• 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!

Chicago gun deaths-highest increase in many years

Nap said:
I would be (and I think others) would be more open to discussion if everyone is not only honest in what they were trying to do but also proposing laws that I (we) fill would make a difference. As long as the narrative is based on how a gun looks and other trivial nonsense the discussion will never go anywhere. If we can get more on both sides to step from the ledge and have a civil discussion that would be good in the grand scheme ofthings but I doubt we will ever see it.
Click to expand...

I agree and I would add that a more honest approach from the radical pro gun side can also go along way toward a meeting of the minds on the issue. For instance to say: "As long as the narrative is based on how a gun looks" is a complete departure from what that part of the issue is. I have argued, for some time now that it's not looks, it's capability: close quarter combat weapons that also feature an effective range of hundreds of yards and combat magazines of 30 rounds or more that can be switched out in 2 seconds have shown themselves to be a problem in mass shootings. This takes us back to that days when guys like John Dillinger far out armed the police and the fledgling FBI, as most gangsters of that period did, which is one big reason for their abilities to get away and do so much damage. The very same thing holds true today with cartel gangs and street gang kids who carry sub machine guns, AK47s etc. Those things are procured on our streets through the black market and cops line those things up arrest after arrest. Therefore, it is disingenuous to say that the look of a gun scares people. Talking about a closed market of public sale for that kind of weaponry is a huge issue in the dialogue. The pro guns will say it's a case of ignorance of guns to consider such a closure, however you and I both know that it's not ignorance at all when our cities become the victims of 50 dead in a night club, or 5 cops killed, or 20 school kids massacred by just such weaponry, and our police forces, just like the FBI in the 30s had to step up their armories in order to not be out gunned by the people committing the crimes.
 
jet57 said:
I agree and I would add that a more honest approach from the radical pro gun side can also go along way toward a meeting of the minds on the issue. For instance to say: "As long as the narrative is based on how a gun looks" is a complete departure from what that part of the issue is. I have argued, for some time now that it's not looks, it's capability: close quarter combat weapons that also feature an effective range of hundreds of yards and combat magazines of 30 rounds or more that can be switched out in 2 seconds have shown themselves to be a problem in mass shootings. This takes us back to that days when guys like John Dillinger far out armed the police and the fledgling FBI, as most gangsters of that period did, which is one big reason for their abilities to get away and do so much damage. The very same thing holds true today with cartel gangs and street gang kids who carry sub machine guns, AK47s etc. Those things are procured on our streets through the black market and cops line those things up arrest after arrest. Therefore, it is disingenuous to say that the look of a gun scares people. Talking about a closed market of public sale for that kind of weaponry is a huge issue in the dialogue. The pro guns will say it's a case of ignorance of guns to consider such a closure, however you and I both know that it's not ignorance at all when our cities become the victims of 50 dead in a night club, or 5 cops killed, or 20 school kids massacred by just such weaponry, and our police forces, just like the FBI in the 30s had to step up their armories in order to not be out gunned by the people committing the crimes.
Click to expand...

I will admit you bring up a good points but "assualt weapons" only make up roughly a quarter of mass shootings (from a study taken from 2009 - 2013, so could be higher) and the fact remains even if you ban them it will not stop or even slow mass shootings because you can be just as deadly carrying multiple pistols (example VT shooting). If anything "assualt weapons" would actually be less dangerous than pistols because there is at least a chance you can see them coming and run away while someone with multiple pistols can get into position and wait for a time to pull them out and inflict maximum carnage.

Sub machine guns and fully automatic AK47s are already illegal.

The reason I say it is just the look because functionally it works the same as any other modern firearm so banning them will just make them use a different gun. I especially love the "high powered" label they often apply to the AR-15, they would absolutely lose their minds if they saw my semiautomatic 30-06.

As far as magazine capacity, the problem with that is the intention of it. When they come out with say a 10 round limit, well this would effectively ban the majority of handguns which many believe is the real reason behind those bans.
 
jet57 said:
I agree and I would add that a more honest approach from the radical pro gun side can also go along way toward a meeting of the minds on the issue. For instance to say: "As long as the narrative is based on how a gun looks" is a complete departure from what that part of the issue is. I have argued, for some time now that it's not looks, it's capability: close quarter combat weapons that also feature an effective range of hundreds of yards and combat magazines of 30 rounds or more that can be switched out in 2 seconds have shown themselves to be a problem in mass shootings. This takes us back to that days when guys like John Dillinger far out armed the police and the fledgling FBI, as most gangsters of that period did, which is one big reason for their abilities to get away and do so much damage. The very same thing holds true today with cartel gangs and street gang kids who carry sub machine guns, AK47s etc. Those things are procured on our streets through the black market and cops line those things up arrest after arrest. Therefore, it is disingenuous to say that the look of a gun scares people. Talking about a closed market of public sale for that kind of weaponry is a huge issue in the dialogue. The pro guns will say it's a case of ignorance of guns to consider such a closure, however you and I both know that it's not ignorance at all when our cities become the victims of 50 dead in a night club, or 5 cops killed, or 20 school kids massacred by just such weaponry, and our police forces, just like the FBI in the 30s had to step up their armories in order to not be out gunned by the people committing the crimes.
Click to expand...

https://www.policeone.com/police-pr...Professionals-about-U-S-Gun-Control-Policies/

This is a poll taken from 15,000 police officers
 
jet57 said:
(chuckle)
right.

So you cherry picked something out of a post I made to you and the meat of the post you ignored. I waited, to see if you'd follow up, but of course not.

Here it is:


Ignoring that means that it's absolutely true. That is to say, the radical gun crowd and their rhetoric, which is abhorrent to the second amendment, of whom a number of them coagulate on this board, give the 120,000,000 a real black eye and make it exceedingly difficult for ANYBODY else to see any merit in guns OR the second amendment. You will have to agree with that, and I believe that you do. I don't think however that you want to cut your nose off to spite your face and you therefore, just stay silent on the matter. I think you do yourself a disservice by that and good dialogues about the issues of guns don't happen because if it.

Get out of that box, that doesn't fit you anyway, and see where it goes.
Click to expand...

Wooooooo!!!! Hurray for Jet!!!

(Funny how you can make claims such as this in others arguments, yet not see it in yourself. Btw, I stay mostly silent in regards to your posts now because I have lost any respect for your arguments and see no point engaging with someone who cannot hold themselves to the same standards they hold for others; both in real life and in debate.)
 
Nap said:
I will admit you bring up a good points but "assualt weapons" only make up roughly a quarter of mass shootings (from a study taken from 2009 - 2013, so could be higher) and the fact remains even if you ban them it will not stop or even slow mass shootings because you can be just as deadly carrying multiple pistols (example VT shooting). If anything "assualt weapons" would actually be less dangerous than pistols because there is at least a chance you can see them coming and run away while someone with multiple pistols can get into position and wait for a time to pull them out and inflict maximum carnage.

Sub machine guns and fully automatic AK47s are already illegal.

The reason I say it is just the look because functionally it works the same as any other modern firearm so banning them will just make them use a different gun. I especially love the "high powered" label they often apply to the AR-15, they would absolutely lose their minds if they saw my semiautomatic 30-06.

As far as magazine capacity, the problem with that is the intention of it. When they come out with say a 10 round limit, well this would effectively ban the majority of handguns which many believe is the real reason behind those bans.
Click to expand...

criminals already cannot own any firearms so why do people like Jet support laws that only impact honest people such as magazine bans, semi auto bans. in Jet's case, his posts demonstrate that he lives in California and he wants the rest of the country to have to live under the same stupid laws he has to deal with. The second amendment was intended to be a blanket ban on a government that had never been given any power to interfere with the arms private citizens owned (do you really believe "commerce among the states" was designed to prevent you from owning a machine gun in your own state?) and pretending that the blanket ban ends after a certain number of rounds or how fast a weapon fires is intellectually dishonest.

no movement in the USA is based on more dishonestly than the anti gun rights movement.
 
Nap said:
I will admit you bring up a good points but "assualt weapons" only make up roughly a quarter of mass shootings (from a study taken from 2009 - 2013, so could be higher) and the fact remains even if you ban them it will not stop or even slow mass shootings because you can be just as deadly carrying multiple pistols (example VT shooting). If anything "assualt weapons" would actually be less dangerous than pistols because there is at least a chance you can see them coming and run away while someone with multiple pistols can get into position and wait for a time to pull them out and inflict maximum carnage.

Sub machine guns and fully automatic AK47s are already illegal.

The reason I say it is just the look because functionally it works the same as any other modern firearm so banning them will just make them use a different gun. I especially love the "high powered" label they often apply to the AR-15, they would absolutely lose their minds if they saw my semiautomatic 30-06.

