This past weekend, one police officer was killed and another critically wounded in Chicago. They had pulled over a vehicle with three occupants. French, 29, and her partner — who were part of a three-officer car assigned to the Community Safety Team — were shot during a traffic stop after 9 p.m. at 63rd Street and Bell Avenue. Two brothers, Emonte Morgan, 21 and Eric Morgan have been charged with murder.

The first officer to be shot was French's partner that was hit three times. When French came to his aid, she was shot in the head by Emonte Morgan. Both have been apprehended and are due in court today.

Sad all around, and for so many reasons.

-Emonte was a convicted felon, and could not posses a firearm.
-They had obtained the gun from a straw purchaser in Indiana.

Jamal Danzy is charged with purchasing the gun from a licensed Hammond gun dealer, knowingly transferring a firearm to an out-of-state resident and knowingly disposing of a firearm to a convicted felon, Brown said in the press conference.
Link

-Emonte had no respect for life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpNvVW6DN84

These tragedies will continue until an effort is made to clean up and go after the criminals, not enacting more laws that are useless.

When the Mayor of Chicago went to the hospital, the officers turned their backs.

What does "going after the criminals" mean ? Doesn't the US have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world already ? Doesn't seem to be working.

Aesma wrote:

What does "going after the criminals" mean ? Doesn't the US have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world already ? Doesn't seem to be working.

There's no consistency in sentencing, i.e. giving 99 years to a 17 year old for vehicular manslaughter then letting off Caitlyn Jenner for the same issue.

While agree that people have little to no respect for police officers, I will disagree it is mainly their own making. There are problem police officers, no doubt, but the issue is much much larger. These folks don't have respect for anyone, not just police officers. The moral fabric of society is quickly unraveling. Just look at the shooting statistics in these cities, they are through the roof. That tells me they don't respect anyone.

I think a solution to cut back on neighborhood gang violence, is to pro-actively train and arm families in the area with firearms. We have a 2nd Amendment right that can actually be used to defend your home and your family.

bpatus297 wrote:

While agree that people have little to no respect for police officers, I will disagree it is mainly their own making. There are problem police officers, no doubt, but the issue is much much larger. These folks don't have respect for anyone, not just police officers. The moral fabric of society is quickly unraveling. Just look at the shooting statistics in these cities, they are through the roof. That tells me they don't respect anyone.

With everyone owning a camera phone today US police officers are still making really stupid choices, this is entirely there fault, it’s those bad eggs that are causing problems for the rest of them.

I personally don’t believe US police forces are sufficiently trained for the job, I don’t think many have the mental capacity to do the job. In Norway it’s a degree level course, it takes 4 years to become a police officer.

extender wrote:

-They had obtained the gun from a straw purchaser in Indiana.

Most guns recovered in Chicago crimes are from out of state and specifically Indiana but we can't do anything about it cuz freedumb. Fun fact--the gun death rate in Indiana is higher than Illinois.

extender wrote:

When the Mayor of Chicago went to the hospital, the officers turned their backs.

Just like they did on their January 6 colleagues...

FGITD wrote:

That’s a great idea, let’s arm them and get them proper training so that they can be more effective. I’m sure it won’t backfire even in the slightest since after all, no gang member has ever had or come from a family living in the area.

There's far more than 1 gun for every person living in the US. How many more guns until we're safe? Can we get a guestimate from the QOP?

MaverickM11 wrote:

Fun fact--the gun death rate in Indiana is higher than Illinois.

Depends what year. Illinois leads most years. What would be interesting is if you threw the stats for Chicago and East St Louis out of the Illinois totals and Indianapolis and Gary out of the Indiana ones. I'd bet the rest of both states is relatively peaceful.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

I think a solution to cut back on neighborhood gang violence, is to pro-actively train and arm families in the area with firearms. We have a 2nd Amendment right that can actually be used to defend your home and your family.

This must be trolling... Or can you really, with a straight face, say that the solution to gun violence on the south side of Chicago is to pump more guns into the south side of Chicago?

No, you must be telling a joke. Please tell me you are telling a joke.

2122M wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

I think a solution to cut back on neighborhood gang violence, is to pro-actively train and arm families in the area with firearms. We have a 2nd Amendment right that can actually be used to defend your home and your family.

This must be trolling... Or can you really, with a straight face, say that the solution to gun violence on the south side of Chicago is to pump more guns into the south side of Chicago?

No, you must be telling a joke. Please tell me you are telling a joke.

It's not the law abiding people with guns that are committing the murders.

johns624 wrote:

2122M wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

I think a solution to cut back on neighborhood gang violence, is to pro-actively train and arm families in the area with firearms. We have a 2nd Amendment right that can actually be used to defend your home and your family.

This must be trolling... Or can you really, with a straight face, say that the solution to gun violence on the south side of Chicago is to pump more guns into the south side of Chicago?

No, you must be telling a joke. Please tell me you are telling a joke.

It's not the law abiding people with guns that are committing the murders.

Another comment for the win here: 'Law abiding citizens don't commit murder'. Amazing logic. Once you commit murder, you are no longer a law abiding citizen are you. So no, obviously law abiding citizens don't commit murders.. right up until the time that they do, of course.

2122M wrote:

johns624 wrote:

2122M wrote:

This must be trolling... Or can you really, with a straight face, say that the solution to gun violence on the south side of Chicago is to pump more guns into the south side of Chicago?

No, you must be telling a joke. Please tell me you are telling a joke.

It's not the law abiding people with guns that are committing the murders.

Another comment for the win here: 'Law abiding citizens don't commit murder'. Amazing logic. Once you commit murder, you are no longer a law abiding citizen are you. So no, obviously law abiding citizens don't commit murders.. right up until the time that they do, of course.

Let's ban all car drivers, too. After all, they're all law abiding, until they aren't. There are well over 70 million gun owners in the US. How many crimes are committed by them? Very few. Now, if you want to go after the drug and street gangs, be my guest.

johns624 wrote:

2122M wrote:

johns624 wrote:

It's not the law abiding people with guns that are committing the murders.

Another comment for the win here: 'Law abiding citizens don't commit murder'. Amazing logic. Once you commit murder, you are no longer a law abiding citizen are you. So no, obviously law abiding citizens don't commit murders.. right up until the time that they do, of course.

Let's ban all car drivers, too. After all, they're all law abiding, until they aren't. There are well over 70 million gun owners in the US. How many crimes are committed by them? Very few. Now, if you want to go after the drug and street gangs, be my guest.

Except that a car's main purpose is transportation. That it can cause death either accidentally or intentionally is secondary to its primary purpose. The car was invented as a passenger conveyance, not a deadly weapon. A gun has no purpose other than to cause death. That is its sole purpose.

OA412 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

2122M wrote:

Another comment for the win here: 'Law abiding citizens don't commit murder'. Amazing logic. Once you commit murder, you are no longer a law abiding citizen are you. So no, obviously law abiding citizens don't commit murders.. right up until the time that they do, of course.

Let's ban all car drivers, too. After all, they're all law abiding, until they aren't. There are well over 70 million gun owners in the US. How many crimes are committed by them? Very few. Now, if you want to go after the drug and street gangs, be my guest.

Except that a car's main purpose is transportation. That it can cause death either accidentally or intentionally is secondary to its primary purpose. The car was invented as a passenger conveyance, not a deadly weapon. A gun has no purpose other than to cause death. That is its sole purpose.

I respectfully disagree. An armed society is a polite society. I have been in two attempted muggings where friends were legally carrying that were thwarted by being armed. No death. The criminals were demands our wallets and were shocked, both sets of attempted robberies, when we were relaxed and said "not in the mood." No gun was drawn (they remained concealed).

A firearms main purpose is to keep someone from being a victim. For some reason they do not track crime averted without a shot fired. We reported the crimes. In one case one individual had a body cam allowing their parole violation to be recorded. In the other, the alerted officers intercepted during a more violent crime (the victims mistakenly thought it would be over after handing over wallets)

Many a criminal runs, never seeing the gun when they hear one racked.

I know thousands of law abiding gun owners. The main reason is to deter crime. An armed society is a polite society.

Lightsaber

johns624 wrote:

2122M wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

I think a solution to cut back on neighborhood gang violence, is to pro-actively train and arm families in the area with firearms. We have a 2nd Amendment right that can actually be used to defend your home and your family.

This must be trolling... Or can you really, with a straight face, say that the solution to gun violence on the south side of Chicago is to pump more guns into the south side of Chicago?

No, you must be telling a joke. Please tell me you are telling a joke.

It's not the law abiding people with guns that are committing the murders.

You shoot someone and they die, you've committed a murder, no debate. You are now listed a a murderer, on the death certificate it says "Cause of death" and that cause is listed as "Homicide" It's not listed as "Well he was a scum bag who had it coming so.."

OA412 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

2122M wrote:

Another comment for the win here: 'Law abiding citizens don't commit murder'. Amazing logic. Once you commit murder, you are no longer a law abiding citizen are you. So no, obviously law abiding citizens don't commit murders.. right up until the time that they do, of course.

Let's ban all car drivers, too. After all, they're all law abiding, until they aren't. There are well over 70 million gun owners in the US. How many crimes are committed by them? Very few. Now, if you want to go after the drug and street gangs, be my guest.

Except that a car's main purpose is transportation. That it can cause death either accidentally or intentionally is secondary to its primary purpose. The car was invented as a passenger conveyance, not a deadly weapon. A gun has no purpose other than to cause death. That is its sole purpose.

Really, no other purpose? Is that why the Olympics having shooting events, to kill people?

CaptHadley wrote:

johns624 wrote:

2122M wrote:

This must be trolling... Or can you really, with a straight face, say that the solution to gun violence on the south side of Chicago is to pump more guns into the south side of Chicago?

No, you must be telling a joke. Please tell me you are telling a joke.

It's not the law abiding people with guns that are committing the murders.

You shoot someone and they die, you've committed a murder, no debate. You are now listed a a murderer, on the death certificate it says "Cause of death" and that cause is listed as "Homicide" It's not listed as "Well he was a scum bag who had it coming so.."

Not necessarily, could be felonious, but could be excusable, could be accidental, could be laudable. Any number of big city murders are entirely praiseworthy, drug dealers, gang bangers killing each other, what’s not to like?

OA412 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

2122M wrote:

Another comment for the win here: 'Law abiding citizens don't commit murder'. Amazing logic. Once you commit murder, you are no longer a law abiding citizen are you. So no, obviously law abiding citizens don't commit murders.. right up until the time that they do, of course.

Let's ban all car drivers, too. After all, they're all law abiding, until they aren't. There are well over 70 million gun owners in the US. How many crimes are committed by them? Very few. Now, if you want to go after the drug and street gangs, be my guest.

Except that a car's main purpose is transportation. That it can cause death either accidentally or intentionally is secondary to its primary purpose. The car was invented as a passenger conveyance, not a deadly weapon. A gun has no purpose other than to cause death. That is its sole purpose.

I actually love the car comparison since I think guns should be treated exactly like cars. You have to maintain a type specific license to own and operate a gun, you must have liability insurance for it and it must be registered under your name. Also, like cars, we can mandate safety features such as magazine size, fire rate, type of ammunition etc…. Like cars, we could also then track gun sales and gun violence on a federal level (something the NRA lobbyists have kept illegal)

So yes, I 100% Agee with Johns624. Let’s treat guns and cars exactly the same.

2122M wrote:

Also, like cars, we can mandate safety features such as magazine size, fire rate, type of ammunition etc….

Sorry, none of those are "safety features".

OA412 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

2122M wrote:

Another comment for the win here: 'Law abiding citizens don't commit murder'. Amazing logic. Once you commit murder, you are no longer a law abiding citizen are you. So no, obviously law abiding citizens don't commit murders.. right up until the time that they do, of course.

Let's ban all car drivers, too. After all, they're all law abiding, until they aren't. There are well over 70 million gun owners in the US. How many crimes are committed by them? Very few. Now, if you want to go after the drug and street gangs, be my guest.

Except that a car's main purpose is transportation. That it can cause death either accidentally or intentionally is secondary to its primary purpose. The car was invented as a passenger conveyance, not a deadly weapon. A gun has no purpose other than to cause death. That is its sole purpose.

You missed the whole point. I was replying to someone who said that guns should be banned because of something that "might" happen in the future. I was merely replying that the same thing could be said about cars. It's amazing, I've owned guns for over 40 years, have fired literally tens of thousands of rounds of ammo, and have never killed anything except for a few legal whitetail deer. I've shot competitively at Camp Perry in the National Championships and have beat many military team shooters. I must be doing something wrong since I've never killed a human being, and according to you, that's what guns are for. BTW, the national matches are shot with military-style rifles like the M1A and AR15, so that's another use for them.

johns624 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Fun fact--the gun death rate in Indiana is higher than Illinois.

Depends what year. Illinois leads most years. What would be interesting is if you threw the stats for Chicago and East St Louis out of the Illinois totals and Indianapolis and Gary out of the Indiana ones. I'd bet the rest of both states is relatively peaceful.

Not necessarily. Alaska and Wyoming (and MS and NM and AL and...and...) have sky high gun death rates. You just trade some murder for a ton of suicide, and in rural areas, you may have lots of both.

lightsaber wrote:

OA412 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Let's ban all car drivers, too. After all, they're all law abiding, until they aren't. There are well over 70 million gun owners in the US. How many crimes are committed by them? Very few. Now, if you want to go after the drug and street gangs, be my guest.

Except that a car's main purpose is transportation. That it can cause death either accidentally or intentionally is secondary to its primary purpose. The car was invented as a passenger conveyance, not a deadly weapon. A gun has no purpose other than to cause death. That is its sole purpose.

I respectfully disagree. An armed society is a polite society.

This is not supported by any data whatsoever. If it was we'd have the politest society on the planet followed by El Salvador and Mexico.

johns624 wrote:

OA412 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Let's ban all car drivers, too. After all, they're all law abiding, until they aren't. There are well over 70 million gun owners in the US. How many crimes are committed by them? Very few. Now, if you want to go after the drug and street gangs, be my guest.

Except that a car's main purpose is transportation. That it can cause death either accidentally or intentionally is secondary to its primary purpose. The car was invented as a passenger conveyance, not a deadly weapon. A gun has no purpose other than to cause death. That is its sole purpose.

You missed the whole point. I was replying to someone who said that guns should be banned because of something that "might" happen in the future. I was merely replying that the same thing could be said about cars. It's amazing, I've owned guns for over 40 years, have fired literally tens of thousands of rounds of ammo, and have never killed anything except for a few legal whitetail deer. I've shot competitively at Camp Perry in the National Championships and have beat many military team shooters. I must be doing something wrong since I've never killed a human being, and according to you, that's what guns are for. BTW, the national matches are shot with military-style rifles like the M1A and AR15, so that's another use for them.

He actually didn't say that guns are for killing people. He said guns are for the purpose of causing death, like the death of whitetail deer. That's why they exist.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

OA412 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Let's ban all car drivers, too. After all, they're all law abiding, until they aren't. There are well over 70 million gun owners in the US. How many crimes are committed by them? Very few. Now, if you want to go after the drug and street gangs, be my guest.

Except that a car's main purpose is transportation. That it can cause death either accidentally or intentionally is secondary to its primary purpose. The car was invented as a passenger conveyance, not a deadly weapon. A gun has no purpose other than to cause death. That is its sole purpose.

Really, no other purpose? Is that why the Olympics having shooting events, to kill people?

Actually, to see how effective some contestant could be at causing death.

emperortk wrote:

He actually didn't say that guns are for killing people. He said guns are for the purpose of causing death, like the death of whitetail deer. That's why they exist.

johns624 wrote:

2122M wrote:

Also, like cars, we can mandate safety features such as magazine size, fire rate, type of ammunition etc….

Sorry, none of those are "safety features".

Tell that to a middle schooler seeking shelter during an active shooter situation at school.

2122M wrote:

johns624 wrote:

2122M wrote:

Also, like cars, we can mandate safety features such as magazine size, fire rate, type of ammunition etc….

Sorry, none of those are "safety features".

Tell that to a middle schooler seeking shelter during an active shooter situation at school.

What’s that got to do with anything. They aren’t safety features, they are design characteristics of each weapon, one of the best things about most firearms, they’re mechanical devices, pure and simple, operator has full responsibility for its operation without various engineers, nannies or outside help.

lightsaber wrote:

I know thousands of law abiding gun owners. The main reason is to deter crime. An armed society is a polite society.

Lightsaber

It's not really working in the US is it?

Kiwirob wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

While agree that people have little to no respect for police officers, I will disagree it is mainly their own making. There are problem police officers, no doubt, but the issue is much much larger. These folks don't have respect for anyone, not just police officers. The moral fabric of society is quickly unraveling. Just look at the shooting statistics in these cities, they are through the roof. That tells me they don't respect anyone.

With everyone owning a camera phone today US police officers are still making really stupid choices, this is entirely there fault, it’s those bad eggs that are causing problems for the rest of them.

I personally don’t believe US police forces are sufficiently trained for the job, I don’t think many have the mental capacity to do the job. In Norway it’s a degree level course, it takes 4 years to become a police officer.

Yes police make dumb decisions, it happens in all walks of life. Yes there are police that should not be in the profession, but again that happens in all professions. Take the number of police encounters with the public a year. The DOJ stated that 61.5 million people had at least one police contact in 2018 (https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cbpp18st.pdf). I would argue the number is a lot higher than that as most police interactions are not recorded and there are an estimated 240 million 911 calls each year. Police have a lot more interaction with the public than what is recorded. Even sticking with the 61.5 million number, the number of police abuse and non justified use of force cases are infinitesimal. Yes the misinformation that police are all bad and out to kill everyone has an effect, how can you not say that the behavior of people dont play a roll? Hell, I would say that the effects are reversed, the behavior of people have caused the abuses we seen in law enforcement. They are reacting to the situations they work in everyday.

Again, I am not saying the police are not a part of the issue, rather much smaller than a lot of people want you to believe. I think the breakdown of civil society is the largest factor and the police situation is a symptom of that.

CaptHadley wrote:

johns624 wrote:

2122M wrote:

This must be trolling... Or can you really, with a straight face, say that the solution to gun violence on the south side of Chicago is to pump more guns into the south side of Chicago?

No, you must be telling a joke. Please tell me you are telling a joke.

It's not the law abiding people with guns that are committing the murders.

You shoot someone and they die, you've committed a murder, no debate. You are now listed a a murderer, on the death certificate it says "Cause of death" and that cause is listed as "Homicide" It's not listed as "Well he was a scum bag who had it coming so.."

Homicide is not murder. Homicide just means that death was caused by another person. Just because someone shots someone else doesn't mean it's murder. Murder has a very specific definition, the unlawful killing of another person with premeditation. Of course there are different degrees of murder from a legal stance, but they basically all involve premeditation. If someone point a gun at you in an attempt to rob you and you shot and kill them, you have not committed murder. The death would be a "homicide", but it was not illegal nor murder. Justified homicide is absolutely a thing.

Aaron747 wrote:

2122M wrote:

OA412 wrote:

Except that a car's main purpose is transportation. That it can cause death either accidentally or intentionally is secondary to its primary purpose. The car was invented as a passenger conveyance, not a deadly weapon. A gun has no purpose other than to cause death. That is its sole purpose.

I actually love the car comparison since I think guns should be treated exactly like cars. You have to maintain a type specific license to own and operate a gun, you must have liability insurance for it and it must be registered under your name. Also, like cars, we can mandate safety features such as magazine size, fire rate, type of ammunition etc…. Like cars, we could also then track gun sales and gun violence on a federal level (something the NRA lobbyists have kept illegal)

So yes, I 100% Agee with Johns624. Let’s treat guns and cars exactly the same.

There are people who drive illegally but they are likely to be caught eventually. The flaw in this logic is guns are easier to obtain and hide than cars.

The other flaw is that the Constitution doesn't specifically protect cars like it does guns. You don't have to like it or agree with it, but the Second Amendment is there.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

OA412 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Let's ban all car drivers, too. After all, they're all law abiding, until they aren't. There are well over 70 million gun owners in the US. How many crimes are committed by them? Very few. Now, if you want to go after the drug and street gangs, be my guest.

Except that a car's main purpose is transportation. That it can cause death either accidentally or intentionally is secondary to its primary purpose. The car was invented as a passenger conveyance, not a deadly weapon. A gun has no purpose other than to cause death. That is its sole purpose.

Really, no other purpose? Is that why the Olympics having shooting events, to kill people?

Yep...that's exactly why the gun was invented: the Olympics.

bpatus297 wrote:

The other flaw is that the Constitution doesn't specifically protect cars like it does guns. You don't have to like it or agree with it, but the Second Amendment is there.

The important word in that sentence is "Amendment". The constitution was amended to put it in, it can be amended to take it out.

Unlikely to ever happen though. Gun violence just isn't important enough for the US to really do anything meaningful about it. Harsh prison terms as deterrents don't work but their use wont likely change either. It's all big business and the individual isn't prepared to have their 200 year old "right" taken away from them even in the hope that it might make a difference.

Looking in from the outside, it's so tragic that it's almost comical, if it wasn't for the deaths.

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

2122M wrote:

I actually love the car comparison since I think guns should be treated exactly like cars. You have to maintain a type specific license to own and operate a gun, you must have liability insurance for it and it must be registered under your name. Also, like cars, we can mandate safety features such as magazine size, fire rate, type of ammunition etc…. Like cars, we could also then track gun sales and gun violence on a federal level (something the NRA lobbyists have kept illegal)

So yes, I 100% Agee with Johns624. Let’s treat guns and cars exactly the same.

There are people who drive illegally but they are likely to be caught eventually. The flaw in this logic is guns are easier to obtain and hide than cars.

The other flaw is that the Constitution doesn't specifically protect cars like it does guns. You don't have to like it or agree with it, but the Second Amendment is there.

And I'm not proposing guns get banned. There's not argument there. I'm proposing that they limits that already exist to gun ownership be expanded to include those provisions. There is no constitutional protection being violated there.

I suppose is all about training and being reasonable. After all, gun ownership is high in Switzerland too, but deaths are much less.

https://www.buzzworthy.com/switzerland-gun-laws/
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21379912

The City Attorney, Kim Fox is not prosecuting cases the police are bring in. The criminal elements are becoming more brazen in the disregard for human life.

Virtual737 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

The other flaw is that the Constitution doesn't specifically protect cars like it does guns. You don't have to like it or agree with it, but the Second Amendment is there.

The important word in that sentence is "Amendment". The constitution was amended to put it in, it can be amended to take it out.

Unlikely to ever happen though. Gun violence just isn't important enough for the US to really do anything meaningful about it. Harsh prison terms as deterrents don't work but their use wont likely change either. It's all big business and the individual isn't prepared to have their 200 year old "right" taken away from them even in the hope that it might make a difference.

Looking in from the outside, it's so tragic that it's almost comical, if it wasn't for the deaths.

Of course it can be amended and taken out, but until it is, it's the law of the land. In 2019, the US had 39,707 deaths due to guns, that includes suicide. There are 330 million people in the US meaning there is a .000012% chance of being killed by a gun, again including suicide. I would say that the chance is even lower if you are not involved in certain activities such as gangs. I think your outside looking in view is a bit skewed, but I still stand by my view that the moral fabric of society is breaking down. There does seem to be a lack of respect for other people lately.

2122M wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

There are people who drive illegally but they are likely to be caught eventually. The flaw in this logic is guns are easier to obtain and hide than cars.

The other flaw is that the Constitution doesn't specifically protect cars like it does guns. You don't have to like it or agree with it, but the Second Amendment is there.

And I'm not proposing guns get banned. There's not argument there. I'm proposing that they limits that already exist to gun ownership be expanded to include those provisions. There is no constitutional protection being violated there.

I argue that most gun restrictions are unconstitutional even though I think they were made with good intentions. Shall not be infringed is pretty clear to me. The militia were the citizens, not the National Guard. The NG didn't exist then, it was simply the citizens.

Dieuwer wrote:

I suppose is all about training and being reasonable. After all, gun ownership is high in Switzerland too, but deaths are much less.

https://www.buzzworthy.com/switzerland-gun-laws/
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21379912

Swiss gun laws are an interesting study. While it is easy to buy a gun there, there are lots of limits as to who can carry a gun in public. There are very few gun carry permits given in Switzerland, and they are only given to those who require it for work (security officers and the like). So while you can go buy lots of guns for hunting or sport, you can still be arrested for carrying a loaded weapon in public.

Also, all gun sales, including private sales, are tracked. You are required to submit lots of identifying information when you buy a gun, so that gun can be tracked back to you if necessary.

Very few murders are done by carry permit holders. Do you think gangs go to the local police for a CCW permits?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Very few murders are done by carry permit holders. Do you think gangs go to the local police for a CCW permits?

Right, the issue is the availability of guns, the easy of acquiring guns and the inability to track and trace guns in this country due to the lack of registration requirements and lack of limits on private gun sales. You want to keep guns out of the hands of gangsters? Make it a requirement to register that gun with the purchaser. Then you can hold that person at least partially responsible for any crime committed with that gun.

2122M wrote:

Make it a requirement to register that gun with the purchaser. Then you can hold that person at least partially responsible for any crime committed with that gun.

That is not the way it works. Many legally obtained guns are stolen and end up the hands of people that shouldn't have them.

Here's a novel idea, prosecute the ones you catch, and not let them walk?

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

The important word in that sentence is "Amendment". The constitution was amended to put it in, it can be amended to take it out.

Unlikely to ever happen though. Gun violence just isn't important enough for the US to really do anything meaningful about it. Harsh prison terms as deterrents don't work but their use wont likely change either. It's all big business and the individual isn't prepared to have their 200 year old "right" taken away from them even in the hope that it might make a difference.

Looking in from the outside, it's so tragic that it's almost comical, if it wasn't for the deaths.

Of course it can be amended and taken out, but until it is, it's the law of the land. In 2019, the US had 39,707 deaths due to guns, that includes suicide. There are 330 million people in the US meaning there is a .000012% chance of being killed by a gun, again including suicide. I would say that the chance is even lower if you are not involved in certain activities such as gangs. I think your outside looking in view is a bit skewed, but I still stand by my view that the moral fabric of society is breaking down. There does seem to be a lack of respect for other people lately.

How then do you explain the data linked to in my earlier post, in which there were five other spike periods in violent crime worse than the current one, over the last 100 years?

I'm not talking about the past. I'm talking about today. What do those past periods have to do with today?