Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Minneapolis Star Tribune)   Pick your ban: Teen girl who performed at Obama's inauguration fatally shot in Chicago   ( startribune.com) divider line
    More: Sad, obama, Chicago, inauguration  
•       •       •

17329 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Jan 2013 at 10:39 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



575 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-01-30 10:41:54 AM  
God damn it, America.
 
2013-01-30 10:42:16 AM  
This must absolutely gall the president. His hands are tied even though people he now personal ties to are dying.
 
2013-01-30 10:42:18 AM  
Ban Chicago.
 
2013-01-30 10:42:20 AM  
Ban Chicago.
 
2013-01-30 10:42:26 AM  
How very sad.
 
2013-01-30 10:42:56 AM  

KiwDaWabbit: God damn it, America.


Seriously, I know Chicago's going for a record and anytime a firearm is discharged it's national news, but literally, yeah, GDI America...
 
2013-01-30 10:43:01 AM  
Ban Chicago
 
2013-01-30 10:43:05 AM  
Police do not believe Hadiya was the intended target of the shooting.

Forget banning firearms. Get these damn gang bangers into ranges and teach them to stop holding their damn guns sideways. At least then they'll be killing each other.
 
2013-01-30 10:43:18 AM  
OMG that is horrible.
 
2013-01-30 10:43:20 AM  
I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.
 
2013-01-30 10:43:45 AM  
fark this planet guys
 
d23 [BareFark]
2013-01-30 10:44:10 AM  
Build a thunderdome for the gang banger assholes.

What the fark, Chicago?
 
2013-01-30 10:44:22 AM  
What the living hell is wrong with people? Charge at a group of kids huddled in the rain and just start firing? Although I assume this is personal, the wanton disregard for any sort of humanity is still appalling. I hate these "I have a beef with someone you know/love, now you die!" stories that come out of the dregs of society and gangster movies.
 
2013-01-30 10:45:03 AM  
wnd.comView Full Size

wnd.comView Full Size


Paradise.
 
2013-01-30 10:45:09 AM  

Lexx: His hands are tied even though people he now personal ties to are dying.


He should make shooting people illegal and also say it is immoral.
If only there was a Mayor in Chicago who 0bama could talk to and if only there were strict gun laws.
 
2013-01-30 10:45:09 AM  
She shouldn't have been hanging out with gang members.
 
2013-01-30 10:45:11 AM  
Shait.
 
2013-01-30 10:45:21 AM  
media.tumblr.comView Full Size
 
2013-01-30 10:45:57 AM  
Ah, yeah. That's the stuff.

Keep the news rolling, agents.
 
2013-01-30 10:45:57 AM  

Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.


And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...
 
2013-01-30 10:45:59 AM  
12 kids taking shelter from the rain. It's amazing that there not more than the 1 dead and 1 wounded.

/and kinda tragic for that to be an amazing thing.
 
2013-01-30 10:46:03 AM  
This is what happens when you take God out of canopies.
 
2013-01-30 10:46:06 AM  
That guy was just a patsy. There was a second gangbanger shooting from behind a grassy knoll.
 
d23 [BareFark]
2013-01-30 10:46:34 AM  

Bubbarella: She shouldn't have been hanging out with gang members blacks.


Is this what you meant???
 
2013-01-30 10:46:37 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Paradise.


So what you're really saying is that Hispanics are winning?
 
2013-01-30 10:46:57 AM  

Egoy3k: Police do not believe Hadiya was the intended target of the shooting.

Forget banning firearms. Get these damn gang bangers into ranges and teach them to stop holding their damn guns sideways. At least then they'll be killing each other.


I read a tongue in cheek op-ed (IIRC It was the Chi Trib or Sun-Times) saying exactly this - offer free marksmanship training to the gang bangers. Not only does it reduce the number of innocent victims being killed, it increases the number of gang bangers dying. Two birds, one stone.

My google fu is weak so I can't bring up the article.
 
2013-01-30 10:47:03 AM  
When extreme Liberals dominate politics in a city for years it becomes so very sad....
 
2013-01-30 10:48:10 AM  
Chacago: "You're safe here; guns are illegal"
 
2013-01-30 10:48:16 AM  
This thread will surely be a well-reasoned and measured discussion about the numerous mental deficiencies that are ravaging both sides of any argument presented.
 
2013-01-30 10:48:44 AM  
Keep defending your gun rights to the hilt, Wayne. You'll get counter-examples every day.

/NRA against every reasonable measure to curb gun violence, up to and including mental health screenings.
//Mainly because they have many health organizations and more than a few insurance companies on their "Enemies of the 2nd Amendment" blacklist.
 
2013-01-30 10:48:49 AM  

WeenerGord: That guy was just a patsy. There was a second gangbanger shooting from behind a grassy knoll.


Well then they're both horrible shots.
 
2013-01-30 10:48:53 AM  

MichiganFTL: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Paradise.

So what you're really saying is that Hispanics are winning?


Looks like 'Other' is the winner.
 
2013-01-30 10:49:54 AM  

Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...


For stating the obvious?
 
2013-01-30 10:50:22 AM  

d23: Bubbarella: She shouldn't have been hanging out with gang members blacks.

Is this what you meant???


No. I guess you're the racist.
 
2013-01-30 10:50:22 AM  

Bubbarella: She shouldn't have been hanging out with gang members.


She wasn't. She was waiting with friends at a bus stop in a decent part of the city, and was hit by stray gunfire.
 
2013-01-30 10:50:34 AM  

d23: Bubbarella: She shouldn't have been hanging out with gang members blacks.

Is this what you meant???


Chicago's gang problem isn't limited to blacks.
 
2013-01-30 10:50:38 AM  

GleeUnit: This thread will surely be a well-reasoned and measured discussion about the numerous mental deficiencies that are ravaging both sides of any argument presented.


Or that people would like to see idiot gangbangers hurled into the sun.
 
2013-01-30 10:50:55 AM  

mjones73: Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...

For stating the obvious?


In Fartbongo Bizarro World, yes.
 
2013-01-30 10:51:21 AM  

IlGreven: Keep defending your gun rights to the hilt, Wayne. You'll get counter-examples every day.

/NRA against every reasonable measure to curb gun violence, up to and including mental health screenings.
//Mainly because they have many health organizations and more than a few insurance companies on their "Enemies of the 2nd Amendment" blacklist.


This absolutely a counter example....of how strict gun control doesn't work.
 
2013-01-30 10:51:26 AM  

cptjeff: Bubbarella: She shouldn't have been hanging out with gang members.

She wasn't. She was waiting with friends at a bus stop in a decent part of the city, and was hit by stray gunfire.


The man jumped a fence, shot at them, then jumped in a car and sped away.

That's not stray, that's deliberate.
 
2013-01-30 10:51:37 AM  
If only she and the other teenagers had been armed, eh?
 
2013-01-30 10:51:38 AM  

mjones73: Why do laws overturned by the SCOTUS no longer work?


Got me.
 
2013-01-30 10:51:38 AM  

clane: When extreme Liberals dominate politics in a city for years it becomes so very sad....


Nice job politicizing. This wasn't about policies or agendas from either side of the spectrum.
 
d23 [BareFark]
2013-01-30 10:51:51 AM  

IlGreven: Keep defending your gun rights to the hilt, Wayne. You'll get counter-examples every day.

/NRA against every reasonable measure to curb gun violence, up to and including mental health screenings.
//Mainly because they have many health organizations and more than a few insurance companies on their "Enemies of the 2nd Amendment" blacklist.


The NRA is a corporate lobby group. They have no care for public safety. Their goal is to sell as many guns as possible. Why aren't people getting that? The only nominally represent gun owners... they really don't give a shiat about them. They are a corporate group. Stop listening to them about gun safety. They don't care.
 
2013-01-30 10:51:57 AM  

mjones73: For stating the obvious?


You put 2.7mil people in a 234 sq mi area, throw in some poverty, gangs and racial tension...
 
2013-01-30 10:52:06 AM  

cptjeff: Bubbarella: She shouldn't have been hanging out with gang members.

She wasn't. She was waiting with friends at a bus stop in a decent part of the city, and was hit by stray gunfire.


Since TFA implies otherwise (just read it) I should mention that I heard this version of events on TV- different source.
 
2013-01-30 10:52:30 AM  

ScouserDuck: IlGreven: Keep defending your gun rights to the hilt, Wayne. You'll get counter-examples every day.

/NRA against every reasonable measure to curb gun violence, up to and including mental health screenings.
//Mainly because they have many health organizations and more than a few insurance companies on their "Enemies of the 2nd Amendment" blacklist.

This absolutely a counter example....of how strict gun control doesn't work.


And therefore, everyone should have guns.

/If you're not arguing that point, don't imply it by how you speak.
 
2013-01-30 10:52:35 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [www.wnd.com image 607x405]
[www.wnd.com image 609x517]

Paradise.


So what that's saying is that the private prison system is losing customers because the majority of victims were prior offenders.
 
2013-01-30 10:53:21 AM  
god dammit so much
 
2013-01-30 10:53:29 AM  

clane: When extreme Liberals dominate politics in a city for years it becomes so very sad....


Clearly if there were a Republican in charge, this shooting would have never happened.

Logic, how the fark does it work?
 
2013-01-30 10:53:34 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: cptjeff: Bubbarella: She shouldn't have been hanging out with gang members.

She wasn't. She was waiting with friends at a bus stop in a decent part of the city, and was hit by stray gunfire.

The man jumped a fence, shot at them, then jumped in a car and sped away.

That's not stray, that's deliberate.


The tv news report I saw said otherwise, and I just posted to that effect, but I'm quoting you just to ensure you see it if you have notifications on.
 
2013-01-30 10:53:40 AM  

Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.


If only those kids had been armed.
 
2013-01-30 10:54:04 AM  

IlGreven: And therefore, everyone should have guns.


Curious, but why does it have to be one or the other? Are you a sith?
 
2013-01-30 10:54:14 AM  
This article states that

Many of the teens with Pendleton at the time of the shooting were believed to be gang members and left the scene, according to reports.

Wonder if some gangster got street cred for killing her? Wonder if some in the black community might hate her because she performed at the inaugural? The old crab in the bucket syndrome?
 
2013-01-30 10:54:23 AM  
But guns are banned in Chicago.
 
2013-01-30 10:54:50 AM  

factoryconnection: What the living hell is wrong with people? Charge at a group of kids huddled in the rain and just start firing? Although I assume this is personal, the wanton disregard for any sort of humanity is still appalling. I hate these "I have a beef with someone you know/love, now you die!" stories that come out of the dregs of society and gangster movies.


I know, in our rarer shootings and gang murders here in the UK the same attitude is displayed. Is it a sort of massive arrogance? "I'm so important that I'll risk the lives of innocent bystanders who are nothing to do with my beef."? Or is it retarded deludedness: "I'm such an incredibly good shot despite not knowing shiat about guns nor ever having bothered to learn."?
Personally I think massive ignorance breeds massive arrogance.
 
2013-01-30 10:54:51 AM  

mjones73: Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...

For stating the obvious?


Are you an idiot?

So now correlation equals causation? Okay good, then we have 4x the homicide rate as the UK because we can get guns way easier, having a gun around you makes you more likely to kill your family than an intruder, southern states with more lax gun control have higher homicide rates than even Illinois, New York, etc because they have more lax gun control, and CCW holders are just as likely to commit homicide by gun on another person than non, meaning despite alleged higher responsibility, they're actually equal or more prone to shooting other people.

Now shut up or GTFO.
 
2013-01-30 10:54:59 AM  
I don't know how to feel. This is really horrible but it's pretty much common place in Chicago now.
 
2013-01-30 10:55:00 AM  

ScouserDuck: IlGreven: Keep defending your gun rights to the hilt, Wayne. You'll get counter-examples every day.

/NRA against every reasonable measure to curb gun violence, up to and including mental health screenings.
//Mainly because they have many health organizations and more than a few insurance companies on their "Enemies of the 2nd Amendment" blacklist.

This absolutely a counter example....of how strict gun control doesn't work.


What strict gun control? One city having strict laws means absolutely nothing. Travel just outside the city, and you get the same lax gun laws as everywhere else.
 
2013-01-30 10:55:05 AM  

MichiganFTL: IlGreven: And therefore, everyone should have guns.

Curious, but why does it have to be one or the other? Are you a sith?


I think you need to calibrate your sarcasm detector.
 
2013-01-30 10:55:05 AM  

cptjeff: AverageAmericanGuy: cptjeff: Bubbarella: She shouldn't have been hanging out with gang members.

She wasn't. She was waiting with friends at a bus stop in a decent part of the city, and was hit by stray gunfire.

The man jumped a fence, shot at them, then jumped in a car and sped away.

That's not stray, that's deliberate.

The tv news report I saw said otherwise, and I just posted to that effect, but I'm quoting you just to ensure you see it if you have notifications on.


I do, but it takes a long time before I get the email. Better to just feed my OCD and hit Command-R.
 
2013-01-30 10:55:08 AM  

cptjeff: She wasn't. She was waiting with friends at a bus stop in a decent part of the city, and was hit by stray gunfire.


From another article: Many of the teens with Pendleton at the time of the shooting were believed to be gang members and left the scene, according to reports.

Not too sure how decent a part of the city it really is, either. It says she was near her school, and the school itself is in a decidedly red area on richblockspoorblocks.
 
2013-01-30 10:55:20 AM  
Fast and furious, Baby.
 
2013-01-30 10:55:27 AM  
we should ban teens, girls, Obamas, Chicago, performances, fatalities

did i miss anything?
 
2013-01-30 10:55:36 AM  

cgraves67: Chacago: "You're safe here; guns are illegal"


all you got to do is buy them from a neighboring city where they are still legal. duh
 
2013-01-30 10:55:38 AM  

Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...


Because the very day a tragedy involving the use of guns happens, that's the right time to talk about more gun control as with Sandy Hook, but if circumstance shows that gun control is doing nothing, then it's "too soon" to talk about the problem with gun control, right?
 
2013-01-30 10:55:48 AM  

cptjeff: Bubbarella: She shouldn't have been hanging out with gang members.

She wasn't. She was waiting with friends at a bus stop in a decent part of the city, and was hit by stray gunfire.


Don't care, pointless news. How many where killed in the last 24 hours? So what is someone blew a White House official to let her perform. Farking pointless news.
 
2013-01-30 10:56:00 AM  

ScouserDuck: IlGreven: Keep defending your gun rights to the hilt, Wayne. You'll get counter-examples every day.

/NRA against every reasonable measure to curb gun violence, up to and including mental health screenings.
//Mainly because they have many health organizations and more than a few insurance companies on their "Enemies of the 2nd Amendment" blacklist.

This absolutely a counter example....of how strict gun control doesn't work.


Then the UK is absolute proof gun control does.
 
2013-01-30 10:56:34 AM  
It's not GDI America, it's GDI Chicago.
 
2013-01-30 10:56:36 AM  
How about banning dumb black teenagers who randomly shoot into large groups of people without even hitting their intended target.

How farking stupid are they to just point and shoot?

This is why they can't be serial killers. White people are farked in the head, but they're smart enough to kill their targets.
 
2013-01-30 10:56:42 AM  

TheDumbBlonde: Fast and furious, Baby.


Living up to your handle one post at a time.
 
2013-01-30 10:56:59 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Lexx: His hands are tied even though people he now personal ties to are dying.

He should make shooting people illegal and also say it is immoral.
If only there was a Mayor in Chicago who 0bama could talk to and if only there were strict gun laws.


Do you ever say anything that doesn't make you sound like a tool?
 
2013-01-30 10:57:10 AM  

KiwDaWabbit: God damn it, America.


as you wish
 
2013-01-30 10:57:13 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: MichiganFTL: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Paradise.

So what you're really saying is that Hispanics are winning?

Looks like 'Other' is the winner.


Nothing Sam the Slayer can't fix
 
2013-01-30 10:57:26 AM  

DoomPaul: But guns are banned in Chicago.


all you got to do is buy them from a neighboring city where they are still legal. duh
 
2013-01-30 10:57:40 AM  

WeenerGord: This article states that

Many of the teens with Pendleton at the time of the shooting were believed to be gang members and left the scene, according to reports.

Wonder if some gangster got street cred for killing her? Wonder if some in the black community might hate her because she performed at the inaugural? The old crab in the bucket syndrome?


Great.  Now I'm hungry for crabs.
 
2013-01-30 10:58:09 AM  

I drunk what: we should ban teens, girls, Obamas, Chicago, performances, fatalities

did i miss anything?


You forgot inaugurations.
 
2013-01-30 10:58:29 AM  

MichiganFTL: mjones73: For stating the obvious?

You put 2.7mil people in a 234 sq mi area, throw in some poverty, gangs and racial tension...


So you're saying it's not a gun problem, but a people problem?
 
2013-01-30 10:58:30 AM  

China White Tea: cptjeff: She wasn't. She was waiting with friends at a bus stop in a decent part of the city, and was hit by stray gunfire.

From another article: Many of the teens with Pendleton at the time of the shooting were believed to be gang members and left the scene, according to reports.

Not too sure how decent a part of the city it really is, either. It says she was near her school, and the school itself is in a decidedly red area on richblockspoorblocks.


Huh, I'm gonna try to dig up something by a real journalist. Not that I don't trust TV news or regional newspapers, but...
 
2013-01-30 10:58:44 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [www.wnd.com image 607x405]
[www.wnd.com image 609x517]

Paradise.


Blacks and hispanics with a disproportionate amount of the violence? Sounds racist.
 
2013-01-30 10:58:49 AM  
Gun morons - "nothing is casual until we can use it to our advantage, despite all evidence to the contrary."
 
2013-01-30 10:59:48 AM  
I hope the conservatives' cheers were just a tad more subdued than when Chicago didn't get to host the Olympics.
 
2013-01-30 11:00:00 AM  
Or pick the other ban about how kids were dying from guns in Obama's home city "not so good" area before the school shooting.
 
2013-01-30 11:00:04 AM  

justtray: ScouserDuck: IlGreven: Keep defending your gun rights to the hilt, Wayne. You'll get counter-examples every day.

/NRA against every reasonable measure to curb gun violence, up to and including mental health screenings.
//Mainly because they have many health organizations and more than a few insurance companies on their "Enemies of the 2nd Amendment" blacklist.

This absolutely a counter example....of how strict gun control doesn't work.

Then the UK is absolute proof gun control does.


Sure..but UK style gun control is unconstitutional.... On the other hand, there are 5,000 glassing incidents in the UK a year.....I'd rather be shot.
 
2013-01-30 11:00:09 AM  
This is a good reminder why everyone should carry at least one gun.
 
2013-01-30 11:00:17 AM  
so with the combined massive Brainpower of Fark™, how about tossing out some solutions to this dilemma?
 
2013-01-30 11:00:28 AM  

IlGreven: /NRA against every reasonable measure to curb gun violence, up to and including mental health screenings.


you are an idiot.  stop getting your talking points from Schultz and Madow, you are just embarrassing yourself.

The NRA has supported mental health as part of background checks.

They have been blocked by some states who are resisting.

Here, from libby MA
 
2013-01-30 11:00:30 AM  
We've got a black people problem.
 
2013-01-30 11:00:31 AM  

Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...


Indeed he has.
 
2013-01-30 11:01:40 AM  
Ms Chambers, from Chicago, recently had the 4th of her children killed by gunfire.

/damn
 
2013-01-30 11:02:10 AM  

d23: IlGreven: Keep defending your gun rights to the hilt, Wayne. You'll get counter-examples every day.

/NRA against every reasonable measure to curb gun violence, up to and including mental health screenings.
//Mainly because they have many health organizations and more than a few insurance companies on their "Enemies of the 2nd Amendment" blacklist.

The NRA is a corporate lobby group. They have no care for public safety. Their goal is to sell as many guns as possible. Why aren't people getting that? The only nominally represent gun owners... they really don't give a shiat about them. They are a corporate group. Stop listening to them about gun safety. They don't care.


The NRA was against legally required trigger locks as a violation of your Constitutional rights.

That is...they were against the idea until a rider that immunized gun manufacturers from lawsuits was attached to a trigger lock bill. Somehow, that made them reconsider their opposition.

It's almost as if the NRA is primarily interested in representing the gun industry.
 
2013-01-30 11:02:12 AM  

KiwDaWabbit: God damn it, America.


No, god damn it criminals
 
2013-01-30 11:02:12 AM  

devilEther: cgraves67: Chacago: "You're safe here; guns are illegal"

all you got to do is buy them from a neighboring city where they are still legal. duh



You think gangbangers buy their guns only from legal sources? HAHA!

They wait for the background check too, right? HAHA!

Wise up America!
 
2013-01-30 11:02:13 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: So you're saying it's not a gun problem, but a people problem?


I don't believe I really made a point to either side, but I think it's a comprehensive issue that is far deeper than a single inanimate object. I'm looking for more of the motive side than the act. There seems to be cultural, gang, economical, and psychological issues at play that are far deeper and more widespread than simply access to metal. Let's look at them ALL (yes, including guns). I think it's just naive to focus only on one.
 
2013-01-30 11:02:23 AM  
I vote it DID have something to do with the President.
 
2013-01-30 11:02:44 AM  
SPORTSMEN
 
2013-01-30 11:02:49 AM  

Raharu: tenpoundsofcheese: Lexx: His hands are tied even though people he now personal ties to are dying.

He should make shooting people illegal and also say it is immoral.
If only there was a Mayor in Chicago who 0bama could talk to and if only there were strict gun laws.

Do you ever say anything that doesn't make you sound like a tool?


So you are don't support laws against killing people, you think it is moral?  Good to know who you really are.
 
2013-01-30 11:03:02 AM  

cptjeff: Huh, I'm gonna try to dig up something by a real journalist. Not that I don't trust TV news or regional newspapers, but...


It is possible that she *was* in a decent (or, at least, financially above-average) area. The best resolution for the location of the shooting that I've seen states "blocks away" from the school, which could put her in any of a number of neighborhoods. On average, though, when I think of "decent neighborhoods in Chicago", I don't think of any further south than I-55.
 
2013-01-30 11:03:42 AM  

justtray: mjones73: Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...

For stating the obvious?

Are you an idiot?

So now correlation equals causation? Okay good, then we have 4x the homicide rate as the UK because we can get guns way easier, having a gun around you makes you more likely to kill your family than an intruder, southern states with more lax gun control have higher homicide rates than even Illinois, New York, etc because they have more lax gun control, and CCW holders are just as likely to commit homicide by gun on another person than non, meaning despite alleged higher responsibility, they're actually equal or more prone to shooting other people.

Now shut up or GTFO.


Sounds like you have gunaphobia, get help
 
2013-01-30 11:04:29 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: mjones73: Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...

For stating the obvious?

In Fartbongo Bizarro World, yes.


Yes, it's Farbongo Bizarro because it doesn't agree with your view...we get it
 
2013-01-30 11:05:06 AM  
assets.dnainfo.comView Full Size


Hadiya Pendleton, honor student
 
2013-01-30 11:05:18 AM  
Everyone seen carrying a gun should be shot.
 
2013-01-30 11:05:18 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...

Because the very day a tragedy involving the use of guns happens, that's the right time to talk about more gun control as with Sandy Hook, but if circumstance shows that gun control is doing nothing, then it's "too soon" to talk about the problem with gun control, right?


Yes exactly.
It is the way the liberal mind works:
1.  We must do something about X.
2.  Y is something
3.  Let's do Y!
4.  Oh look, we did something!  Yay for us.

It is an emptional response instead of an intellectual one.  They never stop to think about whether or not Y would actually solve the probem.
 
2013-01-30 11:05:35 AM  

FeFiFoFark: so with the combined massive Brainpower of Fark™, how about tossing out some solutions to this dilemma?


Basically, a lot more police. Hotspot policing and harassing known gang locations works but the city is in bad financial straits and can't really get a lot more. They disbanded their gang task force to get feet on the ground in a general way but that was pretty much the opposite of targeting high crime areas.

Part of that disbanding was also arresting head gang leaders. That didn't help. It actually destabilized the gangs and what we are seeing now is warfare that is determining new gang organization and turf lines.

There isn't a pro or anti gun law in the world that would have changed this so both sides of that debate need to shut their fool mouths.
 
2013-01-30 11:06:14 AM  
LUCKILY THE LIBERALS BANNED GUNS FROM CHICAGO OH WAIT.
 
2013-01-30 11:06:32 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: IlGreven: /NRA against every reasonable measure to curb gun violence, up to and including mental health screenings.

you are an idiot.  stop getting your talking points from Schultz and Madow, you are just embarrassing yourself.

The NRA has supported mental health as part of background checks.

They have been blocked by some states who are resisting.

Here, from libby MA


But they're not interested in actually having background checks.

"When it comes to the issue of background checks, let's be honest - background checks will never be 'universal' - because criminals will never submit to them," LaPierre's testimony reads.

And you actually believe they'll support something they call for? HA.

And in 2007, the NRA gutted a mental health screening law.

In order to get the support of the NRA, Congress agreed to two concessions that had long been on the agenda of gun rights advocates - concessions that later proved to hamstring the database.

The NRA wanted the government to change the way it deemed someone "mentally defective," excluding people, for example, who were no longer under any psychiatric supervision or monitoring. The group also pushed for a way for the mentally ill to regain gun rights if they could prove in court that they'd been rehabilitated.

Here's how it worked. It would cost money for states to share their data: A state agency would have to monitor the courts, collect the names of people who had been institutionalized, and then send that information to the FBI on a regular basis.

So, to help pay for data-sharing Congress created $375 million in annual federal grants and incentives. But to be eligible for the federal money, the states would have to set-up a gun restoration program approved by the Justice Department. No gun rights restoration program, no money to help pay for sharing data.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who once joked he'd like to bring a gun with him to the Senate floor, blocked the legislation, citing concerns about privacy and spending.

He negotiated language that, among other things, would allow a person's application for gun restoration rights to be granted automatically if an agency didn't respond within 365 days of the application and allowed people to have their attorney's fees reimbursed if they were forced to go to court to restore their rights.
 
2013-01-30 11:06:56 AM  
Is it just me, or with the Gun Ban/restrictions looming are people shooting each other at nearly record numbers?

It seems wiser to NOT shoot at everyone, to try and assure Congress to not ban guns. Instead, the morons are presenting an even greater case for the new restrictions.

Either that or shootings haven't increased but the press is making it seem like they have.

I read an article about a gang fight back a few months, where both gangs blasted at each other in a neighborhood using maybe 200 bullets. Close range too. They hit everything else except each other.

That sideways firing position is more of a hazard to anyone not in the line of fire.
 
2013-01-30 11:07:05 AM  
I blame rap music.
 
d23 [BareFark]
2013-01-30 11:07:24 AM  

odinsposse: FeFiFoFark: so with the combined massive Brainpower of Fark™, how about tossing out some solutions to this dilemma?

Basically, a lot more police. Hotspot policing and harassing known gang locations works but the city is in bad financial straits and can't really get a lot more. They disbanded their gang task force to get feet on the ground in a general way but that was pretty much the opposite of targeting high crime areas.

Part of that disbanding was also arresting head gang leaders. That didn't help. It actually destabilized the gangs and what we are seeing now is warfare that is determining new gang organization and turf lines.

There isn't a pro or anti gun law in the world that would have changed this so both sides of that debate need to shut their fool mouths.


Thunderdome, however...
 
2013-01-30 11:07:30 AM  
It always amazes me how difficult it is for some people to follow a simple chain of logic.

If firearms are plentiful and easy to obtain legally in your society, it then means that there is a plentiful supply of such legal weapons for criminals and the insane to buy, borrow or steal those firearms from the legal owners.

If firearms are rare and difficult to legally obtain in your society, then there is only a scarce supply of such legal weapons for criminals and the insane to buy, borrow or steal those firearms from the legal owners. In neither case is it legal for criminals or the insane to have guns. But only in the former case is it easy for them to get them anyhow.

This is the empirical result that every other nation in the world has discovered as a result of experimenting with gun control, and yet somehow Americans who argue against gun control cannot seem to understand it. It's really not that hard. Say what you will about the ideology or rights involved, many legal firearms means many firearm equipped criminals and insane individualss, few legal firearms means few firearm equipped criminals and insane individuals.

The only exception to this rule occurs when you have two locations close to each other, one with plentiful easy to acquire legal firearms, and one without. That results in smuggling of illegal weapons to profitably meet the black market demand. Much like how a great deal of Canadian criminals are armed with illegal weapons originally from legal American sources, or how areas with strict local gun control in the USA have issues with guns coming in from areas of the USA where the restrictions are much lower, to the point of near nonexistence. However, it is still the case that the existence of many illegal firearms is initially due to the presence of many legal firearms.

Guns don't manufacture themselves, and last time I checked gang-bangers and crazy people don't tend to be skilled gunsmiths. Almost all those firearms in the hands of criminals and the insane causing crime and violence were originally manufactured by a legal manufacturer for legal sale at a profit. As long as that plethora of legal firearms is not just accepted but glorified and fetishized, the violence and crime facilitated by illegal firearms will continue.

You can tell yourselves that's the price you have to pay for your 'freedom' if you must, but at least have the moral courage and honesty to acknowledge why it is happening in the first place.
 
2013-01-30 11:08:56 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [www.wnd.com image 607x405]
[www.wnd.com image 609x517]

Paradise.


White people need to step it up.
 
2013-01-30 11:09:04 AM  
Did it happen here?

nsfw language

Hilarity @ 3:30 mark

/you betta back it up
 
2013-01-30 11:09:32 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...

Because the very day a tragedy involving the use of guns happens, that's the right time to talk about more gun control as with Sandy Hook, but if circumstance shows that gun control is doing nothing, then it's "too soon" to talk about the problem with gun control, right?


Who said too soon? You could wait a hundred years and that talking point would still be stupid.

Localized gun laws are undermined by the ease in which weapons are brought into the controlled area. This is less of an issue with a National policy where illegal weapons would have to come across a controlled border.

Besides, if we had to wait a month from a shooting to discuss gun control, we could never discuss it.
 
2013-01-30 11:09:34 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

If only those kids had been armed.


Assuming this was gang related, someof them may havee been.
 
2013-01-30 11:09:41 AM  
I bet it comes out that the killing was contracted by a furiously jealous teen girl who hated the dead teen cos she "thought she was all that."

Or maybe the contractor's boyfriend/babydaddy was chasing after the dead teen.

Basically, Obama killed her, by inviting her to the inaugural, then letting her go back to Chicago.

So, ban Obama! Right?
 
2013-01-30 11:09:50 AM  

KiltedBastich: It always amazes me how difficult it is for some people to follow a simple chain of logic.

If firearms are plentiful and easy to obtain legally in your society, it then means that there is a plentiful supply of such legal weapons for criminals and the insane to buy, borrow or steal those firearms from the legal owners.

If firearms are rare and difficult to legally obtain in your society, then there is only a scarce supply of such legal weapons for criminals and the insane to buy, borrow or steal those firearms from the legal owners. In neither case is it legal for criminals or the insane to have guns. But only in the former case is it easy for them to get them anyhow.

This is the empirical result that every other nation in the world has discovered as a result of experimenting with gun control, and yet somehow Americans who argue against gun control cannot seem to understand it. It's really not that hard. Say what you will about the ideology or rights involved, many legal firearms means many firearm equipped criminals and insane individualss, few legal firearms means few firearm equipped criminals and insane individuals.

The only exception to this rule occurs when you have two locations close to each other, one with plentiful easy to acquire legal firearms, and one without. That results in smuggling of illegal weapons to profitably meet the black market demand. Much like how a great deal of Canadian criminals are armed with illegal weapons originally from legal American sources, or how areas with strict local gun control in the USA have issues with guns coming in from areas of the USA where the restrictions are much lower, to the point of near nonexistence. However, it is still the case that the existence of many illegal firearms is initially due to the presence of many legal firearms.

Guns don't manufacture themselves, and last time I checked gang-bangers and crazy people don't tend to be skilled gunsmiths. Almost all those firearms in the hands of criminals an ...


The prohibition on drugs has certainly worked, no?
 
2013-01-30 11:10:31 AM  
This has been said elsewhere, but I will repeat it here.
Chicago's gun ban can not work. Regardless of where you fall on gun control issues, it should be obvious that a city banning guns cannot keep them from coming in when the state itself and the neighboring states have loose gun laws and there is no "border check" to get in and out of the city. True gun control can only work at a national level, if at all.
 
2013-01-30 11:10:41 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...

Because the very day a tragedy involving the use of guns happens, that's the right time to talk about more gun control as with Sandy Hook, but if circumstance shows that gun control is doing nothing, then it's "too soon" to talk about the problem with gun control, right?

Yes exactly.
It is the way the liberal mind works:
1.  We must do something about X.
2.  Y is something
3.  Let's do Y!
4.  Oh look, we did something!  Yay for us.

It is an emptional response instead of an intellectual one.  They never stop to think about whether or not Y would actually solve the probem.


Meanwhile, the right-wing thought process is this:

1. We're being pushed to do something about X.
2. Y is something, but it's not a perfect solution that will eliminate X completely.
3. So fark it.

You even refer to "solv[ing] the problem." You aren't going to eradicate gun violence any more than you're going to completely stop drunk driving. The point is to reduce the scope of the problem and decrease the threat in the long term.

I'd say that stopping one mass shooting of kindergarteners would be a victory, but people like you will only support measures that end all mass shootings for all time but somehow don't involve any measure of firearm regulation.
 
2013-01-30 11:10:45 AM  

varmitydog: Hadiya Pendleton, honor student


Don't fret, she died feeding the tree of liberty. We should all be so lucky to die so gloriously.

/I'm a bit envious that these Chicago gang-bangers have so much ammo.
 
2013-01-30 11:10:46 AM  
The shooter is probably from Gary.

/ Go Railcats!
 
2013-01-30 11:11:52 AM  

Rik01: Is it just me, or with the Gun Ban/restrictions looming are people shooting each other at nearly record numbers?

It seems wiser to NOT shoot at everyone, to try and assure Congress to not ban guns. Instead, the morons are presenting an even greater case for the new restrictions.


It would seem wiser, wouldn't it.
 
2013-01-30 11:12:15 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Everyone seen carrying a gun should be shot.


Glad I carry concealed.
 
2013-01-30 11:12:36 AM  

FeFiFoFark: so with the combined massive Brainpower of Fark™, how about tossing out some solutions to this dilemma?


It starts at home. People raising their children to go after an education instead of easy money in a gang. Teach people job skills and instill the pride of hard work. Make the drug market non-existent so there is no reason to kill each other over territory.

But I'm a white dude in MD so it doesn't matter what I say
 
2013-01-30 11:12:44 AM  

KiltedBastich: It always amazes me how difficult it is for some people to follow a simple chain of logic.

If firearms are plentiful and easy to obtain legally in your society, it then means that there is a plentiful supply of such legal weapons for criminals and the insane to buy, borrow or steal those firearms from the legal owners.

If firearms are rare and difficult to legally obtain in your society, then there is only a scarce supply of such legal weapons for criminals and the insane to buy, borrow or steal those firearms from the legal owners. In neither case is it legal for criminals or the insane to have guns. But only in the former case is it easy for them to get them anyhow.

This is the empirical result that every other nation in the world has discovered as a result of experimenting with gun control, and yet somehow Americans who argue against gun control cannot seem to understand it. It's really not that hard. Say what you will about the ideology or rights involved, many legal firearms means many firearm equipped criminals and insane individualss, few legal firearms means few firearm equipped criminals and insane individuals.

The only exception to this rule occurs when you have two locations close to each other, one with plentiful easy to acquire legal firearms, and one without. That results in smuggling of illegal weapons to profitably meet the black market demand. Much like how a great deal of Canadian criminals are armed with illegal weapons originally from legal American sources, or how areas with strict local gun control in the USA have issues with guns coming in from areas of the USA where the restrictions are much lower, to the point of near nonexistence. However, it is still the case that the existence of many illegal firearms is initially due to the presence of many legal firearms.

Guns don't manufacture themselves, and last time I checked gang-bangers and crazy people don't tend to be skilled gunsmiths. Almost all those firearms in the hands of criminals an ...


If I didn't already have you favorited I would favorite you for that.
 
2013-01-30 11:12:51 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: tenpoundsofcheese: IlGreven: /NRA against every reasonable measure to curb gun violence, up to and including mental health screenings.

you are an idiot. stop getting your talking points from Schultz and Madow, you are just embarrassing yourself.

The NRA has supported mental health as part of background checks.

They have been blocked by some states who are resisting.

Here, from libby MA

But they're not interested in actually having background checks.

"When it comes to the issue of background checks, let's be honest - background checks will never be 'universal' - because criminals will never submit to them," LaPierre's testimony reads.


Oh look, failed reading comprehension AGAIN!
He didn't say they weren't interested in background checks, he said that background checks will never be universal (e.g. every gun transaction would have a background check) because criminals would avoid that.

Now, I didn't expect you would actually understand that since you get your news from a place called Talking Point Memo.
 
2013-01-30 11:13:13 AM  

WeenerGord: devilEther: cgraves67: Chacago: "You're safe here; guns are illegal"

all you got to do is buy them from a neighboring city where they are still legal. duh

You think gangbangers buy their guns only from legal sources? HAHA!

They wait for the background check too, right? HAHA!

Wise up America!


gangbangers shoot other gangbangers.

why not legalize rape since people are still being raped? maybe because it might deter at least one individual from doing it.
 
2013-01-30 11:13:18 AM  
Ed Grubermann

Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...

Yes we understand, you are very angry when facts are presented.
 
2013-01-30 11:13:21 AM  

miss diminutive: I drunk what: we should ban teens, girls, Obamas, Chicago, performances, fatalities

did i miss anything?

You forgot inaugurations.


He also forgot Poland.
 
2013-01-30 11:14:20 AM  
The solution to Chicago's problem is to make sure all the gang bangers have guns.

That way they'll all be polite to each other.
 
2013-01-30 11:14:45 AM  
Sounds like the shooter was going through a gang initiation.
 
2013-01-30 11:14:52 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: tenpoundsofcheese: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...

Because the very day a tragedy involving the use of guns happens, that's the right time to talk about more gun control as with Sandy Hook, but if circumstance shows that gun control is doing nothing, then it's "too soon" to talk about the problem with gun control, right?

Yes exactly.
It is the way the liberal mind works:
1.  We must do something about X.
2.  Y is something
3.  Let's do Y!
4.  Oh look, we did something!  Yay for us.

It is an emptional response instead of an intellectual one.  They never stop to think about whether or not Y would actually solve the probem.

Meanwhile, the right-wing thought process is this:

1. We're being pushed to do something about X.
2. Y is something, but it's not a perfect solution that will eliminate X completely.
3. So fark it.

You even refer to "solv[ing] the problem." You aren't going to eradicate gun violence any more than you're going to completely stop drunk driving. The point is to reduce the scope of the problem and decrease the threat in the long term.

I never said "X" was  "eradicate gun violence".  It could just as easily be "reduce it by 20%".

Your argument fails.  Again.
 
2013-01-30 11:14:59 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: Yes exactly.
It is the way the liberal mind works:
1.  We must do something about X.
2.  Y is something
3.  Let's do Y!
4.  Oh look, we did something!  Yay for us.

It is an emptional response instead of an intellectual one.  They never stop to think about whether or not Y would actually solve the probem.

Meanwhile, the right-wing thought process is this:

1. We're being pushed to do something about X.
2. Y is something, but it's not a perfect solution that will eliminate X completely.
3. So fark it.

You even refer to "solv[ing] the problem." You aren't going to eradicate gun violence any more than you're going to completely stop drunk driving. The point is to reduce the scope of the problem and decrease the threat in the long term.

I'd say that stopping one mass shooting of kindergarteners would be a victory, but people like you will only support measures that end all mass shootings for all time but somehow don't involve any measure of firearm regulation.


I'd argue that the the "Y is something, but it's not a perfect solution that will eliminate X completely" doesn't reflect anything that's being proposed. The "Y" that's being proposed has been shown to have absolutely no effect on firearm homicide rates in the history of our country, is unconsitutional (depending on the suggestion), is unenforceable, or is something that will do nothing but inconvenience law-abiding firearm owners in order to accomplish nothing. Especially when the proposals tend to float around "let's ban scary black looking rifles that are less powerful than normal hunting rifles".
 
2013-01-30 11:15:06 AM  

Verdelak: This has been said elsewhere, but I will repeat it here.
Chicago's gun ban can not work. Regardless of where you fall on gun control issues, it should be obvious that a city banning guns cannot keep them from coming in when the state itself and the neighboring states have loose gun laws and there is no "border check" to get in and out of the city. True gun control can only work at a national level, if at all.


the southern border is rock solid yo.
 
2013-01-30 11:15:28 AM  
BTW, here's a much better article.
 
2013-01-30 11:16:39 AM  
HotIgneous Intruder
Everyone seen carrying a gun should be shot.


So

1) bye bye police officers and soldiers

2) bye bye citizens allowed to carry depending on the county, city, state and

3) bye bye people who follow your directions and shoot people carrying a gun. Because they must be shot too. By your rules.
 
2013-01-30 11:16:47 AM  

Verdelak: This has been said elsewhere, but I will repeat it here.
Chicago's gun ban can not work. Regardless of where you fall on gun control issues, it should be obvious that a city banning guns cannot keep them from coming in when the state itself and the neighboring states have loose gun laws and there is no "border check" to get in and out of the city. True gun control can only work at a national level, if at all.


Are you saying people couldnt get guns from Mexico or South America?  Interesting viewpoint.
 
2013-01-30 11:17:12 AM  

GameSprocket: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...

Because the very day a tragedy involving the use of guns happens, that's the right time to talk about more gun control as with Sandy Hook, but if circumstance shows that gun control is doing nothing, then it's "too soon" to talk about the problem with gun control, right?

Who said too soon? You could wait a hundred years and that talking point would still be stupid.

Localized gun laws are undermined by the ease in which weapons are brought into the controlled area. This is less of an issue with a National policy where illegal weapons would have to come across a controlled border.

Besides, if we had to wait a month from a shooting to discuss gun control, we could never discuss it.


Let's see here..
ad hominem..Argument consisting of "laws are undermined by lawbreakers", so moar laws!..blatant lie.

Exactly the sort of response I expected!
 
2013-01-30 11:17:18 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

If only those kids had been armed.


Nobody I know is in favor of arming kids. And it is impossible to look at a situation that has already occurred and determine whether the outcome would have been different had there been an armed, law-abiding citizen present and able to respond. (Note that the phrase "law-abiding citizen" excludes children by default, because laws--even in jurisdictions where firearm carry is legal-- preclude children from carrying.)

Allowing law-abiding citizens to carry firearms has two separate effects. At the individual level, it enables a person to respond to a situation where a criminal endangers the life of that person or someone else. In the aggregate, it creates an environment of uncertainty in the minds of criminals who know that they may face an armed response.

In this situation, two things are certain:
1) The death of Hadiya Pendleton is a horrible tragedy
2) The person who shot her was certain that he would not face any kind of an armed response from a law-abiding citizen

Chicago does not have a gun problem, it has a criminal problem--one that the city's government seems to be either unwilling or unable to address. Until it does so, we will continue to see sad stories like this one.
 
2013-01-30 11:17:23 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [www.wnd.com image 607x405]
[www.wnd.com image 609x517]

Paradise.


.
While interviewing for my current job I was asked if I had any reservations about travel to Iraq or Afghanistan. I said no, just don't send me to Detroit or Chicago.
 
2013-01-30 11:17:58 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: He didn't say they weren't interested in background checks, he said that background checks will never be universal (e.g. every gun transaction would have a background check) because criminals would avoid that.


Which is why you should have a national gun registry where every ownership change is tracked, and if a gun is found after having been transferred illegally, the name and address of the person who first sold it illegally without the background check or transfer paperwork is readily available to law enforcement.
 
2013-01-30 11:18:34 AM  

mikefitz: LUCKILY THE LIBERALS BANNED GUNS FROM CHICAGO OH WAIT.


right-wing talk radio must repeat this over and over. your echochamber buddies have echoed this sentiment at least 20 times already in this thread alone. at least they didn't use all caps.
 
2013-01-30 11:18:58 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: cptjeff: Bubbarella: She shouldn't have been hanging out with gang members.

She wasn't. She was waiting with friends at a bus stop in a decent part of the city, and was hit by stray gunfire.

The man jumped a fence, shot at them, then jumped in a car and sped away.

That's not stray, that's deliberate.


Indications are that the intended target wasn't killed. This means that the shooter saw him in a crowd, didn't care about collateral damage, and popped off some rounds.

These people are making Al Capone look like a nice guy. Seriously. At least Capone's boys actually took the time to try to limit civilian casualties. Gang bangers don't care and should be hunted down with no mercy. Of course that will never happen, so we have what we have.
 
2013-01-30 11:19:25 AM  

varmitydog: [assets.dnainfo.com image 320x240]

Hadiya Pendleton, honor student



I'd hit it....with a 9mm.


/I was already going, one more won't make much difference
 
2013-01-30 11:20:05 AM  

ronaprhys: KiltedBastich: Guns don't manufacture themselves, and last time I checked gang-bangers and crazy people don't tend to be skilled gunsmiths

The prohibition on drugs has certainly worked, no?


Can you easily plant a seed and grow a gun?

Is anyone proposing making all civilian ownership of firearms illegal, with no exceptions? Are there proposals to confiscate and destroy all guns?

Then only way gun regulations are comparable to prohibition or the "war on drugs" would be if we were trying to ban all guns while guns continued to get through.

What would heroin and cocaine use look like if we only had the same regulations on them that guns currently have? You'd see people snorting coke rather than taking a smoke break at work.

The "perfect solution fallacy" is all the MAH GERNS crowd has.

"We can't eliminate gun violence, so why bother doing anything?"
 
2013-01-30 11:20:05 AM  

WeenerGord: This article states that

Many of the teens with Pendleton at the time of the shooting were believed to be gang members and left the scene, according to reports.

Wonder if some gangster got street cred for killing her? Wonder if some in the black community might hate her because she performed at the inaugural? The old crab in the bucket syndrome?


And I wonder if your mother's heroin use is responsible for your low brain activity.
 
2013-01-30 11:20:09 AM  

USP .45: Verdelak: This has been said elsewhere, but I will repeat it here.
Chicago's gun ban can not work. Regardless of where you fall on gun control issues, it should be obvious that a city banning guns cannot keep them from coming in when the state itself and the neighboring states have loose gun laws and there is no "border check" to get in and out of the city. True gun control can only work at a national level, if at all.

the southern border is rock solid yo.


Because Illinois is renowned for its lax firearms laws.
 
2013-01-30 11:20:11 AM  

KiltedBastich: If firearms are plentiful and easy to obtain legally in your society, it then means that there is a plentiful supply of such legal weapons for criminals and the insane to buy, borrow or steal those firearms from the legal owners.

If firearms are rare and difficult to legally obtain in your society, then there is only a scarce supply of such legal weapons for criminals and the insane to buy, borrow or steal those firearms from the legal owners. In neither case is it legal for criminals or the insane to have guns. But only in the former case is it easy for them to get them anyhow...Guns don't manufacture themselves, and last time I checked gang-bangers and crazy people don't tend to be skilled gunsmiths. Almost all those firearms in the hands of criminals an ...


Sorry, but the genie is out of the bottle and guns are already plentiful in our country. If they weren't a part of our culture and our Constitution I might be more apt to support gun control.

If your solution is for all law abiding people to willfully turn in their guns, then all the remaining guns will be owned by the disturbed, the criminals and the police. This seems like a great argument for an enhanced police state. If your idea is to take away everyone's guns by forced search and seizure, that is a police state. Fantastic ideas both of them and totally within the spirit of our country's founding. You should run for President.
 
2013-01-30 11:20:46 AM  

hdhale: AverageAmericanGuy: cptjeff: Bubbarella: She shouldn't have been hanging out with gang members.

She wasn't. She was waiting with friends at a bus stop in a decent part of the city, and was hit by stray gunfire.

The man jumped a fence, shot at them, then jumped in a car and sped away.

That's not stray, that's deliberate.

Indications are that the intended target wasn't killed. This means that the shooter saw him in a crowd, didn't care about collateral damage, and popped off some rounds.

These people are making Al Capone look like a nice guy. Seriously. At least Capone's boys actually took the time to try to limit civilian casualties. Gang bangers don't care and should be hunted down with no mercy. Of course that will never happen, so we have what we have.


You're assuming it's a gangbanger.
 
2013-01-30 11:20:46 AM  

ronaprhys: Especially when the proposals tend to float around "let's ban scary black looking rifles that are less powerful than normal hunting rifles".


yes, that is the emotional response from them again...ohh, scary.

It is also political theater for the left and fits in with their nanny mentality.
 
2013-01-30 11:20:57 AM  
"Gang bangers don't care and should be hunted down with no mercy."

Yes.

"Of course that will never happen, so we have what we have."

Also yes.
 
2013-01-30 11:21:05 AM  

varmitydog: [assets.dnainfo.com image 320x240]

Hadiya Pendleton, honor student


God damn it.
 
2013-01-30 11:21:25 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: tenpoundsofcheese: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...

Because the very day a tragedy involving the use of guns happens, that's the right time to talk about more gun control as with Sandy Hook, but if circumstance shows that gun control is doing nothing, then it's "too soon" to talk about the problem with gun control, right?

Yes exactly.
It is the way the liberal mind works:
1.  We must do something about X.
2.  Y is something
3.  Let's do Y!
4.  Oh look, we did something!  Yay for us.

It is an emptional response instead of an intellectual one.  They never stop to think about whether or not Y would actually solve the probem.

Meanwhile, the right-wing thought process is this:

1. We're being pushed to do something about X.
2. Y is something, but it's not a perfect solution that will eliminate X completely.
3. So fark it.

You even refer to "solv[ing] the problem." You aren't going to eradicate gun violence any more than you're going to completely stop drunk driving. The point is to reduce the scope of the problem and decrease the threat in the long term.

I'd say that stopping one mass shooting of kindergarteners would be a victory, but people like you will only support measures that end all mass shootings for all time but somehow don't involve any measure of firearm regulation.


That's not true. I haven't met a firearm owner yet who opposes closing loopholes for waiting periods and background checks. That was a good thing. But we all know that banning something doesn't fix anything. You will create a thriving black market and give mobsters and other criminals across the country a new racket. Blink twice if you understand.
 
2013-01-30 11:21:29 AM  
Obviously the only solution is to ban Liberals.
 
2013-01-30 11:21:39 AM  

KiltedBastich: If firearms are plentiful and easy to obtain legally in your society


Then the law abiding citizens can legally arm themselves in self defense. As they have to, when the cops and government don't get the job done.

But when the guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

Are you capable of understanding that?
 
2013-01-30 11:21:48 AM  

cptjeff: tenpoundsofcheese: He didn't say they weren't interested in background checks, he said that background checks will never be universal (e.g. every gun transaction would have a background check) because criminals would avoid that.

Which is why you should have a national gun registry where every ownership change is tracked, and if a gun is found after having been transferred illegally, the name and address of the person who first sold it illegally without the background check or transfer paperwork is readily available to law enforcement.


So in your world Eric Holder would prosecute himself? Follow that yellow brick road, Man,
 
2013-01-30 11:22:22 AM  

KiltedBastich: ...and last time I checked gang-bangers and crazy people don't tend to be skilled gunsmiths.


Only because they don't have to be. It's like pot smokers, they can't open a bag of chips, but when it comes to making devices for smoking dope they are MacGyver like.
 
2013-01-30 11:22:33 AM  

friedlinx: Did it happen here?

nsfw language

Hilarity @ 3:30 mark

/you betta back it up


No, that was in Atlanta.

Nice race baiting there.

/buh-bye
 
2013-01-30 11:23:22 AM  
mjones73: Why do laws overturned by the SCOTUS no longer work?

Riiiight. Before Hellier and McDonald, Chicago was such a peaceful place.


geek_mars

Nice job politicizing. This wasn't about policies or agendas from either side of the spectrum.
Bull s--t. FARK greenlighters have been masturbating over dead kids for weeks now.
In that same span we've had dozens of instances where firearms saved lives yet those posts never see the light of day and it isn't rare to see them deleted altogether.

Don't try to now say there's no agenda here. Agree with the agenda or not at least be honest enough to admit that's the reason for all the propaganda.
 
2013-01-30 11:23:32 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: You're assuming it's a gangbanger.


Pretty safe assumption.
 
2013-01-30 11:23:54 AM  

FeFiFoFark: so with the combined massive Brainpower of Fark™, how about tossing out some solutions to this dilemma?


NUKE IT FROM ORBIT
 
2013-01-30 11:24:11 AM  
Chicago is actually a wonderful and amazing world class city. It's clean, beautiful, full of culture, amazing restaurants, and a neverending list of things to do.

If you're white.

The problem is a few pockets that are South & West of downtown that are severely impoverished where some real life Mad Max shiat goes down daily. Gang warfare on a scale that's nearly unmatched anywhere in the country.

According to this article, more that 2 percent of the entire population of the city is in a gang.

static8.businessinsider.comView Full Size
 
2013-01-30 11:24:33 AM  

TheDumbBlonde: cptjeff: tenpoundsofcheese: He didn't say they weren't interested in background checks, he said that background checks will never be universal (e.g. every gun transaction would have a background check) because criminals would avoid that.

Which is why you should have a national gun registry where every ownership change is tracked, and if a gun is found after having been transferred illegally, the name and address of the person who first sold it illegally without the background check or transfer paperwork is readily available to law enforcement.

So in your world Eric Holder would prosecute himself? Follow that yellow brick road, Man,


Whatever you're smoking, I want some.
 
2013-01-30 11:24:53 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: rufus-t-firefly: tenpoundsofcheese: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...

Because the very day a tragedy involving the use of guns happens, that's the right time to talk about more gun control as with Sandy Hook, but if circumstance shows that gun control is doing nothing, then it's "too soon" to talk about the problem with gun control, right?

Yes exactly.
It is the way the liberal mind works:
1.  We must do something about X.
2.  Y is something
3.  Let's do Y!
4.  Oh look, we did something!  Yay for us.

It is an emptional response instead of an intellectual one.  They never stop to think about whether or not Y would actually solve the probem.

Meanwhile, the right-wing thought process is this:

1. We're being pushed to do something about X.
2. Y is something, but it's not a perfect solution that will eliminate X completely.
3. So fark it.

You even refer to "solv[ing] the problem." You aren't going to eradicate gun violence any more than you're going to completely stop drunk driving. The point is to reduce the scope of the problem and decrease the threat in the long term.

I never said "X" was  "eradicate gun violence".  It could just as easily be "reduce it by 20%".
Your argument fails.  Again.


First off, "Y" is the attempted solution in your example, not "X."

Your words:

They never stop to think about whether or not Y would actually solve the probem.

Solution: The method or process of solving a problem; he answer to or disposition of a problem.

You're talking about a solution, not mitigating the problem.
 
2013-01-30 11:25:31 AM  
rufus-t-firefly:Is anyone proposing making all civilian ownership of firearms illegal, with no exceptions? Are there proposals to confiscate and destroy all guns?

That is, without a doubt, the left wings intended goal in the U.S. Don't kid yourself.
 
2013-01-30 11:26:10 AM  
cptjeff

What strict gun control? One city having strict laws means absolutely nothing. Travel just outside the city, and you get the same lax gun laws as everywhere else.
Yet those places you enjoy pointing out have such "lax gun laws" don't have anywhere near this level of violence.

Your argument fails.
 
2013-01-30 11:26:39 AM  

kombat_unit: rufus-t-firefly:Is anyone proposing making all civilian ownership of firearms illegal, with no exceptions? Are there proposals to confiscate and destroy all guns?

That is, without a doubt, the left wings intended goal in the U.S. Don't kid yourself.


You're a moron, and you've been lied to.
 
2013-01-30 11:27:28 AM  

OnlyM3: cptjeff

What strict gun control? One city having strict laws means absolutely nothing. Travel just outside the city, and you get the same lax gun laws as everywhere else. Yet those places you enjoy pointing out have such "lax gun laws" don't have anywhere near this level of violence.

Your argument fails.


Only if you ignore any level of complexity above "rocks are hard".
 
2013-01-30 11:28:04 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: The "perfect solution fallacy" is all the MAH GERNS crowd has.


Even if that was true, it would still be better than the "do something that has been proven to do nothing, because it's better than doing nothing" proposal.
 
2013-01-30 11:28:52 AM  

odinsposse: Part of that disbanding was also arresting head gang leaders. That didn't help. It actually destabilized the gangs and what we are seeing now is warfare that is determining new gang organization and turf lines.


When Rudy Giuliani (love him or hate him) was Mayor of New York City, one of his first actions was telling the cops to bust the nickle & dime stuff. Until then law enforcement was all about "don't waste time and energy on the small stuff, go after the Kingpins and Apex Crime Lords". But that's bullshiat, because you take out #1, and there are several #2s waiting to take his place. So you get the petty punks and (1) it cleans up the place; and (2) you often find those punks have outstanding warrants on bigger stuff.


odinsposse: There isn't a pro or anti gun law in the world that would have changed this so both sides of that debate need to shut their fool mouths.


Oh you got that right.
 
2013-01-30 11:29:22 AM  

another cultural observer: USP .45: Verdelak: This has been said elsewhere, but I will repeat it here.
Chicago's gun ban can not work. Regardless of where you fall on gun control issues, it should be obvious that a city banning guns cannot keep them from coming in when the state itself and the neighboring states have loose gun laws and there is no "border check" to get in and out of the city. True gun control can only work at a national level, if at all.

the southern border is rock solid yo.

Because Illinois is renowned for its lax firearms laws.


I live in NY, so yes Illinois' gun laws are lax relative to mine and very lax relative to those of the city of Chicago itself.
Either way, the point still stands. You can ban every gun from Chicago, but if I can buy them elsewhere (Florida for example) and simply drive to Chicago with them, the ban is only useful for adding charges to traffic stops.
 
2013-01-30 11:29:29 AM  

China White Tea: I think of "decent neighborhoods in Chicago", I don't think of any further south than I-55.


How 'bout Hyde Park?
 
2013-01-30 11:29:37 AM  

cptjeff: kombat_unit: rufus-t-firefly:Is anyone proposing making all civilian ownership of firearms illegal, with no exceptions? Are there proposals to confiscate and destroy all guns?

That is, without a doubt, the left wings intended goal in the U.S. Don't kid yourself.

You're a moron, and you've been lied to.


Keep derping. It really helps.
 
2013-01-30 11:29:37 AM  
Yes, the people who appear on TV are more important than people who aren't. That's why their deaths are more politically valuable.

BONUS: She was on TV by virtue of basking in the radiance of His Benevolence, President Downgrade. That makes her extra-super-special.

However, the 100 or so people who died in the last 24 hours on government property somewhere in America as a result of the government's design of highways, the safety features of cars, and traffic rules are not politically important, were probably never on TV, and were never within spitting distance of President Putt-Putt, so they don't matter.

But, please, Proggies, while you ignore traffic deaths, the drug-control origins of most gun crimes, not to mention the vast number of medical error deaths that occur daily, tell us all once more how pure-hearted the Left's gun control motives are.
 
2013-01-30 11:29:46 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: ronaprhys: KiltedBastich: Guns don't manufacture themselves, and last time I checked gang-bangers and crazy people don't tend to be skilled gunsmiths

The prohibition on drugs has certainly worked, no?

Can you easily plant a seed and grow a gun?

Is anyone proposing making all civilian ownership of firearms illegal, with no exceptions? Are there proposals to confiscate and destroy all guns?

Then only way gun regulations are comparable to prohibition or the "war on drugs" would be if we were trying to ban all guns while guns continued to get through.

What would heroin and cocaine use look like if we only had the same regulations on them that guns currently have? You'd see people snorting coke rather than taking a smoke break at work.

The "perfect solution fallacy" is all the MAH GERNS crowd has.

"We can't eliminate gun violence, so why bother doing anything?"


Actually, manufacturing a firearm is very easy. Roughly as easy as manufacturing booze is or making refined drugs. Pot is certainly easier as it's just plant a seed, walk away, harvest (more work if you need to water it).

Additionally, 300 million or so already exist within our borders. As such, banning is an unenforceable and unworkable solution.

Also, don't strawman me. I never said don't do anything. Learn2Debate.
 
2013-01-30 11:30:07 AM  

KiltedBastich: It always amazes me how difficult it is for some people to follow a simple chain of logic.

If firearms are plentiful and easy to obtain legally in your society, it then means that there is a plentiful supply of such legal weapons for criminals and the insane to buy, borrow or steal those firearms from the legal owners.

If firearms are rare and difficult to legally obtain in your society, then there is only a scarce supply of such legal weapons for criminals and the insane to buy, borrow or steal those firearms from the legal owners. In neither case is it legal for criminals or the insane to have guns. But only in the former case is it easy for them to get them anyhow.

This is the empirical result that every other nation in the world has discovered as a result of experimenting with gun control, and yet somehow Americans who argue against gun control cannot seem to understand it. It's really not that hard. Say what you will about the ideology or rights involved, many legal firearms means many firearm equipped criminals and insane individualss, few legal firearms means few firearm equipped criminals and insane individuals.

The only exception to this rule occurs when you have two locations close to each other, one with plentiful easy to acquire legal firearms, and one without. That results in smuggling of illegal weapons to profitably meet the black market demand. Much like how a great deal of Canadian criminals are armed with illegal weapons originally from legal American sources, or how areas with strict local gun control in the USA have issues with guns coming in from areas of the USA where the restrictions are much lower, to the point of near nonexistence. However, it is still the case that the existence of many illegal firearms is initially due to the presence of many legal firearms.

Guns don't manufacture themselves, and last time I checked gang-bangers and crazy people don't tend to be skilled gunsmiths. Almost all those firearms in the hands of criminals an ...


this to infinity and beyond
 
2013-01-30 11:30:17 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [www.wnd.com image 607x405]
[www.wnd.com image 609x517]

Paradise.


What percentage of those murders were by guns? That may give a clue what to do.
 
2013-01-30 11:30:26 AM  
The canopy needs bullet proof walls.
 
2013-01-30 11:31:01 AM  
Gun control works!
 
2013-01-30 11:31:19 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: rufus-t-firefly: tenpoundsofcheese: IlGreven: /NRA against every reasonable measure to curb gun violence, up to and including mental health screenings.

you are an idiot. stop getting your talking points from Schultz and Madow, you are just embarrassing yourself.

The NRA has supported mental health as part of background checks.

They have been blocked by some states who are resisting.

Here, from libby MA

But they're not interested in actually having background checks.

"When it comes to the issue of background checks, let's be honest - background checks will never be 'universal' - because criminals will never submit to them," LaPierre's testimony reads.

Oh look, failed reading comprehension AGAIN!
He didn't say they weren't interested in background checks, he said that background checks will never be universal (e.g. every gun transaction would have a background check) because criminals would avoid that.

Now, I didn't expect you would actually understand that since you get your news from a place called Talking Point Memo.


Always attack the source, not the words. Good work. Would you prefer the Washington Post?

I notice you don't have an answer for the NRA's established tactic of weakening mental health screenings. Sure, they're "calling for" them, but they've "supported" such things in the past by making them weak and ineffective.

And as to your attempt at rebuttal: LaPierre is stating the NRA's position as opposed to universal background checks because they can't completely stop illegal gun purchases.

And you claim that other people have problems with reading comprehension?
 
2013-01-30 11:31:24 AM  
1418 dead since Sandy Hook
 
2013-01-30 11:31:41 AM  

cjsmith11878: Ban Chicago.


That would be a start.
Vitalis would take a hit, and the bullet makers, too.
But no farks would be given.
 
2013-01-30 11:31:42 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: rufus-t-firefly: The "perfect solution fallacy" is all the MAH GERNS crowd has.

Even if that was true, it would still be better than the "do something that has been proven to do nothing, because it's better than doing nothing" proposal.


How about we adopt some of those laws that have been proven to work then? Take Australia as a model, or anywhere in europe.

Because I see you defending the laws that are causing the problem, and opposing any and all efforts, even those that have been proven to work in many other settings, to make things better.
 
2013-01-30 11:32:14 AM  

cptjeff: AverageAmericanGuy: You're assuming it's a gangbanger.

Pretty safe assumption.


I'm not ready to make that assumption. Too many incidents lately which seem to be driving a narrative the administration desperately wants. There is no description of the shooter. No description of the escape vehicle.

So far the incidents have been setting up "your kids are at risk", "your neighbor can't be trusted with guns", "crazy survivalists will kidnap your kids". Now "even a girl this close to Obama is dead due to guns." All the pieces are falling into place perfectly. Public awareness and outrage is growing. The political will to enact gun control measures is growing. The gun advocates are finding their positions softening on who should be able to get guns (not the crazies!). Everything is moving very quickly in the direction of more gun control. I don't believe this to be an accident or coincidence.
 
2013-01-30 11:32:28 AM  
I've been seeing all these pictures comparing Chicago's homicide rate with other cities. So being a in an attempt to be knowledgeable, I decided to look it up for myself. Chicago (*3rd largest city @ 2.8 million) had over 500 homicides in 2012. Houston (*4th largest @ 2.2 million) had approximately 217 homicides in 2012. Chicago has the some of the most stringent gun control laws in the nation. And Houston's (to my knowledge) isn't any different from the state of Texas and of course isn't as stringent. The point. GUN CONTROL LAWS DON'T KEEP THE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO USE THEM IN VIOLENT CRIME FROM GETTING THEM! Mexico has very strict gun laws that obviously only keep them out of the hands of the law abiding citizens. The facts don't lie, that should b enough proof that extreme gun control laws DON'T WORK!
 
2013-01-30 11:32:34 AM  

Bubbarella: She shouldn't have been hanging out with gang members.


I thought everyone in Chicago was a gang member.

Judging by the upstream demographics, it appears that Chicago's black communities really need to get their shiat together. Chicago is turning into a Klansman's utopia. Black going to jail for killing blacks.
 
2013-01-30 11:32:39 AM  

give me doughnuts: Sounds like the shooter was going through a gang initiation.


So, Laura Bush can be blamed for this?
 
2013-01-30 11:33:07 AM  

WeenerGord: KiltedBastich: If firearms are plentiful and easy to obtain legally in your society

Then the law abiding citizens can legally arm themselves in self defense. As they have to, when the cops and government don't get the job done.

But when the guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

Are you capable of understanding that?


No, they don't understand that. They also don't understand that cutting and pasting our constitution because of an irritational emotional response is NOT a good idea. True, private citizens may never find the need to protect themselves from a foreign or domestic threat. But can they guarantee that for me? Can they guarantee that I will never need to defend myself? If so, then by all means, they can take away our guns. Take them all, melt them down into re-rod for all I care.

I really don't believe that Obama et. al. want to take away our guns because they're planning some hostile takeover Hitler-style or any other foil-capped nonsense. But if some foreign threat ever came, weather it's in five years or fifty, I'd rather die with a gun in my hand than in shackles. But that's just me.
 
2013-01-30 11:33:20 AM  

cptjeff: BraveNewCheneyWorld: rufus-t-firefly: The "perfect solution fallacy" is all the MAH GERNS crowd has.

Even if that was true, it would still be better than the "do something that has been proven to do nothing, because it's better than doing nothing" proposal.

How about we adopt some of those laws that have been proven to work then? Take Australia as a model, or anywhere in europe.

Because I see you defending the laws that are causing the problem, and opposing any and all efforts, even those that have been proven to work in many other settings, to make things better.


Those countries also don't have nearly the level of street gangs we have here. You can't make a comparison simply based on laws, there's more variables.
 
2013-01-30 11:33:21 AM  
Crap, left out the slashie

/just on my friend's facebook last week
 
2013-01-30 11:34:05 AM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: 1418 dead since Sandy Hook


Over 4,000 are dead because of car crashes since Sandy Hook.

A lot of them were kids, too.
 
2013-01-30 11:34:07 AM  

Verdelak: This has been said elsewhere, but I will repeat it here.
Chicago's gun ban can not work. Regardless of where you fall on gun control issues, it should be obvious that a city banning guns cannot keep them from coming in when the state itself and the neighboring states have loose gun laws and there is no "border check" to get in and out of the city. True gun control can only work at a national level, if at all.



Because we have such a good border control of the nation! Guns could never be brought in over the national border to arm terrorists, oh no! The national border is so secure! NOT!
 
2013-01-30 11:34:08 AM  

ronaprhys: rufus-t-firefly: ronaprhys: KiltedBastich: Guns don't manufacture themselves, and last time I checked gang-bangers and crazy people don't tend to be skilled gunsmiths

The prohibition on drugs has certainly worked, no?

Can you easily plant a seed and grow a gun?

Is anyone proposing making all civilian ownership of firearms illegal, with no exceptions? Are there proposals to confiscate and destroy all guns?

Then only way gun regulations are comparable to prohibition or the "war on drugs" would be if we were trying to ban all guns while guns continued to get through.

What would heroin and cocaine use look like if we only had the same regulations on them that guns currently have? You'd see people snorting coke rather than taking a smoke break at work.

The "perfect solution fallacy" is all the MAH GERNS crowd has.

"We can't eliminate gun violence, so why bother doing anything?"

Actually, manufacturing a firearm is very easy. Roughly as easy as manufacturing booze is or making refined drugs. Pot is certainly easier as it's just plant a seed, walk away, harvest (more work if you need to water it).

Additionally, 300 million or so already exist within our borders. As such, banning is an unenforceable and unworkable solution.

Also, don't strawman me. I never said don't do anything. Learn2Debate.


So, debate is dropping one sarcastic reference? Excellent work.

You referred to probation of drugs sarcastically. I pointed out that your reference was not applicable and intellectually weak.

If you want to debate, actually try making a legitimate point in the first place. Also, learn what a "strawman" actually is, because I didn't ascribe any views to you in my post.
 
2013-01-30 11:34:24 AM  

kombat_unit: cptjeff: kombat_unit: rufus-t-firefly:Is anyone proposing making all civilian ownership of firearms illegal, with no exceptions? Are there proposals to confiscate and destroy all guns?

That is, without a doubt, the left wings intended goal in the U.S. Don't kid yourself.

You're a moron, and you've been lied to.

Keep derping. It really helps.


So somehow your saying that everybody in favor of any gun control proposal, no matter how moderate, is trying to ban every gun ever isn't a massively stupid, extreme and ignorant remark?

Yeah, okay. Keep farking that chicken.
 
2013-01-30 11:34:35 AM  

kombat_unit: rufus-t-firefly:Is anyone proposing making all civilian ownership of firearms illegal, with no exceptions? Are there proposals to confiscate and destroy all guns?

That is, without a doubt, the left wings intended goal in the U.S. Don't kid yourself.


Or at least attempt it and ensure a republican majority for the next decade. Far right republicans are shiatting themselves in panic. Any republican toward the left of that is laughing his ass off and drooling over the donations coming in.
 
2013-01-30 11:34:35 AM  
devilEther

all you got to do is buy them from a neighboring city where they are still legal. duh

HotIgneous Intruder

Everyone seen carrying a gun should be shot.

The party of peace and tolerance the klan, slavery and lynching once again advocating murder. You're no longer "shocking" or "edgy" it's what we expect from your side of the spectrum.
 
2013-01-30 11:34:38 AM  
We don't seem to have problems tightly regulating the possession, storage, and transport of explosives like C4, Semtex, grenades, mines, RPGs, etc. These can all cause mass/capricious death.

Why can we do it for one dangerous set of items but not for guns?

Next question:

The 2nd Amendment was written when the hand-loaded flint lock musket was the primary weapon of choice. Cartridge ammo was not common.

Why not heavily regulate ammo, filled with an explosive, as we do other explosives instead of guns?
 
2013-01-30 11:34:40 AM  

cptjeff: Because I see you defending the laws that are causing the problem, and opposing any and all efforts, even those that have been proven to work in many other settings, to make things better.


Well, one step would be to remove ownership of specific consumer items from the US Constitution.
 
2013-01-30 11:35:03 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: WeenerGord: This article states that

Many of the teens with Pendleton at the time of the shooting were believed to be gang members and left the scene, according to reports.

Wonder if some gangster got street cred for killing her? Wonder if some in the black community might hate her because she performed at the inaugural? The old crab in the bucket syndrome?

And I wonder if your mother's heroin use is responsible for your low brain activity.



Were you looking in a mirror when you typed that? Not everyone is like you.
 
2013-01-30 11:35:35 AM  

kombat_unit: rufus-t-firefly:Is anyone proposing making all civilian ownership of firearms illegal, with no exceptions? Are there proposals to confiscate and destroy all guns?

That is, without a doubt, the left wings intended goal in the U.S. Don't kid yourself.


I didn't get the memo. Someone better have a god damned good reason for not informing me of our ultimate goal.
 
2013-01-30 11:35:37 AM  

cptjeff: BraveNewCheneyWorld: rufus-t-firefly: The "perfect solution fallacy" is all the MAH GERNS crowd has.

Even if that was true, it would still be better than the "do something that has been proven to do nothing, because it's better than doing nothing" proposal.

How about we adopt some of those laws that have been proven to work then? Take Australia as a model, or anywhere in europe.

Because I see you defending the laws that are causing the problem, and opposing any and all efforts, even those that have been proven to work in many other settings, to make things better.


Australia's model is unconstitutional, under our Constitution (not theirs). I've not seen a set of laws in Europe that would pass Constitutional muster, either. If you want to go with a suggestion that repeals the 2A, then state that up front and propose it at such.
 
2013-01-30 11:36:09 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Too many incidents lately which seem to be driving a narrative the administration desperately wants.


These incidents have always been there, the media and the public are just paying more attention.

Yes, calling attention to and reporting on a problem helps drive political will to address the problem, but it doesn't mean the problem is new. This has been going on for a very long time.
 
2013-01-30 11:37:25 AM  

another cultural observer: USP .45: Verdelak: This has been said elsewhere, but I will repeat it here.
Chicago's gun ban can not work. Regardless of where you fall on gun control issues, it should be obvious that a city banning guns cannot keep them from coming in when the state itself and the neighboring states have loose gun laws and there is no "border check" to get in and out of the city. True gun control can only work at a national level, if at all.

the southern border is rock solid yo.

Because Illinois is renowned for its lax firearms laws.


If you are a legal gun owner in Michigan and you decide to move to Illinois, you are a criminal the moment you cross the border unless you somehow managed to apply for an Illinois FOID card and wait 6 weeks before moving here...if you can even do that as a Michigan resident. That's Illinois at work.

OK i just checked and the IL FOID app says "Mailing Address (Illinois Residency Required)"! What the fark is wrong with this state. So I guess you need t leave your guns in a secret location, move here, apply for your FOID, and only then can you legally bring your guns home.
 
2013-01-30 11:37:40 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: I didn't get the memo. Someone better have a god damned good reason for not informing me of our ultimate goal.


You're what's known as a Useful Idiot.

That's why you don't get the memos.
 
2013-01-30 11:38:05 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: So, debate is dropping one sarcastic reference? Excellent work.

You referred to probation of drugs sarcastically. I pointed out that your reference was not applicable and intellectually weak.

If you want to debate, actually try making a legitimate point in the first place. Also, learn what a "strawman" actually is, because I didn't ascribe any views to you in my post.


Actually, my reference (though sarcastic) is not weak. Not at all. I gave reasons in the post you just replied to. You've ignored those.

You clearly reference the mah gerns crowd to include me and my arguments. That would be strawmanning me as that's not what I've said. Again, Learn2Debate.
 
2013-01-30 11:39:18 AM  

cptjeff: AverageAmericanGuy: Too many incidents lately which seem to be driving a narrative the administration desperately wants.

These incidents have always been there, the media and the public are just paying more attention.

Yes, calling attention to and reporting on a problem helps drive political will to address the problem, but it doesn't mean the problem is new. This has been going on for a very long time.


You say the media is driving the narrative. I say the administration is carrying out targeted incidents to drive the narrative.

Potato/Tomahto
 
2013-01-30 11:39:31 AM  

Verdelak: another cultural observer: USP .45: Verdelak: This has been said elsewhere, but I will repeat it here.
Chicago's gun ban can not work. Regardless of where you fall on gun control issues, it should be obvious that a city banning guns cannot keep them from coming in when the state itself and the neighboring states have loose gun laws and there is no "border check" to get in and out of the city. True gun control can only work at a national level, if at all.

the southern border is rock solid yo.

Because Illinois is renowned for its lax firearms laws.

I live in NY, so yes Illinois' gun laws are lax relative to mine and very lax relative to those of the city of Chicago itself.
Either way, the point still stands. You can ban every gun from Chicago, but if I can buy them elsewhere (Florida for example) and simply drive to Chicago with them, the ban is only useful for adding charges to traffic stops.


If the State amped up the penalties for possessing illegal weapons, the gun ban would be more than just an addition to a traffic stop, and would change the culture around guns without making them more difficult for law abiders to acquire

Example: Q murders A. Police arrive. Q is charged with murder 1 and possessing an illegal firearm. The State cannot prove murder 1, because J was also there, and also had a gun of similar make. Q goes to prison for life anyway because he was found in possession of an illegal, loaded firearm.

The extra prisons will generate new public sector jobs!

key:

Q = Quantrell
A = Arzavius
J = Juan
 
2013-01-30 11:39:46 AM  
Delay

What percentage of those murders were by guns? That may give a clue what to do.
I'd say exactly zero of those murders were committed by firearms. I'd bet that every one of them was committed by a person. I'd also bet you could narrow that even further.
 
2013-01-30 11:39:59 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: GameSprocket: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...

Because the very day a tragedy involving the use of guns happens, that's the right time to talk about more gun control as with Sandy Hook, but if circumstance shows that gun control is doing nothing, then it's "too soon" to talk about the problem with gun control, right?

Who said too soon? You could wait a hundred years and that talking point would still be stupid.

Localized gun laws are undermined by the ease in which weapons are brought into the controlled area. This is less of an issue with a National policy where illegal weapons would have to come across a controlled border.

Besides, if we had to wait a month from a shooting to discuss gun control, we could never discuss it.

Let's see here..
ad hominem..Argument consisting of "laws are undermined by lawbreakers", so moar laws!..blatant lie.

Exactly the sort of response I expected!


So you don't know what an ad hominem attack is, and you lack the reading comprehension to address my point.

I suspect one of your mother's johns may have been a relative.

/That is an ad hominem attack, just so you know. Saying your point was stupid is just rational thought.
 
2013-01-30 11:40:02 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [www.wnd.com image 607x405]
[www.wnd.com image 609x517]

Paradise.


The Afghanistan/Chicago comparison is totally dishonest; it's not per capita, doesn't include civilian deaths and is playing loose with the definition of murder.
 
2013-01-30 11:40:08 AM  

Jesda: Gun control works!


Since people still die in hospitals we should do away with hospitals and medicine.

Derp.
 
2013-01-30 11:40:30 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: Is anyone proposing making all civilian ownership of firearms illegal, with no exceptions?


Yes.
 
2013-01-30 11:42:14 AM  
we're getting off track here.

Ban Chicago.
 
2013-01-30 11:42:17 AM  

devilEther: WeenerGord: devilEther: cgraves67: Chacago: "You're safe here; guns are illegal"

all you got to do is buy them from a neighboring city where they are still legal. duh

You think gangbangers buy their guns only from legal sources? HAHA!

They wait for the background check too, right? HAHA!

Wise up America!

gangbangers shoot other gangbangers.

why not legalize rape since people are still being raped? maybe because it might deter at least one individual from doing it.



Laws only restrain decent, law abiding citizens. Other methods are required for those who are neither. Murder and rape are both illegal, and should be. It's very stupid of you to suggest legalizing rape. But no doubt the gangbangers would support your position.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. A gun is just a tool. If you take away guns, the murderers will find other ways to kill. Stop worrying about the guns and focus on the murderers.
 
2013-01-30 11:42:18 AM  

FeFiFoFark: so with the combined massive Brainpower of Fark™, how about tossing out some solutions to this dilemma?


Honest non drama queen nutbaggy answer - Keep doing what we are doing, since the violent crime rate has been falling dramatically for decades. In recent months however, select crimes have gotten disproportionate coverage. It sells - both money and political agenda currency. Some cities such as Chicago and Detroit have bucked this trend with steady rates of violence. Those cities already have some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, so this doesn't seem to suggest that passing more gun control laws is the entire answer. I would suggest continuing to focus on the economy, and not let the media distract the nation with a partisan shouting match. 5 year olds, and partisan shills will fall for it. Those with common sense will stay focused on real issues.
 
2013-01-30 11:42:37 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: cptjeff: AverageAmericanGuy: Too many incidents lately which seem to be driving a narrative the administration desperately wants.

These incidents have always been there, the media and the public are just paying more attention.

Yes, calling attention to and reporting on a problem helps drive political will to address the problem, but it doesn't mean the problem is new. This has been going on for a very long time.

You say the media is driving the narrative. I say thesome elements within the administration isare carrying out targeted incidents to drive the narrative.

Potato/Tomahto


FTFM. I'm not saying that Obama is behind these attacks and calling the shots.
 
2013-01-30 11:43:52 AM  

ronaprhys: cptjeff: BraveNewCheneyWorld: rufus-t-firefly: The "perfect solution fallacy" is all the MAH GERNS crowd has.

Even if that was true, it would still be better than the "do something that has been proven to do nothing, because it's better than doing nothing" proposal.

How about we adopt some of those laws that have been proven to work then? Take Australia as a model, or anywhere in europe.

Because I see you defending the laws that are causing the problem, and opposing any and all efforts, even those that have been proven to work in many other settings, to make things better.

Australia's model is unconstitutional, under our Constitution (not theirs). I've not seen a set of laws in Europe that would pass Constitutional muster, either. If you want to go with a suggestion that repeals the 2A, then state that up front and propose it at such.


The Supreme Court has explicitly said that some restrictions on the right to own guns are perfectly permissible under the 2nd Amendment. I've proposed a lot of solutions in these various gun threads that don't even come close to violating the 2nd Amendment (universal background checks, a national database with immediate reporting on any change in ownership including loss or theft, empowering law enforcement to use that database to track patterns and crack down on straw purchases). I'm not proposing we take any other country's laws wholesale, I'm saying that you can look at them, see what works, and adapt them to the United States in a form that makes sense and allows the forms of gun ownership we think are appropriate to preserve.
 
2013-01-30 11:44:55 AM  

WeenerGord: A gun is just a tool.


Then gun ownership should not be in the constitution. Trowels aren't. What makes guns so special? They are effective in killing. That's their purpose.
 
2013-01-30 11:45:23 AM  

Joe Blowme: justtray: mjones73: Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...

For stating the obvious?

Are you an idiot?

So now correlation equals causation? Okay good, then we have 4x the homicide rate as the UK because we can get guns way easier, having a gun around you makes you more likely to kill your family than an intruder, southern states with more lax gun control have higher homicide rates than even Illinois, New York, etc because they have more lax gun control, and CCW holders are just as likely to commit homicide by gun on another person than non, meaning despite alleged higher responsibility, they're actually equal or more prone to shooting other people.

Now shut up or GTFO.

Sounds like you have gunaphobia, get help


The correct term is hoplophobia. It is a well documented mental disorder
 
2013-01-30 11:45:27 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: kombat_unit: rufus-t-firefly:Is anyone proposing making all civilian ownership of firearms illegal, with no exceptions? Are there proposals to confiscate and destroy all guns?

That is, without a doubt, the left wings intended goal in the U.S. Don't kid yourself.

I didn't get the memo. Someone better have a god damned good reason for not informing me of our ultimate goal.


Just shows you're not important enough to the left wing. Whinge on dkos harder maybe?
 
2013-01-30 11:46:12 AM  

Phinn: Princess Ryans Knickers: 1418 dead since Sandy Hook

Over 4,000 are dead because of car crashes since Sandy Hook.

A lot of them were kids, too.


Citation needed.
 
2013-01-30 11:47:08 AM  
the number of people who publicly say they want reasonable gun control but privately (or publicly, under other circumstances) will tell you nobody needs a gun except the police is probably about the same as the number of people who publicly push for reasonable measures such as banning partial birth abortion or other late term abortion, and protecting babies from botched abortions, but will in other circumstance argue against all abortion rights.

That is how assholes attempt to deny us rights affirmed by the constitution. They can't attack it head on and win so they nibble around the edges and attempt to make baby steps.
 
2013-01-30 11:47:12 AM  

jaybeezey: Bubbarella: She shouldn't have been hanging out with gang members.

I thought everyone in Chicago was a gang member.

Judging by the upstream demographics, it appears that Chicago's black communities really need to get their shiat together. Chicago is turning into a Klansman's utopia. Black going to jail for killing blacks.


You sound...concerned.
 
2013-01-30 11:47:14 AM  

Delay: WeenerGord: A gun is just a tool.

Then gun ownership should not be in the constitution. Trowels aren't. What makes guns so special? They are effective in killing. That's their purpose.


Then quit being lazy and amend the Constitution.
 
2013-01-30 11:48:20 AM  

Big_Fat_Liar: another cultural observer: USP .45: Verdelak: This has been said elsewhere, but I will repeat it here.
Chicago's gun ban can not work. Regardless of where you fall on gun control issues, it should be obvious that a city banning guns cannot keep them from coming in when the state itself and the neighboring states have loose gun laws and there is no "border check" to get in and out of the city. True gun control can only work at a national level, if at all.

the southern border is rock solid yo.

Because Illinois is renowned for its lax firearms laws.

If you are a legal gun owner in Michigan and you decide to move to Illinois, you are a criminal the moment you cross the border unless you somehow managed to apply for an Illinois FOID card and wait 6 weeks before moving here...if you can even do that as a Michigan resident. That's Illinois at work.

OK i just checked and the IL FOID app says "Mailing Address (Illinois Residency Required)"! What the fark is wrong with this state. So I guess you need t leave your guns in a secret location, move here, apply for your FOID, and only then can you legally bring your guns home.


There is a 60 day grace period if you are moving to Illinois in regards to getting a FOID card.

http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/firearmsfaq.cfm See the second item "Who needs a FOID card"
 
2013-01-30 11:48:42 AM  
I think the solution is mandatory target practice for all gang members. Let's make them more efficient at taking each other out.
 
2013-01-30 11:49:45 AM  

ronaprhys: The prohibition on drugs has certainly worked, no?


Hey look, a false analogy fallacy. Guns are not drugs. Those who buy them, those who sell them and how they are used and for what purposes are all very different. And as the rest of the world can tell you, gun control does work if you are consistent and pragmatic about your regulations.

elysive: Sorry, but the genie is out of the bottle and guns are already plentiful in our country. If they weren't a part of our culture and our Constitution I might be more apt to support gun control.

If your solution is for all law abiding people to willfully turn in their guns, then all the remaining guns will be owned by the disturbed, the criminals and the police. This seems like a great argument for an enhanced police state. If your idea is to take away everyone's guns by forced search and seizure, that is a police state. Fantastic ideas both of them and totally within the spirit of our country's founding. You should run for President.


Ah, so because the problem is large, you should not bother making any efforts to fix things? You're not in favor of long-term thinking, I see. You have made your mess, you will have to deal with the bitter dregs of it as you clean it up. If you bring down the number of legal guns, yes, that could mean that for a time there will be more guns in the hands of criminals and the insane. And then those guns will be lost, broken or confiscated, and they would not be able to replace them because the legal supply they depended on as their source would be gone.

It could also mean that you simply reduce the supply of new legal guns to near zero, and then try to bring down the rate of legal guns in private ownership slowly while doing the same thing with the supply of illegal firearms. There are solutions paths that are not absolutes, you know. Another failing I commonly see in pro-gun advocates is such black and white absolute thinking.

You know, this is exactly the phenomenon that every other modern first world nation that had to grapple with this issue faced, if on a smaller scale; none of them have let it get quite so out of hand as the USA has. They found solutions. Are you saying the USA is not competent to do what other nations have done successfully? Including pro-gun countries like Israel and Switzerland?

And for the record, your ethnocentrism is showing. Why do you assume I am an American? I am not. I am a Canadian. Perhaps you overlooked the way I was saying "your society"? That's a big part of the reason that I am familiar with the fact that gun control does mitigate the problems your society is currently facing, and how a large supply of legal guns is the source of the large supply of illegal guns. A great deal of the gun violence in Canada is done with illegal guns that were formerly legal American guns. And even with that fact, our rates of gun violence are enormously less than yours. Because sensible gun regulations that still let the people who actually need to have guns have them actually does resolve a lot of the problems, despite what your ideological pro-gun pundits may tell you.
 
2013-01-30 11:50:08 AM  

EyeballKid: give me doughnuts: Sounds like the shooter was going through a gang initiation.

So, Laura Bush can be blamed for this?


She's a known killer.
 
2013-01-30 11:51:02 AM  

KiltedBastich: Why do you assume I am an American? I am not. I am a Canadian. Perhaps you overlooked the way I was saying "your society"?


Hey. Settle down. Reading comprehension isn't one of our strong suits.
 
2013-01-30 11:51:03 AM  

Big_Fat_Liar: another cultural observer: USP .45: Verdelak: This has been said elsewhere, but I will repeat it here.
Chicago's gun ban can not work. Regardless of where you fall on gun control issues, it should be obvious that a city banning guns cannot keep them from coming in when the state itself and the neighboring states have loose gun laws and there is no "border check" to get in and out of the city. True gun control can only work at a national level, if at all.

the southern border is rock solid yo.

Because Illinois is renowned for its lax firearms laws.

If you are a legal gun owner in Michigan and you decide to move to Illinois, you are a criminal the moment you cross the border unless you somehow managed to apply for an Illinois FOID card and wait 6 weeks before moving here...if you can even do that as a Michigan resident. That's Illinois at work.

OK i just checked and the IL FOID app says "Mailing Address (Illinois Residency Required)"! What the fark is wrong with this state. So I guess you need t leave your guns in a secret location, move here, apply for your FOID, and only then can you legally bring your guns home.


When you've finally got your FOID and you're ready to transport your gun, be sure to separate your gun and ammunition. Because using one locked case to transport both the gun and the ammunition is reckless in the extreme, and should be a felony.

And if you want to buy a gun in Illinois, travel 2 hours to the gun store. Spend time looking at their wares. Pick out your gun. Pay for the gun. Then travel 2 hours back home. Wait three days. Travel 2 hours back to the gun store. Pick up your gun. Travel 2 hours back home.

The Gas Station lobby must have had something to do with that 3-day wait rule...
 
2013-01-30 11:51:25 AM  

Verdelak: another cultural observer: USP .45: Verdelak: This has been said elsewhere, but I will repeat it here.
Chicago's gun ban can not work. Regardless of where you fall on gun control issues, it should be obvious that a city banning guns cannot keep them from coming in when the state itself and the neighboring states have loose gun laws and there is no "border check" to get in and out of the city. True gun control can only work at a national level, if at all.

the southern border is rock solid yo.

Because Illinois is renowned for its lax firearms laws.

I live in NY, so yes Illinois' gun laws are lax relative to mine and very lax relative to those of the city of Chicago itself.
Either way, the point still stands. You can ban every gun from Chicago, but if I can buy them elsewhere (Florida for example) and simply drive to Chicago with them, the ban is only useful for adding charges to traffic stops.


Exactly. If we banned them across the entire country then it would actually work. I mean, when was the last time you heard about somebody getting their hands on some meth? That shiat practically doesn't exist anymore, and it is only because we banned it.
 
2013-01-30 11:51:35 AM  

signaljammer: China White Tea: I think of "decent neighborhoods in Chicago", I don't think of any further south than I-55.

How 'bout Hyde Park?


Hyde Park itself isn't bad, but a lot of the areas that border it are pretty poor. Every rule has its exceptions, of course, but my don't-get-murdered-in-Chicago rule reads as follows:
Step 1. Stay north of I-55
Step 2. Stay east of 90/94.

This is a little dated (c. 2010), but really illustrates the point pretty well: Link
 
2013-01-30 11:52:40 AM  

Loucifer: Ban Chicago.

 
2013-01-30 11:52:46 AM  

give me doughnuts: EyeballKid: give me doughnuts: Sounds like the shooter was going through a gang initiation.

So, Laura Bush can be blamed for this?

She's a known killer.


Obama did it. It is all part of his master plan to outlaw guns and force republicans into FEMA camps where they will be taught to accept their gayness.
 
2013-01-30 11:52:58 AM  

WeenerGord: DROxINxTHExWIND: WeenerGord: This article states that

Many of the teens with Pendleton at the time of the shooting were believed to be gang members and left the scene, according to reports.

Wonder if some gangster got street cred for killing her? Wonder if some in the black community might hate her because she performed at the inaugural? The old crab in the bucket syndrome?

And I wonder if your mother's heroin use is responsible for your low brain activity.


Were you looking in a mirror when you typed that? Not everyone is like you.


The old, "I'm rubber, you're glue". Yeah, that's about what I expected. So, I see you're into elevating yourself above the black community so that you and other broke white people can feel better about your own failures. How's that working out?
 
2013-01-30 11:53:00 AM  
Did anyone say "Ban Chicago"? Cause if not, "Ban Chicago".

/How many times did I say it?
 
2013-01-30 11:53:02 AM  

umad: Verdelak: another cultural observer: USP .45: Verdelak: This has been said elsewhere, but I will repeat it here.
Chicago's gun ban can not work. Regardless of where you fall on gun control issues, it should be obvious that a city banning guns cannot keep them from coming in when the state itself and the neighboring states have loose gun laws and there is no "border check" to get in and out of the city. True gun control can only work at a national level, if at all.

the southern border is rock solid yo.

Because Illinois is renowned for its lax firearms laws.

I live in NY, so yes Illinois' gun laws are lax relative to mine and very lax relative to those of the city of Chicago itself.
Either way, the point still stands. You can ban every gun from Chicago, but if I can buy them elsewhere (Florida for example) and simply drive to Chicago with them, the ban is only useful for adding charges to traffic stops.

Exactly. If we banned them across the entire country then it would actually work. I mean, when was the last time you heard about somebody getting their hands on some meth? That shiat practically doesn't exist anymore, and it is only because we banned it.


Yes, but you can't make your own guns. Ignore "garage guns", ignore Chechen AK-47's made out of shoddy pinball machine parts and rubber bands. Once it's a nationwide ban, people will not use the internet to gain the knowhow to manufacture their own, untraceable guns.
 
2013-01-30 11:53:08 AM  

broken jebus: I think the solution is mandatory target practice for all gang members. Let's make them more efficient at taking each other out.


Lesson 1- Cred > style: don't hold your weapon sideways.
 
2013-01-30 11:53:28 AM  

Phinn: Over 4,000 are dead because of car crashes since Sandy Hook.

A lot of them were kids, too.


Clearly, then, we should abolish any and all traffic laws. They don't stop all road fatalities, and they get in the way of my FREEEEEEEDOOOOOOOMMM to do doughnuts on the interstate after having downed a fifth of Jim Beam.
 
2013-01-30 11:53:41 AM  

ethics-gradient: factoryconnection: What the living hell is wrong with people? Charge at a group of kids huddled in the rain and just start firing? Although I assume this is personal, the wanton disregard for any sort of humanity is still appalling. I hate these "I have a beef with someone you know/love, now you die!" stories that come out of the dregs of society and gangster movies.

I know, in our rarer shootings and gang murders here in the UK the same attitude is displayed. Is it a sort of massive arrogance? "I'm so important that I'll risk the lives of innocent bystanders who are nothing to do with my beef."? Or is it retarded deludedness: "I'm such an incredibly good shot despite not knowing shiat about guns nor ever having bothered to learn."?
Personally I think massive ignorance breeds massive arrogance.


No, I suspect it's more "Life is cheap and worthless and miserable for me, and I can't imagine it being any different for anyone else."

At least in the States, any attempt whatsoever to address the question of life being perceived as cheap and worthless is howled down by the Puritans on both sides of the political debate -- either through "not one penny for those goddamn parasites", or "we know all about how to make it better for you and you'll do what we goddamn tell you before we help."
 
2013-01-30 11:53:55 AM  

KiltedBastich: Why do you assume I am an American? I am not. I am a Canadian.


Well, then you're a godless commie whose opinion should be ignored on all subjects, of course.

\And the Habs suck.
 
2013-01-30 11:54:09 AM  

another cultural observer: Big_Fat_Liar: another cultural observer: USP .45: Verdelak: This has been said elsewhere, but I will repeat it here.
Chicago's gun ban can not work. Regardless of where you fall on gun control issues, it should be obvious that a city banning guns cannot keep them from coming in when the state itself and the neighboring states have loose gun laws and there is no "border check" to get in and out of the city. True gun control can only work at a national level, if at all.

the southern border is rock solid yo.

Because Illinois is renowned for its lax firearms laws.

If you are a legal gun owner in Michigan and you decide to move to Illinois, you are a criminal the moment you cross the border unless you somehow managed to apply for an Illinois FOID card and wait 6 weeks before moving here...if you can even do that as a Michigan resident. That's Illinois at work.

OK i just checked and the IL FOID app says "Mailing Address (Illinois Residency Required)"! What the fark is wrong with this state. So I guess you need t leave your guns in a secret location, move here, apply for your FOID, and only then can you legally bring your guns home.

When you've finally got your FOID and you're ready to transport your gun, be sure to separate your gun and ammunition. Because using one locked case to transport both the gun and the ammunition is reckless in the extreme, and should be a felony.

And if you want to buy a gun in Illinois, travel 2 hours to the gun store. Spend time looking at their wares. Pick out your gun. Pay for the gun. Then travel 2 hours back home. Wait three days. Travel 2 hours back to the gun store. Pick up your gun. Travel 2 hours back home.

The Gas Station lobby must have had something to do with that 3-day wait rule...


Illinois residents are obviously driving out of the state, legally purchasing handguns from gun stores in states without such restrictions, and then driving them into Chicago to sell to criminals.
 
2013-01-30 11:54:16 AM  

geek_mars: clane: When extreme Liberals dominate politics in a city for years it becomes so very sad....

D-Liver
Nice job politicizing. This wasn't about policies or agendas from either side of the spectrum.


clane:
So you're saying the order in which a government manages a city has zero effect on crime? Go back to sleep...
 
2013-01-30 11:54:23 AM  

ScouserDuck: IlGreven: Keep defending your gun rights to the hilt, Wayne. You'll get counter-examples every day.

/NRA against every reasonable measure to curb gun violence, up to and including mental health screenings.
//Mainly because they have many health organizations and more than a few insurance companies on their "Enemies of the 2nd Amendment" blacklist.

This absolutely a counter example....of how strict gun control doesn't work.


So arm teenage girls? Is that your solution?
 
2013-01-30 11:56:27 AM  

Phinn: Princess Ryans Knickers: 1418 dead since Sandy Hook

Over 4,000 are dead because of car crashes since Sandy Hook.

A lot of them were kids, too.


False equivalency is false.

Cars aren't solely intended to kill or maim people. That's why "car crashes" are called "accidents" sometimes. On the other hand, a gun's primary function is to kill or hurt someone with a simple trigger pull.
 
2013-01-30 11:56:50 AM  
I've been hit!
--Where?
On the South Side!
 
2013-01-30 11:57:29 AM  

kombat_unit: Delay: WeenerGord: A gun is just a tool.

Then gun ownership should not be in the constitution. Trowels aren't. What makes guns so special? They are effective in killing. That's their purpose.

Then quit being lazy and amend the Constitution.


"The Second Amendment is like the crazy uncle living in the attic. Nobody wants to address the problem, so we just accept the absurdity of a constitional amendment that protects unfettered [individual] gun ownership. Courts have chipped away at the right over the years - gone are the rights to own machine guns, sawed off shotguns, shoulder-launched surface-to-air-missles and suitcase nukes." Link

Maybe the courts should chip away a little more and interpret the 2nd amendment as a group right, not an individual right.
 
2013-01-30 11:58:25 AM  

KiltedBastich: ronaprhys: The prohibition on drugs has certainly worked, no?

Hey look, a false analogy fallacy. Guns are not drugs. Those who buy them, those who sell them and how they are used and for what purposes are all very different. And as the rest of the world can tell you, gun control does work if you are consistent and pragmatic about your regulations.

elysive: Sorry, but the genie is out of the bottle and guns are already plentiful in our country. If they weren't a part of our culture and our Constitution I might be more apt to support gun control.

If your solution is for all law abiding people to willfully turn in their guns, then all the remaining guns will be owned by the disturbed, the criminals and the police. This seems like a great argument for an enhanced police state. If your idea is to take away everyone's guns by forced search and seizure, that is a police state. Fantastic ideas both of them and totally within the spirit of our country's founding. You should run for President.

Ah, so because the problem is large, you should not bother making any efforts to fix things? You're not in favor of long-term thinking, I see. You have made your mess, you will have to deal with the bitter dregs of it as you clean it up. If you bring down the number of legal guns, yes, that could mean that for a time there will be more guns in the hands of criminals and the insane. And then those guns will be lost, broken or confiscated, and they would not be able to replace them because the legal supply they depended on as their source would be gone.

It could also mean that you simply reduce the supply of new legal guns to near zero, and then try to bring down the rate of legal guns in private ownership slowly while doing the same thing with the supply of illegal firearms. There are solutions paths that are not absolutes, you know. Another failing I commonly see in pro-gun advocates is such black and white absolute thinking.

You know, this is exactly the phenomenon that every oth ...


Thumbs up for this post. American "conservatives" are not known for their long-term/forward-thinking ability.
 
2013-01-30 11:58:36 AM  

WeenerGord: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. A gun is just a tool. If you take away guns, the murderers will find other ways to kill. Stop worrying about the guns and focus on the murderers.


This is incorrect. Sociological research has shown that when guns are rendered unavailable, the rate of violence by other means does increase, but never to the same level, and there is a drop in the ratio of violence to murders. That is, there is less overall violence even as non-gun violence rises, and fewer attacks result in deaths.

Effectively, some of the people who would otherwise have committed a violent act reconsider and choose not to, and some of the people who would have killed someone only end up wounding someone.

This is because guns make it easy to choose to commit violence, and easier to cause death when committing violence. Because that is the whole point of a gun in the first place: To make it easier to kill.
 
2013-01-30 11:58:43 AM  

Ikam: ScouserDuck: IlGreven: Keep defending your gun rights to the hilt, Wayne. You'll get counter-examples every day.

/NRA against every reasonable measure to curb gun violence, up to and including mental health screenings.
//Mainly because they have many health organizations and more than a few insurance companies on their "Enemies of the 2nd Amendment" blacklist.

This absolutely a counter example....of how strict gun control doesn't work.

So arm teenage girls? Is that your solution?


Being against restrictions does not equal giving everybody guns. That's like saying being against prohibition means you want everybody to drink.
 
2013-01-30 11:58:56 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: It's almost as if the NRA is primarily interested in representing the gun industry.


farking Gottschalks.
 
2013-01-30 11:59:38 AM  

Delay: kombat_unit: Delay: WeenerGord: A gun is just a tool.

Then gun ownership should not be in the constitution. Trowels aren't. What makes guns so special? They are effective in killing. That's their purpose.

Then quit being lazy and amend the Constitution.

"The Second Amendment is like the crazy uncle living in the attic. Nobody wants to address the problem, so we just accept the absurdity of a constitional amendment that protects unfettered [individual] gun ownership. Courts have chipped away at the right over the years - gone are the rights to own machine guns, sawed off shotguns, shoulder-launched surface-to-air-missles and suitcase nukes." Link

Maybe the courts should chip away a little more and interpret the 2nd amendment as a group right, not an individual right.


Yeah, why bother with the legal hurdles of creating an amendment when you have activist judges willing to interpret "shall not be infringed" as "can be infringed".
 
2013-01-30 11:59:43 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: You're assuming it's a gangbanger.


This is a gun thread. According to the rules of a Fark gun thread, all black people who live in a city are gang bangers. That way we can discount all the victims as unimportant people deserve the protection of the law.
 
2013-01-30 11:59:54 AM  

Delay: kombat_unit: Delay: WeenerGord: A gun is just a tool.

Then gun ownership should not be in the constitution. Trowels aren't. What makes guns so special? They are effective in killing. That's their purpose.

Then quit being lazy and amend the Constitution.

"The Second Amendment is like the crazy uncle living in the attic. Nobody wants to address the problem, so we just accept the absurdity of a constitional amendment that protects unfettered [individual] gun ownership. Courts have chipped away at the right over the years - gone are the rights to own machine guns, sawed off shotguns, shoulder-launched surface-to-air-missles and suitcase nukes." Link

Maybe the courts should chip away a little more and interpret the 2nd amendment as a group right, not an individual right.


Your advocacy of explicit dishonesty is interesting.
 
2013-01-30 12:00:31 PM  

The Larch: AverageAmericanGuy: You're assuming it's a gangbanger.

This is a gun thread. According to the rules of a Fark gun thread, all black people who live in a city are gang bangers. That way we can discount all the victims as unimportant people deserve the protection of the law.


It's sickening.
 
2013-01-30 12:01:23 PM  

The Larch: AverageAmericanGuy: You're assuming it's a gangbanger.

This is a gun thread. According to the rules of a Fark gun thread, all black people who live in a city are gang bangers. That way we can discount all the victims as unimportant people deserve the protection of the law.


Unimportant people who don't deserve the protection of the law.
 
2013-01-30 12:01:29 PM  
So, given that there is a damn good chance that this gun was acquired illegally, what additional, stricter laws would have stopped this?
 
2013-01-30 12:01:50 PM  

Delay: WeenerGord: A gun is just a tool.

Then gun ownership should not be in the constitution. Trowels aren't. What makes guns so special? They are effective in killing. That's their purpose.



Legal gun ownership is for decent, law abiding citizens to protect themselves from tyranny. Learn some history, and you will see how history repeats itself.

Also notice how the full story is not always told.
 
2013-01-30 12:02:08 PM  
This is why all canopies should have armed guards.
 
2013-01-30 12:02:19 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Hey. Settle down. Reading comprehension isn't one of our strong suits.


So it has all too often been pointed out to me.

cptjeff: Well, then you're a godless commie whose opinion should be ignored on all subjects, of course.


Well of course you're entitled to your own opinion, however baseless...

cptjeff: \And the Habs suck.


I take it back. I am a Montrealer, not just a Canadian. DIE, HERETIC!
 
2013-01-30 12:02:48 PM  

cptjeff: The Supreme Court has explicitly said that some restrictions on the right to own guns are perfectly permissible under the 2nd Amendment. I've proposed a lot of solutions in these various gun threads that don't even come close to violating the 2nd Amendment (universal background checks, a national database with immediate reporting on any change in ownership including loss or theft, empowering law enforcement to use that database to track patterns and crack down on straw purchases). I'm not proposing we take any other country's laws wholesale, I'm saying that you can look at them, see what works, and adapt them to the United States in a form that makes sense and allows the forms of gun ownership we think are appropriate to preserve.


