Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal
So gun controls are not relevant because criminals can get them anyways?
Interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vtwin
Maybe criminals will always be criminals...
No, gun control is irrelevant because there hasn't been a serious effort by the nation to get rid of the current weapons, stop ammunition production, and stop weapons production.
What's to stop people from buying/stealing guns from the rest of unregulated, gun crazy America and bring them into Chicago?
Wait... What? What is this I don't even... Are you saying criminals try to find ways to bypass the law and break all the rules standing in their way for the sole purpose of causing other people harm and getting what they want? A liberal just vindicated my belief. Thank you for confirming what I already knew was fact. never thought it was possible....
Last edited by JmanWingsFan: 12-31-2012 at 10:06 PM.
Chicago had close to 900 murders per year back in the day I think. The murder number fluctuation the last 10-15 years or so seems to be mostly be related to the ever-changing landscape of organized crime in the city.
It is pretty nuts though to consider that there have been 62 homicides in the neighboring South Side areas of Englewood/West Englewood/Greater Grand Crossing this year. There's about 95,000 people in that area. If that was its own city it would be considered one of if not the most dangerous city in the U.S.
Chicago had close to 900 murders per year back in the day I think. The murder number fluctuation the last 10-15 years or so seems to be mostly be related to the ever-changing landscape of organized crime in the city.
It is pretty nuts though to consider that there have been 62 homicides in the neighboring South Side areas of Englewood/West Englewood/Greater Grand Crossing this year. There's about 95,000 people in that area. If that was its own city it would be considered one of if not the most dangerous city in the U.S.
1991 - almost 1000
Why is Chicago so Dangerous? New York City has more black people, they had 415 murders. Almost 100 less.
Why is Chicago so Dangerous? New York City has more black people, they had 415 murders. Almost 100 less.
New York and Chicago murder rates were pretty comparable up to the late 80s. But then New York's took a steep nosedive while Chicago's declined a lot more modestly.
Honestly, I think New York has simply been way better run through the years. Chicago isn't Detroit in terms of malfunction but it's been a known hotbed of public corruption for many decades.
Wait... What? What is this I don't even... Are you saying criminals try to find ways to bypass the law and break all the rules standing in their way for the sole purpose of causing other people harm and getting what they want? A liberal just vindicated my belief. Thank you for confirming what I already knew was fact. never thought it was possible....
Murderers are gonna murder. Why should me make laws against it? Murderers are criminals and criminals do not follow laws so what's the point?
If criminals ignore gun control laws, then they would be prosecuted for violating those laws right? Or do you believe that laws exist only to prevent people from doing something. People break into other people's houses despite there being laws against it. Get rid of those laws as well?
Yikes. I've lived in Vienna for the past 11 years... only thing I ever saw was shots fired when plain-clothes cops raided the Yugoslavian café downstairs. That was several years ago - nothing since then.
The funny thing is that the right-wing party many years ago did campaign advertising with the slogan "Vienna must not become Chicago" (thinly veiled code for "we mustn't allow too many immigrants in because crime always follows").
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellogs
Gotta keep those criminal defense lawyers employed somehow. Can you imagine what the world would be like without lawyers?
Not one mention of the fact that Chicago has just about the most strict gun controls laws in country in this thread?
Guess that doesn't fit the emotional overreaction agenda.
This falls into the category "Arguments that only make sense to other gun zealots."
You would think it would be incredibly easy to acquire a gun in a place not too far from Chicago where there is practically zero gun control and then drive/walk back across the city line. But then I guess that extremely plausible explanation wouldn't fit your agenda.
This falls into the category "Arguments that only make sense to other gun zealots."
You would think it would be incredibly easy to acquire a gun in a place not too far from Chicago where there is practically zero gun control and then drive/walk back across the city line. But then I guess that extremely plausible explanation wouldn't fit your agenda.
Do you seriously think there is not a thriving underground gun trade in Chicago?
CHICAGO?
Chicago, the city prohibition made. LOL
Where can you go in this country and legally by cocaine, heroin, etc?
Now find a city where it cannot be easily found inspite of the laws against it.
Starting to catch on yet?
Regarding the comment you directed at me in the now closed gun control thread:
So I guess you are behind the national ban on alcohol, cigarettes and junk food as well as a national 30 mph speed limit?
Surely the thousands of lives saved would be worth the inconvenience to your lifestyle.
Do you seriously think there is not a thriving underground gun trade in Chicago?
CHICAGO?
Chicago, the city prohibition made. LOL
Where can you go in this country and legally by cocaine, heroin, etc?
Now find a city where it cannot be easily found inspite of the laws against it.
Starting to catch on yet?
Regarding the comment you directed at me in the now closed gun control thread:
So I guess you are behind the national ban on alcohol, cigarettes and junk food as well as a national 30 mph speed limit?
Surely the thousands of lives saved would be worth the inconvenience to your lifestyle.
No, I seriously think the thriving underground gun trade is made exponentially easier by the fact that there are 300 million legal guns in the U.S.
You can find cocaine and heroin in every major first-world city despite laws against it. And yet no other major first-world city has the gun crime problem (or even the violent crime problem) that American cities have.
But keep on keeping on with the moronic gun lobby talking points. Until then I'll duly note that you have no explanation for the fact that no other first-world country has this same problem.
Edit: Also amusing to note how increasingly desperate the gun zealot crowd's arguments are becoming. The knives/cars/bombs argument has been roundly panned as imbecilic, the "gun control isn't working in big cities" argument is being universally ridiculed... now they're moving on to "why don't you want to ban cigarettes and alcohol??"
So gun controls are not relevant because criminals can get them anyways?
Interesting.
Gun control on an island works. Gun control when the next county has none is worthless.
I mean there's tons of research on this.... guns come into Chicago from states with less gun control. It's not ALL guns but it's a significant portion of guns used in gun crime.
I guess facts are a little inconvenient for people who go with emotional, historical ******** that's completely irrelevant in a modern world.
No, I seriously think the thriving underground gun trade is made exponentially easier by the fact that there are 300 million legal guns in the U.S.
And your proposal to make these hundreds of millions of guns vanish is???
Quote:
You can find cocaine and heroin in every major first-world city despite laws against it. And yet no other major first-world city has the gun crime problem (or even the violent crime problem) that American cities have.
You mean the cocaine and heroin that is 100 percent imported from other countries inspite of the massive amount of money and effort put towards stopping it? So your logic is that even though we can't keep banned subtance that have to be imported off our streets we somehow are going to be able to magically erase the hundreds of millions of guns that already do exist? Really? Fascinating.
Quote:
But keep on keeping on with the moronic gun lobby talking points. Until then I'll duly note that you have no explanation for the fact that no other first-world country has this same problem.
You keep on with the moronic anti-gun Brady bunch talking points and I will ignore that you have no plan or even idea on how to implement your emotionally constructed ideas which are formed based on false truths and inaccuracies in the first place.
Quote:
Edit: Also amusing to note how increasingly desperate the gun zealot crowd's arguments are becoming. The knives/cars/bombs argument has been roundly panned as imbecilic, the "gun control isn't working in big cities" argument is being universally ridiculed... now they're moving on to "why don't you want to ban cigarettes and alcohol??"
LOL Roundly panned? Universally ridiculed? Why do you think think more gun control hasn't been implemented? Why do you think the topic only really comes up directly after a tragedy? Maybe it's because at least half the country agrees with us "zealots". Maybe it's because the only chance you "zealots" have is to take advantage of a current tragedy to push your agenda. If anything was "universal" or "roundly" thought of it wouldn't be quite so controvesial now would it? LOL
Simple question for you Norman. If you could wave your magic wand and make guns. cigarettes and alcohol disappear completely which would result in more lives saved?
Which one would result in more lives saved?
Which one?
It's comical that you ridicule my argument then try and use the same logic on me.
Gun control on an island works. Gun control when the next county has none is worthless.
I mean there's tons of research on this.... guns come into Chicago from states with less gun control. It's not ALL guns but it's a significant portion of guns used in gun crime.
I guess facts are a little inconvenient for people who go with emotional, historical ******** that's completely irrelevant in a modern world.
So for some reason banning guns across the country will:
A: Somehow make the hundreds of millions of guns already here disappear?
b: Somehow work when prohibition has NEVER worked in the past?
And your proposal to make these hundreds of millions of guns vanish is???
Stop producing them and they'll eventually become obselete. No one said we'd be able to make them "vanish", so you can drop the patronizing tone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vtwin
You mean the cocaine and heroin that is 100 percent imported from other countries inspite of the massive amount of money and effort put towards stopping it? So your logic is that even though we can't keep banned subtance that have to be imported off our streets we somehow are going to be able to magically erase the hundreds of millions of guns that already do exist? Really? Fascinating.
Translation: you have no explanation for why other countries don't have this problem. Not really fascinating, since gun zealots can never justify their position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vtwin
You keep on with the moronic anti-gun Brady bunch talking points and I will ignore that you have no plan or even idea on how to implement your emotionally constructed ideas which are formed based on false truths and inaccuracies in the first place.
I have a plan. Work toward repealing the anachronistic and deleterious Second Amendment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vtwin
LOL Roundly panned? Universally ridiculed? Why do you think think more gun control hasn't been implemented? Why do you think the topic only really comes up directly after a tragedy? Maybe it's because at least half the country agrees with us "zealots". Maybe it's because the only chance you "zealots" have is to take advantage of a current tragedy to push your agenda. If anything was "universal" or "roundly" thought of it wouldn't be quite so controvesial now would it? LOL
LOL!!!!11
No, it's because the Democratic Party capitulated on this issue after losing the 94 midterms. Which means the gun lobby has been controlling the dialogue unopposed since then. Every time one of you morons is forced to justify your positions in a debate, you have to resort to ludicrous gun lobby talking points that are easily debunked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vtwin
Simple question for you Norman.
Yes, patronizing asshole?
Quote:
If you could wave your magic wand and make guns. cigarettes and alcohol disappear completely which would result in more lives saved?
Which one would result in more lives saved?
Which one?
It's comical that you ridicule my argument then try and use the same logic on me.
Irrelevant, since alcohol and tobacco are regulated to the hilt, whereas guns aren't.
Nor is anyone advocating making any of those three things magically disappear, so your ridiculous strawman isn't going to win this debate for you.
So for some reason banning guns across the country will:
A: Somehow make the hundreds of millions of guns already here disappear?
b: Somehow work when prohibition has NEVER worked in the past?
Really.....
LOL
At what point will you drop this strawman? Who here has claimed they have a solution to make this problem go away immediately? There are so many guns that clearly the problem cannot be solved overnight. However, until measures are taken to solve the problem, no progress will be made whatsoever.
There are plenty of countries in which gun control has proven effective. You've probably never been outside whatever hick town you come from, so you wouldn't realize that.
Gary has a whole host of other problems, the root of which has nothing to do with guns.
As does Chicago, and that's why it's a good example of the argument of "strict gun control" in Chicago having an effect is absurd. There were 15 known shootings on New Years Day alone, with about three dead so far. Simply reading through the details of shooting incidents on a daily basis should lead any level-headed individual to conclude there are way too many guns in the hands of deadbeats.
Last edited by deytookerjaabs: 01-02-2013 at 01:28 PM.
Murderers are gonna murder. Why should me make laws against it? Murderers are criminals and criminals do not follow laws so what's the point?
If criminals ignore gun control laws, then they would be prosecuted for violating those laws right? Or do you believe that laws exist only to prevent people from doing something. People break into other people's houses despite there being laws against it. Get rid of those laws as well?
Let me be on record as having never made any one of these suggestions.
Let me be on record as having never made any one of these suggestions.
Of course you didn't. That's the point. Your logic is not consistent. You don't apply the "criminals don't follow laws!" argument to anything but gun control where it conveniently fits your agenda.
Of course you didn't. That's the point. Your logic is not consistent. You don't apply the "criminals don't follow laws!" argument to anything but gun control where it conveniently fits your agenda.
No, that's a strawman argument. I don't apply "criminals don't follow laws!" argument to gun control. I apply to outright bans. Laws, in this case, exist to exact punishment on people for breaking them. Criminals break laws anyways, so banning guns, and subsequently disarming law abiding citizens, is dumb.
