ptatc

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 5, 2017 -> 12:10 PM) My favorite parallel to the gun debate is abortion, with the sides flip-flopped. Both groups on one side feel that fully illegal and never acceptable is the way to go, while the other wants to have no restrictions at all, unwilling to let even the common sense stuff happen in fear of the slippery slope argument. Good analogy. The hard lines on both sides is what frustrates me. I get ideology, however, in almost all cases taking any issue to an extreme either way rarely is good for everyone. People need to find compromise to do at least some good. i forget who said the quote about the budget Illinois passed but it was something to the effect of "if everyone is unhappy it must have been a good compromise"

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 5, 2017 -> 11:34 AM) The ATF is the board currently. They evaluate products all the time. It's already illegal to modify your rifle into a fully automatic rifle. You can make your semi-auto into a "nearly" fully auto using either these bump fire stocks which are currently okay'd by the ATF or just by holding onto your belt loop as it fires (this exploits the same recoil physics that makes the bump stock work). And while modifying a semi into an actual fully automatic weapon is very, very illegal, it's trivially easy to do so. The only way to change that would be to ban semi-automatic weapons. I guess the problem is is that the ATF's scope is somewhat limited to only considering the actual firing mechanism rather than the gun as a whole. You could rewrite regulations to change that, but I'm not sure how or what you'd change to accomplish reductions in gun violence. Biggest dent would be severely restricting or banning handguns, but you'd have to overturn Heller and McDonald or rewrite the Constitution in order to do that. Isn't there a ban on handguns in Chicago?

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 5, 2017 -> 11:28 AM) The point is to reduce the amount of situations where a gun is available. Just like, in the sentence preceding yours, no, we will not be able to insert an intervention into all violent scenarios, but we could insert them where we can and REDUCE VIOLENCE. If the situations where guns were involved was reduced, lethality would reduce, but here's the important thing: maybe not all violence. No, I do not think all gun murders being eliminated is a likely goal. But reducing them is a very worthy goal, something that should be sought after and tweaked and revised toward the best solutions daily. I agree. i have not disagreed with this point. My problem is with the posters stating that if firearms should be banned or have no use. i don't think this happens anywhere and shouldn't happen.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 5, 2017 -> 11:28 AM) There are places where handguns aren't as ubiquitous so there isn't one always readily available. Agreed. There is justification with that, ease of hiding etc. I'm talking about a total ban where the hunting/sports firearms are banned as well. i can't speak for everyone here but my personal view is that these are the types which have justification for ownership and use.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 5, 2017 -> 11:13 AM) No, that’s the extreme conclusion. Automobiles have safety regulation, they are tested many times for multiple scenarios and things like seatbelts became mandatory and airbags are in pretty much all new vehicles. And vehicles that are considered dangerous, not street worthy, you are not allowed to drive. Yea, some cars can possibly reach 200MPH, but you don’t see rocket powered cars or nascar capable cars driving around your block every day? Why? Because that s*** is unsafe and we all know it. Something has to be done, a compromise needs to be made somewhere. People shouldn’t be able to easily modify their guns to become an automatic weapon easily. If you are stocking up on ammo, someone somewhere should ask “why is this happening? Why does he need this?” All of these are reasonable.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 5, 2017 -> 11:18 AM) Out of 248 Republicans in the House, 247 voted for Paul Ryan and Paul Ryan brought the bill I noted to the floor. Literally 1. Kim Jong Un has greater opposition when he calls for a vote. Let me ask you this. Have you agreed with every single thing every politician you ever voted for did. Did you vote for Blagoevich? You obviously approved of all of his crimes. Again you are looking at it far too dichotomously. A person is right or wrong all the time. Real life isn't like that.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 5, 2017 -> 11:05 AM) That's a key part of a lot of the "gang" violence. It's a couple of dudes getting mad, often escalating things on social media these days, and then shooting each other over it. It's not planned out turf wars like it would have been a couple of decades ago because there's so little structure an hierarchy. If you can stop that confrontation before it gets too heated, you can stop a shooting. If there's no gun available in the first place, you can stop a shooting. Is there any place in the world where firearms are totally banned? Within at least a semi-free society.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 5, 2017 -> 08:44 AM) If the Republican representative is voting for a speaker who brings legislation removing permitting requirements to the floor of their legislative chamber...even if they vote against the legislation, the speaker and the party are choosing what to bring to the floor. You may have voted for your representative so that you can get your taxes cut. Your representative may even vote against the upcoming bill to allow concealed carry across state lines or whatever the next one is. But they're also supporting the people setting the agenda. You may have wanted lower taxes, but Paul Ryan wants more people who are having their mental illness treatments paid for through the Social Security administration to buy guns, and if you voted for someone who supported Paul Ryan - congratulations, you also supported that. Again the "if" Were all of these votes and support unanimous. Your comment was not "if" they voted this way or if they supported Ryan. It was ALL of you are the cause of this. The everyone without exception comment you made is where I have the issue.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 5, 2017 -> 08:40 AM) Take a look at the thread. 59 people were just brutally murdered. You have a bond with your son involving this and according to you that is your reason for not being able to imagine a world without them. Turn around and look at how that statement looks to my eyes. I read what you said and also saw an underlying "I can't imagine a world where these 59 people weren't murdered". I can equally get to "sure those 59 people were murdered but this helps my relationship with my son and that's more important to me, so I won't even attempt to picture a world where those 59 people aren't dead." So yeah, I think that's a little creepy. Those 59 people won't be having any bond with their families again. That's fine. You can think it's creepy. But also remember there is no such thing as a gun ban. Even in the UK the type of firearms I use are legal and can be obtained with permits. If said all along I'm for restrictions especially with high capacity firearms. If you can't determine the difference between the firearms I use and what was used in this case, you need to look at the cases a little closer. i know you tend to believe things are cut and dry or yes and no. All Republicans bad. All firearms bad. But these issues are not that dichotomous.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 11:17 PM) I only called you out on this because you were on a roll with the spelling errors haha. Wouldn't have even crossed my mind otherwise. rightfully so. I was wrong on all of them.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 09:49 PM) Creepy. but oh so correct.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 09:17 PM) Basically laws at the state level have gotten even worse in states Republicans control. We are now up to 14 states that allow concealed carry without a license. 10 states now force guns to be allowed on college campuses. Note how above someone said that doctors should be able to tell people whether someone they're treating has a gun? Iowa this year is latest state offering additional privacy protections for firearm owners so that people can't find that information, and they added Stand your Ground as well. Republican control but do ALL Republicans vote that way. The generalizations of stereotyping everyone exactly the same are disturbing. I just don't understand the philosophy of stereotyping everyone in a group.

QUOTE (Tony @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 08:29 PM) Cam Newton...dumb. The NFL is on a roll this year. Can you imagine if regular people acted in these ways at their workplace? It's getting harder and harder to like the NFL these days.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 09:10 PM) This is an insane worldview to have in my opinion. And you are entitled to that opinion. I just happen to disagree. Just an example. My teenage son and i disagree and see eye to eye on very little right, I know common at this age. however, one thing we can always do together hunt and skeet shoot. I realize many people don't understand it, especially from an urban setting. It's a great hobby and sport.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 03:28 PM) I still think the trade was a player light. Sale is that good. There is no way to get equal value for a HOF talent lefty pitcher. The return will always be light because teams just won't give that much up. The White Sox just need to hope that Moncada and Kopech become center pieces on a team with a long run of playoff teams. That's the only way it will be worth it.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 08:53 PM) Not really. You might be referring to the inept people we elect to represent us. Also, what a god awful world that would be! Could you imagine....no guns? How could we survive?!?! It's certainly worth tens of thousands of Americans dying each year so that little Timmy on the farm can shoot tin cans. He has a point. It's the people that must take everything to extremes, see everything as us and them that make any agreement or compromise impossible. You can't have gun control when one side wants no restriction and the other wants a ban with no working to the middle. It's the same with healthcare. One side wants total healthcare the other wants a useless minimal version. They portray an us and them and nothing gets done. It would be an awful world without firearms.

QUOTE (Wanne @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 07:11 PM) Ok...I'm going off the top of my head here...but that law was aimed more at not allowing people collecting social security (old people) to purchase weapons. I'll have to go back and look (because honestly...I trust CNN links about as much as National Inquirer crap). That really wasn't what I'm referring to anyway. I'm referring to ANYONE under psychological care...not just SSA recipients. Pretty sure that was the issue. Again...I'm going off my faint memory but will look it up. Also...your last comment is one of the things that loses votes for Democrats in my opinion. That whole, "if you voted Republican...you voted to throw Granny off the cliff" kinda crap. It just doesn't work....thought maybe Democrats would have learned that last November. Let's not forget...Barry had complete control of the House and Senate for a few years...and didn't DO. JACK. SQUAT. I love this line. Hope you don't mind but I'm going to steal it for work tomorrow. Most of the common TVs at the university, lunch room, common areas, are tuned to CNN all day.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 05:57 PM) Just remember everyone who is agreeing that there should be some training or registration or literally anything that anyone has said that we should do - if you vote for a single Republican at the state or national level, you are voting against that. You are currently voting for less registration, less training, for legal gun sales to people who are being treated for various mental illnesses. so you're saying that every single Republican at the state and national level has voted against any measure?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 05:04 PM) There is one single gun shop in Riverdale that sold guns used in 1500 crimes in Chicago in a 5 year period. I've been there. It's just like you would suspect. I walked out of there and told my friend "you know we are on the FBI watch list now."

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 04:16 PM) illinilaw08 - I think the other response to your question is "what will this new law really change? Is it even necessary?" If your aim is to decrease crime, what does a gang banger care if he's carrying an unregistered gun? Or a guy like this mass-murderer. He went through all the steps to legally acquire the guns he used, so he would do the same thing if registration was required. That wouldn't have stopped anything. Some gun laws/changes to existing law I agree with - limiting high capacity magazines, limiting straw purchases, increasing civil/criminal penalties on gun shops, opening up the data for research, etc. But a lot of them are just pointless. Look at the responses in this thread. At the end of the day what anti-gun people want is a total ban and they won't be happy until they get it. And I think that justifies the "fear" on the part of responsible, legal gun owners. As soon as they give an inch, another shooting happens and the anti-gun lobby will demand more until at some point access to guns is extremely limited. I'm not sure i'm on board with a total ban on a type of gun either. I mean I wouldn't lose sleep over it, but while I agree that an auto/semi-auto assault rifle has no utility outside of military use, it's probably awesome as hell to shoot. No one needs a car that can drive 200 mph. It's illegal to drive it that fast in 99.9% of situations. But people still want them because it's fun. And yeah yeah guns are intended to kill while cars are not, but those cars and the morons that drive them are still a danger to the public and still hurt themselves and others using those cars. So why not ban them too? Why not ban alcohol? Why are we allowing bars to serve people that drive knowing that tens of thousands of people will die this year due to drunk driving? Why not change laws to make bars responsible if they serve someone that drove? At some point society is "ok" with unnecessary death. That's why I find the whole twitter/Kimmel response so infuriating. "If you don't agree with a total ban you have blood on your hands!" f*** off. So do you for drinking beer and allowing bars to exist. Get off your soap box. They are especially on full auto.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 04:47 PM) Don't those necessarily play together though? Registering firearms isn't taking them away. And it's the only way to really close (or manage) the secondary market for firearms, isn't it? I have no problem with it. It would help at least to some degree and wouldn't make obtaining them any more of a hassle legally.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 02:31 PM) See, this is the part that I don't get. With as strong as the gun lobby is in this country, we're infinitely closer to Medicare For All than we are to the government taking our guns away - and I don't think we're particularly close to actually having Medicare For All enacted. Because firearms are not titled, they are really, really easy to sell to basically anybody on the secondary market right? Maybe I'm missing something here because I'm not a gun owner, and if I am, someone can educate me otherwise... I agree but as i said in other responses, people are afraid that if you allow the government to take something away they will just want to continue it. You are correct about the firearms and the secondary market. This is a loophole that really needs to close.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 02:29 PM) A lot of stuff is like that but it winds up being better. The situation evolves. Anyone still really pissed off there is no smoking in bars? They would all go out of business... How many here are old enough, and you don't have to be that old, when people smoking in the office was no big deal? Now, not only do people not smoke in bars or in the office, they don't do it in their cars, and go outside even at home. If it's all about safety, and the vast majority of gun owners say they have one for precisely that, why not make owning guns safer for everyone? I think people are just afraid that if you if you give anything to the government, they will slowly continue to take more and more and who knows where it will end.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 02:20 PM) But seriously, what are assault type rifles really used for? its not home protection or protection from the very rare large animal. I dont get the reluctance of giving those up. I totally agree. As I said I think a logical place to start is somehow limiting high capacity magazines. However, I also understand the idea of "when does it stop." Simple things like when the government made seat belts mandatory. People fought it saying that they will eventually fine people for not wearing them. The government response was always that they just wanted to help make people safer and would not ticket people for choosing not to. A couple decades later it changes.

QUOTE (Brian @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 02:05 PM) Growing up, I never touched a gun. My parents even kept toy guns away from me. I have no urge to carry one or want one. Growing up, I was raised that all people are equal, no matter gender, skin color, religion, etc. I have no hate in my heart for anyone. Not every case will be the same, I get that. But starting anything on kids when they're young, goes a long way. You are a rare person if your parents and others around you had no animosity or bias against absolutely no one. Responsibility goes a long way as well if it's started young.