Hooknswoop

Interesting perspective; https://www.youtube.com/embed/pELwCqz2JfE?rel=0&autoplay=true%5B1 Derek V

What do you think the objective of the 2nd Amendment is? Derek V

Isn't that a good definition for 'worthless'? Derek V

Oh, you scared me there for a second, it's just the government of Falcon Heights that is out of control. I guess the 2nd amendment is worthless based on the government of Falcon Heights being out of control, based on a video of a cop shooting someone. That escalated quickly. Well, let's invade! (That's kinda our go-to move.) I am having a bit of fun with this. I don't mean to offend, but it is a bit, "The sky is falling". Derek V

The US government is out of control? Derek V

If that is what you think, then you do not understand the 2nd amendment. Derek V

I think the current rate is fine. I would be all for reducing it as long as restrictions on the 2nd are not increased. Unless you are drug dealer, gang banger, etc., your odds of getting shot are extremely low. I have a 1 in 133 chance of dying in a automobile accident. I have a 1 in 358 chance of dying by assault with a firearm. It is odd that several anti-gunners in this thread have posted they don't feel unsafe walking around anywhere or 99% of Chicago, yet want more gun control laws. I do not believe more gun laws will make us safer. http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-and-crimes/ I don't think education, enforcement, and stiffer penalties is a cure- all, but it would have an impact. The gang banager won't be affected much, except by the enforcement. Increased police patrols in rough neighborhoods would have an impact. Derek V

Good talk.

Unsafe is a synonym for risky. risk·y ˈriskē/Submit adjective full of the possibility of danger, failure, or loss. "it was much too risky to try to disarm him" synonyms: dangerous, hazardous, perilous, high-risk, fraught with danger, unsafe, insecure, precarious, touch-and-go, treacherous, parlous; More Derek V

How are these: Supposed to fix this: Derek V

Are you calling Kallend paranoid because he; "wouldn't go into Englewood, Garfield Park or Austin after dark."? Derek V

That is because you are looking at the issue emotionally and not logically. Derek V

Right, but if the area of concern is 1% of Chicago, that is where the resources should be concentrated. Seems like a lot of gains could be realized by focusing on that 1%. Double the police patrols in the area, or even triple them. Add beat cops. Create jobs in the area. Spend the money. Derek V

You do realize that Anyone living in California is going to have to surrender any magazine holding over 10 rounds? I guess you missed the link to prohibition. You can scroll up or google it. I can buy anything I want, as much as I want, and only have to show an ID that say I am over 21 years of age? Deal. Not true. I am willing to support efforts to reduce mass shootings and/or the murder rate as long as it doesn't restrict the 2nd amendment. I realize that there is a balance between the two and after looking at the statistics, I am comfortable with the current level of balance. I suspect that others, including you, are willing to make any sacrifice of gun rights for small or no gains in the rate of mass shootings and/or the murder rate. Derek V

My point is trying to define the issue. If Chicago is so bad when it comes to guns, why does Kallend feel safe walking around 99% of it based on living and working there for 38 years? You don't feel unsafe anywhere you go. Why do you feel feel there should be more gun control laws? Derek V

The militia is not well regulated right now? Is that what you mean by "it"? Derek V

Where do you live and do you feel safe walking around? What percentage of area do you not feel safe walking around? Derek V

That is a very interesting observation. When I was in Chicago, Rosemont and Naperville, I felt very safe as well. I believe the statistics agree with your observation, even if the media sensationalism portrays it differently. Reminds me of the home security system commercials. They never show a rough neighborhood, they always show a housewife home alone in a nice house when the security system saves the day. Poor people don't buy security systems. Marketing. Sensationalism. Playing to the emotions of the viewer. Gun control laws is going to have little to no effect in the rough neighborhoods of Chicago, or anywhere else. Derek V

Do you still feel that 99% of Chicago is safe, based on living and working there for 38 years? In 2004 Kallend wrote; "It's really simple - if I walk into Cabrini Green or Austin at night I am (a) stupid, and (b) asking for trouble. So I don't go there. I wouldn't go there even if armed to the teeth. If you think you could go there and be safe because you're carrying, you're stupid too. The gang bangers are all armed and they mostly shoot each other. In the other 99% of the city and suburbs, I'd walk anywhere and not expect to be bothered by anyone. This is based on 26 years living and working there." Derek V

Of course there is a difference. Where I don't see a difference is someone else's opinion prevailing over mine through regulation. Derek V

Don- I apologize. Your post is well thought out and brings up good points. It deserves an honest response. Basically you are saying that the formula that worked for DUI's won't work for segment of society that is not deterred by laws and their associated penalties. I agree with you. Ironically this is partly why I think universal background checks are pointless and only affect already law abiding citizens. So where to go from here? Honestly, I don't know. More police patrolling these areas (AKA enforcement)? I do know that increased gun control laws won't have an impact in these areas any more than education and stiff penalties. It does remind me of the war on drugs. A battle we cannot win, but we can lose it. Making drugs illegal hasn't stopped drugs any more than prohibition stopped drinking. How big of a problem is this segment of society? In 2004 Kallend wrote; "It's really simple - if I walk into Cabrini Green or Austin at night I am (a) stupid, and (b) asking for trouble. So I don't go there. I wouldn't go there even if armed to the teeth. If you think you could go there and be safe because you're carrying, you're stupid too. The gang bangers are all armed and they mostly shoot each other. In the other 99% of the city and suburbs, I'd walk anywhere and not expect to be bothered by anyone. This is based on 26 years living and working there." Seems to me that there is a very small area of Chicago that should be avoided (and should be patrolled more heavily), but otherwise guns are not a problem in Chicago. Annual homicide in 2004 were 453. In 2015, 488. I think the media is making a mountain out of a mole hill. The conversation is emotion driven. 'We must act." We must do something." The debate always heats up after an event, driven by the media. At some point, we hit diminishing returns on gun control laws. I am very curious to see what happens with CA's new 10-round magazine limit law without grandfathering in current magazines and no bullet buttons. With the last AR ban which included a magazine size limit, people switched from 9mm to .45. They figured if they had to go to smaller capacity magazines, might as well go to a larger round. A full size 9mm Glock 17 has a 17-round magazine. A full size .45 Glock 21 has a 13-round magazine. A sub compact .45 Glock 30 has a 10-round magazine. So if you had a Glock 17 before, you would buy a sub compact Glock 30. It holds 7 less rounds, but hits much harder with the larger round and is much easier to conceal. I doubt the writer of the law understood this. The Colorado congresswoman who sponsored the Magazine limit law, Rep. Diana DeGette, did not understand that magazines can be reloaded: http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2013/04/03/as-lead-sponsor-in-house-on-gun-legislation-rep-diana-degette-appears-to-not-understand-how-they-work/93506/ Asked how a ban on magazines holding more than 15 rounds would be effective in reducing gun violence, DeGette said: “I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those know they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.” Derek V

From a 2003 discussion on a wing load BSR; Bill Von wrote: "I've got nothing against people making mistakes. I am in favor of them surviving them, through education - or, if they refuse that, regulation." Kalends wrote: "In a typical year 1 skydiver out of 1000 will die. We can only reduce that to zero by regulating skydiving out of existence. If that is not acceptable, then you have to define what level of risk is acceptable to you. And if someone else has a higher risk tolerance than you, why should your opinion prevail over theirs through regulation? I think BASE is too risky and I won't do it. Does that mean you shouldn't be allowed to BASE jump?" Derek V

Is the rate increasing? Decreasing? Or staying the same? What is happening to the rate of gun sales? Increasing, decreasing, or staying the same? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States I am beginning to suspect you are more concerned about gun control laws than reducing firearms violence, mass shootings, etc. When Bill Von shows what worked for reducing DUI's, you don't seem to take an interest as to how the same winning formula could be applied to guns. Controlling alcohol was not the solution just as gun control is not the solution. Education, enforcement of the laws, and stiff(er) penalties for those that do break the laws dramatically reduced the rate of DUI's. Why could this not work with guns? I would support it and I would think that pro-gun groups would as well. It would have no impact on law-abiding gun owners. Derek V

Bill Von wrote: ">BUT... i thought it was already illegal for felons to buy guns. Yep. And it was illegal to drive drunk in the 1970's. But people did it anyway; 60% of all traffic fatalities involved drunk driving, and 66% of the traffic fatalities between ages 16-20 involved alcohol. Fortunately, there was a lot of work done to figure out what the problem was. They learned that: -It wasn't middle aged drivers that were the problem (although they made up most of the people who were pulled over) - it was a problem that started much earlier, around the time most people got their driver's licenses. -A lot of education was missing. There wasn't much awareness of the risks of drunk driving; a DUI was something of a joke, something that was just as serious as running a red light. As a result, some laws were passed (zero tolerance for new drivers) some changes were made in driver training (emphasizing risks of drinking) and some changes were made in enforcement (penalties got much more serious.) As a result of these and other changes, fatalities from drinking and driving have been reduced by 50%, and by 70% in the 16-20 age bracket. " A statement without any backup. What alcohol control law had the effect of reducing DUI's and by how much? Prohibition did not go as planned. Alcohol is not highly regulated. Show an ID that says you are over 21 and buy as much as you like. Does't matter if you have DUI's, etc. We didn't pass alcohol control laws, we passed laws against certain actions. A statement without any backup. Again, Bill Von wrote; "As a result of these and other changes, fatalities from drinking and driving have been reduced by 50%, and by 70% in the 16-20 age bracket. " Seems like laws against actions are effective, while alcohol control are not. Remember, a realistic goal is not to eliminate drunk driving or eliminate firearm violence or mass shootings. Derek V

I am saying that regulating liquor did not have the desired effect. Laws against drunk driving, etc have had an effect. Buying alcohol vs. buying a gun: these laws are not effective. Drunk driving vs. shooting someone: these laws are effective. Do you see the difference? Regulating the object vs. regulating the action taken with the object. "pretty tightly regulated". You mean I can't go into a liquor store and fill up shopping carts full and buy it all? How does alcohol sales regulation compare to firearm sales regulation? How many DUI's can I have before I cannot buy alcohol anymore? Derek V