matthewcline 0 #351 January 7, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Gosh, that Chicago gun ban is working really well! "14 wounded in shootings across Chicago" http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-3-wounded-in-west-side-shooting- There is no Chicago gun ban. It's getting rather like Dallas. 2010: Dallas murder rate: 11.3 Chicago murder rate: 15.2 Dallas robbery rate: 343.4 Chicago robbery rate: 501.6 Dallas agg. assault rate: 307.7 Chicago agg. assault rate: 485.5 Yep, bad things happen when there's no effective restriction on felons and loonies getting guns. Funny how you dropped the attempt to compare to Dallas once the numbers were shown. Thanks for proving the point that the Chicago ban didn't do a thing to prevent crime. Doesn't "prove" any such thing. Funny how your tune changed once the numbers were shown. Try the 2005-2006 numbersHEADLINE FBI says Dallas most dangerous large city in 2005 The large city with the highest crime rate was Dallas, with about one crime reported for every 12 people. Los Angeles ranked eighth, with about one crime for every 26 people. The technique of using out of date numbers seems odd to me, even when done in jest. I see no issue with responsible gun ownership and registration. Those who scream it is against the Constitution to require a formal register format, i think need to step back and rethink their position. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #352 January 7, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Funny how your tune changed once the numbers were shown. Try the 2005-2006 numbers And those are applicable to the CURRENT situation being spoken of, *how*? Other than your usual attempts to misdirect, I mean...that's a given. Well, the current numbers apply now that Chicago does NOT have a gun ban, whereas in 2006...... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #353 January 7, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Funny how your tune changed once the numbers were shown. Try the 2005-2006 numbers And those are applicable to the CURRENT situation being spoken of, *how*? Other than your usual attempts to misdirect, I mean...that's a given. Well, the current numbers apply now that Chicago does NOT have a gun ban, whereas in 2006... And you were using the comparison to Dallas in an attempt to compare current events. Nice try.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #354 January 7, 2012 Quote Try the 2005-2006 numbersHEADLINE FBI says Dallas most dangerous large city in 2005 The large city with the highest crime rate was Dallas, with about one crime reported for every 12 people. Los Angeles ranked eighth, with about one crime for every 26 people. The technique of using out of date numbers seems odd to me, even when done in jest. Matt 2006 Chicago has gun ban. Now Chicago doesn't have gun ban. Before:after comparison is perfectly legit.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #355 January 7, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Funny how your tune changed once the numbers were shown. Try the 2005-2006 numbers And those are applicable to the CURRENT situation being spoken of, *how*? Other than your usual attempts to misdirect, I mean...that's a given. Well, the current numbers apply now that Chicago does NOT have a gun ban, whereas in 2006... And you were using the comparison to Dallas in an attempt to compare current events. Nice try. Currently Chicago has no gun ban. You just shot down your own position.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #356 January 7, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Funny how your tune changed once the numbers were shown. Try the 2005-2006 numbers And those are applicable to the CURRENT situation being spoken of, *how*? Other than your usual attempts to misdirect, I mean...that's a given. Well, the current numbers apply now that Chicago does NOT have a gun ban, whereas in 2006... And you were using the comparison to Dallas in an attempt to compare current events. Nice try. Currently Chicago has no gun ban. You just shot down your own position. Nice try - unfortunately for your argument, the criminals weren't getting their guns from the local friendly gun store in the first place so that attempt is dead in the water, too...unless, of course, you have proof of said criminals having valid Illinois FOID cards? You were (lamely) trying to make a point that Chicago's current shooting spree was still better than Dallas' crime levels. This has been proven false. But, since you mentioned 2006 I thought I'd look up the numbers... Murders: Dallas: 187 14.98/100k Chicago: 468 16.37/100k Robbery: Dallas: 6914 553.9/100k Chicago: 15863 555.08/100k Assault: Dallas: 7292 584.19/100k Chicago: 17445 610.44/100k Looks like you struck out there, too.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #357 January 7, 2012 And the 2011 preliminaries... Murders: Dallas: 76 6.34/100k Chicago: 184 6.82/100k Robbery: Dallas: 2228 186/100k Chicago: 6229 231.08/100k Assault: Dallas: 2088 174.31/100k Chicago: 5990 222.21/100kMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #358 January 7, 2012 Quote But, since you mentioned 2006 I thought I'd look up the numbers... Murders: Dallas: 187 14.98/100k Chicago: 468 16.37/100k ouch, Kallend. Outplayed in your own gambit. I thought it was interesting how you changed metrics...certainly looked like you were hiding something. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #359 January 7, 2012 QuoteQuote But, since you mentioned 2006 I thought I'd look up the numbers... Murders: Dallas: 187 14.98/100k Chicago: 468 16.37/100k ouch, Kallend. Outplayed in your own gambit. I thought it was interesting how you changed metrics...certainly looked like you were hiding something. Had to go look up the populations for the 100k rates.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #360 January 7, 2012 Quote Quote Try the 2005-2006 numbersHEADLINE FBI says Dallas most dangerous large city in 2005 The large city with the highest crime rate was Dallas, with about one crime reported for every 12 people. Los Angeles ranked eighth, with about one crime for every 26 people. The technique of using out of date numbers seems odd to me, even when done in jest. Matt 2006 Chicago has gun ban. Now Chicago doesn't have gun ban. Before:after comparison is perfectly legit. Sure, but the post stood alone, so you can understand the confusion. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #361 January 7, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Try the 2005-2006 numbersHEADLINE FBI says Dallas most dangerous large city in 2005 The large city with the highest crime rate was Dallas, with about one crime reported for every 12 people. Los Angeles ranked eighth, with about one crime for every 26 people. The technique of using out of date numbers seems odd to me, even when done in jest. Matt 2006 Chicago has gun ban. Now Chicago doesn't have gun ban. Before:after comparison is perfectly legit. Sure, but the post stood alone, so you can understand the confusion. Matt The ban only affected the law-abiding (unless kallend comes up with some Illinois FOID and Chicago PD registration info for those criminals), so his attempt to infer that getting rid of the ban removed a restriction on 'criminals and loonies getting guns' was nothing more than his usual attempt to misdirect.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #362 January 7, 2012 QuoteAnd the 2011 preliminaries... Murders: Dallas: 76 6.34/100k Chicago: 184 6.82/100k Robbery: Dallas: 2228 186/100k Chicago: 6229 231.08/100k Assault: Dallas: 2088 174.31/100k Chicago: 5990 222.21/100k And Chicago doesn't have a gun ban in 2011, so what exactly do you think this proves? That there's variance between large cities that don't have gun bans?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #363 January 7, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Try the 2005-2006 numbersHEADLINE FBI says Dallas most dangerous large city in 2005 The large city with the highest crime rate was Dallas, with about one crime reported for every 12 people. Los Angeles ranked eighth, with about one crime for every 26 people. The technique of using out of date numbers seems odd to me, even when done in jest. Matt 2006 Chicago has gun ban. Now Chicago doesn't have gun ban. Before:after comparison is perfectly legit. Sure, but the post stood alone, so you can understand the confusion. Matt The ban only affected the law-abiding (unless kallend comes up with some Illinois FOID and Chicago PD registration info for those criminals), so his attempt to infer that getting rid of the ban removed a restriction on 'criminals and loonies getting guns' was nothing more than his usual attempt to misdirect. Strawman! I never claimed the gun ban was effective. It was ridiculously easy to circumvent. Gun shops abound in the Chicago suburbs. Rather like Washington DC's ban. All anyone needed to do there was stroll across the bridge into VA and buy whatever they wanted.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dks13827 2 #364 January 7, 2012 Yep, bad things happen when there's no effective restriction on felons and loonies just walking around. They walk around like everyone else, they don't even know that they are dumb ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #365 January 7, 2012 QuoteYep, bad things happen when there's no effective restriction on felons and loonies just walking around. They walk around like everyone else, they don't even know that they are dumb ! Yep, the anniversary of Rep. Gifford's shooting by a nutter is imminent. I'm sure he thought he was normal.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #366 January 7, 2012 QuoteQuoteAnd the 2011 preliminaries... Murders: Dallas: 76 6.34/100k Chicago: 184 6.82/100k Robbery: Dallas: 2228 186/100k Chicago: 6229 231.08/100k Assault: Dallas: 2088 174.31/100k Chicago: 5990 222.21/100k And Chicago doesn't have a gun ban in 2011, so what exactly do you think this proves? That there's variance between large cities that don't have gun bans? What does it prove? That your attempt to pawn off the recent crime spree in Chicago as 'getting rather like Dallas' was complete bullshit and nothing more than another attempt to get in a stealth insult at a pro-gun poster.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #367 January 7, 2012 QuoteQuote The ban only affected the law-abiding (unless kallend comes up with some Illinois FOID and Chicago PD registration info for those criminals), so his attempt to infer that getting rid of the ban removed a restriction on 'criminals and loonies getting guns' was nothing more than his usual attempt to misdirect. Strawman! I never claimed the gun ban was effective. It was ridiculously easy to circumvent. Gun shops abound in the Chicago suburbs. So, show us the info for all those criminals that bought from gunshops. While you're at it, you can provide the IL FOID info and Chicago PD registration info for the guns they bought. QuoteRather like Washington DC's ban. All anyone needed to do there was stroll across the bridge into VA and buy whatever they wanted. Lie. You can only buy a handgun in your home state - that's Federal law.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #368 January 8, 2012 QuoteAgreed that the gun ban was a waste of effort, since all anyone had to do was drive 15 miles to the suburbs and buy whatever they wanted. Lets review this logic. Chicago had a crime problem and so they banned guns. Chicago continued to have a crime problem. Some people, like yourself believe that the Chicago crime guns are all coming from the suburbs. Does that now constitute justification to ban guns in the suburbs, where there isn't a crime problem? And if they did so, and Chicago still had a crime problem after that, what next? Would you want to ban guns in neighboring states? How many law-abiding people should have to forfeit their gun rights in this ever-widening ban, to try and solve the problem with Chicago's criminals? Maybe Chicago should just crack down on their own criminals, instead of everyone else who isn't guilty of anything. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #369 January 8, 2012 Give it up, Mike. You busted John standing there with his pants down around his ankles. He's now screaming, "But I have socks on! It's not about the pants, it's about the socks!" What many fail to realize is that there is going to be nutters with guns no matter what you do to try to stop it. Not even a complete ban on all weapons of any type will do it. The best we can do is try to minimize it. So far, most everything being done is nothing more than emotional, knee-jerk reaction to fear. Ban the guns in DC! Oh wait...there's that pesky road to VA over there. My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #370 January 8, 2012 Quote Quote Agreed that the gun ban was a waste of effort, since all anyone had to do was drive 15 miles to the suburbs and buy whatever they wanted. Lets review this logic. Chicago had a crime problem and so they banned guns. Chicago continued to have a crime problem. Some people, like yourself believe that the Chicago crime guns are all coming from the suburbs. Does that now constitute justification to ban guns in the suburbs, where there isn't a crime problem? And if they did so, and Chicago still had a crime problem after that, what next? Would you want to ban guns in neighboring states? How many law-abiding people should have to forfeit their gun rights in this ever-widening ban, to try and solve the problem with Chicago's criminals? Maybe Chicago should just crack down on their own criminals, instead of everyone else who isn't guilty of anything. Good stuff, John. Just one problem....too much logical sense there. My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #371 January 8, 2012 QuoteQuoteAgreed that the gun ban was a waste of effort, since all anyone had to do was drive 15 miles to the suburbs and buy whatever they wanted. Lets review this logic. Chicago had a crime problem and so they banned guns. Chicago continued to have a crime problem. Some people, like yourself believe that the Chicago crime guns are all coming from the suburbs. Does that now constitute justification to ban guns in the suburbs, where there isn't a crime problem? And if they did so, and Chicago still had a crime problem after that, what next? Would you want to ban guns in neighboring states? How many law-abiding people should have to forfeit their gun rights in this ever-widening ban, to try and solve the problem with Chicago's criminals? Maybe Chicago should just crack down on their own criminals, instead of everyone else who isn't guilty of anything. I don't wish to ban guns, as you well know. I just want to make it far more difficult for nutters and convicted felons to get them.