Aldon Smith Agrees to Plea Deal

[whysies]

Might it be possible that people in Chicago get murdered a lot because people in Chicago are more prone to murdering other people? Or there are problems with the police force, etc.?

Or are we just going to chalk it up to a lack of normal citizens packing heat and herp derp it along to our date with our semi-automatic rifle at the shootin' range (the one bought for home protection and hunting purposes, obvi)?

Drawing a strict, straight-line comparison to "less good guy guns=more bad guy killings" is a slap in the face to the entire notions of correlation, causation, and complex social issues. It's also quite herpidy derpidy, IMO.

 

[whysies]

Merely curious, but if you are afraid to visit our board, how do you know about an RW morphed thread?

Wait, that actually happened? No way.

 

[deep9er]

Stories like this back up my position not yours. Chicago is one of the worst cities in the US for shootings; and like 7 of the top 10 murder-cities in the US, it has extremely strict gun regulations already.

More conceal-carry permits. I wouldn't live in Chicago without one (which means I wouldn't live in Chicago).

so if any of these six people were packing a gun, none would've gotten shot? granted I don't know the details here, but looking at gender and ages, it APPEARS these people were actually doing laundry? so if someone came in and surprised them and starting shooting up the place, their guns would've protected them?

btw - wouldn't legal, permit carrying people also shoot innocent bystanders while trying to stop the shooter? what if all six of these people starting shooting in the laundry themselves?

you cite Chicago as the high incident city, but where do you draw the line, cause every city has this problem. you're standing by statistics so do you need a small town to have 5 incidents before you'd do something? you need a big City to have 100 incidents before doing something? I'd think only one incident like Columbine (multiple deaths in one incident) is enough?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

I wonder why laws against killing people dont work? Or laws against drugs? But if guns were outlawed, by god the bad guys would fallow that one!




Also check out Chicago's gun laws. Some of the strictest.

You're missing Deep's point. He is arguing that there are far too many guns that are obtained legally in the US - very nearly one per person. It is relatively easy for a legally obtained gun to become an illegal gun, and as a result, most guns that are illegally possessed and used in crimes, were once legally owned and possessed. Deep's hypothesis that stricter gun laws would reduce gun violence rests on the theory that fewer guns in legal circulation would lead to fewer guns in illegal circulation, and thus reduced gun crime.

It's basically a given that criminals will continue to carry guns. However, if guns were much harder to obtain, and penalties for carrying them/using them were harsher, it is very likely that fewer criminals would carry them. But any change like that would have to take place on a nation-wide scale. Chicago having tough gun laws is somewhat irrelevant so far as armed criminals are concerned because they can just drive outside the city limits and get a gun that would be illegal to carry in the city limits. If they could only obtain a handgun through black market channels, it stands to reason that the number of criminals armed with handguns would in fact decrease.

The position that you and Sick are espousing seems to stem from a fatalistic view: the nation cannot reduce gun violence through the rule of law. Instead, we should just all be armed to protect ourselves against it. I'd like to think that, as a nation, we can take meaningful and significant action to combat the problem of gun violence. I realize that's unrealistic, particularly in the political climate that has prevailed for, oh, the last five years or so, but I for one refuse to simply give up on the issue. People die due to guns every day in this country. We could change that (or at least drastically reduce the numbers) if we had the will to do so. It doesn't appear that we do. It's a sad commentary on the country IMO.

 

[Rvnight18]

so if any of these six people were packing a gun, none would've gotten shot? granted I don't know the details here, but looking at gender and ages, it APPEARS these people were actually doing laundry? so if someone came in and surprised them and starting shooting up the place, their guns would've protected them?

btw - wouldn't legal, permit carrying people also shoot innocent bystanders while trying to stop the shooter? what if all six of these people starting shooting in the laundry themselves?

you cite Chicago as the high incident city, but where do you draw the line, cause every city has this problem. you're standing by statistics so do you need a small town to have 5 incidents before you'd do something? you need a big City to have 100 incidents before doing something? I'd think only one incident like Columbine (multiple deaths in one incident) is enough?

If somebody had a legal permit to carry and was at that laundry mat, they could have stopped it from being as bad as it was. Give people the chance to defend themselves. You don't seem to understand that Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws yet is one of the most dangerous cities. Gun laws do nothing. Criminals are criminals because they don't follow laws. All gun laws do is take them out of law abiding citizens. This isn't hard to understand.

 

[Rvnight18]

You're missing Deep's point. He is arguing that there are far too many guns that are obtained legally in the US - very nearly one per person. It is relatively easy for a legally obtained gun to become an illegal gun, and as a result, most guns that are illegally possessed and used in crimes, were once legally owned and possessed. Deep's hypothesis that stricter gun laws would reduce gun violence rests on the theory that fewer guns in legal circulation would lead to fewer guns in illegal circulation, and thus reduced gun crime.

It's basically a given that criminals will continue to carry guns. However, if guns were much harder to obtain, and penalties for carrying them/using them were harsher, it is very likely that fewer criminals would carry them. But any change like that would have to take place on a nation-wide scale. Chicago having tough gun laws is somewhat irrelevant so far as armed criminals are concerned because they can just drive outside the city limits and get a gun that would be illegal to carry in the city limits. If they could only obtain a handgun through black market channels, it stands to reason that the number of criminals armed with handguns would in fact decrease.

The position that you and Sick are espousing seems to stem from a fatalistic view: the nation cannot reduce gun violence through the rule of law. Instead, we should just all be armed to protect ourselves against it. I'd like to think that, as a nation, we can take meaningful and significant action to combat the problem of gun violence. I realize that's unrealistic, particularly in the political climate that has prevailed for, oh, the last five years or so, but I for one refuse to simply give up on the issue. People die due to guns every day in this country. We could change that (or at least drastically reduce the numbers) if we had the will to do so. It doesn't appear that we do. It's a sad commentary on the country IMO.

Fewer guns in circulation? Sort of like how we had the war on drugs make it illegal and up the punishment to keep drugs off the street. It doesn't matter what law you pass. It is way to easy to get guns illegally because people get turned away NOW from buying guns. Not everybody can buy guns. Why? Most likely because their felons so they buy in the black market from a guy who gets them from stealing them or a dealer. No laws will fix that because there are already laws against it. CRIMINALS DONT FOLLOW LAWS.

 

[NinerSickness]

so if any of these six people were packing a gun, none would've gotten shot? granted I don't know the details here, but looking at gender and ages, it APPEARS these people were actually doing laundry? so if someone came in and surprised them and starting shooting up the place, their guns would've protected them?

btw - wouldn't legal, permit carrying people also shoot innocent bystanders while trying to stop the shooter? what if all six of these people starting shooting in the laundry themselves?

you cite Chicago as the high incident city, but where do you draw the line, cause every city has this problem. you're standing by statistics so do you need a small town to have 5 incidents before you'd do something? you need a big City to have 100 incidents before doing something? I'd think only one incident like Columbine (multiple deaths in one incident) is enough?

The "do something" I would do would allow people to have conceal-carry permits. Some of these might not stand up on court (age would), but I'd pretty much give any employed person over the age of 25 a conceal-carry permit. Especially women. And ESPECIALLY people over the age of 30. If they had records (like gang bangers tend to have), they wouldn't get a permit.

And a Center-For-Disease-Control study doesn't agree with your assessment:

“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states.

http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Report Files/2013/Firearm-Violence/FirearmViolence_RB.pdf

As always, I don't take these studies as the gospel truth, but the story below says that defensive gun use amounts for only 2% of all gun deaths. And they're firing at people who SHOULD be fired at.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html

I really think you're looking at this from a naïve, unrealistic point of view (like I used to).

 

[NinerSickness]

You're missing Deep's point. He is arguing that there are far too many guns that are obtained legally in the US - very nearly one per person. It is relatively easy for a legally obtained gun to become an illegal gun, and as a result, most guns that are illegally possessed and used in crimes, were once legally owned and possessed.

This CDC study disagrees:

http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Report Files/2013/Firearm-Violence/FirearmViolence_RB.pdf

“Most felons report obtaining the majority of their firearms from informal sources,” adds the report, while “stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals.”

 

[NinerSickness]

No laws will fix that because there are already laws against it. CRIMINALS DONT FOLLOW LAWS.

No way. Pass enough laws and the world would be perfect. There'd be no crime, and the world would be prosperous.

 

[1911Alaska]

The "do something" I would do would allow people to have conceal-carry permits. Some of these might not stand up on court (age would), but I'd pretty much give any employed person over the age of 25 a conceal-carry permit. Especially women. And ESPECIALLY people over the age of 30. If they had records (like gang bangers tend to have), they wouldn't get a permit.

And a Center-For-Disease-Control study doesn't agree with your assessment:

“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states.

http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Report Files/2013/Firearm-Violence/FirearmViolence_RB.pdf

As always, I don't take these studies as the gospel truth, but the story below says that defensive gun use amounts for only 2% of all gun deaths. And they're firing at people who SHOULD be fired at.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html

I really think you're looking at this from a naïve, unrealistic point of view (like I used to).

