so i got mugged last night

[PokerPlayer1]

Originally Posted by long101

See this is exactly what is wrong with the city. People carry guns to "protect" themselves but they either wind up hurting themselves or an innocent bystander. And that is not an opinion it is a known fact.

Actually, no. It isn't a "known fact". It's a programmed "assumption" that's usually blathered by people who have an inherent aversion to firearms to begin with.

Also, in a remarkable failure of logic, you actually assign a legitimate need for self defense to "little gangsters" carrying firearms. The reasoning is actually the inverse. The reason honest, law abiding people choose to protect themselves is because of those "little gangsters" who are carrying guns to begin with.

[long101]

http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/terrorattackfs.pdf

Studies by public health professionals have repeatedly found that having a gun around for any
reason increases the likelihood that a family member—as opposed to a criminal—will be injured
or killed with a gun."

Do some research, you are just as bad as all of the gang members out there, your trying to take the law into your own hands. You are breaking the law and endangering everyone around you when you step out of your house with a gun. But the odds are you will only hurt like yourself, maybe shooting a close family member by accident or discharging it on yourself.

Also before you say that I am some kind of anti gun person you are incorrect. I even have a gun license tho I do not own a gun

[Banx]

Some guy tricked me and stole my U-Pass today, luckily I know who he is and where his kid goes to school and I'm wakin up tomorrow at 6 am to intercept him and as soon as he drops off the kid and steps out the daycare, it's showtime. Ironically, this also happened in Licoln Park by strange coincidence. Jokes on him in the end though.

What street corners did u get mugged at?

[PokerPlayer1]

Originally Posted by long101

http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/terrorattackfs.pdf

Studies by public health professionals have repeatedly found that having a gun around for any
reason increases the likelihood that a family member—as opposed to a criminal—will be injured
or killed with a gun."

Assuming that one simply determines the overall number of criminal shot by home owners, determines the number of people who injured or killed as a result of in-home firearm accidents, creates a X/Y ratio between the two then mindlessly throws it out there, the math is probably correct. The problem is, it creates a false corollary between the least responsible gun owners in society (a group hugely overrepresented in the "likely to be injured by your own gun" statistic) and an unrelated event- using a firearm in an act of self defense.

Secondly, that statistic only comparatively applies instances where the firearm is actually discharged. It completely fails to consider the far more relevant figure- the 2,000,000 defensive gun uses (Kleck, U of F) that occur in the US THAT DON'T INVOLVE the discharging of the weapon.

Classic example of the sort of thing addressed in "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics", where logical precepts can be contorted by omissions, logically false correlations, etc...

Do some research, you are just as bad as all of the gang members out there, your trying to take the law into your own hands. You are breaking the law and endangering everyone around you when you step out of your house with a gun. But the odds are you will only hurt like yourself, maybe shooting a close family member by accident or discharging it on yourself.

Also before you say that I am some kind of anti gun person you are incorrect. I even have a gun license tho I do not own a gun

A couple things here: Probably not advisable to tell me to "do some research" given that I've forgotten more about this issue in the last 10 minutes than you will ever know in your life.

Secondly, those ridiculously dishonest and intellectually vapid "odds" wouldn't apply to me (or anyone else, for that matter, who isn't a blithering idiot)

Lastly, the funny thing is, this isn't even a debatable issue anymore. While Chicago has existed in an intellectual vaccuum on this issue, the rest of the country has been passing legal concealed carry laws for the past 20 years now... It started off much the same; a bunch of people who are inherently fearful of firearms proffering a series of "what if" scenarios to hopefully halt the passage. Thankfully, they failed and we now have 20 years of data to look at.
The facts are in: citizens with lawfully issued concealed carry permits exhibit a rate of criminality GROSSLY lower than the population at large (in a couple municipalities, lower than the police). It didn't cause "blood to run in the streets". None of the horrible "what if's" came to pass. The correct answer, based on facts and data is that allowing law abiding citizens to defend themselves by way of some sort of carry permitting system has absolutely NO negative impact on crime rates.

Here are is the dataset we're working with



Just because the state of Illinois and Chicago in particular are remarkably delusional about the issue doesn't mean that I have to play along. Yes, I know that there are consequences for not behaving as a Roman when in Rome, but given the stakes in question, it's a gamble I'm perfectly willing to take.

Sorry, It kinda blows your 'feelings' on the issue out of the water. And finally, your bogus assertion that you're "really a gun owner" while promoting a position that maintains responsible gun ownership is 'statistically impossible' is idiotic, albeit common. It's what motivated John Kerry to pose with shotguns in "red states"- it's beyond lame, and everyone sees right through it.

[Banx]

Originally Posted by PokerPlayer1

Assuming that one simply determines the overall number of criminal shot by home owners, determines the number of people who injured or killed as a result of in-home firearm accidents, creates a X/Y ratio between the two then mindlessly throws it out there, the math is probably correct. The problem is, it creates a false corollary between the least responsible gun owners in society (a group hugely overrepresented in the "likely to be injured by your own gun" statistic) and an unrelated event- using a firearm in an act of self defense.

Secondly, that statistic only comparatively applies instances where the firearm is actually discharged. It completely fails to consider the far more relevant figure- the 2,000,000 defensive gun uses (Kleck, U of F) that occur in the US THAT DON'T INVOLVE the discharging of the weapon.

Classic example of the sort of thing addressed in "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics", where logical precepts can be contorted by omissions, logically false correlations, etc...

A couple things here: Probably not advisable to tell me to "do some research" given that I've forgotten more about this issue in the last 10 minutes than you will ever know in your life.

Secondly, those ridiculously dishonest and intellectually vapid "odds" wouldn't apply to me (or anyone else, for that matter, who isn't a blithering idiot)

Lastly, the funny thing is, this isn't even a debatable issue anymore. While Chicago has existed in an intellectual vaccuum on this issue, the rest of the country has been passing legal concealed carry laws for the past 20 years now... It started off much the same; a bunch of people who are inherently fearful of firearms proffering a series of "what if" scenarios to hopefully halt the passage. Thankfully, they failed and we now have 20 years of data to look at.
The facts are in: citizens with lawfully issued concealed carry permits exhibit a rate of criminality GROSSLY lower than the population at large (in a couple municipalities, lower than the police). It didn't cause "blood to run in the streets". None of the horrible "what if's" came to pass. The correct answer, based on facts and data is that allowing law abiding citizens to defend themselves by way of some sort of carry permitting system has absolutely NO negative impact on crime rates.

Here are is the dataset we're working with



Just because the state of Illinois and Chicago in particular are remarkably delusional about the issue doesn't mean that I have to play along. Yes, I know that there are consequences for not behaving as a Roman when in Rome, but given the stakes in question, it's a gamble I'm perfectly willing to take.

Sorry, It kinda blows your 'feelings' on the issue out of the water. And finally, your bogus assertion that you're "really a gun owner" while promoting a position that maintains responsible gun ownership is 'statistically impossible' is idiotic, albeit common. It's what motivated John Kerry to pose with shotguns in "red states"- it's beyond lame, and everyone sees right through it.

Yeah I agree, legally getting rid of guns only means bad people get ahold of guns... cause they will whether legal or illegal, not to mention the guns that most murders are committed with are already illegally owned anyways. I mean you would have to be a real idiot to buy a gun from a store legally these days and murder someone with it. Just look at England, guns are completely outlawed, but criminals still have their hands on guns, so basically normal citizens are left to fend with their fists while the bad guys run about shooting everybody.

[amy_cate]

Originally Posted by chopsky

Wow, is crime generally bad in Chicago?
Worse than Manhattan?

are you serious? manhattan is so much safer now than it was when i was growing up. parts of outer boros not so much - hoods that were bad back then are still bad now...esp parts of bklyn and bronx.

[Drover]

Whoah -- amy_cate's alive!

[Avengerfire]

Originally Posted by Drover

Whoah -- amy_cate's alive!

Shocking!

[powow]

All this crime talk about Chicago really scares me. I had no idea. When I was there I walked around at night by myself. I had no idea it was any different than NY. I have lived in Manhattan for several years, and go out at night all the time, as do all my friends, and I don't know one person who's been mugged. In Brooklyn, yes, I've known of some people getting beaten and mugged. Maybe I feel safe here because in most neighborhoods in Manhattan, there are people on the streets out and about late at night, and cars and cabs driving by... ?? Can anyone tell me from LP down to the Loop, what the safest area would be to live in, if rent costs are not an issue? Also, what neighborhood is most populated after dark on the streets?

Should this be a new topic?

[Avengerfire]

Originally Posted by powow

...Can anyone tell me from LP down to the Loop, what the safest area would be to live in, if rent costs are not an issue?...

The Loop would be the best area to live in for safety if cost is not an issue.

No, it does not need to be a new topic; but this thread should be locked already. It is all over the place. It was just made to tell the people of the board about something that happened to one of our members.