So interesting. Chicago is terrible for adults and teen deaths by guns!
And yet Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. Hmmm....
::sets fire and runs away to lunch::
Interesting. Are there any stats on how many of those guns were obtained legally? What are the laws about buying a gun if you have a previous criminal record, or the stats on how many of the accused are first-time offenders?
I'm sure the poverty and education levels also play a big role.
It's so upsetting that there are no real answers to these problems, because the causes are so complex. It's even more upsetting to know that these problems likely aren't going to change for a very long time, if ever.
Post by awkwardpenguin on Jan 31, 2013 20:10:58 GMT -5
Chicago is murderville. It's really really terrible. Shortly after Aurora, 13 people were shot in Chicago in a single night. Obviously it didn't make the national media.
And Chicago doesn't even make the top ten cities with the most violent crime per capita. Gun violence is clearly related to poverty, and its victims are predominantly black. More than twice as many blacks died from firearm homicide than whites in 2009, even though blacks are only 13% of the population. We're not ready to have a conversation in this country about racial and economic justice, so instead we'll pass some gun laws.
That whole graphic is crazy. Very sad. Guns suck. Legal or not.
I dont want to start anything but would really like to know why legal guns suck. People that kill innocent people with guns suck. It is against the law but they dont care. Just like the criminals in Chicago continue to have guns that are against the law and they can more easily pray on innocent people knowing that law abiding citizens will not have guns to protect themselves.
If banning guns was the answer would Chicago not be the safest place to be?!?
That whole graphic is crazy. Very sad. Guns suck. Legal or not.
I dont want to start anything but would really like to know why legal guns suck. People that kill innocent people with guns suck. It is against the law but they dont care. Just like the criminals in Chicago continue to have guns that are against the law and they can more easily pray on innocent people knowing that law abiding citizens will not have guns to protect themselves.
If banning guns was the answer would Chicago not be the safest place to be?!?
If there were no guns anywhere ever, we would be safer. Yes, there might be more coyote and bear attacks, but I would risk it.
It really frightens me that such a large number of people in this country seem to think that the government is out to get them, and that the only thing standing between them and total tyranny is a rifle.
I mean, sure, I don't think that the government is always 100% honest with us or looking out for us. But I really doubt that a dictatorship is on the horizon. Even if it was, the government has tanks and nuclear weapons and all sorts of high-tech stuff ... my handgun or rifle isn't going to stop them.
I dont want to start anything but would really like to know why legal guns suck. People that kill innocent people with guns suck. It is against the law but they dont care. Just like the criminals in Chicago continue to have guns that are against the law and they can more easily pray on innocent people knowing that law abiding citizens will not have guns to protect themselves.
If banning guns was the answer would Chicago not be the safest place to be?!?
If there were no guns anywhere ever, we would be safer. Yes, there might be more coyote and bear attacks, but I would risk it.
It is not about coyote and bear attacks. It is about criminal people attacking because they dont care if they are breaking the law. This would include the law to not own guns.
But even in countries where guns are not legal there are still shootings. And the rate of crime (robberies, assault, rape) is a lot higher than in the US.
All of the meat that we eat, aside from eating at a restaurant, comes from being killed by a gun. It makes a huge difference in the range of the gun you have to hunt with and if you have to reload after each shot. Take guns away and a lot of people will go hungry. We would not be able to afford near the amount of meat we eat and our donations to the local food bank would also have to stop. There are a fair amount of people around me that depend on hunting to provide for their families.
I dont think the government is out to get us either. But you let them take one given freedom away once and it becomes easier for them to do it again.
If there were no guns anywhere ever, we would be safer. Yes, there might be more coyote and bear attacks, but I would risk it.
It is not about coyote and bear attacks. It is about criminal people attacking because they dont care if they are breaking the law. This would include the law to not own guns.
But even in countries where guns are not legal there are still shootings. And the rate of crime (robberies, assault, rape) is a lot higher than in the US.
All of the meat that we eat, aside from eating at a restaurant, comes from being killed by a gun. It makes a huge difference in the range of the gun you have to hunt with and if you have to reload after each shot. Take guns away and a lot of people will go hungry. We would not be able to afford near the amount of meat we eat and our donations to the local food bank would also have to stop. There are a fair amount of people around me that depend on hunting to provide for their families.
I dont think the government is out to get us either. But you let them take one given freedom away once and it becomes easier for them to do it again.
What countries are you referring to?
And when you say "all of the meat that we eat," do you mean "we" as in you and your family (which is what I'm guessing you mean), or "we" collectively as a society? And is hunting your meat your own personal preference, or is it done out of necessity because otherwise you couldn't afford it?
If there were no guns anywhere ever, we would be safer. Yes, there might be more coyote and bear attacks, but I would risk it.
It is not about coyote and bear attacks. It is about criminal people attacking because they dont care if they are breaking the law. This would include the law to not own guns.
Exactly.
So why do my guns suck? I obtained them all legally, I know proper gun safety, and, while this may seem surprising, the fact that I own them doesn't make me go around shooting people.
It is not about coyote and bear attacks. It is about criminal people attacking because they dont care if they are breaking the law. This would include the law to not own guns.
Exactly.
So why do my guns suck? I obtained them all legally, I know proper gun safety, and, while this may seem surprising, the fact that I own them doesn't make me go around shooting people.
I think people should have the right to own guns, but I do think we need better controls on people buying guns. There are studies that strongly suggest that certain gun control measures do in fact lower gun crime and the rate of firearm deaths. Regulation of buying guns seems reasonable. Regulation of owning guns (like in Chicago) doesn't seem to work and are honestly intended to give the police a way to arrest people on firearms charges if they don't have other real charges.
The fact that private gun sales aren't regulated in many states is crazy to me. That basically makes "street sale" of guns legal, which just seems like a terrible idea. My car has a title I have to move to the new owner when I sell it, I don't see why it shouldn't be the same with guns.
It is not about coyote and bear attacks. It is about criminal people attacking because they dont care if they are breaking the law. This would include the law to not own guns.
Exactly.
So why do my guns suck? I obtained them all legally, I know proper gun safety, and, while this may seem surprising, the fact that I own them doesn't make me go around shooting people.
So then why is pot illegal in most states, if most people are just sitting around in their living rooms smoking it? Things like guns and liquor and drugs are legalized in this country based on who's got the most powerful lobby backing them up, not because of how safe or necessary they are.
I'm sure you're a responsible gun owner, and I'm sure most Americans are as well.
I just ... I'm sure this is coming from me never owning a gun and not coming from a family/neighborhood where people owned guns (well, not to hunt game or shoot recreationally, anyway) ... I just don't see how much difference a gun makes in protecting yourself and your home. (Collective "you.") Home invasions and physical altercations happen so fast that I can't help but wonder how often a gun is able to be quickly accessed and used successfully in those situations.
I'd be very interested in seeing the statistics of how many people have successfully defended their home or family with a gun. And I'm sure that my opinion is skewed since I live in an urban environment where police can respond within a few minutes, rather than if I lived in, say, Montana in the middle of nowhere where there are only a handful of deputies for every hundred square miles.
Something has to change. Not just with horrible mass shootings in schools and movie theaters, but people on the streets are shooting each other (and innocent bystanders) to death every day. I'd be O.K. with giving up a personal liberty, or at least trying it out for a while, if it made a difference. I know we can all sit here and say that restricting gun liberties probably won't make a difference because there will always be the black market or people hiding them away or whatever, but why can't we at least try it?
Post by countthestars on Feb 1, 2013 10:53:12 GMT -5
We don't have a gun for protection, we have a gun for sport (we don't even keep it at our house because we don't have a safe).
Anyway, I agree with a tightening of laws and don't want to argue guns with anyone because it rarely changes stance, though I will admit that I have become much more liberal since joining the Nest.
I may sound stupid saying this or maybe it's just the analyst in me, but I don't really "get" the point of this map. Yes, it shows the number of deaths since December and it can be eye opening and sad, but will it be compared to something? Why does it start at Newtown? Do the creators think that gun violence will have gotten worse since then or did they just choose Newtown as an arbitrary date to start? It doesn't pull in any of the information referenced above (correlations between gun laws and gun deaths) so it just seems kind of pointless to me.
I may sound stupid saying this or maybe it's just the analyst in me, but I don't really "get" the point of this map. Yes, it shows the number of deaths since December and it can be eye opening and sad, but will it be compared to something? Why does it start at Newtown? Do the creators think that gun violence will have gotten worse since then or did they just choose Newtown as an arbitrary date to start? It doesn't pull in any of the information referenced above (correlations between gun laws and gun deaths) so it just seems kind of pointless to me.
Maybe because people are still talking about Newtown, and yet since then there have been all these other gun-related deaths that have basically gone unnoticed.
Newtown was 20 children all at once. The rest of the kids on that map since then total 23, ranging from age 1-12.
Chicago alone has 52 deaths (including young teenagers) since Newtown.
The point might be that while a mass shooting is certainly a tragedy, the equivalent is happening every day in this country, just spread out over a slightly longer period of time. A mass shooting is terrible, but if it's happening EVERY DAY in this country then we as a society have a bigger problem than random lunatics deciding to shoot up a movie theater or school.
It is not about coyote and bear attacks. It is about criminal people attacking because they dont care if they are breaking the law. This would include the law to not own guns.
But even in countries where guns are not legal there are still shootings. And the rate of crime (robberies, assault, rape) is a lot higher than in the US.
All of the meat that we eat, aside from eating at a restaurant, comes from being killed by a gun. It makes a huge difference in the range of the gun you have to hunt with and if you have to reload after each shot. Take guns away and a lot of people will go hungry. We would not be able to afford near the amount of meat we eat and our donations to the local food bank would also have to stop. There are a fair amount of people around me that depend on hunting to provide for their families.
I dont think the government is out to get us either. But you let them take one given freedom away once and it becomes easier for them to do it again.
What countries are you referring to?
And when you say "all of the meat that we eat," do you mean "we" as in you and your family (which is what I'm guessing you mean), or "we" collectively as a society? And is hunting your meat your own personal preference, or is it done out of necessity because otherwise you couldn't afford it?
You can start with Britain vs the US Where guns are banned Assault 2.8% vs the US 1.2% Rape 0.9% vs the US 0.4% Gun Deaths 14 Total crime victims 26.4% vs the US 21.1%
Australia where guns are banned Assault 2.4% Rape 1% Gun Deaths 59 Total crime victims 30.1% vs the US 21.1%
While the # of gun deaths is a lot lower it does NOT take into account the population size. The US death by guns INCLUDES suicides.
All the meat that my family eats is hunted. Society could suffer as a whole if this way of providing is taken away. We place our survival completely on cow feed lots, transportation systems and distribution systems.
So why do my guns suck? I obtained them all legally, I know proper gun safety, and, while this may seem surprising, the fact that I own them doesn't make me go around shooting people.
So then why is pot illegal in most states, if most people are just sitting around in their living rooms smoking it? Things like guns and liquor and drugs are legalized in this country based on who's got the most powerful lobby backing them up, not because of how safe or necessary they are.
I'm sure you're a responsible gun owner, and I'm sure most Americans are as well.
I just ... I'm sure this is coming from me never owning a gun and not coming from a family/neighborhood where people owned guns (well, not to hunt game or shoot recreationally, anyway) ... I just don't see how much difference a gun makes in protecting yourself and your home. (Collective "you.") Home invasions and physical altercations happen so fast that I can't help but wonder how often a gun is able to be quickly accessed and used successfully in those situations.
I'd be very interested in seeing the statistics of how many people have successfully defended their home or family with a gun. And I'm sure that my opinion is skewed since I live in an urban environment where police can respond within a few minutes, rather than if I lived in, say, Montana in the middle of nowhere where there are only a handful of deputies for every hundred square miles.
Something has to change. Not just with horrible mass shootings in schools and movie theaters, but people on the streets are shooting each other (and innocent bystanders) to death every day. I'd be O.K. with giving up a personal liberty, or at least trying it out for a while, if it made a difference. I know we can all sit here and say that restricting gun liberties probably won't make a difference because there will always be the black market or people hiding them away or whatever, but why can't we at least try it?
Why is pot illegal? lol
I do agree something has to change, but just banning guns isn't the solution. If somebody is going to kill somebody, the thought of "oh, but my murder weapon is illegal" isn't really a train of thought for criminals.
To go back to the map, here's an article of legal guns per capita, by state: www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/15/states-with-the-most-legal-guns-in-2012.html (For the sake of arguing, let's assume those background checks all resulted in approval). Now, let's just talk about the top 5 states. Those five states made up for 42 total deaths on the map. That's less than .03% of the map. Chicago alone has had 53 deaths. Where it's extremely hard to own a gun. DC only had 421 background checks in the last year, yet 12 murders. That's not a very good ratio... Gun ownership isn't the problem here.
And why not take away a liberty to help the cause? Look how easy it is to get a gun in Chicago. People like Chris will always be able to get a gun, while people like me won't. Who would you rather have armed?
So why do my guns suck? I obtained them all legally, I know proper gun safety, and, while this may seem surprising, the fact that I own them doesn't make me go around shooting people.
So then why is pot illegal in most states, if most people are just sitting around in their living rooms smoking it? Things like guns and liquor and drugs are legalized in this country based on who's got the most powerful lobby backing them up, not because of how safe or necessary they are.
I'm sure you're a responsible gun owner, and I'm sure most Americans are as well.
I just ... I'm sure this is coming from me never owning a gun and not coming from a family/neighborhood where people owned guns (well, not to hunt game or shoot recreationally, anyway) ... I just don't see how much difference a gun makes in protecting yourself and your home. (Collective "you.") Home invasions and physical altercations happen so fast that I can't help but wonder how often a gun is able to be quickly accessed and used successfully in those situations.
I'd be very interested in seeing the statistics of how many people have successfully defended their home or family with a gun. And I'm sure that my opinion is skewed since I live in an urban environment where police can respond within a few minutes, rather than if I lived in, say, Montana in the middle of nowhere where there are only a handful of deputies for every hundred square miles.
Something has to change. Not just with horrible mass shootings in schools and movie theaters, but people on the streets are shooting each other (and innocent bystanders) to death every day. I'd be O.K. with giving up a personal liberty, or at least trying it out for a while, if it made a difference. I know we can all sit here and say that restricting gun liberties probably won't make a difference because there will always be the black market or people hiding them away or whatever, but why can't we at least try it?
Because if you have guns for protection it is in your best interest to practice with them so when the time comes you can immediately react. A few minutes can be the matter of life and death. Also if you dont have time to defend yourself with a gun what makes you think you will have time to grab a phone, dial 911 and tell the dispatcher where you are before the bad guys get to you.
Here are some statistics. They are all sourced at the bottom of the article... americangunfacts.com/
If we "try it" then the government will have all of the responsible citizens guns. The criminals will still have their guns. You really think the government is going to give them back and admit they are wrong. They have tried in Chicago. It has massively failed and yet law abiding citizens dont have their guns back.
Taking away people's guns is taking away their freedom. Forcing mentally people to get help or enter a facility is taking away their freedom. Increasing education and poverty assistance is angering people because it's costing them more money to take care of other people. The NRA is too powerful of a lobby for anything to get done.
So what's the answer, then?
(This is a rhetorical question spoken out of frustration, not a literal question. Because I think the only real answer here is that we just need to accept that out-of-control gun violence is the status quo.)
If we "try it" then the government will have all of the responsible citizens guns. The criminals will still have their guns. You really think the government is going to give them back and admit they are wrong. They have tried in Chicago. It has massively failed and yet law abiding citizens dont have their guns back.
What do you mean law abiding citizens don't have their guns back? No one came and took people's guns away in Chicago. It's not THAT hard to legally own a gun in Chicago. Who is coming to take your guns away?
What is strange to me is most people are not saying we should take people's guns away, and that's certainly not the current public policy debate. Most proposals I've seen have to do with regulations on purchasing guns and private sales, requiring registration of guns, and limiting the availability of high capacity magazines and so called "assault rifles". Seriously, WHO in this case is coming to actually take your guns away?
So then why is pot illegal in most states, if most people are just sitting around in their living rooms smoking it? Things like guns and liquor and drugs are legalized in this country based on who's got the most powerful lobby backing them up, not because of how safe or necessary they are.
I'm sure you're a responsible gun owner, and I'm sure most Americans are as well.
I just ... I'm sure this is coming from me never owning a gun and not coming from a family/neighborhood where people owned guns (well, not to hunt game or shoot recreationally, anyway) ... I just don't see how much difference a gun makes in protecting yourself and your home. (Collective "you.") Home invasions and physical altercations happen so fast that I can't help but wonder how often a gun is able to be quickly accessed and used successfully in those situations.
I'd be very interested in seeing the statistics of how many people have successfully defended their home or family with a gun. And I'm sure that my opinion is skewed since I live in an urban environment where police can respond within a few minutes, rather than if I lived in, say, Montana in the middle of nowhere where there are only a handful of deputies for every hundred square miles.
Something has to change. Not just with horrible mass shootings in schools and movie theaters, but people on the streets are shooting each other (and innocent bystanders) to death every day. I'd be O.K. with giving up a personal liberty, or at least trying it out for a while, if it made a difference. I know we can all sit here and say that restricting gun liberties probably won't make a difference because there will always be the black market or people hiding them away or whatever, but why can't we at least try it?
Because if you have guns for protection it is in your best interest to practice with them so when the time comes you can immediately react. A few minutes can be the matter of life and death. Also if you dont have time to defend yourself with a gun what makes you think you will have time to grab a phone, dial 911 and tell the dispatcher where you are before the bad guys get to you.
Here are some statistics. They are all sourced at the bottom of the article... americangunfacts.com/ If we "try it" then the government will have all of the responsible citizens guns. The criminals will still have their guns. You really think the government is going to give them back and admit they are wrong. They have tried in Chicago. It has massively failed and yet law abiding citizens dont have their guns back.
I'm not talking about totally banning guns, because obviously that's never going to happen. I'm talking about tightening restrictions even further.
And this goes back to my comment about not being raised around guns, but honestly, I don't see the "need" for a gun. Personal preference, sure. I wouldn't feel any safer if I had a gun in my house for protection.
Also if you dont have time to defend yourself with a gun what makes you think you will have time to grab a phone, dial 911 and tell the dispatcher where you are before the bad guys get to you.
I imagine it'd take a lot less time to grab my phone from on top of my nightstand and dial 911, than it would take for me to get a gun out of a locked safe and load it and get into position to fire it, no?
Because if you have guns for protection it is in your best interest to practice with them so when the time comes you can immediately react. A few minutes can be the matter of life and death. Also if you dont have time to defend yourself with a gun what makes you think you will have time to grab a phone, dial 911 and tell the dispatcher where you are before the bad guys get to you.
Here are some statistics. They are all sourced at the bottom of the article... americangunfacts.com/ If we "try it" then the government will have all of the responsible citizens guns. The criminals will still have their guns. You really think the government is going to give them back and admit they are wrong. They have tried in Chicago. It has massively failed and yet law abiding citizens dont have their guns back.
I'm not talking about totally banning guns, because obviously that's never going to happen. I'm talking about tightening restrictions even further.
And this goes back to my comment about not being raised around guns, but honestly, I don't see the "need" for a gun. Personal preference, sure. I wouldn't feel any safer if I had a gun in my house for protection.
Also if you dont have time to defend yourself with a gun what makes you think you will have time to grab a phone, dial 911 and tell the dispatcher where you are before the bad guys get to you.
I imagine it'd take a lot less time to grab my phone from on top of my nightstand and dial 911, than it would take for me to get a gun out of a locked safe and load it and get into position to fire it, no?
Nope I can get a shot off from an unloaded gun in less than 15 seconds. You cannot dial 911 and tell them where you are in that amount of time. Much less waiting valuable minutes for the police to come while your family is being assaulted, raped, murdered...
Feeling safe with a gun in your house is a matter of training and practice. No one is saying that you have to have one. I just know that my odds of surviving an attack are much greater with one. I know the laws and how to safely operate the firearms that are at my disposal.
And I do realize you specifically did not say to ban them. Another poster made the comment that we would be better off w/out them. Most mass gun deaths though occur where gun use / ownership is restricted and not where guns are permitted. So why are we going to put more bans on guns when statistics have proven it does not work.
So interesting. Chicago is terrible for adults and teen deaths by guns!
And yet Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. Hmmm....
::sets fire and runs away to lunch::
Beyond the issue of poverty, race issues, and what not that does cause an increase in violence..Lax federal and state laws make it easy to purchase guns from nearby, underregulated counties or states and bring them into cities. In Chicago, for example, gun sellers will simply set up shop just outside the city limits and sell to traffickers who bring the weapons into the city. That’s one of the key arguments for the sort of federal action being considered today, especially universal background checks at nearby gun shows to prevent this sort of trafficking. A uniform federal standard would make it much harder for criminals to take advantage of state and local variation.