Chicago

I just saw a video of crazy teens attacking the downtown area. They committed a series of assaults while damaging cars and busting every window they could find. And this isn't the south side. We are talking about the high-end tourist area.

That's why Americans need guns. You'll end up dead by the time the cops show up.

Obviously, there's a category called "Open Discussions" and users are free to post what they want in there. However...........

What is this? Why is this here in Waygook? Is this to foster discussion? Are you simply ranting about guns and the youth in America?

What is your point? This isn't banter, there's no insight. You're not asking us anything.

This isn't your facebook wall.

A couple was beaten and robbed by a mob. The police drove by the scene without intervening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP6r9IcmkW0&ab_channel=CBSChicago

A couple was beaten and robbed by a mob. The police drove by the scene without intervening.

Fair enough, at least you provided some context/video. If I share something here, it's either

A) related to Korea
B) so open to banter that anyone can join in.

kengreen is just ranting about the US. We have a dozen US politics threads and he didn't even provide a link or anything. So useless.

Fair enough, at least you provided some context/video. If I share something here, it's either

A) related to Korea
B) so open to banter that anyone can join in.

kengreen is just ranting about the US. We have a dozen US politics threads and he didn't even provide a link or anything. So useless.

I guess my point is that it's sad to see such a famous city dying on the vine.

Providing a link is great for discussion: it provides context for other people to form their own possibly different opinions about the event. 

I guess my point is that it's sad to see such a famous city dying on the vine.

I blame the toxic legacy of Corey Worthington.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=968yNvFiVH0

Over 600 people were murdered in Chicago in 2022, and another 2400 were shot. Thank God that the shooters don't seem to be good marksmen, or it could have been a lot worse.

Over 600 people were murdered in Chicago in 2022, and another 2400 were shot. Thank God that the shooters don't seem to be good marksmen, or it could have been a lot worse.

If guns weren't so easy to obtain, it could have been a lot better.

If guns weren't so easy to obtain, it could have been a lot better.

Most of those guns doing the damage in Chicago aren't legal to begin with. I'm with you 100 percent. If the pistols aren't registered, the owners should be brought up on charges.

Most of those guns doing the damage in Chicago aren't legal to begin with. I'm with you 100 percent. If the pistols aren't registered, the owners should be brought up on charges.

Why don't they ban murder, shooting people, and rioting?

Or at least make the gun laws as fascistic as Mexico, which only has a homicide rate 600% as high as the USA.

 Or Jamaica, (among the most fascistic gun laws in the world, suspects tried in camera without jury, extremely strict gun licensing criteria)  whose homicide rate is only 44.95 per 100k, contrasted with New Hampsire's (can legally carry open or concealed without permit, can legally own machine guns, silencers, short barrel rifles, short barrel shotguns, cannons, howitzers, fully armed and functional main battle tanks, grenades, grenade launchers, rocket launchers) rate of 00.9 per 100k.

Why don't they ban murder, shooting people, and rioting?

Or at least make the gun laws as fascistic as Mexico, which only has a homicide rate 600% as high as the USA.

 Or Jamaica, (among the most fascistic gun laws in the world, suspects tried in camera without jury, extremely strict gun licensing criteria)  whose homicide rate is only 44.95 per 100k, contrasted with New Hampsire's (can legally carry open or concealed without permit, can legally own machine guns, silencers, short barrel rifles, short barrel shotguns, cannons, howitzers, fully armed and functional main battle tanks, grenades, grenade launchers, rocket launchers) rate of 00.9 per 100k.

I'm with you. Law-abiding citizens in America should be armed to the teeth. Instead, let's take away the guns from the criminals.

I'm with you. Law-abiding citizens in America should be armed to the teeth. Instead, let's take away the guns from the criminals.

Yep, they've got to be able to protect themselves from lost drivers who use their driveways to turn around in.

Shoot first and ask questions later.

 

I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here, because I don't believe the average citizen should be able to own handguns or assault rifles whatsoever.  Obviously people in rural settings in North America should be able to to have rifles or other long guns.  I don't even know how to talk about guns in detail because I'm not into them and I generally trust Canadian police forces enough that I like to think they have the upper hand in terms of firepower. 

That being said, with an estimated number of legally owned guns over 390 million wouldn't the fact be, despite these high profile shootings of late, that the vast majority of gun owners in the U.S. are responsible and keep their firearms in a safe manner?  If all these 80 + million firearm owners were yahoos shooting at shadows it would be a very different story. 

