• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Video captures attacker shooting, robbing 71-year-old man watering his lawn

Groogrux said:
Yeah, I'm pretty sure Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws.
Click to expand...

Why are you calling them gun laws? They're just laws. It's not like any guns made the legislators write the laws.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Blaming a gun shop owner for doing his lawfully required duty for doing a background check on a legal buyer is totally wrong.
Click to expand...
They should be trained and utilize that training in spotting straw purchasers. It's against ethics if a salesperson suspects that the person they're selling a weapon to is going to give it to somebody else who cannot legally purchase one. They should not go through with the sale. These problem shops where the majority of these weapons are coming from are either not properly trained in spotting straw purchasers or just not giving a **** and selling the guns knowingly. Either way it's a problem.
 
Roadvirus said:
How about blaming the parents for not raising these punks right and just allowing them to run wild?

No...you'd rather blame guns like a typical Liberal.
Click to expand...

I am so confused... I thought blaming the parents was what liberals did... according to conservatives.
 
HenryChinaski said:
Right, there buying the guns for people who purchased them legally from gun shops across the state lines that have a track record of selling guns to straw purchasers buying the weapons to sell to gangbangers.
Click to expand...

Still a different argument.

But you know this how?

Let me help you. A FFL dealer has a license that cost in time and money and so is not inclined to do stupid things for a few bucks.

If the FFL has a track record such as you describe, then it would follow that the ATF knows the track record. So why would not the feds shut the place down?

I'll even help you with that. They would. The publicity alone would be worth the trouble.

Unless, of course, the feds were in on the gig, say like F & F. Then when the FFL made the call, the FFL was told to look the other way.

Another reason to not vote Hillary.
 
HenryChinaski said:
The serial numbers on the ones traced show the point of origin. A handful of problematic gun shops in Indiana, Kentucky or handful right here in the suburbs of Chicago. One shop in Riverdale Illinois sold 1500 weapons that were recovered from crimes from 2009 to 2013. You don't see something wrong there?
Click to expand...

And they got busted. I'd like to look that Riverdale shop situation up, along with the suburban Chicago ones. Do you have a link to any of those?

You are correct, it's a handful.
 
Celebrity said:
Really? Vehicular = vehicle = car and Manslaughter = homicide = violence. Conclusion, Vehicular manslaughter = car violence. But then that would be a little bit more analogous to "gun deaths" because manslaughter implies that the violence was fatal. Would you prefer to call it firearm manslaughter? I'll wait while you huddle with your buddies in the face of irrefutable evidence.



Nope, but you sure would love to throw me in with that lot, wouldn't you. It's quite clear that locking up criminals has not solved the problem of gun violence. If anything, it has exacerbated it.



  1. It's not a fallacy, but I get why you want to throw that word around willy-nilly. Logicing is hard.
  2. Yes, maybe liberals should label it unemployed violence. Maybe conservatives should have a brainstorm about how to end poverty and systemic racism.
Click to expand...

Poverty is a different issue not related to guns. Liberals have been spending trillions on poverty since Johnson, who was so sure he had the answers he even called it his war on poverty. Why is this the conservatives problem to fix?

The systemic racism is the final card in the deck when a liberal finding all else failing. Again, not a problem the Republicans created. Why don't you give us the liberal solution?
 
Last edited:
HenryChinaski said:
Lawsuit pressures cities to tighten gun shop regulations - Chicago Tribune https://www.thetrace.org/2015/06/the-violent-history-of-chicagos-most-notorious-gun-shop/ Controversies - 4 Gun Shops Responsible for Selling Guns Recovered at 20% of Chicago Crime Scenes - AllGov - News
Click to expand...

The pertinent paragraph:

Chuck’s has never faced criminal charges, and continues to operate freely.

So you're telling me that Chuck's gun shop has been in operation for decades, and is nationally known as the number 1 supplier of deadly weapons in Chicago, and they're still operating? Again, why?
 
jimbo said:
Poverty is a different issue not related to guns. Liberals have been spending trillions on poverty since Johnson, who was so sure he had the answers he even called it his war on poverty. Why is this the conservatives problem to fix?

The systemic racism is the final card in the deck when a liberal finding all else failing. Again, not a problem the Republicans created. Why don't you give us the liberal solution?
Click to expand...

The problems that liberals and conservatives face are the same problems. Conservatives routinely project the "lame duck" image onto the POTUS and whoever else is presently liberal, when we don't achieve the ideal solution. You can wash your hands of a policy that liberals invented, but not doing anything or intentionally stalling progress for no other reason besides an allusion to imminent doom is very counterproductive. I think conservatives and liberals should switch mascots. The Republicans are constantly digging in their heels and wasting time and resources saying how this and that doesn't work. Did you ever consider that part of gun control is not being a dissident? Can we all just accept the fact that it's perfectly reasonable to acknowledge that multiple factors contributed to this shooting, including but not limited to the availability of guns?
 
Last edited:
Celebrity said:
The problems that liberals and conservatives face are the same problems. Conservatives routinely project the "lame duck" image onto the POTUS and whoever else is presently liberal, when we don't achieve the ideal solution. You can wash your hands of a policy that liberals invented, but not doing anything or intentionally stalling progress for no other reason besides an allusion to imminent doom is very counterproductive. I think conservatives and liberals should switch mascots. The Republicans are constantly digging in their heels and wasting time and resources saying how this and that doesn't work. Did you ever consider that part of gun control is not being a dissident? Can we all just accept the fact that it's perfectly reasonable to acknowledge that multiple factors contributed to this shooting, including but not limited to the ilability of guns?
Click to expand...

Again, you are addressing the wrong post. My reference was in response to someone commenting on violent guns.

Frankly, I don't fully understand with the poverty and POTUS. They have nothing to do with gun violence.

Republicans do dig in their heels when liberals suggest doing more of the same, but spending more money on the new improved same old program. I agree with that.

The question remains re. your diversion, what do you as a liberal suggest to fix the poverty issue.

Assume that gun anything or spending more money are not acceptable answers.
 
HenryChinaski said:
Your guess would probably be is good as mine.
Click to expand...

You brought it up. My guess (accent on guess) is there is nothing much there except blame coming from Chicago.
 
jimbo said:
You brought it up. My guess (accent on guess) is there is nothing much there except blame coming from Chicago.
Click to expand...
Sure, Chuck's bears no responsibility or should hold any accountability for selling guns to people that they likely know are passing them to criminals using them in crimes. There's no ethics issue there at all..
 
HenryChinaski said:
Blame could be placed there too. But are you telling me that somebody who legally purchases a gun and then passes to a gang member who cannot buy a weapon for themselves holds no accountability when that weapons is used in a crime?
Click to expand...

If he KNOWINGLY passes it to a gang member a law is already broken....
 
HenryChinaski said:
Sure, Chuck's bears no responsibility or should hold any accountability for selling guns to people that they likely know are passing them to criminals using them in crimes. There's no ethics issue there at all..
Click to expand...

You are coming up with a lot of ambiguous words like likely to justify your argument.

Surely, if you aware, and the internet is full of the story, the feds must have a clue, and still no arrests or license revocation.

Chuck's bears no ethics responsibility based on internet allegations from liberal sites and/or officials in Chi Town seeking someone to blame for their own failures.
 
Beaudreaux said:
First - it isn't "gun violence." It's criminal violence which is part of a culture that accepts such criminal violence and makes excuses for it by blaming everything and everyone else other than those that actually do the criminal violence as well as those that enable the criminal violence.

It's a culture problem, not a gun problem. Blaming guns for the level of violence seen this year in Chicago is an intentional and shameful misdirection to cover up and hide the real root cause - the culture of criminal violence.
Click to expand...

But why are those with murderous criminal culture allowed to have guns? Should they be allowed to have nukes too? Where should the line be drawn and why?
 
Celebrity said:
It is "gun violence." You don't need to sugarcoat it. I know that violence is criminal when it is murder.
Click to expand...

uh no-its violent crime-and I'll bet the attacker didn't own the gun legally. but gun banners will try to pretend we need more laws to prevent that sort of thing. (20 years for attempted murder apparently wasn't strict enough)
 
HenryChinaski said:
Sure, Chuck's bears no responsibility or should hold any accountability for selling guns to people that they likely know are passing them to criminals using them in crimes. There's no ethics issue there at all..
Click to expand...

you apparently know little about gun laws. wanna bet the guy who did the shooting has a record and that means its a federal felony for him to even touch the gun. I have a great idea-if they catch him he goes away for life
 
HenryChinaski said:
Your guess would probably be is good as mine. Gun Industry Immunity Statutes | Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence this might be a clue.
Click to expand...

what those laws do is prevent say anti gun politicians in chicago for suing Colt industries or other gun makers because someone illegally possesses a firearm and harms someone with it. Gun banners want cities to use tax payers dollars to fund suits against gun makers to drive gun makers out of business Its like suing BUSHMASTER because Mrs Lanza Legally bought one, and her son murdered her and took her legally purchased firearm and killed children.
 
sanman said:
But why are those with murderous criminal culture allowed to have guns? Should they be allowed to have nukes too? Where should the line be drawn and why?
Click to expand...

you do understand that its a federal felony for someone to possess a firearm for the intention of committing a felony?

You do understand that its a federal felony for someone with a felony record to even touch a firearm

you do understand that attempted murder with a firearm generally results in a 20 year sentence in most jurisdictions of the USA

so what are you talking about when you say the thug or people like him were ALLOWED TO HAVE GUNS
 
jimbo said:
Again, you are addressing the wrong post. My reference was in response to someone commenting on violent guns.

Frankly, I don't fully understand with the poverty and POTUS. They have nothing to do with gun violence.

Republicans do dig in their heels when liberals suggest doing more of the same, but spending more money on the new improved same old program. I agree with that.

The question remains re. your diversion, what do you as a liberal suggest to fix the poverty issue.

Assume that gun anything or spending more money are not acceptable answers.
Click to expand...

Hello, jimbo, remember me? I'm that someone with whom you've been having a conversation over the past few hours. I responded to your response to my response to your response. What do you mean by again, anyway? No, I have not diverted from the original argument and I can't answer your question because I'm not a liberal.

From what I understand, conservatives have been blocking gun control legislation for a long time, and the POTUS is relevant. He has been calling for gun control and speaking about the frequent mass shootings covered in the evening news.

Poverty does have to do with violence and crime. It works both ways. According to the American Psychological Association,
"After experiencing a violent incident, low-income women who worked 40-hour work weeks had only one-fifth odds of maintaining that full-time status for 6 or more months than women who did not experience violent incidents."
Click to expand...
Low-income women who experienced intimate partner violence or aggression had only one-third odds of maintaining a 30-hour work week for 6 or more months than women who did not experience violence.
Click to expand...

And we all know the widely touted argument that poor people are likely to engage in criminal activity because they are poor. Case in point:
Decades of research have consistently upheld that poverty and related social disadvantage are key factors promoting criminality, though they disagree as to the extent and mechanisms.
Click to expand...

Three relevant population-level studies by the same authors use California’s unusually detailed crime statistics to conclude that adolescents’ and young adults’ apparently elevated rates of felony crime, violent crime, and gun violence mortality are due to their low-SES relative to older adults’, not young age. The 2013 article, replicating 2011 results, found that without controlling for SES, crime rates displayed the traditional age–crime curve, peaking in late adolescence and early adulthood. However, when poverty status was controlled by means of comparing crime rates among 906 population cells, each of which represented distinct age, race/ethnicity, county, and poverty values, the traditional age–crime curve largely disappeared.
Click to expand...
Age, Poverty, Homicide, and Gun Homicide | SAGE Open
 
TurtleDude said:
you do understand that its a federal felony for someone to possess a firearm for the intention of committing a felony?

You do understand that its a federal felony for someone with a felony record to even touch a firearm

you do understand that attempted murder with a firearm generally results in a 20 year sentence in most jurisdictions of the USA

so what are you talking about when you say the thug or people like him were ALLOWED TO HAVE GUNS
Click to expand...

Possessing nuclear material with an intent to use it harmfully is against the law too - but fortunately (unlike with guns) ordinary people aren't allowed access to it, so any such cases would be extremely rare.
 
TurtleDude said:
uh no-its violent crime-and I'll bet the attacker didn't own the gun legally. but gun banners will try to pretend we need more laws to prevent that sort of thing. (20 years for attempted murder apparently wasn't strict enough)
Click to expand...

What species of violent crime was it? The crime was violent in nature, yes, and according to the article a gun was used in a way similar to many other crimes of that nature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom