Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

7-year-old trick-or-treater shot in Chicago

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 28,588 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    Boggles wrote: »
    Most Americans don't own guns.

    Have you any source for that?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country#cite_note-6 shows that there are 120 guns per 100 people in the USA. Granted that some people will own multiple guns, but that is true in other countries too, hunters and weapons enthusiast will have several/an arsenal, but still the number of guns in, for example, Ireland is 7 per hundred people.

    Edit - ok https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own-guns.aspx this poll says 30% of adults own guns.


  • Options
    #33
    jimmycrackcorm
    Registered Users Posts: 14,339 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    Boggles wrote: »
    I don't know anyone is suggesting to ban all guns, it's about stricter gun controls, and yes the majority of Americans support it according to various polls and actually enacted laws.

    There is a myth that Americans are gun nuts, it's not true. The majority are not gun owners.

    A sizable amount are gun owners, but the NRA "only" has around 5 million members.

    5 million members yet there are over 270m guns in the US.


  • Options
    #34
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    ArnoldJRimmer wrote: »
    Please refer to the above post, strict gun laws mean nothing unless its nationwide
    I read it and it’s nonsense. Do you actually believe criminals and gangs are driving 20 miles across state lines to LEGALLY buy the guns they use in crimes? Do you not realize every handgun purchased legally includes a spent casing because the FBI has that bullet fired from the handgun on file in order to trace it back to the owner if a match comes up involved in a crime?

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #35
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 40,236 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    looksee wrote: »
    Have you any source for that?

    Multiple.

    Here is the latest one I can find.

    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/22/facts-about-guns-in-united-states/
    looksee wrote: »
    Granted that some people will own multiple guns,

    Yeah, it's pretty nuts, 2 thirds of gun owners own more than one roughly a third of gun owners in America own 5 or more weapons.

    America certainly has a large amount of gun nuts, but the majority of the country and households in the country do not have guns.


  • Options
    #36
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Boggles wrote: »
    Multiple.

    Here is the latest one I can find.

    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/22/facts-about-guns-in-united-states/



    Yeah, it's pretty nuts, 2 thirds of gun owners own more than one roughly a third of gun owners in America own 5 or more weapons.

    America certainly has a large amount of gun nuts, but the majority of the country and households in the country do not have guns.
    Eight stubborn about gun violence in the US...
    • Violent crime is down and has been on the decline for decades.
    • The principal public safety concerns with respect to guns are suicides and illegally owned handguns, not mass shootings.
    • A small number of factors significantly increase the likelihood that a person will be a victim of a gun-related homicide.
    • Gun-related murders are carried out by a predictable pool of people.
    • Higher rates of gun ownership are not associated with higher rates of violent crime.
    • There is no clear relationship between strict gun control legislation and homicide or violent crime rates.
    • Legally owned firearms are used for lawful purposes much more often than they are used to commit crimes or suicide.
    • Concealed carry permit holders are not the problem, but they may be part of the solution.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 40,236 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Eight stubborn about gun violence in the US...

    [/LIST]

    Could you link where you got the data please?

    I'm not saying it is inaccurate I just don't read copy and pastes without the source.


  • Options
    #38
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,789 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    jimmycrackcorm wrote: »
    5 million members yet there are over 270m guns in the US.

    You can own a gun in the US and not be a member of the NRA.

    You can actually be a gun owner in the US and disagree with the policies of the NRA. This is quite common.

    They actually don't have a clue about how many guns are in the US. There is approximately 400m guns that they know about. Quite possibly there are over 100m more that they don't know about.


  • Options
    #39
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Boggles wrote: »
    Could you link where you got the data please?

    I'm not saying it is inaccurate I just don't read copy and pastes without the source.
    Sure...

    https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/here-are-8-stubborn-facts-gun-violence-america

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #40
    ArnoldJRimmer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,495 ✭✭✭ArnoldJRimmer


    notobtuse wrote: »
    I read it and it’s nonsense. Do you actually believe criminals and gangs are driving 20 miles across state lines to LEGALLY buy the guns they use in crimes? Do you not realize every handgun purchased legally includes a spent casing because the FBI has that bullet fired from the handgun on file in order to trace it back to the owner if a match comes up involved in a crime?

    Are you suggesting that Chicago gangs obtain guns illegally all within Chicago city limits? That they also maybe make them there?


  • Options
    #41
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    ArnoldJRimmer wrote: »
    Are you suggesting that Chicago gangs obtain guns illegally all within Chicago city limits? That they also maybe make them there?
    Not at all. I'm suggesting criminals and gang members don't make it a habit of obtaining their guns legally.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    ArnoldJRimmer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,495 ✭✭✭ArnoldJRimmer


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Not at all. I'm suggesting criminals and gang members don't make it a habit of obtaining their guns legally.

    Yes, I know, and I never stated that they'd just wander into a Walmart in Indiana to obtain them. But there are open borders linking them to the other 47 contiguous states, a lot of which have extremely lax laws on gun ownership, and actively encourage it. You could have a blanket ban on guns in Chicago, but it wouldn't make any difference


  • Options
    #43
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    ArnoldJRimmer wrote: »
    Yes, I know, and I never stated that they'd just wander into a Walmart in Indiana to obtain them. But there are open borders linking them to the other 47 contiguous states, a lot of which have extremely lax laws on gun ownership, and actively encourage it. You could have a blanket ban on guns in Chicago, but it wouldn't make any difference
    I keep hearing that tired old phrase ‘extremely lax laws on gun ownership.’ It's untrue. I own 5 legally obtained firearms. There is no 'extremely lax laws on gun ownership' anywhere in the US.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #44
    ArnoldJRimmer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,495 ✭✭✭ArnoldJRimmer


    notobtuse wrote: »
    I keep hearing that tired old phrase ‘extremely lax laws on gun ownership.’ It's untrue. I own 5 legally obtained firearms. There is no 'extremely lax laws on gun ownership' anywhere in the US.

    But they clearly are very lax given the abundance of unstable individuals and irresponsible parents who own guns. And even if you had to jump through hoops to obtain your firearms legally, if they continually find their way into the hands of people who shouldn't have them, the laws are clearly ineffective, and/ or are not being enforced, hence 'extremely lax'


  • Options
    #45
    joseywhales
    Registered Users Posts: 4,072 ✭✭✭joseywhales


    I think we are missing the point of why guns should be at least highly controlled. It's not about how prevalent gun owner ship is or whether people want to have guns, it's about why they should have guns and for what purpose?

    If an intruder comes on your property and they are armed as some criminals are with illegal arms, does possesion of a gun increase or decrease the possibility of harm to human life including your own? I would rather be tied up and beaten than be shot personally. And this is the only scenario a gun can be required(unless hunting or killing vermon) . You also have the risk of just storing it to everyone in the building.

    Why do people require multiple guns? If I am a poison enthusiast, can I store and carry multiple poisons?


  • Options
    #46
    TeaBagMania
    Registered Users Posts: 1,192 ✭✭✭TeaBagMania


    Tired Gardener wrote: »
    I really wish the USA would just revoke the 2nd amendment... it has cost so many lives.

    and it also saves lives

    this pregnant mother killed TWO gun toting home invaders with her AR-15

    wont find this story on CNN

    https://nypost.com/2019/11/04/pregnant-florida-mom-uses-ar-15-to-kill-home-intruder/


  • Options
    #47
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    ArnoldJRimmer wrote: »
    But they clearly are very lax given the abundance of unstable individuals and irresponsible parents who own guns. And even if you had to jump through hoops to obtain your firearms legally, if they continually find their way into the hands of people who shouldn't have them, the laws are clearly ineffective, and/ or are not being enforced, hence 'extremely lax'
    My firearms don't find their ways to people who shouldn't have them. They are locked in a secure gun case and each also has a trigger lock on them. I’d argue the lax laws have much more to do with the lack of punishment of people who should not have guns. The length of the rap sheets on people who commit gun crimes is atrocious and would make any sane person question how in the world these people remain on the streets.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #48
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    This isnt a 2nd amendment issue at all. It's a gang issue.

    I highly doubt 2 gangs are shooting at each other in the streets with guns legally registered in their names.

    Gangs here have illegal guns too.

    Of all the cases that could be used to complain about average people having the ability to own guns, this isnt one.

    this is the problem. At this point with decades of weapons sales , the only thing gun control will do is stop innocent people protecting their families from criminals.

    America has a huge problem with people in poor communities trying to solve their disputes with bullets. Chicagos demographic is pretty grim and puts it with detroit and baltimore for these unfortunate incidents.


  • Options
    #49
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    notobtuse wrote: »
    My firearms don't find their ways to people who shouldn't have them. They are locked in a secure gun case and each also has a trigger lock on them. I’d argue the lax laws have much more to do with the lack of punishment of people who should not have guns. The length of the rap sheets on people who commit gun crimes is atrocious and would make any sane person question how in the world these people remain on the streets.

    expidited death penalty for carrying an unlicenced firearm if you have any violent or drug convictions would sort out some numbers pretty quick.


  • Options
    #50
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    joseywhales wrote: »
    I think we are missing the point of why guns should be at least highly controlled. It's not about how prevalent gun owner ship is or whether people want to have guns, it's about why they should have guns and for what purpose?

    If an intruder comes on your property and they are armed as some criminals are with illegal arms, does possesion of a gun increase or decrease the possibility of harm to human life including your own? I would rather be tied up and beaten than be shot personally. And this is the only scenario a gun can be required(unless hunting or killing vermon) . You also have the risk of just storing it to everyone in the building.

    Why do people require multiple guns? If I am a poison enthusiast, can I store and carry multiple poisons?
    What guarantee is there the criminal will merely tie you up and not shoot you?

    Our Constitution guarantees the Right to own guns. It has to do with protecting our liberties and hunting has nothing to do with it.

    Each gun has a different use. You have the right tool for the job. One for ducks, pheasants, rabbits and clays. One for whitetail deer and black bear. One for self defense. One for small varmints and target practice because of the low cost of ammo. One as an investment because of it's historical importance. Etc, etc...

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #51
    ArnoldJRimmer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,495 ✭✭✭ArnoldJRimmer


    notobtuse wrote: »
    My firearms don't find their ways to people who shouldn't have them. They are locked in a secure gun case and each also has a trigger lock on them. I’d argue the lax laws have much more to do with the lack of punishment of people who should not have guns. The length of the rap sheets on people who commit gun crimes is atrocious and would make any sane person question how in the world these people remain on the streets.

    Yep, you and the vast majority of gun owners in the country. And this argument comes up time and time again when someone even suggests a debate on it (not you personally, but from the pro gun movement in the US). The problem is that they are lethal weapons. And if even a fraction of the wrong people get hold of them, it has devastating consequences. The number of guns available, and who can own them has to be looked at and meaningful legislation brought in

    I live in the US too, and I get the whole gun thing even if I would never contemplate owning one myself. Loads of people I know are gun enthusiasts, I've even been to a range a couple of times myself. But in my mind, we need to look at the common good and do whatever is possible to remove them from society. Because whatever is being done is not working. The NRA continually refusing to even allow a debate on this is counterproductive


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    ArnoldJRimmer wrote: »
    Yep, you and the vast majority of gun owners in the country. And this argument comes up time and time again when someone even suggests a debate on it (not you personally, but from the pro gun movement in the US). The problem is that they are lethal weapons. And if even a fraction of the wrong people get hold of them, it has devastating consequences. The number of guns available, and who can own them has to be looked at and meaningful legislation brought in

    I live in the US too, and I get the whole gun thing even if I would never contemplate owning one myself. Loads of people I know are gun enthusiasts, I've even been to a range a couple of times myself. But in my mind, we need to look at the common good and do whatever is possible to remove them from society. Because whatever is being done is not working. The NRA continually refusing to even allow a debate on this is counterproductive
    If you live here then you know (discounting suicides, who would find a way to kill themselves regardless) people killed by drunk and drug driving surpasses the number of gun deaths. Drug overdoses surpass both. Should we give anyone caught drunk/drug driving a 20 year jail sentence and never allow them to drive a car again? If you are caught taking drugs… the same? It would save some lives, right?

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #53
    ArnoldJRimmer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,495 ✭✭✭ArnoldJRimmer


    notobtuse wrote: »
    If you live here then you know (discounting suicides, who would find a way to kill themselves regardless) people killed by drunk and drug driving surpasses the number of gun deaths. Drug overdoses surpass both. Should we give anyone caught drunk/drug driving a 20 year jail sentence and never allow them to drive a car again? If you are caught taking drugs… the same? It would save some lives, right?

    ok, so because people die needlessly by other means, we should just ignore gun deaths and not try to introduce some laws at a federal level to try and prevent this? Or even have a conversation about it?


  • Options
    #54
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,789 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    joseywhales wrote: »

    Why do people require multiple guns? If I am a poison enthusiast, can I store and carry multiple poisons?

    I live in Ireland and I have 9 guns, all fully licenced. I use them to take part in target shooting. That's one reason why someone could require multiple guns.

    And before someone asks 'why don't you use the same gun for all competitions', you can't. They are all different and used for different disciplines. Trying to use the same gun for each discipline would be like trying to play golf with a rugby ball.


  • Options
    #55
    PostWoke
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 559 ✭✭✭PostWoke


    This is very on-brand for Chicago.


  • Options
    #56
    nkl12xtw5goz70
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭nkl12xtw5goz70


    facehugger99 wrote: »
    Maybe stop reading/posting about them so.

    What are you hoping to achieve as an Irish person?

    I don't believe you're a mod, so maybe refrain from telling me what to post about.

    For the record, I'm a dual citizen. My wife is American. So we can vote for politicians and policies that align with our views.


  • Options
    #57
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    ArnoldJRimmer wrote: »
    ok, so because people die needlessly by other means, we should just ignore gun deaths and not try to introduce some laws at a federal level to try and prevent this? Or even have a conversation about it?
    So we should care about gun deaths, but ignore other things that actually are illegal and inherently by nature cause deaths?

    We already have over 20,000 different federal, state and local guns laws on the books. I’m often afraid of traveling with a firearm locked in the truck of the car, with the ammunition in the glove compartment (which is my local law that states the firearm not be located in near proximity to the ammunition in a vehicle, unless I have a concealed or open carry permit) as I might unknowingly travel through a town or city that has some special legislation I might still be in violation of.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #58
    ArnoldJRimmer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,495 ✭✭✭ArnoldJRimmer


    notobtuse wrote: »
    So we should care about gun deaths, but ignore other things that actually are illegal and inherently by nature cause deaths?

    We already have over 20,000 different federal, state and local guns laws on the books. I’m often afraid of traveling with a firearm locked in the truck of the car, with the ammunition in the glove compartment (which is my local law that states the firearm not be located in near proximity to the ammunition in a vehicle, unless I have a concealed or open carry permit) as I might unknowingly travel through a town or city that has some special legislation I might still be in violation of.

    Can't remember the last time there were 50 odd innocent people killed in a mass drug overdose. Followed by multiple more mass overdoses. And you know, its possible to legislate for all? Also, last time I checked there wasn't a huge pro drink driving lobby, unless you count the Healy Raes, shouting down any attempts at a debate as to how to tackle what is a serious problem

    As for the different laws, I've addressed this before, they clearly don't work


  • Options
    #59
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    ArnoldJRimmer wrote: »
    Can't remember the last time there were 50 odd innocent people killed in a mass drug overdose. Followed by multiple more mass overdoses. And you know, its possible to legislate for all? Also, last time I checked there wasn't a huge pro drink driving lobby, unless you count the Healy Raes, shouting down any attempts at a debate as to how to tackle what is a serious problem

    As for the different laws, I've addressed this before, they clearly don't work
    Ah, I see... so it’s only mass shootings that bother you. Seems in that case it would be much more advantageous to focus on mental illness than gun control. Seems to me a person sick enough to want to kill mass amounts of people would find a way to do so without a gun... like using fertilizer to make a bomb, or poison in a water supply, or a truck, or countless other ways.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #60
    AllForIt
    Registered Users Posts: 8,455 ✭✭✭AllForIt


    I really can't understand why as a global society we don't acknowledge the fact that their are incurable nutters out there who are beyond any kind of help, are most likely not receiving any kind of medical supervision and neither is there any help available anyway. If you live in a city you'll most likely pass by one of these kinds of ppl on the street once a day. These types of people will not be monitored, will not be knows to mental health services, will pass an insanity test and can buy a firearm in the US whether background checks are brought in or not. Therefore the only sensible thing to do is ban the sale of firearms to all and sundry and replace it with a much more heavily restricted system. I realize this is not going to happen in the US anytime soon but I really don't see any alternative if one is serious about preventing all these needless tragic deaths.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    ArnoldJRimmer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,495 ✭✭✭ArnoldJRimmer


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Ah, I see... so it’s only mass shootings that bother you. Seems in that case it would be much more advantageous to focus on mental illness than gun control. Seems to me a person sick enough to want to kill mass amounts of people would find a way to do so without a gun... like using fertilizer to make a bomb, or poison in a water supply, or a truck, or countless other ways.

    You're deflecting again here, at no stage did I say only mass shootings matter just like at no stage did i say that I didn't care about people impacted by drug/ alcohol related deaths. You're moving through every trope in the book used by the pro gun lobby in the US without acknowledging that widespread ownership of guns is, and I'm being very generous here, PART of the problem. I could go into comparisons with similar countries such as Canada and Australia and their level of gun violence, but I'm not interested in hearing the 'NRA handbook of excuses whenever a mass shooting occurs.'

    Have said my piece here, I'm out


Advertisement