How sad. It illustrates the ineffectiveness of gun laws!

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/student-participated-inauguration-festivities-shot-dead-article-1.1251027?localLinksEnabled=false

 

This post has been removed.

I have seen this statement before in the right wing blogosphere: that Chicago has the "strictest gun laws".  But is it true?  How can a city have significantly different local laws from the state in which it is located?

And secondly: even if the city did have stricter laws, why would it matter if the surrounding areas (and the country overall) have more permissive laws?  Guns are easy to move...

I guess you are half right: laws on gun control are ineffective... if they are just local in nature.  Only a national approach has a real chance of reducing gun violence.  And there is lots of factual evidence to support that theory.

democratsdoe democrats will want to ban and confiscate all weapons

In response to tvoter's comment:

Good lord. Raping another tragedy to say another stupid thing.

 

 

Pushing uniform nationwide gun laws make sense.

Gun laws localized down to a single city make no sense.

 

 

You know the reason. You just wanted to drop another load on the forum.

This post has been removed.

LOL.

Notice how tvoter runs away from the problem: His original post is nonsense.

Not sure why he thinks coughing over it with a lame insult would accomplish anything, but hey.

 

 

[Edit: And now the post has vanished]

This post has been removed.

In response to pelosireturns' comment:

Huh?  Is that a paranoid or drunken ramble?  Makes as much sense either way.

This post has been removed.

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

 

LOL.

Notice how tvoter runs away from the problem: His original post is nonsense.

Not sure why he thinks coughing over it with a lame insult would accomplish anything, but hey.

 

Not running just not letting you try to skew the subject.

 

What do you consider a "uniform nation wide gun law that makes sense"

In response to tvoter's comment:

Gee, I dunno. Should I really bother to type it out again. It's not like you responded to about 50 of my posts stating EXACTLY what you are asking of me: assault weapon/high capacity magazine/military armor ban. Focus on mental health and background checks. Etc.

 

Basically everything being discussed on BDC on the point of guns over the

 

 

But again, you're still running. You claim gun violence in Chicago proves that gun laws don't work. That is beyond stupid.

Of course strict gun laws don't work if they apply only to a single city's limits.

Nobody is talking about imposing controls in only a few specific cities and calling it a day.

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

MIlitary armor ban does what to stop gun violance? How many gun crimes involve military armor?

assault weapons gun deaths are a small fraction of gun violence.

high capacity magazines; ok, but, again very few acts of gun violence include high capacity magazines.

There should be no bans unless it is determined that it will have a realistic chance of reducing overall gun violence not a knee jerk reaction.

focus on mental health I absolutely agree with; I would add people on certain perscription drugs (mental illness, depression, anxiety meds etc) should have to go through further scrutiny.

additional back ground check without mental health and prescription info information being available is futile.

 

In response to tvoter's comment:

You are being obtuse.  If you look at other industrial countries with a true national approach to gun control you see much less gun violence.  That's a fairly obvious connection that you choose to ignore.  Instead you blather away about Chicago as if one city's laws can limit gun violence and without even proving it has more restrictive laws in the first place.  Are you purposely obscuring the gun control question?  Sure seems that way.

In response to Reubenhop's comment:

We are the USA not other countries and we have a constitution with a 2nd ammendment.

So, realistic approaches are what is being discussed.

Aurora, Illinois is a city with the same exact gun laws as Chicago.

Last year, there were no gun deaths in Aurora.

Therefore, strict gun laws saved lives.

 

"Correlation without causation" will harken the death of ye, I swear.

 

 

"MIlitary armor ban does what to stop gun violance? How many gun crimes involve military armor?"

The theatre shooter suited up. Even if someone had a gun they couldn't have stopped him without getting extremely lucky in the dark.

Bank robbers are known to use armor if they plan to or are willing to get in a shootout.

There is no real reason a civilian needs it.

 

"assault weapons gun deaths are a small fraction of gun violence."

That does not strike me as a reason to not ban them. If that small fraction disappears, why not? The fact that a proposal does not entirely solve a problem is not a reason to reject the proposal. Otherwise we shouldn't do anything about any problem.

Assault weapons are designed to put a lot of lead out on the field in a short amount of time. They are cumbersome and hence ineffective in the vast majority of rapidly evolving self-defense situations.

There is no civilian need for them.

"high capacity magazines"

 

Again.

 

"There should be no bans unless it is determined that it will have a realistic chance of reducing overall gun violence not a knee jerk reaction."

They do have a realistic chance of reducing various parts of gun violence. Calling it a "knee jerk" reaction doesn't make it a knee jerk reaciton. It just means you've decided in advance not to think about it.

 

 

 

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

assault weapons like the AR-15 puts one relatively small round in the air at a time and less than say a glock 40 or many other handguns and certainly rifles.
Fully automatic weapons do put alot of lead in the field but, have been outlawed for decades!

Theh=theater shooter and the guys that robbed the bank in armor in LA a couple decades ago ok. Still makes no sense to outlaw it for all law abiding citizens who may be enthusiasts or collectors. Just saying "civilians have no use for them" doesnt mean they should be outlawed.

The fatcthat they are a small fraction of violence is a very good reason not to outlaw them to everyone!

Your reasoning sounds like kneejerk reaction and not well thought out or realistic towards the stated goal.

 

In response to tvoter's comment:

Your automatic "no" to any and all focus on guns or ammo doesn't?

In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

Therefore, we should disarm all law abiding citizens.

do you see the problem here with you silly argument?

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

Alright I didnt say NO. I just gave my view. I do not think that millions of Americans who may be enthusiast or collectors should have their ability to collect or own be infringed upon unless it will have a definitive impact for the greater good.

The only one that may have a definitive impact is finding a way to add mental illness and medications ofr mental illness or disorders to background checks nationwide

 

"Alright I didnt say NO. I just gave my view. I do not think that millions of Americans who may be enthusiast or collectors should have their ability to collect or own be infringed upon unless it will have a definitive impact for the greater good."

Can you objectively define "definitive impact"? Is there some line in the sand in terms of numbers of deaths averted that suddenly makes it ok? If so how did you choose to draw it in one place or another.

You keep asking why a lack of a need to own things I suggest banning matters. It matters because my analysis is to balance the need for the item against the probility of reduced deaths.

I see a probability of reduced deaths per incident if semi-automatic weapons (which the military has auto-capable, but almost never actually uses in auto-mode) and high capacity magazines are banned: In combination, they put out a lot more bullets in the same amount of time as someone whose got to lug around ten handguns just to have the same amount of bullets available.

Suggestions like that also aren't about preventing shooting incidents because we all agree that's rather an impossible thing to do, at least with a finite amount of people and money to devote to the issue.

 

(Also, slomag's ammo & gun suggestions sounds pretty good the more one thinks about it)

 

 

"The only one that may have a definitive impact is finding a way to add mental illness and medications ofr mental illness or disorders to background checks nationwide"

Says who?

I support looking into ways to do this, though mindful of the privacy rights - often bolstered by statute - surrounding mental health issues.

As with lawyers, you wouldn't go to a psych if they could blab about what you said on a vague suspicion that maybe you might someday do something bad.

You are simply assuming that my gun suggestions do not have a "definitive impact" and that your non-gun-related suggestions will. You haven't explained why. You've just asserted the conclusions you reached in your own head (bias?).

What you need to bear in mind is:

- Most gun violence is not carried out by the mentally ill. It's carried out by ordinary people who lose their sh!t and - hey presto - there's a gun at hand. So they shoot the wife rather than just punching her.

- Gun violence that is carried out by the mentally ill is almost always carried out by people whose mental illness wasn't detected earlier. At most there are anecdotes about how the person seemed troubled, or off. We're not takling about people who had a psychotic breakdown that was documented in public records, but who still later went and bought a gun.

So just what do you propose?

A truly Orweillian system where people are whisked off to commitment and evaluation just because a classmate thinks they are weirdos? Guess what, a ton of people are introverts. Also, talk about potential for abuse of the system to get back at someone.

If you want a license or FID card, you have to get a full mental health evaluation by a psychiatrist?

Should all psych records be available to the government so that it can determine who is allowed to have a gun?

If you're worried about infringement of freedoms, i think you need to do a hell of a lot closer review of the "mental health" angle here.

 

 

 

Instead you're simply telling me that you believe all gun restrictions proposed will not do anything, but magically, mental health.....things....   will.

This post has been removed.

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

 Your use of "need" is not defined. Need is a relative things and you obviously do not share it.

I can accept limiting high capacity magazines as I have said many times. I do not think it will have an impact but, I am not against it.

Banning a gun that looks bad is just stupid. The AR-15 is just a small caliber rifle.

A 30-06, 308 or many others are much more lethal similar in size and fire just as fast but, look like a normal rifle not like a machine gun.

Its the equivalent of saying we are going to outlaw all thse mean military looking guns even though they are not as lethal as others.

 

"The only one that may have a definitive impact is finding a way to add mental illness and medications ofr mental illness or disorders to background checks nationwide"

Says who?

I support looking into ways to do this, though mindful of the privacy rights - often bolstered by statute - surrounding mental health issues.

As with lawyers, you wouldn't go to a psych if they could blab about what you said on a vague suspicion that maybe you might someday do something bad.

You are simply assuming that my gun suggestions do not have a "definitive impact" and that your non-gun-related suggestions will. You haven't explained why. You've just asserted the conclusions you reached in your own head (bias?).

What you need to bear in mind is:

- Most gun violence is not carried out by the mentally ill. It's carried out by ordinary people who lose their sh!t and - hey presto - there's a gun at hand. So they shoot the wife rather than just punching her.

- Gun violence that is carried out by the mentally ill is almost always carried out by people whose mental illness wasn't detected earlier. At most there are anecdotes about how the person seemed troubled, or off. We're not takling about people who had a psychotic breakdown that was documented in public records, but who still later went and bought a gun.

So just what do you propose?

A truly Orweillian system where people are whisked off to commitment and evaluation just because a classmate thinks they are weirdos? Guess what, a ton of people are introverts. Also, talk about potential for abuse of the system to get back at someone.

If you want a license or FID card, you have to get a full mental health evaluation by a psychiatrist?

Should all psych records be available to the government so that it can determine who is allowed to have a gun?

If you're worried about infringement of freedoms, i think you need to do a hell of a lot closer review of the "mental health" angle here.

 

 

 

Instead you're simply telling me that you believe all gun restrictions proposed will not do anything, but magically, mental health.....things....   will.