[Chi-Town]

The shooter

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Ptmckiou

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.

Tell me you don't know how gun laws work without telling me you don't know how gun laws work...

No, you cannot simply drive across state lines and purchase a handgun... (the weapon of choice for Chicago shooters...)

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

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

But Chicago is...

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

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by forebubba

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

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

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by popbaby2

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

Nope. That's not how federal gun regulations work...

[forebubba]

Originally Posted by Bellavita

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

Were any of them mass stabbings?

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

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?

You mean the ones you claim were mostly done using an AR-15?

Yeah, that's pretty a weak dog whistle...

[forebubba]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

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

I did previously...no need to repeat it

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by forebubba

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

You just describe pretty much every single gun...

Do you need a 30 + round clip?

They're called magazines. And yes...

Do you need a gun that can fire 30 rounds in 15 seconds?

Sometimes... Possibly... I rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it...

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.

It shouldn't have to take a week.

But better you should ask the woman in NJ, who was waiting for her permit to buy a gun was approved and was murdered by her ex-boyfriend... You know, the guy who ignored the restraining order...

Do you think it's ok for people to have guns more powerful than the police?

What guns are those?

A overwhelming number of people want these changes EVEN GUN OWNERS

Wake up

I don't believe that's true. And I'm WIDE awake...

[forebubba]

Originally Posted by MrFlorida

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

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

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Pballer

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

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

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Pballer

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.

With double barrel shotguns that could fire multiple rounds quickly...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

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

Weren't you commenting on others not being "gun smart"?

Oh, and nice of you to throw in the emotional blackmail...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by forebubba

I did previously...no need to repeat it

I only saw silly questions...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by forebubba

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

Ah, the "muskets" gambit...

Yes, muskets, which were the "military grade" weapons of the time...

Civilians also owned canons and gun ships (which they leased to the newly created government to fight the British)...

Oh, btw, the 1A was written when they only had set type printing and town criers. No TV, Radio or Internet...