Comments
41 - 60 of 180 Comments Last updated May 9, 2013

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45
May 3, 2013
 
Ferrerman wrote:
Polls and surveys showed that 90% of Americans were in favor of background checks. Congress didn't vote that way though because the NRA is %100 in favor of paying congressmen to vote for the NRA. The NRA is also dedicated to working against congress persons who do not vote their way.
That is not representing, we the people.
And the NRA got Illinois to comply with the second amendment. Finally. And when Democrats initiated the gun ban in 94, they saw themselves DEPLETED from congress. They aren't making the same mistakes again.

90% of the people want immigration enforcement. Congress representing "we the people?"

65% of the people don't want Obamacare. "We the people?"

And background checks are already a requirement. Know your facts.

“The two baby belly, please!”

Since: Sep 09

Evanston IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46
May 3, 2013
 
RACE wrote:
So... You just admitted that your life has been threatened more times by cars and not a single time by a gun. Yet guns are the killers?
<quoted text>
My initial response was to edog's query of why guns get the bad rap and cars don't, even tho cars kill more people. I was trying to explain why there is a difference in my mind, not to assert who or what was the killer.

But I stand by opinion that cars are meant for driving and that they kill people is not by design, so when people die in a car we call it a tragic accident. When a gun kills s person it is no accident, so comparing the two types of deaths is apples & oranges IMO.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47
May 3, 2013
 
squishymama wrote:
When a gun kills s person it is no accident
Guns kill people?

To test this theory, my buddy laid his shotgun by the door and left it there. The mailman came by. Nothing happened. The gun didn't do anything.

A girl scout came by to sell cookies. Again, the gun just sat there.

A lady riding her bike rode by. The gun didn't move.

Someone walking his dog strolled passed. The gun never flinched.

Motorists drove by, people on their daily routine walked by, several hours passed and the gun never made a move.

My friend was convinced that his gun wasn't going to shoot anyone or anything. Then he put it away safe in the knowledge that his shotgun wasn't gonna go on a shooting spree.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50
May 3, 2013
 
Ferrerman wrote:
<quoted text>I wondering where you pulled your *facts* out of...
People who know NOTHING about gun laws are running around screaming about more gun laws.

People who know NOTHING about Obamacare are running around screaming we need it....

“The two baby belly, please!”

Since: Sep 09

Evanston IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51
May 3, 2013
 
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Guns kill people?
To test this theory, my buddy laid his shotgun by the door and left it there. The mailman came by. Nothing happened. The gun didn't do anything.
A girl scout came by to sell cookies. Again, the gun just sat there.
A lady riding her bike rode by. The gun didn't move.
Someone walking his dog strolled passed. The gun never flinched.
Motorists drove by, people on their daily routine walked by, several hours passed and the gun never made a move.
My friend was convinced that his gun wasn't going to shoot anyone or anything. Then he put it away safe in the knowledge that his shotgun wasn't gonna go on a shooting spree.
Hey! Guess what? My car is just sitting there in it's little parking space, hasn't hurt a thing either.

Cars and guns are just instruments, tools even, and they are both incredibly useful and dangerous. We try to mitigate the damage a car accident can cause but we take none when it comes to guns. In fact we try to make them more efficient at killing people, and killing anything should not be taken so lightly or made so easy.

You know, that commandment, I think it might even the first one, thou shalt not kill?

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#52
May 3, 2013
 
Ferrerman wrote:
Guns are designed to kill.
Okay. Point being?...
Ferrerman wrote:
Cars are transportation.
True. Your point?
Ferrerman wrote:
I can run someone over with a car and kill them but, no car has ever been designed or made with killing in mind.
True again... Water is also wet, did you have a point?
Ferrerman wrote:
Guns, while primarily designed to kill animals and people, can be used safely in competitions that don't result in killing but, that's not how and why they came to be.
True. And..?
Ferrerman wrote:
Apples are yummy. The trees that grow them are not.
True again, agree.
But I fail to see your point in any of this drivel? Instead of stating the obvious, try to have an actual argument if you intend to convince anyone of any valid anti-gun sentiments.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#54
May 3, 2013
 
squishymama wrote:
We try to mitigate the damage a car accident can cause but we take none when it comes to guns.
Uhh, who told you this? And why do you believe it?

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#55
May 3, 2013
 
squishymama wrote:
You know, that commandment, I think it might even the first one, thou shalt not kill?
I, and most people, have never killed anyone.

Remember the fourth commandment? Ever dishonor your mother and father? Ever lie? Steal? What does any of that have to do with gun laws?

Toj

“Equality”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#56
May 3, 2013
 
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhh, who told you this? And why do you believe it?
C'mon! If you're going to have a discussion, at least discuss things with a brain if you have one.

Air bags. Safety tests.

There are even theft prevention and insurance on cars.

Will you at least climb out of the rock you're hiding under. Please quit debating if you're going to play stupid.

Or are you not playing?
walther

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#58
May 3, 2013
 
squishymama wrote:
<quoted text>
Guns get a bad rap because their purpose is to kill people (or animals). Cars don't get that same bad rap, even though they kill people too, because their purpose is to transport people.
When I get in a car,*I* have a certain amount of control. I can drive the speed limit, be cautious during bad weather, use my turn signals, etc. Seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones all are meant to mitigate damage to me in case of an accident. So when people die in a car crash, it is clearly not the purpose of the vehicle to have people die in it.
When anyone is allowed to carry a gun,*I* have no control over how they behave and no protection if they decide to start shooting. And the only modifications made to guns is to make them kill people better. They're made to shoot faster or use more bullets - oh, yeah forgot about silencers. And then there is the ammo that is expressly made to inflict major damage to people. So when a gunman kills a bunch of people, of course we blame the gun - it was doing exactly what it was intended to do.
you don't need control of their gun they do.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59
May 3, 2013
 
Toj wrote:
<quoted text>
C'mon! If you're going to have a discussion, at least discuss things with a brain if you have one.
Air bags. Safety tests.
There are even theft prevention and insurance on cars.
Will you at least climb out of the rock you're hiding under. Please quit debating if you're going to play stupid.
Or are you not playing?
I should have qualified: guns themselves, no. But the people buying them, yes.
You don't need a background check to buy a car. But you need one to buy a gun.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60
May 3, 2013
 
Ferrerman wrote:
Edog=idiot.
Damn- stating obvious again!
Dog will argue and think the argument itself makes a case!
Ferrerman = victorious!
Call yourself victorious when you make a valid point.

Hint: water is wet and guns can kill is not a valid point....

Many people are stabbed to death every year. Should knives be outlawed? Why, there's not even background checks to buy knives!!

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62
May 3, 2013
 
Ferrerman wrote:
The issue isn't ... The issue isn't even ...
So what IS the issue?...

“boredom made me do it”

Since: Aug 08

ny, ny

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63
May 3, 2013
 
RACE wrote:
What significant threat to you pose? I am puzzled by that statement.
There are already backround checks, cooling off periods and believe it or not each weapon is registered. a round is fired out of every barrel and that "Rifleing" is sent to the FBI. The information on the owner is filed as well.
Granted a private sale can circumvent these rules, but that is true with any regulated product. People drive cars with no inspection sticker because they know it wont pass inspection, bald tires, malfunctioning breaks, broken taillight etc. and that makes for a very dangerous automobile.
So I fail to see how reasonable measures are not being implemented to the same degree as any other regulated product.
There will always be loopholes, weapons will be stolen and used in robberies, then the crooks flee in stolen cars and kill innocents.
<quoted text>
It's more than just private sale, it's also gun shows and more in terms of states that have looser requirements. And whatever transactions transpire - there is no "reporting" that goes on. Businesses are required to keep the bill of sale, but they keep it, the ATF and other law enforcement bureaus do not. Most of the background checks can't check for things that would be higher alert things - like somebody who is mentally ill and regularly non-compliant. As it stands now, there is nobody to report that to in terms of removing a distance weapon from that person's hands.

In terms of me and risk - I did not say that I pose a significant risk, I stated that I pose *a* risk, and therefore my previous question had been about determining who might be statistically likely to pose *more* risk and why. However, I do pose a higher significant risk than other gun owners might because I have little to no experience with guns, and until I have that training, I am *more* likely to misuse such a weapon and harm people I have no intention of harming.

This is one of the things that I think is wrong with the gun regulations that we currently have - I believe that gun safety should be taught in schools from elementary grades up (the same way we teach about drugs and sex and other things that can be great but pose significant risks if you are uninformed about them), and I believe that you should need to pass a licensing exam to prove that you are familiar with the particular style of weapon you wish to purchase, and can use it with a decent amount of accuracy.

“boredom made me do it”

Since: Aug 08

ny, ny

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64
May 3, 2013
 
I am in bed and half asleep so if any of that came out jumbled, I'll clear it up in the morning.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65
May 3, 2013
 
animaniactoo wrote:
I believe that you should need to pass a licensing exam to prove that you are familiar with the particular style of weapon you wish to purchase, and can use it with a decent amount of accuracy.
So... are you opposed to conceal carry laws or aren't you?

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#66
May 3, 2013
 
Wow, so much to digest. Mutt, thanks for holding the fort. You did not once call someone a liberal, for that you should be commended. And you made some valid points.

I know some of you have also made some good points, and I will have to address them one by one tomorrow, starting with sam. So, please dont get annoyed by me posting 100 times, but I want to respond to everyone, and I must say...

This thread is much more mature that I could have imagined. Thanks to all of you for being adult about it. And to sam, I apologize for not being adult. My bad.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#67
May 4, 2013
 
Chicago tried a gun ban. Their homicide rate is #1 in the country. The criminals will always find a way to get guns no matter what. So any new gun control laws will only make it tougher on law abiding citizens. Here's a novel thought. How about enforcing the gun laws on the books?!

“boredom made me do it”

Since: Aug 08

ny, ny

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68
May 5, 2013
 
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
So... are you opposed to conceal carry laws or aren't you?
I'm not sure what you mean by this question. What kind of concealed carry laws? Can you clarify please?

“...,to wit”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69
May 5, 2013
 
Sam I Am GEAM wrote:
<quoted text>

-There is absolutely no reason to resist background checks and gun ownership registries. Again, no one has articulated an argument against checks and registries beyond "It's our right we don't want Big Brother all up in our business." News flash, between your mortgage, your car and your credit cards, any information anyone cares about is already out there. Guns are, by their very nature, lethal. With ownership should come responsibility and accountability. If you are going to be a responsible, law-abiding gun owner, then why the objection to registering your weapon? You've nothing to hide, right?

-The argument that "Checks and registries won't eliminate gun violence" is likewise retarded. So, what you're saying is that if there isn't a 100% successful solution, don't bother. That's stupid. Then let's just eliminate DUI/DWI laws and the drinking age. They don't 100% stop drinking and driving accidents, so why bother, right? It is ignorant to say "Well, if we can't totally solve it, let's not try at all." If you are genuinely interested in the issue, look into what Australia did re: gun control. Did they eliminate gun violence totally? No, but they put a heck of a dent in it. And the funny thing is that the movement was led by the conservative party who knew that, initially, the position would not be popular, but it has worked. To me, it is willfully ignorant to dismiss the potential for reducing the possibility of another Sandy Hook or Aurora in the name of "Yer not takin' my guns cuz it's my right."
r.
I think background checks are useful but not very effective.

The Chicago papers often have reports of arrests of felons in possession of handguns. They got them through theft or straw buyers. A background check is useless.

Some states, most notably New York, have firearm owners id lists as public data. Recall that news paper that published eh addresses and a map of all the gun license holders in a certain area. I read there was one breaking and entering attributable to someone using that map as a shopping list, but only one. The newspaper apologized and I believe fired the editor who chose to publish the list .

A registration list does not screen out the James Holmes types of mental patients . Even in his grad school applications there was reported wide divergence among admissions committees about the man's stability and danger.

My suggestion is to put the onus on the gun manufacturer.
1. Every first sale of a gun can only be made to a person who has personally appeared for and passed a training class.
2.Part of the original sales price must include a liability policy to cover, at a minimum medical bills cause by that gun.
3. Every gun must be fired and its ballistics signature kept on record like a fingerprint.
4.Every gun owner must maintain insurance and a license and have it updated every specified period of years like license plates-- and it must be done in person not on line.
5. Sales and transfers of guns have to be recorded. Many states have this I am told but exclude transfers among family member. When you transfer to a family member, eh responsibility for ensuring safe and legal use stays on eh person of record who bought the gun. That makes Uncle Charlie responsible to see that Johnny knows what he is doing both with the Cricket rifle purchased for a 4 year old or the Glock given as 40 year brthday gift.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

81 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min USAsince1680 1,080,517
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 10 min Atticus Tiberius Finch 174,678
Amy 7-26 15 min PEllen 3
Abby 7-26 20 min PEllen 5
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 1 hr Hate troublemaking arabs 67,988
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 1 hr Joe Rock Extreme Auto 48,920
IL Who do you support for Governor in Illinois in ... (Oct '10) 1 hr Joe Rock Extreme Auto 3,831
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 5 hr edogxxx 97,541
•••
•••
Chicago Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••