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #372 January 8, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteAgreed that the gun ban was a waste of effort, since all anyone had to do was drive 15 miles to the suburbs and buy whatever they wanted. Lets review this logic. Chicago had a crime problem and so they banned guns. Chicago continued to have a crime problem. Some people, like yourself believe that the Chicago crime guns are all coming from the suburbs. Does that now constitute justification to ban guns in the suburbs, where there isn't a crime problem? And if they did so, and Chicago still had a crime problem after that, what next? Would you want to ban guns in neighboring states? How many law-abiding people should have to forfeit their gun rights in this ever-widening ban, to try and solve the problem with Chicago's criminals? Maybe Chicago should just crack down on their own criminals, instead of everyone else who isn't guilty of anything. I don't wish to ban guns, as you well know. I just want to make it far more difficult for nutters and convicted felons to get them. This is an idea, on the surface, I agree with. I am not sure how to define "nutter", and not sure if it is ALL felons or just violent ones. At first glance I want to say "All" as to the felons issue. The "nutter" is more complicated. Some are "nutters" for religious reasons, according to others. Some are "nutter" for political reasons, according to others, and it just goes on and on. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #373 January 8, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteAgreed that the gun ban was a waste of effort, since all anyone had to do was drive 15 miles to the suburbs and buy whatever they wanted. Lets review this logic. Chicago had a crime problem and so they banned guns. Chicago continued to have a crime problem. Some people, like yourself believe that the Chicago crime guns are all coming from the suburbs. Does that now constitute justification to ban guns in the suburbs, where there isn't a crime problem? And if they did so, and Chicago still had a crime problem after that, what next? Would you want to ban guns in neighboring states? How many law-abiding people should have to forfeit their gun rights in this ever-widening ban, to try and solve the problem with Chicago's criminals? Maybe Chicago should just crack down on their own criminals, instead of everyone else who isn't guilty of anything. I don't wish to ban guns, as you well know. I just want to make it far more difficult for nutters and convicted felons to get them. Great, now tell us how you propose making it more difficult. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #374 January 9, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteAgreed that the gun ban was a waste of effort, since all anyone had to do was drive 15 miles to the suburbs and buy whatever they wanted. Lets review this logic. Chicago had a crime problem and so they banned guns. Chicago continued to have a crime problem. Some people, like yourself believe that the Chicago crime guns are all coming from the suburbs. Does that now constitute justification to ban guns in the suburbs, where there isn't a crime problem? And if they did so, and Chicago still had a crime problem after that, what next? Would you want to ban guns in neighboring states? How many law-abiding people should have to forfeit their gun rights in this ever-widening ban, to try and solve the problem with Chicago's criminals? Maybe Chicago should just crack down on their own criminals, instead of everyone else who isn't guilty of anything. I don't wish to ban guns, as you well know. I just want to make it far more difficult for nutters and convicted felons to get them. And you'll be providing the stats of all those criminals that have bought from gunstores any day now, right...since, y'know, Ray Rap-Sheet went and got his gat from the local gunshop and all. Answer that one first...we'll get to how to determine the nutters that haven't been adjudicated yet afterwards.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #375 January 9, 2012 QuoteAnswer that one first...we'll get to how to determine the nutters that haven't been adjudicated yet afterwards. Look, it's really easy. First, you have to assess who's going to ever be a nutter, or a felon. Then you don't sell them guns. I think it's simple, you go into a store to buy a gun. THEN, we assign someone to observe you for an observation period - if you never go crazy, or commit a violent crime (either convicted or not, we're talking actually commit) - then you don't get a gun. "Nutter" is defined by whatever the local sheriff considers 'abnormal' based on his standards - i.e., you vote for someone else, or he just doesn't like your attitude or looks, or any other reasonable thing - especially around election time At the end of the observation period - if you've been good - you can buy a gun - we can bury it in your coffin. AND, the observation can provide quite a bit of useful information for marketing or census type government usage and tracking. So there's a plus. It's a left wing dream. Or a right wing dream. Depending on who's reading this post. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
