New Zealand responds to mass shooting

[cjwilt 8]

10 minutes ago, Stumpy said:

Except for the fact that Chicago is about 10th on the list. Given that most of the ones higher have more lax laws, by your logic the controls are working.

And by your logic, Chicago should ease up on their strict gun laws.

[billvon 2,400]

8 minutes ago, cjwilt said:

Who said make it easy?

Drive to Indiana; takes 45 minutes.  Find a guy (not a firearms dealer, just a collector) selling a gun.  Gun shows are a good place for this.  Pay him cash for it.  Drive back.  

That's about as easy as it gets.

Quote

How are more laws going to change that?

Closing that loophole will make it harder for criminals to get guns.  

Criminals are, in general, stupid and lazy.  That's why they are criminals and not lawyers, insurance salesmen or hedge fund managers.  Make something harder and the stupid, lazy criminals will tend to do it less.

[cjwilt 8]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Drive to Indiana; takes 45 minutes.  Find a guy (not a firearms dealer, just a collector) selling a gun.  Gun shows are a good place for this.  Pay him cash for it.  Drive back.  

That's about as easy as it gets.

 

Do you know how often this scenario plays out? I haven’t seen any data on it myself.

 

I personally would like to see mandatory life sentences for these perps. There would be no repeat offenders and it should serve as a deterrent.

[Coreece 190]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Drive to Indiana; takes 45 minutes.  Find a guy (not a firearms dealer, just a collector) selling a gun.  Gun shows are a good place for this.  Pay him cash for it.  Drive back.  

That's about as easy as it gets. 

There was a recent study by the Urban Institute showing that 50% of young men surveyed between the ages 18-26 carried guns illegally for protection in high crime neighborhoods in Chicago's south and west sides. 

The majority of those who took the survey — 69 percent — said it would only take hours to acquire a firearm. When asked how young people manage to get guns, huge majorities said common ways were through street dealers, buying or borrowing from a friend or family member, or stealing. Twenty-five percent said people were likely to acquire a gun by finding one on the street, in the garbage, or in a railroad train, while only 8 percent said they were likely to buy a weapon from a gun store or at a gun show.

 

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Quote

How are more laws going to change that?

Closing that loophole will make it harder for criminals to get guns.  

Criminals are, in general, stupid and lazy.  That's why they are criminals and not lawyers, insurance salesmen or hedge fund managers.  Make something harder and the stupid, lazy criminals will tend to do it less.

 I read awhile back how Chicago made it much more difficult for blacks to be approved for a CC permit than whites, so they just carried illegally.   I don't consider the young men from the study to be necessarily stupid for carrying illegally.  There just tends to be a lack of opportunity in these areas along with the perception that they need it for protection.  And who can they really trust to tell them otherwise?  You? Me?  The police that won't protect them?  A city that apparently doesn't give a shit about them?  Democrats that suck up their votes and give very little in return?

One of those "stupid lazy criminals" was a college bound black kid that was visiting his parents in Chicago before he left for college.  Unfortunately tho, he too felt the need for protection and was busted for illegal carry - and that was it for him, the viscous prison cycle continues.

It's time we start treating the disease, rather than just the symptoms. . .

 

https://www.thetrace.org/2018/10/chicago-youth-gun-carry-habits-protection/

https://www.urban.org/research/publication/we-carry-guns-stay-safe

Edited March 20, 2019 by Coreece
Edited to provide links.

[Coreece 190]

38 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Criminals are, in general, stupid and lazy.  That's why they are criminals and not lawyers, insurance salesmen or hedge fund managers. 

Sorry, I missed that .

LMAO, Good one!

[billvon 2,400]

40 minutes ago, Coreece said:

One of those "stupid lazy criminals" was a college bound black kid that was visiting his parents in Chicago before he left for college.  Unfortunately tho, he too felt the need for protection and was busted for illegal carry

He doesn't sound like a stupid, lazy criminal - just a guy who made a mistake.  I guess we have different definitions of what a stupid, lazy criminal is.

Quote

It's time we start treating the disease, rather than just the symptoms. . .

I'd say we treat both.  Doctors have been managing to do that for centuries.

Quote

while only 8 percent said they were likely to buy a weapon from a gun store or at a gun show.

If a new treatment saved "only" 8% more pancreatic cancer patients - it would be seen as a pretty good thing.   Do that year after year, and pretty soon you have a dramatic reduction in deaths.  Even if they come 8% (or even 4%) at a time.

 

 

[Coreece 190]

1 minute ago, billvon said:

I'd say we treat both.  Doctors have been managing to do that for centuries.

I agree, even though we may disagree on the treatment.  There are some restrictions that I think will help immediately, others not so much - and I often find myself questioning the motives of seemingly very smart people recommending ineffective treatment plans that only make the symptoms worse. . .

 

 

 

[cjwilt 8]

17 minutes ago, Coreece said:

 I often find myself questioning the motives of seemingly very smart people recommending ineffective treatment plans that only make the symptoms worse. . .

 

 

 

Here’s a big part of the problem. Throw whatever you can at the wall and see what sticks. Common sense is not that common any more. Too many people walk around in their bubble of what’s been programmed into their head without any ability to think analytically through problems. Unfortunately this is what is common these days.

 

BTW – Thanks for the links above.

[yoink 321]

6 hours ago, cjwilt said:

This must be a biased study paid for and produced by some anti firearm organization. Please do share.

Do you not see the problem here?

You’ve already made a determination about the validity of the data before seeing it or even knowing its source. Because it doesn’t fit with your viewpoint it MUST be anti firearm propoganda. QED.

 

This type of thinking on any subject limits your ability to rationally consider any viewpoint but your own and shows you have at best limited interest in having a discussion about it.

[kallend 1,625]

8 hours ago, cjwilt said:

 

Edited March 21, 2019 by kallend
Duplicated

[kallend 1,625]

8 hours ago, cjwilt said:

Where do you get this information? Simply owning a firearm increases your risk of being killed in an act of violence? This must be a biased study paid for and produced by some anti firearm organization. Please do share.

 

The fact is in the US where there are the highest amounts of legal firearm ownership, there’s the lowest amount of gun violence. The cities that have the strictest gun control legislation also have the highest amount of gun violence. Chicago is a perfect example.

FALSE in just about every respect. 

[kallend 1,625]

7 hours ago, cjwilt said:

And by your logic, Chicago should ease up on their strict gun laws.

You really are out of date by about 6 years.

[kallend 1,625]

4 hours ago, cjwilt said:

 Throw whatever you can at the wall and see what sticks. Common sense is not that common any more. Too many people walk around in their bubble of what’s been programmed into their head without any ability to think analytically through problems

Irony score 10/10

[kallend 1,625]

7 hours ago, billvon said:

 

Criminals are, in general, stupid and lazy.  That's why they are criminals and not lawyers, insurance salesmen or hedge fund managers. 

But they'd be welcome as Trump's campaign staff, lawyer, or even the guy who brings the coffee.

[kallend 1,625]

7 hours ago, Stumpy said:

Except for the fact that Chicago is about 10th on the list. Given that most of the ones higher have more lax laws, by your logic the controls are working.

[BillyVance 34]

17 hours ago, gowlerk said:

You are confusing correlation with causation. Likely deliberately. Chicago does not have high rates of gun violence because it has strong gun laws. It has strong gun laws because it has high rates of gun violence.

I don't see how those strong gun laws are helping. Bad people are still going to get them one way or another.

[cjwilt 8]

9 hours ago, kallend said:

You really are out of date by about 6 years.

From 1982 till 2010 there was a handgun ban put into place. During that time there were around 18,000 homicides. From 2011 to 2019 just over 4000.

 

So tell me, how did that ban work out?

 

 

[cjwilt 8]

9 hours ago, kallend said:

FALSE in just about every respect. 

Care to elaborate?

 

You believe that simply owning a firearm increases you risk in being killed in an act of violence?

[cjwilt 8]

11 hours ago, yoink said:

Do you not see the problem here?

 

I do see the problem which is why I asked.

 

Where do people get this information that owning a firearm increases your risk of being killed in a violent attack? I would like to know.

[ryoder 1,384]

34 minutes ago, cjwilt said:

I do see the problem which is why I asked.

 

Where do people get this information that owning a firearm increases your risk of being killed in a violent attack? I would like to know.

Did you try to google it?

I did and found this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/

[Coreece 190]

7 hours ago, kallend said:



The title of that chart should be called  "America's Most Dangerous Cities For White People," because for the blacks that live in the neighborhoods where most of the crime is taking place, it's pretty much all the same shit - and if they've lost a loved one in these areas, that stat really doesn't mean anything to them.

Most of the homicides in Chicago occur where about 200,000 blacks are crammed into 15 square miles on the west side and about 600,000 blacks are crammed into 45 square miles on the south side.

Contrast that with Detroit where 500,000 blacks are evenly spread throughout 142 square miles.

In Chicago it's like shooting fish in a barrel, but at least in Detroit you have some room to duck and cover.

I thinks it's important that we don't just look at this from a national level, or a state level, or a county level, or even at a city level.  We have to look at the individual neighborhoods to recognize the problem, because in Chicago you have 800,000 "rich" white people living on one side with a homicide rate of 0-5, and then a couple miles away on the other side of the freeway, you have 800,000 poor black people living in neighborhoods like Englewood and West Garfield Park with homicide rates of 58 and 64 respectively.

It's just sad to see how segregated we still are after almost 70 years.   It's like "ya, ok, great, we can eat together, work together, go to school together, go to the bathroom together, share the same water fountain, but at the end of the day, just go back to your fish barrel and stay there for the next 100 years. . .oh and btw, don't get shot."

 

Mapping Segregation -  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/08/us/census-race-map.html

[kallend 1,625]

19 minutes ago, Coreece said:

The title of that chart should be called  "America's Most Dangerous Cities For White People,"

Are you having the reading comprehension problem again?  The data source is clearly indicated.

[cjwilt 8]

32 minutes ago, ryoder said:

Did you try to google it?

I did and found this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/

No I didn't. Skydekker said owning a gun increases your risk of being killed in a violent attack. The article you referenced discusses a study regarding people carrying guns, not owning. There's a big difference between the two.

 

From your article.

 

Quote

This led a recent National Research Council committee to conclude that, although the observed associations in these case–control studies may be of interest, they do little to reveal the impact of guns on homicide or the utility of guns for self-defense.

 

[kallend 1,625]

1 hour ago, cjwilt said:

I do see the problem which is why I asked.

 

Where do people get this information that owning a firearm increases your risk of being killed in a violent attack? I would like to know.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/18000520/gun-risk-death

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed/

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/guns-in-the-homesafe-storage-statistics/

https://injury.research.chop.edu/violence-prevention-initiative/types-violence-involving-youth/gun-violence/gun-violence-facts-and

https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/160/10/929/140858

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

 

[Coreece 190]

2 minutes ago, kallend said:

23 minutes ago, Coreece said:

The title of that chart should be called  "America's Most Dangerous Cities For White People,"

Are you having the reading comprehension problem again?  The data source is clearly indicated.

I'm trying to explain to you the reality of the situation, but you keep ignoring it and resort to ad hom just like the last time we had a "discussion" on the topic.

It's not my problem that some people have a hard time digesting fine details that actually mean something.