Why 25? And not 21 or 18? I am 100% pro gun so just curious as to why you think anyone 24 or under should not legally be able to conceal carry a gun.

I know I come from a different wolrd then majority people here (Alaska), but I have a gun on me 100% of the time unless I am drinking or somewhere where I cannot legally carry it. In Alaska conceal carry age is 21, and the open carry age is 18 (not a fan of open carry personally). Gun crime is not a big problem here in Alaska

 

[NinerSickness]

Why 25? And not 21 or 18? I am 100% pro gun so just curious as to why you think anyone 24 or under should not legally be able to conceal carry a gun.

I know I come from a different wolrd then majority people here (Alaska), but I have a gun on me 100% of the time unless I am drinking or somewhere where I cannot legally carry it. In Alaska conceal carry age is 21, and the open carry age is 18 (not a fan of open carry personally). Gun crime is not a big problem here in Alaska

I'm not for making it illegal for people under 25 to get conceal-carry permits; I'm just for making it extremely easy for older people (especially women) who have jobs to get 'em. Besides, younger people almost never apply for those permits anyway. That's partially because some places don't allow 'em and others make it extremely hard to get them. But even places with hands-off gun policies, young people tend not to get conceal-carry permits (and most don't need 'em).

 

[1911Alaska]

I'm not for making it illegal for people under 25 to get conceal-carry permits; I'm just for making it extremely easy for older people (especially women) who have jobs to get 'em. Besides, younger people almost never apply for those permits anyway. That's partially because some places don't allow 'em and others make it extremely hard to get them. But even places with hands-off gun policies, young people tend not to get conceal-carry permits (and most don't need 'em).

I am 22, have a conceal carry lisence even though it is not required in the State of Alaska. And I would argue that nobody needs a gun until they actually NEED it (if that makes sense). Ive had a gun on me every day since I was 19 and not once have I ever came close to actually needing it. Every day, thankful I have it, pray that I don't need it.

 

[deep9er]

You're missing Deep's point. He is arguing that there are far too many guns that are obtained legally in the US - very nearly one per person. It is relatively easy for a legally obtained gun to become an illegal gun, and as a result, most guns that are illegally possessed and used in crimes, were once legally owned and possessed. Deep's hypothesis that stricter gun laws would reduce gun violence rests on the theory that fewer guns in legal circulation would lead to fewer guns in illegal circulation, and thus reduced gun crime.

It's basically a given that criminals will continue to carry guns. However, if guns were much harder to obtain, and penalties for carrying them/using them were harsher, it is very likely that fewer criminals would carry them. But any change like that would have to take place on a nation-wide scale. Chicago having tough gun laws is somewhat irrelevant so far as armed criminals are concerned because they can just drive outside the city limits and get a gun that would be illegal to carry in the city limits. If they could only obtain a handgun through black market channels, it stands to reason that the number of criminals armed with handguns would in fact decrease.

The position that you and Sick are espousing seems to stem from a fatalistic view: the nation cannot reduce gun violence through the rule of law. Instead, we should just all be armed to protect ourselves against it. I'd like to think that, as a nation, we can take meaningful and significant action to combat the problem of gun violence. I realize that's unrealistic, particularly in the political climate that has prevailed for, oh, the last five years or so, but I for one refuse to simply give up on the issue. People die due to guns every day in this country. We could change that (or at least drastically reduce the numbers) if we had the will to do so. It doesn't appear that we do. It's a sad commentary on the country IMO.

well done Crimson.

 

[deep9er]

I wonder why laws against killing people dont work? Or laws against drugs? But if guns were outlawed, by god the bad guys would fallow that one!




Also check out Chicago's gun laws. Some of the strictest.

removing guns won't remove all crime, but it'll reduce gun fatalities. if a high school student doesn't have access to guns, he can't KILL 10 fellow students before cops arrive.

if a mentally unstable person doesn't have a gun, he can't walk into an elementary school and KILL 10 children before the cops arrive. note children can't carry guns to protect themselves.

if you arm more people - even good people, then more people will get shot from friendly fire, not just the bad guys. can you imagine in a movie theater where 10 good people bring out their guns and start shooting the 'bad guy"? hey, I killed 3 other good people BUT.....I was defending myself.

 

[NinerSickness]

if a high school student doesn't have access to guns, he can't KILL 10 fellow students before cops arrive.

High school students don't legally have access to guns anyway! Any child with a gun has acquired that gun illegally!

You people think you're going to make everything better with the stroke of a pen. It simply doesn't work! But then again, if a liberal idea isn't working it's because we need more of it.

if you arm more people - even good people, then more people will get shot from friendly fire

Here on planet earth, THAT ALOMST NEVER HAPPENS!

can you imagine in a movie theater where 10 good people bring out their guns and start shooting the 'bad guy"? hey, I killed 3 other good people BUT.....I was defending myself.

Or in reality, the 10 people kill the bad guy before the bad guy can kill more innocents. In your way of doing things, you simply have no-gun zones, which are prime targets for assholes like Nadal Hasan and Ivan Lopez, who killed 13 and four people respectively at Fort Hood because of Barack Obama's dumbass directive to make Fort Hood a "Gun-Free" zone. These shootings don't just happen in seconds like in the movies; people like these guys move around and re-load and take many minutes to kill people before the police arrive.

In your world, you wouldn't even want POLICE to shoot back at someone like these people because they MIGHT (almost never do) shoot the wrong person. That's asinine.

 

[deep9er]

High school students don't legally have access to guns anyway! Any child with a gun has acquired that gun illegally!

You people think you're going to make everything better with the stroke of a pen. It simply doesn't work! But then again, if a liberal idea isn't working it's because we need more of it.


Here on planet earth, THAT ALOMST NEVER HAPPENS!


Or in reality, the 10 people kill the bad guy before the bad guy can kill more innocents. In your way of doing things, you simply have no-gun zones, which are prime targets for assholes like Nadal Hasan and Ivan Lopez, who killed 13 and four people respectively at Fort Hood because of Barack Obama's dumbass directive to make Fort Hood a "Gun-Free" zone. These shootings don't just happen in seconds like in the movies; people like these guys move around and re-load and take many minutes to kill people before the police arrive.


In your world, you wouldn't even want POLICE to shoot back at someone like these people because they MIGHT (almost never do) shoot the wrong person. That's asinine.

ONE of my points is children (in this example a teenager) obtain guns illegally from people who are legal. in most case, from their own parents. there are more and more cases of school violence no matter what you say, I know readers don't need to see a list of schools.

"kill MORE innocents"??!! so you DO acknowledge innocents will die, but let me guess....statistically its ok? in my way of thinking, more and more guns get REMOVED from society over time, and none keep entering it. over time there would be less and less gun fatalities.

Please don't make up chit, making up chit is asinine. we're talking about the legally, permitted, good people with guns, the ones you want to arm, not me. this incidents I refer to, happen way before the police arrive.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Fewer guns in circulation? Sort of like how we had the war on drugs make it illegal and up the punishment to keep drugs off the street. It doesn't matter what law you pass. It is way to easy to get guns illegally because people get turned away NOW from buying guns. Not everybody can buy guns. Why? Most likely because their felons so they buy in the black market from a guy who gets them from stealing them or a dealer. No laws will fix that because there are already laws against it. CRIMINALS DONT FOLLOW LAWS.

Drugs and guns are inherently different. Drugs are extremely easy to transport and conceal. Handguns aren't particularly difficult to transport and conceal, but certainly more so than a fraction of a gram of meth or cocaine or heroin.

Out of curiosity, are you in favor of legalizing hard drugs?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

This CDC study disagrees:

http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Report Files/2013/Firearm-Violence/FirearmViolence_RB.pdf

“Most felons report obtaining the majority of their firearms from informal sources,” adds the report, while “stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals.”

What's an "informal source"? Here's one: "Hey buddy, run to that gun show and buy a handgun for me." It's still a felon illegally obtaining a gun. Unless you have a different theory on what informal sources are?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

For Sick and RV, do you think there is a problem with gun violence in this country? Does that problem demand attention? And if so, is the only solution to arm everyone? Or do you guys have another approach in mind?

And incidentally, if we go with the "arm everyone" plan and the predator shows up, we're all in for a world of hurt....

 

[deep9er]

Fewer guns in circulation? Sort of like how we had the war on drugs make it illegal and up the punishment to keep drugs off the street. It doesn't matter what law you pass. It is way to easy to get guns illegally because people get turned away NOW from buying guns. Not everybody can buy guns. Why? Most likely because their felons so they buy in the black market from a guy who gets them from stealing them or a dealer. No laws will fix that because there are already laws against it. CRIMINALS DONT FOLLOW LAWS.

so what is your point, criminals obtain guns no matter what, so the hell with it?

felons can't get guns from gun dealers, only good people can. so how do these guns reach the black market? they don't get to the black market thru felons.