Banning Assault weapons may not be the right direction according to this
 

Gun laws in Illinois

Cook County and the city of Chicago have separately banned the possession of "assault weapons", and of magazines that can hold more than 10 or 12 rounds of ammunition respectively.

Illinois does not issue licenses for the concealed carry of firearms, nor does it recognize licenses issued by other states. Illinois is the only state that does not allow concealed carry in some form. Open carry is also prohibited in most areas.

When a firearm is being transported, it must be unloaded and enclosed in a case.

To legally possess firearms or ammunition, Illinois residents must have a Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card, issued by the state police.

Yet Chicago ( This is where Obama came from) has just passed 500 murders with over 2,500 being shot, 63 murdered (http://crimeinchicago.blogspot.com/2...n-chicago.html 454 have been shot)were children for the year. Which puts a shadow on the idea that banning assault weapons or spending the time doing so is a waste of time.

People outside the US that have never lived here will not understand our culture, they can give all the advice they want. I would bet that the crime rate in the Nations capital has gone down since the Supreme Court ruled allowing them to own guns again.

How many of those murders happened outside of the ghetto where the victim and shooter were not known to each other?

Most of those deaths are drug and gang related, just like in Baltimore, DC, St. Louis or any other city with those same problems.

I don't know why people think you can stop bad things from happening without creating a total orwellian society...

The whole problem with 'ban this gun, ban that gun' is that

1. there are already 300+ million guns in this country
2. the hardcore bad guys (and insane people) are already armed to the teeth
3. the hardcore bad guys (and insane people) aren't going to give their weapons up
4. in the result of some 'ban', the hardcore bad guys (and insane people) can just get more weapons on the street

What hardcore gun control advocates don't get is...ummm...everything i just mentioned.

Honestly I don't know what the right answer is, but if you think gun control laws are the solution, you're being terribly unrealistic.

:thumbsup

.

Anyone that actually knows DC knows that the murder rate has gone down. In the last decade a lot of the SE and parts of NE were gobbled up and revitalized. The criminal element moved to neighboring Prince Georges Co. where the murder rate soared.

Something similar happened in Baltimore with Section 8 housing but on a much smaller scale.

When I was 21 I worked on K St, SW ???. rough neighborhood at the time.

If this board had a "thanks" button, I'd click it:thumbsup

Then the stadium and yuppies came for their $2500 two bedroom apartment rentals.

And what hardcore gun owners don't understand is that there are millions of people living without guns and doing just fine... With those hundreds of millions of guns all around them.

Sane gun owners don't worry me but fanatics in general scare me.

Right, because in a a total orwellian society, the govt would have a monopoly on doing bad things. Except they wouldn't be bad things because the orwellian govt would be perpetrating said bad acts. Which would make them good acts because the orwellian govt committed them and.....fuck, my eyes just crossed.

You didn't address my real point at all.

Your point is the bad people will still have or get guns. I don't dispute that.

I am just casually mentioning that some of the gun nuts that seem to post here worry me as much as those bad people everybody else is worried about.

Or that is what I was trying to say.

Fanatical people scare me.

That's how their plan to disarm citizens goes. Just like every tyrannical government has done the same since history of man...
Incrementally, One step at a time.

Ban Guns From Government.

Panties in a bunch? I think you're scared of more than just guns, and like it :2 cents:

Thus spake The King:



It ain't the guns.

:2 cents:

An assault weapons ban would take several years to see any effects and thats ok with me. Do it now and let our children and theirs reap the benefits.

Good Lord... And I'm Not Religious!

You must have missed this discussion. Yes, Chicago just passed 500 murders. However, this is part of a downward trend - it used to be nearly twice as much.

I'm not afraid of guns. They're all around me every day and I give zero thought to them. I just think they're stupid. My Mom took me to the range as a teen so I at least knew how to shoot. It's dumb.

Speaking of afraid, are you afraid to post under your real nick? :winkwink:

Want to know what does scare me? Knives. Whenever I see someone handling one I get the mental image of it tearing through skin and it sends chills up my spine.

Holy shit. In 1991 Chicago had 927 murders.

Why are they even freaking out about 500 this year when they had more than that as recently as 2008? Even in 2003 they were over 600/yr.

Hunting rifles and sporting shotguns, sure... not a problem. However, I think we need to outlaw military caliber weapons, period. Ban the sale, transfer, and possession -- just like they do in Mexico.

It's not dumb. It's living under government tyranny or not. I choose Not.
Knives would be slow death, you're right.
I might have a nick older than this one, let me check... lol

Most of the chitown murders are gang related.

Gangbangers don't give a fuck about gun laws.

Heya Pointless, You do know the story on Mexico, Right???

The gun nuts seem to believe this is proof that gun bans create more crime, even thought Chicago is on a downward trend.

They also like to debate about the UK and how gun laws there created more crime, yet gun crime in the UK is one tenth what is is in the US. The firearm death rate in the US is 10.2 per 100k, while in the UK it's .25 per 100k citizens. That's a huge difference.

You need to apply common sense here - more guns equals more gun crimes. It's pretty simple straight forward math. If you have one thousand people with guns, you'll have "x" amount of crime. You have three million people with guns you will have a lot more gun crime. Period.

I am a gun owner myself, but it scares the piss out of me that anyone can get a firearm so easily. I have to take three tests to get a driver's license AND have to update it each year, AND I have to register my car with the government... On the other hand with a firearm the only real restriction to owning a firearm is having the government check to make sure you aren't a felon... Mental health isn't even a consideration. That's fucking insane.

Yeah, we know the story. The cartels can't get the guns in Mexico so they get them from the US....

Why would you outlaw those weapons? They are the most efficient weapons. The 2nd Amendment is about protecting our free state... so if that day ever comes wouldn't you want the most efficient weapons to fight back with? Why limit ourselves?

And what exactly is a military caliber? AR-15 shoots a .223, that's a hunting caliber also.
M1 Carbine, vintage WWII is a .30 caliber pistol round and Garand uses a 30.06, then there are all the automatic weapons that use the 9mm. BTW, Mexico is a bad example of anything working for gun control

1990: 851
1991: 927
1992: 943
1993: 855
1994: 931
1995: 828
1996: 796
1997: 761
1998: 704
1999: 643
2000: 633
2001: 667
2002: 656
2003: 601
2004: 453
2005: 451
2006: 471
2007: 448
2008: 513
2009: 459
2010: 436
2011: 433

You could also say it's at a 4 year high? Please tell me where 500 murders in a city annually is a good thing?

Not working for Chicago, most murders are not done with Assault Weapons. I really don't know where you guys think that getting rid of a type of weapon will reduce crime in any way? During the last ban on assault style weapons is when the Columbine shooting took place.

except for Kennesaw Geogia where overall crime has decreased by more than 50% between 1982 and 2005. In 1982 a city ordinance was passed to put a gun in every house in the city.

wow...thats more than my entire country just in one city...the only figures I can dig up for my 3rd world shit hole is 280 murders total in 2009 and around 100 of them where from guns...that is an entire country with like 7 million people that is packed to the tooth with weapons after 2 wars in the last decade...

its not the guns...its the people...

:2 cents:

And all you guys call yourself webmasters lol! Enough with all the yapping.

Almost EVERY study undertaken admits that tough or lenient gun laws are tertiary considerations to
population density and poverty as predictors of murder rates.

Further, the below data show just how small firearm crime is when compared to every other cause of death as reported by the FBI. But dont let the facts get in the way of argument. Read the data, it is freely available and ANY 'webmaster' should they have a modicum of sense to find it, IF they really wish to.

Data from FBI Crimes and Statistics annual reports 2001-2011 (within the last 10 mins).

Murder by firearm (not including US Virgin Islands)
2001 - 8890
2002 - 9528
2003 - 9659
2004 - 9326
2005 - 10100
2006 - 10177
2007 - 10086
2008 - 9484
2009 - 9146
2010 - 8734
2011 - 8552 lowest since 1981

If you REALLY want to see a major decline in total firearm deaths, cure depression as 64% of ALL firearm deaths (not murder) are suicides.

No one has ever heard of Kennesaw, Geogia. Switzerland has firearms in every house, yet has a higher gun death rate than the UK which has no firearms.

But let's talk about Kennesaw... They claim to have low crime rates, and then I find this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1818862/posts

We are talking about a city with 30k poeple in it, and yet in 2004 they had 172 assaults and 86 Burglaries.... Yet we have this gem: "Gun rights activist David Kopel has claimed that there is evidence that this gun law has reduced the incident rate of home burglaries citing that in the first year, home burglaries dropped from 65 before the ordinance, down to 26 in 1983, and to 11 in 1984." So home burglaries went down from 65 to 26 to 11 and then jumped up 86 in 2004? I mean, I'm not searching too hard for stats here and I am quickly able to disprove your fact.

Let's compare Kennesaw to my hometown of Lincoln, California. Kennesaw has 30k, Lincoln California has 40k. Kennesaw has a "mandatory gun law" and Lincoln does not.

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ca/lincoln/crime/
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ga/kennesaw/crime/

Kennesaw is safer than 35% of US Cities, while Lincoln is 72% safer than all US Cities? We had a murder in Lincoln which was earth shattering for us, the first in decades.

So my city with no mandatory gun is twice as safe as your town with it?

500 murders in Chicago is a good thing because it's not the 900 murders they had before the strict gun laws. Don't you get it? The gun laws reduced murders by half....

gun laws are an issue but the bigger issue and this is an issue in Canada as well is our crappy legal and prison systems. We release repeat violent offenders again and again. Keep criminals in hard labor camps, people who murder or rape and it can be proved by video or DNA should be put to death so tax payers aren't drained to keep these douche bags in prison.

People need to know if they do these crimes they are never getting out, then the number will go down. Increasing gun laws isn't really going to help. Most crimes are done using illegal arms, not ones the average user goes and buys for their homes.

Just like that guy who shot the firefighters. He killed his fucking grandmother with a fucking hammer, and yet they let him out of prison. Hello?

I disagree. The shooting at the school in CT was done by legally purchased firearms, which is usually the case in mass murders. If there was a law banning firearms from houses where there are people with mental health issues, it's most likely this shooting would not have taken place. If background checks were really background checks - meaning someone went out and talked to the potential gun owner and interviewed them they might have discovered that her son had mental health issues and she would have been denied permission to buy or own a firearm.

Let's not forget that the guns used to kill the firefighters were bought by his 24 year old neighbor who purchased them on his behalf since he was unable to.