Chicago Gang Violence

[StrangeSox]

Because it's another bulls*** argument from reality disconnected anti-gun crowd. I'm sure some guns are stolen during home break-ins, etc...but there is no mass targeted gun theft conspiracy. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws int he nation, and probably the highest gun related crime.

 

As Tuna said above, you aren't getting rid of guns by banning them, just like they didn't get rid of Alcohol by banning it, or drugs for that matter. But, let's stick our heads in the sand and ignore that, after all, repeating past mistakes over and over again at the expense of the taxpayer is what we do. So long as we fool them into think they're safer, even if they aren't, is all that matters.

 

Look, the only way to "ban" guns, is to un-invent them and then, somehow, ban their invention from that point forward. In other words, not happening. I've said this before, and I'll say it again -- (hopefully someone reads it this time, and actually takes a moment to contemplate it) -- banning guns, much like banning drugs, will do nothing but create a violent, highly profitable and dangerous underground black market. The same cartels that deal in drugs would just add guns to their list of goods.

 

I thought the bolded was wrong so I googled it and found this:

Ask a cop on the beat how criminals get guns and you're likely to hear this hard boiled response: "They steal them." But this street wisdom is wrong, according to one frustrated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agent who is tired of battling this popular misconception. An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners' homes and cars. "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes," Wachtel said. Because when they want guns they want them immediately the wait is usually too long for a weapon to be stolen and find its way to a criminal.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...rocon/guns.html

[Y2HH]

Not to derail this thread, but I am a huge fan of Emanuel promising no tax/fee increases with a 5 billion budget deficit that will grow even more next year. If he can "find" or shift around 5 billion dollars in the budget this City is more f***ed up than I thought.

 

I think Emanuel realizes they're gone to the tax well one too many times and the people of Chicago are starting to get hurt by it. I know I am. My tax burden living here has more than DOUBLED in the span of two years. You can't tell me that didn't crush some people. And when I say doubled, I mean to the tune of thousands of dollars, not hundreds.

[Y2HH]

I thought the bolded was wrong so I googled it and found this:

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...rocon/guns.html

 

I figured it would be in the 10-20% range. Most of them buy their guns black market...you know, the same place they buy their drugs, still not legal, but they still get them just the same.

[Jenksismyhero]

Tax the black market!

[farmteam]

Tax the black market!

This is where I say "legalize it" right?

 

[Soxbadger]

I love how restricting guns on the street is an outright ban on guns.

 

Its a disingenuous argument.

 

Farmteam,

 

I agree on legalizing most things. But unlike Y2hh, even if I think marijuana, LSD, mushrooms should be legal, I would be willing to agree to some restrictions to prevent innocent people from being hurt. Things like, its illegal to use heavy machinery and take acid, would seem reasonable to me. Its illegal to fly a plane while on mushrooms, seems reasonable to me.

 

Its only the Y2hh's of the world who want to make the fake argument that restriction is banning. He quoted me, so I have to assume that he is disagreeing with my position which is simply:

 

Its well established that gun ownership can be restricted. I believe that it should be up to the local govt to decide what type of restrictions they want on gun ownership.

 

As y2hh said that makes me part of the "disconnected anti-gun crowd." Even though my position would support towns who want to allow c&c while supporting towns who didnt want c&c. Unlike y2hh I am not so bold as to believe that I know what is best for everyone in the US. I am very willing to let them make their own rules, even if it means allowing more gun ownership. Because its their choice. I just dont understand why he cant allow others to have their choice.

 

From this thread it seems the only people who understand guns, are the ones who want 0 restrictions. See my point about rocket launcher tank and how not 1 pro-gun person would even admit that reasonable restrictions make sense.

Edited October 11, 2012 by Soxbadger

[Jenksismyhero]

I love how restricting guns on the street is an outright ban on guns.

 

Its a disingenuous argument.

 

Farmteam,

 

I agree on legalizing most things. But unlike Y2hh, even if I think marijuana, LSD, mushrooms should be legal, I would be willing to agree to some restrictions to prevent innocent people from being hurt. Things like, its illegal to use heavy machinery and take acid, would seem reasonable to me. Its illegal to fly a plane while on mushrooms, seems reasonable to me.

 

Its only the Y2hh's of the world who want to make the fake argument that restriction is banning. He quoted me, so I have to assume that he is disagreeing with my position which is simply:

 

Its well established that gun ownership can be restricted. I believe that it should be up to the local govt to decide what type of restrictions they want on gun ownership.

 

As y2hh said that makes me part of the "disconnected anti-gun crowd." Even though my position would support towns who want to allow c&c while supporting towns who didnt want c&c. Unlike y2hh I am not so bold as to believe that I know what is best for everyone in the US. I am very willing to let them make their own rules, even if it means allowing more gun ownership. Because its their choice. I just dont understand why he cant allow others to have their choice.

From this thread it seems the only people who understand guns, are the ones who want 0 restrictions. See my point about rocket launcher tank and how not 1 pro-gun person would even admit that reasonable restrictions make sense.

 

Out of curiosity, replace everything in that paragraph with gay marriage instead of guns. Would you still agree with it?

 

Also, I guess I don't get why it needs to be decided on a town by town basis especially if you're so concerned about being shot by someone carrying a gun. I mean, in a metro area you go through 10 towns in a 15 minute drive. Wouldn't that bother you since you're still at risk?

[Y2HH]

Out of curiosity, replace everything in that paragraph with gay marriage instead of guns. Would you still agree with it?

 

Also, I guess I don't get why it needs to be decided on a town by town basis especially if you're so concerned about being shot by someone carrying a gun. I mean, in a metro area you go through 10 towns in a 15 minute drive. Wouldn't that bother you since you're still at risk?

 

He also assumes he knows my stances on things like guns/drugs, and based on his post, he has absolutely no clue whatsoever.

[Y2HH]

I love how restricting guns on the street is an outright ban on guns.

 

Its a disingenuous argument.

 

Farmteam,

 

I agree on legalizing most things. But unlike Y2hh, even if I think marijuana, LSD, mushrooms should be legal, I would be willing to agree to some restrictions to prevent innocent people from being hurt. Things like, its illegal to use heavy machinery and take acid, would seem reasonable to me. Its illegal to fly a plane while on mushrooms, seems reasonable to me.

 

Its only the Y2hh's of the world who want to make the fake argument that restriction is banning. He quoted me, so I have to assume that he is disagreeing with my position which is simply:

 

Its well established that gun ownership can be restricted. I believe that it should be up to the local govt to decide what type of restrictions they want on gun ownership.

 

As y2hh said that makes me part of the "disconnected anti-gun crowd." Even though my position would support towns who want to allow c&c while supporting towns who didnt want c&c. Unlike y2hh I am not so bold as to believe that I know what is best for everyone in the US. I am very willing to let them make their own rules, even if it means allowing more gun ownership. Because its their choice. I just dont understand why he cant allow others to have their choice.

 

From this thread it seems the only people who understand guns, are the ones who want 0 restrictions. See my point about rocket launcher tank and how not 1 pro-gun person would even admit that reasonable restrictions make sense.

 

What's disingenuous is this entire rant, since you have no idea what my stance on this matter is, which is apparent, since you got it all wrong.

 

We already have well established restrictions on guns, and they don't prevent criminals from getting guns. That's the problem. They're bad restrictions. The only thing these restrictions do is penalize the law abiding citizen, in the form of fees, taxes, wait lists, etc...while doing nothing to keep them out of the hands of criminals.

 

What I'm not for, however, is 0 restrictions on guns, but thank you very much for trying.

 

The issue with these drug restrictions you mentioned, just like gun restrictions comes down to the IF/THEN/ELSE statement.

 

IF you get caught taking acid AND operating heavy machinery...THEN what? Or ELSE what?

 

IF you get caught with an illegal gun, THEN what? Or ELSE what? These are the problems with the gun laws...the penalties are often a slap on the wrist DESPITE being called a felony, especially to people who are willing to tote illegal guns around...they're probably not the type of person that cares about going to jail for a month, etc...IF that even happens.

Edited October 11, 2012 by Y2HH

[Soxbadger]

Out of curiosity, replace everything in that paragraph with gay marriage instead of guns. Would you still agree with it?

 

Also, I guess I don't get why it needs to be decided on a town by town basis especially if you're so concerned about being shot by someone carrying a gun. I mean, in a metro area you go through 10 towns in a 15 minute drive. Wouldn't that bother you since you're still at risk?

 

Jenks,

 

Gay marriage is a little bit more tricky because I think that equality is a fundamental issue and therefore I do not believe that states or local govt have the right to legislate inequality. IE A state can not have slavery.

 

That being said, I am willing to discuss all options that make sure all couples (gay/straight) are entitled to the same benefits. I dont believe govt should be in the marriage game at all. Its complex, but I am willing to listen to reasonable proposals about how to ensure everyone gets equal benefits. For example, if a state was to give no benefits to any married couple, I would have no problem with denying benefits to gay couples. I personally find there to be more moving pieces.

 

As to your second point. Nope wouldnt bother me at all. Just like it doesnt bother me that certain states have different driving laws or different drinking laws, etc. If a town allowed guns and I thought that it was dangerous, I could simply avoid it. Just like if I think that I have a good chance of being arrested in a certain area/city/state I avoid it. I dont go out of my way to look for trouble, so if they want to live in a gun filled paradise, more power to them.

 

 

[Soxbadger]

What's disingenuous is this entire rant, since you have no idea what my stance on this matter is, which is apparent, since you got it all wrong.

 

We already have well established restrictions on guns, and they don't prevent criminals from getting guns. That's the problem. They're bad restrictions. The only thing these restrictions do is penalize the law abiding citizen, in the form of fees, taxes, wait lists, etc...while doing nothing to keep them out of the hands of criminals.

 

What I'm not for, however, is 0 restrictions on guns, but thank you very much for trying.

 

You quoted my post and said I was disconnected.

 

And your post is nonsense.

 

We already have well established restrictions on guns, and they don't prevent criminals from getting guns.

 

False.

 

How many criminals do you know that own nuclear weapons?

 

Or how many criminals do you know that own a comache helicopter?

 

Weapon restrictions obviously work. The problem is that there are so many guns already, you cant put the horse back in the barn. Its funny that you dont even comment on the only restriction I mention (note I never said anything about wait lists, taxes, fees), which is carrying in public.

 

And its not about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals (impossible), its about having another tool to convict criminals when they are in public, possessing a deadly weapon.

 

If I dont know what your position is, its because you arent brave enough to say it.

Edited October 11, 2012 by Soxbadger

[Soxbadger]

This is just retarded. Wow. Just...wow. Seriously, this is your retort? Go back to school, child.

 

Gun restrictions aren't why criminals don't have nuclear weapons, nor are they why they don't own comanche helicopters.

 

We have restrictions on criminals now, it's felony to possess an illegal firearm...however, the fines/sentences on that felony are negligible.

 

Haha

 

When you have no argument attack the person. Classic!

 

Like I said, the day you are brave enough to state your own position, is the day your argument gets taken seriously. If you want a seat at the table, stand up and own your position.

 

Is the reason you should suggest I go back to school because you want to debate like its junior high?

 

Because if thats the case why not just call each other names and see who wins the popularity contest.

[Y2HH]

If I dont know what your position is, its because you arent brave enough to say it.

 

No, actually, it's because you never asked.

[Soxbadger]

Look up the word hyperbole and get back to me.

[Y2HH]

Haha

 

When you have no argument attack the person. Classic!

 

Like I said, the day you are brave enough to state your own position, is the day your argument gets taken seriously. If you want a seat at the table, stand up and own your position.

 

Is the reason you should suggest I go back to school because you want to debate like its junior high?

 

Because if thats the case why not just call each other names and see who wins the popularity contest.

 

Seriously.

 

I'm attacking the person because in this instance they deserved to be attacked.

 

You implied that gun laws are why criminals don't have nukes and comanche helicopters.

 

You deserved the response you got.

[Soxbadger]

You quoted my post and said I was disconnected.

If I dont know what your position is, its because you arent brave enough to say it.

 

 

/points up

 

Still waiting.

[Soxbadger]

Seriously.

 

I'm attacking the person because in this instance they deserved to be attacked.

 

You implied that gun laws are why criminals don't have nukes and comanche helicopters.

 

You deserved the response you got.

 

No I used hyperbole to show that restrictions on weapons do work. That its well established that if you restrict weaponry they wont proliferate as quickly.

 

Now guns are slightly different because they are already in mass circulation.

 

But your point that gun restrictions dont work was an over-generalization. Sorry for calling you on that, guess it makes me retarded.

Edited October 11, 2012 by Soxbadger

[Y2HH]

/points up

 

Still waiting.

 

I kind of made that clear in a previous post, which you didn't read. Which is expected, since you don't read what people say before replying.

 

Restrictions are necessary, on guns, drugs, etc...all of which should be legal, but the penalties are far too weak to prompt the criminal element to care. We don't need more restrictions. We need heavier penalties. So heavy that the message is sent once and for all. You don't f*** with this.

 

But putting more red tape in the way of the law abiding citizen, which is what they do when they talk about gun restrictions/laws, does nothing.

 

And even when they did mark the penalties harsher they hardly did much in the way of harsh. Our current penalty is a "felony", but it's a weak felony with a weak outcome.

 

Now you know my stance.

 

...and yes, I was sooo afraid to post that.

