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.

(Chicago Trib)   Chicago, with the nation's strictest gun laws, would like to point out that 1 of the 7 homicides last night was a stabbing. No gun was used in that killing   ( chicagotribune.com) divider line
    More: Sad, Chicago, stabbing, homicides, gun laws, stab wound, Chicago Police Department, Englewood  
•       •       •

4617 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Jan 2013 at 12:30 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



448 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-01-27 11:14:28 AM  
I think silverware sets should be limited to a single place setting.  Why does anyone need 8 knives to eat?
 
2013-01-27 11:49:38 AM  
Gee, its almost as if the reality of guns in an urban setting (where everyone is spatially compressed and differential social problems are thus magnified) is far different from the reality of guns in a rural setting.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-27 11:53:39 AM  

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


Sure it is, that's why cities need stricter gun control than rural areas.  The only real use for a gun in a city is as a weapon against people.  There aren't any deer or quail.
 
2013-01-27 12:02:58 PM  
 
i.imgur.comView Full Size


Uh, Senator, were you actually at the classified briefing on Benghazi
where we all watched the footage and explanations of attack?

i.imgur.comView Full Size



==
Why is it that people who claim to be trying to get to the bottom of Benghazi can't seem to make time for the actual intelligence briefings on Benghazi?

 
2013-01-27 12:04:35 PM  
Aw Crap.

Wrong Thread.
 
2013-01-27 12:07:25 PM  

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


This is bullshiat. Hunters, sport shooters, and collectors live in cities too.
 
2013-01-27 12:12:00 PM  

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


Wait a minute. There are different sizes of cites too, and all of them have hunters, plinkers and skeet shooters too. Its not really an either/or proposition between two arbitrary categories---my post wasn't meant to suggest there are only two kinds of environments or that only certain types of people live in one or the other. I was just suggesting that different circumstances might call for different approaches--not suggesting there are only two circumstances.
 
2013-01-27 12:24:45 PM  
The NRA dummies keep pounding the pathetic argument that because Chicago has bad gun violence problems and its leaders have pursued gun restrictions, therefore the pursuit of gun restrictions causes gun violence.

If you are so dumb and incapable of logical thought that you sign onto - let alone repeat talking points supporting - this argument, then you might just be (a) too stupid to breed, (b) a Fox viewer, and (c) a redneck.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-27 12:30:46 PM  

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

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


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

There are reasons that cities tend to have different laws from rural areas.
 
2013-01-27 12:34:43 PM  

Somacandra:  [i.imgur.com image 330x180]Uh, Senator, were you actually at the classified briefing on Benghazi
where we all watched the footage and explanations of attack?[i.imgur.com image 330x175]No, I wasn't.
==
Why is it that people who claim to be trying to get to the bottom of Benghazi can't seem to make time for the actual intelligence briefings on Benghazi?


That's because he was not on the committe at the time.
 
2013-01-27 12:35:21 PM  
And the other 6?
 
2013-01-27 12:35:34 PM  
How many people were killed with AK-17's?
 
2013-01-27 12:36:17 PM  

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

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


Idiot. The take-away is that gun control is ineffective, not that it causes crime. Lame strawman is lame
 
2013-01-27 12:36:38 PM  
Brother what a night the people saw. Brother what a fight the people saw, yes indeed
 
2013-01-27 12:36:44 PM  

BradleyUffner: And the other 6?


They didn't get the point.
 
2013-01-27 12:37:23 PM  

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


FTFY
 
2013-01-27 12:38:20 PM  

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

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


Bullshiat


The Second Amendment isn't there solely for hunting. Anyone claiming otherwise is either an idiot, or willfully obtuse.
 
2013-01-27 12:39:38 PM  

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

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


The argument is to show the gun control doesn't mean less gun violence. So your methods are ineffective and may not make the problem worse but will do nothing to stop it. If you really want to start dealing with the problem of gun violence we going to have to start dealing with some difficult social and economic questions about society and culture. But those to complex for the politicians to strink down to a sound byte for the stupid voters to understand, so nothing will really change.
 
2013-01-27 12:39:38 PM  

bronyaur1: the pursuit of gun restrictions causes gun violence.


No, dumbass.  The point is that gun restrictions have a negligible impact on gun violence. Although I think if you use 'too stupid to breed' as an insult, you shouldn't have picked a nym that paints you as someone unlikely to ever breed or even be given the opportunity.
 
2013-01-27 12:40:26 PM  
So do nothing.

Amirite?
 
2013-01-27 12:40:43 PM  

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

FTFY


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

It's almost as if the gun bans aren't the reason behind the rise in violent crimes in Chicago.
 
2013-01-27 12:41:29 PM  
If the victim of the knife attack had a gun, he wouldn't be a victim!

/and Chicago would be 7 for 7!
 
2013-01-27 12:41:37 PM  

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

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

Bullshiat


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


I know...I know...it's to rise up against our Government or something right?
 
2013-01-27 12:41:50 PM  

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

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

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

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


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

Do you actually believe this silly shiat?
 
2013-01-27 12:45:44 PM  

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


The Brits have a different idea: ban sharp points on the ends of long knives. Then a criminal will have to beat you to death with the handle, which might be more trouble than he's willing to go to.
 
2013-01-27 12:46:24 PM  

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


I think the take-away here is that gun control is ineffective when it's attempted in a small area of a country full of guns.
 
2013-01-27 12:46:43 PM  
Make it harder to get new guns, encourage an alternative of less than lethal self protection measures. Why is this bad?
 
2013-01-27 12:47:56 PM  

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

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


But there are coyotes and I'm afraid they may eat my rats.
 
2013-01-27 12:47:58 PM  

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

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


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

It honestly makes no difference in crime one way or another.
 
2013-01-27 12:48:51 PM  
Viable economic pursuits that don't, by nature, involve gun violence, might tend to decrease the amount of gun violence.
 
2013-01-27 12:49:31 PM  
Wow. It's almost like the gun manufacturers weren't simply selling their murder weapons in other cities to be transported to Chicago for murders.
 
2013-01-27 12:49:31 PM  

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


I haven't heard the NRA advance the argument that it causes gun violence, but restriction is demonstrably an ineffective policy.
 
2013-01-27 12:50:08 PM  

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


Because it's much more difficult to consistently, completely neutralize an adversary in a non-lethal way than it is to do so in a lethal way.
 
2013-01-27 12:50:44 PM  
I hate this farking place.
 
2013-01-27 12:50:46 PM  
...oh, and that whole 2nd Amendment thing.
 
2013-01-27 12:51:46 PM  

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


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

Please continue on about "murder weapons"...
 
2013-01-27 12:52:19 PM  

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


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

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

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

Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.
 
2013-01-27 12:52:46 PM  
Four shootings that should have had at least a dozen victims each if it were not for those silly laws.
 
2013-01-27 12:52:53 PM  

Cyrus the Mediocre: BradleyUffner: And the other 6?

They didn't get the point.


Thread over.
 
2013-01-27 12:53:57 PM  

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


Try to follow along. They are pointing out that taking away the guns is NOT reducing the crime.
 
2013-01-27 12:54:06 PM  

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


Lawyers. If the person that broke into your house survives, you get sued.
 
2013-01-27 12:55:22 PM  

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


Thread over, right off the bat. Congrats.
 
2013-01-27 12:56:06 PM  

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

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

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

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


Wow, and here I was about to give you the benefit of the doubt and tell everyone that you were just being sarcastic. Looks like you're just stupid.
 
2013-01-27 12:56:16 PM  

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


dammit

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

They didn't get the point.

Thread over.


Sharp wit.
 
2013-01-27 12:56:19 PM  
The argument that people would just use other weapons such as knives and bats to kill each other if guns were banned doesn't hold up. Americans are too fat to go on a mass stabbing spree. They'd get tuckered out after the first few thrusts and have to lie down for a nap.

Gun owners: Too lazy and obese to kill people the way nature intended.
 
2013-01-27 12:56:27 PM  

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


I see your problem.
 
2013-01-27 12:56:59 PM  

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

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


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

And that's with fewer police officers than in 2000, also. It's almost like having stricter gun laws in the larger jurisdiction has an effect.
 
2013-01-27 12:56:59 PM  

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


Hey now, only a very small percentage of gun dealers is providing the majority of weapons to criminals. Of course the NRA has helped write legislation that makes it nearly impossible to go after those dealers. But that's good, you see if we can get more guns in the hands of criminals, then law abiding citizens will have no choice but to arm themselves in order to be safe. That creates more demand for guns and more jobs, which is good for the economy.
 
2013-01-27 12:56:59 PM  

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


I'm going to go with zero. Ever.
 
2013-01-27 12:57:11 PM  

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

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


Since Chicago's 30 year handgun ban ended, gun violence has soared.

Anybody trying to use Chicago as "proof" for or against gun laws is an asshole.
 
2013-01-27 12:57:40 PM  

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

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

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





So your argument is that correlation with n=1 implies causation on the general effectiveness of gun control? In the absence of the counter factual??

You guys are even dumber than *I* thought you are. Thanks for proving the point, genius.
 
2013-01-27 12:57:41 PM  

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

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


HAHA... no.

The pursuit of gun control does nothing to lower violence. The point of gun control is supposed to be to lower violence. The result of gun control is people have on average fewer guns and criminals have more than the average person (all other criminal factors except for possession of gun being equal).

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


I'd go further. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

Mrtraveler01: But then you look at NYC and DC which have its murder numbers plummet to record levels even though they have strict gun laws as well.


DC's murder rate fell even after the repeal of its ban. In California, the murder rate rose after a gun control measure in the late 80s and again after it was strengthened in the late 90s. It took several years for the murder rate to fall back down below the years when the control was passed.

Gun control laws do not lower crime. They divert police resources towards useless enforcement and disarm people who aren't likely to break the law.
 
2013-01-27 12:58:46 PM  
Whew! Now we don't have to ban guns, only video games!
 
2013-01-27 12:58:57 PM  

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


Your suggestion is interesting, but it must be weighed against the fact that you are an unrepentant liar.
 
2013-01-27 12:59:15 PM  
Gun violence is a symptom.
Gun availability is a causality.
Others are health, economy, social, education.
Gun availability, can be mitigated directly and quickly. While we work on the other more complicated issues.
The straw man works to subvert this simplicity
 
2013-01-27 12:59:37 PM  
I could kill for some deep-dish pizza right now.
 
2013-01-27 01:00:08 PM  

Mrbogey: . It took several years for the murder rate to fall back down below the years when the control was passed.


It's almost as if gun bans don't have an immediate effect. Whodathunk .
 
2013-01-27 01:00:28 PM  

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


So the manufacturer of a legal product that sells them in accordance with all applicable laws is also responsible for illegal usage and any illegal transfers that occurred along the way?
 
2013-01-27 01:00:33 PM  
Why do "Gun-nuts" refuse to accept any sort of restriction? Because the anti-gun lobby will NEVER stop pushing for more restrictions. Even if they agree that the restrictions are reasonable, the people pushing for the restrictions will steamroll past the point of 'reasonable.'

I propose we re-write the 2nd amendment to the following

No restriction placed upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall exceed the restriction placed upon law enforcement within the country."


After all, a police officer has no greater legal authority to use deadly force to protect their life than any other law-abiding citizen. Also if you want police officers to be 'better armed' than the people they are supposed to 'protect and serve', namely law-abiding citizens, then the role of the police must be oppression rather than protection. If the police can't have 'assault rifles' then neither can you. If the police can have a handgun, then you can too.

How's that? You'll find these 'gun nuts' willing to give up their 'assault rifles' under such a condition, because there is a standard that adjusts with the times.
 
2013-01-27 01:00:53 PM  
Most of Africa has no gun laws and little taxes, let's move there
 
2013-01-27 01:01:03 PM  
Why is it that where ever a large population of black people live there is a ton of crime?
 
2013-01-27 01:02:00 PM  

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


So what you're saying is that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns.

Check...
 
2013-01-27 01:02:40 PM  

RockChalkH1N1: Why is it that where ever a large population of black people live there is a ton of crime?


Because black people tend to live in more urban areas which tend to be more populated and have more crime?

You never hear about crime in the Black Belt of the South (a region largely populated by Blacks.)

Any more observations you'd like me to answer for you?
 
2013-01-27 01:04:20 PM  

Mrtraveler01: RockChalkH1N1: Why is it that where ever a large population of black people live there is a ton of crime?

Because black people tend to live in more urban areas which tend to be more populated and have more crime?

You never hear about crime in the Black Belt of the South (a region largely populated by Blacks.)

Any more observations you'd like me to answer for you?


Why is there a disproportional amount of black people in jail?
 
2013-01-27 01:06:27 PM  

Securitywyrm: Why do "Gun-nuts" refuse to accept any sort of restriction? Because the anti-gun lobby will NEVER stop pushing for more restrictions. Even if they agree that the restrictions are reasonable, the people pushing for the restrictions will steamroll past the point of 'reasonable.'

I propose we re-write the 2nd amendment to the following

No restriction placed upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall exceed the restriction placed upon law enforcement within the country."

After all, a police officer has no greater legal authority to use deadly force to protect their life than any other law-abiding citizen. Also if you want police officers to be 'better armed' than the people they are supposed to 'protect and serve', namely law-abiding citizens, then the role of the police must be oppression rather than protection. If the police can't have 'assault rifles' then neither can you. If the police can have a handgun, then you can too.

How's that? You'll find these 'gun nuts' willing to give up their 'assault rifles' under such a condition, because there is a standard that adjusts with the times.


Except the average person is generally trying to avoid dangerous situations and has the gun as a method of last resort. The law enforcement officer is specifically meant to put himself in more dangerous situations so that the average citizen doesn't have to. I'm fine with cops and military having more powerful weapons than civilians.
 
2013-01-27 01:06:30 PM  
How did the words "hunter" or "hunting" ever enter this discussion? [insert insult here]

Reminds me of Dr Susan Gratia's testimony over the Luby's massacre:

Link


In Chicago, the citizens have been stripped of their ability to protect themselves and their family. Why would anyone possibly want to make it easier for someone to rape women?

Gun control laws are a criminal's best friend.

American playwright David Mamet explains the folly of gun control laws: Link
 
2013-01-27 01:06:59 PM  

edmo: Four shootings that should have had at least a dozen victims each if it were not for those silly laws.


Well that's a stretch.

LarryDan43: JosephFinn: Wow. It's almost like the gun manufacturers weren't simply selling their murder weapons in other cities to be transported to Chicago for murders.

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


When a gun is recovered from a crime scene, it's possible to trace it to the dealer that sold it. From there you can follow the steps to see if there is a choke point on straw purchases or illegal sales.
 
2013-01-27 01:08:07 PM  
I dunno about anyone else, but at least two of my pistols are designed for easy concealed carry, and are meant strictly for anti-personnel work, not for hunting.
 
2013-01-27 01:08:20 PM  

RockChalkH1N1: Mrtraveler01: RockChalkH1N1: Why is it that where ever a large population of black people live there is a ton of crime?

Because black people tend to live in more urban areas which tend to be more populated and have more crime?

You never hear about crime in the Black Belt of the South (a region largely populated by Blacks.)

Any more observations you'd like me to answer for you?

Why is there a disproportional amount of black people in jail?


I don't know. Do you?
 
2013-01-27 01:08:49 PM  

OmarBradley: Gun control laws are a criminal's best friend.


Crime plummeted in Chicago during the 30-year handgun ban.
 
2013-01-27 01:10:39 PM  

jaytkay: OmarBradley: Gun control laws are a criminal's best friend.

Crime plummeted in Chicago during the 30-year handgun ban.


Oh, what do you know that someone in Gainesville, FL might not.

*checks profile*

Oh.

Say, know of any good places to get a pizza or an Italian Beef?
 
2013-01-27 01:11:06 PM  
It's clearly time to outlaw murder and attempted murder.
 
2013-01-27 01:12:54 PM  

syrynxx: bronyaur1: the pursuit of gun restrictions causes gun violence.

No, dumbass.  The point is that gun restrictions have a negligible impact on gun violence. Although I think if you use 'too stupid to breed' as an insult, you shouldn't have picked a nym that paints you as someone unlikely to ever breed or even be given the opportunity.





My screen name has nothing to do with My Little Pony, but you apparently aren't bright enough or have had sufficient life experience to have assumed any other possibility.

But apart from that, please do explain how a single example might "prove" that "gun restrictions Have a negligle effect on gun violence.". In particular, Captain Logic, please share with us your data on what Chicago gun violence rates would have been in the absence of the extant pursuit of gun limitations? Is it that gun violence would be the same? If this is your claim, what actual quantitative evidence do you provide for it?

Or..... Are you utterly unable to do anything but sputter because you have nothing to back up your argument?

Quo erat demonstratum, you dumbfarks. Your baseless and pathetic claims are precisely proving MY claim that none of you spouting this moronic talking point comprehends what a weak argument it makes.
 
2013-01-27 01:14:19 PM  

Mrtraveler01: RockChalkH1N1: Mrtraveler01: RockChalkH1N1: Why is it that where ever a large population of black people live there is a ton of crime?

Because black people tend to live in more urban areas which tend to be more populated and have more crime?

You never hear about crime in the Black Belt of the South (a region largely populated by Blacks.)

Any more observations you'd like me to answer for you?

Why is there a disproportional amount of black people in jail?

I don't know. Do you?


No, that's why I'm asking
 
2013-01-27 01:17:21 PM  
THEY HAD A STABBING?!!!!
Well, there ya go...
We gotta get rid of those evil knives too!
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/british-doctors-call-for-ban - on-long-kitchen-knives-to-end-stabbings/

Oh, BTW... how many of those shootings were done with soon-to-be-banned...again assault rifles?
 
2013-01-27 01:18:20 PM  

jaytkay: OmarBradley: Gun control laws are a criminal's best friend.

Crime plummeted in Chicago during the 30-year handgun ban.


Utter bullshiat. And the idea that crime has spiked because of Chicago's ban being overturned is BS as well. Chicago has no gun stores, and anyone who wants to legally possess a handgun gun in Chicago has to attend two classes that by design are not allowed to be taught in the city limits (because of the de facto ban on firing ranges), pay hundreds of dollars, and get fingerprinted.

Rahm Emanuel also dissolved the city's tactical gang response teams, which would go in and saturate high crime areas when violence flared up, essentially forcing the gangs to lay low and not retaliate against each other. Their brilliant new strategy involves going after restaurants and liquor stores with municipal code violations.
 
2013-01-27 01:18:34 PM  

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


Because people who regulate guns to get their jollies just can't resist the temptation to ban or restrict less-lethal weapons. A device like the Taser has no lobby and no sporting use, so it's already banned or restricted in many places.

The second amendment, when reduced to the brass tacks, is about preventing the fed from robbing states and individuals of the ability to defend themselves against an armed threat.
Assault rifles, shotguns and handguns have a military use. Carbines like the AR-15 can defend you against gunmen, are often used in sport shooting, and can put meat on the table. So their lobbies and owners defend them fiercely.

Taser's... Can't do any of that. They are self defense only and limited (often unreliable), and then you've got the legal and bureaucratic issues.
No one speaks up for them.

/I agree its a good plan to encourage LLW's, and I believe fewer people would buy guns if they had an alternative.
/but we need to get the troll out from under the path to owning those alternatives or nothings happening.
 
2013-01-27 01:19:27 PM  

Mrtraveler01: jaytkay: OmarBradley: Gun control laws are a criminal's best friend.

Crime plummeted in Chicago during the 30-year handgun ban.

Oh, what do you know that someone in Gainesville, FL might not.

*checks profile*

Oh.

Say, know of any good places to get a pizza or an Italian Beef?


Johnnies in Elmwood park for beef Gino's East for pizza
/Gene and Jude's for hotdogs in River Grove(not far from Johnnies)
 
2013-01-27 01:19:56 PM  
Gun laws and restrictions are part of an effective strategy to prevent gun violence. Canadians have more hurdles to owning certain classes of arms, but can still own them. Compare gun related deaths between the two countries, I bet no one even needs to look it up to know that laws and regulations can work.

It's not about banning weapons, it's about regulating them to balance public safety and ownership. You can have both respectively if y'all could stop this inane partisan douchery.
 
2013-01-27 01:20:33 PM  
Chicago, all the proof in the world that you need that strict gun laws raise the murder rate.

How many people will be sacrificed to the alter of gun demonization in New York, Chicago and Washington DC before they realize that their strict gun laws are mainly hurting their own citizens? It's okay kids, your rights will continue to be slaughtered in the name of safety, right along with your neighbors.

Can't look at the actual culprits behind murder, you know the murderers, because that would be bad for re-election.
 
2013-01-27 01:20:49 PM  
Thanks Cyrus for sticking that tune in there you ruined the thread for me "shakes fist"
 
2013-01-27 01:22:08 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Say, know of any good places to get a pizza or an Italian Beef?


Pequod's Pizza

Italian Beef, I dunno, that's not my thing.
 
2013-01-27 01:22:16 PM  

RockChalkH1N1: Mrtraveler01: RockChalkH1N1: Mrtraveler01: RockChalkH1N1: Why is it that where ever a large population of black people live there is a ton of crime?

Because black people tend to live in more urban areas which tend to be more populated and have more crime?

You never hear about crime in the Black Belt of the South (a region largely populated by Blacks.)

Any more observations you'd like me to answer for you?

Why is there a disproportional amount of black people in jail?

I don't know. Do you?

No, that's why I'm asking


Dude, any second they're going to start yelling racism and it's game over from there.

Don't bother.
 
2013-01-27 01:22:26 PM  

DogBoyTheCat: THEY HAD A STABBING?!!!!
Well, there ya go...
We gotta get rid of those evil knives too!
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/british-doctors-call-for-ban - on-long-kitchen-knives-to-end-stabbings/

Oh, BTW... how many of those shootings were done with soon-to-be-banned...again assault rifles?


I think a ban of those is a waste of time, but I also think it's silly that people are getting upset because they need an assault rifle for self-defense.

No you don't, it's just a toy. I'm perfectly fine with you guys wanting to keep them but stop kidding me telling me you need these for self-defense or hunting and just tell me it's a toy.
 
2013-01-27 01:22:32 PM  

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

Because people who regulate guns to get their jollies just can't resist the temptation to ban or restrict less-lethal weapons. A device like the Taser has no lobby and no sporting use, so it's already banned or restricted in many places.

The second amendment, when reduced to the brass tacks, is about preventing the fed from robbing states and individuals of the ability to defend themselves against an armed threat.
Assault rifles, shotguns and handguns have a military use. Carbines like the AR-15 can defend you against gunmen, are often used in sport shooting, and can put meat on the table. So their lobbies and owners defend them fiercely.

Taser's... Can't do any of that. They are self defense only and limited (often unreliable), and then you've got the legal and bureaucratic issues.
No one speaks up for them.

/I agree its a good plan to encourage LLW's, and I believe fewer people would buy guns if they had an alternative.
/but we need to get the troll out from under the path to owning those alternatives or nothings happening.


Pepper spray is also banned in Washington DC.

Greylight: Gun laws and restrictions are part of an effective strategy to prevent gun violence. Canadians have more hurdles to owning certain classes of arms, but can still own them. Compare gun related deaths between the two countries, I bet no one even needs to look it up to know that laws and regulations can work.

It's not about banning weapons, it's about regulating them to balance public safety and ownership. You can have both respectively if y'all could stop this inane partisan douchery.


Canada doesn't have a retarded and costly drug war, nor do they have nearly as big of a gang problem in their inner cities.
 
2013-01-27 01:22:52 PM  
You can pry my penis from my cold dead hands.
 
2013-01-27 01:23:41 PM  

drjekel_mrhyde: Johnnies in Elmwood park for beef Gino's East for pizza


I've seen Al's Beef on TV. Is that any good by comparison?

And the only place I've eaten deep-dish wise is Giorodano's. How does Gino's East compare to that?
 
2013-01-27 01:23:57 PM  
Chicago is the NRA's straw man. Chicago's murder rate is about 16th in the nation for the roughly 70 cities with more than 250,000 people. Miami, Cleveland, Memphis, Atlanta, and New Orleans all have higher homicide rates. But since Chicago has 2,000,000 more people than those gun loving cities the raw number of homicides is higher.
 
2013-01-27 01:24:11 PM  

onyxruby: Chicago, all the proof in the world that you need that strict gun laws raise the murder rate.


A single example in the absence of a counterfactual is a "proof" in your world?

You live in a very poorly educated world.
 
2013-01-27 01:24:39 PM  

Molavian: RockChalkH1N1: Mrtraveler01: RockChalkH1N1: Mrtraveler01: RockChalkH1N1: Why is it that where ever a large population of black people live there is a ton of crime?

Because black people tend to live in more urban areas which tend to be more populated and have more crime?

You never hear about crime in the Black Belt of the South (a region largely populated by Blacks.)

Any more observations you'd like me to answer for you?

Why is there a disproportional amount of black people in jail?

I don't know. Do you?

No, that's why I'm asking

Dude, any second they're going to start yelling racism and it's game over from there.

Don't bother.


Do go on.

Is this about the Black "culture"?
 
2013-01-27 01:25:08 PM  

NeoCortex42: Securitywyrm: Why do "Gun-nuts" refuse to accept any sort of restriction? Because the anti-gun lobby will NEVER stop pushing for more restrictions. Even if they agree that the restrictions are reasonable, the people pushing for the restrictions will steamroll past the point of 'reasonable.'

I propose we re-write the 2nd amendment to the following

No restriction placed upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall exceed the restriction placed upon law enforcement within the country."

After all, a police officer has no greater legal authority to use deadly force to protect their life than any other law-abiding citizen. Also if you want police officers to be 'better armed' than the people they are supposed to 'protect and serve', namely law-abiding citizens, then the role of the police must be oppression rather than protection. If the police can't have 'assault rifles' then neither can you. If the police can have a handgun, then you can too.

How's that? You'll find these 'gun nuts' willing to give up their 'assault rifles' under such a condition, because there is a standard that adjusts with the times.

Except the average person is generally trying to avoid dangerous situations and has the gun as a method of last resort. The law enforcement officer is specifically meant to put himself in more dangerous situations so that the average citizen doesn't have to. I'm fine with cops and military having more powerful weapons than civilians.


Well, I'm not. The military is one thing, but consider this. If the military is then used for law enforcement, it grants the right of the people to arm to the teeth because of this standard.
Also: Crimes don't happen around police officers, police officers head towards crime. Ask any police officer, how often do they arrive at a crime scene to 'stop the criminal' and how many times do they arrive to do clean-up?
Goblins breaking into your house are not a protected species.
 
2013-01-27 01:25:11 PM  

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

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


Right, because if you live in the city it's totally impossible to ever get out of it for the weekend. Sounds like urban black people problems to me.
 
2013-01-27 01:26:25 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: It's almost as if gun bans don't have an immediate effect. Whodathunk .


When there's a trend downward and when it jumps up right around the time the ban takes effect, most would be hesitant to consider bans a success.
 
2013-01-27 01:26:48 PM  
Yes. It's not like Chicago or New York ever had a history of criminal violence that led to their increasingly strict laws and regulations. Clearly their kneejerk lieberal moonbattery is to blame.
 
2013-01-27 01:26:53 PM  

EvilByte: Chicago is the NRA's straw man. Chicago's murder rate is about 16th in the nation for the roughly 70 cities with more than 250,000 people. Miami, Cleveland, Memphis, Atlanta, and New Orleans all have higher homicide rates. But since Chicago has 2,000,000 more people than those gun loving cities the raw number of homicides is higher.


And they can't use NYC because crime there is at a record low.

I live in St. Louis so I always laugh when I hear about crime problems plaguing a city that's 3 times as big in area.
 
2013-01-27 01:27:51 PM  

jaytkay: Mrtraveler01: Say, know of any good places to get a pizza or an Italian Beef?

Pequod's Pizza

Italian Beef, I dunno, that's not my thing.


Damn that looks good.

Screw the gun thread, I'm hungry for pizza now.
 
2013-01-27 01:28:21 PM  

LowbrowDeluxe: Yes. It's not like Chicago or New York ever had a history of criminal violence that led to their increasingly strict laws and regulations. Clearly their kneejerk lieberal moonbattery is to blame.


It could be both....
 
2013-01-27 01:29:36 PM  

Fark It: jaytkay: OmarBradley: Gun control laws are a criminal's best friend.

Crime plummeted in Chicago during the 30-year handgun ban.

Utter bullshiat. And the idea that crime has spiked because of Chicago's ban being overturned is BS as well. Chicago has no gun stores, and anyone who wants to legally possess a handgun gun in Chicago has to attend two classes that by design are not allowed to be taught in the city limits (because of the de facto ban on firing ranges), pay hundreds of dollars, and get fingerprinted.

Rahm Emanuel also dissolved the city's tactical gang response teams, which would go in and saturate high crime areas when violence flared up, essentially forcing the gangs to lay low and not retaliate against each other. Their brilliant new strategy involves going after restaurants and liquor stores with municipal code violations.


The gangs(order with a bit of chaos at times) are not the problem in a sense, it's many gang members from multiple gangs grouping up and going rogue called cliqs/clicks(no order all out chaos) against anyone(even their own gang) who mess with their drug spots.
Well atleast on the Westside it's like that.
 
2013-01-27 01:30:13 PM  
Do people still think that Chicago's violence is because of guns? Sometimes the racist explanation is the correct one, like it or not.
 
2013-01-27 01:31:34 PM  
70% of childbirth's in Chicago are to unwed mother's.......There's your smoking gun.
 
2013-01-27 01:31:50 PM  

Great Odins Raven: Do people still think that Chicago's violence is because of guns? Sometimes the racist explanation is the correct one, like it or not.


It's full of Blah people!!!

Because everyone knows NYC doesn't have any blah people.
 
2013-01-27 01:32:08 PM  

Greylight: Gun laws and restrictions are part of an effective strategy to prevent gun violence. Canadians have more hurdles to owning certain classes of arms, but can still own them. Compare gun related deaths between the two countries, I bet no one even needs to look it up to know that laws and regulations can work.

It's not about banning weapons, it's about regulating them to balance public safety and ownership. You can have both respectively if y'all could stop this inane partisan douchery.


Gun control isn't going to drastically reduce violence in the U.S. I'm a gun control advocate. The biggest problem lies in our culture. Violence is socially acceptable in the U.S. If it turned us off that much, something would have been done about it long ago. But, no. Hell, in some cases, criminals are revered here. There are also economic, environmental, and mental health aspects to gun violence. People in "hot spots" for gun violence in the U.S. don't put nearly the same value on life as the rest of us first world problem havers would.
 
2013-01-27 01:33:07 PM  

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

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

Since Chicago's 30 year handgun ban ended, gun violence has soared.

Anybody trying to use Chicago as "proof" for or against gun laws is an asshole.


Well, let's look at the murders in Chicago:

1965: 395
1974: 970
1990: 851
1991: 927
1992: 943
1993: 855
1994: 931
1995: 828
1996: 796
1997: 761
1998: 704
1999: 643
2000: 633
2001: 667
2002: 656
2003: 601
2004: 453
2005: 451
2006: 471
2007: 448
2008: 513
2009: 459
2010: 436
2011: 435
2012: 506

The gun ban ended in 2010, right? Since then, there is 1 year that was higher than 2010, and going back to '90, there are only 4 years that were lower than 2012. In fact, all of the rest had 100 more murders than this "soaring" year. Well into your '30 year ban', you had 800 or 900 murders a year, now you have 506. 506 is less than 800, so there is going to have to be a LOT more soaring before you will have a point.

Link
 
2013-01-27 01:33:11 PM  

EnderX: 70% of childbirth's in Chicago are to unwed mother's.......There's your smoking gun.


I think it's more about poverty than that myself.
 
2013-01-27 01:33:33 PM  

jaytkay: Crime plummeted in Chicago during the 30-year handgun ban.


Fark It: Utter bullshiat.


It's cute when emotional, ill-informed people try to make a lucid argument. Handguns were banned from 1982 to 2010

Murders in Chicago by year
1965:395
1974:970
1990:851
1991:927
1992:943
1993:855
1994:931
1995:828
1996:796
1997:761
1998:704
1999:643
2000:633
2001:667
2002:656
2003:601
2004:453
2005:451
2006:471
2007:448
2008:513
2009:459
2010:436
2011:435
2012:506
 
2013-01-27 01:34:17 PM  

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

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

Since Chicago's 30 year handgun ban ended, gun violence has soared.

Anybody trying to use Chicago as "proof" for or against gun laws is an asshole.

Well, let's look at the murders in Chicago:

1965: 395
1974: 970
1990: 851
1991: 927
1992: 943
1993: 855
1994: 931
1995: 828
1996: 796
1997: 761
1998: 704
1999: 643
2000: 633
2001: 667
2002: 656
2003: 601
2004: 453
2005: 451
2006: 471
2007: 448
2008: 513
2009: 459
2010: 436
2011: 435
2012: 506

The gun ban ended in 2010, right? Since then, there is 1 year that was higher than 2010, and going back to '90, there are only 4 years that were lower than 2012. In fact, all of the rest had 100 more murders than this "soaring" year. Well into your '30 year ban', you had 800 or 900 murders a year, now you have 506. 506 is less than 800, so there is going to have to be a LOT more soaring before you will have a point.

Link


What happened between 2003 and 2004?
 
2013-01-27 01:35:15 PM  

Mrbogey: When there's a trend downward and when it jumps up right around the time the ban takes effect, most would be hesitant to consider bans a success.


Chicago's gun ban was lifted before the recent uptick.

The ban was in 1982.
 
2013-01-27 01:37:11 PM  

Mrbogey: The pursuit of gun control does nothing to lower violence. The point of gun control is supposed to be to lower violence. The result of gun control is people have on average fewer guns and criminals have more than the average person (all other criminal factors except for possession of gun being equal).


No, that's wrong. If we just pass gun laws, the criminals will stop using guns. They already only use guns in legal ways and obtain them 100% legally. Guns that are stolen, bought by a strawman, or on the black market are NEVER used for crime, and since they don't use legal guns illegally, there actually is no such thing as "gun violence".
 
2013-01-27 01:37:30 PM  

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

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


I guess you could say the same thing for the 1st Amendment, can't have people speaking their mind in a crowded area, someone will get upset.
 
2013-01-27 01:37:44 PM  
As pointed out by a thoughtful gun rights advocate up thread: not only do Canada's arms laws and restrictions result in fewer gun related fatalities, it also results in less gang and drug war problems.
 
2013-01-27 01:38:25 PM  

Mrtraveler01: drjekel_mrhyde: Johnnies in Elmwood park for beef Gino's East for pizza

I've seen Al's Beef on TV. Is that any good by comparison?

And the only place I've eaten deep-dish wise is Giorodano's. How does Gino's East compare to that?


Al's is pretty good but like Giorodano's they have way too many locations which make them feel cheap
 
2013-01-27 01:38:46 PM  
So gun rights people are now using outright, unabashed racism to defend their cause?

WTF?!

Dear reasonable gun folks... distance yourself from the wackadoodles as quickly as possible. They are going to make it so the gov over reaches even what the pro GC people are asking for.

This is bad... this really really bad.
 
2013-01-27 01:39:08 PM  
black people
 
2013-01-27 01:39:14 PM  

Mrtraveler01: EnderX: 70% of childbirth's in Chicago are to unwed mother's.......There's your smoking gun.

I think it's more about poverty than that myself.


Their too poor to get married and have a father at home?
 
2013-01-27 01:40:30 PM  
I'm just glad the right to Chicago Bear arms people finally got their thread.

wbbz.tvView Full Size


Illinois, Indiana big source of guns used in Chicago crimes, say cops
 
2013-01-27 01:40:47 PM  

Mikey1969: now you have 506. 506 is less than 800, so there is going to have to be a LOT more soaring before you will have a point.


My point was that violence and particularly murder plummeted during the gun ban.

And that people claiming the gun ban causes violence are obviously, laughably wrong.

Those points are indisputable.

I should not have suggested that lifting the handgun ban caused the uptick. But I can't help it sometimes because it just emphasizes how gun enthusiasts and Chicago-haters argue against the facts.
 
2013-01-27 01:41:13 PM  

jaytkay: jaytkay: Crime plummeted in Chicago during the 30-year handgun ban.

Fark It: Utter bullshiat.

It's cute when emotional, ill-informed people try to make a lucid argument. Handguns were banned from 1982 to 2010

Murders in Chicago by year
1965:395
1974:970
1990:851
1991:927
1992:943
1993:855
1994:931
1995:828
1996:796
1997:761
1998:704
1999:643
2000:633
2001:667
2002:656
2003:601
2004:453
2005:451
2006:471
2007:448
2008:513
2009:459
2010:436
2011:435
2012:506


Seriously? You post the murders for 1974, say that the 1982 handgun ban drastically reduced murders, and don't post any data until 1990, 8 years after the ban went into effect? How many more guns made it onto Chicago's streets because of the handgun ban being lifted? How many guns that otherwise wouldn't have been legally possessed before the overturning of Chicago's gun ban have been found at crime scenes in Chicago? If any newly registered guns were found at any crime scene Emanuel and McCarthy would be howling at the moon about how overturning the ban has fueled gun violence?

Do you think going after Subway and McDonald's restaurants with code violations is a viable crime-control strategy?

Chicago's gun ban had no effect whatsoever on crime. None.
 
2013-01-27 01:42:26 PM  

Molavian: RockChalkH1N1: Mrtraveler01: RockChalkH1N1: Mrtraveler01: RockChalkH1N1: Why is it that where ever a large population of black people live there is a ton of crime?

Because black people tend to live in more urban areas which tend to be more populated and have more crime?

You never hear about crime in the Black Belt of the South (a region largely populated by Blacks.)

Any more observations you'd like me to answer for you?

Why is there a disproportional amount of black people in jail?

I don't know. Do you?

No, that's why I'm asking

Dude, any second they're going to start yelling racism and it's game over from there.

Don't bother.


Black people tend to do more crime via population ratio, its not racist if its true
 
2013-01-27 01:42:36 PM  

EnderX: Mrtraveler01: EnderX: 70% of childbirth's in Chicago are to unwed mother's.......There's your smoking gun.

I think it's more about poverty than that myself.

Their too poor to get married and have a father at home?


More along the lines of:

"They're poor and their only means to survive is to be a criminal".

I know people who had children out of wedlock but I don't think they're going to grow up to be criminals.
 
2013-01-27 01:43:14 PM  

Mrtraveler01: jaytkay: Mrtraveler01: Say, know of any good places to get a pizza or an Italian Beef?

Pequod's Pizza

Italian Beef, I dunno, that's not my thing.

Damn that looks good.

Screw the gun thread, I'm hungry for pizza now.


Try Portillo's for italian beef. Like jaytkay, i don't really eat it, but I know friends and family who would kill for a Portillo's italian beef at most moments in their life. Also, I'd second the Pequod's suggestion, but be prepared for a crowd during peak hours. The wait is worth it.
 
2013-01-27 01:45:26 PM  
Somacandra brings up an interesting point...
Gee, its almost as if the reality of guns in an urban setting (where everyone is spatially compressed and differential social problems are thus magnified) is far different from the reality of guns in a rural setting.
Are there any studies about gun ownership in urban settings vs violent crime rates?
I have a guess, but, please.... can I see the official numbers?
 
2013-01-27 01:45:33 PM  

jaytkay: My point was that violence and particularly murder plummeted during the gun ban.

And that people claiming the gun ban causes violence are obviously, laughably wrong.

Those points are indisputable.


Chicago recorded a record number of homicides in 1994, and the rate was much higher than before the ban for most of the 1990s.

How did the murder rate plummet when it in fact reached record highs?
 
2013-01-27 01:45:47 PM  

Running Wild: I don't really eat [Italian Beef], but I know friends and family who would kill for a Portillo's italian beef at most moments in their life.


Portillo's also has excellent Chicago hotdogs.
 
2013-01-27 01:47:22 PM  

Mrtraveler01: EnderX: Mrtraveler01: EnderX: 70% of childbirth's in Chicago are to unwed mother's.......There's your smoking gun.

I think it's more about poverty than that myself.

Their too poor to get married and have a father at home?

More along the lines of:

"They're poor and their only means to survive is to be a criminal".

I know people who had children out of wedlock but I don't think they're going to grow up to be criminals.


I don't believe I said all people born out of wedlock are going to grow up to be criminal, Is that what you are trying to imply to the forum that I said? Because that would be a lie.
 
2013-01-27 01:47:40 PM  

KiwDaWabbit: Greylight: Gun laws and restrictions are part of an effective strategy to prevent gun violence. Canadians have more hurdles to owning certain classes of arms, but can still own them. Compare gun related deaths between the two countries, I bet no one even needs to look it up to know that laws and regulations can work.

It's not about banning weapons, it's about regulating them to balance public safety and ownership. You can have both respectively if y'all could stop this inane partisan douchery.

Gun control isn't going to drastically reduce violence in the U.S. I'm a gun control advocate. The biggest problem lies in our culture. Violence is socially acceptable in the U.S. If it turned us off that much, something would have been done about it long ago. But, no. Hell, in some cases, criminals are revered here. There are also economic, environmental, and mental health aspects to gun violence. People in "hot spots" for gun violence in the U.S. don't put nearly the same value on life as the rest of us first world problem havers would.


The culture in the US is not common across the whole country. I in Manitoba have more in common with someone from Minisota then they would with someone from Mississippi.

The idea of a "gun culture" is not an irreversible fact of life, it is a series of choices. Now is the time for Americans to make another choice. Make the right choice this time my friends.
 
2013-01-27 01:50:14 PM  

Mrtraveler01: No you don't, it's just a toy. I'm perfectly fine with you guys wanting to keep them but stop kidding me telling me you need these for self-defense or hunting and just tell me it's a toy.


Why do you think of it as a toy?
 
2013-01-27 01:51:12 PM  
Fark It: Chicago recorded a record number of homicides in 1994, and the rate was much higher than before the ban for most of the 1990s.

You are cherry picking data out of the middle.

The number of murders fell roughly in half during the 30-year Chicago handgun ban.

The same as every other major US city during the same period.

Chicago, with a handgun ban, had the same kind of crime troubles as places with lax gun laws.
 
2013-01-27 01:52:51 PM  

EnderX: Mrtraveler01: EnderX: Mrtraveler01: EnderX: 70% of childbirth's in Chicago are to unwed mother's.......There's your smoking gun.

I think it's more about poverty than that myself.

Their too poor to get married and have a father at home?

More along the lines of:

"They're poor and their only means to survive is to be a criminal".

I know people who had children out of wedlock but I don't think they're going to grow up to be criminals.

I don't believe I said all people born out of wedlock are going to grow up to be criminal, Is that what you are trying to imply to the forum that I said? Because that would be a lie.


No you said born out of wedlock with no father around.

I should've been more detailed in that I know people in that situtation and I don't think those mothers are going to raise a criminal.
 
2013-01-27 01:52:55 PM  

jaytkay: OmarBradley: Gun control laws are a criminal's best friend.

Crime plummeted in Chicago during the 30-year handgun ban.


Ban expired in 2010, so a 30 year ban would go back to 1980. Here's the murder rates from 1990 to 2012:

Homicides in Chicago

1990: 851
1991: 927
1992: 943
1993: 855
1994: 931
1995: 828
1996: 796
1997: 761
1998: 704
1999: 643
2000: 633
2001: 667
2002: 656
2003: 601
2004: 453
2005: 451
2006: 471
2007: 448
2008: 513
2009: 459
2010: 436
2011: 435
2012: 506

Link

(It doesn't take 24 years for a gun ban to start showing a marked decrease, 1990 should have been already down to the 2011 level for your point to be valid)


This one shows a NATIONAL trend, starting in about 1994, which correlates exactly to the Chicago data. In other words, chicago's drop was part of a larger trend, and nothing special.

upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size

Even New York has a similar trend:
Link
 
2013-01-27 01:54:13 PM  

Greylight: The culture in the US is not common across the whole country. I in Manitoba have more in common with someone from Minisota then they would with someone from Mississippi.

The idea of a "gun culture" is not an irreversible fact of life, it is a series of choices. Now is the time for Americans to make another choice. Make the right choice this time my friends.


Right, I understand that. It's a big, diverse country and about as non-homogeneous as you can get. But, overall, I believe what I said to be more fact than fiction.

Like I said, I'd like to see more strict gun control. However, it's not going to be a panacea, as there are many other factors that contribute to gun violence in the U.S.
 
2013-01-27 01:54:21 PM  

jaytkay: Fark It: Chicago recorded a record number of homicides in 1994, and the rate was much higher than before the ban for most of the 1990s.

You are cherry picking data out of the middle.

The number of murders fell roughly in half during the 30-year Chicago handgun ban.

The same as every other major US city during the same period.

Chicago, with a handgun ban, had the same kind of crime troubles as places with lax gun laws.


Did you place a large bet against yourself in this debate?
 
2013-01-27 01:54:22 PM  

Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: No you don't, it's just a toy. I'm perfectly fine with you guys wanting to keep them but stop kidding me telling me you need these for self-defense or hunting and just tell me it's a toy.

Why do you think of it as a toy?


You need an Assault Rifle for home defense when a shotgun does the same job?

You need an assault rifle for hunting? What on earth are you hunting that requires a weapon as powerful as that?
 
2013-01-27 01:54:39 PM  

Mikey1969: It doesn't take 24 years for a gun ban to start showing a marked decrease, 1990 should have been already down to the 2011 level for your point to be valid


I didn't say the gun ban caused the drop in murders.
 
2013-01-27 01:55:29 PM  
Oh... BTW Beefoe... I have personally seen 3 people killed by AK-47s... all in combat situations... none in the U.S. (Thank God)
And I still have no problem with responsible law-abiding gun owners being allowed to have one... hell, I'm even cool with law-abiding folks getting the full-auto, military version.
It's the most efficient, indestructible military small arm ever made... it's kinda sad that the AR-15 tends to jam so much in sandy conditions....
So, again, I will say what's been said a zillion times before:
It's not gun control we need, it's loony control.
I propose we end the drug war and put that money towards stopping the dangerous loonies
 
2013-01-27 01:56:51 PM  

syrynxx: Although I think if you use 'too stupid to breed' as an insult, you shouldn't have picked a nym that paints you as someone unlikely to ever breed or even be given the opportunity.


It's probably a Led Zeppelin reference, Scooter...

Bron Y'aur Stomp
 
2013-01-27 01:57:27 PM  

Somacandra: Aw Crap.

Wrong Thread.


LOL, I love when this happens to someone other than me... :-)
 
2013-01-27 01:57:35 PM  

Greylight: As pointed out by a thoughtful gun rights advocate up thread: not only do Canada's arms laws and restrictions result in fewer gun related fatalities, it also results in less gang and drug war problems.


No, they don't. If you removed all the gun murders in the US and left all the gun murders in Canada and didn't touch all the other murder methods in both countries Canada would still have a lower murder rate than the US. Americans murder each other more with nongun weapons than Canadians do with gun AND nongun weapons so it's the people not the weapons that are the determining factor.

Canadians don't have the large black population that commits murders at 5 times the rate of the the rest of the population and they don't have 20 million criminal alien Mexicans who doubled their own murder rate in the drug wars in the last few years.
 
2013-01-27 01:58:42 PM  

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


You know, it's a bit disturbing when people act like understanding the constitution is beneath them.
 
2013-01-27 01:58:53 PM  

DogBoyTheCat: I propose we end the drug war and put that money towards stopping the dangerous loonies


Hah, I have said before that we ought to declare a war on stopping crime since every war on an concept that we initiate makes the problem worse.
 
2013-01-27 01:58:54 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Mikey1969: jaytkay: Mikey1969: bronyaur1: The NRA dummies keep pounding the pathetic argument that because Chicago has bad gun violence problems and its leaders have pursued gun restrictions, therefore the pursuit of gun restrictions causes gun violence.

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

Since Chicago's 30 year handgun ban ended, gun violence has soared.

Anybody trying to use Chicago as "proof" for or against gun laws is an asshole.

Well, let's look at the murders in Chicago:

1965: 395
1974: 970
1990: 851
1991: 927
1992: 943
1993: 855
1994: 931
1995: 828
1996: 796
1997: 761
1998: 704
1999: 643
2000: 633
2001: 667
2002: 656
2003: 601
2004: 453
2005: 451
2006: 471
2007: 448
2008: 513
2009: 459
2010: 436
2011: 435
2012: 506

The gun ban ended in 2010, right? Since then, there is 1 year that was higher than 2010, and going back to '90, there are only 4 years that were lower than 2012. In fact, all of the rest had 100 more murders than this "soaring" year. Well into your '30 year ban', you had 800 or 900 murders a year, now you have 506. 506 is less than 800, so there is going to have to be a LOT more soaring before you will have a point.

Link

What happened between 2003 and 2004?


A continuing national trend of lower violence?
 
2013-01-27 01:59:38 PM  

DogBoyTheCat: I propose we end the drug war and put that money towards stopping the dangerous loonies


The thing is that people say this now but the next time a state has to cut it's budget, mental health is the first thing to get gutted.

They're closing mental health hospitals in my state, in Illinois, and in Louisiana.

Doesn't matter what side of the aisle, almost every state is like this. So until I actually see some action done in regards to mental health, I'm taking the concern over it with a grain of salt.
 
2013-01-27 02:02:26 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: No you don't, it's just a toy. I'm perfectly fine with you guys wanting to keep them but stop kidding me telling me you need these for self-defense or hunting and just tell me it's a toy.

Why do you think of it as a toy?

You need an Assault Rifle for home defense when a shotgun does the same job?

You need an assault rifle for hunting? What on earth are you hunting that requires a weapon as powerful as that?


If you think an 'assault rifle' is powerful, I have a bridge in New York for sale
 
2013-01-27 02:03:04 PM  
Oh yeah... just to REALLY inflame things...
It's been brought up before, but... the increase in abortion rates seems to directly coincide (with about a 15 year wait time) with the decrease in violent crime.
So...conceivably, those babies who were aborted (mostly by lower income women) never grew up to become violent criminals.
"HMMMMMM...."
 
2013-01-27 02:04:46 PM  

Greylight: As pointed out by a thoughtful gun rights advocate up thread: not only do Canada's arms laws and restrictions result in fewer gun related fatalities, it also results in less gang and drug war problems.


Either that, or it's a result of the fact that Canada has 34 million people while the US has 311 million. That's just over 10% of the total US population. California has more people than Canada, and Texas isn't far behind.

Of course, THAT couldn't be the issue, right? Also, Canada is a lot more rural, and we all know crime tends to rise in larger urban areas.
 
2013-01-27 02:05:33 PM  

jaytkay: Fark It: Chicago recorded a record number of homicides in 1994, and the rate was much higher than before the ban for most of the 1990s.

You are cherry picking data out of the middle.

The number of murders fell roughly in half during the 30-year Chicago handgun ban.

The same as every other major US city during the same period.

Chicago, with a handgun ban, had the same kind of crime troubles as places with lax gun laws.


So, if I understand your comment here, Chicago's gun ban really did nothing since other cities without bans showed the same reduction. So gun bans don't work. Hmmm, very interesting.
 
2013-01-27 02:05:43 PM  
So why not heavily enforce old-school eye-for-an-eye laws and execute cold-blooded murderers?

1) "then we wouldn't be any better than them". Uh, no. They killed an innocent/undeserving person. We killed a murderer.
2) "I would rather a thousand guilty men walk free than one innocent man get executed". Again, no. a) as long as juries(sp?) know what is at stake, they would be less likely to convict a person for murder with circumstantial evidence only to have the person who was supposed to have been killed walk into the scene b) letting the guilty 1000 men walk free will only encourage them to act again (see repeat offenders)
3) once criminals understand it is literally their neck on the line -not 3 hots and a cot- murders will drop. But pleeeease, none of this "dies of old age on death row"

Aren't you tired of living with bars on your windows and the criminals walking free?

/feel free to prove me wrong
// two cents per slashie
/// sorry if rambling. Tired and hungry.
 
2013-01-27 02:06:11 PM  

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

So the manufacturer of a legal product that sells them in accordance with all applicable laws is also responsible for illegal usage and any illegal transfers that occurred along the way?


What legal product? I thought we were talking about guns being sold to individuals.
 
2013-01-27 02:06:50 PM  

jaytkay: I didn't say the gun ban caused the drop in murders.


Sure, you just said that the overturning of the ban caused a spike in murders and that "murder rates plummeted during Chicago's ban."
 
2013-01-27 02:07:11 PM  
Let's see - last time there was a gun murder problem in Chicago...back in the 1920s...

Oh, I get it. The Feds just have to go in and arrest all those income tax evaders, and the problem will be magically solved!

Thank you, you're welcome.
 
2013-01-27 02:08:13 PM  

here to help: So gun rights people are now using outright, unabashed racism to defend their cause?

WTF?!


What are you talking about? I didn't see "outright, unabashed racism" here, who posted it?
 
2013-01-27 02:08:16 PM  
EnderX...
It's not about poverty...
It's about morality
Being an unwed mother with the State picking up the tab has become socially acceptable.
I guess I'm getting too old for this...
I remember when you were supposed to be married to have kids...
I remember when you actually had to DO something to get self-esteem, not just show up.
 
2013-01-27 02:11:23 PM  

Mrtraveler01: EnderX: Mrtraveler01: EnderX: Mrtraveler01: EnderX: 70% of childbirth's in Chicago are to unwed mother's.......There's your smoking gun.

I think it's more about poverty than that myself.

Their too poor to get married and have a father at home?

More along the lines of:

"They're poor and their only means to survive is to be a criminal".

I know people who had children out of wedlock but I don't think they're going to grow up to be criminals.

I don't believe I said all people born out of wedlock are going to grow up to be criminal, Is that what you are trying to imply to the forum that I said? Because that would be a lie.

No you said born out of wedlock with no father around.

I should've been more detailed in that I know people in that situtation and I don't think those mothers are going to raise a criminal.


Well I guess we can agree that some mothers raise criminals, thanks for your participation.
 
2013-01-27 02:11:36 PM  

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

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

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


How do we know what the rate of gun crime would have been without gun control laws though? Is there a control city to test the null hypothesis against?

Gun laws in cities, or even states are almost pointless. You can drive an hour to Kenosha from chicago and buy a gun there. Or better yet, go to Gary and pick one up at a pawn shop. We need gun control on a national level and laws preventing against people bringing in guns from elsewhere, and at least a couple of decades for the supply on the street to dwindle down before we see a dent in gun crime.

Also, there needs to be legislation to punish gun owners who knowingly or negligently sold their gun to a criminal or had their gun stolen by a criminal because they didn't keep it safe. Not suggesting across the board punishment for every original gun owner of a weapon that was later used in a crime, but rather those that fail to prove due diligence in selling their gun to somebody legal (consignment at gun shops that perform background checks, maybe?), or keeping their gun in a way that doesn't make it easily obtainable by a robber or burglar.

Of course, the limits placed on enforcement by thee ATF need to be lifted. Conservatives parrot the "enforce current laws" line, but behind the scenes have hobbled the ATF to the point that they can't even have gun shops perform inventory checks. FFS, this is not an industry that is interested in anybody's safety. They are intellectually dishonest in their arguments.
 
2013-01-27 02:11:47 PM  

KiwDaWabbit: Greylight: The culture in the US is not common across the whole country. I in Manitoba have more in common with someone from Minisota then they would with someone from Mississippi.

The idea of a "gun culture" is not an irreversible fact of life, it is a series of choices. Now is the time for Americans to make another choice. Make the right choice this time my friends.

Right, I understand that. It's a big, diverse country and about as non-homogeneous as you can get. But, overall, I believe what I said to be more fact than fiction.

Like I said, I'd like to see more strict gun control. However, it's not going to be a panacea, as there are many other factors that contribute to gun violence in the U.S.


We don't disagree that the problems with violence in our respective societies are complicated and addressing them must come from a multi facited approach. Canada is not the world leader in mental health advocacy and social harmony that some pretend it is as a method to dismiss how gun laws and restrictions are working for other societies.
 
2013-01-27 02:12:27 PM  

redmid17: Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: No you don't, it's just a toy. I'm perfectly fine with you guys wanting to keep them but stop kidding me telling me you need these for self-defense or hunting and just tell me it's a toy.

Why do you think of it as a toy?

You need an Assault Rifle for home defense when a shotgun does the same job?

You need an assault rifle for hunting? What on earth are you hunting that requires a weapon as powerful as that?

If you think an 'assault rifle' is powerful, I have a bridge in New York for sale


Just to clarify, the standard round used by an AR-15 or similar gun is usually too small to legally hunt anything bigger than a coyote.
 
2013-01-27 02:13:56 PM  

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


Please don't make statements that undermine everyone's desire to see increased gun violence as a direct result of stricter gun laws. We don't need to inject common sense into these discussions.
 
2013-01-27 02:14:23 PM  
I've got to respond to Odins_Raven....
If you look up history, gun control in the U.S. was originally established to keep Free Negroes from having the ability to defend themselves. Instituted by Democrats, if you really want to check. I personally believe that every law-abiding person of color (that includes us pinkish-beige folks) should own a firearm and be trained in how to use it properly - including the local self-defense laws.
Criminals? Screw 'em. You gave up that right.
 
2013-01-27 02:15:27 PM  

RockChalkH1N1: Molavian: RockChalkH1N1: Mrtraveler01: RockChalkH1N1: Mrtraveler01: RockChalkH1N1: Why is it that where ever a large population of black people live there is a ton of crime?

Because black people tend to live in more urban areas which tend to be more populated and have more crime?

You never hear about crime in the Black Belt of the South (a region largely populated by Blacks.)

Any more observations you'd like me to answer for you?

Why is there a disproportional amount of black people in jail?

I don't know. Do you?

No, that's why I'm asking

Dude, any second they're going to start yelling racism and it's game over from there.

Don't bother.

Black people tend to do more crime via population ratio, its not racist if its true


While I believe it's caused by socio-economic issues based on a different cultural value system, I would be deemed racist for stating that it needs to be looked at by society. There's a problem that a good chunk of our country doesn't want to admit to let alone analyze.
 
2013-01-27 02:15:31 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: No you don't, it's just a toy. I'm perfectly fine with you guys wanting to keep them but stop kidding me telling me you need these for self-defense or hunting and just tell me it's a toy.

Why do you think of it as a toy?

You need an Assault Rifle for home defense when a shotgun does the same job?

You need an assault rifle for hunting? What on earth are you hunting that requires a weapon as powerful as that?


#1: What the hell gives ANYONE the right to tell another person what they can or can't use to protect themselves and their family? How that fark is it anyone's business what I choose to use to defend myself?

#2: You obviously have NO CLUE about the weapons that you live in fear of. A .223 round, while useful for hunting coyotes, smaller game, and yes, DEER as well, is still far weaker than almost all hunting rifle rounds that most hunters use. Give a 300 WinMag round a try sometime. Makes a .223 seem like Ralphie's eye remover.
 
2013-01-27 02:17:22 PM  

3StratMan: #1: What the hell gives ANYONE the right to tell another person what they can or can't use to protect themselves and their family? How that fark is it anyone's business what I choose to use to defend myself?


I saw they couldn't use it, they have the right to get it. I just don't understand why anyone needs a gun that big to protect their family.

Is there some Zombie Apocalypse that I'm not aware of?
 
2013-01-27 02:17:35 PM  
And about Canada having less violence....
Come on....they're freakin' Canadians...what did you expect?
 
2013-01-27 02:17:55 PM  

OscarTamerz: Greylight: As pointed out by a thoughtful gun rights advocate up thread: not only do Canada's arms laws and restrictions result in fewer gun related fatalities, it also results in less gang and drug war problems.

No, they don't. If you removed all the gun murders in the US and left all the gun murders in Canada and didn't touch all the other murder methods in both countries Canada would still have a lower murder rate than the US. Americans murder each other more with nongun weapons than Canadians do with gun AND nongun weapons so it's the people not the weapons that are the determining factor.

Canadians don't have the large black population that commits murders at 5 times the rate of the the rest of the population and they don't have 20 million criminal alien Mexicans who doubled their own murder rate in the drug wars in the last few years.


Respectively sir, race has nothing to do with the benifits of gun regulations and laws any more than religion does.

As a wise fellow all ready pointed out up thread the issue is a complex one and there is no single silver bullet; however, there is data to show gun laws and restrictions are part of the solution, in conjunction with other societal support.
 
2013-01-27 02:18:52 PM  
Ah, so gun restrictions aren't foolproof so therefore we should not use them.

Oh and since people still murder even though that's illegal, screw it, let's make it legal. The law doesn't work anyways, right?

Super logic.
 
2013-01-27 02:19:35 PM  

3StratMan: Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: No you don't, it's just a toy. I'm perfectly fine with you guys wanting to keep them but stop kidding me telling me you need these for self-defense or hunting and just tell me it's a toy.

Why do you think of it as a toy?

You need an Assault Rifle for home defense when a shotgun does the same job?

You need an assault rifle for hunting? What on earth are you hunting that requires a weapon as powerful as that?

#1: What the hell gives ANYONE the right to tell another person what they can or can't use to protect themselves and their family? How that fark is it anyone's business what I choose to use to defend myself?

#2: You obviously have NO CLUE about the weapons that you live in fear of. A .223 round, while useful for hunting coyotes, smaller game, and yes, DEER as well, is still far weaker than almost all hunting rifle rounds that most hunters use. Give a 300 WinMag round a try sometime. Makes a .223 seem like Ralphie's eye remover.


I want to use a tactical nuke to defend my family.

You got a problem with that?
 
2013-01-27 02:21:40 PM  
RockChalk....
It IS racist even if it is true
 
2013-01-27 02:22:00 PM  

jaytkay: Mikey1969: now you have 506. 506 is less than 800, so there is going to have to be a LOT more soaring before you will have a point.

My point was that violence and particularly murder plummeted during the gun ban.

And that people claiming the gun ban causes violence are obviously, laughably wrong.

Those points are indisputable.

I should not have suggested that lifting the handgun ban caused the uptick. But I can't help it sometimes because it just emphasizes how gun enthusiasts and Chicago-haters argue against the facts.


It plummeted nationwide though, Chicago isn't special.

I'm not arguing against any facts, I'm just arguing about people picking and choosing. Chicago's trend follows a national trend pretty closely, so I don't thin it's special.

I don't know that a gun ban increases crime, but I can argue that it's not going to DEcrease it, since most of the people who commit gun crimes are criminals in the first place. Obviously a few are first timers...
 
2013-01-27 02:22:45 PM  

Resident Muslim: 2) "I would rather a thousand guilty men walk free than one innocent man get executed". Again, no. a) as long as juries(sp?) know what is at stake, they would be less likely to convict a person for murder with circumstantial evidence only to have the person who was supposed to have been killed walk into the scene b) letting the guilty 1000 men walk free will only encourage them to act again (see repeat offenders)
3) once criminals understand it is literally their neck on the line -not 3 hots and a cot- murders will drop. But pleeeease, none of this "dies of old age on death row"


Hi, welcome to Earth. Unlike your home world of Vulcan, human beings are irrational illogical creatures who'll do such crazy things as crimes of passion, prosecute beyond the fullest extent to buff the ol' resume, and find guilty due to inherent biases, faulty logic, or whether or not the defendent was wearing white after Labor Day. I know, I know, it sounds crazy, Mr. Spock, but we really are a bunch of McCoys down here.

Aren't you tired of living with bars on your windows and the criminals walking free?

Aren't you tired of living with the fear of one wrong misstep resulting in literally losing your head?

Been there, done that, got tired of it, fixed it. Welcome to the 21st century, you can join us at any time.
 
2013-01-27 02:24:34 PM  

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


Yes! We should make it harder to excersize all of our rights!

Maybe if we had to pay for our right to free speech fewer people would be saying dumb shiat.
 
2013-01-27 02:24:39 PM  
Its always a good show when someone discovers FARK right at the same time they stop taking their meds. Where's my popcorn?
 
2013-01-27 02:24:43 PM  

Mikey1969: Greylight: As pointed out by a thoughtful gun rights advocate up thread: not only do Canada's arms laws and restrictions result in fewer gun related fatalities, it also results in less gang and drug war problems.

Either that, or it's a result of the fact that Canada has 34 million people while the US has 311 million. That's just over 10% of the total US population. California has more people than Canada, and Texas isn't far behind.

Of course, THAT couldn't be the issue, right? Also, Canada is a lot more rural, and we all know crime tends to rise in larger urban areas.


Son, Canada has a greater portion of our population in major urban centers than the US does. We also have less gun violence per capita, not total. I'll give you the benifit of the doubt and presume you mean total gun violence compared to equally large urban centers. Go ahead and compare Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal with equivalent sized cities in the US. We both know without even looking what you will find. Or at least, you should.
 
2013-01-27 02:25:31 PM  

redmid17: If you think an 'assault rifle' is powerful, I have a bridge in New York for sale


Quit using that phrase. "Assault rifle" is a made up terminology used to try and scare people and is completely useless.

There is no difference between an AR-15 and just about any gas operated handgun.

As a percentage, how many crimes were committed with any type of rifle over the past several years?
 
2013-01-27 02:26:23 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: And yet, a city in a state like New York that has an AWB, that also has stricter gun laws has seen a drop in crime.


Shh. Only Chicago counts in NRAball!
 
2013-01-27 02:26:53 PM  
Chicago - 2.7 million population - 506 homicides

Detroit - 705,000 population - 411 homicides
 
2013-01-27 02:27:04 PM  

Greylight: Mikey1969: Greylight: As pointed out by a thoughtful gun rights advocate up thread: not only do Canada's arms laws and restrictions result in fewer gun related fatalities, it also results in less gang and drug war problems.

Either that, or it's a result of the fact that Canada has 34 million people while the US has 311 million. That's just over 10% of the total US population. California has more people than Canada, and Texas isn't far behind.

Of course, THAT couldn't be the issue, right? Also, Canada is a lot more rural, and we all know crime tends to rise in larger urban areas.

Son, Canada has a greater portion of our population in major urban centers than the US does. We also have less gun violence per capita, not total. I'll give you the benifit of the doubt and presume you mean total gun violence compared to equally large urban centers. Go ahead and compare Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal with equivalent sized cities in the US. We both know without even looking what you will find. Or at least, you should.


Everyone knows that Toronto is filled with nothing but white people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Toronto
 
2013-01-27 02:27:46 PM  

Mikey1969: here to help: So gun rights people are now using outright, unabashed racism to defend their cause?

WTF?!

What are you talking about? I didn't see "outright, unabashed racism" here, who posted it?


You're right. I'm the racist for noticing the racism.
If you just happen to have a hefty ignore list then my apologies.
 
2013-01-27 02:28:06 PM  
"He was just going to the store," the man said. "They just killed him just like that."

Where have we seen this before?
 
2013-01-27 02:28:54 PM  

redmid17: redmid17: Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: No you don't, it's just a toy. I'm perfectly fine with you guys wanting to keep them but stop kidding me telling me you need these for self-defense or hunting and just tell me it's a toy.

Why do you think of it as a toy?

You need an Assault Rifle for home defense when a shotgun does the same job?

You need an assault rifle for hunting? What on earth are you hunting that requires a weapon as powerful as that?

If you think an 'assault rifle' is powerful, I have a bridge in New York for sale

Just to clarify, the standard round used by an AR-15 or similar gun is usually too small to legally hunt anything bigger than a coyote.


Drop the word "legally" and you are sort of right. Other that shotgun zones (more populated areas) vs rifles zones ( vastly less populated areas) caliber usually isn't an issue as far as state laws are concerned. .223 can still be used as a deer hunting round. Shot placement is key, regardless of caliber.
 
2013-01-27 02:29:36 PM  

Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: There is no difference between an AR-15 and just about any gas operated handgun.


Which is why we handed out M1911s to our boys instead of Garands.
 
2013-01-27 02:29:53 PM  
Yes, a shotgun does the same job as an assault rifle... on the first a**hole... the problem is it'll take me 10 seconds to reload my double-barrel breech-loader for the second a**hole. And I can't very well reload while I'm clubbing him with it, can I? And if there's a 3rd or 4th a**hole waiting? I'd rather have a 30 round clip, thank you.
 
2013-01-27 02:30:28 PM  

DogBoyTheCat: EnderX...
It's not about poverty...
It's about morality
Being an unwed mother with the State picking up the tab has become socially acceptable.
I guess I'm getting too old for this...
I remember when you were supposed to be married to have kids...
I remember when you actually had to DO something to get self-esteem, not just show up.


Being responsible for ones own actions is slowly being legislated out of existence.

GET OFF OUR LAWNS!
 
2013-01-27 02:31:42 PM  
Mikey...FYI....it's a RUSH reference...
and not a very good one
 
2013-01-27 02:31:49 PM  

Mrtraveler01: You need an Assault Rifle for home defense when a shotgun does the same job?

You need an assault rifle for hunting? What on earth are you hunting that requires a weapon as powerful as that?


An "assault rifle" typically has a lot of cosmetic features that lend themselves easily to home defense. Having a shorter barrel and collapsible stock along with precision accuracy and easily reloaded adds up to a very nice package. I agree on a 1-1 night time scenario, a shotgun is the better weapon but that doesn't make the AR a bad choice. It's like saying a baseball bat is good for home defense but a cricket mallet isn't.

As far as power, "assault rifles" are typically lower power. No joke. Look at videos from shooting comps. Smaller bullet... lower energy. The shine for the AR-15 as far as hunting is again, multiple configurations that allow for higher and lower energy as well as longer, and shorter shooting. A 6.8mm SPC on a 24" barrel AR-15 will shoot as good as many high end hunting rifles and it'll serve as a defensive weapon just as easily.

The AR-15 platform is a handy customizable system that allows for the user to make a rifle capable of hunting, target shooting, and defending themselves. It's not the best at a single thing but it's good at a great many things.

redmid17: Did you place a large bet against yourself in this debate?


I know. What's the deal?
 
2013-01-27 02:32:04 PM  

odenseoffyn: Gun violence is a symptom.
Gun availability is a causality.
Others are health, economy, social, education.
Gun availability, can be mitigated directly and quickly. While we work on the other more complicated issues.
The straw man works to subvert this simplicity


hmmmmm..........yup.
 
2013-01-27 02:32:16 PM  

DogBoyTheCat: Yes, a shotgun does the same job as an assault rifle... on the first a**hole... the problem is it'll take me 10 seconds to reload my double-barrel breech-loader for the second a**hole. And I can't very well reload while I'm clubbing him with it, can I? And if there's a 3rd or 4th a**hole waiting? I'd rather have a 30 round clip, thank you.


What if you have to deal with 31 a**holes?
 
2013-01-27 02:32:34 PM  

lostcat: 3StratMan: Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: No you don't, it's just a toy. I'm perfectly fine with you guys wanting to keep them but stop kidding me telling me you need these for self-defense or hunting and just tell me it's a toy.

Why do you think of it as a toy?

You need an Assault Rifle for home defense when a shotgun does the same job?

You need an assault rifle for hunting? What on earth are you hunting that requires a weapon as powerful as that?

#1: What the hell gives ANYONE the right to tell another person what they can or can't use to protect themselves and their family? How that fark is it anyone's business what I choose to use to defend myself?

#2: You obviously have NO CLUE about the weapons that you live in fear of. A .223 round, while useful for hunting coyotes, smaller game, and yes, DEER as well, is still far weaker than almost all hunting rifle rounds that most hunters use. Give a 300 WinMag round a try sometime. Makes a .223 seem like Ralphie's eye remover.

I want to use a tactical nuke to defend my family.

You got a problem with that?


Ha ha. Good one. Try again.
 
2013-01-27 02:34:07 PM  

Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: redmid17: If you think an 'assault rifle' is powerful, I have a bridge in New York for sale

Quit using that phrase. "Assault rifle" is a made up terminology used to try and scare people and is completely useless.

There is no difference between an AR-15 and just about any gas operated handgun.

As a percentage, how many crimes were committed with any type of rifle over the past several years?


That certainly explains why soldiers are issued gas operated handguns instead of military versions of AR-15s.
 
2013-01-27 02:35:40 PM  

3StratMan: lostcat: 3StratMan: Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: No you don't, it's just a toy. I'm perfectly fine with you guys wanting to keep them but stop kidding me telling me you need these for self-defense or hunting and just tell me it's a toy.

Why do you think of it as a toy?

You need an Assault Rifle for home defense when a shotgun does the same job?

You need an assault rifle for hunting? What on earth are you hunting that requires a weapon as powerful as that?

#1: What the hell gives ANYONE the right to tell another person what they can or can't use to protect themselves and their family? How that fark is it anyone's business what I choose to use to defend myself?

#2: You obviously have NO CLUE about the weapons that you live in fear of. A .223 round, while useful for hunting coyotes, smaller game, and yes, DEER as well, is still far weaker than almost all hunting rifle rounds that most hunters use. Give a 300 WinMag round a try sometime. Makes a .223 seem like Ralphie's eye remover.

I want to use a tactical nuke to defend my family.

You got a problem with that?

Ha ha. Good one. Try again.


OK, I want to put landmines in my yard to keep intruders out.

How can that be a problem?
 
2013-01-27 02:37:02 PM  

lostcat: Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: redmid17: If you think an 'assault rifle' is powerful, I have a bridge in New York for sale

Quit using that phrase. "Assault rifle" is a made up terminology used to try and scare people and is completely useless.

There is no difference between an AR-15 and just about any gas operated handgun.

As a percentage, how many crimes were committed with any type of rifle over the past several years?

That certainly explains why soldiers are issued gas operated handguns instead of military versions of AR-15s.


I prefer to use potato cannons as my means of home defense.
 
2013-01-27 02:37:52 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: There is no difference between an AR-15 and just about any gas operated handgun.

Which is why we handed out M1911s to our boys instead of Garands.


Have you ever carried an M1 with a appropriate amount of ammunition? What about a M1911?

The answer is very clear if you had.

Never-mind the reliability issue.
 
2013-01-27 02:38:08 PM  

lostcat: Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: redmid17: If you think an 'assault rifle' is powerful, I have a bridge in New York for sale

Quit using that phrase. "Assault rifle" is a made up terminology used to try and scare people and is completely useless.

There is no difference between an AR-15 and just about any gas operated handgun.

As a percentage, how many crimes were committed with any type of rifle over the past several years?

That certainly explains why soldiers are issued gas operated handguns instead of military versions of AR-15s.


Actually... soldiers are quite often issued both handguns AND M16's.

Try again.
 
2013-01-27 02:38:59 PM  
I'm a little surprised, but I agree with Resident Muslim on this: Forget that many years on death row thing. Just give the slimeball murderers life without parole in one of our more lovely hellhole prisons. That's an infinitely more crappy fate than the simple needle-in-the-arm. And, if it should come to pass that the person was innocent...he is still alive.
However...for those UNQUESTIONABLY guilty of UNQUESTIONABLY heinous crimes (I.E. Gacey), I personally would be cool with a public breaking on the wheel.
(It's an oldie but a goodie....look it up to see how it's properly done)
 
2013-01-27 02:39:43 PM  

lostcat: 3StratMan: lostcat: 3StratMan: Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: No you don't, it's just a toy. I'm perfectly fine with you guys wanting to keep them but stop kidding me telling me you need these for self-defense or hunting and just tell me it's a toy.

Why do you think of it as a toy?

You need an Assault Rifle for home defense when a shotgun does the same job?

You need an assault rifle for hunting? What on earth are you hunting that requires a weapon as powerful as that?

#1: What the hell gives ANYONE the right to tell another person what they can or can't use to protect themselves and their family? How that fark is it anyone's business what I choose to use to defend myself?

#2: You obviously have NO CLUE about the weapons that you live in fear of. A .223 round, while useful for hunting coyotes, smaller game, and yes, DEER as well, is still far weaker than almost all hunting rifle rounds that most hunters use. Give a 300 WinMag round a try sometime. Makes a .223 seem like Ralphie's eye remover.

I want to use a tactical nuke to defend my family.

You got a problem with that?

Ha ha. Good one. Try again.

OK, I want to put landmines in my yard to keep intruders out.

How can that be a problem?


Now you're just being a bad comedian.
 
2013-01-27 02:41:03 PM  

DogBoyTheCat: Yes, a shotgun does the same job as an assault rifle... on the first a**hole... the problem is it'll take me 10 seconds to reload my double-barrel breech-loader for the second a**hole. And I can't very well reload while I'm clubbing him with it, can I? And if there's a 3rd or 4th a**hole waiting? I'd rather have a 30 round clip, thank you.


Wow, sounds like you get in a lot of combat situations.
 
2013-01-27 02:42:07 PM  

Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: Have you ever carried an M1 with a appropriate amount of ammunition? What about a M1911?

The answer is very clear if you had.

Never-mind the reliability issue.


So you're saying there is a difference between a semi-automatic rifle, like say the AR-15, and a semi-automatic pistol?
 
2013-01-27 02:43:16 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: No you don't, it's just a toy. I'm perfectly fine with you guys wanting to keep them but stop kidding me telling me you need these for self-defense or hunting and just tell me it's a toy.

Why do you think of it as a toy?

You need an Assault Rifle for home defense when a shotgun does the same job?

You need an assault rifle for hunting? What on earth are you hunting that requires a weapon as powerful as that?


You have a car that can go 120 mph? What on earth do you need a car that can go 120 mph for, the speed limit is 65. You should be okay with your car having a regulator installed that prevents it from going faster than 65 mph.
 
2013-01-27 02:44:08 PM  

3StratMan: Actually... soldiers are quite often issued both handguns AND M16's.


But if there's 'no difference', then why not just pistols then? It'd save us a lot of money right there.
 
2013-01-27 02:44:31 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Chicago - 2.7 million population - 506 homicides

Detroit - 705,000 population - 411 homicides


Canada - 34 million population - 158 homicides
 
2013-01-27 02:44:59 PM  
I went to Cabelas the other day and asked where the assault rifle section was, get this, they didn't have an assault rifle section or even an assault weapon section.

On the other side if we pass more gun laws and become more like Chicago won't that make us less safe just like Chicago?
 
2013-01-27 02:45:22 PM  

rga184: stirfrybry: bronyaur1: The NRA dummies keep pounding the pathetic argument that because Chicago has bad gun violence problems and its leaders have pursued gun restrictions, therefore the pursuit of gun restrictions causes gun violence.

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

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

How do we know what the rate of gun crime would have been without gun control laws though? Is there a control city to test the null hypothesis against?

Gun laws in cities, or even states are almost pointless. You can drive an hour to Kenosha from chicago and buy a gun there. Or better yet, go to Gary and pick one up at a pawn shop. We need gun control on a national level and laws preventing against people bringing in guns from elsewhere, and at least a couple of decades for the supply on the street to dwindle down before we see a dent in gun crime.

Also, there needs to be legislation to punish gun owners who knowingly or negligently sold their gun to a criminal or had their gun stolen by a criminal because they didn't keep it safe. Not suggesting across the board punishment for every original gun owner of a weapon that was later used in a crime, but rather those that fail to prove due diligence in selling their gun to somebody legal (consignment at gun shops that perform background checks, maybe?), or keeping their gun in a way that doesn't make it easily obtainable by a robber or burglar.

Of course, the limits placed on enforcement by thee ATF need to be lifted. Conservatives parrot the "enforce current laws" line, but behind the scenes have hobbled the ATF to the point that they can't even have gun shops perform inventory checks. FFS, this is not an industry that is interested in anybody's safety. The ...


So... if your car is stolen out of your garage and someone is killed with it... you'll accept civil responsibility?
 
2013-01-27 02:46:09 PM  
How big were the clips on the 6 guns?
 
2013-01-27 02:46:35 PM  
Clearly the solution is to give every man, woman, and child in Chicago an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine.

Things will be much safer when people have the ability to defend themselves when they've found themselves in any situation that makes them uncomfortable.
 
2013-01-27 02:47:35 PM  

here to help: Mikey1969: here to help: So gun rights people are now using outright, unabashed racism to defend their cause?

WTF?!

What are you talking about? I didn't see "outright, unabashed racism" here, who posted it?

You're right. I'm the racist for noticing the racism.
If you just happen to have a hefty ignore list then my apologies.


No, I'm serious. I saw a few people talk abut things like too many unwed mothers, but I didn't see one where someone said "It's because of all the n**gers!", I was just asking who brought it up.
 
2013-01-27 02:47:57 PM  

3StratMan: lostcat: 3StratMan: Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: No you don't, it's just a toy. I'm perfectly fine with you guys wanting to keep them but stop kidding me telling me you need these for self-defense or hunting and just tell me it's a toy.

Why do you think of it as a toy?

You need an Assault Rifle for home defense when a shotgun does the same job?

You need an assault rifle for hunting? What on earth are you hunting that requires a weapon as powerful as that?

#1: What the hell gives ANYONE the right to tell another person what they can or can't use to protect themselves and their family? How that fark is it anyone's business what I choose to use to defend myself?

#2: You obviously have NO CLUE about the weapons that you live in fear of. A .223 round, while useful for hunting coyotes, smaller game, and yes, DEER as well, is still far weaker than almost all hunting rifle rounds that most hunters use. Give a 300 WinMag round a try sometime. Makes a .223 seem like Ralphie's eye remover.

I want to use a tactical nuke to defend my family.

You got a problem with that?

Ha ha. Good one. Try again.


So you're saying that we shouldn't have what we can afford, but rather what you deem 'the minimum required' to accomplish the task? So... go ahead and turn in your smartphone for a landline, turn in your fancy computer for a model from 10 years ago, and turn in your car for one that has 65 miles an hour as a maximum possible speed.
There's a word for the government declaring what people are and aren't allowed to have, based on what the government thinks they need: Communism.
 
2013-01-27 02:48:25 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: But if there's 'no difference', then why not just pistols then? It'd save us a lot of money right there.


The pistol is the fallback weapon due to it being light, portable, and good for close quarters. However, a pistol sucks at laying down suppressive fire due to the small magazine and it sucks for distant shooting.

There's an effective difference between the weapons that is situational but there is little to no functional difference.
 
2013-01-27 02:48:27 PM  

Securitywyrm: You have a car that can go 120 mph? What on earth do you need a car that can go 120 mph for, the speed limit is 65. You should be okay with your car having a regulator installed that prevents it from going faster than 65 mph.


Yes, I can have a big black Mustang that can go insane miles per hour on the freeway. Here in the Republican Utopia of Greater Ohio, however, I have to pay an auto insurer crazy amounts of money for the privilege of driving said vehicle on our motorways. Amazingly enough, my right to drive whatever speed I want comes with the responsibility of having to pay through my nose on auto insurance.

So when do we get gun insurance laws? Higher rates for weapons at greater risk to cause damage. Its only fair.
 
2013-01-27 02:49:15 PM  

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


Link

Nay, for chicago it is drugs and sausage as the cause of murders.
 
2013-01-27 02:49:20 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: 3StratMan: Actually... soldiers are quite often issued both handguns AND M16's.

But if there's 'no difference', then why not just pistols then? It'd save us a lot of money right there.


Actually the Marines gave up firearms altogether in 2011. Fark gun advocates explained to them that guns are simply one possible tool- if someone wants to kill, they will always find a weapon.

The Army is winding down their use and will be done handguns and rifles by 2016.
 
2013-01-27 02:51:05 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: So when do we get gun insurance laws? Higher rates for weapons at greater risk to cause damage. Its only fair.


When we can buy any weapon we want with no restriction.

Though to be fair, the AR-15 would have the cheapest rate due to its lack of use in most crimes.
 
2013-01-27 02:51:28 PM  

jaytkay: Actually the Marines gave up firearms altogether in 2011. Fark gun advocates explained to them that guns are simply one possible tool- if someone wants to kill, they will always find a weapon.

The Army is winding down their use and will be done handguns and rifles by 2016.


I was responding to this:

Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: There is no difference between an AR-15 and just about any gas operated handgun.


Agree or disagree?
 
2013-01-27 02:51:46 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Securitywyrm: You have a car that can go 120 mph? What on earth do you need a car that can go 120 mph for, the speed limit is 65. You should be okay with your car having a regulator installed that prevents it from going faster than 65 mph.

Yes, I can have a big black Mustang that can go insane miles per hour on the freeway. Here in the Republican Utopia of Greater Ohio, however, I have to pay an auto insurer crazy amounts of money for the privilege of driving said vehicle on our motorways. Amazingly enough, my right to drive whatever speed I want comes with the responsibility of having to pay through my nose on auto insurance.

So when do we get gun insurance laws? Higher rates for weapons at greater risk to cause damage. Its only fair.


But that's not what you say you want. You want people limited to what you deem they 'need' to accomplish a job. You don't 'need' to go faster than 65 MPH, so you should stand by what you preach and agree to trade down to a little clunker car. It'll still get you there eventually, so you should have no problem with this.
 
2013-01-27 02:51:52 PM  
The nations largest outdoors show, Eastern Sports and Outdoors Show, was canceled by the promoters due to a boycott by an overwhelming majority of their vendors and celebrity presenters over their sudden ban on scary "assault rifles" and high capacity magazines in the weeks leading up to it.  The show would have brought in close to $80 million dollars in a couple weeks to Harrisburg PA but Reed Exhibitions made a stand and the people spoke.  Shut it right down.  The mayor of Harrisburg, PA is a whack job too after reading some of her quotes on it.  Glad she lost the money and hopefully the people will see it and vote her out of office next election.
 
2013-01-27 02:54:30 PM  

Mrtraveler01: gerrymander: bronyaur1: The NRA dummies Anyone with a brain will keep pounding the pathetic commonsense argument that because Chicago has bad gun violence problems and its leaders have pursued gun restrictions, therefore the pursuit of increasing gun restrictions causes will not reduce gun violence.

FTFY

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

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


It actually stems from the RICO case against the largest gang in the city. They had too much control, and they only took out the top 20 members, which left a massive network of splintered cliques fighting for drug territory.
 
2013-01-27 02:55:08 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: I was responding to this:


I was emphasizing your point
 
2013-01-27 02:55:35 PM  
Hey Larch...
when my cousin lived in Switzerland (not sure what the law is now) every law-abiding head-of-household was REQUIRED to keep & maintain a fully automatic assault rifle and 200 rounds of ammo.
So, I guess the crime rate there is spiraling out of control?
(last I saw, they called in 3 cop cars for an illegally parked car with primer spots)
 
2013-01-27 02:56:09 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: No you don't, it's just a toy. I'm perfectly fine with you guys wanting to keep them but stop kidding me telling me you need these for self-defense or hunting and just tell me it's a toy.

Why do you think of it as a toy?

You need an Assault Rifle for home defense when a shotgun does the same job?

You need an assault rifle for hunting? What on earth are you hunting that requires a weapon as powerful as that?


When you keep referring to light sporting rifles as "assault rifles" it kind of clouds the issue.
 
2013-01-27 02:56:12 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Securitywyrm: You have a car that can go 120 mph? What on earth do you need a car that can go 120 mph for, the speed limit is 65. You should be okay with your car having a regulator installed that prevents it from going faster than 65 mph.

Yes, I can have a big black Mustang that can go insane miles per hour on the freeway. Here in the Republican Utopia of Greater Ohio, however, I have to pay an auto insurer crazy amounts of money for the privilege of driving said vehicle on our motorways. Amazingly enough, my right to drive whatever speed I want comes with the responsibility of having to pay through my nose on auto insurance.

So when do we get gun insurance laws? Higher rates for weapons at greater risk to cause damage. Its only fair.


Gun grab, power grab, and money grab- all rolled into one. Liberals at their finest.
 
2013-01-27 02:58:11 PM  

Tyee: I went to Cabelas the other day and asked where the assault rifle section was, get this, they didn't have an assault rifle section or even an assault weapon section.

On the other side if we pass more gun laws and become more like Chicago won't that make us less safe just like Chicago?


There is a phrase for pendants like you. "Thread counters". It makes responsible and knowledgable gun owners cring to hear the tired old mantra that gun control advocates just don't understand.

STFU

You're not helping.
 
2013-01-27 02:58:49 PM  

The Rest Are Bait: The nations largest outdoors show, Eastern Sports and Outdoors Show, was canceled by the promoters due to a boycot...The show would have brought in close to $80 million dollars in a couple weeks to Harrisburg PA...


And Sandy Hook has led to a nationwide run on AR-15s and ammo. Gun shops are reporting astounding increases in sales.

Moar Sandy Hooks!

Prosperity demands it! Good job gun enthusiasts!
 
2013-01-27 02:59:46 PM  
I think the real news is the fact there was only 7 homicides last night in Chicago.
 
2013-01-27 03:00:51 PM  
As soon as I got to "nation's strictest gun laws" I could tell subby was more interested in bolstering presuppositions than in honest analysis of our nation's problems.
 
2013-01-27 03:01:25 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: jaytkay: Actually the Marines gave up firearms altogether in 2011. Fark gun advocates explained to them that guns are simply one possible tool- if someone wants to kill, they will always find a weapon.

The Army is winding down their use and will be done handguns and rifles by 2016.

I was responding to this:

Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: There is no difference between an AR-15 and just about any gas operated handgun.

Agree or disagree?


My point is 100% accurate and still stands. If it makes you feel better I will add one word to the sentence to make it perfectly clear to you.

There is no functional difference between an AR-15 and just about any gas operated handgun.

The comment was made in reference to the made up, bullshiat term of "assault weapon" the media likes to throw around and people like yourself like to parrot.

How about answering my question?:

As a percentage, how many crimes were committed with any type of rifle over the past several years?
 
2013-01-27 03:01:54 PM  
Sorry, Securitywyrm... I kinda like the old version..
"....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
Yes, this was written in the time of muskets...but EVERYBODY had a musket...
just what part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?
 
2013-01-27 03:03:36 PM  

jaytkay: The Rest Are Bait: The nations largest outdoors show, Eastern Sports and Outdoors Show, was canceled by the promoters due to a boycot...The show would have brought in close to $80 million dollars in a couple weeks to Harrisburg PA...

And Sandy Hook has led to a nationwide run on AR-15s and ammo. Gun shops are reporting astounding increases in sales.

Moar Sandy Hooks!

Prosperity demands it! Good job gun enthusiasts!


The thing is, it's not a gun show out right.  There is more outfitters, bow hunting, taxidermy, atv, boat, fishing and shamwow dealers than actual gun dealers at that show.  Hell Smith and Wesson doesn't even sell anything there but only showcases their new lineup if I remember correctly.  Reed runs the SHOT show in Las Vegas, an industry trade show for firearms, they let that one go on just a couple weeks ago.  I can't explain why.
 
2013-01-27 03:07:20 PM  
Can any anti-gun nuts show me where in the constitution it says that the arms which the ownership of, shall not be infringed upon, have to be arms for the purpose of hunting?

Hunting was never the given reason for the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Why are you asking those who want not to be infringed upon to justify what they need to hunt with?
 
2013-01-27 03:07:33 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Resident Muslim: 2) "I would rather a thousand guilty men walk free than one innocent man get executed". Again, no. a) as long as juries(sp?) know what is at stake, they would be less likely to convict a person for murder with circumstantial evidence only to have the person who was supposed to have been killed walk into the scene b) letting the guilty 1000 men walk free will only encourage them to act again (see repeat offenders)
3) once criminals understand it is literally their neck on the line -not 3 hots and a cot- murders will drop. But pleeeease, none of this "dies of old age on death row"

Hi, welcome to Earth. Unlike your home world of Vulcan, human beings are irrational illogical creatures who'll do such crazy things as crimes of passion, prosecute beyond the fullest extent to buff the ol' resume, and find guilty due to inherent biases, faulty logic, or whether or not the defendent was wearing white after Labor Day. I know, I know, it sounds crazy, Mr. Spock, but we really are a bunch of McCoys down here.

Aren't you tired of living with bars on your windows and the criminals walking free?

Aren't you tired of living with the fear of one wrong misstep resulting in literally losing your head?

Been there, done that, got tired of it, fixed it. Welcome to the 21st century, you can join us at any time.


Thanks for replying.
I will take your post at face value at try to reply, though forgive me to say you rambled more than I.
:)
Re-Spock: I have been accused of being a Vulcan. Also have been accused of being too sensitive. I blame logic and putting yourself in other people's shoes.
Re-crime of passion: you kill someone, you get killed. I don't care if you did it out of 'love'. I also might link crimes of passion to domestic abuse, but that sounds too much like a straw man, so I digress.
Re- prosecutors: falsify evidence that gets someone killed? Have a seat right over there on the electric chair.
Re-faulty logic/biases: forgive me for not pointing that I meant clear cases of murder, ie, five witnesses, that's him right there on cc tv shooting the clerk...etc. not "he had enough time to leave the party he planned so well, kill the victim and get back to the party and pretend nothing happened.
Re-losing my head: sorry, didn't get that point.
Re-21st century: do you really think we are that civilised? Come a long way? Take a look at the world around you. How many needless deaths? Rapes? Torture? Sorry to say, this century looks too similar to others before it.

Again, I wish it wasn't so, but when criminals go "what's the worse that can happen?" and it doesn't seem so bad...expect more of this stuff.

/again, apologies for rambling and/or completely missing the point //slashies within slashies///
 
2013-01-27 03:08:06 PM  

Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: jaytkay: Actually the Marines gave up firearms altogether in 2011. Fark gun advocates explained to them that guns are simply one possible tool- if someone wants to kill, they will always find a weapon.

The Army is winding down their use and will be done handguns and rifles by 2016.

I was responding to this:

Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: There is no difference between an AR-15 and just about any gas operated handgun.

Agree or disagree?

My point is 100% accurate and still stands. If it makes you feel better I will add one word to the sentence to make it perfectly clear to you.

There is no functional difference between an AR-15 and just about any gas operated handgun.

The comment was made in reference to the made up, bullshiat term of "assault weapon" the media likes to throw around and people like yourself like to parrot.

How about answering my question?:

As a percentage, how many crimes were committed with any type of rifle over the past several years?


Oh how cute, another thread counter. Don't you need to get back on the gunsmithing boards to argue optimal trigger pull. I am sure they are missing you.
 
2013-01-27 03:09:10 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Chicago - 2.7 million population - 506 homicides

Detroit - 705,000 population - 411 homicides


Interesting. Louisville, Ky has a city-county population of about 740,000, and in 2012 there were less than 60 murders.
 
2013-01-27 03:09:37 PM  
Wow, yet another reason to dislike Chicago. Moran gun laws, highest sales tax, high crime, bad weather and cubs fans.

Chicago is mahhh kind of town, it is!
 
2013-01-27 03:10:11 PM  

Mrtraveler01: You need an Assault Rifle for home defense when a shotgun does the same job?

You need an assault rifle for hunting? What on earth are you hunting that requires a weapon as powerful as that?


If an AR-15 is not necessary for self-defense, than why does every government agency own a bunch of them? Why do 2 out of every 5 patrol officers in my city have them in their cars to respond to calls where the suspect is seen with a weapon (*any* weapon, including knives)?

There are valid arguments to be made that civilians don't need the same firepower as the military (2nd Amendment arguments and all), but shouldn't the spirit of the 2nd Amendment at least provide civilians armed parity with civilian police departments?

Police are the ones with a history of suppressing citizens and violating their rights, and they seem to be arming themselves with ever greater levels of force, even though the rate of violent crime has fallen 50% since 1991.

assets.nydailynews.comView Full Size


police-state.netView Full Size


police-state.netView Full Size
 
2013-01-27 03:10:25 PM  

The Rest Are Bait: jaytkay: The Rest Are Bait: The nations largest outdoors show, Eastern Sports and Outdoors Show, was canceled by the promoters due to a boycot...The show would have brought in close to $80 million dollars in a couple weeks to Harrisburg PA...

And Sandy Hook has led to a nationwide run on AR-15s and ammo. Gun shops are reporting astounding increases in sales.

Moar Sandy Hooks!

Prosperity demands it! Good job gun enthusiasts!

The thing is, it's not a gun show out right.  There is more outfitters, bow hunting, taxidermy, atv, boat, fishing and shamwow dealers than actual gun dealers at that show.  Hell Smith and Wesson doesn't even sell anything there but only showcases their new lineup if I remember correctly.  Reed runs the SHOT show in Las Vegas, an industry trade show for firearms, they let that one go on just a couple weeks ago.  I can't explain why.


There are no gun sales at SHOT, and access is restricted for the general public. Also, many of the attendees represent various law enforcement and other government agencies.
 
2013-01-27 03:11:14 PM  

bronyaur1: Chicago has bad gun violence problems and its leaders have pursued gun restrictions, therefore the pursuit of gun restrictions causes gun violence.


No, but gun restrictions obviously haven't had much effect on gun problems.
 
2013-01-27 03:15:01 PM  

dr-shotgun: Mrtraveler01: You need an Assault Rifle for home defense when a shotgun does the same job?

You need an assault rifle for hunting? What on earth are you hunting that requires a weapon as powerful as that?

If an AR-15 is not necessary for self-defense, than why does every government agency own a bunch of them? Why do 2 out of every 5 patrol officers in my city have them in their cars to respond to calls where the suspect is seen with a weapon (*any* weapon, including knives)?

There are valid arguments to be made that civilians don't need the same firepower as the military (2nd Amendment arguments and all), but shouldn't the spirit of the 2nd Amendment at least provide civilians armed parity with civilian police departments?

Police are the ones with a history of suppressing citizens and violating their rights, and they seem to be arming themselves with ever greater levels of force, even though the rate of violent crime has fallen 50% since 1991.

[assets.nydailynews.com image 635x474]

[police-state.net image 440x330]

[www.police-state.net image 410x350]


It feels like people are missing a huge point.

Police are armed because they are enforcing laws.

The police don't make the laws. Governments make laws.

If you don't like the laws you don't buy a gun and start shooting police officers when they try to arrest you for breaking it.

If you don't like the law you go to your representatives in government and explain to them why the law is a bad idea.

Did they stop teaching Civics in public schools or something?
 
2013-01-27 03:15:29 PM  
Nothing to see here. Chicago's self imposed population control. The sooner they all kill each other, the sooner we can go in and build some fine homes.
 
2013-01-27 03:19:17 PM  

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

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


found this on the first page. can leave thread happy
 
2013-01-27 03:19:40 PM  

Greylight: Oh how cute, another thread counter.


It is one of the most important facts that "assault weapon" ban proponents hates to hear.

A ban will have almost ZERO effect on gun violence.

Why do you immediately dismiss it?

And I am hardly a gun nut. I own several but I rarely use them.

I will however speak out for the basic, very specifically spelled out right my fellow citizens have to own such if they so desire.
 
2013-01-27 03:19:59 PM  

lostcat: It feels like people are missing a huge point.Police are armed because they are enforcing laws.The police don't make the laws. Governments make laws.If you don't like the laws you don't buy a gun and start shooting police officers when they try to arrest you for breaking it.If you don't like the law you go to your representatives in government and explain to them why the law is a bad idea.Did they stop teaching Civics in public schools or something?


People like you are so farking cute. It's becoming a rarity to see this sort of naiveté on display, but when it happens, I just say, "AWWW, that's adorable."
 
2013-01-27 03:20:46 PM  

lostcat: It feels like people are missing a huge point.

Police are armed because they are enforcing laws.

The police don't make the laws. Governments make laws.

If you don't like the laws you don't buy a gun and start shooting police officers when they try to arrest you for breaking it.

If you don't like the law you go to your representatives in government and explain to them why the law is a bad idea.

Did they stop teaching Civics in public schools or something?


You assume that the political process in this country is stable and free of corruption. You also presume that folks have any serious choice in the candidates proffered for office, when in fact the two party system leads to folks having to weigh massive tradeoffs with binary decisions. You also assume an engaged and informed electorate. None of these things are true, nor have they been for the last 15-20 years (our system always had issues, but never the scope or scale of special interest influence and electoral apathy and ignorance that we have now).
 
2013-01-27 03:21:03 PM  

Tyee: On the other side if we pass more gun laws and become more like Chicago won't that make us less safe just like Chicago?


Not necessarily, we could just become like DC and New York City which are recording some of it's lowest murder numbers in years.
 
2013-01-27 03:23:06 PM  
lostcat:
It feels like people are missing a huge point.

Police are armed because they are enforcing laws.


You're missing a huge point also.
Police are sworn to serve and protect. The police do not enforce laws, the courts enforce laws. Police apprehend suspected violators of the law, they protect citizens but always in a reactionary way rather than a proactive way.
 
2013-01-27 03:23:16 PM  

drjekel_mrhyde: Most of Africa has no gun laws and little taxes, let's move there


Most of wish you would.
 
2013-01-27 03:26:06 PM  

GoldSpider: bronyaur1: Chicago has bad gun violence problems and its leaders have pursued gun restrictions, therefore the pursuit of gun restrictions causes gun violence.

No, but gun restrictions obviously haven't had much effect on gun problems.





Please tell us how you know what Chicago's gun violence rate would have been had there NOT been these restrictions. THEN you can make the claim that they have not had much effect.
 
2013-01-27 03:26:12 PM  

NeoCortex42: Securitywyrm: Why do "Gun-nuts" refuse to accept any sort of restriction? Because the anti-gun lobby will NEVER stop pushing for more restrictions. Even if they agree that the restrictions are reasonable, the people pushing for the restrictions will steamroll past the point of 'reasonable.'

I propose we re-write the 2nd amendment to the following

No restriction placed upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall exceed the restriction placed upon law enforcement within the country."

After all, a police officer has no greater legal authority to use deadly force to protect their life than any other law-abiding citizen. Also if you want police officers to be 'better armed' than the people they are supposed to 'protect and serve', namely law-abiding citizens, then the role of the police must be oppression rather than protection. If the police can't have 'assault rifles' then neither can you. If the police can have a handgun, then you can too.

How's that? You'll find these 'gun nuts' willing to give up their 'assault rifles' under such a condition, because there is a standard that adjusts with the times.

Except the average person is generally trying to avoid dangerous situations and has the gun as a method of last resort. The law enforcement officer is specifically meant to put himself in more dangerous situations so that the average citizen doesn't have to. I'm fine with cops and military having more powerful weapons than civilians.


Yet the average person is much more likely to visited with unsought violence because criminals look for victims, not opponents.
 
2013-01-27 03:29:37 PM  

Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: There is no functional difference between an AR-15 and just about any gas operated handgun.


For anyone doesn't get the joke that I think Steve seems to be trying to make, there are no gas operated handguns.

Now back to your regular thread.

// yes, I am aware that there are a tiny number of gas powered handguns that have been made for novelty purposes through the years. But nobody uses them for anything but showing their friends the crazy Frankenstein toy they have...
 
2013-01-27 03:29:55 PM  
Oh... I have to add one more comment, larch....
in the past 20 years I have been in 3 different situations where having a firearm might have been a good idea. In all of those situations, merely displaying said firearm and saying "get out" (or words to that effect - I admit I may have used a few profanities) were sufficient to make the unwanted person(s) to leave the vicinity of my home.
Strangely enough, I was somewhat reluctant to relay to the local authorities what had transpired.
(hmmm.... why might that be?)
As my step-mom would say... "alles ist gut"
basically...it's cool...shut up
And this is the America I want...
Let me do my thing... it's all inside my home; no one is being harmed; no one is having their property taken against their will...I worked for all this stuff... why should they take it?
 
2013-01-27 03:33:33 PM  

Fark It: The Rest Are Bait: jaytkay: The Rest Are Bait: The nations largest outdoors show, Eastern Sports and Outdoors Show, was canceled by the promoters due to a boycot...The show would have brought in close to $80 million dollars in a couple weeks to Harrisburg PA...

And Sandy Hook has led to a nationwide run on AR-15s and ammo. Gun shops are reporting astounding increases in sales.

Moar Sandy Hooks!

Prosperity demands it! Good job gun enthusiasts!

The thing is, it's not a gun show out right.  There is more outfitters, bow hunting, taxidermy, atv, boat, fishing and shamwow dealers than actual gun dealers at that show.  Hell Smith and Wesson doesn't even sell anything there but only showcases their new lineup if I remember correctly.  Reed runs the SHOT show in Las Vegas, an industry trade show for firearms, they let that one go on just a couple weeks ago.  I can't explain why.

There are no gun sales at SHOT, and access is restricted for the general public. Also, many of the attendees represent various law enforcement and other government agencies.


On one hand they are willing to profit off of them and on the other they claim a moral high round.  Hypocrites.  Reed is also in danger of loosing out on the SHOT show over the Harrisburg incident.  The NSSF wrote that they are considering using a different exhibitor.
 
2013-01-27 03:35:40 PM  

Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: Greylight: Oh how cute, another thread counter.

It is one of the most important facts that "assault weapon" ban proponents hates to hear.

A ban will have almost ZERO effect on gun violence.

Why do you immediately dismiss it?

And I am hardly a gun nut. I own several but I rarely use them.

I will however speak out for the basic, very specifically spelled out right my fellow citizens have to own such if they so desire.


So as long as it's not a ban right? Or do any restrictions and special licensing requirements for any class of weapon (even if you disagree with the definition) trigger your objections?

Can you discuss from an educated point of view that gun laws and regulations are nessesary?
 
2013-01-27 03:35:43 PM  

The Larch: For anyone doesn't get the joke that I think Steve seems to be trying to make, there are no gas operated handguns.


Semi auto and full auto guns are almost all gas operated guns, but not gasoline Larch operated.
But that isn't what you meant is it?
 
2013-01-27 03:37:42 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: No you don't, it's just a toy. I'm perfectly fine with you guys wanting to keep them but stop kidding me telling me you need these for self-defense or hunting and just tell me it's a toy.

Why do you think of it as a toy?

You need an Assault Rifle for home defense when a shotgun does the same job?

You need an assault rifle for hunting? What on earth are you hunting that requires a weapon as powerful as that?


A) The fact that the Second Amendment isn't about hunting has already been established.

B) "Assault Rifles" aren't that powerful to begin with.

C) Fark "need". Need is a bullshiat argument brought into the discussion with the sole purpose of justifying regulating and banning firearms that people think are scary because they happen to be the low hanging fruit.

This is America, and like it or not I don't have to justify some perceived "need" to government bureaucrats in order to exercise an established civil right.

Should I be forced to justify my "need" to use a sign to exercise my freedom of speech or to own a Bible?

Should the government deny me due process or a trial by jury if I can not establish a "need"?

How about unlawful search and seizure? Do I "need" to deny an unwarranted search if I've done nothing wrong?

No.

The same people making the argument that I do not "need" X firearm to conduct whatever version of a "legitimate" activity are the same people that would be pissing their pants if that standard were applied to any other right they hold dear, and rightfully so.

Fark "need".
 
2013-01-27 03:37:44 PM  
People who want to take away others rights and firearms, are pathetic weaklings.

These pathetic weaklings will have to dodge bullets to disarm we Americans who have a sack and are willing to stand up for our Bill of Rights.

Better get good at dodging.
 
2013-01-27 03:38:57 PM  

Greylight: KiwDaWabbit: Greylight: Gun laws and restrictions are part of an effective strategy to prevent gun violence. Canadians have more hurdles to owning certain classes of arms, but can still own them. Compare gun related deaths between the two countries, I bet no one even needs to look it up to know that laws and regulations can work.

It's not about banning weapons, it's about regulating them to balance public safety and ownership. You can have both respectively if y'all could stop this inane partisan douchery.

Gun control isn't going to drastically reduce violence in the U.S. I'm a gun control advocate. The biggest problem lies in our culture. Violence is socially acceptable in the U.S. If it turned us off that much, something would have been done about it long ago. But, no. Hell, in some cases, criminals are revered here. There are also economic, environmental, and mental health aspects to gun violence. People in "hot spots" for gun violence in the U.S. don't put nearly the same value on life as the rest of us first world problem havers would.

The culture in the US is not common across the whole country. I in Manitoba have more in common with someone from Minisota then they would with someone from Mississippi.

The idea of a "gun culture" is not an irreversible fact of life, it is a series of choices. Now is the time for Americans to make another choice. Make the right choice this time my friends.


You're confusing gun culture with gang culture.
 
2013-01-27 03:41:22 PM  

give me doughnuts: Popcorn Johnny: Chicago - 2.7 million population - 506 homicides

Detroit - 705,000 population - 411 homicides

Interesting. Louisville, Ky has a city-county population of about 740,000, and in 2012 there were less than 60 murders.


As an ex-Detroit-area person, it's actually pretty simple. There's a heavy correlation between poor urban folks of "urban" culture (The culture is the important word. Being black/"urban" tells me nothing, being thug tells me everything), and crime. So in a lot of places, you have the "good parts" of town which have 0 crime, and the bad parts of town which are, per capita, more or less Detroit.

In Detroit, with the notable exception of small bits of downtown, everything is a bad bit, and the rich white people who normally balance out the statistics are all out in the rich white suburbs.

4.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size

Was in downtown Farmington, just past the west edge of the blue bubble on the northeast side. East Farmington (Hills) was rapidly going downhill because urban folks trying to leave Detroit were moving into the foreclosed homes and cheap apartments during the recession, and the people who had lived there were running away from the increased crime, collapsing property values, and increasingly worse schools (because the new kids were mainly uneducated bullies) as a result.

/Also, on a complete tangent, if you ever get a chance to see a black high school marching band, go. Some of the visiting football teams brought their non-MCBA marching bands, and it was impressive. Oak Park's 25-person marching band was louder in the visiting stands than our 65-person marching band was in the seats right next to me. Very much Drumline-esque.
 
2013-01-27 03:41:54 PM  

Ontos: C) Fark "need". Need is a bullshiat argument brought into the discussion with the sole purpose of justifying regulating and banning firearms that people think are scary because they happen to be the low hanging fruit.

This is America, and like it or not I don't have to justify some perceived "need" to government bureaucrats in order to exercise an established civil right.

Should I be forced to justify my "need" to use a sign to exercise my freedom of speech or to own a Bible?

Should the government deny me due process or a trial by jury if I can not establish a "need"?

How about unlawful search and seizure? Do I "need" to deny an unwarranted search if I've done nothing wrong?

No.

The same people making the argument that I do not "need" X firearm to conduct whatever version of a "legitimate" activity are the same people that would be pissing their pants if that standard were applied to any other right they hold dear, and rightfully so.

Fark "need".


Nice post, but they hate arguing these facts and probably will disregard all these valid and relevant points.
 
2013-01-27 03:42:35 PM  
OK people, listen up... All you anti-gun people can cloud the issue all day with your facts and statistics, your talking points, your smartass comments and your feigned emotion. The whole point of the exercise was SUPPOSEDLY to prevent another Sandy Hook from happening. You supposedly want to protect our children. Well here's the thing: If you want to try to put new firearms laws in place to curb the risk of gun dangers to our children in their schools, AS WELL AS having guards in the schools as a FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE to protect them on scene, AND also actively work to improve the failing mental health system in this country, then a legitimate meaningful discussion can be had with you. But if all you want to do to "fix" the problem is take away people's guns, with guarding the schools and mental health not even being part of your strategy, then you all need to STFU. Right now. You are all liars in regards to wanting to protect our children. You would get more respect from people if you would just come out and admit that you don't like guns and think no one should be able to own them. At least you would be being honest, instead of hiding behind a smokescreen about wanting to protect children in schools. But having a gun control strategy as your only plan to protect children in schools is BS, and needs to stop.

And arguing against guards in schools, regardless of your reasoning, is indicator #1 of the BS lies about protecting children. Guards are in place in so many places to protect us and our assets, and yet someone argues against them protecting kids in schools? Then you really don't want to protect anyone, do you? If you do, then guards would be welcomed, instead of argued against. Like I said, just come out and admit that you just don't like guns, and think that no one should be able to own them. At least THEN would be speaking truthfully about the whole issue.
 
2013-01-27 03:43:19 PM  

Tyee: The Larch: For anyone doesn't get the joke that I think Steve seems to be trying to make, there are no gas operated handguns.

Semi auto and full auto guns are almost all gas operated guns, but not gasoline Larch operated.
But that isn't what you meant is it?


Even though all semi-autos use gas pressure to reload, 'gas-operated' is specific jargon in firearms, so technically he's correct.

He's also a wanker for playing the game "Hurr durrr you don't know arcane terms, therefore you cannot discuss the subject!!1!!'.
 
2013-01-27 03:43:20 PM  

Mrtraveler01: EvilByte: Chicago is the NRA's straw man. Chicago's murder rate is about 16th in the nation for the roughly 70 cities with more than 250,000 people. Miami, Cleveland, Memphis, Atlanta, and New Orleans all have higher homicide rates. But since Chicago has 2,000,000 more people than those gun loving cities the raw number of homicides is higher.

And they can't use NYC because crime there is at a record low.

I live in St. Louis so I always laugh when I hear about crime problems plaguing a city that's 3 times as big in area.


St. Louis.... Where even the mayor gets mugged.
 
2013-01-27 03:43:24 PM  

Greylight: special licensing requirements


Yes, I have a problem with licensing and a general database of gun owners.

I really do not problem with an initial background check to weed out felons or mentally ill persons.

Tyee: The Larch: For anyone doesn't get the joke that I think Steve seems to be trying to make, there are no gas operated handguns.

Semi auto and full auto guns are almost all gas operated guns, but not gasoline Larch operated.
But that isn't what you meant is it?


Thank you. I was having a face palm moment reading his post.
 
2013-01-27 03:43:42 PM  

MagicMissile: These pathetic weaklings will have to dodge bullets to disarm we Americans who have a sack


NOT A FETISH.
 
2013-01-27 03:43:54 PM  

Tyee: Ontos: C) Fark "need". Need is a bullshiat argument brought into the discussion with the sole purpose of justifying regulating and banning firearms that people think are scary because they happen to be the low hanging fruit.

This is America, and like it or not I don't have to justify some perceived "need" to government bureaucrats in order to exercise an established civil right.

Should I be forced to justify my "need" to use a sign to exercise my freedom of speech or to own a Bible?

Should the government deny me due process or a trial by jury if I can not establish a "need"?

How about unlawful search and seizure? Do I "need" to deny an unwarranted search if I've done nothing wrong?

No.

The same people making the argument that I do not "need" X firearm to conduct whatever version of a "legitimate" activity are the same people that would be pissing their pants if that standard were applied to any other right they hold dear, and rightfully so.

Fark "need".

Nice post, but they hate arguing these facts and probably will disregard all these valid and relevant points.


Although I already said that I'm ok with folks owning these guns and think that bans are the wrong way to go. I just don't buy the "they're for home security and hunting" excuse.
 
2013-01-27 03:45:03 PM  

MagicMissile: People who want to take away others rights and firearms, are pathetic weaklings.

These pathetic weaklings will have to dodge bullets to disarm we Americans who have a sack and are willing to stand up for our Bill of Rights.

Better get good at dodging.


Amusing irony is amusing...someone calling others weaklings, while arguing that they need guns and will be willing to kill those who would take them away.
 
2013-01-27 03:45:30 PM  

3StratMan: And arguing against guards in schools, regardless of your reasoning, is indicator #1 of the BS lies about protecting children. Guards are in place in so many places to protect us and our assets, and yet someone argues against them protecting kids in schools? Then you really don't want to protect anyone, do you? If you do, then guards would be welcomed, instead of argued against. Like I said, just come out and admit that you just don't like guns, and think that no one should be able to own them. At least THEN would be speaking truthfully about the whole issue.


I'm ok with armed guards in school. I had a DARE officer and he always carried his gun in school so I'm used to it.

Sorry for setting your strawman on fire.
 
2013-01-27 03:45:32 PM  

Tyee: The Larch: For anyone doesn't get the joke that I think Steve seems to be trying to make, there are no gas operated handguns.

Semi auto and full auto guns are almost all gas operated guns, but not gasoline Larch operated.
But that isn't what you meant is it?


No, semiautomatic pistols are almost entirely recoil operated, not gas operated.
 
2013-01-27 03:45:59 PM  

Ontos: This is America, and like it or not I don't have to justify some perceived "need" to government bureaucrats in order to exercise an established civil right.

Should I be forced to justify my "need" to use a sign to exercise my freedom of speech or to own a Bible?


You need a military rifle like I need to parade around the local elementary school with a megaphone telling the kids in graphic detail about how their parents conceived them.

Why are my First amendment rights being trampled upon?
 
2013-01-27 03:46:26 PM  

earthworm2.0: Mrtraveler01: EvilByte: Chicago is the NRA's straw man. Chicago's murder rate is about 16th in the nation for the roughly 70 cities with more than 250,000 people. Miami, Cleveland, Memphis, Atlanta, and New Orleans all have higher homicide rates. But since Chicago has 2,000,000 more people than those gun loving cities the raw number of homicides is higher.

And they can't use NYC because crime there is at a record low.

I live in St. Louis so I always laugh when I hear about crime problems plaguing a city that's 3 times as big in area.

St. Louis.... Where even the mayor gets mugged.


I have a love/hate relationship with this city.
 
2013-01-27 03:46:34 PM  

3StratMan: OK people, listen up... All you anti-gun people can cloud the issue all day with your facts and statistics, your talking points, your smartass comments and your feigned emotion. The whole point of the exercise was SUPPOSEDLY to prevent another Sandy Hook from happening. You supposedly want to protect our children. Well here's the thing: If you want to try to put new firearms laws in place to curb the risk of gun dangers to our children in their schools, AS WELL AS having guards in the schools as a FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE to protect them on scene, AND also actively work to improve the failing mental health system in this country, then a legitimate meaningful discussion can be had with you. But if all you want to do to "fix" the problem is take away people's guns, with guarding the schools and mental health not even being part of your strategy, then you all need to STFU. Right now. You are all liars in regards to wanting to protect our children. You would get more respect from people if you would just come out and admit that you don't like guns and think no one should be able to own them. At least you would be being honest, instead of hiding behind a smokescreen about wanting to protect children in schools. But having a gun control strategy as your only plan to protect children in schools is BS, and needs to stop.

And arguing against guards in schools, regardless of your reasoning, is indicator #1 of the BS lies about protecting children. Guards are in place in so many places to protect us and our assets, and yet someone argues against them protecting kids in schools? Then you really don't want to protect anyone, do you? If you do, then guards would be welcomed, instead of argued against. Like I said, just come out and admit that you just don't like guns, and think that no one should be able to own them. At least THEN would be speaking truthfully about the whole issue.


i53.photobucket.comView Full Size