Soxbadger Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Japan has no gangs. Yakuza are a myth created by the liberal media. And if its gangs that are the issue, then I assume in areas without gangs innocent civilians shouldnt get to carry guns? Seems kind of like a red herring to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted October 11, 2012 Author Share Posted October 11, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 11, 2012 -> 01:09 PM) Japan has no gangs. Yakuza are a myth created by the liberal media. And if its gangs that are the issue, then I assume in areas without gangs innocent civilians shouldnt get to carry guns? Seems kind of like a red herring to me. Not sure why you're all smarmy today, i'm just responding to your comparison to the UK. The myth is that we're an over-crazed, gun toting, violent society, when in reality the vast majority of violent crime with guns is gang related. Our gang numbers (nearly a million members) dwarfs the rest of the world. And when gangs represent a majority of the crime, well, there's your myth. Yes, you have your occasional pyschopath or the heat of passion killing, but every country has that. I just find it fascinating that people buy the bulls*** argument Chicago politicians have been spewing for years - we have a violence problem because there are too many guns so let's restrict them. It's assbackwards thinking that removing the availability of guns will curb crime. As others have already pointed out here, see: Prohibition, The War on Drugs, etc. None of that crap EVER works, yet stupid people buy that argument every decade. And before you get your panties in a bunch, i'm not specifically saying that you have this view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 (edited) to be fair, manufacturing firearms and ammunition isn't quite as simple as growing plants and processing them into alcohol or drugs. we heavily restrict sale and manufacture of automatic weapons in this country, and therefore they just aren't used that much in crimes. but doing it on a city-level makes no sense, it'd have to be national, like the automatic weapons restrictions. Edited October 11, 2012 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 The reason Im smarmy is because Im so sick of the gun argument. I dont care about guns, have them dont have them, it really isnt going to change my life. I just get annoyed with the hypocritical stances that many pro-gun people have, whether it be small govt, anti-drug, it just annoys me. Right or wrong, Chicago citizens should have the freedom to restrict guns on the streets of Chicago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted October 11, 2012 Author Share Posted October 11, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 11, 2012 -> 01:45 PM) The reason Im smarmy is because Im so sick of the gun argument. I dont care about guns, have them dont have them, it really isnt going to change my life. I just get annoyed with the hypocritical stances that many pro-gun people have, whether it be small govt, anti-drug, it just annoys me. Right or wrong, Chicago citizens should have the freedom to restrict guns on the streets of Chicago. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of people in Chicago want less restrictions, if the rest of the entire country is any indication (seeing as Chicago/Illinois is still the lone holdout in this stupid less guns=less crime argument). The problem is the 2 people in power the last 30 years don't agree with the masses. Also, if you don't want to have a debate, don't participate. You can't interject your opinion and then say "yeah i'm tired of talking about it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 You asked why I was smarmy about this issue and I answered. I have no problem debating legitimate issues on the matter. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of people in Chicago want less restrictions, if the rest of the entire country is any indication (seeing as Chicago/Illinois is still the lone holdout in this stupid less guns=less crime argument). The problem is the 2 people in power the last 30 years don't agree with the masses. And Id bet the opposite. I live in Chicago and as an anecdote I do not know 1 person who wants less restrictions, everyone I know wants more restrictions. If the majority of Chicago disagrees, they should vote Alderman, Mayors, etc who run on "less gun restrictions." But there is a reason why no one is running on that platform, and its not because they are sabotaging their own chances. I dont care if Illinois is the lone hold out, just because everyone else is doing it, doesnt mean I necessarily am. For example: http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20121010/news/710109592/ “Right now, I need to represent the voters of the 84th District,” Kifowit said. “And going door-to-door and talking to a lot of individuals, at this point in time a lot of people are uncomfortable with the state of Illinois and conceal and carry for many reasons.” But this is the way that govt is supposed to work. You have 2 candidates, 1 for C&C and 1 against, you can vote for either. If you want C&C vote for Fee, maybe eventually that will become the majority in Illinois. But right now it does not seem to be. And no matter how many times you call something stupid, it doesnt make it true. Perhaps one day you will recognize that reasonable people can have reasonable differences, and that just because someone disagrees with you, doesnt mean they are stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorStSox Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Obviously Tuna knows far more about the subject than me. I've lived in some rough areas and had many friends and some family involved in gangs. My take... One aspect you have to consider is that most gangbangers, especially in Hispanic gangs, really believe in their "nation." There is a real sense of nationalism among their members. They identify with the nation more so than America. As a result, they view themselves as soldiers. Few question an actual soldier when they commit acts of violence. They did it for God and Country. Gang members are also trying to protect their family, their neighborhood and their source of income.es. In my experience, a lot of the black gangs are involved more for the money aspect. Selling drugs is the easiest way to earn money. You can't sell drugs unless you're a member of the gang. So naturally, you join the gang. The structure of the black gangs has completely deteriorated over the last 20 years due to the leadership being imprisoned. For example, Larry Hoover can't control the GD's because he's in Supermax and can no longer communicate. As a result, the structure has broken down. It's every man for himself, or every crew for themselves. This explains a lot of centralized problems in Englewood. Jeff Fort can't control the Vice Lords due to the same issue and they also suffer from infighting. A lot of black on black gang violence is committed by members of the same gangs, or related gangs. GD vs. GD or GD vs. BD etc. I'm not sure if there's a solution. You're dealing with subcultures where this lifestyle is engrained. A lot of the members truly believe in the gang. Really, it's not a whole lot different than what you see in the Middle East. The area around the UC has improved since the Horner Homes and Rockwell Gardens have been torn down, but it's not the type of place you want to walk around at night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 (edited) The problem Chicago has is that the people who sympathize with the gangs (it still blows my mind that people like this exist) and the people who profit off them make up more than 50% of the cities population. So, nothing will ever get done, the cops will have to keep using kid gloves and the liberals will cherish the wonderful diversity that is literally tearing the city to pieces. It really is only going to get easier on the gangs as time goes on and we find all sorts of things to blame while overlooking the real problem: this city has been f***ed, is currently f***ed and will continue to get more f***ed because we've continued to believe that in order to unf*** it we just have to do more of the f***ed policies than got us so f***ed in the first f***ing place. Edited October 14, 2012 by DukeNukeEm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Oct 14, 2012 -> 05:24 AM) The problem Chicago has is that the people who sympathize with the gangs (it still blows my mind that people like this exist) and the people who profit off them make up more than 50% of the cities population. So, nothing will ever get done, the cops will have to keep using kid gloves and the liberals will cherish the wonderful diversity that is literally tearing the city to pieces. It really is only going to get easier on the gangs as time goes on and we find all sorts of things to blame while overlooking the real problem: this city has been f***ed, is currently f***ed and will continue to get more f***ed because we've continued to believe that in order to unf*** it we just have to do more of the f***ed policies than got us so f***ed in the first f***ing place. Over 50 percent? Wow. Then Chicago is truly a gang town. No wonder we have all these murders. It sounds like the future of Chicago is very very bleak. Is the entire South Side going to be a cesspool in 20 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Don't take duke's made-up numbers as facts, greg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts