- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- politics
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- politics
The Illinois State Supreme Court found a strict assault weapons ban passed after the Highland Park shooting to be constitutional in a ruling issued Friday.
The Illinois State Supreme Court found a strict assault weapons ban passed after the Highland Park shooting to be constitutional in a ruling issued Friday.
I’m pretty sure all of the people you don’t want having assault weapons in states like Illinois already have them.
I’m not so sure the ones those people dream of targeting have yet acquired reciprocal defenses.
Happy to see less guns around, but I do worry about the pre-existing distribution of them.
yes but everyone who wanted to smoke in the 80s and everyone who wants to smoke today does- but there are only less smokers and less smoke inside nowadays because it was legislated.
change can only come through attempting change
Horrible comparison tbh.
It actually is a pretty fair comparison.
I guess I should have explained my opinion. Fair enough.
Cigarettes are not reusable, are not continuously functional for a hundred years or more, and cannot end a life in a single muscle movement. This severely restricts situations in which they could potentially act analogously - they are too fundamentally different.
What makes it a good comparison in your view?
Just the analogy that you can setup laws to change the user behavior.
Just to reiterate this, there is a difference between smoking the last cigarette you could legally purchase, and the last gun you could legally purchase: The gun sticks around afterward.
I agree to the change in behavior that it will lead to a decrease in sales on legal markets, which was the basis of my comment. Now, what change in user behavior - if any - do these laws cause that would result in the non-possession of currently possessed firearm? That’s the only way the bans would be comparable.
First, you have to start somewhere. If one person legally purchased a nuclear bomb, I don’t think they shouldn’t pass a law preventing anyone else from purchasing a nuclear bomb.
Second, you’re not going to be carrying around any long gun. Those will be for home defence at most, likely just a range toy (and also to be shown during a protest to make sure other people know your people are armed). Maybe it’ll be useful if we end up in a civil war or something, idk. A handgun is nearly as good at killing people and can be carried around easily. If you want protection from these people then you want a handgun.
…I’m too informed to believe that a hand gun would be useful against these assault weapons, sorry.
I grew up around these things, you see - and hated them for years. Then at one point I realized I was just about the only leftist around, and just about the only person without a gun around, and the math clicked for me: It’s a much stickier situation than anyone really wants to acknowledge.
I’ve seen them carried around frequently while in the US - people carry them openly displayed on the back of their trucks. Who’s to guess how many have guns in their cabins and trunks? I’ve also followed the US’ wars closely enough to know that modern warfare looks like a bunch of armed citizens in a hilux, and that a state border won’t be saving any leftists stuck in southern Illinois when the RWDSs return.
Edit: I’m standing by this one. Disagree as you will.
A rifle won’t protect those people either.
A handgun has almost as much killing power as a rifle. Most rifles people have are fire 5.56x45mm rounds. The penetrative power of those are reasonably low. Now, 7.62 will probably punch through any body armor they’re wearing, but that’s fairly uncommon I’m the US. With the NGSW we’ll see more larger rounds, but until then your handgun will kill about as well as their rifle, assuming your close enough which a self defence situation would imply.
A longer gun is better for longer ranges. If you’re at longer range, probably just get out of the way instead of thinking you’ll fight back. Most likely you’ll just make the situation more confusing and no one will be able to identify the “good guy with a gun” and you’ll get shot, by police or otherwise.
That’s the big problem. There are a bunch of gun stores in East Chicago, because it’s in Indiana. People just cross over state lines, buy guns, and go back to Chicago proper.
Not legally, and not through any licensed dealer. So if you know of anyone doing that, feel free to report their crimes to the police so you can do your part to reduce gun crimes.
Well if you’re a resident of Illinois you can’t go to another state and buy a gun from a licensed dealer. You’d have to have it shipped to an FFL in your state. Since this rule is in effect then the FFL in Illinois wouldn’t sell it to you.
The only way you can go to another state and get a gun is if it’s a private sale.