Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

"Except the US isn't like the UK. The United Kingdom doesn't have the same gun culture as the US."

Customlime, If you knew your UK history, you wouldn't be saying that.

However I do agree with your premise that because the USA is awash with guns, it makes sense for average citizens to have one, because you can be certain, the criminals will have weapons.

I think Chicago is a great candidate for the fledgling MegaCity program, and its associated Judges.

 Hordini wrote:
Chicago's problem isn't gun culture, it's gang culture.

This is correct. Chicago has a long history of racism and ethnocentrism which has lead to the formation of many racial, and locally based gangs with very deep roots. Something not helped by the '68 riots.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Ugh, I don't own any guns, but seriously guys, criminals will always find a way. Always. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens won't change that. I'm not saying it'll make it safer or more dangerous, but it won't change a thing for criminals. Besides, even if it did work, they'd use something else. Like a knife in a densely populated area where you can't see the assailant. But keep on fighting the good fight. , despite how laughably wrong you have it.

I'm guessing Harvard ought to be good enough to point out why you're wrong on this particular issue (and yes, I know the link's about suicides, not guns, but the same principles apply)? Means reduction makes it harder to kill someone (What? No way!). Yes, the criminals will still be killing people, but that doesn't in itself make legislation meaningless.

If you're going to argue against gun control, go after the crazies rambling about "assault weapons" and "ghost guns" and whatnot, not after people who have the audacity to suggest that a reduction in firearms means a reduction in firearm-related deaths.

 sebster wrote:
The reason Chicago is a big city, with the head offices of many major US companies is because it sits at the centre of a major logistical network of roads and rail. This is also the reason it has a major problem with criminal gangs - when moving drugs, well lots of roads and routes move through Chicago.

There is simply no solving that issue with anything as peripheral and minor as gun policy. Tighten gun controls and guns will still flow in to the city (major logistical hub, remember). Relax gun laws and you'll have lots of suburbanites sleeping easy with their new toys, while kids on the streets will pop each other to gain control of a patch of turf. Meanwhile the drug will flow through, and the violence will continue.

Which is why I believe efforts should be focused on the drugs trade, criminal gangs, and mental health issues.

Whatever happened to "live by the sword, die by the sword"?
What are the legal penalties for armed robbery, or similar? Surely there is a way to get it through to gang members that guns are the tool of the coward?
Not that I oppose firearms for use to defend property and family, but to get them taken off the streets.

 VermGho5t wrote:
I think Chicago is a great candidate for the fledgling MegaCity program, and its associated Judges.

Nuke the areas around it and wall the place in? It's worth a try.

 Skinnereal wrote:
Whatever happened to "live by the sword, die by the sword"?
What are the legal penalties for armed robbery, or similar? Surely there is a way to get it through to gang members that guns are the tool of the coward?
Not that I oppose firearms for use to defend property and family, but to get them taken off the streets.

 VermGho5t wrote:
I think Chicago is a great candidate for the fledgling MegaCity program, and its associated Judges.

Nuke the areas around it and wall the place in? It's worth a try.

The areas around it are just fine. Its the areas in it that are the problem.

 Frazzled wrote:
The areas around it are just fine. Its the areas in it that are the problem.

Yup. Illinois is great. Chicago just needs a little work

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Ugh, I don't own any guns, but seriously guys, criminals will always find a way. Always. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens won't change that. I'm not saying it'll make it safer or more dangerous, but it won't change a thing for criminals. Besides, even if it did work, they'd use something else. Like a knife in a densely populated area where you can't see the assailant. But keep on fighting the good fight. , despite how laughably wrong you have it.

I'm guessing Harvard ought to be good enough to point out why you're wrong on this particular issue (and yes, I know the link's about suicides, not guns, but the same principles apply)? Means reduction makes it harder to kill someone (What? No way!). Yes, the criminals will still be killing people, but that doesn't in itself make legislation meaningless.

If you're going to argue against gun control, go after the crazies rambling about "assault weapons" and "ghost guns" and whatnot, not after people who have the audacity to suggest that a reduction in firearms means a reduction in firearm-related deaths.

Dude, violence is the problem. One human being killing other human beings is the problem. Taking away one got means another toy takes its place. Of course you can argue "less guns available means less gun violence" because there is a smaller supply out there, in the same way as "less vegetables available means there will be less salad eaters". That's a given. But the tools aren't the problem, it's the people wielding them. Because again, take the tool away, something else will get used to do the same job. Hell, it might even end up WORSE, because a gun can easily cause a clean, painless death. Most other options will be far more painful. If a person is going to die from a violent nut job, I'm sure they'd prefer "quick and painless" to "long and drawn out".

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The areas around it are just fine. Its the areas in it that are the problem.

Yup. Illinois is great. Chicago just needs a little work

After driving throught Great Cord Desert many times, I disagree. Illinois is not great.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Ugh, I don't own any guns, but seriously guys, criminals will always find a way. Always. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens won't change that. I'm not saying it'll make it safer or more dangerous, but it won't change a thing for criminals. Besides, even if it did work, they'd use something else. Like a knife in a densely populated area where you can't see the assailant. But keep on fighting the good fight. , despite how laughably wrong you have it.

I'm guessing Harvard ought to be good enough to point out why you're wrong on this particular issue (and yes, I know the link's about suicides, not guns, but the same principles apply)? Means reduction makes it harder to kill someone (What? No way!). Yes, the criminals will still be killing people, but that doesn't in itself make legislation meaningless.

If you're going to argue against gun control, go after the crazies rambling about "assault weapons" and "ghost guns" and whatnot, not after people who have the audacity to suggest that a reduction in firearms means a reduction in firearm-related deaths.

Dude, violence is the problem. One human being killing other human beings is the problem. Taking away one got means another toy takes its place. Of course you can argue "less guns available means less gun violence" because there is a smaller supply out there, in the same way as "less vegetables available means there will be less salad eaters". That's a given. But the tools aren't the problem, it's the people wielding them.

And, until we find a way to fix that, a stopgap measure that reduces deaths would be more desirable than nothing at all, no?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Ugh, I don't own any guns, but seriously guys, criminals will always find a way. Always. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens won't change that. I'm not saying it'll make it safer or more dangerous, but it won't change a thing for criminals. Besides, even if it did work, they'd use something else. Like a knife in a densely populated area where you can't see the assailant. But keep on fighting the good fight. , despite how laughably wrong you have it.

I'm guessing Harvard ought to be good enough to point out why you're wrong on this particular issue (and yes, I know the link's about suicides, not guns, but the same principles apply)? Means reduction makes it harder to kill someone (What? No way!). Yes, the criminals will still be killing people, but that doesn't in itself make legislation meaningless.

If you're going to argue against gun control, go after the crazies rambling about "assault weapons" and "ghost guns" and whatnot, not after people who have the audacity to suggest that a reduction in firearms means a reduction in firearm-related deaths.

Dude, violence is the problem. One human being killing other human beings is the problem. Taking away one got means another toy takes its place. Of course you can argue "less guns available means less gun violence" because there is a smaller supply out there, in the same way as "less vegetables available means there will be less salad eaters". That's a given. But the tools aren't the problem, it's the people wielding them.

And, until we find a way to fix that, a stopgap measure that reduces deaths would be more desirable than nothing at all, no?

No.

 Skinnereal wrote:
Whatever happened to "live by the sword, die by the sword"?
What are the legal penalties for armed robbery, or similar? Surely there is a way to get it through to gang members that guns are the tool of the coward?

I think that's a very romantic approach to a choice made by a lot of people for very hard-minded pragmatic reasons. Walk in to a liquor store and try to rob it with a knife, and get forced out when the guy behind the counter draws a gun, and you'll soon learn that guns may be the tool of the coward, but they are also the tool of the winner.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Dude, violence is the problem. One human being killing other human beings is the problem. Taking away one got means another toy takes its place. Of course you can argue "less guns available means less gun violence" because there is a smaller supply out there, in the same way as "less vegetables available means there will be less salad eaters". That's a given. But the tools aren't the problem, it's the people wielding them. Because again, take the tool away, something else will get used to do the same job. Hell, it might even end up WORSE, because a gun can easily cause a clean, painless death. Most other options will be far more painful. If a person is going to die from a violent nut job, I'm sure they'd prefer "quick and painless" to "long and drawn out".

There's really no point trying to invent an argument in which guns aren't a superior option for killing someone. Basic reality is that guns are really quite good at that very thing and that's why they get used for the purpose.

It's the same damn reason that pro-gun people want guns to defend themselves - because they feel a lot safer drawing a gun on an attacker than drawing a knife.

So yes, if you reduce the total gun supply so that you meaningfully impact the number of people carrying a gun at the moment they decide to use maximum force for some reason, then you'll reduce the total deaths by the simple fact that those people will be forced to use a weapon that is less effective at the job.

Now, there's plenty of arguments against that, and some of them are really good (the best ones, IMO, are the impracticality of reducing the total gun supply given how many guns are already on the market and the argument that such a reduction isn't worth the impact on the millions of lawful gunowners being denied their hobby). But the argument that there's no point banning guns because they're not actually any more effective is just silly.

 sebster wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:
Whatever happened to "live by the sword, die by the sword"?
What are the legal penalties for armed robbery, or similar? Surely there is a way to get it through to gang members that guns are the tool of the coward?

I think that's a very romantic approach to a choice made by a lot of people for very hard-minded pragmatic reasons. Walk in to a liquor store and try to rob it with a knife, and get forced out when the guy behind the counter draws a gun, and you'll soon learn that guns may be the tool of the coward, but they are also the tool of the winner.

Pffft every REAL man knows that the jawbone of an ass is the only weapon to use. Also being hairy is helpful.

Bullockist wrote:
Pffft every REAL man knows that the jawbone of an ass is the only weapon to use. Also being hairy is helpful.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
But the tools aren't the problem, it's the people wielding them. Because again, take the tool away, something else will get used to do the same job.

Actually I think there have been quite a few studies that have indicated "convenience" is a significant factor. People are fickle, and criminals are often opportunists. Guns are an incredibly convenient way to kill people (including yourself) if the inclination takes you. They are also quite difficult to defend against or flee from, and gunshots are much less survivable than many other types of injury because of the trauma involved (hydrostatic shock for example).

If you make it less convenient to kill then the death-toll will inevitably fall too. Simply because people who are "less committed" will just give up on the idea. People who might have killed on 'impulse' will be forced to give the matter a bit more thought, and some people who might have died in a shooting will get to either fight, run away, or otherwise survive their injuries.

That is not to say there wouldn't be murders anymore, but the more dedication involved: the fewer people will be willing to see the task through. That rule applies to lots of things (school, work, sports), killing is no different in that regard.

EDIT: As a footnote I would like to say that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the gun control America being effective or not. That is a separate issue.

 sebster wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:
Whatever happened to "live by the sword, die by the sword"?
What are the legal penalties for armed robbery, or similar? Surely there is a way to get it through to gang members that guns are the tool of the coward?

I think that's a very romantic approach to a choice made by a lot of people for very hard-minded pragmatic reasons. Walk in to a liquor store and try to rob it with a knife, and get forced out when the guy behind the counter draws a gun, and you'll soon learn that guns may be the tool of the coward, but they are also the tool of the winner.

That's why I added the 3rd line in my comment.
If a robbery is done with a knife, and they get away with it, that's worth more bragging rights than if they used a gun, surely.
So, make guns a lesser weapon than others, and it's a step towards fewer bystander casualties, etc.

We reportedly have bad knife-crime in parts of the UK, and a young person moving out of the family home has trouble buying kitchen cutlery.
Yes, Youtube clips appear of kids waving guns and making threats, but shootings are rare. It looks as though a face-to-face fight is more macho than a drive-by.

 Frazzled wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Ugh, I don't own any guns, but seriously guys, criminals will always find a way. Always. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens won't change that. I'm not saying it'll make it safer or more dangerous, but it won't change a thing for criminals. Besides, even if it did work, they'd use something else. Like a knife in a densely populated area where you can't see the assailant. But keep on fighting the good fight. , despite how laughably wrong you have it.

I'm guessing Harvard ought to be good enough to point out why you're wrong on this particular issue (and yes, I know the link's about suicides, not guns, but the same principles apply)? Means reduction makes it harder to kill someone (What? No way!). Yes, the criminals will still be killing people, but that doesn't in itself make legislation meaningless.

If you're going to argue against gun control, go after the crazies rambling about "assault weapons" and "ghost guns" and whatnot, not after people who have the audacity to suggest that a reduction in firearms means a reduction in firearm-related deaths.

Dude, violence is the problem. One human being killing other human beings is the problem. Taking away one got means another toy takes its place. Of course you can argue "less guns available means less gun violence" because there is a smaller supply out there, in the same way as "less vegetables available means there will be less salad eaters". That's a given. But the tools aren't the problem, it's the people wielding them.

And, until we find a way to fix that, a stopgap measure that reduces deaths would be more desirable than nothing at all, no?

No.

So no trying unless it's a perfect solution? Good luck, you're going to need it.