How is the gun ban in Chicago doing?

[OverVolt]

can anyone link the chicago gun laws?

everything I am reading says it is lawful to own guns...it just needs to stay home

http://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/ordinances/chicago.pdf

Gun control doesn't really work in places like Chicago because as said 1000's of times before the only people who follow the laws aren't criminals anyway to begin with.

That leaves either confiscating all the guns or leaving the guns alone and that is a totally different argument revolving around the 2nd amendment.

The emotional give and take back and forth over this or that publicized crime is actually rather moot about banning this type of gun or this size of magazine. Since it doesn't work I'm against it since it is unnecessary regulation, and guess who will be packing high capacity magazines and banned guns anyway? Thats right, the criminals! Lovely.

If they outright confiscated guns that would tell you where the line in the sand is drawn and it would be time to pack up and get out before things get worse in the country.

 

[OrByte]

Gun control doesn't really work in places like Chicago because as said 1000's of times before the only people who follow the laws aren't criminals anyway to begin with.

That leaves either confiscating all the guns or leaving the guns alone and that is a totally different argument revolving around the 2nd amendment.

The emotional give and take back and forth over this or that publicized crime is actually rather moot. If they outright confiscated guns that would tell you where the line in the sand is drawn and it would be time to pack up and get out before things get worse.

I think gun control is part of a comprehensive package of trying to make our streets safer

I think that illegal firearms can be weeded out of the system much like the proposal from Feinstein helps weed out CERTAIN weapons off the street.

I also think police needs to be better equiped and I think there needs to be more of them AAND they need to enforce existing laws!

along with efforts to cut crime statistics for youths and young adults...before they grow up into hard core criminals

I think there is ALOT that can be done...along with gun control legislation. Guns don't get a free pass because of the 2nd amendment. I think if certain guns or STYLES of guns should be off the streets then that is fine, and that is DIFFERENT than disarming citizens.

I also believe that if a city like Chicago is going around and banning EVERYONEs guns then that is not a good thing...but evidently that is not what is happening there nor anywhere else in the country

It's just yet another example of someone twisting the truth to fit an agenda.

 

[RampantAndroid]

I think there is ALOT that can be done...along with gun control legislation. Guns don't get a free pass because of the 2nd amendment. I think if certain guns or STYLES of guns should be off the streets then that is fine, and that is DIFFERENT than disarming citizens.

OK, I'll humor you: what styles?

 

[OrByte]

OK, I'll humor you: what styles?

no im not playing that game

that is how the current proposal is written from feinstein..

IF IT HAS MERIT then it will pass.

if not, it won't

pure and simple.

humored enough?

 

[RampantAndroid]

I still see no active gun BAN in Chicago. anyone?

here is an interesting interview on NPR.

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/08/168853287/how-do-gun-bans-affect-violent-crime-rates

"Well, there were two places in the country, Steve, that still had sweeping bans on handguns. They were Chicago and Washington, D.C. But the Supreme Court in a pair of cases in 2008 and 2010 threw out those sweeping bans, so no more outright bans on handgun ownership in these places, but still some pretty tight restrictions."

IIRC, they tried to ban and the courts struck it down. It's illegal to carry.

The REAL shithole to look at is DC, where it WAS illegal to OWN until 2009 or so. Crimes rates spiked right after the ban in the 70s.

 

[RampantAndroid]

no im not playing that game

that is how the current proposal is written from feinstein..

IF IT HAS MERIT then it will pass.

if not, it won't

pure and simple.

humored enough?

You think certain styles should be banned, fine. Which ones, and why? Otherwise you're just posting opinions not even worth 2 cents.

 

[Agent11]

Too much freedom has already been given up in the name of security, it's time to say no more. You people will not be happy until you've taken it all.

 

[OverVolt]

I think gun control is part of a comprehensive package of trying to make our streets safer

I think that illegal firearms can be weeded out of the system much like the proposal from Feinstein helps weed out CERTAIN weapons off the street.

I consider them pretty safe as-is. There is only so much that can be done to prevent crime. I feel alot safer if I am able to protect myself

I also think police needs to be better equiped and I think there needs to be more of them AAND they need to enforce existing laws!

Thats fine but they don't have unlimited resources

along with efforts to cut crime statistics for youths and young adults...before they grow up into hard core criminals

Also fine and probably a smarter way to use crime prevention resources

I think there is ALOT that can be done...along with gun control legislation. Guns don't get a free pass because of the 2nd amendment. I think if certain guns or STYLES of guns should be off the streets then that is fine, and that is DIFFERENT than disarming citizens.

Eh I don't agree. All guns are dangerous. If they really did something ridiculous like "ban semi-autos" to the point where guns were pretty much ineffective at shooting it might as well be a total gun ban at that point. This is probably where we are headed realistically. Which is why I'm against most gun control measures.

I also believe that if a city like Chicago is going around and banning EVERYONEs guns then that is not a good thing...but evidently that is not what is happening there nor anywhere else in the country

2 Years isn't a long time for people to start buying guns. The restrictions are tight and its not a very gun-friendly place. There are still effectively barely any handguns owned by the good guys. It might be legal but probably 90%+ of the people living there aren't even interested. They DO live there and vote for this type of stuff afterall.

It's just yet another example of someone twisting the truth to fit an agenda.

Pretty much ignoring it I'm just talking

Its what I think.

 

[shadow9d9]

1. It is doing well in Britain and every other first world country where it is enacted, which means a hell of a lot more than a single city surrounded by a country full of gun nuts with an insane amount of guns.

2. Chicago is not liberal. Vermont can be considered liberal.

3. Democrats are middle/right. Just because the Republicans are now insanely conservative does NOT automatically make Democrats the polar opposite. You are fighting a center/right party. Deal with it.

 

[NoStateofMind]

so...you assumed...

and yes..it does change the argument significantly. And now you want to shift your argument...typical

The argument hasn't shifted its the same as its always been. But you go stick you head in the sand and sing "nanana boo boo" all you want. Just proves you aren't willing to admit when you're wrong.

I can't tell if you assumed or outright lied. It's hard to reason with someone that uses such poor reasoning in their argument.

Poor reasoning? Ha! The only thing you have brought to light is the gun ban is not in effect at this moment. That's it. You have failed to supply any reason to the contrary and I really don't expect that from leftists like yourself. intellectual honesty is not one of their strong suits.

makes pretty much everything you say worthless...dontcha think?

Well you are more than welcome to ignore the mental challenge of reason as you've done so well up until this point. Might as well get in bed with charleswhatshisface as you both seem to be afflicted with the same liberal insanity.

 

[NoStateofMind]

So you're incapable of understanding a simple analogy. Why am I not surprsed.

That's you buddy. all up and down in this thread you have been intellectually trounced because you won't allow yourself to be wrong. Guess what? You only hurt yourself and your continued attempts at obfuscation prove you're nothing more than a mental midget who wants to play with the big boys. Well you'll have to have integrity first and you haven't demonstrated any of that so you have a LONG way to go.

Mind-numbingly stupid. You are literally incapable of conducting a rational conversation. It's actually pretty sad to watch.

Are you even coherent?

That's your problem, though, not mine.

The facts remain: a gun ban in a city in a country where guns are legal elsewhere, is not the same as a gun ban nationwide. I don't support a gun ban nationwide, but I *do* support gun ownership bans for people too moronic to understand the difference between the two things I just mentioned.

You can support whatever ban you want (just like a liberal lol) yet that won't change the amount of ignorance and intellectual dishonesty you have displayed in this thread. Every time you have been shown your error you toss it aside. You have nothing more to offer me. I have spent too much time on you as it is. Some actually use their brain instead of ignoring it. In the end you have to answer to yourself for your dishonesty and thats no skin off my back.

Enjoy your ignorance.

“Man's basic vice, the source of all his evils, is the act of unfocusing his mind, the suspension of his consciousness, which is not blindness, but the refusal to see, not ignorance, but the refusal to know.”
― Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness

 

[Screech]

1. It is doing well in Britain and every other first world country where it is enacted, which means a hell of a lot more than a single city surrounded by a country full of gun nuts with an insane amount of guns.

