Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When I say something is going to come at the end, I mean, the end. Surprisingly enough, this analogy came at the end of my post.
I took the end of your story as the end. Your comical analogies were like the closing credits. Everyone in the theater had already took to the exits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A2DAC1985
I'm going to take a shot in the dark:
You're a conservative, right? At least a Republican? Maybe Libertarian? Correct me if I'm wrong.
It doesn't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A2DAC1985
But let me frame this differently for you.
Let's say I make $1,000,000 a year.
You make $10,000 a year.
The government taxes me $1,000 a year.
The government taxes you $100 a year.
I pay .1% of my income in taxes.
You pay 1% of your income in taxes.
I have 10 times as much money taken from me by the government than you do.
Who is worse off financially?
Do you get why murder rates are just as important, if not more so, than just raw numbers?
I don't follow this argument. How does a flat tax rate affect the murder rate?
And I never mentioned raw numbers... only rates. I said that the murder rate is what everyone is concerned about, not the homicide rate. People generally aren't concerned about innocent citizens defending themselves against criminals, like in your original post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A2DAC1985
You believe theft of a pursue is an offence that should be met with gun fire and possible death?
I believe material things can be replaced. I believe people cannot.
So where do you draw the line for implementation of an action that could be potentially deadly?
Is the theft of those things, or even one of those things, reason enough to pull out a gun and shoot someone?
And don't get me wrong here, I'm all for a good A-------- kicking for doing harm to an innocent person.
But shooting them? Man, I would only shoot someone over a Snickers if they were trying to kill me in the process.
I didn't say shoot to kill... jeez. Incapacitate the mofo if possible. And you intentionally left out details vital to the decision-making process... Is this criminal armed? Is he injuring the old woman? What is my proximity to this event? Is the street crowded? Night or day? Etc. Etc.
Bottom line: No one is recommending tossing out the law and going all OK Corral up in here. Most 2nd amendment advocates want a clearly defined framework of law in which they can defend themselves or others from violent predators, using a firearm. The thought process is akin to what you described just a couple posts above.
You know what, Chet? I'm going to answer your question. I'm not going to make humorous deflections, avoid the question altogether, or try to downplay the question so I won't feel the *need* to answer it.
I hope you can do the same for me one day.
I would follow the police protocol in place for such a situation. I don't know what that is exactly, or if it even exists. I'm not a cop, after all.
But if I was a run-of-the-mill citizen with a CCW?:
1. Before this situation even arises (long before, like, when I first applied for a CCW), I would have thought about what it means to have a CCW. I would have realized that having a CCW doesn't make me a deputy, let alone Judge Dredd. I would realize that just because I could carry a gun around with me doesn't mean I could pull it out whenever I wanted (like a cop) without repercussion from the law.
2. I see the situation, and try to take the best mental picture I could of what was happening.
3. I would try to stop the robbery in progress by making my presence known, and my intentions to stop the act known, as well. I would then call the police and check on the woman.
(Hopefully by this point in the altercation, the thief has left the woman and her purse, or left with the purse. I don't think stealing a purse is worth shooting someone, especially if a CCW license doesn't grant me some "police immunity" so to speak. Which a CCW certainly does not.)
4. If the thief tries to confront me, then I would pull my weapon and tell them to stop where they are or I will shoot.
(At this point, hopefully, the thief runs away with or without the purse and I may or may not follow them depending on the condition of the little old lady that was just mugged. Calling the police then is also an appropriate time.)
5. If the person continues to advance towards me with my gun drawn, and a warning given, then I would feel comfortable shooting the person.
6. If I shot the person and they were still advancing on me, I would continue to shoot them until they stopped advancing, or retreated. If they retreat, I would follow, and contact the police.
If at any point in this situation the thief pulled a gun on me before I could draw mine, I would try to mitigate any harm done to the little old lady and myself by not pulling my gun.
If this thief was causing physical harm to the woman as I first see the situation, I would have my gun out, ready to shoot if needed.
I don't take guns lightly, nor do I think their use should be frivolous. I think guns are the last resort.
Apparently some people who don't live in Chicago, but feel the need to comment on its state of affairs, feel that guns should be the first step in resolving conflict.
AMEN!! I don't think every state in the union should be forced to allow concealed carry and it pi$$es me off that it got forced on IL.
For the record, though I do not personally feel the need to carry a handgun (concealed or otherwise), nor a rifle or shotgun for personal protection, there is a thing called the Constitution and the long accepted legal framework that goes along with its interpretation actually is pretty clear about who / what it controls.
The idea that anything was "forced on IL" in this matter is completely unsupported by the facts -- this helpful guide from the very non-right wing Cornell Law School might be instructive Legal Information Institute|Cornell.edu You might also want to review this helpful overview from the US Senate -- The Constitution|Senate.gov
Excellent little cartoon is available for those so inclined to take in their info from such sources too: The Constitution |YouTube.com
The Slate article in its own way makes a decent arguement that forces aligned with the gun lobby really don't want anyone to dig too deeply into how effective concealed carry may or may not be, but the bigger issue in terms of Chicago is really not about people that want to adhere to the law, which is largely what those who go through the hoops of getting a FOID card and taking concealed carry classes are fine with, and more about CRIMINALS that routinely violate all kinds of laws regarding not just firerms, but also theft, drug peddling, alcohol use, prostitution and goodness only knows what else. Unless sufficient efforts to reign in the full range of illegal actions it is kind of pointless to focus on lawful gun owners...
OP, it looks like you just set up a bunch of conservative-argument straw men to knock down in your first post. Among the shooters I know, NO one believes arguments as simplistic as the ones you put forth. I would NEVER say that widespread gun ownership and carry makes society safer as a whole. I would instead say that there isn’t a strong correlation - either positive or negative - between legal gun ownership rates and gun violence/crime rates. So why make it difficult for people to legally own guns?
Let's say that anti-gun people got their ultimate wish, and starting tomorrow all guns of any kind are now totally illegal to own or carry in Chicago. Law-abiding citizens from all over Chicagoland obediently line up at CPD stations to turn in their weapons. Congrats everybo.... oh wait. Uh oh it looks like Englewood and West Humboldt Park aren't meeting their turn-in numbers. Now who is going to volunteer to go door to door and pick em up?
Point being that those who are the source of most gun-related social ills are also those least affected by restrictive legislation. I would prefer less restriction, and having the option to carry, even if I never use it.
The people who are likely to be law-abiding Concealed Carriers are not the likely victims of gun violence. The likely victims of gun violence are young men already carrying illegal guns (or carrying illegaly) and youth in the crossfire.
Much to the chagrin of some of the well know "haters" that are also rabid ...
....in their support of Chicago and their passionate opposition to all things suburbia there are those of us that despite living in places like DuPage Co are not so quick to say "less gun regulations == better world".
Back when I learned how to fire rifles, shotguns and handguns (and yes I did learn them in that order...) the guys that taught these courses were a mix of former WWII vets and hardcore "shooting sports types" that reminded be more than a little of the same kind of often older men that also did stuff like teach boating safety through the Coast Guard Auxillary -- basically the kind of guy that would be at home on a Boy Scout camp or a nice family day on the lake. Over the years that has kind of shifted and now you get a weirder mix of people doing this sort of thing. Some are still the laid back "stack some clays on the launcher" types but you also have guys with a decidely more scary "black flag / bring home the POWs / prepare for the zombie apocalpyse" types and the EVEN MORE SCARY guys that I call the "Blackwater Private Security Contractor Wannabees". I think the guy that got whacked by the 9 yr old with the UZI probably fit into that last category and one need not be a certified peacenik to understand why that was a pretty horrendously stupid way to die...
My point is that the strategy of expanded handgun ownership that the NRA and various firearms manfacturers has embarked on since the fall off of rural hunters as the #1 category of gun owners is, in my opinion and that of lots of other sane people (many of whom do work in law enforcement or public safety ...) not a real good path to go down WITHOUT a whole lot more hoops to jump through for safe / responsiblity firearms ownership.
Earlier I pointed out that Switzerland is a real nice example of a country with lots of responsible gun owners. In fact, it is legal REQUIREMENT for all ablebody men to maintain their own weapons after mandatory military service. Of course that works a whole lot different in a tiny country like Switzerland (and even then do have on option for no-weapons national service if they object on moral / religous grounds...) but obviously you can't have NUTCASES handing 9 year olds UZIs...
One of the few things that I think Rahm could be effective at (if he in fact really does want to help make the roughest places in Chicago less so..) is to honestly say "yes, I did actually serve in the IDF, yes I would be HAPPY to have old school style weapons training for ALL KINDS of people in Chicago and I would even get on the "firing line" to help show the right way to do this". It would be 100% legitimate support of the folks in the bad areas where this kind of training would do the most good.
Last edited by chet everett; 08-28-2014 at 05:14 PM..
Chicago 'urban' violence has long been a staple on TV and news media as long as I have been alive. We now have 24x7x365 politically influenced media outlets that make it more pronounced. Fact is, if you are the murder capital of the US you get media attention - period. From Gary, IN to Detroit to Washington, D.C. - it is a dubious distinction that has garnered media attention well prior to Obama taking office.
That's the exact point.
Yes Chicago in a general sense has always received attention for its urban violence, a reputation that goes back to the Al Capone days. But apart from the Al Capone association (originally a New Yorker) it was always more a broader urban violence problem that was perceived to plague most inner cities like you said from Gary to Detroit to DC and elsewhere, that accelerated the flight to the suburbs.
But this media attention about Chicago having violence as a perceived supposed result of its strict gun control laws, and by assumed extension of Obamas liberal politics is very much a recent thing. In the 90s few blamed Chicagos violence on gun control. It was assumed correctly that it evolved out of strained race relations that lead to suburban flight of money and jobs first by Whites then later by aspiring Blacks. The connection with gun control I never remembered being the center of the issue, because during a time when conservatives were more level headed and less hostile than today, they would have looked at nation-wide trends not cherry picked to make a point.
"If only Chicago let law abiding citizens have guns, there wouldn't be as many shootings."
"If more people were allowed to conceal carry, there wouldn't be as many murders, crimes, etc."
Those are two "general" ideas/thoughts/opinions that are floated around all the time. I have an analogy for those, but that's coming at the end.
We can all agree that gun violence is an issue that Chicago faces. It's not a widespread issue in the city, but an issue that is fairly specific to certain areas of the city. Can we agree on that? Yes? Good, let's keep going.
First and foremost, in places where firearms are easy to obtain and easy to carry on your person out in public does not mean it is automatically safer, or less murders are committed via firearm.
Here's a story from Indianapolis. Notice the other cities in the info graphic? Illinois has tough, "draconian", guns laws on the books. So why do such gun friendly, compared to Illinois, states like Missouri, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio have cities with the same, or higher, murder rate compared to Chicago? From what I hear all the time, more guns are the answer. But apparently more guns aren't the answer for Columbus, Cincinnati, Detroit, or St. Louis.
But let's assume that the answer to stopping gun violence and shootings is letting more people own guns. This quote comes to mind, "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass… except Illinois, they don't have guns LOL." So, why did Japan attack Pearl Harbor? That was where thee guns were. Having a S--------- ton of guns there didn't stop Japan from attacking.
Which brings up the, "Well, criminals are going to be criminals" argument. I get that, and I agree. Which is why Pearl Harbor happened. Which is why random shootings in neighborhoods happen.
Being prepared. That's the key.
Pearl Harbor wasn't prepared for the attack, even though the US had weapons to fend them off. That's the reason why backyard barbecues get shot up. You might have the fire power to fend off an attack… but are you ready, and prepared, to use it when that attack happens? Letting people have guns on their person does nothing to stop attacks if you aren't ready and willing to use those guns on a moments notice.
Should everyone with a license to carry a gun in Chicago have to keep their hand on the grip at all times in public? Because that's how you deter an immediate threat. Be prepared. Be prepared to shoot to kill. Be prepared around the people who give you the "creeps", or an "uneasy feeling". That's what the police do, and that's why they're effective. I've been pulled over a few times, and every time, the cop has approached my car with his hand on/near his side arm. He's prepared to shoot a random person, who may or may not be guilty of any... or everything. But he's prepared.
So, what if, IF, Chicago and Illinois got really lax with their gun laws? Well, "criminals are criminals", and they do what they do. If everyone has a gun, then no one has a gun, so to speak.
If someone wants my wallet, or my watch, or my shoes, or car, or whatever, they're going to try and take it. If that person knows there's a slim chance that I have a weapon on me, my chances of dying during this altercation are slim.
If that person knows, knows, that I am carrying a weapon… they're still going to be a criminal, right? So they're going to shoot first, kill me, then take what they want. That's what Japan did with Pearl Harbor.
SURPRISE, YOU'RE DEAD! Do the crime. Leave.
The gun you're carrying does you no good when you're being stuck up from behind while walking home from a bar.
But let's pretend that you're good with a gun… real good.
You're walking down the streets of Englewood at 1 AM.
You're a CCW person.
There's a person with a gun robbing a little old lady of her purse at gunpoint!
You stop in your tracks.
The assailant looks over your direction.
You both lock eyes.
It's kinda like this… but not as dramatic.
Then you "pew, pew, pew" that punk onto the ground!
SUCCESS!
Except, you did absolutely nothing to change the murder rate of Chicago.
Was it justifiable? Maybe. But that doesn't matter. You're still going to the police station. YOU killed someone. You, a law-abiding-clean-cut-man-of-the-people-type-of-person, still ended someone's life. You still make the nightly news. You may or may not be wearing an orange outfit shortly, depending on the court(s).
Killing someone is killing someone. That is a death. That gets tallied into statistics. The stats aren't going to change just because gun laws are looser, or are more inline with Missouri, Indiana, Michigan, or Ohio laws.
Kill someone over gang turf: homicide.
Kill someone over armed robbery: homicide.
And who are the people that advocate for looser guns laws and CCW laws that live in the problem neighborhoods of Chicago? My guess is no one. Zero (0, zip, nada).
Here is the long awaited analogy, as promised:
"If only Chicago let law-abiding citizens drive cars, there wouldn't be as many car accidents."
and
"If more people were allowed to drive cars, there wouldn't be as many vehicle deaths."
This rambling shouldn't be in this forum. This is "Chicago", and typically, a nice condensed version of gun arguments are OK, but War and Peace type novels in one post is just too much. But from what I did read...
Shootings a thug holding up an old lady is fine. You don't need to murder him, but you can shoot him. The whole point of people having guns isn't necessarily just so you can shoot somebody whenever (though that IS a use that has been proven to work before), but it's also to intimidate the attacker, essentially to give the thug the idea that you have a gun(too), so don't F with me or her. The outcome will vary, but in grief sticken, poor ghettos in U.S. and other cities around the world, accepting the fact that crime and murder, REGARDLESS of gun laws, will always be high, is something you need to accept. Crime will happen, regardless if there's 20 billion laws placed on the public. This is a human issue, not something that can be solved from daddy government stepping in and making all the decisions. Personally, I don't believe in this idea everybody owning a gun will reduce crime. But at the same time, gun control has been proven to be useless time and time again, and the arguments from the gun control crowd seem to be getting more and more pathetic, it seems.
In the end, both the gun nuts who think everyone regardless of medical history or criminal history should own a gun, and the gun control idiots have been proven wrong time and time again, aren't giving any useful information. The best we can do is do a basic test for guns. Are you a criminal? No? Okay, do you have a mental illness? No? Okay, here you go, a gun. People who want the real issue to be gone will know attacking the REAL problems at the roots, like the single mother epidemic, gang culture, and poor education system is the issue, not guns.
I took the end of your story as the end. Your comical analogies were like the closing credits. Everyone in the theater had already took to the exits.
How is it my fault you didn't read to the end?
Quote:
Originally Posted by holl1ngsworth
I don't follow this argument. How does a flat tax rate affect the murder rate?
And I never mentioned raw numbers... only rates. I said that the murder rate is what everyone is concerned about, not the homicide rate. People generally aren't concerned about innocent citizens defending themselves against criminals, like in your original post.
I made the tax analogy to show that even though one number may be bigger than another, It might not be a bigger percentage of the whole.
People aren't concerned about the number of people dying from guns?
Think about this for a minute:
There are no murders in Chicago in a year.
But there are 500 justifiable homicides in a year.
People aren't concerned that 500 people had to be shot and killed because 500 innocent people felt their lives were in danger?
Quote:
Originally Posted by holl1ngsworth
I didn't say shoot to kill... jeez. Incapacitate the mofo if possible. And you intentionally left out details vital to the decision-making process... Is this criminal armed? Is he injuring the old woman? What is my proximity to this event? Is the street crowded? Night or day? Etc. Etc.
Bottom line: No one is recommending tossing out the law and going all OK Corral up in here. Most 2nd amendment advocates want a clearly defined framework of law in which they can defend themselves or others from violent predators, using a firearm. The thought process is akin to what you described just a couple posts above.
OP, it looks like you just set up a bunch of conservative-argument straw men to knock down in your first post. Among the shooters I know, NO one believes arguments as simplistic as the ones you put forth. I would NEVER say that widespread gun ownership and carry makes society safer as a whole. I would instead say that there isn’t a strong correlation - either positive or negative - between legal gun ownership rates and gun violence/crime rates. So why make it difficult for people to legally own guns?
A strawman? I listen to conservative talk radio everyday. I listen to the conservative host, I listen to the conservative guests, I listen to the conservative listeners who call in.
Anytime, ANYTIME, Chicago's murders or crimes come up in the news or discussion, all those people, ALL OF THEM, turn to, "Well, if Chicago actually let law-abiding citizens have weapons to defend themselves this wouldn't be happening." They may not say it verbatim, but that sentiment is the crux of Chicago's problems, in their eyes. That and "Liberals".
It makes me laugh, then I get infuriated, then I laugh again because the city this show is based out of has a higher murder rate than Chicago, and has much more lenient gun laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eating while walking
Let's say that anti-gun people got their ultimate wish, and starting tomorrow all guns of any kind are now totally illegal to own or carry in Chicago. Law-abiding citizens from all over Chicagoland obediently line up at CPD stations to turn in their weapons. Congrats everybo.... oh wait. Uh oh it looks like Englewood and West Humboldt Park aren't meeting their turn-in numbers. Now who is going to volunteer to go door to door and pick em up?
I like this argument. It tickles me. That's why it was part of my original post.
You're saying criminals are going to be criminals and they are going to do criminal things, and I agree with that. And that is why adding more guns isn't going to lower the murder rate, homicide rate, or number of shootings.
In your situation, someone wants to rob your wallet on the street. All they have to do is demand it, then pull their gun. No one dies.
Let's pretend that instead of taking away guns, we give a gun to every single citizen of Chicago.
So someone wants to steal your wallet, but they know you have a gun on you. Instead of confronting you and demanding your wallet then pulling their gun… they just shoot you dead before you have a chance to draw your weapon. Then they take your wallet.
This is why I brought up Pearl Harbor in my OP.
Japan had weapons, the US had weapons, so in your world no one would have attacked anyone because the other side had weapons. But that wasn't the case. They surprised the people with the guns and won that round.
If Japan had called ahead to Washington D.C. and said they were going to attack in 24 hours, it would have been a massacre for the Japanese.
It's the same way with street crime. If everyone has a gun, and criminals are going to commit crimes, then the criminals will use their guns before their targets can get to theirs.
How some people view an armed populace relative to the criminals is like how the Cold War played out. Both sides have the big guns, and both sides are too afraid to use them.
But in reality, if both sides had guns, it would be more like the modern day Middle East.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eating while walking
Point being that those who are the source of most gun-related social ills are also those least affected by restrictive legislation. I would prefer less restriction, and having the option to carry, even if I never use it.
So the sources of most gun related social ills would be the most affected by less restrictive legislation, correct?
If there were less restrictions on purchasing guns, and carrying guns, then criminals would have a harder time getting guns? Am I getting that correct?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dear Ms. litella:
