One of my favorite bits of fiction peddled by the Gun Cult is that Chicago, a city that heavily restricts guns, is a great example of what gun control really does...create more violence and leave ordinary citizens defenseless. So, by this logic, if Chicago were to loosen its gun laws and allow more people to have guns, violence would decrease, correct?
I'm curious...what is the basis for this line of thought? And how would a fully armed Chicago look if the laws were indeed changed?
25 comments:
That's a dumb question. In every city this experiment has been run in, crime has dropped. Maybe (putting on my Occutard tinfoil hat now), "Its 'cuz da pigs too afraid to just shoot young black men on sight. They gots to pay them some ree-spect now!" Currently, the racism is so firmly entrenched in police culture that this cop even does it to himself when he sees his reflection in the steel elevator wall. "Black man with a white woman. Race-mixing! And he's got a gun! Shoot him now! Shoot him now!"
Good thing he's got the magic fairy dust of government authority sprinkled on him.
And of course, according to M, only the police can be trusted with guns.
Oh, here's another. Thank heavens for those men in blue!
Since it's pretty obvious from crime stats that any thug that wants an (illegal) firearm already has one, while relatively very few honest, law-abiding citizens do ... well, only a drooling moron would think that might be the best that could be hoped for unless perhaps putting criminal gangs on double-secret probation would help.
But, Larry, wouldn't loosening restrictions on guns make it easier for the criminals to get guns as well?
My point is that the gun violence problem is Chicago isn't a gun problem. It's a crime problem that has far more intricacies than just ARM EVERYONE. Honestly, that's a very Neanderthal ish approach.
Obtuse, much? You're making the same childish argument Bill O'Reilly and Nikto make about legalizing drugs. "Oh, but that will just make it easier for druggies to get drugs." Ignoring the fact that they already have no problem getting them. Only the law-abiding abide by the law. Duh.
OMG Larry that is BRILLIANT - Nikto, M and Bill O'Reilly in the same take-down.
Bravo! Bravisimo!
Ditto Larry, great.
I think the problem with violence in Chicago has very little to do with how many guns people have and everything to do with gangs and corrupt/inept government. More guns won't solve anything.
Of course, I'm talking to people who think Dirty Harry was a real person.
If the problem in Chicago doesn't have anything to do with how many guns people have....
Then you admit that the number of guns in the hands of the law abiding won't make things worse.
And since you only have your feelings to tell you that they won't help....
I have to ask, why not allow more legal guns? The worst you can say is they won't make things better - but maybe they will.
As is usually the case, you are being too emotional because of your ammosexuality.
If guns were more readily available to people in an area where there was high demand for guns, what do you suppose those "law abiding" citizens would do? You are operating under the false assumption (one that many ammosexuals cling to) that the violence in Chicago results in deaths of innocents who would still be alive today if they only had a gun to protect themselves. The people that die from gun violence in Chicago are mostly gang members and other criminals.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2014/0707/Chicago-gun-violence-The-numbers-shock-but-the-reasons-are-familiar-video
If guns were more readily available, these guys would be able to get them easier. Think, GD, and leave your emotions about guns behind.
Of course, there is also another error when thinking about Chicago and gun violence. People think it's some sort of murder capital in our country. It isn't.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/14/despite-recent-shootings-chicago-nowhere-near-u-s-murder-capital/
3 of the 6 are in the South. Shocking...
If guns were more readily available, these guys would be able to get them easier.
the problem with violence in Chicago has very little to do with how many guns people have
Contradicting yourself? If the problem has very little to do with the availability of guns then changing the availability will have no effect. That sounds like the emotional response here.
It also renders his original "question" moot. And if he knew that from the beginning, it renders the original post pointless and idiotic, like so many others.
Neither of you are really addressing the problem of violence in Chicago other than the usual MORE GUNS Neanderthal BS. And since you are continuing the focus on me as opposed to making your own points, that more or less confirms that I hit home with this one.
Our country is a complex place. Simple solutions simply won't work. Do both of you honestly think that the problem of gun violence in Chicago is due to heavy restrictions on guns? Why?
Neither of you are really addressing the problem of violence in Chicago
That's because YOU framed the topic of the discussion in this post be MAKING IT ABOUT THE GUNS.....
Why the hell would you be surprised if the discussion thus entailed would be about the very same topic you started?
The topic is about gun laws in Chicago so the Chicago part is equally as important. Perhaps you'd like to share some insight on gun violence in Chicago and what sorts of factors are unique to the area.
And since you are continuing the focus on me
preceded by
you are being too emotional because of your ammosexuality
M once again demonstrates that his love for standards requires him to embrace double the amount that other people do.
You asked the question, I answered it right off the bat. And then you've run around in circles trying to evade it.
Ooo...an inperial declaration that has no bearing on reality...
Larry, did you think your answer was a serious one? You are welcome to try again. Here is the question again...
If Chicago were to loosen its gun laws and allow more people to have guns, violence would decrease, right?
(note: the emphasis on the two key words here).
"In every city this experiment has been run in, crime has dropped."
So for those of limited reading comprehension, I at least implied that I believe this will be generally true for Chicago, though there are so many variables, it's impossible to be certain. Murder rates aren't steady state, they vary year by year.
But on the whole, what do I think the results of allowing many more law-abiding citizens access to one of the more crucial tools for self-defense?
I expect crime to decrease. By definition, the new firearms owners would be the already law-abiding, who by definition aren't the cause of crime. The criminals are already fully armed, as all but the dain-bramaged realize. Why would you think keeping the law-abiding disarmed would have any effect on the crime rate at all?
Of course, you've already gainsayed your original leading "question", making it a pointless idiocy, when you admitted that guns aren't the problem. Though that's the ONLY thing you focused on in your original question -- and then had the nerve to get pissy when that's what people responded to. I'm beginning to think your mind resembles a shattered mirror, reflecting bits and pieces of whatever depending upon time of day and angle of the light, with you seizing upon whatever shard seems to fit your needs of the moment best. It would certainly explain your highly idiosyncratic reading comprehension "skills", and apparent inability to even recognize that you've twisted yourself into a pretzel. But in a kaleidoscopic world of schizoid shards, what else can be expected?
"And what would a fully-armed Chicago look like?" is an excruciatingly dumb 'question'. Surely you're not suggesting that everyone be armed, either at their own or public expense, are you? If so, you're the only one making such a ridiculous proposition, presumably because it's an easy straw man to kick apart.
Alright, Larry, which cities? By how much exactly? Where is your evidence to back it up? I'd also like to see some evidence that you understand the complexities of a city like Chicago and the challenges they face that are unique to them compared to other cities. Surely you can't be saying that all cities are the same and the transformation would be uniform across the board, could you?
I'd also like to see some evidence that you understand the complexities of a city like Chicago and the challenges they face that are unique to them compared to other cities. Surely you can't be saying that all cities are the same and the transformation would be uniform across the board, could you?
I at least implied that I believe this will be generally true for Chicago, though there are so many variables, it's impossible to be certain
You really do have a reading comprehension problem, you realize that don't you?
Either that, or he's reflexivly throwing out word-salads as a kind of verbal squid-ink.
Verbal squid ink, that's awesome :)
Considering that his original post is nothing more than a mangled take on what gun rights supporters say, I think he has some sort of cognitive dyslexia.
Post a Comment