Gonna have to explain that one, friend.
I mostly agree with you, but handguns are useful for trapping. At the same time, there’s no reason you couldn’t use a rifle for trapping, it’s just less convenient to slog around with a rifle so most trappers carry .22 revolvers.
My pet peeve is semi-automatic anything. I don’t get their purpose. If you’re worried about self-defense, a revolver works just fine for carry and a shotgun for home. If you’re a hunter, you’re probably going to be better served with a bolt action rifle anyway and if you’re squeezing off a couple of rounds a second, you’re probably a bad hunter that would be better served by going to a range than buying a semi-auto rifle.
I have yet to hear a valid reason to own a semi-automatic weapon that doesn’t involve killing people (or alternatively, going to the range to practice in case you need to kill people in the future.) From what I understand though, this is a feature of the no-gun control argument and not a bug. They seem pretty open and honest about it-they want a gun to shoot the government or in case of civil unrest (which in their scenarios almost invariably means ‘black people rioting.’) So I guess in many ways they are Constitutional originalists, they think that semi-automatic weapons are for shooting soldiers you disagree with and unarmed, uppity black people which pretty well sums up the Founding Fathers attitudes as well, so there you go.
The US military can’t even control a primitive nation such as Afghanistan.
Self defense is a legitimate, non imaginary purpose for a handgun. Those of us who have had a stranger with a knife break into their house in the middle of the night are glad handguns are legal.
A shotgun can be used for the same purpose, but a handgun is needed for personal defense outside of the home. I know a lot of other real estate brokers who carry them, especially women. I don’t, because I am not really that worried about my odds in a physical confrontation, but I would if I were smaller/weaker. It’s a job that involves meeting alone with a lot of strangers, sometimes in remote places, sometimes in downright sketchy ones…and hiring a bodyguard isn’t exactly an option. The brokers with a net worth in the tens of millions who might potentially be able to afford it, generally wouldn’t be putting themselves out there in those situations anyway, it’s the buyer agents (like me) who’d be doing it. But I digress.
Anyway, trying to push for more gun control in surrounding states with the argument of “won’t you think about Chicago?!” would go over like the Hindenburg with voters, so I think for the time being we can rule out that possibility.
Well, if that is there purpose, then they fail. There are like 50,000,000 handguns out there, and like 5000 or so are used for murder. One in 50000. Most are used for collecting, for target shooting and for self defense. And of course the police and security carry quite a few, and manage not to murder too many people a year…
There are about a million cops in the USA. So just there- 1,000,000 used to protect the public vs 5000 used to murder- you are completely, utterly wrong.
Collecting and target shooting (presuming you’re not specifically practicing to murder people more effectively) are legitimate, objectively defensible uses for a handgun. (Ones that I think people could live without, mind you, but still legitimate uses.)
Their use as a self-defense tool is the one that was called out as being imaginary. That can be debated, of course, but perhaps this isn’t the thread to do it in.
Regarding the OP, I agree with the general conclusion that of course the constant influx of guns to criminals and gang members (some of whom probably aren’t criminals until they’re handed a gun - it has to start somewhere) is a necessary and significant precondition of the high number of deaths in Chicago - but it’s not the reason why Chicago is worse than elsewhere, because ‘elsewhere’ has tons of guns too.
No, those were ruled out "Handguns are exclusively murder weapons - they have no other purpose. " That wording means he thinks handguns have exactly two purposes- murder (at which they fail dismally, %-wise) or the “imaginary” one, which I agree is self defense. Not to mention they are used in Olympic games, Hunting, security guards, police, Cowboy action shooting and a fair number of other things all of which are far more common that murder.
No, it wouldn’t. The US is where the gun manufacturers are. Mexico’s government has made many complaints regarding lax US gun laws resulting in massive flows of illegal arms to Mexico. Drugs come into the US, guns go out.
Within the civilian population, criminals have a virtual monopoly on guns.
Sounds like Mexico needs a wall.
Mexico could get guns from the various drug and contra orgs south of them. True, right now, more flow from the USA.
But this just solidifies my position- Gun laws in Chicago dont work so we need nationwide gun laws, but guns can still come in from outside the USA (Russia and China are huge sources for arms, also, but yes the USA is #1!) so now in order for gun control to work, we need a world wide law. :rolleyes:
And thus it’s impossible, and thus we should do nothing at all!
Exactly why Gun control is useless!
But lets get back to the OP. We have shown that guns are not the major issue here.
We already have several gun control threads.
Well, it’s not the major issue in the same way that oxygenated air is not the major issue in all the forest fires we’ve been having lately. Yes, without the air there wouldn’t be near as many fires in the forests, but the air is everywhere and there aren’t fires everywhere, so there are other reasons for the fact the forests are hotter than elsewhere.
You’ll never be able to squelch all discussion of guns in this thread because they’re clearly relevant to the topic, but I wholeheartedly agree that the causes for Chicago’s specific purgatorial goings-on aren’t hinging on the fact there are guns there.
That’s … quite a remarkable statement. Can you expound?
I am thinking what he means that gun control is fairly strict in Chicago, thus few law abiding citizens have guns, while criminals have all they want.
But again, we have already established that guns are not the reason why *Chicago’s violent crime rate is so high. We can likely do without yet another gun control debate.
- yes of course guns are used in Violent crime, but other large cities have the same gun problems but far less crime.
Actually I’m not aware that we’ve eliminated “Law-abiding unarmed people are helpless sheep that by their helpless sheeplike presence summon hordes of gun-toting wolves!” as a possible contributory factor for why Chicago is more dangerous than, say, Austin.
Not that I necessarily think that the disarmed citizenry are the reason for Chicago’s problems (if the problems are mostly gang related then most of the people getting shot at are armed too), but I’m not sure that particular argument has been properly refuted yet.
Oh, no, I agree it is a factor. But I certainly dont think it is the biggest issue or even the 2nd biggest.
Any area with a large percentage of (less-intelligent) blacks will have high crime rates, and some areas will be more prone to violence (the dumbest of the dumb, maybe). Intelligent people don’t waste energy on continual mayhem. Chicago may be unique for its mobster history (various races) but it seems hard to explain the particulars.
It’s a huge mistake to assume blacks are good people merely because some have been victims of racism. They’ve historically done plenty of damage to each other. Maybe it’s a sort of self-loathing. An example in their native lands was the 1994 Rwandan genocide where over 800,000 black-on-black murders happened.
This video shows their ignorant attitudes, which amount to “we gotta keep going this just because we gotta.” Smart people don’t stay in mindless cycles like that.
“The lost streets of Chicago - BBC News” https://youtu.be/tbKp8OV6F64
A big factor is rappers who glorify violence yet claim they want to stop it. They’re apparently unable to understand irony or vicious cycles. Again, I think it’s the less intelligent blacks who are the main problem.