Originally Posted by forebubba (Post 2113077)

Do you need a military weapon designed to kill and rip apart anything it hits?
Do you need a 30 + round clip?
Do you need a gun that can fire 30 rounds in 15 seconds?
Do you have a problem waiting for a week to get a gun while a person is checked out for a mental and and or criminal record.
Do you think it's ok for people to have guns more powerful than the police?

A overwhelming number of people want these changes EVEN GUN OWNERS

Wake up

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2113048)

I agree with your statement, but not everyone is gun smart, I am sure the poster was simply using the current popular term (assault weapon) to refer to the Assault styled weapon commonly called the AR_15, which is the weapon of choice for mass shootings. That does not take away from your points, but we could all use a little more effort to reason what people are trying to say instead of getting all bent over they saying it wrong.

I was a IT consultant most of my career and I would not have had many clients if I constantly corrected their incorrect usages of IT terminology, instead I tried to understand what they meant, so we could address the problem they have.

Arguing over terms while mass shooting occur about every 2 days in this country is not really productive and tends to make people feel confrontational.

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2113091)

So you're not a hunter. Many bird hunters use semi-automatics in order to get more than one shot at a group of birds flying away.

Originally Posted by Two Bills (Post 2112807)

I found this an interesting article by BBC.
In UK 2020/21 there were 235 homicides where knives were involved.
The weapon of choice since guns were banned.

America'''s gun culture - in seven charts - BBC News

Originally Posted by MrFlorida (Post 2113088)

The Supreme Court say's its our Constitutional right, if you don't agree you can move.

Originally Posted by Joe C. (Post 2113114)

Here's the problem with that: People need to correctly identify and use the proper terminology when talking or reporting about firearms. When definitions are skewed, and continually used in public, a common misunderstanding ends up becoming "fact". People call a magazine by the incorrect term "clip" and that word can eventually be used when enacting local laws. People watch too many movies with guns and actually believe those special effects are real. Words have meaning, and should be used correctly in order for the reader or listener to understand what is actually being conveyed.

Originally Posted by Joe C. (Post 2113114)

Here's the problem with that: People need to correctly identify and use the proper terminology when talking or reporting about firearms. When definitions are skewed, and continually used in public, a common misunderstanding ends up becoming "fact". People call a magazine by the incorrect term "clip" and that word can eventually be used when enacting local laws. People watch too many movies with guns and actually believe those special effects are real. Words have meaning, and should be used correctly in order for the reader or listener to understand what is actually being conveyed.

Originally Posted by Pballer (Post 2113084)

I can see needing a semi-automatic for the "sport" of hunting. Make sure the animal has no chance.

Originally Posted by billethkid (Post 2113121)

Most of the media have no idea what they are talking about (parroting!!).

And way too many on open forums like this have no clue what they are talking about.....here again parroting from the media or special interest talking points......where it matters not whether accurate or false.

They are entitled to their opinion even if incorrect.

Originally Posted by Pballer (Post 2113115)

I guess it is the great equalizer for hunters that have no marksmanship skills. I wonder how they ever shot birds in the 19th and earlier centuries.

Originally Posted by Ptmckiou (Post 2112913)

It’s very simple. The USA has the highest per capita gun ownership of any other country on the planet. Thereby, by your logic, the USA should be by far the safest country to live on the planet. That is not true. It’s not even close to being true. Consequently, your logic is flawed.

Another thing many like to cherry pick….”Chicago with the strongest gun laws…” Strong gun laws mean nothing in overall statistics, when anyone can drive a few miles to another nearby state and get their weapons with less strict gun laws. Thereby, cancelling out any statistical value to one small area having strict gun laws. It becomes irrelevant, unless all are following the same strict laws. Like our forefathers implied, I’m all for every citizen of the USA to carry a musket. No problem at all. I am against any citizen owning a gun that enables them to kill “faster” without reloading using bullets that explode inside a persons body Lessing their survivability, and it decapitating childrens heads. This type of weaponry is absurd to be accessible by someone not trained and lack maturity to handle them.

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2112925)

Eight of the top ten states for murder rates have the least gun control, Illinois is not in the top 10.

Originally Posted by forebubba (Post 2112928)

Keep voting for those who reject common sense gun legislation.
Minority rules.

Originally Posted by popbaby2 (Post 2112930)

If guns were more tightly controlled EVERYWHERE then they couldnt get them in chicago as easily as driving a few miles away as they do now. What other civilized country has the shooting that we have. NONE by a long shot. We need more more more gun control

Originally Posted by Bellavita (Post 2113116)

2021 Nearly eight-in-ten (79%) U.S. murders in 2020 – 19,384 out of 24,576 – involved a firearm.

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2113064)

This is pretty weak. It offers NO solutions, and just throws out dog whistles.

If it is Lightfoot's fault, what happened in the other 327 mass shootings this year?

Originally Posted by JMintzer (Post 2113145)

Care to give examples of such "common sense" regulations?

Originally Posted by forebubba (Post 2113077)

Do you need a military weapon designed to kill and rip apart anything it hits?

Originally Posted by MrFlorida (Post 2113088)

The Supreme Court say's its our Constitutional right, if you don't agree you can move.

Originally Posted by Pballer (Post 2113084)

I can see needing a semi-automatic for the "sport" of hunting. Make sure the animal has no chance.

Originally Posted by Pballer (Post 2113115)

I guess it is the great equalizer for hunters that have no marksmanship skills. I wonder how they ever shot birds in the 19th and earlier centuries.

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2113119)

So people who are not literate in some you know about should just shut up? No point in trying to understand what they are saying? No point in trying to politely educate them? No point trying to discuss, just rant about a word that is improper.y used while every two days more people, often children, die.

Good plan

Originally Posted by forebubba (Post 2113150)

I did previously...no need to repeat it

Originally Posted by forebubba (Post 2113152)

It was written when they had muskets.
If you need it for protection pray the other doesn't have an AR15

Originally Posted by JMintzer (Post 2113144)

But Chicago is...

I do give you credit for your attempt at playing with statistics...

Originally Posted by chet2020 (Post 2113167)

Gun deaths per 100,000:

Chicago - 18.26

Wyoming - 25.9

Originally Posted by Keefelane66 (Post 2112745)

Just another day in America!

Originally Posted by JMintzer (Post 2113154)

Sure, let the wounded animal run off while you're reloading and suffer instead of making a quick kill...

Originally Posted by Wyseguy (Post 2112943)

With 400 million people we will always have shootings. We can trade freedoms for safety. I would think that is something many would find unacceptable. In NYC we had stop and frisk (done away when DeBlasio was mayor). It was extremely effective in reducing shootings. It was also far from what I expect or want in a free country. Taking place in high crime areas such as Washington Heights, the great majority of people stopped were minorities who lived there. Innocent people, a Dominican Dad working the late shift to support his family would be hassled and frisked because he was on the street at night returning from his job. Same situation as many call for now, restrict the rights of law abiding citizen gun holders in the name of reducing crime. Actions like stop and frisk, gun bans, will reduce crimes but at what cost. Both are unacceptable.
To control the shootings and decrease crime, elect/appoint DAs who will prosecute crime. Get a tighter control on immigration. Realize that diversity on its own is not automatically a positive. Bringing in people from diverse backgrounds is great, but if they do not melt into one people it is not. Countries with a national character, homogenous countries like Japan have lower crime. Punishing law abiding people in the name of increased safety is not something I am willing to accept.

Originally Posted by Pballer (Post 2113204)

I'm touched by your concern for the animal. I guess the same can be said for the human victim of an assault weapon.

Originally Posted by chet2020 (Post 2113167)

Gun deaths per 100,000:

Chicago - 18.26

Wyoming - 25.9

Originally Posted by forebubba (Post 2113212)

What do you say to the 2 year old who's parents were both killed in front of him?
The 2nd amendment to the constitution allowed the shooter to buy an AR15 to kill them. They did not suffer long because they were ripped apart by the bullets made for war.

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2112743)

How else would WE celebrate Independence Day, but murder each other.

Originally Posted by Pballer (Post 2113204)

I'm touched by your concern for the animal. I guess the same can be said for the human victim of an assault weapon.

Originally Posted by Reiver (Post 2113169)

The murder rate in Chicago is 18.26 per 100,000.
The Firearm Injury Death Rate of Wyoming is 25.9 per 100,000.

Once again, credit for your attempt at playing with statistics...

The murder rate in Wyoming for 2017 was 2.6 per 100,000.

Originally Posted by chet2020 (Post 2113284)

Right, it's difficult to find exactly comparable data because the NRA/Congress did not allow the CDC to track gun death rates for many years. I'm simply pointing out that this Chicago narrative is flawed, they are not even in the top 10 of murders per capita in the U.S.

Originally Posted by chet2020 (Post 2113284)

Right, it's difficult to find exactly comparable data because the NRA/Congress did not allow the CDC to track gun death rates for many years. I'm simply pointing out that this Chicago narrative is flawed, they are not even in the top 10 of murders per capita in the U.S.