{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
8/6/2013 8:18:30 AM
54
Chicago- strictest gun laws
[spoiler]highest crime rate[/spoiler]
But I mean, if you don't like the constitution you can go live somewhere else..
English
-
What are variable? Also please use over all murder rate per capita. And just because it has the strictest gun laws doesn't mean it has the least guns in the city. Perhaps the past decades of easy access to weapons or the fact that the city is surrounded by states where you can buy guns quite easily, has some effect? This isn't a closed system.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/29/us/where-50000-guns-in-chicago-came-from.html?_r=0
-
You might want to check the date.. 2001... Also, The NY Times isnt exactly a "credible" source if you are looking for an unbiased pov.
-
[quote]The Chicago Police Department traced the origins of about 50,000 guns that it recovered [u]between 2001 and March 2012.[/u][/quote][quote]Source: Chicago Police Department[/quote]
-
Yes, that is a 11 year span. If it were from 2008 to current time, i garuntee you it would be a lot different...
-
[quote]i guarantee you it would be a lot different...[/quote]Until you provide a citation, your guarantee doesn't mean shit.
-
Until you get me current evidence, that doesn't mean shit either.
-
The standards for current evidence implies that there has been a significant chance in the intervening period. Please describe this change, or GTFO!
-
Gun laws and restrictions.. I thought people at one point had this thing called 'common sense' and could figure things out on their own..
-
That has not changed significantly since the data point was established. Try again.
-
If it has not changed significantly then prove it and get evidence from less than a decade ago
-
... Do you not understand? X data point is not outdated, as the [i]situation has not changed. [/i]
-
... Do you not understand? Since 2008 there has been tons more regulations put on fire arms. If you took the 7 years out of that, and then had data to current time, it would be a lot more accurate and credible. But you aren't doing that because it would not support your argument.
-
I'll look for it, then, if that may satisfy your cravings.
-
Thanks
-
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/The-312/July-2012/Where-Do-Chicagos-Guns-Come-From/ http://www.suntimes.com/news/crime/14715658-418/chicago-gangs-dont-have-to-go-far-to-buy-guns.html Due to the strict gun conditions, people are forced to look elsewhere. Making the gun control conditions even more strict only amplifies this effect. The situation has not changed.
-
[quote]Altogether, there are 441 federally licensed dealers in suburban Cook County and the five collar counties, according to the latest ATF data. Most of these suburban shops, officials say, are law-abiding businesses that operate responsibly. But a small percentage—fewer than 1 percent, the city says—are responsible for nearly half of all the firearms used in crimes in Chicago.[/quote] That makes what you just said invalid. On the graph I was shown, the flow was spread out all over the country. Here it says nearly half of guns used in crimes in Chicago are from fewer than one percent of businesses, in Chicago. Also, this is another reason that gun control laws will do absolutely nothing but hurt the law-abiding people. Onto the second article, so the answer is "go after the careful, law abiding gun shop owners, who routinely turn people away to whom they could lawfully sell a firearm, but let the straw buyers who are committing the felonies go. And then propose universal background checks as the solution?" This whole effort is an attack on law abiding gun owners and guns, nothing less. I know you were proving to me that the situation hasn't changed but it has, and with these articles you have just dug yourself a deeper hole. My cravings are satisfied.
-
Edited by Quantum: 8/8/2013 10:30:41 AM[quote]That makes what you just said invalid. On the graph I was shown, the flow was spread out all over the country. Here it says nearly half of guns used in crimes in Chicago are from fewer than one percent of businesses, in Chicago. Also, this is another reason that gun control laws will do absolutely nothing but hurt the law-abiding people.[/quote] Are you really going to cherry pick data and attach an argument to? FYI, the ATF, which deals with such events, has been severely restricted by NRA/GOP bills. The GOP has been deliberately trying to keep this 1% of gun owners from facing any consequences. So yes, when your gun control laws are literally diluted to water, they aren't very effective, news at 11. [quote]Onto the second article, so the answer is "go after the careful, law abiding gun shop owners, who routinely turn people away to whom they could lawfully sell a firearm, but let the straw buyers who are committing the felonies go. And then propose universal background checks as the solution?" This whole effort is an attack on law abiding gun owners and guns, nothing less.[/quote] Major straw-man. [quote] I know you were proving to me that the situation hasn't changed but it has, and with these articles you have just dug yourself a deeper hole. My cravings are satisfied.[/quote] All I see is you cherry picking data and ignoring the context of said data. [i]Seriously, read. [/i]
-
I "cherry picked"an entire paragraph from what you gave me. I gave you an example of the "change" that you wanted me to tell you. All that I was doing was answering your question. And by the way, I wouldn't mind if the gun laws did nothing, because there shouldn't be any. Major straw man... Tf does this even mean lol... You guys love to make terms off the top of your head. If the context of your data was what you wanted it to be, then I wouldn't of been able to "cherry pick" anything.
-
[quote]Source: Chicago Police Department[/quote]and lol at you trying to be badass.
-
Just because it's from a pd doesn't mean it is current... I hope you know what current means
-
Those laws are easily circumvented by driving outside the city limits. That, and those laws were established because of the high death rate. It has very little to do with the effectiveness of [b]federally[/b] enforced gun control.
-
huh, funny considering chicago banned gun stores and the only gun stores are in neighboring counties. ie, legally armed citizens can't stay in chicago to get guns or training.
-
[quote]Those laws are easily circumvented by driving outside the city limits. That, and those laws were established because of the high death rate. It has very little to do with the effectiveness of [b]federally[/b] enforced gun control.[/quote] First of all... The laws there don't even need to be circumvented, taking guns away from law abiding citizens does nothing. They are called criminals for a reason, because they [u]dont[/u] follow the law. They get their guns illegally and know that the person they are robbing/mugging/ etc. doesn't have a firearm with them. That is the main reason that they have the highest crime rate. And establishing a law where no one can defend themselves solves a high death rate how?!? I think it has [i]everything[/i] to do with federally enforced gun control, because it was them who even came up with that unconstitutional idea.
-
Edited by Quantum: 8/6/2013 9:46:28 AM[quote]First of all... The laws there don't even need to be circumvented, taking guns away from law abiding citizens does nothing. They are called criminals for a reason, because they dont follow the law.[/quote] -Most guns in gun crime[b] are legally owned. [/b]Criminals not following the law does not mean we cancel the law. [quote]That is the main reason that they have the highest crime rate. And establishing a law where no one can defend themselves solves a high death rate how?!? [/quote] Just like every other Western country. [quote] I think it has everything to do with federally enforced gun control, because it was them who even came up with that unconstitutional idea.[/quote] Chicago is not an example of federally induced gun control, nor does it have many of the advantages that come with it.
