least around here they're few and far between (in the news, at least).


bravo for having the balls to state what others will freak out to read.

if they knew people who worked in prisons they would hear much the same of what you said. these are not good people. these are scum. given the chance they would kill you, rape your wife and daughter and torture them to death, kill your dog, take your possessions and burn down your house. they would laugh about this and brag to their friends. absolute scum with no redeeming values.
 
2012-10-03 07:05:13 PM

Huck Chaser: fluffy2097: And in reality it's

A guy walks into a convenience store, points a gun at the cashier, and begins screaming about needing meth money.

A bystander with a concealed carry shoots and kills the meth addict.

Alternately, the cashier reaches under the counter and pulls out a shotgun and kills the meth head.

We've been talking about murders. You described a robbery. The vast majority of murders in Chicago are gang-related, and thus don't fit your description of "reality."

But I'll ignore that for a moment and respond to you anyway. If people who would otherwise would use intimidation to commit a robbery (e.g. the meth addict from your scenario) start fearing that a bystander or the cashier might kill them, they may start killing those bystanders and cashiers preemptively, before they have a time to react, let alone fight back.

Beyond that, I would rather hand over my wallet and phone than take a human life, so I don't support responding to robberies with deadly force anyway.


That's your choice, you don't get to make that for other people.
 
2012-10-03 07:06:08 PM

Fark It: Timmy the Tumor: Yeah, because all of the 400 homicides so far this year involved guns--guns owned by registered owners.

"Wanting to reduce homicides" does not equal "gun control ideas" subs.

The city isn't asking for ideas to reduce homicides.

From their twitter page:

"PROBLEM: HOW DO WE GET ILLEGAL GUNS OFF CHICAGO STREETS?"

They're framing it as a gun control question.


That's not a gun control question. Gun control in American politics refer to restriction on lawful ownership of firearms.

"How do we get illegal guns off Chicago streets" is a crime fighting question.
 
2012-10-03 07:07:36 PM

DaCaptain19: There's only one thing that will work: Round up anyone in a gang (this will net you 95% blacks and 4.999% hispanics...0.001% whites), no matter how young, line them up against a wall and shoot them all down. Period. No matter whether they've picked up a gun or not. And do this immediately - no warning, no delays, no "due process" which is a joke anyway. Preemptively.


In other news, there are no Asian street gangs.
 
2012-10-03 07:09:15 PM

REKnight: "points a gun at the cashier" DOES NOT EQUAL "intimidation"

If you or anyone else points a gun at me, you or they mean to KILL ME.

Let me say that again: If you or anyone else points a gun at me, you or they mean to KILL ME.

To think otherwise is naivety of the highest order. You have every right to hand over your wallet and hope they don't pull the trigger.

You however DO NOT have a right to take away my opportunity to defend myself or my loved ones.

So lets review. You have a right to be a victim, you DO NOT have a right to make me a victim.


This is a very intelligent and compelling argument (I hope that doesn't sound like sarcasm, because it's not), but I'm afraid that I still disagree with you, and I know you're not going to like my rebuttal because it mostly comes down to philosophy. I understand the benefits of being armed (defending myself if directly threatened with a deadly weapon), but I also understand the risks (suicide, accidents, crimes of passion, overzealous vigilantes), and I believe the risks outweigh the benefits.

/leaving work now, but I'll check this thread tomorrow morning
 
2012-10-03 07:09:38 PM

MrEricSir: hundreddollarman: /Criminals really don't care about gun control laws. And if they have a gun, I damn sure want a means to be able to shoot back.

Funny how many people say this, yet how often do you hear about some lone hero taking out the bad guys?

Oh... never? Hmm. And yet how often do you hear about some dumbass wannabe hero shooting himself, his spouse, etc? All the time? Yeah.

Maybe it's time to find a better excuse why guns should still be legal.


Yeah... good luck with that pipe dream. If there's one thing Americans despise most, it's the threat of things being taken away from them. Guns have been an integral component of American culture, dating back to our days as a British colony. Guns in America are here to stay. That genie is never going back in the bottle. So keep dreaming and choosing to be a victim when the shiat hits the fan.
 
2012-10-03 07:11:43 PM

Virtue: Huck Chaser: Statistically speaking, that never happens, and I choose not to spend my life being afraid of boogie men.

That's why most people carry guns so they wont have to be afraid


Exactly - they were afraid to begin with. I'm not.

Fark It: That's your choice, you don't get to make that for other people.


You're right, but I do get to vote for people who do get to make that choice.
 
2012-10-03 07:12:36 PM

Huck Chaser: REKnight: "points a gun at the cashier" DOES NOT EQUAL "intimidation"

If you or anyone else points a gun at me, you or they mean to KILL ME.

Let me say that again: If you or anyone else points a gun at me, you or they mean to KILL ME.

To think otherwise is naivety of the highest order. You have every right to hand over your wallet and hope they don't pull the trigger.

You however DO NOT have a right to take away my opportunity to defend myself or my loved ones.

So lets review. You have a right to be a victim, you DO NOT have a right to make me a victim.

This is a very intelligent and compelling argument (I hope that doesn't sound like sarcasm, because it's not), but I'm afraid that I still disagree with you, and I know you're not going to like my rebuttal because it mostly comes down to philosophy. I understand the benefits of being armed (defending myself if directly threatened with a deadly weapon), but I also understand the risks (suicide, accidents, crimes of passion, overzealous vigilantes), and I believe the risks outweigh the benefits.

/leaving work now, but I'll check this thread tomorrow morning


I am certain, then, that you will be able to demonstrate that suicide, negligent discharges, "crimes of passion" and "overzealous vigilantes" increase substantially when civilians are permitted, through at least a "shall-issue" based concealed weapons permit system, to carry firearms in public.
 
2012-10-03 07:14:52 PM

Huck Chaser: Fark It: That's your choice, you don't get to make that for other people.You're right, but I do get to vote for people who do get to make that choice.


You are indeed free to vote for tyrants who advocate safe working environments for violent criminals and who advocate requiring victims of violent crime to submit to their attackers.
 
2012-10-03 07:14:59 PM

smitty04: a 15-year-old boy who was shot twice after he was the target of at least ten rounds

Imagine how many they could kill, if they did not hold the gun sideways.
[i79.photobucket.com image 680x580]


Reminds me of what will happen if you take their guns away...

bachelor-life.com

/hot
 
2012-10-03 07:16:59 PM

Huck Chaser: Exactly - they were afraid to begin with. I'm not.


Then why are you afraid of law abiding citizens carrying tools to defend themselves?
 
2012-10-03 07:18:41 PM
Maybe Rahm could ask them not to shoot kids. That worked well the last time.
 
2012-10-03 07:25:48 PM

marsgwar: Build a wall around all the bad neighborhoods that is extremely high. Then fill it with water. Let everyone out and provide housing for them.

Anyone caught with an illegal gun or breaking other laws while using the gun gets put in the walled neighborhoods with a .45. We provide all the necessary supplies such as water, electricity, food, etc.

There will be no drug dealing outside the walls. If you are a drug fiend, you must go inside the wall to get your drugs. Drug users' will not be placed inside the walls but drug dealers will. Drug dealers get a .45 and bullet resistant vest. They only way to get out is to bring the head of somebody else with you. Any drug user who enters will be given an M4 and an option to bring back a head for a one month supply of drugs. There will be a limit of 12 per year.

Anybody committing felonies without the use of the firearm and not directly related to drugs will be placed in a normal prison. If the crime is related to drugs you will be placed in the neighborhoods, but with body armor and an M4. If you manage to stay alive for a year you can leave, or you can leave early with a head.

Gangs will have the opportunity to make money inside the neighborhoods, but can only purchase more ammunition and approved amenities.

Anybody caught escaping will have to run the gauntlet. There will be one long corridor with people 50 yards out on either side. Said ex-escapee will run down the middle. All shooters will have .45s. If a shooter manages to hit the runner, the shooter gets to leave. If the shooter manages to hit another shooter 100 yards away, that shooter gets to leave.

The gauntlet is also reserved for people who commit especially heinous gun related crimes such as mass shootings, killing children, etc. That person will be required to run the gauntlet when he first arrives. If he survives, he is given a .45, but cannot leave for a period of 30 years regardless of the number of heads he gets.

Money can be given to the people in the neighborhoo ..
.


FTFY
 
2012-10-03 07:30:43 PM

Huck Chaser: Virtue: Huck Chaser: Statistically speaking, that never happens, and I choose not to spend my life being afraid of boogie men.

That's why most people carry guns so they wont have to be afraid

Exactly - they were afraid to begin with. I'm not.

Fark It: That's your choice, you don't get to make that for other people.

You're right, but I do get to vote for people who do get to make that choice.


And you are exactly one of the reasons we have these problems. You keep electing the same asshats who think like you do and do nothing except roll over and take it up the ass.
 
2012-10-03 07:35:12 PM
Twit this: Realize: Legalize.
 
2012-10-03 07:35:20 PM
Can anyone explain to me why were have troops trying to stabalize neighborhoods on the other side of the planet?
 
2012-10-03 07:35:56 PM

Indubitably: Twit this: Realize: Legalize.


i.e. at least decriminalize, mans. Seriously.
 
2012-10-03 07:41:21 PM

Indubitably: Indubitably: Twit this: Realize: Legalize.

i.e. at least decriminalize, mans. Seriously.



They'll just find something else to fight over.
 
2012-10-03 07:42:23 PM
Simple solution: ever see "Escape From New York"?

Wall them in.
Let nature take its course.
 
2012-10-03 07:42:34 PM

Dimensio: I am certain, then, that you will be able to demonstrate that suicide, negligent discharges, "crimes of passion" and "overzealous vigilantes" increase substantially when civilians are permitted, through at least a "shall-issue" based concealed weapons permit system, to carry firearms in public.


"Substantially," is the operative word there. If you can only have a gun with you 50% of the day vs. 100%, it's apparent that the rate of accidental discharges must be less. Unless you somehow manage to double up on your gun exposure while at home. Crimes of passion and overzealous vigilantism work the same way - if you don't have the gun on you at the time, you can't use it. It's a pure numbers game. There's obviously going to be a negative impact; anyone who says otherwise has their head buried in the sand.

Now, the question is what's the net impact. Is there a positive impact that outweighs the nearly-indisputable negatives? That's where this discussion always breaks down because it's very very hard to quantify a deterrent. How do you measure "crimes that would have happened but didn't because a bystander might have been armed?" IMHO, accessibility isn't that much of a factor every time you make guns easier for criminals to get, you put a dent in the crime surrounding the arms trade itself. There's also the issue of you having a gun possibly turning a robbery into your murder, but in that particular case, the risk is yours and yours alone, so do whichever you want.

So, value public carry as a deterrent for shootings v. shootings avoided because there wasn't a weapon on-hand at the time?
 
2012-10-03 07:52:30 PM

Indubitably: Twit this: Realize: Legalize.


Then they kill each other to take their stashes away.

WEED REDISTRIBUTION!!!
 
2012-10-03 07:54:20 PM

ProfessorOhki: Dimensio: I am certain, then, that you will be able to demonstrate that suicide, negligent discharges, "crimes of passion" and "overzealous vigilantes" increase substantially when civilians are permitted, through at least a "shall-issue" based concealed weapons permit system, to carry firearms in public.

"Substantially," is the operative word there. If you can only have a gun with you 50% of the day vs. 100%, it's apparent that the rate of accidental discharges must be less. Unless you somehow manage to double up on your gun exposure while at home. Crimes of passion and overzealous vigilantism work the same way - if you don't have the gun on you at the time, you can't use it. It's a pure numbers game. There's obviously going to be a negative impact; anyone who says otherwise has their head buried in the sand.

Now, the question is what's the net impact. Is there a positive impact that outweighs the nearly-indisputable negatives? That's where this discussion always breaks down because it's very very hard to quantify a deterrent. How do you measure "crimes that would have happened but didn't because a bystander might have been armed?" IMHO, accessibility isn't that much of a factor every time you make guns easier for criminals to get, you put a dent in the crime surrounding the arms trade itself. There's also the issue of you having a gun possibly turning a robbery into your murder, but in that particular case, the risk is yours and yours alone, so do whichever you want.

So, value public carry as a deterrent for shootings v. shootings avoided because there wasn't a weapon on-hand at the time?


Crimes of passion, suicide, and vigilantism don't require firearms. If I'm going to kill myself, kill my lover in a jealous rage, or join a mob intent on dispensing justice, the absence of a firearm isn't likely to deter me.
 
2012-10-03 07:56:51 PM

Vectron: Indubitably: Indubitably: Twit this: Realize: Legalize.

i.e. at least decriminalize, mans. Seriously.


They'll just find something else to fight over.


But they won't have any capital/money to buy expensive guns and ammo, will they? *elbow-knudge*
 
2012-10-03 07:57:29 PM

PallMall: Indubitably: Twit this: Realize: Legalize.

Then they kill each other to take their stashes away.

WEED REDISTRIBUTION!!!


Briefly.
 
2012-10-03 07:58:44 PM

Indubitably: Vectron: Indubitably: Indubitably: Twit this: Realize: Legalize.

i.e. at least decriminalize, mans. Seriously.


They'll just find something else to fight over.

But they won't have any capital/money to buy expensive guns and ammo, will they? *elbow-knudge*


Yes, I "knudged".
 
2012-10-03 08:01:24 PM
wee
Darn good thing guns are so hard to get in Illinois...

Now is the time to go up north to WI-just say deer hunter and BAM gun in hands. Just try not to show your fibness...
 
2012-10-03 08:03:46 PM

DaCaptain19: You don't live in Chicago, do you? Nope, if you did you'd be thinking the same thing all us Chicagoans think but don't say.


Nope, I don't live in Chicago. That being said: I've dealt with a LOT of scumbags over the years. Not just gangmembers, but baby rapers, wife beaters, and just about every other kind of criminal out there. The color of the skin of the perpetrator is meaningless...it's what they, as an individual, have done. And I can say, with some certainty, that douchebaggery is not the province of any one skin color, socioeconomic status, religious belief, or geographic locale.
 
2012-10-03 08:09:40 PM

Secret Master of All Flatulence: DaCaptain19: You don't live in Chicago, do you? Nope, if you did you'd be thinking the same thing all us Chicagoans think but don't say.

Nope, I don't live in Chicago. That being said: I've dealt with a LOT of scumbags over the years. Not just gangmembers, but baby rapers, wife beaters, and just about every other kind of criminal out there. The color of the skin of the perpetrator is meaningless...it's what they, as an individual, have done. And I can say, with some certainty, that douchebaggery is not the province of any one skin color, socioeconomic status, religious belief, or geographic locale.


"Assholes are assholes. They're just a little darker down here."
--Joseph Wambaugh, The New Centurions
 
2012-10-03 08:10:47 PM

hundreddollarman: Yeah... good luck with that pipe dream. If there's one thing Americans despise most, it's the threat of things being taken away from them. Guns have been an integral component of American culture, dating back to our days as a British colony. Guns in America are here to stay. That genie is never going back in the bottle. So keep dreaming and choosing to be a victim when the shiat hits the fan.


The idea of carrying a gun around for defense is pure fantasy. You are not a character in an action movie, this is real life.

Go ahead, keep blaming the victim -- see how much sympathy that gets you. But when you accidentally shoot someone (or yourself) don't expect any sympathy in return.
 
2012-10-03 08:13:07 PM

natas6.0: why can't we do that here?


Due process. Even worthless piece-of-shiat gang-bangers deserve it.

It's not for their benefit. It's for ours. If you make an exception for anyone, you've made an exception for everyone.
 
2012-10-03 08:16:15 PM

Secret Master of All Flatulence: DaCaptain19: You don't live in Chicago, do you? Nope, if you did you'd be thinking the same thing all us Chicagoans think but don't say.

Nope, I don't live in Chicago. That being said: I've dealt with a LOT of scumbags over the years. Not just gangmembers, but baby rapers, wife beaters, and just about every other kind of criminal out there. The color of the skin of the perpetrator is meaningless...it's what they, as an individual, have done. And I can say, with some certainty, that douchebaggery is not the province of any one skin color, socioeconomic status, religious belief, or geographic locale.


www.chicagonow.com
Then why is homicide rate so low in Edison Park?
 
2012-10-03 08:16:31 PM

Secret Master of All Flatulence: DaCaptain19: You don't live in Chicago, do you? Nope, if you did you'd be thinking the same thing all us Chicagoans think but don't say.

Nope, I don't live in Chicago. That being said: I've dealt with a LOT of scumbags over the years. Not just gangmembers, but baby rapers, wife beaters, and just about every other kind of criminal out there. The color of the skin of the perpetrator is meaningless...it's what they, as an individual, have done. And I can say, with some certainty, that douchebaggery is not the province of any one skin color, socioeconomic status, religious belief, or geographic locale.


Thank you, officer.
 
2012-10-03 08:21:03 PM

Huck Chaser: REKnight: "points a gun at the cashier" DOES NOT EQUAL "intimidation"

If you or anyone else points a gun at me, you or they mean to KILL ME.

Let me say that again: If you or anyone else points a gun at me, you or they mean to KILL ME.

To think otherwise is naivety of the highest order. You have every right to hand over your wallet and hope they don't pull the trigger.

You however DO NOT have a right to take away my opportunity to defend myself or my loved ones.

So lets review. You have a right to be a victim, you DO NOT have a right to make me a victim.

This is a very intelligent and compelling argument (I hope that doesn't sound like sarcasm, because it's not), but I'm afraid that I still disagree with you, and I know you're not going to like my rebuttal because it mostly comes down to philosophy. I understand the benefits of being armed (defending myself if directly threatened with a deadly weapon), but I also understand the risks (suicide, accidents, crimes of passion, overzealous vigilantes), and I believe the risks outweigh the benefits.

/leaving work now, but I'll check this thread tomorrow morning


That's fine and all. Believe whatever you like, live your life by your own understanding.

But you should also understand one important thing. If your philosophy requires that I be legally bound to put myself or my loved ones at risk for your comfort, or have to let violent criminals do as they please to avoid participating in violence, then you are as much my enemy as the violent criminal, and you should suffer consequences for your arrogant and self-righteous denial of other peoples' right to defend their lives.

Of course, pieces of shiat like you rarely have to suffer the consequences of your own thoughtlessness and arrogance. Other people do.

/don't even own a gun, but still want to shoot this idiot.
 
2012-10-03 08:26:40 PM

j__z: gun violence is the symptom of the problem...war on drugs is the cause, take the profit motive out of organized crime and you end crime and gun violence,


Drugs are illegal in most other western countries as well, without the massive rate of gun related fatalities that is, at least among developed nations, unique to the United States.

Of course there is the occasional massacre in other countries such as the recent tragedy in Norway, but they are exceptional incidents. In the US such tragedies have become routine.
 
2012-10-03 08:27:29 PM
I has a brilliant plan that will both reduce Chicago's problem AND increase the population of Detroit .

Phase 1)
Chicago buys a lot of Detroit and a lot of busses.

Phase 2)
Offer people free property in Detroit with a one way bus ticket there.

Phase 3)
Politically correct version:
Load Chicagoans on busses. Drive to Detroit. Get people off busses. Burn busses.

Phase 3)
Version that would help
Load busses with Chicagoans. Drive to an empty lot. Burn busses.
 
2012-10-03 08:39:00 PM

smitty04:
Then why is homicide rate so low in Edison Park?


I don't know for sure, but would guess that the people who live there buy their drugs elsewhere.
 
2012-10-03 08:39:31 PM

MrEricSir: hundreddollarman: Yeah... good luck with that pipe dream. If there's one thing Americans despise most, it's the threat of things being taken away from them. Guns have been an integral component of American culture, dating back to our days as a British colony. Guns in America are here to stay. That genie is never going back in the bottle. So keep dreaming and choosing to be a victim when the shiat hits the fan.

The idea of carrying a gun around for defense is pure fantasy. You are not a character in an action movie, this is real life.

Go ahead, keep blaming the victim -- see how much sympathy that gets you. But when you accidentally shoot someone (or yourself) don't expect any sympathy in return.


You are one seriously confused individual.
 
2012-10-03 08:40:25 PM

DaCaptain19: wee: Darn good thing guns are so hard to get in Illinois...

THIS. When I moved to IL (Chicago) it was a culture shock. Having lived in Kansas for 8 years prior, I had multiple firearms and had a conceal-carry card.

Which means nothing in IL, the ONLY state with no way to conceal-carry, you need a FOID card to even get a shotgun shell at Walmart...and yet hghest murder rate in the U.S.

Sh*t...at the very least allow the law-abiding citizens to carry. An armed society is a polite society.


You have the highest rate of firearm related deaths and injuries in the developed world. And not just by a little bit but by a truly shocking amount. Just look up some statistics for rates of gun related deaths in the US compared to Canada just over the border.

I think there must be something wrong with people who love guns so much. They are nothing more than tools designed to kill. If you need such a tool then what or who are you planning to kill?

As far as carrying them for protection, that is the biggest load of codswallop I have heard in my life. When was the last time any of you gun advocates ever needed to protect yourself with a gun? If the answer is anything other than never then where you live is truly farked up.
 
2012-10-03 08:43:29 PM

ProfessorOhki: DaCaptain19: There's only one thing that will work: Round up anyone in a gang (this will net you 95% blacks and 4.999% hispanics...0.001% whites), no matter how young, line them up against a wall and shoot them all down. Period. No matter whether they've picked up a gun or not. And do this immediately - no warning, no delays, no "due process" which is a joke anyway. Preemptively.

In other news, there are no Asian street gangs.


In Chicago? Only if the Yakuza is running all the BYOB sushi joints in LP and Wrigleyville
 
2012-10-03 08:44:31 PM

kg2095: DaCaptain19: wee: Darn good thing guns are so hard to get in Illinois...

THIS. When I moved to IL (Chicago) it was a culture shock. Having lived in Kansas for 8 years prior, I had multiple firearms and had a conceal-carry card.

Which means nothing in IL, the ONLY state with no way to conceal-carry, you need a FOID card to even get a shotgun shell at Walmart...and yet hghest murder rate in the U.S.

Sh*t...at the very least allow the law-abiding citizens to carry. An armed society is a polite society.

You have the highest rate of firearm related deaths and injuries in the developed world. And not just by a little bit but by a truly shocking amount. Just look up some statistics for rates of gun related deaths in the US compared to Canada just over the border.

I think there must be something wrong with people who love guns so much. They are nothing more than tools designed to kill. If you need such a tool then what or who are you planning to kill?

As far as carrying them for protection, that is the biggest load of codswallop I have heard in my life. When was the last time any of you gun advocates ever needed to protect yourself with a gun? If the answer is anything other than never then where you live is truly farked up.


You sound like someone who barely has a topical grasp of the subject at hand.
 
2012-10-03 08:51:23 PM

Huck Chaser: MoronLessOff: Pass concealed carry in IL.

Honest question: how would that help? The gang members have proven without a shadow of a doubt that they have no problem attacking, shooting, and killing other armed people (e.g. other gang members), so how would lawful citizens carrying guns change that?


They might shoot back and take a few of them with them?

/I may die defending myself, but I will do everything I can to take you with me.
 
2012-10-03 08:52:18 PM

smitty04: Secret Master of All Flatulence: DaCaptain19: You don't live in Chicago, do you? Nope, if you did you'd be thinking the same thing all us Chicagoans think but don't say.

Nope, I don't live in Chicago. That being said: I've dealt with a LOT of scumbags over the years. Not just gangmembers, but baby rapers, wife beaters, and just about every other kind of criminal out there. The color of the skin of the perpetrator is meaningless...it's what they, as an individual, have done. And I can say, with some certainty, that douchebaggery is not the province of any one skin color, socioeconomic status, religious belief, or geographic locale.

[www.chicagonow.com image 583x302]
Then why is homicide rate so low in Edison Park?


Since you think this chart tells the whole story - you might want to consider the poverty level in Edison Park - that's the killer, not "race".
 
2012-10-03 08:53:07 PM

LaughingRadish: MrEricSir: hundreddollarman: Yeah... good luck with that pipe dream. If there's one thing Americans despise most, it's the threat of things being taken away from them. Guns have been an integral component of American culture, dating back to our days as a British colony. Guns in America are here to stay. That genie is never going back in the bottle. So keep dreaming and choosing to be a victim when the shiat hits the fan.

The idea of carrying a gun around for defense is pure fantasy. You are not a character in an action movie, this is real life.

Go ahead, keep blaming the victim -- see how much sympathy that gets you. But when you accidentally shoot someone (or yourself) don't expect any sympathy in return.

You are one seriously confused individual.


I'm not the one who thinks he's Bruce Willis.
 
2012-10-03 08:54:56 PM

kg2095: DaCaptain19: wee: Darn good thing guns are so hard to get in Illinois...

THIS. When I moved to IL (Chicago) it was a culture shock. Having lived in Kansas for 8 years prior, I had multiple firearms and had a conceal-carry card.

Which means nothing in IL, the ONLY state with no way to conceal-carry, you need a FOID card to even get a shotgun shell at Walmart...and yet hghest murder rate in the U.S.

Sh*t...at the very least allow the law-abiding citizens to carry. An armed society is a polite society.

You have the highest rate of firearm related deaths and injuries in the developed world. And not just by a little bit but by a truly shocking amount. Just look up some statistics for rates of gun related deaths in the US compared to Canada just over the border.

I think there must be something wrong with people who love guns so much. They are nothing more than tools designed to kill. If you need such a tool then what or who are you planning to kill?

As far as carrying them for protection, that is the biggest load of codswallop I have heard in my life. When was the last time any of you gun advocates ever needed to protect yourself with a gun? If the answer is anything other than never then where you live is truly farked up.


Approximately 70% of the murders in the U.S. are committed by members of approximately 6% of the population. Perhaps that group is the difference.
 
2012-10-03 08:56:02 PM

kg2095: DaCaptain19: wee: Darn good thing guns are so hard to get in Illinois...

THIS. When I moved to IL (Chicago) it was a culture shock. Having lived in Kansas for 8 years prior, I had multiple firearms and had a conceal-carry card.

Which means nothing in IL, the ONLY state with no way to conceal-carry, you need a FOID card to even get a shotgun shell at Walmart...and yet hghest murder rate in the U.S.

Sh*t...at the very least allow the law-abiding citizens to carry. An armed society is a polite society.

You have the highest rate of firearm related deaths and injuries in the developed world. And not just by a little bit but by a truly shocking amount. Just look up some statistics for rates of gun related deaths in the US compared to Canada just over the border.

I think there must be something wrong with people who love guns so much. They are nothing more than tools designed to kill. If you need such a tool then what or who are you planning to kill?

As far as carrying them for protection, that is the biggest load of codswallop I have heard in my life. When was the last time any of you gun advocates ever needed to protect yourself with a gun? If the answer is anything other than never then where you live is truly farked up.


Generally, I use my guns to kill paper. Sometimes small to medium game.

As to "truly farked up", when you have people breaking into homes and raping little old ladies, groups of people beating innocent people at random, and other odd stuff...yeah, maybe so. Personally, i'd say that considering violent crime happens in most every country, regardless of utensil used, itms generally smart to keep around something useful for protection.

Besides, as it is my right, I don't have to justify myself to you. Don't like guns? Don't own them. But please don't tell me gun crime only happens here, when a quick google search shows gun crimes happen in the uk, australia, france, and many other places, along with fairly significant other violent crimes.
 
2012-10-03 08:58:46 PM

jonny99: smitty04: Secret Master of All Flatulence: DaCaptain19: You don't live in Chicago, do you? Nope, if you did you'd be thinking the same thing all us Chicagoans think but don't say.

Nope, I don't live in Chicago. That being said: I've dealt with a LOT of scumbags over the years. Not just gangmembers, but baby rapers, wife beaters, and just about every other kind of criminal out there. The color of the skin of the perpetrator is meaningless...it's what they, as an individual, have done. And I can say, with some certainty, that douchebaggery is not the province of any one skin color, socioeconomic status, religious belief, or geographic locale.

[www.chicagonow.com image 583x302]
Then why is homicide rate so low in Edison Park?

Since you think this chart tells the whole story - you might want to consider the poverty level in Edison Park - that's the killer, not "race".


Race and poverty, among other factors, are quite strongly connected.
 
2012-10-03 08:59:36 PM

MrEricSir: LaughingRadish: MrEricSir: hundreddollarman: Yeah... good luck with that pipe dream. If there's one thing Americans despise most, it's the threat of things being taken away from them. Guns have been an integral component of American culture, dating back to our days as a British colony. Guns in America are here to stay. That genie is never going back in the bottle. So keep dreaming and choosing to be a victim when the shiat hits the fan.

The idea of carrying a gun around for defense is pure fantasy. You are not a character in an action movie, this is real life.

Go ahead, keep blaming the victim -- see how much sympathy that gets you. But when you accidentally shoot someone (or yourself) don't expect any sympathy in return.

You are one seriously confused individual.

I'm not the one who thinks he's Bruce Willis.


And you're not the one familiar with the thousands of cases of individuals defending themselves with guns every year. Some fantasy, when it happens frequently enough to be routine.
 
2012-10-03 09:05:47 PM

bim1154: jonny99: I suppose it doesn't matter that this spike in gun violence comes *2 years after* Chicago's handgun ban was struck down by the supreme court?


/Chicagoan
//who doesn't own or want to own a gun

For a "Chicagoan" you don't keep up do you? That's o.k., you can go walk the walk with Father Pfleger and his crowd.


Thanks for your permission to have an opinion - I have no desire to live in an armed society - just as in global politics, the answer can only be found in de-escalation. Gun people love to ask how banning guns is working out for Chicago, but the truth is no one can answer that question because they're not really banned, can be trafficked in from other places that hold the distribution of firearms sacrosanct. I don't have to walk with anyone - I just choose to walk without a deadly weapon on me, and I would prefer that as few people as possible in my immediate vicinity have one.

If you think that is because I am too naive and trusting of people you would be incorrect - I have no faith that anyone who feels the need to carry deadly force with them at all times is well adjusted enough to use it responsibly. So many Fark threads read like Penthouse forum fantasies that replace farking with a barely-contained vigilante rage, just waiting for the opportunity to be in the right place at the right time to visit violence on someone (usually of a different race than themselves) "justifiably". Not my deal.
 
2012-10-03 09:11:55 PM

Silly Jesus: jonny99: smitty04: Secret Master of All Flatulence: DaCaptain19: You don't live in Chicago, do you? Nope, if you did you'd be thinking the same thing all us Chicagoans think but don't say.

Nope, I don't live in Chicago. That being said: I've dealt with a LOT of scumbags over the years. Not just gangmembers, but baby rapers, wife beaters, and just about every other kind of criminal out there. The color of the skin of the perpetrator is meaningless...it's what they, as an individual, have done. And I can say, with some certainty, that douchebaggery is not the province of any one skin color, socioeconomic status, religious belief, or geographic locale.

[www.chicagonow.com image 583x302]
Then why is homicide rate so low in Edison Park?

Since you think this chart tells the whole story - you might want to consider the poverty level in Edison Park - that's the killer, not "race".

Race and poverty, among other factors, are quite strongly connected.




Yeah, I wonder why that could possibly be? Don't forget about poverty and criminality, or poverty and violence.
 
2012-10-03 09:12:52 PM

Silly Jesus: kg2095: DaCaptain19: wee: Darn good thing guns are so hard to get in Illinois...

THIS. When I moved to IL (Chicago) it was a culture shock. Having lived in Kansas for 8 years prior, I had multiple firearms and had a conceal-carry card.

Which means nothing in IL, the ONLY state with no way to conceal-carry, you need a FOID card to even get a shotgun shell at Walmart...and yet hghest murder rate in the U.S.

Sh*t...at the very least allow the law-abiding citizens to carry. An armed society is a polite society.

You have the highest rate of firearm related deaths and injuries in the developed world. And not just by a little bit but by a truly shocking amount. Just look up some statistics for rates of gun related deaths in the US compared to Canada just over the border.

I think there must be something wrong with people who love guns so much. They are nothing more than tools designed to kill. If you need such a tool then what or who are you planning to kill?

As far as carrying them for protection, that is the biggest load of codswallop I have heard in my life. When was the last time any of you gun advocates ever needed to protect yourself with a gun? If the answer is anything other than never then where you live is truly farked up.

Approximately 70% of the murders in the U.S. are committed by members of approximately 6% of the population. Perhaps that group is the difference.


I do find it interesting to look at the numbers.

When you break down things past the obvious, the arguments about gun population being the cause of crime breaks down as well.

The US tends to lack the standard of education, the lack of social programs, and a general lack of cultural acknowledgement of poverty and crime.

By policing, or helping, the population most stricken by poverty, apathy, and involvement by communities at large, you can slowly but significantly reduce the crime rates.

Likewise, more availability of education and mental health services, would further reduce the instances of violence, not just gun violence.

A gun is a tool. We're not the only ones who are gun owners, but, we are the only ones that teach neither responsibility, nor look after our own when it comes to trying to help people out.

A study, by the way, some years back concluded that instances of violence drop dramatically with education and success.

What it boils down to is, you leave people in the gutter, give them no positive role models and instead let a tribal culture that only understands violence as a means of gaining power take hold, and add in a system that does nothing to help but rather only exacerbates the problem, and you get violent behavior. It's systemic.

But, I digress. This is a thread demanding that guns join the ranks of booze and loose women as the cause for all ills of society, not a thread looking tto actually examine the catalysts involved in getting a person to the point where crime seems like a good idea. Then again, if my choices were death in the streets minding my own business or joining a gang to make money to live and have some protection from the other violent assholes out there, I might consider joining the gang.

/grew up in a gang-infested poverty stricken city.
//has seen first hand the fact that violent behavior and petty ego behaviors lead to the use of guns, not the other way around
///also has seen that certain groups tend towards this behavior more than others.
 
2012-10-03 09:13:02 PM

jonny99: Silly Jesus: jonny99: smitty04: Secret Master of All Flatulence: DaCaptain19: You don't live in Chicago, do you? Nope, if you did you'd be thinking the same thing all us Chicagoans think but don't say.

Nope, I don't live in Chicago. That being said: I've dealt with a LOT of scumbags over the years. Not just gangmembers, but baby rapers, wife beaters, and just about every other kind of criminal out there. The color of the skin of the perpetrator is meaningless...it's what they, as an individual, have done. And I can say, with some certainty, that douchebaggery is not the province of any one skin color, socioeconomic status, religious belief, or geographic locale.

[www.chicagonow.com image 583x302]
Then why is homicide rate so low in Edison Park?

Since you think this chart tells the whole story - you might want to consider the poverty level in Edison Park - that's the killer, not "race".

Race and poverty, among other factors, are quite strongly connected.



Yeah, I wonder why that could possibly be? Don't forget about poverty and criminality, or poverty and violence.


Culture.
 
2012-10-03 09:20:18 PM

kg2095: You have the highest rate of firearm related deaths and injuries in the developed world. And not just by a little bit but by a truly shocking amount. Just look up some statistics for rates of gun related deaths in the US compared to Canada just over the border.


In the U.S. even our **non-firearm related** homicide rate is higher than the TOTAL homicide rate for many other countries. We don't have a "gun problem", we have a "homicidal farktard" problem. You're never going to be able to remove the 100+ million firearms we already have, and further restricting the law-abiding gun owners isn't going to solve the problem either.
 
2012-10-03 09:24:40 PM

jonny99: bim1154: jonny99: I suppose it doesn't matter that this spike in gun violence comes *2 years after* Chicago's handgun ban was struck down by the supreme court?


/Chicagoan
//who doesn't own or want to own a gun

For a "Chicagoan" you don't keep up do you? That's o.k., you can go walk the walk with Father Pfleger and his crowd.

Thanks for your permission to have an opinion - I have no desire to live in an armed society - just as in global politics, the answer can only be found in de-escalation. Gun people love to ask how banning guns is working out for Chicago, but the truth is no one can answer that question because they're not really banned, can be trafficked in from other places that hold the distribution of firearms sacrosanct. I don't have to walk with anyone - I just choose to walk without a deadly weapon on me, and I would prefer that as few people as possible in my immediate vicinity have one.

If you think that is because I am too naive and trusting of people you would be incorrect - I have no faith that anyone who feels the need to carry deadly force with them at all times is well adjusted enough to use it responsibly. So many Fark threads read like Penthouse forum fantasies that replace farking with a barely-contained vigilante rage, just waiting for the opportunity to be in the right place at the right time to visit violence on someone (usually of a different race than themselves) "justifiably". Not my deal.


sadly, I think you're both right and wrong.

Right in that for the first year or so, most guys who get a ccw permit do so because it's cool. However, you're also wrong, as it sinks in with most people just what that responsibility means after a while.

As someone who does carry, and has faced having to use it against an armed attacker after every option of avoidance and deescalation failed, let me tell you that once you realize the gravity of reality, it's neither glamorous nor cool, it's a grim reality.

A gun isn't a sure bet in a fight. It's not a magic wand that makes bad guys disappear, or give you +5 to cock length. A gun is a tool that gives me at best a slight advantage, and at worst, a false hope, should I have to use it.

I was jumped by three guys, beaten and stabbed repeatedly. I was armed, and I was unable to get the gun out to defend myself from the attack. I was weak and bloody, unable to fight off the guys attacking me because I couldn't outfight three guys with knives by myself, and instead took the stabwounds and the insults and prepared to die.

The only thing that stopped them was that after collapsing and curling in a ball, I managed to get my gun out and let off a round into the dirt. I could only see well enough toaim it that well. The guys attacking me were startled by the gunshot, and when they heard people yelling, they ran off.

That's also the only way I had a prayer of someone finding me and calling 911, my phone got smashed in the attack.

I'm still here because of that.

It's not glamorous to take a life. It's scary as hell and weighs on you psychologically. You WILL be sick, you WILL question yourself, and you WILL go through hell if that happens with all of the paperwork, media, and legal shiat.

However, all of the aftermath is nothing compared to the very real fact that I lived because I had a gun and managed to scare off the guys who probably would've killed me for laughs. Certain death, or possible life and lots of consequences, I'll choose to live and deal with the lifelong psychological and personal rammifications.
 
2012-10-03 09:25:15 PM

ScottRiqui: kg2095: You have the highest rate of firearm related deaths and injuries in the developed world. And not just by a little bit but by a truly shocking amount. Just look up some statistics for rates of gun related deaths in the US compared to Canada just over the border.

In the U.S. even our **non-firearm related** homicide rate is higher than the TOTAL homicide rate for many other countries. We don't have a "gun problem", we have a "homicidal farktard" problem. You're never going to be able to remove the 100+ million firearms we already have, and further restricting the law-abiding gun owners isn't going to solve the problem either.


Amen.
 
2012-10-03 09:29:07 PM

Huck Chaser: Fark It: That's your choice, you don't get to make that for other people.

You're right, but I do get to vote for people who do get to make that choice.


Then enjoy strengthening the Republican party by making their one true wedge issue relevant. People keep voting for them because they don't trust people like you. Want the Republicans to go away? Then STFU about guns.
 
2012-10-03 09:37:23 PM

ScottRiqui: kg2095: You have the highest rate of firearm related deaths and injuries in the developed world. And not just by a little bit but by a truly shocking amount. Just look up some statistics for rates of gun related deaths in the US compared to Canada just over the border.

In the U.S. even our **non-firearm related** homicide rate is higher than the TOTAL homicide rate for many other countries. We don't have a "gun problem", we have a "homicidal farktard" problem. You're never going to be able to remove the 100+ million firearms we already have, and further restricting the law-abiding gun owners isn't going to solve the problem either.


ATF estimated it at 270 million in the 90s and NICS checks have been going through the roof since late 2008, so it wouldn't surprise me if the number were north of 300 million at this point. A 1 to 1 gun to human ration in the US would not surprise me at all.
 
2012-10-03 09:41:39 PM

umad: Huck Chaser: Fark It: That's your choice, you don't get to make that for other people.

You're right, but I do get to vote for people who do get to make that choice.

Then enjoy strengthening the Republican party by making their one true wedge issue relevant. People keep voting for them because they don't trust people like you. Want the Republicans to go away? Then STFU about guns.


We all agree that violent crime of all flavors is bad, we recognize it's bad, and we have a variety of means of fixing the problem.

How come we can't get together, stop blaming guns, booze, pussy, porn, etc. for human behavior and instead learn to combat the causes of the behavior, and make our society better?

You don't like guns? Fine. Don't use 'em. Don't buy 'em. I don't like booze, but I equally don't vote for laws to ban it. I just don't drink.

If we as a society spent even half the time and money on education and prevention instead of chasing after the devil drugs, the grotesque guns, and the other objects of animosity, we'dd probably have a society were I didn't need to protect myself and wouldn't have to worry about psychos and drunk drivers.

But, I guess it's more sexy to say you banned something.

Also, what gives people the right to dictate to others what is and isn't right/good/justified? Do I get to pick something you like and belittle you for it while publically calling for it to be banned?

How about we ban video games since they only encourage antisocial behavior, promote sloth and obesity, and have no other purpose than to dull our minds and further erode the morals of our society with violent fantasy material and smut?

See what im driving at?
 
2012-10-03 09:42:32 PM

redmid17: ScottRiqui: kg2095: You have the highest rate of firearm related deaths and injuries in the developed world. And not just by a little bit but by a truly shocking amount. Just look up some statistics for rates of gun related deaths in the US compared to Canada just over the border.

In the U.S. even our **non-firearm related** homicide rate is higher than the TOTAL homicide rate for many other countries. We don't have a "gun problem", we have a "homicidal farktard" problem. You're never going to be able to remove the 100+ million firearms we already have, and further restricting the law-abiding gun owners isn't going to solve the problem either.

ATF estimated it at 270 million in the 90s and NICS checks have been going through the roof since late 2008, so it wouldn't surprise me if the number were north of 300 million at this point. A 1 to 1 gun to human ration in the US would not surprise me at all.


You're absolutely correct - I was working off of my memory from a different discussion and used the wrong number. 100+ million was the estimate I found for the number of handguns, not total firearms.
 
2012-10-03 09:52:52 PM
Wait do people actually *not* carry in Chicago? I'm an otherwise law abiding citizen but any time I got to Chicago I sure as hell make sure I'm packing something sturdy. It's concealed, and if I need it then I really won't be too concerned about a jury trial at that point.
 
2012-10-03 09:56:28 PM
Kit Fister:

I pretty much agree. That's why it makes me angry that so many people keep giving the social conservatives their power. If the Dems would just bite the bullet (pardon the pun) on gun control, then all of the other puritanical horseshiat goes away. It could be an orgy of abortions, gay marriages, prostitution, gambling, legal drugs, and freedom for everybody, but these farksticks have to keep wetting themselves at the thought of somebody owning a gun. Take away the one issue that the social cons are actually on the right side of, and they will be forced to change. I'm sick of this partisan shiat.
 
2012-10-03 10:01:23 PM

Kit Fister: umad: Huck Chaser: Fark It: That's your choice, you don't get to make that for other people.

You're right, but I do get to vote for people who do get to make that choice.

Then enjoy strengthening the Republican party by making their one true wedge issue relevant. People keep voting for them because they don't trust people like you. Want the Republicans to go away? Then STFU about guns.

We all agree that violent crime of all flavors is bad, we recognize it's bad, and we have a variety of means of fixing the problem.

How come we can't get together, stop blaming guns, booze, pussy, porn, etc. for human behavior and instead learn to combat the causes of the behavior, and make our society better?

You don't like guns? Fine. Don't use 'em. Don't buy 'em. I don't like booze, but I equally don't vote for laws to ban it. I just don't drink.

If we as a society spent even half the time and money on education and prevention instead of chasing after the devil drugs, the grotesque guns, and the other objects of animosity, we'dd probably have a society were I didn't need to protect myself and wouldn't have to worry about psychos and drunk drivers.

But, I guess it's more sexy to say you banned something.

Also, what gives people the right to dictate to others what is and isn't right/good/justified? Do I get to pick something you like and belittle you for it while publically calling for it to be banned?

How about we ban video games since they only encourage antisocial behavior, promote sloth and obesity, and have no other purpose than to dull our minds and further erode the morals of our society with violent fantasy material and smut?

See what im driving at?


How can one post on Fark and not like booze? Do you think Duke doesn't suck? WHERE DOES IT END?!
 
2012-10-03 10:03:37 PM

MrEricSir: hundreddollarman: Yeah... good luck with that pipe dream. If there's one thing Americans despise most, it's the threat of things being taken away from them. Guns have been an integral component of American culture, dating back to our days as a British colony. Guns in America are here to stay. That genie is never going back in the bottle. So keep dreaming and choosing to be a victim when the shiat hits the fan.

The idea of carrying a gun around for defense is pure fantasy. You are not a character in an action movie, this is real life.

Go ahead, keep blaming the victim -- see how much sympathy that gets you. But when you accidentally shoot someone (or yourself) don't expect any sympathy in return.


It's so incredulously wrong-headed for you to assume that everyone who owns a gun, or aspires to own one, has some latent Rambo/John McClane/Dirty Harry fantasy or is planning some kind of crime. Another grossly incorrect stereotype perpetuated by anti-gun people. You are either woefully naive or willfully stupid.

Like someone posted earlier, a gun is not a magic wand that will make the bad guys go away. It's simply another way I can claim an advantage if I ever need to defend myself. It's like learning karate -- nice to know, but you pray you never have to actually use it.

And if you think I'm going to shoot myself by accident, I am really inclined to believe you are willfully stupid. The majority of lawful gun owners are incredibly safety conscious, almost to the point of OCD. The people who do end up shooting themselves are dumbasses who have no business owning any kind of weapon in the first place. Their ignoble misdeeds are just another component of the firearm discussion exaggerated by media reports.

There are 100 million firearms legally owned in the United States. Good luck trying to get them all out of circulation.
 
2012-10-03 11:18:33 PM

Silly Jesus: jonny99: Silly Jesus: jonny99: smitty04: Secret Master of All Flatulence: DaCaptain19: You don't live in Chicago, do you? Nope, if you did you'd be thinking the same thing all us Chicagoans think but don't say.

Nope, I don't live in Chicago. That being said: I've dealt with a LOT of scumbags over the years. Not just gangmembers, but baby rapers, wife beaters, and just about every other kind of criminal out there. The color of the skin of the perpetrator is meaningless...it's what they, as an individual, have done. And I can say, with some certainty, that douchebaggery is not the province of any one skin color, socioeconomic status, religious belief, or geographic locale.

[www.chicagonow.com image 583x302]
Then why is homicide rate so low in Edison Park?

Since you think this chart tells the whole story - you might want to consider the poverty level in Edison Park - that's the killer, not "race".

Race and poverty, among other factors, are quite strongly connected.



Yeah, I wonder why that could possibly be? Don't forget about poverty and criminality, or poverty and violence.

Culture.


Ahhhh - of course! I forgot that races that are culturally superior don't succumb to violence and other problems under severe conditions of poverty. Yr whistle brings all the dogs to the yard.
 
2012-10-03 11:27:30 PM

jonny99: Silly Jesus: jonny99: Silly Jesus: jonny99: smitty04: Secret Master of All Flatulence: DaCaptain19: You don't live in Chicago, do you? Nope, if you did you'd be thinking the same thing all us Chicagoans think but don't say.

Nope, I don't live in Chicago. That being said: I've dealt with a LOT of scumbags over the years. Not just gangmembers, but baby rapers, wife beaters, and just about every other kind of criminal out there. The color of the skin of the perpetrator is meaningless...it's what they, as an individual, have done. And I can say, with some certainty, that douchebaggery is not the province of any one skin color, socioeconomic status, religious belief, or geographic locale.

[www.chicagonow.com image 583x302]
Then why is homicide rate so low in Edison Park?

Since you think this chart tells the whole story - you might want to consider the poverty level in Edison Park - that's the killer, not "race".

Race and poverty, among other factors, are quite strongly connected.



Yeah, I wonder why that could possibly be? Don't forget about poverty and criminality, or poverty and violence.

Culture.

Ahhhh - of course! I forgot that races that are culturally superior don't succumb to violence and other problems under severe conditions of poverty. Yr whistle brings all the dogs to the yard.


So what's is like being racist and assuming that he meant culture influenced by race?
 
2012-10-04 12:10:25 AM

Huck Chaser:
This is a very intelligent and compelling argument (I hope that doesn't sound like sarcasm, because it's not), but I'm afraid that I still disagree with you, and I know you're not going to like my rebuttal because it mostly comes down to philosophy. I understand the benefits of being armed (defending myself if directly threatened with a deadly weapon), but I also understand the risks (suicide, accidents, crimes of passion, overzealous vigilantes), and I believe the risks outweigh the benefits.

/leaving work now, but I'll check this thread tomorrow morning


@Huck Chaser hope your ride home was smooth, I actually left work just after posting that as well.

I'm glad you understand my position and I understand your rebuttal, and while I don't agree with it, I can understand how someone could come to that conclusion. I find it interesting that your more concerned about the person who is legally conceal carrying then the ones who are carrying illegally. Chances are you're around someone that is legally carrying once a week, maybe more depending where you live. Even here in IL I know that I am. The reason I know this is because in IL police officers are required to carry even when off duty and as a few other Farkers have pointed out they carry in spite of the lack of permit.

Kit Fister made a lot of the points I was going to make and made them quite a bit better then I think I could have, but I'm going to change the perspective a little and take a little of what he said a little farther.

Huck, the rest of what I have to say this isn't directed at you as I don't know your position on Abortion, just more of a thought exercise for the group as a whole.

I think there are some parallels between Gun Control and Abortion.

I don't believe in abortion. I believe life starts VERY shortly after conception. Some of this is due to my Roman Catholic upbringing and education, but a larger part is due to my 16 year old, 3 year old and 4 months old daughters.

When my oldest was born, I was barely 20 years old, I had a high school diploma, a minimum wage job and no health insurance. In the positive column I have a great middle class family that have helped me along the way to deal with raising a child so young.

I understand not everyone believes as I do. I also understand that not everyone in my position at 20 has the support system I had when I needed it, and will see they're options differently then I did, particularly since I'm male. I believe that while while Abortion ends a life, I don't know that I can call it murder. I don't believe that it is my job to judge another human being for making what I think for almost all women the hardest decisions of they're lives.

In the end I don't believe it is my job to in force my beliefs on this subject on other people. I do believe that it is my job to teach my beliefs to my daughters, but to also teach them to think for themselves. If I do my job and other like me do the same eventually I believe Abortions can be minimized, if not eliminated all together.

Kit Fisher is spot on that Education is the key, both about Abortion and about Gun Usage.

Hope my point came across in that and didn't sound preachy.
 
2012-10-04 12:23:11 AM

redmid17: jonny99: Silly Jesus: jonny99: Silly Jesus: jonny99: smitty04: Secret Master of All Flatulence: DaCaptain19: You don't live in Chicago, do you? Nope, if you did you'd be thinking the same thing all us Chicagoans think but don't say.

Nope, I don't live in Chicago. That being said: I've dealt with a LOT of scumbags over the years. Not just gangmembers, but baby rapers, wife beaters, and just about every other kind of criminal out there. The color of the skin of the perpetrator is meaningless...it's what they, as an individual, have done. And I can say, with some certainty, that douchebaggery is not the province of any one skin color, socioeconomic status, religious belief, or geographic locale.

[www.chicagonow.com image 583x302]
Then why is homicide rate so low in Edison Park?

Since you think this chart tells the whole story - you might want to consider the poverty level in Edison Park - that's the killer, not "race".

Race and poverty, among other factors, are quite strongly connected.



Yeah, I wonder why that could possibly be? Don't forget about poverty and criminality, or poverty and violence.

Culture.

Ahhhh - of course! I forgot that races that are culturally superior don't succumb to violence and other problems under severe conditions of poverty. Yr whistle brings all the dogs to the yard.

So what's is like being racist and assuming that he meant culture influenced by race?


Step 1: display a chart and imply that because a community is a majority white it has less crime
Step 2: when the relative poverty levels are pointed out, "politely" suggest that it is race and poverty that are linked, not poverty and crime
Step 3: suggest that "culture" is the factor that mediates between race and poverty (ie: a particular race suffers poverty, their culture is therefore inferior)

I suppose you think that the ability to talk "around" what you are trying to say is a component of cultural superiority.
How does it feel to be an apologist for racism?
 
2012-10-04 12:41:03 AM
Perhaps we should redistribute ethics in America:
 
2012-10-04 01:54:40 AM

PallMall: Execute gang members.

Are the cops in Chicago so corrupt that they forgot to be regular-corrupt and do things like take hoods down a dark alley and shoot them in the face?


I think the gang problem can easily be re-framed from a crime issue to one of national security. Relabeling gangs "rebels" who "seek to subvert and damage our democratic institutions for personal profit through violence, extortion, and drug trafficking" is an easy switch to make considering it's mostly true anyway. Moving onto rebel neutralization whereupon these new "rebels" are hunted down by special crime task-forces funded by the DHS will be slightly difficult to stomach for some, but it makes the "hard-on-crime" policy concept even harder without the pain of adding new prisoners to our over-crowded prisons. Now ethically some will hesitate due to these policies. Some gang members are in gangs because the system failed them, they were forced into them and so on. Social justice campaigners will cry foul and call the program "urban genocide." But ultimately the choice of being in a gang does lie with the members themselves. Being disadvantaged is not an excuse for crime. That's the perspective that will need to be hammered into the public's head.

Will this policy actually stop gangs however? In the short-run I believe it will actually empower them to a degree. Gang members already live with the specter of death over them at all times and being threatened to be hunted down like animals is hardly something new to them. But, if they are systematically hunted down like animals, then in the long-run however it will (most importantly I think) stop young people from joining gangs. Living with a chance of death is tolerable if in exchange you receive wealth in return. Especially if you live in a high-crime area to begin with. Make that specter of death the Sword of Damocles however and I think youth will be a bit more hesitant. There are many examples of gang members who got out alive and are richer for it. Change that perception to "You will be dead within five years" and I think you'll have a shift in attitudes. Now this policy should not stand alone. Schools still need to be improved and the overall opportunities for those living in depressed, blighted areas needs to be enhanced, but those are other policies that need to be fleshed out on their own.

So let's look at the costs. There's the cost of enforcing and arming new "anti-rebel" paramilitary operatives. There's also going to be some collateral damage. Some people will get shot who aren't in gangs. This can be used to increase the stigmatization of gangs however by saying, "Interacting with rebels makes us think you're one too." In this way collateral deaths can be framed as the fault of the innocent killed rather than the paramilitary. The benefits are decreasing gang-on-gang violence, decreasing drug trafficking, decreasing illegal gun trade, decreasing crime overall, fewer imprisoned gang members, more kids staying in school, more people working in the formal economy, and ultimately more taxes. We have policies at the ready and I believe politicians are willing to drop the hammer, but we're lacking a good solid catalyzing event that will attract adequate media attention and citizen outrage to the issue. Currently gang crime is pretty consistent but hidden to the average person. It's a thing that happens in "other" places. When that catalyzing event does happen though we'll be on our way to a safer America.
 
2012-10-04 05:48:36 AM

Foxxinnia: PallMall: Execute gang members.

Are the cops in Chicago so corrupt that they forgot to be regular-corrupt and do things like take hoods down a dark alley and shoot them in the face?

I think the gang problem can easily be re-framed from a crime issue to one of national security. Relabeling gangs "rebels" who "seek to subvert and damage our democratic institutions for personal profit through violence, extortion, and drug trafficking" is an easy switch to make considering it's mostly true anyway. Moving onto rebel neutralization whereupon these new "rebels" are hunted down by special crime task-forces funded by the DHS will be slightly difficult to stomach for some, but it makes the "hard-on-crime" policy concept even harder without the pain of adding new prisoners to our over-crowded prisons. Now ethically some will hesitate due to these policies. Some gang members are in gangs because the system failed them, they were forced into them and so on. Social justice campaigners will cry foul and call the program "urban genocide." But ultimately the choice of being in a gang does lie with the members themselves. Being disadvantaged is not an excuse for crime. That's the perspective that will need to be hammered into the public's head.

Will this policy actually stop gangs however? In the short-run I believe it will actually empower them to a degree. Gang members already live with the specter of death over them at all times and being threatened to be hunted down like animals is hardly something new to them. But, if they are systematically hunted down like animals, then in the long-run however it will (most importantly I think) stop young people from joining gangs. Living with a chance of death is tolerable if in exchange you receive wealth in return. Especially if you live in a high-crime area to begin with. Make that specter of death the Sword of Damocles however and I think youth will be a bit more hesitant. There are many examples of gang members who got out alive and a ...


Cool story, bro.
 
2012-10-04 06:04:39 AM

jonny99: Silly Jesus: jonny99: Silly Jesus: jonny99: smitty04: Secret Master of All Flatulence: DaCaptain19: You don't live in Chicago, do you? Nope, if you did you'd be thinking the same thing all us Chicagoans think but don't say.

Nope, I don't live in Chicago. That being said: I've dealt with a LOT of scumbags over the years. Not just gangmembers, but baby rapers, wife beaters, and just about every other kind of criminal out there. The color of the skin of the perpetrator is meaningless...it's what they, as an individual, have done. And I can say, with some certainty, that douchebaggery is not the province of any one skin color, socioeconomic status, religious belief, or geographic locale.

[www.chicagonow.com image 583x302]
Then why is homicide rate so low in Edison Park?

Since you think this chart tells the whole story - you might want to consider the poverty level in Edison Park - that's the killer, not "race".

Race and poverty, among other factors, are quite strongly connected.



Yeah, I wonder why that could possibly be? Don't forget about poverty and criminality, or poverty and violence.

Culture.

Ahhhh - of course! I forgot that races that are culturally superior don't succumb to violence and other problems under severe conditions of poverty. Yr whistle brings all the dogs to the yard.


WTF are you talking about?

Being the child of a single mother is the greatest predictor (when all other factors are accounted for) of future criminality. 70% of black children are born to single mothers. It's a cultural trait that makes that acceptable and the norm. It's not BECAUSE they are black...but it is a commonality of that community.

Avoid reality though and cry racism at any mention of race and you'll be able to blissfully keep your head buried in the sand.
 
2012-10-04 07:05:30 AM

Silly Jesus: jonny99: Silly Jesus: jonny99: Silly Jesus: jonny99: smitty04: Secret Master of All Flatulence: DaCaptain19: You don't live in Chicago, do you? Nope, if you did you'd be thinking the same thing all us Chicagoans think but don't say.

Nope, I don't live in Chicago. That being said: I've dealt with a LOT of scumbags over the years. Not just gangmembers, but baby rapers, wife beaters, and just about every other kind of criminal out there. The color of the skin of the perpetrator is meaningless...it's what they, as an individual, have done. And I can say, with some certainty, that douchebaggery is not the province of any one skin color, socioeconomic status, religious belief, or geographic locale.

[www.chicagonow.com image 583x302]
Then why is homicide rate so low in Edison Park?

Since you think this chart tells the whole story - you might want to consider the poverty level in Edison Park - that's the killer, not "race".

Race and poverty, among other factors, are quite strongly connected.



Yeah, I wonder why that could possibly be? Don't forget about poverty and criminality, or poverty and violence.

Culture.

Ahhhh - of course! I forgot that races that are culturally superior don't succumb to violence and other problems under severe conditions of poverty. Yr whistle brings all the dogs to the yard.

WTF are you talking about?

Being the child of a single mother is the greatest predictor (when all other factors are accounted for) of future criminality. 70% of black children are born to single mothers. It's a cultural trait that makes that acceptable and the norm. It's not BECAUSE they are black...but it is a commonality of that community.

Avoid reality though and cry racism at any mention of race and you'll be able to blissfully keep your head buried in the sand.


You're getting closer... clearly you would like to keep drawing the line at correlations, like the rates of single parenthood or poverty in black communities, and say "I don't think it's because their black, but it is a trait of their community" - without answering the question "why is this the case?" The answer is pervasive, systemic racial inequality. But that's much more threatening to your sense of propriety than "cultural traits", so you'll keep finding reasons to deny it or project racism onto others.
 
2012-10-04 07:28:17 AM
I've got a great idea:
Try letting everyone who's not a criminal have guns too. Then the criminals would be much more leery about shooting folks for fear they might get shot themselves.
I know it sounds farfetched, but it's worked pretty well everywhere else it's been tried.
 
2012-10-04 08:51:56 AM

jonny99: Step 1: display a chart and imply that because a community is a majority white it has less crime
Step 2: when the relative poverty levels are pointed out, "politely" suggest that it is race and poverty that are linked, not poverty and crime
Step 3: suggest that "culture" is the factor that mediates between race and poverty (ie: a particular race suffers poverty, their culture is therefore inferior)

I suppose you think that the ability to talk "around" what you are trying to say is a component of cultural superiority.
How does it feel to be an apologist for racism?


It's not racism to point out the facts. I've actually done the math, and poor blacks have a 2.5 times higher homicide rate than poor whites. My sources were data from the Centers for Disease Control, and the US Census.

Or are you going to argue that math is racist?

Really, violence is largely a cultural phenomenon, and you learn your cultural values largely from your parents and peers, who learned their values from their parents and peers, who learned it from theirs, and so forth back down the line. That's why "European Americans" have a European-like homicide rate, 2.74 per 100,000 in the US vs. 3.5 per 100,000 for Europe*.

It's got nothing to do with melanin content, and everything to do with how cultural values are transmitted. Starting in the 1960's, the traditional black family structure started to shatter. It was noted as far back as 1965 that this trend was a major problem in the black community. All of the traditional values that would normally have been passed from a stable two parent family were essentially abandoned, because out-of-wedlock birth became the norm, not the exception, and single parent homes became the norm, not the exception.

It is interesting to note that after you control for poverty, the increased homicide rate in non-hispanic blacks over non-hispanic whites (2.46 times higher rate) is similar to the born-out-of-wedlock rate (69.5% black non-hispanic births / 25.4% white non-hispanic births = 2.74 times higher).

My theory is that while poverty is a factor, it's totally overwhelmed by the cutting off of traditional cultural values in the black community due to the destruction of the traditional black family in the last 50 years or so. The transmission of cultural values against violence from parent to child are attenuated when only one parent is around to transmit them. That leaves a void where peers can step in, and lacking the control of a strong male father-figure to reign in the worst excesses of testosterone poisoning common in young males, you end up with a homicide rate among young black males that is around 90 per 100,000.

Let me be completely and unequivocally clear: It's got nothing to do with the color of their skin. While I don't have hard numbers, I suspect that blacks who are raised within a traditional, two-parent family structure have a homicide rate closer to that of whites, regardless of economic condition. There is no reason why the black homicide rate *HAS* to be higher, it can and should be changed, but the change must come from within the black community, not imposed on it from the outside, and that change will take decades, just like it took decades for their homicide and bastardy rates to hit where they are now.

*Northern, Western, and Southern Europe all have rates between 1.0 and 1.5, whereas Eastern Europe has a rate of 6.4 per 100,000. It would make sense that the "European Americans" have a rate biased towards lower end, because of all the immigration from Western, Northern, and Southern Europe, but higher because of a significant amount of immigration from Eastern Europe.
 
2012-10-04 09:07:49 AM

jonny99: You're getting closer... clearly you would like to keep drawing the line at correlations, like the rates of single parenthood or poverty in black communities, and say "I don't think it's because their black, but it is a trait of their community" - without answering the question "why is this the case?" The answer is pervasive, systemic racial inequality. But that's much more threatening to your sense of propriety than "cultural traits", so you'll keep finding reasons to deny it or project racism onto others.


Forty years ago, I would have agreed with this. Not today. The external barriers that blacks faced in the 1950's and 1960's have all been removed. The inequality they face today isn't externally imposed upon them.
 
2012-10-04 10:04:25 AM
dittybopper:

Your extremely reasoned presentation has earned you a month of TotalFark.
 
2012-10-04 10:44:47 AM

REKnight: @Huck Chaser hope your ride home was smooth, I actually left work just after posting that as well.

I'm glad you understand my position and I understand your rebuttal, and while I don't agree with it, I can understand how someone could come to that conclusion. I find it interesting that your more concerned about the person who is legally conceal carrying then the ones who are carrying illegally. Chances are you're around someone that is legally carrying once a week, maybe more depending where you live. Even here in IL I know that I am. The reason I know this is because in IL police officers are required to carry even when off duty and as a few other Farkers have pointed out they carry in spite of the lack of permit.


I want to be clear about something I'm now realizing I wasn't yesterday: I'm not afraid for myself from anybody carrying a gun, whether they're a 17 year old gangbanger or a licensed and trained father of 4. Gang members pretty much only kill gang members, and I avoid them by staying out of their neighborhoods (and all the hand-wringers in this thread talking about them walking around shooting random people in Grant Park or on the red line really need to get their facts straight). "Law abiding" people who carry licensed weapons (the quotes are for people who carry where it's illegal) aren't a threat to me for obvious reasons, so I don't worry about them, either.

The reasons I'm generally anti-gun are the reasons I've stated before: suicide, accidents, etc. Some of those are easily backed up by facts and statistics (notably, suicides). Others are more difficult to quantify, and so are more anecdotal or even philosophical.

I understand the point you were trying to make drawing the parallel between your stance on abortion and my stance on gun control, but I just don't think analogies work in situations like this. The issues are different enough that any analogy anybody tries to make will break down under the slightest bit of scrutiny. Also, I just really don't want to start talking about abortion here; one hot-button topic per thread is quite enough for me.
 
2012-10-04 11:15:34 AM

Huck Chaser: REKnight: @Huck Chaser hope your ride home was smooth, I actually left work just after posting that as well.

I'm glad you understand my position and I understand your rebuttal, and while I don't agree with it, I can understand how someone could come to that conclusion. I find it interesting that your more concerned about the person who is legally conceal carrying then the ones who are carrying illegally. Chances are you're around someone that is legally carrying once a week, maybe more depending where you live. Even here in IL I know that I am. The reason I know this is because in IL police officers are required to carry even when off duty and as a few other Farkers have pointed out they carry in spite of the lack of permit.

I want to be clear about something I'm now realizing I wasn't yesterday: I'm not afraid for myself from anybody carrying a gun, whether they're a 17 year old gangbanger or a licensed and trained father of 4. Gang members pretty much only kill gang members, and I avoid them by staying out of their neighborhoods (and all the hand-wringers in this thread talking about them walking around shooting random people in Grant Park or on the red line really need to get their facts straight). "Law abiding" people who carry licensed weapons (the quotes are for people who carry where it's illegal) aren't a threat to me for obvious reasons, so I don't worry about them, either.

The reasons I'm generally anti-gun are the reasons I've stated before: suicide, accidents, etc. Some of those are easily backed up by facts and statistics (notably, suicides). Others are more difficult to quantify, and so are more anecdotal or even philosophical.

I understand the point you were trying to make drawing the parallel between your stance on abortion and my stance on gun control, but I just don't think analogies work in situations like this. The issues are different enough that any analogy anybody tries to make will break down under the slightest bit of scrutiny. Als ...


Suicides are almost a non-starter. Gun suicides are less than 5% of the attempts but are 95% effective, whereas drugs ODs are something like 75 or 80% but are much, much less effective (
 
2012-10-04 11:17:52 AM

redmid17: Suicides are almost a non-starter. Gun suicides are less than 5% of the attempts but are 95% effective, whereas drugs ODs are something like 75 or 80% but are much, much less effective (


Nonetheless, substantially reducing the rate of firearm ownership may prove effective in reducing the suicide rate of the United States to levels observed in France, Belgium or even Japan. Is such an outcome not worth the effort?
 
2012-10-04 11:24:11 AM

Dimensio: HERP-A-DERP!


If someone wants to kill themselves... LET THEM!! Jesus H Christ! It's their decision, not yours or the Gubmin's, or anyone else.

Everyone should have control over their own life and destiny. Butt the fark out of their personal decisions.
 
2012-10-04 11:25:50 AM

Dimensio: redmid17: Suicides are almost a non-starter. Gun suicides are less than 5% of the attempts but are 95% effective, whereas drugs ODs are something like 75 or 80% but are much, much less effective (

Nonetheless, substantially reducing the rate of firearm ownership may prove effective in reducing the suicide rate of the United States to levels observed in France, Belgium or even Japan. Is such an outcome not worth the effort?


No unless that substantially reduced firearm rate comes from effectively judging whether or not a person is mentally healthy enough to have a gun, which goes back to the how mental health treatment angle. I don't want anyone trying to commit suicide, but I definitely don't want arbitrary limits placed on gun ownership because people like to kill themselves.

Also the three countries you listed have higher suicide rates than the US (nearly double in Japan's case), so I'm not sure where you're going with this. The US doesn't have a high suicide rate at all. We're close to the bottom of the middle in the first world. Canada's rate is 11.2 per 100K and ours is 12 per 100k. Given that we have something like 3-4x more guns per capita, I'd say gun ownership doesn't matter much at all.
 
2012-10-04 11:56:02 AM

Dimensio: redmid17: Suicides are almost a non-starter. Gun suicides are less than 5% of the attempts but are 95% effective, whereas drugs ODs are something like 75 or 80% but are much, much less effective (

Nonetheless, substantially reducing the rate of firearm ownership may prove effective in reducing the suicide rate of the United States to levels observed in France, Belgium or even Japan. Is such an outcome not worth the effort?


i.qkme.me
 
2012-10-04 12:04:27 PM

Dimensio: dittybopper:

Your extremely reasoned presentation has earned you a month of TotalFark.


I thank you kind Sir.
 
2012-10-04 12:10:32 PM

redmid17: Suicides are almost a non-starter. Gun suicides are less than 5% of the attempts but are 95% effective, whereas drugs ODs are something like 75 or 80% but are much, much less effective (


Actually,

Dimensio: redmid17: Suicides are almost a non-starter. Gun suicides are less than 5% of the attempts but are 95% effective, whereas drugs ODs are something like 75 or 80% but are much, much less effective (

Nonetheless, substantially reducing the rate of firearm ownership may prove effective in reducing the suicide rate of the United States to levels observed in France, Belgium or even Japan. Is such an outcome not worth the effort?


Heh.
 
2012-10-04 12:15:31 PM

PallMall: Dimensio: HERP-A-DERP!

If someone wants to kill themselves... LET THEM!! Jesus H Christ! It's their decision, not yours or the Gubmin's, or anyone else.

Everyone should have control over their own life and destiny. Butt the fark out of their personal decisions.


You may wish to examine the suicide rates of France, Belgium and Japan before assuming that my comment was intended as a serious statement.

/To provide fair consideration, suicide rates in France are high due to residents realising that they are French.
//To provide fair consideration, suicide rates in Belgium are high due to residents realising that they are frequently mistaken for the French.
 
2012-10-04 12:17:22 PM

redmid17: Also the three countries you listed have higher suicide rates than the US (nearly double in Japan's case), so I'm not sure where you're going with this.


media.giantbomb.com
 
2012-10-04 12:37:29 PM

Kit Fister: jonny99: bim1154: jonny99: I suppose it doesn't matter that this spike in gun violence comes *2 years after* Chicago's handgun ban was struck down by the supreme court?


/Chicagoan
//who doesn't own or want to own a gun

For a "Chicagoan" you don't keep up do you? That's o.k., you can go walk the walk with Father Pfleger and his crowd.

Thanks for your permission to have an opinion - I have no desire to live in an armed society - just as in global politics, the answer can only be found in de-escalation. Gun people love to ask how banning guns is working out for Chicago, but the truth is no one can answer that question because they're not really banned, can be trafficked in from other places that hold the distribution of firearms sacrosanct. I don't have to walk with anyone - I just choose to walk without a deadly weapon on me, and I would prefer that as few people as possible in my immediate vicinity have one.

If you think that is because I am too naive and trusting of people you would be incorrect - I have no faith that anyone who feels the need to carry deadly force with them at all times is well adjusted enough to use it responsibly. So many Fark threads read like Penthouse forum fantasies that replace farking with a barely-contained vigilante rage, just waiting for the opportunity to be in the right place at the right time to visit violence on someone (usually of a different race than themselves) "justifiably". Not my deal.

sadly, I think you're both right and wrong.

Right in that for the first year or so, most guys who get a ccw permit do so because it's cool. However, you're also wrong, as it sinks in with most people just what that responsibility means after a while.

As someone who does carry, and has faced having to use it against an armed attacker after every option of avoidance and deescalation failed, let me tell you that once you realize the gravity of reality, it's neither glamorous nor cool, it's a grim reality.

A gun isn't a sure bet in a ...


Sounds like you could contribute a chapter to these:
On Combat
and...
On Killing 
Both should be required reading for all who carry a gun. ALL.
 
2012-10-04 12:44:53 PM

Dimensio: redmid17: Also the three countries you listed have higher suicide rates than the US (nearly double in Japan's case), so I'm not sure where you're going with this.

[media.giantbomb.com image 452x339]


The goggles. They do nothing.
 
2012-10-04 12:47:45 PM

Dimensio: You may wish to examine the suicide rates of France, Belgium and Japan before assuming that my comment was intended as a serious statement.

/To provide fair consideration, suicide rates in France are high due to residents realising that they are French.
//To provide fair consideration, suicide rates in Belgium are high due to residents realising that they are frequently mistaken for the French.


I'm well aware of the sarcastic trolling you did, but either way, I'll stick with my opinion.
 
2012-10-04 01:09:08 PM

fugeeface: Sounds like you could contribute a chapter to these:
On Combat
and...
On Killing 
Both should be required reading for all who carry a gun. ALL.


To be honest, I find Grossman somewhat unconvincing. His argument that first person shooter games are "murder simulators" that would lead to more violence flies in the face of our actual experience, 20 years later. As FPS games have gotten more realistic, the homicide rate has gone *DOWN*. I'm not saying that the availability of FPS games caused that, merely that Grossman's theory has been shown to be wrong, because they didn't lead to an increase in homicides.
 
2012-10-04 01:24:37 PM

ScottRiqui: Crimes of passion, suicide, and vigilantism don't require firearms. If I'm going to kill myself, kill my lover in a jealous rage, or join a mob intent on dispensing justice, the absence of a firearm isn't likely to deter me.


Of course not; but it's a hell of an equalizer You walk in and, seeing your lover with someone else (let's say not at your home for the sake of argument), go into a murderous rage. Odds of killing them both unarmed? Armed with a vase you grabbed? Odds of killing them both if you happened to have a gun on your person at the time? At best, they're equal; at worst; the gun makes you more likely to commit a murder rather than an attempted murder.

That's the whole thing with crimes of passion, you've got to have a means that instant. If you've got to go home and get your gun, it's become premeditated. Though, yeah, crimes of passion probably aren't a significant amount of gun violence to begin with.

I've got no real issue with gun-people having their guns because they're pretty smart about it because they're a subculture unto themselves. But the idea that the world would be a safer place if everyone was carrying though? That assumes that everyone is at least as responsible as them and that's a farking stupid assumption to make.
 
2012-10-04 01:32:14 PM

dittybopper: fugeeface: Sounds like you could contribute a chapter to these:
On Combat
and...
On Killing 
Both should be required reading for all who carry a gun. ALL.

To be honest, I find Grossman somewhat unconvincing. His argument that first person shooter games are "murder simulators" that would lead to more violence flies in the face of our actual experience, 20 years later. As FPS games have gotten more realistic, the homicide rate has gone *DOWN*. I'm not saying that the availability of FPS games caused that, merely that Grossman's theory has been shown to be wrong, because they didn't lead to an increase in homicides.


I've gone through a lot of training since then with a lot of different groups, schools, and agencies. ALL of it is different, and all of it adds something. However, at the end of the day, you'll never know what's going to happen until you actually have to step up/.
 
2012-10-04 01:34:42 PM

ProfessorOhki: ScottRiqui: Crimes of passion, suicide, and vigilantism don't require firearms. If I'm going to kill myself, kill my lover in a jealous rage, or join a mob intent on dispensing justice, the absence of a firearm isn't likely to deter me.

Of course not; but it's a hell of an equalizer You walk in and, seeing your lover with someone else (let's say not at your home for the sake of argument), go into a murderous rage. Odds of killing them both unarmed? Armed with a vase you grabbed? Odds of killing them both if you happened to have a gun on your person at the time? At best, they're equal; at worst; the gun makes you more likely to commit a murder rather than an attempted murder.

That's the whole thing with crimes of passion, you've got to have a means that instant. If you've got to go home and get your gun, it's become premeditated. Though, yeah, crimes of passion probably aren't a significant amount of gun violence to begin with.

I've got no real issue with gun-people having their guns because they're pretty smart about it because they're a subculture unto themselves. But the idea that the world would be a safer place if everyone was carrying though? That assumes that everyone is at least as responsible as them and that's a farking stupid assumption to make.


Here's the fallacy of your logic: You assume that in any given area (neglecting WADC, anywhere in CA, Chicago, or NY), you're not around a large group of armed people. This is the thing about CCW, you don't KNOW who's armed and who isn't. I bet it would shock you, too, to learn just who in the crowd is and isn't armed. It sure did when I started teaching the CCW courses.
 
2012-10-04 01:38:30 PM

MrEricSir: I'm not the one who thinks he's Bruce Willis.


Nope. Just another gun-grabbing utopian idealist who blames inanimate objects for social problems.
 
2012-10-04 01:44:35 PM

dittybopper: It's got nothing to do with melanin content, and everything to do with how cultural values are transmitted.


SO MUCH THIS

Virtually all "race" issues are really "culture" issues.

Guns don't kill. Ghetto culture kills.
 
2012-10-04 01:53:11 PM

clyph: MrEricSir: I'm not the one who thinks he's Bruce Willis.

Nope. Just another gun-grabbing utopian idealist who blames inanimate objects for social problems.


No, all I'm saying is that this "guns are how I defend myself" argument is hilariously stupid. Take your head out of your ass and look around -- you are not a lone hero in an action movie. Statistically, you're more likely to injure yourself than save anyone.
 
2012-10-04 01:57:21 PM

Kit Fister: ProfessorOhki: ScottRiqui: Crimes of passion, suicide, and vigilantism don't require firearms. If I'm going to kill myself, kill my lover in a jealous rage, or join a mob intent on dispensing justice, the absence of a firearm isn't likely to deter me.

Of course not; but it's a hell of an equalizer You walk in and, seeing your lover with someone else (let's say not at your home for the sake of argument), go into a murderous rage. Odds of killing them both unarmed? Armed with a vase you grabbed? Odds of killing them both if you happened to have a gun on your person at the time? At best, they're equal; at worst; the gun makes you more likely to commit a murder rather than an attempted murder.

That's the whole thing with crimes of passion, you've got to have a means that instant. If you've got to go home and get your gun, it's become premeditated. Though, yeah, crimes of passion probably aren't a significant amount of gun violence to begin with.

I've got no real issue with gun-people having their guns because they're pretty smart about it because they're a subculture unto themselves. But the idea that the world would be a safer place if everyone was carrying though? That assumes that everyone is at least as responsible as them and that's a farking stupid assumption to make.

Here's the fallacy of your logic: You assume that in any given area (neglecting WADC, anywhere in CA, Chicago, or NY), you're not around a large group of armed people. This is the thing about CCW, you don't KNOW who's armed and who isn't. I bet it would shock you, too, to learn just who in the crowd is and isn't armed. It sure did when I started teaching the CCW courses.


But I am in CA, so there's that. And, would you look at that, below average gun deaths. NY is even lower. Link

Again, I don't care if people carry or not. I just think on the whole, more gun owners = more gun deaths in the exact same way more cars = more car deaths. I also think just because something is unsafe is no reason to ban it. Doesn't change that "guns make us safer" argument is a load of bull.

/Not sure what the deal with DC is
//Population density?
 
2012-10-04 02:00:42 PM

ProfessorOhki: You walk in and, seeing your lover with someone else (let's say not at your home for the sake of argument), go into a murderous rage.


Yeah a person in a murderous rage would never strangle someone with their bare hands. Or grab a kitchen knife, hammer, or baseball bat. Or get the tire iron out of their car.

Never mind the fact that CCW permit holders have a dramatically lower crime rate (including domestic violence) than the general population. Contrary to your propaganda-inspired stereotypes, the kind of people who actually go through the process of getting a carry permit are overwhelmingly serious-minded, self-disciplined individuals with a strong sense of civic duty and a high degree of respect for the law.
 
2012-10-04 02:23:59 PM
You know, I'm going to respond to you almost entirely with quotes from my other posts in this thread, because it's pretty clear you skipped most of them, including the one you're responding to.

clyph: Yeah a person in a murderous rage would never strangle someone with their bare hands. Or grab a kitchen knife, hammer, or baseball bat.


"Of course not; but it's a hell of an equalizer You walk in and, seeing your lover with someone else (let's say not at your home for the sake of argument), go into a murderous rage. Odds of killing them both unarmed? Armed with a vase you grabbed? Odds of killing them both if you happened to have a gun on your person at the time?"

clyph: Or get the tire iron out of their car.


"That's the whole thing with crimes of passion, you've got to have a means that instant. If you've got to go home leave the scene and get your gun retrieve a weapon, it's become premeditated."

clyph: Contrary to your propaganda-inspired stereotypes, the kind of people who actually go through the process of getting a carry permit are overwhelmingly serious-minded, self-disciplined individuals with a strong sense of civic duty and a high degree of respect for the law.


"I've got no real issue with gun-people having their guns because they're pretty smart about it because they're a subculture unto themselves. But the idea that the world would be a safer place if everyone was carrying though? That assumes that everyone is at least as responsible as them and that's a farking stupid assumption to make."

So, serious question: how to you manage to quote to a post that says most enthusiasts/permit holders are responsible with a declaration of the same and THEN accuse me of having a propaganda-inspired stereotype? Really?
 
2012-10-04 02:26:16 PM
Oh wow, that wasn't even different posts, those all came from the post you were replying to. Are you a time traveler or something? That's almost eerie.
 
2012-10-04 03:31:01 PM

MrEricSir: Statistically, you're more likely to injure yourself than save anyone.


As is evident by the data showing that attempted defensive uses of firearms more frequently results in injury of the victim, rather than a termination of an assault, which I am certain that you will be able to reference.
 
2012-10-04 03:36:46 PM

jonny99: redmid17: jonny99: Silly Jesus: jonny99: Silly Jesus: jonny99: smitty04: Secret Master of All Flatulence: DaCaptain19: You don't live in Chicago, do you? Nope, if you did you'd be thinking the same thing all us Chicagoans think but don't say.

Nope, I don't live in Chicago. That being said: I've dealt with a LOT of scumbags over the years. Not just gangmembers, but baby rapers, wife beaters, and just about every other kind of criminal out there. The color of the skin of the perpetrator is meaningless...it's what they, as an individual, have done. And I can say, with some certainty, that douchebaggery is not the province of any one skin color, socioeconomic status, religious belief, or geographic locale.

[www.chicagonow.com image 583x302]
Then why is homicide rate so low in Edison Park?

Since you think this chart tells the whole story - you might want to consider the poverty level in Edison Park - that's the killer, not "race".

Race and poverty, among other factors, are quite strongly connected.



Yeah, I wonder why that could possibly be? Don't forget about poverty and criminality, or poverty and violence.

Culture.

Ahhhh - of course! I forgot that races that are culturally superior don't succumb to violence and other problems under severe conditions of poverty. Yr whistle brings all the dogs to the yard.

So what's is like being racist and assuming that he meant culture influenced by race?

Step 1: display a chart and imply that because a community is a majority white it has less crime
Step 2: when the relative poverty levels are pointed out, "politely" suggest that it is race and poverty that are linked, not poverty and crime
Step 3: suggest that "culture" is the factor that mediates between race and poverty (ie: a particular race suffers poverty, their culture is therefore inferior)

I suppose you think that the ability to talk "around" what you are trying to say is a component of cultural superiority.
How does it feel to be an apologist for r ...


www.mlponline.net
 
2012-10-04 03:38:47 PM

jonny99: Silly Jesus: jonny99: Silly Jesus: jonny99: Silly Jesus: jonny99: smitty04: Secret Master of All Flatulence: DaCaptain19: You don't live in Chicago, do you? Nope, if you did you'd be thinking the same thing all us Chicagoans think but don't say.

Nope, I don't live in Chicago. That being said: I've dealt with a LOT of scumbags over the years. Not just gangmembers, but baby rapers, wife beaters, and just about every other kind of criminal out there. The color of the skin of the perpetrator is meaningless...it's what they, as an individual, have done. And I can say, with some certainty, that douchebaggery is not the province of any one skin color, socioeconomic status, religious belief, or geographic locale.

[www.chicagonow.com image 583x302]
Then why is homicide rate so low in Edison Park?

Since you think this chart tells the whole story - you might want to consider the poverty level in Edison Park - that's the killer, not "race".

Race and poverty, among other factors, are quite strongly connected.



Yeah, I wonder why that could possibly be? Don't forget about poverty and criminality, or poverty and violence.

Culture.

Ahhhh - of course! I forgot that races that are culturally superior don't succumb to violence and other problems under severe conditions of poverty. Yr whistle brings all the dogs to the yard.

WTF are you talking about?

Being the child of a single mother is the greatest predictor (when all other factors are accounted for) of future criminality. 70% of black children are born to single mothers. It's a cultural trait that makes that acceptable and the norm. It's not BECAUSE they are black...but it is a commonality of that community.

Avoid reality though and cry racism at any mention of race and you'll be able to blissfully keep your head buried in the sand.

You're getting closer... clearly you would like to keep drawing the line at correlations, like the rates of single parenthood or poverty in black communities, and say "I don't ...


Please explain how "pervasive racial inequality" is the cause of single parenthood rates in black communities.
 
2012-10-04 03:44:39 PM

dittybopper: jonny99: Step 1: display a chart and imply that because a community is a majority white it has less crime
Step 2: when the relative poverty levels are pointed out, "politely" suggest that it is race and poverty that are linked, not poverty and crime
Step 3: suggest that "culture" is the factor that mediates between race and poverty (ie: a particular race suffers poverty, their culture is therefore inferior)

I suppose you think that the ability to talk "around" what you are trying to say is a component of cultural superiority.
How does it feel to be an apologist for racism?

It's not racism to point out the facts. I've actually done the math, and poor blacks have a 2.5 times higher homicide rate than poor whites. My sources were data from the Centers for Disease Control, and the US Census.

Or are you going to argue that math is racist?

Really, violence is largely a cultural phenomenon, and you learn your cultural values largely from your parents and peers, who learned their values from their parents and peers, who learned it from theirs, and so forth back down the line. That's why "European Americans" have a European-like homicide rate, 2.74 per 100,000 in the US vs. 3.5 per 100,000 for Europe*.

It's got nothing to do with melanin content, and everything to do with how cultural values are transmitted. Starting in the 1960's, the traditional black family structure started to shatter. It was noted as far back as 1965 that this trend was a major problem in the black community. All of the traditional values that would normally have been passed from a stable two parent family were essentially abandoned, because out-of-wedlock birth became the norm, not the exception, and single parent homes became the norm, not the exception.

It is interesting to note that after you control for poverty, the increased homicide rate in non-hispanic blacks over non-hispanic whites (2.46 times higher rate) is similar to the born-out-of-wedlock rate (69.5% black non-hispanic births / ...


Very well said. Exactly what I was trying to say, though less eloquently.

Sadly, though, the liberals have informed that all ills in the black community are the fault of whitey, so I'm going to have to dismiss your post outright as propaganda.
 
2012-10-04 03:48:15 PM

Dimensio: redmid17: Suicides are almost a non-starter. Gun suicides are less than 5% of the attempts but are 95% effective, whereas drugs ODs are something like 75 or 80% but are much, much less effective (

Nonetheless, substantially reducing the rate of firearm ownership may prove effective in reducing the suicide rate of the United States to levels observed in France, Belgium or even Japan. Is such an outcome not worth the effort?


At what cost? I'm not willing to accept higher crime rates in exchange for lower suicide rates. By the way, Japan, France, and Belgium all have suicide rates substantially higher than the US. See Link
 
2012-10-04 03:54:32 PM

MrEricSir: clyph: MrEricSir: I'm not the one who thinks he's Bruce Willis.

Nope. Just another gun-grabbing utopian idealist who blames inanimate objects for social problems.

No, all I'm saying is that this "guns are how I defend myself" argument is hilariously stupid. Take your head out of your ass and look around -- you are not a lone hero in an action movie. Statistically, you're more likely to injure yourself than save anyone.


What you don't know is that you're referring to the infamous Kellerman Paper. That was proven to be a fraud See Link
 
2012-10-04 04:28:28 PM

LaughingRadish: Dimensio: redmid17: Suicides are almost a non-starter. Gun suicides are less than 5% of the attempts but are 95% effective, whereas drugs ODs are something like 75 or 80% but are much, much less effective (

Nonetheless, substantially reducing the rate of firearm ownership may prove effective in reducing the suicide rate of the United States to levels observed in France, Belgium or even Japan. Is such an outcome not worth the effort?

At what cost? I'm not willing to accept higher crime rates in exchange for lower suicide rates. By the way, Japan, France, and Belgium all have suicide rates substantially higher than the US. See Link


You may wish to reconsider your response.
 
2012-10-04 04:56:30 PM

dittybopper: It is interesting to note that after you control for poverty, the increased homicide rate in non-hispanic blacks over non-hispanic whites (2.46 times higher rate) is similar to the born-out-of-wedlock rate (69.5% black non-hispanic births / 25.4% white non-hispanic births = 2.74 times higher).


Of course, that also happens to be the same as the percentage of drug treatment revenues coming from public funds, the number of UCLA students receiving grants or scholarships, the number of Japanese television owners ready for digital TV conversion in 2009, and the protein content of P.E. Mysis shrimp cubes.

Interesting, maybe. Of substantive value for analysis? Not so much.
 
2012-10-04 05:01:51 PM

Dimensio: LaughingRadish: Dimensio: redmid17: Suicides are almost a non-starter. Gun suicides are less than 5% of the attempts but are 95% effective, whereas drugs ODs are something like 75 or 80% but are much, much less effective (

Nonetheless, substantially reducing the rate of firearm ownership may prove effective in reducing the suicide rate of the United States to levels observed in France, Belgium or even Japan. Is such an outcome not worth the effort?

At what cost? I'm not willing to accept higher crime rates in exchange for lower suicide rates. By the way, Japan, France, and Belgium all have suicide rates substantially higher than the US. See Link

You may wish to reconsider your response.


Mea culpa. I saw that shortly after I hit "Add Comment".
 
2012-10-04 05:10:25 PM

LaughingRadish: What you don't know is that you're referring to the infamous Kellerman Paper. That was proven to be a fraud See Link


Like creationists or climate change deniers, gun grabbers don't care about science or facts. They will latch on to any "authority" that supports their conclusion and keep endlessly repeating the same old lies in their echo chamber circle jerks, regardless of how many times or how thoroughly their sources have been debunked.

Let's try and make it simple for you people:

1) The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a Constitutionally protected individual right in the US whether you like it or not.

2) Gun control laws are demonstrably ineffective in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals

3) There is no statistically significant correlation between the legal availability of firearms and violent crime rates, in either direction.
 
2012-10-04 06:30:37 PM

dittybopper: jonny99: You're getting closer... clearly you would like to keep drawing the line at correlations, like the rates of single parenthood or poverty in black communities, and say "I don't think it's because their black, but it is a trait of their community" - without answering the question "why is this the case?" The answer is pervasive, systemic racial inequality. But that's much more threatening to your sense of propriety than "cultural traits", so you'll keep finding reasons to deny it or project racism onto others.

Forty years ago, I would have agreed with this. Not today. The external barriers that blacks faced in the 1950's and 1960's have all been removed. The inequality they face today isn't externally imposed upon them.


Wow- really? I hope you are reincarnated on the southwest side so you can put that theory to the test. I'm sure you'd do great with the adequately funded schools, safe, calm environment, and easy access to healthcare and fresh food that exists on Chicago's southwest side.

As for the fact that these issues can be traced back decades, congratulations - you just learned what pervasive and systemic means.
 
2012-10-04 08:28:04 PM

dittybopper: fugeeface: Sounds like you could contribute a chapter to these:
On Combat
and...
On Killing 
Both should be required reading for all who carry a gun. ALL.

To be honest, I find Grossman somewhat unconvincing. His argument that first person shooter games are "murder simulators" that would lead to more violence flies in the face of our actual experience, 20 years later. As FPS games have gotten more realistic, the homicide rate has gone *DOWN*. I'm not saying that the availability of FPS games caused that, merely that Grossman's theory has been shown to be wrong, because they didn't lead to an increase in homicides.


Yeah, I generally agree with you regarding his opinion on FPS games, but the overall substance of his presentation is solid, sobering, and convincing.
 
2012-10-04 08:51:03 PM

jonny99: dittybopper: jonny99: You're getting closer... clearly you would like to keep drawing the line at correlations, like the rates of single parenthood or poverty in black communities, and say "I don't think it's because their black, but it is a trait of their community" - without answering the question "why is this the case?" The answer is pervasive, systemic racial inequality. But that's much more threatening to your sense of propriety than "cultural traits", so you'll keep finding reasons to deny it or project racism onto others.

Forty years ago, I would have agreed with this. Not today. The external barriers that blacks faced in the 1950's and 1960's have all been removed. The inequality they face today isn't externally imposed upon them.

Wow- really? I hope you are reincarnated on the southwest side so you can put that theory to the test. I'm sure you'd do great with the adequately funded schools, safe, calm environment, and easy access to healthcare and fresh food that exists on Chicago's southwest side.

As for the fact that these issues can be traced back decades, congratulations - you just learned what pervasive and systemic means.


I'd have to agree with both of you. The barriers are no longer externally imposed (at least institutionally), but they're still dealing with the inertia from the time when they were.

And to be completely frank, it's the lack of a safe, calm environment that really ruins access to education, healthcare, and fresh food; if most people are scared to run a business or teach there, you only get the people who have no other options. Of course then, the lack of education and all eventually leads to a lack of safety. The barriers are gone, but the cycle's reached a point where it can sustain itself. You've got to either break it with people who will educate in spite of the risks to their lives, or put a huge dent in the violence somehow.
 
2012-10-04 10:14:25 PM

Dimensio: redmid17: Suicides are almost a non-starter. Gun suicides are less than 5% of the attempts but are 95% effective, whereas drugs ODs are something like 75 or 80% but are much, much less effective (

Nonetheless, substantially reducing the rate of firearm ownership may prove effective in reducing the suicide rate of the United States to levels observed in France, Belgium or even Japan. Is such an outcome not worth the effort?


Absolutely not. Of course, I support a person's right to die, to the point that I'd like to see assisted suicide legalized nation-wide.

I've got a number of degenerative diseases. When I decide that it's time for me to die, I'd PREFER to go to my physician and have him perscribe a painless lethal dose of a pharmaceutically-produced drug. Until that happens, I'll keep the gun I've chosen to end my life with when it's time stashed away. It's nifty...a Remington 870 AOW with a 6.5 inch barrel. None of this "pulling the trigger with my toes" bullshiat for me! :D
 
2012-10-04 11:59:02 PM

DaCaptain19: Which means nothing in IL, the ONLY state with no way to conceal-carry,


While California has conceal carry on the books, in reality the only way you'll get your permit is if you personally know someone important who can "make arrangements". No one gets a permit except judges and anti-gun politicians (I'm looking at you Boxer, you farking c00nt).
 
2012-10-05 12:03:54 AM

OgreMagi: DaCaptain19: Which means nothing in IL, the ONLY state with no way to conceal-carry,

While California has conceal carry on the books, in reality the only way you'll get your permit is if you personally know someone important who can "make arrangements". No one gets a permit except judges and anti-gun politicians (I'm looking at you Boxer, you farking c00nt).


I'm not saying break the laws of your State or anything, but if you're carrying a weapon, the worst that could happen is that you get lumped in with the gang-bangers.

/ Also, don't be white.
 
2012-10-05 12:05:21 AM

Huck Chaser: Secret Master of All Flatulence: Huck Chaser:
The people being killed in Chicago are, with very VERY few exceptions, gang members themselves, and therefore are probably armed already anyway.

Unfortunately, we don't keep gangmembers in very small geographic areas where only other gangmembers live. They operate in areas that have innocent civilians living there too. They should be able to defend themselves from the criminal scum.

You're absolutely right, of course. However, the scenario I always imagine is...

Two gang members are surrounded by a small crowd of civilians. The gang members pull guns and start firing at each other. You then have two options:

1) The civilians run for cover.
2) Some percentage of the civilians pull their own (legal) weapons.

The only way option 2 is better than 1 is if BOTH a) the civilian shooters are somehow magically able to instantly tell who the gang members are and who their fellow civilians are, and b) shoot the gang members with 100% accuracy.


Every time people advocate for the right of honest citizens to carry guns, some moron spouts off the worse case scenario they can think of to justify their fears.
 
2012-10-05 04:08:35 AM
If we ban guns, they'll all just magically go away, and no one will ever be able to get one ever again.

worldfamousdesignjunkies.com

Keep farking that chicken.
 
2012-10-05 10:27:35 AM

OgreMagi: Every time people advocate for the right of honest citizens to carry guns, some moron spouts off the worse case scenario they can think of to justify their fears.


THIS.

Gun grabbers have been trotting out this same old tired chestnut since Florida passed the first Shall-Issue law in 1987. 25 years later it still hasn't happened.
 
Displayed 254 of 254 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report