Jump to content

What is better, no guns, or more guns?


Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

I'd have to disagree here. Living here in Chicago, around 60% of the guns used for crimes here were obtained outside of the state. Illinois and Chicago can put in whatever stringent gun laws they want but people can drive a couple miles out of the city to Gary, Indiana, load up on guns and bring them into Chicago. Despite this, Indiana is not acting to reduce the gun trafficking nor enacting stricter controls on gun sales.

 

If we don't take a comprehensive approach across the country, we will continue to have problems with people obtaining guns in less restrictive states and bringing them into more restrictive states to circumvent the laws.

I'll assume what you're saying is true. But if so, then shouldn't there also be rampant gun violence in Gary, Indiana....and all across Indiana for that matter? (I have no idea if there is.)

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I'll assume what you're saying is true. But if so, then shouldn't there also be rampant gun violence in Gary, Indiana....and all across Indiana for that matter? (I have no idea if there is.)

 

 

Exactly 

 

And Mexico - I guess Arizona, Texas, New Mexico can continue to easily gain access from South of the border

 

 

 

Watching them morph into "no one needs those kinds of guns to hunt" to "yea f it just ban them all" is astounding and yet not surprising in the least.

 

It's why they should never ever ever be trusted with power.  

 

You can't continue to give lip service on massive issues - claim its your only position and say "no one is saying take or ban all the guns..." only to immediately flip "um.....about that......we actually do want to ban them all."

 

 

Trash.  They're trash communist thugs.  Fascism communism maoist use whatever freaking term you want It's 2022 not 1922 it's a bit more nuanced.  We have 100 years of historical evidence of what a disaster their world view leads to.  But since we don't teach history anymore - well at least teach it properly - we have a bunch of privileged entitled leftists under 30 that have no clue about any of that history.

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I'll assume what you're saying is true. But if so, then shouldn't there also be rampant gun violence in Gary, Indiana....and all across Indiana for that matter? (I have no idea if there is.)

 

Correct. Here are the numbers as of 2019 (the most recent FBI crime data I could pull up)

 

Gary, Indiana has a population of 75,000 and had 57 homicides in 2019 (FBI data table for Indiana) for a homicide rate of 76 homicides per 100,000 people.

 

Chicago has a population of 2,707,064 and had 492 homicides in 2019 (FBI data table for Illinois) for a homicide rate of 18 homicides per 100,000 people. 

 

Gary, Indiana has a much higher homicide rate than Chicago and that violence gets exported to Chicago through guns moving into the city.

 

Chicago gets all of the national headlines because the sheer total is large due to the size of the population. But depending how you define "city" (in terms of population and boundaries), Chicago is far from the most deadly city in the US. Here's one listing from last year that has Chicago in 10th, with a homicide rate that's a little more than 1/3rd the rate of St. Louis: https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-city-rankings/cities-with-most-murders 

  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Correct. Here are the numbers as of 2019 (the most recent FBI crime data I could pull up)

 

Gary, Indiana has a population of 75,000 and had 57 homicides in 2019 (FBI data table for Indiana) for a homicide rate of 76 homicides per 100,000 people.

 

Chicago has a population of 2,707,064 and had 492 homicides in 2019 (FBI data table for Illinois) for a homicide rate of 18 homicides per 100,000 people. 

 

Gary, Indiana has a much higher homicide rate than Chicago and that violence gets exported to Chicago through guns moving into the city.

 

Chicago gets all of the national headlines because the sheer total is large due to the size of the population. But depending how you define "city" (in terms of population and boundaries), Chicago is far from the most deadly city in the US. Here's one listing from last year that has Chicago in 10th, with a homicide rate that's a little more than 1/3rd the rate of St. Louis: https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-city-rankings/cities-with-most-murders 

Thanks…and is the homicide weapon of choice an ‘assault rifle’? Mind you, I’m not a gun guy in the slightest. My questions are honest ones. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Thanks…and is the homicide weapon of choice an ‘assault rifle’? Mind you, I’m not a gun guy in the slightest. My questions are honest ones. 

download-21.jpg.2daa298abe4ae0536d84f73237e1c23a.jpg

  • Haha (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Thanks…and is the homicide weapon of choice an ‘assault rifle’? Mind you, I’m not a gun guy in the slightest. My questions are honest ones. 

 

The FBI data doesn't go into that much detail, but most homicides via firearms are by handgun. We generally only talk about gun violence after mass shootings, which are disproportionately via rifle (like the AR-15) but if we actually want to do something to reduce gun deaths, we need to also focus on handguns, suicides and accidental gun deaths.

Edited by ChiGoose
Clarification
  • Agree 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

The FBI data doesn't go into that much detail, but most homicides via firearms are by handgun. We generally only talk about gun violence after mass shootings, which are disproportionately via rifle (like the AR-15) but if we actually want to do something to reduce gun deaths, we need to also focus on handguns, suicides and accidental gun deaths.

Thanks…And in the spirit of grown up conversation, what would you suggest? 
 

For example…I have no objection to raising the age to purchase a firearm to 21. 

Edited by SoCal Deek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Thanks…And in the spirit of grown up conversation, what would you suggest? 
 

For example…I have no objection to raising the age to purchase a firearm to 21. 

The two things that do surprise me is that we don't raise the age to buy a gun to 21, since we acknowledge that 18 years are stupid, and red flag laws have not passed in every state. If you threaten to shoot a place up then you should not be allowed a gun. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

Thanks…And in the spirit of grown up conversation, what would you suggest? 

 

I don't think there is a panacea, nor do I think you can prevent all gun violence. But generally, I would start by treating firearms like we do cars. We used to have far more automobile deaths in this country, but with stricter controls on how people can be licensed to drive and regulations around vehicle safety, we have dramatically reduced the number of people being killed by cars.

 

Red flag laws are a good place to start, too. If someone presents a threat to the community, there should be a process from temporarily removing their firearms.

 

We also should repeal PLCAA, which prevents gun manufacturers from being sued. If you remember the Ford Pinto, it had a design flaw that resulted in a higher risk of fire in a rear-end collision. Through lawsuits and public advocacy, the issue was identified and Ford issued a recall. Since gun manufacturers are immune to lawsuits due to PLCAA, they are less inclined to have a focus on safety in their designs. Colt was in the process of creating the iColt handgun in the 1990's, which was a smart gun that could only be fired by its owner. This plan was scrapped and the gun was never rolled out. Manufacturers would have an incentive to explore safer approaches to firearms if they could be liable for excessively lethal weapons.

 

I think we should also have safe gun storage laws to prevent kids or other people from getting an otherwise legally obtained gun. Gun safes with the ammunition stored separately would be a good approach, especially in houses where minors live.

 

I am skeptical of outright bans of guns, like the AR-15. "Assault Weapon" is a political term that is often defined around a gun's cosmetic features than its lethality. If there is a case to be made to ban certain types of firearms because they are so high power as to not have a real justifiable civilian use, I'm open to hearing it. But I don't think we should ban guns because they look scary or are popular.

 

Something we need to do but I have no idea how to do is to change the culture around guns. It was not that long ago that guns, especially rifles, were more considered tools than anything else. Going to a range to safely use your firearm, having a gun in a rural area to protect from certain wildlife, etc. I took some NRA classes way back when and the number one thing was safety and respect for the deadly weapon in your hands. Today, it's all about 2A and tyranny and the ads for guns invoke images of violence and being manly. I think that changes the way some people look at guns and it's not good.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

 

I'd have to disagree here. Living here in Chicago, around 60% of the guns used for crimes here were obtained outside of the state. Illinois and Chicago can put in whatever stringent gun laws they want but people can drive a couple miles out of the city to Gary, Indiana, load up on guns and bring them into Chicago. Despite this, Indiana is not acting to reduce the gun trafficking nor enacting stricter controls on gun sales.

 

If we don't take a comprehensive approach across the country, we will continue to have problems with people obtaining guns in less restrictive states and bringing them into more restrictive states to circumvent the laws.

 

The overwhelming majority of guns used in gun crimes in the Chicago area aren't purchased or owned legally by the individuals using them. How will restricting the legal sale of guns in the surrounding areas solve that particular problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

I don't think there is a panacea, nor do I think you can prevent all gun violence. But generally, I would start by treating firearms like we do cars. We used to have far more automobile deaths in this country, but with stricter controls on how people can be licensed to drive and regulations around vehicle safety, we have dramatically reduced the number of people being killed by cars.

 

Red flag laws are a good place to start, too. If someone presents a threat to the community, there should be a process from temporarily removing their firearms.

 

We also should repeal PLCAA, which prevents gun manufacturers from being sued. If you remember the Ford Pinto, it had a design flaw that resulted in a higher risk of fire in a rear-end collision. Through lawsuits and public advocacy, the issue was identified and Ford issued a recall. Since gun manufacturers are immune to lawsuits due to PLCAA, they are less inclined to have a focus on safety in their designs. Colt was in the process of creating the iColt handgun in the 1990's, which was a smart gun that could only be fired by its owner. This plan was scrapped and the gun was never rolled out. Manufacturers would have an incentive to explore safer approaches to firearms if they could be liable for excessively lethal weapons.

 

I think we should also have safe gun storage laws to prevent kids or other people from getting an otherwise legally obtained gun. Gun safes with the ammunition stored separately would be a good approach, especially in houses where minors live.

 

I am skeptical of outright bans of guns, like the AR-15. "Assault Weapon" is a political term that is often defined around a gun's cosmetic features than its lethality. If there is a case to be made to ban certain types of firearms because they are so high power as to not have a real justifiable civilian use, I'm open to hearing it. But I don't think we should ban guns because they look scary or are popular.

 

Something we need to do but I have no idea how to do is to change the culture around guns. It was not that long ago that guns, especially rifles, were more considered tools than anything else. Going to a range to safely use your firearm, having a gun in a rural area to protect from certain wildlife, etc. I took some NRA classes way back when and the number one thing was safety and respect for the deadly weapon in your hands. Today, it's all about 2A and tyranny and the ads for guns invoke images of violence and being manly. I think that changes the way some people look at guns and it's not good.

 

Good post. We also need to devise strategies for dealing with the possession and use of illegal firearms. Much like the possession of legal firearms, we are dealing with that gray area of indivdual rights vs public safety. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

The overwhelming majority of guns used in gun crimes in the Chicago area aren't purchased or owned legally by the individuals using them. How will restricting the legal sale of guns in the surrounding areas solve that particular problem?

 

Stronger controls around straw purchases. Our background check and gun tracing programs leave a lot to be desired and have loopholes that facilitate interstate gun trafficking.

 

If we had a system where we had close to a 100% success rate in taking a gun used in a crime in Chicago and tracing it all the way back to the specific individual who purchased it and where they purchased it, that would allow us to prosecute the straw purchaser and potentially the store (if it did not comply with regulations). These actions would reduce the availability of guns to criminals through straw purchasers.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ChiGoose said:

 

Stronger controls around straw purchases. Our background check and gun tracing programs leave a lot to be desired and have loopholes that facilitate interstate gun trafficking.

 

If we had a system where we had close to a 100% success rate in taking a gun used in a crime in Chicago and tracing it all the way back to the specific individual who purchased it and where they purchased it, that would allow us to prosecute the straw purchaser and potentially the store (if it did not comply with regulations). These actions would reduce the availability of guns to criminals through straw purchasers.

 

We already have systems in place to register and trace serial numbers of firearms. I'm all in favor of providing the resources neccessary to ensure 100% accountability. However, most guns illegally owned are not purchased through straw purchasers. They are stolen or acquired via other criminal means. We need to find ways to deal with actual criminals possessing and using guns. That means targeting the areas with the highest gun violence and the highest possession / use of illegal firearms - which tend to be areas of lower socioeconomic conditions and high minority populations. The majority of residents in these areas are decent people who are literally terrorized and placed at risk of being a victim of violence on a daily basis. Yet, we stand by as a society as they are victimized every single day by gun violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Would be interesting to study why mentally unstable females do not resort to mass killing like males . Why do normal males commit a lot more murders also.

 

Are men more violent than women?

 The U.S. Department of Justice sponsored a National Crime Victimization Study in 2007. This evaluation found that 75.6 percent of all offenders were male and only 20.1 percent were female.

 

https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/emotions/men-more-violent.htm

 

Male prisoners, who made up 93% of the total prison population at year-end 2018, declined by almost 23,500 (down 1.7%) from year-end 2017. Females, who made up 7.6% of the total prison population, decreased by almost 530 (down 0.5%).

Edited by ALF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Another outstanding response from the guy who blames angry men but then refuses to even guess as to what they’re angry about. Nice job Tibs. 

What are men angry about? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

 

Can't wait for President DeSantis to issue an Executive Order stating the First Amendment isn't absolute and the Founders had no idea that Twitter accounts like @TeaPainUSA would do such harm to society, and have them banned permanently.  

 

We're going after all "news" outlets.

 

We're going full News Grab.  Gone.  Only DeSantis approved media we declare safe to consume.  

 

Like Tucker and ball tanning.  

 


Awe - wake up - your dream is over.

 

giphy.gif?cid=5e2148862yvin4tb496wdd2np7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

What are men angry about? 

Dude….this isn’t complicated. YOU said the problem is angry men with access to guns. Does it really have to be this hard? 

On 6/2/2022 at 6:36 AM, Tiberius said:

Angry man and easy access to guns. No wonder we have so many mass shootings 

Let me remind you. Now…what are men angry about? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...