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.

(Washington Post)   The Democratic paradise of Washington, DC has some of the most restrictive handgun laws in the nation, which means that the 1400 armed robberies that took place there last year are, like, totally a figment of your imagination   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 49
    More: Obvious, robbery, handguns, imaginations  
•       •       •

860 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Jan 2014 at 12:20 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

2014-01-05 10:58:09 AM  
9 votes:
submitter's logic:

murder is illegal

there are still murders

therefore murder should be legal.

QED
2014-01-05 12:23:39 PM  
4 votes:
Try banning water from the center of your bathtub.
2014-01-05 10:24:24 AM  
4 votes:
They also have some of the most restrictive laws against burglary, car theft, robbery and murder in the country, too, yet there are burglaries, car theft, robberies and murders all the time.

Get rid of all those laws, because they clearly don't work.
2014-01-05 10:16:40 AM  
4 votes:
Gun nuts like to think of gun laws as the cause of gun violence rather than a symptom.
2014-01-05 10:07:56 AM  
4 votes:
So, therefore, if there were no gun laws, there would be no crime?

/it's too early for this bullsh*t
2014-01-05 09:58:00 AM  
4 votes:
NYC has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, and their crime rate has been going down for a long time.
2014-01-05 12:52:36 PM  
3 votes:

sammyk: Fark It: Gun laws don't generally correlate one way or another to crime rates.

Are you feeling ok?


He's right, actually. Strict gun laws do not correlate to low crime or high crime very well. Open carry correlates to low crime mainly because the areas with open carry are rural areas which are not prone to high crime in the first place. However, cities need strict gun laws to prevent even worse death rates than currently exist, mainly because people have bad safety, poor aim, and there are a ton of bystanders around and windows for stray bullets to go through. Plus, guns are not very good self-defense in many street-crime situations in, say, here in NYC, since you don't have time to deploy your weapon and gain the advantage. Not to mention that pesky bystander and stray bullet travel problem. In home invasion style robberies, it works well. May even work well for carjackings, depending on the particulars.

In large, dense cities, gun control makes sense to me, provided law enforcement doesn't suck (most egregiously seen in Detroit and Camden). In other areas, I don't care, give them out at drive-thrus for all I care. Put in some controls for people with mental problems so they don't get guns easily. No gun control scenario will work as well as the proponents want it to work, but it's literally better than nothing in most cases. In the end, the illegal guns come from somewhere. Find a better way to crack down on that, and you have a much bigger impact.

Want the real answer to gun violence? Changing how Americans think. This "I am a man and I have to prove my mainliness and not appear weak and not getting disrespected" shiat is the absolute root of violence in the US. Solve that and you solve the real issue.

So in conclusion, gun control is certainly a bit of a misdirection in terms of result, and much of it is just legislative masturbation to respond to some outrage, but applied in the right area, with the right law-enforcement framework, will likely help. Just don't expect it to be the solution.

I don't own a gun. I like shooting guns. I don't really have skin in this game one way or the other, so I shrug more than anything.
2014-01-05 12:42:00 PM  
3 votes:
Gun violence is not a function of law, or accessibility, or availability, or anything that has to do with guns. It is a function of culture.

Until you change the culture, the violence will persist.
2014-01-05 12:13:11 PM  
3 votes:
More gun laws won't stop gun violence but more abortion laws will stop abortion, in rightwing bizarroland.
2014-01-05 10:19:50 AM  
3 votes:
Why have any laws at all?
2014-01-05 09:53:49 PM  
2 votes:

The Name: redmid17: Because changing an amendment is incredibly hard to do

Stop with the "It's tooo HHAAAAAARRRD" crap.  Tell me why it doesn't need to be changed.  You have said in this thread that doing so, and following it up with more restrictive gun legislation, would in fact lead to a reduction in gun crime, even if a little bit.  Tell me why that little bit isn't worth you voting, in our hypothetical scenario, to amend or repeal it.

redmid17: You would have to raise taxes and probably merge medicare/medicaid into whatever bureau would run it.

You're proposing THAT as your eminently possible alternative to my idea?  Have you SEEN the current house of Reps?

redmid17: Those are all broad strokes.

Okay, so you've gotten us to America, circa 1950.  I can definitely see how some of those things would reduce crime, but you're not exactly setting up a Scandinavian welfare state.  You really, really oversold this plan.


1) I don't want it changed. How about that? In my view it's perfectly fine as is.
2) I guarantee you my proposal has a lot better chance of happening in the near or remote future than your's does. Do you not remember 4 years ago when we were debating more or less exactly what I outlined? If the Democrats had been such chickenshiats, then we'd have it already.

There are some things you'd have to extrapolate from the plan. Fewer felons from the war on drugs means fewer people DQ'ed from job searches because of a criminal records. Lack of opportunities to earn money are the primary catalyst in criminal activity. If you take the economic incentive out of things like drug dealing and turf wars -- ending war on drugs also meant legalizing and regulating most types of drugs if I wasn't clear -- there is no reason so shoot up a corner so you can deal drugs. I think you're really underestimating how effective this would be. Frankly there are a lot of things I'd like to take from Scandinavian and Canadian models. Like I said, these are broad strokes.
2014-01-05 09:41:35 PM  
2 votes:

redmid17: Because changing an amendment is incredibly hard to do, on top of the fact I don't think it needs to be changed. All of the legal legwork has already been done for the healthcare part. ACA was declared constitutional. Medicaid and Medicare have been around for 50 years.  There isn't an enforcement issue. Everyone gets healthcare coverage by default. You don't have to worry about digging around through people's like you might have to do for guns. There's no arrests. You would have to raise taxes and probably merge medicare/medicaid into whatever bureau would run it. It also wouldn't clog up the justice system.

Reid had the ability to nuke the filibuster when ACA was passed. The US could easily have had the single payer system Obama wanted. Now we have a pretty shiatty half-assed implementation that is pissing a lot of people off and enriching the companies who deserve it the least. shiat they could pass the single payer option this week if they wanted to.

Steps to reduce crime:
1) Release non-violent offenders from prison. shiat's expensive and keeping them in prison doesn't help anyting. Work on anti-recidivism programs. They're pretty successful in other countries
2) End the war on drugs (this one is obvious)
3) Expand healthcare like I noted above
4) Make sure mental healthcare is not stigmatized and available to everyone. Want to keep those spree shooters from happening
5) Provide job training and education opportunities for those who are unemployed or came from underprivileged backgrounds. Probably want to shift school funding from property taxes to a standardized per student model or something similar.

Those are all broad strokes. I've written this type of post before so I might be missing something really obvious.


I did miss a really obvious one: Prosecute people who lie on a 4473. You'd be surprised how many fugitives and felons try to buy a gun legally. That's a five year sentence that would keep them off the street. It's not like you don't know where the person lives either. Don't even have to pick him or her up on the spot.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf
2014-01-05 09:28:15 PM  
2 votes:

The Name: redmid17: I'd like to address the root of the problem, not the symptom.

But why not address the symptom, too?  You've already come out in support of an unprecedentedly ambitious program of social welfare that would be incredibly difficult to implement in this country.  Why is the second amendment completely off the table?

redmid17: You're not biting on the logistics/enforcement/likelihood aspects for the same reason you haven't given any specifics when asked. You have nothing productive to add.

Now that I think about it, I'd like to hear some specifics on how you'd address the root of the problem.  Please use footnotes, not endnotes.  I don't like having to flip to the back all the time.


Because changing an amendment is incredibly hard to do, on top of the fact I don't think it needs to be changed. All of the legal legwork has already been done for the healthcare part. ACA was declared constitutional. Medicaid and Medicare have been around for 50 years.  There isn't an enforcement issue. Everyone gets healthcare coverage by default. You don't have to worry about digging around through people's like you might have to do for guns. There's no arrests. You would have to raise taxes and probably merge medicare/medicaid into whatever bureau would run it. It also wouldn't clog up the justice system.

Reid had the ability to nuke the filibuster when ACA was passed. The US could easily have had the single payer system Obama wanted. Now we have a pretty shiatty half-assed implementation that is pissing a lot of people off and enriching the companies who deserve it the least. shiat they could pass the single payer option this week if they wanted to.

