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 92
    More: Sad, obama, Chicago, inauguration  
•       •       •

17295 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Jan 2013 at 10:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Archived thread
2013-01-30 10:43:20 AM
14 votes:
I see that Chicago's strict gun-control laws are working as well as ever.
2013-01-30 11:07:30 AM
11 votes:
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 10:45:03 AM
9 votes:
www.wnd.com
www.wnd.com

Paradise.
2013-01-30 10:42:18 AM
7 votes:
Ban Chicago.
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-01-30 10:51:51 AM
6 votes:

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 10:43:05 AM
6 votes:
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 10:49:54 AM
5 votes:

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 10:42:20 AM
5 votes:
Ban Chicago.
2013-01-30 10:45:57 AM
4 votes:

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 10:45:09 AM
4 votes:

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 10:41:54 AM
4 votes:
God damn it, America.
2013-01-30 11:09:50 AM
3 votes:

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 11:05:18 AM
3 votes:

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 10:43:01 AM
3 votes:
Ban Chicago
2013-01-30 11:58:36 AM
2 votes:

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 11:42:18 AM
2 votes:

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 11:17:18 AM
2 votes:

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 11:14:59 AM
2 votes:

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 11:05:35 AM
2 votes:

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 11:05:06 AM
2 votes:
assets.dnainfo.com

Hadiya Pendleton, honor student
2013-01-30 11:03:42 AM
2 votes:

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 11:02:13 AM
2 votes:

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 10:55:38 AM
2 votes:

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 10:50:22 AM
2 votes:

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 10:48:16 AM
2 votes:
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 10:48:10 AM
2 votes:
Chacago: "You're safe here; guns are illegal"
2013-01-30 10:42:56 AM
2 votes:

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 08:10:27 PM
1 votes:

KiltedBastich: Dimensio: In a situation where the threat of grievous bodily injury or death is presented by an attacker, deadly force is typically the most effective and reliable method of neutralizing the aggressor. You are suggesting that victims be legally restricted to less effective and reliable means of defense solely for the benefit of the attacker. I suggest that an attacker who intentionally creates a reasonable fear of imminent grievous bodily injury or death bears all of the consequences for any response made to that threat. Unlike you, I do not advocate structuring law to benefit the well-being of violent criminals. If you do not wish for criminals to suffer fatal injuries as a consequence of their threatening behaviour, then you should encourage them not to engage in threatening behaviour.

You are advocating an ideological position rather than a pragmatic one. Being a criminal is not an automatic death sentence. Given the choice between a means of neutralizing a criminal that results in the criminal's death, and one that only results in his incapacitation, why should I ethically choose to kill someone for a crime not otherwise punishable by death?


 Mainly that argument falls down because the criminals punishment would not be punishable by death until AFTER he had already killed you and your family. While on the other hand, were you to prevent him harming anyone, he would not have committed a crime and therefore even a non-lethal measure would be an overreaction by your standard.

 This has nothing to do with what punishment a criminal act would merit in court, this is about stopping a violent individual from harming innocents, period.
 I must admit I am biased in this matter, as I was the victim of a violent home invasion by large and extremely aggressive intruder who threatened my fiance in a very graphic manner, and attempted to enter our house by smashing through a glass door. Reason didn't help, and calling the police made him more aggressive in his attempt to reach us to us to stop us from doing it. A shotgun blast to the chest finally ended the threat very quickly.
 There were other non-lethal methods available, perhaps I could have tried mace or pepper spray or a stun gun. All of which would have exposed us to a high level of risk. Do I really have any moral responsibility to risk my families lives to make a violent attackers job safer? As soon as he forced entry to my house he lost any expectation of quarter. It was his responsibility he died, not mine. I didn't make the choice to attack people. Pretty simple actually. I feel horrible about a barn cat I hit on a highway late one night, don't feel at all guilty in the least about that dude, especially when I found out his father died THE EXACT SAME WAY. Lovely picture, huh?
 You can risk your families lives to enable other peoples poor choices, I won't.
2013-01-30 03:55:42 PM
1 votes:

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.



Living in WV I know very few people who DO NOT own guns...also I know we are seen as a state that is extremely lax in their gun control measures...hmm let's see ( Per census.gov 2009 murder rate per 100,000 people)

Illinois- 8.4 (3rd highest in country, 20.2% gun ownership)
West Virginia- 4.9 (23rd , 55.4% gun ownership)
Tenn- 7.4 (5th , 43.9% gun ownership)
North Carolina-5.4 (18th 41.3% gun ownership)
South Carolina-6.7 (8th 42.3% gun ownership)
Kentucky- 4.3 (27th , 47.4% gun ownership)
Alabama-7.1 (6th , 51.7% gun ownership)
Georgia-6.0 (13th , 40.3% gun ownership)

Well at least your argument holds up for New York.... 4.0 and 28th with 18% gun ownership in the nation....OH WAIT! it is the 4th lowest in gun ownership but the 28th highest in murder!?!?!

You can do the stats on that if you want...

/ I have no idea how lax the other southern state's gun laws are.
2013-01-30 03:08:43 PM
1 votes:

KiltedBastich: Do I like those bullies? No. But I don't hate them enough to wish them dead.


The ethics of self-defense have nothing to do with "hate" or what you "wish."

It's a matter of what is necessary to prevent a potentially lethal attack against you.

The reason self-defense is justified under a threat of death (or grievous harm, which is life-threatening) is that the situation comes down to your life or his. By definition, at least one of you is at risk of death.

Why should he live when you die? How could it possibly considered ethical that a victim should submit to a risk of his own death, so as not to pose a risk of death to an attacker? It is the attacker, by definition, who has made his own death a necessity.

If you are under no real threat of death (or its close approximation -- "serious injury"), then lethal self-defense is not justified.

The only ethical conclusion to be drawn in these circumstances is that the aggressor can ethically be killed, in order to prevent the non-aggressor victim from being killed. Anything else is nonsense.

KiltedBastich: Do you realize that you are arguing, essentially, an eye for an eye? Someone else breaking the law or other ethical code does not grant me permission to do the same. I am not granted the right to kill simply because someone else has violated the law. Whether or not *he* (wrongly) asserts it is OK to kill, I am not able to then argue that it is therefore right to kill *him*. The whole point is that he's in the wrong, and that I should not be joining him in his error. That's why the civilized world has a freaking justice system, not a vengeance system.

And as I pointed out above, you have completely thrown out the concept of proportional response. You are going right from someone brandishing a knife and demanding my wallet to assuming threat of death and then justifying me pulling out a gun and shooting him. Note that I had something like 40$ in my wallet, a bank card and a credit card, and the bastard even tossed my picture ID on the ground for me to recover. Note also that I walked away unharmed, as did my assailant. I do not consider the momentary fear, the loss of money and the inconvenience of cancelling the bank and credit card to justify murder. I would have been justified, again, in tasing him, or breaking his wrist, or using just about anything else that would leave him still essentially hale and healthy, if injured. I would not have been justified in killing him. Owning a gun makes it trivially easy to kill someone in such circumstances.


The "proportionality" is baked right into the standard for legitimate self-defense -- it's only justified when you reasonably and actually believe the aggressor poses an imminent threat of death or serious injury to you (or to another innocent person).

That means there are two levels of legitimate force -- lethal and non-lethal. Potentially lethal attacks can be prevented by the use of lethal force. Non-lethal defense for non-lethal attacks (e.g., being slapped as an insult).

If your fear of death was real and reasonable, then it's not "murder" to use force to prevent the attack.

That's not "eye for an eye." Revenge is about what has occurred in the past. Self-defense is not about punishment for a past crime at all. It's about preventing an "imminent" (i.e., very near FUTURE) act of aggressive violence against you.
2013-01-30 01:40:34 PM
1 votes:

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


None of which can match the daily numbers, that every single day in this country roughly 100 MILLION guns owners DO NOT use their 270 MILLION guns to commit a crime. The average number of firearm homicides each day in this country is 45 per day. Even if one were to erroneously assume that every single one of those homicides was committed by someone who legally owned their gun that would equate to 0.00000045% of gun owners broke the law with their firearms. That is an incredibly impressive safety record. And, like I said, that is assuming that they were all done by legal gun owners!

Another fact is that humans are deadlier than the so-called "assault weapons."

img.photobucket.com
In 2011 there were 323 intentional homicides committed with a rifle. Look at the number of homicides committed with with the hands, fists, feet, etcs. 726! And what about knives/cutting instruments and blunt objects? And, not all of those 323 rifle homicides were committed with an "assault weapon." The current campaign to ban "deadly assault weapons" is irrational. The numbers speak for themselves. And the NRA is fully aware of these numbers. Sure, sometimes they really do stick their foot in their mouth when they speak out, but overall their defense of "assault weapons" is a hell of a lot more rational than the attack on "assault weapons."
2013-01-30 01:30:30 PM
1 votes:

ronaprhys: Did I say there was? Did I make an argument to seize automobiles?


No, you didn't. But your point seemed to rest on the premise that automobile use and gun ownership provide the same net benefit to society, so why ban one and not another.

I'm just pointing out that from a utility point of view, there's no way gun ownership even comes close to automobile use.

ronaprhys: I'll pose the question to you: Is there an acceptable level of deaths within a society due to the benefits?


There are externalities to both gun ownership and automobile use. It is impossible to have no one die in a car accident ever again, much like it is impossible to never have anyone shot and killed by a gun ever again.

But going back to what benefits society more, automobile use is the clear winner. The negative externality of auto-related deaths is the price we have to pay for the luxury of at-will travel. And anyone with a car, you, me, anyone else in this thread is faced with that every time we get in our cars. Each time you drive could be your last, but that doesn't seem to stop people, that is to say, people believe the personal benefit of the use of the automobile outweighs the risk of injury and death.

Further to that, government and private companies continually seek to improve vehicle and road safety in an effort to prevent needless injuries and death.

The gun example is really the exact same up to the last point. Why is there such rigid rejection of new measures to try and improve gun safety by screening individuals, doing background checks and other things that would hopefully curb needless gun deaths?
2013-01-30 01:05:03 PM
1 votes:

Psycat: Just out of curiosity, how would La Pierre respond if you told him the reason you wanted high-powered assault rifles was to commit mass murder on NRA members?


He would probably remind you that the second amendment is the right of all citizens and is tends to prevent things like mass murder. It works by balancing power among the people.

What happens is politicians unbalance society and then try to act shocked and horrified at the results of their actions. Then they use he outcome as an excuse for an even greater imbalance.

It's all going to burn down if this keeps up.
2013-01-30 01:03:32 PM
1 votes:
She was safe as long s she was around armed security.

But then she went to Chicago where all the guns are in the hands of criminals.
2013-01-30 01:01:22 PM
1 votes:

KiltedBastich: Why is it ok to kill someone who is assaulting you? I have been beaten up. Why would it be ok for me to kill them to stop them? They did not kill me, or even cause any permanent harm.

I have been mugged at knifepoint. Why would it be ok to kill someone to keep them from taking the content of my wallet? It was some money and some time spent cancelling bank and credit cards.

In each case there was bodily harm or the threat thereof. And you assert I should have felt justified in pulling out a gun and killing the offender, because I felt "threatened". Really?!

Why is it ok to commit a greater wrong to stop a lesser wrong?

I assert that part of the problem is that your culture has been so distorted by your pro-gun lobby using self-defence arguments that you haven't even stopped to ask yourselves the question why is it acceptable, even laudable, to kill someone for committing a crime that they would see only a few years in prison for otherwise, just because you can? Because you can tell yourself you felt 'threatened'? Is human life so very cheap to you and those like you?


-----------

I didn't say it was right to kill someone who is assaulting you.

I said that it is right to kill someone who poses a credible threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury.

Those threats are all assaults, but not all assaults are sufficiently serious to justify the use of lethal force in self-defense.

Being robbed at knife-point, if you believed the threat of death was credible, however, would certainly justify the immediate, intentional killing of the attacker.

You certainly had no ethical obligation to hand over your property (although it was a smart choice if you were overpowered). If his threat was credible, then he would likely have become even more aggressive if you had refused to comply.

I won't go so far to say that killing such an attacker is a duty, but doing so would have been entirely justified, completely legal, and in no way unjust.

When someone threatens to kill you, he has absolutely no ethical defense to being killed. He has, through his actions, intentionally put someone else's life at risk, and therefore cannot simultaneously claim that it is wrong to kill. No one can reasonably assert that it's OK to kill others, but not to be killed. How could his right to live (while you die) be superior to your right to live (while he dies)?
2013-01-30 12:49:14 PM
1 votes:

Phinn: Princess Ryans Knickers: AngryPanda: 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.

Worse than that. Either his numbers are absolutely false or he's intentionally using worldwide numbers against my United States only gun numbers.

There are 34,000 vehicle deaths in the US per year.

That is a rate of 93 vehicle deaths per day.

It has been 47 days since the Sandy Hook shooting.

93 * 47 = 4,371

But tell me again how much Obama and the federal government he administers CARE about "saving lives." They will not devote a tiny fraction of their time and attention to traffic (all of which occurs on government property and is regulated by government employees according to government traffic rules) compared to the political attention they will devote to gun restrictions, although traffic kills far more people.

Traffic deaths are not politically valuable. Gun deaths are.

Gun deaths are largely caused by government drug prohibitions, which creates a black market, making it highly profitable, while denying it security protection. So, its black market participants police their business themselves, as all mafia-style black market operations do, and they use guns to kill each other.


Stop being an idiot. Its a false equivilence fallacy and therefore invalid. Meaning... It doesnt mean anything and cannot be used in an argument in this manner.

The basic reason for this is that cars are used infinitely more than guns, and thus the deaths due to them, while tragic, are an accepted and necessary risk because of the need for ease of transportation for every man, woman, and child.

Every time you speak, you weaken your position further with your insane, uneducated rationale.
2013-01-30 12:44:09 PM
1 votes:

AverageAmericanGuy: gangbanger


AverageAmericanGuy: 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.


1. No description of shooter or car is common in gang-related shootings. Witnesses are afraid of getting targeted later. So you just made a point for my assertion.

2. Put the tinfoil hat away. This shooting took place in an area where there is strict gun control. Likely with a handgun (banned in 1982), and probably with a weapon that wouldn't be on any sort of proposed Federal ban list, not that it would matter. Laws put in place over a period of almost 100 years (going back to the 1920s) that were suppose to stop violent crime and in particular gun-related crime in Chicago haven't mattered even a little bit. Some say there is a positive correlation between the number of guns on the street and violence. Others say it is negative. I would argue that there is no correlation and if you are sitting at home crying about AR-15s, you are wasting your life. Banning them or not banning them changes nothing. It only makes politicians look like they care when frankly a large enough donation in the right pocket will get them flip on a dime.

3. I'm tired of the Federal government telling me where I can pray, who I can sleep with, who I can marry, what guns I can own, and flushing the rest of my civil rights and the remainder of the Bill of Rights down the farking toilet the moment someone whispers the word "terrorism". I would think that the rest of you would also be tired of it and tell the nanny staters to die in fire. Instead some of you would rather suckle government teet while the rest start "prepping" as if you have the balls to start a revolution and we all know you don't have them. You want to know what the real conspiracy is? Really? It's a conspiracy to take the last, best hope this planet has of getting off this rock and making something of ourselves in the Universe and flushing it away and the American people are all in on it.
2013-01-30 12:40:58 PM
1 votes:

syrynxx: Government Fromage: As much as I complain about living in Illinois, I'm really ok with our gun laws, and think they could be a basis for others around the country.

If you legally purchase a firearm in Illinois and your FOID card expires, you are instantly a criminal, even if the firearm remains in your home locked in a safe.  I think there's a minimum six-month sentence with that now.  If you charge money for a 'right', it's not a right.  It's a privilege.  I have no problem with background checks at the time of purchase, but the FOID is inconsistent with the 2nd Amendment being a 'right'.


Requiring identification to exercise your rights is racist and wrong and...oh, wait, not a voting thread... I mean...it's reasonable and why wouldn't you support it?
2013-01-30 12:39:04 PM
1 votes:

moothemagiccow: 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?


Right, you hear all the time about those drive-by strangulations, and this girl would surely still be dead if someone stabbed someone and missed from 50 yards away.
Also don't forget about all the school killings that would be done by rope.
2013-01-30 12:35:02 PM
1 votes:
You know what, fark this town.  I'm taking the job offer I have in another state and getting the fark out of this shiat hole.
2013-01-30 12:18:35 PM
1 votes:

moothemagiccow: And how the hell is stabbing someone to death hard?


If it were more effective than using a gun, more murders would be committed that way. As it is two thirds of all murders in the US are by firearms. Link
2013-01-30 12:10:53 PM
1 votes:

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 12:10:25 PM
1 votes:

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 12:07:23 PM
1 votes:
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 12:07:14 PM
1 votes:

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 12:06:25 PM
1 votes:

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 12:02:48 PM
1 votes:

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 11:59:54 AM
1 votes:

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 11:59:38 AM
1 votes:

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 11:57:29 AM
1 votes:

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 11:51:03 AM
1 votes:

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 11:47:14 AM
1 votes:

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 11:47:08 AM
1 votes:
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 11:34:08 AM
1 votes:

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 11:31:19 AM
1 votes:

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 11:28:52 AM
1 votes:

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 11:26:39 AM
1 votes:

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 11:23:22 AM
1 votes:
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 11:21:48 AM
1 votes:

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 11:21:29 AM
1 votes:
Obviously the only solution is to ban Liberals.
2013-01-30 11:21:25 AM
1 votes:

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 11:20:05 AM
1 votes:

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 11:18:58 AM
1 votes:

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 11:15:06 AM
1 votes:

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 11:14:52 AM
1 votes:

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 11:14:20 AM
1 votes:
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 11:13:18 AM
1 votes:
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 11:12:44 AM
1 votes:

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 11:12:36 AM
1 votes:

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 11:12:15 AM
1 votes:

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


Glad I carry concealed.
2013-01-30 11:10:41 AM
1 votes:

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 11:10:31 AM
1 votes:
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 11:09:32 AM
1 votes:

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.
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-01-30 11:07:24 AM
1 votes:

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 11:04:29 AM
1 votes:

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 11:02:12 AM
1 votes:

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 11:02:10 AM
1 votes:

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 10:56:59 AM
1 votes:

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 10:56:36 AM
1 votes:
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 10:55:36 AM
1 votes:

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 10:54:51 AM
1 votes:

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 10:53:29 AM
1 votes:

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 10:52:35 AM
1 votes:

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 10:52:30 AM
1 votes:

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 10:51:38 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-01-30 10:51:26 AM
1 votes:

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 10:51:21 AM
1 votes:

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 10:47:03 AM
1 votes:
When extreme Liberals dominate politics in a city for years it becomes so very sad....
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-01-30 10:46:34 AM
1 votes:

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


Is this what you meant???
2013-01-30 10:45:09 AM
1 votes:
She shouldn't have been hanging out with gang members.
2013-01-30 10:44:22 AM
1 votes:
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 10:43:45 AM
1 votes:
fark this planet guys
 
Displayed 92 of 92 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report