[MrPrena]

Originally Posted by UncleWede

I was in a giving mood and gave my nephew-in-law half my stash that night. But I kept the 00 all to myself.

G-forum members are in the buying mood right now.

[imserious]

12 pipe bombs at home including ones that can be detonated remotely.

[UncleWede]

Originally Posted by imserious

12 pipe bombs at home including ones that can be detonated remotely.

Apparently, not very well. Thank God!

[mgcyr]

So....can nothing be done to reduce these mass shootings? Is it just to the point where this type of violence is to be accepted as routine?

[UncleWede]

Oh, there are LOTS of things that can be done.

Mental Health
Teaching our youth that they have to EARN what they want, noting in life is free
Return to Majority rule, end the PC BS
No more trophies for anything less than 2nd place

[Delta0311]

Originally Posted by UncleWede

Oh, there are LOTS of things that can be done.

Mental Health
Teaching our youth that they have to EARN what they want, noting in life is free
Return to Majority rule, end the PC BS
No more trophies for anything less than 2nd place

No more fucking safe space bs. These little pussy college kids need to realize that life is rough and in the real world there is no pause button or time out.

[C5driver]

Before we forget. RIP

• Robert Adams, 40

• Isaac Amanios, 60

• Bennetta Bet-Badal, 46

• Harry Bowman, 46

• Sierra Clayborn, 27

• Juan Espinoza, 50

• Aurora Godoy, 26

• Shannon Johnson, 45

• Larry Kaufman, 42

• Damian Meins, 58

• Tin Nguyen, 31

• Nicholas Thalasinos, 52

• Michael Wetzel, 37

• Yvette Velasco, 27

[imserious]

It's sad and maddening at the same time.

RIP

[kevinbahnz]

Originally Posted by UncleWede

The shooters fired 78 rounds, and seemed to only hit the neighbor's house.

LEO fired 380 rounds, and only 2 went down, a third still raced off out of the SUV???? I guess that explains why so many were close by at SWAT training. . .

you smell conspiracy?

[UncleWede]

Originally Posted by kevinbahnz

you smell conspiracy?

No. They knew they needed to shoot straighter

[Alfisti]

Originally Posted by UncleWede

Oh, there are LOTS of things that can be done.

Mental Health

Seriously?? With what money exactly? You're taxation system is a joke.

[Alfisti]

Originally Posted by UncleWede

Oh, there are LOTS of things that can be done.

Return to Majority rule, end the PC BS

Right,and how often are the majority idiots? If it were majority rule we still wouldn't have seatbelt laws ffs.

[myzmak]

Originally Posted by C5driver

Last comment (I hope)...

I believe all handguns and rifles have a purpose, including homicide...it's only a matter of perspective and we clearly view them from diametrically opposing viewpoints.

Keep this up and I'll have to reconsider my vote for you as Douchebag City's legal counsel. I'm not kidding about this. The internet is serious business.

Too late. i already have an injunction appointing me douchebag city's legal counsel for life.

I could have done th e democratic thing but I figured just manipulating the legal system was the appropriately douchebag thing to do so.....worked out.

[mgcyr]

What's the logic here:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015...ence-research/" rel="ugc" target="_blank">http://<a href="http://thinkprogress...-research/</a>

EDIT: to clarify, why would the government ban research on the subject?

[UncleWede]

Originally Posted by Alfisti

Seriously?? With what money exactly? You're taxation system is a joke.

Hence the saying "Same shit, different day"

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by myzmak

Sorry, that isn't accurate. Your suicide by gun rate is about 4-5 times higher than Canada's. Your 'accidental' death by gun rate is also about 4 times that of Canada's (or other developed countries')

Look, this isn't really a controversial fact. More guns will mean more people killed by guns. More cars will mean more people killed by cars. More anvils falling out of the sky will mean more people killed by anvils falling out of the sky.

To be fair, I was pretty clear when i said homicide and violent crime rate, i said nothing about people who wish to take their own lives or who haven't been educated on gun safety.

The concept is sound, but if we're talking about sheer number of guns and deaths because of the high quantity, it is somewhat controversial in terms of homicide per gun. By your logic, the country with the most guns wins that race. But the US only has .000035 homicides per gun while Canada has .000025 homicides per gun. Compared to all other countries, the US is tied with Belgium and Scotland and just slightly above Japan and Australia coming in at .000033 and .000029 respectively. I personally think that's remarkable considering the VERY low firearm ownership in those countries. Especially when you consider Japan and Australia aren't bordered by any country, especially one littered with murderous drug cartels.

Originally Posted by myzmak

Yes. Yes they are. (trick question? )

As you should, which was my only point. Own that you have made the decision, own the consequences and stop expressing surprise when the inevitable and natural consequences of those decisions come to pass.

If I drink more I have to accept the consequence of being drunk more. If you have more guns you have to accept the consequence of more people dying by guns.

Too much wrong here to really respond....(did you really mean to say that "If the quantity of guns is the problem, everyone is the US would be dead"?) Either way, you've told me you own and accept the consequences of your decision and that was my point. Some other day we can discuss your theory of criminal justice and whether your sky high incarceration rates affect your crime rate.

I'm assuming you're aware that the vast majority of gun related crime and homicide comes from large, poor, inner cities where the strictest gun laws already exist, no? In these areas of the country where gun violence is highest, you'll also find the highest rates of drug trafficking, human trafficking and gang activity. So yes, like your drunk analogy, if you sell/buy drugs, buy/sell/rent people, are involved in gang activity or forced to live in these areas, your odds of being killed by a gun are higher than any other developed country. But if you don't, associate with or participate with those people or those activities, your odds of being killed by a gun in the US is VERY small. Despite the 350,000,000 guns owned by law abiding citizens.

But lets be honest here, foreigners who looks down their nose at the United State's gun violence problem don't give a shit about the people who are responsible for the lion's share of the gun homicide stats in the US.

Originally Posted by myzmak

We were talking about the effects of laws in developed countries and you made a comparison to Mexico. It was your comparison. I question whether I would want to compare myself to Mexico but you were ok with it so I was just following that.

One might argue it can also limit options (for instance, even people with evil in their hearts don't have access to certain weapons so we do some of this already....the question is how much liberty is restricted in the name of security - its a constantly moving and flowing target)

If we can't keep people and drugs from crossing our southern boarder, what would stop guns from coming over in those shipments should a black market be created by an all out firearm ban? You can't compare the US with Australia, UK, or even Canada in terms of successful legislation. You can't compare them in terms of population, population density, or cultural diversity. To say we can curb gun violence in the US by enacting legislation similar to the UK or Australia is like saying we can stop crack, heroin, and meth drug use by making those drugs illegal to own, use or distribute.

Originally Posted by myzmak

Agreed. This debate has happened a million times and will happen a million times more. I always respect and appreciate other opinions (even when wrong ) and appreciate yours.

[PURE135i]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

To be fair, I was pretty clear when i said homicide and violent crime rate, i said nothing about people who wish to take their own lives or who haven't been educated on gun safety.

The concept is sound, but if we're talking about sheer number of guns and deaths because of the high quantity, it is somewhat controversial in terms of homicide per gun. By your logic, the country with the most guns wins that race. But the US only has .000035 homicides per gun while Canada has .000025 homicides per gun. Compared to all other countries, the US is tied with Belgium and Scotland and just slightly above Japan and Australia coming in at .000033 and .000029 respectively. I personally think that's remarkable considering the VERY low firearm ownership in those countries. Especially when you consider Japan and Australia aren't bordered by any country, especially one littered with murderous drug cartels.



I'm assuming you're aware that the vast majority of gun related crime and homicide comes from large, poor, inner cities where the strictest gun laws already exist, no? In these areas of the country where gun violence is highest, you'll also find the highest rates of drug trafficking, human trafficking and gang activity. So yes, like your drunk analogy, if you sell/buy drugs, buy/sell/rent people, are involved in gang activity or forced to live in these areas, your odds of being killed by a gun are higher than any other developed country. But if you don't, associate with or participate with those people or those activities, your odds of being killed by a gun in the US is VERY small. Despite the 350,000,000 guns owned by law abiding citizens.

But lets be honest here, foreigners who looks down their nose at the United State's gun violence problem don't give a shit about the people who are responsible for the lion's share of the gun homicide stats in the US.


If we can't keep people and drugs from crossing our southern boarder, what would stop guns from coming over in those shipments should a black market be created by an all out firearm ban? You can't compare the US with Australia, UK, or even Canada in terms of successful legislation. You can't compare them in terms of population, population density, or cultural diversity. To say we can curb gun violence in the US by enacting legislation similar to the UK or Australia is like saying we can stop crack, heroin, and meth drug use by making those drugs illegal own, use or distribute.

[myzmak]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

To be fair, I was pretty clear when i said homicide and violent crime rate, i said nothing about people who wish to take their own lives or who haven't been educated on gun safety.

Fair, my misunderstanding.

But then your post was this:

If you remove all the shootings that are drug and gang related in this county, the US is on par with all other developed countries in terms of homicides. IF you removed all the drug and gang related shootings and violent crimes, the US would have a lower violent crime rate than many other developed countries.

Effectively, you are saying of you remove all the drugs and gang related shootings things are different. But those kinds of killings are also responsible for most of the gun deaths elsewhere too, which makes for a skewered comparison.

The concept is sound, but if we're talking about sheer number of guns and deaths because of the high quantity, it is somewhat controversial in terms of homicide per gun. By your logic, the country with the most guns wins that race. But the US only has .000035 homicides per gun while Canada has .000025 homicides per gun. Compared to all other countries, the US is tied with Belgium and Scotland and just slightly above Japan and Australia coming in at .000033 and .000029 respectively. I personally think that's remarkable considering the VERY low firearm ownership in those countries. Especially when you consider Japan and Australia aren't bordered by any country, especially one littered with murderous drug cartels.

An interesting argument, but of course the reason we look at guns per capita instead of deaths per guns is to account for people who own more than one gun (which is most US gun owners). We also use gun deaths per capita because, well, the metric that matters most from a public policy point of view is the overall number of deaths.

I'm assuming you're aware that the vast majority of gun related crime and homicide comes from large, poor, inner cities where the strictest gun laws already exist, no? In these areas of the country where gun violence is highest, you'll also find the highest rates of drug trafficking, human trafficking and gang activity. So yes, like your drunk analogy, if you sell/buy drugs, buy/sell/rent people, are involved in gang activity or forced to live in these areas, your odds of being killed by a gun are higher than any other developed country. But if you don't, associate with or participate with those people or those activities, your odds of being killed by a gun in the US is VERY small. Despite the 350,000,000 guns owned by law abiding citizens.

Overall odds are small, but compared to being a citizen outside of a high crime area in any other developed country still much much higher.

I've also always thought this argument of 'well, some cities have gun control and still lots of gun deaths' (the 'Chicago argument') to be fairly unpersuasive. Pretending one can have gun control on a municipality by municipality basis is a fiction

Gun control relies on two things: not allowing some guns and putting controls on others. All a city can do is (somewhat toothlessly, as they have no criminal jurisdiction) try to do the second part. But they are toothless as all they can really do is impose light, meaningless sanctions for breaching as they lack the full power of criminal jurisdiction. A city can't do the former as it lacks a border that it can patrol. I can declare my house a Justin Bieber free zone but, God forbid, if my daughter runs with the wrong crowd I can't actually stop him from coming in and defiling my sound waves.

Gun control has to be over an area one can control.

And, sure, you will have smuggling but you will still limit supply and that will have an effect. Australia and Canada have significant limits on handguns and they still have them - it's just that a gun that costs me $300 'illegally' in USA costs $2,000 in Canada and $10,000 in Australia.

Some gang bangers till get them but fewer of them and there are, as a result, fewer gun deaths.

But lets be honest here, foreigners who looks down their nose at the United State's gun violence problem don't give a shit about the people who are responsible for the lion's share of the gun homicide stats in the US.

Well, that takes us into the discussion of the US criminal justice system....it may or may lot surprise yountonlearn most foreigners who tsk tsk your approach to guns do the same on your relationship with the racial group that overpopulated your jails....but that is a whole other discussion.

If we can't keep people and drugs from crossing our southern boarder, what would stop guns from coming over in those shipments should a black market be created by an all out firearm ban? You can't compare the US with Australia, UK, or even Canada in terms of successful legislation. You can't compare them in terms of population, population density, or cultural diversity. To say we can curb gun violence in the US by enacting legislation similar to the UK or Australia is like saying we can stop crack, heroin, and meth drug use by making those drugs illegal to own, use or distribute.

You keep coming back to this fallacy that, if we can't stop it completely, no use doing anything.

We all have drugs, we all have smuggling, we all have gun deaths. The rest of us, though, have many many many fewer gun deaths. Because we have genuine gun control.

If you were to enact real gun control would you still have gun deaths? Yes. Would you have fewer? Also yes. My point remains: by not acting you are accepting those deaths as ok.

You already accept lots of limits on your right to carry arms. You can't carry a rocket launcher, a bazooka, an RPG, a shoulder held SAM, etc. To prevent more days like Wednesday, you need to enact controls on small arms. Obviously not my call if you do or don't BUT, to me anyway, the consequences of not are completely expected, depressing as those are.

[fravel]

Originally Posted by mgcyr

What's the logic here:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015...ence-research/" rel="" target="_blank">http://<a href="http://thinkprogress...-research/</a>

EDIT: to clarify, why would the government ban research on the subject?

They haven't. The restriction is on appropriating funds to be used for studies that are conducted with an intended goal of developing data in support of gun control.

The research has to be for research's sake, not just a means to justify further gun control.

Originally Posted by myzmak

You keep coming back to this fallacy that, if we can't stop it completely, no use doing anything.

You're only seeing a portion of the argument, which I can understand since you aren't a U.S. citizen, let me fill in the gaps for you.

"If we can't make a measurable difference without significantly infringing upon the 2nd Amendment, then there is no use doing anything."

Show me a plan that doesn't sacrifice my rights for some psuedo-security and accomplishes more than just warm/fuzzy feelings and I think you'll find that many of the pro-gun group will jump on board right next to you. Currently it doesn't exist.

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by myzmak

And, sure, you will have smuggling but you will still limit supply and that will have an effect. Australia and Canada have significant limits on handguns and they still have them - it's just that a gun that costs me $300 'illegally' in USA costs $2,000 in Canada and $10,000 in Australia.

Some gang bangers till get them but fewer of them and there are, as a result, fewer gun deaths.

Does Australia, Canada, UK, Western Europe really have a crime/cartel problem of the same magnitude and severity as the US? I've been to a few different parts of Europe. I know they have their own version of the ghetto. But I've never read or heard anything that would suggest their crime problems are anywhere close to those of the US. The cartels alone are running a $64 billion drug industry. Does anything in Europe even come close to that?

Obviously access to guns exacerbates the US crime issue, but with the black market and extensive smuggling network, a national ban on most so called 'dangerous' firearms will leave criminal access mostly unaffected.

Most types of drugs are severely restricted or explicitly outlawed here in the US, and yet that doesn't stop millions of pounds of drugs from making its way into the US. Why would firearms be any different?

Originally Posted by myzmak

You keep coming back to this fallacy that, if we can't stop it completely, no use doing anything.

We all have drugs, we all have smuggling, we all have gun deaths. The rest of us, though, have many many many fewer gun deaths. Because we have genuine gun control.

If you were to enact real gun control would you still have gun deaths? Yes. Would you have fewer? Also yes. My point remains: by not acting you are accepting those deaths as ok.

You already accept lots of limits on your right to carry arms. You can't carry a rocket launcher, a bazooka, an RPG, a shoulder held SAM, etc. To prevent more days like Wednesday, you need to enact controls on small arms. Obviously not my call if you do or don't BUT, to me anyway, the consequences of not are completely expected, depressing as those are.

I don't think a firearms ban or severe restriction would affect criminals' ability to get and use them; the nation-wide Assault Weapons Ban had a negligible affect on gun crime and we've already discussed the obvious loopholes with the extensive smuggling and blackmarket that exists here in the US.

But for the sake of argument, let's say a piece of firearms legislation somehow magically made all 'dangerous' firearms unattainable, for law-abiding and criminal citizens. What is the response when someone starts making improvised explosives, or the gangs resort to stabbing, or someone hijacks and crashes a plane, or drives a car into a crowd of people? If you ban one tool used to kill, what is the response when someone transitions to using another tool to accomplish the same objective?

The fallacy, from the other perspective, is that banning a certain type of firearm, or even all firearms, simply targets a tool, instead of targeting the true cause of these acts of violence. It also preemptively precludes all law-abiding citizens from having these tools, regardless of whether their intentions were good or not. If you ban one tool, the wrong-doers will simply find another.

As for the weapons restrictions that already exist here in the US, I agree there are many. In fact, to suggest that the US doesn't have strict gun control is pretty ridiculous. Considering the federal background checks for all dealer purchases, pistol permitting required by many states (pistols not "assault weapons" cause the most gun deaths in this country), magazine and carrying restrictions across many states. The biggest loophole that needs to be addressed are the private sales which don't require any background checking.

RPG's, machineguns, rockets, ect. are crew-served weapons, not intended for individual use or self-defense, even in the military. Automatic fire mode isn't allowed on civilian versions of weapons, but that aside all the small arms owned/used by civilians (think shotguns, bolt-action hunting rifles, semi-auto rifles, pistols) are functionally the same as the military versions. The 2nd Amendment made reference to "arms" not artillery, bombs or field guns. The intent was to have a civilian population that had access to the same firearms that the average soldier would've carried. Back then, that meant muskets. Today, that means shotguns, rifles and pistols.

[bosstones]

Originally Posted by Delta0311

I'm exaggerating.. Slightly

Here is the year to date for Chicago


Year To Date
Shot & Killed: 412
Shot & Wounded: 2352
Total Shot: 2764
Total Homicides: 466

To be fair, that is predominantly in only certain parts of the city not frequented by most or tourists.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by bosstones

To be fair, that is predominantly in only certain parts of the city not frequented by most or tourists.

Aka southside Chicago.