I recommend reading this gun control debate: http://www.debate.org/debates/Winter-Regular-Final-Gun-Ban/1/

It's a well-structured debate over the hypothetical total ban of guns in the USA.

However, a total gun ban and confiscation is not what's being discussed. No politician is considering this, and even anti-gun activist realize it's wasted effort.

Gun control is effective and most people believe in some sort of rules. What many people want is to expand certain gun control laws to:

1. Limit access to firearms for those that should not have them. Such as: convicted criminals, suicide risks, domestic violence threats, young children etc.

2. Reduce the potential damage of mass shootings when they happen.

Personally, here's what I would like to see:

1. Universal background checks.

2. Expand funding and staffing for NICS. Offer incentives for states to keep their systems and reports up-to-date. Make enforcement a priority.

That's a good start but not good enough. I have more ideas and would be willing to discuss them if the replies would be civil.

Such as: convicted criminals, suicide risks, domestic violence threats, young children etc.

those things are already in place in a federal level, so i'm not sure what you mean by "expanding them". Everyone already goes through a background check to purchase a fire arm through the FBI.

If you are referring to the "gun show loophole"(which isnt a loophole), selling a gun privately would render these background checks and funding for NICS moot. I could still buy a firearm locally, in most states, without a background check or any federal paperwork. MY state doesn't even have to have a signed bill of sale.

Private sales are exempt from background checks in many states.

As you stated:

I could still buy a firearm locally, in most states, without a background check or any federal paperwork. MY state doesn't even have to have a signed bill of sale.

I am talking about requiring background checks for all sales.

and how would you enforce a background check for private sales?

how would you enforce legal private sales

how would you keep people who cannot legally own a firearm now, from getting them in a better format than whats present?

how would you enforce a background check for private sales?

how would you enforce legal private sales

You'd require a record of the sale. Ideally, all sales would go through an FFL.

The private sale would only be legal if they applied for a background check and had a record of sale.

how would you keep people who cannot legally own a firearm now, from getting them in a better format than whats present?

I believe even just using universal background checks would reduce access significantly.

You'd require a record of the sale. Ideally, all sales would go through an FFL. so then i'd have to pay a transfer fee to exercise my 2nd amendment?

The private sale would only be legal if they applied for a background check and had a record of sale.

implying criminals or those who wish to commit harm, would follow rules, in which they dont follow now

I believe even just using universal background checks would reduce access significantly.

those are already in affect and havent done anything to solve any crimes. Maryland spent millions to catalog and database "gun fingerprint" for 15 years and never solved a single case from it.

so then i'd have to pay a transfer fee to exercise my 2nd amendment?

You could, but I'm open to the idea of a low cap on fees and subsidies for those that can't afford it.

The courts already allow for fees related to firearm purchase and ownership: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0048.htm

implying criminals or those who wish to commit harm, would follow rules, in which they dont follow now

I don't expect all criminals to follow the rules, (although some might). I do expect a significant reduction in potential sources for firearms. The "legal supply" will shrink drastically and illegal suppliers will have more risk due to records requirements and the inability to claim they "didn't know" they were selling to a felon.

those are already in affect

Not for every state and not for every sale.

Maryland spent millions to catalog and database "gun fingerprint" for 15 years and never solved a single case from it

I'm not sure how that's relevant but I found this article about it: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-bullet-casings-20151107-story.html

I'm not sure how that's relevant but I found this article about it: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-bullet-casings-20151107-story.html

its relevant because you're talking about a complete overhaul of Federal infrastructure to handle the increase demand for background checks, while ignoring the fact that these dont actually solve crimes of this nature. A person with no previous history would not have a background to check.

I believe even just using universal background checks would reduce access significantly.

Most mass shootings are committed by people that pass background checks.

The frank answer is that it will require the adults that legally purchased arms to be accountable in some manner. Whether that's by a required record of sale (or report of theft) to remove strict liability for damage caused by that gun, or some type of registry, I don't know. But right now it's a giant loophole.

Like DC or New York? Because there havent been any murder there since enacting those very same things.

Private sellers in the District of Columbia must have a registration certificate in order to lawfully transfer a firearm.1 See the District Registration of Firearms section. Even where private sellers are so eligible, they may transfer registerable firearms2 only to licensed dealers.3

In addition, no person may sell a handgun to a person: 1) not of sound mind; 2) prohibited from possessing a firearm by any of the specific prohibited categories under D.C. Code Ann. § 22-4503 (see the District of Columbia Prohibited Purchasers Generally section); or 3) under age 21, unless the seller is the parent or guardian of the purchaser.4 Any person who knowingly or intentionally transfers a firearm or ammunition to someone under age 18 shall be fined up to $10,000, imprisoned for up to 10 years, or both.5

The District also prohibits the use of firearms or ammunition as security for a mortgage, deposit or pledge, and prohibits loaning, borrowing, giving, or renting a firearm or ammunition to or from another person.

When DC and NYC have checkpoints for entering and exiting the city, then maybe that comparison will work. But, just as with the lol Chicago argument, it's easy to bring guns acquired in nearby areas into the city. If enacted at the federal level, it may be helpful in reducing gun violence.

Frankly, I find it hard to believe that someone able to post cogent paragraphs cannot see that obvious point.

Thanks for being civil!

username checks out ;-)

I think the biggest change should be some sort of method to control what happens to guns after they are legally purchased. Only about 10-15% of guns used in crimes are stolen, meaning the rest are acquired legally or via loophole (by which I mean someone legally able to buy a guy engages in a sham purchase and subsequently gives or sells that gun to a third party). Addressing what happens to guns after purchase will require something like a registry, so slippery-slope idiots will rant and rave about it, but it 1) allows citizens to purchase and keep arms, and 2) improves accountability, which should be anyone's goal.

could we implement gun safety training in school to make kids more responsible around guns?

I don't know about schools but firearm safety should be available and encouraged for all gun users.

A good start would be if the US gov. ACTUALLY protected and help it's citizens.

The Police and FBI have no constitutional duty to protect or serve individual citizens. So if you are old, disabled, a child you are fucked. Being raped, the police are NOT OBLIGATED to come and stop it! They only have to come after the crime. Every major 1st world country has it in the consitution that to protect their citizens. So why doesnt the US?

To start off I'm on the other end of the spectrum and don't believe anything more needs to be done with gun control and feel gun free zones only put people at further risk.

My main issue is your first point. Who would maintain the lists of suicide risks and domestic violence threats? What would the process be of getting off that list if you were put on it?

By having an unelected body maintain a list of this nature you're putting a system in place that is ripe for abuse. See the no-fly list.

These events such as Parkland Florida are terrible, but tragedies happen every day. It's only the coverage of an event like this that separates it from the local violence, opioid epidemic, and power abuses. Focusing on gun violence will not solve the majority of the problems in this country.

Who would maintain the lists of suicide risks and domestic violence threats? What would the process be of getting off that list if you were put on it?

I think the states should be in charge of the lists and should update the federal system regularly.

Lawmakers should consult researchers when deciding the limits of such lists.

you're putting a system in place that is ripe for abuse.

Yes, it's possible abuse will happen, but I believe it will be rare, minimal, and subject to review from multiple agencies.

tragedies happen every day [...] Focusing on gun violence will not solve the majority of the problems in this country.

I believe we can reduce gun violence and reduce the damage done by mass shootings with gun control.

I disagree with the idea we shouldn't have gun control because of other social problems. Gun control isn't an attempt to fix all social issues, but it does attempt to reduce the effect that guns can brings to those problems

Yes, it's possible abuse will happen, but I believe it will be rare, minimal, and subject to review from multiple agencies.

I disagree, an example to point to would be the no-fly list as I mentioned. The function is the same as you are suggesting, a list which is maintained by a government organization that consists of someone's diagnosis. Here's an article to show my exact point: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/07/the-no-fly-list-is-a-terrible-tool-for-gun-control-in-part-because-it-is-a-terrible-tool/?utm_term=.3fd9f82dd2a0

I believe we can reduce gun violence and reduce the damage done by mass shootings with gun control.

Maybe I wasn't articulate in my point. The push for gun control is not going to solve the issues with this country. While terrible, mass shootings are minuscule when compared with the number of people who die every year from other preventable causes. If anything disarming law-abiding citizens makes the criminal's job easier.

Here is a Harvard study which shows that murder & suicide rate is unaffected by stricter gun laws: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

I disagree, an example to point to would be the no-fly list as I mentioned.

Thanks for sharing the article. I agree that abuse and mistakes can and likely will happen. However, I still believe it will be minimal and that the system could be designed in such a way to allow for review and appeal.

I also get the impression that the no-fly list is subjective and based on the decision of government employees. For gun control, I'm picturing something more robust.

1. Convicted of ___ crime, on the list.
2. Hospitalized for suicide attempt, on the list.
3. Arrested and charged for ___ crime, on the list.

etc. All of these subject to appeal and review and perhaps set with a time limit or other qualification based on research.

The push for gun control is not going to solve the issues with this country.

I understood, but I'm saying it's not an attempt to fix those other issues. Gun control focuses on the "enhanced violence" those other issues can cause with firearm access.

If anything disarming law-abiding citizens makes the criminal's job easier.

I don't want to disarm law-abiding citizens. I want to reduce access to firearms for those that shouldn't have it.

Here is a Harvard study which shows that murder & suicide rate is unaffected by stricter gun laws

I'm familiar with it. A Google search shows me a couple sites refuting their claims, and several "studies" claiming the opposite.

The debate in my link: http://www.debate.org/debates/Winter-Regular-Final-Gun-Ban/1/

has some interesting back-and-forth about suicides.

Suicide by firearm is also more likely to successful; more than half of all suicides are done by firearm [3] and 85% of these are successful [4], the most fatal method. If a gun is taken out of the situation, the troubled person will be forced to use a less lethal method. By using a less lethal method, his/her chances of surviving the suicide attempt are raised drastically. For example, the next most used method is drug overdose, which is fatal 6-12% of the time [8]. Now that the person is more likely to survive the suicide attempt, they can get help and receive treatment for their depression, which cures them of it 80-90% of the time [5].

By taking away gun rights, you effectively give the victim the chance to recover and get their life back.

Do you think Chicago would be safer with more guns? People always point to Chicago. But 60% of the guns recovered there in crimes are from out of state. Chicago is surrounded by hillbilly states where you can buy a gun easily as hell. So it's not really an issue at all to get one.

Chicago has a lot of problems. Easy access to guns in basically every surrounding state is one of them. At some point it would be nice if people could acknowledge that we have a lot of problems. Yes, gangs, culture. mental illness. There are a lot of angles to this. Obviously guns aren't the only issue. But I don't know why we are only allowed to talk about every single thing except easy access to guns. As if that's not an issue at all.

But 60% of the guns recovered there in crimes are from out of state.

Exactly. They bring in guns that are banned in city limits.

hillbilly states

So anything not on either one of the coasts is a 'hillbilly state' now...OR is it just cool to belittle people you disagree with?

Exactly. They bring in guns that are banned in city limits.

But this type of sale is currently illegal as are their crimes. Any proposal about more laws assumes that risk is reduced because people will obey the law.

But this type of sale is currently illegal

And what type of sale would that be exactly?

as are their crimes

That's a bit redundant, yes criminal actions are inherently illegal.

Any proposal about more laws assumes that risk is reduced because people will obey the law.

Agreed? Only law abiding citizens obey the laws.

And what type of sale would that be exactly?

out of state sale.

You should really have a working knowledge of gun laws if you want to discuss more gun laws.

First of all, you are wrong if that is what you meant. You absolutely can purchase a gun in Indiana as a non-resident they just have to ship it to a FFL in your state. Please provide me with a link stating that it is illegal for an IL resident to purchase a gun in Indiana.

Why are you attempting to insult me when I was simply asking you to clarify your incomplete sentence.

You should really have a working knowledge of gun laws if you want to discuss more gun laws.

You are the one that doesn't know what their talking about. Lol good try.

So you agree that the transfer of the gun must happen in the home state, complying with all gun control of that state? And you also agree that a purchase cannot be completed by an IL resident in IN?

edit: LOL good try

So you're arguing about semantics got it. Technically no I cannot buy they gun in Indiana and bring it to IL. But I can purchase it in Indiana and send it to a FFL outside of Cook County and get around all of those restrictions. Yes it must comply with the state but was that ever the question or was it could I go to Indiana and buy a gun, short answer is yes, so idk what your overall point is honestly.

I'm pro-guns so I'm very confused why someone also pro guns is trying to argue. You came at me first bud. You come off like a know it all neckbeard, you post in /r/ak47 so you must know more than me lol.

But 60% of the guns recovered there in crimes are from out of state.

Exactly. They bring in guns that are banned in city limits.

Sorry, I read this as the "sea of guns" gun control argument and wanted to point out that the sale across state lines was already regulated...

I hahah'd at neck beard... Prolly an /r/glock fanboi

A Glock 19X is my next planned purchase, currently an owner of only M&P handguns/rifles. So you're not far off...

A Glock 19X is my next planned purchase

Ah, the most concealed handgun; now in a more difficult to conceal design. ;-)

Lol I'm getting it as a HD/carry hybrid as I already have a Shield for my CC. Could probably just go with a 17/19 (if I could justify it a 34...) But it's newer and I like the finish

Well, the people in all those neighboring state have tons of guns and easier access, yet they aren't running around shooting each other (at a high rate). Violence is a societal problem, guns are just the tool.

In fact, most of the country has extremely low violence rates with high gun ownership. Its a few areas where the economics and social problems are the worst, is where the problem lies.

You've just proven in that statement that gun control does not work. People who use firearms are driving out of state to purchase them

State by state? No that won't work. If you ban AR15s in Virginia and keep them easy to buy in North Carolina, that's not going to work. It needs to be on the federal level.

What's banning AR15s going to do?

2015 had 13,455 murders by weapon: 6,447 were from handguns, 252 from ALL RIFLES, 1,544 were from knives or cutting instruments.

Shouldn't we be focusing on things that have a 25 times higher rate of use?

You're missing the argument, and it seems to be intentional. The argument is that local gun control measures cannot work. Replace the word "AR15s" in his post with, I don't know, RPGs and consider the actual argument being made, not the sideshow issue.

This is kind of a shoe bomb type of thing. One person put a bomb in their shoe and now all of us have to take our shoes off while going through security. There's a reason mass shooters love AR15s. You can easily kill a bunch of people real quick with them. We might as well just sell grenades and land mines at Wal-Mart too.

I guess thats why more handguns are used in mass shootings than AR15s. If you ban a semi-automatic 22 caliber rifle because one person uses it, then they will just switch to hand guns, or trucks.

Well if people are just going to kill each other no matter what then we might as well just make tanks and grenades and missle launchers easy to buy then. Because obviously there's no point in making any weapons hard to get.

Thats correct, just continue to push that its about the gun or the implement used and not that humans are trash and situations regarding people need to be handled in a different way. Worked so well in the war on drugs.

Well I can just use the same hopeless argument then. People will always be trash. So there's no point in trying to change the people. Obviously it's the easy access to murder weapons that's the problem.

You have no actual insight, its just MOAR GUN CONTROL!!!

and this falacy of " no matter what we do will change just make all guns legal rocket launchers and other scary things" on every single comment you dont agree with or seem to be able to put your thoughts into words to offer some sort of constructive rebuttal

I haven't heard a response to anything I said. Should we make rocket launchers and grenades legal too then?

State by state? No that won't work.

As the law is now; an individual cannot buy a gun across state lines. The sale is already regulated by the Federal government.

No, don't be obtuse. What's he shown is that local gun control measures cannot work. If I can buy an RPG in Indiana and simply drive into Chicago, does it matter that Chicago bans RPGs? Probably not. Our national borders are more closely controlled (imperfectly, but certainly more than zero), so discussing this as a matter of federal policy makes much more sense.

If I can buy an RPG in Indiana and simply drive into Chicago, does it matter that Chicago bans RPGs?

You cannot do this. Even if you're talking about a gun (and not an RPG) a Chicago resident cannot drive to Indiana and legally purchase a gun. According to FEDERAL GUN CONTROL LAWS a firearm must be transferred to an FFL in the individuals home state who then must follow state law to legally transfer.

So go to non-Chicago Illinois? Or get someone to buy a gun for you in Indiana? Or private transaction?

Chicago has a lot of problems. Easy access to guns in basically every surrounding state is one of them. At some point it would be nice if people could acknowledge that we have a lot of problems.

But the progun folks need a bad guy to point at like Chicago with guns or California with taxes so they can continue to do nothing about _________ (guns, debt, funding government, immigration, etc).

Chicago has bigger problems than just guns, we have a city and police force that lies to us about crime. I work in the Loop, and I walk around thinking I am glad I am not in a high crime area. Last week a career criminal, a violent thug in fact, shot and killed a police officer less than a block from city hall.

This was a tragedy, but in the wake of the news of the officer being shot a lot of other suppressed news came out. The loop area is now seeing high rise apartment construction. The area used to be a government office / theater district but now they want people to live here too. It comes out the reason for the doubled police presence in the area the officer was shot is that someone was shot in the same location a few days prior. Never heard a word about it, and I read three local papers every morning. Then it comes out that a block away, on Lower Wacker, there was a shooting the night before. Nothing. Not a word until this officer was shot. Then it comes out that on Garland Court, in front of a new high rise apartment building, someone was shot three days prior. Again, nothing. A day after the funeral the police release a brief warning not to travel between the blue line and red line stations in the pedway alone, because of recent armed robberies.

Every day I read articles in the Trib and Sun Times about people being shot on the south side and the west side. Very rarely do we read about shootings in the heart of downtown, but I am starting to do research that shows statistically it may be no safer to be out in broad daylight at city hall, the Daley Center (County courts) or the Thompson Center (state offices.)

I don't own a gun, and really don't want to. That said, there are a lot of armed criminals I am likely encountering every time I go out to lunch. Worse, I just assumed the city was telling the truth about crime when they focus on the poorer areas. They are lying to us, and gun control can't be the only answer. The asshole who shot the police officer was a convicted felon. He didn't buy this gun from a licensed dealer. Gun control wouldn't have made a difference for the slain officer, and my worry is it isn't going to do shit to protect me either.

I seriously do not have any idea what the answer is. I think 95% of people are genuinely decent, but the 5% that aren't are becoming far more lethal. Prison isn't the answer, it is a revolving door to a place where scum can hone their skills, like graduate school for degenerates. Gun control doesn't help, the people doing the killing in Chicago couldn't legally buy a firearm anywhere in the country.

Edit: Adding a TL:DR, I don't think there is an answer to the problem, and sorry this is so long but I started to find out about a lot of violent crime the city has been sweeping under the rug that the killing of a Chicago police officer brought to light and I am sick of it.

I don't think there is an answer to the problem

Well we might as well not even try to fix the problem then. Let's just go ahead and try nothing.

Some people are trying to help, by implementing solutions that actually might work, not by banning a simple semi-auto rifle that will magically make all shootings disappear.

What is anybody doing to help?

I started to find out about a lot of violent crime the city has been sweeping under the rug

You work in the Loop and are just not 'realizing' this? People in the burbs can plainly see that.

Chicago isn’t a good example, yet people keep repeating this tired argument. Chicago doesn’t even have the strictest gun laws in the country. https://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/555580598/fact-check-is-chicago-proof-that-gun-laws-don-t-work

Chicago has a long, deep history of political corruptness. This has nothing to with/without gun laws. This gang violence is an externality that has emanated in shit policy/corruptness in the city. It has nothing to do with gun laws.

Chicago isn’t a good example

yes it is. The article you linked even said it has "strict" gun laws (that were stricter before the SCOTUS ruled that people can keep and bare hand guns), just that it's not the strictest...

edit: linked not liked

Edit - Also, bear. Also, handguns. 'Bare hand guns' sounds like a terrible 80s metal band.

yes it is.

Depends what form of gun violence we're discussing. In terms of mass shootings, no, Chicago's gun violence issues stem directly from the failed and disastrous war on drugs. Mass shootings are an entirely separate issue.

The failed gun control policies of Chicago that still remains one of the bloodiest cities in America yet has some of the strictest gun control.

There are no checkpoints going into or out of Chicago, there were no sweeps through Chicago homes removing existing guns, and some of the measures were quickly overturned (McDonald v. City of Chicago). Citing this as evidence of the uselessness of stricter gun laws in controlling gun violence is fallacy. There are other, much better arguments, yet people still fall back on this one. It's astounding.

I understand what you are getting at but the problem is that drugs/poverty/crime in Chicago are hard to compare to mass shooting events. There is absolutely no easy answer to your question though. Especially from a political standpoint, which probably makes it the biggest hurdle.

There is absolutely no easy answer to your question though.

The answer is to simply end the failed and disastrous war on drugs. About as simple as belling the cat, mind you...

Its a good example of proposed gun control laws: universal background checks, waiting periods, prior identification hoops to jump through, registration, former illegal handguns... and they still have gun violence. So maybe it's not a good example of what you want to present but it's still a useful example in the discussion.

Chicago could pass a resolution that says "all guns are illegal within the borders of Chicago," and it would not be "a good example" of anything for the very reasons I laid out in my post. This is a really simple point. Unless and until Chicago adopts checkpoints, then discussing Chicago's gun control measures without also discussing the surrounding area's gun control measures is useless at best, and misleading at worst. Do you really not understand that?

