Chicago Further Restricts Handguns After Supreme Court Ruling
114 replies, posted
[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]
You drastically overestimate how hard it is to buy a gun without filing all the paperwork. Go to the inner parts of any large city, find a pawn shop, odds are there's a .32 revolver for sale. Get basic contact with a gang, and they'll readily sell you a gun. Not mil-spec by any means, but a semiauto Kalashnikov is still far better than a knife.
If you really know who to ask, you can get an RPG-7. I'm guessing you're not American, because you don't have a good grasp on American gun culture.
people who are anti-firearm are wrong
[QUOTE=Kade;23077231]Good on you Chicago, hopefully all the other dumbass cities and states will follow suit.[/QUOTE]
You don't know what you're talking about.
[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]
The only problem is, In the USA, there are about 250 Million registered firearms, Long Rifles and Second Hand used weapons not included, Banning them now isn't going to do jack shit, they're all over the United States and have been since the birth of the country
Criminals Break Laws. Putting more in place are going to just make their court appearance last a couple seconds longer as the Judge reads out an additional charge. One could argue that it's somewhat like Game Anti Piracy. Pirates don't have to deal with it, legit customers are hassled by it. How does putting a law in place going to stop law breakers? Furthermore it arguably breaks the law itself seeing as we have the right to bare arms
Besides, no one has their own personal police officer tailing them 24/7 and no matter how close you are to a unit, you still have to dial 911, tell a dispatcher what's going on, wait on the dispatcher to tell the closest unit and then wait for the unit to arrive... That can take one minute to 5 minutes, give or take, and when your life is on the line, even 1 second can make the difference, and I'd rather have a fall back option, especially in a country where owning a firearm is a right
It's harder for law abiding citizens to get guns, but gang members and criminals can still get their hands on them easily. Stupid fucking law.
[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]
By and far the most popular gun used in a shooting crime is a shitty saturday night special purchased illegally, usually a weapon that has been used in a crime before. Banning firearms isn't going to stop violence, you'll be disarming the victims. It's not the job of the police to protect everyone everywhere.
Wait hold on. Saying "Criminals will always have guns" is ignoring reality? Please tell me you're joking.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;23089420]It's harder for law abiding citizens to get guns, but gang members and criminals can still get their hands on them easily. Stupid fucking law.[/QUOTE]
It's harder for law abiding citizens to get money, but gang members and criminals can still get their hands on them easily. Stupid fucking law.
It's harder for law abiding citizens to get cars, but gang members and criminals can still get their hands on them easily. Stupid fucking law.
It's harder for law abiding citizens to get <anything>, but gang members and criminals can still get their hands on them easily. Stupid fucking law.
Yeah, but they're criminals. They can end up locked up. Law abiding citizens, much less likely.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;23085369]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.[/QUOTE]
A total ban is impossible. It won't stop crime, it won't stop criminals from arming themselves.
[editline]06:03PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;23082724]britain has lower violent crime overall. Lower gun crime, lower knife crime[/QUOTE]
Well no shit, you have a much smaller population.
[QUOTE=SBD;23084731]I think he's referring to 'Assault Weapons', which is a politician's term for basically any rifle-like weapon that looks scary.[/QUOTE]
That makes more sense, but even then, then "assault weapons ban" has parameters for assault weapons.
Do u guys honestly think you know more than the committee which voted on this 45-0. Sorry but if you think you do, you've gotta be pretty arrogant.
[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.
God, I fucking hate retards who think guns cause violence and crime and banning them will stop it. It's the most batshit insane idea out there. Let's completely ignore the fact that criminals don't purchase guns legally, so gun bans don't effect them, and that only the honest people would turn in their guns, so gun recalls don't effect them. They're fucking criminals. They don't do shit legally, what the fuck makes you think that weapon bans effect them? Weapon bans only suppress the common person, and while yes, crazy shit happens, and people can go batshit with legal guns, it's the same for everything else. We might as well ban vehicles right? I mean, people can put IED's in the trunk or just start running people over. Let's ban planes too, they were used in terrorist attacks! God you people are so fucking stupid it blows my mind.[/QUOTE]
Klebold had the semi automatic pistol variant TEC-9.
I was watching the news and the topic was some father who killed his two children with a handgun over divorce issues.. Suddenly the entire topic switched to gun laws because according to the people speaking on the show, the children would still be alive if he hadn't acquired a gun. That makes no sense.
Guns will make you more efficient at killing, but they don't cause people to kill.
I live in Canada, where there isn't all that much restriction on hunting rifles but things like handguns are hard to get.
What I don't understand is "why". How is a handgun any more lethal than a hunting rifle? Hell, I can walk down to the sporting goods store and buy a bow and some arrows with nothing more than my ID and some cash. That would allow me to kill people silently without any kind of traceable ballistics evidence.
Gun bans, in their current form the world-over, are retarded.
FYI, flamethrowers are less restricted than handguns. Less common, since they make very poor self-defense weapons, hunting weapons, or target weapons, but still less restricted.
The laws are retarded. It is literally impossible to have a working gun ban in America. You could literally throw out the Constitution, have the Army go around confiscating guns, and shut down all the manufacturers, and you would still have more guns in American than any other country.
I once read that there are more guns in America than people. I haven't checked myself, but I don't think that's too much of an exaggeration.
If you haven't at least visited the US, your opinions on this are irrelevant. Different countries have different cultures, and different social ideas. It doesn't matter whether or not banning guns worked in Britain, or Germany, or Australia, or wherever. It doesn't matter because people in different countries have different ideas of what having a gun means.
In America, it is not considered unusual to know how to shoot. In some regions, open carry is downright common. In most places, you can literally walk down the street with an M16 on your back, and not be violating any laws. The cops will probably show up, businesses may refuse you entry, but it's entirely legal.
Banning handguns is counter-effective. Handguns are preferred as self-defense weapons. You keep one in your purse, or in a concealed holster, and use it to defend yourself, if needed. They are inaccurate and not that deadly. They work for target shooting, or as a hunter's backup gun. There's a reason SWAT rarely use pistols.
People intending to go kill someone prefer other weapons. A shotgun, or rifle. An automatic, if possible. Gangsters only use a pistol if that's all they can afford, or all they can find.
If you're going to ban anything, ban machine guns. Wait, you already did. Ban SMGs and military assault rifles. Wait, did that too. What about heavy-duty guns, stuff designed purely for killing people, like the SPAS? Did that too? Well, does that leave anything left that's actually designed to kill people? No? THEN WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU STILL BANNING GUNS FOR?
The SPAS-12 is actually a sub-average shotgun. Most 'mundane' looking shotguns perform better than it will.
[QUOTE=the_KMM;23094490]The SPAS-12 is actually a sub-average shotgun. Most 'mundane' looking shotguns perform better than it will.[/QUOTE]
Combat shotguns stopped being useful after World War 1.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;23094605]Combat shotguns stopped being useful after World War 1.[/QUOTE]
The Saiga 12 says otherwise. They manufacture 30-round drum mags for it, and it's semi-auto.
[editline]11:58PM[/editline]
It's great for room clearing.
12-round mag demonstration
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H9IKuMFFX4&feature=related[/media]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;23090806]I live in Canada, where there isn't all that much restriction on hunting rifles but things like handguns are hard to get.
What I don't understand is "why". How is a handgun any more lethal than a hunting rifle? Hell, I can walk down to the sporting goods store and buy a bow and some arrows with nothing more than my ID and some cash. That would allow me to kill people silently without any kind of traceable ballistics evidence.
Gun bans, in their current form the world-over, are retarded.[/QUOTE]
Handguns are usually banned because they are easily concealable compared to rifles and bows and most crimes are committed with a handgun.
[QUOTE=the_KMM;23094490]The SPAS-12 is actually a sub-average shotgun. Most 'mundane' looking shotguns perform better than it will.[/QUOTE]
It's got a heavy heat shield for sustained fire, is semi-automatic (with pump action backup for low-power rounds) and has a collapsible stock. It's good for SWAT teams, maybe soldiers. It's far too heavy for hunting or sport shooting, where the advantages listed above are useless. So it sucks for civilian use, but it's almost perfect for riot police.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;23095159]It's got a heavy heat shield for sustained fire, is semi-automatic (with pump action backup for low-power rounds) and has a collapsible stock. It's good for SWAT teams, maybe soldiers. It's far too heavy for hunting or sport shooting, where the advantages listed above are useless. So it sucks for civilian use, but it's almost perfect for riot police.[/QUOTE]
The SPAS-12 (not the 15) has a horrific jam rate on semi, and the actual pumping action on it is overly difficult to perform compared to other pump shotguns. It's a novelty weapon. It [I]looks[/I] scary, yes. It functions horribly.
[editline]01:45AM[/editline]
The thing weighs 10 pounds (4.5 kilograms). It's unwieldy. On the other hand, the Saiga 12 is 2 pounds lighter, can hold far more ammunition, has a detachable mag, is semi-only, can take heavier loads, and has a phenomenal record pertaining to jams.
[QUOTE=yuki;23089999]That makes more sense, but even then, then "assault weapons ban" has parameters for assault weapons.[/QUOTE]
Yes, those parameters being things like 'pistol grips' and flash hiders, things politicians completely miss the point of; they don't somehow make it easier for the user to commit crime.
Considering that 'assault weapons' ban-supporting politicians don't even know what a FUCKING BARREL SHROUD IS
[media][URL]http://youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U[/URL][/media]
...they have no right to speak of the matter.
"A shoulder thing that goes up." What the fuck.
[editline]02:40AM[/editline]
All politicians dealing in the banning of firearms should take a rigorous month-long firearms education class to familiarize themselves with the aspects of a firearm. If they can't pass the class, they don't get a vote.
[editline]02:41AM[/editline]
And they think that there are heat-seeking bullets in existence beyond the experimental stage
[URL="http://youtube.com/watch?v=BRQqieimwLQ"][media]http://youtube.com/watch?v=BRQqieimwLQ[/URL][/media]
[editline]02:43AM[/editline]
HOLY FUCK, HOW STUPID DO THEY GET?
[URL="http://youtube.com/watch?v=rQN1u_aPgcM"][media]http://youtube.com/watch?v=rQN1u_aPgcM[/URL][/media]
HURR DURR ASSAULT WEAPONS ARE WHAT MOST USED TO KILL POLICE
[editline]02:46AM[/editline]
And apparently a high-capacity magazine is a mag 'filled with bullets'
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeE9ZoKyBh8[/media]
and anything that holds more than 6 rounds
[editline]02:46AM[/editline]
hurp assault weapons are designed to be sprayed
[QUOTE=the_KMM;23097264]:downswords:[/QUOTE]
Okay, I'm anti-gun control but you are going way over the top. Not liking guns doesn't make you an idiot.
i want a gun
[editline]12:13AM[/editline]
to shoot all of you bickering
[editline]12:14AM[/editline]
not really i would never do that
[QUOTE=WickedIcon;23097705]Okay, I'm anti-gun control but you are going way over the top. Not liking guns doesn't make you an idiot.[/QUOTE]
Being a moron to the degree I showed does make you an idiot, though.
[B]HEAT-SEEKING BULLETS[/B]
[editline]04:32AM[/editline]
Also nice avatar
[QUOTE=Shadowspike;23097719]i want a gun
[editline]12:13AM[/editline]
to shoot all of you bickering
[editline]12:14AM[/editline]
not really i would never do that[/QUOTE]
LOL random guy who doesn't know what's going on tries to post a funny all-lower-case reply
Handguns are dumb.
If you need a gun for home defense, get a shotgun or rifle. People have deluded dreams that walking around with a handgun could save their life. Though if something like this were to actually work, the government would have to go all out and find and destroy all the millions of hanguns in illegal circulation, probably wouldn't work.
Chicago Ted is not going to be happy.
The reason why you can't simply get rid of guns in America is because everyone already has one.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;23099192]Handguns are dumb.
If you need a gun for home defense, get a shotgun or rifle. People have deluded dreams that walking around with a handgun could save their life. Though if something like this were to actually work, the government would have to go all out and find and destroy all the millions of hanguns in illegal circulation, probably wouldn't work.[/QUOTE]
Except people with Concealed Carry Permits actually stop crimes.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZiqc_F3Ehc&feature=youtube_gdata[/media]
[editline]05:26AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Elstumpo;23099218]The reason why you can't simply get rid of guns in America is because everyone already has one.[/QUOTE]
Only about 1/3rd of us do, but whatever works. :v:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.