• Chicago Further Restricts Handguns After Supreme Court Ruling
    114 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Bengley;23076998]Britain has harsh gun laws, barely any gun crime, therefore it works. Criminals more than likely steal guns from licensed owners in america, so if a licensed owner has no guns, there are none to steal.[/QUOTE] Yeah but instead you just stab each other.
[QUOTE=yuki;23080010]What about the guy who stole a car and drove it down the sidewalk? Or that guy who built a tank out of a bullzdozer? Or the unibomber? He made nailbombs out of hardware from home depot. Fuck, Dylan Klebold had a Tec-9 submachinegun, and those are already banned. People can weaponize anything, the problem isn't guns, it's people. You can remove all the guns in the world and it won't magically stop crime. Think about it. Remove guns, we have knives. Remove knives, we have scissors. Remove blades, we have chemicals, remove EVERYTHING and we still have fists. Remove our limbs and we still have teeth.[/QUOTE] Yes but you can't kill someone from 500 feet away with a knife. Here's the difference between those things. Knives, scissors, bulldozers, those are all [I]tools[/I]. Handguns are [I]weapons[/I]. Knives and scissors can be used for peaceful purposes, handguns can't. You can't hunt with a handgun, it's only purpose is for use against another human being. That's the difference. That's the line, switchblades and balisongs aren't tools, they're weapons, and guess what, they're banned in pretty much the entire US too. It's not about guns, it's about weaponry. You have to realize that this dumb "you can hurt people with things other than guns" logic, in order to be consistent, must be extended both ways. "We can't ban rocket propelled grenade launchers. If we ban those, people will just shoot each other with regular guns. We can't ban grenades, if we ban those, people will just use molotov cocktails against each other." A line has to be drawn somewhere. How about that line be drawn between [I]weapons [/I]and [I]tools[/I]? [editline]10:06AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Earthen;23081190]Yeah but instead you just stab each other.[/QUOTE] There's less non-gun violent crime in Britain too. [editline]10:07AM[/editline] there's statistics for this shit, you can't just talk out your ass in hypotheticals
I think the trouble in America is that they've had access to guns for all of their history, they're ingrained in American society; guns are part of American society. You can't just ban something that everyone had access to before, it just doesn't work.
What the fuck are you on about? Tools can be made into weapons, and vice versa. No matter what there will be crime, violent or otherwise. Also Britain has a shitload of knife crime. England isn't the best place in the world, its full of chavs. Fucking ninja'd.
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;23081207]Yes but you can't kill someone from 500 feet away with a knife. Here's the difference between those things. Knives, scissors, bulldozers, those are all [I]tools[/I]. Handguns are [I]weapons[/I]. Knives and scissors can be used for peaceful purposes, handguns can't. You can't hunt with a handgun, it's only purpose is for use against another human being. [/QUOTE] I don't assume you hunt, because you can hunt with handguns, and most hunters carry a handgun just in-case. You're right, guns are weapons, they are designed to kill, but they can be used for peaceful purposes. Competition target shooting, or just shooting at targets. You pretty much got that part of my argument, but my point stands that a ban on handguns does not necessarily effect criminals. They're still criminals, ban or not.
I need to move to canada, chicago keeps getting worse.
Lol, Chicago. HURR DURR WE'RE GOING TO USE A LOOPHOLE It doesn't exist. FUCK YOU WE ARE THE LAW.
Thank god i moved from Chicago, my neighborhood had a shooting every 2 weeks or an ambulance/firetruck/police cruiser go by every fucking night.
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;23081207]Yes but you can't kill someone from 500 feet away with a knife. Here's the difference between those things. Knives, scissors, bulldozers, those are all [I]tools[/I]. Handguns are [I]weapons[/I]. Knives and scissors can be used for peaceful purposes, handguns can't. You can't hunt with a handgun, it's only purpose is for use against another human being. That's the difference. That's the line, switchblades and balisongs aren't tools, they're weapons, and guess what, they're banned in pretty much the entire US too. It's not about guns, it's about weaponry.[/QUOTE] Hunting with handguns isn't done, you say? [img]http://www.handgunhunt.com/images/gonhuntin_blackbuck.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.arizonahunting.net/images/javelinashawn.jpg[/img] I couldn't find any images for it, but I've seen buffalo hunters going with nothing but an S&W 500 magnum. [editline]12:21PM[/editline] [QUOTE=gbtygfvyg;23081464]Thank god i moved from Chicago, [B]my neighborhood had a shooting every 2 weeks[/B] or an ambulance/firetruck/police cruiser go by every fucking night.[/QUOTE] Emphasis added to note abject failure of anti-gun laws. [editline]12:25PM[/editline] Also who's going to register whatever handguns they already had Whoever put that part in is stupid
[QUOTE=yuki;23081436]I don't assume you hunt, because you can hunt with handguns, and most hunters carry a handgun just in-case. You're right, guns are weapons, they are designed to kill, but they can be used for peaceful purposes. Competition target shooting, or just shooting at targets. You pretty much got that part of my argument, but my point stands that a ban on handguns does not necessarily effect criminals. They're still criminals, ban or not.[/QUOTE] By making them legal, you make them available in abundance. A large portion of weapons used by criminals are ones stolen from law-abiding citizens. While it may not be possible to prevent all black market weapon sales, saying "criminals will always get guns" is giving up and ignoring the reality of the situation. It is certainly possible to greatly reduce the number of criminals with firearms through proper policing. You can't just say "they'll always have it" and then give up, that's not how you fight crime. [editline]11:12AM[/editline] [QUOTE=the_KMM;23081500] Emphasis added to note abject failure of anti-gun laws. [/QUOTE] yes, because a shitty, ineffective law fails to work, THEN GUNS WILL ALWAYS BE EVERYWHERE AND EVERY LAW EVER IS DOOMED TO FAILURE
They don't seem to realize that this doesn't really work when almost everyone already has guns
[QUOTE=Bengley;23076998]Britain has harsh gun laws, barely any gun crime, therefore it works. Criminals more than likely steal guns from licensed owners in america, so if a licensed owner has no guns, there are none to steal.[/QUOTE] Knife crime is up huh.
[QUOTE=uberdood15;23082663]Knife crime is up huh.[/QUOTE] britain has lower violent crime overall. Lower gun crime, lower knife crime
While I understand the argument over the legality of handguns and I agree the it is a legitimate point of controversy, is anybody here still arguing for the legality of military shotguns and assault rifles and whatnot? Just curious, a lot of people here just talk about "guns" and don't specify what kinds.
[img]http://www.statistics.gov.uk/resources/graph3_tcm119-28053.jpg[/img] I've been trying to find trend graphs on the situation but this is the best I have. I'm pretty sure knife crime has increased since the 1997 handgun ban.
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;23082474]By making them legal, you make them available in abundance. A large portion of weapons used by criminals are ones stolen from law-abiding citizens. While it may not be possible to prevent all black market weapon sales, saying "criminals will always get guns" is giving up and ignoring the reality of the situation. It is certainly possible to greatly reduce the number of criminals with firearms through proper policing. You can't just say "they'll always have it" and then give up, that's not how you fight crime. [editline]11:12AM[/editline] yes, because a shitty, ineffective law fails to work, THEN GUNS WILL ALWAYS BE EVERYWHERE AND EVERY LAW EVER IS DOOMED TO FAILURE[/QUOTE] these arguments don't impress me at all "oh people only die [I]sometimes[/I]" either figure out a way to get rid of the problem all together or stop being a dick to the law abiding citizen who now can't get a gun. what's everyone on about criminals stealing guns from law abiding citizens that's the stupidest reason i've ever heard to ban guns. on the rare chance it does happen that's the irresponsibility of the owner. gun control does not make guns go away. they are still there. criminals don't walk into a gunshop and register a firearm. with gun control, now your citizen can't while your criminal continues to visit his buddy down that back alley.
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;23082902]these arguments don't impress me at all "oh people only die [I]sometimes[/I]" either figure out a way to get rid of the problem all together or stop being a dick to the law abiding citizen who now can't get a gun. what's everyone on about criminals stealing guns from law abiding citizens that's the stupidest reason i've ever heard to ban guns. gun control does not make guns go away. they are still there. criminals don't walk into a gunshop and register a firearm. with gun control, now your citizen can't while your criminal continues to visit his buddy down that back alley.[/QUOTE] Exactly. Even banning the import or production of handguns directly would be ineffective because they're [i]still criminals[/i].
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;23082902]these arguments don't impress me at all "oh people only die [I]sometimes[/I]" either figure out a way to get rid of the problem all together or stop being a dick to the law abiding citizen who now can't get a gun.[/QUOTE] But that's not how law enforcement works. There will always be murder, but that doesn't mean that police efforts to prevent murder and punish those who are responsible for it are meaningless. There are no complete, end-all solutions when it comes to crime. There's just various degrees of mitigation.
I hate this, I live in the same county as Chicago, and this is going more likely effect the whole county, like it always does, damn fucking county line has to be 300 feet from my house...
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;23083069]But that's not how law enforcement works. There will always be murder, but that doesn't mean that police efforts to prevent murder and punish those who are responsible for it are meaningless. There are no complete, end-all solutions when it comes to crime. There's just various degrees of mitigation.[/QUOTE] i'm not saying give a gun out to everyone who comes into a store and asks, but be realistic. there has to be a line between regulation and straight up making it impossible for law abiding citizens to do anything such as in this chicago law. there's no way to predict these kinds of things. if they pass a background check there's no reason to not give someone a firearm.
[QUOTE=yuki;23082966]Exactly. Even banning the import or production of handguns directly would be ineffective because they're [I]still criminals[/I].[/QUOTE] It would be effective in decreasing the amount of handguns available. Most gun crimes aren't committed by criminal masterminds with connections to the illegal arms trade, it's small time criminals with limited means. Making it harder for people to get guns illegally will result in more criminals being unable to get guns. It's not an absolute. Getting guns illegally isn't a stationary task that operates independently from space and time, always to remain constant. It's possible to hinder and weaken the illegal weapons trade to a great degree.
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;23083162]It would be effective in decreasing the amount of handguns available. Most gun crimes aren't committed by criminal masterminds with connections to the illegal arms trade, it's small time criminals with limited means. Making it harder for people to get guns illegally will result in more criminals being unable to get guns. It's not an absolute. Getting guns illegally isn't a stationary task that operates independently from space and time, always to remain constant. It's possible to hinder and weaken the illegal weapons trade to a great degree.[/QUOTE] how? where do those 250 million guns go? they are still just as there and just as available as they were before.
I think of guns as pot, if you try to ban it there will always be ways to circumvent that and still be available just about everywhere. Albeit being illegal. Oh does this law apply to the suburban areas surrounding Chicago or just the actual city? Since I live in the same county but I'm way out in the suburbs.
[QUOTE=SKuM;23082752]While I understand the argument over the legality of handguns and I agree the it is a legitimate point of controversy, is anybody here still arguing for the legality of military shotguns and assault rifles and whatnot? Just curious, a lot of people here just talk about "guns" and don't specify what kinds.[/QUOTE] [B]THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF 'ASSAULT (insert weapon here)'. IT'S A MADE-UP TERM.[/B]
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;23083162]It would be effective in decreasing the amount of handguns available. Most gun crimes aren't committed by criminal masterminds with connections to the illegal arms trade, it's small time criminals with limited means. Making it harder for people to get guns illegally will result in more criminals being unable to get guns. It's not an absolute. Getting guns illegally isn't a stationary task that operates independently from space and time, always to remain constant. It's possible to hinder and weaken the illegal weapons trade to a great degree.[/QUOTE] So if they can't get guns, they'll just get knives. And since nobody would have guns, have fun defending yourself against a guy with a knife.
[QUOTE=the_KMM;23083213][B]THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF 'ASSAULT (insert weapon here)'. IT'S A MADE-UP TERM.[/B][/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_rifle[/url] But sure, there's no such definition. Also FURTHERMORE, if you're saying guns used in crime are stolen from legitimate owners, then that's not a weapons issue, that's an issue with the owner not locking his gun up in the first place. My family owns around 6 guns and they will never be used in any sort of crime because they are in a gun safe that is locked.
[QUOTE=yuki;23083504][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_rifle[/url] But sure, there's no such definition. Also FURTHERMORE, if you're saying guns used in crime are stolen from legitimate owners, then that's not a weapons issue, that's an issue with the owner not locking his gun up in the first place. My family owns around 6 guns and they will never be used in any sort of crime because they are in a gun safe that is locked.[/QUOTE] I think he's referring to 'Assault Weapons', which is a politician's term for basically any rifle-like weapon that looks scary.
Gun crime is a moot point because no amount of gun crime gives them the right to pass these laws. Terrorists can build bombs in their basements. Does that give the police the right to unreasonable search? Racist groups can post hate messages all over the internet and cause violence as a result. Does that mean we should ban freedom of speech? Of course not. Same laws protect firearms. This law is just as unconstitutional and the lawmakers need to be arrested.
To silence all the "banning worked for england" vs the "banning didn't work in chicago": A total ban can work, if it actually makes it impossible to obtain a gun. It cannot work in the US, though, because some states will inevitably allow guns, and the bill of rights prohibits the federal government from enacting a nationwide ban. So, if a guy in Chicago wants to shoot someone, he can just go to a city or state that doesn't ban them and get one. So, in America, without a major change to the Constitution, you cannot make an effective gun ban. Even if you did, you'd be ignoring the fact that American culture involves guns. You'd run into a Prohibition scenario, where everyone can still get something illegal, but the profits go to gangsters instead of companies. You can't take guns away from America. That's like taking football away from Britain, or taking vodka away from Russia. You just can't do it without undoing four hundred years of society.
Gah. Worst part is that I live about an hour or so away from Chicago. But far enough to be in Indiana thankfully.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.