[Gun control laws in Chicago are utterly meaningless because we live in an open society and people have no problem getting guns elsewhere in the country and bringing them into the city to sell for profit or use for fun.
.
What I would like to know is how anyone thinks any kind of Gun Control will work in 2013.
There are about 300 million guns in the U.S.and at best 20% of them are registered.
So how would any kind of Gun Control work so that any place in the country was any different than Chicago is today?
It wouldn't work in 2013.
The hope rational, educated adults have is that it would gradually begin to work as time went on and more and more of those guns were taken out of circulation.
But we don't have enough rational, educated adults in this country to give it a chance. America is addicted to guns and violence and that won't change in my lifetime. The best I hope to see is that worthless, blood-soaked assholes like Wayne LaPierre start to get seen more widely for what they are - parasites who see an event like the Newtown massacre as a business opportunity rather than a tragedy.
In your best rational adult estimation how long would it take to remove 200 million guns out of circulation.
Of course. We can't keep drugs out of prisons, but one of the leading gun nut tropes is "Why doesn't gun control work in Chicago?"
They use it because they're either stupid or malignantly disingenuous. No other possibility.
I'd also explain why they have all this fake concern about Chicago, when there is equal or greater gun violence in so many other American cities, but I think anyone with a triple-digit IQ can figure that one out.
Are these triple digit IQ dudes the ones who decided to inact the current Chicago gun laws?
Is that a serious question? You think the problem lies with the Chicago gun laws rather than the country's overall gun problem?
I don't even know how to begin answering that, because it seems like a Bizarro World question. Sure, passing those laws accomplished nothing of great significance, but it didn't do any harm, and in specific cases it has probably been useful in getting some guns off the streets.
[Gun control laws in Chicago are utterly meaningless because we live in an open society and people have no problem getting guns elsewhere in the country and bringing them into the city to sell for profit or use for fun.
.
What I would like to know is how anyone thinks any kind of Gun Control will work in 2013.
There are about 300 million guns in the U.S.and at best 20% of them are registered.
So how would any kind of Gun Control work so that any place in the country was any different than Chicago is today?
It wouldn't work in 2013.
The hope rational, educated adults have is that it would gradually begin to work as time went on and more and more of those guns were taken out of circulation.
But we don't have enough rational, educated adults in this country to give it a chance. America is addicted to guns and violence and that won't change in my lifetime. The best I hope to see is that worthless, blood-soaked assholes like Wayne LaPierre start to get seen more widely for what they are - parasites who see an event like the Newtown massacre as a business opportunity rather than a tragedy.
In your best rational adult estimation how long would it take to remove 200 million guns out of circulation.
I don't know. I don't care much about trying to quantify it, either. No such laws will be passed because your right-wing pals like their widdle (and big) boom-booms too much.
How long would it have to take before you'd be willing to give it a try? How much of a reduction in gun crime would make it worthwhile?
But again, it's a moot discussion because the psychos at the NRA aren't willing to concede an inch, no matter how many dead kids get planted.
[Gun control laws in Chicago are utterly meaningless because we live in an open society and people have no problem getting guns elsewhere in the country and bringing them into the city to sell for profit or use for fun.
.
What I would like to know is how anyone thinks any kind of Gun Control will work in 2013.
There are about 300 million guns in the U.S.and at best 20% of them are registered.
So how would any kind of Gun Control work so that any place in the country was any different than Chicago is today?
It wouldn't work in 2013.
The hope rational, educated adults have is that it would gradually begin to work as time went on and more and more of those guns were taken out of circulation.
But we don't have enough rational, educated adults in this country to give it a chance. America is addicted to guns and violence and that won't change in my lifetime. The best I hope to see is that worthless, blood-soaked assholes like Wayne LaPierre start to get seen more widely for what they are - parasites who see an event like the Newtown massacre as a business opportunity rather than a tragedy.
In your best rational adult estimation how long would it take to remove 200 million guns out of circulation.
I don't know. I don't care much about trying to quantify it, either. No such laws will be passed because your right-wing pals like their widdle (and big) boom-booms too much.
How long would it have to take before you'd be willing to give it a try? How much of a reduction in gun crime would make it worthwhile?
But again, it's a moot discussion because the psychos at the NRA aren't willing to concede an inch, no matter how many dead kids get planted.
Since I never have and never will own a gun I have no qualms about implementing a sensible plan.
If such a plan exists and will take 10 or even 100 years to work I'd be willing to listen to the workings of it and would support it if it made sense.
If a plan can't be quantified, even theoretically, I contest it's not a good plan.
Of course. We can't keep drugs out of prisons, but one of the leading gun nut tropes is "Why doesn't gun control work in Chicago?"
They use it because they're either stupid or malignantly disingenuous. No other possibility.
I'd also explain why they have all this fake concern about Chicago, when there is equal or greater gun violence in so many other American cities, but I think anyone with a triple-digit IQ can figure that one out.
Are these triple digit IQ dudes the ones who decided to inact the current Chicago gun laws?
Is that a serious question? You think the problem lies with the Chicago gun laws rather than the country's overall gun problem?
I don't even know how to begin answering that, because it seems like a Bizarro World question. Sure, passing those laws accomplished nothing of great significance, but it didn't do any harm, and in specific cases it has probably been useful in getting some guns off the streets.
Let me get this straight.......some folks sat down and said.."We need stricter gun laws" and worked to pass them even though if their IQ were in the triple digits they would have realized that they had no chance to work.
Then when people point to those "stricter gun laws" and say..."Look, they didn't work"... THEY are the idiots.
Since I never have and never will own a gun I have no qualms about implementing a sensible plan.
If such a plan exists and will take 10 or even 100 years to work I'd be willing to listen to the workings of it and would support it if it made sense.
If a plan can't be quantified, even theoretically, I contest it's not a good plan.
Again, it doesn't matter. There won't be any plan. You were asking for a quantification of something that doesn't exist, so how could I begin to answer?
Even with a specific plan the answer would, of course, be vague. How could it not be? It would depend in part on just how crazy the gun nuts are, and how long they would stay that way.
Of course. We can't keep drugs out of prisons, but one of the leading gun nut tropes is "Why doesn't gun control work in Chicago?"
They use it because they're either stupid or malignantly disingenuous. No other possibility.
I'd also explain why they have all this fake concern about Chicago, when there is equal or greater gun violence in so many other American cities, but I think anyone with a triple-digit IQ can figure that one out.
Are these triple digit IQ dudes the ones who decided to inact the current Chicago gun laws?
Is that a serious question? You think the problem lies with the Chicago gun laws rather than the country's overall gun problem?
I don't even know how to begin answering that, because it seems like a Bizarro World question. Sure, passing those laws accomplished nothing of great significance, but it didn't do any harm, and in specific cases it has probably been useful in getting some guns off the streets.
Let me get this straight.......some folks sat down and said.."We need stricter gun laws" and worked to pass them even though if their IQ were in the triple digits they would have realized that they had no chance to work.
Then when people point to those "stricter gun laws" and say..."Look, they didn't work"... THEY are the idiots.
Bizarro World indeed.
typical big government bullshit with feel good laws that accomplish nothing
as long as it's not their money being spent who cares though, right?
Let me get this straight.......some folks sat down and said.."We need stricter gun laws" and worked to pass them even though if their IQ were in the triple digits they would have realized that they had no chance to work.
Then when people point to those "stricter gun laws" and say..."Look, they didn't work"... THEY are the idiots.
Bizarro World indeed.
You're not paying attention to the answers, so why bother asking the questions?
If someone makes a well-intentioned attempt to address a problem and it doesn't work, that makes them idiots? Even if it does help to some degree you're not willing to recognize?
So the smart thing for Chicago to have done would have been what? Abolish all gun laws?
What are you even arguing here? That all laws that don't completely solve a problem should be junked?
Let me get this straight.......some folks sat down and said.."We need stricter gun laws" and worked to pass them even though if their IQ were in the triple digits they would have realized that they had no chance to work.
Then when people point to those "stricter gun laws" and say..."Look, they didn't work"... THEY are the idiots.
Bizarro World indeed.
You're not paying attention to the answers, so why bother asking the questions?
If someone makes a well-intentioned attempt to address a problem and it doesn't work, that makes them idiots? Even if it does help to some degree you're not willing to recognize?
So the smart thing for Chicago to have done would have been what? Abolish all gun laws?
What are you even arguing here? That all laws that don't completely solve a problem should be junked?
Bizarro World completely.
Dude, believe me, I'm listening to the answers.......anyone with an IQ in triple digits can see that the "stricter gun laws" in Chicago could not possibly work....except for the people who drew them up apparently.....and they shouldn't be called idiots...the people who point to them and say they didn't work are the idiots.
But your "out" is to state that they "may have" helped in some way and certainly didn't do any harm.....quantify THAT...since it's already happened you should be able to.
Since I never have and never will own a gun I have no qualms about implementing a sensible plan.
If such a plan exists and will take 10 or even 100 years to work I'd be willing to listen to the workings of it and would support it if it made sense.
If a plan can't be quantified, even theoretically, I contest it's not a good plan.
Again, it doesn't matter. There won't be any plan. You were asking for a quantification of something that doesn't exist, so how could I begin to answer?
Even with a specific plan the answer would, of course, be vague. How could it not be? It would depend in part on just how crazy the gun nuts are, and how long they would stay that way.
You say there can't be successful gun control because of your boogie man on the Right.
I say there can't be successful gun control because no one can/has come up with a plan that could be successful given there are 300 million guns in circulation.
Dude, believe me, I'm listening to the answers.......anyone with an IQ in triple digits can see that the "stricter gun laws" in Chicago could not possibly work....except for the people who drew them up apparently.....and they shouldn't be called idiots...the people who point to them and say they didn't work are the idiots.
But your "out" is to state that they "may have" helped in some way and certainly didn't do any harm.....quantify THAT...since it's already happened you should be able to.
Then what are you asking me for? Do it yourself. I'm saying it can't be done since Chicago isn't a closed system.
Since I never have and never will own a gun I have no qualms about implementing a sensible plan.
If such a plan exists and will take 10 or even 100 years to work I'd be willing to listen to the workings of it and would support it if it made sense.
If a plan can't be quantified, even theoretically, I contest it's not a good plan.
Again, it doesn't matter. There won't be any plan. You were asking for a quantification of something that doesn't exist, so how could I begin to answer?
Even with a specific plan the answer would, of course, be vague. How could it not be? It would depend in part on just how crazy the gun nuts are, and how long they would stay that way.
You say there can't be successful gun control because of your boogie man on the Right.
I say there can't be successful gun control because no one can/has come up with a plan that could be successful given there are 300 million guns in circulation.
Prove me wrong.
It's a matter of opinion. You think Wayne LaPierre and the gun nuts and the right-wing in general would accept a plan that could be successful.
You're kidding yourself. They damn well would not.
Chicago cops say 574 illegal guns seized this month (the month being January, 2013)
This seems like a quantification which can be extrapolated.
With all the talk about neighboring states that have more relaxed gun laws than Chicago, what's forgotten is that neighboring COUNTIES and CITIES have more lax gun laws than Chicago.
You don't have to leave the state to get a gun that you wouldn't normally be able to get in the Chi.
Tough to stop that, and unfair to hold Chicago up as an example of gun control not being workable, IMO.
Since I never have and never will own a gun I have no qualms about implementing a sensible plan.
If such a plan exists and will take 10 or even 100 years to work I'd be willing to listen to the workings of it and would support it if it made sense.
If a plan can't be quantified, even theoretically, I contest it's not a good plan.
Again, it doesn't matter. There won't be any plan. You were asking for a quantification of something that doesn't exist, so how could I begin to answer?
Even with a specific plan the answer would, of course, be vague. How could it not be? It would depend in part on just how crazy the gun nuts are, and how long they would stay that way.
You say there can't be successful gun control because of your boogie man on the Right.
I say there can't be successful gun control because no one can/has come up with a plan that could be successful given there are 300 million guns in circulation.
Prove me wrong.
It's a matter of opinion. You think Wayne LaPierre and the gun nuts and the right-wing in general would accept a plan that could be successful.
You're kidding yourself. They damn well would not.
What's the sense in coming up with a possible solution if Wayne LaPierre won't be on board with it...For The Win.
What's the sense in coming up with a possible solution if Wayne LaPierre won't be on board with it...For The Win.
Wayne LaPierre has no interest in a solution. None. That you think that you just won something with that comeback shows how much damage living in Texas has done to your ability to see through right-wing bullshit.
LaPierre only cares about helping the gun industry sell more guns and ammo. In his universe the Newtown massacre, like the shooting of Gabby Giffords and others in Tucson, mostly meant the bottom line for that industry was going to improve. So you tell me what sort of "solution" he would have any interest in. He doesn't think there's a problem.
What's the sense in coming up with a possible solution if Wayne LaPierre won't be on board with it...For The Win.
Wayne LaPierre has no interest in a solution. None. That you think that you just won something with that comeback shows how much damage living in Texas has done to your ability to see through right-wing bullshit.
LaPierre only cares about helping the gun industry sell more guns and ammo. In his universe the Newtown massacre, like the shooting of Gabby Giffords and others in Tucson, mostly meant the bottom line for that industry was going to improve. So you tell me what sort of "solution" he would have any interest in. He doesn't think there's a problem.
No Dude, I was giving YOU the win.
But you would look a lot better just admitting that there is no real solution rather than point a finger and blaming a clown like LaPierre.
What's the sense in coming up with a possible solution if Wayne LaPierre won't be on board with it...For The Win.
Wayne LaPierre has no interest in a solution. None. That you think that you just won something with that comeback shows how much damage living in Texas has done to your ability to see through right-wing bullshit.
LaPierre only cares about helping the gun industry sell more guns and ammo. In his universe the Newtown massacre, like the shooting of Gabby Giffords and others in Tucson, mostly meant the bottom line for that industry was going to improve. So you tell me what sort of "solution" he would have any interest in. He doesn't think there's a problem.
No Dude, I was giving YOU the win.
But you would look a lot better just admitting that there is no real solution rather than point a finger and blaming a clown like LaPierre.
There IS a quick solution, but apparently sawing Texas, Oklahoma, and Mississippi off and letting them float off into the ocean and secede would violate some peoples' sensibilities.
The real solution involves time, and letting the Angry White (R) Guys die off. I won't be here to see it.
What's the sense in coming up with a possible solution if Wayne LaPierre won't be on board with it...For The Win.
Wayne LaPierre has no interest in a solution. None. That you think that you just won something with that comeback shows how much damage living in Texas has done to your ability to see through right-wing bullshit.
LaPierre only cares about helping the gun industry sell more guns and ammo. In his universe the Newtown massacre, like the shooting of Gabby Giffords and others in Tucson, mostly meant the bottom line for that industry was going to improve. So you tell me what sort of "solution" he would have any interest in. He doesn't think there's a problem.
No Dude, I was giving YOU the win.
But you would look a lot better just admitting that there is no real solution rather than point a finger and blaming a clown like LaPierre.
There IS a quick solution, but apparently sawing Texas, Oklahoma, and Mississippi off and letting them float off into the ocean and secede would violate some peoples' sensibilities.
The real solution involves time, and letting the Angry White (R) Guys die off. I won't be here to see it.
Honestly, I've never met a white guy that seemed angrier than you.
Reading this thread one would never guess that, across the US as a whole, gun-related homicides are down 50% over the last 20 years and other gun-related crimes down 75%.
What's the sense in coming up with a possible solution if Wayne LaPierre won't be on board with it...For The Win.
Wayne LaPierre has no interest in a solution. None. That you think that you just won something with that comeback shows how much damage living in Texas has done to your ability to see through right-wing bullshit.
LaPierre only cares about helping the gun industry sell more guns and ammo. In his universe the Newtown massacre, like the shooting of Gabby Giffords and others in Tucson, mostly meant the bottom line for that industry was going to improve. So you tell me what sort of "solution" he would have any interest in. He doesn't think there's a problem.
No Dude, I was giving YOU the win.
But you would look a lot better just admitting that there is no real solution rather than point a finger and blaming a clown like LaPierre.
There IS a quick solution, but apparently sawing Texas, Oklahoma, and Mississippi off and letting them float off into the ocean and secede would violate some peoples' sensibilities.
The real solution involves time, and letting the Angry White (R) Guys die off. I won't be here to see it.
Honestly, I've never met a white guy that seemed angrier than you.
Reading this thread one would never guess that, across the US as a whole, gun-related homicides are down 50% over the last 20 years and other gun-related crimes down 75%.
Reading this thread one would never guess that, across the US as a whole, gun-related homicides are down 50% over the last 20 years and other gun-related crimes down 75%.
True. And violent crime is down across the board. But the fearmongers never let up.
By fearmongerers I assume you mean the Pro Gun Control people.......you know, the ones that continuously bring up tragedies like Newtown and use phrases like "dead kids getting planted".
Reading this thread one would never guess that, across the US as a whole, gun-related homicides are down 50% over the last 20 years and other gun-related crimes down 75%.
True. And violent crime is down across the board. But the fearmongers never let up.
By fearmongerers I assume you mean the Pro Gun Control people.......you know, the ones that continuously bring up tragedies like Newtown and use phrases like "dead kids getting planted".
Yeah, pardon me for thinking those dead kids matter.
Chill, guy. Why must you be so angry all the time? lol
Did that really call for two lols? Or are you just a cheap laugh?
Never mind, I know the answer.
lol!
"Sardonic" is how angry assholes describe themselves. I think you take yourself WAY too seriously, and you're really sensitive, too. Just chill, guy. Go for a walk or something lol.
Comments
In your best rational adult estimation how long would it take to remove 200 million guns out of circulation.
Is that a serious question? You think the problem lies with the Chicago gun laws rather than the country's overall gun problem?
I don't even know how to begin answering that, because it seems like a Bizarro World question. Sure, passing those laws accomplished nothing of great significance, but it didn't do any harm, and in specific cases it has probably been useful in getting some guns off the streets.
I don't know. I don't care much about trying to quantify it, either. No such laws will be passed because your right-wing pals like their widdle (and big) boom-booms too much.
How long would it have to take before you'd be willing to give it a try? How much of a reduction in gun crime would make it worthwhile?
But again, it's a moot discussion because the psychos at the NRA aren't willing to concede an inch, no matter how many dead kids get planted.
Since I never have and never will own a gun I have no qualms about implementing a sensible plan.
If such a plan exists and will take 10 or even 100 years to work I'd be willing to listen to the workings of it and would support it if it made sense.
If a plan can't be quantified, even theoretically, I contest it's not a good plan.
Let me get this straight.......some folks sat down and said.."We need stricter gun laws" and worked to pass them even though if their IQ were in the triple digits they would have realized that they had no chance to work.
Then when people point to those "stricter gun laws" and say..."Look, they didn't work"... THEY are the idiots.
Bizarro World indeed.
Again, it doesn't matter. There won't be any plan. You were asking for a quantification of something that doesn't exist, so how could I begin to answer?
Even with a specific plan the answer would, of course, be vague. How could it not be? It would depend in part on just how crazy the gun nuts are, and how long they would stay that way.
typical big government bullshit with feel good laws that accomplish nothing
as long as it's not their money being spent who cares though, right?
You're not paying attention to the answers, so why bother asking the questions?
If someone makes a well-intentioned attempt to address a problem and it doesn't work, that makes them idiots? Even if it does help to some degree you're not willing to recognize?
So the smart thing for Chicago to have done would have been what? Abolish all gun laws?
What are you even arguing here? That all laws that don't completely solve a problem should be junked?
Bizarro World completely.
Dude, believe me, I'm listening to the answers.......anyone with an IQ in triple digits can see that the "stricter gun laws" in Chicago could not possibly work....except for the people who drew them up apparently.....and they shouldn't be called idiots...the people who point to them and say they didn't work are the idiots.
But your "out" is to state that they "may have" helped in some way and certainly didn't do any harm.....quantify THAT...since it's already happened you should be able to.
You say there can't be successful gun control because of your boogie man on the Right.
I say there can't be successful gun control because no one can/has come up with a plan that could be successful given there are 300 million guns in circulation.
Prove me wrong.
"Money being spent"?
Jeezus, it's not an act. You're really that dense.
Then what are you asking me for? Do it yourself. I'm saying it can't be done since Chicago isn't a closed system.
It's a matter of opinion. You think Wayne LaPierre and the gun nuts and the right-wing in general would accept a plan that could be successful.
You're kidding yourself. They damn well would not.
Chicago cops say 574 illegal guns seized this month (the month being January, 2013)
This seems like a quantification which can be extrapolated.
With all the talk about neighboring states that have more relaxed gun laws than Chicago, what's forgotten is that neighboring COUNTIES and CITIES have more lax gun laws than Chicago.
You don't have to leave the state to get a gun that you wouldn't normally be able to get in the Chi.
Tough to stop that, and unfair to hold Chicago up as an example of gun control not being workable, IMO.
That's a great meaningless stat since there were 43 homicides in Chicago in Jan. 2013 and only 41 in Jan 2012
.
So yeah, we better not look at your quantification as anything but BS.
Their lips are moving.
What's the sense in coming up with a possible solution if Wayne LaPierre won't be on board with it...For The Win.
Wayne LaPierre has no interest in a solution. None. That you think that you just won something with that comeback shows how much damage living in Texas has done to your ability to see through right-wing bullshit.
LaPierre only cares about helping the gun industry sell more guns and ammo. In his universe the Newtown massacre, like the shooting of Gabby Giffords and others in Tucson, mostly meant the bottom line for that industry was going to improve. So you tell me what sort of "solution" he would have any interest in. He doesn't think there's a problem.
No Dude, I was giving YOU the win.
But you would look a lot better just admitting that there is no real solution rather than point a finger and blaming a clown like LaPierre.
There IS a quick solution, but apparently sawing Texas, Oklahoma, and Mississippi off and letting them float off into the ocean and secede would violate some peoples' sensibilities.
The real solution involves time, and letting the Angry White (R) Guys die off. I won't be here to see it.
Honestly, I've never met a white guy that seemed angrier than you.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/study-gun-homicide
+1
You've never met me.
I'm not angry, I'm sardonic. There's a difference, but I'm not sure it can be discerned by white guys who cheer the death penalty.
True. And violent crime is down across the board. But the fearmongers never let up.
Ah, go sit on a rook.
By fearmongerers I assume you mean the Pro Gun Control people.......you know, the ones that continuously bring up tragedies like Newtown and use phrases like "dead kids getting planted".
lol
Chill, guy. Why must you be so angry all the time? lol
Yeah, pardon me for thinking those dead kids matter.
What was I thinking?
Did that really call for two lols? Or are you just a cheap laugh?
Never mind, I know the answer.
lol!
"Sardonic" is how angry assholes describe themselves. I think you take yourself WAY too seriously, and you're really sensitive, too. Just chill, guy. Go for a walk or something lol.