New Chicago Handgun Law was approved

[Moonbeam]

psssst... hey genius, come over here... I have a secret...... the criminals are already armed!!... and, check this crazy shit out... this little factoid might just blow your puny little "enlightened" mind: these same criminals don't care how many laws you pass to restrict them from having guns.

...funny how that works out, eh?

Gosh, I didn't know that. Where did they get these guns? I am so sorry my stupidity offended you, but then it is the curse of being enlightened, I guess, that every puny asshole that comes along thinks to knock you down with some trivia everybody on the planet has know for centuries. Sadly, though, you are so stupid you thought it would be a surprise. Oh well, what do you expect from an idiot that doesn't know the sky is blue. And remember, stupid, we think alike on many things so you are obviously enlightened too.

 

[spidey07]

I am not going to argue with your silly sources. The FBI and CDC both have produced numbers that show clearly most gun accidents and deaths are not related to criminal activity. I really don't feel like searching the links again, because this has been beat to death. The constitutional right is legitimate but for all these other arguments, the facts don't bare them out.

Do you not know how to read or are you a racist piece of shit? I'm guessing the later.

 

[classy]

You guys notice how not one of these anti-gun posters ever posts facts? All personal opinion, gut feelings, and hunches that are unsubstantiated by evidence. Its so funny

Here is a quick little article from About.com on Gun safety where they quote numbers from the CDC.

Having a gun in your home, especially if it is not stored properly, can be a significant risk factor for injury and death in children. In fact, firearm related injuries are a leading cause of death in children, and include deaths from unintentional injuries, homicide and suicide.

Between 1994 and 1998, 6,287 children committed suicide with a firearm and an additional 1,896 children were killed by unintentional gun injuries in the United States. All together, 18,297 children under age 19 died from a gun-related injury during these years, according to CDC National Injury Mortality Statistics.

It is estimated that guns are in half of all homes in the United States. Although most of these guns are purchased for safety reasons, it is important to keep in mind that a firearm in the home is much more likely (up to 43 times more likely in some reports) to kill or injure a family member or friend than an intruder.

http://pediatrics.about.com/cs/safetyfirstaid/a/gun_safety.htm

When you go to the FBI and CDC and search the data, the numbers clearly show owning a gun more than likely be the cause of injury or death to a person in the home and not a criminal. Its just a fact. Its legal, but it it is far from being smart. A dog is significantly a better home defense than any gun made in the history of mankind. Noise is the number 1 deterrent against a home intruder. A mean dashund will chase off an intruder faster than any handgun, rifle, submachine gun, bow and arrow, or grenade launcher. Guns are a lousy home defense.

 

[classy]

Do you not know how to read or are you a racist piece of shit? I'm guessing the later.

You know 3 times here lately I have gotten pms because you guys have whined like little girls when I have ripped into you. So if you can't take it, don't dish it. Because the truth is spidey you are only a tough guy on that keyboard. You don't impress me with your Jason Bourne act. You ain't nothing but a fairy. And like I have said many times I know guys like you and few others are stone cold racists, but I also know it ain't like you and some of the rest of you are actually going to go outside in the real world and say anything to any of us.

 

[ShawnD1]

I am not going to argue with your silly sources. The FBI and CDC both have produced numbers that show clearly most gun accidents and deaths are not related to criminal activity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
United States murder rate is 5.4 per 100k people in 2008. At a population of 307 million people, that's about 16,000 murders

Another site has basically the same number for the 2008 stats year
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
16,272 murders

That's a fuck load of people. So what percentage of these murder crimes do you think involve a gun? I don't have the current numbers, but I do have numbers from 1995.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/more/facts.html
68% of murders involved a gun in 1995. I don't imagine that changing too much since guns are still a great way to kill things.

68% * 16000 murders = roughly 10,000-11,000 gun murders per year


Your initial statement was that "clearly most gun accidents and deaths are not related to criminal activity".
Alright so if nearly 11,000 people are killed by guns that are involved in criminal activity, how many people are dying accidentally?? Holy shit man. Are you really suggesting that tens of thousands of people accidentally shoot themselves or a loved one? Sure it happens, but not that damn often.

 

[ShawnD1]

Between 1994 and 1998, 6,287 children committed suicide with a firearm and an additional 1,896 children were killed by unintentional gun injuries in the United States

Let's compare the numbers then. Over a 4 year span, ~1900 children accidentally died. 1900/4 = 475 accidental deaths per year

In my last post I worked out that roughly 11,000 people per year are murdered with guns

So tell me again, which is a bigger problem? 475 tragic accidents or 11,000 intentional gun murders? The murder problem is a whopping 23x bigger, and yet you focus on accidental deaths. Why is that? People should have the right to protect themselves.

 

[classy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
United States murder rate is 5.4 per 100k people in 2008. At a population of 307 million people, that's about 16,000 murders

Another site has basically the same number for the 2008 stats year
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
16,272 murders

That's a fuck load of people. So what percentage of these murder crimes do you think involve a gun? I don't have the current numbers, but I do have numbers from 1995.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/more/facts.html
68% of murders involved a gun in 1995. I don't imagine that changing too much since guns are still a great way to kill things.

68% * 16000 murders = roughly 10,000-11,000 gun murders per year


Your initial statement was that "clearly most gun accidents and deaths are not related to criminal activity".
Alright so if nearly 11,000 people are killed by guns that are involved in criminal activity, how many people are dying accidentally?? Holy shit man. Are you really suggesting that tens of thousands of people accidentally shoot themselves or a loved one? Sure it happens, but not that damn often.

I suggest you go to the CDC. What is a criminal? Key question. Is it just the drug dealer or thief who breaks into someones home? Or is it the next door neighbor who has never broken the law in his life, but his first hostile encounter with another criminal free neighbor results in someone being shot. That scenario will play out 7 or 8 times before the scenario of you shooting one of the drug dealer type criminals. Thats the problem. Criminals may be the target, but they are not the ones being shot all up. Legality can not be argued, but effectiveness clearly is lacking.




Here is a typical newspaper article 90% of the time when a gun is involved

SPALDING, Ga. -- Police are investigating a shooting involving a 4-year-old twin boy in Spalding County.

According to the Spalding County Sheriff's Office, the boy got a hold of a gun and accidentally shot his twin sister.

"Took the firearm into another room, a shot was fired, striking the four-year-old twin sister," said Spalding County Sheriff's Office Capt. Tony Ranieri.


Investigators said the parents were in another room during the incident.

The girl was shot in the leg, and is expected to recover, according to investigators.

The victim was taken to Children's Healthcare of Atlanta at Egleston in unknown condition.

The parents could face criminal charges.

Ranieri said, "It could fall under reckless conduct in Georgia state law, it could lead to other charges, it depends on the condition of the child also that's why we strongly urge if you have children that live in your home, lock your guns up."

 

[glenn1]

I am not going to argue with your silly sources. The FBI and CDC both have produced numbers that show clearly most gun accidents and deaths are not related to criminal activity. I really don't feel like searching the links again, because this has been beat to death. The constitutional right is legitimate but for all these other arguments, the facts don't bare them out.

Classy, you don't seem to be disputing that there is a constitutional right that is legitimate. Also, I think one could make a convincing argument that strict handgun control laws have not been terribly effective in reducing crime in Chicago. Even if it could be judged effective, IMHO it's fair to say that it's far from a panacea, and are more often than not simply passed as an easy way out for lazy politicians. Those being said, what else (other than a legal ban on handguns) do you think that could be done to reduce crime in cities?

 

[ShawnD1]

I suggest you go to the CDC. What is a criminal? Key question.

I didn't want to get too complicated so I kept it simple. I only used the murder rate. The murder rate alone far exceeds the accidental gun rate. 11k gun murders is 23x bigger than 475 gun accidents, so most deaths involving guns are clearly the result of criminal activity.

I question where the CDC is getting its numbers if they say accidents far exceed crimes. Murder rates are not randomly estimated by web bloggers. They're publicly available on the U.S. Census Bureau website.

Is it just the drug dealer or thief who breaks into someones home? Or is it the next door neighbor who has never broken the law in his life, but his first hostile encounter with another criminal free neighbor results in someone being shot. That scenario will play out 7 or 8 times before the scenario of you shooting one of the drug dealer type criminals.

While this is certainly true, the goal of having armed citizens is to prevent crimes from happening in the first place. For example, nobody goes "postal" at the police station. You know every single cop has a gun and they'll take you down in 5 seconds, so going on a rampage there is a really bad idea. People generally don't rampage at NRA conventions or gun shows either. Again, everyone there has a gun, so your rampage won't last long enough. If you choose to go on a rampage and kill a bunch of people, where would you do it? How about the post office? How about a school? Post offices and schools are gun free zones, so you have complete control of your rampage. You can kill as many people as there are bullets in your gun and nobody can do anything to stop you. That virginia tech guy managed to kill 33 people and injure 25 more people simply because nobody was equipped to stop him.

You don't get an effective number for how many crimes are prevented by guns simply because criminals are not that stupid. The situation never needs to be stopped with a gun because the situation never started. Criminals try to avoid going on a rampage in an area where they are likely to be stopped right away.

 

[classy]

Classy, you don't seem to be disputing that there is a constitutional right that is legitimate. Also, I think one could make a convincing argument that strict handgun control laws have not been terribly effective in reducing crime in Chicago. Even if it could be judged effective, IMHO it's fair to say that it's far from a panacea, and are more often than not simply passed as an easy way out for lazy politicians. Those being said, what else (other than a legal ban on handguns) do you think that could be done to reduce crime in cities?

Nothing. Thats it nothing. Poor people are going to commit crime, period. Doesn't mean they'll all be violent gun using criminals, but make no mistake, these people live in places where poverty has created a serious dysfunction. I have said this before, its up to the courts and the system to change it. They have to be more agressive in locking up these people and more agressive at keeping these people locked up. Arming everyone is only going to result in more gun deaths, not less. A heroin addict shooting methadone is still a junkie. Its insane to think adding more guns to a gun problem is going to solve anything. I don't give a damn how legal it is. And I can see the logic of these folks with this new law too. Here is why, if they have this many murders with a gun ban, how many will they have without a gun ban?

 

[piasabird]

So what is the likelyhood that a police officer will kill an innocent person? It is probably the same likelihood of an accidental killing by a gun in the home.

 

[duragezic]

I didn't want to get too complicated so I kept it simple. I only used the murder rate. The murder rate alone far exceeds the accidental gun rate. 11k gun murders is 23x bigger than 475 gun accidents, so most deaths involving guns are clearly the result of criminal activity.

I question where the CDC is getting its numbers if they say accidents far exceed crimes. Murder rates are not randomly estimated by web bloggers. They're publicly available on the U.S. Census Bureau website.



While this is certainly true, the goal of having armed citizens is to prevent crimes from happening in the first place. For example, nobody goes "postal" at the police station. You know every single cop has a gun and they'll take you down in 5 seconds, so going on a rampage there is a really bad idea. People generally don't rampage at NRA conventions or gun shows either. Again, everyone there has a gun, so your rampage won't last long enough. If you choose to go on a rampage and kill a bunch of people, where would you do it? How about the post office? How about a school? Post offices and schools are gun free zones, so you have complete control of your rampage. You can kill as many people as there are bullets in your gun and nobody can do anything to stop you. That virginia tech guy managed to kill 33 people and injure 25 more people simply because nobody was equipped to stop him.

You don't get an effective number for how many crimes are prevented by guns simply because criminals are not that stupid. The situation never needs to be stopped with a gun because the situation never started. Criminals try to avoid going on a rampage in an area where they are likely to be stopped right away.

Well said. Another one is the fact that service member CCP holders are not allowed to carry on base! What kind of shit is that? I'm sure that scumbag who shot those people at Ft Hood was well aware of that.

Good videos on this:

Gun Free, Death Pay by nutnfancy

Concealed Carry Protocol by nutnfancy

 

[nobodyknows]

IMHO this law doesn't go far enough. People who own guns should be treated like criminals.

I own a gun or two. Come on over and treat me like a criminal and we'll see how that turns out for you.

 

[nobodyknows]

I am not going to argue with your silly sources. The FBI and CDC both have produced numbers that show clearly most gun accidents and deaths are not related to criminal activity. I really don't feel like searching the links again, because this has been beat to death. The constitutional right is legitimate but for all these other arguments, the facts don't bare them out.

Most gun accidents are not related to criminal activity? No shit, who'da thunk it!!

You seem like the kind of guy who'd take a knife to a gun fight.

 

[nobodyknows]

There are two Americas when it comes to guns, the America that relies on them for protection, living far from state authority, and the America whose kids are being killed on the street with guns and want those guns gone. You, are an asshole because you will force chaos and violence on folk who live in anarchy and want and need a police state. These folk watch their children die while you masturbate to the second amendment. Your psychopathology kills.

They can't take the guns away so they are going to try and tax them out of exixtence? That won't work, it's total BS. Let's tax all the rich fuckers in Chicago so these people can have proper police protection AND still legally own a gun if they so choose.

Trying to price guns used for self defense out of reach of the ordinary citizens is something only Nazi's would try.

 

[nick1985]

Between 1994 and 1998, 6,287 children committed suicide with a firearm and an additional 1,896 children were killed by unintentional gun injuries in the United States. All together, 18,297 children under age 19 died from a gun-related injury during these years, according to CDC National Injury Mortality Statistics.

