Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Ghostpanther]

with the positive responses in the other thread about the old guy that killed the thief, i´m not suprised anymore that more people dying is viewed as a good thing

I feel the right to self defense to be a very valuable and justified right, even to the extent if needed, to take another person's life. And we both know very well the old guy who killed the girl after she had fled and was on the ground, no longer a threat to him, was not justified self defense. Lets try not to mix a person's feelings about the right to kill someone in self defense with the wrong in killing someone when your life is no longer in danger.

[Tinykong]

The ironic thing is that more errant bullets fly around in Redneckia than Chicago.

Seems like a lot more of those errant bullets are injuring/killing people in Chicago.

[GreatOak]

Seems like a lot more of those errant bullets are injuring/killing people in Chicago.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-c...anted-revenge/

This happened recently, just two blocks away from my cousin's house. At least they have the suspect in custody.

[Mayhem]

Seems like a lot more of those errant bullets are injuring/killing people in Chicago.

“Chicago’s violence problem is largely a gun problem,” according to the May measure that toughened the city’s gun laws. “Every year, Chicago police officers take thousands of illegal guns off the street. But, despite these efforts, it remains far too easy for criminals to get their hands on deadly weapons.”

According to the city, from 2009 to 2013, 60% of the guns used to commit crimes in Chicago were originally bought out of state, mainly in Indiana, Mississippi and Wisconsin. Three of the top four sources for guns recovered in Chicago were gun dealers in Illinois cities near Chicago.

Not all of Chicago’s efforts have been successful. In January, a federal judge ruled that an outright ban on gun shops in Chicago was unconstitutional, citing the 2nd Amendment.

“The city of Chicago does not have a problem of too few guns,” Emanuel noted in May. “There are way too many guns from shops in Cook County and from neighboring states that come into the city of Chicago. On any given weekend, our police officers take more guns off the streets than either New York or L.A.”

interesting statement

[Eroginous]

interesting statement

And who do you suppose they are taking those guns from?

If the answer turns out to be drug dealers and gang bangers, does that still make it a gun problem?

Or do you think people are going to finally admit it's a drug/gang problem?

[Mayhem]

And who do you suppose they are taking those guns from?

from people that aren´t allowed to own guns, but that´s me just guessing

If the answer turns out to be drug dealers and gang bangers, does that still make it a gun problem?

the answer probably is criminals, and it stays a gun problem as well

Or do you think people are going to finally admit it's a drug/gang problem?

good thing you´re back with your either, or and what if scenarios, i missed them, it can´t possible be a combination of gun, drug and gang problems, no sir

[Eroginous]

from people that aren´t allowed to own guns, but that´s me just guessing

Yes, let's avoid being specific so our argument seems impervious to scrutiny.

Good plan.

the answer probably is criminals, and it stays a gun problem as well

Again, you're being intentionally vague and this is why liberals can't get anything done on gun control. It's a 'gun problem' only because you have a personal beef with guns. Let's continue to ignore the fact that each problem is probably different and might have different solutions. A 'gun problem' might be solvable with more gun control, but what if it's really a gang violence or a drug trafficking problem? Do you think more gun control is going to have an impact on the gang or drug activity? Or do you think there are probably better solutions to those specific problems that might have more of an impact? Like say, maybe better DEA efforts to crack down on gangs and drugs?

Or maybe better programs to address the poverty that exists? When you pigeonhole every problem into the 'gun control' box, you're effectively taking all other potential solutions off the table, even the ones that will likely have a much stronger impact on the actual problem. Not just this 'hey we did something, don't it feel good?' attitude libs have with gun control bills.

good thing you´re back with your either, or and what if scenarios, i missed them, it can´t possible be a combination of gun, drug and gang problems, no sir

Yeah, we could just keep insisting that the city with the toughest gun laws on the books (and also the highest gun crime) has a gun problem, while ignoring the gangs and drugs like you keep implying we should. 'It's a gun problem, we need more gun control.'

Right buddy. Both gangs and drugs exist independent of guns. Poverty exists independent of guns. That's why it's important to address the root of the problem. Build homes for the homeless. Give them jobs. Improve schools so kids don't go running to gangs. Crack down on gangs and drugs so people aren't as likely to fall in with those societal ills.

If you do those things, you'll probably see a big drop in gun related crime, even without passing any more gun control laws.

