craigdamage: ...if Texas ever goes "open carry"I shall carry my Smith and Wesson 21-4 .44 Special wheel gun on my hip. (Thunder Ranch Model!)Six .44 slugs beats 15x 9mm any day imho.
mizchief: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson
snocone: udhq: BraveNewCheneyWorld: skozlaw: Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.Just like owning a car increases your chances of being killed in a car accident!! That doesn't mean there's not an overwhelming number of benefits to having a car that outweigh that risk. Your "logic" is idiotic.No, it's really not. Gun owners pay more for life and homeowner's insurance because the actuarial tables show that bringing a gun into your home statistically increases the odds of dying a violent death for everyone in that home.There are a lot of reasons to own a gun, but if someone cites "safety", "protection" or "crime deterrence" that's a pretty clear flag that they don't know what they're talking about.Where did you pick that crap up?Total falsehood. Insurance rates are unchanged.Deliberate lie or do you not check the crap you believe? Be honest./cannot understand farks who spout lies so easily checked
BraveNewCheneyWorld: udhq: Yeah, about that 2.5 million number? Not so much.And you cite a study by an overtly pro gun control group? How about no.
skozlaw: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Where did you get that information? Because I've never been asked about gun ownership. Also if guns serve no legitimate purpose, they why do police carry them? Also..* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year-or about 6,850 times a day.(1) This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.(2)The benefits outweigh the liabilities.Kleck's work has been thoroughly debunked. The math itself is inherently absurd.Hardly surprising, though, I should see you posting long-since-discredited crap. I assume you'll flee this thread with your tail between your legs like you did last time I utterly embarrassed you?
snocone: skozlaw: snocone: Read my bio and then trot out that crap.Yea, good point. It was unfair of me to accuse you of being pro-gun for your childish comment.Based on your comments so far in this thread, you're clearly just a childish person in general regardless of whatever other opinions you may hold.Have a nice day.And some day, child, you may figure out what is important in this world.
JoanHaus: If anyone is dumb enough to believe that carrying a gun "protects" them in any way, then they richly deserve the mugging wherein they are pistolwhipped with said gun. I've never one one person, outside of trained military and police, who could possibly EVER use their weapon in a high stress situation. None.
Fark It: namatad: ROFLWould this invalidate the need to have a FOID card?I love the fact that this could overrule any and all chicago laws by default./as much as you and I might be against gun ownership, illinois is the ONLY state left which does not permit concealed carry./strange but trueNo, but it should. At minimum there should be no charge for the FOID card. As it stands, it takes the ISP longer than the maximum 30-days allotted under the law (and this law is almost 50 years old, they haven't found a better way), if you move, you have to re-apply, you can't just get an updated card by showing a utility bill and some other documents like with a driver's license. Almost every Illinois county also fails to report disqualifying info to the State Police, so people who shouldn't be allowed to keep their cards end up keeping them. It was a punitive measure born of racial paranoia by the Chicago machine in response to the civil rights movement. That's why under "Race" there are three checkboxes: Black, White, and Other.I think all of Chicago's and Cook County's gun laws should be invalidated, but I'm not big on "constitutional carry." Carrying a gun in public is something that should be regulated reasonably. Of course, if Springfield fails to come up with legislation then so be it./a lot of anti-gun politicians are under the impression that by allowing concealed carry, they're in a position to get "compromise" and attach a slew of anti-gun proposals to a concealed carry bill//Illinois is getting concealed carry regardless of what the legislature does
Lionel Mandrake: Silly Jesus: I love that they are continuing to ignore the real problem out of political correctness. The problem, Illinois, is a certain culture that exists in your largest city, not the average lawful gun owner.And what's the solution?
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jun 23 2017 21:26:57
Runtime: 0.434 sec (433 ms)