Busted again.


When these statistics say "children" are killed, they are being very VERY VERY disengenious.

Myth: 13 children are killed each day by guns

Fact: Adults included – This “statistic” includes “children” up to age 19 or 24, depending on the source. Most violent crime is committed by males ages 16-24, these numbers end up including adult gang members dying during criminal activity229. The proper definition of ‘child’ is a person between birth and puberty (typically 13-14 years old).

Fact: Criminals are included - 70% of these deaths are juveniles or adults, ages 17 to
20, during gang warfare. Half of the juveniles killed are involved in gang activity at the
time of their deaths: often drug related firefights.

Fact: Suicides and criminals included - These numbers include criminal activities and
suicides.230 As suicides make up more than ½ of all gun deaths, the number children
killed could drop even further, to about 1.3 a day. 231


You make it seem that 8 year old kids are dying everyday to guns. In reality, its 19-24 year old gang-bangers.

 

[MotF Bane]

Busted again.


When these statistics say "children" are killed, they are being very VERY VERY disengenious.

Myth: 13 children are killed each day by guns

Fact: Adults included – This “statistic” includes “children” up to age 19 or 24, depending on the source. Most violent crime is committed by males ages 16-24, these numbers end up including adult gang members dying during criminal activity229. The proper definition of ‘child’ is a person between birth and puberty (typically 13-14 years old).

Fact: Criminals are included - 70% of these deaths are juveniles or adults, ages 17 to
20, during gang warfare. Half of the juveniles killed are involved in gang activity at the
time of their deaths: often drug related firefights.

Fact: Suicides and criminals included - These numbers include criminal activities and
suicides.230 As suicides make up more than ½ of all gun deaths, the number children
killed could drop even further, to about 1.3 a day. 231


You make it seem that 8 year old kids are dying everyday to guns. In reality, its 19-24 year old gang-bangers.

Bolded and italicized is the only part I disagree with. A child is anyone under 18; the legal age of adulthood. Otherwise, great post.

 

[classy]

Busted again.


When these statistics say "children" are killed, they are being very VERY VERY disengenious.

Myth: 13 children are killed each day by guns

Fact: Adults included – This “statistic” includes “children” up to age 19 or 24, depending on the source. Most violent crime is committed by males ages 16-24, these numbers end up including adult gang members dying during criminal activity229. The proper definition of ‘child’ is a person between birth and puberty (typically 13-14 years old).

Fact: Criminals are included - 70% of these deaths are juveniles or adults, ages 17 to
20, during gang warfare. Half of the juveniles killed are involved in gang activity at the
time of their deaths: often drug related firefights.

Fact: Suicides and criminals included - These numbers include criminal activities and
suicides.230 As suicides make up more than ½ of all gun deaths, the number children
killed could drop even further, to about 1.3 a day. 231


You make it seem that 8 year old kids are dying everyday to guns. In reality, its 19-24 year old gang-bangers.

Thank You

You just made my point that I have been saying for years. People like you will all day talk about loading up an arsenal in your home to protect against criminals. I have said all along and the numbers prove it, that a law abiding person owning a gun for protection is a lousy idea. Why? Because that gun 7-8 times more than likely will be used to injure a family member in some way and not a criminal. Most robberies don't occur when someone is home. Its rare for a home invasion to occur and people are in the house. But dumb, stupid, and ignorant people like you will forever say get a gun when in reality that gun better than a 70% clip will kill a loved one or family friend. Most criminals kill other criminals, its just a fact of life. Argue legality and you win all day. Argue effectiveness and you look like a fool all day.

 

[nick1985]

Thank You

You just made my point that I have been saying for years. People like you will all day talk about loading up an arsenal in your home to protect against criminals. I have said all along and the numbers prove it, that a law abiding person owning a gun for protection is a lousy idea. Why? Because that gun 7-8 times more than likely will be used to injure a family member in some way and not a criminal. Most robberies don't occur when someone is home. Its rare for a home invasion to occur and people are in the house. But dumb, stupid, and ignorant people like you will forever say get a gun when in reality that gun better than a 70% clip will kill a loved one or family friend. Most criminals kill other criminals, its just a fact of life. Argue legality and you win all day. Argue effectiveness and you look like a fool all day.

/sigh


Nope. You are incorrect. And I see you are starting to get testy, calling me dumb, stupid, and ignorant. Typical "classy" posting style, get beat in a debate and start unleashing the insults.

Admit it, you didnt read a single thing I posted. You just have your fingers in your ears screaming "LALALALALALA". My facts have disproven everything you ar saying, I'm not going to repeat it all. Re-read my posts.



*edit*


Also, these situations happen EVERY DAY. What should she have done?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/09/earlyshow/main5949873.shtml

 

[classy]

/sigh


Nope. You are incorrect. And I see you are starting to get testy, calling me dumb, stupid, and ignorant. Typical "classy" posting style, get beat in a debate and start unleashing the insults.

Admit it, you didnt read a single thing I posted. You just have your fingers in your ears screaming "LALALALALALA". My facts have disproven everything you ar saying, I'm not going to repeat it all. Re-read my posts.



*edit*


Also, these situations happen EVERY DAY. What should she have done?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/09/earlyshow/main5949873.shtml

Please supporters and detractors can post stories all day to back up their claim. I read everything you post mostly and everyone else. This issue is clean cut and dry. Its legal to own a gun. Now on that note I don't think the founding fathers could have possibly envisioned the situation as it is today. I think they may have written the law differently if they did. Your argument is the same old tired thing. No different. This is the plain truth and reality, a gun in the home 70% of the time or better will injure or kill a non criminal. Thats a fact. So if thats the case, arguing for a gun as home protection sucks.

What sane person buys something that works only 70% of the time as its first choice? The disparity is so great I can't believe people still argue buying a gun for home protection. Nothing wrong with it at all but a noisy dog would be so much better. Sorry dude the argument you make is dumb, stupid, and ignorant. The gun you own will more than likely be used on someone in your house or worse they will use it on themselves.

70 to 30, which is greater?

 

[classy]

And another thing too. People are bashing this new strict law. Now here is my question that I put towards glenn. Why do people believe that adding more guns into the hands of citizens will make gun violence go down? If they have so many murders with strict gun laws, how many will they have with loose gun laws? Why do people such as your yourself believe throwing more gas on a fire will somehow cause the already out of control fire to somehow come under control? Guns equal gas, if you didn't get my point, I know you are a little slow.

 

[nick1985]

This is the plain truth and reality, a gun in the home 70% of the time or better will injure or kill a non criminal. Thats a fact. So if thats the case, arguing for a gun as home protection sucks.

I addressed this in one of my posts. Scare tactics by anti-gun folks. This "stat" is so disengenious its almost criminal.


Also, how can you explain how every single time gun bans are imposed, violent crime rises? Can you explain that? Given your logic, it should fall. England, Australia, different US cities, etc. have all had violen crime increases after gun bans. Why Classy? For the life of my I cant figure out how taking guns away from law-abiding citizens increases violen crime. Maybe you can help me with that one.

 

[JockoJohnson]

Classy, I agree with you in part. There seems to be too many gun accidents. To fix that, I would suggest that training be required. (I know it is in this new Chicago law). That training should not just be how to load the gun and fire it but to STORE IT SAFELY.

The problem isn't that people own guns, it's that they don't use any fucking common sense. This society seems to be lacking alot of that lately.

 

[classy]

I addressed this in one of my posts. Scare tactics by anti-gun folks. This "stat" is so disengenious its almost criminal.


Also, how can you explain how every single time gun bans are imposed, violent crime rises? Can you explain that? Given your logic, it should fall. England, Australia, different US cities, etc. have all had violen crime increases after gun bans. Why Classy? For the life of my I cant figure out how taking guns away from law-abiding citizens increases violen crime. Maybe you can help me with that one.

Its not a scare tactic. Its a fact. God, how can you even argue that. Gun violence continues to drop in Canada who have much stricter gun laws. As for violent crime, if you think that less guns are the reason for more violent crime you are clearly clueless. Society is way more violent in general. We live, watch, and listen to violence all day on tv, movies, and music. Culture has created a more violent society on this planet and not less guns. If you go back to the early 1900s there were a lot of guns in homes then, but wasn't like it is today with the violent use of the guns. Guns have become the way to settle disputes between classmates, neighbors, and even over parking spots. Used to be those same disagreements ended in either a fist fight or name calling because people were not running around with all these guns. I'll take the old days, you can have the new ones. Also you did answer my questions, I see.

 

[classy]

Here has been my thoughts on the whole thing for several years now. Sadly, our society has become so violent I believe removing guns can only help save lives. And I grew up in the country, where everyone hunted, and I lived in a house with weapons. Grandpop had an arsenal that would have made Charlton Heston proud, lol. But its different now, people are just different now.