As far as magazine capacity, the problem with that is the intention of it. When they come out with say a 10 round limit, well this would effectively ban the majority of handguns which many believe is the real reason behind those bans.
Click to expand...

As a point of reference, Jet happens to own such a military rifle which accepts 30 round magazines (M1 carbine)... But justifies it by saying he does not have 30 round magazines. Yet he tries to defend telling others they should not own military style weapons.
 
jet57 said:
I agree and I would add that a more honest approach from the radical pro gun side can also go along way toward a meeting of the minds on the issue. For instance to say: "As long as the narrative is based on how a gun looks" is a complete departure from what that part of the issue is. I have argued, for some time now that it's not looks, it's capability: close quarter combat weapons that also feature an effective range of hundreds of yards and combat magazines of 30 rounds or more that can be switched out in 2 seconds have shown themselves to be a problem in mass shootings.
Click to expand...

How many mass shootings occur at ranges of hundreds of yards? Most mass shooters use one or more handguns, and "assault weapons" are used on average, in one mass murder shooting per year. Regarding appearance, both the 1994 and 2015 versions of the AWB specifically exempt the Mini-14, which was used in Norway to kill almost 70 victims in a mass shooting. Regarding magazines capacity, the shooter at VT usedhandguns with 10 round magazines to kill 32 people, and the average number of dead in a mass shooting is under ten victims.

This takes us back to that days when guys like John Dillinger far out armed the police and the fledgling FBI, as most gangsters of that period did, which is one big reason for their abilities to get away and do so much damage. The very same thing holds true today with cartel gangs and street gang kids who carry sub machine guns, AK47s etc. Those things are procured on our streets through the black market and cops line those things up arrest after arrest. Therefore, it is disingenuous to say that the look of a gun scares people. Talking about a closed market of public sale for that kind of weaponry is a huge issue in the dialogue. The pro guns will say it's a case of ignorance of guns to consider such a closure, however you and I both know that it's not ignorance at all when our cities become the victims of 50 dead in a night club, or 5 cops killed, or 20 school kids massacred by just such weaponry, and our police forces, just like the FBI in the 30s had to step up their armories in order to not be out gunned by the people committing the crimes.
Click to expand...

If all the "assault weapons" magically disappeared overnight, there would be no impact to the number and effect of mass shootings.
 
BretJ said:
As a point of reference, Jet happens to own such a military rifle which accepts 30 round magazines (M1 carbine)... But justifies it by saying he does not have 30 round magazines. Yet he tries to defend telling others they should not own military style weapons.
Click to expand...

You mean the same kind of weapon that Whitman used to kill all those people in Austin, and virtually the same rifle as the shooter in Norway used to kill all those people? What possible use could he have for such a dangerous weapon?
 
Rucker61 said:
You mean the same kind of weapon that Whitman used to kill all those people in Austin, and virtually the same rifle as the shooter in Norway used to kill all those people? What possible use could he have for such a dangerous weapon?
Click to expand...

It's a "do as I say..." thing.... We wouldn't understand....
In fairness however, Whitman used a bolt action civilian rifle with an internal mag to murder the majority of his victims. He had several other firearms with him including an M1.
 
Last edited:
BretJ said:
It's a "do as I say..." thing.... We wouldn't understand....
In fairness however, Whitman used a bolt action civilian rifle with an internal mag to murder the majority of his victims. He had several other firearms with him including an M1.
Click to expand...

The source I used didn't give those kind of details, and I was pretty amazed that a firearm purchased in the morning of the shooting and not sighted in could be used with such deadly effect. The 6mm Remington is a fairly accurate round, especially with a scoped rifle in a marksman's hands.
 
BretJ said:
Wooooooo!!!! Hurray for Jet!!!

(Funny how you can make claims such as this in others arguments, yet not see it in yourself. Btw, I stay mostly silent in regards to your posts now because I have lost any respect for your arguments and see no point engaging with someone who cannot hold themselves to the same standards they hold for others; both in real life and in debate.)
Click to expand...

Then why say anything at all?

What have I not proven about my arguments?
 
TurtleDude said:
762 murders. Some are claiming the police are scaling back proactive policing. on a 60 minutes report-now being repeated on the CBS national news, 80% of those killed were gang members or associates of known gang members.

CBS '60 Minutes' segment covers 6 days, 55 shootings in Chicago - Chicago Tribune

its interesting that its police inaction, rather than a "lack of gun control" that is being discussed.
Click to expand...

Statistics will tell you what you want them to say. Such as the conclusion that, by some standards, Little Rock, Arkansas may have been America's most dangerous city in 2015.

Still, at least you admit that an overwhelming majority of the problem in Chicago is gang violence.
 
Nap said:
He does have a point. I highly doubt Trump will do anything to legalize drugs which in my opinion would largely help deal with many of these issues. Legalizing drugs would virtually defund them.
Click to expand...

Of course he won't. He's in bed with the private prison industry, whose stocks soared after he was elected.
 
Phys251 said:
Statistics will tell you what you want them to say. Such as the conclusion that, by some standards, Little Rock, Arkansas may have been America's most dangerous city in 2015.

Still, at least you admit that an overwhelming majority of the problem in Chicago is gang violence.
Click to expand...

of course I do-80% of the bullet induced homicides in the USA are committed by those who cannot legally own firearms and about the same number of those who are terminated with extremely prejudicial ballistics are felons as well. In other words, people who already are completely banned from owning guns. and given the number of youthful murderers, many of them don't have searchable felony records but rather have juvi records so the actually number of people with clean records become gun slinging murderers is rather small
 
Phys251 said:
Statistics will tell you what you want them to say. Such as the conclusion that, by some standards, Little Rock, Arkansas may have been America's most dangerous city in 2015.

Still, at least you admit that an overwhelming majority of the problem in Chicago is gang violence.
Click to expand...

NPR had a great article today concerning the epidemiology of the gun violence in Chicago. They found that by treating it as a disease, they could affect the numbers. In a nutshell, the gun violence affected primarily the shooters, the victims, relatives and aquaintences of the victims. As in they went on to shoot others. Guns seemed to be secondary to the relationships and who the victims kept company with. Very interesting article.
 
jet57 said:
Yeah, just don't say anything. I think you'll be a lot happier.

:2wave:
Click to expand...
That would be a debate equivilant of "Your mom!". Great comeback.
 
BretJ said:
NPR had a great article today concerning the epidemiology of the gun violence in Chicago. They found that by treating it as a disease, they could affect the numbers. In a nutshell, the gun violence affected primarily the shooters, the victims, relatives and aquaintences of the victims. As in they went on to shoot others. Guns seemed to be secondary to the relationships and who the victims kept company with. Very interesting article.
Click to expand...

You talking about this one? Gun Violence Should Be Treated As A Public Health Crisis, Study Says : The Two-Way : NPR

If so, I have heard this idea before, and I tend to agree with it. One thing that the Chicago police tried to do with this model is, as soon as someone was murdered, they kept very close tabs on everyone up to two degrees of separation from the victim. In particular, if the ones only one degree away had any outstanding warrants, even misdemeanors, the cops would pursue them with almost as much intensity as the murderer himself.

BTW, that article also alludes to the silliness of the censorship of anti-gun-violence research.
 
TurtleDude said:
of course I do-80% of the bullet induced homicides in the USA are committed by those who cannot legally own firearms and about the same number of those who are terminated with extremely prejudicial ballistics are felons as well. In other words, people who already are completely banned from owning guns. and given the number of youthful murderers, many of them don't have searchable felony records but rather have juvi records so the actually number of people with clean records become gun slinging murderers is rather small
Click to expand...

So in other words, we need to figure out a way to not let these kids become murderers in the first place. And locking them up for a long time for minor offenses isn't the answer, unless they have quite the rap sheet.
 
Phys251 said:
So in other words, we need to figure out a way to not let these kids become murderers in the first place. And locking them up for a long time for minor offenses isn't the answer, unless they have quite the rap sheet.
Click to expand...

so far so good. maybe we try to discourage teen inner city girls starting to have several kids with several different "baby daddies" to the point that by age 25 they have 3-6 kids with no paternal support

that would be my best place to start on based on what I saw during 30 years as some sort of government attorney or another
 
TurtleDude said:
so far so good. maybe we try to discourage teen inner city girls starting to have several kids with several different "baby daddies" to the point that by age 25 they have 3-6 kids with no paternal support

that would be my best place to start on based on what I saw during 30 years as some sort of government attorney or another
Click to expand...

If we could adopt the model that Colorado did a few years ago, which was to make IUDs and implants free of charge to women and girls who could not otherwise afford them, teen pregnancies would plummet. Imagine all the social problems we could solve with that measure alone!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom