DescentBB

Chicago has a gun ban and:

CHICAGO (CBS) — At least 17 people, including four teenagers, were killed and 41 others were wounded in shootings across Chicago between Friday evening and Monday morning.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2016/10/31/ ... shootings/

oh for God's sake.......if you cannot figure out how a gun ban in one location, surrounded by easy access, doesn't work, try roping off half of your swimming pool and declaring it closed to peeing........

And you think a country wide gun ban would be any more effective than say; a drugs ban...oh wait

woodchip wrote:And you think a country wide gun ban would be any more effective than say; a drugs ban...oh wait

Then you'd need a license to buy and sell drugs.

OH WAIT.

they're called prescriptions and a pharmacy degree.

callmeslick wrote:oh for God's sake.......if you cannot figure out how a gun ban in one location, surrounded by easy access, doesn't work, try roping off half of your swimming pool and declaring it closed to peeing........

Before you spew more nonsense lets see what is happening in England, a island nation, and how well they control gun smuggling:

A flow of illegal weapons through Eastern Europe has led to a record level of gun seizures in London and prompted concerns that extremists could arms themselves for a devastating coordinated attack.

And somehow you think a gun ban would work any better here?

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:And you think a country wide gun ban would be any more effective than say; a drugs ban...oh wait

Then you'd need a license to buy and sell drugs.

OH WAIT.

they're called prescriptions and a pharmacy degree.

In the gun world that's called FFL, NICS and NFA. He's probably talking about schedule I and II drugs. Point is that making something illegal only prevents law-abiding people from getting their mitts on it...

I would like to remind everyone that no one on this board supports gun bans except me. I would also like to remind everyone that the problems in Chicago are more complicated that the single issue of gun sales. There are many laws and programs at work to reduce violence there and it is having a positive effect. The gun deaths make headlines, but the number per capita is still lower that other US cities where no gun laws are in place.

Carry on with your nonsense.

vision wrote: but the number per capita is still lower that other US cities where no gun laws are in place.

Carry on with your nonsense.

The only nonsense is you trying to sound like you know something. Compare to NY:


But that's also much harder to compare, due to incomplete data. According to the Chicago Tribune, the number of people shot in Chicago so far this year is at least 2,300 or about 84.5 per 100,000 residents. New York City has seen 1,041 so far in 2015 -- 12.3 per 100,000 people.

Stop looking at various crimes like rape or robbery for comparison...instead look at people shot.

woodchip wrote:The only nonsense is you trying to sound like you know something. Compare to NY:

You can cherry pick whatever you want, but it's still cherry picking and doesn't disprove my point.

I'm w/ Vision on that one -- http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-la ... nd-crimes/ . It is interesting to look at some national ( http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-c ... SKCN11W0AY ) and local data ( http://heyjackass.com/ ) tho.

Grendel wrote:

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:And you think a country wide gun ban would be any more effective than say; a drugs ban...oh wait

Then you'd need a license to buy and sell drugs.

OH WAIT.

they're called prescriptions and a pharmacy degree.

In the gun world that's called FFL, NICS and NFA. He's probably talking about schedule I and II drugs. Point is that making something illegal only prevents law-abiding people from getting their mitts on it...

Yeah I know. But the fact remains, there is no difference between legal and illegal drugs. We just like to call the legal stuff 'adult beverages', 'prescriptions' and 'herbal remedies'. Bit of a false dichotomy, yeah?

Ferno wrote:Yeah I know. But the fact remains, there is no difference between legal and illegal drugs. We just like to call the legal stuff 'adult beverages', 'prescriptions' and 'herbal remedies'. Bit of a false dichotomy, yeah?

How so ? A legal machine gun becomes illegal in the hands of an ordinary person unless the paperwork is in order. You can easily make your own drugs or guns, both legally if you pay your dues. W/ drugs and guns there are fine lines between legal and illegal. Fairly close analogy in my book.

Grendel wrote:

Ferno wrote:Yeah I know. But the fact remains, there is no difference between legal and illegal drugs. We just like to call the legal stuff 'adult beverages', 'prescriptions' and 'herbal remedies'. Bit of a false dichotomy, yeah?

How so ? A legal machine gun becomes illegal in the hands of an ordinary person unless the paperwork is in order. You can easily make your own drugs or guns, both legally if you pay your dues. W/ drugs and guns there are fine lines between legal and illegal. Fairly close analogy in my book.

Easily and legally when you pay your dues is pretty vague. The former requires metallurgy and gunsmithing knowledge and the latter requires a doctorate in chemistry and biology -- and neither are easy.

Take opioids for example. Even though heroin and morphine are almost identical, the former has a bit extra added onto it that the latter does not. They're chemical siblings. Calling one a drug over the other would be like calling a pistol an assault rifle because it has a suppressor, thirty-round magazine and scope added to it.

Ferno wrote:Easily and legally when you pay your dues is pretty vague. The former requires metallurgy and gunsmithing knowledge and the latter requires a doctorate in chemistry and biology -- and neither are easy.

Vague on purpose since the skill levels are on a sliding scale from 0 to 100 as is the red tape -- everyone can build a gun w/ $10 worth of parts from Home Depot (legal in the US w/o paperwork), everyone can grow Marihuana (legal in some states.) Medium skills (ie. willing to do some research and learn) gets you into hot water territory -- an AR-15 drop-in auto sear is very far from rocket science, so is making meth or bath salts (albeit the red tape to make the latter legal is an order of magnitudes greater here.) Anyway, as for the analogy, still ok in my book since it's about controlling who can have the product, not who can make it.

Ferno wrote:Take opioids for example. Even though heroin and morphine are almost identical, the former has a bit extra added onto it that the latter does not. They're chemical siblings. Calling one a drug over the other would be like calling a pistol an assault rifle because it has a suppressor, thirty-round magazine and scope added to it.

Well,

Grendel wrote: Well,

See that's what i'm talking about. Back in the day, that was called medicine. Now, it's called a drug.

Ferno wrote:

Grendel wrote: Well,

See that's what i'm talking about. Back in the day, that was called medicine. Now, it's called a drug.

Yes... in heroin's case it's a story of utter failure: they tried to come up with a drug that didn't cause as much dependence as morphine/opium, only to create one with more physical dependence... which is exactly why it's illegal - because it creates addicts who can't go without the next hit.

so, Woody, explain Oxycontin, Hydrocodone, Fentamyl, etc, etc.

callmeslick wrote:so, Woody, explain Oxycontin, Hydrocodone, Fentamyl, etc, etc.

I'm guessing that's directed at me? Those are all supposedly controlled substances, right? I think it's supposed to go something like this: low mental alteration/low addictive qualities = over the counter; mid mental alteration/mid addictive qualities with a medical benefit = prescription (controlled); high mental alteration/high addictive qualities = not worth the risk = illegal. The categories are obviously up to the lawmaker's judgment and subject to disagreement. Heroin is probably one of the easiest judgment cases for the prescription/illegal line: it's doesn't provide any significant benefit over something like morphene, but does carry additional risk. I think it's fairly obvious that it can't be an uncontrolled substance, and it's hard to stand behind a real medical justification - so that leaves you at controlled/recreational (which as far as I know the US doesn't do) or illegal.

no, Snoopy(and you are right, that was meant as a response to you). Those are EVEN MORE ADDICTIVE and powerful opiates that are now considered 'medicine' by the makers, yet have at times flooded the illegal market. It's a very, very fine line.

I believe you know a thing or two about the field, so I'll take your word for it.

Slick is correct. I've seen what Oxycontin and morphine bottles can do to a person -- and it's not something I'd discuss.

Ever wonder where those stray bullets go when someone fires a gun in an attempt to stop a thief while outside in a neighborhood?

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/loca ... 19922.html

tunnelcat wrote:Ever wonder where those stray bullets go when someone fires a gun in an attempt to stop a thief while outside in a neighborhood?

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/loca ... 19922.html

No.

tunnelcat wrote:Ever wonder where those stray bullets go when someone fires a gun in an attempt to stop a thief while outside in a neighborhood?

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/loca ... 19922.html

This just goes to show, no one really knows what's behind the target. And is a car worth more than the risk of accidentally killing a person? It's a car. It's replaceable.

I've heard people ★■◆● and moan about THEIR car when it's in the shop, about how they want to get it back so bad after a wreck -- that they'll even go so far as to be a total ★■◆● to everyone at the shop, to everyone at the insurance company, and even to the tow truck driver.

A car can be replaced. A life can't. Just let the scumbag have it. He'll either wreck it or the police will take it from him. Either way, the owner will get a shiny new hunk of metal and plastic in the end.

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Ever wonder where those stray bullets go when someone fires a gun in an attempt to stop a thief while outside in a neighborhood?

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/loca ... 19922.html

No.

Why am I not shocked that you'd give a complete ★■◆● response like this.

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Ever wonder where those stray bullets go when someone fires a gun in an attempt to stop a thief while outside in a neighborhood?

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/loca ... 19922.html

No.

maybe that's a little part of your problems.

The problem is…that is a complete abuse of the right to self defense, so lets not pretend anybody has to defend it.

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Ever wonder where those stray bullets go when someone fires a gun in an attempt to stop a thief while outside in a neighborhood?

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/loca ... 19922.html

No.

Glad I don't live near your house.