I find that many arguments both for and against gun control tend to ignore what in Bayesian statistics is called the 'prior'. I believe that error is being made here. ie, is there less violence in Europe because of gun control, or has violence actually increased from an already smaller-than-american value since the implementation thereof, or has it remained constant regardless of any gun control laws? Without a well-studied answer to these sorts of questions nobody will ever come to any agreement. In America it has been shown repeatedly that gun control is an epic failure, but whether or not that is a result of geographical limits has arguably not been conclusively proven (although I certainly think its repeated failure here makes it a pariah in american politics).

 

[*kjm]

How is the gun ban in Chicago doing?

About as good as traffic in Baltimore....:whiste:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSqOD0VNU5A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPH3c3zC_Ek

 

[Fenixgoon]

1. It is doing well in Britain and every other first world country where it is enacted, which means a hell of a lot more than a single city surrounded by a country full of gun nuts with an insane amount of guns.

2. Chicago is not liberal. Vermont can be considered liberal.

3. Democrats are middle/right. Just because the Republicans are now insanely conservative does NOT automatically make Democrats the polar opposite. You are fighting a center/right party. Deal with it.

check violent crime rates in the UK and get back to us.

 

[RampantAndroid]

I find that many arguments both for and against gun control tend to ignore what in Bayesian statistics is called the 'prior'. I believe that error is being made here. ie, is there less violence in Europe because of gun control, or has violence actually increased from an already smaller-than-american value since the implementation thereof, or has it remained constant regardless of any gun control laws? Without a well-studied answer to these sorts of questions nobody will ever come to any agreement. In America it has been shown repeatedly that gun control is an epic failure, but whether or not that is a result of geographical limits has arguably not been conclusively proven (although I certainly think its repeated failure here makes it a pariah in american politics).

More than that, people forget that the UK and Australia never really had a right to own guns, so the number of guns present was low already.

 

[Angry Irishman]

no im not playing that game

that is how the current proposal is written from feinstein..

IF IT HAS MERIT then it will pass.

if not, it won't

pure and simple.

humored enough?

Hmmm, after a quick review of the second amendment I don't see any stipulations in the amendment regarding the weapons on her list...or anyone's list.

 

[Angry Irishman]

1. It is doing well in Britain and every other first world country where it is enacted, which means a hell of a lot more than a single city surrounded by a country full of gun nuts with an insane amount of guns.

2. Chicago is not liberal. Vermont can be considered liberal.

3. Democrats are middle/right. Just because the Republicans are now insanely conservative does NOT automatically make Democrats the polar opposite. You are fighting a center/right party. Deal with it.

Too bad the President, Feinstein, Boxter and so on are not middle/right. Did you happen to hear the President's inaugural speech? The far right nuts aren't any better.

Follow the Constitution and use some common fucking sense....it's not difficult. I really can't believe educated people who I assume can rationalize a pretty basic situation cannot come to a logical conclusion. What is being pushed in terms of gun control will have ZERO impact on violent acts by nut jobs. Emotions are trumping logic in every sense.

 

[TallBill]

1. It is doing well in Britain and every other first world country where it is enacted, which means a hell of a lot more than a single city surrounded by a country full of gun nuts with an insane amount of guns.

2. Chicago is not liberal. Vermont can be considered liberal.

3. Democrats are middle/right. Just because the Republicans are now insanely conservative does NOT automatically make Democrats the polar opposite. You are fighting a center/right party. Deal with it.

Murder rates in the UK have stayed steady with and without guns. Their rape, robbery, and assault rates double ours. I wouldn't say that it is doing well.

 

[irishScott]

1. It is doing well in Britain and every other first world country where it is enacted, which means a hell of a lot more than a single city surrounded by a country full of gun nuts with an insane amount of guns.

2. Chicago is not liberal. Vermont can be considered liberal.

3. Democrats are middle/right. Just because the Republicans are now insanely conservative does NOT automatically make Democrats the polar opposite. You are fighting a center/right party. Deal with it.