Steps to reduce crime:
1) Release non-violent offenders from prison. shiat's expensive and keeping them in prison doesn't help anyting. Work on anti-recidivism programs. They're pretty successful in other countries
2) End the war on drugs (this one is obvious)
3) Expand healthcare like I noted above
4) Make sure mental healthcare is not stigmatized and available to everyone. Want to keep those spree shooters from happening
5) Provide job training and education opportunities for those who are unemployed or came from underprivileged backgrounds. Probably want to shift school funding from property taxes to a standardized per student model or something similar.

Those are all broad strokes. I've written this type of post before so I might be missing something really obvious.
2014-01-05 10:37:01 AM  
2 votes:
Yup, because, correlation equals causation. Fine homework there, Lou...
2014-01-05 11:09:15 PM  
1 votes:
The Name:

How does it make you feel that the 2nd Amendment will never be repealed in your lifetime, and the only thing you can do is a) biatch about it on Fark and b) sit back and take it

Does it make you mad?
2014-01-05 10:13:23 PM  
1 votes:

The Name: redmid17: There are some things you'd have to extrapolate from the plan. Fewer felons from the war on drugs means fewer people DQ'ed from job searches because of a criminal records. Lack of opportunities to earn money are the primary catalyst in criminal activity. If you take the economic incentive out of things like drug dealing and turf wars -- ending war on drugs also meant legalizing and regulating most types of drugs if I wasn't clear -- there is no reason so shoot up a corner so you can deal drugs. I think you're really underestimating how effective this would be. Frankly there are a lot of things I'd like to take from Scandinavian and Canadian models. Like I said, these are broad strokes.

Yeah, I understand all of that.  I still think your plan is very modest for what you promised, which was basically to bring gun crime down to European levels without doing a single thing with gun policy.


That's actually not what I promised. I never even gave a ballpark estimate. I believe I just said drastically and I never said I wouldn't do anything. I said I wouldn't do what you were planning. I also said I'd be in favor of mandatory sentences for committing a felony with a firearm. If you wanted to close the private sales angle, I'd be fine with how IL does it.

1) Show FOID to seller.
2) Seller calls IL state police to run check and make sure FOID is valid
3) Have to keep bill of transaction for ten years (name, make/model of gun, serial, et al).

I'd also be on board with teaching firearms safety and possibly usage in public schools. There'd need to be a lot of stuff sussed out on that one. Guns in school would require repealing several laws and would be very much against public sentiment.

The Name: redmid17: 1) I don't want it changed. How about that? In my view it's perfectly fine as is.
So, it's perfectly fine as it is, and it's preventing the passage of legislation that could save lives.  Why don't you just come out and say it?  I know you want to . . .
CUZ I WANT MY GUUUUUNS!!1


The cost benefit ratio of passing your sweeping, unconstitutional, and heinously underthought logistical problems would not make it worth it. Yes I like my guns. I derive pleasure from hunting and target shooting. It's a fun way to spend time with my dad and brother. Even if we switched to mandatory licensing and no right to own a gun, you still have to deal with the 300 million plus guns existing in the country, most without any record of ownership or possession past the initial sale. Spouting hypotheticals and focusing on them is counterproductive at best and downright stupid  and counterproductive at worst. I like to look at solutions which could feasibly happen and address social issues that Americans have been neglecting for far too long.
2014-01-05 10:11:36 PM  
1 votes:

TuteTibiImperes: Plus, there have been scientific studies that show areas with higher firearm ownership have higher rates of gun violence.


The Boston University study was (1) non-causative and (2) state-by state.  If you look at ownership rates and crime by, say, county instead of state you get a much different picture.

The reason why this is has a lot to do with the prevalence of gun-related sports (e.g. hunting) in states that also have the bulk of the US's organized crime activity (Montana has many if not most of the Cartels' grow ops, for instance, and New Mexico/Arizona are basically mexican gang territories.)  It's relatively coincidental, which is why of about fifteen major studies on the subject the one you're linking is the  only one that's even claiming a positive correlation.

Basically it takes a huge amount of spin and cherry-picking to reach the conclusion you're quoting.

