Illinois is becoming like most of Europe.
-
Civilised? Well Done Illinois.
-
Citizens should only be allowed to own and possess the same weapons there government is allowed to own an posses. We live in a world were the police are issued fully automatic assault rifles and civilians are told (in some cities) they are not even allowed to own a pistol. How can so many be so blind to the past as to think this is a good thing?
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
This is exactly my stance. I read an article the other day that was about a literal interpretation of the Second Amendment which pretty much came to the same conclusion. The People should be armed to a similar level as the government's military.
The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative. -Winston Churchill America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. -Oscar Wilde Wow, even the French showed a little more spine than that before they got their sh*t pushed in.[^] -Colin Mullikin
-
No, less safe. Our non-fire arms crime is also high. Firearms are the private citizen's equalizer against violent criminals.
puromtec1 wrote:
Our non-fire arms crime is also high.
how is this an argument for doing nothing about the 65% of murders which are caused by firearms ?
-
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
Each person (according to the Constitution) is free to decide what he "needs". Cost would be more of a barrier than anything else. I'd like to have a helicopter gunship, but they're way too expensive, become even more dangerous when not maintained well, and then there's the problem of fitting it in the gun safe. Back in the 1700's, people owned their own canon. I see no reason why I should be compelled to limit someone else's "needs" based on my own viewpoints.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
I'm tempted to tell John Simmons "The sky is falling - now coming to a place near you!"
Tell me what?
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
So, for you, there would be a line 'somewhere'? It's a question I've asked myself after one of JSOP's posts regarding maintaining a militia capable of overthrowing any despotic government. With the current US armed forces being the most powerful on the planet surely the militia would need to have aircraft-carriers, nukes etc? Andy B
LabVIEWstuff wrote:
maintaining a militia capable of overthrowing any despotic government
of all the laughable excuses gun nuts use, that's my favorite. what kind of rifle am i going to need to defend myself against the F-16s the National Guard currently has parked down at our local airport ? it's self-aggrandizing idiocy.
-
Sorry don't think I'm understanding your point?
-
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.
-
puromtec1 wrote:
Our non-fire arms crime is also high.
how is this an argument for doing nothing about the 65% of murders which are caused by firearms ?
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
how is this an argument for doing nothing about the 65% of murders which are caused by firearms ?
So your claim is that this will in fact completely eliminate that 65%?
no, that is not my claim.
-
Think of the children
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
-
Have you seen that Gun in the Photo of the article you linked too. Are you seriously bemoaning the fact that a State want's to outlaw it? I will sleep better in my Bed tonight knowing that if a Burglar crept into my house he wouldn't be armed with that, as he won't have access to it. My Missus will sleep easier in my Bed knowing that I can get up and Beat the Shit out of any Intruders, without having to rely on trying to get access to a Gun Cabinet in the middle of the night. At the end of the day I guarantee you my Missus feels more safer with me to protect her in a gun-free society than yours does in a gun-prevalent society, no matter how many guns of varying type you own. (Good Point on the NYE photos though, although I haven't seen them this Year I can imagine. Link will be appreciated.)
The Reincarnation wrote:
I will sleep better in my Bed tonight knowing that if a Burglar crept into my house he wouldn't be armed with that, as he won't have access to it. My Missus will sleep easier in my Bed knowing that I can get up and Beat the sh*t out of any Intruders, without having to rely on trying to get access to a Gun Cabinet in the middle of the night.
Specious given that a burglar was creeping into your house they wouldn't have that in the first place for many reasons such as cost and even ease of use.
The Reincarnation wrote:
At the end of the day I guarantee you my Missus feels more safer with me to protect her in a gun-free society
Quite possible but specious as well in the context of this discussion because any such discussion relevant to this will NOT create a gun-free society. Would your wife feel safer knowing for a fact that the burglar WOULD have a gun and you would NOT?
-
It's not so much the legality that is the problem it's the willingness to have them. I am sure that the average American is more eager to own, and believe he has a right to own, an AR15 than your typical Italian.
The Reincarnation wrote:
It's not so much the legality that is the problem it's the willingness to have them. I am sure that the average American is more eager to own, and believe he has a right to own, an AR15 than your typical Italian.
And perhaps more willing to use them and use them to 'solve' a greater variety of problems as well.
-
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! ====================================
-
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.
-
wizardzz wrote:
The Governor in the meantime, has fought to close prisons, as there allegedly, aren't enough prisoners for them to stay open.
I haven't seen any convincing evidence that more people in prisons solves anything.
Would you like a list of crimes committed by people let out early because the Governor wanted to close prisons? This piece of shit has gone on to commit further crimes, too. His partner was even found dead, but since the murder rate is so high, it got classified as a "death" investigation. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-12-31/news/0912310242_1_attack-shattered-hall-and-hoffman[^] Also, since this debate is now all a result of grown men killing children. How exactly do grown men kill children from within jail?
-
LabVIEWstuff wrote:
maintaining a militia capable of overthrowing any despotic government
of all the laughable excuses gun nuts use, that's my favorite. what kind of rifle am i going to need to defend myself against the F-16s the National Guard currently has parked down at our local airport ? it's self-aggrandizing idiocy.
Chris Losinger wrote:
what kind of rifle am i going to need to defend myself against the F-16s the National Guard currently has parked down at our local airport ?
Specious. The point is not about you defending yourself against a specific weapon in one specific instance of time. It is about the population, ie everyone, preventing/stopping a government over time. And although a F-16 might seem like a nice weapon the pilots still need to get out of them every once in a while, the plane needs to be serviced and fueled by mechanics. There needs to be cooks and nurses and officers. And supply lines to deliver food, fuel, parts, medicine, entertainment, etc. And that means lots and lots of people. And every single one of those people can be shot using almost any normal handgun. The pilot is the sole exception and is only exempt when in the plan itself.
-
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
LabVIEWstuff wrote:
whereas against a gun you can't run, can't really hide so you are in essence an execution.
Well you just stand there, because it will give the shooter something to aim at while I run away and hide. War would be really short affairs if everyone just dropped dead when a gun was aimed in their general direction.
-