[Soxbadger]

Further point, United Kingdom.

 

Compare, United Kingdom gun violence to US gun violence.

 

Compare, UK gun ownership to US gun ownership.

 

Its to simplistic to use the blanket statement that "gun restriction doesnt work" but thats why we are now back in JR High arguing, because we are going to make very broad over-generalized statements and then name call when the other person makes a much more sophisticated and nuanced response.

 

Now to Jr High debate:

 

Guns kill people. Youre a murderer if you want people to have guns. Arent you sad about the people who died. Youre a bad bad person.

 

Feel free to respond to whichever argument is more your speed.

[Y2HH]

No I used hyperbole to show that restrictions on weapons do work. That its well established that if you restrict weaponry they wont proliferate as quickly.

 

Now guns are slightly different because they are already in mass circulation.

 

But your point that gun restrictions dont work was an over-generalization. Sorry for calling you on that, guess it makes me retarded.

 

We don't disagree that restrictions work depending on what item we're talking about. It's a lot easier to restrict a helicopter that cost a billion dollars than it is to restrict a gun that costs 200 and can be mass produced.

 

My point is, restrictions aren't enough. The laws protecting those restrictions are weak. That's where the fix is. The laws we have now are enough to stop a law abiding citizen from breaking gun restriction laws, which are essentially a fine/possibly very short jail sentence, but they do nothing to deter the criminal element.

 

That, and then we have the argument of locking up "non violent" criminals that had a gun, but never actually used it. I bet we'd start hearing that argument real quick.

Edited October 11, 2012 by Y2HH

[Soxbadger]

I kind of made that clear in a previous post, which you didn't read. Which is expected, since you don't read what people say before replying.

 

Restrictions are necessary, on guns, drugs, etc...all of which should be legal, but the penalties are far too weak to prompt the criminal element to care. We don't need more restrictions. We need heavier penalties. So heavy that the message is sent once and for all. You don't f*** with this.

 

But putting more red tape in the way of the law abiding citizen, which is what they do when they talk about gun restrictions/laws, does nothing.

 

And even when they did mark the penalties harsher they hardly did much in the way of harsh. Our current penalty is a "felony", but it's a weak felony with a weak outcome.

 

Now you know my stance.

 

...and yes, I was sooo afraid to post that.

 

Okay so after all your sniping your position is in agreement with mine.

 

What was the exact point of this nonsense?

Edited October 11, 2012 by Soxbadger

[Soxbadger]

We don't disagree that restrictions work depending on what item we're talking about. It's a lot easier to restrict a helicopter that cost a billion dollars than it is to restrict a gun that costs 200 and can be mass produced.

 

My point is, restrictions aren't enough. The laws protecting those restrictions are weak. That's where the fix is. The laws we have now are enough to stop a law abiding citizen from breaking gun restriction laws, which are essentially a fine/possibly very short jail sentence.

 

I agree, I have no idea why you were ever arguing with me.

 

All ive said is that it should be up to local govt to dictate the restrictions and penalties.

 

So if Chicago wants to ban hand guns and say its a 5 year sentence, so be it.

 

I still dont see what the point of this argument was.

[Y2HH]

I agree, I have no idea why you were ever arguing with me.

 

All ive said is that it should be up to local govt to dictate the restrictions and penalties.

 

So if Chicago wants to ban hand guns and say its a 5 year sentence, so be it.

 

I still dont see what the point of this argument was.

 

I argued as I misconstrued your view the same as you misconstrued mine. I thought you wanted, like many other anti-gun crazies, an outright ban on all guns. I was obviously wrong from lumping you into that crowd.

[Soxbadger]

I argued as I misconstrued your view the same as you misconstrued mine. I thought you wanted, like many other anti-gun crazies, an outright ban on all guns. I was obviously wrong from lumping you into that crowd.

 

No problem, wont be the last time I misconstrue someone's position.

[Jenksismyhero]

Further point, United Kingdom.

 

Compare, United Kingdom gun violence to US gun violence.

 

Compare, UK gun ownership to US gun ownership.

 

Its to simplistic to use the blanket statement that "gun restriction doesnt work" but thats why we are now back in JR High arguing, because we are going to make very broad over-generalized statements and then name call when the other person makes a much more sophisticated and nuanced response.

 

Now to Jr High debate:

 

Guns kill people. Youre a murderer if you want people to have guns. Arent you sad about the people who died. Youre a bad bad person.

 

Feel free to respond to whichever argument is more your speed.

 

No other country has the gang culture problem the US has, so those comparisons are meaningless.