// Not reacting this way because I'm pro-gun, reacting this way because I'm a researcher and I'm not a fan of idiots that corrupt the process to try to score political points with misdirection.
2014-01-05 10:07:58 PM  
1 votes:

Dusk-You-n-Me: Doom MD: He doesn't like the elderly, females, or the poor being able to defend themselves.

Access to guns - The only time conservatives actually give a sh*t about the elderly, females, or the poor. Like spotting a unicorn in the wild. Shhhh...shhh. Just watch kids.


You are correct; anyone who does not oppose civilian disarmament is a "conservative".
2014-01-05 09:31:57 PM  
1 votes:
Just to bring back some sanity to the gun thread for a moment, it's worth noting that there are gun laws that have historically had a positive effect.  Banning convicted criminals from owning guns has forced them largely to avoid temptation when they're trying to go legit, CCP training requirements certainly reduce the risk of licensed carriers doing something stupid with their guns, etc.

There are really only three centerpieces of gun control law that flat-out accomplish nothing: magazine size limits intentionally set several rounds below industry standards, flat-out municipal/state ownership bans, and cosmetic bans.  These are both kind of obviously stupid on basic logical grounds, and have proven ineffective when implemented.

A lot of the other stuff that's been proposed, like universalizing the ban on ownership by people that have been involuntarily committed to an institution, allowing the background check system to access mental health records where relevant, allowing anyone to access the background check system, and closing the stupid gun "collector" exemption loophole... are really good ideas.  And I say this as someone who has never  not had a gun or five somewhere in my living space.

//The gun-show loophole, especially, is  demonstrably the source of a decent portion of the guns used in crimes.  Arguing against closing that takes a pretty heavy dose of head-in-the sand.
//The main problem with the gun control movement is that the loudest people in it make the three completely discredited measures the centerpiece of their bullshiat.  If Obama was the visible leader of the gun-control push instead of Feinstein (he basically runs off of the last paragraph in what he's advocating) it'd be a lot more palatable to, y'know, sane people.
2014-01-05 08:35:11 PM  
1 votes:

udhq: Elvis Presleys Death Throne: That picture was just for you. You're only mad because you couldn't post it yourself, for gun owners who's constitutional rights had been stripped away.

No matter; that "discussed and renegotiated" thing got its ass kicked last year and I don't expect we'll be hearing from it any time soon.

It is good to see that your ilk never tire of that whole standing on the graves of dead kids thing though.

And your ilk never gets tired of enabling those who want to make more dead kids.

The right likes to say that the left is afraid of guns, but that's not true.  Guns are tools, and in the hands of well trained people, they can be used for good.  What we fear are guns in the hands of unhinged, anti-social people like you who see their guns not as a grave set of rights and responsibilities,  but as something to wave in the air to piss off the right people.

You don't seem to take gun ownership seriously at all, and the good gun owners out there should want you to sit down, shut up and stop making them all look like deranged adolescents.


It's funny you should mention that, because as an Army Veteran and recovering long time Liberal, I've always seen guns as nothing more than tools, which can be used for mundane tasks or terrible evil, and similar to a hammer are not themselves responsible for those acts.  That position is typical of the gun lobby and I'm surprised that you are trying to lay claim to it.

This is the second time you've asserted that I'm an unhinged, anti-social, school shooter type person, I'm assuming on the basis that I used a Dawsons Creek meme unbelievably common to Fark.  I've said nothing to indicate instability, save for committing the terrible sin of disagreeing with your position.

Allow me to clarify this.

I have no criminal record.
I am college educated.
I'm an active Catholic, who disagrees with the church on abortion, but believes strongly enough to know that I may not be right.
I run a hockey team.
I'm a Lifetime NRA member, as well as a member of the 2nd Amendment Foundation and Gun Owners of America.
I served in combat, and am obviously very well trained in firearms.  I always took their safe handling and secure storage very seriously.
I never saw my substantial collection of firearms, including AR15's, High-Cap Handguns, Sporting Guns and .22's as something to piss people off.  I purchased and kept them because I enjoyed shooting them.
When I found that I didn't have the time to enjoy them, and felt that there were other activities I would enjoy more for the money(namely motorcycling) I sold my collection.  Make your jokes; I'm indifferent.

I support Constutional Gun Rights as much as I ever have.  The source of that support is not in owning a massive personal arsenal; it's in being a member of organizations which fight for those rights, and voting my beliefs at the ballot box and with my feet by choosing to live in a state that will treat me with the respect assured in the Constitution and it's Amendments, which is due to responsible adults.

Now how about if you grow up, develop an opinion outside of what Pierce Morgan pumps into you, and think for yourself just a little bit.
2014-01-05 07:55:02 PM  
1 votes:

super_grass: So has Fark reached consensus on whether or not gun crime rates are related to gun control laws yet?


They aren't. There's no correlation. The problem isn't guns, or gun laws.

The problem is America: It's full of total shiatbags.
2014-01-05 07:05:14 PM  
1 votes:
So a single city, which is part of a larger country and therefore unable to set up border checkpoints, has found its gun laws unable to stem the flow of guns?  This clearly means that a large country which controls its own borders will be unable to do the same with strict gun laws.

/Cities and states which ban guns don't get much use out of the laws
//Nations which ban guns, however, are often able to make gun crime drop as a result
2014-01-05 05:51:32 PM  
1 votes:

Dusk-You-n-Me: cameroncrazy1984: That's why you only hear about cities like Chicago. Actually pretty much only Chicago.

Like Chicago, I'd wager most of the guns used in gun crime in DC come from out of town/district.


There is ONE dealer with a FFL in DC who does a handful of sales per year by appointment only. There are NO felons who can legally buy a gun in DC (or the rest of the country). I'd wager that there has never been a crime committed in DC that was committed by a gun without a criminal attached. 

There are no car manufacturers in DC. I'd wager most of the cars used in car crime in DC come from out of town/district.

There are NO distillerys in DC.  I'd wager most of the booze used in drunk driving crime in DC come from out of town/district.

There are NO legal growers in DC. I'd wager most of the pot used in pot crime in DC come from out of town/district.

There are NO Computer manufacturers in DC. I'd wager most of the computers used in computer crime in DC come from out of town/district.

There are almost zero shark attacks in the middle of the Sahara Desert so it must be SAFER to live there than the Australian Coast.
2014-01-05 05:08:04 PM  
1 votes:

udhq: Elvis Presleys Death Throne: FARKLIBS be like
[www.troll.me image 550x413]

You know, a big part of the reason that your perceived constitutional rights are being discussed and renegotiated is that whenever the topic comes, there are throngs of people on your side who insist upon behaving like anti-social douchebags.

You would think people like you would learn that you're not helping your own cause when you post like someone who we could imagine shooting up a primary school.


That picture was just for you.  You're only mad because you couldn't post it yourself, for gun owners who's constitutional rights had been stripped away.

No matter; that "discussed and renegotiated" thing got its ass kicked last year and I don't expect we'll be hearing from it any time soon.

It is good to see that your ilk never tire of that whole standing on the graves of dead kids thing though.
2014-01-05 04:47:56 PM  
1 votes:
FARKLIBS be like
www.troll.me
2014-01-05 03:23:16 PM  
1 votes:

m00: They also have stop-and-frisk. Which is a whole different conversation. I was in New York for the holidays, and there was NO WHERE on the island that felt unsafe.


I wasn't aware New York was an island...
2014-01-05 02:59:47 PM  
1 votes:

redmid17: TuteTibiImperes: HeadLever: udhq: Implying that you're willing to use your guns against a democratically elected government doesn't make you a patriot, it makes you a fascist and a tyrant.

yep, because Randy Weaver was a fascist and a tyrant. I know that it is hard for some to fathom, but no matter what type of government you have, you should always have the right to defend yourself.

He was however a criminal who caused his own demise by choosing to hole up instead of surrendering to the authorities.

I mean he's still alive, so I don't think he really caused his demise. And from his perspective, do you really think he was going to turn himself over to a system that he felt turned him into a criminal for nothing? Even if the gun charges were 100% true ( he was acquitted at trial), the issue of the bench warrant even after the gov't admitted they gave him the wrong time/date to show up and the grand jury where they omitted and lied about the bad letter is pretty huge.


I'm not saying the government didn't make some mistakes handling his case, but those are things he should have brought to the attention of his lawyer and handled through due process in the courts.  There's no excuse for getting into a standoff with the police.
2014-01-05 02:44:43 PM  
1 votes:

doglover: Turbo Cojones: Target Builder: Comparing DC to the whole of another state is a screwy way to look at things - try comparing it to the crime rates in the densest cities in each state and see if there is any correlation between gun laws and crime rates.

Say that when they bring up "Chicago"

/Escambia County, FL (more churches per capita than any other place in the US) has a higher murder rate than Chicago, but you  won't see it mentioned by the gun nutz for two reasons:

1. It has lax gun laws

2. They often don't grasp the concept of murder "rate" as opposed to net numbers.

Median household income, 2008-2012

Escambia $43,806 vs FL $47,309

Chicago $47,408 vs IL $56,853

New York City $57,683 vs NY $53,046

Which city is the safest of the three? Why New York, the area with the highest median income. In fact, it's the area with median income higher than the state around it. It's also FAAAR safer.

But tell me again about gun laws.


 In 2010, the median wage in the UK for all jobs was £20,801 and there were fewer than 600 homicides in the entire country.  Low income and tough gun laws = fewer murders?

Lots of guns = the opportunity for lots of violence
2014-01-05 01:34:48 PM  
1 votes:

socoloco: Because the one thing we truly need in an expanding police state is more gun control.


Were our 300 million guns being used to actually wage literal class warfare, you'd have a point.
2014-01-05 01:33:53 PM  
1 votes:
My opinion on guns is very similar to my opinion on abortion. I'm in favor of it being legal, but I think we need to do more in our society to discourage both.

If we lower poverty, we lower crime. If we lower crime, not only will there be fewer criminals using guns, there will also be fewer people buying guns to protect themselves against criminals. I'm not in favor of abolishing the 2nd Amendment, but I am in favor of making it as much of a relic of an antiquated past as the 3rd.
2014-01-05 01:11:16 PM  
1 votes:

m00: cameroncrazy1984: NYC has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, and their crime rate has been going down for a long time.

They also have stop-and-frisk. Which is a whole different conversation. I was in New York for the holidays, and there was NO WHERE on the island that felt unsafe. I guess totalitarianism really can guarantee safety -- there was a cop on every corner empowered to frisk you (I made a game of "how many seconds I can go without seeing a cop"), and "if you see something, say something" posters everywhere.

The Federal Government fails because it takes away our freedoms and makes us less safe. At least in New York you get safety in exchange. So I wouldn't chalk up lowering crime rate in NYC to the gun laws alone... it's a total commitment to crime prevention at the expense of all other sensibilities.


In fairness, NYC is a special case, even among cities.  Ten of the top eleven most densely populated regions in the US are in the NY metro area.  No other city even comes close.
2014-01-05 01:06:02 PM  
1 votes:

Sidecrab: Look at DC's demographics, therein lies the answer.


"About 17% of D.C. residents were age 18 or younger in 2010; lower than the U.S. average of 24%. However, at 34 years old, the District had the lowest median age compared to the 50 states."

Yep, those young'uns tend to be a bit more ready to sling lead than older folks. I can totally see where you're coming from.

/that is what you meant by "demographics", right?
2014-01-05 12:49:56 PM  
1 votes:
This besides the fact that strict checkpoints at all access points to and from the city prevent anyone from bringing firearms in, from Virginia (unrestricted ownership with the exception of machine guns--hey, I have to register my machine gun in Virginia? You bastards!) or from any of the other gun-besotted neo-confederacies of the Southeast.  Most guns used in crime have either been stolen (around 15%) or transferred between individuals after the original purchase (i.e., picked up no questions asked at the local gun fair). Given that these guns are almost inevitably disposed of as too incriminating, if guns were outlawed for a short while only outlaws would have guns. And then no one would have guns.

I wish there were a sensible way to discuss this situation. I understand completely why people in the flyover states cling to their guns; they need long barrel guns to put food on the table (you sure can't afford meat at Walmart wages) and they need hand guns to protect themselves from the other poverty-stricken meth-addled hicks they share their little corner of hell with. I'm prepared to accept 30,000 annual gun deaths in this country  as the price of maintaining our Second Amendment rights. I'd just settle for a few common sense restrictions on high capacity magazines so that the next time some nutbar decides to decorate the walls at the local elementary school with children's brains, he has to stop to reload a little sooner and maybe keep the cost of freedom down just a little.
2014-01-05 12:48:47 PM  
1 votes:

doglover: cameroncrazy1984: NYC has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, and their crime rate has been going down for a long time.

Chicago has some of the strongest gun laws now and historically. They've been a war zone more than once and will be again.

It's almost like, gasp, guns are not a cause of crime.

Find me the poverty, I'll find you the crooks.


Guns are not the cause of crime, but access to guns allows criminals to do more damage.

Isolated gun control laws will never be as effective as nationwide ones.  The UK and Japan both have very low rates of firearm violence because they have strict firearm control laws and can mostly prevent them from entering the country.  There's no way that Chicago can do that effectively, but if gun controls were established nationwide it would do a lot to reduce gun crime over time (it would take a while here just because of the sheer number of guns already in the country).

And sure, we're not an island, but Canada has effective firearm controls, so we wouldn't see much gun running from that border.  Mexico is another story, but effective policing near the border could hopefully catch a lot of the guns coming over and contain the gun violence closer to the border.
2014-01-05 12:46:06 PM  
1 votes:
1400? That's a big number! I'm convinced - without any further need for context, comparison or explanation.
2014-01-05 12:44:07 PM  
1 votes:

doglover: Chicago has some of the strongest gun laws now and historically. They've been a war zone more than once and will be again.


Guns in Chicago primarily come from out of county/state. And in 2013 Chicago had the fewest murders since 1965.
2014-01-05 12:43:21 PM  
1 votes:
2014-01-05 12:39:34 PM  
1 votes:
I love the dumb stuff on. weekend Fark. Reminds me I have shiat to do.
2014-01-05 12:38:28 PM  
1 votes:

Superjew: If getting rid of the weapons doesn't solve the problem, maybe we should consider getting rid of the people who use them instead.

/just sayin'


Some sort of 'final solution', you might say?
2014-01-05 12:36:53 PM  
1 votes:
If getting rid of the weapons doesn't solve the problem, maybe we should consider getting rid of the people who use them instead.

/just sayin'
2014-01-05 12:28:46 PM  
1 votes:
Obviously it means we should ban money so we can prevent others from shooting each other over it. Go back to bartering.
2014-01-05 12:24:45 PM  
1 votes:

Dusk-You-n-Me: cameroncrazy1984: That's why you only hear about cities like Chicago. Actually pretty much only Chicago.

Like Chicago, I'd wager most of the guns used in gun crime in DC come from out of town/district.


I believe it. I believe NY's gun laws work because CT and NJ have similarly strict gun laws. Actually, I'm not sure what NJ's are like.
2014-01-05 12:23:09 PM  
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: That's why you only hear about cities like Chicago. Actually pretty much only Chicago.


Like Chicago, I'd wager most of the guns used in gun crime in DC come from out of town/district.
2014-01-05 12:10:20 PM  
1 votes:

NewportBarGuy: Why have any laws at all?


Exactly. If the law doesn't stop 100% of the problem don't bother with it. Not to mention the guns could never have come from somewhere else.
2014-01-05 11:54:26 AM  
1 votes:

vpb: It's really interesting to compare the firearms death rate for different states.  DC is right at the top, but it's interesting to see how the states rank.

The gun loving states are right at the top.


That's why you only hear about cities like Chicago. Actually pretty much only Chicago.
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-01-05 11:47:49 AM  
1 votes:
It's really interesting to compare the firearms death rate for different states.  DC is right at the top, but it's interesting to see how the states rank.

The gun loving states are right at the top.
2014-01-05 11:03:21 AM  
1 votes:
Gun laws don't generally correlate one way or another to crime rates.
2014-01-05 10:47:30 AM  
1 votes:
So we should, like, have the government hand out free guns to every citizen?

Wait... That's socialism...
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-01-05 09:53:10 AM  
1 votes:
Authorities in Worcester, Mass. credited gun control with increasing the number of knife crimes, which still count as armed.

/DNRTFA
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report