150 replies to this topic

[AsteroidX]

I could only find this vague listing of Chicago gun laws which are definitely strict:

http://Well, first o...s#ixzz2JNsqEOmy


Deaths by gun in Chicago were around 500. I imagine a majority were gang related.

[F3SS]

Gangs don't bother me so long as they kill eachother but unfortunately they hurt others all the time.

[Capt Amerika]

-Mr_Fess-, on 29 January 2013 - 05:14 PM, said:

Gangs don't bother me so long as they kill eachother but unfortunately they hurt others all the time.

Gangs account for over 80% of the gun related deaths in this country.
If those stats are being used to push gun control then yes, they do matter.

That means out of the 10,000 deaths a year, gang related deaths are over 8,000 of them.
2,000 gun deaths in a country our size is not that significant when you consider how many of those were in self defense.
And if Illinois has Gun Laws on the books, Chicago is bound by them as a city in Illinois.
8th toughest laws in the nation and First in the nation in gun related homicides.
That says a mouthful right there.

Now please point to which of Obamas EO's specifically went after gang members to reduce the 80% number.

[Capt Amerika]

According to the Brady Website, my state of North Dakota ranks a pathetic 47th in the nation on gun laws.
Thats just horrendous, we only got 2 measly points out of 100.
But wait..... according to the FBI website, North Dakota ranks 49th in the nation in Gun related deaths.
How can that be?   How can a state where virtually everyone owns a gun and hunts have such a responsible population without gun laws strangling them to death?

This is the same site though that ranks Illinois as one of the top states enforcing gun laws yet they have 79% of all homicides are by gun.

My head is spinning just trying to wrap my mind on how North Dakota with "horrible" gun laws is a safer environment than Illinois with its top rate laws.
And Obama and Feinstein want to make us all Illinois.

Shouldn't we strive to be more like North Dakota and just simply go after the criminals?  or is that just too much common sense.

[Michelle]

Capt Amerika, on 29 January 2013 - 07:54 PM, said:

Gangs account for over 80% of the gun related deaths in this country.
If those stats are being used to push gun control then yes, they do matter.

That means out of the 10,000 deaths a year, gang related deaths are over 8,000 of them.
2,000 gun deaths in a country our size is not that significant when you consider how many of those were in self defense.
And if Illinois has Gun Laws on the books, Chicago is bound by them as a city in Illinois.
8th toughest laws in the nation and First in the nation in gun related homicides.
That says a mouthful right there.

Now please point to which of Obamas EO's specifically went after gang members to reduce the 80% number.

I said the same in another thread...I would have a lot more respect for Obama if he would just once address black on black gang crime.

[freetoroam]

Capt Amerika, on 29 January 2013 - 07:54 PM, said:

Gangs account for over 80% of the gun related deaths in this country.
.

As a hunter yourself, how does it make you feel when the government want to come down harder on gun owners when you have gangs owning and obviously not respecting their weapons, but only have them to aid in their illegal activity. I ask this because if I were a hunter I would be pretty enraged.
I have said it many a time, I have no problem with people hunting and eating what they catch, thats what good hunters do, but to be put in a position of being questioned about how responsible you are with your gun would annoy me quite a lot when your stats prove that the main problem with guns death are the gangs and the odd nutter.

I think Cap Amerika has just answered my question while I was typing it out!

[F3SS]

Which EO was that? Ah...uhmmm...ehhh.... Now that would be racist or profiling to say there's a gang problem. On the other hand, without gangs to inflate the crime stats the argument for gun control would be further nullified, I think. As I see it the progressives need chaos and confusion to justify the need for their policies which never solve the issue anyways but rather get the people just little more wrapped up under their control.

[F3SS]

freetoroam, on 29 January 2013 - 08:09 PM, said:

As a hunter yourself, how does it make you feel when the government want to come down harder on gun owners when you have gangs owning and obviously not respecting their weapons, but only have them to aid in their illegal activity. I ask this because if I were a hunter I would be pretty enraged.
I have said it many a time, I have no problem with people hunting and eating what they catch, thats what good hunters do, but to be put in a position of being questioned about how responsible you are with your gun would annoy me quite a lot when your stats prove that the main problem with guns death are the gangs and the odd nutter.

I think Cap Amerika has just answered my question while I was typing it out!

Ma'am, people have been giving you the same reasoning for weeks here. A what about that post made you realize the asinine logic of punishing law abiding citizens for the acts of criminals that you haven't been able to grasp before? It's all been said over and over to ya.

[HerNibs]

freetoroam, on 29 January 2013 - 08:09 PM, said:

As a hunter yourself, how does it make you feel when the government want to come down harder on gun owners when you have gangs owning and obviously not respecting their weapons, but only have them to aid in their illegal activity. I ask this because if I were a hunter I would be pretty enraged.
I have said it many a time, I have no problem with people hunting and eating what they catch, thats what good hunters do, but to be put in a position of being questioned about how responsible you are with your gun would annoy me quite a lot when your stats prove that the main problem with guns death are the gangs and the odd nutter.

I think Cap Amerika has just answered my question while I was typing it out!

If keeping my guns locked and secure, registering them, etc.  keeps ONE gun out of ONE bad guys hands, I don't mind doing it.   If it keeps ONE child from harming themselves or anyone else, I don't mind doing it.

No big deal.  As a hunter, doing these things don't affect my hunting in the least.

My state is one of those with fewer gun laws.  

And we are about 28th in gun violence.

Nibs

[Capt Amerika]

-Mr_Fess-, on 29 January 2013 - 08:11 PM, said:

Which EO was that? Ah...uhmmm...ehhh.... Now that would be racist or profiling to say there's a gang problem. On the other hand, without gangs to inflate the crime stats the argument for gun control would be further nullified, I think. As I see it the progressives need chaos and confusion to justify the need for their policies which never solve the issue anyways but rather get the people just little more wrapped up under their control.

Exactly.
Its odd that we ignore 8,000 deaths a year at the hands of gangs and criminals yet let 20 kids die at the hands of a mentally handicapped individual and the time to act is NOW!

[Sweetpumper]

ninjadude, on 29 January 2013 - 05:21 AM, said:

not by a long shot.

Yes, they do.

[freetoroam]

-Mr_Fess-, on 29 January 2013 - 08:15 PM, said:

Ma'am, people have been giving you the same reasoning for weeks here. A what about that post made you realize the asinine logic of punishing law abiding citizens for the acts of criminals that you haven't been able to grasp before? It's all been said over and over to ya.

I was asking a hunter who gave me an answer without getting all gun hoe on me. Maybe it might have been mentioned, but no one has mentioned how they felt being compared to the gang members with guns, until now. the main thing discussed was people owning guns full stop, I had mentioned myself enough time that i have no problem with hunters owning guns, but, the main argument was the non hunters.
Respect.

Edited by freetoroam, 29 January 2013 - 08:28 PM.

[freetoroam]

HerNibs, on 29 January 2013 - 08:16 PM, said:

If keeping my guns locked and secure, registering them, etc.  keeps ONE gun out of ONE bad guys hands, I don't mind doing it.   If it keeps ONE child from harming themselves or anyone else, I don't mind doing it.

No big deal.  As a hunter, doing these things don't affect my hunting in the least.

My state is one of those with fewer gun laws.  

And we are about 28th in gun violence.

Nibs

if I were a hunter hunting for food, I would say the same thing.

[F3SS]

freetoroam, on 29 January 2013 - 08:24 PM, said:

I was asking a hunter who gave me an answer without getting all gun hoe on me. Maybe it might have been mentioned, but no one has mentioned how they felt being compared to the gang members with guns, until now.
I had mentioned myself enough time that i have no problem with hunters.

Well there you have it then. A large chunk of this gun control debate has been to demonize gun owners of all types. Those who don't hunt have every right and reason to bear arms too and being labeled dangerous, careless, mentally ill and having their names and addresses published on an interactive online map is just the opposite of what should be going on. All of those things should pertain strictly to criminals and gang members and not decent people.

[questionmark]

-Mr_Fess-, on 29 January 2013 - 08:31 PM, said:

Well there you have it then. A large chunk of this gun control debate has been to demonize gun owners of all types. Those who don't hunt have every right and reason to bear arms too and being labeled dangerous, careless, mentally ill and having their names and addresses published on an interactive online map is just the opposite of what should be going on. All of those things should pertain strictly to criminals and gang members and not decent people.

As long as there is the second amendment everybody has a right to have as many guns as he wants for whatever purpose. But that does not mean that they should be excused  from acting like grown ups with them. If we could achieve that we would not need these discussions.