1. Their violent crime rate, including rape, is greater than ours. They also instituted their ban when they had tens of thousands of firearms. We have hundreds of millions, and that's just the legal supply.

2. If you're going to hold up Vermont as a model, then you should know they have permit-less concealed carry and no assault weapons ban of any variety. I'd be perfectly happy with Vermont's gun laws.

3. You don't get to redefine political terminology just because you think it proves a point. Some Democrats are centrists, but I'd hardly call them center-right.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Hmmm, after a quick review of the second amendment I don't see any stipulations in the amendment regarding the weapons on her list...or anyone's list.

Nor do you see any stipulation that the definition of "arms" should be changed from that which it was in 1789. You take as implied that the point of the thing is revolution; but ever since the civil war we've lived under a nation that says revolution/separation is entirely unacceptable.

I'm not saying free ownership of 18th century technology is the answer; what I'm saying is that your asinine appeal to a literalist-historical interpretation of the amendment is just as ridicules.

 

[Angry Irishman]

Nor do you see any stipulation that the definition of "arms" should be changed from that which it was in 1789. You take as implied that the point of the thing is revolution; but ever since the civil war we've lived under a nation that says revolution/separation is entirely unacceptable.

I'm not saying free ownership of 18th century technology is the answer; what I'm saying is that your asinine appeal to a literalist-historical interpretation of the amendment is just as ridicules.

Not necessarily revolution....insurance. Are you saying we should just let things keep sliding starting with the end of the civil war? What's your "asinine" interpretation? The threat of oppressive government still exists....no? Are you saying the second amendment isn't relevant today?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

The threat of oppressive government still exists....no

No.

That's a fairy story you've been told your entire life.

If you can't trust the men and women that serve this country, as incredibly well educated as we are today, to protect us from despotism; then your pea shooter isn't going to make any difference.

Why doesn't Britain have despotism? Why doesn't Australia?

The truth is that the rule of a country, even a monarchy, must in some way reflect the will of the people. As the will of the people shifts from accepting monarchy "for the greater good" or "by devine right" to freedom and democracy, then the problems of kinks and despotism falls by the way side.

You'll never get the number of supporters or equality of arms that the civil war brought us. You can only hope for a much faster, better propagandized, mass-slaughter of a smaller chunk of rebels.

The game's up; our only hope is in the good will, and willingness to stand for the dignity of life, of our men and women throughout the levels of our armed forces.

I don't think that if the military was told to control news-services (how'd gun ownership work out then?), for example, or another internment of a population (how'd gun ownership work out then?), that our protectors of freedom would take the order.

But even if they did; the population wouldn't accept it in the long run; guns or no.

 

[irishScott]

No.

That's a fairy story you've been told your entire life.

If you can't trust the men and women that serve this country, as incredibly well educated as we are today, to protect us from despotism; then your pea shooter isn't going to make any difference.

Why doesn't Britain have despotism? Why doesn't Australia?

The truth is that the rule of a country, even a monarchy, must in some way reflect the will of the people. As the will of the people shifts from accepting monarchy "for the greater good" or "by devine right" to freedom and democracy, then the problems of kinks and despotism falls by the way side.

You'll never get the number of supporters or equality of arms that the civil war brought us. You can only hope for a much faster, better propagandized, mass-slaughter of a smaller chunk of rebels.

The game's up; our only hope is in the good will, and willingness to stand for the dignity of life, of our men and women throughout the levels of our armed forces.

I don't think that if the military was told to control news-services (how'd gun ownership work out then?), for example, or another internment of a population (how'd gun ownership work out then?), that our protectors of freedom would take the order.

But even if they did; the population wouldn't accept it in the long run; guns or no.

Fairy stories? You mean like the ones in this post?

Tell the people of Syria that their "pea shooters" are making no difference. If a violent rebellion becomes necessary it will start with civilians, not the military.

Britain and Australia are heading that way. Such transitions take time. Just because they're not readily apparent today doesn't mean they won't be in 50 to 100 years.

Yes, and in the days of constant monarchy violent rebellions were relatively common, as they were often the only real way of getting things done.

The Civil War equality of arms was due to massive military defections. There is no reason to think such defections couldn't happen again.

No, not really. And actually from a tactical standpoint if a significant population of the US rebelled, the military would be hard pressed to suppress it merely due to the disruption of vital supply/communication networks.

You likely wouldn't be able to get away with another Sherman's march to the sea, thanks to the internet. You can idolize the military all you like, but the fact is for all its strength, it isn't the Chinese army. It's not designed to fight a massive internal insurrection.


Bottom line, a heavily armed populace remains a very effective last-resort counter to tyrannical government. The proof can be seen the world over.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

That's you buddy. all up and down in this thread you have been intellectually trounced because you won't allow yourself to be wrong. Guess what? You only hurt yourself and your continued attempts at obfuscation prove you're nothing more than a mental midget who wants to play with the big boys. Well you'll have to have integrity first and you haven't demonstrated any of that so you have a LONG way to go.

LOL.

I'll put my reputation on this board for logical reasoning and backing up my statements up against yours any time, sparky.

No matter how many times you try to change the subject, your temper tantrum still boils down to not being able to understand the difference between a ban with borders and ban without them. Bans with borders are not entirely effective, but they are more effective than bans without them.

The problems in Chicago are not generalizable to the entire country in any way.

 

[Angry Irishman]

No.

That's a fairy story you've been told your entire life.

If you can't trust the men and women that serve this country, as incredibly well educated as we are today, to protect us from despotism; then your pea shooter isn't going to make any difference.

Why doesn't Britain have despotism? Why doesn't Australia?

The truth is that the rule of a country, even a monarchy, must in some way reflect the will of the people. As the will of the people shifts from accepting monarchy "for the greater good" or "by devine right" to freedom and democracy, then the problems of kinks and despotism falls by the way side.

You'll never get the number of supporters or equality of arms that the civil war brought us. You can only hope for a much faster, better propagandized, mass-slaughter of a smaller chunk of rebels.

The game's up; our only hope is in the good will, and willingness to stand for the dignity of life, of our men and women throughout the levels of our armed forces.

I don't think that if the military was told to control news-services (how'd gun ownership work out then?), for example, or another internment of a population (how'd gun ownership work out then?), that our protectors of freedom would take the order.

But even if they did; the population wouldn't accept it in the long run; guns or no.

Well you would be wrong assuming that's a fairy tail. I have heard it my whole life because thats a premise of our nation and a methodology to keep our government in check. The founders of this country knew exactly what the threat of a government that becomes too powerful or over bearing and dictated certain rights to protect the people. There's nothing implied they knew exactly what they were signing.

In fact, my entire adult life has been serving in the very military you are referencing. I will tell you this is the first time in my life that I've really questioned the motives of my government starting with the executive branch. Our basic rights are under attack more so now than ever. Do your homework and you'll observe a trend of laws on the books that are in place to protect us or for issues that require immediate action. The real problem is the fact that these monitoring practices and reduction of basic liberties is being exercised against Americans and not just our "terrorist" threats. It's not just about the second amendment; it's much larger than just the arms control issue.

I believe in the Constitution. I've spent my whole life defending that basis of our laws and freedoms. Either someone believes it's relevant or not. Ive heard our President state many times that he doesnt think its relevant. "it's not time to continplate the basis of law in this country, it's time to act" is what I've heard him say. That arrogance from a man in his position is very alarming. For the most part the Constitution remains a very simple and clear cut document. The fact that many of our political leaders are trying to diminish or twist rights to meet agendas or political motives should raise red flags. The military would have one hell of a time fighting a war within our borders. In fact, a very large majority would refuse to fire on their own citizens. Ask me how I know?

All of that said, If you think that oppression and tyranny aren't still a possibility in this day and age of "educated" people....they received the wrong variety of education. I've been all over the world and the common theme to consider even in the US is too much power corrupts.

As soon as Americans stop being skeptical of the federal government then we will have failed as a nation. The whole point of the second amendment and all the other rights is/was to keep power in check and to keep government serving the people and not itself.

Rethink who's living a fairy tail and exercise your RIGHTS.