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 50
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-10-03 05:26:51 PM
3 votes:

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).
2012-10-04 01:44:35 PM
2 votes:

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.
2012-10-03 09:52:52 PM
2 votes:
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 09:20:18 PM
2 votes:

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 09:12:52 PM
2 votes:

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 08:13:07 PM
2 votes:

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 07:05:13 PM
2 votes:

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 07:00:06 PM
2 votes:

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 06:52:46 PM
2 votes:

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 06:44:51 PM
2 votes:

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 06:38:58 PM
2 votes:

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 06:35:16 PM
2 votes:
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 06:12:30 PM
2 votes:

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 05:14:46 PM
2 votes:
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 05:10:50 PM
2 votes:

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 04:11:48 PM
2 votes:

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 03:51:51 PM
2 votes:

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.
2012-10-04 05:10:25 PM
1 votes:

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 03:54:32 PM
1 votes:

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 02:00:42 PM
1 votes:

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 11:56:02 AM
1 votes:

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 09:07:49 AM
1 votes:

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 08:51:56 AM
1 votes:

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.
2012-10-03 09:41:39 PM
1 votes:

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 09:24:40 PM
1 votes:

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 09:13:02 PM
1 votes:

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 08:39:00 PM
1 votes:

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 08:03:46 PM
1 votes:

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 07:54:20 PM
1 votes:

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 07:14:52 PM
1 votes:

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 07:06:08 PM
1 votes:

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 06:28:02 PM
1 votes:
Start a fund for any remaining white people so they can have the financial wherewithal to move away from these neighborhoods.
2012-10-03 06:24:08 PM
1 votes:

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 06:20:07 PM
1 votes:

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 06:19:49 PM
1 votes:

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 06:18:34 PM
1 votes:
There was, is, and will be only one solution here, legalize victimless crime.
2012-10-03 06:13:11 PM
1 votes:

xynix: Chris Rock talks about gun control...


Mr. Rock is evidently unaware that ammunition is easily manufactured by private citizens.
2012-10-03 06:09:30 PM
1 votes:

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 06:08:08 PM
1 votes:
"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 06:06:03 PM
1 votes:

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 06:05:20 PM
1 votes:

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 05:39:21 PM
1 votes:
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 05:37:23 PM
1 votes:

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 05:30:31 PM
1 votes:

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


We just move to the north side.
2012-10-03 05:21:10 PM
1 votes:
Start with a new mayor... One not so "corrupty"
2012-10-03 05:17:57 PM
1 votes:

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 05:14:34 PM
1 votes:

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 04:15:07 PM
1 votes:

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.
wee [TotalFark]
2012-10-03 01:50:10 PM
1 votes:
Darn good thing guns are so hard to get in Illinois...
2012-10-03 01:38:38 PM
1 votes:
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
 
Displayed 50 of 50 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report