Americans have to decide whether banning guns is for the greater good.  I think it is.  Personally I think that having children feel safe at school supersedes the need for someone to have a cool assault rifle, but I'm not American.  But, I see the way the Trudeau government has tried their best to vilify long gun owners in Canada instead of addressing the real cause of rising gun violence in Canada.  It seems that every time something horrible happens in the states every gun owner is vilified.  But stats would bear out the fact that the vast majority of them are responsible gun owners. 

I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here, because I don't believe the average citizen should be able to own handguns or assault rifles whatsoever. 

"handguns and assault rifles" is a rather odd combination. i do think that there's no reason an average citizen needs any sort of automatic rifle (no, im not counting doomer the-apocalypse-is-coming types as a valid reason). but i dont see why people shouldnt be allowed to legally carry a handgun for self-defense.

the entire reason ARs come under so much scrutiny is because they enable shooters to mow down a bunch of people at once, something that you cant really do with a handgun, i mean sure you can still inflict some damage but youd get a fraction of the shots off before someone beats you over the head

"handguns and assault rifles" is a rather odd combination. i do think that there's no reason an average citizen needs any sort of automatic rifle (no, im not counting doomer the-apocalypse-is-coming types as a valid reason). but i dont see why people shouldnt be allowed to legally carry a handgun for self-defense.

the entire reason ARs come under so much scrutiny is because they enable shooters to mow down a bunch of people at once, something that you cant really do with a handgun, i mean sure you can still inflict some damage but youd get a fraction of the shots off before someone beats you over the head

I was looking at it more from a crime perspective in Canada.  Handguns are what are being used on the streets by the criminal element.  I don't know a lot about guns, so I just see handguns as a source of street crime.  So, I just lumped them in there, but yeah, they are entirely different from assault rifles. 

My point still stands.  Are not the vast majority of gun owners in the U.S. being responsible with their guns?

As far as long guns (or long-gun frames in pistol caliber), there are several reasons for ownership. The first is for rural use cases dealing with either varmints or packs of animals. The ability to shoot at distance and send multiple rounds at target(s) has utility. As far as home defense, a long gun in pistol caliber is an excellent choice considering their ease of handling and aiming relative to handguns and manageable recoil compared to shotguns. Additionally they give the victim the ability to protect themselves with multiple rounds against multiple assailants (not that this means overall a gun is a good decision for home defense, just among guns).

Finally, I think what a lot of doomer/Cold Dead Hands types worry about, and even some more rational types, is that if such guns are banned, then there really isn't anything stopping the U.S. Federal government from just going whole hog on the people. In real terms, there probably is enough there in the sheer scale that would make it impossible for any sort of totalitarian government to gain complete control. There's certainly enough to gain a lot of control, but 50 million people with ARs IS something of a deterrent to potential excesses in terms of cost-benefit for the controller.

And to those who say those weapons wouldn't be effective, that assumes that all those people would do is line up in some big mass with their weapons easily visible to be drone-striked, and not say, fight an insurgency campaign with those guns being used against soft targets in a terror campaign or used in ambush to then gain access to heaver weapons. Afghanistan and Iraq both had a "Kalashnikov culture" as do various conflict areas. Not only does this enable resistance, it also enables the resistance group (If being generous, rebels/terrorists if not) to establish security and rule amongst the populace in areas they control.

From the perspective of a dictator, why not just brutally oppress your own population if they can't fight back. WTF are they going to do? There really wouldn't be any deterrent in terms of resistance (assuming support from the military and intel apparatus). We've seen what happens in history when that happens and the people don't have the capacity for guerrilla warfare and resistance. Why assume it wouldn't happen in the developed, western world as well?

I was looking at it more from a crime perspective in Canada.  Handguns are what are being used on the streets by the criminal element.  I don't know a lot about guns, so I just see handguns as a source of street crime.  So, I just lumped them in there, but yeah, they are entirely different from assault rifles. 

My point still stands.  Are not the vast majority of gun owners in the U.S. being responsible with their guns?

the vast majority of them are, but when something has a certain amount of destructive power all it takes is a single person to cause a tragedy. that said i  do think trying to ban ARs is a waste of time since i doubt its ever gonna happen regardless. better to spend that time and effort pushing for something less contentious like stricter regulation.

rick scott wants to spend $70 billion on armed guards in schools:

"The legislation would set up a block grant program through the Justice Department that would potentially fund an armed law enforcement officer at every K-12 school in the U.S., public and private. There are more than 98,000 public schools in those grades and over 30,000 private schools, according to the U.S. Education Department."

What about Robb Elementary School, senator?