So what is your plan if the shit hits the fan

Similar to the way there was a very brief period when Londons murder rate peaked above the New York norm.

Suddenly the UK was awash with knives and could serve as an example of why the 2A is key to any civilised society.

To be fair Peter Cetera does have that effect sometimes...

*Sigh*

Just take yourself out. For the greater good.

So can you answer for Chicago yet?

Can you answer for Tulsa? Kansas City?

For what am I answering?

Who's answering for Chicago?


... and what's the question?

Does anyone really know what time it is?

I'll give you the whole conversation:

Guns are bad! Restrictive gun laws save lives!

But...Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, and that place can surpass all mass shootings in history with one month of gang violence.

That's because of lax gun laws in neighboring jurisdictions!

But those neighboring jurisdictions don't have the same stats for gun violence..

....Guns are bad! Restrictive gun laws save lives!

Sure, because their population density, crime rate, and oh yeah unemployment rate is less.

In the meanwhile, when you adjust at the regional level, you know when you can't get in a car and drive 10 miles to get a banned gun in your city, there's a direct correlation between gun laws and less gun deaths. Huh.

In other words, guns are not the deciding factor. They're just a convenient scapegoat because all of those other factors are expensive and inconvenient to deal with.

Bonus points: Acknowledge the difference between justified and unjustified gun deaths.

FFS. There are so many different kinds of gun violence and so many different reasons for gun violence. What works in major cities does not work in rural areas. The problems in Chicago are only loosely related to gun violence and that is only because guns are available. Crime and the causes and ramifications of that crime is very different from crime in rural areas.

Gun laws for urban areas would be disaster out for rural areas and vice versa.

So people are what make the difference, and people should be the focus of attention.

Almost there..

Hence the fear of common sense gun ownership laws. You and the guntards know if we kept guns away from unstable loonies through restrictions you would never be allowed to own one. This is the general fear that makes claim any restriction to gun sales ends up being a banning because you know you would not pass. Safe and sane gun owners do exist and do support getting guns out of the hands of any crazy and cowardly assholes hands. They know they will styill have the ability to have a gun because they are not violent right wing trumpistas.

I don't want convicted crazies to own firearms. I don't want them freely walking the streets at all. You may lay that at the feet of the "everyone deserves a second/third/umpteenth chance, man!" crowd.

Indeed. Given that there is a strong correlation between poverty, lack of social mobility, and crime, there would seem to be a strong case for programs that aim to improve on the two latter former items.

edit: former/latter

Great. So focus on that, rather than the personal property of people who have not and will likely never harm any innocents.

Weirdly enough, every time people do try there are others who start crying about taxation and bootstraps and how some people deserve poverty. Perhaps focus on trying to persuade them that sometimes social programs are in fact a good thing.

See, you were almost reasonable, but couldn't get through that without trying to pass off some bullshittery. "Make practical choices" is not " you deserve to be poor."

Here’s the problem. Some people just want to point out problems rather than attempt to work toward a solution. If you don’t want to be part of the solution, fine. Don’t be. But, taxes are going to be taken from your paycheck. You can either say “well, there’s nothing I can do about the military industrial complex, so no help for poor people” or you can say “you know what, I don’t have a dog in this fight and since I’m not personally affected by either and there’s nothing I can do about taxes, I’d rather it go to poor people.

Dead on, buuuuut....

The 'anti-'Chicago crowd (OF) seems to miss that.
I mean, Gary is essentially a Chicago suburb. Acquire your firearm in Gary, shoot up Chicago, Chicago's 'gun problem' goes up...

Similar feature: Oregon controls liquor via the OLCC. You have to go to a liquor store before 8 PM to buy kn Portland. Or, pop into the 'Couv over the river, hit up Fred Meyer or grocer of choice, take a hit on sales tax, and cross back over the Columbia with your spirits, and watch as the OLCC justifies its existence to control the flow of hard booze.

Peter Cetera

Are you the inspiration?

Try to keep up

Possibly because I don't accept responsibility for problems I did not cause, and reject any imposition on me and mine that does not pass this test.

So why insert yourself into these discussions?

You don’t have to do anything. You don’t have to help and you don’t have to bitch. But, when you do, it’s always bitching about victims.

I don’t like being dependent on anyone either. When I can, I do for myself. I don’t need anyone. But, I don’t begrudge others who do need help.

Because the "solutions" inevitably proposed affect me. Mandates, prohibitions and impositions justified by problems I did not cause and cannot personally solve by surrendering property or freedom. There's no utility in it, and I piss on any expectation that I gleefully go along with it anyway as a hollow display of my devotion to "the cause."

So, just roll over, let the government take your money and let them spend it anyway they want as long as it doesn’t help poor people.

OR I will object wherever the fuck I see fit, whether I can prevent the thing or not. Especially where empty symbolic gestures are concerned.

But if I were some emperor wizard with the ability to impose simplistic conditions like that, my empathy and willingness to help would be directly proportionate to an individual's integrity and level of effort. And that still would not be enough to satisfy some people, because the concept of unqualified, unweighted merit is incompatible with their tortured deforming of the concept of "justice."

today on the news the Chicago Chief Of Police (kind of a big deal) said Chicago's rampant gun violence is from gangs. Makes sense, drug dealing is very competitive and considering that the urban gun users tend to spray bullets because they need to get out of dodge before their enemies return fire, a lot of innocent people (and of course criminals)
get shot up.

Anyway yes I mention Chicago because it's a city many people have heard of when it relates to crime because they are consistently among the top in total gun violence if not on a per capita basis. But Chicago is played out, so I need to move on to greener pastures.

Now take Atlanta....please! Their homicide rate is 60 percent above average this year - not too shabby! And unlike Chicago I actually give a shit somewhat about Atlanta, because I visit there sometimes - and Ed and Steve live there/near there so thoughts & prayers for their safety. Lately Atlanta is having violence pretty much all over, even in the upscale Buckhead neighborhood where the governor's mansion is located! So Buckhead is.....buckwild! Their mayor blame Atlanta violence on covid primarily.

But let's think for a minute about "gun control" comparisons: Illinois has relatively strict gun control. Georgia has almost no gun control - it's about as minimal as legally possible.
So apparently crazy and/or violent people will get their hands on guns no matter what.

That said Jenee had a good point - paraphrasing here but each city is unique and has to come up with solutions that will work for that city. However it does seem that gun regulations have no bearing on what gun violence that small percentage of the population that exists in every city will engage in. More and more it becomes apparent to laymen and experts that crazy people and criminals will get their hands on guns. If we banned guns in America other countries would just smuggle them in like they do drugs or anything else.

For some reason, I'm now picturing scenes from westerns where people had to surrender their firearms to someone at the city limits. This was apparently somewhat common.

I actually might be OK with that level of up-front honesty. Go right ahead and advertise your city as a place to be avoided. The lack of dissembling and prevarication would be refreshing. The problem is that most everyone who can avoid shitholes like Chicago already has.