No guns in Chicago = War zone

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Tell us more about FEDERAL LAW for CCW permits, Randall.

If the ability to get the gun depends on a federally mandated background check, what difference would it make if the permit system was more lenient than the gun-check system? They'd have permits but no guns.

But the fact is, you still have to be a non-felon and a non-crazy to get a license to carry, so your attempt at a point is moot, Kallend.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

you really think the US should be measuring itself against 3rd world countries?

If gun control supposedly works, why should it not work in third-world countries?

I'm sure you have the intelligence to answer that for yourself.

For some strange reason, vaunted intelligence and all, you are unwilling to disseminate your own ostensibly superior knowledge. You've been dropping these pathetic teasing hints, and offering this really lame attempt at Socratic reasoning.

NOTHING coming from you has been of any value. You answer questions with questions, and shamelessly evade giving any clear answers. I think your real purpose here is to just keep us running in circles.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Tell us more about FEDERAL LAW for CCW permits, Randall.

If the ability to get the gun depends on a federally mandated background check, what difference would it make if the permit system was more lenient than the gun-check system? They'd have permits but no guns.

But the fact is, you still have to be a non-felon and a non-crazy to get a license to carry, so your attempt at a point is moot, Kallend.

Has it occurred to you that the mandated check can be done thoroughly - or not? No, I don't suppose it has. I wonder why Texas takes up to 60 days to complete the check for the CCW?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

you really think the US should be measuring itself against 3rd world countries?

If gun control supposedly works, why should it not work in third-world countries?

I'm sure you have the intelligence to answer that for yourself.

For some strange reason, vaunted intelligence and all, you are unwilling to disseminate your own ostensibly superior knowledge. You've been dropping these pathetic teasing hints, and offering this really lame attempt at Socratic reasoning.

NOTHING coming from you has been of any value. You answer questions with questions, and shamelessly evade giving any clear answers. I think your real purpose here is to just keep us running in circles.

Not a lot of point in discussing anything with a person who is insultingly aggressive and angry all the time. Have a nice evening.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

you really think the US should be measuring itself against 3rd world countries?

If gun control supposedly works, why should it not work in third-world countries?

Oh my.

*Applause* for yet another insightful, finely crafted response by chrastelsibene. Wonderful job! So much contributed!

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

you really think the US should be measuring itself against 3rd world countries?

If gun control supposedly works, why should it not work in third-world countries?

I'm sure you have the intelligence to answer that for yourself.

For some strange reason, vaunted intelligence and all, you are unwilling to disseminate your own ostensibly superior knowledge. You've been dropping these pathetic teasing hints, and offering this really lame attempt at Socratic reasoning.

NOTHING coming from you has been of any value. You answer questions with questions, and shamelessly evade giving any clear answers. I think your real purpose here is to just keep us running in circles.

Not a lot of point in discussing anything with a person who is insultingly aggressive and angry all the time. Have a nice evening.

Yet another bullshit evasion. Even if you consider my inquires "insultingly aggressive," there are others here who have been asking questions sans the "insulting aggression" and you haven't given straight answers to them, either.

Perhaps you feel they haven't been aggressive enough to warrant answering.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Oh my.

*Applause* for yet another insightful, finely crafted response by chrastelsibene. Wonderful job! So much contributed!

Why so many words? Just admit that you're incapable to understand. Easy as that.

edited for typo

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Tell us more about FEDERAL LAW for CCW permits, Randall.

If the ability to get the gun depends on a federally mandated background check, what difference would it make if the permit system was more lenient than the gun-check system? They'd have permits but no guns.

But the fact is, you still have to be a non-felon and a non-crazy to get a license to carry, so your attempt at a point is moot, Kallend.

Has it occurred to you that the mandated check can be done thoroughly - or not? No, I don't suppose it has. I wonder why Texas takes up to 60 days to complete the check for the CCW?

So, please tell us what it is that causes Texas to take up to 60 days to get a CCW license processed.

I can virtually guarantee you it often doesn't take nearly that long. I have heard from people in various states who have received their license in something like 2 or 3 weeks. Are you suggesting that you have knowledge of what takes Texas 60 days? You certainly are implying like you have this knowledge.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

Oh my.

*Applause* for yet another insightful, finely crafted response by chrastelsibene. Wonderful job! So much contributed!

Why so many words? Just admit that you're incapable to understand. Easy as that.

edited for typo

You've never even come forward with a viable argument in this discussion, much less bested any of us in the debate. Why would I concede anything to you?

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Tell us more about FEDERAL LAW for CCW permits, Randall.

If the ability to get the gun depends on a federally mandated background check, what difference would it make if the permit system was more lenient than the gun-check system? They'd have permits but no guns.

But the fact is, you still have to be a non-felon and a non-crazy to get a license to carry, so your attempt at a point is moot, Kallend.

Has it occurred to you that the mandated check can be done thoroughly - or not? No, I don't suppose it has. I wonder why Texas takes up to 60 days to complete the check for the CCW?

Nice how you subtly shifted the discussion from how easy it was for Cho to GET A GUN to how long it takes to get a LICENSE TO CARRY. Why the switch, Kallend? When cornered, you change tracks. It's a waste of our time to discuss this with you, because when the failures of the system you advocate are pointed out to you, you ignore that, and start pretending that you were arguing something else all along. This is ridiculous.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[kallend 2,148]

have a nice evening

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[birdlike 0]

Quote

have a nice evening

I'm having a pleasant evening. How does that bear on your unwillingness to discuss this subject and answer questions instead of just misdirecting and evading?

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[normiss 897]

Quote

there are others here who have been asking questions sans the "insulting aggression" and you haven't given straight answers to them, either.

nah I think we all get to that point eventually when dealing with certain folks here. Even with repeated attempts at being nice and considerate. Some seem to prefer to be arrogant and condescending.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Holy crap that's a lot of shootings! I would be pissed if I lived among that and I was not allowed to own a firearm for self defense. I would be very interested to hear what Obama has to say about this.

Here is something cool to think about: I live in Chicago, I live near Midway Airport. Quite a few of those shootings are nearby to me. I've even had trouble with a house on my street and the cops had to arrest three at the house for violence issues. My friend's parents live right in the middle of a changing neighborhood among a lot of those shootings.

Newsflash: Neither household owns any guns. Neither household has had an issue. ZOMG! IMPOSSIBLE YOU SAY?! No, when you know the facts.

What's being left out of John's post is how all those shootings are happening, where they are happening and the story behind them. Most of them are gang on gang related shootings and the only "innocent" people that have been shot were caught in the crossfire.

The bottom line here is that nothing has changed in Chicago and your overall safety has not gone down. In fact I would say the city is about as safe as it's ever been if as long as you are not in a gang. The gang violence is certainly out of hand and it's having a greater impact outside of just the shootings that needs to be taken care of. I assure you that the addition or subtraction of guns into my neighborhood would do nothing to change the current situation. You can argue against me and then I'll compare my 35 years living of living here and then ask how you know better than me what this area has gone through.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[warpedskydiver 0]

And there you have it folks, nothing to fear unless you are the accidental victim of a gang on gang shooting, or the victim of some criminal that decides to kill you.


so subtract the 125 deaths, and the murder of that cop and his girlfriend who were on a date, oh and anyone else murdered in city limits.

The fact that you have not been harmed is certainly a valid statistic, but so are the woundings and killings.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Can YOU not think of a single way in which it could be improved?

Even though I'm still early into this thread, it looks like you're being asked to do this, since you are advocating it. What single way would you suggest to improve it?

We are all engines of karma

[yarpos 4]

Quote

Quote

you really think the US should be measuring itself against 3rd world countries?

If gun control supposedly works, why should it not work in third-world countries?

basic things like rule of law, basic import/export /border controls, prevalence of bribery and corruption, desperation of the populace, low value of human life .... things arent great in the US but 3rd world comparison are frankly ridiculous

regards, Steve
the older I get...the better I was

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Can YOU not think of a single way in which it could be improved?

Even though I'm still early into this thread, it looks like you're being asked to do this, since you are advocating it. What single way would you suggest to improve it?

Well, the NICS check is perfunctory at best, so almost anything to improve its thoroughness would be an improvement. Can you imagine a security clearance being given to someone with such a weak background check? Then the private sale loophole could be closed. Straw purchases are illegal, but nothing is done to detect them. Finally, there is essentially no check at all on mental illness, as is apparent when you see all the shootings where "history of mental problems" is listed for the perp.

Thank you for asking politely.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Holy crap that's a lot of shootings! I would be pissed if I lived among that and I was not allowed to own a firearm for self defense. I would be very interested to hear what Obama has to say about this.

Here is something cool to think about: I live in Chicago, I live near Midway Airport. Quite a few of those shootings are nearby to me. I've even had trouble with a house on my street and the cops had to arrest three at the house for violence issues. My friend's parents live right in the middle of a changing neighborhood among a lot of those shootings.

Newsflash: Neither household owns any guns. Neither household has had an issue. ZOMG! IMPOSSIBLE YOU SAY?! No, when you know the facts.

What's being left out of John's post is how all those shootings are happening, where they are happening and the story behind them. Most of them are gang on gang related shootings and the only "innocent" people that have been shot were caught in the crossfire.

The bottom line here is that nothing has changed in Chicago and your overall safety has not gone down. In fact I would say the city is about as safe as it's ever been if as long as you are not in a gang. The gang violence is certainly out of hand and it's having a greater impact outside of just the shootings that needs to be taken care of. I assure you that the addition or subtraction of guns into my neighborhood would do nothing to change the current situation. You can argue against me and then I'll compare my 35 years living of living here and then ask how you know better than me what this area has gone through.

In a very strong way YOU make a point AGAINST gun bans or restrictive controls. I would bet, ( and I admit I do not know for sure) that the gang bangers you speak of have gun illegally. (I am not speaking of illegal guns)

So, the gun ban allows criminals to have guns while the law abiding can not get a gun (should they choose to) So, why ban guns?

But the way, kallend spelled the gang thing out a while ago in this thread. I have also asked if anybody knows in the US the percentages of shoots that are done by criminal on criminal vs not. I think that state would be very telling

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Can YOU not think of a single way in which it could be improved?

Even though I'm still early into this thread, it looks like you're being asked to do this, since you are advocating it. What single way would you suggest to improve it?

Well, the NICS check is perfunctory at best, so almost anything to improve its thoroughness would be an improvement. Can you imagine a security clearance being given to someone with such a weak background check? Then the private sale loophole could be closed. Straw purchases are illegal, but nothing is done to detect them. Finally, there is essentially no check at all on mental illness, as is apparent when you see all the shootings where "history of mental problems" is listed for the perp.

Thank you for asking politely.

kallnd, I know you have posted this before but I still have to ask, (we can take a single point of your post) How do you propose getting mental into into a screening process? I mean, you have railed against the Patriot Act for invasions of privacy, how do you square that against the mental screenings part of your position?

I am not against public eval records or the like being used but, what about those (who you think should not have guns ) who have no public record that provide mental details?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Can YOU not think of a single way in which it could be improved?

Even though I'm still early into this thread, it looks like you're being asked to do this, since you are advocating it. What single way would you suggest to improve it?

Well, the NICS check is perfunctory at best, so almost anything to improve its thoroughness would be an improvement. Can you imagine a security clearance being given to someone with such a weak background check? Then the private sale loophole could be closed. Straw purchases are illegal, but nothing is done to detect them. Finally, there is essentially no check at all on mental illness, as is apparent when you see all the shootings where "history of mental problems" is listed for the perp.

Thank you for asking politely.

kallnd, I know you have posted this before but I still have to ask, (we can take a single point of your post) How do you propose getting mental into into a screening process? I mean, you have railed against the Patriot Act for invasions of privacy, how do you square that against the mental screenings part of your position?

I am not against public eval records or the like being used but, what about those (who you think should not have guns ) who have no public record that provide mental details?

Well, I am told by a usually reliable source who IS a Texan and a gun-o-phile that Texas's screening process for approving a CCW permit does an effective job in screening for mental illness, which the NCIS most certainly does not. Assuming he is correct (and I have no way of checking), then we could use that process as a model.


And please note that I'm not asking for more restrictions or a ban - I'm just asking that the process for implementing the current law be made more effective.

And for additional good measure, I'd make the penalty for assisting in a straw purchase the same as the penalty for any crime committed with that gun.

Finally - I don't expect perfection, some will slip through. I sure think we can do better than we're doing right now.

Throwing up your hands and wailing "nothing can be done" is most definitely NOT the American way.

And THANK YOU for being polite too!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

In a very strong way YOU make a point AGAINST gun bans or restrictive controls. I would bet, ( and I admit I do not know for sure) that the gang bangers you speak of have gun illegally. (I am not speaking of illegal guns)

I think the issue of gun bans will go away now the Supremes have ruled on Heller. There is no reason a sane, law abiding adult should be prevented from owning a firearm.

Do I think I and my family would be safer if I had a gun - NO (and I have had firearms training although the last time I fired a rifle (M16) was in 1992). If I really wanted a gun for home defense, I'd get a shotgun.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Can YOU not think of a single way in which it could be improved?

Even though I'm still early into this thread, it looks like you're being asked to do this, since you are advocating it. What single way would you suggest to improve it?

Well, the NICS check is perfunctory at best, so almost anything to improve its thoroughness would be an improvement. Can you imagine a security clearance being given to someone with such a weak background check? Then the private sale loophole could be closed. Straw purchases are illegal, but nothing is done to detect them. Finally, there is essentially no check at all on mental illness, as is apparent when you see all the shootings where "history of mental problems" is listed for the perp.

Thank you for asking politely.

kallnd, I know you have posted this before but I still have to ask, (we can take a single point of your post) How do you propose getting mental into into a screening process? I mean, you have railed against the Patriot Act for invasions of privacy, how do you square that against the mental screenings part of your position?

I am not against public eval records or the like being used but, what about those (who you think should not have guns ) who have no public record that provide mental details?

Well, I am told by a usually reliable source who IS a Texan and a gun-o-phile that Texas's screening process for approving a CCW permit does an effective job in screening for mental illness, which the NCIS most certainly does not. Assuming he is correct (and I have no way of checking), then we could use that process as a model.


And please note that I'm not asking for more restrictions or a ban - I'm just asking that the process for implementing the current law be made more effective.

And for additional good measure, I'd make the penalty for assisting in a straw purchase the same as the penalty for any crime committed with that gun.

Finally - I don't expect perfection, some will slip through. I sure think we can do better than we're doing right now.

Throwing up your hands and wailing "nothing can be done" is most definitely NOT the American way.

And THANK YOU for being polite too!

A little extreme on the straw purchase don't ya think? You buy one that way. Somehow you lose it or it'stolen it or it's taken and used in a murder. You get the death penalty? I thought you where opposed to that.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

And for additional good measure, I'd make the penalty for assisting in a straw purchase the same as the penalty for any crime committed with that gun.

Finally - I don't expect perfection, some will slip through. I sure think we can do better than we're doing right now.

Throwing up your hands and wailing "nothing can be done" is most definitely NOT the American way.

And THANK YOU for being polite too!

A little extreme on the straw purchase don't ya think? You buy one that way. Somehow you lose it or it'stolen it or it's taken and used in a murder. You get the death penalty? I thought you where opposed to that.

Umm - no one is being forced to make a straw purchase.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[birdlike 0]

Quote

What's being left out of John's post is how all those shootings are happening, where they are happening and the story behind them. Most of them are gang on gang related shootings and the only "innocent" people that have been shot were caught in the crossfire.

But it's very often those "innocent people caught in the crossfire" that the gun bans are touted as being passed in an effort to prevent. And we are clearly seeing that the Chicago gun ban does not keep guns out of the hands of the criminals who are the people we should most want to see disarmed.

If the Chicago gun ban is working so well, why did the Rev. Michael Pfleger (or is it "Phlegmer"?) have to picket outside a Chicago gun shop and say that he was going to "snuff out" a legal gun seller whose every sale is subject to BATFE scrutiny (and yet he had not been shut down for cause)?

Quote

The bottom line here is that nothing has changed in Chicago and your overall safety has not gone down.

But it hasn't gone up, either--despite the presence of a gun ban.

And I don't see how it really could have gone down, anyway.

Quote

In fact I would say the city is about as safe as it's ever been if as long as you are not in a gang. The gang violence is certainly out of hand and it's having a greater impact outside of just the shootings that needs to be taken care of. I assure you that the addition or subtraction of guns into my neighborhood would do nothing to change the current situation.

Then why oppose rescindingthe gun ban? You just said that addition of guns wouldn't change anything (i.e., it wouldn't make it better or worse). If it wouldn't make it worse, why not let people have their right to keep and bear arms back?

Quote

You can argue against me and then I'll compare my 35 years living of living here and then ask how you know better than me what this area has gone through.

You're right, I have never lived in Chicago or its environs. But I do know that every state that has gone shall-issue has seen a drop in violent crime. Has Chicago seen a drop in violent crime?

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire