• 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

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,389
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
All it takes is a simple ability of research:

Crisis in Chicago - CBS News

We lost 58,000 in Vietnam over politics. Now Chicago is on fire over politics.

But, everybody should have guns right?
 
All it takes is a simple ability of research:

Crisis in Chicago - CBS News

We lost 58,000 in Vietnam over politics. Now Chicago is on fire over politics.

But, everybody should have guns right?

what a stupid question. everyone who is of age should have all their constitutional rights unless they have engaged in actions that have resulted in them losing their rights through due process of law
 
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.

The election was good news for gangs, the Sessions nomination confirmed the continuation of the drug war.
 
The election was good news for gangs, the Sessions nomination confirmed the continuation of the drug war.

yeah because Obama was so effective in his gang reduction tactics, him and Rahm were doing a bang up job in that area. So tell us, under Rahm and Obama, Chicago had its biggest increase in murders in Decades. you can pretend Trump will make it worse but right now all the evidence shows Obama/Rahm massive fail
 
yeah because Obama was so effective in his gang reduction tactics, him and Rahm were doing a bang up job in that area. So tell us, under Rahm and Obama, Chicago had its biggest increase in murders in Decades. you can pretend Trump will make it worse but right now all the evidence shows Obama/Rahm massive fail

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.
 
Define everybody....

That's your view isn't? Every American has a right to a gun. THAT as a philosophy, a right, yes, but as a philosophy; a point of rhetoric... fuels proliferation which puts guns into the hands of the criminal element from which Chicago, for one place suffers.

The problem that the police are having (different subject) is that they're damned if they do and damned if they don't, so the cops aren't and are thereby less damned: that's the politics that gets people killed and allows the criminal element to control their "communities".
 
Last edited:
That's your view isn't? Every American has a right to a gun. THAT as a philosophy, a right, yes, but as a philosophy; a point of rhetoric... fuels proliferation which puts guns into the hand of the criminal element from which Chicago, for one place suffers.

The problem that the police are having (different subject) is that they're damned if they and damned if they don't, so the cops aren't and are thereby less damned: that's the politics that gets people killed and allows the criminal element to control their "communities".

You are quite the winner...:roll:

So tell us Jet, who does not have a right to own a firearm?
 
Yawn...that one has already been put to rest but you cant let it go eh?

Well, I mean, how was it put to rest? It didn't stop gun violence in crime. The weekend that 60 Minutes was in town doing the story, there were 55 shootings. So how did all those people getting guns help that situation?
 
You are quite the winner...:roll:

If you can't credibly refute, then I guess I am the winner. Your logic on this issue is really out to lunch Bret.
 
As long as they aren't violating the law, or obtaining guns illegally, then sure. It's their Constitutional right.

I don't argue with a right to own a gun. I argue with the rhetoric that creates the gun problems that we've had for the last thirty years.
 
Well, I mean, how was it put to rest? It didn't stop gun violence in crime. The weekend that 60 Minutes was in town doing the story, there were 55 shootings. So how did all those people getting guns help that situation?

Do a search for another thread resurrected by utility man for the context....
 
Do a search for another thread resurrected by utility man for the context....

Nope: you said it; you have to prove it.
 
If you can't credibly refute, then I guess I am the winner. Your logic on this issue is really out to lunch Bret.

Hehehe....If thinking that helps you feel better, then by all means, you are a winner Jet. Hurray for you!!!
 
I don't argue with a right to own a gun. I argue with the rhetoric that creates the gun problems that we've had for the last thirty years.

stop lying. You think the government-state and federal-has the power to ban any gun it has enough votes to get through the legislature. You don't think there is any constitutional right to own a firearm. You think certain firearms should be banned "to see if it helps" You claim any magazine that holds 10 rounds or more is ONLY FOR WARFARE. You support all the idiotic California restrictions on gun owners
 
Got me there tiger...

(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:
The minority in the gun crowd that you refer to operate here, and through the NRA, and Alex Jones. I am one of the 120,000,000 that are separate and apart of that - agenda, that meme, that anti American (in my view) juggernaut that is merely pushing guns for the manufacturers and creating goblins where none exists...

You've finally won the cigar: all we have to do is look into the news and the heavy dockets to find the consistent influence and lobbying with big money of this crowd that are trying to have a direct effect fulfilling a million a month in sales through the use outright propaganda and manipulations of our legal system. That rhetoric is alive and well in this forum everyday, and you know it: you see it, as do the rest of us, and you know who those posters are. And it's reached the point of "A Jewish Gun Owner's Group Agrees with Us - So There!" as a topic of discussion? These guys operate just like the tobacco companies of the 50s and 60s and they think that country is stupid enough to buy it. And you guys think that it should go unchallenged because of something called the second amendment!?! HO - HO -HO, not a chance.


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.
 
(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.

Not having good dialogues on this subject is largely due to the people proposing these gun control laws are either largely ignorant of guns or purposefully deceiving to rely on low information voters to get the laws passed. When the basis of the arguments are based on lies and exaggerations then it will always be hard to have a good discussion on this topic.
 
Not having good dialogues on this subject is largely due to the people proposing these gun control laws are either largely ignorant of guns or purposefully deceiving to rely on low information voters to get the laws passed. When the basis of the arguments are based on lies and exaggerations then it will always be hard to have a good discussion on this topic.

That can be true and I believe that the ultra left has that in mind. I however do not.
 
That can be true and I believe that the ultra left has that in mind. I however do not.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom