Submitted by midmodmad t3_112e5ih in Connecticut
Taurothar t1_j8nc83z wrote
Reply to comment by Just_Jer in Sandy Hook Survivor Survives Second Mass Shooting by midmodmad
Those places are all adjacent to ones with very lax control, so it's easy to get a gun to bring there from a neighbor state.
Just_Jer t1_j8ncjfz wrote
that's what these states keep claiming but I've yet to see anything but anecdotal evidence to support that claim
Taurothar t1_j8ncyc3 wrote
Just_Jer t1_j8ndbs1 wrote
I get what you're trying to prove but the percentages seem laughably low compared to the purchased in Illinois percentage...
Taurothar t1_j8ngul1 wrote
How is more than half laughably low?
Just_Jer t1_j8nhakh wrote
I'm saying 49.8 from Illinois vs the highest at 16.7 from Indiana.
WellSeasonedUsername t1_j8sd6nq wrote
Indiana should be a war zone with all those “lax gun laws” but it’s not, Chicago is.
Taurothar t1_j8sfxj4 wrote
Because, shockingly, crime is where people are. Chicago Metro area has a population 1.5x that of the entire state of Indiana in roughly a quarter of the area. Population density often coincides with increased crime rates everywhere.
WellSeasonedUsername t1_j8sirve wrote
And who commits these crimes?
Taurothar t1_j8smvsv wrote
People with guns? I don't know what you're trying to get at. If you're trying to say minorities or Democrats, you're also drawing correlation without causation.
WellSeasonedUsername t1_j8sndu6 wrote
Glad you said “people” with guns and not just “because of guns”. The correct answer is “criminals” Why did you bring up minorities or democrats?
Taurothar t1_j8sozss wrote
> Why did you bring up minorities or democrats?
This isn't the "gotcha" you think it is. It's usually the line I get when talking about urban crime with gun nuts. Saying "criminals commit crime" is also pretty self evident, so I didn't think you'd be that stupid as to want to spell that out as if it was an argument.
And yes, people with guns shoot people. People without guns, can't shoot people. Reducing those guns in quantity or effectiveness reduces the number of people who are shot.
But you know what the most effective means to reduce crime is? Improving quality of life through raising incomes, revitalizing neighborhoods, providing social resources, and developing communities where people don't need to resort to crime to survive.
If we spent half of what we do on the military on those types of goals, we wouldn't be seeing the kinds of shooting sprees that lead to these calls to ban guns. Too bad most gun nuts are also Republican who vote against using money this way though.
WellSeasonedUsername t1_j8sqa7z wrote
>But you know what the most effective means to reduce crime is? Improving quality of life through raising incomes, revitalizing neighborhoods, providing social resources, and developing communities where people don't need to resort to crime to survive.
So YOU are saying it’s minorities / low income communities. Got it.
Most people with common sense know that simply banning an item will not prevent any further tragedies.
Are you going to give your car up to the government if they ban cars because of drunk drivers?
You could ban every gun in existence and Chicago will still have a high murder rate. Gotta deal with the people, not the objects.
Also, why does this keep happening Are democratic appointed DA’s incapable of upholding the law?
WellSeasonedUsername t1_j8sd344 wrote
Then why don’t those adjacent places have the same level of violence as nyc LA or Philly?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments