How is the gun ban in Chicago doing?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Dr. Zaus

Lifer
Oct 16, 2008
11,764
347
126
Gun bans can, and do, work to reduce death. The thing is you have to disarm the entire populace AND remove their ability to obtain guns; all guns must be banned, otherwise gun-control only disarms those that are law-abiding.

Oh yea, and in the US you'll likely have to murder about 10% of the population; as they say "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hand".

I think the ultimate end needed, the total removal of guns from our population, is also something that can never happen; and these half-mesures do little more than perpetuate the fear/power conservatives.
 
Last edited:

themusgrat

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2005
1,408
0
0
Border? No I favor borderless rule encompassing the whole world. Uniform laws, uniform results, no complaining about going to this place or that, because it's all the same and it will all be good.

Surely you're trying to troll.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
The marginal cost of getting a gun is not the same as growing some pot. Guns are most certainly not effectively limitless, nor are they as easy to transport as drugs are.

Furthermore I sincerely doubt the quality or effectiveness of guns will stay the same if we're all running around with ones from Zebo's garage.

Gun fit anywhere and are not detected by dogs. So i'm not sure what you mean they are not easy to transport. Seems easier to engage in gun smuggling vs drugs.

As far as quality - you're talking about 100 yr old tech with the plans in front of u. Not difficult at all anyone with a machine lathe can craft top quality firearms and ammo. And if they banned guns a black market of them would rise to be sure.
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,290
352
126
Gun bans can, and do, work to reduce death. The thing is you have to disarm the entire populace AND remove their ability to obtain guns; all guns must be banned, otherwise gun-control only disarms those that are law-abiding.

Oh yea, and in the US you'll likely have to murder about 10% of the population; as they say "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hand".

I think the ultimate end needed, the total removal of guns from our population, is also something that can never happen; and these half-mesures do little more than perpetuate the fear/power conservatives.

We could just be simply a more murderous society in the USA.
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,290
352
126
Gun fit anywhere and are not detected by dogs. So i'm not sure what you mean they are not easy to transport. Seems easier to engage in gun smuggling vs drugs.

As far as quality - you're talking about 100 yr old tech with the plans in front of u. Not difficult at all anyone with a machine lathe can craft top quality firearms and ammo. And if they banned guns a black market of them would rise to be sure.

If gov't collapses will you take me on as an apprentice? We can fight the new gov't takeover together.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,055
55,549
136
Gun fit anywhere and are not detected by dogs. So i'm not sure what you mean they are not easy to transport. Seems easier to engage in gun smuggling vs drugs.

As far as quality - you're talking about 100 yr old tech with the plans in front of u. Not difficult at all anyone with a machine lathe can craft top quality firearms and ammo. And if they banned guns a black market of them would rise to be sure.

You are factually wrong that guns cannot be detected by dogs.

Guns most certainly do not fit anywhere and are nowhere near as amenable to concealment as drugs are. I have a friend who has worked the border at San Ysidro for about five years now. Guns are easy to find, drugs are hard.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
You are expecting eskimospy to be able to reason. He cannot as demonstrated by his responses.

LOL. Right.

He's one of the most consistently rational posters on this board.

Let's break down the argument here, shall we?

Here's what your argument boils down to:

1. There are gun bans in Chicago.
2. There are still lots of guns in Chicago.
3. Therefore, gun bans don't work!

And here's eskimospy's, roughly:

1. There are gun bans in Chicago.
2. There are no gun bans in lots of areas around Chicago.
3. There are no borders between Chicago and the areas that have no gun bans.
4. Therefore, there is nothing to stop the influx of guns into Chicago.
5. Therefore, you can't really say anything about gun bans in general, just that they are ineffective in cities that have no borders.

The second argument is far more rational than the first. Period.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
You are factually wrong that guns cannot be detected by dogs.

Guns most certainly do not fit anywhere and are nowhere near as amenable to concealment as drugs are. I have a friend who has worked the border at San Ysidro for about five years now. Guns are easy to find, drugs are hard.

Dog cant detect guns they detect powder residue.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,055
55,549
136
LOL. Right.

He's one of the most consistently rational posters on this board.

Let's break down the argument here, shall we?

Here's what your argument boils down to:

1. There are gun bans in Chicago.
2. There are still lots of guns in Chicago.
3. Therefore, gun bans don't work!

And here's eskimospy's, roughly:

1. There are gun bans in Chicago.
2. There are no gun bans in lots of areas around Chicago.
3. There are no borders between Chicago and the areas that have no gun bans.
4. Therefore, there is nothing to stop the influx of guns into Chicago.
5. Therefore, you can't really say anything about gun bans in general, just that they are ineffective in cities that have no borders.

The second argument is far more rational than the first. Period.

Thank you for breaking it down better than I did. What's funny is that I don't even support Chicago's gun laws as they are, but people on here seem to lose their freaking minds when it comes to guns.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,055
55,549
136
Dog cant detect guns they detect powder residue.

Dogs are trained to detect guns that have been fired and all guns are test fired before they leave the factory. That scent fades over time, but not quickly.

Again, if we're talking about Zebo's garage guns... okay. We can worry about them when they show up.
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
Everything the lefties want to accomplish is possible and totally and utterly foolproof if only the right people are orchestrating it. Clearly, Rahm Emanuel is not that person or it would be working. It's all good though because intentions are what matter.

Its hard to find the angels in government they want us to believe exist so that's why it ain't working.

lol
 

themusgrat

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2005
1,408
0
0
Gun bans can, and do, work to reduce death. The thing is you have to disarm the entire populace AND remove their ability to obtain guns; all guns must be banned, otherwise gun-control only disarms those that are law-abiding.

Oh yea, and in the US you'll likely have to murder about 10% of the population; as they say "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hand".

I think the ultimate end needed, the total removal of guns from our population, is also something that can never happen; and these half-mesures do little more than perpetuate the fear/power conservatives.

This hits the nail on the head. Gun bans do work, but you have to ban all guns, or at the least, every automatic gun, including revolvers. You could let people keep single shotguns from the 1800s, but you've got to remove someone's ability to kill people faster than they can rush that person. Then again, you'd just have huge mob gangs of 10 guys with single shot shotguns guarding the ones doing the shooting....

Look the reason this was brought up this latest time was because of a mentally deranged person. Aside from an all out gun ban or police to protect children, you cannot stop that, but you can prevent some of the hundreds of gun homicides that have occurred in the US this year so far, in 1 month. There have been hundreds if not over a thousand already.

All out gun bans do reduce gun violence to minimal. However they historically also introduce new crime, and nations with all out gun bans have a ton of crime. I honestly think though that you cannot even compare the US to other countries. I think we've simply got to be better than them.

Most gun homicides are a result of someone stupid with a gun; someone who thinks they can rob a liquor store and get away with it, rob a bank, rob a person or a home. The reason none of us on this board are likely to contribute to the average homicide is because we simply know better. I, and I say this all the time, I hate repeating myself, but I firmly believe it's a matter of education. There is no "gun violence," there is only people violence. The problem here is people wanting to kill each other.

If there were no guns, nobody could use a gun to kill someone. If nobody wanted to kill anyone, you could give everyone in the US a tank, and we'd all be fine. The fundamental problem is people. And moreover, it's stupid people. You don't find many smart criminals in jail for homicides. You don't find many smart criminals killing people in the first place. Smart criminals are out there stealing money, not killing someone cause disrpecc mah a-tohr-i-teh! I'd love to live in a place where the Newtown shooting was the most horrific event in recent memory, but as has been brought up so many times, the streets of Chicago are the most horrific event.

I'm not sure what we can do about the Newtown shooting other than stick cops in every school, just like it's always been in Memphis, where I grew up. But what I do know is that we can try to address the even bigger problem, which is people dying on our streets every day, mostly out of stupidity and ignorance.

Maybe it's time we raise the federal budgeting for education to more than 2%. Shall I dare say 3%? What would happen to our children if we spend 5%? What about 10%? Are we really so enamored with free medicine and government-managed retirement accounts that we forget to spend on our kids? Shame on us.
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
Gun bans can, and do, work to reduce death. The thing is you have to disarm the entire populace AND remove their ability to obtain guns; all guns must be banned, otherwise gun-control only disarms those that are law-abiding.

Oh yea, and in the US you'll likely have to murder about 10% of the population; as they say "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hand".

I think the ultimate end needed, the total removal of guns from our population, is also something that can never happen; and these half-mesures do little more than perpetuate the fear/power conservatives.

Mexican drug cartels would love nothing more than to expand into another black market. But yeah basically we'd have to turn this nation into a collectivist police state or a democrat's wet dream of a Utopian society where everyone gleefully chants:

"WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH."
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Mexico and Canada are not viable borders. Hopefully we start deferring more power to the UN and instead of nationalizing all these problems we can globalize them and actually do something effectively for a change.

Those are the same borders we would have to keeps guns from flowing through.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
LOL. Right.

He's one of the most consistently rational posters on this board.

Let's break down the argument here, shall we?

Here's what your argument boils down to:

1. There are gun bans in Chicago.
2. There are still lots of guns in Chicago.
3. Therefore, gun bans don't work!

And here's eskimospy's, roughly:

1. There are gun bans in Chicago.
2. There are no gun bans in lots of areas around Chicago.
3. There are no borders between Chicago and the areas that have no gun bans.
4. Therefore, there is nothing to stop the influx of guns into Chicago.
5. Therefore, you can't really say anything about gun bans in general, just that they are ineffective in cities that have no borders.

The second argument is far more rational than the first. Period.

And you would be not only wrong but dishonestly presenting the facts at hand. There is no border good enough to keep guns or anything people want for that matter (which has been proven time and time again throughout history) out of their hands. Therefore you basing your premise that a "good enough" border exists when it doesn't. This shows the inability of the leftist mind to reason on gun control.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,902
10,234
136
Mexican drug cartels would love nothing more than to expand into another black market. But yeah basically we'd have to turn this nation into a collectivist police state or a democrat's wet dream of a Utopian society where everyone gleefully chants:

"WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH."

Given American's actions over the past 40 years... no reason to expect otherwise. They've essentially proven that this is what they want. War on crime, war on drugs, war on terror... war on guns is next?

This North Korean police state is right up our alley.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
And you would be not only wrong but dishonestly presenting the facts at hand. There is no border good enough to keep guns or anything people want for that matter (which has been proven time and time again throughout history) out of their hands. Therefore you basing your premise that a "good enough" border exists when it doesn't. This shows the inability of the leftist mind to reason on gun control.

This response indicates an inability to reason. You don't even understand what you're criticizing.

I never said anything about any borders being "good enough". I said that any border, even if imperfect, is more likely to keep out banned guns than a border that doesn't exist. You cannot ban guns in a city and not ban them anywhere else and expect it to do much of anything.

I'm not a leftist, and I'm not in favor of gun control. I just hate being on the same side of any issue with non-thinking knee-jerkers.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
This response indicates an inability to reason. You don't even understand what you're criticizing.

Actually its you who keeps diverging from the point which is evidence that it is you that cannot reason.

I never said anything about any borders being "good enough". I said that any border, even if imperfect, is more likely to keep out banned guns than a border that doesn't exist. You cannot ban guns in a city and not ban them anywhere else and expect it to do much of anything.

You took up the argument of eskimospy that Chicago was not a valid test bed for gun control because there wasn't adequate border control. History has proven that borders, no matter how stringent, will not stop humans from obtaining anything they want. now you are adding in "if it was banned everywhere else too". okay lets say I move with your goalposts. Drugs are almost universally banned and in some countries will kill you for possession. Guess what? They still have drugs. There is no border that your intellectually dishonest mind can conjure to solve this.


I'm not a leftist, and I'm not in favor of gun control. I just hate being on the same side of any issue with non-thinking knee-jerkers.

You haven't thought in this thread yet. kneejerkers want to pass a new law everytime something tragic happens. I'm sure Chicago chose to ban guns for the "safety" of its citizens. Not working out well is it? But that would require more thought than you've spewed here today and honestly I'm not expecting much from you.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
History has proven that borders, no matter how stringent, will not stop humans from obtaining anything they want.

They won't stop them entirely, but they will reduce them more than if there are no borders.

What you seem incapable of processing is that an imperfect border is better than no border at all.

If you want to make the case that borders don't stop guns, great. Then use a case where there actually is a border! There isn't one around Chicago.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,802
6,358
126
Silliness. Gun control in small areas without border control works quite poorly because there is basically nothing stopping people from neighboring areas from bringing in weapons.

That of course makes no statement as to if gun control works in a larger sense. Come on guys, if you are going to complain about liberal minded people being illogical about guns you can't turn around and make these ridiculous arguments.

eski you are assuming that Gun Nuts are capable of reason.
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,290
352
126
Silliness. Gun control in small areas without border control works quite poorly because there is basically nothing stopping people from neighboring areas from bringing in weapons.

That of course makes no statement as to if gun control works in a larger sense. Come on guys, if you are going to complain about liberal minded people being illogical about guns you can't turn around and make these ridiculous arguments.

Nearly every anti gun control person failed this test. They nearly all missed the bold section of the quote and bit and thrashed ravenously on the small border part.

Excellent job eskimo.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
They won't stop them entirely, but they will reduce them more than if there are no borders.

What you seem incapable of processing is that an imperfect border is better than no border at all.

If you want to make the case that borders don't stop guns, great. Then use a case where there actually is a border! There isn't one around Chicago.

Theres borders all over the place meant to stop drugs but they don't. Apparently you are incapable of understanding this basic truth as I have repeated myself several times and you have yet to retain this basic information. You will not be able to stop guns from being obtained. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that a border of any kind will be effective gun control even though all of history sides against you.