• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Supreme Court rules for Gun Ownership

Beerina said:
Sir, are you implying corruption in Chicago politics?
Click to expand...
No, there can't possibly be! Otherwise the Illinois Attorney General would be all over it, and that office hasn't prosecuted anyone higher than dog catcher in my lifetime... so you see we are all squeeky clean here.
 
GreNME said:
No, that quote is directly from chicagobreakingnews.com and not Daley. I'm not doubting that imposing insurance is on their short list of responses. However, what I'm calling hyperbole on is your assertion that another unconstitutional law is going to come up to ban handguns and using insurance as the vehicle.
Click to expand...
Whatever Daley will come up with will be unconstitutional. The aim of his ordinance won't be to quell violence, it will be to make owning a handgun so expensive that few people will be able to excercise their constitutional right. And that's what will make it unconstitutional.
 
dtugg said:
I just pointed out the fact the end of the ban didn't lead to more murders.

In any case a gun can prevent a murder, the skin color of the president cannot.
Click to expand...

First you backpedal about your implicationin post #14 and post #25 (why not just own up to it?), and then you make a comment defending the implication.

When you can come up with any actual facts that tie the murder rate to the end of the handgun ban I'll continue this conversation track with you. Otherwise, you're just making irrational assertions in response to someone else's irrational assertion, and (even funnier) not admitting that you're asserting it while still defending the assertion as valid.
 
GreNME said:
First you backpedal about your implicationin post #14 and post #25 (why not just own up to it?), and then you make a comment defending the implication.

When you can come up with any actual facts that tie the murder rate to the end of the handgun ban I'll continue this conversation track with you. Otherwise, you're just making irrational assertions in response to someone else's irrational assertion, and (even funnier) not admitting that you're asserting it while still defending the assertion as valid.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it is a fact. But it is certainly a possibility. Unlike the president being black preventing murders. It is definitely a fact after the ban there weren't more murders though, directly contradicting the OP.

I take you, however that you are not going to show us that it is just as hard for a DC resident to own a handgun as before the ban.
 
Why are we discussing murder rates anyway? Either the 2nd Amendment applies or it does not. Whether or not the 2nd Amendment is a good idea is an entirely separate topic.
 
KingMerv00 said:
Why are we discussing murder rates anyway?
Click to expand...
Did you read the OP? Apparently, every place in the US except Chicago is the "wild west". Yet somehow Chicago has the highest murder rate of any big city in the US.
 
KingMerv00 said:
Why are we discussing murder rates anyway? Either the 2nd Amendment applies or it does not. Whether or not the 2nd Amendment is a good idea is an entirely separate topic.
Click to expand...

I agree that the 2nd Amendment applies either way. But if that is all that is up for discussion, the OP derailed his own thread in his OP.
 
dtugg said:
So I take you you have no rebuttal to any facts presented so you're just quibbling over semantics. What do you have to say to the fact that the murder rate in Washington, DC was ~25% lower in in 2009 than it was in 2008?
Click to expand...

I think it really doesn't show anything. Can you show causation?
 
WildCat said:
No, but I can make educated guesses about what will happen based on what the people in charge are saying.

That is not a psychic power btw.
Click to expand...

And yet you made a statement that implied certainty based on an individual rather than a set of conditions, effectively saying that whatever that person does regarding the issue would be unconstitutional.

If you can't see how that's hyperbole then I guess we're just going to have to both walk away from this exchange dissatisfied.
 
thaiboxerken said:
I think it really doesn't show anything. Can you show causation?
Click to expand...

I don't need to show causation, although it would be a pretty big coincidence. All I needed to show was that the end of the handgun ban didn't lead to more murders, which is a fact.

Do you have any reason to believe that the end of the handgun ban in Chicago would lead to the "wild west' while it didn't in DC?
 
Last edited:
Aoidoi said:
Given the number and availability of guns in Chicago already I doubt the ruling will have a major impact one way or the other.
Click to expand...

I read a recent Tribune article that cited a few estimates of handguns in the city. The number is probably ~100,000 handguns within city limits, almost all of which are illegal. I'd echo what others have posted; the weather is far more likely to positively correlate with the murder rate than the number of handguns.
 
The potential for a wild-west scenario where an OK Corral is, I opine, a bit more possible with this decision. However, since regulation is not illegal with this ruling, it won't be as bad as I described. I'm all for regulation. I could live with bans as well, but regulation is good for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom