Doesn’t Chicago have a ban on guns? If they do, it doesn’t seem like it’s working too well.
Good thing they only had guns and not automobiles because we know that autos are far more deadly.
You beat me to it.
Well, the law abiding citizens don’t have guns. I guess that’s good. Right??
Now, if they could just get the law breakers to obey the law. :shrug:
Not sure I understand this question. Is a sarcastic coment advocating gun ownership?
(Honestly trying to see your point)
I can see your point. If only it were the law abiding citizens owning guns and not the criminals. I don’t see how a ban on guns could ever work. Criminals are going to commit crimes regardless of the law. That’s like asking a drug addict not to buy drugs simply because the law says he can’t.
I have nothing against gun ownership by responsible and law abiding citizens.
There was one law abiding citizen with a gun.
You seriously want to check this out;
Well that is good. It sounds like he may have saved some lives.
The problem is law abiding citizens will just say, oh the gun accidentally went off. Guns don’t accidentally go off.
Guns can accidentally go off:
Really? I been to several court hearing here in Dallas (as an interpreter) and that reason or excuse from either side has not flown by. Guns have not gone off “on its own” just b/c it wanted to. Someone had to had done it. In that case. now that I think of it, ppl say guns don’t kill ppl, but ppl kill. So if guns can go off on its own and you gave us a link to a report that they do. Then guns do kill people, b/c guns are out of the blue going off on their own. Did I hit it in the nail? Your telling me that a gun is alive and can out of nothing just decide to shoot itself.
What does any of that have to do with the story out of Chicago?
The question was brought up that only non abiding citizens were committing crimes with guns. I mentioned how can that be, b/c ppl who are considered to be “law abiding” will use the argument that the gun just went off. That’s how we got here to this point.
I know this is likely to fall on deaf ears, but the restriction of gun access (no one really is calling for an outright end of gun ownership for private citizens to my knowledge) would lessen deaths from violent shooting incidents because the vast majority of us are not in real danger from actual criminals. The movie theater, school, university, and other assorted mass shootings that we keep seeing occur aren’t perpetrated by criminals, but rather by deranged, evil, or very sick kids who have no real criminal records. These sorts of people, not being savvy or capable enough to make black market gun purchases, would thus not be able to access deadly firearms (particularly of the assault rifle variety so favored by these kinds of killers) if the weapons weren’t so readily available.
Most Americans are in far more danger of being shot and killed by a deranged kid with no prior criminal record but all the warning signs of having been a danger than from a real, full-on criminal. If you live in a safe place, avoid dangerous parts of cities (especially after dark), and don’t participate in activities that may bring you into the sphere of criminal activity like gambling, drugs, taking out ill-conceived loans, or prostitution, your chances of being attacked by a real criminal are essentially nil.
Nope, Illinois was forced by the courts to implement a conceal carry law.
Yet the majority of crimes committed with guns are by criminals.
Once a ‘law abiding’ citizen uses a gun in an illegal manner, they are no longer permitted to have one.
I think her statement was a combination of sarcasm and satire.
Those who oppose guns think that gun violence will end if guns are simply made illegal. In Chicago, guns are illegal yet the violence continues.
Have any of the people who used guns in Chicago this weekend use that defense?