And the other 6?

How many people were killed with AK-17's?

bronyaur1: The NRA dummies keep pounding the pathetic argument that because Chicago has bad gun violence problems and its leaders have pursued gun restrictions, therefore the pursuit of gun restrictions causes gun violence.

If you are so dumb and incapable of logical thought that you sign onto - let alone repeat talking points supporting - this argument, then you might just be (a) too stupid to breed, (b) a Fox viewer, and (c) a redneck.

Idiot. The take-away is that gun control is ineffective, not that it causes crime. Lame strawman is lame

Brother what a night the people saw. Brother what a fight the people saw, yes indeed

BradleyUffner: And the other 6?

They didn't get the point.

bronyaur1: The NRA dummies Anyone with a brain will keep pounding the pathetic commonsense argument that because Chicago has bad gun violence problems and its leaders have pursued gun restrictions, therefore the pursuit of increasing gun restrictions causes will not reduce gun violence.

FTFY

vpb: Somacandra: Gee, its almost as if the reality of guns in an urban setting (where everyone is spatially compressed and differential social problems are thus magnified) is far different from the reality of guns in a rural setting.

Sure it is, that's why cities need stricter gun control than rural areas.  The only real use for a gun in a city is as a weapon against people.  There aren't any deer or quail.

Bullshiat


The Second Amendment isn't there solely for hunting. Anyone claiming otherwise is either an idiot, or willfully obtuse.

bronyaur1: The NRA dummies keep pounding the pathetic argument that because Chicago has bad gun violence problems and its leaders have pursued gun restrictions, therefore the pursuit of gun restrictions causes gun violence.

If you are so dumb and incapable of logical thought that you sign onto - let alone repeat talking points supporting - this argument, then you might just be (a) too stupid to breed, (b) a Fox viewer, and (c) a redneck.

The argument is to show the gun control doesn't mean less gun violence. So your methods are ineffective and may not make the problem worse but will do nothing to stop it. If you really want to start dealing with the problem of gun violence we going to have to start dealing with some difficult social and economic questions about society and culture. But those to complex for the politicians to strink down to a sound byte for the stupid voters to understand, so nothing will really change.

So do nothing.

Amirite?

gerrymander: bronyaur1: The NRA dummies Anyone with a brain will keep pounding the pathetic commonsense argument that because Chicago has bad gun violence problems and its leaders have pursued gun restrictions, therefore the pursuit of increasing gun restrictions causes will not reduce gun violence.

FTFY

But then you look at NYC and DC which have its murder numbers plummet to record levels even though they have strict gun laws as well.

It's almost as if the gun bans aren't the reason behind the rise in violent crimes in Chicago.

If the victim of the knife attack had a gun, he wouldn't be a victim!

/and Chicago would be 7 for 7!

Ontos: vpb: Somacandra: Gee, its almost as if the reality of guns in an urban setting (where everyone is spatially compressed and differential social problems are thus magnified) is far different from the reality of guns in a rural setting.

Sure it is, that's why cities need stricter gun control than rural areas.  The only real use for a gun in a city is as a weapon against people.  There aren't any deer or quail.

Bullshiat


The Second Amendment isn't there solely for hunting. Anyone claiming otherwise is either an idiot, or willfully obtuse.

I know...I know...it's to rise up against our Government or something right?

vpb: Fark It: vpb: The only real use for a gun in a city is as a weapon against people.

This is bullshiat. Hunters, sport shooters, and collectors live in cities too.

They may LIVE in them, but they don't do much hunting there.  Unless they are hunting people, and you don't hunt with a concealed handgun.

There are reasons that cities tend to have different laws from rural areas.

The millions of Americans carrying a concealed handgun legally and safely everyday would take issue with your argument that they are "hunting people".

Do you actually believe this silly shiat?

syrynxx: I think silverware sets should be limited to a single place setting.  Why does anyone need 8 knives to eat?

The Brits have a different idea: ban sharp points on the ends of long knives. Then a criminal will have to beat you to death with the handle, which might be more trouble than he's willing to go to.

stirfrybry: Idiot. The take-away is that gun control is ineffective,

I think the take-away here is that gun control is ineffective when it's attempted in a small area of a country full of guns.

Make it harder to get new guns, encourage an alternative of less than lethal self protection measures. Why is this bad?

vpb: Somacandra: Gee, its almost as if the reality of guns in an urban setting (where everyone is spatially compressed and differential social problems are thus magnified) is far different from the reality of guns in a rural setting.

Sure it is, that's why cities need stricter gun control than rural areas.  The only real use for a gun in a city is as a weapon against people.  There aren't any deer or quail.

But there are coyotes and I'm afraid they may eat my rats.

whatshisname: stirfrybry: Idiot. The take-away is that gun control is ineffective,

I think the take-away here is that gun control is ineffective when it's attempted in a small area of a country full of guns.

I think  the take away is that looking at Chicago and ignoring NYC or DC when it comes to gun bans and their effects on crime is just plain moronic.

It honestly makes no difference in crime one way or another.

Viable economic pursuits that don't, by nature, involve gun violence, might tend to decrease the amount of gun violence.

Wow. It's almost like the gun manufacturers weren't simply selling their murder weapons in other cities to be transported to Chicago for murders.

bronyaur1: The NRA dummies keep pounding the pathetic argument that because Chicago has bad gun violence problems and its leaders have pursued gun restrictions, therefore the pursuit of gun restrictions causes gun violence.

I haven't heard the NRA advance the argument that it causes gun violence, but restriction is demonstrably an ineffective policy.

Pichu0102: Make it harder to get new guns, encourage an alternative of less than lethal self protection measures. Why is this bad?

Because it's much more difficult to consistently, completely neutralize an adversary in a non-lethal way than it is to do so in a lethal way.

...oh, and that whole 2nd Amendment thing.

JosephFinn: Wow. It's almost like the gun manufacturers weren't simply selling their murder weapons in other cities to be transported to Chicago for murders.

Cool. I love to see pants wetting hysterics before noon.

Please continue on about "murder weapons"...

Mrtraveler01: I know...I know...it's to rise up against our Government or something right?

The Founders spent most of their time writing about the 2nd Amendment in the context of rising up against the government, mostly because the concept of personal security and self defense were so deeply ingrained in their lives that enunciating those principles didn't even cross their minds as being necessary.

These guys were, essentially, sophisticated frontiersmen. They lived without the privilege of police protection and without the ability to quickly summon help if they were in a violent confrontation with a criminal. Hell, the Constitution was written almost 60 years before the world's first police agency (the London Metropolitan Police) was even established.

Most state constitutions expressly enumerate that the right of small arms possession by citizens is centered on the right of self defense. For example, Oregon's 27th Amendment reads:

Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.

Cyrus the Mediocre: BradleyUffner: And the other 6?

They didn't get the point.

Thread over.

bronyaur1: The NRA dummies keep pounding the pathetic argument that because Chicago has bad gun violence problems and its leaders have pursued gun restrictions, therefore the pursuit of gun restrictions causes gun violence.

Try to follow along. They are pointing out that taking away the guns is NOT reducing the crime.

Pichu0102: Make it harder to get new guns, encourage an alternative of less than lethal self protection measures. Why is this bad?

Lawyers. If the person that broke into your house survives, you get sued.

vpb: Somacandra: Gee, its almost as if the reality of guns in an urban setting (where everyone is spatially compressed and differential social problems are thus magnified) is far different from the reality of guns in a rural setting.

Sure it is, that's why cities need stricter gun control than rural areas.  The only real proper use for a gun in a city is as a defensive weapon against people.  There aren't any deer or quail.
/also against rabid animals and elephants in Palm Bay, Florida

syrynxx: I think silverware sets should be limited to a single place setting.  Why does anyone need 8 knives to eat?

Thread over, right off the bat. Congrats.

vpb: Fark It: vpb: The only real use for a gun in a city is as a weapon against people.

This is bullshiat. Hunters, sport shooters, and collectors live in cities too.

They may LIVE in them, but they don't do much hunting there.  Unless they are hunting people, and you don't hunt with a concealed handgun.

There are reasons that cities tend to have different laws from rural areas.

Wow, and here I was about to give you the benefit of the doubt and tell everyone that you were just being sarcastic. Looks like you're just stupid.

Hector Remarkable: Brother what a night the people saw. Brother what a fight the people saw, yes indeed

dammit

Djkb: Cyrus the Mediocre: BradleyUffner: And the other 6?

They didn't get the point.

Thread over.

Sharp wit.

KidneyStone: /also against rabid animals and elephants in Palm Bay, Florida

I see your problem.

Mikey1969: bronyaur1: The NRA dummies keep pounding the pathetic argument that because Chicago has bad gun violence problems and its leaders have pursued gun restrictions, therefore the pursuit of gun restrictions causes gun violence.

Try to follow along. They are pointing out that taking away the guns is NOT reducing the crime.

And yet, a city in a state like New York that has an AWB, that also has stricter gun laws has seen a drop in crime.

And that's with fewer police officers than in 2000, also. It's almost like having stricter gun laws in the larger jurisdiction has an effect.

JosephFinn: Wow. It's almost like the gun manufacturers weren't simply selling their murder weapons in other cities to be transported to Chicago for murders.

Hey now, only a very small percentage of gun dealers is providing the majority of weapons to criminals. Of course the NRA has helped write legislation that makes it nearly impossible to go after those dealers. But that's good, you see if we can get more guns in the hands of criminals, then law abiding citizens will have no choice but to arm themselves in order to be safe. That creates more demand for guns and more jobs, which is good for the economy.

beefoe: How many people were killed with AK-17's?

I'm going to go with zero. Ever.