kallend 1,623 #26 January 2, 2013 QuoteWhat does that translate to in English? Google is your friend: www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/01/what-newt-and-mitt-mean-when-they-say-aint-bean-bag/47184/... 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
rushmc 18 #27 January 2, 2013 They don't if you can simply drive 15 miles to get around them. Non-uniform laws are a big part of the problem. And the law abiding do that? I guess we all learned something new today huh"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #28 January 2, 2013 Ah, old farts trying to be hip.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #29 January 2, 2013 QuoteAh, old farts trying to be hip. And missing by a hundred years?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #30 January 2, 2013 Handgun possession is banned, John. Thus, whether they get them outside of city limits is no less illegal. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Arvoitus 1 #31 January 2, 2013 For fucks sake people, you don't need to speculate when the Chicago police provides you with statistics: Chicago Murder Analysi 2011 Indoor : 76 Outdoor : 357 (225 on street) Stabbed : 31 Shot : 362 (351 by handgun) Street gangs(proven): 118 Drugs : 29 (26+3) Victims age, 17->25 years : 196 26->30 years: 114 Victims, White : 20 Black : 326 Hispanic : 82 Murder victims with a prior arrest history : 76,9% Murders committed by the age group 17->35 : 78,6 % Murders committed by blacks & hispanics : 94,8% Murders committed by people with prior arrest history : 87,3% Call me racist for all I care but its blatantly obvious that the majority of the murders are committed by young black/hispanic gangbangers with most likely illegal handguns, killing each other.Your rights end where my feelings begin. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #32 January 2, 2013 The answer is quite simple: in Chicago there are more people who just plain need killin'. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #33 January 2, 2013 QuoteHandgun possession is banned, John. Thus, whether they get them outside of city limits is no less illegal. Nice way to miss the point.... 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
Skyrad 0 #34 January 3, 2013 Quote The answer is quite simple: in Chicago there are more people who just plain need killin'. When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #35 January 3, 2013 QuoteQuoteHandgun possession is banned, John. Thus, whether they get them outside of city limits is no less illegal. Nice way to miss the point. And the way to make mine. Trying to keep them out is ultimately futile. Being in Chicago you are aware of the history of banning alcohol. Chicago was the center of the booze trade during prohibition because of Canadian whiskey. A solution to the gun problem would also require a solution to the black market issue. They've been trying to solve the black market issue since Hammurabi fixed prices and wages. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #36 January 3, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteHandgun possession is banned, John. Thus, whether they get them outside of city limits is no less illegal. Nice way to miss the point. And the way to make mine. Trying to keep them out is ultimately futile. Being in Chicago you are aware of the history of banning alcohol. Chicago was the center of the booze trade during prohibition because of Canadian whiskey. A solution to the gun problem would also require a solution to the black market issue. They've been trying to solve the black market issue since Hammurabi fixed prices and wages. It's a lot harder to smuggle something into a country than across a city boundary. Not impossible, but some chance of being caught instead of zero chance of being caught.... 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
wolfriverjoe 1,340 #37 January 3, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHandgun possession is banned, John. Thus, whether they get them outside of city limits is no less illegal. Nice way to miss the point. And the way to make mine. Trying to keep them out is ultimately futile. Being in Chicago you are aware of the history of banning alcohol. Chicago was the center of the booze trade during prohibition because of Canadian whiskey. A solution to the gun problem would also require a solution to the black market issue. They've been trying to solve the black market issue since Hammurabi fixed prices and wages. It's a lot harder to smuggle something into a country than across a city boundary. Not impossible, but some chance of being caught instead of zero chance of being caught. Somehow, I think it's easier to get heroin, cocaine or methamphetamines in Chicago than it is to get guns (I know a lot of meth is "home grown", but more and more is coming from Mexico). And it isn't "trivially easy" to go to a suburb to buy a gun, Professor. Illinois has a Firearms Owner ID card (FOID). Issued by the state. Without it, no FFL gun store is going to sell a gun."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #38 January 4, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHandgun possession is banned, John. Thus, whether they get them outside of city limits is no less illegal. Nice way to miss the point. And the way to make mine. Trying to keep them out is ultimately futile. Being in Chicago you are aware of the history of banning alcohol. Chicago was the center of the booze trade during prohibition because of Canadian whiskey. A solution to the gun problem would also require a solution to the black market issue. They've been trying to solve the black market issue since Hammurabi fixed prices and wages. It's a lot harder to smuggle something into a country than across a city boundary. Not impossible, but some chance of being caught instead of zero chance of being caught. Somehow, I think it's easier to get heroin, cocaine or methamphetamines in Chicago than it is to get guns (I know a lot of meth is "home grown", but more and more is coming from Mexico). We have home grown guns too - Armalite is an Illinois company.... 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
jgoose71 0 #39 January 4, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHandgun possession is banned, John. Thus, whether they get them outside of city limits is no less illegal. Nice way to miss the point. And the way to make mine. Trying to keep them out is ultimately futile. Being in Chicago you are aware of the history of banning alcohol. Chicago was the center of the booze trade during prohibition because of Canadian whiskey. A solution to the gun problem would also require a solution to the black market issue. They've been trying to solve the black market issue since Hammurabi fixed prices and wages. It's a lot harder to smuggle something into a country than across a city boundary. Not impossible, but some chance of being caught instead of zero chance of being caught. Country wide ban, got it. What do you propose the the 270,000,000 guns that are already owned in the country when you enact your ban?"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #40 January 4, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHandgun possession is banned, John. Thus, whether they get them outside of city limits is no less illegal. Nice way to miss the point. And the way to make mine. Trying to keep them out is ultimately futile. Being in Chicago you are aware of the history of banning alcohol. Chicago was the center of the booze trade during prohibition because of Canadian whiskey. A solution to the gun problem would also require a solution to the black market issue. They've been trying to solve the black market issue since Hammurabi fixed prices and wages. It's a lot harder to smuggle something into a country than across a city boundary. Not impossible, but some chance of being caught instead of zero chance of being caught. Country wide ban, got it. What do you propose the the 270,000,000 guns that are already owned in the country when you enact your ban? Who wrote anything about having a ban? Not me. I'm simply pointing out that local bans cannot possibly work. Hence trying to discredit them because they haven't worked is just stupid.... 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
Bignugget 0 #41 January 5, 2013 As already mentioned, the fact that guns are banned in a micro area means little. If guns were simply banned in London, and not the rest of the UK, I would argue the numbers would be much closer. The MACRO availability is the problem. People cherry picking micro areas with gun bans in the USA is certainly not a constructive argument. If the TOTAL number of guns available was GREATLY reduced. The amount of murders would also decrease. Rocket Science I know, but I am a smart guy what can I say. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #42 January 5, 2013 Quote If the TOTAL number of guns available was GREATLY reduced. The amount of murders would also decrease. Rocket Science I know, but I am a smart guy what can I say. good at math? How many guns are there in pure existence? How many guns have been used in murders? is the percentage significant enough to be treated proportionately? if you "GREATLY reduce" the total out there, what do you think the odds are that you'd get that giant number of guns from bad guys - or would you just take a ton of guns from just law abiding people? I suspect if you find a town with 1000 guns and 2 people that used 2 guns and committed 2 murders - go back in Billvon's time machine and GREATLY reduce the guns in town - like over half. You'll end up in a town with 500 guns and 2 people that used 2 guns and committed 2 murders. now, find a town with 2 bad guys and go back in time and GREATLY reduce the number of bad guys - say by half. Now you did something cool. and you have a town with 999 guns, 1 bad guy, and only 1 murder. you have to find the bad guys, not the inanimate objects - work on that and we'll have a real solution smart guys work on root cause - not symptoms or 2ndary inputs ... 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
rushmc 18 #43 January 5, 2013 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/04/chicago-has-tough-gun-laws-but-leads-nation-in-gun-violence/ You cant change facts John"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bignugget 0 #44 January 5, 2013 QuoteQuote If the TOTAL number of guns available was GREATLY reduced. The amount of murders would also decrease. Rocket Science I know, but I am a smart guy what can I say. good at math? How many guns are there in pure existence? How many guns have been used in murders? is the percentage significant enough to be treated proportionately? if you "GREATLY reduce" the total out there, what do you think the odds are that you'd get that giant number of guns from bad guys - or would you just take a ton of guns from just law abiding people? I suspect if you find a town with 1000 guns and 2 people that used 2 guns and committed 2 murders - go back in Billvon's time machine and GREATLY reduce the guns in town - like over half. You'll end up in a town with 500 guns and 2 people that used 2 guns and committed 2 murders. now, find a town with 2 bad guys and go back in time and GREATLY reduce the number of bad guys - say by half. Now you did something cool. and you have a town with 999 guns, 1 bad guy, and only 1 murder. you have to find the bad guys, not the inanimate objects - work on that and we'll have a real solution smart guys work on root cause - not symptoms or 2ndary inputs It might not be a linear relationship.....but I don't understand how if we went from 270 million guns, to 27 million guns, you think there would be greater availability of guns to criminals......and more gun violence? It's not a question of whether or not criminals with illegal weapons would turn them in or not. It's about taking a conscious step towards REDUCING the overall number of guns in the country by a LARGE percentage in order to better align with countries with low homicide rates and similar social and economic settings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Creep0321 0 #45 January 5, 2013 Quote It might not be a linear relationship.....but I don't understand how if we went from 270 million guns, to 27 million guns, you think there would be greater availability of guns to criminals......and more gun violence? It's not a question of whether or not criminals with illegal weapons would turn them in or not. It's about taking a conscious step towards REDUCING the overall number of guns in the country by a LARGE percentage in order to better align with countries with low homicide rates and similar social and economic settings. So by reducing the number of guns, through bans, confiscation, or voluntary turn in, you will take away guns from law abiding citizens. Meanwhile even if you do manage to reduce the number of guns in criminals hands they now have even more of an unarmed populace to terrorize and victimize. What is known as a soft target.Jack of all trades. Military Free Fall Jumpmaster. USA Static-line Jumpmaster. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #46 January 5, 2013 So if local bans don't work then why would a national ban? It wouldn't because criminals will always traffic them into a country and the only people who wouldn't have them would be the law abiding.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #47 January 5, 2013 QuoteAs already mentioned, the fact that guns are banned in a micro area means little. If guns were simply banned in London, and not the rest of the UK, I would argue the numbers would be much closer. There are plenty of legal and illegal firearms in London. http://www.channel4.com/news/london-gun-crime-figures-worryingly-highWhen an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bignugget 0 #48 January 5, 2013 Banned was the wrong word to use. Guns are more strongly controlled in the UK than in the USA. Plenty is also relative. There are far more (per capita) guns in the USA than in the UK. I simply suggest that if we had a per capita gun rate closer to that of the UK, we would see a homicide rate closer to that of the UK. Of course criminals in both countries will still manage to do criminal things (including finding illegal firearms to use in illegal things).....as evidenced by your posts, London still has crime...... So again your question...phrased in a macro context. How does the UK manage to have a much lower homicide rate than the USA? My answer, they start with a much lower gun rate. ETA: The USA has 88.8 guns per capita and 4.8 homicides per capita The UK has 15.4 guns per capita and 1.2 homicides per capita. Thats all from gunpolicy.org and the UNODC stats. So, again im not a math wiz, but I think that says: The UK has ~17% as many guns per capita as the USA does, and has 25% as many homicides. What am I missing?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #49 January 6, 2013 QuoteWhat am I missing?? Probably a realistic understanding of correlation, causation and random data. ... 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
Gravitymaster 0 #50 January 6, 2013 QuoteWhat am I missing?? Americans are better shots. We don't miss as much as Brits. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
