Gun law - two.

[taranaki]

CHICAGO For the first time since 1999, serious crime took a holiday Monday in Chicago.

Police Superintendent Phil Cline says none of the city's nearly three million citizens got shot. And nobody was murdered.

Cline says he was amazed to wake up yesterday and find no news of any overnight shootings or killings. He attributes the success to the pressure the department's putting on gangs -- and a little bit of luck.

Last year, Chicago had 600 killings and just over three-thousand aggravated batteries by firearm.

Cline says the city's down 112 homicides and almost one-thousand shootings compared with last year.



http://www.wqad.com/Global/story.asp?S=2393366

.................................................. ...............................................

It say a lot about a city and its gun laws that one day in 5 years is newsworthy for a lack of high-end crime.

I have tried to argue a case for New Zealand-style gun management in the forum, only to be shouted down by NRA hawks who see any changes as against their interests.

New Zealand as a whole has about 25% more population than the city of Chicago, yet the comparison in terms of crime still favours NZ by a country mile.The reason? Handguns in NZ are properly managed.We don't get all excitable about the 'what if's'[what if yer mother was bein' raped?What if yer kids were bein' abducted?]we'll leave that kind of hypothetical hype to the gun perverts and hillbillies.

Here are the statistics, and the methods used to achieve them

http://www.police.govt.nz/service/statistics/
http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/...earms-control/

The second ammendment doesn't work.It's time to remove handguns, and the less responsible lower layers of the gun owning community from the gun control equations.That way,nobody would need a gun under their bed to feel safe at night.

[aloharocky]

Comparing New Zealand to Chicago just doesn't wash. It is more than sheer numbers , you've got to look at the makeup of those people, the lifestyle, the races, etc. A sheep farmer isn't likely to bust a cap in your butt, but a crack dealer will do it just for fun.

[taranaki]

tell me how,if he can't afford a black market weapon.

[indyram]

More things need to be looked at like ethnic diversity, per capita income, poverty. It isn't the faulty of anyone other than the unemployed either.

[DGB454]

Your concern for our politics and our safety is touching Taranaki. (if I thought it was genuine)

[YogsVR4]

Allow me to point out that right to carry laws, meaning that anyone who wants a concealed weapons permit can have one if they pass the class work and have no criminal record, have not caused an increase in crime http://www.equalccw.com/ccweffects.html

In other words, legal gun ownership is not causing the problem. Illegal gun ownership is the problem. So is the solution to take the guns away from the people who aren’t causing the problem or from the people who already own them illegally? Anyone who says take them all away is way past the throw the baby out with the bathwater stage. If the guns are already held illegally, those folks will just turn them in?

The old saying is that if gun ownership is illegal then only criminals will have the guns. While it sounds simplistic, it’s the truth. Taking my guns (handguns) will do nothing to lower the crime rate. Taking the guns from my wife will not lower the crime rate.

I am all for strict control of selling and distributing weapons. All purchasers should have a background check before they can own the gun. I’m also ok with registration of the weapon. That way someone can be held responsible for who they sell their guns to (private party sales). Get tough on the criminals – not their tools.

[taranaki]

Tell me ,Yogs....how does one acquire an 'illegal' firearm?Take away the smorgasbord of legally held handguns,you starve the market of weapons to be used against yourself.Sometimes,even perfectly legal guns do more harm than good....

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNew...29/648542.html

[YogsVR4]

I don't know how one aquired an illegal firearm. I buy mine legally. And to this point, I am still waiting for an explanation how giving up my guns will lower crime.

[taranaki]

you've jumped the gun again Yogs. I'm only talking about making ownership a responsibility,rather than a right.Taking the guns away from those who do not understand and respect their capabilities if used recklessly or allowed to fall into the wrong hands would not affect you as far as I can tell,other than by making it harder for crooks to steal guns.

[Neutrino]

yogs you also have to look at other states. Here in Utah for example gun laws are practically inexistent. One of my roomates dragged me to a gun show, where BTW the law allows you to buy without a licence(not joking) pretty much any guns. What really sickened me was one thing, they were selling silencers(again not joking). And beside murder there is no much use for a silencer.

Also if medical history would've been required by law to buy guns we would not have had 10 people dead a few years ago in Salt lake when a schizophrenic missed one treatement and went on a shooting spree with his legally owned gun.

Anyway my point is that they either need to federalise or force local laws to be changed and enforced since in many states they are a joke. So what is to stop a criminal to just drive across state borders and buy stuff. Ar least if they buy guns ilegally they have to try, but this is serving them on a silver platter.

[YogsVR4]

Like I said. I don't have a problem with requiring background checks at gun shows. I also don't have problems with laws making it sellers (private and public) responsible for who they sell it to. Forcing a call to the local sherrifs department to verify that someone doesn't have a felony conviction is not a difficult thing to do (as those records are public information).

[codycool]

The only weapon that society shouldn't pocess is an automatic weapon. If the U.S. military's primary weapon the m-16a2 service rifle is not automatic then why should a civilian's weapon be? I can understand rifles for hunting and hand guns for sport. But who would actually need an Ak-47?

[whttrshpunk]

Originally Posted by codycool

But who would actually need an Ak-47?

Who has the right to decide what I need and don't need? And why do I have to need it, what if I just want it?

[thrasher]

Originally Posted by whttrshpunk

Who has the right to decide what I need and don't need? And why do I have to need it, what if I just want it?

That is exactly the kind of attitude that perpetuates most of the problems in the US. Who gives a shit about other people, I want what I want, and I'm gonna have it, no matter the cost to anyone else.

It's simple. Less firearms means less deaths. It is WAY too easy to kill someone with a firearm. It's for the greater good of the people, not the person. And I don't think anyone would argue that the astronomical murder by firearms rate in the US (Compared to any other country) is a good thing.

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by thrasher

That is exactly the kind of attitude that perpetuates most of the problems in the US. Who gives a shit about other people, I want what I want, and I'm gonna have it, no matter the cost to anyone else.

It's simple. Less firearms means less deaths. It is WAY too easy to kill someone with a firearm. It's for the greater good of the people, not the person. And I don't think anyone would argue that the astronomical murder by firearms rate in the US (Compared to any other country) is a good thing.

You have a misunderstanding. There is a distinct difference between not caring about someone else and legitimately asking who has a right to decide what you 'need'. There would never a collector of anything - cars to baseball cards because you don't 'need' them. How many women would be shocked to learn that they couldn't buy any more shoes because they don't 'need' them. Perhaps driving becomes restricted because you don't 'need' to drive to where you are going. Consider how much you rebelled against your parents when they essentially told you what to do because of 'need' and then think if some faceless unaccountable individual gets to decide what you 'need'.

Personal responsibility would solve many issues. However, instead of doing that we tolerate this scapegoat society. There is always someone or something else to blame. It was there upbringing. It was the cigarette company. It was the gun. It was the fast food restaurant. It's always something other then the person standing up and being held accountable for their actions.

Lastly,
Nobody said they were going to get something 'no matter what the cost'. However, the question still remains, what benefit is there to society by me or my wife giving up our guns?