[Mayhem]

Yeah, we could just keep insisting that the city with the toughest gun laws on the books (and also the highest gun crime) has a gun problem, while ignoring the gangs and drugs like you keep implying we should. 'It's a gun problem, we need more gun control.'

oh please find the quote where i implied this

Right buddy. Both gangs and drugs exist independent of guns. Poverty exists independent of guns. That's why it's important to address the root of the problem.

so, if they aren´t interlinked than there is a gun problem, glad we agree

Build homes for the homeless. Give them jobs. Improve schools so kids don't go running to gangs. Crack down on gangs and drugs so people aren't as likely to fall in with those societal ills.

If you do those things, you'll probably see a big drop in gun related crime, even without passing any more gun control laws.

i don´t know where i wrote that i´m against adressing these things, i merely quoted an article linked by tinykong

[Dethh]

can´t possible be a combination of gun, drug and gang problems, no sir

They go hand in hand. Remove the need for gangs while removing the gangs themselves and legalize drugs. Instead of giving away billions to places like Israel help our own people.

[Rukentuts]

interesting statement

Errant bullets kill more in areas with density. Interesting indeed.

[Dethh]

Errant bullets kill more in areas with density. Interesting indeed.

Isn't that common sense?

[Tinykong]

Errant bullets kill more in areas with density. Interesting indeed.

Someone doing a drive by shooting isn't "errant bullets."

[Rukentuts]

Technically neither are rednecks blasting other peoples' mailboxes or street signs.

[Tinykong]

Technically neither are rednecks blasting other peoples' mailboxes or street signs.

Little bit of a difference between shooting at a stop sign and trying to kill someone who dissed you.

[Mayhem]

Someone doing a drive by shooting isn't "errant bullets."

sooo, if someone has a target but misses, what would you call that?

- - - Updated - - -

Little bit of a difference between shooting at a stop sign and trying to kill someone who dissed you.

what has this to do with errant bullets? can they only occur when shooting on people?

[Rukentuts]

what has this to do with errant bullets? can they only occur when shooting on people?

A firearm homicide is not always firearm violence. Duh!

[Tinykong]

sooo, if someone has a target but misses, what would you call that?

Attempted murder.

what has this to do with errant bullets? can they only occur when shooting on people?

You're (unsurprisingly) missing the point. Shooting at a stop sign is reckless and dangerous. So is shooting at a crowd of people intending to kill one or more of them. But, they aren't the same. There is such a thing as intent.

- - - Updated - - -

A firearm homicide is not always firearm violence. Duh!

It's funny that you're saying this to be snarky and yet it's true so you failed.

[Mayhem]

Attempted murder.

giggle, let me rephrase that, if someone has a target but misses and hits a bystander, what would you call the bullet? maybe errant?

You're (unsurprisingly) missing the point. Shooting at a stop sign is reckless and dangerous. So is shooting at a crowd of people intending to kill one or more of them. But, they aren't the same. There is such a thing as intent.

errant bullets don´t care much for intent, now do they?

It's funny that you're saying this to be snarky and yet it's true so you failed.

no, you still don´t get it, it´s the other way around, firearm violence isn´t always firearm homicide, but you can´t kill someone with a firearm without hurting (committing an act of violence) someone

[Tinykong]

giggle, let me rephrase that, if someone has a target but misses and hits a bystander, what would you call the bullet? maybe errant?

Attempted murder.

errant bullets don´t care much for intent, now do they?

Are you seriously suggesting bullets have a conscience? Because the law treats your bullets the same even if you think they are nice bullets.

no, you still don´t get it, it´s the other way around, firearm violence isn´t always firearm homicide, but you can´t kill someone with a firearm without hurting (committing an act of violence) someone

Violence requires intent. If we're out hunting, and I trip and my firearm discharges accidentally and the bullet strikes and kills you, no violence has taken place, but a firearm homicide has.

[Mayhem]

Attempted murder.

doesn´t attempted murder requires intent?

Are you seriously suggesting bullets have a conscience? Because the law treats your bullets the same even if you think they are nice bullets.

no, i´m suggesting that an errant bullet is an errant bullet regardless of the intended target was a mailbox or a human being

Violence requires intent. If we're out hunting, and I trip and my firearm discharges accidentally and the bullet strikes and kills you, no violence has taken place, but a firearm homicide has.

violence not always requires intent

vi·o·lence [vahy-uh-luhns] Show IPA
noun
1.
swift and intense force: the violence of a storm.
2.
rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence.
3.
an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence.
4.
a violent act or proceeding.
5.
rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred.