Firearm registration cards in Chicago? (Worth, Omaha: sale, houses, college)

[ajolotl]

Good points. If there is no need to ban it, then don't. The fewer laws the better.

[PokerPlayer1]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

Oh, shut up. I've seen published studies that support both arguments in this debate. And studies of those studies. You're not "informed" when you only listen to arguments that support your pre-determined beliefs. That's called cherry picking, and the right and left can now live in bubbles where they get their news and read books that only support their views. Thus the "post-fact" society we now live in where no one actually has to be challenged anymore. Then people are so SHOCKED when the encounter a person who has the GALL to believe something different. Get a clue.

Three times now, you've taken the occasion to assert (as an absolute declarative )"who I am".
First, regarding my intellect in that you know people who are my "intellectual superiors" even though you don't know me.
Secondly, you intimate that I'm a "Republican" and third, you assume that I "cherry pick studies" to base my opinions on.

You are drastically wrong on all three accounts (not much of a shock, since you've consistently shown yourself to pretty much be a total retard, but worth noting, at least)

Quite to the contrary, I'd say my personally owned collection of "gun control" literature surpasses any given university. It ranges from dusty photocopies of 18th Century British edicts to everything Kleck, Bellesiles or Lott ever wrote. News magazine articles from the 30's on "machine gun mania!" to newspaper clippings from the 60's decrying the need to ban handguns after Kennedy was shot (with a rifle ). I've read most everything either side has ever written and actually look harder for the "anti gun" stuff since it's outnumbered 10-1 once you get outside of mass media oriented stuff. This is the one issue that I can confidently say I know better than damn near any other person, and will happily prove that statement at any given time.

What you've contributed thusfar is an assertion that you know people who are very, very smart and they've concluded that "guns are bad!!" (in whatever form their conclusion happens to take) and that indeed, they are obviously smarter than me (who you've never met and know nothing about) and SHADDAP YOU POO-POO HEAD YOU MUST BEA REPUBLICAN ZOMG NEOCON!!!!


Yeah, you're really doing your side a great service by taking up the mantle of this cause. Of the gajillion times I've had this debate with a range of different people, I've encountered more than a few who were able to present the 'other side' eloquently. They were wrong and their position was usually motivated by things having to do with emotion rather than reason, but they did it well. You are so far out of this category that the light from it would take a million years just to reach wherever it is that you happen to be.

You're a typical internet BBS tactician who wastes all of your time on the ephemerals of the discussions framework and never, ever addresses the substance of the topic... but I'm sure you have friends that are really, really smart who have told you otherwise. LOL. Idiot.

[PokerPlayer1]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

I don't trust any of the published studies on the effects of "right to carry" on crime rates. There are just as many published studies that refute these findings (including one done at the University of Chicago by Steven Levitt of Freakonomics fame). There are studies refuting the refuted studies. And more studies refuting the refuted refuted studies. You can easily cherry pick whoever you want to listen to, and yet you have learned nothing in the end.

We actually agree here. The study/counter-study/counter-counter-study vortex is pointless and never strives towards anything meaningful.
Kinda sad that the hallmark of non physical science academia is seeing how fast everyone can chase each other in a philosophical circle.

On the issue of concealed weapons permits, though, it's pretty clear that it has virtually no negative influence on social order. It isn't like the argument is asking what angels look like. There is now 20+ years worth of data, and the results are in. No, "blood (isn't) running in the streets!!" and no, every traffic dispute isn't turning into the "wild west" in spite of the fact that the theoreticians still insist that it will happen in any given state that passes right to carry laws (well, the few remaining ones that don't have it)

[Manigault]

Originally Posted by USMC268

As for the autoloaders, I was under the impression that they are banned in the city since they're considered semi-auto.

Auto-loaders are not banned in the city, to my knowledge.

On a different issue:

Originally Posted by Lilybeans

Why not?

As to carrying a gun in a car, registered long guns (as a matter of state law) are required to be carried unloaded, out of arm's length in a case. That does not really sound like an instrument to used in an emergency.

Plus, I don't want to shoot anyone.

[PokerPlayer1]

Originally Posted by Manigault

Auto-loaders are not banned in the city, to my knowledge.

They aren't, as a rule based on autoloading functionality itself. They use a hilariously meaningless, ineffective (and somewhat arbitrary) 'cosmetic features' criteria ala the AWB.

[ajolotl]

When someone on this forum is challenged physically, they are always 6-5 250; when they are challenged intellectually they own more books on the subject than a university library.

[Irishtom29]

Originally Posted by ajolotl

When someone on this forum is challenged physically, they are always 6-5 250; when they are challenged intellectually they own more books on the subject than a university library.

You mean challenged intellectually or intellectually challenged?

[Lilybeans]

Originally Posted by Manigault

Plus, I don't want to shoot anyone.

do you feel like you would shoot someone if you had a gun near you?

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by PokerPlayer1

Quite to the contrary, I'd say my personally owned collection of "gun control" literature surpasses any given university. It ranges from dusty photocopies of 18th Century British edicts to everything Kleck, Bellesiles or Lott ever wrote. News magazine articles from the 30's on "machine gun mania!" to newspaper clippings from the 60's decrying the need to ban handguns after Kennedy was shot (with a rifle ). I've read most everything either side has ever written and actually look harder for the "anti gun" stuff since it's outnumbered 10-1 once you get outside of mass media oriented stuff. This is the one issue that I can confidently say I know better than damn near any other person, and will happily prove that statement at any given time.

More than anything else you've said, this proves without a doubt that you are a fanatical nutjob with no moorings in reality. If you truly do have all of this literature (which sounds like a huge load of bull**** to me, but let's go with it for now), you really really really need to get help. Pshychiatric help. And please don't shoot up your school or workplace.

Now, since you have said yourself that you have been a "professional" poker player in the past, I'm calling your bluff. You are completely full of ****, and no matter what you say I will not believe that you are the worlds most eminent gun control expert (which is what you claimed here). Give me a break. I didn't realize Dwight from The Office was a real person!

And did you really call me a "retard"? Go **** yourself, douchebag.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by PokerPlayer1

First, regarding my intellect in that you know people who are my "intellectual superiors" even though you don't know me.

Well, it's pretty clear that you're a lightweight.