The weekend has gotten off to an especially violent start, with no fewer than 20 people shot on the streets of Chicago, three of them fatally, from Friday afternoon through early Saturday.
Ragarding gun laws, it's those with a propensity to kill that will keep their guns, unfortunately, so defending yourself against them is the basis of that right to bear arms.
I posted this because in the entire state of Illinois there has been peace and quiet except in the same 3 areas of the south, west and far noth side of Chicago - your right to bear arms is the stop gap from tyranny
At the risk of sounding like a right wing or left wing nut job - the fact we have an armed citizenry does insure liberty from occupational tyrany, ner how outdated that concept may seem in the 20th century. There may be other forms of tyrany but not occupational.
i grew up with guns. i was given my first at the ripe age of 10. it was a 410 shot gun. i had my first rifle by 12 and first 20 gauge by 13. i still own several to this day. do i consider them in the same category as hand guns, uh no. so before you pull some michael moore left wing garbage stereotype, get your head out of your ass. you have the opportunity to make a better argument. why don't you use it instead of looking like a buffoon.
since when would banning guns actually stop the people who only buy guns from illegal sources anyway from getting guns...
i think guns are just about the dumbest things you could ever want to own but laws against it would be just as effective as laws banning abortion.
i just went to chicago this weekend and only heard about this when i came back :D
I don't think anyone can argue against the statment People who kill people buy illegal guns. It's very simple people, if you make hand guns illegal, at the very least it becomes harder to find one. Eventually over time it becomes next to impossible.
Why dont we make it illegal to carry a hand gun on the southside - that seems to be the problem. In the old west you checked your gun with the sherif when you entered town
evil P - it IS illegal to own a handgun on the southside. The real issue is not the guns themselves, (witness london's huge amount of fatal stabbings in a year) - getting rid of handguns isn't going to stop handgun deaths - likewise, arming everyone would only increase handgun fatalities (think of all the stupid people out there who get in fights because someone looked at 'em funny/looked at their girl/acted gay/rooted for the other team - now think about them armed.)
Its the easy availability of handguns in areas of high crime. Register the guns, be able to track them, and prosecute the hell out of the straw dealers and lax gun shop owners who see some guy just over the city line with a city sticker on his car buying six guns every month for years on end and saying nothing to any authorities. If you have the ability to track the guns, you can track the behavior, and while any one tracked handgun is only of marginal usefulness, is the ability to overlap the individual actions and find the pattern that is the only way to stop the influx of illegal weapons (most of which are purchased legally.)
Shutting off access to guns by criminals does not mean shutting off access to guns for everyone. Although, like cars, I'd like the gun-owner to be able to read and take a basic safety test so we have a minimum "smarts" threshold.
I think I just used this analogy somewhere else, but it seems like the two vociferous groups out there are (purposely) negating the real solution which is somewhere in-between and dictated by common sense. My analogy is this: we take fingerprints at crime scenes because they are helpful in finding the culprit. One side (the ban all gun people) would say that to insure that all criminals leave fingerprints we should make gloves illegal, never mind that they are useful to a lot of non-criminals. The other side (the NRA/wingnuts) say we shouldn't take anyones fingerprints because any criminal might use gloves, and then be able to get away with it. But us normal people out there are fine with the populous having access to gloves and the police taking people's fingerprints even though some (more like a few) criminals use gloves. Common sense.
- Chicago has a ban on handguns.... that's been in law since 1982.
- DC has a ban on handguns. Doesn't seem to be working there, either.
- Murder and violent crime rates increased over 300% in Great Britain from 1998 to 2005. Their gun ban happened in 1997.
I'm not saying that arming people is the answer - it's not. But you'd have to be seriously, seriously ignorant if you believe that by banning handguns, all violence involving guns is just going to go away. Look it up yourself if you want to know more - the numbers are out there.
(BTW - lest somebody thinks I'm a right-wing nut, I'm more left than anybody here - I'm at the far-left end of the Canadian political spectrum, and I've never even touched a gun in real life.)
the difficulty is, how do you ban guns from a tiny local which is completely surrounded by areas where guns aren't banned? especially considering there aren't going to be any checkpoints around the city of chicago to stop them from coming in. these laws strike me as more a formality than anything else.
i suspect a lot of the problems we have with regard to firearms are just the gunshows. i don't buy it that these people are really doing background checks, and i would assume that at least a few of the people attending these are a little sketchy. from what i read it sounds like a lot of people who shouldn't be owning guns get their hands on them this way. why not just put an end to gun shows and make people buy firearms from the sporting goods stores which are probably a lot easier to police?
If we are so logical in the 21st century doctor should we say since 90% of the shootings were Black on Black crime then Black people shouldnt own weapons? But then what about black folks who live in high crime areas that carry so THEY dont get shot during a robbery?
Maybe the logical answer is "STOP SHIPPING THE FUCKING JOBS OVER SEAS YOU STUPID FUCKING PRICKS!" or this disease will spreead from the gehttos to hood near you to - a camera on every corner, a fat ass cop with a sweet pension, drugs all over, complete liberal civil decay
I assume most of these shooting are drug related. Why is the debate always about banning handguns, but never about legalizing narcotics and regulating them like alcohol & tobacco?
I agree - I think eroding the second amendment is the worst course of action - we have institutionalized poverty, large segments of government subsidized gehttos, jobless tracts, drug market gang warefare - just about everything goinjg wrong
Dude, the Illinois Institute of technology campus is right in the middle of the ghetto on the south side of chicago. Doesnt get better than that. ::rolls eyes::
20 Shot In Chicago In Less Than 24-Hours
The weekend has gotten off to an especially violent start, with no fewer than 20 people shot on the streets of Chicago, three of them fatally, from Friday afternoon through early Saturday.
Vulture City Baby
link
Springtime in the big city baby!
(Seriously though, WTF!?)
From Friday afternoon through early Sunday, no fewer than 32 people have been wounded by gunfire, six of them fatally
updated
and to think there are still people who believe in this right to bear arms bullshit. seriously, get rid of the fucking hand guns people.
Ragarding gun laws, it's those with a propensity to kill that will keep their guns, unfortunately, so defending yourself against them is the basis of that right to bear arms.
I posted this because in the entire state of Illinois there has been peace and quiet except in the same 3 areas of the south, west and far noth side of Chicago - your right to bear arms is the stop gap from tyranny
guns beget violence. violence begets violence. arming people is no way to stop it; it only makes things worse.
At the risk of sounding like a right wing or left wing nut job - the fact we have an armed citizenry does insure liberty from occupational tyrany, ner how outdated that concept may seem in the 20th century. There may be other forms of tyrany but not occupational.
give me a fucking break. do you honestly believe that? hand guns kill and maim people. end of story...
we should be allowed a nuke in every household to defend ourselves from terrorists
now your just being ignorant
Someones watching too many Michael Moore Catoons.
don't forget to wear your IIT approved bullet-proof vest!
i grew up with guns. i was given my first at the ripe age of 10. it was a 410 shot gun. i had my first rifle by 12 and first 20 gauge by 13. i still own several to this day. do i consider them in the same category as hand guns, uh no. so before you pull some michael moore left wing garbage stereotype, get your head out of your ass. you have the opportunity to make a better argument. why don't you use it instead of looking like a buffoon.
since when would banning guns actually stop the people who only buy guns from illegal sources anyway from getting guns...
i think guns are just about the dumbest things you could ever want to own but laws against it would be just as effective as laws banning abortion.
i just went to chicago this weekend and only heard about this when i came back :D
People who kill people buy illegal guns.
You would be beyond retarded to use a registered firearm in your name to murder someone premeditatedly, unless it was a crime of passion.
'xcuse me, beyond retarded is insensitive, I meant to say, you would have to be a fucking moron.
Final Tally
38 shot, 8 fatalitis, 72 hours
I don't think anyone can argue against the statment People who kill people buy illegal guns. It's very simple people, if you make hand guns illegal, at the very least it becomes harder to find one. Eventually over time it becomes next to impossible.
So then who will end-up with the guns that weren't turned-over to authorities?
Why dont we make it illegal to carry a hand gun on the southside - that seems to be the problem. In the old west you checked your gun with the sherif when you entered town
Kind of like its hard to find pot?
Reeeeeeeaaaaaal Hard for like 10,000 people, huh bro?
evil P - it IS illegal to own a handgun on the southside. The real issue is not the guns themselves, (witness london's huge amount of fatal stabbings in a year) - getting rid of handguns isn't going to stop handgun deaths - likewise, arming everyone would only increase handgun fatalities (think of all the stupid people out there who get in fights because someone looked at 'em funny/looked at their girl/acted gay/rooted for the other team - now think about them armed.)
Its the easy availability of handguns in areas of high crime. Register the guns, be able to track them, and prosecute the hell out of the straw dealers and lax gun shop owners who see some guy just over the city line with a city sticker on his car buying six guns every month for years on end and saying nothing to any authorities. If you have the ability to track the guns, you can track the behavior, and while any one tracked handgun is only of marginal usefulness, is the ability to overlap the individual actions and find the pattern that is the only way to stop the influx of illegal weapons (most of which are purchased legally.)
Shutting off access to guns by criminals does not mean shutting off access to guns for everyone. Although, like cars, I'd like the gun-owner to be able to read and take a basic safety test so we have a minimum "smarts" threshold.
I think I just used this analogy somewhere else, but it seems like the two vociferous groups out there are (purposely) negating the real solution which is somewhere in-between and dictated by common sense. My analogy is this: we take fingerprints at crime scenes because they are helpful in finding the culprit. One side (the ban all gun people) would say that to insure that all criminals leave fingerprints we should make gloves illegal, never mind that they are useful to a lot of non-criminals. The other side (the NRA/wingnuts) say we shouldn't take anyones fingerprints because any criminal might use gloves, and then be able to get away with it. But us normal people out there are fine with the populous having access to gloves and the police taking people's fingerprints even though some (more like a few) criminals use gloves. Common sense.
"the fact we have an armed citizenry does insure liberty from occupational tyrany"
occupational tyranny from whom? you 'right wing nut job'
move on to the 21st century, america!
What makes you think the 21st century is any different than any other century? The ability to download porn?
FYI....
- Chicago has a ban on handguns.... that's been in law since 1982.
- DC has a ban on handguns. Doesn't seem to be working there, either.
- Murder and violent crime rates increased over 300% in Great Britain from 1998 to 2005. Their gun ban happened in 1997.
I'm not saying that arming people is the answer - it's not. But you'd have to be seriously, seriously ignorant if you believe that by banning handguns, all violence involving guns is just going to go away. Look it up yourself if you want to know more - the numbers are out there.
(BTW - lest somebody thinks I'm a right-wing nut, I'm more left than anybody here - I'm at the far-left end of the Canadian political spectrum, and I've never even touched a gun in real life.)
no, the ability of rational thought, and be assured that other people might also think rationally.
Rational thought was invented in the 21st century?
I think I just lost hope in all humanity. Unless you're trolling, in which case, good job.
the difficulty is, how do you ban guns from a tiny local which is completely surrounded by areas where guns aren't banned? especially considering there aren't going to be any checkpoints around the city of chicago to stop them from coming in. these laws strike me as more a formality than anything else.
i suspect a lot of the problems we have with regard to firearms are just the gunshows. i don't buy it that these people are really doing background checks, and i would assume that at least a few of the people attending these are a little sketchy. from what i read it sounds like a lot of people who shouldn't be owning guns get their hands on them this way. why not just put an end to gun shows and make people buy firearms from the sporting goods stores which are probably a lot easier to police?
If we are so logical in the 21st century doctor should we say since 90% of the shootings were Black on Black crime then Black people shouldnt own weapons? But then what about black folks who live in high crime areas that carry so THEY dont get shot during a robbery?
Maybe the logical answer is "STOP SHIPPING THE FUCKING JOBS OVER SEAS YOU STUPID FUCKING PRICKS!" or this disease will spreead from the gehttos to hood near you to - a camera on every corner, a fat ass cop with a sweet pension, drugs all over, complete liberal civil decay
EvilP - up until the late 60's there were many places in america where it was effectively illegal to be a black handgun owner, fyi.
I assume most of these shooting are drug related. Why is the debate always about banning handguns, but never about legalizing narcotics and regulating them like alcohol & tobacco?
I'd be willing to bet 99% of these shootings involve Alcohol.
I agree - I think eroding the second amendment is the worst course of action - we have institutionalized poverty, large segments of government subsidized gehttos, jobless tracts, drug market gang warefare - just about everything goinjg wrong
Dude, the Illinois Institute of technology campus is right in the middle of the ghetto on the south side of chicago. Doesnt get better than that. ::rolls eyes::
IIT's not in the ghetto.
it's close!
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.