Now, something with a bit of substance to discuss. Very good:

1 - no disagreement that there can be restrictions on our rights as citizens (technically, we get those rights as humans, but we're not here to defend them for non-citizens, as a general rule). That happens with free speech, etc., but there tends to be a difference in application. None of the restrictions on the other enumerated rights outlaw specific objects, just uses of those objects that infringe upon the rights of others. That's the line I draw (and yes, I realize that things like the Patriot Act and other laws stomp all over those rights and I oppose those as well). Don't make an object illegal or restrict it - make actions with those objects that infringe upon the rights of others illegal. At this point, I'd say that all the necessary bases there are covered. It's illegal to murder someone, fire your weapon in an unsafe manner, brandish it, sell it to a known felon or someone else who cannot own one legally, etc.
2 - Universal background checks - I'm on the fence on this one. I don't think it'll have any impact on homicide rates whatsoever. Too many unregistered firearms exist for it to have an impact in the immediate term, it's too easy to acquire these, they're too easy to make, and given how porous our borders are, getting them in along with drugs and the like is easy. However, I would absolutely get behind a law that would allow me to conduct a voluntary background check for private sales if there's not cost (or a very small renumeration for time at a firearm's store). Leverage the existing infrastructure (firearm stores), make it optional, etc. If I were to sell, I'd definitely use that. Both parties would have to be present, fill out paperwork, etc. That paperwork would be kept at the store (hence the slight renumeration concept). However, for this to work, it needs to minimize inconvenience all around.
3 - National database - I'm opposed to this as we've used said data before to confiscate weapons. Simply put, I don't trust our government with the data. I also don't think this would do anything to reduce the homicide rate. Again, 300 million firearms in the USA, most of them with no accurate record of where they're at. You'd be assuming that people would actually voluntarily comply with this requirement. There would be some incentive if you wanted to use them to shoot at a range where the serial number could be checked, but many folks shoot on private property where no check would exist. Now, if we were to put very stringent restrictions on the usage (I'll get to your other suggestion next) such that if there's no actual impact to the homicide rate after a sufficient period (10 years?) then all records are completely and irrevocably destroyed, then maybe. Also, I'd add a further restriction (to prevent scope creep) that failure to do so is a federal crime punishable by LWOP, no Presidential pardons are allowed, and anyone in our legislature who votes to modify the original law (for anything other than a clerical error) immediately surrenders their seat in Congress/Senate, the POTUS who signs it into law also is forced to step down and they give up any and all future benefits, have to refund their salaries, etc. Security would still be provided, but no allowance for an office. Hell, make any public speaking engagements they do free so they can't get paid. Yes, this is draconian, but I don't care. I do NOT like sacrificing rights for something that isn't going to work.
3 - police having access - only with a warrant. Period. 4A. If no crime has been committed and they can't convince a judge that there's reasonable enough suspicion, no access to the data. Even then, the data can't be used for fishing expeditions and any records pulled that are shown to be clear are immediately destroyed.

My biggest issue here is that this is a multifaceted problem. It's wrapped up in our culture, lack of community, the war on drugs (I believe north of 70% of the firearm homicides are drug/gang related, so most every solution proposed simply won't work as those criminals don't have any desire to obey the law), people feeling powerless and looking at this as a way to show their "strength", and so forth. Until these background reasons change, none of the proposed laws will have any impact.
 
2013-01-30 12:02:51 PM  

Delay: kombat_unit: Delay: WeenerGord: A gun is just a tool.

Then gun ownership should not be in the constitution. Trowels aren't. What makes guns so special? They are effective in killing. That's their purpose.

Then quit being lazy and amend the Constitution.

"The Second Amendment is like the crazy uncle living in the attic. Nobody wants to address the problem, so we just accept the absurdity of a constitional amendment that protects unfettered [individual] gun ownership. Courts have chipped away at the right over the years - gone are the rights to own machine guns, sawed off shotguns, shoulder-launched surface-to-air-missles and suitcase nukes." Link

Maybe the courts should chip away a little more and interpret the 2nd amendment as a group right, not an individual right.


Derp, machine guns are legal and transferable.
 
2013-01-30 12:02:55 PM  

ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: Lt. Cheese Weasel: [www.wnd.com image 607x405]
[www.wnd.com image 609x517]

Paradise.

The Afghanistan/Chicago comparison is totally dishonest; it's not per capita, doesn't include civilian deaths and is playing loose with the definition of murder.


24.media.tumblr.comView Full Size
 
2013-01-30 12:03:49 PM  

KiltedBastich: ronaprhys: The prohibition on drugs has certainly worked, no?

Hey look, a false analogy fallacy. Guns are not drugs. Those who buy them, those who sell them and how they are used and for what purposes are all very different. And as the rest of the world can tell you, gun control does work if you are consistent and pragmatic about your regulations.


Gambling isn't drugs. Prostitution isn't drugs either. A black market is a black market is a black market. Prohibition has NEVER, I repeat NEVER worked. And it never will.
 
2013-01-30 12:04:32 PM  

ScouserDuck: Ikam: ScouserDuck: IlGreven: Keep defending your gun rights to the hilt, Wayne. You'll get counter-examples every day.

/NRA against every reasonable measure to curb gun violence, up to and including mental health screenings.
//Mainly because they have many health organizations and more than a few insurance companies on their "Enemies of the 2nd Amendment" blacklist.

This absolutely a counter example....of how strict gun control doesn't work.

So arm teenage girls? Is that your solution?


Being against restrictions does not equal giving everybody guns. That's like saying being against prohibition means you want everybody to drink.


Okay, so then what is the point of bringing up Chicago's gun restrictions in this particular instance. If Chicago had the most lax gun restrictions on the planet, would it have made any difference in this situation whatsoever? I doubt it, unless the argument is the kids under the canopy should have been armed so they could fight back.
 
2013-01-30 12:05:19 PM  

KiltedBastich: This is because guns make it easy to choose to commit violence, and easier to cause death when committing violence. Because that is the whole point of a gun in the first place: To make it easier to kill.


Makes it easier for an individual to kill. It usually takes a group effort to assure that stabbing somebody to death or lynching them effective, not saying it's impossible, but there is a significant barrier to crime that unfettered gun ownership removes.
 
2013-01-30 12:06:25 PM  

justtray: mjones73: Ed Grubermann: Cybernetic: I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.

And our thread's designated asshole makes himself known...

For stating the obvious?

Are you an idiot?

So now correlation equals causation? Okay good, then we have 4x the homicide rate as the UK because we can get guns way easier, having a gun around you makes you more likely to kill your family than an intruder, southern states with more lax gun control have higher homicide rates than even Illinois, New York, etc because they have more lax gun control, and CCW holders are just as likely to commit homicide by gun on another person than non, meaning despite alleged higher responsibility, they're actually equal or more prone to shooting other people.

Now shut up or GTFO.


mjones states a fact and you call hime and asshole. Then you trot out a bunch of disproven crap.

Its not hard to tell who the asshole is.
 
2013-01-30 12:06:44 PM  

kombat_unit: Delay: kombat_unit: Delay: WeenerGord: A gun is just a tool.

Then gun ownership should not be in the constitution. Trowels aren't. What makes guns so special? They are effective in killing. That's their purpose.

Then quit being lazy and amend the Constitution.

"The Second Amendment is like the crazy uncle living in the attic. Nobody wants to address the problem, so we just accept the absurdity of a constitional amendment that protects unfettered [individual] gun ownership. Courts have chipped away at the right over the years - gone are the rights to own machine guns, sawed off shotguns, shoulder-launched surface-to-air-missles and suitcase nukes." Link

Maybe the courts should chip away a little more and interpret the 2nd amendment as a group right, not an individual right.

Derp, machine guns are legal and transferable.


1) once you use the word "derp" as a response you out yourself as lazy and probably not very well read.

2) class III firearms are legal but it's much much more difficult to get an ATF stamp and anything made in the last few decades can only really be purchased by LEOs.
 
2013-01-30 12:07:14 PM  

KiltedBastich: And for the record, your ethnocentrism is showing. Why do you assume I am an American? I am not. I am a Canadian. Perhaps you overlooked the way I was saying "your society"? That's a big part of the reason that I am familiar with the fact that gun control does mitigate the problems your society is currently facing, and how a large supply of legal guns is the source of the large supply of illegal guns. A great deal of the gun violence in Canada is done with illegal guns that were formerly legal American guns. And even with that fact, our rates of gun violence are enormously less than yours



Canadians can get away with being whiny liberal pussies because their armed neighbor to the south pretty much protects them. So Canadians can whine like spoiled children and blame their protective parents, the Americans, for every little thing. Waah!
 
2013-01-30 12:07:23 PM  
There is a cycle of violence in Chicago, with reprisal begetting reprisal begetting reprisal. There is a way to make this better, and it doesn't involve gun control. Anyone who is upset about this, no matter how you feel about guns, needs to watch this episode of Frontline about an organization called Cease Fire.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/interrupters/

They treat the violence like an infectious disease outbreak and try to detect and interrupt these cycles of reprisals before and it works, but the problem is so enormous they are overwhelmed.
 
2013-01-30 12:09:16 PM  

MichiganFTL: BraveNewCheneyWorld: So you're saying it's not a gun problem, but a people problem?

I don't believe I really made a point to either side, but I think it's a comprehensive issue that is far deeper than a single inanimate object. I'm looking for more of the motive side than the act. There seems to be cultural, gang, economical, and psychological issues at play that are far deeper and more widespread than simply access to metal. Let's look at them ALL (yes, including guns). I think it's just naive to focus only on one.


this
 
2013-01-30 12:10:25 PM  

WeenerGord: Delay: WeenerGord: A gun is just a tool.

Then gun ownership should not be in the constitution. Trowels aren't. What makes guns so special? They are effective in killing. That's their purpose.


Legal gun ownership is for decent, law abiding citizens to protect themselves from tyranny. Learn some history, and you will see how history repeats itself.

Also notice how the full story is not always told.


Armed US citizens really have no chance against our own military. Thinking "law abiding citizens" could stand against the military strength of the US is foolish.
 
2013-01-30 12:10:32 PM  

AngryPanda: Cars aren't solely intended to kill or maim people. That's why "car crashes" are called "accidents" sometimes. On the other hand, a gun's primary function is to kill or hurt someone with a simple trigger pull.


Not all intentional killings are wrongful.

The intentional killing of a person in self-defense, for example, is not merely excusable, but entirely lawful.

Self-defense is not only a basic human right, but is the origin of the concept of "rights."
 
2013-01-30 12:10:36 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: So, I see you're into elevating yourself above the black community so that you and other broke white people can feel better about your own failures.


Again, don't assume that everyone is like you.
 
2013-01-30 12:10:48 PM  

Dear Jerk: I've been hit!
--Where?
On the South Side!


it's the baddest part of town.
 
2013-01-30 12:10:53 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [www.wnd.com image 607x405]
[www.wnd.com image 609x517]

Paradise.


The chart only makes sense if you compare the number of Afghan soldiers killed in Chicago to the number of American soldiers killed in Afghanistan.

Leaving out the tens of thousands of Afghans that have died as a result of the war or just annual murder rate in Afghanistan is ignorant.
 
2013-01-30 12:11:43 PM  

another cultural observer: When you've finally got your FOID and you're ready to transport your gun, be sure to separate your gun and ammunition. Because using one locked case to transport both the gun and the ammunition is reckless in the extreme, and should be a felony.

And if you want to buy a gun in Illinois, travel 2 hours to the gun store. Spend time looking at their wares. Pick out your gun. Pay for the gun. Then travel 2 hours back home. Wait three days. Travel 2 hours back to the gun store. Pick up your gun. Travel 2 hours back home.

The Gas Station lobby must have had something to do with that 3-day wait rule...


That "cooling off" period might make sense if we didn't already have to wait 6 weeks for the FOID card. Also, when you are buying your 5th or 6th gun it doesn't really make much sense unless people are particular about which gun they want to use to shoot someone who desperately needs shooting.


Limac333: There is a 60 day grace period if you are moving to Illinois in regards to getting a FOID card.

http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/firearmsfaq.cfm See the second item "Who needs a FOID card"


I stand corrected...and in amazement. Illinois got something right at least....
 
2013-01-30 12:12:08 PM  

Delay: KiltedBastich: This is because guns make it easy to choose to commit violence, and easier to cause death when committing violence. Because that is the whole point of a gun in the first place: To make it easier to kill.

Makes it easier for an individual to kill. It usually takes a group effort to assure that stabbing somebody to death or lynching them effective, not saying it's impossible, but there is a significant barrier to crime that unfettered gun ownership removes.


So when we ban guns we're left with knives and rope? And how the hell is stabbing someone to death hard?
 
2013-01-30 12:13:08 PM  

another cultural observer: Big_Fat_Liar: another cultural observer: USP .45: Verdelak: This has been said elsewhere, but I will repeat it here.
Chicago's gun ban can not work. Regardless of where you fall on gun control issues, it should be obvious that a city banning guns cannot keep them from coming in when the state itself and the neighboring states have loose gun laws and there is no "border check" to get in and out of the city. True gun control can only work at a national level, if at all.

the southern border is rock solid yo.

Because Illinois is renowned for its lax firearms laws.

If you are a legal gun owner in Michigan and you decide to move to Illinois, you are a criminal the moment you cross the border unless you somehow managed to apply for an Illinois FOID card and wait 6 weeks before moving here...if you can even do that as a Michigan resident. That's Illinois at work.

OK i just checked and the IL FOID app says "Mailing Address (Illinois Residency Required)"! What the fark is wrong with this state. So I guess you need t leave your guns in a secret location, move here, apply for your FOID, and only then can you legally bring your guns home.

When you've finally got your FOID and you're ready to transport your gun, be sure to separate your gun and ammunition. Because using one locked case to transport both the gun and the ammunition is reckless in the extreme, and should be a felony.

And if you want to buy a gun in Illinois, travel 2 hours to the gun store. Spend time looking at their wares. Pick out your gun. Pay for the gun. Then travel 2 hours back home. Wait three days. Travel 2 hours back to the gun store. Pick up your gun. Travel 2 hours back home.

The Gas Station lobby must have had something to do with that 3-day wait rule...


It's like ordering it online, except that you have to drive through the series of tubes.
 
2013-01-30 12:15:22 PM  

D-Liver: clane: When extreme Liberals dominate politics in a city for years it becomes so very sad....

Clearly if there were a Republican in charge, this shooting would have never happened.

Logic, how the fark does it work?


correct you're finally catching on.
 
2013-01-30 12:15:28 PM  
We just need stricter gun laws
 
2013-01-30 12:18:15 PM  

KiltedBastich: WeenerGord: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. A gun is just a tool. If you take away guns, the murderers will find other ways to kill. Stop worrying about the guns and focus on the murderers.

This is incorrect. Sociological research has shown that when guns are rendered unavailable, the rate of violence by other means does increase, but never to the same level, and there is a drop in the ratio of violence to murders. That is, there is less overall violence even as non-gun violence rises, and fewer attacks result in deaths.

Effectively, some of the people who would otherwise have committed a violent act reconsider and choose not to, and some of the people who would have killed someone only end up wounding someone.

This is because guns make it easy to choose to commit violence, and easier to cause death when committing violence. Because that is the whole point of a gun in the first place: To make it easier to kill.


--------------

As was explained to AngryPanda, not all intentional killings are wrongful. Killing an attacker in self-defense (who poses a credible threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury) is not merely permissible, but doing so is completely just, right and proper.

The ready availability of guns permits people to exercise this basic human right.

Guns are especially important for people who are weaker than their attacker.

It should be easier for weaker people to kill stronger attackers.

Guns (especially handguns) are clearly the most effective tool for this purpose.
 
2013-01-30 12:18:22 PM