Murders fall 42 percent in America's deadliest city: Chicago

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

I am talking about reducing crime. I believe guns have a role in reducing crime. I was responding to you and asked a question. No answer. No I another question.

Do you believe you have been asked not to talk about guns as they relate to reduced crime?

The topic is about the murder rate dropping 42 percent. No where in the article does it attribute that fall to gun ownership. It says there is a bigger police presence and more summer job programs. It also says there is no shortcut to reducing crime, such as you keep talking about arming everyone. But I guess we can't talk about the summer job programs or the police having any influence, since they are directly referenced in this article.

I think the issue of guns neatly ties with the issue of murders?

Not in the sense Gary is talking about. Arming everyone isn't the answer.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Fine let's get back on topic. let's talk about the fall to 42% of murders, no where does it say anything about guns at all. It also says some positive things about the police force and summer job programs.

I think it's a great thing that there is a change there, your move.

Me too, I am all in favor of reducing crime and promote any thing which is effective in doing that.

This is evidence that banning guns does not reduce crime but other methods DO reduce crime. Evidence that efforts spent toward banning guns and taking away rights is not only non-productive it is counter productive to reducing killings of young black children every day.

I also note that with the upcoming concealed carry in Illinois and given the results of concealed carry everywhere else, we can expect the lives of MORE young black children to be spared every day.

Anyone that favors taking away firearms when it is proven to be counter productive to reducing crime bu the OPs article and other evidence is actually promoting the deaths of young black children every day and I abhor that idea.

How about you answer my questions now?

1. What benefit do you expect to drive from a shooting test before issuance of CC license

2. Do you believe guns have nothing to do with crime?

3. Do you believe you were asked not to talk about guns in this thread as they relate to reducing crime?

Your move.

[himher 634]

Why?

A concealed carry license is not a certificate.

This is another symptom of ignorance. Receiving comfort from something that does not matter. We may as well make CC holders carry a rabbit's foot.

Testing in a classroom setting has nothing to do with the stresses of shooting in a situation where you believe your life is in danger. Florida requires a shooting test. I suppose Trayvon's parents are happy with that? I mean hey, one shot kill, right?

Vermont and 4 other states have no permits, no classes, no tests and their incidence of "problems" is no higher. Whatever you think the problems may be or whatever brings you comfort.

I mean, seriously, Marvin...serious question

What positive result do you expect being observed shooting a gun in a class setting has for society? Serious question.

To obtain a Concealed Handgun License you must complete the 10 hour course, qualify with a handgun in accordance with the DPS course of fire, and pass a 50 question exam.

The referenced certificate was from the class, not the license. Otherwise my "igorance" stems from living in 5 states and legally carrying in 4 but under the impression that directionally reciprocity between states carries a mandate that states standardize their requirements.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The topic is about the murder rate dropping 42 percent. No where in the article does it attribute that fall to gun ownership. It says there is a bigger police presence and more summer job programs. It also says there is no shortcut to reducing crime, such as you keep talking about arming everyone. But I guess we can't talk about the summer job programs or the police having any influence, since they are directly referenced in this article.

Not in the sense Gary is talking about. Arming everyone isn't the answer.

I already addressed your first diversion from the topic

Why? Give me an example of a place in the USA where everyone CAN be armed that has higher crime than Chicago? Which of these places are more young black children killed every day than in Chicago?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

To obtain a Concealed Handgun License you must complete the 10 hour course, qualify with a handgun in accordance with the DPS course of fire, and pass a 50 question exam.

The referenced certificate was from the class, not the license. Otherwise my "igorance" stems from living in 5 states and legally carrying in 4 but under the impression that directionally reciprocity between states carries a mandate that states standardize their requirements.

But you do not state what you expect the results to be from a shooting test. In this regard you and Marvin are in agreement. There are none. It is an unnecessary component which results in no benefit. Texas cannot point to less "problems" (whatever problems you imagine to exist) than Vermont, Wyoming, N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Alabama, Arizona, Utah, Alaska....

the shooting component has no purpose in a practical sense. There are no "results" in the real world from it.

marvin left the building

[Darnell 8,478]

CCP regs and rules vary by state, right? I think you two might be comparing apples and oranges, if not mentioning WHICH state's rules and regs yer writing about.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

CCP regs and rules vary by state, right? I think you two might be comparing apples and oranges, if not mentioning WHICH state's rules and regs yer writing about.

Yes, they vary greatly ...from NONE to quite strict. Texas' is actually quite strict.

I was correcting two assumptions

1. There is no demonstrable benefit to society from a shooting test to obtain a CC license.

2. Not all states are the same

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Me too, I am all in favor of reducing crime and promote any thing which is effective in doing that.

This is evidence that banning guns does not reduce crime but other methods DO reduce crime. Evidence that efforts spent toward banning guns and taking away rights is not only non-productive it is counter productive to reducing killings of young black children every day.

I also note that with the upcoming concealed carry in Illinois and given the results of concealed carry everywhere else, we can expect the lives of MORE young black children to be spared every day.

Anyone that favors taking away firearms when it is proven to be counter productive to reducing crime bu the OPs article and other evidence is actually promoting the deaths of young black children every day and I abhor that idea.

How about you answer my questions now?

1. What benefit do you expect to drive from a shooting test before issuance of CC license

2. Do you believe guns have nothing to do with crime?

3. Do you believe you were asked not to talk about guns in this thread as they relate to reducing crime?

Your move.

I doubt it, since most of the folks dying are children. And here's a fun fact for you, if folks want to get a gun, it isn't really that hard to obtain one even in Chicago. Most of the folks that are poor don't have money to eat, let alone a handgun.

Your answers:

1. I think a shooting test would benefit anyone who wants to get a CC license, since it would help reduce any collateral damage if a shootout occurs.

2. I believe that guns aren't the only factor in crime, if that was the case, Vermont would be Gotham City since everyone there carries a gun according to you. I believe that poverty, lack of education, no jobs opportunities, and bad parenting skills lead to more crime. That's the reason why in the most crime ridden cities there are bans, if you allowed everyone to carry, more criminals would have guns.

3. No one asked me not to talk about guns, I was asked to stop derailing the thread since someone kept bringing a different topic.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I doubt it, since most of the folks dying are children. And here's a fun fact for you, if folks want to get a gun, it isn't really that hard to obtain one even in Chicago. Most of the folks that are poor don't have money to eat, let alone a handgun.

Your answers:

1. I think a shooting test would benefit anyone who wants to get a CC license, since it would help reduce any collateral damage if a shootout occurs.

2. I believe that guns aren't the only factor in crime, if that was the case, Vermont would be Gotham City since everyone there carries a gun according to you. I believe that poverty, lack of education, no jobs opportunities, and bad parenting skills lead to more crime. That's the reason why in the most crime ridden cities there are bans, if you allowed everyone to carry, more criminals would have guns.

3. No one asked me not to talk about guns, I was asked to stop derailing the thread since someone kept bringing a different topic.

There is no reason to doubt it, we have 30 years of evidence that concealed carry reduces crime. You have no documentation that "most of the people" being killed are "kids". Please link to evidence of that.

I am also opposed to the so-called "Saturday Might Special" laws which disarmed poor people are were racially motivated. Given the positive results of concealed carry I would also support some form of subsidy so people could buy handguns that had low income. Wouldn't you? Shouldn't low income people have the same rights as you and I? Please give links to you "fun facts" otherwise they are just ignorant BS.

1. How? Link to statistics which show increased "collateral damage" in states with no shooting tests. We have 30 years of experience, should be easy to find. Otherwise you are just spouting off opinions based in ignorance.

2. Agreed. You are learning. You should add that gun control cannot address ANY of those other problems you mention and is a complete waste of resources. It is, in fact, negligent.

3. Exactly. So let's talk about guns and how they relate to reducing crime.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

There is no reason to doubt it, we have 30 years of evidence that concealed carry reduces crime. You have no documentation that "most of the people" being killed are "kids". Please link to evidence of that.

I am also opposed to the so-called "Saturday Might Special" laws which disarmed poor people are were racially motivated. Given the positive results of concealed carry I would also support some form of subsidy so people could buy handguns that had low income. Wouldn't you? Shouldn't low income people have the same rights as you and I? Please give links to you "fun facts" otherwise they are just ignorant BS.

1. How? Link to statistics which show increased "collateral damage" in states with no shooting tests. We have 30 years of experience, should be easy to find. Otherwise you are just spouting off opinions based in ignorance.

2. Agreed. You are learning. You should add that gun control cannot address ANY of those other problems you mention and is a complete waste of resources. It is, in fact, negligent.

3. Exactly. So let's talk about guns and how they relate to reducing crime.

http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/12/20/in-newtowns-shadow-chicagos-bleak-gun-toll-goes-on/

Her name never made national news. There were no headlines screaming for gun control. There were no teary eyes in the White House. And no one dared utter the obligatory, ‘it’s not supposed to happen here,’ as they so often do when the young and innocent are so tragically taken.

Heaven Sutton was seven years old when she was killed last summer, struck by a stray bullet as she sold candy and snow cones in her front yard on the eve of Chicago’s hottest day of the year.

Her grief stricken mother pleaded for peace. The mayor expressed his outrage. And Chicago—where gun violence is as routine as the L train into the South Side—buried yet another of its young. Heaven joined the more than 270 school aged children to be killed in Chicago in just three years.

This is why I I can't have a decent conversation with you, once you start name calling, it's no point.

[Karee 4,190]

Why would you think they have never fired a gun? Seems an unusual, even outrageously ignorant, conclusion to make. Dare I say "biased". You actually believe that people who have never fired a gun will get a concealed carry permit and "run around" with them? Really?

That's asinine.

Concealed carry classes (where required, not all states even require ANY instruction) do NOT teach people to shoot. EVER. They teach about the laws regarding the use of deadly force. SOME states have a shooting test, usually requiring 10 shots at 7 yards on a man sized silhouette and requiring 6 "hits". Illinois' law will require that in order to receive reciprocity a state MUST require a class of at least 10 hours. Illinois' law will not require a shooting component either.

The reason that the Utah class is favored in Illinois is that many of the classes are being done in urban areas (Chicago!) where a shooting component would be difficult to comply with due to facilitation.

If anyone here thinks for a moment that a concealed carry class teaches people to shoot it only demonstrates their ignorance of the issue. Please inform yourself...then post

Gary

Concealed Carry Instructor, Texas.

Asinine? So I'll use the favorite analogy the gun nuts like to throw around here. Guns vs. automobiles. So you think people should just be given a drivers license and keys to a car with no training whatsoever? I think it's asinine to have a bunch of people running around with guns that have no idea how to even use them. That's more than asinine, it's DANGEROUS! The biggest gun nut on this board, Himher, pointed out the requirements in Texas to get a concealed carry permit. I took a hunter's safety class in Colorado years back that at least required you to fire 20 or so rounds from a bolt action .22 rifle.

I have a hard time taking advice from someone that claims to be so anti-government, yet depends on that very government for handouts. That's ignorant and asinine.

[Karee 4,190]

CHL SHOOTING TEST, TEXAS

3 yards, 20 rounds

•1 shot, 2 seconds, 5 times

•2 shots, 3 seconds, 5 times

•5 shots, 10 seconds, 1 time

7 yards, 20 rounds

•5 shots, 10 seconds, 1 time

•2 shots, 4 seconds, 1 time

•3 shots, 6 seconds, 1 time

•1 shot, 3 seconds, 5 times

•5 shots, 15 seconds, 1 time

15 yards, 10 rounds

•2 shots, 6 seconds, 1 time

•3 shots, 9 seconds, 1 time

•5 shots, 15 seconds, 1 time

You get three attempts to pass. A 70% score (175 points) is a passing score.

NOTE: If ya can't shoot, ya can't carry - at least in Texas

Texas is asinine! By Gary's definition anyway.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

NOTE: If ya can't shoot, ya can't carry - at least in Texas

The way it should be. Contrary to popular belief, I support responsible, capable people owning guns.

[Karee 4,190]

http://tv.msnbc.com/...n-toll-goes-on/

Her name never made national news. There were no headlines screaming for gun control. There were no teary eyes in the White House. And no one dared utter the obligatory, 'it's not supposed to happen here,' as they so often do when the young and innocent are so tragically taken.

Heaven Sutton was seven years old when she was killed last summer, struck by a stray bullet as she sold candy and snow cones in her front yard on the eve of Chicago's hottest day of the year.

Her grief stricken mother pleaded for peace. The mayor expressed his outrage. And Chicago—where gun violence is as routine as the L train into the South Side—buried yet another of its young. Heaven joined the more than 270 school aged children to be killed in Chicago in just three years.

This is why I I can't have a decent conversation with you, once you start name calling, it's no point.

Stop being Asinine.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Stop being Asinine.

Lol, I thought you were serious for a second

Edited April 6, 2013 by Su and Marvin