Illinois is becoming like most of Europe.
-
What part of banning a gun, will stop a criminal from possessing or using one? In a county where these guns are already illegal, a criminal was caught with a fully auto high capacity accepting gun (by my future sister in law). I'll point out a fully auto tec9 has been illegal on the federal level since the 80's.
Who said it stops them? It's a question of statistics isn't it? First gun culture isn't the norm here, so few people would be thinking of carrying a gun in the first place. Most burglaries, for example, in the UK are opportunistic, so the burglar doesn't feel the need to arm themselves against the householder they are burgling and so don't need to carry guns. Similar logic applies to most other crimes, and probably prevents a lot of heat-of-the-moment shootings too. Additionally, as we have a gun ban, anyone carrying a firearm is [almost] automatically doing something illegal, often the penalty for carrying the gun is worse than the crime the criminal is likely to carry out. This logic follows sane pattern as the above, if you are carrying a gun, your intention is that you are prepared to kill or seriously injure someone who is likely to be unarmed in the progress of your criminal activity. The really heavy criminals are always going to have access to guns, but then there probably less likely to actually shoot someone with them compared to a similarly armed petty criminal. I normally keep out of gun control debates: it's a bit like religion. Both sides think that whoever disagree with them is nuts (as I do, I really can't understand the gun culture in the US) and I've never seen anyone say "You know what- you are right" to someone who opposes them (again I've never heard one pro-gun argument that I've found at all convincing). When topics like this are discussed, it becomes pointless, the same debating positions are raised (endlessly) and people sit in their own positions without really listening (again, I'm guilty of this, and that's why I normally keep out of it).
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^] -
LabVIEWstuff wrote:
Flame-throwers - I'm guessing they'd be fine, shoot your deer and BBQ it at the same time?
Flamethrowers are completely legal to make/own in the U.S., in fact I don't think they've ever been regulated. But let's look in the other direction too, should we ban all knives? Those are also weapons. Only criminals should be allowed to eat steak!
Very good point, although like cars knives have other uses whereas guns are designed for killing prey (human or otherwise). Maybe it's just the 'fighting chance' aspect of guns that make us lily-livered liberals queasy? This may be naive but I've always thought that if get a warning and you can run fast enough or hide somewhere you at least have a small chance against a knife attacker, or car, or baseball-bat, whereas against a gun you can't run, can't really hide so you are in essence an execution. Hmm, maybe I'm coming round to the arm-everyone argument, but then surely we'd have to ban alcohol or anything else that impares judgement? Andy B
-
Who said it stops them? It's a question of statistics isn't it? First gun culture isn't the norm here, so few people would be thinking of carrying a gun in the first place. Most burglaries, for example, in the UK are opportunistic, so the burglar doesn't feel the need to arm themselves against the householder they are burgling and so don't need to carry guns. Similar logic applies to most other crimes, and probably prevents a lot of heat-of-the-moment shootings too. Additionally, as we have a gun ban, anyone carrying a firearm is [almost] automatically doing something illegal, often the penalty for carrying the gun is worse than the crime the criminal is likely to carry out. This logic follows sane pattern as the above, if you are carrying a gun, your intention is that you are prepared to kill or seriously injure someone who is likely to be unarmed in the progress of your criminal activity. The really heavy criminals are always going to have access to guns, but then there probably less likely to actually shoot someone with them compared to a similarly armed petty criminal. I normally keep out of gun control debates: it's a bit like religion. Both sides think that whoever disagree with them is nuts (as I do, I really can't understand the gun culture in the US) and I've never seen anyone say "You know what- you are right" to someone who opposes them (again I've never heard one pro-gun argument that I've found at all convincing). When topics like this are discussed, it becomes pointless, the same debating positions are raised (endlessly) and people sit in their own positions without really listening (again, I'm guilty of this, and that's why I normally keep out of it).
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]Keith Barrow wrote:
Additionally, as we have a gun ban, anyone carrying a firearm is [almost] automatically doing something illegal, often the penalty for carrying the gun is worse than the crime the criminal is likely to carry out. This logic follows sane pattern as the above, if you are carrying a gun, your intention is that you are prepared to kill or seriously injure someone who is likely to be unarmed in the progress of your criminal activity.
The sad thing is, in this state, this is already the case. Unfortunately most of these criminals will serve no time for it though. And that to me is the problem. 500+ murders in a city where guns are basically illegal, assault weapons are banned, and carrying a weapon is a felony. The Governor in the meantime, has fought to close prisons, as there allegedly, aren't enough prisoners for them to stay open.
-
OK, I understand that in a Country that has an abundance of Guns, banning them now would be a bit like 'Bolting the Stable Door'. But over here Guns are extremely rare, (in fact I have only ever known one person to have a gun and he didn't have any bullets for it). Anyway where's my NYE links?
My brother in law used to own several licenced handguns - a 9mm semi-automatic pistol and a .44 Magnum revolver (Dirty Harry type), but had to turn them in after the Dunblane massacre[^] I felt much safer afterwards, as he was an alcoholic and I wouldn't trust him with a pea-shooter after he had hit the sauce, never mind a lethal weapon.
==================================== Transvestites - Roberts in Disguise! ====================================
-
When I did the research the AR style rifles are really kind of cool from an enthusiast perspective. You can keep all of the same hardware and swap out receivers/barrels, depending on what type of shooting you want to do. Want to plink or target shoot in they yard, swap in a .22 receiver, want to hunt, swap in the .223, want to do anything in between swap a few parts. Really, a very cool piece of machinery when you think about it. Of course, considering an 8 round .22 revolver is just as capable of killing kids as an assault rifle, we will all be safer with out the rifles, Not like a revolver fits concealed in your pocket while the rifle has to be visibly carried. But I digress. Ban all guns, all income should go to the government and then be redistributed based on need, cars that go over 60mph are to fast, and trucks are a waste, what we need is global public transit. Every one deserves free health care too; waiting 4 months to see a doctor so you can be denied surgery because you don't fit the right "category" is perfectly acceptable. Oh, and, ban, soccer, that game sucks. (This line is likely the most offensive line in my post)
Need custom software developed? I do custom programming based primarily on MS tools with an emphasis on C# development and consulting. "And they, since they Were not the one dead, turned to their affairs" -- Robert Frost "All users always want Excel" --Ennis Lynch
Don't forget to use your car accident stats. Form this day forth you must be under 50 and over 25 to drive and be able to stand and pee to get a driver's licence. Big brother loves you. That is all.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Yeah, it was a mafie joke, but in some seriousness. I know many people of Jewish and Italian dissent that have been raised with a distrust of governments, especially gungrabbers. I'm not playing Godwin's Law, just saying that people of this cultural background have been raised with certain values.
-
LabVIEWstuff wrote:
Flame-throwers - I'm guessing they'd be fine, shoot your deer and BBQ it at the same time?
Flamethrowers are completely legal to make/own in the U.S., in fact I don't think they've ever been regulated. But let's look in the other direction too, should we ban all knives? Those are also weapons. Only criminals should be allowed to eat steak!
Why stop at knives? Baseball bats and hammers can kill a person too. Cars kill more people than guns, as do poisons (accidentally ingested household cleaners, usually), so let's ban cars and cleaners! One death is one death too many!
-
Why stop at knives? Baseball bats and hammers can kill a person too. Cars kill more people than guns, as do poisons (accidentally ingested household cleaners, usually), so let's ban cars and cleaners! One death is one death too many!
What you are forgetting is everything that you have mentioned has other predominate uses other than to kill people, and were designed to be, and are used in other ways than to kill people. Guns however are designed to kill people.
-
Why stop at knives? Baseball bats and hammers can kill a person too. Cars kill more people than guns, as do poisons (accidentally ingested household cleaners, usually), so let's ban cars and cleaners! One death is one death too many!
Maybe it's the speed at which they can kill that differentiates guns from the other things you mention, and possibly why some gun enthusiasts would think that putting even more powerful weapons into the hands of their fellow civilians might not be a good thing? A hammer, knife, generally you'd kill one person at a time, then have to move on to the next. With a car you could plough into a bus stop and get 3 or 4 at a time, but the car would be scrap or have to build speed back up again. This all takes time and reduces the rate at which the deaths can accumulate. A handgun, still one person at a time, but if you have a crowd then you could maybe kill someone every 2s or so??? You see where I'm going with this... As we climb the weapons ladder we increase the rate at which we can kill, which brings me back to the question - is there an acceptable rate? A helicopter gunship could wipe out a football stadium in double-quick time, should they be allowed in the hands of the public? I hasten to add that I don't think I have any answers here, I'm just interested in the thought processes that people go through when forming their opinions. Andy B
-
Yup - safer - just like Switzerlend.[^]
We don't have it this often. We have more people died in car crashs after speeding than killed by weapons. However, you can always discuss "Is it the weapon which kills people or the one who shoot the weapon is who kills people". Difficult thing... However, if you want to kill someone you can do it with a gun... or with your bare hands. Doesn't matter, the other guy is dead anyways.
-
What you are forgetting is everything that you have mentioned has other predominate uses other than to kill people, and were designed to be, and are used in other ways than to kill people. Guns however are designed to kill people.
-
Very good point, although like cars knives have other uses whereas guns are designed for killing prey (human or otherwise). Maybe it's just the 'fighting chance' aspect of guns that make us lily-livered liberals queasy? This may be naive but I've always thought that if get a warning and you can run fast enough or hide somewhere you at least have a small chance against a knife attacker, or car, or baseball-bat, whereas against a gun you can't run, can't really hide so you are in essence an execution. Hmm, maybe I'm coming round to the arm-everyone argument, but then surely we'd have to ban alcohol or anything else that impares judgement? Andy B
Would you argue for the banning of "assault knives?" Also, anyone can get a car, regardless of criminal history, anyone can also buy booze, regardless of history. Do repeat offenders continue to drink and drive and murder innocent people who don't have a fighting chance? Yes, hundreds of times a year.
-
What you are forgetting is everything that you have mentioned has other predominate uses other than to kill people, and were designed to be, and are used in other ways than to kill people. Guns however are designed to kill people.
-
Aside from being flat broke, they are also about to ban any semi automatic weapon. Rifle, shotgun, handgun, probably slingshot, that usb nerf dart launcher on your desk? Probably illegal soon. http://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news/2013/01/03/illinois-assault-weapons-ban-passes.html
I don't really want to jump into the gun control debate en masse right now. But your post has a pretty ludicrous example of a slippery slope fallacy there. Banning assault weapons does not lead automatically to banning slingshots and nerf dart launchers.
-
I'm genuinely curious as to whether there is a line the gun enthusiasts would draw as to which weapons were and were not suitable for Joe Public? Handguns - fine Single-shot rifles - fine Assault Rifles - fine Flame-throwers - I'm guessing they'd be fine, shoot your deer and BBQ it at the same time? Tanks - ? Helicopter gunships - ? Chemical weapons - ? Nukes - ? Andy B
The sooner everyone agrees there is a line, and what is under discussion is where to draw it, the sooner sanity can prevail. I'm sure the most lily-livered liberal would say that safety knives are okay, and the most red-necked right winger would agree that letting people have anthrax or napalm isn't.
-
Sorry don't think I'm understanding your point?
-
That reasoning can be applied to other things as well: steak knives were designed primarily for cutting flesh. Sounds like a dangerous weapon to me.
Yes, but it has the function of cutting up meat, which every house-hold will need. I cannot think of a situation where I would need a gun, apart from if I wanted to kill someone.
-
Yes, but it has the function of cutting up meat, which every house-hold will need. I cannot think of a situation where I would need a gun, apart from if I wanted to kill someone.
There are a lot of households that supplement their diets with meat obtained by hunting. Yes, the point is still to kill something, but that is also true of bows and arrows, mousetraps and flypaper.
-
Maybe it's the speed at which they can kill that differentiates guns from the other things you mention, and possibly why some gun enthusiasts would think that putting even more powerful weapons into the hands of their fellow civilians might not be a good thing? A hammer, knife, generally you'd kill one person at a time, then have to move on to the next. With a car you could plough into a bus stop and get 3 or 4 at a time, but the car would be scrap or have to build speed back up again. This all takes time and reduces the rate at which the deaths can accumulate. A handgun, still one person at a time, but if you have a crowd then you could maybe kill someone every 2s or so??? You see where I'm going with this... As we climb the weapons ladder we increase the rate at which we can kill, which brings me back to the question - is there an acceptable rate? A helicopter gunship could wipe out a football stadium in double-quick time, should they be allowed in the hands of the public? I hasten to add that I don't think I have any answers here, I'm just interested in the thought processes that people go through when forming their opinions. Andy B
Okay, we can look at this from a few different directions. Let's start with the ability to kill people quickly in large quantities. As was demonstrated some 12 years ago, airplanes have the ability to kill thousands of people in one go (given the right set of circumstances). Given that no one is advocating eliminating airplanes, why should we focus on ways of killing people that are orders of magnitude less efficient? If you want to scale it down a bit, I would argue that many places in the world can demonstrate the destructiveness of homemade explosives that are easy to make with a little research. No one is advocating restricting access to the necessary ingredients. So now let's try from the other side of the coin. Airplanes have other uses, as do cars and knives and hammers. Guns, on the other hand, are solely for destructive purposes, so let's ban them all. Now, that will affect hunting, which is a big thing in the U.S. States sell a lot of hunting licenses and use the seasons to control animal populations. But I suppose we can lose that revenue and pay specialists to kill the animals to control the population. Or let the populations grow unchecked. Of course, this only solves the issue of people who follow the law. Most of the gun violence in America is actually committed with illegal guns. Maybe making those guns more illegal will make people think twice. It also doesn't address the guns that our government gives to the drug cartels on the border, but since that's technically in Mexico I suppose there's no way that could come back to bite us. Maybe the issue is that it's better for the media to sensationalize things, and it's easier to sensationalize bigger things. So even though there are more handgun deaths than assault rifle deaths, we focus on assault rifles. And even though there are more deaths by bee stings, we choose to focus on shark attacks. Cars and alcohol are responsible for lots of deaths, but they don't drive viewer like the fear of violent crime.