Chicago's gun control measures without also discussing the surrounding area's gun control measures is useless at best

Illinois has strict gun control. Chicago has even more gun control. Out of state sale (sale to a non resident) is illegal, even more gun control.

In state sale is legal, no? So I could go to Waukeegan, IL or Rockford, IL, legally purchase a firearm, and then drive right into Chicago? Cool, so once again Chicago gun laws are beside the point, no? That's also ignoring lax (if any) laws on private sales, or lack of tracking of guns once sold, so I can easily get someone in Indiana to buy a gun and sell it to me (maybe I even offer a premium). Without checkpoints, if guns are easily accessible in the surrounding area, they will get into Chicago. The US has open internal borders, so trying to control a market in only state or city is difficult, nigh impossible.

My point remains - using Chicago gun laws to argue that gun laws do not work is dumb. There are other, better arguments. Use those.

What other, better arguments remain? Not trying to contest you or be snarky at all, i just would very much like to hear them so i could research them on my own

The efficacy of other approaches that do not infringe on the rights of law abiding gun owners. Roughly 10-15% of guns used in crimes are stolen. Many of the rest are sham purchases, where a person legally purchases a firearm, then sells or gives that firearm to another person. In many states, the legal purchaser has little, if any, requirement or incentive to ensure the firearm does not fall into the wrong hands. A registry and mandatory record of sale (and background check for the purchaser) could help. There are a lot of creative solutions I've seen bandied about lately, but unfortunately the debate on both sides has gotten ridiculous.

Primarily, though, the problem with the Chicago example, which is roundly touted by many who don't even know what it means, is that it gets nowhere. Even if you're right that gun laws can do nothing at all (which is not supported by the Chicago example), I'd wager that 90% of people support some middle ground. Only nuts on both sides think absolutely zero restrictions on firearms at all or zero guns at all. We're trying to talk about a tricky social and political issue, but using salt the earth rhetoric. It's just not productive.

My point remains - using Chicago gun laws to argue that gun laws do not work is dumb. There are other, better arguments. Use those.

Not really. Circumventing the law in the way you describe is illegal. Criminals don't follow the law, by definition, which is the point of the argument.

You're also suggesting that only Chicago has strict gun laws, which is not true. IL has extremely strict gun laws. Including background checks, FOID (firearms owner ID) which must be presented to purchase a gun - even in a private transaction, waiting periods, strict transport laws, and zero reciprocity for concealed carry.

Chicago is inside IL, no?

Criminals don't follow the law, by definition, which is the point of the argument.

Chicago's gun violence issues stem directly from the criminal trafficking of narcotics. No amount of gun control will do much to curtail this. End the failed drug war though, and you instantly take a huge chunk out of this particular breed of gun (and other) violence.

Oh, were we talking about how Illinois' strict gun laws worked w/r/t Chicago? Weird, I don't see that in the OP: "The failed gun control policies of Chicago."

Chicago is within Illinois which is within the United States. The argument has always been that downstate Illinois and most of the rest of "flyover country" does not have the gun violence of Chicago. Their additional efforts, above the already excessive gun control of the state they're within, have zero effect on reducing (and possibly, arguably do have and effect of increasing) gun violence in the city. Surprising I had to type it all out, it's a rather logical argument.

We could discuss any number of liberal run cities that have disproportionate crime rates and regular efforts at addition gun control.

So in a thread about how "Chicago [is a] prime example" and "the failed gun control policies of Chicago," we are instead talking about urban v. rural crime rates? It's like a carnival game of moving targets!

we are instead talking about urban v. rural crime rates? It's like a carnival game of moving targets!

It's an obvious progression that you began. You started talking about Rockford and Wakeegan, trying to infer that only Chicago had some super safe gun laws that were being circumvented by other areas in IL. Therefore, we started talking about the also strict gun laws of IL, which leads to Federal transfer laws, none of which I think you have a working knowledge of.

I mentioned Rockford and Wakeegan because they are not within Chicago. The issue at hand was the "failed gun control policies of Chicago."
"policies of Chicago."
"of Chicago."
"Chicago."

I mentioned Rockford and Wakeegan because they are not within Chicago

So if the issue at hand was Chicago why did YOU bring up areas outside of Chicago...

You're using a very predictable liberal tactic when you begin losing the logical discussion.

Because there are not checkpoints between Chicago and the surrounding areas. Try to keep up. Or don't. You're not interested in honest conversation, or trying to find common ground, so goodbye and good riddance.

LOL, so we're starting at the beginning.

Why do we need checkpoints if the IL gun laws are also some of the most restrictive? If the downstate areas don't experience the same level of gun violence why would you need check points?

These are all the same points we made above. All of the gun control has failed, Chicago is just one of the biggest examples of the failure.

Chicago could pass a resolution that says "all guns are illegal within the borders of Chicago," and it would not be "a good example" of anything for the very reasons I laid out in my post. This is a really simple point. Unless and until Chicago adopts checkpoints,

I think you're missing the point. Chicago is an example of the violence, IL is an example of the Gun Control.

And I think the checkpoint would be more useful to keep the violence inside Chicago, rather than the guns out.

The gun violence in Chicago is largely driven by crime and poverty. Those guns are largely acquired on the black market.

The school shootings are predminantly done with legally purchased weapons. There are too many loopholes that allow criminals or whackjobs to get guns and not report their sale. We need a set of federal regulations that standardizes licensing, recording and background checks for all gun sales. Not ban any guns, just the application of national standards.

On the Chicago side, we need to create more job opportunities in poorer communities and take the incentive out of resorting to crime to take care of your family or to pay rent.

I guess you don't think what they did to the old cities with the drugs was on purpose.

I like how everyone seems to forget that “assault rifles” were already banned from like 94-04 and it didn’t do shit so the ban was allowed to expire.

https://heyjackass.com/

You Americans and your guns.

Chicago has a high rate of wealth disparity that makes it so there's a lot of rich people living close to really poor people, but not in the same communities.

https://voorheescenter.wordpress.com/2015/03/11/a-deepening-divide-income-inequality-grows-spatially-in-chicago/

This stuff is basic community development. Why you guys never focus on issues like that but spend all your time whining about the government taking your guns is like 1/2 the problem.

Chicago closed like 50 inner city schools and are closing more apparently.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/school-closing-protesters-take-their-pleas-to-mayors-house/

That story is from 2 days ago so apparently people are still fighting the local government there so poor kids can get a fucking education.

The US is dominated by predatory capitalism. Gun companies sell you guys guns and you guys defend them without question. Your education system is completely fucked. Privatizing elementary schools now? University students are saddled with debt. You guys have over 2 billion dollars in outstanding student loan debt accumulating interest for the financiers.

Your media system is owned by billionaires and corporate entities who lie to you constantly. Your prison systems unfairly target poor people to make profits for prison service shareholders. Your healthcare system is for profit.

You guys could really do some better improvements than just fighting about your guns.

I'm not opposed to guns in certain cases. I want nothing to do with them personally but I have no problem with responsible gun owners.

I just think that you guys could look for other solutions to your social issues that don't include guns or even the government taking your guns away.

Just forget about the guns and look at issues from saner angles.

Criminals only have guns because the government is allowing them to have them. It would be laughably easy to bring in the military and take out all the illegal guns, but the government isn't interested in enforcing the law, and the military exists only to serve the desires of the government.

The real reason Chicgo is failed state is becayse the police have NO CONSTITUTIONAL duty to protect individual citizens!

There is literally no one protecting individual citizens. Every othermajor 1st country in US has it in their consitution to protect and help their citizens.

All of this choas and shit is because those who cant defend themselves are fucked/ get killed. You put your drug addicts in Jail instead lf rehab, and you have privatized healthcare, your country is NOT a country for the people. It is no better than a 3rd world country, the only difference is that there are more rich people who live there.

Chicago has strict gun control is a shit argument, as anyone can drive a half hour into Indiana, go to a gun show, and buy weapons without an ID from any number of private sellers milling about.

I'm still not sure how I feel about that. I'm certainly happy I have that right.

not really how that works

Most gun violence is a direct result of the drug war and the black market and criminal element which the drug war is solely responsible for creating. End the drug war, and you immediately eliminate a massive amount of gun violence.

However, this does not address the issue of mass shootings which are in no way connected to black market narcotics trade. This actually does require a bit of sensible gun control, namely thorough background checks, greater restrictions to the acquisition of semi-autos in general would not hurt either.

If you're looking at all this gun control stuff and thinking " this is a stupid idea that fails to address the underlying problem, proposed by emotional people whipped into a frenzy by coordinated propaganda" I have 2 things to say:

I agree; that's how I feel about the .Muslim/Mexican ban as well

The ending of slavery is an example that removing a citizens rights can fix core problems. Just because something is on paper as a right doesn’t make it good. It was a right to own humans but we ended that because we realized that it wasn’t good for society. Rights can change. This idea that rights are completely unchangable is ridiculous. It’s a right to vote in America. We’ve change the rules about that many times. We have freedom of speech but there are rules about saying things that can cause harm. Why is it so bad to want to change a right when it’s causing massive harm to society?

It is not causing massive harm to society compared to other examples like cigarettes, cancer, heart disease, etc. You just think it is causing massive harm to society because of the media.

I wouldn’t call 35,000 deaths a year insignificant. Yes cancer and heart disease are bad and we are working towards solving those issues. But that doesn’t mean we can’t work to solve this issue as well. Gun deaths are a problem. You’re deflecting by trying to say they aren’t as big of a problem as other things.

It is insignificant in comparison to many other issues that kill many more people. Opiates are dropping people like flies, but no one cares about that. Guns can and will protect people from others that want to cause harm. A gun can help a woman defend herself when she lives home alone. My girlfriend is at home alone right now because I travel for work. The cops will come way too late in many instances. Guns have benefits to responsible people that want to protect themselves. For example, if there was enough armed security in the school, this dude could have been dead before it got so bad.

We can’t afford to pay for pencils for teachers, where is the money for armed security coming from? Yes other things are a problem, but this is still an issue. Stop deflecting from the issue. It’s a cowards action. No one is arguing for banning all guns. Is your girlfriend sitting at home clutching an assault rifle? Odds are it’s a handgun. Because for home security, a rifle is insanely unnecessary.

Tax money is squandered in every way imaginable. If they chose to arm schools, it could be done. I'm not deflecting the issue. I'm advocating the benefits of guns. That's not cowardice. She has a loaded Shotgun and handgun actually. We have rifles as well, but that wouldn't be used in such a situation.

Yes tax money is wasted. That’s a given. But you’re saying that they will automatically find a justification for guns when they have been saying for years that the money isn’t there for basic needs? It wouldn’t work. Teachers would rather get the basic needs meet first. As they should.

Handguns are best for home defense. Close quarters wouldn’t be best for a rifle. Assault rifles aren’t needed for home defense.

I honestly don't believe that funding would be that much of an issue if we decided it was necessary. Even my poor southern community had at least 1 security/cop on the grounds at all times with a handgun. Schools need much more stringent security in general like metal detectors and gates that are not accessible except for certain people at certain times. Criminals will find a way to get guns not matter what we ban.

You obviously don't have much experience shooting a shotgun. I know how to defend my home. Handguns are inaccurate unless the offender is extremely close.

Well if people are just going to kill each other no matter what then we might as well just make tanks and grenades and missle launchers easy to buy then. Because obviously there's no point in making any weapons hard to get.

But this type of sale is currently illegal

And what type of sale would that be exactly?

as are their crimes

That's a bit redundant, yes criminal actions are inherently illegal.

Any proposal about more laws assumes that risk is reduced because people will obey the law.

Agreed? Only law abiding citizens obey the laws.

First of all, you are wrong if that is what you meant. You absolutely can purchase a gun in Indiana as a non-resident they just have to ship it to a FFL in your state. Please provide me with a link stating that it is illegal for an IL resident to purchase a gun in Indiana.

Why are you attempting to insult me when I was simply asking you to clarify your incomplete sentence.

You should really have a working knowledge of gun laws if you want to discuss more gun laws.

You are the one that doesn't know what their talking about. Lol good try.

So you're arguing about semantics got it. Technically no I cannot buy they gun in Indiana and bring it to IL. But I can purchase it in Indiana and send it to a FFL outside of Cook County and get around all of those restrictions. Yes it must comply with the state but was that ever the question or was it could I go to Indiana and buy a gun, short answer is yes, so idk what your overall point is honestly.

I'm pro-guns so I'm very confused why someone also pro guns is trying to argue. You came at me first bud. You come off like a know it all neckbeard, you post in /r/ak47 so you must know more than me lol.

Because there are not checkpoints between Chicago and the surrounding areas. Try to keep up. Or don't. You're not interested in honest conversation, or trying to find common ground, so goodbye and good riddance.