• 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!

Changing Hearts & Minds

brothern said:
Challenges like mental illness, criminality and risky/unsafe handling of weapons are always going to be an issue no matter the city. However there's a difference between a nutter standing on his porch in the suburbs taking potshots into the sky - and a nutter doing the same in Chicago. The suburbanite is a danger to himself, whereas in Chicago he will be hitting someone's front door, or bedroom window or parked car.

Dwyane Wade's cousin was just fatality shot in Chicago taking her baby out for a stroll. Why? Because we live in a dense city where hundreds of people are in the vicinity of any single point. If it wasn't Nykea who was shot, it'd have just been the person standing behind her.

Secondly @MickeyW, what exactly does an "armed citizenry" do to protect a mother from a stray bullet? Is it going to magically alter the physics of the universe? Is it going to stop the mentally ill person from taking the shot in the first place? No. You're point is utter garbage. I desire to live in a country where I don't have to fear subjugation, fear that my rights, life or happiness will be stolen by the gun nut oppressionists who puts us all in danger.
Click to expand...

So again, answer the question. Why don't these other cities have the same criminal use of firearms issues?

You do not have the right to not be fearful of firearms any more than I have the right to not be fearful of being hit by a driver filled to the gunnels with alcohol. At what point does an irrational fear lead to restricting other people's rights? Your particular rational led to Prohibition, the internment of Japanese Americans and other Unconstitutional measures such as "stop and frisk".

Are all 120,000,000 gun owners "gun nut oppresionists"? Pretty biggoted view, but then again, you are no more than a modern day Prohibitionist. Get over yourself and your irrational fears.
 
Last edited:
flogger said:
About as much chance as me winning the lottery ...... twice :lol:
Click to expand...
Yet his scenario is far more likely to occur than being shot by a criminal and even less likely than me being shot accidentally or committing suicide. So you expect others to give up their right to hunting, sport and self defense based on a far less likely occurance. Of course, you are not the one who is paranoid..
 
Henrin said:
:roll: No, what harms Chicago is Chicago. If people weren't violent little retards in Chicago they would have less crime, obviously.
Click to expand...

The obvious eludes gun control advocates. They much more prefer the Hollywood version or the horror mind movie they they have running in their head. Facts are just to much for such people.
 
flogger said:
About as much chance as me winning the lottery ...... twice :lol:
Click to expand...

Again you demonstrate your ignorance of the subject and no doubt the rape statistic you have must be due to woman not having a good means of defence.

Rape statistics

Approximately 85,000 women and 12,000 men are raped in England and Wales alone every year; that's roughly 11 rapes (of adults alone) every hour

Nearly half a million adults are sexually assaulted in England and Wales each year

1 in 5 women aged 16 - 59 has experienced some form of sexual violence since the age of 16

Only around 15% of those who experience sexual violence choose to report to the police

Approximately 90% of those who are raped know the perpetrator prior to the offence

The 2006–07 Crime Survey for England and Wales (formerly the British Crime Survey) reports that 1 in every 200 women were raped in that period. It also showed that only 800 people were convicted of rape crimes that same year, meaning that less than 1 in every 100 occurrences of rape led to a conviction.

According to the NCPCC, 1 in 20 children have been sexually abused in the UK 12% of boys and 3% of girls reported committing sexual violence against their partners. In 2013, a Ministry of Justice report stated that only 15 per cent of victims of the most serious sexual offences reported the incident to the police.

The lifetime risk of sexual violence for a woman is one in three.[2] The lifetime risk of rape or attempted rape for a woman is one in five.

You were saying??
 
Crimefree said:
Again you demonstrate your ignorance of the subject and no doubt the rape statistic you have must be due to woman not having a good means of defence.

Rape statistics

Approximately 85,000 women and 12,000 men are raped in England and Wales alone every year; that's roughly 11 rapes (of adults alone) every hour

Nearly half a million adults are sexually assaulted in England and Wales each year

1 in 5 women aged 16 - 59 has experienced some form of sexual violence since the age of 16

Only around 15% of those who experience sexual violence choose to report to the police

Approximately 90% of those who are raped know the perpetrator prior to the offence

The 2006–07 Crime Survey for England and Wales (formerly the British Crime Survey) reports that 1 in every 200 women were raped in that period. It also showed that only 800 people were convicted of rape crimes that same year, meaning that less than 1 in every 100 occurrences of rape led to a conviction.

According to the NCPCC, 1 in 20 children have been sexually abused in the UK 12% of boys and 3% of girls reported committing sexual violence against their partners. In 2013, a Ministry of Justice report stated that only 15 per cent of victims of the most serious sexual offences reported the incident to the police.

The lifetime risk of sexual violence for a woman is one in three.[2] The lifetime risk of rape or attempted rape for a woman is one in five.

You were saying??
Click to expand...

Wonder how many of those rapes would not have occured were it not for alcohol? Kind of odd he would not support further restrictions on alcohol in order to reduce those numbers but instead has a little jihad going on our firearms rights.
 
BretJ said:
Yet his scenario is far more likely to occur than being shot by a criminal and even less likely than me being shot accidentally or committing suicide. So you expect others to give up their right to hunting, sport and self defense based on a far less likely occurance. Of course, you are not the one who is paranoid..
Click to expand...

Thats an ironic statement really given I'm not the one arming myself with lethal weaponry and fearing attack at any moment
 
flogger said:
Thats an ironic statement really given I'm not the one arming myself with lethal weaponry and fearing attack at any moment
Click to expand...

So you cannot refute the fact you are paranoid and hiding behind governments skirts demanding those you fear be disarmed. Not unlike the KKK and Jim Crow laws. It is very true that gun control advocates are no different to people who throughout the ages have feared others and persecuted them.
 
BretJ said:
Wonder how many of those rapes would not have occured were it not for alcohol? Kind of odd he would not support further restrictions on alcohol in order to reduce those numbers but instead has a little jihad going on our firearms rights.
Click to expand...

Both alcohol and other drugs and the inability to offer any real resistance unarmed contribute rape. Orlando Florida shows clearly what a well publicised armed training of woman to defended themselves with firearms can do. A rape epidemic was reduced by 88%

In 1966 Orlando Florida had a rape epidemic, they did not declare the town rape free or crime free, set up safe zones, suggest women lay back and enjoy it, beg and plead or have busy bodies handing out pamphlets telling women to stay at home for their own safety. The police (considerably more enlightened and pro-active than the SA version) set up a training program to train some 3000 women with firearms, encouraging them to purchase their own if they did not own a firearm. This training program was much publicised in the media.

What were the results? The next year rape fell by 88 percent in Orlando (the only major city to experience a decrease that year); burglary fell by 25 percent. Not one of the 2,500 women trained actually ended up firing her firearm; the deterrent effect of the publicity sufficed. Five years later Orlando's rape rate was still 13 percent below the pre-program level, whereas the surrounding standard metropolitan area had suffered a 308 percent increase. ~~ Gary Kleck, "Policy Lessons from Recent Gun Control Research," Journal of Law and Contemporary Problems 49 (Winter 1986): 35-47.

The cost of this intervention, which gave the phenomenal results, was insignificant. No other intervention has shown greater promise of drastically reducing rape and other crimes.

At least 40,000 other women of Orlando derived a direct benefit and owe a great gratitude to those brave women who undertook training and accepted responsibility for their own safety.

While the results of Orlando are subject to much debate the results of other similar publicised training programs for armed merchants sharply reduced robberies in stores in Highland Park, Michigan, and in New Orleans; a grocer's organisation's gun clinics produced the same result in Detroit. More recently the removal of gun control laws and relaxing or removal of right to carry laws has seen a revolution in crime reduction. The USA now has the lowest crime rate in its recorded history.

What can be said of any organisation that promotes gun control and advises women not to fight back and give everything including rape to criminals?
 
brothern said:
Chicago's gun laws have nearly been scrapped by interest groups. However we've still managed to nearly prevent all gun sales within the city limits. Today it's still difficult to get a gun in the city limits of Chicago.

Which would be perfect for us, except for the fact that Chicago's completely surround by gobs of suburbs and Indiana where there are little-to-no gun control laws. Meaning the only accomplishment that Chicago's gun laws have had is moved the legal/illegal acquisition of guns from within the city-limits into the burgled home of suburbanites and the shops of crooked gun dealers.

Consequently meaning that Chicago, as a densely-populated area with areas of high concentrations of poverty, ends up paying for gun rights in death counts. There's nothing that we can do to stop it, because we have no jurisdiction in the suburbs and rural areas that refuse to pass any sort of gun control laws. Any why would they? They don't suffer the consequences of freely available guns, or really give a damn that their stolen guns are trafficked into poor communities they don't live in.

It's the cities with gun rights that harm Chicago.

Where 50,000 Guns Recovered in Chicago Came From
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/29/us/where-50000-guns-in-chicago-came-from.html
Click to expand...

Maybe if the animals of Chicago would stop with the violent culture of which they choose to live by, then there wouldn't be a issue to begin with...... have you ever considered this?

There are many areas in the US with a high concentration of gun ownership that are as peaceful as you could ask for?

I wonder what the difference is?
 
brothern said:
Chicago's gun laws have nearly been scrapped by interest groups. However we've still managed to nearly prevent all gun sales within the city limits. Today it's still difficult to get a gun in the city limits of Chicago.

Which would be perfect for us, except for the fact that Chicago's completely surround by gobs of suburbs and Indiana where there are little-to-no gun control laws. Meaning the only accomplishment that Chicago's gun laws have had is moved the legal/illegal acquisition of guns from within the city-limits into the burgled home of suburbanites and the shops of crooked gun dealers.

Consequently meaning that Chicago, as a densely-populated area with areas of high concentrations of poverty, ends up paying for gun rights in death counts. There's nothing that we can do to stop it, because we have no jurisdiction in the suburbs and rural areas that refuse to pass any sort of gun control laws. Any why would they? They don't suffer the consequences of freely available guns, or really give a damn that their stolen guns are trafficked into poor communities they don't live in.

It's the cities with gun rights that harm Chicago.

Where 50,000 Guns Recovered in Chicago Came From
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/29/us/where-50000-guns-in-chicago-came-from.html
Click to expand...

You going to prove it is guns causing this crime or like all other times you come up empty?
 
flogger said:
Thats an ironic statement really given I'm not the one arming myself with lethal weaponry and fearing attack at any moment
Click to expand...

Who fears attack at any moment?? I have a couple fire extinguishers in my house and cars. Guess I fear a fire at any moment as well. Perhaps I am adult enough to prepare for emergencies rather than wait and rely on someone else. I was there when someone actually considered forbidding fire extinguishers in counsel housing. Remember that?
 
flogger said:
You do. I don't want to go out armed niether does anyone I know ,and not having such a fearful paranoid society is a really good thing
Click to expand...

Being prepared to defend yourself is not living in fear. It is being sensible if there is a good chance of being the objective of crime. Cowards do that and never ever want to anger the aggressor so they disarm themselves completely and learn how to kneel and beg.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom